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 - wysiwyg_foto

Pages: 1 2 [3] 4 5 6
51
Alamy.com / Re: Alamy's Version of Disambiguation
« on: September 26, 2007, 07:57 »
Bateleur - I sent Alamy the very same question on Sunday evening (after the new features went up and I tried to start working on it).  I still haven't received a response from member services.  I'm thinking a telephone call if I don't hear from them by Friday.

Please keep us posted and if I hear anything I'll post it as well.

I guess the good news is that in the meantime you can work on your RM images.  Can't work on RP because of the same issue  ::)

Thanks.

52
Alamy.com / Re: Alamy's Version of Disambiguation
« on: September 23, 2007, 21:03 »
I agree - my assumptions with relation to the "digitally altered" area are that it relates to more newsworthy (secondary market) than anything else, but I think the consensus is we need more info.  The blog has the announcement indicating it will be a "week or so" before it makes a difference which doesn't give us much time.

Interesting times......

53
Alamy.com / Re: Alamy's Version of Disambiguation
« on: September 23, 2007, 17:48 »
Also noticed that if there is a person in the image (recognizable or not) and the image is Royalty Free, and you mark there is a person in the image but have no release, then you get a warning that your image will be deleted or changed to RM.  I've written to Member Services to get a clarification on the policy - just want to make sure a person that is not recognizable does not need a release.

54
Alamy.com / Alamy's Version of Disambiguation
« on: September 23, 2007, 17:23 »
Alamy has been introducing a lot of interesting and controversial concepts over the past week.  It started with the "Novel Use" scheme (which I akin to trying to compete with Getty's PhotoDisc collection) and today, when I logged in, I noticed changes in the "manage files" area.  Looks like we have to prioritize some keywords, add where images were taken, and the date (or just year) the image was taken.  Looks like you can also distinguish between a photograph and an illustration as well as mark images as being digitally altered.

I presume more changes to come!

55
General Stock Discussion / Re: Oh Canada
« on: September 20, 2007, 15:10 »
I'm in the U.S. and this has been weighing heavily on my mind.  Not because of the falling dollar, but because I have an eary feeling that some (ok at least one) of the micros may be making money on us through arbitrage.

I know of a couple micros that have various foreign sites.  Per the TOS, on some sites, the contributer is to be paid a percentage of revenue.  If the agency is charging customers 2 Euro for an image in France, and $2USD for an image in the US, then why am I only getting 33 cents USD on a French sale?  Wouldn't it be 33% of the 2 Euro (which would be more than 33 cents USD)?  The other side of this is why would a customer buy from an agency with a site in France if they can buy the same images cheaper from that same agency on a US based site (in USD).  I need to think about this a bit more but it's a theory.

This wouldn't apply to Shutterstock or Dreamstime or Bigstock, etc. because either customers have to pay in USD or the TOS specifically states a pre-determined dollar amount (Shutterstock is 25 cents or 30 cents USD).


56
iStockPhoto.com / Re: Getty image sizes
« on: September 20, 2007, 07:55 »
After upgrading to a 16.7mp camera last Spring, I can honestly tell you that you are at a competitive advantage with making such a large investment and using a camera that shoots at larger sizes.

1) Your image quality is MUCH better when you submit to traditional agencies;
2) You have the ability to sell at larger sizes (some will argue this isn't that big of a deal - I disagree)
3) You have MUCH more flexibility with what to do with an image.

In the case of the micros, #3 is the most important part.  I'll give an example...I recently shot an image of a fly fisherman on a pond.  I tried uploading an un-cropped version at full size to various agencies.  I got virtually the same rejection message across many of my top selling agencies - "lack of composition".  Though the image was accepted at other agencies.

I took two minutes, cropped the image down to 6.2mp and re-submitted it.  Almost every agency accepted the cropped image (Shutterstock didn't like the lighting the second time around).

I'm still selling at a decent size with the cropped image.  Honestly, I don't understand why we can't leave the cropping to the designers and give them the choice but hey - what the agencies want, the agencies get.

My next camera will be at least 22mp  (the new 1Ds Mark III).

