pancakes

MicrostockGroup Sponsors


Show Posts

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 - JC-SL

Pages: 1 2 3 [4] 5
76
Microstock News / Re: Search Bar Release
« on: August 30, 2007, 00:05 »
LOL!!   yep...it's there...just after the "put sportlibrary's images first" button.   You can't miss it.

77
Off Topic / Re: Selling News Images
« on: August 29, 2007, 07:34 »
I'm going with sharply_done on this one...  a car show as big as that doesn't care about freelancers or local papers.  It'll be a waste of your time chasing up.  If they let you in with your camera... great, take advantage of it.   I spent 10 years photographing at these events for Subaru and found the media days the worst days for shooting.    Find a day in the middle (not weekends!) of the show...be there when the doors open ...or better...  be there on the last night...I've always found them to be the least crowded and easiest to shoot.   

Enjoy it if nothing else...  cheers.

78
iStockPhoto.com / Re: A Punctum day finalist is among us...
« on: August 24, 2007, 05:45 »
Congrats to you both and best of luck!   also have to pay credit to sharply_done for inspiring Jan's 'The last emperor'   absolutely sensational work guys!!!!!

79
iStockPhoto.com / Re: Some thoughts.....
« on: August 24, 2007, 05:38 »
Great job nruboc!  Wish there were many more like you in microstockland and in the general photographic community.. too many people (that's photogs & clients) are being bullied into believing there is only one resource for images fullstop. 

Let me be the first to buy you a beer!

cheers,  JC

80
iStockPhoto.com / Re: IStock Drives me Nuts!!!
« on: August 22, 2007, 21:03 »
Sharply_done.... you mean that guy SURVIVED being sucked into that jet fighter engine?  *... that's incredible!  and cruel all at the same time.

81
Off Topic / Re: Copyright query
« on: August 22, 2007, 20:46 »
Sharply_done.. you're right, I've been accused of my writting sounding negative!  :o  but, I can assure you its far from the truth.  In fact, I'm laughing at most of the things I read here and have a great big smile on my face as I write...  so I sincerely apologise to anyone that might have taken offence at anything I said... though I am slightly confused.   :-\

Madelaide...  sorry, you're right.  They returned it.   (now for the ironic part ...said with a smile)
They gov returned "ownership" back to people who believe in the the earth and that nobody owns it!  we respect it and we are only caretakers... a 40,000 old lesson we are yet to learn!

Pixart... It's one I'd be careful selling.  We worked on a project for the Sydney Olympics and the Aus Government made postcards.  The Northern Territory government persued the NSW Government and in the end they came after us!  Great use of tax payers $$ ...  after an amazing amount of time.. ( and someone else writting for me ...truly!) we got through it, but not worth the hassles. 

My point in the beginning that not just man made structures have restrictions on them and it's not easy to find out what's the right thing to do.  and now this..  all my Mongolian friends are in hiding!    all's well that ends well.

cheers for now.

82
Off Topic / Re: Copyright query
« on: August 21, 2007, 18:48 »
Correct Idambies...   the French government in a bid to "protect" the Eiffel tower, erected the new flashing light system which is the copyrighted bit also the reason you can sell daytime or older images of the tower as the laws aren't retrospective.

But in Australia...  just for fun the gov "gave" the local aboriginals a place called Ayers rock (Ularu) a large monolith in the middle of the desert then years later the aboriginals decided it was a religious place and therefore you can't sell images of it..  and the government made the laws retro.   go figure.

83
iStockPhoto.com / Re: Question for IStockers
« on: August 14, 2007, 17:53 »
LOL!!!   ok, let's see if I get this...you have an old image that is selling like hot cakes and you're concerned?  Oh..  to have your problems!!!   ;D

Have this strange feeling, it's just a bit of good luck..  take it and run my friend

cheers.

84
New Sites - General / Re: How can they do this?
« on: August 14, 2007, 17:34 »
Morning Ed...

You gotta stop this...  from why are people so silly as to sell unreleased images as RF ( don't say anything!) to you passing out legal opinion.... wow.   We all have to be careful, THAT was the main point.    To your last post.

1. Shooting in a public place (for the most part, ask the US Gov first  :o)is OK, it's what you do with the images.
2. Seeking public attention has nothing to do with fair use...and from my experience, those seeking attention usually come with a manager who only gets paid when they do...  those seeking public attention are the worst!  Good luck mate.
3. If you're a photographer and you have a legally obtained image(full copyright owner), then you have every right to display and our market your images as long as you don't make it seem as the subject is endorsing you and/or your services.  Just for fun I tried that one out in 1990 to try and clarify some "rules".  Greg Norman I think saw the humor, but his management didn't and it nearly cost me ...  well, let's say a lot :'(      OK, got through that one and know where the ground rules are...  even though I owned the picture...  again, it was how it was used.

