|
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.
Topics - danhowl
Pages: [1]
1
« on: October 04, 2021, 05:55 »
I thought I deactivated my iStock portfolio, but apparently not. will solve through support.
2
« on: August 27, 2021, 06:35 »
Today I got 8 email Image Not Selected messages on images that were uploaded and on the site for more than 4 yrs. Is this a glitch or is this a re-editing of content? 3 of the images were from set with dozens of downloads and about 30 similar images. Anyone else get these?
5
« on: August 17, 2016, 19:40 »
Something is fishy here. After months (years?) of piddling activity on DT, I suddenly get two banner days in a row. First it was 100 downloads then followed up with 180 downloads. I am assuming that it is the same person. All of the images had the same search term (Asian) and all were beauty shots of young Asian women. How many subscription downloads can a person have on DT?
I'm worried that it is some kind of hack or scam and that they will take away all of the royalties--as low as they are. Any others have this kind of activity?
6
« on: September 17, 2015, 10:02 »
Anyone else effected by evolving standards? from Istock: "The content is not suitable for our broad Royalty Free license; the reason given was: As you may know, we periodically go through the collection to remove files that no longer meet our evolving standards. Even though Getty Images and iStock by Getty Images does accept artistic partial and full nudity in photography for royalty free photography we reserve the right to reject/deactivate any image, including images that we feel are clichd, overtly stereotypical, too explicit, verge on the pornographic, obscene or represents gender roles in a sexist manner. We may also reject/deactivate images in these categories that we feel are not commercially viable." I can no longer even see which images have been rejected. When I put the file number in the search the image titles briefly shows in the address bar before it is replaced by 404 message. Pardon me if I don't remember the image title of every file uploaded. Here is one image that I recognized image title which is still available on Shutterstock and Dreamstime (*mild glamour nudity in file). But other files have more generic image titles and I can only generally guess which ones they might be. Seems like the deactivation would be more purposeful if you could actually see time image. http://www.shutterstock.com/pic-191760374/stock-photo-beautiful-blonde-fashion-model-posing-in-colorful-arizona-desert-garden-scene-on-sunny-day.html?src=KqikWd3dc31UMv3AkWkSgQ-8-14Not sure which of the above mentioned standards it has violated.
7
« on: April 07, 2015, 08:33 »
Was surprised to see a 'Single & Other' download result today for one image that indicated a fee of $100.80. I was wondering what kind of usage that would be. Seems like an odd number. Not complaining, just curious. It is actually an editorial image, not sure if that makes a difference.
8
« on: June 05, 2014, 07:07 »
I've pretty much switched all my releases to EasyRelease. There are a lot of reasons, but chasing papers once I'm back from a shoot is frankly a drag. However, microstock is by far NOT the only reason I am shooting. I felt as though I needed to modify the language of the EasyRelease by one sentence to also include adult content for magazine submission--I make a lot more from this than I do from Microstock. IStock is insisting on unmodified releases. I'm not even sure they are reading for the difference--in my case a one sentence addition of usage. It wouldn't even effect IStock usage a bit yet I just got a batch rejection.
Sorry but I'm not going to take the time to have the model fill out two forms of release just for IStock. I had no problems with SS or DT. IStock just doesn't produce enough revenue for me to change my work flow. Just another reason for me to care less about playing in IStock's playground in addition to taking about 3x longer to make each individual image submission. I foresee me just tapering off of IStock and eventually just deactivating my entire portfolio.
9
« on: February 11, 2014, 08:09 »
Has something dramatically changed at Dreamstime? I am accustomed to 50-60 hour review estimates when I upload, but I did a batch yesterday with an estimated review time of 12 hrs and they are already under review. Did they just get a lot faster or is nobody uploading to them anymore?
