Posted Mon Feb 7, 2005 6:15AM
I wasn't sure where to put this post, and I figured I couldn't go wrong with the newb forum .
I do other forms of art besides photography-paint, sketch, stuff like that-as I know other istockers do as well. I know that we can upload photos of our work, as some do, but my question is this: are images like this useful as stock? Do designers find them helpful? I've looked through the forums and at the downloads for some of these 'art' photos, but still don't feel like I have a good answer. I've been contemplating uploading some photos like this, but hesitate because I don't want to clog up my portfolio or the site with images that won't be useful. Any thoughts would be appreciated.
(Edited on 2005-02-16 06:04:55 by rocknrollfun)
Posted Mon Feb 7, 2005 6:41AM
I might not be the best person to answer this... since I am so ''bias'' to ''the general idea of art''.
Here's my take on it : it's great to give the designers what they want... that is the primary concern that we should have around here. But diversity is the key : ''Art'' is highly suggestive and I think that every single experimentation in any single medium should be considered as a potential upload by the artist.
And that is when ''The Artist'' has to be smart... BEFORE uploading. Asking her or himself questions such as...
Is this work strong enough for iStock ?
Is this work original enough for iStock ?
Is this work too easy to do for a designer using Photoshop... is it too simple or is it, on the contrary, something I've put a lot of my raw energy in and am proud of ?
So my opinion is oh so clear on that one : if you think you have a gem... think about it for a while and if you still think you do, well... upload !
We're not only here to give ''what is needed''... we are also here to present ''what could be needed if it existed in the first place''.
Drive safely... and let's make some art.
(Edited on 2005-02-07 06:50:56 by JJRD)
Posted Mon Feb 7, 2005 9:25AM
LOL@JJ. He did clarify his post first.
I am pretty much "pure stock" so here's my take.
If the "style" of what you upload is unique and proves useful, I would suggest that you upload multiple images that use the same technique.
Designers will often need continuity in a design as far as style goes. That means that if your image gets downloaded, the other associated ones have a chance to get downloaded at the same time.
You'll still need to run your own "tests" for what sells. I do that all the time in my own portfolio and most of what I have is pure stock.
Posted Mon Feb 7, 2005 9:49AM
My portfolio is 95% non photography and it`s doing good, I came to istock mid Nov. 2004 so I am fairly new
My camera has been to the camera hospital and is back now and I plan on taking pictures because variety is key.
Good points by JJRD and nano
Posted Mon Feb 7, 2005 6:44PM
On another note, I believe that spot illustrations are used as stock very frequently. (I purchase them frequently myself) You don't have to have a masterpiece to get downloads. I say go for it!
Posted Mon Feb 7, 2005 6:54PM
yes go for it ...what do you have to loose ??a little time...it is not much of a gamble ...yes go for it....will be waiting to watch for your uploads....jim
Posted Tue Feb 8, 2005 7:01AM
Thanks for all the feedback! I think I will upload a test run, like you guys suggested. Maybe they'll sell! *fingers crossed*
Posted Wed Feb 16, 2005 6:03AM
I have a question, guys.
I took ya'lls advice and uploaded a pic of a painting that I did. My signature was in the corner of the painting, small but noticeable at 100%. In the description I said that I was the painter and the photographer for the image; after being sent to the exec Q, it was rejected for copyright issues.
My question is, how do I let the inspectors know that I am the original artist? Is having my sig visible a problem? (I thought by leaving it there I could show the inspector that I was the copyright owner.)
Any help is greatly appreciated! Thanks!
Posted Wed Feb 16, 2005 6:23AM
A similar thing happened to me as well. Once I was asked to remove my signature, and once there was a question about copyright. I responded (as suggested in the email) with a detailed account explaining my copyright. I never received a reply directly from support, but when I re-attempted the upload a week or so later, it passed with flying colors.
I always add the statement "Inspector: I am the original artist of this illustration" to the description when I upload. It sounds like you did that as well. Maybe they just didn't like the signature. I'm surprised they didn't include a more specific explanation than "copyright issues".
Posted Wed Feb 16, 2005 7:26AM
You can try uploading your original art with a property release instead of a model release (visible face of person/people).
I don't know if istock has one currently on file that is being used but there are ones available on the Net and some of the other photogs have them.
Also, do as smackle suggests and make it clear to the inspector that it's your original art and that a property release has been submitted with the image. You can always return later to delete that info if the image is approved.
Posted Wed Feb 16, 2005 8:00AM
I was thinking that perhaps just as photos can have no signature or studio name or other copyright indicator on them when uploaded, the same might apply to illustrations, or photos of artwork. But if shmackle had artwork accepted with a sig, there goes that theory.
But on to your original question, I do think artwork has its place in stock, just because some users want a different look other than a standard photo, and there can be a wide range of looks wanted. Like JJRD said, the designer may not know they need it until it is available.
Posted Wed Feb 16, 2005 8:31AM
No, I did not. I said that I was asked to remove it. Sorry if that was unclear.
Posted Wed Feb 16, 2005 8:31AM
Yes, you have to make it VERY clear that it is your artwork and so are the holder of the copyright of this artwork. (I put it in front of my description in a note to inspector)
And NO signatures! (somewhere I read this, written by iStock) because it would be in conflict with royaltyfree-kind-of-regulations.
Posted Wed Feb 16, 2005 9:07AM
Thanks shmackle, it was a bit unclear to me, but good because now I can revert to my original thinking that sigs were not acceptable.
Posted Wed Feb 16, 2005 11:19AM
I've never had to upload a property release for any of my art, but I do have to put "Inspector note: This is my own artwork" in the description and then take that out when/if it's approved.
I did contact support once, at the beginning, and asked why I got a rejection when I'd clicked the button saying that I owned the copyright to the image, and they replied that the inspectors can't rely on that with artwork, so I put the note in every time.
Also, I do clone out my initials on the work before uploading.
Posted Wed Feb 16, 2005 2:00PM
istock does not require you to submit a property release--to date.
But if you had taken pix of someone else's original art, you would certainly need one. fullvalue asked about this because she planned to photograph her husband's custom built model plane collection.
Releases are designed to protect both istock and the contributor.
Posted Wed Feb 16, 2005 3:27PM
Right; I completely understand why the inspector would err on the side of careful instead of take a risky chance. I just wanted to know what I could do extra to help them out.
I put in a note to the inspector in the description, and left the sig on the image (I thought this may help the inspector be sure that it's my painting too). I think what I'll do is find a prop release, clone out the sig, and re-upload with a note stating that it's mine and that it's a re-up.
Thanks for the help you guys! And you can view this lovely image we've been discussing here! (click on it for a 100% view )
(Edited on 2005-02-16 03:34:14 by rocknrollfun)