|
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 - RT
Pages: 1 2 3 [4] 5 6 7 8 9 ... 77
76
« on: October 02, 2012, 19:13 »
I'm asking for an explanation, because I'm apparently too thick to work it out for myself, about the discrepancy between:
"Licensee acknowledges that some jurisdictions provide legal protection against a person's image, likeness or property being used for commercial purposes when they have not provided a release."
and
"This photograph does not need a license and is available for commercial use."
Is it as simple as "India is not a jurisdiction that provides that legal protection?
It's a simple question. I don't understand why you're being so hostile about it.
Obviously if I was going to license it, I'd as Getty myself.
It's a purely academic question, I'm trying to understand. If you find it offensive, just ignore the thread.
Sorry I wasn't meaning to be hostile or to imply that you're thick, I was just trying to get you to understand that there is no international law that defines when or where a persons representation can or cannot be used in a photo for commercial use, just as there is no international standard model release and just as there is no standard policy requirement between agencies - hence you'll find that each agency has different policies that define when a release is required, whether a person needs to be recognisable or not, what defines recognisable. Is there was such a law or standard definition then every agency would have the same policy and we'd all be clear as to when and what. In the part of Getty's T&C's that you highlighted they have outlined just that, or in others words/to simplify it, what they're trying to say is - 'We don't know how or where you're going to use this image and as each country has different laws it's impossible for us to say whether you'd need a release or not, so it's down to you to check' Any agencies prime concern is to cover their backsides where possible, which is why an agency such as iStock, who don't have legally trained reviewers and who has a high number of amateur contributors, find the need to have a broader requirement for when a release is required, even so they have a more definitive policy than some . Alamy for instance have the policy that if any part of a person is in a photo they need a release for it to be used commercially, most probably because they don't individually check each and every upload. So the answer to your question in the title of this thread - Getty: why does this photo not need a release? - (and the reason I asked you to try and work it out yourself) is - It does, It doesn't, It depends. i.e. There can't be an answer because there isn't a standard to base an answer on.
77
« on: October 02, 2012, 18:46 »
.... as law because there is no law regarding model releases. Agencies each apply their own policy to suit their own individual requirements.
Wow, what a far reaching legal statement! There is just about half the world's lawyers in more that half the world's countries who will find your statement quite humorous, as they are constantly involved in legal battles, defending their client's RIGHT to privacy, which are based on COMMON LAW principles or some ACT of their GOVERNMENT or STARRE DECISIS (findings of higher courts they are bound to - normally also referred to as LAW).
Do you really think the agencies make up these rules just to annoy contributors? 
As you seem so well versed in the subject please refer me any single law in any country throughout the world that mentions or defines a 'model release', and a legal definition of when a photo to be used for commercial use requires one. It's not just me that will be amazed, but so will every single stock agency in the world because then they could all have the exact same policy and folks such as Shadysue wouldn't need to ask questions like this, of course if you're too busy just ask any of 'half the worlds lawyers' you refer to.
78
« on: October 02, 2012, 14:57 »
So what is the point of your thread or question, someone other than you has uploaded a photo to Getty without a release and Getty has deemed that they can license it for commercial use without a model release.
Are you intending to license it?
Or if you intend to upload a similar photo to iStock follow their policy, if it's to Getty follow theirs, I just don't understand what you're trying to achieve by asking this question which I answered for you by pointing out each and every agency can ask for whatever they want.
79
« on: October 02, 2012, 11:13 »
Without using - "Because other stock agencies require a release for this photo to be used commercially" or similar context, explain to me why you believe this photo (or any with people in it) must require a model release to be used commercially, whether obtained via Getty or any other website.
Not sure if I understand you correctly. Do you firstly want to change the OP's topic of discussion and secondly do you actually want her to explain to you the need for model releases in general?
