I officially retired on 1st Sept. 2021, which means the Belgian government will be paying me a pension every month.  So I will do fewer client photo sessions and the spare time will be used to :
1) do stock shoots again, but only the fun ones
2) do super fun projects, like rent a castle for a day and shoot historical costumes (if I can afford it)
3) sell the props and stuff that's piling up in my studio, but only after "milking the cow" (= photographing it for stock)
4) go back to my portfolio and create templates and overlays to sell to other photographers
5) if travelling is still not safe :  do more day-trips in Flanders to get the vacation-feeling
6) spend more time in the garden on sunny days!


Looks like I'm going to be busier than before my retirement!

Here is another example I dealt with today, after the seller received a takedown notice from Etsy, following my DMCA report:
15 minutes after I sent him the link, I was able to see his Extended license purchase from AS.

Did you send the DMCA report to Etsy or directly to the Seller ?

Where do we sign the petition that supports the EU new rules? 

Yes, I want to find that petition too!!

I'm starting to feel uncomfortable now, as I have not received my DACS payment yet.  Any one else still waiting?   Last year was a very nice 356 $

17 first round, 33 second round ...

Thanks Joann. I was thinking an extended license would cover it. A person in the fine art group said she checked with 123rf, who said NO license covered it, which I don�t think is right, but I wanted to check with Adobe, too, since I still sell there.

May be 123rf was talking about re-selling as stock ?  I don't think any EL covers derivative art being sold as stock (because you would need copyright for that), while it does cover selling it in print ?

What everyone else said. Do the best you can removing images where you can. You did nothing wrong and she signed a release. The rest is out of your hands.

Thanks.  The problem is, she didn't do anything wrong either, it's just her family that is nagging her about it.  So if I can help her by deleting 4 images, no problem.

Do not offer her money! You may not use lawyers but they could and they could use that as an admission of having done something wrong or of liability in some way.

I am not a lawyer but personally I think I would delete the photo just to avoid the hassle. There's nothing you can do about the licenses already sold but buyers wont usually reuse photos for new campaigns so they should rapidly see less of it. Most news organisation or magazines etc. will have a subscription to a stock site and its easier to search up something appropriate than digging through old photos on file.

That makes sense, I can tell her that.  And the more I think of it, deleting the images is the least I can do as a gesture of goodwill.
And no, I will absolutely NOT offer her money.

@Anyka:
Are you aware of that you ensure at ss this image can be used for sensitive use ?

Yes, I am aware, thanks.

This brouhaha makes me glad I mostly shoot critters.

Not a single wild burro I've ever photographed has come back to complain that I didn't call him/her a wild donkey.   

Haha, this one made my day!

Glad to hear I did not use officially offending words!  The model is from the UK, not American, so I wasn't sure if there were cultural differences on this topic.  If he writes again, I'll tell him there's a difference between an incorrect and a racist word, and if he's searching for incorrect keywords at Shutterstock, he'll find billions of them ...

I woke up this morning with a facebook message about a Shutterstock batch of mine.  The series is of a black woman with african braided hair, which I call "afro hair" in the description of the images (because the model called it that way).  She is doing her hair looking into a mirror, so I cannot just ignore her hair in the description.
These images had reasonably good sales for 3 years already, and now I get this message on facebook :

• Please change your labeling of your photography on shutter stock as it is it is not even kinda racist.  You referring to a woman of color as having a afro hairstyle is completely disgusting. I spend hours looking for photos. and can't find them because of your complete race base labeling. I am attempting to convey the problem without anger.but there is not excuse. your whole photo shoot has not one afro. and to refer any women of color as default having an afro is completely racist. there is no way its a mislabel because afros are a thing specifically. thats the equivalent of me calling you from Belgium an asian.  for your benefit please update this soon it will support your pocket and creative directors looking through hours of shittly named photos.  I will check in on your progress in a few days before reaching out to shutterstock direct.

The message is from a person in North Carolina, and he obviously knows I'm not American.
I'm not asking how to reply - I already replied that I don't understand his point, because to me, to the model and to my Ghanese friends, this hairdo is called an afro hairstyle.
My reply was very friendly and polite, as I don't want somebody to get nasty on my FB business page or anywhere else.


But I do have 2 questions :


To the American Microstockers :  is calling this an "afro hairstyle" offending??  Here in Belgium, even between black people, it is not, but maybe in American culture it is
To all :  if he contacts Shutterstock about it, what do you expect their reaction would be?  Do nothing?  Delete the images?  Tell me to change the wording?  ??