Commercial

RE: What's selling section - same photog 3 CO

2013-03-03T16:45:16 -05.00

same photog 3 COMMERCIAL licence images selling with MINNIE MOUSE SONY and NORELCO names this is bad for the site and is SLOPPY

RE: What's selling section - Adelaide, automa

2013-03-03T07:47:09 -05.00

Adelaide, automatic, probably. Reviewed by SP, disappointingly, not.

RE: What's selling section - this photog has

2013-03-02T11:51:16 -05.00

this photog has 2 images with trademarked names on the subjects in whats selling,,,hmmm

RE: What's selling section - Aren't these fea

2013-03-01T19:10:17 -05.00

Aren't these features ('what's selling", "spotlight") all automatic?

RE: What's selling section - I saw that as we

2013-03-01T13:27:16 -05.00

I saw that as well and wondered as much....not good!!!

What's selling section - I noticed the ot

2013-03-01T10:53:47 -05.00

I noticed the other day an image of a Canon lens not only in the What's selling section, but it was featured in the spotlight section as well. It, and a few others as well from the same photog has appeared in the selling section. These were sold as commercial license with all tm's visible.I can understand how these could escape under the radar to be sold, (ultimate liability being the buyer/seller) but to spotlight it by SP is rather disconcerting to me.

RE: Interesting Article about Stock Photography - Interest artcile

2012-05-13T12:14:10 -05.00

Interest artcile, Mark. Although I confess that lately I've been shooting more for myself than for the market.

Interesting Article about Stock Photography - Came across this

2012-05-13T11:11:56 -05.00

Came across this articles - advice one shooting stock photos....

10-tips-for-shooting-stock-photos-that-make-art-directors-happy

RE: Comp downloads - I found adding a

2012-03-08T12:12:40 -05.00

I found adding a strong watermark and placing it over subject stopped a lot of the useless comps...more often now a comp can lead to a sale...I would have some 50-100 then a sale, now its about 20 to a sale...give or take

Laura

RE: Comp downloads - Thanks Yeah I si

2012-03-08T09:52:47 -05.00

Thanks Yeah I signed up several years ago then then stopped and am now actually putting more effort into it. Thanks for the answer at least i know i'm not the only one.

Comp downloads - It's pretty comm

2012-03-08T07:42:22 -05.00

It's pretty common Shaun. Prospective buyers ( some say thieves also ) download the file to see if the image is workable for their use.Wow. I just noticed you have been here almost 5 1/2 years and this is your first post. The forums sure could use more active members.

Comp downloads - I'm getting a lo

2012-03-07T16:33:41 -05.00

I'm getting a lot of comp downloads but not sales. Any Ideas as to why this happens?

RE: Recognizable property - Marta, thanks fo

2010-12-17T20:32:57 -05.00

Marta, thanks for your compliment. Zazzle has been a good earner, and it's fun to create stuff there.

RE: Recognizable property - Thank you Maria,

2010-12-17T16:56:52 -05.00

Thank you Maria, I read that list when registring, but then couldn't find it again.
p.s. I like your Zazzle page.

Recognizable property - There is a list

2010-12-16T22:12:16 -05.00

There is a list of the most famous examples in the Submision Guidelines (see additional restrictions):
http://www.shutterpoint.com/Photos-Guidelines.cfm

Of course this doesn't cover all situations, the Guggenheim Museums and Chicago's Bean aren't there for instance. Most modern architecture buildings require a release these days. Also buildings with logos, except if they are just part of a cityscape.

I'm surprised however to find Rosslyn Chapel in that list, can anyone confirm it? Is that in a private property?

Some subjects may not even be acceptable for editorial use - I remember SP removed all Harley Davisons a while ago, although I am not convinced editorial use would not be acceptable (I suppose there was some legal issue somewhere that made them take this decision).

Recognizable property - Hi, does anybod

2010-12-16T17:39:46 -05.00

Hi,
does anybody know where to find that full list of recognizable property that needs a property release if photo of this property is being uplaoded? It has to be published somewhere, right? Totally can't find it.
Marta

RE: Images for use on Websites - I agree, Stephen

2009-04-03T20:40:58 -05.00

I agree, Stephen It's nice to know they do exist and sometimes make themselves known.
Thanks SP Support for jumping in and helping to clarify a very complex issue.

RE: Images for use on Websites - Hi Ken, Thanks f

2009-03-20T23:26:32 -05.00

Hi Ken, Thanks for the note.

But after reading your comments and then checking those columns in that link I posted above - several times each - it certainly appears to me that Adelaide and C are correct that an electronic template shouldn't be (isn't allowed to be) produced from a Standard License, but rather requires the designer to purchase a Full License.

Key point - at least to my simple mind - is that a "template" (at least using what I have always thought to be the definition of that word) is something that will be re-used over and over...

(BTW, am I the only one getting confused by just single initials for names? - doesn't that mean there can only be 26 unique people??? - and if so, I call dibs on "T" right now!!! But quiet T...uh...Ted!! THAT confusion is clearly a tangent from the current confusing subject at hand - you mustn't go there right now!!)

Anyway, going back to the original question from D, I still end up back in the left-hand "standard license" column where s/he (D, that is...) is willing...and the way I read the posts...planning...to buy a single standard license for each different client's website design...

...which is actually what I read your note to be agreeing with Ken...except that suddenly, apparently your definition of the word "template" - at least in that post - seems to be a different definition than I would have expected you to use after I perused both of the SL and FL columns again and again.

In any case, see?? My knack for staying confused is still intact!!!

--Ted

RE: Images for use on Websites - I'm confused too

2009-03-19T13:25:46 -05.00

I'm confused too. In the t&c aren't website templates listed as "resale items"?

RE: Images for use on Websites - Ken, Thanks f

2009-03-18T18:50:30 -05.00

Ken,

Thanks for coming to this thread.

I am however a bit confused now. When you talk about a template that many users can buy, isn't a FL required?

Regards,
Adelaide