MicrostockGroup
Agency Based Discussion => iStockPhoto.com => Topic started by: Jo Ann Snover on June 07, 2011, 15:52
-
Not content with dumping the agency collection on iStock, they now plan to put editorial content from Getty on iStock - read here. (http://www.istockphoto.com/forum_messages.php?threadid=330294&page=1)
The kind of content - news, entertainment etc. - is the kind we're not allowed to submit.
Some animals are more equal than others...
-
... and here is the kick in the nut$
(http://www.freesmileys.org/smileys/smiley-devil14.gif)
-
I have no nuts to kick, however it does make me feel that having decided to return to independence now, versus wait out 2011 and see, was a good choice. Getty's clearly trying to milk iStock's traffic for all it's worth.
They didn't say anything about prices for this new stuff yet...
-
So let me see if I'm reading this announcement correctly. I'll translate minus the sugar coating.
"You guys have done such a fantastic job of working hard to submit editorial images and prove editorial can sell at Istock that we are going to reward you by adding more Getty content competition. Oh, and by the way, you're not allowed to submit. You can apply to Getty."
Am I reading this correctly?
-
I think so - except that the hint of desperation doesn't come through as well in written form...
-
...Oh, and by the way, you're not allowed to submit. You can apply to Getty."
Not to mention that as a Getty contributor you will get 20% which may be an increase for some non-exclusives but most likely a decrease for existing exclusives.
I don't do editorial so I don't care either way but I can see that a bunch of people are getting p!$$3d off (again) with these, latest news (including non-exclusives, exclusives AND Getty photographers).
Oh and I was wondering where is the cut off line regarding who is a celebrity and who is just "a famous person". It's just stupid IMO.
-
Inevitably the traditional micro contributors will be pushed out and into TS and PP. I have been saying this ever since Sept 2010. Every activity is indicative that more change is coming. Just watch....there will be so much competition in the micro collection when they complete the mass induction of agency collections and other Getty contributor ports that the Getty contributors will scream about "too much competition and depressed sales" resulting from superior micro content and Alamy-type volume (x2) that Getty will force the migration of Istocks micro contributors into their sub collections, or tell you to not let the door hit you in the ass on the way out. There will be arguments to the contrary but they have made so many fkd up decisions over there that I am sure are mandated by Getty that I see this scenario happening.
-
Thanks for the headsup JoAnn. Guess our stuff will be buried even futher back, except in the very unlikely event they separate editorial from commercial.
-
The worst part (okay, the second worst part, after making this decision in the first place) is their habit of dumping news on us and then leaving us to rant without answering any questions.
-
Well, do you know I was actually going to make a positive post as I'm having a good, for me, day today, including 3 E+ sales and a Vetta.
But now I just feel battered and bruised.
:-(
-
^^I'm having a good day as well after a weekend with no sales (hasn't happened for months). I don't really care about editorial, I don't shoot it much, they're rejecting my shots for absurd reasons (I have good acceptance rate in the regular collection).
-
Wow, this really sucks... another gazillion images to push back our files in the best match
-
It sounds to me like the Getty content that is going to be added is stuff that we can't submit anyways as the normal "iStock" editorial. Don't get me wrong, I'm not a fan of Getty dumps into the collection (especially when they are Agency images that never sell and have no place at the top of the best match search), but if these are photos that we can't even upload then it might bring in new/different customers. Plus it opens a door for photographers who want to shoot this type of stuff (celebrities, etc.).
-
"On a technical note, we will be dating these files so that our system recognizes their original creation date, and not the date they are uploaded to iStock. This is being done to ensure that these new files do not dominate our Best Match sort en masse."
People don't really believe that, do they?
-
It sounds to me like the Getty content that is going to be added is stuff that we can't submit anyways as the normal "iStock" editorial. Don't get me wrong, I'm not a fan of Getty dumps into the collection (especially when they are Agency images that never sell and have no place at the top of the best match search), but if these are photos that we can't even upload then it might bring in new/different customers. Plus it opens a door for photographers who want to shoot this type of stuff (celebrities, etc.).
There are plenty of occasions where we can easily photograph celebs and politicians a without needing any 'accreditation', but iStock won't accept even that. For example, if there's a rally in a big public place, where celebs and/or politicians are speaking, free festivals (probably minor celebs, but iStock won't take them either, though some are in), politicicans or royalty doing a walkabout etc (e.g. if you happened to have a good position for photographing Kate Middleton in her carriage from the pavement). There are no ways of getting accreditation for that sort of thing. No matter, there are other outlets.
However, I don't see how a buyer with an interest in celebs will even look at other material.
One thing iStock seems to be bad at is debriefing. We've already had evidence here that they don't debrief former exclusives who hand in their crown. This could just be as simple as 'We're sorry exclusivity isn't working for you. Would you like to explain why you made your decision'. It may be that they are happy about losing exclusives, of course, as they make more 'profitability' out of them as independents.
When they changed the old Getty program, they pointed out that a high proportion of people who had been accepted for Getty had never taken it up. I was one of these, and I was never asked why I hadn't taken up the 'opportunity', and I guess others weren't either.
So they seem not to be remotely interested in finding out why things aren't working for contributors, and as we know, they wouldn't want to make things better for us anyway. Sheer arrogance.
And as George said on the iStock forum, lots of these images are upsized: a luxury that isn't granted to us.
-
And why do people keep insisting on this?
"We Want To Be Included in Major Decisions! We deserve at least this much.
Name an iStock Contributor Panel that can be permanently active with rotating members. PLEASE!!"
-
Double post.
-
Sorry again. One of these days I'll remember to hit 'modify' instead of 'quote'.
-
and somehow the IS fanboys are silent...
-
It sounds to me like the Getty content that is going to be added is stuff that we can't submit anyways as the normal "iStock" editorial. Don't get me wrong, I'm not a fan of Getty dumps into the collection (especially when they are Agency images that never sell and have no place at the top of the best match search), but if these are photos that we can't even upload then it might bring in new/different customers. Plus it opens a door for photographers who want to shoot this type of stuff (celebrities, etc.).
yes, but it begs the question - if they can do it, why can't we?
-
Plus it opens a door for photographers who want to shoot this type of stuff (celebrities, etc.).
Yup, and get 20% for it rather than our iStock percentage.
Of course, for all but one independent, 20% would be an attractive proposition.
-
This is total BS. The folks who are supporting it make me sick. Particularly a certain admin who used to be one of the strongest "voices of the people". I just can't get over how the badge and the paycheck has changed that tune. It's truly disappointing.
But anyway, this is just another nail in the coffin for the site. I dare say I hardly care, at this point. It's beyond saving now, I think. Get what $ from it while you can. I think it's bad news bears and smaller paychecks for all, moving forward.
And above all, keep that day job! Or find one :)
-
My eternal optimism is wavering. As I posted on iStock, does anyone know how the Getty contributors view this change? An additional opportunity, or a downward kick??? I am a small business owner and don't pretend to understand the iStock/Getty business and management dynamic, but it appears that more and more, iStock is simply being run as a subsidiary of Getty (duh). I truly doubt that iStock management has any more say in these decisions than we do. They are in my opinion middle management squeezed from above, and railed at from below. The driving force behind the company is clearly no longer in Canada. Hey, maybe it will all be good this time, just kidding. I have been wanting to do some creative photo projects for myself instead of always looking for stock images, maybe this is the catalyst.
-
I think the new contract said that Getty contributors could have their content moved to the partner program as Getty sees fit, correct me if I'm wrong. That is even worse than our deal, for now.
-
Jaw-dropping, really, some of the stuff that comes out of people's mouths over there.
Once Getty sees certain contributers standards, how good their work is and how well it sells, Istock admins will push those people in the right direction like they did with agency files. Neither Istock or Getty is going to give up the chance to make money on our skills and the people that excel will be noticed now.
-
Jaw-dropping, really, some of the stuff that comes out of people's mouths over there.
Once Getty sees certain contributers standards, how good their work is and how well it sells, Istock admins will push those people in the right direction like they did with agency files. Neither Istock or Getty is going to give up the chance to make money on our skills and the people that excel will be noticed now.
Yeah, well...
-
...it appears that more and more, iStock is simply being run as a subsidiary of Getty (duh). I truly doubt that iStock management has any more say in these decisions than we do. They are in my opinion middle management squeezed from above, and railed at from below...
As I understand it, istock was (and maybe still is) expected to be Getty's big earner in the years that followed the sale. Some Getty projections from a few years ago indicated that management expected istock to surpass the regular Getty collection in terms of revenue. Maybe all of this (Agency, Getty Editorial, etc) trickling down to istock is just Getty's way of putting more of their existing content in the most popular place for current buyers. If buyer activity is shifting to microstock, put more of your collections in your microstock properties.
Although eventually this makes your microstock products less "micro", but maybe that doesn't matter. And of course the major side-effect for contributors is that with all of this content being funneled into istock, it's a hell of a lot harder to make a buck there.
-
businesswise it's a good but risky move for getty, we'll see how it develops.
unsurprisingly anyways, getty is owned and run by rich bankers, they couldn't give a s-hit about photography and photographers.
they're destroying the stock market and very few of us will survive on stock alone in the next 5 or 10 yrs.
-
Jaw-dropping, really, some of the stuff that comes out of people's mouths over there.
Once Getty sees certain contributers standards, how good their work is and how well it sells, Istock admins will push those people in the right direction like they did with agency files. Neither Istock or Getty is going to give up the chance to make money on our skills and the people that excel will be noticed now.
Yeah, well...
She just doesn't stop, does she? Wow. She's off in a different stratosphere or something.
-
Makes me LAUGH!!!
In just about 20 posts Ive said this all along, the aim is to ultimatly push out IS and into TS, its BLOODY obvious. I said it as long back as 2 years ago, long before this happend.
Next move, the agency photographers and all their RM stuff, etc.
Sigh! but then comes some wiseguys here and says Oh no, they cant do that? but they can, they will and they did.
This is just for starters, wait and see what will happen when dinner is served.
-
Makes me LAUGH!!!
In just about 20 posts Ive said this all along, the aim is to ultimatly push out IS and into TS, its BLOODY obvious. I said it as long back as 2 years ago, long before this happend.
Next move, the agency photographers and all their RM stuff, etc.
Sigh! but then comes some wiseguys here and says Oh no, they cant do that? but they can, they will and they did.
This is just for starters, wait and see what will happen when dinner is served.
well you micro guys are responsible for all this, don't blame getty too much, i would do the same in their pants frankly speaking.
-
This is total BS. The folks who are supporting it make me sick. Particularly a certain admin who used to be one of the strongest "voices of the people". I just can't get over how the badge and the paycheck has changed that tune. It's truly disappointing.
I'm sure he and another have been told to get out there and 'reassure the masses' aka "seem to calm us down", by any means possible.
-
and somehow the IS fanboys are silent...
None left!
-
Another point from the OP no-one has commented on:
"These new editorial files will all be in a single contributor portfolio called EdStock."
So the photographers are not being credited. Wonder if they'll be mad about that, or relieved that their names are not being 'outed' in Micro.
Will that mean the photo is listed as 'copyright EdStock'?
-
Looking at the London 'lypse images, it's clear that people spend a lot of time, effort and money shooting 'iconic' locations such as the London Eye, British Museum, Parliament, the Gherkin building and famous underground stations for the editorial collection.
Wonder how they'll feel when - tomorrow - images of these same locations start flooding into the collection.
Guess this will be one of those rare occasions at iStockphoto when things are done bang on time, rather than being delayed by months and months with zero communication.
-
There seems to be an endless supply of bad news over there.
-
Another point from the OP no-one has commented on:
"These new editorial files will all be in a single contributor portfolio called EdStock."
So the photographers are not being credited. Wonder if they'll be mad about that, or relieved that their names are not being 'outed' in Micro.
Will that mean the photo is listed as 'copyright EdStock'?
(Intentionally meaning to quote myself this time!)
I see Sean has raised this very issue on the iStock thread.
I guess the Username could be EdStock, but the correct copyright could be assigned, just as at the moment you can have Username: SillySausage but copyright: Joe Bloggs.
Interesting how the Username thing goes. Does that mean they'll be able to shoot up the RC rankings super fast, whereas we are not supposed to be in groups or pairs (we are often told) but there are several couples/groups allowed.
I'm sure they wouldn't like it if we formed alliances with others (with a legal agreement) to zoom up the RCs.
-
Looking at the London 'lypse images, it's clear that people spend a lot of time, effort and money shooting 'iconic' locations such as the London Eye, British Museum, Parliament, the Gherkin building and famous underground stations for the editorial collection.
Wonder how they'll feel when - tomorrow - images of these same locations start flooding into the collection.
I'm so glad I didn't throw away that £1000. I can only hope the tuition and insights were worth it. It would have been well over £1000 for most attendees.
There was no way I'd agree to have 'all pics taken in London during the duration of the 'lypse' exclusive to iStock/partners. The set up model shoots, fair enough, but not anything else.
-
Guess this will be one of those rare occasions at iStockphoto when things are done bang on time, rather than being delayed by months and months with zero communication.
Oh, yes; this will have been stacked up for months just ready for the button to be pressed. Look how they jumped the gun with the %age cut for Vetta. Yet is seems they still can't transfer files over to TS for those who actually want that to happen, and there are delays in having Vetta files transferred to Getty, as promised.
Same old, same old. >:( :(
-
I see Sean has raised this very issue on the iStock thread.
I guess the Username could be EdStock, but the correct copyright could be assigned, just as at the moment you can have Username: SillySausage but copyright: Joe Bloggs.
Interesting how the Username thing goes. Does that mean they'll be able to shoot up the RC rankings super fast, whereas we are not supposed to be in groups or pairs (we are often told) but there are several couples/groups allowed.
I'm sure they wouldn't like it if we formed alliances with others (with a legal agreement) to zoom up the RCs.
Sorry for stealing - I thought it was a good point to raise.
-
I see Sean has raised this very issue on the iStock thread.
I guess the Username could be EdStock, but the correct copyright could be assigned, just as at the moment you can have Username: SillySausage but copyright: Joe Bloggs.
Interesting how the Username thing goes. Does that mean they'll be able to shoot up the RC rankings super fast, whereas we are not supposed to be in groups or pairs (we are often told) but there are several couples/groups allowed.
I'm sure they wouldn't like it if we formed alliances with others (with a legal agreement) to zoom up the RCs.
Sorry for stealing - I thought it was a good point to raise.
Not stealing: you can regard it as 'posting it there on my behalf' (but with a lot more clout :D)
-
Interesting how the Username thing goes. Does that mean they'll be able to shoot up the RC rankings super fast, whereas we are not supposed to be in groups or pairs (we are often told) but there are several couples/groups allowed.
I'm sure they wouldn't like it if we formed alliances with others (with a legal agreement) to zoom up the RCs.
I doubt if the RC rankings will matter to them. There will be some fixed arrangement.
-
Interesting how the Username thing goes. Does that mean they'll be able to shoot up the RC rankings super fast, whereas we are not supposed to be in groups or pairs (we are often told) but there are several couples/groups allowed.
I'm sure they wouldn't like it if we formed alliances with others (with a legal agreement) to zoom up the RCs.
I doubt if the RC rankings will matter to them. There will be some fixed arrangement.
That's true. But there will probably be a best match advantage to that single user from having a lot of files, with plenty downloads and a 100% acceptance rate.
Anyway, that's probably academic because the files will enjoy a strong best match boost. Otherwise known as 'files scattered in with every search'. Remember what we were told when Agency was introduced:
In search and Best Match the images will be weighted fairly and will not have a heavier weight than any other file. In other words, you won't find the entire agency collection at the front of every search. You will find some agency collection files scattered in with every search, just the same as you see now for Vetta and exclusive plus files.
-
Interesting how the Username thing goes. Does that mean they'll be able to shoot up the RC rankings super fast, whereas we are not supposed to be in groups or pairs (we are often told) but there are several couples/groups allowed.
I'm sure they wouldn't like it if we formed alliances with others (with a legal agreement) to zoom up the RCs.
I doubt if the RC rankings will matter to them. There will be some fixed arrangement.
That's true. But there will probably be a best match advantage to that single user from having a lot of files, with plenty downloads and a 100% acceptance rate.
Anyway, that's probably academic because the files will enjoy a strong best match boost. Otherwise known as 'files scattered in with every search'. Remember what we were told when Agency was introduced:
In search and Best Match the images will be weighted fairly and will not have a heavier weight than any other file. In other words, you won't find the entire agency collection at the front of every search. You will find some agency collection files scattered in with every search, just the same as you see now for Vetta and exclusive plus files.
hahahhaahah!! ah yes, I laugh out loud everytime I read that little joke of theirs. hahahahhaaha! "weighted fairly"! hahaha.. the joke's on us!
-
For a long time I've had the feeling they wanted to increase profits short term (by cutting commissions) to make the site look attractive to potential buyers ("look at this chart how our profits have skyrocketed over the past year") - But it seems more and more likely they want to kill the site (and microstock altogether) and get buyers back to Getty. I'm really confused and right now I've no idea how this is going to end. Aren't they aware of the alternatives, such as Shutterstock, Dreamstime and Fotolia ? Maybe they're only interested in buyers willing to pay macro-prices and the rest, the "poor" micro-buyers who switch to other sites, are "good riddance" anyway ?
-
Wow, this really sucks... another gazillion images to push back our files in the best match
You don't see the humour in this?
-
Another point from the OP no-one has commented on:
"These new editorial files will all be in a single contributor portfolio called EdStock."
So the photographers are not being credited. Wonder if they'll be mad about that, or relieved that their names are not being 'outed' in Micro.
Will that mean the photo is listed as 'copyright EdStock'?
Well, who is this Ed Stock, and does he get to keep the royalties? ;)
-
Well, who is this Ed Stock, and does he get to keep the royalties? ;)
but to me the big question is : is editorial selling well on IS ? for instance travel editorial,
street shots, photos of villages, suburbs, people in rags, portraits, etc ?
i've plenty of editorial that never sold in RM, so i don't see istock move as a bad move
if they can make a business out of it, i never tried dreamstime or SS editorial because
i always felt it's a waste of time, if IS manages to make ED a viable income
i'm all for it but what if the average ED image only sells once or twice ?
-
Another point from the OP no-one has commented on:
"These new editorial files will all be in a single contributor portfolio called EdStock."
So the photographers are not being credited. Wonder if they'll be mad about that, or relieved that their names are not being 'outed' in Micro.
Will that mean the photo is listed as 'copyright EdStock'?
Well, who is this Ed Stock, and does he get to keep the royalties? ;)
Interesting someone has noticed that the EdStock membership was created back in April.
Well, I guess we shouldn't be surprised. Of course this was the intention all along, and I'm sure we're still only at the thin end of the wedge.
-
For a long time I've had the feeling they wanted to increase profits short term (by cutting commissions) to make the site look attractive to potential buyers ("look at this chart how our profits have skyrocketed over the past year") - But it seems more and more likely they want to kill the site (and microstock altogether) and get buyers back to Getty. I'm really confused and right now I've no idea how this is going to end. Aren't they aware of the alternatives, such as Shutterstock, Dreamstime and Fotolia ? Maybe they're only interested in buyers willing to pay macro-prices and the rest, the "poor" micro-buyers who switch to other sites, are "good riddance" anyway ?
I don't think they're trying to kill Istock. I do think they're trying to shuffle pricing and define pricing tiers to prevent Getty buyers from defecting to Istock. Some micro contributors are now producing such high value imagery that it's eroding the value at Getty.
