Jump to content

GregDPhotos

Members
  • Content Count

    475
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Everything posted by GregDPhotos

  1. Sales down 40% from January. Opposite trend from this time last year (Feb 2019 was up 80+% from Jan 2019).
  2. My impression, which I realize may be incorrect, is that the standard and sensitive use licenses will remain exactly the same; the change is that we can't exclude our photos from being sold under a sensitive use license. Perhaps @Kate Shutterstock would provide us with a copy of the standard sensitive use license?
  3. Reading the relevant section of the license agreement itself might clarify some confusion (though my preference to be able to opt out stands): https://www.shutterstock.com/license
  4. I'm not an attorney, but based on the standard license agreement offered by Shutterstock (https://www.shutterstock.com/license), especially section 1.1, I suspect that the use you described would fall under permitted modifications. The one issue I see would be if credit is given or implied to be given to the painter, as it is most definitely not their original work. If that's the case, I'd talk with a copyright attorney and figure out if anything can be done - and if it's worth it. I am aware of one potential inexpensive action you can take; if there is an attorney on this forum maybe they could elaborate on what I'm referring to.
  5. And then there's the ethical (at least) need to contact past models and find out if they're okay with photos of them staying up...
  6. Not going to leak my best-seller. But here's my oddball download from January: If I recall, this specifically-identified landscape from Washington State - that a lot of people here wouldn't recognize - was downloaded in Asia. Perhaps a travel agency? 🙃
  7. If a person can sue (and win) because their hot coffee is hot...
  8. If they are your original works and don't include or substantially reflect someone else's, you can submit them as illustrations.
  9. You can contact SS through the contributor support page. I've gotten some help on rejection issues that way. My guess is that the issue is either (1) the design on the pillar in the lower left corner (though I think that would be a copyright issue, not trademark issue), or (2) something in the lower right corner (I can't tell from my screen, but there are a lot of products there that might have a logo showing). I'd go over every bit of that area at 200%+ if you haven't already. IMHO.
  10. I like the results... yes, a bit scary IMHO. +1 as far as informing buyers that an image has been augmented.
  11. This is the best I've gotten from there (and somehow, it's the only Rainier photo of mine that has sold anywhere):
  12. These photos (among others) of Mount Rainier were taken from a perch in my area that appears inaccessible (and thus is very lonely at sunrise and sunset) - and the only one like it that I've found in an urban area that easily doesn't get something man-made in the photo.
  13. I stay in LR and stick to quick adjustments that I think will increase the chances of downloads. I'll only spend more than a couple minutes if I think a particular photo (1) has serious potential and (2) needs the editing. My all-time bestseller took serious editing (removing logos, grain, etc)... and it paid off. My 10¢
  14. I have had 2 "flora" downloads in my years on SS. I don't see it as worthy of dedicated time and effort, but when I have the opportunity while doing other photography I'll take advantage of it. That said, I'd keep post-processing time as close to 0 as possible.
  15. Early on I had several months with 0-2 sales. A lot of fluctuation over the years since, but it's been a very very long time since I've had 20 days without a sale. Be patient.
  16. F- for optimism. B+ for realism. IMHO.
×
×
  • Create New...