MicrostockGroup

I think it's time to dust of my old draft post titled 'Microstock for the Mainstream Press'.  Maybe an industry timeline to accompany it - good idea.

Some of the errors I noticed in Smart Money's article:

"The stock-photo industry has two main branches. There’s the royalty-paying segment, for distinctive copyrighted photos like ..." I assume they're struggling to describe rights managed licensing

You 'assume' do you? That's hardly a 'factual error' is it?

"Then there is the less arty, rights-free segment for ordinary images..." I assume they mean royalty-free. I've never seen the term "rights-free" used anywhere else.

You 'assume' again. No factual error.

"He also used the Internet to do “crowdsourcing”—making an open call for content. " Shutterstock was not open to anyone back when it was founded in 2003, it was only in October 2004 when it became clear he needed more volume that SS was opened for outsiders to submit. You can read a quote from SS about this in this article if you want more than my word for it. I joined SS in late October 2004 after reading that article.

He did use crowdsourcing from Oct 2004. The article does not give a timescale so no 'factual error'

"While Shutterstock and other so-called microstock houses like iStockphoto and Fotolia stole market share..." This makes it sound as though all this was happening at the same time, which isn't so. IS was around before SS and FT didn't start accepting submissions until the fall of 2005 and it didn't really start to gain any traction until Spring 2006.

The article does not mention who started first and it is certainly true that all 3 agencies were operating together so again no 'factual error'

"But Shutterstock’s technological head start helped it to build a thriving business..." This is misleading. SS didn't invent stock subscriptions, Photos.com was there several years earlier. SS didn't invent microstock, it tried to find a way to compete with IS and found subscriptions were the way to do that. SS had very primitive technology at the beginning (I was uploading while they tried to get FTP working; it was painful, although they get kudos for offering FTP and later, stored model releases). FT was the real leader in breaking into the non-English speaking market.

What's misleading? Once again you're attempting to claim that the article states facts that it clearly does not __ you're simply using your own misleading interpretations to make judgements. No factual error.

I wouldn't argue that SS is a thriving business, but I don't think it's got squat to do with a technological head start.

And as far as your snide comments on Smart Money's site about the objections coming from IS exclusives who have a vested interest, that's just unpleasant. I was an independent until last August and I objected because I was around for most of this and the story got it wrong. Impugning my motives is just a weak argument to make in rebutting any criticism.

Hardly. If anyone's being 'snide' then it has to be those who are making wild, inaccurate claims that they cannot validate __ whilst not happening to mention that they've got a strong vested interest in another agency.

ironic , i just came from another topic and gostwyck was there too.
gost, are you and whatalife some Istock mafia always coming in here to cyberbully another who disagrees with IS?

oh, attaching wiki's cyberbullying..http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cyber-bullying