|
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 - BelIblis
26
« on: January 06, 2012, 17:43 »
I don't really want to use tearsheets/screengrabs, because I want to keep the web design & appearance as minimalistic as possible.
I understand, but why would people believe your claims?
If I saw that someone claimed to have had photos used by a company, I'd want to see that.
Then you get into difficulties like what if the company changed their website if you just linked to the page (so your pic isn't there now). Even if you screendumped, someone might check out their page and it might have changed. Difficult.  
I am intrigued about what others do, so thumbs up for this thread.
To be honest, it's not unusual NOT to display tear sheets or links. I've seen quite a few websites from (top) photographers who simply put an A-Z list down. Of course, there may be a certain amount of untruthful claims. But I think potential clients "see through" that if the actual photography isn't that good, or the overall feel isn't professional. Besides that, I think on the long run it'd be professional suicide to claim fake blue-chip clients. It's a relatively small industry, and one way or another things usually come out. Back to square one... other than tearsheets: any ideas for how to phrase it?
27
« on: January 06, 2012, 16:45 »
Thanks for the great links! I'll have a good read through them, they look interesting.
28
« on: January 06, 2012, 16:39 »
I don't really want to use tearsheets/screengrabs, because I want to keep the web design & appearance as minimalistic as possible.
29
« on: January 06, 2012, 12:58 »
Hi,
Through one of my agencies' sales reports, I know client's names & where my images have been published. Some of them are quite prestigious – for example Qantas, or Mitsubishi. Plus a few big advertising agencies and newspapers.
I'd like to put together a list for my website, to display these names. But I can't really call them "clients" or "customers". Although, in a few instances there are direct clients / commissioned work.
Does anybody have any suggestions as for how to phrase this nicely & correctly?
I thought of something like
"Publications / Clients include..." followed by a list of names.
What do you think?
30
« on: December 29, 2011, 18:30 »
Hi, I've been submitting to Macrostock / Midstock agencies for quite a while now, but don't have any images in microstock. I'm now preparing my first submission (about 50 images, mainly photography & 3d renderings). My general workflow is to organize & keyword all images with standard IPTC fields, so that I can easily submit the images to a number of microstock sites – including any potential newbies in the future. Not rocket science, I know – and I'm sure there's a lot of people here who do it like that. As I'm not familiar with submitting to ANY of the microstock sites, I've got a few questions, which I hope you can answer. All about submitting/keywording: Besides the additional work of uploading: Is there a reason why I should NOT submit to "as many agencies as possible" (just in theory)? I don't mean exclusivity vs multi-agency. I mean 5 agencies vs 20 agencies. The reason why I'm asking is because I've seen a few threads here where people said they pulled their images from greedy agencies. And because of one thread I came across is this one – is this something to be aware of (apart from FT): http://www.microstockgroup.com/fotolia-com/return-to-start-fotolia-reserves-right-to-put-you-back-at-white-ranking/Are there any agencies who don't support IPTC keywording / captioning – or who have an awkward 'custom IPTC' system similar to Alamy (with its 'Essential' keywords,...)? Or agencies who want each keyword to be painstakingly classified (particularly keywords with different meanings)? If I end up submitting to many agencies at the same time, I won't be able to check if my type of content is already abundant with a particular agency. "Everyone gets everything". Do agencies care & put you in the 'bad books', I mean do they expect contributors to research in advance what an agency might want? (BTW I don't mean "pretty flowers, white cartoon figure on white background,...). Many thanks!
31
« on: October 30, 2011, 13:46 »
I've looked at things like that already – on several macro RM agencies. A lot of these images are rather old / legacy images from the beginnings of stock photography.
But if they're well-executed they still sell today, from time to time. A friend of mine has been with Getty for a very long time, no new submissions since nearly 10 years (he's working in a completely different industry these days) but still selling OK from what I hear.
32
« on: October 30, 2011, 12:37 »
Illustrations are not my strong suit so you might want to check for better information but I would say by what I saw you are creating Micro would be your best bet at this time.
Thanks for all your responses – just to be clear: the links in my OP are not my own work, they were merely meant as rough examples / visuals. (At this moment in time, I don't yet want to (or simply can't) link to my own work, as I'm not yet in the production stage. Beliblis
33
« on: October 28, 2011, 06:31 »
Hi BelIblis,
In Macro agencies you cannot submit the same work to different agencies the Macro market asks for exclusivity of your image. Maybe Alamy does I'm not sure but again that isn't Getty or Corbis. All the major agencies will only take your images as exclusive and they will not let you redistribute any similar images from the same shoot anywhere else even if they didn't accept some frames from your shoot. Even those extra frames they didn't take cannot be redistributed by you with the exception of Fine Art sales directly by yourself and that is not the case with every agency. I hope this helps explain the difference in the Micro and Macro world of stock.