If Getty has a good selling image for $200 and on IS a somewhat similar one is $20, why would a buyer get it from Getty? So, increase the price on IS by adding it to Vetta/Agency.
A few years ago micro buyers were getting Buicks for the price of a Chevy. They're now able to get a Rolls Royce for the price of a Buick.
-
Whether it's their intention to damage iStock or not, the moves to dump Getty content on iStock can have that effect if they're not careful. Then Getty is left with two sites in trouble instead of one.
Those buyers who came to iStock for value won't all stick around as the prices rise. When Vetta was initially introduced, there was pretty good acceptance of the notion of a premium collection. When they virtually doubled the Vetta prices last year, I think they pushed a good thing too far (I understand they had the Agency stuff from Getty that had to have a high price and they'd have had a bigger riot if they left Vetta so much cheaper than agency; still was a crappy end result).
-
Is there any word on how these files will be priced yet...? Very curious about that one...
-
every time there's one of these announcements at iStock I get a bump in sales at DT and SS. purely coincidental, I'm sure, but it makes me smile anyway. :)
-
Is there any word on how these files will be priced yet...? Very curious about that one...
I asked earlier in the thread (http://www.istockphoto.com/forum_messages.php?threadid=330294&messageid=6402144), but as with other questions, so far no admin responses.
-
Is there any word on how these files will be priced yet...? Very curious about that one...
I asked earlier in the thread ([url]http://www.istockphoto.com/forum_messages.php?threadid=330294&messageid=6402144[/url]), but as with other questions, so far no admin responses.
A premium editorial collection was on the cards from day one - I'm pretty sure it was acknowledged as such by IS but put on hold to await some volume in the collection first. My guess is that this move will hasten the introduction of a premium editorial collection.
-
Is there any word on how these files will be priced yet...? Very curious about that one...
I asked earlier in the thread ([url]http://www.istockphoto.com/forum_messages.php?threadid=330294&messageid=6402144[/url]), but as with other questions, so far no admin responses.
A premium editorial collection was on the cards from day one - I'm pretty sure it was acknowledged as such by IS but put on hold to await some volume in the collection first. My guess is that this move will hasten the introduction of a premium editorial collection.
I agree - the potential to make more money will have been seen, and almost certainly won't be resisted.
But surely, no matter how trusting of iStock people choose to be, not many artists will sign up for a new premium collection at the derisory "three for us, one for you" royalty rates of 22%-28% that Vetta for photos gets. Not while the new Vetta for Video and Vectors collections are getting 10% more.
Still don't quite understand why photographic contributors should be paid so much less for their best work, and are now looking at a 25% hike in RC targets, while targets for other media are unchanged.
-
Is there any word on how these files will be priced yet...? Very curious about that one...
I asked earlier in the thread ([url]http://www.istockphoto.com/forum_messages.php?threadid=330294&messageid=6402144[/url]), but as with other questions, so far no admin responses.
A premium editorial collection was on the cards from day one - I'm pretty sure it was acknowledged as such by IS but put on hold to await some volume in the collection first. My guess is that this move will hasten the introduction of a premium editorial collection.
Good thinking... i'd have guessed the 'istock-plebs' editorial thats there now is the regular editorial and the announced influx the premium editorial collection, but your scenario probably is more likely.
-
Poste4d by Joyze:
Here are the Q&A I've pulled together for you. I hope I haven't missed anyones questions, but if I have, send me a site mail and I'll get on it.
1. How likely is it for iStock contributors to be accepted at Getty?
It really depends on the specific photographer. If one of our contributors has the skills and interest to work with Getty we will do our best to work with them to make it happen. It is really something that has to be addressed on an individual basis.
2. What is the price point of these images?
These images will all be priced at Exclusive+.
3. How many images will be added to iStock?
The goal is to add enough images to give iStockphoto an editorial collection that is competitive. For the first round, we will be adding approximately 7,000 images. More images will be added over time, however, at this point we don’t have specific numbers.
4. How are the images being selected?
The images are being selected by our content team and the Getty editorial team.
5. Why locations, when iStock contributors can shoot locations as well? How much of an overlap will there be? Will you stop accepting locations from iStock contributors?
We will still accept location shots from our contributors. The location images coming in as part of this content have been selected because of their specific subject matter or newsworthiness. In addition, the content will include images of some locations that our contributors generally don’t have the permission to shoot, even for editorial purposes.
6. Will we be allowed to submit similar images to iStock if we are accredited, or do these all have to go via Getty?
From a contributor point of view nothing has changed in terms of what you can submit. That means we will accept images of products, locations, and news imagery addressing ongoing issues. If you are interested in shooting celebrities or “breaking news” you would have to become accepted at Getty, at which point you would submit your images directly to Getty.
7. Are there plans to put iStock editorial content on Getty as well?
There are no immediate plans to do this, but if the editorial collection continues to do well it is something we would look at.
8. Will this new content be mixed into the regular best match, or will it be a separate collection?
The content will be treated just like any other content on iStockphoto and is not being given any special treatment.
9. Can we upload Sports and sporting events?
Due to the complexity that comes with Sports teams and sporting events, we're not able to accept those types of files at this time.
10. How will these files under the Edstock member name be credited?
They will be credited exactly the same as current iStock files are. So, it will look like this:
©istockphoto.com/edstock
So the 'togs aren't having their copyright acknowledged?
Is this 'wholly owned content'?
And note:
"More images will be added over time" - so no doubt eventually as much editorial content as they can get off with, not just celebrities or 'iconic locations'.
If George Clooney walks down my street and I can take a steady picture (doubtful), it'll be bound for Alamy: who on earth could 'accredit' that?
Talking about Alamy, how come are they able to take sports events without 'all the complexity'. There must be local sports without 'all the complexity' - I guess my local football team wouldn't have 'all the complexity'. How come can you take a local sports event for the main collection if you have model releases and clone out all logos, sponsorship etc, but not for the editorial collection?
-
Talking about Alamy, how are they able to take sports events with out 'all the complexity'. There must be local sports without 'all the complexity' - I guess my local football team wouldn't have 'all the complexity'. How come can you take a local sports event for the main collection if you have model releases and clone out all logos, sponsorship etc, but not for the editorial collection?
+1
-
Seems like if George Clooney walks down my street and I can take a steady picture (doubtful), it'll be bound for Alamy since without accredition, I couldn't even send it to Getty.
The part about 'accreditation' is at least partially a ruse. Not all celebrity/personality/event shoots are accredited. Getty does its best to lock out all photographers except their own from a number of events. Getty staff/contract photographers get wages, not percentages, so the more exclusive they can make an image or subject appear the better for Getty corporate--not individual photographers. Some magazine editors I know groan when they think of dealing with Getty and actively look for alternatives.
Ironically, I realized today that the young lady caught up in the Congressman Weiner text-photos scandal is a model I shot and have up on IS already! So I guess there ARE ways of submitting 'celebrity' stock to IS!
-
Talking about Alamy, how are they able to take sports events with out 'all the complexity'. There must be local sports without 'all the complexity' - I guess my local football team wouldn't have 'all the complexity'. How come can you take a local sports event for the main collection if you have model releases and clone out all logos, sponsorship etc, but not for the editorial collection?
+1
The complexity has to do with treading on Getty's toes would be my guess. I'd also guess they'd never admit to that if it were true.
-
Seems like if George Clooney walks down my street and I can take a steady picture (doubtful), it'll be bound for Alamy since without accredition, I couldn't even send it to Getty.
The part about 'accreditation' is at least partially a ruse. Not all celebrity/personality/event shoots are accredited. Getty does its best to lock out all photographers except their own from a number of events. Getty staff/contract photographers get wages, not percentages, so the more exclusive they can make an image or subject appear the better for Getty corporate--not individual photographers. Some magazine editors I know groan when they think of dealing with Getty and actively look for alternatives.
Ironically, I realized today that the young lady caught up in the Congressman Weiner text-photos scandal is a model I shot and have up on IS already! So I guess there ARE ways of submitting 'celebrity' stock to IS!
OMG - hilarious! Do post us a link :)
Thanks for clearing up this "accreditation" business. My understanding of editorial usage is that no releases of any kind are required. Period. It's a first amendment freedom of the press thing. Otherwise, how could pararazzi and tabloids operate?
So I have been really confused by all this talk about proper permissions etc. Now that you have explained that it is mainly a Getty thing it makes a lot more sense :)
-
All the lies, half-truths, double-speak, forked tongue and subterfuges get me down. >:(
-
Seems like if George Clooney walks down my street and I can take a steady picture (doubtful), it'll be bound for Alamy since without accredition, I couldn't even send it to Getty.
The part about 'accreditation' is at least partially a ruse. Not all celebrity/personality/event shoots are accredited. Getty does its best to lock out all photographers except their own from a number of events. Getty staff/contract photographers get wages, not percentages, so the more exclusive they can make an image or subject appear the better for Getty corporate--not individual photographers. Some magazine editors I know groan when they think of dealing with Getty and actively look for alternatives.
Ironically, I realized today that the young lady caught up in the Congressman Weiner text-photos scandal is a model I shot and have up on IS already! So I guess there ARE ways of submitting 'celebrity' stock to IS!
assuming this is true, it's fairly unprofessional of you to have revealed her identity here for the sake of a quick laugh. I'm amazed at the lack of professionalism admitted to by so many photographers, especially on MSG.
-
Seems like if George Clooney walks down my street and I can take a steady picture (doubtful), it'll be bound for Alamy since without accredition, I couldn't even send it to Getty.
The part about 'accreditation' is at least partially a ruse. Not all celebrity/personality/event shoots are accredited. Getty does its best to lock out all photographers except their own from a number of events. Getty staff/contract photographers get wages, not percentages, so the more exclusive they can make an image or subject appear the better for Getty corporate--not individual photographers. Some magazine editors I know groan when they think of dealing with Getty and actively look for alternatives.
Ironically, I realized today that the young lady caught up in the Congressman Weiner text-photos scandal is a model I shot and have up on IS already! So I guess there ARE ways of submitting 'celebrity' stock to IS!
OMG - hilarious! Do post us a link :)
Thanks for clearing up this "accreditation" business. My understanding of editorial usage is that no releases of any kind are required. Period. It's a first amendment freedom of the press thing. Otherwise, how could pararazzi and tabloids operate?
So I have been really confused by all this talk about proper permissions etc. Now that you have explained that it is mainly a Getty thing it makes a lot more sense :)
Lisa - with all due respect, permissions in editorial are not just a 'Getty thing'. there are many many MANY rules regarding editorial submissions to publications. editorial isn't a release-free-for-all...
-
assuming this is true, it's fairly unprofessional of you to have revealed her identity here for the sake of a quick laugh. I'm amazed at the lack of professionalism admitted to by so many photographers, especially on MSG.
Are you serious? You truly have no clue. Photos and her stage name have been all over the media today. I made the realization at a newsstand when I saw a full page photo identifying her in the NY Post. I had no intention of releasing her real name, but I have every intention of getting the editorial package that I produced (photos not on IS and SS) to Renta tomorrow and making direct offers to magazines I already work with. That, in fact, is what is known as professionalism.
I have been creating editorial portrait and feature layouts for magazines for several years. Doing this puts me in contact with numerous subjects. This particular incident adds timeliness and interest to an editorial package that is already in the marketplace. I had considered signing with Getty for the editorial library I have, but my experience with them on RM lifestyle stock does not encourage me. This recent change in policy does not change that.
-
Photos and her stage name have been all over the media today. I made the realization at a newsstand when I saw a full page photo identifying her in the NY Post.
Where? I can't find a single one online. And my inquiring mind wants to know. And she had a stage name? So she was looking for publicity? I was wondering why all these women were suddenly coming forward. All looking for a quick buck now? That's the only reason I can think of why they would even engage in this type of thing with that guy.
/OT
-
Where? I can't find a single one online. And my inquiring mind wants to know. And she had a stage name? So she was looking for publicity? I was wondering why all these women were suddenly coming forward. All looking for a quick buck now? That's the only reason I can think of why they would even engage in this type of thing with that guy.
/OT
Numerous models and actresses use stage names. Are you a conspiracy nut? Or possibly living under a rock? This is not a new thing. You can google either parties' name and get numerous hits.
-
Another point from the OP no-one has commented on:
"These new editorial files will all be in a single contributor portfolio called EdStock."
So the photographers are not being credited. Wonder if they'll be mad about that, or relieved that their names are not being 'outed' in Micro.
Will that mean the photo is listed as 'copyright EdStock'?
Well, who is this Ed Stock, and does he get to keep the royalties? ;)
And here I thought ED stood for something else entirely ;D http://tiny.cc/7mgob
-
Jaw-dropping, really, some of the stuff that comes out of people's mouths over there.
Once Getty sees certain contributers standards, how good their work is and how well it sells, Istock admins will push those people in the right direction like they did with agency files. Neither Istock or Getty is going to give up the chance to make money on our skills and the people that excel will be noticed now.
Yes but for last year and ago we must call things with real names.
iStock or (iStock, milking cattle) = *insult removed*
Getty = Just Greedy
-
assuming this is true, it's fairly unprofessional of you to have revealed her identity here for the sake of a quick laugh. I'm amazed at the lack of professionalism admitted to by so many photographers, especially on MSG.
Are you serious? You truly have no clue. Photos and her stage name have been all over the media today. I made the realization at a newsstand when I saw a full page photo identifying her in the NY Post. I had no intention of releasing her real name, but I have every intention of getting the editorial package that I produced (photos not on IS and Shutterstock) to Renta tomorrow and making direct offers to magazines I already work with. That, in fact, is what is known as professionalism.
I have been creating editorial portrait and feature layouts for magazines for several years. Doing this puts me in contact with numerous subjects. This particular incident adds timeliness and interest to an editorial package that is already in the marketplace. I had considered signing with Getty for the editorial library I have, but my experience with them on RM lifestyle stock does not encourage me. This recent change in policy does not change that.
sorry. I suppose in this case, what I said was unfair. I didn't realize her identity was already so public. I still question pointing her out in your iStock portfolio. probably would have sufficed to state you had worked with her, but whatever. I'm being nit picky.
-
Where? I can't find a single one online. And my inquiring mind wants to know. And she had a stage name? So she was looking for publicity? I was wondering why all these women were suddenly coming forward. All looking for a quick buck now? That's the only reason I can think of why they would even engage in this type of thing with that guy.
/OT
Numerous models and actresses use stage names. Are you a conspiracy nut? Or possibly living under a rock? This is not a new thing. You can google either parties' name and get numerous hits.
No, what I want to know is what motivation does a model/actress have in engaging in a nasty chat with a prominent congressman. That doesn't seem at all strange to you?
-
Another point from the OP no-one has commented on:
"These new editorial files will all be in a single contributor portfolio called EdStock."
So the photographers are not being credited. Wonder if they'll be mad about that, or relieved that their names are not being 'outed' in Micro.
Will that mean the photo is listed as 'copyright EdStock'?
If the pictures are being sold without the photographer being named, how can organisers determine whether or not they issued credentials for the snapper who shot the event? Is iStock gearing up to cope with a swathe of inquiries from irate organisers? Or is this "you can't shoot editorial without permission" actually a load of b0llux?
-
Another point from the OP no-one has commented on:
"These new editorial files will all be in a single contributor portfolio called EdStock."
So the photographers are not being credited. Wonder if they'll be mad about that, or relieved that their names are not being 'outed' in Micro.
Will that mean the photo is listed as 'copyright EdStock'?
If the pictures are being sold without the photographer being named, how can organisers determine whether or not they issued credentials for the snapper who shot the event? Is iStock gearing up to cope with a swathe of inquiries from irate organisers? Or is this "you can't shoot editorial without permission" actually a load of b0llux?
It's possible that the rules are different in different countries. I don't think I'd take on France for example. But it must be pretty easy to issue inspectors with a list of countries where the rules are different rather than making a blank 'no accept'.
-
2. What is the price point of these images?
These images will all be priced at Exclusive+.
Would it be safe to assume that the long promised, but not yet implemented best match boost for E+ files will quickly become a priority?
-
For a long time I've had the feeling they wanted to increase profits short term (by cutting commissions) to make the site look attractive to potential buyers ("look at this chart how our profits have skyrocketed over the past year") - But it seems more and more likely they want to kill the site (and microstock altogether) and get buyers back to Getty. I'm really confused and right now I've no idea how this is going to end. Aren't they aware of the alternatives, such as Shutterstock, Dreamstime and Fotolia ? Maybe they're only interested in buyers willing to pay macro-prices and the rest, the "poor" micro-buyers who switch to other sites, are "good riddance" anyway ?
I don't think they're trying to kill Istock. I do think they're trying to shuffle pricing and define pricing tiers to prevent Getty buyers from defecting to Istock. Some micro contributors are now producing such high value imagery that it's eroding the value at Getty.
If Getty has a good selling image for $200 and on IS a somewhat similar one is $20, why would a buyer get it from Getty? So, increase the price on IS by adding it to Vetta/Agency.
A few years ago micro buyers were getting Buicks for the price of a Chevy. They're now able to get a Rolls Royce for the price of a Buick.
I get your point and agree, but what's their long term plan?
Apparently everything is falling down at IS - they're losing buyers and seem to be doing nothing about it, so in my eyes the case is either
1. This is actually working for them despite of contributor frustrations
or
2. This is part of their plan to get rid of the small buyers (supported by the recent unsatisfied buyer who was told "too bad" or something like that when complaining in the iStock forums)
or
3. They were seeking to boost profits temporarily for a sale, but bad management has now ruined that plan.
Surely they must know that the current situation at IS is unsustainable, or at least will be, long term ? Which originally lead me to believe they were planning to sell the site. The problem is that if this continues, soon they won't have a product to sell ???
-
For a long time I've had the feeling they wanted to increase profits short term (by cutting commissions) to make the site look attractive to potential buyers ("look at this chart how our profits have skyrocketed over the past year") - But it seems more and more likely they want to kill the site (and microstock altogether) and get buyers back to Getty. I'm really confused and right now I've no idea how this is going to end. Aren't they aware of the alternatives, such as Shutterstock, Dreamstime and Fotolia ? Maybe they're only interested in buyers willing to pay macro-prices and the rest, the "poor" micro-buyers who switch to other sites, are "good riddance" anyway ?
I don't think they're trying to kill Istock. I do think they're trying to shuffle pricing and define pricing tiers to prevent Getty buyers from defecting to Istock. Some micro contributors are now producing such high value imagery that it's eroding the value at Getty.
If Getty has a good selling image for $200 and on IS a somewhat similar one is $20, why would a buyer get it from Getty? So, increase the price on IS by adding it to Vetta/Agency.
A few years ago micro buyers were getting Buicks for the price of a Chevy. They're now able to get a Rolls Royce for the price of a Buick.
I get your point and agree, but what's their long term plan?
Apparently everything is falling down at IS - they're losing buyers and seem to be doing nothing about it, so in my eyes the case is either
1. This is actually working for them despite of contributor frustrations
or
2. This is part of their plan to get rid of the small buyers (supported by the recent unsatisfied buyer who was told "too bad" or something like that when complaining in the iStock forums)
or
3. They were seeking to boost profits temporarily for a sale, but bad management has now ruined that plan.
Surely they must know that the current situation at IS is unsustainable, or at least will be, long term ? Which originally lead me to believe they were planning to sell the site. The problem is that if this continues, soon they won't have a product to sell ???
Is it falling down? I think people are only focusing on the perceived number of buyers and website traffic as indicators of progress.
IS is probably mostly looking at revenue and profits which I don't think any of us have access to.
It's entirely possible that they could be losing buyers, losing traffic, and still be making more revenue and higher profits. Are they? Who knows.
