Nabble - StockPhoto

Re: flickr

2009-11-14T05:49:47Z

On Nov 14, 2009, at 7:15 AM, STOCKPHOTO@... wrote:

> Don't use Flickr for commercial purposes.

I have a Flickr Pro account. For $25.00 US per year that's one hell
of a lot of off-site external hard drive storage for my digital files!!

Joe Pobereskin

--
Joseph Pobereskin Photography | Chicago
http://pobereskin.com v3.0
+1 (847) 215-1794

Joe's Private Stock
http://tinyurl.com/pobereskin

"Eat At Joe's"
http://cafejoetogo.blogspot.com

Member - C3 http://www.chicagocreative.org
Member - PLUS Coalition http://www.useplus.org
Member - SAA http://www.stockartistsalliance.org
Member/Director - ASMP Chicago http://www.chimwasmp.org
-------------------------------------------------------
Why do I need T.V. when I've got T-Rex?

Re: flickr

2009-11-13T17:20:37Z

Huh? Unless you are actively selling your stuff on flickr or getting
a little silly with slapping your website URL as a watermark all over
your images, you're fine. A professional photographer displaying his
or her photos is not a "commercial use".

On Fri, Nov 13, 2009 at 3:19 PM, angiephotographer
<angieknostphoto@...> wrote:

>
> The excerpt below is copied from Flickr's terms of service. Professional photographers displaying their work is really a commercial use, no? Aren't you really " selling services or yourself"? I suppose this is not enforced? Or no one reads?
>
>
> Donâ€™t use Flickr for commercial purposes.
> Flickr is for personal use only. If we find you selling products, services, or yourself through your photostream, we will terminate your account. Any other commercial use of Flickr, Flickr technologies (including APIs, FlickrMail, etc), or Flickr accounts must be approved by Flickr. For more information on leveraging Flickr APIs, please see our Services page. If you have other open questions about commercial usage of Flickr, please feel free to contact us.
>
>
>
> ------------------------------------
>
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
> Courtesy of The STOCKPHOTO Network - http://www.stockphoto.net/
> Reproduction of STOCKPHOTO posts require permission of author
> Posting Rules - http://www.stockphoto.net/Subscriptions.php#rules
> STOCKPHOTO Archives - http://www.stockphoto.net/Archives.php
> STOCKPHOTO Bookstore - http://www.stockphoto.net/bookstore/
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------Yahoo! Groups Links
>
>
>
>

--
-Ryan McGinnis
The BIG Storm Picture -- http://bigstormpicture.com
Vortex-2 image licensing at http://vortex-2.com
Getty: http://www.gettyimages.com/search/search.aspx?artist=Ryan+McGinnis

------------------------------------

----------------------------------------------------------------------
Courtesy of The STOCKPHOTO Network - http://www.stockphoto.net/
Reproduction of STOCKPHOTO posts require permission of author
Posting Rules - http://www.stockphoto.net/Subscriptions.php#rules
STOCKPHOTO Archives - http://www.stockphoto.net/Archives.php
STOCKPHOTO Bookstore - http://www.stockphoto.net/bookstore/
----------------------------------------------------------------------Yahoo! Groups Links

<*> To visit your group on the web, go to:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/STOCKPHOTO/

<*> Your email settings:
Individual Email | Traditional

<*> To change settings online go to:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/STOCKPHOTO/join
(Yahoo! ID required)

<*> To change settings via email:
STOCKPHOTO-digest@...
STOCKPHOTO-fullfeatured@...

<*> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
STOCKPHOTO-unsubscribe@...

<*> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to:
http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/

flickr

2009-11-13T13:19:35Z

The excerpt below is copied from Flickr's terms of service. Professional photographers displaying their work is really a commercial use, no? Aren't you really " selling services or yourself"? I suppose this is not enforced? Or no one reads?

Donât use Flickr for commercial purposes.
Flickr is for personal use only. If we find you selling products, services, or yourself through your photostream, we will terminate your account. Any other commercial use of Flickr, Flickr technologies (including APIs, FlickrMail, etc), or Flickr accounts must be approved by Flickr. For more information on leveraging Flickr APIs, please see our Services page. If you have other open questions about commercial usage of Flickr, please feel free to contact us.

Re: Re: Using Flickr

2009-11-13T10:48:17Z

I can verify this. I downloaded a couple of my images on Flickr yesterday to
double check this and all the meta data was in place.

Peter Bennett
Ambient Images Inc.
P: 310-312-6640

Specializing in New York and California images
http://www.californiastockphoto.com
http://www.newyorkstockphoto.com
http://www.greenstockphotos.com

From: David Riecks <david@...>

At 12:30 PM 11/12/2009, Mike Shipman wrote:
Flickr strips all your metadata, copyright and contact info, and you
have to reenter it in image management on site (which is a complete
pain and duplication of effort) so I'm curious how Getty collects
that information and reconnects it with the file unless the
photographer takes the time to re-keyword and add copyright and
contact info for each image.

