dcdigitalphoto: How does including an image in a page which earns money through advertising not class as commercial use? By using it in a page you're promoting your business because your business revolves around posting pages that have advertising on them.
Aside from that, who in their right mind would embed an image directly in an advertisement, especially if Getty includes their own advertising in it.
Feel free to explain the distinction. If you advertise your site or brand by promoting the posts within it, is that commercial use or commercial activiity?
InTheMist: It's basically YouTube for photos.
Except most people upload to YouTube with no expectation of earning money. People expect Getty to act as their agent and distributor to sell their files, not give them away. Also people can earn a decent amount through advertising if lots of people watch their videos on YouTube. Getty can't even figure out how to make money for themselves from this venture, let alone the contributor, other than a nebulous claim of maybe including advertising at some stage in the future, of which the contributor will maybe get tiny percentages of percentages of pennies.
danieljcox: Typically Getty to give up on the things it doesn't profit from. They take as much and sometimes more than 70% of a photo sale, giving the photographer 30% or less and then renege on their commitment to handle the business end of licensing photography by letting images be used for no charge. With Getty it's always what's best for Getty. Ever since joining Getty, by way of one of their many agency buyouts, Getty has never shown any interest in the people who provide them content. Even Corbis gives their contributors an editor to contact. Not Getty. Chalk this new policy up to another way for them to make money by not spending any to fight piracy. Getty profits and once again photographers don't. Like I said, typical Getty.
Daniel J. Coxwww.naturalexposures.com
If you're getting 30% from Getty you're doing well. Most people are 15-20%
How does including an image in a page which earns money through advertising not class as commercial use? By using it in a page you're promoting your business because your business revolves around posting pages that have advertising on them.
dcdigitalphoto: I don't really understand why a power house camera like this doesn't have a basic setting that appears on other cameras. I'm talking about TvAv where you set the shutter speed and aperture and the camera works out the ISO required. I have found it extremely useful shooting sports.
Let me reply to my own comment there and say that it appears to have an Auto ISO capability in manual mode, which appears to do what I described. Buried in the text, didn't see it. Hopefully it isn't buried in sub menus as well.
I don't really understand why a power house camera like this doesn't have a basic setting that appears on other cameras. I'm talking about TvAv where you set the shutter speed and aperture and the camera works out the ISO required. I have found it extremely useful shooting sports.
Bjorn_L: The bigger issue then what % you get is how MUCH you get. Meaning 15% of a billion is more the 50% of a million. 500px has not be a major player in selling photos. What new marketing efforts are they putting out other then this attempt to get photographers excited about 30% of what thus far has been a rather small number.Getty (for example) might take a big huge cut but they also tend to sell alot of photos.
This is very true. I sell through Shutterstock and Pond5. I get 50% of each sale at Pond 5 and a much lower percentage at SS, but I get 100 times the sales per upload at SS and more than 10 times the $ per image uploaded to their site.
matt k: Can I suggest that perhaps the photographer gets 70% and 500px gets 30%.Their current proposal is insulting and smacks of greed.And can I suggest that if it doesn't happen then photographers boycott the site? Perhaps there is an opening here for a photographers co-op where a group of photographers start up a site and get the full value of their images minus expenses?
Look up Stocksy. 50% on sales + full value on extended licenses and contributors get a cut of end of year profit.
vadims: OK, ok, it's a ripoff. Now please tell me what established microstock site gives a better deal. iStockPhoto pays 15% (45% if Exclusive, which is something you most probably wouldn't want), Shutterstock pays 20% to 30% (if you happened to earn $10+ with them already), and so on and so forth.
Pretty please no emotions etc., it's just a question. And I would really appreciate if it's answered.
iStock only pays 45% if you sold more than about 100,000 photos the previous year. The number of photographers who did that is about 1.
Most exclusives get 25%-35%.
Classic Adobe combination of ignoring the questions and not listening to people who actually have bought their software. Everyone loses from this. Hackers will find a way to circumvent their process and people who legitimately buy their software will choose not to.
Shoot foot.Reload.Shoot foot.Reload etc
Pentax did a similar thing or the K-X and other earlier models. It's not ground breaking but it is popular with some people. I had a white K-X which was a lot less threatening to some people. I was able to take photos of my kids in playgrounds without people hassling me, whereas if you bring out a big black camera people tend to get suspicious.
The K-30 is a great camera whatever colour you buy it in.
Jun2: I am surprised that Getty images didn't put the condition that the guy can't start a competing service before buying the istockphoto.
