I'm really glad they made this change. Coming from a print background, it's usually a TERRIBLE idea to upsize a photo.

When done by the clueless, you can have quite a disaster on your hands. I have seen some of those. Ouch! I could never quite understand why they required it either. SO that anything could automatically go full page or a spread I guess.

Not surprising. Their ancillary reach on the web casts a wide net.

Quote from: stormchaser on May 04, 2010, 20:41

One of the image has a website URL noted

http://www.flickr.com/photos/mysavingstips/2890998064/#

It looks like the site author gathers images for use on the site/blog. So try contacting there if you find your image in use on that site/blog or want to give them notice about Flick. Personally I would just send a DMCA takedown notice to the host/provider for the money site. This crap is getting tiring.

URL for the site

http://www.mysavingstips.com/

Edit: Boy busy day today and brain not entirely engaged.

It is possible that the author purchased images for use on the site/blog and may be trying to use Flickr as a host and is either unaware of rules or is ignoring the rules.

So with regards to use on the site/blog, the use may be entirely legit, it's just the Flickr thing that is in question. They may using Flick just as a linking mechanism to try and draw traffic. Then again, if an image is found in use on the site/blog that you have never sold, well than that's another issue, in which case the DMCA takedown could come into play.

One of the image has a website URL noted

http://www.flickr.com/photos/mysavingstips/2890998064/#

It looks like the site author gathers images for use on the site/blog. So try contacting there. If you find your image in use on that site/blog. Personally I would just send a DMCA takedown notice to the host/provider. This crap is getting tiring.

URL for the site

http://www.mysavingstips.com/

I don't see how something like that could possibly be enforceable.  What does "use" mean? Is that the date when you decided to use it, or the day your customer paid you, or when it was printed on paper - or is it when the ad compaign which includes it actually begins to air...?  What if I buy an image in April, thinking I'm going to use it the next day, but things get delayed and I don't actually "use" it until May.  Am I supposed to buy it again?

You raise some very valid questions here, and you're right I don't see how this is enforceable with regards to "normal" users. Back a few years ago I held an account for a client on iStock on a per credit basis. At the end of the project, there was about $35 left in the account, and the client told me to just go ahead and "use it up". So I grabbed up some images that could have been useful for them, plus a few personal ones I liked in small size. The images were never used by the client, and as far as my personal ones, well they're nice to look at and unusual. So do I fall into the category of a "stockpiler"? After all they're just laying there, in a pile, virtually unused.

If a certain number of images is allotted during a subscription period, then certainly that number should be allowed without restrictions. Personally, I hate subs, but this is the can of worms the agencies have opened, and unfortunately, what we live with.

Looks like they are now an MSG sponsor. Well money is money I guess.

The domain is renewed to 12 Mar 2011.

Unsurprisingly, he's making the appearance to promote his new service to make money off of photographers:
"We are on the verge of launching a new online information service � PhotoLicensingOptions � that will expand beyond stock photography and deal with the business side of photography and every possible way that photographers can earn money from the pictures they produce."
"Readers pay a small fee to read stories of interest. "

Not surprising to me that he's launching a new service, but that he's doing it with a micropayment model  Maybe his $195 subscription site has taken a hit with the economy.

Well how are your other sites Doggyhats.com and embroideredtreasures.com doing?

Looks like the kachoo people are Do ANYthing for a Buck. Yeah, selling stock photos must be really easy so let's try it...

To Trunion - so how are things on E Hale St? See, you're not that hard to track down. Just about 5 minutes of internet sleuthing. Nice swimming pool in the yard BTW.

Quote

From the way your images were shot, it looks like you were trying to show some moodiness but it's not working. Think more in terms of a clear cut subject with perfect technical execution. Sometimes stock images are different from the shots that you like ;-) Save the attempts at arts stuff for a personal portfolio.

I don't know. To me, it sounds like you are describing some of the photos I have seen in the Vetta collection.

Yeah you're right there  but in the really good Vetta stuff the lighting is usually to notch. There are some Vetta pics though that just make me wonder how they got there 

1 - bird in window - plain bad - not stock - bad focus and lighting

2 - falcon? - bad lighting - no detail on bird body.- bad composition/crop because of the man's arm - OOF on bird legs

3 - ducks - bad lighting and composition, not really stockworthy.

4 - couple on beach.- the couple should be the focus and the bottle should not even be in the pic. This would be a good one for stock if it was executed properly. I would have staged two shots and focus stacked them, one show the couple and horizon properly, and the other to show the forefront water properly. Also a little dynamic range would have helped here to maybe get some proper highlights on the water. It's a good idea but it's not executed properly.

5 - It's a nice shot, a little unusual, and I could do a lot with this but the lighting is poor. In something like this you need to learn to balance a proper fill flash with ambient exposure. The bottom front of the tree looks muddy with lack of proper contrast. If it was lit properly, this would make a nice greeting card. A shot like this is where an external flash on a cord comes in handy.

6 - boy with gum? - Not stock. Poor composition. No message or concept here. It's a mediocre snapshot of boy with gum.

This may seem a little harsh, but it's just an assessment of what you have decided to show.  

Take a look over at istock and see what sells. Scrutinize one subject at a time. Stock images are a little different from playing around with the camera. From the way your images were shot, it looks like you were trying to show some moodiness but it's not working. Think more in terms of a clear cut subject with perfect technical execution. Sometimes stock images are different from the shots that you like ;-) Save the attempts at arts stuff for a personal portfolio.

Good luck with your lights. If you need help just post.

The Photodeck domain is owned by Jef Maion, a successful outdoor and landscape photographer, so will be interesting to see what he comes up with.

http://www.maion.com/photography/index.html

The SS people will think up just about anything to try and justify a sales slowdown. Many of the whiners there will post 20 replies to a really stupid thread, when that time could be more effectively used in creating new and different works.

I would say that the storm affected region reflects a narrow sector of SS sales. As far as people "working from home" in the affected areas, the power outages in the region right now are significant. No power=no work.