And just for a laugh...a wedding isn't a public event and if the guests got drunk in private and you shot them....  even though you sent them to a magazine, I think you might find yourself in a lot of trouble.  If nothing else, it's an extremely bad business practice and I wouldn't expect a lot of referrals.

Common sense needs to prevail in this discussion..   simply you need the permission of anyone you are planning on promoting (a general term...leave it!) a product or service with their image.

You're with IstockPhoto?  ask them....  as they are part of McGetty and have a ton of legals on board.  Again...good luck.


85
New Sites - General / Re: How can they do this?
« on: August 14, 2007, 00:41 »
I'm an American living in Australia...  to clear that up.

And in the last 30 yrs of my life, I have dealt with just about ever major ad agency in the US (also Australia) and in the that time...   every single image has had to be clearly model released..  no if's, ands' or buts!, yet... we digress...

It seems..like a lot of posts on MSG..   that is has gone such a long way from the direction it originally started, so I'll put a stop to it now.   

Go forward everyone and sell your images released or not for commercial purposes and hope for the best.   I guess until you get sued, you'll never know for sure.

Good luck my friend.. 

Goodnight Ed.  :D

86
New Sites - General / Re: How can they do this?
« on: August 13, 2007, 23:38 »
wow...what part of the planet do you live on?  ;D  Sorry, but I know for fact that you can't use someone's image (likeness) commercially without their permission fullstop.  Whether they like it after the usage or not.    Some places in the world you can't use someone's image in editorially without their permission. 

I agree with you...  generally speaking, you can sell just about anything for 'editorial' usages.  My comments were strictly about RF images being sold for commercial purposes without releases.   Simple as that.   If you don't agree with that...cool.   

Other than Alamy, where else can we find your images that are sold to new agencies around the world?  My comments about news agencies had to do with YOU submitting images to them and not them going out and legally obtaining your images.  Their 'royalty free' is just that, they will not be paying you should they syndicate your work.  Try it for yourself if you'd like and let us know how you go.

Please know, I'm not confused at all, just running out of time.   ;)

cheers.

87
New Sites - General / Re: How can they do this?
« on: August 13, 2007, 21:17 »
absolute right...   can't agree more, but buyers going to a RM site don't expect the world for each image.. RF (free) is completely different.   The assumption is it's free from further royalties and free from issues.    You and I both know this is wrong, but that's the general assumption.. 

(remember what they say about assume!)   

Shutterstock and the list of (excuse the expression..please)  professional MS sites aren't the issue.  They do a good job and that's why MS is where it is today.  I personally think their good work could be at risk....  that all I'm saying.

cheers.

88
New Sites - General / Re: How can they do this?
« on: August 13, 2007, 18:17 »
LOL!!  Bateleur..  I tried the glory one with with my bank manager once...  if nothing else,
we both had a good laugh  :D

wysiwyg..  submitting your images to a news agency and them claiming it needs to be RF, means to them that they have the rights to syndicate your images without compensating you.  Simple as that.   People GOING to a RF site to buy a royalty free image is a completely different story.

Again I say nicely that the buying public ( professional or not ) is ignorant of the laws and if you don't restrict them or hit them over the head with a hammer, you can't expect them to do the right thing.  I've been running photo agencies for over 20 years and in that time... every year it gets worse.

I only brought this up because I see this MS industry growing some very good, strong roots for the future and without some form of education or guidance to some of the newbie sites ( which are obviously not run by photo people!) there will be a high profile case where a RF image from a MS site is used wrong ...  and everyone will be painted black.

There are PLENTY waiting for the first real slip up.   

Symantics aside, there is a difference between both RF situations.  A big difference.

cheers.  JC

89
New Sites - General / Re: How can they do this?
« on: August 12, 2007, 23:08 »
OK...where on earth does it tell a buyer that this image is royalty free, BUT can only be used editorially? Just saying NO in the model released area won't do it.
( quite frankly... royalty free + editorial exclusive doesn't make sense to me. )

In my day job, I run a RM editorial site ( sportlibrary.com.au ) which only deals in B2B, not for the general buying public.  You'd think with this select market of world-wide editorial buyers our clients would know the difference between an editorial image and one the is released..?

Buzzzzz!  Wrong.   The amount of 'editors' .. 'art directors' etc that think because they got an image from a website that they can use it for anything ( yes, there has been some great threads on this subject here ) ... even if it's Michael Jordan in action. 

