|
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 - wysiwyg_foto
76
« on: August 13, 2007, 22:16 »
...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'm sorry but I've got to disagree here. 1) An image DOES NOT need to be model released to be used for commercial purposes. If a designer wants to use it as such, usually there is no problem here unless the model doesn't approve of the subject matter. A woman in pink will probably be ok if you use her image to promote breast cancer awareness but if you use the same woman to promote the clubbing of baby seals, you will have an issue. The only time a model release comes into play is if the model does not agree with usage. 2) If the public needs to be hit over the head, then why are editorial images (including mine) at places like Alamy sold without restriction everyday for editorial purposes? It's because the buyer knows what s/he is doing and what the image will be used for. 3) Syndication and Royalty Free and (your term) Editorial Exclusive are all different things. A news outlet cannot re-sell the image under a royalty free license without explicit permission to do so (syndication). Editorial Exclusive is not possible under RF (which is not what Shutterstock or Microstockphoto are doing here - and I think this is where you are getting confused). Royalty Free simply means that the image may be used over and over again (with certain limitation) without having to license it for various usages. There's nothing wrong with what's going on here and honestly, it is very common for magazines to license "editorial" royalty free images for various reasons including travel publications. "Editorial" is not synonymous with "newsworthy" and your right - "exclusive" is not necessarily conducive to a royalty free license in all instances.
77
« on: August 13, 2007, 00:14 »
Ever submit an image to the BBC, CNN, Fox News, or your local news station? Ever notice you are granting them a non-exclusive royalty free right to use that image - for free (so you can be an "eyewitness reporter" or a "citizen journalist")?
Same thing.
78
« on: August 12, 2007, 20:14 »
Microstockphoto sells Royalty Free editorial images (just like Shutterstock).
79
« on: August 09, 2007, 14:38 »
Ian - I've used the flourescent lights as well. If you look at the packaging, on the back, they will tell you what the color temperature is. There are various types ranging from daylight balanced to "soft light". I recently bought 4 of the 100 watt equivalent balanced to 5000k. The "soft light" bulbs aren't as nice to work with in my opinion. Try checking out this place for tips and tricks on tabletop.... http://www.tabletopstudio.com/They have a chart of the differences in lights.... http://www.tabletopstudio.com/documents/TTS_LIGHT_MYTHS.htmwith the "Trumpet Top" being a good looking option. I also like their underlighting options as well. http://store.tabletopstudio-store.com/ilflpa.htmlHave fun!
80
« on: August 08, 2007, 20:55 »
After posting the above...I thought I should also add to my comments. Rather than spending time and money creating blogs and links to my agents (that I'm paying to represent me), why not invest in a ktools template ( http://tinyurl.com/ynn85a) and let them host it for $50/month and then promote that site, with your own work...so you get 100% commissions? Does the template look familiar? There's a reason for that  I know I'll get called on this  ...my response is simply, I do this to make images and I leave the marketing to those that are good at the marketing (I'm not good at that aspect of the business).
81
« on: August 08, 2007, 20:30 »
Let me play devil's advocate, and I'm sure many will not agree with me on this but I'll throw it out so others can think about it. Why should I promote a stock agency that I pay (through commission) to promote me? I see this constantly at various sites - improve your rank in the search engines or promote your portfolio. What in the world is my commission paying for? Instead, why not promote my own portfolio, through my own web site, or through Photolibra or through Digital Railroad so that I can get a bigger piece of the pie? I want a 100% commission for my efforts - not 20% or 50%. There's a reason iStock is so popular with contributors despite they only pay out 20% commission - it's because they promote themselves to death (with the 80% they keep) and use that money to represent their contributors. That's what I pay them for and that's what they're good at. In short - "No Taxation Without Representation" (sorry, that's my opinion as an American). http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/No_taxation_without_representation
82
« on: August 07, 2007, 21:10 »
Bryan has displayed and proven he has a definite talent for marketing. He's proven that to his contributors consistently over and over again. That's the reason I'm there and the reason I continue to contribute (even if I didn't upload last month).
I'll worry about sales 2 or 3 years down the road.
83
« on: July 26, 2007, 09:38 »
They accept 48 mb tiff files compressed to jpg format (which is about 17 mega pixel).
Submitting from a 4mp camera is going to be tough - they recently tightened their acceptance standards and they recommend nothing under 6mp for native camera size.
84
« on: July 22, 2007, 21:11 »
I do much better at BigStock. They actually do as well (if not better) than Fotolia most of the time.
85
« on: July 19, 2007, 23:43 »
I always get nervous about this stuff because it never seems to favor me. My last download was on the 12th (7 days ago). Prior to that, I had regular downloads (2 on the 12th, 2 on the 11th, 1 on the 10th, 1 on the 9th, etc., etc.).
I wish the agencies would stop messing with their search engines.
