Yes, I'm foolish for taking your bait. You hit the nail on the head with that one.
Recommending that FCPX be used as the tool for creating the necessary metadata is like recommending that someone write a term paper with Photoshop. Could it be done? Maybe, but a smarter person would use more appropriate software and workflows. You're just throwing out random crap without any actual experience of actually doing what you say you are doing. Am I wrong? Prove it.

Say whatever you want because I won't be responding any further to whatever nonsense you want to spew. Spew away, my friend the floor is yours. Another thread ruined by a troll.

Recommending that FCPX being used as the tool for creating the necessary metadata is like recommending that someone write a term paper with Photoshop. Could it be done? Maybe, but a smarter person would use more appropriate software and workflows.

Still not much of a contribution, Doug. If FCPX can import clips that you can trim, apply keywords to, and then export a QuickTime with those keywords as metadata that Pond5, and others can access, then perhaps your way is archaic.

EDIT: Well, Adobe Bridge isn't archaic, but still, that's a $52.99/month cost...which I guess doesn't count to you?

Once again folks, unregistered readers and those registered readers that may not be familiar with the history of this forum....DVINFO.net has a long history of being a professionals forum devoid of the stupid conversations that ignorant trolls like Gary make to waste your time with. Please don't let his comments detract from the value of this forum. At this point I have laughed at his stupid comments in this thread. Do not take his comments seriously. He is an intellectual little man. He makes me LOL with his stupidity.

And for the record..... I have never once resorted to name calling or personal opinions of any other member of this forum. That does not happen here, ever! Gary is a troll that is not good for this forum. Sometimes you just have to call an idiot an idiot and speak the truth!

Gary, I'm sure your wimpy little keyboard hero attitude is happy with the crap you stirred in this thread. Your a little man with no intelectual leg to stand on. Your stupid, you can keep displaying your ignorance and make us laugh......There are trained professional therapists people like you can seek for help! They can't make you smarter but they might be able to help with your need to attempt to display intellectual dominance in a place where you are clearly seen as an idiot :-)

This is a gentleman's forum. Forgive my attack on poor pathetic Gary. Those of you that understand this forum and me will know I am laughing as I write it. I feel sorry for poor poor Gary.... the intellectually small man who attacks everyone on this forum. Hey Gary, did you think you were going to do that in 1000 posts and not get get called out!

Kind Regards,

Steve

Thanks Steve,

Just to get the thread back on track I'll change the subject a little. One benefit of being a stock footage contributor at Adobe is that I get a free subscription to the entire Adobe suite. Including Premiere, Photoshop, Bridge, After Effects, etc. Everything they make I get for free on two computers. The requirements to qualify are $500/year in sales or 300 approved clips, which are pretty low thresholds to meet. Any professional video shooter should have no problem submitting 300 good clips.

I don't talk about this offer very much because I'm not sure how long they will continue to make it, or even if it is still available. So I don't want to get someone's hopes up but as far as I know it is still an on-going offer. And that right there is like making an extra $600 per year from stock footage -- without even making any sales.

Except there is the cost of capturing those 300 clips. You’re not going to go out in your backyard and get 300 clips that will get approved. This will incur travel costs and room and board most likely. Of course, that’s free if you don’t count the cost. But I run a business, so I have to include that in any cost/benefit analysis, and right now, the numbers come out that paying my $39.99/month is cheaper.

Tomorrow I start on the megadata. I am really looking forward to that.

Bob, I think its funny when you keep referring to "metadata" as "megadata". It sure feels like that sometimes and is definitely my least favorite part of doing stock footage. Hopefully by sharing my workflow I can help you shave a lot of time off your processing. It's never gonna be fun, but it can be made more efficient and less painful.

Great course thanks Doug,
Just started it, but there is lots of great info in there!

I just heard back from my friend at Adobe Stock that the deal expired at the end of last year for a free Creative Cloud account with 300 accepted stock clips.

Great course thanks Doug,
Just started it, but there is lots of great info in there!

Thanks, Bryce. I appreciate the feedback. There must be tons of great opportunities in BC.

Doug, what can I say? I am now 70 years old and, I grew up in Brooklyn. I'm lucky I can find the keyboard! Anyway, I am really enjoying your course. I always look forward to your next opening quote. I am working on getting the "metadata" part down. I also enjoy the descriptions you used for your editorial clips. I would have never thought of using those descriptive terms. No wonder you sell so many clips. Thanks again, Bob

Doug,

Just one chapter of the course has saved me what would have been countless hour of lost time and work. Your information on "stock & logos" is perfect for me. It is contrary to everything I was once trained to do.

