Jump to content


  • Content Count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Posts posted by TomCarpenter

  1. On 8/3/2018 at 6:56 PM, Paul R. Jones said:

    Tom, I have had a number of email chats with SS folks on submitting digitalized 35mm slides under their 'header' of 'vintage'...however, SS wants a 'release' showing I own the slides/digitalized images for each batch of submissions under 'vintage.' That, for me, was a huge obstacle as I have 1000s of such images and also need to be digitalize in JPEG not TIFF.  I suggested that I can provide a 'blanket release' that I do, in fact, own the slides that produced the digitalized images and use the 'category' 'vintage' in SSs list...SS rejected that suggestion leaving contributors like me the huge challenge of providing 'proof of ownership' in accordance with SS's rules in order to submit as 'vintage' images.  I have yet to go through their required processes and I am of the opinion their requirements are not 'contributor' friendly.

    And, there are plenty of us out there who have slides gathering dust because of the unnecessary 'obstacles' put up by SS in my opinion.

    Interesting discussion on this. Did you see the Vivian Maier documentaries? John Maloof started marketing scans of her films.  Unfortunately, although he bought the film media that didn't give him the copyright. subsequently there was a big court battle involving Vivian's heirs.

    So the proof of ownership of copyright, required by Shutterstock, could be extensive.

  2. I have a very good Nikon Coolscan film scanner with infrared scratch and blemish removal. Although the scans are improved, I can never get a clean scan, to the standard of a modern digital camera. Negatives and slides get just too damaged in storage.  The only Shutterstock option might be if these are considered vintage. Here are a couple of links.



  3. On 8/1/2018 at 2:52 PM, Michael Warwick said:

    @Alex Shutterstock Oh great...you removed her photos but what about the millions of others? How fair is that? The problem is not the contributor. The problem is the inconsistency of reviews and it creates a potential liability or lost sales for SS and makes it unfair to contributors.

    Actually I find the reviews consistent now.  The title says it - Every Building Now Requiring "Property Release". Every statue, every event, every recognisable item. You don't get out of it by claiming editorial any more.

    As a result I have stopped uploading as it's not worth the hassle for the few cents you might get.

  4. 4 hours ago, Whiteaster said:

    On the 27th will be visible the longest total lunar eclipse of 21st century with a red full moon.
    It will not be visible in the US though.

    Too many clouds on the sky by us these days, still I'm hoping for a clear sky.

    It seems in London it will be an un-eclipse, as the moon will rise already eclipsed and then the shadow will move off. https://www.timeanddate.com/eclipse/in/uk/london

  5. On 7/15/2018 at 9:23 AM, paula french said:

    Thanks - i do see your point but they are clearly marked as NT with the place name- so I'm not trying to make out they are elsewhere - and they were accepted as such?  Out of interest who would be liable me - or SS for accepting them?

    I've sold them a few times - nothing huge

    If you look at Shutterstock rules, they require you to have the rights to licence the photo, so legally you would be liable. However, if it came to big money I am sure that a lawyer would make Shutterstock liable as well (for not checking enough). Routine shots are unlikely to make big money.  However this might happen with a unique event - a visit - unforeseen damage - disaster and the like.

    I think NT and others know quite well that people try to licence these photos (because they have a policy that mentions it). but it is probably not worth their while pursuing photographers in view of the little money involved.

    I expect they are more looking to get big organisation film crews and tv companies to pay licence fees to shoot.


  6. On 7/12/2018 at 4:37 PM, paula french said:

    Ooops - I have a few on here under editorial - should I delete them?

    You need to decide.  How much am I likely to get for licensing these? And if it's a fabulous photo/video and you're going to make a lot the risk may be higher. 

    If they are easily identifiable as NT then that also might sway your decision. If not then it becomes an ethical question.

    Assuming the shoe was on the other foot and NT just wanted to use your photo without your permission, would that be right?

  7. 22 hours ago, John Grummitt said:

    the buildings were designed by someone and unless you submit them as editorial, you're going to find you're rejected for not respecting the intellectual property rights. The hotel is a distinct private building which would require a property release. Getting buildings through SS without them being editorial or requiring releases is a fine art, but my port will show you it can be done. Focus on the details, not the wide angle shots.

    the sign I'm not sure about and you're spot on about the shoes.

