|
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 - KerinF
26
« on: May 27, 2014, 20:16 »
As others have said - trying to enforce compensation yourself would be a waste of time and expense in these circumstances. Getting the image taken down is your best bet. Aside from the steps already mentioned, you should also look at issuing a DMCA takedown notice (similar legislation and processes exist in most Western countries at least). Google and you will find lots on information and examples, but in short:
- conduct a Whois search to find out who the ISP of the infringing website is
- a reputable ISP will have its own information or forms, or contact person, to send ISP notices to, and often will also have their own form or template letter.
- if the ISP does not provide a template, there are lots of examples floating around. They are not complicated, but its very important that you include all the required information, and send it in the required format, or else the notice will be ignored
The ISP should take action pretty quickly - put simply, the system basically works on the principle that, once an ISP is on notice of an infringement, it is only given immunity from prosecution for infringement if it acts on a notice promptly. So, it is in the ISP's interests to get the infringing image removed asap.
27
« on: May 27, 2014, 17:07 »
I received this long email from Room the Agency - i must have signed up at some stage, but have never submitted anything. I am curious what others, particularly those with tonnes more experience than me (err, just about everyone), might have to say about this - thoughts, comments, etc?
.......................................
This month, we send out our first sales reports its just a start
On Thursday we will be reporting our first sales reports to members, as reported to us by Getty I took a quick look this morning and its much as expected for a first month.
Payment due to those who have earned 25 ($42) or more our minimum payment will be paid on 5th June.
As from now, every month we will report to you by 30th of each month, sales as reported to us by Getty for the previous month. Payment will be made to members with 25 ($42) or more owing, around 5th of the month following, or the amount due will be carried forward to the next months payment date if below 25 ($42).
We need your payment details
Please ensure that you have input your bank (UK members only) or PayPal details into the Images, Sales & Payments section of your profile, or we will not be able pay you, when money is due.
We live in a Spotify World
For those of you that have been around for as long as I have, things are different, subscription was not part of the royalty remit and as such payouts per sale were higher than they are now. Times have, however, changed significantly and we now live in a subscription based, micropayment World.
What this means to us all is that earnings per sale will be significantly lower than they once would have been, but the amount of sales, over time, may become considerably higher as more customers become buyers.
When Spotify started out some 5 years back there was an outcry. They paid out very little to copyright holders, hit tracks were earning, on average, between $0.006 and $0.0084 per stream.
In 2009 this amounted to a few million dollars being paid out to all bands, for all songs accessed through Spotify in total. Shared amongst the many copyright holders, this amounted to little more than small change, a few dollars each on average per year if they were lucky.
In 2013, however, the model had matured significantly and Spotify paid out $500 million in royalties. For top global albums, in July 2013 alone, Spotify paid a rather more appealing $425,000 in royalties to each producer, for each album and at the bottom end of the scale, $3,300 to each niche indie album rights owner.
iStock are coming, our sales will grow significantly
During April, we had no images live on iStock, who run a similar model to Spotify, with their subscription offerings. Over the next few weeks, all our content, unless it has been opted out by you, will go live on iStock. This will significantly increase our sales potential, as iStock makes up half of Gettys $1 billion turnover.
Because of the global change in royalty based businesses, Getty have had to change the way they sell to clients that change is only just beginning. Many clients are now on annual deals and much of Gettys sales are made below 6 ($10) per image.
As a result, we are expecting our average sale to come in at around 4.2 ($7), which will mean around 2 ($3) to you.
If you compare this with Spotify and its average $0.007 per stream, its a significant uplift, but not what we would like to see, of course.
Sure, you will still see some 0.20 ($0.30) or so sales on your sales reports, but over time these will grow to significant monthly payouts. Remember, it took Spotify 5 years to get where they are now and thats without a great deal of competition, so dont expect Getty to be paying out significant sums to us for at least a few months yet.
But, it will happen.