57
iStockPhoto.com / Re: Down, down, down
« on: September 19, 2007, 10:38 »
epixx - there was a France get together for exclusives only (including the image reviewers) so that is why the reviews have slowed down drastically.  I think they are starting to review again as of yesterday or so (I noticed that mentioned on the forums).

The statistics aren't updating because of site issues that the programmers are working on - supposedly, the updating stats was slowing things down so the disabled that functionality until it was fixed - this has nothing to do with your earnings balance.

Sales are sales are sales - mine have been increasing at iStock but at DT, I am at less than half of what I was last September (my second BME).

Keep uploading  8)

58
General Stock Discussion / Re: BrightQube.com
« on: September 19, 2007, 09:03 »
...ooops, sorry - it's the "Alliances" area not the "affiliates" area.  My mistake.

59
General Stock Discussion / Re: BrightQube.com
« on: September 19, 2007, 07:59 »
DT announced a couple weeks ago that they are starting to market through affiliates.  This is probably one of those affiliates.  The site does say "beta" in a couple different places so I wouldn't expect everything to be working correctly.

If you want to op-out, then go to DT and do so in the management section under the "Affiliates" area.

60
Off Topic / Re: Alamy Online Uploads
« on: September 16, 2007, 14:41 »
Tom - you may be ok.  Think of it this way....

48mb TIFF file at 8bit
96mb TIFF file at 16bit
17mp JPG (approximately 5100 on the long side)

I shoot with a 16.8mp camera and upsize to about 5100 x 3400


61
Bigstock.com / Re: Deterioration....
« on: September 06, 2007, 21:45 »
Huh?   ??? ??? ??? ???

I was pleasantly surprised today to see 5 images licensed today, 1 yesterday, and 1 the day before on a small portfolio of 253 images.  I guess they stopped buying from your portfolio and started buying from mine?  ;)

Bigstock has always been a decent site for me (comparatively speaking of course).  They ALWAYS beat Fotolia month after month for me.

62
If you go the zoom lens route, I have a 17-40 that has been decent.  I have a couple of friends that have 16-35 lenses and they are happy as well.

One thing that I noticed when I went from a 20d to a 30d is that it processes RAW images much differently.  It does take some getting used to but eventually, if you keep shooting, you'll be able to overcome the differences.  I've since upgraded to a 1Ds Mark II and (even though people argue with me on this point) I will honestly say that the 30d acts much more like the 1Ds than the 20d did.  I suspect the same is the case with your upgrade.  If you find your images are coming out darker with a lot more contrast, that's one thing I noticed to be the big difference.  Too much contrast can be a pain but once you learn to use it, the results in my opinion are superior.

Also, expect to get more refusals from iStock for over-processing.  The reviewers don't like that contrast (especially when I use a 15mm fisheye).

Other than that, if you have the budget, and the muscles to carry all the gear, prime lenses will always outshine zoom lens (just as hatman12 points out).  With landscapes, it isn't so much of an issue because generally, you have the time to switch out lenses if you need to "zoom in" on something.

63
iStockPhoto.com / Re: How much does Lise Gagne earn ?
« on: September 04, 2007, 14:07 »
I see no inspectors icon, she'd be losing money not taking pictures.



Read the interview here....

http://www.stockphototalk.com/phototalk/2006/11/meet_lise_gagn_.html

"Today, I get 40 percent of every sale of my photos and I also earn a bit for my photo inspection services on top of that but my inspection work is really more to be able to contribute to the iStock community."

64
iStockPhoto.com / Re: How much does Lise Gagne earn ?
« on: September 04, 2007, 12:21 »
Perrush - there's one other factor you forgot to include...she's also an image inspector which means her income is actually higher than that  ;D

65
Alamy.com / Re: Alamy Questions
« on: August 31, 2007, 22:47 »
My sales are not the greatest from Alamy but they do bring in on average about $500 to $1000 a month for 800 images not great but not bad. If your work is good, spend time learning how to keyword and you treat photography like a business I think Alamy will pay much better than any Microstock site.

That's really good Traveler, and I've heard of other people having the same success.  My experience is much different.  I've been with Alamy for eleven months. I have 894 images (admittedly, many are of the same topic - not necessarily similar) and I have an UNCLEARED BALANCE of $16.20.  I plan to upload many more expanding the diversity if my topics, but I think it would be misleading to tell someone they can expect an average of $750/month on 800 images (at least based on my experience).

