Jump to content

Search the Community

Showing results for tags 'ethics'.



More search options

  • Search By Tags

    Type tags separated by commas.
  • Search By Author

Content Type


Forums

  • Shutterstock
    • Forum Guidelines
    • Announcements
    • Contributor Experience
    • Show and Tell
    • Technical Issues
    • Hardware & Gear
    • Archive
    • Critique Forum

Find results in...

Find results that contain...


Date Created

  • Start

    End


Last Updated

  • Start

    End


Filter by number of...

Joined

  • Start

    End


Group


Website URL


Twitter


Instagram


Facebook


LinkedIn


Location


Interests

Found 4 results

  1. Hello, For some time now I have had an ethical problem to submit to you. In my opinion, targeting a certain group for their "skin color", gender, sexual orientation or body shape is the basis of what we define as racism, sexism, and phobias based on sexual orientation or the look. So my question is: isn't it a reprehensible attitude to seek out and target a certain type of people as advised in the shotlist? I understand that the objective is justified as wanting to change mentalities but some people will in my opinion be quite right to feel harassed. How do you see this problem? Personally, I always have trouble dealing with positive discrimination, precisely because it remains discrimination ... Of course, I do not wish to open a controversy but only to have your opinions and thoughts. My environment and my life have meant that I still have a hard time understanding these issues of racism, sexism, sexual preferences and appearances and I don't think I have any prejudices towards others. Thank you for your answers and opinions
  2. I did not keep track of the post but recently read a comment along the lines of, as I recall, that if one were to sell an image under one type of license which has previously sold under another, the fact of the prior type of sales should be disclosed. Suppose I sold things elsewhere as prints for relatively more than they sold as stock. I am wondering if that is such a scenario, or what are. If someone knows of a resource of info that would be great too. I am not in a position that this matters to me now, but would like to understand. Thanks.
  3. I may regret bringing this up but . . . Do you submit photo composites (i.e. change skies, add elements or dramatically change your original photos through plug ins, etc.) or do you have some ethical aversion to doing so? Secondly: If you do submit composites, is it your goal to make as realistic an image as you can (paying close attention to color, light direction, etc.) or is your primary goal to make the end result as dramatic and "eye catching" as possible? Before I go any further, I need to admit that I am guilty of making "sizable adjustments" to some of my submissions so I am in no way claiming some ethical superiority in asking this question. Based upon the best selling images of almost any category, it is obvious that it pays to "Enhance" your photos. SO. . . Do you do "IT"? If not, why not? Is it lack of programming capability, skill, ethics or what? Without creating a platform for bickering and argument, I would like to hear your thoughts on this subject. Please be respectful of your fellow contributor. Thanks!
  4. Hello! A quick and simple question here. I have some really good photos from photoshoots I've done very casually with my friends, which they agreed to let me use commercially after I got on Shutterstock--although it was not originally planned. From an ethical point of view, any revenue made from such photos should be split between me and them. But how? Does the community have a standard or an opinion on this?
×
×
  • Create New...