86
« on: July 17, 2007, 07:48 »
Moodboard is both a micro and a macro combined. They accept images for sale in their micro collection, their RF collection, and their RM collection. They are VERY selective and pride themselves on accepting an average of 2% of submissions (yes, that's a 98% rejection rate). They have partnered with Corbis as well as other brands around the world.
87
« on: July 16, 2007, 08:23 »
I only see photographs of old portraits (mostly b&w) of famous people of previous centuries. A very niche market, I wonder how many downloads this will attract?
These aren't photographs - they are illustrations (or drawings depending on how you want to term it). The photographs from the Hulton collection won't be added to the collection on iStock from what I understand. http://www.stockasylum.com/text-pages/articles/a5sm072007-get-hult.htm
88
« on: July 15, 2007, 20:15 »
wysiwyg,
To your understanding, images are not allowed even as editorial if I don't have a press pass, right? But then, if I paid for a press pass, I suppose I would be allowed to special areas, wouldn't I?
In the U.S., if the event is in a public place, or in plain site from a public place, then you are safe as long as images are taken from a public place. If the event is on private property, or the images are taken from private property, then the owners (or lessors) of that property control the activity. Usually, you don't pay for a press pass - it's something you have to apply for (to the organizer) and they are granted based on the organizer's best interests (for example, where they would get the most marketing). If someone takes an image, and it isn't in their best interest, then they can take legal action against you.
89
« on: July 15, 2007, 18:18 »
This is a very common restriction and if the images are found, you'll get a nasty letter from a lawyer (whether they are sold as editorial or not). You need press credentials if you are going to photograph the event and sell the images commercially. Some event organizers enforce the rules more than others but it isn't worth the chance. If you don't have permission to photograph the event commercially, then you shouldn't be there photographing the event commercially.
In Southern California, even the San Diego Zoo enforces this rule. Most concerts have the same restriction as well.
90
« on: July 15, 2007, 17:04 »
Hey Miz - congratulations on getting the image in this tutorial accepted in the assignment at DT - good stuff!
91
« on: July 12, 2007, 10:47 »
Lina - I couldn't use FTP and resorted to Flash. The first time I tried, I only got about 7 of my 37 images uploaded. I'm using a cable modem (VDSL).
What I noticed was even though the site indicates the files are uploaded, they aren't - the upload continues in the background.
Initially, I thought it was strange that I could upload 37 images in 10 minutes when it takes FTP about 20 images an hour. After the first try, my internet connection slowed down and I noticed the modem was doing a lot of communicating which I thought was strange - I got paranoid and unplugged the modem (why only 7 images showed up).
A week later, I uploaded the remaining 30. This time, I didn't unplug the modem - the images were uploaded in the background even after I logged off the site. My recommendation (if you can't FTP) is to use the flash, but don't disconnect from your ISP until you know the upload is done. Your internet connection will be slower during the upload but you can continue to work.
Good Luck.
92
« on: July 07, 2007, 13:46 »
Shooting a wedding is the most nerve wracking thing ever. Aside from the suggestions mentioned - simply ask them what they want. I know it sounds funny but I did a wedding in May where the bride insisted she didn't want any posed pictures. I showed her a couple of styles online (either traditional or photojournalist styles) and she like the photojournalist style. Her important thing was that she wanted candids - she wanted to see people in an everyday light.
The second thing I would say is don't listen to everyone. You'll find every friend and relative at the wedding asking you "did you get that?" or "can you get this?". Remember - you're on assignment from the bride and groom - you know what they want...it's all about them not the guests. If you have time for those other "opportunities" that everyone is asking you to get, then fine, but don't neglect your assignment and miss a shot because of them.
Third, have fun - you'll be exhausted at the end of the day!
93
« on: July 04, 2007, 15:51 »
WYSIWYG- I was the reviewer in question, to be quite open:
-Model release: The combination of people, cloths, location and boat makes them recognizable. If I would have been one of the two I could easily say: Hey, that's a picture of me! Even if you can't see the face. I agree it is a borderline case, but I prefered not to run any risks.
-Quality: I saw the picture at 100% and it WAS not up to our standard, sorry but I guess you have heard that thousands of times, but every agency has their own standards, that it is approved and sells on one site does not mean that it will be approved and sell on another site.
-Composition etc. everybody here can judge for him or herself, but nor composition nor lighting convinced me very much as a reviewer. If you are building up a collection of images, the first decision you have to make is if you go for quality or for quantity. RSI/GS has decided to go for quality. Regards SY
Sy - you misunderstood my post. I can deal with an agency rejecting images - the problem is the waste of time having to send one image through an approval queue 4 times., then placing that image in the bargain bin without my consent or election in the first place. If you didn't like my image so much why didn't you just reject in the first place instead of sending it back to the unfinished area? Then, if the image is so bad, why did it pass review the second time? This is what I'm talking about with relation to WASTING MY TIME. I'm glad RSI/GS has decided to go for a reputation of quality. With strong comments like yours, I'll just stop wasting my time and yours, remove my portfolio, and sell my images through the more established agencies that have lower quality standards like Dreamstime, iStockphoto, and Shutterstock (since obviously you insist this is an issue about quality). Thanks for the early heads up on how GS views its contributors.