And I don't think they're trying to get rid of small buyers. I also don't think they're trying to save small buyers who are leaving. As the old rule goes, I'm guessing 20% of buyers make up 80% of revenue. Most companies will focus their attention on the big spenders. If one of them threaten to leave I'd bet IS bends over backwards to get them to stay. If one of the low end of the 80%r's threatens to leave it may not be worth the effort to try to save them. Kind of like someone playing penny slots at a Casino and telling the manager that they're not coming back. The casino cares more about the guy in the VIP room dropping $100 coins a pull.
IS is really pushing Vetta and Agency. So it's either a move of desperation to boost financials, or they've figured out that they can make more money with fewer buyers.
They still seem to be placing a priority on everything that boosts financials regardless of site stability. I think that says a lot about what the plans are.
-
There's some "EdStock" coming through now: http://www.istockphoto.com/search/editorial (http://www.istockphoto.com/search/editorial)
-
There's some "EdStock" coming through now: [url]http://www.istockphoto.com/search/editorial[/url] ([url]http://www.istockphoto.com/search/editorial[/url])
still not available for download...ohhhhhhhhhhh
-
And people are again surprised that some of the Getty content is in direct competition to iStock contributor content. I seriously don't know why people believe anything they tell them anymore. Every time iStock opens their mouth another lie comes out. How many times do people have to be lied to before they stop believing the iStock spin?
-
There's some "EdStock" coming through now: [url]http://www.istockphoto.com/search/editorial[/url] ([url]http://www.istockphoto.com/search/editorial[/url])
interesting, some of them have the blue Agency icon. what's up with that? does that mean some editorial has a different price point than others?
-
And people are again surprised that some of the Getty content is in direct competition to iStock contributor content. I seriously don't know why people believe anything they tell them anymore. Every time iStock opens their mouth another lie comes out. How many times do people have to be lied to before they stop believing the iStock spin?
People are OK with being lied to, apparently. As long as they are still making pennies, that's all that matters. ::)
-
There's some "EdStock" coming through now: [url]http://www.istockphoto.com/search/editorial[/url] ([url]http://www.istockphoto.com/search/editorial[/url])
interesting, some of them have the blue Agency icon. what's up with that? does that mean some editorial has a different price point than others?
From admin:
"The blue icon is inaccurate and will be looked at, simple as that, no conspiracy."
-
And people are again surprised that some of the Getty content is in direct competition to iStock contributor content. I seriously don't know why people believe anything they tell them anymore. Every time iStock opens their mouth another lie comes out. How many times do people have to be lied to before they stop believing the iStock spin?
People are OK with being lied to, apparently. As long as they are still making pennies, that's all that matters. ::)
And people still believe those files are not going to get preference in the search! *cough* Agency *cough*
-
There's some "EdStock" coming through now: [url]http://www.istockphoto.com/search/editorial[/url] ([url]http://www.istockphoto.com/search/editorial[/url])
lots of news/reportage-style imagery so far....any cautious optimism I felt is being usurped by seeing the images coming in. beautiful editorial---and direct competition. no splitting hairs on that. it's like working on an uphill slope constantly sprayed with grease. not the most elegant analogy, but you get the point.
-
I thought your comment in the IS thread on this was to the point - it's obvious when you look at the images that they compete with work submitted by real iStock contributors so don't insult our intelligence by pretending they don't.
A little honesty goes a long way - I'm reminded of a current US Representative who tried for a few days to say he didn't know if a picture of a man in his undies was him or not. It was really hard to believe that someone wouldn't know - how many pictures have you shot of your own underwear?
Given that we were going to see the images, what is the point of talking about them in terms that the images themselves will belie? I looked for celebrities in there, but haven't seen any yet :)
-
Well I did see one with the Indian PM ;D
-
And people are again surprised that some of the Getty content is in direct competition to iStock contributor content. I seriously don't know why people believe anything they tell them anymore. Every time iStock opens their mouth another lie comes out. How many times do people have to be lied to before they stop believing the iStock spin?
Truly shocking that anyone could continue to believe anything Getty/Istock tells them.
On the subject of editorial permissions, seems there is conflicting information here in this thread. I don't shoot it so haven't investigated it. Can someone link to any credible outside resource, other than Getty, which explains what, if any, permissions are required?
FWIW, my recollection from my youth, when my family owned, edited, and published a local newspaper, was that photographers would need press passes to get into certain events and venues. Without press passes they wouldn't have ACCESS to these situations. But my understanding is that there is no restriction, in the US, on what can be PUBLISHED, for editorial purposes, regardless of the access or permissions the photog had at the time when they took the picture. So if Joe Blow is a guest at the Oscars, and manages to snap a cellphone pic of Angelina Jolie tripping on the red carpet, he can sell that to a tabloid and not be violating any laws. He may not be asked back to the Oscars, but that's an entirely different issue.
Someone correct me if the above understanding is wrong. If my father or grandfather were still around to answer, I would ask them. But unless you have some (objective non-getty) source you can point to that backs up your assertions, don't expect me to take your word for it ;)
-
I think the law is different for every country with France being one of the most restrictive.
-
And people are again surprised that some of the Getty content is in direct competition to iStock contributor content. I seriously don't know why people believe anything they tell them anymore. Every time iStock opens their mouth another lie comes out. How many times do people have to be lied to before they stop believing the iStock spin?
Truly shocking that anyone could continue to believe anything Getty/Istock tells them.
On the subject of editorial permissions, seems there is conflicting information here in this thread. I don't shoot it so haven't investigated it. Can someone link to any credible outside resource, other than Getty, which explains what, if any, permissions are required?
FWIW, my recollection from my youth, when my family owned, edited, and published a local newspaper, was that photographers would need press passes to get into certain events and venues. Without press passes they wouldn't have ACCESS to these situations. But my understanding is that there is no restriction, in the US, on what can be PUBLISHED, for editorial purposes, regardless of the access or permissions the photog had at the time when they took the picture. So if Joe Blow is a guest at the Oscars, and manages to snap a cellphone pic of Angelina Jolie tripping on the red carpet, he can sell that to a tabloid and not be violating any laws. He may not be asked back to the Oscars, but that's an entirely different issue.
Someone correct me if the above understanding is wrong. If my father or grandfather were still around to answer, I would ask them. But unless you have some (objective non-getty) source you can point to that backs up your assertions, don't expect me to take your word for it ;)
it definitely differs by country, and we're bound by the laws within countries. anytime you take an editorial shot, it's best to get as much released as possible to avoid future issues. obviously much of what we shoot isn't released, but as such we take the risk as photographers of litigation if we misrepresent, or simply shoot a subject that does not wish to be photographed or published. the documentation that we're discussing in here is within the context of supplying editorial images to an agency. obviously agencies prefer content that will not result in litigation.
but effectively you're correct in that anyone can basically shoot anything they want---with consequences. if you want to sell it through a reputable agency, or maintain a good reputation as a journalist---obviously permissions, releases, and ethical behaviour are all good criteria to work from.
-
it definitely differs by country, and we're bound by the laws within countries. anytime you take an editorial shot, it's best to get as much released as possible to avoid future issues. obviously much of what we shoot isn't released, but as such we take the risk as photographers of litigation if we misrepresent, or simply shoot a subject that does not wish to be photographed or published. the documentation that we're discussing in here is within the context of supplying editorial images to an agency. obviously agencies prefer content that will not result in litigation.
but effectively you're correct in that anyone can basically shoot anything they want---with consequences. if you want to sell it through a reputable agency, or maintain a good reputation as a journalist---obviously permissions, releases, and ethical behaviour are all good criteria to work from.
Sorry Stacey, I still don't see a link. Where are you getting this from?
-
It is the buyer's responsibility to use content appropriately, assuming you didn't generally violate rules of privacy. Lots of people would prefer not to be photographed. That doesn't make them off limits within the US. My understanding is along the lines of Lisa's, at least in the US. If you can shoot it without violating rights of privacy, you should be good to go for editorial.
-
That's my understanding, too, Lisa. There may be laws about privacy, decency and national security, but apart from that, editorial is not constrained by any need for permission to print an image because of the person or location in it. You do not need a release for images of children - look at the famous Vietnam photo of a naked young girl fleeing napalm bombing... can we see the parental release for that, please?
In practical terms, publications may not want to spoil their relationship with organisations or individuals by covering events without going through the organiser's prescribed channels but that's a matter of mutual convenience.
However, I'm not sure how a stock agency stands. The agency is selling the likeness for commercial profit (as is the photographer) which might create some legal vulnerabilities. It's not quite the same as the newspaper publishing for the public good.
It's nonsense to say that retaining a good reputation as a journalist has anything to do with getting permissions and releases. Journalists never mess about with model or property releases, those are for commercial photographers.
-
Thanks Sean, and Balderick for weighing in. It's a relief to know my memory is still functioning properly :)
-
It is the buyer's responsibility to use content appropriately, assuming you didn't generally violate rules of privacy. Lots of people would prefer not to be photographed. That doesn't make them off limits within the US. My understanding is along the lines of Lisa's, at least in the US. If you can shoot it without violating rights of privacy, you should be good to go for editorial.
@ Lisa: that was from my head...no link...lol. that's my experience in editorial.
@ Sean: you're correct, absolutely. the problem is that there are always potential consequences to shooting things or people that do not wish to be photographed. that's why--where possible--releases are a good idea IF possible. you're talking about two different definitions of editorial. editorial = unreleased, news/product-related imagery....sure. editorial sold through agencies = as much permission as possible, where possible, IF possible. I think the message they're trying to get across is that knowledge about what you're shooting inevitably improves the image/series you're documenting.
@ Baldrick: it isn't nonsense at all. and I'm not referring to model releases or commercial releases. a simple conversation after the shot to discuss the person and situation, IF possible can suffice. a name from the subject. I certainly don't approach editorial subjects beforehand as a personal rule as I don't wish to influence the content of the image.
-
And people are again surprised that some of the Getty content is in direct competition to iStock contributor content. I seriously don't know why people believe anything they tell them anymore. Every time iStock opens their mouth another lie comes out. How many times do people have to be lied to before they stop believing the iStock spin?
+1. I am simply surprised that there are still people out there who sell or buy at a company like istock. There are even People out there who stay exclusive with a company that has proven to be not trustworthy...
As a buyer, I left istock since two years since there had been simply cheaper versions with fairer conditions to the contributor.
Why talk so much about it (as a buyer). Just leave and thats it. No need to get crazy as a buyer.
-
and Baldrick, ref: your example about the Vietnamese girl. the girl's family was interviewed in fact, Ut (the photographer) was staying nearby the village where it was shot during the napalm drop. in fact I believe it was he who after the shot took the girl to the military hospital for treatment, along with other children. I'd say that's getting involved and understanding your story.
-
A fairly exhaustive Google search hasn't turned up a concise set of definitions.
It seems, according to someone I know in the publishing industry, that my (and Sean's and Balderick's) understanding is essentially correct. Editorial usages don't require releases. Individual agency requirements are something else entirely.
My personal opinion - having to get a bunch of releases and other permissions defeats the purpose of shooting editorial. If I can get all the necessary releases, I might as well sell the images commercially and maximize their sales potential.
Getty's restrictive rules, over and above what is legally required for editorial, strike me more as an attempt to shut istock/microstock photographers out of a lucrative niche. It reeks of protectionism. The same kind of elitism that pushed most of us toward microstock in the first place. But that's JMHO.
-
A fairly exhaustive Google search hasn't turned up a concise set of definitions.
It seems, according to someone I know in the publishing industry, that my (and Sean's and Balderick's) understanding is essentially correct. Editorial usages don't require releases. Individual agency requirements are something else entirely.
My personal opinion - having to get a bunch of releases and other permissions defeats the purpose of shooting editorial. If I can get all the necessary releases, I might as well sell the images commercially and maximize their sales potential.
Lisa - I don't think you have interpreted what I said correctly. in any case, to each his own. FWIW, yes, editorial means no releases if it needs to be said that simply. but as much information as possible is valuable and valued by agencies/publications and I'm not sure why your friend in publishing would suggest otherwise. I don't release most of my editorial images....but when it comes to shooting people or story series--I do try to get information. and FYI, this was also a very big focus in London as per the Getty Images editorial seminars we attended. it has also been my experience with publications I work with.
everyone worries about liability and about misrepresenting a subject. I'm not sure why people who don't shoot editorial or have little interest in it are arguing about what constitutes editorial.
ETA: and I guess we should be clear that we're talking about journalistic editorial/celebrity etc. (and accreditation at events constitutes permission). not product editorial or say fashion editorial, which is generally staged.
-
A fairly exhaustive Google search hasn't turned up a concise set of definitions.
It seems, according to someone I know in the publishing industry, that my (and Sean's and Balderick's) understanding is essentially correct. Editorial usages don't require releases. Individual agency requirements are something else entirely.
My personal opinion - having to get a bunch of releases and other permissions defeats the purpose of shooting editorial. If I can get all the necessary releases, I might as well sell the images commercially and maximize their sales potential.
Getty's restrictive rules, over and above what is legally required for editorial, strike me more as an attempt to shut istock/microstock photographers out of a lucrative niche. It reeks of protectionism. The same kind of elitism that pushed most of us toward microstock in the first place. But that's JMHO.
Exactly.
After you asked the question, I did a google search and found a couple of articles relating to shooting editorial and they basically said the same as you. They weren't written by any "authority", but I'm not sure there is any such animal. I also looked in my GAG Pricing Handbook and Guidelines, but nothing appeared there.
I have submitted a few editorial images to two sites that included the faces of people. The only restriction for me uploading was getting the dates, subjects, locations, etc. all absolutely correct and in the format the site required. Other than that, I understand it as you do.
-
Thanks for weighing in Cathy. Glad your google search proved a bit more fruitful than mine :)
-
A fairly exhaustive Google search hasn't turned up a concise set of definitions.
It seems, according to someone I know in the publishing industry, that my (and Sean's and Balderick's) understanding is essentially correct. Editorial usages don't require releases. Individual agency requirements are something else entirely.
My personal opinion - having to get a bunch of releases and other permissions defeats the purpose of shooting editorial. If I can get all the necessary releases, I might as well sell the images commercially and maximize their sales potential.
Getty's restrictive rules, over and above what is legally required for editorial, strike me more as an attempt to shut istock/microstock photographers out of a lucrative niche. It reeks of protectionism. The same kind of elitism that pushed most of us toward microstock in the first place. But that's JMHO.
Exactly.
After you asked the question, I did a google search and found a couple of articles relating to shooting editorial and they basically said the same as you. They weren't written by any "authority", but I'm not sure there is any such animal. I also looked in my GAG Pricing Handbook and Guidelines, but nothing appeared there.
I have submitted a few editorial images to two sites that included the faces of people. The only restriction for me uploading was getting the dates, subjects, locations, etc. all absolutely correct and in the format the site required. Other than that, I understand it as you do.
^ sorry, but this is just ridiculous. and FWIW, I just googled it too and found plenty of lists and sites describing journalistic photos and captions including information about the subjects, including permission in regards to celebrity photographs or the consequences of NOT having these permissions for example camping out in front of a private residence to capture a lewd shot. Invasion of privacy laws differ from jurisdiction to jurisdiction.
before you ask me for a link, does it really matter if I post ten links? your assumptions must be correct. good luck with that approach to editorial.
-
I think we're talking about different things, SNP. I'm thinking of hard news I get the impression you are thinking about features.
In my experience, the photographer generally works in tandem with a reporter. The tog's job is to get the shot and in some circumstances caption info, other times the reporter will supply that. If you're a one-man-band, working as both photographer and reporter then obviously you have greater engagement with the subject.
What you can't do is put yourself in the position of allowing someone in or connected with a hard news photo to veto the use of it. If it is just a feature-type shot with no hard-news impact, then the approach can be different. And, of course, shooting editorial stock is not the same as shooting for news.
-
before you ask me for a link, does it really matter if I post ten links? your assumptions must be correct. good luck with that approach to editorial.
It matters to me. Since this appears to be a very gray area, I would like to have as much credible information as possible, rather than all of us just trading opinions.
I have been giving a lot of thought to doing editorial lately, but in order to know if I want to get involved with it, I would like to have all the relevant facts. I imagine a lot of other people would benefit from knowing this too.
-
I think we're talking about different things, SNP. I'm thinking of hard news I get the impression you are thinking about features.
In my experience, the photographer generally works in tandem with a reporter. The tog's job is to get the shot and in some circumstances caption info, other times the reporter will supply that. If you're a one-man-band, working as both photographer and reporter then obviously you have greater engagement with the subject.
What you can't do is put yourself in the position of allowing someone in or connected with a hard news photo to veto the use of it. If it is just a feature-type shot with no hard-news impact, then the approach can be different. And, of course, shooting editorial stock is not the same as shooting for news.
I'm referring specifically to news AND features. and of course the subject is not given vetoing power. however, assuming you've done your work as a journalist...you're not misrepresenting the context of the image. the greater discussion here (and it's tough to get into it without digressing into specific examples of feature versus news versus product) is why releases/permissions/names etc., would be required at all...and for that matter, when I shoot news for newspapers, they expect information from me....
-
before you ask me for a link, does it really matter if I post ten links? your assumptions must be correct. good luck with that approach to editorial.
It matters to me. Since this appears to be a very gray area, I would like to have as much credible information as possible, rather than all of us just trading opinions.
I have been giving a lot of thought to doing editorial lately, but in order to know if I want to get involved with it, I would like to have all the relevant facts. I imagine a lot of other people would benefit from knowing this too.
unfortunately there isn't a hard and fast rule. and since our work is being represented by agents, we are bound by their requirements unless you supply editorial directly, and even then publications like photographers to belong to them, or to be reputable freelance shooters who they work with regularly. in which case, you're bound by their requirements if something happens surrounding the image you've supplied. SO, stating that, it's good to have information. that doesn't mean a release per se. in many cases, most cases, you don't have releases. but if you can have a release, why not have it? or a name, or some back story. even for microstock editorial images. at the same time, all of that happens for me after I shoot the image(s). I don't approach any editorial subject before. it's important to me not to influence the image in any way. even though by default people are often aware of a camera pointed at them.
-
Yes, of course the picture desk needs a proper caption or caption/story, whatever the source of the picture. I've done quite a bit of photo-journalism in my time and most of it involved arranging a meeting at a particular place, conducting an interview and shooting the subject in the environment relating to the story (posed pictures - oh dear!). Once or twice the person has refused to be in the photo and obviously you don't argue with that. But if you are snapping a government minister trying to sneak out of the back of a court after being convicted of corruption, then permission doesn't come into it (but do you know the UK rules about photography within "court precincts" and how those can be interpreted by a stroppy judge?)
-
Yes, of course the picture desk needs a proper caption or caption/story, whatever the source of the picture. I've done quite a bit of photo-journalism in my time and most of it involved arranging a meeting at a particular place, conducting an interview and shooting the subject in the environment relating to the story (posed pictures - oh dear!). Once or twice the person has refused to be in the photo and obviously you don't argue with that. But if you are snapping a government minister trying to sneak out of the back of a court after being convicted of corruption, then permission doesn't come into it (but do you know the UK rules about photography within "court precincts" and how those can be interpreted by a stroppy judge?)
lol, yes, and a good example. and France was used as an example too as their photography laws are infamously strict and they are apparently notoriously litigious. it really depends on jurisdiction. you're right that obviously much of what is shot as a photojournalist is not released. but the story should be clear and supported with as much documentation as possible IMO.
-
So, they've effectively "been economical with the truth again.