Mike:

From some exchanges on the ControlledVocabulary forum, it seems that
there have been some changes at Flickr.

Their image resampling now does seem to retain IPTC metadata (legacy
format only). XMP and Exif are still removed for any image that is
resampled from the original (assuming it had a full complement of metadata).

Of course if the image was uploaded a long time ago, and was
resampled; that info was not retained. So at least it's a step in the
right direction.

RE: Re: Using Flickr

2009-11-13T09:47:04Z

At 12:30 PM 11/12/2009, Mike Shipman wrote:
Flickr strips all your metadata, copyright and contact info, and you
have to reenter it in image management on site (which is a complete
pain and duplication of effort) so I'm curious how Getty collects
that information and reconnects it with the file unless the
photographer takes the time to re-keyword and add copyright and
contact info for each image.

Mike:

From some exchanges on the ControlledVocabulary forum, it seems that
there have been some changes at Flickr.

Their image resampling now does seem to retain IPTC metadata (legacy
format only). XMP and Exif are still removed for any image that is
resampled from the original (assuming it had a full complement of metadata).

Of course if the image was uploaded a long time ago, and was
resampled; that info was not retained. So at least it's a step in the
right direction.

David

--
David Riecks (that's "i" before "e", but the "e" is silent)
Need Keywords for your database? Get the Controlled Vocabulary Solution
http://controlledvocabulary.com/products/ support for a dozen of the
most popular imaging applications from Adobe Bridge to Photo Mechanic.

[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

Re: Re: Using Flickr

2009-11-13T09:16:02Z

On Fri, Nov 13, 2009 at 11:02 AM, Allen Russell
<allen@...> wrote:
> Ryan
>
> Would you mind sharing how you went about setting up an attorney
> relationship for your infringements?

There's no real trick to it -- you simply search around for IP
attorneys, email or ring one up, ask them if they'll do a free
consultation, tell them about the infringement, and ask them if
they'll take it on. Most photographers will probably want it taken on
contingency.

I went with an attorney that I found via word-of-mouth from other
photographers/videographers.

--
-Ryan McGinnis
The BIG Storm Picture -- http://bigstormpicture.com
Vortex-2 image licensing at http://vortex-2.com
Getty: http://www.gettyimages.com/search/search.aspx?artist=Ryan+McGinnis

Re: Re: Using Flickr

2009-11-13T09:07:37Z

Don

Pleaselet us know how Getty responds to RM only.

Allen Russell
allen@...
allenrussellphoto.com

On Nov 12, 2009, at 11:58 AM, don_mccunn wrote:

> I personally have submitted 10 photos for consideration and stated
> in the description of my images that I have an agreement with my
> models I will only release them through RM not RF licensing. My
> models want to know that there are some controls in place as to how
> their image will be used. It feels right to me. I don't know at this
> point how Getty will respond.

[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

Re: Re: Using Flickr

2009-11-13T09:02:50Z

Ryan

Would you mind sharing how you went about setting up an attorney
relationship for your infringements?

Allen Russell
allen@...
allenrussellphoto.com

On Nov 12, 2009, at 11:04 AM, Ryan McGinnis wrote:

> I did get a number of infringements via people who found my photos via
> Flickr and put them on their websites without permission or licensing.
> Thanks to an awesome attorney (and the fact that I register all my
> images at the Copyright office), I am usually well compensated when
> this happens.

[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

Re: Using Flickr

2009-11-13T05:02:32Z

I have some pictures on flickr( just a basic account) and recently received an email from an Australian magazine asking about one of them. It resulted in a nice RM sale.

RE: Re: Using Flickr

2009-11-12T11:05:19Z

At 01:30 PM 11/12/2009, you wrote:
>
>Flickr strips all your metadata, copyright and contact info, and you have to
>reenter it in image management on site (which is a complete pain and
>duplication of effort) so I'm curious how Getty collects that information
>and reconnects it with the file unless the photographer takes the time to
>re-keyword and add copyright and contact info for each image.
>
>Mike Shipman

I didn't do any of that and all of my metadata - keywords, captions,
copyright, contact - was in the photos that Getty selected for
upload. I did re-upload larger file sizes but that's all. I didn't
go through Getty because I don't want any of my photos to be
RF. With the Flickr contact, you can wait to see how your photos are
assigned - RF or RM - and then continue or not. All of mine were
assigned as RM so I continued.

Tina

Tina Manley
www.tinamanley.com

Re: Using Flickr

2009-11-12T10:58:54Z

Allen,

I have been pursuing the Getty / Flickr concept. They have discussion groups there which are monitored by representatives from Getty.

One comment from Tom at Getty is that they are not looking to Flickr for Editorial, only Creative.

In another comment Tom, or someone from Getty, said the editors at Getty make the determination whether it is to be RF or RM based on which will be the best market fit. RM generally comes with a higher price tag than RF. But RM is also harder to sell unless the photo stands out in some way.

