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.


Messages - joshuarainey

Pages: [1]
1
iStockPhoto.com / Best iStock Disambiguation Options ?!
« on: May 15, 2017, 16:47 »
Thought it might be fun to start a thread of the most ridiculous options that iStock gives us for disambiguating keywords.  Maybe they'll take note and try to figure out a way to do things that actually works...  And maybe they'll pay us a decent commission at some point.  Not likely.

"family photos" - pets
"family pictures" - shock tactics
"joy" - jane seymour actress
"walk" - personal stereo

2
Alamy.com / Re: Wedding Photography as RM on Alamy
« on: April 14, 2016, 13:37 »
If I hired a wedding photographer who then sold my photos on without my permission I would be extremely annoyed and never recommend him to anybody else.

i would not just be annoyed, i would get a class action suit and put them out of business.

Wow, are you serious?!  First, I clearly explained that a lot of my wedding photography gets used for editorial purposes, and my clients agree to that.  So, I'm not selling photos without a client's permission as they agree to that in the contract.  However, I reward my clients when I do get paid for uses (still editorial, never commercial) and they're super excited about it.  Guess what I'm saying is I'm really glad my clients support my photography and they're happy to have work from their wedding published!  It makes them look good and it justifies the expense they paid for the photography, also shows that others think their wedding (and my photography) was great.  Looks like there are some people who are not into that, they're more into suing legitimate businesses that do things legally, respectfully, and with integrity.  Or maybe you just didn't take the time to read anything before you responded?  Seriously though, before you're ready to jump on the sue train (and against other photographers no less) read a couple of lines, it will take you less than 10min.  Cheers!

3
Alamy.com / Re: Wedding Photography as RM on Alamy
« on: April 13, 2016, 16:11 »
Thanks for all the input.  I guess what I'm saying with RM compared to RF is that if I license an RM image through Alamy we're talking a few sales at max in the lifetime of it, compared to 100's or 1000's or more if we go with RF at SS.  I had no idea that satire sites could use editorial images.  If that is correct and legal, that's crazy!  So, a satire site could put up a photo of an Apple store and says that Apple is being sued for millions of dollars in a sexual harassment lawsuit and Apple would be ok with that because it's "editorial"?!  False journalism and satire is not an editorial use.  If Alamy and SS allow that, then the whole editorial license in general has a major flaw that needs to be fixed.  There would be a major lawsuit if a newspaper did that, why is it different being a satire site?  And how is that editorial if they are not reporting news?  They are creating fictional work for comedy and shock value, how is that a news usage?

That's not satire.  That's libel.  Satire is "Apple release iPhone 8.  Nobody cares." or something.

Ok, thanks for the clarification!  What about representing someone as a different person, is that satire?  That's what most of photos on the Onion have been.  Like, "this person hates God" but in reality they might be a Christian and that is super offensive.  Stuff like that is satire?

4
Alamy.com / Re: Wedding Photography as RM on Alamy
« on: April 13, 2016, 16:06 »
Thanks for all the input.  I guess what I'm saying with RM compared to RF is that if I license an RM image through Alamy we're talking a few sales at max in the lifetime of it, compared to 100's or 1000's or more if we go with RF at SS.  I had no idea that satire sites could use editorial images.  If that is correct and legal, that's crazy!  So, a satire site could put up a photo of an Apple store and says that Apple is being sued for millions of dollars in a sexual harassment lawsuit and Apple would be ok with that because it's "editorial"?!  False journalism and satire is not an editorial use.  If Alamy and SS allow that, then the whole editorial license in general has a major flaw that needs to be fixed.  There would be a major lawsuit if a newspaper did that, why is it different being a satire site?  And how is that editorial if they are not reporting news?  They are creating fictional work for comedy and shock value, how is that a news usage?