My point was that most people judge that any photo with a person in it must have a model release in order for it to be used commercially, that is not the case, never has been and never will be unless there is an international law passed specifically about the use of people in commercial photos, which will never happen. Most people do this because they take policies from stock agencies and confuse this as being some kind of law, which it isn't because there isn't one. So no I'm not changing the OP's discussion but just wanted to know if the OP realises that the reason Getty may deem this photo to not need a release whereby iStock may do is just because of each individual agencies policy, irrelevant of whether they are under the same umbrella or not. I've said many many times before do not take any agencies policy on model releases as law because there is no law regarding model releases. Agencies each apply their own policy to suit their own individual requirements. A model release is just an indication that the person in question was aware of the purposes for which the photo was taken, a photo without a model release can (in most circumstances) quite legally be used for commercial purposes, and millions of such instances happen every single day.
80
« on: October 01, 2012, 11:35 »
It's from Getty's Flickr collection. There are two people in the photo. I can't zoom in to see how recogniseable they are, but surely at least they are 'recogniseable by context'.
But the Release information says: "No release, but this image does not require a release. This image is available for commercial use."
Is it just 'different rules' for Getty RF than iStock RF (non-editorial)?
Without using - "Because other stock agencies require a release for this photo to be used commercially" or similar context, explain to me why you believe this photo (or any with people in it) must require a model release to be used commercially, whether obtained via Getty or any other website.
81
« on: September 28, 2012, 12:09 »
I left: Yaymicro, Mostphotos, Featurepics & Crestock because I take the attitude that an agency should market our images in return for taking the commission that they do, the sales figures on these sites were pathetic in comparison to others.
I stopped uploading to Stockfresh for the same reason, I do still have some of my stuff there and one day I'll get round to deleting them, but I'm of the opinion they'll go bust soon so don't want to waste my time doing so.
I support many charities both personally and through my business, I don't consider stock agencies/picture libraries as charities, if they can't be bothered to actively work to sell my images I can't be bothered to fund them!!
I left Veer because of the 'Alamy saga' and it appears from a recent thread that they're up to it again.
82
« on: September 28, 2012, 12:00 »
newbielink 
Admin, SPL is a top tier niche agency.
It means you're a newbie not the site you're linking to, Leaf (the admin here) implemented that to stop spammers posting links to all kinds of dubious sites, once you've made a certain number of posts I think your 'newbielink' status gets lifted.
83
« on: September 28, 2012, 11:52 »
Really? I find that highly amusing as the total time I have spent in my entire life looking at "best selling RM image" is probably in the minuts. I don't even know where to go to find such images ranked by "best selling". How does one obtain this information MetaStocker? As far as I know RM is not even ranked by sales... Very strange comment.
I don't know, maybe in their eyes you started copying stuff sold on Getty and other agencies and taking lots of inspiration from the top tier lifestyle photographers and they ended up claiming you were doing low cost copycats.
However, the outrage was much about doing copycats but rather about selling studio shoots for a pittance on micros.
In any case, i fully agree with them.
Really? Who exactly? Sources please (assuming that they exist, of course).
I'm not taking sides, making any comment regarding the accusation or passing judgement, but what Metastocker said is right, since microstock was in it's infancy and Yuri climbed to fame (so to speak) he was accused by many RM photographers as copying stuff on sites such as Getty and Corbis, even though some of the comments were made in 'closed RM discussions' I'm sure if you did some internet searching you could find some examples, here's one I found doing a quick search: http://www.alamy.com/forums/default.aspx?g=posts&t=7512 scroll down to a post by 'Mr Cheeseburger' which was in 2010 I started in microstock in 2006 and I can recall many accusations about Yuri's portfolio along those lines, I use to put it down to the 'old dinosaurs' being bitter about microstock because in those days it was hated even more than now. I'm not going to comment anymore on what was said, just wanted to back up Metastocker in what he said was true. FTR I took a fair bit of flack at that time, not for copying but for "selling out".
84
« on: September 26, 2012, 02:05 »
Calm before the storm? One thing I've learnt with Fotolia is that they normally find a way to balance things in their favour rather than ours, makes me wonder if were heading for another commission cut further down the line. Lets hope not.
85
« on: September 25, 2012, 12:43 »
The answer is obvious, surprised nobody has spotted it - If you want to shoot 'hot concept' images in 2012 take photos of Yuri himself in lifestyle situations, preferably wearing scrubs and eating organic celery whilst holding a goldfish bowl with a laptop jumping out of it.
