|
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 - stormchaser
Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 6 [7] 8 9 10 11 12 ... 22
151
« on: September 24, 2010, 12:45 »
From the Seller FAQ page - you don't even have to scroll to see it
What type of photos can I submit?
We accept images of objects, backgrounds, textures, animals, nature, conceptual, macro, and 3D images. Since we are graphics dedicated, we do not accept images with fully recognizable people that require a model release.
152
« on: September 08, 2010, 18:45 »
I think mine will be to low to calculate and may even approach negative numbers.
153
« on: September 04, 2010, 13:55 »
Why bother wasting time researching if it has been done before?
Curiosity partly. Also, to see if there are 2,000 of that image already and should I bother.
If you can shoot it better then go for it. Even with the thousands of pics of dollar bills I have one that is a little unique that does well.
154
« on: September 04, 2010, 00:21 »
He wants "passive income" from other people's work. I think Karl Marx wrote a novel about it. 
Well maybe he should just post a referral link 
155
« on: September 03, 2010, 17:12 »
OMG more referral spam
156
« on: August 28, 2010, 18:34 »
Maybe they're hanging with the people at Albumo
157
« on: August 22, 2010, 17:22 »
You just have to love the creative image-rejection excuses now. My image was rejected for: Poor Image Hygiene!!!
It may have had some stray dust or a hair, but the term they used made me laugh. Gotta give my images a bath every now and then. hahaha
Chad
That one sounds like it came from DT LOL
158
« on: August 21, 2010, 19:17 »
set your tolerance to about 15 That's a fine way to destroy a shot, and another one to destroy it is dodging (the edges).
159
« on: August 17, 2010, 20:39 »
I'm interested and curious about GL but it looks as though you set your own price - which makes me nervous of over or under-charging. Does anyone have any good advice on price-setting (for both photographs and illustrations - bitmap and vector)?
I've made a bunch of sales the past week at the $6 price. I get $3.12 US I think for each. Better than the sub sales for pennies on DT, so the $6 price point works for me. And no subs here.
160
« on: August 14, 2010, 14:33 »
DPR recently posted a super zoom shootout http://dpreview.com/news/1007/10070605superzoomgrouptest.asp. Can't recommend any of them from experience though, and I wouldn't call any of them low light capable. The Pannys are generally noiseboxes, and the noise reduction causes pixel smaearing. I got tired of the point & shoot game long ago and just went and pulled the trigger on a Leica, so that's my P&S. The S90 - I do catalog work for a client and they keep trying to give me pics taken with the S90 and IMO it's a relatively poor performer.
161
« on: August 13, 2010, 20:25 »
I will be dumping them in January. Just waiting out December as I have a lot of holiday images and have had good Decembers the past 3 years.
On email - yes I contacted them regarding one matter and never got an answer.
On searches, similar quirks as discussed above.
I have pursued some other photo avenues with good results, and so 123 is just not worth keeping around any longer.
162
« on: August 12, 2010, 18:28 »
Ironically for me, they've been accepting everything I send which is unusual, even some flower pics. Yesterday and today were banner sales days. Trends are odd sometimes.
163
« on: August 11, 2010, 21:22 »
You just ask. They'll either say yes or no. Don't forget to tale a witness with you LOL
164
« on: August 11, 2010, 14:46 »
excuse , what is GL Collection Images?
I got some there but I not remember I do anything different .
Can I get explaination how my pictures got there?
http://graphicleftovers.com/glc/It's sort of like an Editor Choice I guess.
165
« on: August 11, 2010, 01:36 »
Hi All
So I am another budding photographer.. I recently bought my first dSLR and identified micro as a great way to learn how to shoot lots of different things and earn a bit of extra cash for some more equipment and maybe some lessons.
I aim to become a good portrait photographer but starting my micro with everyday things.
I started at the weekend and have submitted to 123 and GraphicLeftovers. 13 images accepted so far but the ones on 123 aren't showing up yet.
The link for my GL is: http://graphicleftovers.com/designer/jwsc101/ref=jwsc101/
My first target is to generate about $100 net a month (i.e. my share). I know this is difficult to answer but how many photo's do you think that would take and is it sendible just to start on 2 sites?
Thanks
It's not quantity but quality and originality. Macro is a tough gig sometimes even for experienced shooters. Good luck with that. Graphleft and 123 are two of the easier sites, but with easier also comes lower revenue. All of the stocks are upping their game though, and you have to be prepared for that. Bite the bullet and put an app in to SS.
166
« on: August 06, 2010, 12:34 »
The first 2 are so-so. Not exactly stocky. I'm going to say poor lighting and and poor isolation on the third (because of the poor lighting, the isolation suffers). You'd be better off with a pic of a well lit well dressed cheeseburger.
167
« on: August 06, 2010, 12:25 »
You made the right choice. No freebies. He may reject the cost, but too bad, you took time to set that shot up and he wants it so it's worth something.
