More are starting to show up now, but not all yet.
Maybe I complained too early, or maybe my email is being addressed.

I would say its just taking longer to process. This agency is going to be fully searchable in 16 languages. In theory, that might require 16 different indexing runs.

After uploading, I did a keyword search for my photos, and discovered that over 60 did not show up. I checked, and the keywords show up in the photo, and are also included in the title. I emailed them about it. I think they have a major search engine problem and I hope they get it sorted out soon. Otherwise, it's useless to contribute there.

Just because the image is live on the site does not mean it's indexed so that it shows up in the search engine. Back in the day, shutterstock would approve your images and they would be live on the site immediately, but you would never show up in search results for at least 24 hours.

They have semi-batch processing, you can apply various settings from your previously submitted images. Only works well if you group your shots together using sequential file names. Their current keyword tool is broken BTW - it's counting all my phrases that are in parenthesis wrong (its counting all the individual words instead of the phrase - crazy annoying it's halted all of my submissions).

It's called collection curating. It's actually really important if a collection is going to attract buyers. Sheer volume isn't always the answer.

hi mr. stock, is flickr/getty images are licensed as 'RF'?

Quote from: Mr. Stock on September 24, 2011, 08:39

I have 60 images on Getty, 35 are Flickr, and I make sales from Flickr every month. The monthly totals vary but anywhere from 10 bucks to a few hundred. The RPI is better than the micros but the caveat is it takes a long time to get a lot of images up on Getty Flickr. They only allow you to submit 25 per month and for me they accept usually just a couple per month. Many others complain of the low acceptance rate as well. I could submit as many as I want under the photographers choice collection but at $50 per image for the placement fee it isn't worth the cost for me. So all my images go through the selection process of Getty / Flickr first, and any  that are not selected (which is most) go to the micros and Alamy.

They can be either RM or RF - it all depends on what they offer you. I would say most people get offered RF deals though.

Quote from: cardmaverick on November 13, 2011, 17:26

Microsoft Pro Photo tools is actually a really good batch metadata editor... now if only it weren't base on the .net framework and I could use it in Linux....

Maybe it does some things well, but I think it's the worst keyword editor I've ever seen.  It puts all the keywords in one horizontal line, so you have to keep scrolling side-to-side and can never see all of them at once.  And you have to add semicolons yourself.

Another Microsoft loser - couldn't uninstall it fast enough.

Yeah I know what you mean. An older earlier version actually didn't have that problem... I've been hunting for a good Linux solution. The best I've found is geeqie, but no batch editing it seems.

Red totally destroyed Canon today. That C300 only shoots motion, and unlike the red, you can't use any lens you please (Red system has swapable lens mounts). I'm saving up for a Red

Just checked my lightbox links they are working normally.

I should have mentioned my links were created in early 2010. I wonder how long the URL's have been changed!

My knee jerk reaction is sell anything like aerials in the RM market, or directly, and make sure you get some decent $$$ for it

Quote from: cardmaverick on October 23, 2011, 23:30

Quote from: AttilaTheNun on October 23, 2011, 20:05

Quote from: gejam on October 21, 2011, 05:48

Would it be legal to put up all your stock photos on Flickr with a watermark - and then wait for prospective customers to contact you?

My paying Flickr membership was canceled without any explanation (except a reference to the TOS) a few years ago by just doing that.

What did your watermark look like?

It was a very light repeated (x,y) mark all over the image. I don't think that was the issue, but the direct link in the description to the sales page on a microstock site. According to Madelaide, that should not be possible any more. As what I read (here or elsewhere, forgot), you can still link in your profile to your site (that can contain links to your port on microstocks).

Ahhh. Yeah, the links make sense. Flickr is now setup to be "self policing" when it comes to what sites you can and can't link to. All microstock sites (the major ones) are blocked by default, but smaller trad agencies are not I suggest a page on your own site that has portfolio links. All in all, I still think the getty flickr collection is worth more of your time and energy.

BTW - take the guidelines with a grain of salt... You are still allowed to link to your own website in your freaking profile! These guidelines are to try and keep flickr from being overrun by people using it for hosting website images, etc...

I think that advertising your images is against Flickr's rules.

Its not. If you look into the fine print, they are cool with you linking to direct sales sites for prints, etc.. of your images. BUT. All microstock agencies are blocked - if you make a hyperlink to any, it won't work.... I'd suggest taking advantage of the getty flickr collection. I got accepted and its pretty good, I know a few people on flickr are making sizable incomes off it, but it takes TIME. Trad stock always takes TIME. Lots of it.... I kinda hate that.

You can't track the image use reliably, even with all the new image tracking technology available. Just another hole in the business model.