Apparently Getty wants the most bang for the buck. Can you believe that? My guess is that they are probably pretty aware of what the market is for stock photography. But that is just a guess on my part <smile>.

Actually they have just instituted a new approach where they have a group where you can add 10 photos a month for their editors to consider. It started either on the 4th or 5th of this month. So far there are 8957 members and 46,725 photos in the pool. Here is a link to that group.

http://www.flickr.com/groups/callforartists/

I personally have submitted 10 photos for consideration and stated in the description of my images that I have an agreement with my models I will only release them through RM not RF licensing. My models want to know that there are some controls in place as to how their image will be used. It feels right to me. I don't know at this point how Getty will respond.

I hope this helps.

Best,
Don McCunn
http://www.flickr.com/photos/don-mccunn/sets/

> Tina
>
> What I have seen of your work is editorial (and very good). Were the
> photos you offered Getty editorial and unreleased? If so, this could
> be why they went RM.
>
> Allen Russell
> allen@...
> allenrussellphoto.com

Re: Re: Using Flickr

2009-11-12T10:49:34Z

On Thu, Nov 12, 2009 at 12:30 PM, Mike Shipman <man@...> wrote:
> Flickr strips all your metadata, copyright and contact info, and you have to
> reenter it in image management on site (which is a complete pain and
> duplication of effort) so I'm curious how Getty collects that information
> and reconnects it with the file unless the photographer takes the time to
> re-keyword and add copyright and contact info for each image.

Getty does all the keywording for you, so that's not really an issue.
The photographer has to re-enter location and date data, as well as
enter in what they want for their copyright notice.

> Everything I post to Flickr and the web elsewhere has an embedded watermark
> and is uploaded at low resolution.

This is probably best practice. The watermark deters a vast majority
of infringers.

>> I'd be concerned with Flickr's current methodology to upload hi-res,
> suitable for print, image files like I do to Photoshelter. Unless, of
> course, the images Getty is gleaning from Flickr are low res, web use files.
> To be useful for Getty your images, though, must be uploaded without an
> embedded watermark. This makes them susceptible for download by others. I
> haven't looked into it much, but maybe there's a special location for "Getty
> files" that is out of the public eye.

This isn't really how it works. Getty doesn't care about watermarks
when you send the image to them for review; they only want the
watermark stripped off of the high resolution version that you upload
directly to them via their submissions portal. That version is not
visible to the public.

Flickr does allow one to mark some photos as public and others as
private. I make all my high resolution content private and only
upload lower resolution images for the public to see. It's a bit of a
duplication of effort, but it's not really that big of a deal in this
day and age when utilizing Photoshop Actions. :)

--
-Ryan McGinnis
The BIG Storm Picture -- http://bigstormpicture.com
Vortex-2 image licensing at http://vortex-2.com
Getty: http://www.gettyimages.com/search/search.aspx?artist=Ryan+McGinnis

RE: Re: Using Flickr

2009-11-12T10:30:05Z

Flickr strips all your metadata, copyright and contact info, and you have to
reenter it in image management on site (which is a complete pain and
duplication of effort) so I'm curious how Getty collects that information
and reconnects it with the file unless the photographer takes the time to
re-keyword and add copyright and contact info for each image.

Everything I post to Flickr and the web elsewhere has an embedded watermark
and is uploaded at low resolution.

I'd be concerned with Flickr's current methodology to upload hi-res,
suitable for print, image files like I do to Photoshelter. Unless, of
course, the images Getty is gleaning from Flickr are low res, web use files.
To be useful for Getty your images, though, must be uploaded without an
embedded watermark. This makes them susceptible for download by others. I
haven't looked into it much, but maybe there's a special location for "Getty
files" that is out of the public eye.

Overall, seems like a lot of work for a very insecure distribution outlet
that, for its primary purpose, is ease of image sharing. If you're going to
put the effort into uploading to Flickr, and Getty is going to use your
files, you'd spend less time uploading directly to Getty, IMHO.

Mike Shipman
Blue Planet Photography
Stock * Commercial * Editorial * Fine Art * Classes/Workshops
www.blueplanetphoto.com
208.466.9340

Re: Re: Using Flickr

2009-11-12T10:26:14Z

I have a limited number of photos I've posted to Flickr for very
specific reasons.
Some are cell phone photos. Some are watermarked. Most are less than
600 pixels on the long side ~ no larger than I might display on my own
website.

The only problem I've encountered, so far, was adding photos to pools
so that specific bloggers could use the image.
Unfortunately once you allow some bloggers to use a photo they feel
it's theirs to give away but that's more a problem with specific
individuals than it is with Flickr.

Use but beware.

~stacy

Re: Re: Using Flickr

2009-11-12T10:11:03Z

No need to drag&Drop. Bloggers can simply hit the "Blog" button.

Tina, I would strongly suggest you go into your account settings and
disallow bloggers to use your photos. Better yet, you should consider
watermarking the images. Flickr recently changed some of their
settings that allow you to restrict access (and sharing) to contacts,
family members, or no one at all.

