Jump to content

Recommended Posts

3 hours ago, McOwenLevi said:

😭😱 Oh ohh...I updated most of my photo's keywords this past weekend. So, does it mean most of them won't be seen by buyers now?  😭 Hope they could fix this issue soon. 

I updated a few as well. No, I would say (I checked actually) that based on my old, original tags they still come up in search. Only the newly added keywords don't have any effect for now. As if you have never added the new ones. Quite upsetting, but... It is what it is. Only that you (and I and others) did the extra work basically for nothing. But who knows. Maybe in a couple of weeks they may still take effect. I hope at least. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi there, I am also doing stock for a few months now. I've 369 images accepted. My sales are now: 

August 2019: 2 sales
September 2019: 9 sales
October 2019: 29 sales
November 2019 (until today): 20 sales

I don't know if that is very good, but it seems better than a few sales in 1.5 years.

I also upload the non-editorial images to Adobe stock in these months, but I had no sales there yet.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 12/2/2019 at 11:57 AM, balajisrinivasan said:

I think this is the clientele he's gunning for... https://www.shutterstock.com/search/man+foot+upside+down

That's actually quite an amazing collection, it goes to show how you can literally find ANYTHING on Shutterstock.

Mystified by the upside down surfer - if you caught a guy doing a headstand on a longboard, why on earth would you upload it upside own?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, Milo J said:

it goes to show how you can literally find ANYTHING on Shutterstock.

Yeah... some day I'm going to try to find the time to photograph every little thing in my house (properly) and put it up to see what happens. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 11/1/2019 at 6:13 AM, geogif said:

Even if some moles who can't look over their own mound think so

Nice phrase...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Your descriptions does not match your photos. 

"Female Model doing photoshot wearing red rose top and red jeans underneath sunshine"

The photo shows only top third of the woman, and the top is multi-colored plus there are no jeans. Also, why did you use the word 'model' instead of woman or lady?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi

 

I often have images of well known landmarks rejected, always for copyright issues such as images of Sydney Opera House. I have read the Beginners's Guide and that explains why but I don't understand how thew Shutterstock library is stuffed full of images of Sydney Opera House which offer similar angles or location to mine. I have had the same with e.g. Angel Of The North, Revolution Square, Santiago in Cuba. I attach examples. Any advise as to why there are images that infringe copyright as defined by shutterstock but others that are similar do not and have been accepted

Cheers Keith

Screenshot 2020-04-13 at 14.15.41.png

Screenshot 2020-04-13 at 14.16.47.png

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 4/13/2020 at 3:18 PM, Keith Barnes said:

Hi

 

I often have images of well known landmarks rejected, always for copyright issues such as images of Sydney Opera House. I have read the Beginners's Guide and that explains why but I don't understand how thew Shutterstock library is stuffed full of images of Sydney Opera House which offer similar angles or location to mine. I have had the same with e.g. Angel Of The North, Revolution Square, Santiago in Cuba. I attach examples. Any advise as to why there are images that infringe copyright as defined by shutterstock but others that are similar do not and have been accepted

Cheers Keith

Screenshot 2020-04-13 at 14.15.41.png

Screenshot 2020-04-13 at 14.16.47.png

I think it's a good opportunity to thank the review team for doing a good job in your case.
Because in other cases you describe, they seem to have overlooked that the Sydney Opera House is protected.


Since the search term "Sydney Opera" is even included in the descriptions and keywords, it is easy for the lawyers to punish such violations. How many times does a picture of the opera have to sell until you have collected the four-digit amounts you have to pay for copyright infringement?

https://www.shutterstock.com/contributorsupport/articles/kbat02/Known-Image-Restrictions-Places-and-Landmarks-Asia-Middle-East-and-Australia

"Sydney Opera House

Located  in Sydney, Australia

Unacceptable for commercial use

Cityscapes will be considered, as long as the building is not the primary subject of the image. This content will be evaluated on a case by case basis

Acceptable for editorial use with a proper caption"

 

As for the monument in cuba, it is from 1991. copyrights usually expire after 70 years. So this object should also still be protected.
The "Angel of the North" is, as far as I know, a sculpture in England.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Wilm Ihlenfeld said:

As for the monument in cuba, it is from 1991. copyrights usually expire after 70 years. So this object should also still be protected.
The "Angel of the North" is, as far as I know, a sculpture in England.

I think it’s 70 years from the death of the artist / author etc in most jurisdictions; in the case of Angel of the North, Gormley’s still alive so people who want to sell commercial images of it are in for a long wait.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Ricoh Mirai User Club said:

I think it’s 70 years from the death of the artist / author etc in most jurisdictions

Yes, that's what I meant, but I phrased it wrong. The way you write it, it's correct.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 4/13/2020 at 3:18 PM, Keith Barnes said:

Hi

 

I often have images of well known landmarks rejected, always for copyright issues such as images of Sydney Opera House. I have read the Beginners's Guide and that explains why but I don't understand how thew Shutterstock library is stuffed full of images of Sydney Opera House which offer similar angles or location to mine. I have had the same with e.g. Angel Of The North, Revolution Square, Santiago in Cuba. I attach examples. Any advise as to why there are images that infringe copyright as defined by shutterstock but others that are similar do not and have been accepted

Cheers Keith

Screenshot 2020-04-13 at 14.15.41.png

Screenshot 2020-04-13 at 14.16.47.png

Try to submit them as editorial:
https://www.shutterstock.com/contributorsupport/articles/kbat02/000006648

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 hours ago, Keith Barnes said:

why other similar images are on SS site as commercial images without release

Because errors were made by both the contributor, who should have not submitted them and the reviewers, who should not have accepted them. This doesn't make it right by any means.

You should be happy that your photos were handled correctly, and you may want to protect yourself by not submitting such photos as commercial in the first place, just in case the reviewer fails to correct your mistake.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Lots of great advice given in this thread. I hope the contributors who asked questions can now start moving forward in the right direction. 

This is actually the first time Ive read this thread and it's pretty obvious from a few posts on the first page that Grossinger made a post here at some stage. He must have deleted it. I wonder if he's regretted some of the silly things he's typed on these forums. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

×
×
  • Create New...