The roots of my image making career lie in professional sports photography. If I was shooting for a specific news organization logos and sponsors info that is plastered everywhere did not matter one way or the other if it was in the shot. It is unavoidable. But, here is the part most people don't know. In many of the images they see in magazines, papers, and the web sponsor info is intentionally included in the composition even if it is a "news story". I am a guy who had to make that happen. My job depended on it.

For example; The United States Ski Team and NASCAR were two of my former clients. I worked out of the media centers like every other journalist but I was often hired by the title organization. My photos would be distributed by the communications director in the media center and of course electronically. What made those jobs so difficult is I HAD to include sponsor logos and info in my action shots or they would not even use the photo. For example, I could get the perfect finish line shot but if you could not read the sponsors name on the thigh of the ski racer my boss would be upset. I had to support sponsors in my journalistic action shots. Tough gigs but it taught me a lot about how advertising and sponsorship works. It was pounded into me and I loved the challenge.

Your course just taught me I must leave that old thinking behind for all stock! I appreciate all of the details you go into on how to handle this. My time is valuable. That one chapter accelerated my learning curve bigtime!

Kind Regards,

Steve

Well, I finished Doug's course. There were several chapters that I watched more than once and there were times, like creating the spread sheet where I kept toggling back and forth. Anyway, this evening, following Doug's instructions I was able to upload several clips to Shutterstock! I used the FTP site that Doug recommended as well as converting my spread sheet containing all the metadata to a csv file. I must say that everything worked just like he said it would and now I am just sitting back while they get reviewed. I highly recommend this course. Thank you Doug. Bob

Your course just taught me I must leave that old thinking behind for all stock!

And it's not just company logos, it's any piece of artwork. For instance, here in Austin we have a load of murals. Those murals, regardless of whether the artist filed with the U.S. Copyright Office, are their property. If I get a shot that happens to include a mural in the background somewhere (because it's unavoidable), I'll probably be okay, but if I straight up film the mural for my stock, that's not going to fly.

If I get a shot that happens to include a mural in the background somewhere (because it's unavoidable), I'll probably be okay

Sorry, you are wrong. You're going to get rejected for commercial use if there is even a hint of a mural, graffiti, signage, etc.

I don't really want to engage in debate with you, but something so blatantly wrong can't go uncorrected. You may very well have cost someone reading your well-meaning but ill-informed advice a lot of wasted time shooting and uploading footage that will absolutely be rejected. If you don't know from personal experience, it is best not to speculate.

Feel free to tell me how I'm wrong, but I won't be replying to you.

Just one chapter of the course has saved me what would have been countless hour of lost time and work. Your course just taught me I must leave that old thinking behind for all stock! I appreciate all of the details you go into on how to handle this. My time is valuable. That one chapter accelerated my learning curve bigtime!
Steve

Nice to hear, Steve. Very nice!

I must say that everything worked just like he said it would and now I am just sitting back while they get reviewed. I highly recommend this course. Thank you Doug. Bob

Bob, that is a relief. As much as I tried to test and re-test everything to make sure my steps would work for everyone else, there is always a chance I missed something. I'm glad it went well. I tried not to leave anything out or make the mistake of assuming someone would already know how to do a particular step.

I'm rendering 289 shots overnight that I shot of a wildlfire controlled burn yesterday. The firefighters pretty much let me go and do whatever I wanted. A perfect shoot. Spent most of the day grading it all and I really enjoyed every minute of it. The digital darkroom. It is cool seeing the footage really come alive in post. It still amazes me what a difference a little grading will make. Some of these shots are golden and when I look back in a couple of years I'll bet yesterday and today will have paid off in the thousands of dollars. Not tomorrow. Not next month. But over time. These are valuable assets that I own.

Plus I think I'll be able to sell a lot of clips to the manufacturer of two of the very unique tracked vehicles they used to set/control/fight the fires. I looked at the company's website and they've got nothing like what I'm going to show them. They'll buy it if the price is right, which it will be!

You may very well have cost someone reading your well-meaning but ill-informed advice a lot of wasted time shooting and uploading footage that will absolutely be rejected.