94
« on: July 04, 2007, 13:49 »
Richard - I know this is going to sound tough and isn't very positive, but I think it reflects the feelings of a lot of folks here and elsewhere that contribute to micros. Please keep in mind you are a new agency. Many of us don't have much time on our hands or much patience with new agencies. I want to share with my experience so far. I submitted this image to RSI...  After review, it was sent back to the "unfinished area" because it didn't have a model release. I sent you an email asking what needed to be released. You indicated it didn't, and sent it back to the review queue. After the second review, it was approved as a web-only image (which I didn't understand at the time). On Sunday, I log in and see it has been set as web only. I deleted it. I had about 40 images set as web only and started deleting. Later, I discovered I could change the option on those images - but rather than make them available for sale, they went back to the review queue (about 27 are sitting there - the rest are deleted). Here's the thing - I've had to contact your site on at least 4 occasions for 1 image to get reviewed properly. You have wasted your reviewer's time on at least 3 unnecessary reviews...and even then, I've deleted the image because I don't feel justified in selling it for 50 pents (25 pents commission) because I feel I would be selling myself short. Richard, I'm all for helping a new business become successful but when I see time wasting to this level, I have to wonder about the viability of the agency. That same image... Dreamstime - sold 5 times so far (3 maximum, 1 large, 1 medium) Shutterstock - 6 downloads so far (1 month online) Bigstock - 1 download so far at standard size (1 month online) It is also currently available for sale (at any size) at 14 other agencies. This has nothing to do with "high quality standards". Please, consider our time and yours. If the sales aren't there, contributors aren't going to have enough patience to keep juggling images all over the site and you guys are going to run out of money paying those reviewers. I don't mean that to be cold hearted or rude - but rather something you need to consider in this new venture. Thanks.
95
« on: July 03, 2007, 22:06 »
Adelaide, I agree with you. Honestly, I'm not crazy about getting 25 pence per image on a non-subscription based model, but it doesn't make sense to me to have my images at 640x480 ONLY when they are selling everywhere else at full size. That limits my own marketability at the site in my opinion. If the agency doesn't want to sell my images at full size, then please, by all means, reject them.
If the license is available (as web only) then why not offer it on all images uploaded and make every image more marketable (similar to the new Fotolia license).
96
« on: July 03, 2007, 19:24 »
Thanks Richard - I'm not sure how they got to be "web only" in the first place. Sunday, I started deleting those files that were "web only" as this isn't something I'm interested in doing.
I noticed that in my preferences, I do not have the box checked it must be a bug with the site.
97
« on: July 02, 2007, 10:59 »
I have a personal account and a merchant account (seperate email addresses). I haven't had to pay fees in either account (yet).
My understanding (for our purposes) is it depends on the level of the payor- payments from Shutterstock or Dreamstime will not incur a fee because of their relationship with Paypal but a smaller site like Canstock will incur a fee.
It's confusing.
98
« on: July 02, 2007, 07:34 »
Sy - I'm confused by this whole "web only" business. I've got about 40 images that were designated as web only for some reason (a couple being best sellers for me at full size at other sites). If I look at license sizes available, the other 200+ images are not available at web size and the web size images are available at larger sizes. I don't understand what the deal is.
Can you or Richard clear up what's going on please? Thanks!
99
« on: June 28, 2007, 16:45 »
why not just buy the ticket to the event and hand out cards to where you will be posting them for sale.
I worked for some motorcycle mags and when you do that they own everything.
you can always write a story later and submit it with pictures to mags that would be interested. Then the whole shabang is yours....
good luck whatever you decide......
The event is being held on private property - just because you buy a ticket (to any event) doesn't give you the right to take pictures and use them on a commercial basis.
100
« on: June 28, 2007, 12:48 »
That's a great point Karin. I've already given the response that I'd agree if they remove the clause so I'll leave it at that. The problem I have is essentially, in this agreement, if they credit me on their web site, I want my best represented (my reputation is at stake). If I allow people to use my images however they want, I can't enforce copyrights later because essentially, they can say, Oh, I just downloaded them from site x. This is actually a very popular ski resort. I don't know of any news agencies or magazines that would agree in a similar manner (but I've been wrong before ). This is a national event - Bike Magazine is the official media sponsor for the event.
|
Sponsors
Microstock Poll Results
Sponsors
|
Show Posts
