|
MicrostockGroup Sponsors
This section allows you to view all posts made by this member. Note that you can only see posts made in areas you currently have access to.
Messages - CommuniCat
76
« on: June 06, 2020, 08:18 »
My stock journey began with an applicate to supply Getty Images - probably about 20 years ago now. I believe that I received a letter of rejection that mentioned something about not bothering to attempt submission again  I did not give up though and searched for other agencies that may be interested in representing my work. That first agency was Shutterstock. Like others, I went to contribute to other agencies too. Now there are three of us contributing in my business - one more or less full time working on stock video. This work has made a lot of money for the various agencies over the years. Us less so. I started in microstock because Getty did not give me a chance. So obviously, I shed no tears when my "team" of stock contributors obliterated the industry and we got paid a bit for our efforts. Unfortunately, some of our agencies have not been able to establish a competitive advantage on anything other than price and availability. Reading the comments and listening to the many YouTube videos, it's pretty obvious that if any of us are going to extract any value from our creative work going forwards, we have to change who we entrust to market our works. Some agencies are just going to continue to erode price and cut commissions indefinitely and it's obvious to most that it's time to only work with agencies that are committed to providing competitive advantage based on something other than price - like exclusivity and limited availability of core content. But what are the solutions going forwards for us as contributors? For photos, I've applied for representation at Stocksy. My thought process was to pull the best-selling top 20% my image portfolio from all agencies and send it exclusively to Stocksy. I have no idea if Stocksy wants my work yet though. All new photo work would go to Stocksy too. Over time I'd then move all reasonable work across to Stocksy and either cull the rest or just sell it from my own site. One thing this is very compelling for me about Stocksy is that it's a collective. They are not going to be listed on a stock market or bought by some dickhead corporate fund. In other words, as a collective, their primary concern is to keep their buyers and sellers reasonably satisfied. There can be (structurally at least) no other weird and wonderful motives at play. If Stocksy does not accept my application though, I'm really not sure at this point how to handle the photos. For video, I'm leaning strongly in favour of going exclusive at Pond5 and removing videos from all other agencies. But I've not been paying attention to the market enough and have a lot of questions like: - Pond5 exclusivity is for video only, right? If I sent my photos to Stocksy, there would be no conflict between the two agreements? - Pond5 has an agreement to market though other agencies like Adobe and Vimeo stock. So by pulling my files from Adobe and marketing them all through Pond5, I'd still get the price that I allocate for the videos and I'm not hurting Adobe unnecessarily? Adobe have been a good agency to deal with so far for us and I assume many others too. - What you lose by not selling at cent commission sites, presumably you can recover somewhat by increasing your clip prices and by obtaining better commissions. I guess that's the thinking, but is that what others have experienced? - I've spent some time and money building up our own website to represent our work - it seems that Pond5 is comfortable that we continue to market our own work ourselves too? Anyone else have any questions and comments about this and our options as contributors in the market going forwards? Perhaps it would be helpful to identify some pathways to best representation for most contributors. We really are pretty much in the same boat with all of this and sharing our options may be good for all.
78
« on: August 10, 2018, 11:37 »
The reason is because that "profession" is inextricably linked to the concept of the fourth estate. The power, essentially, to bring truth to light. It may not be well known today, but a journalist who takes their responsibilities seriously aligns themselves with the "people" and especially against other blocs of power which tend to corrupt themselves unless they are held to account by each other.
The government, the military and even the judicial system represent other power blocs that the fourth estate is called to be critical of should such circumstances require it.
While legally, journalists are not especially recognised like law enforcement can be, the results of just bringing some truths to light and holding representatives from other blocs of power accountable can be extraordinary. (Especially in a democracy where voting decisions can be based on information that is supplied by the media.)
Basically, that's why the "profession" is a little different from, say, being an accountant or a plumber and requires protection for a healthy democracy. Where such protection is eroded, inevitably a totalitarian regime of some form or other is taking over - be that from the left or the right.
Just in case anyone is interested, one of the first things leftist totalitarian regimes concentrate on is the taking over the media in particular, and perhaps the "humanities" in general. And there is some very strange unscientific theory currently being held up as credible in many "western" universities at the moment.
79
« on: August 06, 2018, 09:55 »
It may just be in my own head - but I seem to remember a post on SS years ago that his day job or contract had come to an end and he had an opportunity to produce stock full time for six months. He was asking others if they thought that it was a good idea for him to take the risk. If that memory is correct, he took that risk at the perfect time and was able to build on all the other positive traits for success as a result.