86
« on: September 24, 2012, 12:17 »
So glad I closed my account with Veer, this appears to be another attempt by them to make money on your images with no effort by them whatsoever other than sending the site your images.
87
« on: September 24, 2012, 10:01 »
Yuri maybe you've upset this guy in the past, it's a very strange thing to say openly on a forum like that.
88
« on: September 24, 2012, 07:44 »
RT and Ploink,
Have you ever used the 120-300 in low light conditions, like in a stadium or maybe indoors (not studio)?
I've used it in low light but only outdoors, it coped well.
89
« on: September 21, 2012, 10:26 »
I've seen my sales numbers (downloads) at SS increase in comparison to my sales at iS decrease by a similar amount, which has netted me less money overall because the RPI is higher at iS. I've seen other established contributors mentioning how their overall income is dropping from previous years so I presume this is the cause.
iS is the obvious one to blame by losing buyers as a result of their management skills, but let's not forget we haven't had a commission increase from SS in what 3-4 years, and I doubt we will because as we all know the more the buyers utilize their subscription allowance at SS the less money they make.
Can't see it getting any better unless the new 'owners' at iS make a considerable change which I don't think will happen.
90
« on: September 21, 2012, 10:14 »
Just checked my August statement from Getty, my highest nett earning RM sale got me a wopping $9.36 and the lowest was $1.05, and the last few months display a similar low commission from RM, I admit I have had four figure commissions from Getty but they are getting extremely rare.
I don't do lavishly expensive stock shoots but I'd be pretty pretty peeved if I'd spent thousands on a shoot for it to nett me a $1.05 sale.
91
« on: September 19, 2012, 16:04 »
I dont work with Alamy but I know many who does and they hardly ever sell any Rm pictures.
I believe a lot of that depends on your location and your subject matter, I'm guessing the people you refer to are not from the UK or probably don't shoot much UK orientated stuff? I've been with them from the start and have a good sized portfolio across various pseudonyms and I do very well there, and know many in similar situation, although to be fair I also know of lots of foreigners  who don't. Alamy are like any other agency (except they pay a fair commission and don't screw you at every opportunity) be it RM, RF or microstock, you just need to upload the correct content for their market, I think too many people are looking for the 'golden egg' but spend their time chasing the wrong goose.
92
« on: September 19, 2012, 13:32 »
^ Thanks
93
« on: September 19, 2012, 13:29 »
I've got the newest version of the Sigma 120-300 2.8, before buying it I did a lot of research and the general opinion was it's as good as the Canon 300 2.8, having used it a few times and done a direct comparison with the Canon (on both a 5Dmk2 and 7d) I can confirm it is really good. Make sure you get the new version though as the build quality is better.
If you look on my site (as below) all the puffin shots were taken using this lens.
Edit: Just noticed Sigma have announced an even newer version of the lens at Photokina - obviously I haven't got that one as it's not out yet :-)
94
« on: September 19, 2012, 13:22 »
Bit OT but how long are people waiting for reviews these day's, I haven't uploaded there for a few months but have had some in the queue for 5 days now - is that the current norm?
95
« on: August 31, 2012, 05:26 »
EL's and sales in general are way down for me this month, summer slump or a result of not having been uploading there I'm not sure.
96
« on: August 31, 2012, 05:23 »
Lowers the value of the rest of the collection if you ask me, they should have started a independent site for phone pics.
97
« on: August 31, 2012, 05:20 »
Why - Because your native language is not English.
Where - A company that's based in a country who's native language is English.
Anything other than the above would be a total waste of money.
98
« on: July 19, 2012, 11:46 »
I can't take any camera seriously that doesn't have an optical viewfinder, with the one exception of my little Sony TX10 which is just a toy.
99
« on: July 19, 2012, 11:41 »
Canon 16-600 L f2.8 IS II 
100
« on: June 15, 2012, 03:59 »
Well I'm pleased to say I'm out of there, my account has been terminated and images removed from Alamy.
Pages: 1 2 3 [4] 5 6 7 8 9 ... 77
|
Sponsors
Microstock Poll Results
Sponsors
|
Show Posts