Stacy

On Nov 12, 2009, at 12:41 PM, Allen Russell wrote:

> Tina
>
> When I hear that serious photographers such as yourself are using
> Flickr it certainly gets my attention. However, I am having trouble
> getting past the fact that I can go to your or others photos and drag
> off a 240 wide thumb with no watermark or metadata. I hear additional
> stories of higher rez also being taken off Flickr and used. Its
> difficult to determine if the obvious risks are worth the possible
> exposure.
>

Re: Re: Using Flickr

2009-11-12T10:04:45Z

On Thu, Nov 12, 2009 at 8:17 AM, jtf22001 <john@...> wrote:

> Are talking about selling prints or licensing stock images Fred? If the former, maybe - if the latter, I have a question. Do you know even one independent picture researcher who even looks at Flicker, etc for images. (I'm not talking about thieving designers, bottom-feeding editors, etc).

In the past couple years, I've been approached by:

1 major agency representing a major automobile brand
1 major agency representing a major camera manufacturer
1 major agency representing a major credit rating agency
A whole slew of smaller companies and magazines
A tidal wave of people wanting freebies.

The agencies all were willing to license images (with quite a few
renewals) at typical advertorial rates (four figures). The smaller
companies occasionally were willing to pay normal rates, but quite a
few wandered away after being given a quote.

That's all just stuff licensed directly via people who contacted me
through Flickr. The Getty thing, which is also through Flickr, looks
to be huge. Last month's statement was for September, a time when I
only had 50 images available via Getty. One of the sales was to a
major European automobile brand for use in China. Even at 70%
commission, that's a nice bit of money.

I did get a number of infringements via people who found my photos via
Flickr and put them on their websites without permission or licensing.
Thanks to an awesome attorney (and the fact that I register all my
images at the Copyright office), I am usually well compensated when
this happens.

While I know I'm probably shooting myself in foot by pointing out to
the competition that Flickr = Good, the truth is... Flickr = Good. :)

--
-Ryan McGinnis
The BIG Storm Picture -- http://bigstormpicture.com
Vortex-2 image licensing at http://vortex-2.com
Getty: http://www.gettyimages.com/search/search.aspx?artist=Ryan+McGinnis

Re: Re: Using Flickr

2009-11-12T10:00:45Z

At 12:41 PM 11/12/2009, you wrote:

>Tina
>
>When I hear that serious photographers such as yourself are using
>Flickr it certainly gets my attention. However, I am having trouble
>getting past the fact that I can go to your or others photos and drag
>off a 240 wide thumb with no watermark or metadata. I hear additional
>stories of higher rez also being taken off Flickr and used. Its
>difficult to determine if the obvious risks are worth the possible
>exposure.
>
>Allen Russell

That is a concern, Allen. I'm using TinEye to track fraudulent use
right now and hope that they will continue to add more websites to
their database. All of my photos are registered with the copyright
office so, if anybody does use them without my permission, I can
sue. So far, I haven't had to do that but I have managed to collect
triple the fee for several photos "used without permission". The no
metadata is a problem and I hope if enough photographers keep
complaining, Flickr and other photo sharing sites will start
including metadata with all photos. Right now, I don't know of any that do.

Tina

Tina Manley
www.tinamanley.com

Re: Re: Using Flickr

2009-11-12T09:41:57Z

Tina

When I hear that serious photographers such as yourself are using
Flickr it certainly gets my attention. However, I am having trouble
getting past the fact that I can go to your or others photos and drag
off a 240 wide thumb with no watermark or metadata. I hear additional
stories of higher rez also being taken off Flickr and used. Its
difficult to determine if the obvious risks are worth the possible
exposure.

Allen Russell
allen@...
allenrussellphoto.com

On Nov 11, 2009, at 10:50 AM, Tina Manley wrote:

> ian wrote:
> >
> >
> > Angie,
> >
> > Anyone with a Flickr account is now able to make an application to
> > submit their images to Getty ( should they want to). No longer do
> > people have to wait to be discovered. Those interested have to
> choose
> > ten images and send an email to Getty to have their application
> > reviewed. I understand that the majority of images selected are
> placed
> > as RF by Getty - certainly anything that has had a Creative Commons
> > licence has to be RF. But further than that I gather that Getty are
> > very strongly favouring RF.
> >
> > Ian Murray
> >
> >
>
> In spite of the fact that I have refused to sign Getty's contract
> when I
> was sucked up by their acquisition of Workbookstock, I put some photos
> up on a Flickr site just to see what would happen. Getty selected 11
> and put them all in RM. I'm leaving them there to see if this is a
> reasonable path to follow. I don't have any idea how they decide to
> put
> something in RM or RF, but if mine had been classed as RF, I would
> have
> withdrawn them.
>
> Tina
> www.tinamanley.com
>
>

[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

------------------------------------

----------------------------------------------------------------------
Courtesy of The STOCKPHOTO Network - http://www.stockphoto.net/
Reproduction of STOCKPHOTO posts require permission of author
Posting Rules - http://www.stockphoto.net/Subscriptions.php#rules
STOCKPHOTO Archives - http://www.stockphoto.net/Archives.php
STOCKPHOTO Bookstore - http://www.stockphoto.net/bookstore/
----------------------------------------------------------------------Yahoo! Groups Links

<*> To visit your group on the web, go to:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/STOCKPHOTO/

<*> Your email settings:
Individual Email | Traditional

<*> To change settings online go to:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/STOCKPHOTO/join
(Yahoo! ID required)

<*> To change settings via email:
STOCKPHOTO-digest@...
STOCKPHOTO-fullfeatured@...