Hi Jonathan, 100% agree and I couldn't say it any better – but you're preaching to the choir  That's EXACTLY what I asked in my OP – maybe I shall try to put things into different wording: With said "illustrative" images (white background / conceptual / 3d renders / cutouts /... ), what's the better way to maximize profit? 1) Submit STRAIGHT to a Macro agency (= having to rely on their distribution network & NOT possible for me to submit ANYWHERE else) 2) Submit to several Microstocks myself (obviously under a non-exclusive contract) Beliblis
34
« on: October 28, 2011, 06:24 »
So what do you call it, if a photographer decides to send the same set of images to a number of stock agencies – on a non-exclusive base, of course.
If I upload an image to iStock, dreamstime, fotolia, shutterstock,... then I (!) am distributing the images, hence I call it "self-distribution".
Point is, there's no difference contributing to Getty or IS. They are both submit, approve, put up. Maybe you just wrote the thread title in a confusing way.
There is a very big difference between contributing to Getty or IS: Getty wants exclusivity. With most Microstock, exclusivity is an option.
35
« on: October 25, 2011, 05:53 »
I'm not sure where you're coming up with this 'distribution' distinction. You're either licensing RF at micro or macro prices through an inspector/editor controlled channel or RM through an editor controlled channel. There is no 'self distribution'.
So what do you call it, if a photographer decides to send the same set of images to a number of stock agencies – on a non-exclusive base, of course. If I upload an image to iStock, dreamstime, fotolia, shutterstock,... then I (!) am distributing the images, hence I call it "self-distribution". OK, there are editors between me and the actual upload – but that's always the case, even with companies: LonelyPlanet images (or any other library for that matter) may mention Getty as one of their distribution partners, but not all LP images make it onto the Getty platform. (Either due to image quality, or the distribtion contract they have with each other – i.e. Getty might say they only take on 1000 images a month).
36
« on: October 25, 2011, 05:43 »
is today almost a closed shop, unless you are either famous or have unique material beyond belief.
I'm glad you put the word "almost" in. I'm not famous, and my material isn't unique beyond belief. But I got accepted as a contributor to Getty house collections. But you have to have a reasonably strong portfolio within your subject matter, AND a proper website – not a 'community based' website. Presentation is half the job, as we all know... When I applied, I sent them an e-mail with a link to my website. Took a while, but two months later I got a reply from one of their editors & was sent the contract by email.
38
« on: October 19, 2011, 06:01 »
True – I didnt' think of that. But what about Getty's "Vetta" collection? Are overall sales through Vetta better than through self-distribution?
39
« on: October 18, 2011, 12:40 »
I won't be doing ANY "sphere headed men" or the like. I just meant these links as some kind of visual reference.
If I had to describe my ideas with words, it'd be
white background
3d "clay style" rendering with maybe 1-2 colours (red + black, or blue + yellow,...)
simple subject matter (i.e. 2-3 objects), to illustrate a concept
40
« on: October 18, 2011, 10:44 »
I'd had thought that was virtually impossible to judge for images that are for sale on microstock sites, images that are only available on your personal site, RM or even possibly macro RF (allowing for a long reporting period) you might be able to do it but I can't see how you could possibly keep track on standard license microstock images.
That's right. I only do it for RM and images from my personal site. Most cases of image theft happen from images that I've got on FlickR. With FlickR, I've got "right click download" and "drag & drop to desktop" disabled. This means that any kind of image theft doesn't happen accidentally and HAS to happen willfully via screenshots. Which makes things easier should it ever go to court (never had that happen). Pursuing infringements that happen within your own country of residence is never really a problem. Within N-America and the EU, it's pretty straight-forward as well. No experience apart from that. Some IP lawyers charge a percentage of the infringement money, others want money upfront. It helps if you're a member of one of your country's photographers associations or unions. Some of them offer free legal advice for their members. Copyright infringement for images I've got with Getty RM have to be pursued by Getty – in other words: I'm not allowed to do it myself. Never had it happen, but I've heard Getty sends out letters to the infringer, asking for about US$1500 – half of which goes to the photographer.
42
« on: October 17, 2011, 06:01 »
This new google toy is really nice...
I discovered (amongst lots of other usages I hadn't seen before) one of my pictures being offered as products on a website. Because I never sold an EL for that picture, I sent them a short message via their contact form on their website asking (politely) if there has been some kind of error or oversight.