While a lot of us were bitching about the high cost of our DSLRs in relation to the amount we made per sale, he invested heavily in the very best equipment he could possibly get in order to create some kind of competitive advantage in a rising tide of contributors. Anyone else remember him being utterly annoyed at his images being rejected for being "over-sharpened" by some muppet image reviewer because he was using a Hasselblad MF camera? The quality was just so much better than the DSLRs everyone else was using the reviewer insisted it was sharpening being applied.
I think he even went so far as to develop a strategic partnership with Crestock in order to better understand what buyers were looking for based on statistical samples. If that memory is also true - then it is quite likely that he developed statistical models in order to track exactly what buyers were looking for based on keywords supplied by Crestock at the time.
Then, when we were all bitching again about what Getty was doing at iStock, he did something that looked completely counter-intuitive at the time. He pulled the plug on SS and other agencies and went exclusive within the larger Getty fold - but keeping his own agency up and running. With hindsight, that was a much better move than to continue feeding an ever hungry database for diminishing returns at SS and other micro agencies.
In a nutshell, I think he went further than anyone else to ensure his own success. And he deserves every bit of it as a result.
As an aside, I'll be in Cape Town on a shoot next week and will probably drive past his studio, Yuri Arcurs Productions at some point. That's another bold move he made in order to position himself intelligently. If you have ever been to Cape Town and the surrounding Western Cape you will understand why, from a stock perspective, that location is a very clever move.
80
« on: July 23, 2018, 06:37 »
Set up and appointment with the new owners of Flickr, get on an aeroplane and arrive at their offices with a plan to run and manage a "monetise" strategy on their platform. Forget going it alone, you need a much stronger brand and existing content behind you to get this to work at this stage of the game.
And by the sounds of things, they are going to need some help delivering a strategy for Flickr that will work.
Get the community thing going again by ensuring that photographers / designers who buy from each other get some kind of benefit. Make sure you can actually buy pics or credits using PayPal - because that's what we get paid in the first place. Make your suppliers your best referrals like it was in the "old" days. We have become very jaded because we have all been screwed over so many times before.
Then take a look at what Stocksy has done and see if there is a way of globalising that strategy. Have at least three pricing level that are driven to first capture everyone's collective works and then do your best to get exclusive content.
I'm feeling that exclusive content is the only way contributors and agencies can sustain any kind of profitable pricing. Contributing photos to stock agencies is no longer sustainable unless you live with someone else and they pay for the food.
Pricing:
Standard Stock
Approx $5 - $15 range for pics that are already on other "cheap" agencies. And do have a premium price for extended licensing etc. The revenue split for this is 70% agency, 30% contributor. And it won't change.
Exclusive Stock
Copy Stocksy pricing exactly for "exclusive" content that is only available on Flickr. The revenue split for this is 60% to 40% - in favour of the contributor! Do the maths and see what happens when you charge more for exclusive pictures. You will make so much more at a higher price even at a lower commission! Then lock this commission in for contributors who take the chance with you now and make their entire portfolios exclusive with you and you for the next 12 months. First year offing - 60%/40% for the contributor forever. Thereafter, sorry, it's 65% agency, 35% contributor.
Premium Stock
Offer contributors the option to price their own creative works. 60% to 40% in favour of the agency unless they are full time exclusives then it's at the agreed rate.
"Paparazzi"
Auction rights to hot off the press news events from around the world. Allow news agencies to bid against each other for limited time rights. These editorial images go straight to the editorial collection if they are not purchased.
Hybrid RF/RM rights - The default license is RF, but a business can buy the file as a premium purchase for 6 months, one year, two year, and three year licenses. This would only work for exclusive content. The file is taken off the market and marked as such in the portfolio. Those who have licensed the file already can obviously still use it, but the business will know that the file they have purchased will not be sold again. The point of this is that business really, really don't like it when their competitors are using the same image as them. This hybrid system is not perfect, but it can help them protect their reputation while they use the image. And that price would be $1000 to $3000 at least for the rights to take a file off the market for a year. And the contributor can agree or disagree or name their price.
81
« on: July 22, 2018, 09:11 »
I agree 100% with your post. People keep complaining but the picture is always quite clear in front of us. It is us and only us who decide where we invest our time and resources to maximize profit.