<*> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
STOCKPHOTO-unsubscribe@...

<*> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to:
http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/

Re: Re: Using Flickr

2009-11-12T09:35:53Z

At 09:17 AM 11/12/2009, you wrote:
>Are talking about selling prints or licensing stock images Fred? If
>the former, maybe - if the latter, I have a question. Do you know
>even one independent picture researcher who even looks at Flicker,
>etc for images. (I'm not talking about thieving designers,
>bottom-feeding editors, etc).
>
>John Fowler

Maybe not, but Getty looks at Flickr and picks photos from
there. Independent photo researchers look at Getty.

Tina

Tina Manley
www.tinamanley.com

Re: Using Flickr

2009-11-12T09:18:06Z

You might already know this, but you can apply to Getty directly from the Getty site. There's a little test you take, and then you are invited to submit a selection of images for review. That might be easier that putting all your stuff on flickr.

--- In STOCKPHOTO@..., "ian" <idmurray@...> wrote:

>
> Angie,
>
> Anyone with a Flickr account is now able to make an application to submit their images to Getty ( should they want to). No longer do people have to wait to be discovered. Those interested have to choose ten images and send an email to Getty to have their application reviewed. I understand that the majority of images selected are placed as RF by Getty - certainly anything that has had a Creative Commons licence has to be RF. But further than that I gather that Getty are very strongly favouring RF.
>
> Ian Murray
>
> <angieknostphoto@> wrote:
>
> > I have contemplated using flickr, but it seems the upload time would be better sent contributing photos to an actual stock site. Flickr seems to be a place where photographers post to get comments/compliments from other photographers. How this helps business, I don't understand. Thoughts??
>

Re: Using Flickr

2009-11-12T06:17:46Z

> > From: Fred [mailto:freddyv@]
> > If I were selling my own images instead of selling and marketing other
> > people's images I would be using Flickr as part of a comprehensive marketing
> > strategy designed to get as many eyes as possible on my images.
>

Are talking about selling prints or licensing stock images Fred? If the former, maybe - if the latter, I have a question. Do you know even one independent picture researcher who even looks at Flicker, etc for images. (I'm not talking about thieving designers, bottom-feeding editors, etc).

John Fowler

Re: Re: Using Flickr

2009-11-11T11:15:53Z

Allen Russell wrote:
> Tina
>
> What I have seen of your work is editorial (and very good). Were the
> photos you offered Getty editorial and unreleased? If so, this could
> be why they went RM.
>
> Allen Russell
>
Thanks, Allen. No, I decided to try something maybe a little more
commercial for Getty - photos of animals on safari in Africa. I don't
think their market for editorial is that great, but I could be wrong!

Tina

Re: Re: Using Flickr

2009-11-11T10:04:22Z

Tina

What I have seen of your work is editorial (and very good). Were the
photos you offered Getty editorial and unreleased? If so, this could
be why they went RM.

Allen Russell
allen@...
allenrussellphoto.com

On Nov 11, 2009, at 10:50 AM, Tina Manley wrote:

Re: Re: Using Flickr

2009-11-11T09:50:20Z

ian wrote:

>
>
> Angie,
>
> Anyone with a Flickr account is now able to make an application to
> submit their images to Getty ( should they want to). No longer do
> people have to wait to be discovered. Those interested have to choose
> ten images and send an email to Getty to have their application
> reviewed. I understand that the majority of images selected are placed
> as RF by Getty - certainly anything that has had a Creative Commons
> licence has to be RF. But further than that I gather that Getty are
> very strongly favouring RF.
>
> Ian Murray
>
>

In spite of the fact that I have refused to sign Getty's contract when I
was sucked up by their acquisition of Workbookstock, I put some photos
up on a Flickr site just to see what would happen. Getty selected 11
and put them all in RM. I'm leaving them there to see if this is a
reasonable path to follow. I don't have any idea how they decide to put
something in RM or RF, but if mine had been classed as RF, I would have
withdrawn them.

Tina
www.tinamanley.com

Re: Using Flickr

2009-11-11T08:42:04Z

Angie,

Anyone with a Flickr account is now able to make an application to submit their images to Getty ( should they want to). No longer do people have to wait to be discovered. Those interested have to choose ten images and send an email to Getty to have their application reviewed. I understand that the majority of images selected are placed as RF by Getty - certainly anything that has had a Creative Commons licence has to be RF. But further than that I gather that Getty are very strongly favouring RF.