5
Alamy.com / Re: Wedding Photography as RM on Alamy
« on: April 11, 2016, 23:10 »
i just updated my wedding photo contract this week.
I put in a bonus to the couple, 5% off your photo quote if bride and groom sign a commercial model release, and 1% off for each additional person in the wedding party that signs a commercial release to a maximum of 10% savings.   just an idea for you as you move into a new wedding season.
I think genuine wedding photos can have real value.  I also shoot weddings but so far have only submitted images of the cakes bouquets and rings  to any agency so I can't comment on the real portraits and their sales..
I see a lot of individuals who submit the portraits with cutting off faces at the neck. whether or not they sell - i don't know. I just got married in september and I specifically made sure my photographer wouldn't be putting a 100 image gallery even on Facebook of our day as we lean more towards privacy.

why not just go back to the couples you've photographed for and ask them straight up?  maybe use it as an incentive to throw in a 1-year anniversary mini photo session. ;) i don't know.   good luck!

Thanks for the input!  I have a few weddings that I license as commercial RF and have model releases for, but in all honesty I don't want to license much of my work in that way since I can't track the usage in any way and it can end up on sites like TheOnion for example.  I constantly have people that comment on social media about how they see my work somewhere big and they think I've earned a ton of money for it.  I don't want that to start happening with weddings too.  But, for RM editorial work I'd be happy to have a license that helps get my name out there and gains exposure for my work, while getting paid a little.  What are your thoughts on that?  And how many weddings do you shoot?  (or what percentage of your income comes from weddings?)  Weddings are the bulk of my business so I want to make sure that is first and foremost, as well as clients being happy to find out one of their images was licensed, rather than upset when they find it on a spoof site...

6
Alamy.com / Re: Wedding Photography as RM on Alamy
« on: April 11, 2016, 21:53 »
This would not be microstock, as I said RM not RF.  With no release and people involved Alamy would only license RM as editorial.  I'm not abusing trust here, I'm promoting my work, and my clients that agree to have work from their wedding published are very very excited about it.

Not sure what the "this would not be microstock" has anything to do with.  Licensing their likeness as stock content is licensing, regardless.  Editorial still allows a usage like "50% of married couples get divorced".  But, as long as they're good with it.

People were acting like I was licensing the work as RF for commercial use.  As RM editorial we're talking very limited usage and RM is clearly not microstock, it would be midstock or macrostock.  There is a very clear distinction and it relates to my point.  I'm not asking if it would be a good idea or if anyone has had any success licensing wedding images as RF editorial content on Shutterstock.

However, that being said, absolutely nobody has chimed in with any meaningful answers as to my original question.  Everyone went into the legality and morality of the issue which is no concern to me considering my clients want work from their weddings published (for the most part, and those that don't would not be in this...).

7
Alamy.com / Re: Wedding Photography as RM on Alamy
« on: April 11, 2016, 20:24 »
Wow you guys really went for it on this one, huh?!  I have a line in my contract that expressly says photos can be used for editorial purposes.  A lot of my wedding photography gets published, with permission from the couple of course.  This would not be microstock, as I said RM not RF.  With no release and people involved Alamy would only license RM as editorial.  I'm not abusing trust here, I'm promoting my work, and my clients that agree to have work from their wedding published are very very excited about it.  Yes common decency still exists... Sheesh!

8
Alamy.com / Wedding Photography as RM on Alamy
« on: April 10, 2016, 00:08 »
Just wanted to see if anyone has had any luck with licensing wedding photography as RM on Alamy.  This would be strictly as editorial RM since there would be people and no releases.  Trying to gauge whether or not it could be worth the effort, as I shoot 30+ weddings per year and have plenty of work published (albeit usually for no pay, just great publicity and often leads to more work) on major wedding blogs and occasionally in print.  Thanks!

9
Alamy.com / Re: Alamy Sales Earnings Gross?
« on: April 10, 2016, 00:05 »
Thanks for the replies everyone!  Guess I'll just go about it the hard way then.

10
Alamy.com / Alamy Sales Earnings Gross?
« on: April 09, 2016, 18:08 »
Looking for a way to easily calculate my net earnings for Alamy.  The info in "my alamy" is gross and I really want to only see net earnings, without having to go into the balance report that shows credits and debits.

I just went from 150 images on Alamy to 3000+ and I'm looking to hit 10,000 by the end of the year (now that I'm uploading my RF collection there as well).  Thanks for the help!

11
Alamy.com / Re: RF Editorial coming to Alamy!
« on: April 05, 2016, 09:47 »
Wow, I'm super excited about this!  This will be a nice addition to a great agency, thank you Alamy!