No surprise there. The example that Sean highlighted in the thread is a case in point, and the 'defense' of it seems not to be valid. And the lighting! I've had editorial rejections for lighting, with all the links as to how to correctly set up studio lighting. H*ck, that p*sses me off no end when I get a 'flat light' rejection for natural light shots; how much more so when you get all that stuff when it's an editorial shot. (I know that some editorial is studio product shots when that info might be useful, but I don't do studio shots). And is seems that that wee girl was 'set up'. That's not true 'editorial', and it certainly isn't what iStock told us they wanted from editorial when they set up the program.
(Off-thread) Oh, and I had an editorial rejection today requiring a property release, not an 'accredition', as it was clearly an open event, no celebs, an actual PR - I double checked and I had submitted it as editorial.
The usual, "This file includes content that may be subject to copyright or trademark protection. Certain use of this file creates risk of copyright/trademark infringement and we regret that it cannot be accepted, unless this content is removed from the file." If the content was removed there would be almost no file, and they've told us nothing in an editorial file can be changed.
Same old, same old.
-
My personal opinion - having to get a bunch of releases and other permissions defeats the purpose of shooting editorial. If I can get all the necessary releases, I might as well sell the images commercially and maximize their sales potential.
Yes, but there's a world of difference between, "I don't mind (and in fact I don't really have any option in many circumstances) my image being used in a guide book, or text book or newspaper article" and "I'm happy for my image to be used to promote any product or service".
That said, I've never seen a proper 'editorial release'; even the necessary 'parental permission', strangely, has not been produced by iStock, for no valid reason. So you could draft a simple permission release and find they wouldn't accept it.
-
My personal opinion - having to get a bunch of releases and other permissions defeats the purpose of shooting editorial. If I can get all the necessary releases, I might as well sell the images commercially and maximize their sales potential.
Yes, but there's a world of difference between, "I don't mind (and in fact I don't really have any option in many circumstances) my image being used in a guide book, or text book or newspaper article" and "I'm happy for my image to be used to promote any product or service".
That said, I've never seen a proper 'editorial release'; even the necessary 'parental permission', strangely, has not been produced by iStock, for no valid reason. So you could draft a simple permission release and find they wouldn't accept it.
actually, they (the AGENCY) might accept it. in a similar situation, I took images at a fashion week event that was open to commercial photography (not to mention I had actually applied for and received a media pass). I did not have a a property release (no one did), however I had taken a photo of the sign at the entrance to the event indicating that commercial photography was permitted and this photo constituted acceptable proof of the released location as did a scan of my media pass for the event.
-
My personal opinion - having to get a bunch of releases and other permissions defeats the purpose of shooting editorial. If I can get all the necessary releases, I might as well sell the images commercially and maximize their sales potential.
Yes, but there's a world of difference between, "I don't mind (and in fact I don't really have any option in many circumstances) my image being used in a guide book, or text book or newspaper article" and "I'm happy for my image to be used to promote any product or service".
That said, I've never seen a proper 'editorial release'; even the necessary 'parental permission', strangely, has not been produced by iStock, for no valid reason. So you could draft a simple permission release and find they wouldn't accept it.
actually, they might accept it. in a similar situation, I took images at a fashion week event that was open to commercial photography (not to mention I had actually applied for and received a media pass). I did not have a a property release (no one did), however I had taken a photo of the sign at the entrance to the event indicating that commercial photography was permitted and this photo constituted acceptable proof of the released location as did a scan of my media pass for the event.
Interesting. I had an editorial photo rejected a few weeks back needing evidence of 'permission to attend'. Other photos from the same event were accepted. The rejected one was a few weeks 'pending executive' before being rejected, and I've been told I can't Scout it. But it was a totally free to enter festival in a totally free to enter public park with no possible requirement for a permit. (Someone brought up exactly the same point on the iStock editorial forum at about the same time, maybe an over-cautious inspector?) The only regulation in the park is 'no tripod'. Should I have got a stranger to photograph me 'not using a tripod'?
-
My personal opinion - having to get a bunch of releases and other permissions defeats the purpose of shooting editorial. If I can get all the necessary releases, I might as well sell the images commercially and maximize their sales potential.
Yes, but there's a world of difference between, "I don't mind (and in fact I don't really have any option in many circumstances) my image being used in a guide book, or text book or newspaper article" and "I'm happy for my image to be used to promote any product or service".
That said, I've never seen a proper 'editorial release'; even the necessary 'parental permission', strangely, has not been produced by iStock, for no valid reason. So you could draft a simple permission release and find they wouldn't accept it.
actually, they might accept it. in a similar situation, I took images at a fashion week event that was open to commercial photography (not to mention I had actually applied for and received a media pass). I did not have a a property release (no one did), however I had taken a photo of the sign at the entrance to the event indicating that commercial photography was permitted and this photo constituted acceptable proof of the released location as did a scan of my media pass for the event.
Interesting. I had an editorial photo rejected a few weeks back needing permission to attend. Other photos from the same event were accepted. The rejected one was a few weeks 'pending executive' before being rejected, and I've been told I can't Scout it. But it was a totally free to enter festival in a totally free to enter public park with no possible requirement for a permit. The only regulation in the park is 'no tripod'. Should I have got a stranger to photograph me 'not using a tripod'?
I can't say anything with authority about any specific example, but in my case I contacted contributor relations and discussed the images in question. I was able to support my images with documentation and knowledge about the event and was advised to do what I said above. I haven't actually re-uploaded many of the images yet but that was the advice given to me. but I'd assume this is case by case as every image and situation is unique. so I can't say what would happen with your festival shots.
-
Hmm, so far every one of Edstock's uploads would have failed editorial inspection immediately: they are missing the year in the caption date. As we know, for iStock photographers the location/date has to strictly meet the published standards to the letter.
-
And we have to put in a description. I often have virtually the same text in the title, caption and description. Strangely, although the caption is the most important, and is locked as soon as we submit an image, only the title (and description, I've read) are searchable.
On EdStock's files, the description reads:
"From the latest Apple product to the Sydney Opera House to President Obama, iStock now gives you access to brands, faces and far-off places with our new editorial images. See more editorial images.description
How editorial images can be used
Editorial files are licensed for non-commercial uses only, but what does that mean exactly? Read more."
-
My personal opinion - having to get a bunch of releases and other permissions defeats the purpose of shooting editorial. If I can get all the necessary releases, I might as well sell the images commercially and maximize their sales potential.
Lisa your personal opinion is correct as is Seans, Baldricks and nearly everyone elses!, Getty only have two releases, one for models and one for property and both are for commercial usage, there is no such thing as an editorial release and Getty do not require any form of release for editorial images. In fact they even specify in their legal resources that releases are only required for "celebrity" shots if they're to be used for commercial purposes. They do however like every other single agency in the world want assurance that no actual laws (civil or criminal) have been broken in obtaining the image, but that's nothing to do with releases.
-
They do however like every other single agency in the world want assurance that no actual laws (civil or criminal) have been broken in obtaining the image, but that's nothing to do with releases.
this is the issue...define this 'assurance'...that's precisely what we've all been discussing.
-
They do however like every other single agency in the world want assurance that no actual laws (civil or criminal) have been broken in obtaining the image, but that's nothing to do with releases.
this is the issue...define this 'assurance'...that's precisely what we've all been discussing.
besides pressganging the stranger next to you, and giving them your camera set on Program, and asking them to shoot you clearly being in a public place with the celebrity or event in progress, I can't really see what else you can do. And if you did that, you're wasting your own shooting time, and then you'd probably have to waste more time explaining why you wanted them to do it, and when they found out you were shooting for stock (and explained what that is), they'd likely want paid ...
The trouble must the different laws in different countries. If the 'tog was acting illegally, that would be their responsibility, and the agencies' contracts are all clearly written to shift the blame onto the photographer, in iStock's case, they abnegate all legal responsibility to help a 'tog, even when an image has been used contrary to the terms and conditions.
In the UK, it would be up to the prosecutor to prove that the 'tog was taking photos from an illegal place, as we are 'innocent until proven guilty'. It's not up to us to prove we were on a public place. I guess it's up to us to know the relevant laws in any country we're shooting in, which in some cases can be difficult to find out.
(In the case of France, I don't know how it works out for news. I've seen 'crowd scenes' from France in UK newspapers and TV progs, so that was shooting people in the street, and no way they all gave permission.
-
They do however like every other single agency in the world want assurance that no actual laws (civil or criminal) have been broken in obtaining the image, but that's nothing to do with releases.
this is the issue...define this 'assurance'...that's precisely what we've all been discussing.
There is no definitive for what constitutes 'assurance', it could be written, obvious by the image or based on trust, but I'd like to point out that you're the only one who's been discussing this, everyone else as I can see it was confused by your post saying you should get a release for editorial stuff which is definitly not the case.
I'd also like to point out that this comment you made is completely wrong and whoever told you that your photo of a sign permitting commercial photography would constitute acceptable proof that the location was property released is very very very wrong, all your photo of the sign and media pass suggests is that you weren't trespassing, it by no means whatsoever is any form of property release. It might (and clearly has in this case) given the agency the 'assurance' you were allowed at the event and that's the type of thing that I referred to when I mentioned that agencies want assurance no laws have been broken in taking the image.
actually, they might accept it. in a similar situation, I took images at a fashion week event that was open to commercial photography (not to mention I had actually applied for and received a media pass). I did not have a a property release (no one did), however I had taken a photo of the sign at the entrance to the event indicating that commercial photography was permitted and this photo constituted acceptable proof of the released location as did a scan of my media pass for the event.
Nothing personal but my advice to you would be to not give others advice.
-
My personal opinion - having to get a bunch of releases and other permissions defeats the purpose of shooting editorial. If I can get all the necessary releases, I might as well sell the images commercially and maximize their sales potential.
Lisa your personal opinion is correct as is Seans, Baldricks and nearly everyone elses!, Getty only have two releases, one for models and one for property and both are for commercial usage, there is no such thing as an editorial release and Getty do not require any form of release for editorial images. In fact they even specify in their legal resources that releases are only required for "celebrity" shots if they're to be used for commercial purposes.
But over on iStock admin Subman assures us that the Getty editorial picture of a child in India "had been released by it's guardian or parent". Which means Getty must accept editorial releases. You and Subman can't both be right so someone is not telling the truth ... I'll see if I can guess who....
-
Thanks for all the additional info. Richard, your input has been very helpful. :)
-
But over on iStock admin Subman assures us that the Getty editorial picture of a child in India "had been released by it's guardian or parent". Which means Getty must accept editorial releases. You and Subman can't both be right so someone is not telling the truth ... I'll see if I can guess who....
;)
FWIW, I doubt Henk is knowingly lying. But knowing Richard, I would put money on his knowing more about the subject than most Istock admins.
That's the thing that is confusing. It sounds as if Getty are passing off their own requirements as "legal requirements", where they are apparently based on other criteria.
-
Surprise! Look at what is at the top of the search!
http://www.istockphoto.com/search/text/india/source/basic/#196ddbc8 (http://www.istockphoto.com/search/text/india/source/basic/#196ddbc8)
Though I'm sure the search just needs to be tweaked. ;)
-
But over on iStock admin Subman assures us that the Getty editorial picture of a child in India "had been released by it's guardian or parent". Which means Getty must accept editorial releases. You and Subman can't both be right so someone is not telling the truth ... I'll see if I can guess who....
;)
FWIW, I doubt Henk is knowingly lying. But knowing Richard, I would put money on his knowing more about the subject than most Istock admins.
That's the thing that is confusing. It sounds as if Getty are passing off their own requirements as "legal requirements", where they are apparently based on other criteria.
RT is right, you are right, and people from Canada who are making it up from their opinion and guessing, shouldn't give advise. :o
Legally RT covered the whole thing, there is no release for Editorial. Cut and dried, end of story. He did add that this assumes you didn't obtain the photo through illegal means, which would include trespassing or invasion of privacy or all kinds of other possibilities.
You are right in that iStock/Getty has invented some regulations claiming they are law, which they are not. None of us should assume that just because some agency lawyer comes up with some CYA policy, it's actually law or correct or that doing something else, isn't perfectly legal.
Last of all and I didn't wade through all the messages. Editorial has strict ethical and responsibility on the part of the photographer to not alter the image in such a manner to make it misrepresent the actual situation, lighting or event. Yes, you can do white balance, contrast and sharpening. Minimal alterations, assume this doesn't change the contents. But you can't clone in or out a foot, tree, bush or telephone pole. (for some easy examples) You can't make a blue sky orange or add a setting Sun, or the Moon. That's not Editorial/News!
What the microstock agencies have done is pervert the meaning and use the editorial content to get around selling images of trademarks, patented and copyrighted subjects. They are accepting highly edited and altered images as Editorial. Maybe that's one area, but News Images cannot be altered to that extent. So their practice of just calling everything Editorial with a news caption, date and location, is also risky business.
Requiring us to provide proof that we were allowed to photograph something is interesting but almost ludicrous. Yes, we might add a statement that we broke no laws in taking these images, and then quote the first amendment? ;D That only works for me in the US, other places have different laws and regulations. Perfect limit, no release needed for news or public figures or for shooting people in public places. There is no expectation of privacy in those situations, so shoot away. If the agency wants to be an ostrich, that's their choice. But It's NOT the law!
-
@RT: I didn't say it constituted a release, I said that as it pertained to the agency I was speaking to-as far as their requirements are concerned-it was sufficient evidence of my right to photograph the event. As far as giving advice, you clearly seem to know what you're talking about, and yet you're defending some obviously incorrect statements here. I've said many times now that documentation or backstory does not mean releases. And sorry, but for that matter I have been asked for releases in some editorial work.
-
Very quick additional point. The right to take photos should not be confused with the right to sell them. You can take pictures of almost anything, but what you try to do with it afterwards is where all the legal knots and chains start getting tossed at us.
No Stacy you don't need a release and none exists for News Photos.
Also correct and one more right answer:
It is the buyer's responsibility to use content appropriately, assuming you didn't generally violate rules of privacy. Lots of people would prefer not to be photographed. That doesn't make them off limits within the US. My understanding is along the lines of Lisa's, at least in the US. If you can shoot it without violating rights of privacy, you should be good to go for editorial.
Which highlights one more point that Microstcok agencies just don't get!
It is the buyer's responsibility to use content appropriately,
-
I stated about ten posts ago that there are two issues here. That you can take whatever photos you want, but selling them is entirely different.
Secondly, we're talking about general editorial and not just 'news'. I never stated that you need a release for news photos. I presume you need one for race cars. ;)
-
At the London 'lypse we were told that France has some very strict laws about shooting and things that would be considered ok for editorial in most of the world are not ok there. From what I remember the example they gave is that if you were to shoot an image and a store name appeared in it they could sue you, even shot as editorial. I think they said genuine news events are ok but we can't shoot those for istock.
-
Lisa - you asked for some of the links to information about releases. I haven't done much more than skim read any of them, but they all had some mention of the issue of releases concerning editorial images. as you can see, there are no hard and fast rules and anyone who tells you otherwise is foolish IMO. 'Editorial' is a grey area...period. one of the links goes to a discussion in Alamy about property releases, potentially for editorial shots.
Hope some of these are helpful to someone. My main point in this thread is that as photographers, we're ultimately responsible for the editorial content we produce and I think it's important to protect yourself as a photographer, and to know the rules of the agency/publication you're working with/for, regardless of what you 'believe' your rights are. you don't have to release editorial use only images....in general this is true. but that has nothing to do with what agencies and publications may require us to do to protect themselves from liability.
http://danheller.blogspot.com/2008/04/when-editorial-uses-of-photos-require.html (http://danheller.blogspot.com/2008/04/when-editorial-uses-of-photos-require.html)
http://www.photosecrets.com/photography-law-editorial.html (http://www.photosecrets.com/photography-law-editorial.html)
http://www.simslaw.com/model/model_releases.htm (http://www.simslaw.com/model/model_releases.htm)
http://www.photosandthelaw.com/tag/editorial-photography/ (http://www.photosandthelaw.com/tag/editorial-photography/)
http://www.alamy.com/forums/default.aspx?g=posts&t=1563 (http://www.alamy.com/forums/default.aspx?g=posts&t=1563)
http://www.editorialphoto.com/resources/6-05_LegalNews-%20right_publicity.pdf (http://www.editorialphoto.com/resources/6-05_LegalNews-%20right_publicity.pdf)
http://www.pixiq.com/article/cant-fake-editorial-use (http://www.pixiq.com/article/cant-fake-editorial-use)
-
Secondly, we're talking about general editorial and not just 'news'. I never stated that you need a release for news photos. I presume you need one for race cars. ;)
You started confusing things with the statement "anytime you take an editorial shot, it's best to get as much released as possible to avoid future issues", which clearly says "released". Now you're confusing things again by making a false distinction between news and features, sports or opinion columns.
And while I've been typing this you've done it once more posting a list of supposedly relevant links, with advice such as "putting someone's image on Nescafe jars isn't covered by editorial protection". Wow! The only relevant one in that list is Dan Heller's which deals with invasion of privacy that we've already agreed is a special area (and even there I can think of likely exceptions - such as if the groom murders the bride on their honeymoon, then I doubt if the groom could claim violation of privacy if the wedding tog sold the pictures to the newspapers).
Posting a link that rehashes what the micros say about their editorial restrictions to prove that what they say is right is nonsense. so is linking to uninformed comments in the Alamy, while the Texas law school article - which might be interesting - doesn't appear to deal with editorial usage at all, it just provides advice about commercial usages.
Editorial usage is editorial usage, period. Only one set of laws applies to it in any given jurisdiction. The law makes no distinction at all between hard news and any other editorial usage, as you appear to be trying to do.
Any difference between the way the two are obtained is a matter of personal preference and practicalities for the photographer, nothing to do with legalities.
There is no legal, nor even ethical, requirement for an image to be unaltered. Look at the use of blacked-out faces or photo-montages. There is a practical need for editors to know that the image they start with has not been altered, especially as some alterations could be libellous.
Personally, I think that the agencies are well aware that it is up to the end user to be sure of the legalities, rather than the it being the photographers' responsibility. What's more, I think they are happily selling into markets knowing full well that "fair use" protection doesn't necessarily cover the usage.
There are a lot of grey areas. Italy claims that travel guide books are purely commercial ventures and so should pay licensing fees to reproduce state-owned art works. Newspaper "Advertorial" or "Special Features" linked to advertising are decidedly dodgy, since they only exist to lure in advertisements (and the text is often approved by the advertisers). According to what a Central Banker told me, the Economist's "Special One Country Reports" that look like pure investigative financial journalism cost the "one country" in them (which at least sometimes writes the whole thing) the better part of $250,000 - maybe more - and are pure advertising, but they are disguised as editorial and use editorial imaging. I know my editorial photos have appeared in articles in a glossy magazine produced by a leading travel agency purely to promote sales of airline tickets = is it travel journalism or pure advertising? Who knows? The publisher seems satisfied that there won't be any problem.
-
FWIW, I doubt Henk is knowingly lying. But knowing Richard, I would put money on his knowing more about the subject than most Istock admins.
That's the thing that is confusing. It sounds as if Getty are passing off their own requirements as "legal requirements", where they are apparently based on other criteria.
I don't know Henk and I've never seen the photo in question but one thing I can tell you is that the photo most likely has got a release, there's nothing wrong with an editorial photo having a release and there are many times they do, I've got some released photos myself that are only available for editorial usage.