Ian Murray

<angieknostphoto@...> wrote:

> I have contemplated using flickr, but it seems the upload time would be better sent contributing photos to an actual stock site. Flickr seems to be a place where photographers post to get comments/compliments from other photographers. How this helps business, I don't understand. Thoughts??

Re: Re: Using Flickr

2009-11-11T08:32:34Z

On 11 Nov 2009, at 15:58, angiephotographer wrote:

> I don't understand. Thoughts??

I saw this on a web designers forum discussing copyright.....

"Most of the time I get pics from flickr, cuz most people don't give
a shit if I use their pic or not (most of them being stay at home
moms, students, whatever)

Even if they care, they're too lazy to sue. Ha! "

Flickr is dangerous. It teaches people to steal through its CC licence.

Bob Croxford

www.atmosphere.co.uk

Re: Using Flickr

2009-11-11T07:58:12Z

In the terms of service, FLickr specifies that it is for personal sharing only, and not to be used for business. So I find this confusing. Professional photographers are obviously posting to further their business. Getty is soliciting business when they scout an image and want to license it.

I have contemplated using flickr, but it seems the upload time would be better sent contributing photos to an actual stock site. Flickr seems to be a place where photographers post to get comments/compliments from other photographers. How this helps business, I don't understand. Thoughts??

--- In STOCKPHOTO@..., "Kathie M. Thomas, Author, Blogger, Speaker" <kathie@...> wrote:

>
> I find it useful. There are quite a number of groups you can join. And I've
> already been approached for a tourism group to use one of my photos. I
> haven't been on Flickr very long so I was excited about that. Hoping more
> will happen in the not too distant future.
>
>
> <http://vadirectory.net/DSC_0015x150.jpg>
> <http://vadirectory.net/DSC_0015x150.jpg>
>
> <http://www.photosbykathie.com/images/nikond90.jpg> Kathie M. Thomas
> Australian Photography
> <http://www.kathiesphotos.com/> http://www.kathiesphotos.com
> <http://www.photosbykathie.com/> http://www.photosbykathie.com
> http://www.muchaboutmelbourne.com <http://www.muchaboutmelbourne.com/>
> Camera of choice: Nikon D90
>
> <http://vadirectory.net/DSC_0015x150.jpg>
>
>
> _____
>
> From: Fred [mailto:freddyv@...]
> Sent: Friday, 6 November 2009 6:08 AM
> To: STOCKPHOTO@...
> Subject: [STOCKPHOTO] Re: Using Flickr
>
>
>
>
>
>
> I think the question is: will Flickr help your business?
>
> If I were selling my own images instead of selling and marketing other
> people's images I would be using Flickr as part of a comprehensive marketing
> strategy designed to get as many eyes as possible on my images.
>
> They offer some pretty good tools, from what I have seen, to help you
> protect and market your images. What you can't do is simply throw a few
> images up there and expect the sales to start rolling in.
>
> Fred Voetsch
>
> Owner - Acclaim Images
> http://www.acclaimi <http://www.acclaimimages.com/> mages.com/
>
> Group Moderator - Selling Stock Photography
> http://groups. <http://groups.yahoo.com/group/selling_stock_photography/>
> yahoo.com/group/selling_stock_photography/
>
> --- In STOCKPHOTO@yahoogro <mailto:STOCKPHOTO%40yahoogroups.com> ups.com,
> "dgishcabibble" <dgishcabibble@> wrote:
> >
> > Hi,
> >
> > Is anyone here using Flickr? And if so, how are you using it?
> >
> > What size files are you posting? How do you protect your work from theft
> there? Have you made any sales or contacts via Flickr?
> >
> > Any tips?
> >
> > Is this actually a great new business tool, or just another way to waste
> time on the computer?
> >
> > Cheers,
> > Deborah
> >
> >
> > ...........................
> >
>
>
>
>
>
>
> [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
>

Re: Meet an enemy of Stock Photographers.

2009-11-09T11:34:39Z

One moral that might be gotten from this story:

Use caution in subcontracting creative work to firms in other countries (that will inevitably have laws greatly differing from your locale).

Another example: I have a friend in the medical transcription business. She encourages the American doctors she deals with to contract their transcription work to American companies, because they can be sure they are being compliant with US privacy laws.

She told me a story of a doctor who sent his transcriptioning to a foreign country, to save $. Through a paperwork error, his account went past-due, and the foreign company threatened to post every one of his patient's medical histories publicly on the internet (which they could legally do). A US company could not legally do that, but the foreign company could do this with no recourse. And if you were one of these patients who got their health records exposed publicly, you surely would blame the doctor.

This sounds like a similar situation. My opinion, he should settle quickly, as the liability is with the end user, always, and copyright violations can cost in the tens of thousands of dollars. What he is being asked to pay is a bargain compared to what this could end up costing. This is a complication of a global economy -- there is no 'global liability'. If you contract cheap labor to save a buck, you might not really save in the long run.

