MicrostockGroup Sponsors

Show Posts

This section allows you to view all posts made by this member. Note that you can only see posts made in areas you currently have access to.

Topics - unnonimus

Pages: [1] 2 3
1 / half a penny per image royalty
« on: May 21, 2022, 08:01 »
March 2021
128.24 USD
23753 photos sold
0.01 average

= .0059 per image sold

General Stock Discussion / Stock Agencies vs YouTube on copyrights
« on: September 26, 2021, 03:27 »
funny, Youtube does not have ANY of the crazy copyright restrictions that stock companies have.

YouTube allows you to post videos with tattoos, videos of buildings like the Empire State Building, Hollywood sign, sports venues where you have to buy a ticket, people who are 'identifiable' by their clothes, videos that contain other artwork and photos.

I guess YouTube hasn't learned yet? (this is sarcasm)

The stock companies have been misinterpreting copyright laws for a long time. Hopefully some day they will start reading the copyright laws properly instead of what they have been doing.

General Stock Discussion / tattoos are not copyright the author
« on: September 08, 2021, 17:03 »
just had a tattoo rejection for a tiny infinity symbol.

tattoos are 'work for hire'

you go in, the buyer picks a similar design or says what he wants, and pays for it. it is work for hire. the buyer owns the copyright. there is no exception to this.

if the author buys some human skin, draws a tattoo, sells you the skin, and you graft it on your arm, then the artist owns the copyright.

copyrights are not owned by the author upon creation. if the artwork is a work for hire, it is transferred to the buyer upon creation. this is clearly written in copyright law.

when you watch a TV show, the camera operator does not own the copyright to the video, the audio guy does not own the audio, the gfx dept does not own the overlays. the person who pays for everything usually is the owner of everything. for example, Jimmy Fallon likely does not own the copyright to himself performing on SNL, or giving a monologue on his late night show. NBC owns the copyright to the video and audio.

even if the writers own the copyright to what they wrote, it is limited to the written word only and does not extend to the video performance.

I own copyrights for my music. I hired people to record the music. I had to fill out the forms, read all the laws, and declare who the copyright owner was. the copyright is transferred to me upon creation.

all tattoos are works for hire. 100% owned by person receiving it.

so you will say "but the tattoo artist owns the original design". you are correct.

but he does not own the copyright of the tattoo on your butt.

copyright only protects him from having other tattoo artists copy how work. it does not allow him to dictate how you can display it in a photo or television show. that is transformative and fair use.

in almost always every copyright case, copyright protection ALLOWS others to use the work. that is the purpose of copyright law. you cannot do a simple exact copy and resell it to compete with the original author, but you can use another author's copyrighted work if you are using it in a new way.

wake up stock sites! go take the time to read the 1 paragraph about how work for hire works in terms of copyrights and stop incorrect rejections.

if you disagree with me you are wrong and you should go learn about copyrights.

4 / Commitment to Diversity and Inclusion
« on: September 01, 2021, 05:07 »
you can no longer say things such as "An American" because it is offensive

You can no longer say "an intelligent person", now you have to say "a person with intelligence"

You can no longer say "An American person", it has to be "A person from America"

You can't say "A winner", you have to say "A person who has won"

You can't say a "cook", you have to say "a person who cooks"

You can no longer say "A patient", it has to be "a person who has sickness"

You can no longer say "A fireman", it has to be "A person who is employed in fire suppression as a career"

great job. well thought out.

does SS have any optional programs such as API, sharing with other sites, etc, that are opt in?

I only see opt in for photo & video. I would think there were more

trying to determine if I opted into something that reduced my sales

sold 64 videos yesterday for 84 cents each under 'clip packs'

123RF / 123rf no longer accepting video?
« on: April 03, 2020, 05:27 »
got a weird difficult to understand message from 123rf where they are saying they are no longer accepting video.

has anyone had any experience with a stock agency terminating your account or contract, and then allowing you to reapply so they can force you into starting over again at the lowest pay rate?



21/02/2020   109   42.62   41.04               1.50   0.08      

10 / strange istock policy
« on: January 30, 2020, 17:12 »
Istock is telling me via email that images that have the same person, doing the same pose, where one is a close up of the face and another is a full body shot is 'too similar', and that a full body vertical shot of a person vs a horizontal torso shot are 'too similar' and have limited  my uploads (to an unreasonably low number).

I have 50,000 photos. they want me to upload a max of 50 per week.

no advance warning.

I am going to lose out on all those 1 cent photo sales.

I am not complaining, I am just notifying the rest of you because they do not warn in advance, they just place the restriction and refuse to resolve it.