Today they called me and told me they contacted their supplier (looks like they are just a re-seller of products produced by someone else) and would take care of the issue.
Later the day I sold an EL for that file on Shutterstock.
That's how I like to see cases like this resolved....
Not much of a deterrent for thieves... "Ah well, if I get caught I'll just buy a license THEN. No problem." The following applies to most EU countries & N-America (if the respective image is registered for copyright there): When I find one of my images being used without licensing (at least on a commercial site), I don't usually ask if there was a mistake. I send them a bill for violating copyright & my moral rights. And that bill is usually a three-digit US$ figure. (Getty asks for even more). If I don't get a reply, I back this up with a letter (recorded delivery). If I don't get a reply within 2 weeks, I pass it on to an intellectual property lawyer.
43
« on: October 13, 2011, 18:22 »
I've been wondering:
Is there a way to "script" the new google image search? For example, if I have a list of 100 links & want to automatically search for them once a month?
44
« on: October 05, 2011, 04:39 »
Hi,
Has anyone here got experience with both Getty AND Corbis?
And what is your experience – not just in RPI, but also overall? (Submission procedure, Editors, being "taken care of" as a contributor,...)
Many thanks!
45
« on: July 21, 2011, 15:04 »
I can't believe anyone would be taken in by that scam to con contributors out of money like that. $50 PER IMAGE? For real? That would be like me paying my clients for the "privilege" of working for them. That anyone could even defend that has drunk deep of the corporate Kool-Aid. Hearing that makes me even more resolute to avoid buying images from iStock. Getty truly is a corporate monster.
I see Photographers Choice as a good OPTION – you don't HAVE to submit there if you don't like it. But if you really feel like an image will sell & "hit the nerve", you can submit it for a fee. If they didn't charge, then Photographers Choice would be Getty's version of "Alamy" – gazillions of images & similars... Although I agree – $50 is a bit too much. But now they 'opened' PC RF, it might be OK.
46
« on: July 21, 2011, 15:00 »
Also you have to do all the work upfront retouching logos, making their stuff up to their specific standards (black- and whitepoint etc.), attaching model- and property- releases, adding five conceptual keywords, title and description in their specific framework etc. just to get them all rejected or even worse they just accept one single picture from a pretty big series
Sounds like your submission procedure is different to mine then. I'm submitting to house collections as well: I send out UNRETOUCHED lo-res images to my editor. Last submission they accepted 40% of the initial submission (though I do a tight pre-edit myself already). Releases, keywords, titles, descriptions I add AFTER uploading the hi-res file to the portal. Acceptance rate on the portal: 100%.
47
« on: June 06, 2011, 00:01 »
Hi,
I'm currently photographing in a few National Parks in the US. Does anyone know what's "the deal" regarding photography releases? I mean – doing things by the boek: do I need a release? If so, how much are they? I tried googling it but couldn't find any info...
Thanks a lot!
48
« on: April 14, 2011, 00:03 »
It always depends on the image. A very high sale with Getty (about 2 months ago) was for about US$3000 – meaning about $900 for me. That's ONE sale. And from my own point of view, the image was 'nice' but certainly not 'spectacular'. It was a landscape, shot out of the window of a moving car. Mid-day, no specific 'wide-angle' or anything else like that... BUT it seemed to hit the spot with the advertising agency who bought it.
In other words: you never know. (And another indicator for me to rather submit to RM than Micro, unless it's 'obvious' micro material).
49
« on: April 13, 2011, 23:57 »
The new Getty agreement has been changed to allow for an opt-out, so certain RM images can NOT be moved to RF (or Thinkstok) if the photographer so wishes. Getty Contributors should log onto the Contributors page & read the latest announcement.
This (positive) change of agreement also applies to photographers who've already signed the new contract in the past few weeks.
50
« on: October 12, 2010, 19:07 »
Once I had submitted my application to Getty (short mail, with a link to my website), it took them about 3 months to reply. I was offered a contract for their RF and RM 'house collections', i.e. not just 'Photographers Choice'. (In these times, I don't think I'd ever pay to place an image with any agency.)
So: yes – it is still possible to get a standard contract with Getty. But it takes some time to get there. And in my case, I redesigned my website so it only showed relevant RM type content and allowed for a good viewing experience (flash-based player or similar). And my front home page showed the best 10 shots from the past 2 years of professional work. ("If in doubt – take it out". That front page needs to have a real impact on whoever looks at it.)
Prior to being offered a contract, there was also a phone-interview during which we talked about my future plans in photography (lifestyle? illustration? travel?).
|
Sponsors
Microstock Poll Results
Sponsors
|
Show Posts
