I really don't want to mix SS up with my personal facebook and I don't have a "business" one that's separate. I do have Linked In and Twitter, but I've never seen any point in using them for business purposes (and I know every business on the planet thinks that this is the hot thing, but I'm not convinced you do anything but piss people off

That's a long way of saying "No"

thank you for saying it, cos I too think you just annoy people. Lately I've been unliking Pages on fb cos I'm just annoyed at how often they post, and the content is drivel. Don't get me started on Twitter!  and Pinterest is a dirty word, even though it's fast becoming the ItGirl of social media.

I too have portfolio envy

surely this is ridiculous. Every item of clothes - even generic Target clothing - worn by our models is recognisable to the original designer, right? same logic should prevail: don't wear our brand in your shoots, but of course it doesn't because it's ridiculous to ask our models to be naked.

whatever brand of glasswear your model wears is not recognisable to me, and yet I'm sure it's already imbedded in my mind as 'cool, beautiful, desirable' merely by seeing them on beautiful women in ads around the world. enough media attention could have a negative impact on the brand, and I love an earlier suggestion to contact their biggest competitor to exclusively use their glasswear in your future shoots. you are in a great position to be able to do that.

I'm only a small contributor but a big excel nerd, so I have spreadsheets with image status (accepted, pending, rejected) as well as sale count per site (although it's not 100% accurate for every site), plus monthly sheets & graphs for uploads, downloads, earnings. Love a good, colour coded spreadsheet!

this is only my first real year of stock so I'll have to also add in another chart to compare previous years. I'll save that fun for the xmas hols.

I did one the other day and had the model fill in her own details while i was driving and snapped her in my car, what could be more compliant? way more truthful than a fake signature, which any of us could do.

yes, i did see the witness spot and used that yesterday.

still yet to upload, I've got other (paid) work to complete before dealing with that shoot.

too heavy to manage underwater?? I'd think the weight would help? I am coveting UW housing, looks like fun. I think I might see if I can rent one next time I'm on hols at the beach.

or 2/1 .... that's a great fraction.

Who downloads microstock images?
"There's Arnold the Browsinator, who looks for topical images � he represents the bloggers and editorial demand. There are three types of designers: the freelancer, the marketer, and the specialist. The last category represents someone who is working in, say, the Parks and Recreation Department, who has been looking for "forest," "bears," and "rocks" for the last six years. The last type of user is Roberta the Task Bot, who has been given a list of specific images for a textbook, for example, and simply searches down the list."
http://www.theverge.com/2012/9/19/3348446/shutterstock-microstock-image-search

link provided by Gostwyk
http://www.microstockgroup.com/shutterstock-com/shutterstock-ipo-pricing-revealed/msg0/?topicseen#new

plus the people who want apples, flags and sunsets.

I've just made myself unpopular in a forum (of photographers!!!) for pointing out that google images aren't free.
"oh, I search for royalty free on google and use those", a number chimed in saying it was ok and there was no copyright on those found on Google. No one noticed the copyright warning, or they assumed it didn't apply.

so then I had to further explain that RF doesn't mean "free to take from google".
Just waiting for my warning to come from the mods.
I was very polite but it was me V a bunch of soccer mums.

*no offence to soccer mums who think they are photographers (ok, well, a LITTLE). disclaimer: Some of my besties are soccer mums.*

is it just me, or when you're in google images the right click for tineye doesn't work?

I sort of regret having Nikon because only Nikon lenses can be used.

Nikon lenses are the reason many of us choose Nikon.

which is exactly what she said to me in her email this morning:
"I was unaware of the watermark issue and copyright/buying issue in using images from google, so I have learnt something important. "

It seems Google, as the enabler, should really have a warning there, as surely we can also go after google?

anyway, I offered her a very reasonable price (she's a school chaplain, too much bad karma in being greedy) and she has apologised and agreed to pay. I'm happy.

well today I had something funny happen. Was leaving a supermarket that isn't my local, it's near where my girls do music lessons (2 suburbs over). I spotted a flyer on a noticeboard and saw one of my images on it. I had a slight buzz to see it (although I must confess the first time I saw one of my images in use I was fantasising it would be on a bus or something:) and then upon closer inspection saw the watermark.   What dumb luck that out of all the images of 2 girls on a stock sites this mother chose an image of a photographer who lives just round the corner... the usage of the image is a touch sensitive too: it's for a seminar of  how images of young girls used in the media to sell things. The pic itself is very sweet so I'm staying calm - yes, they are my girls.

so now what? the seminar is promoting a nationally acclaimed author/speaker who should be mortified when she gets my email. the poor soccer mum who made the flyer clearly has no clue what she's done (why else would you use a watermarked image? there are plenty of unwatermarked ones on google).  I'm quite keen to send a polite email explaining her infringement and including an invoice. How much for? any thoughts?