Obviously shooting cloud timelapses or landmarks with awful light and pricing them 400$ at Pond5 is not getting you anywhere. Shooting great footage and receiving cents at Getty neither. Lets create unique content and people will pay for it, as simple as that.
Perhaps there are more options that may yield better returns per video in the long term. An example could be to use the cheap sites as a way of market testing premium content. Use the 80/20 principle across all sites to determine what your best video content is - then every 12 months systematically purge top earners from cheap sites and crank the price up elsewhere. If cheap sites want to sell videos for $1.50 - well then make sure it's videos that don't sell well anyway. Or if that is too risky, do the opposite! Accept that only 20% of your videos will actually gather good sales at cheap sites. That does not mean that someone does not need more specific video content every so often. So remove 80% of your videos from cheap sites instead and then crank the price up elsewhere. This would mean reviewing how you see your creative work. There is no "good" and no "bad". Just videos that sell frequently and videos that don't. My guess is that quite a few videos that don't sell well is because they are too specifically targeted to a particular market and the demand for video is still far from its apex. So as demand for video increases, so will the demand for more specific video that caters to a more exacting market specification. If that video is only available for $400-$600 or more (bloody yay) - well that's pretty specific content right there that is unlikely to be replicated by someone else - hence the increased value. Want that footage Mr Buyer? Well fine, this is the price. Too expensive for you? Well, go and buy your own GH5, Metabones speedbooster, Canon 50mm fast lens, Glidecam and model located specifically at the Niagara Falls eating a cheeseburger, then drinking a coke, then washing their hands. You get my point - someone trying to enhance hygiene levels in public places is a very specific target market and that a video or sequence of videos may not sell well at cheap sites. But to that person who actually does needs it, it sure saves them a bundle of money to buy them all at P5 for $1200. If we all did this, we would limit the depth of the cheap agencies and likely increase the overall value of our collective portfolios. You could still make money from the big sellers - so as contributors, we lose nothing and the content that does not sell may well make far more $ when it eventually does. The buyers would soon learn - need a blurry crowd of feet at the railway station or a cellphone millennial dude playing on his phone at night . . . cheap site for you. Cheeseburger at the Niagara Falls? Pay premium at P5.
82
« on: July 22, 2018, 07:21 »
Looking at other threads, is there any point in contributing photos to cheap stock sites? There was a time when the "stack em high, sell em cheap" philosophy worked. Where it has ended is with contributors asking serious questions around the possibility of making $100 a month!
Is there any reason to assume that if we as a collective of contributors adopt the same approach with video, that the result will be any different?
Or, put another way, if you are making $1000 a month from stock videos and you simply removed all of them from cheap sites, upped your rate to, say $450 a sale minimum, would you actually lose any income?
Obviously, that would mean only supplying to agencies that allowed you to determine your own price. I'd guess though, that there would be some short term pain for longer term value and nobody would be holding you by the balls.
Another way around this is what a lot of us did to iStock a few years back when they pushed us all around contractually. We simply stopped uploading to them. You still get your money from them now, but they don't get the benefit of long term contributions going forwards and you are weaned off the dependence of their sales channel slowly.
So if you are really annoyed with an agency, it's really much better to just stop contributing to them, take their money now and figure out alternative sales channels going forwards. That way you get hurt the least and take back control of your own valuable creative work.
83
« on: July 21, 2018, 01:53 »
My comment is about how far this industry has gone backwards. Not about my goals or what our team is achieving, much less the pat on your own back self-affirming your own apparent giddying success.
It is really about someone asking if it's possible to make $100 a month from SS. It's sad - and pretty pathetic that this is where the industry has finds itself.
No, your comment was insulting to the OP, which you've just doubled down on by adding sad to the list... so I just thought I'd give you a taste of your own medicine.
It was about the industry. That's why it reads "one and can scarcely believe that this is what stock has come to" and then re-affirmed with "My comment is about how far this industry has gone backwards". So whatever you are doubling down on and taking offence about, on behalf of someone else who has not expressed offence themselves, simply doesn't exist. Those who were here at that start of all of this will remember how a bunch of amateurs with no hope of contributing to the existing agencies of the day upped their respective games together. At first, our work was laughed at and ridiculed in online forums by the stock production "pros". But collectively we disrupted an entire industry and brought down giants. That's why it's pathetic and sad that this is what stock has come to - because nobody is benefiting from those early creative efforts if a portfolio of new images cannot make a reasonable return.