If its free, is not always, well, free
Some of you may have noticed that Getty made the brave decision to stop selling images to bloggers (most all were being stolen anyway) and started giving them away. Now, this may sound rather stupid, but in fact it is part of a long-term plan to earn more from these sales than they did when they tried to sell the content. As Getty track usage and users they will build into this model an advertising system that will benefit us all and we will all get paid from revenue earned from selling advertising, much as YouTube do with their videos.
Google earned over $5 billion from their YouTube advertising channel in 2013.
YouTube will bring in about $5.60 billion in gross ad revenues this year (2013), according to eMarketers first-ever analysis of how much advertisers spend on the platform.
Stay tuned for more news on this, over coming months.
A lesson learned, is a lesson taught
When I first got into shooting stock photography many years ago, I, like you guys was expecting a bumper payday first time round. It didnt happen and it is unlikely happen for you either, although our member with the most earnings this month, earned over 500 ($840), which really quite good.
Most of the images we now have live were not live during April and the majority of you will not have had any images live on Getty at all - we had no sales from iStock that will take 3 months at least to build and we had few slots in Gettys ranking system that builds with our image intake - so please, please, keep the images streaming in.
Things will all change over the coming months for the good, but realistically, like me, all those years back, you will have to give it a year before you can make any sort of judgment on your sales potential.
After that first year of sales I was overjoyed with my income but because sales didnt start rolling in for 6 months, I stopped supplying after month 1, as many people before me probably did too Ill wait and see what happens, was the usual retort.
Then, after 6 months, I was rushing through content. I wish I had listened to my agency and continued to supply early on.
Now for something really special and unique to end this message
Next month, as we tighten up our membership, making it even more difficult to join RooM without the right content and belief in what we are doing, we will be offering you all something really special and unique.
We will be offering you a way to earn much, much more money over time:
A profit share in the business.
We see our business as a collective and want to ensure that if we do well as a company, we all share in the profits after all, without your content we are nothing more than a few images and a name.
As a collective we have real power and can have significant pull and influence at Getty. Alone, as suppliers, most of us would not have Getty RF contracts, let alone, Getty RM/RF and iStock accounts combined. As for search slots, wed have none without each other.
As we grow the quality and number of our images significantly, Getty will give us more exposure and with that will come more sales, many more sales. For example, if we have, say, 2 slots in every 100 search results and earn $2m, doubling those slots to 4 will likely double our income to $4m.
Can we do that alone? No. Can we do this, with our in depth knowledge of Getty and the industry and your fantastic content? Yes, we can.
Stay tuned for news on our unique profit share offering, as we work it through with our accountants.
Thank you for your time, support and above all, fantastic images.
28
« on: May 26, 2014, 03:13 »
I love both Nik and VSCO (and VSCOcam for mobile). Unfortunately, though, I find my images with VSCO get knocked back a lot - which is a pity, I love the grainy analog film look, but they typically get knocked back for (surprise) grain and lighting problems (even if I add a little note about what effects have been applied). I do see quite a lot of analogise images in the "vintage" category in Shutterstock, but I think I will park trying to get these through until got more "standard" images
29
« on: May 25, 2014, 23:34 »
When you say 6 years, being a 3 year deal + a 3 year "survival" clause, what does that survival clause actually entail? Many agreements will include a boilerplate "survival" clause after termination, but this relates to ongoing obligations around things like maintaining confidentiality, effect of warranties or indemnities. The survival clause may be unrelated to the duration of the term of the agreement. Or is it perhaps a 3 year renewal term, and then the question is, at whose option? You might want to re-read carefully to be sure whether it is really 3 or 6 years you are potentially committing to.
PS I think your photos are beautiful.
30
« on: May 22, 2014, 02:44 »
I'm being beaten up too, but I suspect I deserve it! Only just got accepted by Shutterstock so "experimenting" a bit with what I upload to get a feel for what gets through. However, I am terribly excited at getting my first sale in the first 24 hours... and for a photo taken with my iPhone....shhh, don't tell anyone  I was playing around to see if iPhone photos would pass!