@RT: I didn't say it constituted a release, I said that as it pertained to the agency I was speaking to-as far as their requirements are concerned-it was sufficient evidence of my right to photograph the event. As far as giving advice, you clearly seem to know what you're talking about, and yet you're defending some obviously incorrect statements here. I've said many times now that documentation or backstory does not mean releases. And sorry, but for that matter I have been asked for releases in some editorial work.
I didn't say that you said you had a property release, I highlighted the part of your comment ("however I had taken a photo of the sign at the entrance to the event indicating that commercial photography was permitted and this photo constituted acceptable proof of the released location as did a scan of my media pass for the event. ") in which you said your photo of a sign allowing commercial photography at the event was acceptable proof that the location was property released, it's nothing of the sort and as I pointed out its just a photo of a sign it doesn't prove the location is released at all.
I stand by what I said, I'm sorry to be so blunt but I really don't think you should be giving advice to anyone as it's clear you're confused by the whole thing, you don't seem to be able to understand what you yourself have written! and to be honest the reason agencies are asking for this information when submitting images is because of people like you, they're well aware you don't understand the legalities and therefore want to cover their own backsides when they take on your images.
The microstock industry is full of misinformation about what is and isn't legally required and posts by people like yourself do more damage than good, what makes things even worse is that agencies then make blanket policies that makes the admin process harder when submitting images for those of us that do know what they're doing.
-
I don't know Henk and I've never seen the photo in question but one thing I can tell you is that the photo most likely has got a release, there's nothing wrong with an editorial photo having a release and there are many times they do, I've got some released photos myself that are only available for editorial usage.
Yes, that could well be the case, as the caption says the picture was posed. But I very much doubt that iSTock's officials have a clue about whether images from the Getty feed have releases or not. They're probably just told that every Getty image has the necessary releases and meets the required technical standards. As they are cheerfully approving images that fail the iStock caption rules, the posing rules and the most basic technical quality rules, it seems that they have no say at all over any aspect of the incoming content. In these circumstances, would Getty allow them to reject an image over model release rules? Would Getty even let them see any releases?
-
actually, they might accept it. in a similar situation, I took images at a fashion week event that was open to commercial photography (not to mention I had actually applied for and received a media pass). I did not have a a property release (no one did), however I had taken a photo of the sign at the entrance to the event indicating that commercial photography was permitted and this photo constituted acceptable proof of the released location as did a scan of my media pass for the event.
"Commercial photography" is not the same as "earning money from editorial photography" and an agency which knew what they were doing with editorial would not require that. But then, we're dealing here with an agency which rejects editorial shots for poor (naturally 'flat') light and allows resubmissions ...
-
iStockphoto is probably going to work less well for as a point of entry for content where there may need to be more of a conversation around the provenance of an image or a series. IMO that is likely to involve a more personal relationship of trust between the photographer and the bureau. Some work probably shouldn't just show up in the queue. iStockphoto have stressed that the opportunity exists to start a conversation via them about getting other content online - if that content is perhaps not immediately suitable for the queue. That seems like a good offer.
There are some good and often seemingly contradictory points raised in this conversation which serves to illustrate that there are sometimes complicated and very layered issues with respect to best practice, ethics, business relationships and even the law. Whilst a publisher is ultimately often most responsible for how an image is used, an agency or bureau also has a responsibility to its customers and to its own reputation. Doing stuff a particular way is not only about the law. SNP makes a great point about gathering as much information as possible - even down to photographing the sign which says that photography is allowed, for example.
I've got the first of some archival editorial images in the film queue which are part of something I have been working out how to approach for ages. People at iStockphoto have been friendly and enthusiastic about helping me work out some of my issues and questions about how to best approach this. Thing to do is to contact them if you've got a sensible question. Also - the whole model is still evolving IMO ... everything is still being worked out and there are inevitably going to be contradictions and things which are not always clear. Sometimes there are not definite answers at once.
-
Yes, that could well be the case, as the caption says the picture was posed. But I very much doubt that iSTock's officials have a clue about whether images from the Getty feed have releases or not. They're probably just told that every Getty image has the necessary releases and meets the required technical standards. As they are cheerfully approving images that fail the iStock caption rules, the posing rules and the most basic technical quality rules, it seems that they have no say at all over any aspect of the incoming content. In these circumstances, would Getty allow them to reject an image over model release rules? Would Getty even let them see any releases?
Are iStock inspectors having to approve the editorial images from Getty then?
-
Yes, that could well be the case, as the caption says the picture was posed. But I very much doubt that iSTock's officials have a clue about whether images from the Getty feed have releases or not. They're probably just told that every Getty image has the necessary releases and meets the required technical standards. As they are cheerfully approving images that fail the iStock caption rules, the posing rules and the most basic technical quality rules, it seems that they have no say at all over any aspect of the incoming content. In these circumstances, would Getty allow them to reject an image over model release rules? Would Getty even let them see any releases?
Are iStock inspectors having to approve the editorial images from Getty then?
Allegedly, but it seems not to the same standards we are required to meet.
-
@RT: it was my mistake trying to provide information to people who asked me to, even though it will simply be used against me in a plssing contest about who knows more. I posted those links because Lisa asked me to, even though I knew what would happen if I posted them. I don't endorse them or suggest they contain accurate information. but the assertion was made by Lisa and Cathy that Google turned up 'nothing' about editorial use only and releases whereas I found it turned up a lot about releases in editorial images.
I know who you are, but as you're anonymous here, you say whatever you please--I've read through your posts over the years and you're a serial 'no one's opinions matter except my own' type of person. you might actually know a lot, I'm sure you do. but your attitude sucks. this is a discussion, not a courtroom.
I didn't start in microstock. I was involved in journalism and the publishing industry decades before microstock. and while I'm reluctant to be so defensive because it just makes me look stupid, you've trashed me (unfairly) in three posts now under the guise of what you know and you're wrong on much of what you're stating. as for my initial use of the word 'released', I do apologize on that count and see why it confused the issue. I used it as a blanket term, it was simply a poor choice of word as someone had used it over on iStock's forum, which I immediately corrected in my next post. I couldn't care less how you work. all I care about is that I do my job well.
-
@SNP The majority of people know who I am, I'm not trying to be anonymous, as for " you've trashed me (unfairly) in three posts now under the guise of what you know and you're wrong on much of what you're stating" , when it comes to the legal side of photography I definitely know what I'm talking about as those that know me and what I did before photography are well aware of, however please by all means feel free to point out where I'm wrong.
And likewise I certainly couldn't care about you and I'm not interested in your past experience, I actually had you on ignore until I saw someone I think well of was confused by some of your posts, as always what I do care about is people giving out misinformation and if you've read my posts over the years you will see there's a trend of that's where I step in.
I'll put you back on ignore now.
-
@RT: it was my mistake trying to provide information to people who asked me to, even though it will simply be used against me in a plssing contest about who knows more. I posted those links because Lisa asked me to, even though I knew what would happen if I posted them. I don't endorse them or suggest they contain accurate information. but the assertion was made by Lisa and Cathy that Google turned up 'nothing' about editorial use only and releases whereas I found it turned up a lot about releases in editorial images.
I know who you are, but as you're anonymous here, you say whatever you please--I've read through your posts over the years and you're a serial 'no one's opinions matter except my own' type of person. you might actually know a lot, I'm sure you do. but your attitude sucks. this is a discussion, not a courtroom. I didn't start in microstock. I was involved in journalism and the publishing industry decades before microstock. and while I'm reluctant to be so defensive because it just makes me look stupid, you've trashed me (unfairly) in three posts now under the guise of what you know and you're wrong on much of what you're stating. as for my initial use of the word 'released', I do apologize on that count and see why it confused the issue. I used it as a blanket term, it was simply a poor choice of word as someone had used it over on iStock's forum, which I immediately corrected in my next post. I couldn't care less how you work. all I care about is that I do my job well.
Wow.. never has the term "Pot Calling the Kettle Black" applied more.
-
@RT: it was my mistake trying to provide information to people who asked me to, even though it will simply be used against me in a plssing contest about who knows more. I posted those links because Lisa asked me to, even though I knew what would happen if I posted them. I don't endorse them or suggest they contain accurate information. but the assertion was made by Lisa and Cathy that Google turned up 'nothing' about editorial use only and releases whereas I found it turned up a lot about releases in editorial images.
I appreciate the links, and will explore them at greater length this afternoon when I get a chance. Sorry if it seemed that I was saying a google search turned up "nothing". What I meant to say was that it didn't turn up anything that definitively settled the issue. It is still murky.
But thanks to all the participants in this conversation, it is becoming less murky. If we are going to be broadening our microstock offerings, it is best to have as much clear information as possible.
@RT - believe me, I am glad you have jumped in, and Balderick too. Both of your expertise and experience in this area are very valuable. Thanks so much for helping to separate the wheat from the chaff!
@SNP, I am glad you raised the issues that you have. It gives us all an opportunity to explore this issue and come to a clearer understanding.
-
@SNP The majority of people know who I am, I'm not trying to be anonymous, as for " you've trashed me (unfairly) in three posts now under the guise of what you know and you're wrong on much of what you're stating" , when it comes to the legal side of photography I definitely know what I'm talking about as those that know me and what I did before photography are well aware of, however please by all means feel free to point out where I'm wrong.
And likewise I certainly couldn't care about you and I'm not interested in your past experience, I actually had you on ignore until I saw someone I think well of was confused by some of your posts, as always what I do care about is people giving out misinformation and if you've read my posts over the years you will see there's a trend of that's where I step in.
I'll put you back on ignore now.
you've paraphrased like a champion in this thread...how can I possibly respond to what you're saying...and why would I...sigh.
the ingestion of competitive editorial Getty files on iStock right now is worrying enough without getting into further arguments over here. bottom line--I think less-experienced or new-to-editorial photographers are wise to understand what is expected of them when SELLING their editorial images, no matter which agency or publication they are dealing with. if I've confused that in this discussion, that clearly was not my intention. I was truly just trying to be helpful. there's a whole interweb where what's been said here can be verified. or not.
-
Why is it that EVERY single topic about Istock these days turns into a mud slinging match at some point?
Maybe their true strategy is divide and conquer.
-
I appreciate the links, and will explore them at greater length this afternoon when I get a chance. Sorry if it seemed that I was saying a google search turned up "nothing". What I meant to say was that it didn't turn up anything that definitively settled the issue. It is still murky.
But thanks to all the participants in this conversation, it is becoming less murky. If we are going to be broadening our microstock offerings, it is best to have as much clear information as possible.
@RT - believe me, I am glad you have jumped in, and Balderick too. Both of your expertise and experience in this area are very valuable. Thanks so much for helping to separate the wheat from the chaff!
@SNP, I am glad you raised the issues that you have. It gives us all an opportunity to explore this issue and come to a clearer understanding.
I had the same experience as you. My earlier post stated that I had googled it, but there wasn't anything posted by "authority" figures...meaning there wasn't a definitive discussion by a trade organization or such. Most of the articles I skimmed through were other photographers, blogs, etc. Their take on it was the same as ours, but as you have said, nothing definitive.
by pixart
Why is it that EVERY single topic about Istock these days turns into a mud slinging match at some point?
Maybe their true strategy is divide and conquer.
Answer to your question: because it's human nature. My personal opinion is that Getty long ago decided they were going to divide and conquer...they are culling out the low performers and keeping the top performers. Their financial greed and decisions have NOTHING to do the squabbling that goes on between contributors. They could care less. All they care about is performance and the amount of money they are making from that.
-
they are culling out the low performers and keeping the top performers. Their financial greed and decisions have NOTHING to do the squabbling that goes on between contributors.
I don't feel culled. More money every year, so far, since they became involved and an opening up of possibilities. And yet I am definitely a low (lazy) performer. There can't be many other investments which have performed so well over the past few years. Though as Lagereek charmingly reminded me lately, I need to work on my portfolio !
Most of what happens seem to follow a fairly predictable / inevitable trend. In some ways it seems to almost pre-empt the inevitable. For better or worse I think they have a good nose for where the market will go.
On the downside, I think there has been a loss of confidence amongst the community such that every decision or nuance is now viewed with suspicion. That's where the arguments come from IMO. It all ends up being a bit them and us. Which is daft if you step back from it. There should be a truce.
-
Most of what happens seem to follow a fairly predictable / inevitable trend. In some ways it seems to almost pre-empt the inevitable. For better or worse I think they have a good nose for where the market will go.
In which case it might be wise for them to share this with the contributors.
-
I doubt many companies would discuss strategy too far ahead. That said I think they already give out lots of clues about where they see the trends going.
When I say "inevitable" - I'm not trying to pretend to be clever or bright. Sometimes it only becomes inevitable with hindsight.
-
It all ends up being a bit them and us. Which is daft if you step back from it. There should be a truce.
I would certainly welcome a truce. But while the other side continues to lob such grenades (to continue with your analogy) as increased RC targets in the face of declining sales, and flooding the site with yet more Getty images that bury those of Istock contributors, a truce is unlikely.
-
On the downside, I think there has been a loss of confidence amongst the community such that every decision or nuance is now viewed with suspicion. That's where the arguments come from IMO. It all ends up being a bit them and us. Which is daft if you step back from it. There should be a truce.
I'm not going to rant about the specifics, but you make it sound as though there isn't any reason for the loss of confidence. There's an old saying that you're not paranoid if they really are out to get you. I think the actions at iStock since September 7th last year are the reason for the loss of confidence on the part of the community, particularly contributors.
If your ox hasn't been gored by any of their actions, perhaps you can at least see how those whose ox has, have some basis for their suspicion.
-
I'll put you back on ignore now.
On an unrelated note... I never noticed this nifty little feature, which is so desperately needed particularly in this forum. Thanks! :)
-
Why is it that EVERY single topic about Istock these days turns into a mud slinging match at some point?
Maybe because photographers, in general, seem to be a negative and pessimistic bunch of people.
-
Why is it that EVERY single topic about Istock these days turns into a mud slinging match at some point?
Maybe because photographers, in general, seem to be a negative and pessimistic bunch of people.
I believe the problem of some (not only in photography) is an EGO issue, some people just don´t stop and think before talking and even worst it´s after because they never regret it.. in this forum everybody takes things too personal and are attacking constantly other, if it is exclusive, if not, if know more or less about this or that, people just need to calm down and do whatever they enjoy, if it is just bringing bad mood to forum perhaps should leave, must said I am not talking for anyone in special, I do enjoy all comment and this is a lesson for me everyday, don´t enjoy the attacks, take it slowww guys, in a all in the same world and we only live once :)
-
I'll put you back on ignore now.
On an unrelated note... I never noticed this nifty little feature, which is so desperately needed particularly in this forum. Thanks! :)
It doesn't work very well though because people quote those you have on ignore and you end up seeing their posts anyway. I really don't want to read another word by Macrosuar/Old hippy/Black Sheep but people keep quoting him ::)
-
I'll put you back on ignore now.
On an unrelated note... I never noticed this nifty little feature, which is so desperately needed particularly in this forum. Thanks! :)
It doesn't work very well though because people quote those you have on ignore and you end up seeing their posts anyway. I really don't want to read another word by Macrosuar/Old hippy/Black Sheep but people keep quoting him ::)
he/she is a lot better now
-
Why is it that EVERY single topic about Istock these days turns into a mud slinging match at some point?
Maybe because photographers, in general, seem to be a negative and pessimistic bunch of people.
I believe the problem of some (not only in photography) is an EGO issue, some people just don´t stop and think before talking and even worst it´s after because they never regret it.. in this forum everybody takes things too personal and are attacking constantly other, if it is exclusive, if not, if know more or less about this or that, people just need to calm down and do whatever they enjoy, if it is just bringing bad mood to forum perhaps should leave, must said I am not talking for anyone in special, I do enjoy all comment and this is a lesson for me everyday, don´t enjoy the attacks, take it slowww guys, in a all in the same world and we only live once :)
Probably also due to a bit of keyboard muscles. It's less risky to pick on someone when they're not standing in front of you. I doubt most people here talk to their family, friends, and coworkers the same way they talk to people here and on the internet in general.
-
Why is it that EVERY single topic about Istock these days turns into a mud slinging match at some point?
Maybe because photographers, in general, seem to be a negative and pessimistic bunch of people.
I believe the problem of some (not only in photography) is an EGO issue, some people just don´t stop and think before talking and even worst it´s after because they never regret it.. in this forum everybody takes things too personal and are attacking constantly other, if it is exclusive, if not, if know more or less about this or that, people just need to calm down and do whatever they enjoy, if it is just bringing bad mood to forum perhaps should leave, must said I am not talking for anyone in special, I do enjoy all comment and this is a lesson for me everyday, don´t enjoy the attacks, take it slowww guys, in a all in the same world and we only live once :)
Probably also due to a bit of keyboard muscles. It's less risky to pick on someone when they're not standing in front of you. I doubt most people here talk to their family, friends, and coworkers the same way they talk to people here and on the internet in general.
I think this is very true. and I think tone is often misconstrued. I've misunderstood tone on a number of occasions. and I've often been upset knowing my tone is seen as entirely different than how I intend it. I think that--mixed with emotion, the strong sense of not having control over important aspects of our business, and personality clashes all combine to create a snowball of reactions. I include myself in that. I sometimes think instead of 'enter'...the button on the keyboard should read "are you sure you want to post that?".....at the end of the day, I certainly exchange lots of messages with people and receive many in which we all take care to ensure we haven't truly hurt someone's feelings. I think most people around here are good people who don't intend to be hurtful.
-
SNP .. I am glad to see you back from the London lypse, and in rare form as usual. Can't wait to see your photos on Thinkstock as my company has a subscription there.
-
that´s the beauty in it, lovely post, it shows that there is still hope and we can continued to think that the world is polite and caring
-
SNP .. I am glad to see you back from the London lypse, and in rare form as usual. Can't wait to see your photos on Thinkstock as my company has a subscription there.
here we go again! :)
-
Why is it that EVERY single topic about Istock these days turns into a mud slinging match at some point?
Maybe because photographers, in general, seem to be a negative and pessimistic bunch of people.
Is it true? I sometimes wonder about it too.
-
Is it true? I sometimes wonder about it too.
I don't know any other photographers personally (in the real world). I'm curious if this is true also.
Are we really such a negative bunch? A few years ago when most of us were seeing our incomes grow every month, I thought we were a pretty positive group. I suspect it is recent circumstances that have made us over into a bunch of grouches... :P
-
Is it true? I sometimes wonder about it too.
I don't know any other photographers personally (in the real world). I'm curious if this is true also.
Are we really such a negative bunch? A few years ago when most of us were seeing our incomes grow every month, I thought we were a pretty positive group. I suspect it is recent circumstances that have made us over into a bunch of grouches... :P
Remember: "A cynic is just a heartbroken ideallist".
-
Why is it that EVERY single topic about Istock these days turns into a mud slinging match at some point?
Maybe because photographers, in general, seem to be a negative and pessimistic bunch of people.
Is it true? I sometimes wonder about it too.
Just human nature. It isn't just photographers, it's everyone and anyone who has a stake in something and that stake gets chopped with an axe. When things are good, we party. When things go bad we bitch...just the way it is.
-
Why is it that EVERY single topic about Istock these days turns into a mud slinging match at some point?
Maybe because photographers, in general, seem to be a negative and pessimistic bunch of people.
I believe the problem of some (not only in photography) is an EGO issue, some people just don´t stop and think before talking and even worst it´s after because they never regret it.. in this forum everybody takes things too personal and are attacking constantly other, if it is exclusive, if not, if know more or less about this or that, people just need to calm down and do whatever they enjoy, if it is just bringing bad mood to forum perhaps should leave, must said I am not talking for anyone in special, I do enjoy all comment and this is a lesson for me everyday, don´t enjoy the attacks, take it slowww guys, in a all in the same world and we only live once :)
Better still, we could look for jobs as forum moderators and grouch at people all day (not on msg, of course). Well, OK, that would be boring after a couple of hours, but hey, it's probably quite well paid.