66
General Stock Discussion / Re: Photo assignments
« on: August 29, 2007, 13:46 »
Ok I found one so far, citizenimage.com but some of the assignments are impossible to do  :-\

For what it's worth, I've been with them since last October with over 500 images online.  Not a single sale.  Nice group of folks to work with, and very responsive, but no sales.

67
Off Topic / Re: Selling News Images
« on: August 28, 2007, 11:59 »
My experience has been different than yours Sharply.  I often refer them to some images or provide a CV with what I have done in the past if they request it so they know I'm not wasting their time.  Sometimes you have to compromise and provide free images (and you have to review the contract for any one-sided deals) but it is possible.

You also have to realize that many times, the passes are allocated - only so many go to local media, so many go to national media, so many go to freelancers (usually the fewest going to freelancers) but if you say you are working with an agent or a media outlet, it opens more doors.

There's no reason why a freelance photojournalist cannot keep himself/herself busy on a daily basis by not working with a newspaper.

68
Off Topic / Re: Selling News Images
« on: August 28, 2007, 09:00 »
I would contact the event organizer and tell them you are a freelance photographer.  If any passes are available for this purpose, they may issue you one directly.

As far as selling images - this would more than likely be for editorial use only but I do have some that sell as commercial images (naturally cloning out identifying marks and such).

Good luck!  Have fun!

69
Bigstock.com / Re: Declining page views...
« on: August 24, 2007, 07:51 »
My experience is different.  My sales there have been going through the roof.  July was my best month ever there and I am currently tied with that for August.  I've had double the images licensed at Bigstock than I have at Fotolia.  Must be my style and the market they address.

70
New Sites - General / Re: How can they do this?
« on: August 14, 2007, 19:08 »
I did read your last post and what you're refusing to reveal is that an individual DOES NOT have an absolute ownership right in their names or likenesses.

Let's get back on topic.

Yingyang, you are arguing the right to appropriation, but then you're flipping all over the right to privacy (which is a different matter).

The original poster was asking "how can they do this" in regards to selling royalty free editorial images.  A license is a license is a license no matter how you slice it or dice it.  Whether an image is "leased" for a certain print run limiting copies or whether it is for unlimited use.

You are arguing appropriation but appropriation relates to use in connection with products or merchandise, or to sell or advertise goods or services.  I argue that a model release is not required to sell an image of a person's likeness "commercially" or to use that image in a "commercial" manner.

The last time I checked, "commercial" does not limit use to the connection of products or merchandise.  A person can still sell an unreleased image without promoting or endorsing a commercial product and not fall under the appropriation rules.  If that same image does not injure the economic interest of the person due to "commercial" exploitation, then it isn't likely there has been a violation to the right to publicity either.

What's muddying this up even more is JC-SL is confusing "Fair Use" (which relates to copyright law) with "Appropriation".

71
New Sites - General / Re: How can they do this?
« on: August 14, 2007, 18:41 »
Sorry my friend...


You're misunderstanding my comments - I am not making a distinction with relation to celebrities and ordinary people.  Maybe I shouldn't have used the example of a public figure.

Here's a simpler example....a drag strip a few miles from my house.  Here's a link to their photo gallery:

http://bandimere.com/multimedia/photogallery.php

They are promoting themselves (and showing pictures of license plates) using unreleased images for commercial purposes.  The people in those images (from the fans in the stands to the general public viewing the cars) are not released.  Competitors usually sign a release but other than that, those images are being used commercially to promote the track.

Here's another example of commercial use without release....

If you scroll down this page, you will see a bunch of spectators at a mountain biking event in Whistler, BC.  Again, unreleased image promoting the event in a commercial manner

http://www.crankworx.com/results.php

Point is, if the people in the images don't have a problem with it, then there is no lawsuit and there is no legal case to discuss.

I don't know why my iStock link doesn't work.

72
New Sites - General / Re: How can they do this?
« on: August 14, 2007, 18:32 »
You're with IstockPhoto?  ask them....  as they are part of McGetty and have a ton of legals on board.  Again...good luck.

