you said: "Ever heard of scrims or diffusers or perhaps open shade???"

I have reviewed where people demonstrate these techniques on youtube, and I am not happy with the resulting quality of the skin color or shading on the model. I am looking for a solution whereby I can get the best photo with natural lighting.

In a recent shoot, I just bought a new camera (Nikon D3400) and accidentally hit the button to adjust the exposure for one of the programmable modes. Also I just started out with photos and previously was doing video with a SONY. I look through the eyepiece, and it was a bright sunny day, so I did not notice that the exposure was being darkened quite a lot, until I did an image review, which I do after about 25 or 30 photos.

so my question is... if the exposure is adjusted by the camera using the manual function to adjust it, and it is quite dark, will there be any artifacting from software correction? the images have already been corrected. they look a little strange.

you said: "avoid any chance of being complicit in a case that could set you back thousands or tens of thousands of dollars. Makes sense."

there are no lawsuits against stock agencies because someone saw a portion of his clothing in a photo made available for sale. I have searched. the concept of stock agencies being under threat of lawsuit is a false argument.

when I film I ask the model to sign 10 to 15 different forms, one from each agency, so that I am always covered if an agency has a problem with a form.

you said: "Again, the OP being parochial regarding laws, and totally disregarding the point that agencies are perfectly free to make their own rules. Their ball, their game."

the agency's rules are based on misinterpretations of laws, and prevent you from engaging in commerce.

in addition, I am perfectly free to educate people about the facts in this matter.

laws regarding likeness are very clear that a person's likeness can extend to his clothing if his clothing has become part of his identity, as viewed by the general public.

however, a person's likeness cannot be extended to his clothing simply because he can self-identify himself wearing those clothes.

you said: "Years ago, when I was first starting with iStock, I had a shot of a balloon salesman on the beach in Cabo.  You could see nothing of him but the lower part of his legs, as he was totally covered in balloons.  iStock rejected it for trademark. "


trademarks are protected by the lanham act. there is nothing in the lanham act that prevents you from taking photos of trademarks and selling those photos.

daniel moore vs u of alabama has upheld that it is legal to sell photos that contain trademarks.

what does it mean for a person to be recognizable by his clothing?

This rule is widely misunderstood in the stock community but I am going to explain it to you.

First of all, when it comes to model releases and 'likeness', most federal governments do not have laws that stipulate a requirement for model release forms. In the US, at the federal level, this requirement would fall under case law. In most countries, you can film people in the general public view without their permission. In the US, each state will have different laws.

However, depending on how the photo is used, you might violate a law (editorial vs commercial). i

As an example, you have probably heard stories where someone takes a day off from work (to attend a concert or sporting event), and they get caught by their employer because they end up having their photo appear on the front page of a newspaper. the newspaper does not need a model release form because it is being used for editorial purposes.

For commercial purposes, you usually need the person's permission to appear in an ad.

However, sometimes you will have people in the photo or video whose face is not shown but are recognizable due to their clothing. What does this mean?

Some people can be recognized by their clothing, by the general public. Some examples are Michael Jackson, Larry Bird, Liberace, Kareem Abdul Jabar, Elvis, Punky Brewster, etc. meaning that if you completely obscure their face, you can still recognize the person because their clothing has become part of their identity.

Most people cannot be recognized by their clothing by the general public. Even if you can prove that you are the person in the photo, you would have to prove that the general public recognizes you. The general public is not your friends or family or people that know you intimately, the general public is everybody else. That means that complete strangers would have to be able to look at your clothing in the photo, not see your face, and say "that person is John Smith" and be right, solely based on viewing the photo. If they cannot do that, then the model cannot be recognized due to his clothing. since your model or actor is not known to the general public, you do not need model release forms simply because a portion of their clothing appears in a photo or video, as determined by federal case laws in the US in regards to likeness.

People that can be recognized by their clothing are always going to be celebrities or otherwise famous people, and must be known by the general public. The average model does not fall under this category.