-
Remember: "A cynic is just a heartbroken ideallist".
that's cute :)
-
never mind ...
-
SNP .. I am glad to see you back from the London lypse, and in rare form as usual. Can't wait to see your photos on Thinkstock as my company has a subscription there.
here we go again! :)
I took it as a troll and am not rising to the bait. ::)
-
There's been a new ingestion overnight (UK time), though only a few of them are showing.
What immediately leaps out at me is how very dark most of them are (I'm specifically meaning in lighting; you'd expect serious editorial to have 'dark' subject matter), and how us lesser mortals would certainly have had these rejected.
But also, that generic caption forces people to click on the image to fnd out what it is, so if views have any weight in Best Match, these files will stay at the top. At the moment, the new ones are all showing as 'unknown title' on the thumbnails, but I'll assume that's a temporary blip.
I couldn't imagine what one image was from the thum (the thum title as of this moment isn't showing) so I zoomed in. It really shows either I don't 'get' editorial titling/captioning, or realistically a lot of these images are bulk title/captioned before submission to Getty, and the bulk info doesn't suit all images.
The one I happened on was this one:
http://www.istockphoto.com/stock-photo-16838316-unknown-title.php?st=cc3287d (http://www.istockphoto.com/stock-photo-16838316-unknown-title.php?st=cc3287d)
My immediate first question is, why isn't this main collection. You've all read my rants about images being rejected for editorial and 'should be sent to the main collection' even when hand made by an artisan or when featuring people and a yacht. [1]
Again, total inconsistency about the application of iStock "standards"
Second, the title says, "Mass Evacuations As Mount Merapi Erupts"
There is no evidence in this particular photo of the mass evacuations.
The caption says:
"YOGYAKARTA, INDONESIA - OCTOBER 27: A car is covered with ash from the erupting Mount Merapi volcano at Kaliurang village in Sleman, on October 27, 2010 near Yogyakarta, Indonesia. Thousands have been ordered to evacuate as Mount Merapi, which last erupted in 2006, began to emit plumes of smoke and clouds of ash.(Photo by Ulet Ifansasti)"
Which explains the photo.
BUT I somehow didn't notice before that the photographer's name is mentioned in the caption, even though the image is copyrighted to Ed Stock.
[1] I see this point has been made on the iStock forum with reference to other photos.
-
I didn't read most of the posts, but I do have a question? Is editorial even worth the time you put in? I can't judge from my sales, since I don't have many editorial photos in my port and virtually all of them were rejected anyway (just the opposite from the normal collection), but I did some research and besides ipad/iphone/social network screenshots they don't sell well and mostly they don't sell at all. I know it's easier if you're doing a lot of people shots, no retouching, no MRs needed, just some work with captions and rejections because of them. But what's the sales potential anyway, when you can't post anything time sensitive, anything the news agencies, papers and blogs would mostly be interested in? They can find similar people shots in the main collection, which are usually better anyway. Besides products shots, there probably is nothing really worth uploading and also all those cans of beer, sneakers, electronics don't really sell.
I see IS editorial as one big failure and disappointment.
-
I didn't read most of the posts, but I do have a question? Is editorial even worth the time you put in?
The random, walk about "newsy" stuff like people have been posting? Parades, this or that demonstration, the street down the ways from your house? Not so much. Maybe at the old RM pricing - for instance, a one day newspaper RM price on Getty is around $130, but you can now get it on IS for forever use in anyway you like for $5.
-
I didn't read most of the posts, but I do have a question? Is editorial even worth the time you put in?
The random, walk about "newsy" stuff like people have been posting? Parades, this or that demonstration, the street down the ways from your house? Not so much. Maybe at the old RM pricing - for instance, a one day newspaper RM price on Getty is around $130, but you can now get it on IS for forever use in anyway you like for $5.
I'm guessing that a lot of that is available free on Flikr and the likes, so for editorial/blogs, why pay? Not everyone needs pixel perfect, 'iStock light' images.
-
I don't think there's a ton of money to be had in editorial as a photographer if you're only shooting editorial. but it depends on what you're shooting and where you're selling it. via iStock, I don't look at editorial as a major income generator. what does seem to sell well, rather than the news images, is product and brand images. I think there's some good potential income in there.
-
what does seem to sell well, rather than the news images, is product and brand images. I think there's some good potential income in there.
I haven't come across many of those, except for the iPad/iPhone photos. Otherwise usually just files with 0 DL and from time to time some with up to 4.
I think that most people along with IS had great expectations, though they're going to be seeling editorial shots like people did apples on white back in 2005. Unfortunately nothing like that happened.
-
what does seem to sell well, rather than the news images, is product and brand images. I think there's some good potential income in there.
I haven't come across many of those, except for the iPad/iPhone photos. Otherwise usually just files with 0 DL and from time to time some with up to 4.
I think that most people along with IS had great expectations, though they're going to be seeling editorial shots like people did apples on white back in 2005. Unfortunately nothing like that happened.
Supermarket advertising often depicts particular brands of goods on offer, that's the sort of market where you might sell some of this "editorial" stuff (yes, I know it's a violation of the license terms). The demand for a shot of a specific event from the past is very low. If the subject is a celebrity pin-up there are likely to be so many photos readily available - even from the celeb's own agent - that there is hardly any market.
-
Today's stuff from Getty has some very generic (and iMO not very good) images of Venice sunsets, a vase of flowers, rolled towels, power pylons silhouetted, etc. That (a) wouldn't be accepted if we submitted it to either collection and (b) competes with existing content in both collections (the only advantage regular iStock contributors have being that their shots are better).
They aren't looking at this closely enough and are just dumping expensive crap (along with the genuine editorial of shots of Einstein's papers, for example).
-
Is it true? I sometimes wonder about it too.
I don't know any other photographers personally (in the real world). I'm curious if this is true also.
Are we really such a negative bunch? A few years ago when most of us were seeing our incomes grow every month, I thought we were a pretty positive group. I suspect it is recent circumstances that have made us over into a bunch of grouches... :P
I know several long time pro photographers, mostly stock and commercial shoots. They are definitely not a positive bunch. All them them I know were nearly destroyed by us (microstock). Some have joined us after years of grousing, but have not put in the effort to make it worthwhile, and the "easy" window of opportunity may have passed. Every one of them says they were not at all worried about competition from "poor quality" point and shoot stock available from mere amatures online at the beginning. After all they are pros and customers know it and you get what you pay for. Wow were they wrong.
I fear we are doing the same.
-
SNP .. I am glad to see you back from the London lypse, and in rare form as usual. Can't wait to see your photos on Thinkstock as my company has a subscription there.
here we go again! :)
I took it as a troll and am not rising to the bait. ::)
No trolling. I was being completely sincere. No sarcasm, really.
-
I know several long time pro photographers, mostly stock and commercial shoots. They are definitely not a positive bunch. All them them I know were nearly destroyed by us (microstock). Some have joined us after years of grousing, but have not put in the effort to make it worthwhile, and the "easy" window of opportunity may have passed. Every one of them says they were not at all worried about competition from "poor quality" point and shoot stock available from mere amatures online at the beginning. After all they are pros and customers know it and you get what you pay for. Wow were they wrong.
I fear we are doing the same.
Since we're on editorial, I won't comment on commercial shoots, but certainly, as I said above, many end editorial users don't need iStock's pixel-peeping, either because of the quality of their printing or paper, or because they're going to be used really small. So I don't see how we can compete with 'free' for many uses which don't require MRs or PRs. And in fact, IMO a lot of Flikr images are 'better' for many uses inasmuch as they can be much more 'free' than anything you see on any agencies.
-
Is it true? I sometimes wonder about it too.
...Are we really such a negative bunch? A few years ago when most of us were seeing our incomes grow every month, I thought we were a pretty positive group. I suspect it is recent circumstances that have made us over into a bunch of grouches... :P
...All them them I know were nearly destroyed by us (microstock). Some have joined us after years of grousing, but have not put in the effort to make it worthwhile, and the "easy" window of opportunity may have passed. Every one of them says they were not at all worried about competition from "poor quality" point and shoot stock available from mere amatures online at the beginning. ...Wow were they wrong.
I fear we are doing the same.
I'm not sure which part of "the same" applies to us in our current setting. With the microstock rise "destroying" conventional stock photographers, any of them could have participated in microstock if they'd wanted, with just as much (arguably more) going for them as we had.
In our current mess, where Getty is dumping wholly-owned content onto the site (or other content they have a deal to represent with more favorable-to-them terms that our work) how do we get in on that game, even if we want to?
I get the adapt-or-die mantra, but I'm trying to see how we're failing here. Can you elaborate a bit?
-
Today's stuff from Getty has some very generic (and iMO not very good) images of Venice sunsets, a vase of flowers, rolled towels, power pylons silhouetted, etc. That (a) wouldn't be accepted if we submitted it to either collection and (b) competes with existing content in both collections (the only advantage regular iStock contributors have being that their shots are better).
They aren't looking at this closely enough and are just dumping expensive crap (along with the genuine editorial of shots of Einstein's papers, for example).
Another example of a stupid/irrelevant title:
http://www.istockphoto.com/stock-photo-16838458-gordon-brown-travels-to-israel.php?st=7d67cf2 (http://www.istockphoto.com/stock-photo-16838458-gordon-brown-travels-to-israel.php?st=7d67cf2)
It's a photo of Silvio Belusconi, tight portrait of him holding his head in his hands. Could have been taken anywhere, but titled, as the URI above, "Gordon Brown Travels to Israel", though the title explains that it is SB.
Trouble is that if anyone raises these specific issues on the iStock forum, Lobo will just snark and say you can't call out images.
Contacting Support will take months to get a cookie cutter answer from their cut and paste list.
SMing admin will get a hastily thought up 'justification' which holds no water.
-
Yesterday I tried to wiki one of the Ed Stock files which had horrible and 100% irrelevant keywords, but they're in some review state, so I couldn't. I guess they're on their own with that mess - them and the poor buyers...
-
Is it true? I sometimes wonder about it too.
...Are we really such a negative bunch? A few years ago when most of us were seeing our incomes grow every month, I thought we were a pretty positive group. I suspect it is recent circumstances that have made us over into a bunch of grouches... :P
...All them them I know were nearly destroyed by us (microstock). Some have joined us after years of grousing, but have not put in the effort to make it worthwhile, and the "easy" window of opportunity may have passed. Every one of them says they were not at all worried about competition from "poor quality" point and shoot stock available from mere amatures online at the beginning. ...Wow were they wrong.
I fear we are doing the same.
I'm not sure which part of "the same" applies to us in our current setting. With the microstock rise "destroying" conventional stock photographers, any of them could have participated in microstock if they'd wanted, with just as much (arguably more) going for them as we had.
In our current mess, where Getty is dumping wholly-owned content onto the site (or other content they have a deal to represent with more favorable-to-them terms that our work) how do we get in on that game, even if we want to?
I get the adapt-or-die mantra, but I'm trying to see how we're failing here. Can you elaborate a bit?
By saying "the same", I mean being slow to recongized what changes mean and adapting appropriatley from a business perspective. In 3 years, we will all know how we should have handled the current changes. Few of us ,myself included, are wise enough to know what we should be doing right now to maximize our position in the future.
-
...[url]http://www.istockphoto.com/stock-photo-16838458-gordon-brown-travels-to-israel.php?st=7d67cf2[/url] ([url]http://www.istockphoto.com/stock-photo-16838458-gordon-brown-travels-to-israel.php?st=7d67cf2[/url])...
I just zoomed 100% in on that image.
I thought there were quality standards in place at IS even for editorial...???
-
...[url]http://www.istockphoto.com/stock-photo-16838458-gordon-brown-travels-to-israel.php?st=7d67cf2[/url] ([url]http://www.istockphoto.com/stock-photo-16838458-gordon-brown-travels-to-israel.php?st=7d67cf2[/url])...
I just zoomed 100% in on that image.
I thought there were quality standards in place at IS even for editorial...???
Only for us lowlifes. Not for ingestions from 'superior' Getty togs.
Remember the 'Agency' ingestion.
-
...[url]http://www.istockphoto.com/stock-photo-16838458-gordon-brown-travels-to-israel.php?st=7d67cf2[/url] ([url]http://www.istockphoto.com/stock-photo-16838458-gordon-brown-travels-to-israel.php?st=7d67cf2[/url])...
I just zoomed 100% in on that image.
I thought there were quality standards in place at IS even for editorial...???
Only for us lowlifes. Not for ingestions from 'superior' Getty togs.
Remember the 'Agency' ingestion.
OMG - at 100% it looks like a pointillist painting by Seurat ;)
-
[url]http://www.istockphoto.com/stock-photo-16838458-gordon-brown-travels-to-israel.php?st=7d67cf2[/url] ([url]http://www.istockphoto.com/stock-photo-16838458-gordon-brown-travels-to-israel.php?st=7d67cf2[/url])
It's a photo of Silvio Belusconi, tight portrait of him holding his head in his hands. Could have been taken anywhere, but titled, as the URI above, "Gordon Brown Travels to Israel", though the title explains that it is SB.
The picture is going to be part of a series covering the entire Gordon Brown visit event, possibly shot by someone who travelled with him. The title is, in effect, the title of the folder containing all the pictures from that event. The keyword "Ehud Olmert" is there because it was shot during his speech. By istock standards, more than half the keywords are irrelevant but they are giving the place, time and event, which would be relevant if you wanted a picture of Berlusconi at the Jerusalem press conference - rather than just an "any time, anywhere" Berlusconi shot.
It seems that many of the pictures have an overall event title which is the same for an entire series, even if it seems irrelevant to the specific subject.
-
[url]http://www.istockphoto.com/stock-photo-16838458-gordon-brown-travels-to-israel.php?st=7d67cf2[/url] ([url]http://www.istockphoto.com/stock-photo-16838458-gordon-brown-travels-to-israel.php?st=7d67cf2[/url])
It's a photo of Silvio Belusconi, tight portrait of him holding his head in his hands. Could have been taken anywhere, but titled, as the URI above, "Gordon Brown Travels to Israel", though the title explains that it is SB.
The picture is going to be part of a series covering the entire Gordon Brown visit event, possibly shot by someone who travelled with him. The title is, in effect, the title of the folder containing all the pictures from that event. The keyword "Ehud Olmert" is there because it was shot during his speech. By istock standards, more than half the keywords are irrelevant but they are giving the place, time and event, which would be relevant if you wanted a picture of Berlusconi at the Jerusalem press conference - rather than just an "any time, anywhere" Berlusconi shot.
It seems that many of the pictures have an overall event title which is the same for an entire series, even if it seems irrelevant to the specific subject.
Indeed, but that doesn't follow 'iStock standards' as they have been set out for us.
They could surely have thought up an overall title which was relevant to the whole series.
And there's nothing in that image which isn't just an 'any time, anywhere' Berlusconi shot.
-
Supermarket advertising often depicts particular brands of goods on offer, that's the sort of market where you might sell some of this "editorial" stuff (yes, I know it's a violation of the license terms). The demand for a shot of a specific event from the past is very low. If the subject is a celebrity pin-up there are likely to be so many photos readily available - even from the celeb's own agent - that there is hardly any market.
I wonder if the supermarket flyers will provide much of a market for that type of editorial. Having worked for food manufacturers I know we would get requests for photos, descriptive copy, etc. for the weekly flyers. We provided them at no cost as it was promoting our product.
-
ShadySue, from a newspaper picture editor's point of view, if you want a picture to illustrate a report referring back to Berlusconi at that event, you don't want to run something and then get told that the picture can't be from there because he was wearing something different or had his head shaved at that time. So even though the location is unidentifiable, being certain that you have the right location at the right time is valuable information.
I wouldn't be surprised if the whole Brown in Jerusalem set was uploaded in a file of that name by the photographer. It makes sense to keep the set together so that newsdesks can view them easily to pick out what they want. The header may not work that way on iSTock but I bet it did at the beginning of the set's life.
-
ShadySue, from a newspaper picture editor's point of view, if you want a picture to illustrate a report referring back to Berlusconi at that event, you don't want to run something and then get told that the picture can't be from there because he was wearing something different or had his head shaved at that time. So even though the location is unidentifiable, being certain that you have the right location at the right time is valuable information.
I wouldn't be surprised if the whole Brown in Jerusalem set was uploaded in a file of that name by the photographer. It makes sense to keep the set together so that newsdesks can view them easily to pick out what they want. The header may not work that way on iSTock but I bet it did at the beginning of the set's life.
I do understand all of that. The thing is, it's now on iStock, and under different standards to the ones we have to adhere to. That's the only point I'm making.
I'll raise again my oft-repeated complaint that there is no way we can indicate whether a main collection ('creative') image is unaltered (to editorial standards), so can be used where they are required.
-
Trouble is that if anyone raises these specific issues on the iStock forum, Lobo will just snark and say you can't call out images.
Just call me sue.itoldyaso.com
-
My logic dictates that if you have superior quality images, and your competition has inferior quality images it is actually a GOOD thing for you.
Am I wrong in my way of thinking ?
Low quality getty content = good for us.
-
My logic dictates that if you have superior quality images, and your competition has inferior quality images it is actually a GOOD thing for you.
Am I wrong in my way of thinking ?
Low quality getty content = good for us.
true but not 100% and why? because they will take away a little sales, actually the more there is on stock the less you will got, as we read everywhere top contributors aren´t increasing their earnings after a few years, the majority is actually decreasing them.. I am not talking about yourself, myself and other that started less than 3 years ago..
-
My logic dictates that if you have superior quality images, and your competition has inferior quality images it is actually a GOOD thing for you.
Am I wrong in my way of thinking ?
Low quality getty content = good for us.
In a perfect world, yes, this is the way it should work. But the world of Istockphoto has proved less than ideal.
In Istockworld, the best match is frequently manipulated to showcase images according to what will put the most money in Getty's pockets, not yours. So your superior images can be buried 50 or more pages back in a search where they will never be seen, resulting in most sales going to "inferior" Getty content.
-
luissantos84 :This may be true, but in this specific situation the goal (so they claim, and it does make sense to me) is to attract the traditional editorial buyers to IS. Again, this sounds like a GOOD thing to me.
Also do note that every EdStock photo import has a link and banner to the entire editorial collection.
I am personally satisfied with this move.
Lisa: Maybe, and maybe not. I wouldn't be suprized if you are right, but I will give them the benefit of the doubt in the meantime.
-
Lisa: Maybe, and maybe not. I wouldn't be suprized if you are right, but I will give them the benefit of the doubt in the meantime.
Fair enough.
FWIW, I hope you are right and I am wrong. :)
-
one thing is for sure, the photo+ is a lot better than this edstock
-
My logic dictates that if you have superior quality images, and your competition has inferior quality images it is actually a GOOD thing for you.
Am I wrong in my way of thinking ?
Low quality getty content = good for us.
not if it drives away the buyers. well, I guess that is okay if it drives them to the other sites that us independents work with.
-
So, Lobo has posted:
There are clearly some bones to pick about the following:
1. Keywords
2. Titles
3. Apparent quality
4. Placement in search
5. Content flowing quicker to iStock than it's flowing to the Partner Program sites and Getty
These are obvious issues that people need to have addressed. That said the issues aren't going to be addressed this weekend. I will make sure to point the obvious out to the folks at HQ early next week. I know there are other people watching this thread besides me but I tend to be more visible because I play traffic cop when things like this are announced.
