Jump to content

Ed Endicott

Verified
  • Content Count

    706
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Everything posted by Ed Endicott

  1. Nothing licensed in January. There was a re-rank or something that just killed me in November and December from a zoom perspective. Zooms for January seem to have gotten back on track for me...hoping sales start getting back on track soon.
  2. There was no "optical component" in the Fotodiox Adapter I purchased. http://www.amazon.com/Fotodiox-Fujifilm-Fuijifilm-Arca-Swiss-Mounting/dp/B00D9BL1XC/ref=sr_1_4?ie=UTF8&qid=1421764025&sr=8-4&keywords=Fotodiox+Canon+to+Fuji It was simply a tube....Canon FD mount on one side and Fuji X Mount on the other.....could have been considered an "extension tube" for all intents and purposes. It was an aweful waste of time. I'm just glad I was able to get my money back.
  3. I've used old Leica Lenses no problem....they're incredible in fact. I've used old Pentax lenses on Pentax film cameras. Worked great! I used Canon FD lenses on a Fotodiox adapter to Fuji - the results were incredibly awful. My suspicion is the adapter ads space between things where space was not originally intended which causes issues. I hope your experience is better than mine was. The Canon FD lenses worked fine on a Canon AE-1
  4. See the response in this thread http://discussion.alamy.com/index.php?/topic/3358-stockimo/
  5. Interesting. In the email explanation sent to me, they sent a link to "What's an infringement worth". You can clearly see the big differences between whether work is registered or not.... http://www.photoattorney.com/whats-an-infringement-worth/ ...and with the royalty rate of $6 that we are receiving (presumably $12 that our agents are licensing these images at), hiring an attorney makes no sense at $200 - $350 per hour. If you're a U.S. based photographer, essentially, the lesson is you MUST file with the copyright office at least once per quarter as part of your regular workflow otherwise there's essentially nothing you can do to enforce your copyrights. Images that have crossed borders such as Jill's example above depend on the where the photographer's domicile is...so the same would apply under the Berne Convention http://www.copyright.gov/fls/fl100.html
  6. I have had this happen in the past with some of my newsworthy images. Essentially, the Daily Mail downloaded the image from Facebook and used it in the paper (or online). I have been fighting a copyright case where one of my images was used on YouTube by another photographer. I sent a DMCA notice and YouTube took it down. The infringer disputed it, and YouTube will be putting the video back up next week unless I file a restraining order through a court of law. I have exchanged emails with the infringer where I've explained the issues and the problem, and I received nothing but insults in return. To make a long story short and via discussions with Carolyn Wright's legal team as well as general counsel for the National Press Photographer's Association - essentially, if the image was not registered with the copyright office prior to the infringement, then you can't claim statutory damages....and you'll end up hiring an attorney at $200-350 an hour and get less than that in return IF you win the case. In this case, I doubt the image has been formerly copyrighted and The Daily Mail will argue it was "newsworthy" and it falls under the guise of "fair use". Jill, we are not only exposed if WE post the images there, but if you have an image that was used in the Daily Mail, and the person in the image downloads it from the Daily Mail and uses it as their Facebook profile picture, then another news agency or blog can copy that image from Facebook. I have had that happen as well. These days, I'm frustrated by the whole copyright system. We're living in an era of low integrity and unenforceable laws when it comes to copyright.
  7. I'm not sure....I haven't had a problem with the head (yet). I thought it was a decent deal for what you get. I also have a smaller Manfrotto MKC3-P01 but I would not recommend it for a DSLR. The thing I like about the MeFOTO is that it's so small I can fit it into a daypack and it extends pretty high. I'm not a fan of carbon fiber mostly from experience with fishing rods. With aluminum, you can generally see any damage and act on it. With carbon fiber, it tends to shatter and you don't see the damage until it falls over. The other thing is carbon fiber conducts electricity better than aluminum. Afternoons on Colorado mountains with thunder storms rolling in can be exciting (not that I do much of that anymore)....but I've had a couple of experiences that have left hair standing on end (literally). I have no idea if it's a factor in a tripod but I don't want to take chances
  8. I'm not sure if it will fit the bill for you (tripods are very personal) - may be a little light on the weight requirements but I own and use multiple tripods and my favorite one if I need to carry one around is a MeFOTO A0350Q0K http://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/926387-REG/benro_a0350q0k_0_series_travel_tripod_kit.html It's rated to hold 8.8 lbs. I don't like carbon fiber for multiple reasons (the biggest one being price) but if you're looking for an economical alternative, the MeFOTO MIGHT work for you.