12
I had quite the crazy circumstance this weekend.  I shared an engagement photo with one of my brides, via text, no watermark; and she ended up sharing the image with a big organization that then re-posted it to their Facebook page.  The image went viral, with over 150,000 likes and 20,000 shares in the first 24 hours.  I was getting calls and messages from friends and clients that saw the photo on the news.  Wild!  Anyway, here's the link if ya'll want to check it out here: http://joshuaraineyphotography.com/wedding_engagement/hunt-is-over-going-viral/

I would also love to get your thoughts on watermark vs no watermark and any advice if you've had an image go viral like this!  Cheers!

Joshua Rainey

13
Yeah, me too! 87 of 87 rejected for poor lighting. I have over 2500 accepted images on SS with an approval rating of at least 70%. I usually resubmit the exact same images with a note to the reviewer that says they were previously rejected but I've fixed the images. Works half the time...

14
That is what I would like cleared up. The alternative is that ELs have always been paid at 28c, and the error was paying the higher rate, not in the type of licence. I would like to know definitively, have they made a statement about this?
I've had ELs paid at the correct rate, I know lots of other people have too.  Is this your first month with an EL (and you had 13), if so that should make you suspicious.

How do you know that you had ELs when they don't show you specific sale stats for the partner program?  Is there a way to find out this info?  I sent them another reply email to the latest recoupment and asked them for detailed partner program sale data to see if there are any non-subscription sales for me at all.

15
Packing up gear after a wedding and I always take both batteries out and put one in my mouth to hold it while I put the other in it's case. Accidently got the battery turned around and got myself a pretty good shock. Tingly face on the drive home. Lasted close two hours.

16
Welcome!

Pick up your "Getty H8TR" button on the table by the door ;) .

Can you just mail it to me or something?  Does it cost $0.28?

17
Dreamstime.com / Re: Lack of Sales on DT for March
« on: March 07, 2014, 15:14 »
March has been great for me on DT so far!  I had what looks like one buyer come in and purchase 10+ files from one shoot all at credit prices.  I've made more in the first week of March than I did in all of February.  Never had that happen before, pretty weird.  Usually that kind of thing is all subscriptions.

Joshua

18
I've been reading this forum for quite a while but never really got involved, however, with the recent istock partner program sales and sale reversals I had to say something!  Istock just emailed me a spreadsheet showing the royalties I was paid and how they are reducing every single amount to $0.28.  So, they paid me a pretty good chunk of change during September and October and now they are reducing every sale to $0.28.  This also includes a RFIMGPCKEXT1 sale for $39.84 that they are reducing to $0.28!  That is clearly not what the partner program royalty rate describes on iStock's website!  This is the first time I've seen details for partner program sales and it's appalling.  Here is a copy of the email I sent to them in reply:

For #26404734/RFIMGPCKEXT1 why in the world would a royalty of $39.84 be reduced to only $0.28?  Isnt that Royalty Free Image Pack Extended 1?  So, I only get $0.28 per download no matter what happens through the partner program, even extended or product licenses?  That is clearly not what the iStock royalty rate schedule explains.  Here is my source: http://www.istockphoto.com/help/sell-stock/rate-schedule.  As I can see based on the spreadsheet you sent me you are taking away money from my royalties because I was paid more than $0.28 per sale through the partner program.  That is not right and is clearly not what the iStock royalty rates state.  Please correct this issue and deposit this money back into my account.  If not, thats a huge slap in the face and definitely encourages me to no longer contribute and possibly pull the rest of my images from iStock, not to mention the legal implications of what is happening here.  If this is what is happening (I could be confused or mistaken here, but it's not looking that way) Im sure I will end up being part of a class action suit at some point to recover royalty rates.  I also would like to quote an admin from the forum post announcing the partner program with iStock in 2009 We want to sell more pictures without compromising things here. We want to do it in a way that's fair and sustainable for all of us.  The way things are being done is neither fair or sustainable to photographer contributors.  Thank you for fixing this issue!  Feel free to contact me via email or phone to get this issue resolved.  I have seen many reports and forum posts about upset contributors never getting reply emails.  I'm sure this will not be the case.  Thank you!

Joshua

Pages: [1]

Sponsors

Mega Bundle of 5,900+ Professional Lightroom Presets

Microstock Poll Results

Sponsors