31
« on: May 19, 2014, 17:42 »
I hope someone can still reply and post about the truth on their facebook page. I had been blocked too weeks ago 
DPC on Twitter still makes an interesting read (a) customers starting to complain about images they had earmarked having disappeared and (b) contributors explaining why. I don't really understand Twitter but perhaps harder to control or block # or user handles?
32
« on: May 16, 2014, 08:50 »
4. I have also been accepted to Alamy and started uploading there. I am leaning towards putting all these older travel images on Alamy instead of micro and see what happens. I also kind of like the fact that most of the coding for Alamy is done after the images have been accepted and not before, another time saver if a proportion of images on micro-sites will be rejected. I know others hate the Alamy upload process, but I find it far less frustrating and time-consuming than (say) iStock, even using DeepMeta. The occasional sale on Alamy might anyway outweigh what I might expect to earn for the same sort of images on micro sites over (say) a 12 month period. I would love to hear the views of others on that.
Manage your expectations. Many buyers have deep discounts for bulk buying and you can have very low sales there which can be as low as <$3 to you (though to be fair, in my case that's from the UK newspaper scheme, which you can opt out of.) There is no way of 'shielding' your rare subject images from these discounts, just like you can't on e.g. Getty.  
Also check the rivals to your images. Again, in my experience, there are either hundreds/thousands of rival images with better search placement, or if there are very few, buyers aren't interested. Just like on iStock. Of course, you may have found a different unsupplied location which buyers have been wishing for all the time. Or maybe today's unloved place will be tomorrow's hotspot - we can dream!
One thing to note, if you upload unreleased images to Alamy they will be classified as RM. If they are RM, you cannot have them on other sites as RF. But you can have them as RF on both sites if you wish, though you may be cannibalising your own sales if customers do a price comparison. For example, I have some images where I strongly disagree a property release is required, e.g. iStock take a particularly hard-line (and sometimes just silly) view of when a property release is needed. So they are RF (editorial) there, but I have them as RF on Alamy as well because I have taken the view that a release is not required.
Be very careful here. Alamy is actually far stricter than iStock about what they consider needs a release. However, you don't get rejections based on needing releases, because you don't indicate until after approval whether or not you have releases.
Alamy considers even fuzzy pixels of people, literally, tiny, tiny out of focus blobs in the background, as needing releases. (You can take them out, whereby you should label the image as having been digitally altered.) Any little part of a person needs a release.
Just about any sort of property is considered by Alamy to 'need releases' - far more than iStock would require.
I actually put 'needs release' on almost everything other than a 'lion out on the savanna' scenario on Alamy. Even if I'm 99% sure that the pic would be accepted on iS.
Alamy takes the view that it is the buyer's responsibility to check whether their use would need a release, so they might see that a small blob of pixels is never going to result in a lawsuit, so use an image commercially, even if marked needs MR, none available. Similarly, the buyer should know how to use images with property.
Example I remember not long after I started there, someone had an image rejected on iS because on a zip on a person's clothes, when zoomed right into, you could, with the eye of faith, 'just' make out YKK. It was a whole-body image IIRC so the YKK was tiny. In UK law, that would be 'incidental' and would not be actionable. But who knows what might happen in the Land of the Litigacious, or other places.
iStock took the view that anyone could buy their images in the knowledge that they can be used legally for any purpose.
Alamy puts more responsibility onto the buyer
http://www.alamy.com/customer/help/releases.asp
- provided that the seller has correctly indicated that they do not have a release, but one might be needed.
Another example: someone posted (here IIRC) about bunting with the Queen's photo on it, used during the Jubilee, and wondered if that would need a release for the Queen considering each bunting was relatively small in the image. But you'd have to consider whether someone might crop right into the Queen, then use the image commercially, no matter how unlikely that might seem to be.