84
« on: July 20, 2018, 13:16 »
My comment is about how far this industry has gone backwards. Not about my goals or what our team is achieving, much less the pat on your own back self-affirming your own apparent giddying success.
It is really about someone asking if it's possible to make $100 a month from SS. It's sad - and pretty pathetic that this is where the industry has finds itself.
85
« on: July 20, 2018, 12:40 »
It's been a long time since I've posted on forums like this one and can scarcely believe that this is what stock has come to. $100 a month? The goal was to be making more than $100 a day not too long ago.
Pathetic.
86
« on: May 29, 2018, 10:38 »
Just a kettle of legal headaches.
Uncle Pete - Why do you think editorial is a kettle of legal headaches? My understanding is that maybe it is - but not likely for the contributor or the agency. The legal headache may come in with the the end user/buyer though. I shoot picture of something in a public place - say a demonstration or an event. No harm there. I upload it to an agency and they make it available as an editorial image only. No harm there either. The agency sells usage rights for that image that is my copyright. Still no harm there. Seems to me the only complication thereafter comes in when the buyer uses is for a purpose for which it was not intended. If they stick to the "editorial only" instruction clearly labeled on the box, there should be no problem. Newspaper uses picture to accompany a story about demonstrations in general - no problem. Newspaper uses picture of clearly identifiable individuals to accompany a story about muslim radical extremists. Picture in agency is clearly captioned to be that of Sikhs peacefully demonstrating that Americans can't tell the difference between their faith and Islam. Big problem . . . for the newspaper that is. Ad agency uses the picture with people in it for a campaign - possible problem if they kick up a fuss. The point is that if there is a legal issue, it's not likely to be a legal issue for the agency or the contributor - it's the end user that need to be aware of what an editorial image is and how it can or cannot be used.
87
« on: May 06, 2017, 12:58 »
1. They have not converted my latest prores clips.
2. That is not the agency to watch...
Well, I'm pretty sure I read on here somewhere that they were converting everything to h264 after it was uploaded. It's of course quite possible, perhaps even likely that they have changed their minds on that. Regardless, they are certainly encouraging h.264 for most video submission: https://www.fotolia.com/Info/Contributors/Files/VideosMy own SS sales are tanking while FT sales are growing and others just holding steady. Since Adobe spent an awful lot of money acquiring FT it stands to reason that there will be significant company emphasis to ensure their stock division is successful. That's the rationale I'm using to consider FT as the most important agency to watch. Seems to be playing out in my sales stats, anyway. Also, I'm wondering why they openly state that they want h.264 video files. Is it because they are cheap and don't want those pesky large Prores HQ files? Or is it because they figure most of their buyers are comfortable with using the codec and can see no negative impact on their sales by "only" offering h.264.
88
« on: May 06, 2017, 05:55 »
I seem to remember that FT / Adobe converts everything to h264 anyway?
If that is true or is still the case, what is the point in supplying massive files if at least one major agency (and arguably the one to watch) can't be bothered with supplying them anyway?
89
« on: June 20, 2016, 14:18 »
I'd get a MacBook pro Instead. Windows machines are not very compatible with the design industry.
agree but you will needs extra $$$$ compared to a windows machine...
True, but I only commented because of the four $$$$ signs in the quote above. Apparently when you were discussing Apple as an option, Mr Nobody.
90
« on: June 20, 2016, 13:02 »
Investiment includes ratio quality/price as well. And time too. Like the amount of time it takes to fix the blasted things every time you get browser hijacked / lose a driver / turn on to an inexplicable screen of death. Spamware, bloatware and all that crud. Man, that stuff is stubborn to get rid of. Hours and hours behind a computer but not actually doing any work. All lost revenue and pissed off clients because you are giving your PC CPR instead of getting their paying work out. That t-shirt arrived white. Was a dull grey with the stains of nicotine, caffeine, blood and tears by the time the last PC was made safe. "Exorcised" with Ubuntu actually, after a browser hijacker automatically routed my 10-year-old from YouTube to a porn site. With Mac so far it's been one year with three systems. No maintenance. No glitches. No viruses. No failures of any kind that I can think of.
91
« on: June 20, 2016, 11:24 »
We had been a PC house for 14 years and here in Africa, never had the money to spend on Apple. Then last year I had to replace an ageing HP laptop and was confronted with the same question . . . what is a reasonable price for a design laptop that will also edit video?
In the end I came to the conclusion that I really had no idea what PC specs would be required at all. And by that what I mean is that with PCs there appears rather large gap between "specs" and actual capability.