--- In STOCKPHOTO@..., Len Holsborg <lenswork1@...> wrote:

>
>
> I always find it amazing that people will try every trick in the book, and every excuse, to rationalize, or avoid admitting, their guilt.
>
> There almost always seems to be a common thread amongst infringers - "I didn't know my subcontractor in India who provided me the image was a crook", "I didn't know images on the internet aren't always in the public domain", "stock photographers and/or their agents are extortionists", and on and on and on.......
>
> While I do agree that Getty's approach appears very heavy handed (if in fact the subject demand letter is Getty's first contact with the infringer) the bottom line is that an infringement has taken place and can be proved by Getty. There is no presumption of innocence at this point. Getty, I presume, knows they either own, or have the exclusive right to license the image, so there is no room for 'innocence' here, unless of course, the photographer in question broke their contract with Getty on exclusivity, which would be a whole other matter altogether.
>
> But in Mr Chan's case, he claims to respect intellectual property rights, but refuses to take responsibility for his actions or his lack of due diligence in his business dealings with subcontractors on matters concerning Â©. You can't have it both ways.
>
> I suppose Getty did a cost analysis of trying "the nice guy" / congenial approach of sending initial letters /e-mails/ correspondence to the infringers, and determined it wasn't cost effective, and that the potential loss of alienating a potential customer was minimal. Thus they took, it appears, the 'go right for the throat' of the infringer approach, and cast congeniality and good will to the wind.
>
> But to broad brush a whole industry based on the actions of one member (albeit the biggest member) is just plain wrong, vicious and inappropriate.
>
> Mr. Chan is seeking financial donations to support his counter attack, claiming he does not have enough funds to fight alone. My check for $0.01 (1 cent) is in the mail, I just can't resist contributing to causes that are based on fighting evil, extortionist businesses like stock photography ;-}
>
> I hope Mr Chan receives alot more money, he may need it, not only to pay for the image license, but to pay legal costs and damages from a potential libel and slander suit..........
>
> regards,
>
>
> Len Holsborg
>
> http://lenholsborg.com
>
> images also available @
> http://gettyimages.com/photonica
> http://alamy.com
> http://cgibackgrounds.com
>
> rights managed licensing exclusively
>
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Bob Croxford <bobcroxford@...>
> To: STOCKPHOTO@...
> Sent: Thu, Oct 29, 2009 12:16 pm
> Subject: [STOCKPHOTO] Meet an enemy of Stock Photographers.
>
>
>
>
>
>
> There is a charming guy called Matthew Chan who was so incensed that
> Getty should ask him to pay for a pirated image on his website he has
> decided to attack all stock photographers. Its a bit like a guy
> caught shoplifting and starting a campaign against all shops.
>
> http://extortionletterinfo.com/boycott.htm
>
> The home page is worth a read too.
>
> He also has a forum for comments. I was banned without ever wanting
> to post a message.
>
> Bob Croxford
>
> www.atmosphere.co.uk
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
>

Re: Any new info about Picturestock.com?

2009-11-09T08:01:14Z

> Maybe 'cause there's a sucker born every minute?

On the plus side, so much of selling -- selling anything -- is about
helping people realize their dreams. Legitimate businesses do this.

Or, in the case of P. T. Barnum, *convincing* them that you'll help
them realize their dreams, whether or not you do so. Some businesses
do this, instead.

Walter Dufresne
Brooklyn, New York

Re: Gridmonkey stock agency

2009-11-09T06:26:44Z

--- In STOCKPHOTO@..., "rsheremeta" <rick@...> wrote:
>
> Has anyone had any recent experience with this agency?
>
They seem like a decent bunch, with a reasonable approach. But perhaps all hat, no cows. Say they're moving from SA to UK.

I've a bunch of stuff there - no sales yet - in quite a long while.

John Fowler

How to Insert Keywords from a Text File using Photo Mechanic

2009-11-09T05:42:21Z

For any stock photographers that outsource your keywording might find
the following info of interest.

Have you ever received a "Text file" or spread sheet from a
Keywording Service and wanted to avoid the drudgery of copying and
pasting the results into your image filesZ? If so you might be
interested in the web page I've just put up.

This is a condensed version of one of the presentations I put
together to demonstrate the power of the Variables and Code
Replacement features in Photo Mechanic at this past Photo Plus Expo in NYC.

http://www.controlledvocabulary.com/imagedatabases/cv-photo-mechanic-code-replacement.html

On the trade show floor I used this technique to insert about 20-40
keywords for each of fifteen image files that had been saved as 50 mb
sized TIFF files in about 15 seconds.

Depending on the text file you get from the keywording service,
there's probably very little work you'd have to do on the file
itself. The rest of the steps are fairly easy to follow, even for a
someone new to Photo Mechanic.