So what you're telling me is that I cannot go on Shutterstock and find 4K footage at $179 per clip that will be labeled as "Editorial use only" that has "mural, graffiti, signage, etc." in the background? Or perhaps their clips will be rejected similar to how these were rejected?

https://www.shutterstock.com/video/clip-14824819-beautiful-graffiti-on-subway-tracks-b-train
https://stock.adobe.com/video/city-ally-way/205002694?prev_url=detail
https://www.shutterstock.com/video/clip-28101157-close-up-driving-along-scary-graffiti-walls
https://www.shutterstock.com/video/clip-1016984251-skater-jumps-on-colored-wall-background-slow
https://stock.adobe.com/video/young-latina-hispanic-woman-in-new-york-city-dancing/92036558?prev_url=detail

1) When you said this . . . . "I'll probably be okay, but if I straight up film the mural for my stock, that's not going to fly." . . .. it was clear to me you were talking about commercial. Because if you were talking about editorial you wouldn't have said those things.

2) Many clips that got approved for commercial in the past will not pass today and it would be a huge waste of time to try submitting them as editorial. Different standards for different times. If you were actually a stock footage contributor you'd know where the lines are being drawn today.

I have quite few clips in my portfolio that would not be approved if I uploaded them now.

Please prove me wrong. Submit a few clips that have graffiti or a mural in them as commercial to Shutterstock and see what happens. And if you decide to submit them as editorial instead, good luck making any sales with that. When can you upload some test clips, tomorrow? I'll expect to see the clips online by mid-week. Please post a link when they are ready.

When you said this . . . . "I'll probably be okay, but if I straight up film the mural for my stock, that's not going to fly." . . .. it was clear to me you were talking about commercial. Because if you were talking about editorial you wouldn't have said those things.

Just because you can get something approved on any of the stock footage sites does not mean you're in the clear. That's what I meant.

Many clips that got approved for commercial in the past will not pass today

When were these clips that I linked to submitted?

And if you decide to submit them as editorial instead, good luck making any sales with that.

Then why are you still wasting your time uploading "Editorial use only" clips from as recently as this month?

When can you upload some test clips, tomorrow? I'll expect to see the clips online by mid-week. Please post a link when they are ready.

I get that you have nothing but free time, but I am pretty slammed with client projects that I have to get down before my straight week of filming and then Vegas after that. I'll get to it when I have downtime.

Gary, just to be clear I never said it was a waste of time to submit clips as editorial. There is good money to be made with editorial clips, but it is much more preferable to be accepted as commercial because then the clip has a much higher potential of getting purchased. You agree with that, right?

What I meant is that it is waste of someone's time to jump through all the hoops to submit a clip as commercial just to have it smacked down by a reviewer and then have to jump through all the hoops again to submit it again as editorial and hope it gets through that way instead. If someone has the experience under their belt to know what will likely get approved and what won't, that can save a lot of time and aggravation redoing the metadata and uploading the files all over again. Time is money.

More than 95% of my clips are accepted for however I submit them. And about 1/2 of the ones that get reject are unfair so I resubmit and they go through on another try. But that still leaves 2-3% of clips that I disagree about with the reviews but it is their sandbox so they make the rules.

Also, as far as I know, there is no way at Shutterstock or Adobe to determine when someone else's clip was first uploaded, or how many times it has sold, or anything else of value. But trust me when I say that the reviewers have gotten much more strict on what will trigger a rejection. I have a lot of shots that would never be approved today for commercial, but nevertheless, they are there online now. I'm sure there are many contributors with the same kinds of clips.

Gary, just to be clear I never said it was a waste of time to submit clips as editorial.There is good money to be made with editorial clips

Oh really?

And if you decide to submit them as editorial instead, good luck making any sales with that.

but it is much more preferable to be accepted as commercial because then the clip has a much higher potential of getting purchased. You agree with that, right?

I agree with that as much as you apparently do, with your last whole batch of uploaded clips to Shutterstock from this month being editorial.

What I meant is that it is waste of someone's time to jump through all the hoops to submit a clip as commercial just to have it smacked down by a reviewer and then have to jump through all the hoops again to submit it again as editorial and hope it gets through that way instead.

No, Doug, you didn't mean that. They should know what's acceptable for each different one, and should submit as appropriate, just like you did with your latest batch of clips.

Time is money.

That's rich coming from someone who doesn't count their time or travel expenses in their b.s. $279/hour claim.