Hope it will do some good. They must have known about these issues before they ingested the images, so why should they do anything about it now?
-
So, Lobo has posted:
There are clearly some bones to pick about the following:
1. Keywords
2. Titles
3. Apparent quality
4. Placement in search
5. Content flowing quicker to iStock than it's flowing to the Partner Program sites and Getty
These are obvious issues that people need to have addressed. That said the issues aren't going to be addressed this weekend. I will make sure to point the obvious out to the folks at HQ early next week. I know there are other people watching this thread besides me but I tend to be more visible because I play traffic cop when things like this are announced.
Hope it will do some good. They must have known about these issues before they ingested the images, so why should they do anything about it now?
Should we make predictions? Hundred buck says they don't care about any of that and will just continue on as they always have.
-
I didn't read most of the posts, but I do have a question? Is editorial even worth the time you put in? I can't judge from my sales, since I don't have many editorial photos in my port and virtually all of them were rejected anyway (just the opposite from the normal collection), but I did some research and besides ipad/iphone/social network screenshots they don't sell well and mostly they don't sell at all. I know it's easier if you're doing a lot of people shots, no retouching, no MRs needed, just some work with captions and rejections because of them. But what's the sales potential anyway, when you can't post anything time sensitive, anything the news agencies, papers and blogs would mostly be interested in? They can find similar people shots in the main collection, which are usually better anyway. Besides products shots, there probably is nothing really worth uploading and also all those cans of beer, sneakers, electronics don't really sell.
I see IS editorial as one big failure and disappointment.
Stamps seem to have been selling well.
-
My logic dictates that if you have superior quality images, and your competition has inferior quality images it is actually a GOOD thing for you.
Am I wrong in my way of thinking ?
Low quality getty content = good for us.
There is a bunch of things to consider:
1. Superior quality images are in the minority and not always easy to find if buyers switch to "Newest first" sort order, hence less chances of good, newly uploaded images.
Sure it may work for long established hot sellers if the "Most popular" or "by Downloads" is selected.
2. Inferior images drag down the overall attractiveness of an agency. IS is pretty tight on technical quality when it comes to isolations for example. The rejections drive me mad too, but at least I know that most approved files will be of top quality which will satisfy any buyer.
Look at some low tier agencies and what they accept just to get their numbers up...
(This may not apply directly to this IS example but to the SS issue).
-
My logic dictates that if you have superior quality images, and your competition has inferior quality images it is actually a GOOD thing for you.
Am I wrong in my way of thinking ?
Low quality getty content = good for us.
these images are not low-quality editorial. I'm certainly no fan of this ingestion of Getty content. but the images aren't low-quality. shooting editorial isn't like shooting stock. conditions are completely different. editorial is often shot at much higher ISO, low light conditions, from great distances...it's completely unreasonable to evaluate editorial images the way you would stock files.
I'm all for criticizing the structure of the ingestion or the decisions behind it--but some of the images in the ingestion are good editorial. that's part of the issue in fact for me. what's the point of busting my a*s to produce editorial for iStock (especially when they seem to be ignoring iStockphoto contributor attempts to get into Getty Editorial)....AND now they make it impossible for us to be competitive on iStock too in editorial because of Getty files being pumped in? it's discouraging to say the least.
the one positive point I'll suggest is the description link in all the files to the entire editorial collection.
-
SNP: I wasn't stating my own opinion, I wouldn't even know how to recognize a good photo from a bad one (except from a composition point of view), I was merely quoting others.
-
comments have been made about the quality of the images well before your post...no worries. I just think it's important to criticize what should be criticized....
1. the haphazard dump of these files into our database (the number is now close to 6K under the Edstock contributor). missing information, keywords, titles/descriptions etc. best match snafu on top of it.
2. the misleading and contradictory 'notification' we were given about these images coming in....and I think we had all of one or two days to digest it in any case
3. the shutting down of any real discussion about this collection on the iStock forum, and once again almost zero communication from HQ. I have no issue with them shutting down abusive and ranting posts....but many contributors are asking legitimate questions and also being shut down
-
I guess IS needs to pull just one more stupid stunt like that and it'll sink like Titanic. I'd love that, since I hate the site. I Hate their time consuming UL process, editorial which has been a failure (IMO) before the ingestion of Getty editorial, all the bugs, broken transfer of files to PP and most importantly screwing of contributors with RCs (and don't forget Gettys agency files). And Lobo is of course the cherry on top. Traffic has been redirected to SS (constant BMEs whereas IS is stagnating), which I just love, since it's almost a joy to upload there and they treat their contributors fairly (the only one of the big 4 that didn't cut commissions). And if it sinks, traffic will be redirected to DT and FT, I already have my ports there (although not complete) and I'd have one less agency to upload to. And an edge over the exclusives.
If you really look at it, IS is pathetic. Just living of old glory, otherwise it would be somewhere down, next to Crestock.
-
these images are not low-quality editorial. I'm certainly no fan of this ingestion of Getty content. but the images aren't low-quality. shooting editorial isn't like shooting stock. conditions are completely different. editorial is often shot at much higher ISO, low light conditions, from great distances...it's completely unreasonable to evaluate editorial images the way you would stock files.
As I said earlier in the thread, I've had 'lighting' rejections for editorial submissions, for the same natural, flat, Scottish light that has garnered me so many 'flat light' rejections for the main collection. Note that these editorial lighting rejections come with the same totally useless* tutorial links to the 'right way to use flash in a studio' that you get with main collection lighting rejections.
As always, some inspectors are more picky than others, so some of a group might get in while others don't.
* if you're using natural light.
-
I guess IS needs to pull just one more stupid stunt like that and it'll sink like Titanic. I'd love that, since I hate the site. I Hate their time consuming UL process, editorial which has been a failure (IMO) before the ingestion of Getty editorial, all the bugs, broken transfer of files to PP and most importantly screwing of contributors with RCs (and don't forget Gettys agency files). And Lobo is of course the cherry on top. Traffic has been redirected to Shutterstock (constant BMEs whereas IS is stagnating), which I just love, since it's almost a joy to upload there and they treat their contributors fairly (the only one of the big 4 that didn't cut commissions). And if it sinks, traffic will be redirected to Dreamstime and Fotolia, I already have my ports there (although not complete) and I'd have one less agency to upload to. And an edge over the exclusives.
If you really look at it, IS is pathetic. Just living of old glory, otherwise it would be somewhere down, next to Crestock.
I don't see how you can state that editorial has failed. I think editorial is going to eventually be fairly successful on iStock.....for iStock. for iStock editorial contributors, it may prove to be fruitless and that's what I'm worried about. if they don't want iStock contributors feeling marginalized and competitive with Getty, than they need to stop marginallizing us and pitting us against our Getty counterparts. or for those of us who are making the effort to contribute to the community and to Getty in addition to iStock.....facilitate access to contributing to Getty editorial without making us jump through arbitrary hoops.
-
I guess IS needs to pull just one more stupid stunt like that and it'll sink like Titanic. I'd love that, since I hate the site. I Hate their time consuming UL process, editorial which has been a failure (IMO) before the ingestion of Getty editorial, all the bugs, broken transfer of files to PP and most importantly screwing of contributors with RCs (and don't forget Gettys agency files). And Lobo is of course the cherry on top. Traffic has been redirected to Shutterstock (constant BMEs whereas IS is stagnating), which I just love, since it's almost a joy to upload there and they treat their contributors fairly (the only one of the big 4 that didn't cut commissions). And if it sinks, traffic will be redirected to Dreamstime and Fotolia, I already have my ports there (although not complete) and I'd have one less agency to upload to. And an edge over the exclusives.
If you really look at it, IS is pathetic. Just living of old glory, otherwise it would be somewhere down, next to Crestock.
I don't see how you can state that editorial has failed. I think editorial is going to eventually be fairly successful on iStock.....for iStock. for iStock editorial contributors, it may prove to be fruitless and that's what I'm worried about. if they don't want iStock contributors feeling marginalized and competitive with Getty, than they need to stop marginallizing us and pitting us against our Getty counterparts. or for those of us who are making the effort to contribute to the community and to Getty in addition to iStock.....facilitate access to contributing to Getty editorial without making us jump through arbitrary hoops.
How can it not be a failure even for IS, if there are virtually no sales? Their concept of editorial was flawed from the beginning, that's why they brought in Getty content, to improve the situation and indeed make it editorial. But of course that's not going to help us, on the contrary, it's going to make a very bad situation unbearable or at least unsustainable (editorial I mean).
-
^^^ Speak for yourself. Editorial has been a success for us so far.
-
^^^ Speak for yourself. Editorial has been a success for us so far.
Look at the big picture, your personal success doesn't make it a success for the community or IS. That was the point of my posts. But I'm glad you can brag again about how awesome you're doing ;)
-
@ Slovenian - Editorial is no different than commercial stock. Some categories of things sell well and some don't. It's probably been a failure for you because you're submitting stuff where there's little or no demand.
-
oh I forgot people are only allowed to rant about IS, let me join the crowd so I can also be one of the cool kids:
I hate IS, IS sucks. long live SS.
-
@ Slovenian - Editorial is no different than commercial stock. Some categories of things sell well and some don't. It's probably been a failure for you because you're submitting stuff where there's little or no demand.
I wish ppl would read my posts, before they're accusing me of accusing IS for MY BAD SALES. Which of course was never the case and I'll just quote my yesterdays's post:
"« Reply #167 on: Yesterday at 05:35 »
Reply with quote Modify message
I didn't read most of the posts, but I do have a question. Is editorial even worth the time you put in? I can't judge from my sales, since I don't have many editorial photos in my port and virtually all of them were rejected anyway (just the opposite from the normal collection), but I did some research and besides ipad/iphone/social network screenshots they don't sell well and mostly they don't sell at all. I know it's easier if you're doing a lot of people shots, no retouching, no MRs needed, just some work with captions and rejections because of them. But what's the sales potential anyway, when you can't post anything time sensitive, anything the news agencies, papers and blogs would mostly be interested in? They can find similar people shots in the main collection, which are usually better anyway. Besides products shots, there probably is nothing really worth uploading and also all those cans of beer, sneakers, electronics don't really sell.
I see IS editorial as one big failure and disappointment."
OK, everything clear now aeonf, Paulie? ;)
-
Oh yes I totally see now. You can't judge from your sales because you can't get any accepted. Thank you for highlighting that with font size 20 something. Totally clear. Thank you. Carry on.
Whether or not editorial is a success for you or even Istock it has been good for me. Success is what you make of it.
-
Slovenian - the problem is you come in here guns blazing making such absolute statements about a program you're barely participating in. which sadly seems to be the norm here. in any case, I think you're unable to make any meaningful statement about the future of editorial at iStock.
PaulieWalnuts - :D. funny post.
-
Paulie you're behaving like we're on the school yard :-\. OK you like it because it works for you, so enjoy;) (while it lasts)
-
Slovenian - the problem is you come in here guns blazing making such absolute statements about a program you're barely participating in. which sadly seems to be the norm here. in any case, I think you're unable to make any meaningful statement about the future of editorial at iStock.
Based on my "research". But I admit I put too much passion in it :P
-
Paulie you're behaving like we're on the school yard :-\. OK you like it because it works for you, so enjoy;) (while it lasts)
@Slovenian, again... I didn't go back and read all nine pages of this trainwreck so I could try to figure out what you're trying to say. I read a couple posts and only got out of it what you wrote and responded accordingly. I think we entered the playground when you stuffed your size 20+ font fist in my face. I again responded accordingly.
Maybe if more people focused on success around here instead of fighting and trying to find things to point out as failures there would be more success. Carry on with another 9 pages of bickering. I'm done.
-
Maybe if more people focused on success around here instead of fighting and trying to find things to point out as failures there would be more success.
I agree with this and your reason for saying it. but I think it's important to recognize that times are tough for us, and when discussing the direction of the business, the looming aspects of the industry outside our control tend to inspire a lot of in-fighting, especially when people start reacting to speculative comments.
I think, regardless of where we're at, it's important for contributors to attempt some kind of cohesion. even if we disagree with individual decisions and even if there is the occasional reactive or emotional post. it's pretty tough not to get emotional about your livelihood. speaking of which, looks like the Edstock portfolio is filling up....now at 7K +
-
Maybe if more people focused on success around here instead of fighting and trying to find things to point out as failures there would be more success. Carry on with another 9 pages of bickering. I'm done.
Amen to that!
-
Maybe if IStock got something right, there may be more for it's contributers to be positive about. LOL... even the grown admin over there acknowledges that:
"There are clearly some bones to pick about the following:
1. Keywords
2. Titles
3. Apparent quality
4. Placement in search
5. Content flowing quicker to iStock than it's flowing to the Partner Program sites and Getty
"
Was there anything else even involved in this rollout? Not that I can see... they literally managed to F everything up. Maybe that's why all the negativity. Just a theory.
-
Maybe if IStock got something right, there may be more for it's contributers to be positive about. LOL... even the grown admin over there acknowledges that:
"There are clearly some bones to pick about the following:
1. Keywords
2. Titles
3. Apparent quality
4. Placement in search
5. Content flowing quicker to iStock than it's flowing to the Partner Program sites and Getty
"
Was there anything else even involved in this rollout? Not that I can see... they literally managed to F everything up. Maybe that's why all the negativity. Just a theory.
I think there is a little bit of an obsession on focusing on the negative things that happen at iStock and the views expressed here are far from balanced at the moment. I don't think the overall trend at iStock is as bad as its being made out to be here. For me the overwhelming positive at iStock is that they're having success at pushing a greater variety of pricepoints - obviously this is more evident as an exclusive.
As far as the content of the edstock portfolio goes, there are more product and location type shots that don't require any special sort of permission than I'd like, but there is also some great content that adds value to the collection and wouldn't really be available through regular contributors. Try this image for example: http://www.istockphoto.com/stock-photo-16844219-king-bhumibol-adulyadej-of-thailand-celebrates-82nd-birthday.php?st=6ec82ef (http://www.istockphoto.com/stock-photo-16844219-king-bhumibol-adulyadej-of-thailand-celebrates-82nd-birthday.php?st=6ec82ef)
Not sure if anyone has tried to get access to the King of Thailand for a photo shoot lately, but its not something that is easy. While I was there, he did a trip in public along the river in a boat. They basically lined the river with police to make sure you A. couldn't get a vantage point on bridges etc at a higher elevation than the king, B. couldn't take photos while he was actually passing.
To me there is a pretty decent set of political figures and celebrities including some notable examples that aren't in other collections.
-
To me there is a pretty decent set of political figures and celebrities including some notable examples that aren't in other collections.
But in fact I cannot send all my images with celebrities/famous people which 'aren't in other collections.'
-
To me there is a pretty decent set of political figures and celebrities including some notable examples that aren't in other collections.
But in fact I cannot send all my images with celebrities/famous people which 'aren't in other collections.'
Nobody is stopping from selling them on SS or DT you if you're not exclusive, or if you are there's always RM options such as Alamy.
-
As far as the content of the edstock portfolio goes, there are more product and location type shots that don't require any special sort of permission than I'd like, but there is also some great content that adds value to the collection and wouldn't really be available through regular contributors. Try this image for example: [url]http://www.istockphoto.com/stock-photo-16844219-king-bhumibol-adulyadej-of-thailand-celebrates-82nd-birthday.php?st=6ec82ef[/url] ([url]http://www.istockphoto.com/stock-photo-16844219-king-bhumibol-adulyadej-of-thailand-celebrates-82nd-birthday.php?st=6ec82ef[/url])
Not sure if anyone has tried to get access to the King of Thailand for a photo shoot lately, but its not something that is easy. While I was there, he did a trip in public along the river in a boat. They basically lined the river with police to make sure you A. couldn't get a vantage point on bridges etc at a higher elevation than the king, B. couldn't take photos while he was actually passing.
Noted that apparently the transfer from Getty - iStock won't be made for 18 months, when the maximum 'timely' sales of the pic will have been realised (wonder for how long that restriction will apply?).
However, there could be another time for the pic to be topical, when the King dies, so the 'tog should be able to benefit then too.
Therefore if I was the lucky person to be granted access, I wouldn't be happy about the photo going for micro prices, especially as the number of sales of the photo is likely to be low. It's a 'niche' photo and should be sold for a 'niche' price.
Noted that apparently the transfer from Getty - iStock won't be made for 18 months, when the maximum 'timely' sales of the pic will have been realised (wonder for how long that restriction will apply?).
However, there could be another time for the pic to be topical, when the King dies, so the 'tog should be able to benefit then too.
UNLESS: Getty paid the tog to take these pics and arranged the permits etc (do they do that? I think I read once that they do) in which case they'll no doubt have it in their contract that they can do what the like with the photos.
-
As far as the content of the edstock portfolio goes, there are more product and location type shots that don't require any special sort of permission than I'd like, but there is also some great content that adds value to the collection and wouldn't really be available through regular contributors. Try this image for example: [url]http://www.istockphoto.com/stock-photo-16844219-king-bhumibol-adulyadej-of-thailand-celebrates-82nd-birthday.php?st=6ec82ef[/url] ([url]http://www.istockphoto.com/stock-photo-16844219-king-bhumibol-adulyadej-of-thailand-celebrates-82nd-birthday.php?st=6ec82ef[/url])
Not sure if anyone has tried to get access to the King of Thailand for a photo shoot lately, but its not something that is easy. While I was there, he did a trip in public along the river in a boat. They basically lined the river with police to make sure you A. couldn't get a vantage point on bridges etc at a higher elevation than the king, B. couldn't take photos while he was actually passing.
Therefore if I was the lucky person to be granted access, I wouldn't be happy about the photo going for micro prices, especially as the number of sales of the photo is likely to be low. It's a 'niche' photo and should be sold for a 'niche' price.
Presumably the photo was sold for its niche value initially, now 2 years later they want to revive its earnings potential that the volumes from iStock may or may not bring. If I had one of the only images like this for sale online at the iStock E+ price-point of $5-30, I don't think I'd be overly upset. I don't think the image has such a low sales potential - assuming they add the keyword "King" I'd be very surprised if it doesn't get lots of sales.
-
I have no doubt that were only seeing stage 2 in what I think is iStock/Getty's plan:
Stage 1 - Launch the editorial section, only allow non news/celebrity images
Result: They get hundreds of isolated iPhone/pod/pad images, a few sell and the Getty editorial shooters are happy because it doesn't appear to be a threat.
Stage 2 - Introduce some real editorial shots from Getty but exclude the regular iStock contributors from submitting
Result: They hoodwink the main Getty guys telling them they're just testing the waters to see if proper editorial stuff would sell, Getty still get their editorial submissions from the full timers.
Stage 3 - If things take off allow iStock contributors to submit local news and events shots
Result: The Getty guys start to wise up, but they're told it's so they can concentrate on the main news events, baffle them with some marketing speak.
Stage 4 - The editorial collection is a hit with the publishing industry around the world, iStock allows anybody to submit editorial shots
Result: The old adage of 'F8 and be there' still exists except now Getty no longer have to pay for the 'be there' element, the whole world is a crowd sourced editorial team of free photographers, Getty get their editorial shots, it's cost them nothing, all they can do is profit.
Without any disrespect to any editorial photographers the whole basis about editorial photography is not technical quality, it's about someone being at an event with a camera (hence the F8 and be there saying), nowadays half the worlds population has a camera suitable for editorial publications and an internet connection to upload them to the agency, there'll still be a requirement for the 'instant news/sports events' photographer but for everything else I'm guessing Getty are going to approach editorial along the same lines that microstock attacked the commercial world of photography.