Anyway, as the responsibility is 100% yours on Alamy, better safe than sorry, as you were told in your thread there. But ultimately, it's your risk to take, if you say 'no releases needed'.
thank you once again for your generosity in sharing your experience and advice. Always very appreciated.
33
« on: May 16, 2014, 02:50 »
KerinF, thank you for your input. If my emails dont have an effect, they certainly do no harm. I just thought when a company is not abiding by EU laws, someone in politics might take action. I mean, the EU went after Microsoft, Google and Facebook when they broke EU laws.
Anyhoo, we will see what happens. I appreciate your input none the less. I wish I had a ton of cash to splash on a lawyer.
No problem, I was just trying to offer some thoughts on where your energies might be better directed knowing everyone is time-limited and, unfortunately, IP offices aren't the right avenue. You may get some more traction on competition issues, but the relevant authorities would need to be convinced that some sort of anti-trust / anti-competitive conduct in a strictly legal sense was going on, i.e. misuse of market power, predatory pricing or something along those lines. Yes, you are right about Google, etc. But of course each case is different. Unfortunately, though, just because something is unfair or unreasonable, doesn't necessarily mean it is illegal. But you never know, you might get a sniff of interest..will be interesting hear what response you get. (Yes, my day job is an IP lawyer, but not in the EU, and these are just general comments not legal advice   )
34
« on: May 16, 2014, 02:07 »
Hello Jason, I enjoyed reading your long post and so thought I would respond with an (almost) as long one. I started about the same time, have a similar number of images uploaded as you, similar sales, and a similar backlog of image types. So I understand where you are coming from.
From one newbie to another:
1. Hang in there with SS - I just got accepted last night - 3rd time lucky. I started a thread about downsizing to 6MP to get accepted a few weeks ago, which is still going on and on. My advice, just do it - I had 9 out of 10 accepted technically this time (1 rejected for poor lighting) at 6mp, compared to 5 out of 10 last time at full res. And, frankly, philosophically, I see no point uploading full res images to be sold for such low prices.
2. Use Lightroom - I am still trying to work out the most efficient workflow, but apart from other reasons already mentioned, it allows for non-destructive editing and bulk changes and key wording to images. Plus there are a lot of relatively cheap presets out there for quick clean-ups and to give images a bit of a pop, which cuts workflow time right down. And smart collections are a great way to track what you are doing - or would be if I got my own workflow sorted. The keyword order doesn't bother me, by the time you have to anyway fiddle around with things like categories, etc when uploading, its not that much extra work to shift around a bit. I just try and get the 5-6 most relevant at the top, and don't worry about the rest.
3. I am also grappling with where to place images. Like you, most of my backlog is travel and similar themes and I don't have releases, and I neither have the time nor probably sufficiently professional Photoshop skills to clone out every little possible property issue. So to the extent that I have uploaded these to micro sites, many are being accepted as editorial only. These images are never likely to be volume sellers, although it does surprise me how many travel images are on the micro sites (and how that must impact on sales on macro or mid-stock sites).
4. I have also been accepted to Alamy and started uploading there. I am leaning towards putting all these older travel images on Alamy instead of micro and see what happens. I also kind of like the fact that most of the coding for Alamy is done after the images have been accepted and not before, another time saver if a proportion of images on micro-sites will be rejected. I know others hate the Alamy upload process, but I find it far less frustrating and time-consuming than (say) iStock, even using DeepMeta. The occasional sale on Alamy might anyway outweigh what I might expect to earn for the same sort of images on micro sites over (say) a 12 month period. I would love to hear the views of others on that.
One thing to note, if you upload unreleased images to Alamy they will be classified as RM. If they are RM, you cannot have them on other sites as RF. But you can have them as RF on both sites if you wish, though you may be cannibalising your own sales if customers do a price comparison. For example, I have some images where I strongly disagree a property release is required, e.g. iStock take a particularly hard-line (and sometimes just silly) view of when a property release is needed. So they are RF (editorial) there, but I have them as RF on Alamy as well because I have taken the view that a release is not required.