More than 95% of my clips are accepted for however I submit them. And about 1/2 of the ones that get reject are unfair so I resubmit and they go through on another try. But that still leaves 2-3% of clips that I disagree about with the reviews but it is their sandbox so they make the rules.

Which means that you have had, at the very least, 213 clips ejected. If you spend your claimed 5 minutes per clip, that's 18 hours of work that got rejected. And, of course, doesn't include your travel expenses and the time you spent capturing said content to begin with.

But trust me when I say that the reviewers have gotten much more strict on what will trigger a rejection.

Why wouldn't I trust someone's word who claims you can make $279/hour at stock footage and then admit they value their production time at $0 and don't count travel, room, and eating expenses?

Doug, don't even try to reason with Gary, it is wasting your time, just as he wastes everyone else's time. Anyway, following your instruction on uploading was so simple and smooth. My goal is submit 3-5 more clips today. I will let you know as soon as I hear back from Shutterstock as to whether they were accepted. Have a great day and I wish you well on the clips of controlled burning in Florida. Bob

Bob, you are right. I tried to have a civil discussion but he just wants to pick a fight just for the fun of it I suppose. Time to go back to ignoring, time is money.

Well I just submitted 4 more clips for approval to Shutterstock, including one that was classified "editorial" just to try it. Again I followed all of Doug's suggestions on importing clips, editing, grading, creating metadata, uploading via an FTP site and submitting for final approval. To be honest, if I had not taken this course and just went at it myself I would have received so many rejections that I would have gotten frustrated and dropped the whole idea. However, by following Doug's methodology I know I have a good chance of having some of my clips accepted. I will let ya'll know what happens next. Bob

... Time to go back to ignoring, time is money.

Doug, there's actually an inbuilt forum function to help you permanently achieve this. Here's a quote by Chris from another thread:


... Meanwhile, for any member here who finds himself or herself sufficiently irked with a specific fellow member, may I please remind all of you about this simple, easy, and readily available option:

Edit Member Ignore List (http://www.dvinfo.net/forum/profile.php?do=ignorelist)

Hope this helps. Let's give this thing a rest for the time being. Thanks,

I've only got one member on my ignore list (I just didn't like the way he communicated to the other members), so I've got no idea what he's been saying on this thread. I can only guess from the responses by yourself and others. The Ignore List, I've found, restores DV Info to the friendly, helpful, constructive place that it's meant to be.

Decided on another discussion thread not to bother replying to Gary. Stuck to it ever since.

Andrew

David, thank you. I never knew this. Bob

there's actually an inbuilt forum function to help you permanently achieve this. Here's a quote by Chris from another thread.

for any member here who finds himself or herself sufficiently irked with a specific fellow member, may I please remind all of you about this simple, easy, and readily available option:

Edit Member Ignore List (http://www.dvinfo.net/forum/profile.php?do=ignorelist)


Thanks, David. Please everyone, if your only response to anything I post is to call me "stupid", imply I don't know what I'm talking about without ever offering anything specific or of substance, or directly lie about things you literally said one post prior, please add me to this list. You really should not be seeing what I have to add to any discussion if you are going to do any of that.

David, thanks for the suggestion. I was not aware of that function.

Seems to me the best way to deal with someone disruptive on a forum is to ignore them. If everyone would ignore them they would soon get bored without the attention and move on. Lot of good information on this site and the back and forth with these people is disruptive
.

Well the other day I submitted 4 more clips for approval to Shutterstock, including one that was classified "editorial" just to try it. Again, I followed all of Doug's suggestions on importing clips, editing, grading, writing the description, creating metadata, uploading via an FTP site and submitting for final approval. To be honest, if I had not taken this course and just went at it myself I would have received so many rejections that I would have gotten frustrated and dropped the whole idea. However, by following Doug's methodology I received notice that all of my clips were accepted by Shutterstock, including the Alaskan fishing boat that I submitted under the classification of "editorial" because you could see the boats name on the bow. This is fantastic. Thank you Doug. Bob

I received notice that all of my clips were accepted by Shutterstock, including the Alaskan fishing boat that I submitted under the classification of "editorial" because you could see the boats name on the bow.

Congrats, Bob. You'll have to let us know what your numbers are at the end of the year.

Thank you Gary, I will.

Nice job, Bob. Now keep going. I think a lot of people put a few clips out there, they don't see immediate results the next day, and then they lose interest and forget to submit anything new. I know you're not the type to fall victim to that way trap, but I want to encourage you anyway to keep uploading right away. You are planting seeds and you have to keep putting more seeds in the ground even thought the first seeds haven't even sprouted yet. That's my pep talk! Now get out there and sell one for the Gipper!