  9. I understand what you're saying Bill and I think switching out lenses for differing points of view is a terrific idea. The trouble is what if the client needs something with a shade of brown instead of a shade of green like my manipulated Stockimo image above? How about blue to symbolize money/wealth instead of green? How about red - boots for a western Valentine promotion? A simple stock image over white is much more versatile to the client and, based on what we've been taught through experience over the years, much more marketable with a higher market value - especially if the image is available under a RF license (because they can use that same design element over and over and over). I think a lot of photographers are realizing this....and one thing I'm noticeabley seeing through the Stockimo 'customer likes' tab on the app is that photographers are doing things like uploading the same image with different filter effects multiple times (admittedly, I am also guilty of this). The result is similars - no different than a regular stock shooter uploading the image first in color, then in black and white, then in a sepia tone.....which gets us back to Martin's point of why we've always been told to minimize the use of filters. Traditionally, that's what we've been taught is the difference between "stock" and hiring a photographer with a particular point of view.
  10. My question has always been...can't the buyers do that? Isn't that the job of a retoucher/designer? I mean that was the basis of Microstock years ago. Designers had elements of images they created and were incorporating in their designs. Here's my little experiment....which do you think will sell first/get more images licensed.... the stock version shot with a 5D MK III and a 100mm lens... or the same image shot with an iPhone 6+ then cooked through various apps to get a special effect? I have a few like this....I'm curious....
  11. I transfer the images to creative cloud. Then from there, I import them into Adobe Lightroom where I permanently keyword and caption them and then archive them with the rest of my stock images. I use a file numbering system for each license type RF000001 - Royalty Free Images RM000001 - Rights Managed Images MP000001 - Mobile Phone Images This allows me to continue worflow as usual (archival, copyright, etc.)
  12. I'm disappointed it's not part of the X100S update (or the X-Pro1 but that one I didn't expect).
  13. I'm using Creative Cloud... Lightroom v5.7 Adobe Camera Raw v8.7
  14. If you shoot in RAW, you should be able to see the same presets as the camera under the Camera Calibration section. If you don't see it, you may need to update Adobe Camera RAW for your version of Lightroom. I think the latest update for 4.4 is Adobe Camera Raw 7.4 which helped to support the x100s raw files (and the Fuji X-Trans sensor)
  15. Martin, I did find the story - it was different than what I'm describing. An image was used on a University Facebook Page (not in a class) and the photographer billed the University. In the end, the photographer prevailed http://www.crusadeforart.org/blog/copyright With relation an electronic copy or a photo copy, it simply doesn't matter. You will have to read the law yourself for specifics but if I remember right, if it is online, it does fall under the "Teach Act" but there are stipulations surrounding the online use and distribution. This is the trouble with copyright law (at least in the U.S.).
  16. Martin is correct - essentially, if you think of it from the old days, if a teacher is teaching a civics course and finds an article in Time Magazine that they feel is relevant, it allows the teacher to photocopy that article and distribute it to the class as part of an instructional activity. That is the spirit of the law, that's what it's intended to do - allow teachers to distribute, use images in presentations, etc. as part of their class. It's a way out so the teacher or school does not get sued for the use of the image. Yesterday evening I tried to find the article/web page, but there is a recent case where a University 'liberated' a photographer's photo and the photography attempted to go after the university. The lawyers for the school hid behind this law....I'll try to find it and post up a link
  17. I have not been able to get an image of a person through....which makes me think that they are looking for images with more of a commercial slant (model released). I believe images also need to be in focus or have a specific area of focus. Images where I've specifically designated a focus point seem to be more favored (tap on the screen with standard camera or set a focus point and an exposure point in VSCO Cam) as opposed to just clicking the camera and allowing the camera to select the focus point. It appears to me that stylized images processed with filters have a better chance of getting accepted than images just shot with the camera....at least that's been my experience so far.