I'll reply to you what I replied below to the person who asked the same question less than half a page down. Bruce sold it a number of years ago and the non-compete agreement has expired. Which isn't to say Getty isn't taking it's pound of flesh. They have cancelled the iStock accounts of at least two contributors. One was a former iStock employee who's non-compete had also expired. More significantly was Sean Locke who has sold around 1 million images on iStock and had done little more than complain about Getty's practices re Google Drive and be loosely involved the FB group associated with Stocksy. Here is his blog post about it. http://seanlockephotography.com/2013/02/11/a-change-in-things/
LensBeginner: Can't find the "Content License Agreement", the "Standard pricing and payment policies" and there's a note that says " [NTD: This will have to be prepared.]".
Still not fully mature yet, it seems.
As an amateur interested in getting a little money to fund lenses, with as little fuss as possible, and if it doesn't work out who cares, I'm quite interested.
Many seasoned stock shooters with multi-thousand image portfolios at other stock sites have been turned away already. They have a "look" and production quality they are striving for and the bar is very high. If you want to cut your teeth on stock and earn some lens money you're better off building the skills and a portfolio and somewhere like Shutterstock or Dreamstime and then applying to Stocksy. You could try iStockphoto as well, but be warned Getty is trying it's best to give you nothing (or as little as possible) and take all your work. Look into the Google Drive deal referenced above if you want to see what I mean.
Ulfric M Douglas: Surely when he sold his company they got him to sign an agreement to NOT compete with them with a new business?Anyway, TWO founders (count them) with huge foreheads is a great start!I would certainly join this thing if that was my thing.
Bruce sold it a number of years ago and the non-compete agreement has expired. Which isn't to say Getty isn't taking it's pound of flesh. They have cancelled the iStock accounts of at least two contributors. One was a former iStock employee who's non-compete had also expired. More significantly was Sean Locke who has sold around 1 million images on iStock and had done little more than complain about Getty's practices re Google Drive and be loosely involved the FB group associated with Stocksy. Here is his blog post about it. http://seanlockephotography.com/2013/02/11/a-change-in-things/
Half a car!http://btlondon2012.co.uk/pano.html?view.hlookat=108.7207&view.vlookat=46.9770&view.fov=3.8609&imarkerath=108.7207&imarkeratv=46.9770
Prognathous: No articulated screen... bad move Pentax.
Pentax has consistently said they wont put in an articulating screen because it compromises the weather resistance of the body.
AbrasiveReducer: Pentax' already excellent lenses have just gotten sharper with the AA filter removed. It's a shame they charge extra to leave something out but there's serious potential for good jokes. "How much would it cost if you don't practice AND you don't play?" "You couldn't afford it". -- Chico Marx.
If the implementation is like the D800E, they actually put another piece of glass in to counteract the effect of the AA filter rather than removing the AA filter. If they took the AA filter out it would mean a more substantial redesign.
High ISO quality in RAW fabulous. 2 stops better than the SLT-A65 (K30 at 3200 looks like the Sony at 800) and 1 stop better than the D7000 and probably ever so slightly better than the K-5 though the noise pattern is a bit different with little dots rather than the blotches of the K-5. Makes me wonder if the K-5 has some NR even in RAW whereas the K-30 doesn't. I'd still choose a K-5 over the K-30 because of the various other advantages of the body, but the K-30 is a fabulous camera. Makes me very excited for whatever will be replacing the K-5.
tonywong: Odd camera angle for an interview. Didn't seem very flattering imo. Mr. Laforet doesn't look 36 to me, maybe it's the natural highlights in his hair.
Interesting interview though.
It looks like the angle you see for police interviewing a criminal in a cell.
maboleth: I totally agree. Especially Microstock. That's a slavery. Initially, they take like 60-70% of the shown price. That's ridiculous. Also, they pretty much thrive on the photographers that work/live in developing countries where assignments aren't on the regular basis or paid well.
Certainly the majority of people struggle to get anything back, but as the article states it is something you have to build over time. I sell through iStock and even with their high cut percentage, I'm making around $1 per image per month on a portfolio of <1000 images and that is with a few hours of effort per month. Certainly it hasn't always been like that, and it has been a slow build over a few years and I'm not saying that if I scaled that to full time the income would scale as well, but if you work at it consistently, the rewards are there. I know of half a dozen people in my peer group (those who started at about the same time) who are now doing it full time and making a decent living out of it. I can't imagine doing it full time myself, but you don't have to be a stock machine to make a go of it as long as you're smart about it and work hard - but then isn't that the same as any job!