I'm coming up for retirement in a couple of years time. So I've got time to build up a portfolio of clips that I could submit. But will be exceptionally lucky if I could catch up on Doug's nest egg. Bought the course anyway, loads of useful information even I can understand and follow. Thanks Doug.

Doug, thanks for the encouragement. Donald, glad you signed up. After you retire think of all the places you can visit and video. Doug, quick question. After you upload your finished clips from Resolve to your hard drive, and then upload them to Shutterstock and they get approved, what to you do with the clips on your hard drive? Since you still have the original clips, do you delete that file? Bob

I observed a strange phenomena with Shutterstock. My 4k, 422, 10-bit clips stay in the review cue for about 2 weeks. However, 4k, 420, 8-bit clips are reviewed within about 2-4 days.

Right now there are 88 posts in this thread -- there may be fewer than that in just a few hours, but first I have to sharpen my pruning shears.

"Edit Member Ignore List" as previously mentioned is a great way to stay happy in the meantime.

More to follow (actually, *less* to follow). Thanks to all who stayed on track -- your posts have permanency!

I'm coming up for retirement in a couple of years time. So I've got time to build up a portfolio of clips that I could submit.

You better believe that is the forefront of my motivation as I build up my portfolio. I intend to plant enough seeds that stock footage royalties will be one of the pillars of my retirement income long after I stop shooting and am confined to a wheelchair with a nurse feeding me soup. :-) Thanks for signing up, and please let me know if you have any questions I don't address in the workshop.

what to you do with the clips on your hard drive? Since you still have the original clips, do you delete that file? Bob

I save two copies of all the rendered clips permanently in my archives. For one thing, hard drives are cheap so it's not a big burden, and for another thing, at some point you're going to want to submit a lot of those clips to other stock footage agencies as well. So keep them organized and ready to upload. You don't want to have to re-render them.

I observed a strange phenomena with Shutterstock. My 4k, 422, 10-bit clips stay in the review cue for about 2 weeks. However, 4k, 420, 8-bit clips are reviewed within about 2-4 days. Can't figure out why.

That is strange. I never submit 4:2:0 8-bit clips so I can't tell you how long those approvals take, but lately I've been getting approvals in anywhere from 2 hours to 2 days on my 4K 4:2:2 10-bit clips. As far as I know, my clips do not get any special attention or service from Shutterstock.

I'm uploading 225 4K clips right now and I hope to have them all submitted by Friday before I leave for NAB so I'll try to report back how long it takes them to go through. My damn internet is slow slow it's taking 3 days to upload the clips. But at least I don't have to watch it chug away at it so no big deal really.

Great, thanks for the clarification on maintaining all my edited clips. Don't forget to strap that Sony Z280 to the arm of your wheelchair! Bob

I'll have the orderly do it for me.

Doug, I have been adding video clips to Shutterstock. I have been editing and grading clips, uploading them to Shutterstock, then adding the metadata. Once I have about 5 clips ready and everything looks good I then submit them for review. This method works great for me. Have fun at NAB. Bob

I submitted 225 clips to Shutterstock on Friday and all 225 were approved today, so that's a pretty good average!

I would say that is quite impressive. I was feeling good because I submitted 13 yesterday.

Bob, the more you do, the faster you will get. Plus it helps that this batch of mine were all from the same location/event so they could share a lot of the metadata. I'm looking forward to getting home from NAB and shooting some different kinds of shots that I suddenly thought of on the flight out.

Also, don't make the same mistake that I used to do by letting a bunch of stuff stack up in the pipeline. Since the first of the year I have tried to upload new clips within a few days after I shoot them, and that is working so much better. I used to let a few hundred stack up and then it was a real chore to get through them all processed at once a couple of times per year. Plus the sooner you upload, the sooner they can start earning.

Doug good advise. I submitted 13 and 12 were accepted. Not bad for a beginner. Right now I am reviewing stuff I have shot in the Pantanal, Alaska, South Africa, Kenya, Chile, Argentina and several other photo safaris I have been on. I have three road trips (all back roads), planed for the next few months and will be shooting video with a new mind set. Bob

Yes, that's a very good percentage. I was probably at 50% or less when I started.

Well lets just say I had a damn good instructor. Bob