  18. I think they need to pay you, or have a photocopying licence,they just don't need permission and it's not infringement. Tha's the situation here anyway. In the United States, they don't need to pay you a penny, ask permission, or have any license at all. This is part of "The Teach Act" that passed in 2002..... US Copyright Law provides several exemptions for the academic use of copyrighted materials. If the requirements for an exemption are met, it is not necessary to seek permission before using the copyrighted material for the purpose outlined in the exemption. Section 110(1) in Title 17 of the United States Code provides the following exemption: § 110. Limitations on exclusive rights: Exemption of certain performances and displays Notwithstanding the provisions of section 106, the following are not infringements of copyright: (1) performance or display of a work by instructors or pupils in the course of face-to-face teaching activities of a nonprofit educational institution, in a classroom or similar place devoted to instruction, unless, in the case of a motion picture or other audiovisual work, the performance, or the display of individual images, is given by means of a copy that was not lawfully made under this title, and that the person responsible for the performance knew or had reason to believe was not lawfully made; This exemption means that faculty may, for the purpose of instruction, do the following: Show a film Perform or listen to a piece of music Perform, or show, a play Show slides or other images The only requirement is that the performance or display of the work must be part of the instructional activities (e.g. not for entertainment), and the faculty member must use a legally obtained copy of the work. Here's a link with more info from the University of Texas.... http://copyright.lib.utexas.edu/teachact.html
  19. My understanding is that Alamy is no longer granting a "novel use" license. I'll agree internal business wall art - 1 poster has it's own category but the other three options fall under either "Presentation" or "Personal Use". Students using images to illustrate research papers -- The option is either "Presentation" (royalty free license) or "Personal Use" - when I use the calculator, I get $15 either way. People wanting a print of an image for their wall -- Personal Use Internal business Powerpoint presentations -- The option is either "Presentation" (royalty free license) or "Personal Use" - when I use the calculator, I get $15 either way. Teachers wanting images to use in class -- The option is either "Presentation" (royalty free license) or "Personal Use" - when I use the calculator, I get $15 either way.
  20. Students using images to illustrate research papers People wanting a print of an image for their wall Businesses looking for wall art Internal business Powerpoint presentations Teachers wanting images to use in class (which in the U.S., they don't need to pay you for under copyright law) There are multiple uses for images which fall under the guise of "personal use". The positive is you are being paid for them rather than the images simply being "liberated" from your or Alamy's website.
  21. I have mixed feelings about distribution. I ABSOLUTELY HATE the watered down commissions - especially when I know many picture researchers also do a google image search to see where else that image is offered and they shop accordingly. I don't blame them because if I were int their position, I would do the same exact thing. Distribution oftentimes is counter-productive to rights management. If I were to land one of those "big elephent" exclusive rights big dollar licenses at another agent, and I set restrictions on the image at Alamy, there is no guarantee or control on my end that the image is still available for licensing at a distributor. I recognize there are opportunities that come up via distributors that don't come up via Alamy...and that is an advantage I recognize that each agency has a different ranking system so images may be pushed to buyers in a manner that is more advantageous to me I recognize that using a distributor network is a back door for getting my work into agencies that may have a higher sales volume (i.e. the big 'C' or the big 'G') At the moment I have images spread throughout the globe in various distribution schemes through various non-exclusive agents. I don't know if that's a good strategy or not....at Alamy, I've only had one distributor sale this year. My highest dollar license this year was through a sub-distributor of another agent (highest dollar being net to me overall) so I'm not giving it up.
  22. Don Giannatti is doing a series of blog posts on "What I've Learned So Far". This post rings true http://www.lighting-essentials.com/what-ive-learned-so-far-twelve-nice-shot-who-cares/ The trouble is, you have 40,000+ contributors sending images to the micros as an introduction to stock...and in the micros, the emphasis is technical ability over artistic merit. At more traditional RM libraries, the emphasis is artistic merit over technical ability. I believe this is why RM has survived. At Alamy, well....Alamy accepts mostly everything and lets those images compete on their own merits. If I had my druthers, I'd rather submit my images as RM over RF despite images being more appropriate for RF simply because RM images are much easier to track or manage from my own perspective.
×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.