I got that one, too. I'm skeptical of any company whose sole pitch is denigrating the competition:

"ArtPal vs Fine Art America

� ArtPal is free. Fine Art America makes you pay $30/year to have more than 25 items for sale, and to have access to other features and bonuses. ArtPal gives you all the features and bonuses for free.

� Fine Art America charges you $30/year if you want to earn a commission on framing. ArtPal gives you the same bonus absolutely free.

� Fine Art America makes it difficult to buy original art, requiring the buyer to email you, make payment arrangements and numerous other steps, resulting in lost sales. ArtPal allows buyers to instantly buy original art the same way they purchase a print, resulting in more sales, and less work for you and your buyers.

� ArtPal is a much higher-quality Print-on-Demand service, using higher-quality materials and printing, resulting in more satisfied customers, less returns, and more profit to you.

� Fine Art America often has broken features, poor navigation, cluttered and tacked on features, which is not the impression you want associated with your art. ArtPal is a much higher-quality gallery, more powerful yet cleaner and easier-to-use, giving the good impression that you and your art deserve.
Try ArtPal and compare for yourself. "


Plus the fact that they used FAA's messaging to poach FAA users. Bad form all round.

I found a photo of mine on a pen pal site and saw there are quite a few stock photos there. It was bought and paid for, so there is no copyright issue. I am wondering what you think of this from an ethical point of view.

The site advertises pen pals from around the world, but the posts from these alleged pen pals use stock photos and pass them off as being the actual people. I see they are a new site, so I could see why they would do this to fake activity on their site. But it still just seems creepy to be doing it.

http://penpalkid.com/

The camera settings were ISO 100 F9 1/200.  shot in RAW.

Key light was a shoot through umbrella from camera right (left on white background shots). Fill was brollybox from camera left for desk. For the whiteboard shots I used a light reflecting off a big white backdrop sheet on left.

I did shoot with a gray card, but took the color temperature down a little (I find Asian marketing prefers whiter skin tones).

I will check if one of the other agencies has bigger previews.

This is one they accepted. I don't see how the quality is any different to the rejected files.
http://www.shutterstock.com/pic.mhtml?id=182919977

Have you been reading the forum thread? Apparently they are still working out the bugs and or changed features and are asking for feedback. An admin pops in now and then there to ask questions of the users. http://www.dreamstime.com/thread_36873

Thanks. I hadn't seen that.

Hi.

After reading the 123rf blog, I saw adding images to "Faves" can improve search results (this appears on my Dashboard as "Following" for some reason).

I'm curios about the "Likeboxes." Does adding your images to these improve search results, too, or are they merely for arranging your images conveniently for yourself?

I submitted a bunch of editorial photos of a street parade recently. BS are asking for credentials for the shoot. The photos were accepted at SS (and DT) without a problem.

Both sites, BS and SS, seem to have the exact same criteria for when credentials are needed. Are BS generally fussier about this?

I'm just wondering if it's worth it to query it with them or just leave BS out of my editorial uploads.

Happy New Year to you all.

I don't think you can rename them at all but you can hide them so only the correct one shows up in your list
http://submit.shutterstock.com/saved_releases.mhtml

Thanks. I tried that. I uncheck the box and press Save Changes. But both still appear on my list and when I go back to that page, the box is ticked again. I assume this is a problem on my side; possibly Java, Flash problem or the form doesn't play nice with Firefox. I'll try it again on an IE PC.

I've also had a number of "focus on the wrong place" rejections this week. Shooting on isolated white at F8, this seems unlikely.

But more annoying is my model release is now being refused as "an unacceptable foreign language release." I use the standard iStock Chinese MR (which is listed on SS's accepted foreign language MRs) but I have included the English translation with it. I have about 120 images on SS using the same MR.

lets hope that someone from FT shows up here and solves this matter, you can always open a topic at their forum

http://www.fotolia.com/forum/viewforum.php?id=7

Done.

I remember Sean once saying you dont need a PR for interiors, unless there is some significant item that needs a release, like a painting on the wall.

I'm sure I read that. If I remember correctly, he was talking about what is legally needed. The agencies seem to want more than what's needed.

contact them

I did. I got what seems to be a canned response.
"Any transactions processed prior to the validation of your tax form were subject to withholding. All transactions processed after the validated form are subject to the terms outlined by the IRS and tax treaty. Please consult a local tax professional for more information."

If they had actually checked they would see that the photos were sold AFTER the tax form was validated. I have replied with the relevant reference dates.

That clearly  like a defamatory  to me. They should at at least a disclaimer. Which agency are you with?

This photo has only sold on SS, so it must be there.

Stipple have made a deal with Getty as per the link below.
http://www.websitemagazine.com/content/blogs/posts/archive/2013/08/05/getty-images-gets-the-stipple-effect.aspx

 "Plus, publishers share in the revenue from advertising campaigns sold by Stipple."
What does this mean for contributors? If I understand it correctly, it seems everybody but the photog will be making money off this branding deal.