agreed,  over the last month, after about 300 upls of images on multiple other sites, crestock has taken 25, sold 1.

i've tried repeatedly to find out why these were rejected, but only get boilerplate responses, and after having to click on each rejected image individually, you only find other canned and arbitrary messages.

i'll leave what's there for awhile but even with the relatively simple upl porcvess it's a waste of time.

steve

here's a quote from sen leahy's site

What this bill does not do is create a �license to infringe.�  In any of the above instances, if the users do not conduct a good faith search for the copyright owner, those users are in the same boat they are in now when it comes to infringement.  This bill does not change the basic premise of copyright law:  If you use the copyrighted works of others, you must compensate them for it.  As an avid photographer, I understand what it means to devote oneself to creative expression, and I applaud anyone with the talent and commitment to make a living doing so.  Orphan works are too important to our families, our communities, and our culture to go left unseen and unused.

http://leahy.senate.gov/press/200804/042408e.html

i quickly read the executive summary of the 127 p copyright office doc  http://www.copyright.gov/orphan/orphan-report.pdf  and it seems in line w leahy's remarks

basically, this law HELPS copyright holders while making it easier for legitimate use of prphaned works -- there is NO mandatory registration req.  and i couldn't find anything to indicate we'd LOSE existing copyrights.

under the new law, a user MUST do  reasonable search -- if they use a work after that, and the actual copyright owner later appears, they are STILL subject to a fine.  what's changed is you can no longer sue for the hundreds of  thousands of dollars [but that was never available without registering in the first place].


the 1976 copyright law was passed in part to bring the US into compliance with the rest of the world under the Berne convention that grants copyright automatically on creation and prohibits mandatory registration.  even the current treaty-hating administration isnt proposing to reject the 1976 law.



Steve

Just my opinion, I do not claim to be a master or even one of the greats. However, I do aspire to be, and I hope that history will remember me in that way.
But I was born an artist. Whatever the medium, from crayon as a child to camera and computer as an adult, I found inspiration in life, and created art.  You can teach someone to have a more artistic eye, give them a little peek into the way you see life around you, show them how things make you feel, but I believe that the greats are born, not made.  That does not mean someone can not learn to be technically correct, to study composition, and to be quite wonderful.
But to shoot a photograph just because you knew that was the way it needed to be shot, because it felt right that way, well, that's a gift that no one can learn.

but of course, we have to take this on FAITH, since it's unfALSIFIABLE - anyone who posts here and says they learned photography is immediately accepted as someone who had an innate [unrecognized ] gift!

art is a CULTURAL artifact, CREATED by society, and LEARNED by its members.  some people are more adept than others in exploiting this meme, and again, it's a mix of nature/nurture, but gimme a break from the 'i waS BORN WITH IT' selfpromotion we're seeing in this thread


steve

..., indeed I had words repeated, in the composed keywords.  I had "white" in "white card", "white person" and simply "white".  But BigStock accepts composed keywords, doesn't it?
 

yep, this looks like a new warning - if you use iptc, then you need to use BOTH composite and single word keywords, since each site has a different policy.  if BigStock starts getting picky, it'll just mean a few more not accepted.  they could easily prohibit duplicates thru software if they reALLY cared - they obviously already are checking FOR dupes.

s

On the other hand, I come from a family of artists, (published and commercial)
Father - artist,
Mother - no so,
daughter one - artist,
daughter two - no so,
daughter three (me) - artist. 

I am talking about the ability to paint, draw, the fine art stuff. The daughter that is not an artist visually takes after the mothers side of the family, where as the two daughter that are artists look like the father side. Coincidence?  I say genes.

Then again...
My husband - musician,
Mother (me) good ear, can't play an instrument to save my life.
Our Son... picked up guitar,(acoustic & electric) piano,trumpet,sax,flute, etc etc, at the age of 14, (self taught) no lessons, no interest before, never picked up an instrument prior, is 16 now and is writing his own lyrics and music, doing solos in front of large audiences, utilizing tracks of the many instruments he plays and making CDs. His talent is natural.