You may want to familiarize yourself a bit more with relation to licensing and usage rules because you've really deviated from your original post to try to prove me wrong.

You are correct, I am with iStock.  iStock does not license editorial images - Scoopt does (and they do license them royalty free in some instances).

73
New Sites - General / Re: How can they do this?
« on: August 14, 2007, 15:03 »
YingYang - you are correct but a first year law student would also argue the following:

1) A reasonable right to privacy is not invaded if an image is taken from a public place
2) A person that seeks public attention (such as an aspiring athlete participating in a public event to further their career in the case of JC-SL) is going to have a tough time arguing a "private person's right to privacy"
3) A newsworthy image that was once used in an editorial fashion can be subsequently used to promote or advertise the news agency that used the image in the first place. (as an example, I can use unreleased editorial newsworthy images on my website to promote my photography business just as Newsweek or Time Magazine can use their newsworthy editorial images to promote their subscription sales).

...and again, as with my last post, if the person doesn't have a problem with it, then why would they seek civil remedies?

An example of this occurs with wedding photographers everyday.  Say I am hired by the bride and groom to shoot a wedding.  They pay in exchange for the images.  During the course of the wedding, I take an image of everyone attending.  This constitutes a "commercial sale" taking place between the bride and groom and I and it is for my "financial gain".  None of the guests in the images have signed a release.  Say most of the wedding party get drunk at the reception - I'm still safe.  Say one of the people at the reception is a public figure, and after selling the images to the bride and groom, I also decide to sell the images to a tabloid.  Which act is going to get me sued  - the act where I sold the images to a tabloid or the act of selling the images to the bride and groom?

I'm not saying everyone should go out and get unreleased images and sell them commercially, but I reiterate, a release is not necessary in all instances.

74
New Sites - General / Re: How can they do this?
« on: August 14, 2007, 08:04 »
Bataleur - we do have a reputation for litigation in the U.S. - you are correct.

If you read the full abstract of the Taster's Choice case, you'll find that a model release was obtained in this instance.  The argument in the case revolves around compensation not the fact that a release wasn't in place.  You'll also find the citations are specific to California state civil law.

http://tinyurl.com/29yjzb

The goal of the micros is to provide an image that is as free of any legal hangups as possible - this is why we have all of the weird rules that (sometimes) are inconsistent among sites.  One site may take images of the Rockefeller Center (which is trademarked) and another won't.  Usually, if there is an issue, a letter gets written from an attorney, and the image is pulled.

I know of an instance here in Colorado where the University of Colorado took some images at a football game, then used those images in their advertisements (not editorial use).  The crowd in the images (including person I know) did not sign a release and there was no consent implied on the back of the ticket to the game (as can be the case in some instances).  There was no legal recourse in this instance for the person I know that did not sign a release, and the person, being proud to be representing his alma mater, didn't push the issue because he didn't mind the fact that his likeness was used to promote his school. 

Vioala!  No release necessary.

It's like an old business teacher once told me.  Conflict and lawsuits only exist when there are two dissenting opinions, if everyone is in agreement and comfortable with the situation, then there is no issue.

75
New Sites - General / Re: How can they do this?
« on: August 14, 2007, 00:09 »
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.


I think the differences here relate exactly to what you mention - the side of the world we live on.  I don't know what the Australian laws are but here in the U.S., as long as you don't violate a "reasonable right to privacy" an image can be sold.  It's usage is what determines lawsuits in civil court.  The laws aren't much different throughout Europe.

There are various syndicators out there that would be happy to represent you.  They range from Getty and Corbis to Black Star to Zuma Press to Scoopt to AP to Reuters.  News images don't need to be exclusive.  Seems that's what you're concentrating your efforts on.

In fact, here's an account of the NPPA (U.S. organization) encouraging a young man with relation to images he made from a news event here in the U.S.

http://www.nppa.org/news_and_events/news/2007/08/bridge01.html

Notice his images were provided for free prior to the request for exclusive rights from Newsweek?  These images were provided on a royalty free basis to various news organizations.

Pages: 1 2 [3] 4 5 6

Sponsors

Mega Bundle of 5,900+ Professional Lightroom Presets

Microstock Poll Results

Sponsors