10
« on: May 26, 2013, 10:30 »
Maybe I have been lucky in the past but on this last large batch of submission, I got a dozen rejections because of shoot description on model release. The rejections were not including models wardrobe in description, specifically lingerie or nude (even though they were included in keywords). While I can see an argument regarding nudity or partial nudity, I don't see why I would need to specify lingerie in description when model had various outfits on throughout a shoot. Furthermore, I have submitted literally dozens of model releases without these specifics in the past without rejections across hundreds of images.
Seems like location description and general info of model(s) are more important in the shoot description than wardrobe, especially with multiple outfits. Is this a change in policy?
11
« on: April 24, 2012, 09:41 »
I had a string of 6 rejections from a shoot submission of 70 for the following reason.
"- Your MR document is governed by the laws of a different country than the model's or photographer's and other than US. The model release represents a written agreement between the model and the photographer, therefore it must be governed by the laws of the country/state where one of the parties resides. Alternatively it can be governed by US laws or international (generic, not country related)."
That would mean there would always be a problem with a photographer traveling to shoot in any country other than his own (except of course traveling to the US according to them). Wouldn't that rule also apply to international models shooting in the US?
Funny how the other 64 were accepted.
12
« on: December 31, 2011, 16:36 »
Recent photos disappeared from Content Overview window, but I did not receive an acceptance or rejection email and the images did not show up in my Image Gallery. I've had rejections before, but they have always been accompanied by email, as have acceptances. Is there something up with the review system?
13
« on: September 12, 2011, 21:27 »
Has anyone noticed the iS ads that appear on web pages that you are reading? I get that google can look thru your bookmarks or browser history and pull up ads that are more targeted to you. However, I just saw some iS ads while reading something on a web page that featured one of my images. Does google pull that kind of information out of my history to customize the ad to that degree? It's a bit ridiculous if they do. It's not like I'm going to pay to download one of my own images...
14
« on: February 28, 2011, 13:30 »
I just found one of my images in an advertisement for a branded produce in a national magazine with circulation 1,000,000+ which would seem to surpass any standard licensing usage. I have not sold/received any extended licenses for this image. Just so I don't jump onto any contributor relations person prematurely, what kind of licensing fee would I normally expect for that usage on iStockphoto, Shutterstock and Dreamstime? A quick scan of my royalties does not show anything apart from standard licenses.
15
« on: December 23, 2010, 12:02 »
After many years as an commercial and fashion photographer based in the NYC area, I decided approximately one year ago to investigate Microstock. Don't know what took me so long. I really wish I had started years ago. I had dabbled in RM/traditional stock with the agency Retna who syndicates my celebrity portraits (not all that many) and a few hundred lifestyle images that never really amounted to much, so I wasn't that encouraged. Honestly model releases were the biggest hurdle to get over. Most of my assignment work is with models from agencies who are generally averse to signing any sort of model release that would allow for any stock usage. That applies to the lion's share of my archive. I finally started collecting stock model release from some shoots and directing other shoots specifically for microstock. I hit two interesting (to me) milestones this week. Just about one year to the date of first uploading, I had my 100th download from iStockphoto and my 1,000th download from Shutterstock. Overall my impression of the two websites differ greatly. I have found iStockphoto to be frustrating with uploads and petty with rejections. With effort I have maintained a 70% acceptance rate. I could generally live with those two factors, but the biased search engine (towards exclusives) and the reduction of percentages to contributors leave me unenthusiastic to contribute to iStockphoto going forward. On the plus side, the average value of each download has been about 4x that of Shutterstock. On the other hand, I have found Shutterstock to be very easy to deal with. The higher upload limits have allowed me to upload more than double the number of images in a slightly shorter amount of time. Although I haven't specifically calculated it, I would guess my acceptance rate at SS is >90%. Of course the value of each download is significantly lower due to the subscription set up. I have seen both sites change their contributor's pages--generally for the better. However, trends in the overall photography marketplace do not leave me that optimistic for the future. I don't imagine them to be any different in the microstock world. Trends specifically at iStockphoto are not encouraging at all. I can't say that the revenues from microstock for me have been disappointing, because I did not put any goals or expectations on them. However comparing the results and revenue of my time and effort put into creating the images to that of my commercial work shows that microstock pays literally pennies on the dollar (maybe only a single penny??). But that is, I know, not a fair comparison. 