    The sign has a perforated text on it. I have had many photos rejected because of trademark although it is just a series of letters. For example LPG (Liquified Petroleum Gas). Not a trademark just text. Clone out letters and try again.

  8. I will not advertise any NT property by making a photo or video available. I once asked for permission to put a photo on Shutterstock I had already taken, of the stones at Callanish and they required me to to pay £500.  You need a lot of sales to make any money on NT properties. Or you could get a licence. http://www.nationaltrustimages.org.uk/professional-photography

     But you can't try the "Editorial" trick as you are making them available for your financial benefit.

    Mind you I have taken and sold photos of NT properties from outside the property, but only landscape type. Buildings would fall foul of Property Release under current standards.


  9. This is the Shutterstock page about the license differences. https://www.shutterstock.com/license

    If you received 33c then that would be a standard image licence. I would say Shutterstock should be informed.  But then you might get $1.88.

    I notice that the postcard has an "artist signature" on it.  That may also be in important legal point. 

    At least you are not getting the recent USA case where the user was given "fair use" rights as it was a scene that the photographer just captured. https://www.engadget.com/2018/07/03/us-court-rules-online-photos-fair-use/?guccounter=1


  10. 5 minutes ago, mandritoiu said:

    Selling 45 photos/hour means 1024/day and 394,200/year. Even at 25c, it would mean $98,550/year and that's way above minimum wage.

    You probably forgot that photos are not sold just 8 hours a day.


    Yes you are right about the selling. My mistake. You have about 2000 typical working hours in a year and about 8500 selling hours.

  11. 1 hour ago, Alexandre Rotenberg said:

    Keep in mind that most of the images on here are licensed for subs (25cents on starting tier) so of you're taking you one hour per photo and it earns you the rule of thumb $1 per year per photo, that's, from a business point of view, unsustainable.

    For sure. A lot less than minimum wage. To reach minimum wage in UK, you would need to sell about 45 photos an hour at 25c each.

    Even if you get the ODD you would need 7 photos an hour.

  12. Some of my accepted photos were shot on a Canon 300D, but only the ones I shot on raw. The jpegs did not meet Shutterstock's criteria for sharpening/artifacts/pixellation.  Or noise at ISOs above base level..

    You also don't have much scope for cropping (possibly even levelling a horizon).

    I would say that you would find it OK if you only shot within the capability of the camera.

    Then, of course, you need good ideas.

    But it's the same with more modern cameras and lenses.

    My Olympus EPL5 has too much noise above 200 ISO.

    Fuji XPro-1 has worms in landscape photos and moire in video.

    And lenses have their problems too - softness and aberrations

  13. I just submitted a photo of a disused UK coin that has been out of circulation for 25 years. And was rejected as non-licensable content..1933505867_HalfNewPenny.thumb.jpg.ac4b9b31bff91a3ba1b30a396c8ff9ee.jpg

    Of course there are 123 pages of UK coins which are licensable.

    https://www.shutterstock.com/search?page=1&searchterm=uk coin&sort=popular&image_type=all&search_source=base_search_form&language=en

    I have checked the non-licensable content criteria and currency "could" be rejected. Although defunct coins could not be construed as currency. UK coins are allowed.

    This is what is written:

    Banknotes / Currency

    • Flat scans, flat photographs, or head-on images of Banknotes (both U.S. & foreign) are unacceptable for commercial use.
    • Images containing banknotes are acceptable for commercial or editorial use (with a proper caption) as long as they are not direct shots of the entire banknote. These images will be evaluated on a case-by-case basis.
    • Canadian banknotes and Canadian coins are unacceptable to reproduce in any form.
    • British pound banknotes are unacceptable to reproduce in any form. British pound coins are acceptable for both commercial and editorial use.


    Normally I would not bother, but this particular half-penny coin is not well represented in the photographs shown. In fact I could find only one other example.

    I have no great expectations that this would be a good seller. The issue is the fair and equitable application of rules without bias.

    I have raised it with SS and received a thoughtful and helpful response but at the end of the day it's a "hard luck try something else" story.



  • Create New...