I was on FAA briefly, but lack of watermark on WAY bigger than a thumbnail size was deal-breaker.

Over the years, I've read how certain 'serious' buyers will not consider an image if they have to view it watermarked....
Well, those days are so gone - no copyright holder/agent is wise to post image for sale bigger than thumbnail without watermark.

In fact, the #1 feature I want from PhotoShelter is option to have basic watermark for thumbnails, especially those bigger than 100p.
- Ann

I think the drop I'm seeing in SODs started when I put a lot of images - 700+ on Fine Art America, without any watermarks. I wonder if some people are finding those clean images and downloading from there?

If this continues (and assuming I am out of line with the majority of SS contributors), then I may be leaving FAA!

Steve

In course of covering political and civic events, I have collections of news photos that include diverse people participating in events such as this on news wire service, my own site, and alamy, but am I correct that you're referring to diverse models for commercial photos, rather than diverse people in editorial photos?
- Ann

If you sell images on Alamy that are also on microstock, make sure to make them RF, not RM, since, briefly, Alamy prohibits selling image with one type of license there and another type elsewhere.

Also, a photo with unreleased people (and/or unreleased property that requires release when used in non-editorial way) is automatically *RM at Alamy, so you can't upload them there if you have them on microstock, where they're *RF editorial.

Though I wouldn't sell the same image on Alamy and microstock, (not a real option, anyway, with largely editorial port), there are people who do, especially, as I understand it, if they first have lots of images on micro and then become aware of/ interested in Alamy.

Such terribly sad news about Stephen Strathdee, sharply_done, and he was so young!

I enjoyed his posts, and send hugs to his family and friends.

Thank you, Zeus, for sharing the news, and thanks leaf for posting the links.
- Ann

This was the deal breaker for me:

"What Does iStock Pay?
iStock pays contributors a base royalty rate of 15% for each file downloaded. If you are an Exclusive contributor you can earn up to 45%. Learn more"

Alamy is not at all exacting beyond meeting technical requirements (noise, focus, size minimums) - they don't edit the collection at all. SS will reject in a heartbeat for LCV (low commercial value) and composition. Do try to select your submission for SS very carefully, and don't just assume they'll take anything Alamy will.

iStock has a very different take on things from SS. SS likes punchy and attention grabbing; iStock prefers technical perfection even if it's a bit boring. As far as applying to iStock, look at the earnings chart on the right - they're #2 on the list. Why wouldn't you want them selling your images? They are owned by Getty and Getty behaves very badly to photographers, musicians (contributors), but they sell a lot of work.

I'm also looking forward to seeing your photos, madelaide.

Visited family in Malta in the 1970's (!) and my most vivid (non-family) memories are of underground burial chambers (separate ones for men and women) in someone's backyard, a horse grazing at side of road in lovely light, and the twisty steep steps in the streets of (probably) Valetta.

I've yet to finish the fascinating, but massive, book on Knights of Malta...  (But I did finish Thomas Pynchon's "V" / Valetta.)

The Chris Brown part of the composite must have come from Getty. I doubt that the photographers/agencies who provided the rest of image are likely to get traceable credit exposure, alas.

(edited - on 2nd thought, it wasn't that funny)

Alamy's White Papers = a step in the right direction

I may be a lone voice here, but I think this a great thing to do and I really appreciate it.

Any solutions to these problems will take time and intelligent thought + collaboration.  Laying out the issues in a white paper is a good first step, and I'm sure they'll be very thorough in their deliberations.  If they get this right, it will benefit all of us, so it's three cheers from me.

I now have a few images on fineartamerica.

For ex, here's one I entered in FAA contest. It needs only 248 more votes to be eligible to be considered by jury for TV commercial use

[dead link deleted]

Until reading RacePhoto's post, however, I forgot they have a 25 image limit for free membership. I'll focus mainly on angels & see what happens - FAA has only a 10,000+ of those heavenly creatures so far

RacePhoto -  lovely panoramic cavern!

smiles - ann

[edited 6/30 to delete dead link, since no longer on FAA]

[....] I have a free FAA account, uploaded scenic and waterfalls and basically what I think would be best there - Wall Art. Haven't reached the 25 limit yet and when I do, I'll start trading in newer shots and removing old ones. Same as other places. Panoramas and wide shots, don't display very attractively. I may have to grab some centers of those and see how they do, but I like making the wide shots and for the two that I printed for myself, they hang nice. (of course I'm terribly biased!)

Example: http://fineartamerica.com/featured/colored-cavern-panorama-pete-klinger.html
[....]  

Thank you, Opla, and how sweet of you, Karimala! 

hugs - Ann

Warm thank you hugs to Pixart, RacePhoto and rubyroo.

Though they have certain things in common, capturing images of newborn is quite the change of pace from news, political photography...

Getty's new watermark now includes URL for that specific image, plus the Contributor's name, and is a box placed at lower right:

http://www.photoarchivenews.com/getty-images-new-watermark-gives-full-photo-details/?goback=.gde_144538_member_114029678

[Wonder if they'll include such info in their IS and Thinkstock images down the road? I guess stranger things have happened.]

Love the watermark. Now, if they would just have reasonable commissions, it would be an agency worth contributing to....