James C. Murray: Good photos but some prop blur would lend some idea of motion to the Herc and the smaller prop aircraft.
A really fine photograph that is dynamic both in its composition and point of view. I find myself waiting for the planes to fly overhead. That make a winner.
The simple answer is NO!
I became a Pro user of Aperture when it was first released. I have used it ever since. I do not like LR or other software.
Photos is a nice amateur product for making minor adjustments and feeding images to different applications. I could use it, if it allowed me to edit in Aperture and store in Photos. It does not.
I do not need Aperture to be improved. I just need it to not become obsolete because of OS changes.
Under UK and US copyright law some amount of originality must be contributed to own a copyright in a work. The photographer in this case did not make an original contribution because he had no input into making the photo. The monkey took the photo with no direction or creative assistance from the photographer. I don't see how the photographer has a copyright interest in the photo. A copyright owner does not have to trip the shutter to own copyright in a photo. If I set up a photo, control the lighting, angle, etc and I get a person to just push the shutter button, I own the copyright. In this case noting close to that happened.
Born to sell Amazon services. Nothing more. Nothing less. I'll keep my iPhone, iPad, and iMac. I do not need Amazon. It is a convenience not a necessity. I think the day is approaching when I take Amazon and Amazon's DPR out of my bookmarks.
While the advice is good the problem is that the editors he speaks of meeting with are growing fewer while the number of young photographers looking to publish photojournalism is growing. No advice overcomes the supply/demand equation. However, the exceptionally talented beginner would do week to take his advice, and have an alternate career in photography in mind because it only going to get worse for photojournalists.
Getty just announced its give away of photos for blogs and non-commercial websites. Now it has more content to give away. If Getty will have a claim to fame in the history of stock photography, it will be that it ruined it!
(unknown member): What amazes me is that any photographer with half of a brain would agree to Getty's terms and conditions. Essentially, the photographers assume all of the risk and cost of creating the images. Then Getty pays a fee that comes nowhere close to covering those costs, much less the photographer's time. Getty is doing very well under its business model while its content creators earn very little.
When stock licensing started out photographers saw it as a way to earn more income by licensing images that were outtakes from paid gigs. Then some photographers began producing images on "spec" in the hope that they would recoup their investment. The downside of stock photography is that clients can license images at less cost than assigning someone to create the photos. It didn't take long for companies to switch from assignments to sourcing images from stock agencies and photographers.
Now that images have been commodified and fees are so low stock is lose-win business model. Guess who wins!
RonHendriks: Yeah I had this earlyier this year. A professional sportsteam with around 60 miljion euro's budget wanted free images to cover their games.
I don't think so.
"It will mean great exposure for you."
My mortgage company does not care how many people see my work. They care about how many pay for it. Exposure is nice but it does not pay bills
"If you don't want to do it for free, I know other photographers who will."
Their work is worth what you pay for it. They work for free because they are not good enough to get paid. Your considering me means a lot to me. If it means a lot to you, you will want to pay me.
"We could just find a stock photo if you're not interested."
Yes, but it will not be the photo you want. I can deliver what you want not just something you can find. Originality cost more because it is better. Better costs more.
"My cousin has a DSLR and I think I can get him to do it if you don't want to."
My son and daughter also have DSLRs. Want me to have them call you? You want a pro for the job or your cousin would be shooting it now.
We're not talking about the future. We're talking about the present. Right?
ItsNotThatEasy: Lol...Beards, tattoos, the word "sustainable", pictures tagged "Portland, Oregon" and former musicians who weren't good enough to make it in music so they defaulted to photography. Wow...How many times can you say "Hipster"?
The founder(s) of the coop say " Stocksy, a digital licensing co-op launching March 25, 2013, is a new concept in the world of stock photography: An online marketplace owned collectively by its photographer-members."
While I applaud the effort the fact is that MIRA.Com was, as far as I know, the first photographer stock agency co-op. I was executive director of ASMP from 1988 through 2002. ASMP set the wheels in motion to form MIRA by securing the capital and photographers to make it work. That was in 2000. The 9/11/2001 tragedy held it back as the economy went bad, but it did survive and is licensing images today. Check out www.mira.com.
JEROME NOLAS: Poor cry baby! Mom, nobody loves me any more!
I just read the plaintiff's complaint. It's long and historical. From my read it seems that he is suing only for alleged infringements after he registered the image in 2011. As I recall, the statute of limitations is 3 years after an infringement is discovered. The 2011 date fits within the that. I don't know if laches applies to the infringements after 2011 or not. It seems to me that it ought not to. If the photographer has decided to enforce his rights well after he failed to assert them in many older instances, why should he not have that right? I think his bigger problem will be in getting damages in any significant amount because his failure to enforce his copyright for so many years in the face of many unauthorized uses would seem to me to indicate he did not value it much. Of course the court would probably evaluate damages based upon the uses and not the photographer's perceptions. I think.
I think the contest is a great idea, and that "Rules" are reasonable except that the requirement for a release from any person in a submitted photo. Personally, and the lawyers would argue against my point, I can't see why a release is necessary since the end use is a public display or publication that seems not to be either trade of advertising use. The required release will certainly be a handicap to anyone working on the street as so many do. How many times can you stop to explain what and why you are shooting the subject without just getting frustrated and misdirected? I would hope, with little expectation of success, that the release Rule would be changed.
I find the decision to be extremely troubling. Even if no defense was made, the idea that creative expression was copied should never have been allowed as the basis of a complaint. The red bus on a monochrome background is creative expression but to make it the basis of a infringement decision when the photographs have so little similarity borders on incredulity. Imagine in the US if shot the red, white and blue American Flag against a blue sky. On the basis of this decision you would be infringing because that has been done before. Whacko!
Jeff Greenberg: "the assignment photographer’s need for working capital can be less than the need of the stock production photographer."
This writer's frequent references to "stock production" implies released COMMERCIAL stock. Non-released stock primarily for editorial use is a mostly distinct genre with big differences, where one can build a large salable collection by devoting mostly time & very little overhead if one starts out by covering subjects & situations in one's home territory, then after the $$ starts rolling in, take some of that to cover expenses related to further distances or local non-free photo opportunities.
Certainly editorial stock has low costs (primarily time) associated with it. Of course, it also has low licensing fees since without releases it can only be used for editorial purposes. Those are low paying uses. Additionally, the market for editorial stock is shrinking rapidly in the print publication market while growing in the Internet publication realm. Internet editorial use is among the lowest paid use in the business. A good stock file can be built at low cost in editorial but the payback is very small unless one has great content that is in demand. Remember that the vast majority of editorial images are not timeless and have a much shorter sales life than promotional stock.