Too much coincidence here - I say genetics. My son was exposed to (and enjoyed) art way more than music.

Regards
Penny

coincidence is unfortunately discounted way too much -- your anecdotal evidence is useful, but not demonstrative, much less conclusive -  were none of these people exposed to music and art as they grew up?  did none of these people take any lessons, do any study to improve on that initial interest?

the nature/nurture debate continues, but it's rare to find any talent/aptitude that can really be ascribed mostly to genes. 

it's especally iteresting t consider something like photography which didnt exist 200 years ago -- what selective pressures could there have  been to select for an aptitude that had no selective advantage?

s

if that were true, why then are all MS agencies so concerned [rightly] about copyright and model releases?   

yes, photog owns the copyright, but the agency has the right to sell the images and they are the seller in this case -- the MS is the one who takes the customers money, and deals with any problems. 

in the US, this can effect your taxes -- royalties like these are treated differently from direct income [eg,  you dont pay social security taxes on royalties].

so, in re piracy, it is both the photographers AND the MS who are responsible

steve

IS, DT and SS are the most consistent for me - FT has become impossible - dropping from 50% to 5% acceptance.  BigStock & 123 are middling - some arbitrary rejections, but  mostly ok.  albumo & feature take almost anything [except for one reviewer at albumo who reject 100% of 2  large, varied submissions], but they dont sell anything so it hardly matters.

i was ready to give up on BigStock, 123 and FT, but sales have improved there over the last 3 mos so i'll still submit when i have time.   

s

right, i have 5x the images in my featurepics port compared to IS, but that's a meaningless statistic.  IS limits it's uploads, so it's going to have fewer images than sites that take anything.  some buyewrs might even apprciate having reviewers do a a little bit of weeding for  them!

s

I've learned not to complain about rejections at the individual Micro site forums. Why? Last year, I complained at the forum of a site 'that shall remain nameless' about what I thought were outrageous rejections. Shortly after that, my uploads started flying through the que at lightening speed! The result? rejection, rejection, rejection... Hell, they weren't even subtle about it... The moral? Complain about rejection at your own risk. If you must complain, do it at an independent site like this one.

Linda B

if the site is that unprofessional, you probably dont want to be there anyway....

in general, i dont bother much with rejections -- i just note the reason if it's something i can fix [lighting, noise, etc] and move on if i cant [suitability, focus, etc].  it's not worth spending a lot of time to suit one site when the others are accepting it, and if multiple sites reject it, there's probably a reason! afteer awhile you realize some sites are obsessive about noise, others about focus, etc and you can act accordingly.

i've had an overall positive experience with questioning rejections -- it all depends on what you're asking - most sites will help explain the why of a rejection;  one site had started sending all rejections batched together with a long list of possible problems.  shortly after i asked for more details, they started separating the results - focus, suitability, etc.

about the only time i actually question a particular decision is when something is rejected for copyright or model release reasons;  in most cases i've had those images accepted after a 2nd review.

mainly, we need to be positive in asking about rejections -- it's in the MS site and our uinterest to reduce the number of rejections.  i've found just about all the sites are willing to work with you.

steve

i've had numerous flower pix accepted at the big 6, but sales are really low -- there's just too much out there.  so continue to try, butyou'll need to find another subject to get sales up.

s

agreed - over last few months fotolia has been completely arbitrary and their rejection reasons are useless.  i used to have about 50% accepted, now they take about 1-2%, while my acceptance rates at the biggies havent changed.

steve

i sell my images on my website http://pix-now.com/main.php and also link to my  ms portfolios -- on my site  i can also offer prints, puzzles, and other physical products using the images.

it uses Gallery, an open source project.  in that spirit, if others are intersted in testing the waters, i can offer an individual album hosted from my site.  email me if interested - [email protected]

s