If you aren't that familiar with how to add metadata in Photo
Mechanic, then you'll probably find the following tutorial to be very helpful.

http://www.photometadata.org/META-Tutorials-Photo-Mechanic

Hope that helps.

David

--
David Riecks (that's "i" before "e", but the "e" is silent)
Need Keywords for your database? Get the Controlled Vocabulary Solution
http://controlledvocabulary.com/products/ support for a dozen of the
most popular imaging applications from Adobe Bridge to Photo Mechanic.

Re: Any new info about Picturestock.com?

2009-11-09T04:19:44Z

> I do believe this is the same crappy organization I ran across some 15-20 years At least, I seem to recognize the Niagara Falls address.
> Picturestock sucks in amateurs, giving them 'Official' Press Passes and talks about all of the royalties it pays out.
> To be avoided like the plague by amateurs and pros alike.

Brian:

Thank you. That's the group I remember too.

Brian Yarvin
Author, Educator, Photographer
http://www.brianyarvin.com

Re: Re: Any new info about Picturestock.com?

2009-11-08T06:33:55Z

> Brian, good to hear from you!

Jorge:

These days, I don't have much to add at this list. But as a teacher, I'm up on subjects like this
one.

> I actually asked , since the latest discussion in this forum about them dates
> back to 2005, and it kept me wondering about their survival, just as you wonder.

I was a bit surprised to see that they're still around - with the emergence of crowdsourcing,
there are so many places that take amateur photos. Are any of them legitimate? I don't know.

> If anyone in this list actually dealing with them these days, as to get an idea
> of what is this all about?

So would I. So would lots of people! So please...if you're getting regular sales from
Picturestock, tell us more. Where can we see the tear sheets? How do we find more
examples of their published work?

I've said this before here, but it bears repeating:

The real issue is that of the internet itself. Twenty years ago, if a person wanted to learn
about stock photography, they'd get a few books from the library and make a few phone
calls. They'd know the business backwards and forwards in an afternoon. Today, they
instead go on the internet where dreamers and con artists outnumber experienced stock
photographers a thousand to one. So, when a really experienced person comes along and
relates what the business is really like for them, they get called "haters" or "liars" or worse -
and then go running into each others arms.

For me, it's really sad.

Brian Yarvin
Author, Educator, Photographer
http://www.brianyarvin.com

Re: Re: Using Flickr/ Smugmug

2009-11-07T19:09:05Z

It isn't often done at all but you certainly can change from licensing an
image as RF, priced by filesize, to licensing as RM, priced by usage. It
does mean, however, that you will not be able to offer exclusive uses, which
now is a very rare circumstance, and you won't have a thorough usage
history. I've had a few images be changed in this manner, for other reasons,
even after being licensed. Nonetheless isn't a good idea or common practice
and could preclude submission to agencies.

As for Smugmug it is certainly not a place buyers often, go so any sales,
even as personal/commercial RF, setting your own prices, are likely to be
minimal.

Better in my opinion for OP to explore a Photoshelter account
http://www.photoshelter.com

Photoshelter has a much much richer feature set oriented to professional
photographers.

d
-----
david sanger photography llc
travel :: stock :: photography :: technology
updates at www.davidsanger.com
t 510-526-0800
m 510-526-2800

On Fri, Nov 6, 2009 at 2:05 PM, David Riecks <david@...> wrote:

>
>
> At 07:49 AM 11/6/2009, tomcraig2003 wrote:
> > Hence RF- the easy solution for a complicated IT problem (not to
> > mention your photographer's rights problems), but at least you can
> > set your own prices. And you know who what and when someone
> > downloaded an image in your stats info.
>
> Tom:
>
> Yes, however, one caution is that once an image is licensed as RF,
> you will never be able to offer it as Rights Managed. If the subject
> is such that RF is an appropriate model that might be an option.
> However, I would encourage those that are seriously considering self
> marketing to consider solutions such as PhotoShelter.com or
> LicenseStream.com rather than Smugmug for that reason alone.
>
> David
>
> --
> David Riecks (that's "i" before "e", but the "e" is silent)
> Need Keywords for your database? Get the Controlled Vocabulary Solution
> http://controlledvocabulary.com/products/ support for a dozen of the
> most popular imaging applications from Adobe Bridge to Photo Mechanic.
>
> [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
>
>
>

[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

Re: Any new info about Picturestock.com?

2009-11-07T18:31:24Z

Brian, good to hear from you!

I actually asked , since the latest discussion in this forum about them dates back to 2005, and it kept me wondering about their survival, just as you wonder.

If anyone in this list actually dealing with them these days, as to get an idea of what is this all about?

Jorge

> Way too many years ago, Picturestock was discussed on this list, but since Stockphoto rarely
> touches beginners issues these days, it hasn't come up. So I will put out the same challenge
> I did thirteen years ago; if anybody can prove steady sales from Picturestock, come forward.
>

>
> Brian Yarvin
> Author, Educator, Photographer
> http://www.brianyarvin.com
>