20 years in magazines and advertising vs. 1 year in microstock is never going to balance out, but my year in microstock has been rewarding from an information standpoint, if not a financial one. I have learned an additional style of shooting and more about the lifestyle stock market. I've also become more disciplined and efficient in retouching and image preparation. I have valued the opportunities that having the goal of contributing to microstock has motivated me to do perhaps a dozen or more shoots that I would not have otherwise done as well as a use for numerous images I was creating anyway for other projects. I had given myself a year to decide if microstock is worth the effort for my specific set-up. At this point I would cautiously say that it is with the codicil that I would never take time away from my commercial assignments (or even my marketing efforts) to shoot or upload for microstock. With the ebbs and flows of my schedule (somewhat determined by fashion seasons) I will find time that can be constructively applied to microstock and I believe that I will continue to find new ways of 'harvesting' images from assignment work that have value in microstock. -Dan ( www.danhowellphotography.com if anyone is interested) p.s. I have learned a lot from topics and messages on this board
16
« on: June 15, 2010, 10:07 »
It seems like there is an unequal standard of what is trademark infringement when in comes to electronic products as props in photos when it comes to Apple as opposed to other brands. Have anyone else experienced this? I have been getting rejections from images with iPod, iPhone, iPads used as props when similarly trademarked electronic items used as props sail thru. I have shot each Apple product in other brand's protective cases and removed logos and in some case buttons or distinct features. Do microstocks believe that some trademarks carry more weight than others? I'd like to see statute that backs up this concept.
17
« on: April 30, 2010, 13:08 »
Just uploaded batch of 10 images this mid-morning and they are already approved by mid-afternoon. That's the fastest review time I have seen, though still pretty new to this. Guess I'll have to get back to processing more files for upload.
18
« on: April 13, 2010, 08:10 »
Are there any marketing tips or techniques to improve downloads or visibility to potential microstock customers? Obviously shooting more and better images is a start, but once you have the images up there, is there anything you can do? Is there any advantage to uploading a shoot in small groups on different days to spread out their appearance in 'recent uploads' or should you get the images up as quickly as possible (or upload limits allow). Are there different strategies depending on the type of images? The majority of my images (both assignment and stock) is work with models: http://www.shutterstock.com/g/danhowell
19
« on: April 11, 2010, 08:46 »
I've had 3 rejections of images that included model holding an iPhone. In each case, the rejection information stated only: "+iphone+ This file includes content that may be subject to copyright or trademark protection. Certain use of this file creates risk of copyright/trademark infringement and we regret that it cannot be accepted, unless this content is removed from the file." In the photos, the product was only partially shown (at most only 1/3 of product was visable) and the logo was removed. example: http://www.istockphoto.com/file_thumbview_approve/12503485/2/istockphoto_12503485-teenager-with-cell-phone.jpg) I searched the library with the keyword smartphone and found numerous photos showing models using recognizable Blackberry and Sidekick smart phones. In literally dozens of cases, more recognizable products than the in the photos rejected. I'm trying to understand how an iPhone has more copyright/trademark protection than Blackberry and Sidekick models. The images were accepted at Shutterstock and Dreamstime.
20
« on: April 08, 2010, 09:21 »
After another petty rejection from iStockphoto over keywords, I'm curious if the search engine picks up the words in a file's description as well as the keywords for the file. This particular case was a fitness model carrying a yoga/pilates matt over her shoulder in a park. The description labeled it as such, but iStock rejected the keywords yoga, pilates and relaxation exercise. Did the reviewer just not know what that is?
If the search engine would pick up Yoga and Pilates from the description there is little harm done, but if not the rejection, in my opinion, misses the point--the point being helping creatives find images that are relevant to the subject matter they are searching for.
Pages: [1]
|
Sponsors
Microstock Poll Results
Sponsors
|
Show Posts