So, upshot is, after finally getting accepted to SS, I may have little to upload for awhile until I start shooting more stock specific.
5. Don't beat yourself up over inconsistent rejections. Whatever stated criteria, at the end of the day it is a subjective assessment. Dreamstime seem to accept about 85-90% of my images, but my best rejection so far has come from them: "its not quite what we are looking for". Fotolia hate 80% of my photos too so I will probably stop uploading there anyway, putting aside the DPC issue. I don't have the luxury of time (or probably skill) to shoot with a particular agency in mind and I don't yet have a real feel for what each wants. I just upload away and hope for the best but will not doubt get more of a feel over time! (Funnily enough, Fotolia accepts a higher percentage of my quite dreadful iPhone snaps submitted through their Instant app, and one of those quite awful iPhone travel shots has sold 4 times in the last month on Fotolia and is currently the first image to come up as 'relevant' when the particular city is searched - go figure.)
6. As I read and get more and more immersed in this, I need to draw breath sometimes and keep reminding myself to keep some perspective. Like you, this is not my day job. While I have been wanting to upload to stock for a year or two, I have not had the time to make any kind of start until the last few months. While I don't want to sell myself or my images short (and that is why I am removing my high res images from Fotolia), I also try and remember that these images have been sitting on my hard drive doing nothing for months and even years. Right now, with everything I have read and experienced to bring my lofty ambitions back to earth, I will consider I have achieved a huge amount if my photography becomes self-supporting, i.e. if I earn enough to cover the costs of some new equipment, software, and with a bit of luck some % of travel costs. Baby steps.
35
« on: May 15, 2014, 21:28 »
Oh, I was behind the thread. Ron, same goes with other IP offices in other countries in Europe, or the OHIM or EPO (EU bodies). Simply not part of their role to investigate copyright disputes. You are wasting your time there.
I see you have also mentioned writing to some EU competition body or politician. That might possible be more relevant, but frankly, don't hold your breath for them to get involved. Also, as I said, their concern will be competition or deceptive practices, not copyright law.
Short of having an expensive legal contractual fight, and I bet Fotolia's terms are pretty generous in their favour, then commercial pressure is really the only realistic avenue.
36
« on: May 15, 2014, 21:11 »
Ron, I hate to disappoint you, but writing to the IPO in the UK will get you absolutely nowhere. They are responsible for registering IP rights (e.g. trade marks, patents, designs) and provide some general information on IP, but the IPO does not have any investigative or prosecution powers at all.
IP enforcement is considered a commercial matter and it is up to rights owners to bring private action. Investigating copyright infringement is simply not part of their remit. The only exception is some criminal IP activity (e.g. counterfeit goods) where in some jurisdictions the police have powers to investigate. Not relevant here. In any event, the IPO is only concerned with UK law - correct me if I am wrong, but Fotolia are not UK-based.
Like it or not, this is really a contractual matter and, more specifically, what the t&c between contributors and Fotolia allow, and whether Fotolia has breached those terms. Yes, copyright infringement might be relevant if there is a clear breach of the contractual terms, but the contract is the starting point. And that is a private law matter.
The only other government body with any investigative power might be competition authorities, in Australia the ACCC and in the US it would be the FTC. Can't recall off the top of my head what the UK / EU equivalent is. They may be interested if there are anti-trust or anti-competitive issues, or if Fotolia / DPC have engaged in misleading or deceptive conduct (either in dealings with contributors or customers), but again, don't hold your breath for them to get involved. Again, these sorts of disputes are seen as private matters.
I think Mike is partly right though clearly the action taken to date has had some effect. One reason for this is that DPC has entered into contractual arrangements with customers. So they probably can't just go and up the prices, or substantially change the terms, because they will have irate customers on their hands and, frankly, they probably care more about that.