What I did know was that an Apple computer (even and older one) would work, while I'd just be guessing with a PC priced in the $800 to $1500 range.
So I purchased an older 2012 Macbook Pro 13inch with adaptor for a larger external monitor. That setup although "old", was boxed as new from a local supplier and cost less than the PC laptop alternatives I was looking at.
Within a month I was so impressed with this little laptop that I looked for ways to convert our whole office to Apple.
And we did . . . for less than the cost of buying new PC components and upgrading the PC machines ourselves! We simply bought second hand MacMinis on eBay and shipped them here.
We maxed out the RAM on all machines and can report no problems with any of the Apple products to date. They just run perfectly and take on any task you want them to do.
Something drastic would have to happen for us to go back to a Microsoft solution. Linux, maybe, but Microsoft . . . I don't think anyone in our office would like to go back there.
If you do want to go down the Apple off eBay route, just be careful what machine you want to buy. You can't really upgrade the RAM or HDDs of a lot of the newer ones so upgrading is limited. The older ones are great though and can be fully upgraded with SSDs and maxed out RAM.
92
« on: April 30, 2016, 04:50 »
Thanks Robert
Cudos to all the good work you have put into this.
I'm sure you will notify this forum when lager file sync is active? Keen to try out some large video files on your system.
93
« on: April 29, 2016, 02:31 »
I got banned from Symbiostock after two days of doing it and never seen my money back. Explanation was that you are meant to distribute only content that you sell through Symbiostock... and pay hosting for it. If you want to pay hosting for large video files, cost would be astronomical. Symbiostock is lying about functionality they offer, so careful.
That's an incredible story. I certainly got the impression that the point of paying $50 for the plugin was to do exactly that - send files out to other agencies. It is, indeed, the point of the plugin? I clearly don't understand the Symbiostock model anyway - I thought it is was a theme / plugin hosted on your own server that then fed files to their main agency? And that hosting with them was optional but at least made a revenue stream for them. As an aside, I've got no problem paying for services that work effectively. There is little I dislike more than a "free" plugin or system that basically means it's not supported. With an obviously few noted exceptions, these "free" community things tend to start off well and then fall over when the main developer/s find themselves working weekends for nothing.
94
« on: April 28, 2016, 11:13 »
Good idea. Here in South Africa with slow and expensive bandwidth a service like this is more or less critical - especially for video uploads. I've been using Photoshelter's FTP service for years. But they don't offer video so I've needed to bin their service. Since we already have a server in Germany with unlimited bandwidth I've contracted a provider in India re-working a plugin that uses FTP to send files directly from our server to the agencies. The first version is working technically and I've managed to move about 2 gig of video files from that server. Like a proper geek I was all excited to see a real server thump out huge files in a few seconds that take a full night to upload to just one destination from our FTP here. A second version of the development is due now which will hopefully have ironed out some noted issues. Then I noticed this from Symbiostock this week: http://www.symbiostock.org/product/symbiostock-submitter/(If the link gets removed, Google Symbiostock Submitter) And now this service which also looks like it can do the job. Nothing for so long and now many options!
95
« on: April 27, 2016, 05:37 »
Thanks.
Noted.
96
« on: April 27, 2016, 04:41 »
There used to be a popular agency called istock in earlier years. Are you still referring to the same one?
I thought most contributors shuttered those widows and left that dust town long ago?
97
« on: April 27, 2016, 04:29 »
Thanks for the explanation. So would a reasonable workflow or explanation look like this . . .
- Files from a camera shooting H.264 like many DSLRs. There is no point to supply Apple Pro Res since this is an 8bit format and it was never recorded at a higher bit in the first place. Feel free to supply in H.264.
- Time lapse sequence shot on 8bit jpg files. H.264 for the same reason as above.
- Time lapse from RAW with no jpg process in-between. Maximum quality for the buyer can be provided in one of the ProRes formats, HQ being optimum.
- Files from a "better" codec such as a RAW format or the 10Bit XAVC of my particular Sony in HD. ProRes as it handles higher bit.
- The same files from my Sony in 4k that is not in 10bit. Reading up I think it's only spitting out 8bit 4k in the XAVC format natively. Well, since it's not 10bit, there is no point to the larger file size of the ProRes. H.264 would suffice technically. Although you may still want to supply the ProRes files because they may want to see it, even if there is no real technical advantage?