Software / keywording app for twenty20?
« on: January 21, 2020, 00:35 »
does anyone know a keywording app for twenty20?

General - Top Sites / any stock photo site have an RSS feed?
« on: August 20, 2019, 11:56 »
does anyone know of a stock photo site that has an RSS feed for live search results or portfolios?


now the "okay" hand gesture is being rejected by at least 1 stock agency

14 / 5 word minimum
« on: May 02, 2019, 23:47 »
shutterstock now requires 5 word minimum for all descriptions?

dumb idea

Pond5 / uploads not showing up
« on: January 29, 2019, 12:02 »
lately 15% to 50% of my uploads are not showing up.

when I upload I keep a record of the file size on the remote ftp server and I record whether it is successful or fails. my records show the files are being received in full by pond5's ftp servers. but they never appear on the site

probably a problem with disk space on a temp drive

Adobe Stock / SSL errors for 2 weeks or more
« on: January 04, 2019, 02:52 »
I have lots of problems with for more than 2 weeks now.

Attackers might be trying to steal your information from (for example, passwords, messages, or credit cards). Learn more
NET::ERR_CERT_COMMON_NAME_INVALID normally uses encryption to protect your information. When Google Chrome tried to connect to this time, the website sent back unusual and incorrect credentials. This may happen when an attacker is trying to pretend to be, or a Wi-Fi sign-in screen has interrupted the connection. Your information is still secure because Google Chrome stopped the connection before any data was exchanged.

You cannot visit right now because the website uses HSTS. Network errors and attacks are usually temporary, so this page will probably work later.

The owner of has configured their website improperly. To protect your information from being stolen, Firefox has not connected to this website. uses an invalid security certificate. The certificate is only valid for the following names:,,, Error code: SSL_ERROR_BAD_CERT_DOMAIN

VideoBlocks / videoblocks $149 video sale
« on: July 03, 2018, 03:20 »
anyone know what this is? $149 purchase price, $86.05 net payout?

Type   Preview   Title   Purchase Date    Purchase Price   Royalty   Discount   CC Trans. Fee   Tax Withheld   Net Payout
MP      Smiling Woman Wearing Hat   Jun 27, 2018   $149.00   $91.64   $0.00   $5.59   $0.00   $86.05

I was wondering what people's opinions are on using backdrops for portraits. do you have a color that you think is the best? or a texture that you think is best?

for example, solid black, solid white, grey, brick wall, natural setting, etc?

I would like to know what backdrop produces the best overall or best sellable photo.

I film outdoors so I am most interested with a backdrop I can replicate outdoors in many cities.


Cameras / Lenses / shutter life expectancy
« on: May 26, 2018, 21:25 »
I am shopping for a new camera and the issue of shutter life expectancy has come up. has anyone had an experience whereby the shutter stopped operating due to overuse and had to be repaired?

based on the numbers I saw, I will hit the shutter life expectancy in a short time so i am concerned about what to expect.

does anyone know of a web site where you can search for a landmark or location and get the GPS location with the photos?

for example, if I want to film the carrier dome, and I see a nice photo that i think would be a good background, I would need the GPS coordinates from the photo so i can go see the location in person to get the same landmark in the background.

if anyone knows a site that does this please post. thankyou

21 / all of my photos are being rejected
« on: May 25, 2018, 10:00 »
does anyone know if alamy accepts photos from a D3400 camera? after I bought this camera, alamy began rejecting all of my photos.

General Stock Discussion / about how to sharpen a photo
« on: May 22, 2018, 08:58 »
I do portrait photos with an APS-C around 200mm. I usually focus on the person's eyes.

however, I am not happy with how sharp many of the photos are. how do I improve  the sharpness? I understand that I might be able to improve the sharpness by buying a prime lens.

is it possible to improve the sharpness by switching to a 80mm lens? (the stock lens that comes with the D3400)

will I get better overall sharpness if I am close to the subject or far from the subject?

are there any other functions on the camera (other than the focus) that make the image sharper overall?

I am filming business people in bright daylight. it makes sense that they would wear a white business shirt and a dark grey jacket.

Any advice for dealing with exposure issues? any special camera settings to compensate for light metering on the person's clothing?
here is an example:

or should I just do editing in post? I prefer to shoot everything right and reduce computer work.

I have the same problem with old actors who have white hair. the photos sometimes come out blurry or they just look weird.
here is a sample:

any tricks to making the white hair look less goofy? should I film him with white shirts, or on a white background?