Just saying...
37
« on: May 13, 2014, 21:18 »
Lucky for me  Fotolia seem to hate my photos. I am too embarrassed to even say what the percentage is, but it is not reflective at all of acceptance levels elsewhere (which are around 80-90%). I started submitting just iPhone photos to Fotolia through their Instant app, and then started submitting through the normal site. Given my small number of images, I am planning on deleting all my hi-res images from Fotolia altogether and not submitting any more, but I will probably leave my (very) ordinary iPhone images submitted through Instant there, and also leave them on DPC, at least until I reach the next payout. Most of these were never taken with stock in mind but were just sitting on my phone anyway. I am actually getting quite a few downloads for my iPhone images at Fotolia, don't know if that is through Fotolia or DPC. I don't really rate most of these images at all, and the fact that some of them sell for anything is a bit of a miracle. I may continue to upload some iPhone photos (only) through Instant, if I can be bothered wasting the time given the 80% rejection rate (whoops, I said it) now that they have stopped handing out the 1 credit for each image accepted on Instant. So upshot is, I see Fotolia/DPC as an occasional portal for my second-rate iPhone photos moving forward, but nothing more. Please don't shoot me down in flames! Just a perspective.
38
« on: May 13, 2014, 20:23 »
I just logged into EyeEm to see if there are any updates on their own marketplace. It still says: "EyeEm Market will launch by summer 2014. During BETA, you have the opportunity to prepare your images for sale to maximize your earning potential when it goes live." Nothing that I could see on EyeEm's own site announcing that the Getty collection has already gone live.
Apart from all the other reasons already given, I wouldn't anyway be approving them because EyeEm/Getty (oh, and their affiliates) want minimum 6 months exclusivity. I already have the same images up for sale at other agencies, so not going to happen.
I have a small number of iPhone images that I have put forward for the Market. Most, but not all, of those have been "shortlisted" for the Getty collection. So far as I can see, nothing happens to those "shortlisted" images unless and until I press the "approve" button for inclusion in the Getty collection. (There is no "disapprove" button). But what I can't work out is, if I don't approve these images for sale on Getty, will the same images still being on the EyeEm Market when and if it launches. The tab of reviewed images says: "Images below are ready for sale on EyeEm Market.", however, only the ones not selected for Getty have a "tick" and say "available". The rest have a little "Getty" icon in the corner but since I won't be approving these, its not clear what happens to them. Do they just sit in limbo perhaps?
I also can't work out how they will be found through searching. At present, on EyeEm, you are limited to putting 4 tags. A lot of these having nothing to do with keywords people might use commercially.
I quite like EyeEm as an occasional photo-sharing site, but I mainly post up images that are not at all "stocky". I might just leave the small selection marked out for the Market there and see what happens when (or if) EyeEm's own Market goes live.
39
« on: May 05, 2014, 21:54 »
thanks, reassuring to know
40
« on: May 05, 2014, 21:26 »
Would depend upon circumstances if conduct was considered unfair dealing: relative market positions, effect on competition, if agencies colluded, primary purpose of conduct, etc. There is a huge difference between exclusive contracts on individual basis and an overt or blanket attempt to prevent dealings with a competitor. All hypothetical anyway.
41
« on: May 05, 2014, 19:59 »
Yep, had same issue with inconsistent reviews of same building facades. Oh, and my other personal favourite you reminded me of, the blurb about castles not being allowed unless ruins? I had one rejected on those grounds - it was of ruins of course.
Agree re editorial, but I guess what I have noticed the last week or two is that the standard sentence about re-submitting as editorial is missing, so wondering if they are not accepting them as either category? And I am pretty sure the deactivated image referred to above was in editorial. I have tried now to resubmit some as editorial and will see what happens.
I wouldn't care too much if it wasn't for the resubmit process being cumbersome, unless there is a shortcut I don;t know about, I have to go through the whole disambiguation and category process again each time.