- 4k from my Sony that is recorded on an external 4k Atmos device via HDMI in 4k at 10 bit. One of the ProRes codecs provides maximum quality for the buyer and enables better post processing.
98
« on: April 26, 2016, 10:44 »
My camera (Sony PXW-X70) has a paid upgrade to 4k and I see is finally scheduled to have a reasonable bitrate at 4k with a firmware update that is due soon.
I'd like to contribute 4k footage going forwards, but need to be a bit realistic about the file sizes.
Since moving to Mac and taking video a bit more seriously, I've been aiming for maximum quality and submitting ProRes 422 files. But now I'm really tempted to submit footage, especially 4k footage, using the H.264 codec.
The way I'm starting to see it is that the ProRes 422 codec is a bit like a 16bit Tiff file. Great for about 1% of the population, but for everyone else an 8bit jpg will do just fine.
Is there any real difference from a quality perspective that a buyer may consider important and impact sales?
99
« on: March 02, 2016, 13:59 »
I am surprised they are so "loosey goosey" about it.
I am not surprised.
That's the style they had from day 1.
They were pure lucky not to get into some huge lawsuit on them over licensing issues etc ....(hence low sales!).
Maybe new CEOs will bring different attitude...but that's the long way to go ... Until then...
I've just found this post because I could not see how to mark P5 video as editorial either. Then I read your comments here which intrigued me. I take it the laws around this kind of thing must differ a lot? I don't think this kind of litigation would work in my country. I'm entitled as a photographer or videographer to shoot editorial events. I'm also entitled to sell the rights to use that photograph or video to whomsoever I choose. I'm entitled further to allow someone else to sell these rights on my behalf, such as an agency. What I have no control over is how that photograph or video is used once those rights of usage have been sold. No infringement of any sort has been created when I sell the rights to another party either as I am entitled to do so. Neither has the agency done anything wrong by selling the image on my behalf. But if the image buyer works for say, Nike and uses my picture in one of their ads and it clearly has a runner wearing a pair of Adidas running shoes, then (maybe) Adidas will take offence and want to sue someone. The correct legal entity to sue in this case would surely be Nike? Neither the agency that sold the picture to Nike nor myself had any control over what the buyer would do with the purchased content. Do I really need to tell Nike what their legal obligations are? Am I, as a photographer, in any position to offer any kind of legal advice of any sort? Is the agency that sold the image now supposed to be specialists in copyright law too? Are we really obliged to tell others when and where and how such an image should be used? No, we surely are not. Well, I'm pretty sure that's how it would work in my country. Maybe not in yours. Is there a legal precedent anywhere for this? If we are accountable as producers for the actions of others, then gun manufacturers are equally accountable almost every time someone uses one of their products to kill someone. Or at least one car dealership liable for every fatal accident caused by a drunk driver. As far as I understand it, the agencies do all they can to protect their buyers from their own stupidity. That is why they mark the files as editorial and try their best to let the buyer know what they can and what they cannot do with the content they have purchased. The agencies are generally doing everything they can to limit the possibility of litigation. But they are not obliged to do so. What is clear is that it would be bad for business if one of their customers is an idiot and uses an editorial image in an ad that results in them getting sued. Imagine the bitching and whining that would take place online about how the agency sold them an image and they used it in good faith . . . blah blah blah. So I see why the agencies do it. But I don't think it's an actual requirement for them to do so. Then again, an attorney once explained to me that anyone can sue anyone regardless of the merits. It would appear to me that everyone from us photographers to the agencies we supply are doing everything we can to avoid getting sued. Because basically even when you win the case, you have still lost.
100
« on: June 18, 2015, 12:57 »
If I understand the article correctly, the mother says the stock photo company "stole" it from her blog. Reading between the lines though, it would seem more likely that a "contributor" stole the image online, faked a MR and uploaded it as their own.
Obviously, it could be an agency, just not as likely as a rogue "contributor" who has no reputation to protect.
Then there is that whole flimsy "don't show the model in a bad light" clause most of the agencies have in their contracts with buyers. There is simply no way the agencies have the will or the capacity to ensure their buyers apply a modicum of common sense before using an image in a particular context.
No matter how the company got hold of the image or how aggrieved they may feel if it was supplied illegally, did they not think to check back with the agency around how they intended to use the image of a child? Did it occur to nobody that perhaps this was a sensitive use and that they'd better think twice about the context of the usage?
|
Sponsors
Microstock Poll Results
Sponsors
|
Show Posts