You give the image away and you get nothing. The buyer rejects your offer, and you get nothing. Sounds like an even swap here. Freebie cruisers often offer credit lines that never happen. And credit lines don't put bread on the table.
168
« on: August 04, 2010, 18:05 »
It's all right here http://copyright.gov/http://www.uspto.gov/Copyright is applied to original creative works, trademark is used to protect business trade names or phrases, or a logo where a drawing is filed.
169
« on: August 03, 2010, 03:02 »
He said that "Palm Springs Walk of Stars" is a copyrighted name. I think you can copyright the name, why not? NIKE is also copyrighted, right?
Copyright is assigned to an original work which has been fixed in tangible form, such a painting, music, sculpture and yes photo. Note that I said Original work. You cannot copyright a name or a title according to US Copyright law, and international treaties and conventions swing this way too. You could however, Trademark a Title or Name. Nike is a trademark, not a copyright. It's important to understand the differences.
170
« on: August 02, 2010, 21:33 »
Fljac, I don't see why you're beating the dead horse. http://mv.vatican.va/3_EN/pages/z-Info/MV_Info_Consigli.htmlPhotography rights withing the Sistine are owned by the company who was involved in the restoration according to a fellow shooter who is also an attorney.
171
« on: August 02, 2010, 21:15 »
I asked him precisely what is copyrighted. Is it the star in the square, or the logo with a palm tree, or everything. And he answered that copyrighted are the name "walk of stars" and the palm tree logo. Which means the star in the square is not copyrighted.
I explained to him that I want to sell it on stock sites.
You can't copyright a name or a title. Also when I looked for a registered trademark filing, it does not exist. They may however, append PS WOS with a (TM) indicating that it is their intention to protect that name or interest. They don't do this on their website. Maybe they haven't contacted the high school kid who did it for them. The only answer is that the property owner is higher profile and may want to protect their interests. I'm going to say that Kevin has little to no knowledge of the law because he's talking apples and oranges in his reply to you.
172
« on: July 31, 2010, 22:52 »
Thanks....
BUT!
out of 5 rejections, only ONE of them were from the sistine chapel... The rest is from the vatican museum and fotolia has quite a lot of the "same" views already for sale.. so why does the same rules not apply to every image of "same" motif?
And by the way... dreamstime had no objections about the ONE image from the sistine chapel...
Dreamframer had the best reply. But here are some additional comments. I know for a fact that Sistine has restrictions. I am not sure about Vatican City. Restrictions change from day to day because of the changing landscape of intellectual property law. A whole lot of museums here in the USA has restrictions printed right on the admission ticket. Those with free admission may post a sign at a common point. Some may allow photography for personal use, some may restrict all photography period. It's really your job to know the rules and possible restrictions of each venue you decide to shoot. Review methods differ at each of the stocks. Dreamstime is certainly in error if accepting Sistine Chapel images. But then they are in arror for tons of other stuff too for sale under a creative RF license. Thousands of images. For a primer on what is not acceptable, go here http://www.istockphoto.com/tutorial_copyright_list.phpThe list evolves and there are updates as new issues evolve.
173
« on: July 31, 2010, 18:01 »
Sistine Chapel is a property that currently exercises its rights to impose photographic restrictions. End of story.
DT takes a lot of things that they shouldn't and what they take shouldn't be used as a guideline.
174
« on: July 31, 2010, 05:23 »
I would classify the Palm Springs venue as a "protected property", that is one who would rather not have their property exploited in any way for commercial gain. It's possible that some reviewers are familiar with the venue. They don't all live in Romania
http://www.palmspringswalkofstars.com/
I think I agree with stormchaser.
But you can submit it as editorial for dreamstime etc, no?
I don't submit editorial to micro, I do it elsewhere. But as I understand the micro terms for editorial submission, the image "should" be newsworthy. And also unaltered. So if it is a recent star that has been given, with the star's name on it, well that could be newsworthy to some people I guess. In general, I don't see the Palm Springs Walk of Stars as particularly newsworthy, most don't know it exists. It is good to keep stuff like this on file though. If it gets destroyed in an earthquake, submit the pics and say "This is the way it was in May 05, 2010" The PS WOS is one venue I wouldn't really go out of my way for to shoot.
175
« on: July 28, 2010, 22:20 »
The athletic shoe image is listed as standard or editorial license. Guess a reviewer not paying attention. Definitely infringement here. And I'm going to go for the artwork on the kid's batting helmet too. I don't think the kid's mom painted that on for him. Likely from a popular large supplier. http://www.bigstockphoto.com/image-1198117/stock-photo-home-runThis also goes for a standard license. With that artwork and not a plain helmit, not right either
Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 6 [7] 8 9 10 11 12 ... 22
|
Sponsors
Microstock Poll Results
Sponsors
|
Show Posts