99.9% of people in stock photos cannot be identified by their clothing.

self-identifying yourself in a photo does not grant you any rights.
--------------------------------------------
these people can be identified by their clothes. if we do not see their face, we still need their permission because their clothing has become part of their identity:


this group of people are dressing like Kiss, but they cannot be identified by their clothes because their clothing has not become part of their identity:

-------------------------------------------
elvis presley can be recognized by his clothes, even without his face we know who it is:


this is an elvis impersonator. if his face is removed, we do not know who he is simply based on his clothes:


--------------------------------------------
Can be recognized by his clothes, as they have become part of his identity, we still recognize him even without his face:

Cannot be recognized by his clothes. he isn't famous or well known. his clothing is not part of his identity, even if he can self-identify himself. no model release form necessary by the laws of most countries:

this person's clothes do not identify him:

----------------------------
can be recognized by his clothes as they have become part of his identity:

cannot be recognized by his clothes, no model release form is required by law. his clothing might be the same as Larry Bird, but clearly it is not larry bird. his ability to self-identify himself does not grant him any legal rights. the general public does not recognize him based on his clothes:

------------------------
can be identified by his clothing as it has become part of his identity:


cannot be identified by his clothing:

------------------------
can be identified by his clothing (Gabriel Iglasies) because his clothing has become part of his identity. if we remove his face we still know who it is:




cannot be identified by his clothing. if we remove the face we do not know who the person is:

-----------------------

can be identified by his clothing (flava flav):


-------------------------------------
michael jackson can be identified by his clothes, as his clothes have become part of his identity:



jamie foxx cannot be identified by his clothes even if he wears the same glove. if we remove the face, we do not know who the person is:


---------------------------------


liberace can be identified by his clothes:


this person (barack obama) cannot be identified by his clothes. if we remove the face, we do not know who the person is based on his clothes:


this person cannot be identified by his clothes. he could be any of millions of people. being able to self-identify himself is not a right protected by law. even if the person could be identified somehow, the image does not require a model release form because the general public cannot identify the person simply by viewing the photo according to the laws of most/all countries:


this person's clothes are not a part of his identity. no model release form is necessary by the laws of most countries. even if he can self-identify himself, it does not grant him any rights, because the general public cannot identify the person simply by viewing the clothes in the photo:


stock agencies that are rejected images based on someone's ability to self-identify himself are doing so wrongfully, and are not based on any federal or state laws.

I have an APS-C camera, and I shoot using a 200mm lens.

if I buy a full frame camera, or a medium format camera, do I still buy a 200mm lens, or do I buy a different lens? if different, which lens size would I buy for each sensor?

thanks

you said: "Can i buy a stock picture on say Shutterstock and use it as a background element in a video that i would later submit back to shutterstock?"

what you are referring to requires what is known as a mechanical license. most stock agencies have no idea what a mechanical license is, so they do not support it. you would have to pay the original stock image owner every time you sell your new work.

so yes, it is legal, but no, it is not likely to be accpeted because stock agencies do not understand or offer mechanical licensing. you will notice that mechanical licensing is not offered in the licensing options of most stock photo agencies.

you said: "But I have read some threads claiming that on most agencies content gets higher ranking as time goes by"

search engines have to sort their content. they can sort by date, by file size, randomly, etc. but most use a scoring system. so a stock agency will do the following:

for each image, a score will be assigned to it, which might be generated per search or pre-determined.

teh score will be determined on these factors or more:
- whether the keyword is in the title or description or keyword list
- whether the keyword (search term) is an exact match for the title
- the image resolution
- the number of times the image has been viewed
- the amount of money earned by the image
- how long wince the submission was made
etc

then all the search results are sorted by their scores, and the highest score is shown first, and the lowest score shown last.

it makes sense that you would give a higher score to recent submissions, because you need to give all submissions a chance, otherwise old submissions would prevent newer submissions from ever appearing in search results.
also, if an image is old, and never sells, and no one views it, it may not be salesworthy and should be bumped to a lower position by new submissions.

for most search engines:
- new content will bump off older content that has never sold
- as time goes by, a clip that performs well will move higher in the search rankings

if you search google you can probably find more info about scoring search engine results.
this page explains how it works for some sample searches:
https://moz.com/blog/search-engine-algorithm-basics

I am currently shooting with an APS-C camera. I am going to buy a new camera, full frame or medium format.

does anyone have any experience or knowledge as to whether medium format images earn more money on stock photo web sites as compared to APS-C or full frame?

keep in mind my best selling images right now are on a 1" sensor at 8mp, and I just started doing photography 1.5 years ago. does anyone have any longer term sales numbers to compare sensor sizes?

I am having a problem with rejections on istock whereby the exif data date does not match the date the form was signed.

the problem is that there are 4 date fields in the exif data, and 3 of them are correct and match the date the form was signed, but 1 date is different and shows a later date, presumably the day I recreated the file or edited it with software. istock is only reading the 1 wrong exif field, and ignores all the correct exif fields.

is anyone else having this problem, and how did you solve it?