Photography Equipment / question about exposure adjustment
« on: May 22, 2018, 04:43 »
In a recent shoot, I just bought a new camera (Nikon D3400) and accidentally hit the button to adjust the exposure for one of the programmable modes. Also I just started out with photos and previously was doing video with a SONY. I look through the eyepiece, and it was a bright sunny day, so I did not notice that the exposure was being darkened quite a lot, until I did an image review, which I do after about 25 or 30 photos.

so my question is... if the exposure is adjusted by the camera using the manual function to adjust it, and it is quite dark, will there be any artifacting from software correction? the images have already been corrected. they look a little strange.

what does it mean for a person to be recognizable by his clothing?

This rule is widely misunderstood in the stock community but I am going to explain it to you.

First of all, when it comes to model releases and 'likeness', most federal governments do not have laws that stipulate a requirement for model release forms. In the US, at the federal level, this requirement would fall under case law. In most countries, you can film people in the general public view without their permission. In the US, each state will have different laws.

However, depending on how the photo is used, you might violate a law (editorial vs commercial). i

As an example, you have probably heard stories where someone takes a day off from work (to attend a concert or sporting event), and they get caught by their employer because they end up having their photo appear on the front page of a newspaper. the newspaper does not need a model release form because it is being used for editorial purposes.

For commercial purposes, you usually need the person's permission to appear in an ad.

However, sometimes you will have people in the photo or video whose face is not shown but are recognizable due to their clothing. What does this mean?

Some people can be recognized by their clothing, by the general public. Some examples are Michael Jackson, Larry Bird, Liberace, Kareem Abdul Jabar, Elvis, Punky Brewster, etc. meaning that if you completely obscure their face, you can still recognize the person because their clothing has become part of their identity.

Most people cannot be recognized by their clothing by the general public. Even if you can prove that you are the person in the photo, you would have to prove that the general public recognizes you. The general public is not your friends or family or people that know you intimately, the general public is everybody else. That means that complete strangers would have to be able to look at your clothing in the photo, not see your face, and say "that person is John Smith" and be right, solely based on viewing the photo. If they cannot do that, then the model cannot be recognized due to his clothing. since your model or actor is not known to the general public, you do not need model release forms simply because a portion of their clothing appears in a photo or video, as determined by federal case laws in the US in regards to likeness.

People that can be recognized by their clothing are always going to be celebrities or otherwise famous people, and must be known by the general public. The average model does not fall under this category.

99.9% of people in stock photos cannot be identified by their clothing.

self-identifying yourself in a photo does not grant you any rights.
these people can be identified by their clothes. if we do not see their face, we still need their permission because their clothing has become part of their identity:

this group of people are dressing like Kiss, but they cannot be identified by their clothes because their clothing has not become part of their identity:

elvis presley can be recognized by his clothes, even without his face we know who it is:

this is an elvis impersonator. if his face is removed, we do not know who he is simply based on his clothes:

Can be recognized by his clothes, as they have become part of his identity, we still recognize him even without his face:

Cannot be recognized by his clothes. he isn't famous or well known. his clothing is not part of his identity, even if he can self-identify himself. no model release form necessary by the laws of most countries:

this person's clothes do not identify him:

can be recognized by his clothes as they have become part of his identity:

cannot be recognized by his clothes, no model release form is required by law. his clothing might be the same as Larry Bird, but clearly it is not larry bird. his ability to self-identify himself does not grant him any legal rights. the general public does not recognize him based on his clothes:

can be identified by his clothing as it has become part of his identity:

cannot be identified by his clothing:

can be identified by his clothing (Gabriel Iglasies) because his clothing has become part of his identity. if we remove his face we still know who it is:

cannot be identified by his clothing. if we remove the face we do not know who the person is:


can be identified by his clothing (flava flav):

michael jackson can be identified by his clothes, as his clothes have become part of his identity:

jamie foxx cannot be identified by his clothes even if he wears the same glove. if we remove the face, we do not know who the person is:


liberace can be identified by his clothes:

this person (barack obama) cannot be identified by his clothes. if we remove the face, we do not know who the person is based on his clothes:

this person cannot be identified by his clothes. he could be any of millions of people. being able to self-identify himself is not a right protected by law. even if the person could be identified somehow, the image does not require a model release form because the general public cannot identify the person simply by viewing the photo according to the laws of most/all countries:

this person's clothes are not a part of his identity. no model release form is necessary by the laws of most countries. even if he can self-identify himself, it does not grant him any rights, because the general public cannot identify the person simply by viewing the clothes in the photo:

stock agencies that are rejected images based on someone's ability to self-identify himself are doing so wrongfully, and are not based on any federal or state laws.

Pages: [1] 2 3


Mega Bundle of 5,900+ Professional Lightroom Presets

Microstock Poll Results


3100 Posing Cards Bundle