I don't really blame the reviewers: I don't understand how the process works but I am guessing that these issues are decided by people with technical not legal training. I just wish they received better guidance maybe.
42
« on: May 05, 2014, 19:27 »
Nice thought, but other agencies won't go there. They would likely fall foul of all sorts of anti-competition laws in the EU and elsewhere if they tried that.
43
« on: May 05, 2014, 19:00 »
Is it just me, or are iStock taking legal based objections to images to a whole new level of paranoia? I know there was a separate thread about the change of policy on domestic buildings, but the problem seems to be more widespread than that. And my last few rejections don't even appear to give the option of re-submitting as editorial (or at least the standard little sentence about re-submitting as editorial is missing - I haven't actually tried to do so yet).
The current policy in respect of my images at least seems to be: if its a building, and whether it is submitted as editorial or not, property release or nothing. The silliest example so far: Photo of an Australian War Cemetery in France. There is a large plain memorial stone with the words "Their Name Liveth for Evermore". (The quote is from Ecclesiasticus 44.14, selected by Rudyard Kipling in the 1920s and used on all Commonwealth WWI cemeteries). The rejection was on the grounds of, of all things, privacy!!! That is, it has been put in the same category as license plates or signatures. Even if the reviewer meant copyright, it is still completely baseless. (And, no, the font would not be protected in these circumstances).
I also just had a photo deactivated because of copyright issues - it is of a restaurant window in an old European city, taken from the street, which has writing on the shutters. I am 99% certain I submitted it as editorial because in this circumstance, I would agree it should be. So, this gets back to my query whether the current policy is property release or nothing?
I am considering just not submitting any photos with any images or any sort of building, or basically anything shot outdoors in a city, to iStock anymore because its just getting a bit too frustrating. As best as I can tell, if you submit any request to Scout for review, it just sits there for weeks or months.
44
« on: April 26, 2014, 04:53 »
Oh dear, this explains a lot. I recently uploaded a group of images of facades of 100+ year old buildings in a European city, all taken in the one street. In their infinite wisdom, iStock allowed some as RF commercial, knocked back some with the option to resubmit as editorial, and gave others no option to resubmit (ie property release or nothing). Some of the inconsistencies are for the same building!
IMHO, and my day job is an IP lawyer, there cannot be any reasonable basis for requiring a property release for these images. I sent a query to Scout (very polite, really) asking if they could explain the inconsistency.
After reading this, I expect the outcome will be that the already accepted (for commercial) images will be deactivated. groan
45
« on: April 14, 2014, 17:32 »
I also have some that have been languishing since 5 April. What i am finding also is that images submitted through the mobile app are getting approved almost immediately, but anything submitted through the website just gets stuck in the queue
46
« on: April 11, 2014, 04:26 »
thank you all - some interesting viewpoints. At this stage, I'm trying to get past the initial admission hurdle with these 10, so will go for around the 6mp mark for these ones and see how I go. Such a steep learning curve trying to understand what each agency will accept and what they won't, and best approach.
47
« on: April 11, 2014, 01:24 »
Hello all, quite new to all this and would welcome some input. I am trying (second time) to get accepted at Shutterstock. The first time, I submitted full-size images (from Canon 60D and 6D) and there were a number of rejections for focus and/or noise. Since then, I have uploaded to a number of other sites and am trying with a fresh set of images - to the extent it helps, selected from those which have been accepted by the other top 3 - hoping odds are with me A question: Shutterstock's guidelines say not to upsize or downsize, yet I seem to have read lots of posts where people seem to do this. I gather for two main reasons: 1. to minimise technical rejections and 2. because subscription means all sold for same price no matter size so leave larger sizes with other agencies. I was planning to downsize my 60D and 6D to about 6MP, bigger than the minimum, but relatively small. Thoughts? What do others do?
|
Sponsors
Microstock Poll Results
Sponsors
|
Show Posts