Sorry, still don't get it...  but then, I've never been the quickest.   ::)


90
New Sites - General / How can they do this?
« on: August 12, 2007, 18:26 »
 ???  sorry guys, did I miss the thread about Microstockphoto and the lack of model releases?

Just had a look around in my area of interest (sport) and found soooo many images with clear logos and clear faces without model releases being sold as royalty free images.  Even if they aren't the best images in the world..  it has the ability to leave a bad taste in everyone's mouth should something here (or elsewhere) go sour.

Any thoughts?

JC

91
General Stock Discussion / Re: Microstock Union
« on: August 03, 2007, 17:54 »
5... it's a good start.   We start with a domain name....  work out from there.   any ideas?

Investments on 2 levels..  1. cash and kind   2. images.     you probably have to say each would have different levels of risk and return.    Any one interested in number one? 

We've run a RM/editorial co-op for near 18yrs and found people ran out of steam or changed directions in their lives after just a few years of co-operating.    Loosely associated might be the best so people can drift in and out according to their life situation.

Again...it's a good start.

cheers, JC

92
General Stock Discussion / Re: Microstock Union
« on: August 02, 2007, 16:38 »
Thank you!   ..but wait, we're changing and growing.  ( something you'd expect after 20years of the same thing!!)   anyhow, does anyone want us to go ahead with this or not?

Union or co-operative?

93
General Stock Discussion / Re: Microstock Union
« on: August 01, 2007, 20:20 »
I'm happy to set up a site and pay for it....   but will everyone here really play along?  Everyone seems a bit afraid of something new..  even if they had input into the design and function.

Let me know... :)

94
Microstock News / Re: Viewable approvals
« on: July 30, 2007, 21:01 »
LOL!!!!  Ok..  if this was golf, I win!!   43.94%  *! :D

Mind you, I did get some images of a left handed golfer rejected for wrong orientation.

95
Thank you!    Wish I could just narrow it down to one sport...  unfortunately my 'day job' has me shooting many different sports weekly, not just one.    So what I've taken away from this is I should better at using my 'spare time' at this event more wisely to gain more images.    Simple as that.

Again, thanks for the comments.

96
Please help.   sharply_done... so how do you bend to the whims of the marketplace and specialize at the same time?   Thank you.

97
iStockPhoto.com / Re: Getty images posting in Istockphoto?
« on: July 17, 2007, 18:15 »
LOL!!  sharply_done...  no reason to feel ignorant unless of course you happen to be ..say 125 years old or an English history major!!!   The whole collection (Hulton) is quite impressive and this is only the tip of the iceberg from McGetty.   With Istock's overall traffic rating (thanks : Alexa) in the 200's and the best McGetty has to offer in the past 6 months is the high 1300's .. a hell of a lot more people world wide are heading to Istock..  it only makes sense for McGetty to start moving niche collections to where the people are...  instead of the other way around!

Get comfortable with it....  it's only the beginning.

98
General - Top Sites / Re: Lee Torrens acceptance rate survey
« on: July 08, 2007, 16:05 »
hatman... ever met 3 Swedish dancing girls?      Photoshop = 2nd!

enjoy!!   ;D

99
iStockPhoto.com / Re: IStock Drives me Nuts!!!
« on: July 02, 2007, 17:17 »
Hello all...

Yesterday was my turn to have fun with ISP..  I submitted 3 images of the same subjects... an early morning shot of my golf partner.  Unfortunately (?) he's left handed... I thought they'd be slightly different images and submitted them as "left handed" golfer.  1 of the 3 was accepted but the other 2 images came back with:

 " Please rotate your file to display correct orientation."      eeerrrr?  ??? ??? ???

How do you argue with this logic?...  now do I change the orientation of the golfer... or the images.. which neither is wrong and clearly marked as such!

oh well... I'll wait for the scout and hopefully this robot will know the difference between left and right...  but I'm not holding my breath.

cheers,  JC



100
Adobe Stock / Re: Fotolia V.2
« on: June 18, 2007, 21:00 »
Geeezzzzz....  you guys are tough!  Just had a play on V2 and it rocked!  Maybe some of the load bearing servers are mirrors pointed south of the border! 

If you're making money from them...it can't be all that bad, can it?   Who cares how many images they say they have or how many they sell each day as long as some of them are yours!

All seems like steps in the right direction...   one small step for man... ;)

cheers,  JC

Pages: 1 2 3 [4] 5

Sponsors

Mega Bundle of 5,900+ Professional Lightroom Presets

Microstock Poll Results

Sponsors