They don't allow to add any watermarks or signatures to the images, though. And as I see the files are not protected by any other means and can be easily saved from web. Probably not a good idea.
I was invited into one eyeland (me and probably a billion others) and though the work they show is good, their demographics are only about 15% of actual buyers of photography.
That kind of killed it for me.
The upside is 150 bucks is cheap. The downside is I don't think they allow motion imagery.
The watermark thing is a real issue and not with the one eyeland guys but anything that goes on the web.
I predict in the not to distant future (in digital that could be a week), that anyone that produces content will begin watermarking everything, right in the center of the image.
OK, I know nobody wants to compromise their image and nobody wants to look like a difficult artist, but the fact that a lot of advertising concepts are now produced from apple shift 4, make a pdf and show it to the client has gone beyond too far.
Much more than once everyone bids on projects where their photograph is the layout and that's just the ones that the art buyers we're either kind enough to include us in (or just forgot who originally shot it).
You shouldn't find yourself bidding on your own image.
We all know it happens, we all never say much about it, but it's there, it's real, it's a detriment to our industry and when you look at a lot of these websites that publicize photographers, you realize they only publicize to other photographers.
What's the point.
The web is a monster and no single person is going to tame it, but at least Iwe can limit the damage.
Now who goes first on the watermarking everything system?
We'll see.
IMO
BC