-
As far as the content of the edstock portfolio goes, there are more product and location type shots that don't require any special sort of permission than I'd like, but there is also some great content that adds value to the collection and wouldn't really be available through regular contributors. Try this image for example: [url]http://www.istockphoto.com/stock-photo-16844219-king-bhumibol-adulyadej-of-thailand-celebrates-82nd-birthday.php?st=6ec82ef[/url] ([url]http://www.istockphoto.com/stock-photo-16844219-king-bhumibol-adulyadej-of-thailand-celebrates-82nd-birthday.php?st=6ec82ef[/url])
Not sure if anyone has tried to get access to the King of Thailand for a photo shoot lately, but its not something that is easy. While I was there, he did a trip in public along the river in a boat. They basically lined the river with police to make sure you A. couldn't get a vantage point on bridges etc at a higher elevation than the king, B. couldn't take photos while he was actually passing.
Therefore if I was the lucky person to be granted access, I wouldn't be happy about the photo going for micro prices, especially as the number of sales of the photo is likely to be low. It's a 'niche' photo and should be sold for a 'niche' price.
Presumably the photo was sold for its niche value initially, now 2 years later they want to revive its earnings potential that the volumes from iStock may or may not bring. If I had one of the only images like this for sale online at the iStock E+ price-point of $5-30, I don't think I'd be overly upset. I don't think the image has such a low sales potential - assuming they add the keyword "King" I'd be very surprised if it doesn't get lots of sales.
I suppose it might (?) be better to have the only image on iStock compared to being one of a few on Getty. H*ck the Getty Search/keywording system seems to be about as bad as Alamy's. Half of the images which come up on a search for "King Bhumibol" don't feature the King at all, but are in some way connected with him. How annoying.
If iStock's keywording system wasn't spammed, and even more importantly, if the best match worked properly with keyword relevancy, iStock could really crush the oppostion. Whether that would be a Good Thing is open to debate.
-
I have no doubt that were only seeing stage 2 in what I think is iStock/Getty's plan:
Stage 1 - Launch the editorial section, only allow non news/celebrity images
Result: They get hundreds of isolated iPhone/pod/pad images, a few sell and the Getty editorial shooters are happy because it doesn't appear to be a threat.
Stage 2 - Introduce some real editorial shots from Getty but exclude the regular iStock contributors from submitting
Result: They hoodwink the main Getty guys telling them they're just testing the waters to see if proper editorial stuff would sell, Getty still get their editorial submissions from the full timers.
Stage 3 - If things take off allow iStock contributors to submit local news and events shots
Result: The Getty guys start to wise up, but they're told it's so they can concentrate on the main news events, baffle them with some marketing speak.
Stage 4 - The editorial collection is a hit with the publishing industry around the world, iStock allows anybody to submit editorial shots
Result: The old adage of 'F8 and be there' still exists except now Getty no longer have to pay for the 'be there' element, the whole world is a crowd sourced editorial team of free photographers, Getty get their editorial shots, it's cost them nothing, all they can do is profit.
Without any disrespect to any editorial photographers the whole basis about editorial photography is not technical quality, it's about someone being at an event with a camera (hence the F8 and be there saying), nowadays half the worlds population has a camera suitable for editorial publications and an internet connection to upload them to the agency, there'll still be a requirement for the 'instant news/sports events' photographer but for everything else I'm guessing Getty are going to approach editorial along the same lines that microstock attacked the commercial world of photography.
This makes a lot of sense. It could be argued this is a good think for Istock contributors ITLR. Although if I were a Getty editorial contributor, I would be worried about my livelihood. Especially if/when stage 4 kicks in.
-
Also, will iStock kill Alamy's RM?
-
Also, will iStock kill Alamy's RM?
Only to some extent. iStock will be no great shakes for selling quirky, local things which Alamy is better for, especially in the UK.
-
And alamy RM might be cheaper than istock editorial by the time all this goes through.
-
Honestly, I dont know why any buyer would consult a commercial stock-agency for editorials?
-
Honestly, I dont know why any buyer would consult a commercial stock-agency for editorials?
but the market for editorial has completely changed. For example almost nobody publishes whole picture stories today - apart from gossip and celebrity magazines (and coincidentally Hello launched about the time that the Sunday supplements started to stop doing picture stories). I would bet that the greatest majority of editorial images are published by bloggers now.
Am I wrong ? Does anyone with a significant circulation publish picture stories today ? Most of the great editorial pictures of the past came out of longer projects which would have been published as picture stories.
-
Paulie you're behaving like we're on the school yard :-\. OK you like it because it works for you, so enjoy;) (while it lasts)
@Slovenian, again... I didn't go back and read all nine pages of this trainwreck so I could try to figure out what you're trying to say. I read a couple posts and only got out of it what you wrote and responded accordingly. I think we entered the playground when you stuffed your size 20+ font fist in my face. I again responded accordingly.
Maybe if more people focused on success around here instead of fighting and trying to find things to point out as failures there would be more success. Carry on with another 9 pages of bickering. I'm done.
OK, here's my positive thoughts on istock...everything is great! Contributors have gotten raises, buyers aren't leaving anymore and in fact they are coming in droves to purchase images on istock, the search is working magnificently, editorial images are being accepted from all contributors equally and are selling like hotcakes, and the Photos+ program has tripled everyone's sales.
Maybe if I say it enough times and try to convince other contributors on this forum to be more positive like that, it will actually come true! ;)
-
Paulie you're behaving like we're on the school yard :-\. OK you like it because it works for you, so enjoy;) (while it lasts)
@Slovenian, again... I didn't go back and read all nine pages of this trainwreck so I could try to figure out what you're trying to say. I read a couple posts and only got out of it what you wrote and responded accordingly. I think we entered the playground when you stuffed your size 20+ font fist in my face. I again responded accordingly.
Maybe if more people focused on success around here instead of fighting and trying to find things to point out as failures there would be more success. Carry on with another 9 pages of bickering. I'm done.
OK, here's my positive thoughts on istock...everything is great! Contributors have gotten raises, buyers aren't leaving anymore and in fact they are coming in droves to purchase images on istock, the search is working magnificently, editorial images are being accepted from all contributors equally and are selling like hotcakes, and the Photos+ program has tripled everyone's sales.
Maybe if I say it enough times and try to convince other contributors on this forum to be more positive like that, it will actually come true! ;)
Okay, I lied. I'm back to this thread. Someone really needs to come up with an ignore/block entire websites or posts function for browsers. I need it.
First, I'm not just talking Istock here. It's negativity in general toward stock overall. Old sites, new sites, macro sites, macro contributors, new contracts, old contracts, you-name-it. This place is like grumpystockgroup.com.
I'm glad you posted because I think your response really highlights my point. If I remember correctly you pulled all of your files from Istock, and yet you still spend time to write about everything that's wrong with them. ??? Why do you even care? You're done. Free of their dastardly grip and shenanigans. You've moved on to stock paradise with other sites. You've beat the evil empire.
Okay so Istock is a mess and doesn't deserve you breaking out the pom-pons. Is there something good out there?
-
Thank you MR PaulieWalnuts for expressing my exact thoughts and saving me a lot of time and trouble articulating them.
-
Honestly, I dont know why any buyer would consult a commercial stock-agency for editorials?
Maybe they can't always get what they want under creative commons at e.g. Flikr?
-
I have no doubt that were only seeing stage 2 in what I think is iStock/Getty's plan:
Stage 1 - Launch the editorial section, only allow non news/celebrity images
Result: They get hundreds of isolated iPhone/pod/pad images, a few sell and the Getty editorial shooters are happy because it doesn't appear to be a threat.
Stage 2 - Introduce some real editorial shots from Getty but exclude the regular iStock contributors from submitting
Result: They hoodwink the main Getty guys telling them they're just testing the waters to see if proper editorial stuff would sell, Getty still get their editorial submissions from the full timers.
Stage 3 - If things take off allow iStock contributors to submit local news and events shots
Result: The Getty guys start to wise up, but they're told it's so they can concentrate on the main news events, baffle them with some marketing speak.
Stage 4 - The editorial collection is a hit with the publishing industry around the world, iStock allows anybody to submit editorial shots
Result: The old adage of 'F8 and be there' still exists except now Getty no longer have to pay for the 'be there' element, the whole world is a crowd sourced editorial team of free photographers, Getty get their editorial shots, it's cost them nothing, all they can do is profit.
Without any disrespect to any editorial photographers the whole basis about editorial photography is not technical quality, it's about someone being at an event with a camera (hence the F8 and be there saying), nowadays half the worlds population has a camera suitable for editorial publications and an internet connection to upload them to the agency, there'll still be a requirement for the 'instant news/sports events' photographer but for everything else I'm guessing Getty are going to approach editorial along the same lines that microstock attacked the commercial world of photography.
This makes a lot of sense. It could be argued this is a good think for Istock contributors ITLR. Although if I were a Getty editorial contributor, I would be worried about my livelihood. Especially if/when stage 4 kicks in.
I agree. Makes a lot of sense. Seems a viable plan, for them.
-
Okay, I lied. I'm back to this thread. Someone really needs to come up with an ignore/block entire websites or posts function for browsers. I need it.
First, I'm not just talking Istock here. It's negativity in general toward stock overall. Old sites, new sites, macro sites, macro contributors, new contracts, old contracts, you-name-it. This place is like grumpystockgroup.com.
I'm glad you posted because I think your response really highlights my point. If I remember correctly you pulled all of your files from Istock, and yet you still spend time to write about everything that's wrong with them. ??? Why do you even care? You're done. Free of their dastardly grip and shenanigans. You've moved on to stock paradise with other sites. You've beat the evil empire.
Okay so Istock is a mess and doesn't deserve you breaking out the pom-pons. Is there something good out there?
Reading this reminds me about a co-worker I have to prepare a report on. She is a good worker but anything outside the box and she is completely hopeless. She fails to take any kind of initiative on her own and is miserable at adapting to new concepts/ideas and such. This type of person is commonly known as a dinosaur I believe.
I think we have a lot of dinosaurs here.
-
Okay, I lied. I'm back to this thread. Someone really needs to come up with an ignore/block entire websites or posts function for browsers. I need it.
First, I'm not just talking Istock here. It's negativity in general toward stock overall. Old sites, new sites, macro sites, macro contributors, new contracts, old contracts, you-name-it. This place is like grumpystockgroup.com.
I'm glad you posted because I think your response really highlights my point. If I remember correctly you pulled all of your files from Istock, and yet you still spend time to write about everything that's wrong with them. ??? Why do you even care? You're done. Free of their dastardly grip and shenanigans. You've moved on to stock paradise with other sites. You've beat the evil empire.
Okay so Istock is a mess and doesn't deserve you breaking out the pom-pons. Is there something good out there?
Reading this reminds me about a co-worker I have to prepare a report on. She is a good worker but anything outside the box and she is completely hopeless. She fails to take any kind of initiative on her own and is miserable at adapting to new concepts/ideas and such. This type of person is commonly known as a dinosaur I believe.
I think we have a lot of dinosaurs here.
I recently went back to the beginning posts of this site and found the first post welcoming an iStock exclusive (Amanda something or other) for coming in to give an alternative perspective. within four or five pages, blood was being drawn and iStock was the spawn of Satan and that was in 2006. seems things haven't changed since the age of the dinosaur.
as for Paulie's post (thank you for that post)...you could add about five other people who spend unbelievable amounts of time in iStock threads despite having 'broken up' with iStock, or despite NEVER having contributed to iStock.
-
Okay, I lied. I'm back to this thread. Someone really needs to come up with an ignore/block entire websites or posts function for browsers. I need it.
First, I'm not just talking Istock here. It's negativity in general toward stock overall. Old sites, new sites, macro sites, macro contributors, new contracts, old contracts, you-name-it. This place is like grumpystockgroup.com...
...Okay so Istock is a mess and doesn't deserve you breaking out the pom-pons. Is there something good out there?
Sure, there's plenty of good going on. And you're right, it is getting overshadowed by the negativity. People used to talk a lot more about good things happening around here. So I'll give it a go...
I personally think Shutterstock is doing great, despite the larger opinion that rejections are too frequent these days. I'm having a rare $100+ day at Shutterstock, so certainly no complaints from me. I'm having a bit of a laugh right now that in just 1 day, my Shutterstock earnings trumped my istock earnings for the entire month so far. I'm not being negative about it, really. It's sort of comical at this point. :)
And I think StockFresh is doing well. Sure they're a little slow out of the gate, but overall I'm optimistic about the site. Looking forward to those good ol days of StockXpert coming back around in the form of SF. Hopefully...
So there. Positivity!
:)
-
Okay, I lied. I'm back to this thread. Someone really needs to come up with an ignore/block entire websites or posts function for browsers. I need it.
First, I'm not just talking Istock here. It's negativity in general toward stock overall. Old sites, new sites, macro sites, macro contributors, new contracts, old contracts, you-name-it. This place is like grumpystockgroup.com.
I'm glad you posted because I think your response really highlights my point. If I remember correctly you pulled all of your files from Istock, and yet you still spend time to write about everything that's wrong with them. ??? Why do you even care? You're done. Free of their dastardly grip and shenanigans. You've moved on to stock paradise with other sites. You've beat the evil empire.
Okay so Istock is a mess and doesn't deserve you breaking out the pom-pons. Is there something good out there?
Reading this reminds me about a co-worker I have to prepare a report on. She is a good worker but anything outside the box and she is completely hopeless. She fails to take any kind of initiative on her own and is miserable at adapting to new concepts/ideas and such. This type of person is commonly known as a dinosaur I believe.
I think we have a lot of dinosaurs here.
I recently went back to the beginning posts of this site and found the first post welcoming an iStock exclusive (Amanda something or other) for coming in to give an alternative perspective. within four or five pages, blood was being drawn and iStock was the spawn of Satan and that was in 2006. seems things haven't changed since the age of the dinosaur.
as for Paulie's post (thank you for that post)...you could add about five other people who spend unbelievable amounts of time in iStock threads despite having 'broken up' with iStock, or despite NEVER having contributed to iStock.
One thing to clarify. To me this sounds like I'm picking on Cathy and singling people out which is not what I'm trying to do. There are plenty of people here, myself included sometimes, who seem to get sucked into the bashing bandwagon. We are all in the same boat.
Istock isn't in the greatest of technical or functional shape right now so they're an easy target. They clearly are placing an urgency on financial gains over everything else including site stability. We can only guess why. Dumping Getty content is, to me, a sign that a significant amount of Getty buyers have moved to Istock.
-
^ well FWIW, I thought you were referring to the post not the person and I agree, which is why I said that there are a number of people who seem to go out of their way to be absurdly negative. I don't have a problem with constructive negativity that informs...it's the vengeful, exaggerated, petty stuff that is really hard to wade through and it often comes from serial posters that have little to no stake in iStock.
-
I was overly optimistic until StockXpert was shut down. There really hasn't been much to feel optimistic about for me since then. Istock was at least the second highest earner for a lot of non-exclusives and losing a lot of that income also hurts. I really don't want to use thinkstock and it looks like a significant portion of istock buyers have been moved over there. It's not much fun seeing your earnings dip and not being able to get back to the highs. The fact that the UK government has devalued its currency while inflation is relatively high really magnifies the problem for me. I know it's the same in lots of countries around the world.
I'm sure if I was an exclusive with istock, I wouldn't even look at this forum. It was never an option for me to go exclusive, as the financial side didn't add up and I also don't want nearly all my income coming from one site.
There is too much istock bashing here but it's an open forum and I don't really see much point in complaining about something that isn't going to stop. I'm sure if istock/Getty raised commissions and made the search neutral for non-exclusive and exclusives, people would change their attitude towards them. I'm not holding my breath.
-
Thank you MR PaulieWalnuts for expressing my exact thoughts and saving me a lot of time and trouble articulating them.
+1
I still come here out of habit, but its getting to the stage that its become a daily dose of depressant. There's always been a bit of a negative sentiment around, but being so consistently negative isn't really healthy for anyone.
-
+1
I still come here out of habit, but its getting to the stage that its become a daily dose of depressant. There's always been a bit of a negative sentiment around, but being so consistently negative isn't really healthy for anyone.
+1
If you take a look at my recent posts you will see that I don't post as often as I used to either. Funny thing is, I posted something positive in my post above! Unfortunately, it isn't true, but then you guys aren't asking for truth, you're asking for positivity!
I don't think you have looked at each and every one of my posts either, or you will have seen some positivity. The post before this one, I think, was one where I said "no" to the question "are all your images getting mass rejections on shutterstock". That's a positive thing!
I have every right to post anything I like, just as you all do. You all complain about negativity towards istock, yet here you are, after complaining over and over, reading the istock posts again! You know they aren't likely to be positive, yet you still come and put people down and name call. If negativity isn't healthy, then go do positive things yourself! You're putting people down negatively because they are negative! ::)
-
Not negativity really, its more frustration, venting frustration over something we cant controle, not even with our magnificent uploads. The power of the picture, stops right there.
-
Thank you MR PaulieWalnuts for expressing my exact thoughts and saving me a lot of time and trouble articulating them.
+1
I still come here out of habit, but its getting to the stage that its become a daily dose of depressant. There's always been a bit of a negative sentiment around, but being so consistently negative isn't really healthy for anyone.
And now we get people being negative about the negativity :)
-
Thank you MR PaulieWalnuts for expressing my exact thoughts and saving me a lot of time and trouble articulating them.
+1
I still come here out of habit, but its getting to the stage that its become a daily dose of depressant. There's always been a bit of a negative sentiment around, but being so consistently negative isn't really healthy for anyone.
And now we get people being negative about the negativity :)
Multiplying two negatives makes a positive.
-
Thank you MR PaulieWalnuts for expressing my exact thoughts and saving me a lot of time and trouble articulating them.
+1
I still come here out of habit, but its getting to the stage that its become a daily dose of depressant. There's always been a bit of a negative sentiment around, but being so consistently negative isn't really healthy for anyone.
And now we get people being negative about the negativity :)
Multiplying two negatives makes a positive.
It has been said that two wrongs don't make a right, but three lefts do.
-
I strongly suggest you don't open a scout ticket and ask why an image was rejected for a certain reason and that similar was accepted for instance last week. They will just deactivate the accepted file. If you point out to that obvious mistake (one of the inspectors made it) and ask to be reversed, the scout will tell you to not use that tone with him and if that's clear?!?!?!?!?!?!?! what??!!?? I have never ever come across such arrogant, rude and most of all unprofessional behaviour. He makes Lobo look good! Shocked . He should apologize and explain why one inspector approved it and the other didn't. But hey, we're the scum of the earth, while a buyer would be getting a big discount on the credits etc. Instead of an apology and explanation you get threats and your rightfully accepted file deactivated. Rightfully because they were accepted at all of the big 4 agencies and at 123RF.
-
Not negativity really, its more frustration, venting frustration over something we cant controle, not even with our magnificent uploads. The power of the picture, stops right there.
agreed. +1.
-
The fact that the UK government has devalued its currency while inflation is relatively high really magnifies the problem for me.
Relative to which currency ? For anyone living in the UK and earning income in $US it is the relative strength of sterling which is an issue (which is really about the weakness of the $US). People in the UK should wish for a weaker currency.
I'm sure if istock/Getty raised commissions and made the search neutral for non-exclusive and exclusives, people would change their attitude towards them.
The miserabilist tendency would see it as a conspiracy :)
Good natured skepticism = good. Constant negativity = stupid. That constant negativity is unrepresentative IMO. I am certain that most people are most occupied with working to make better work - especially as the market is evolving and changing so quickly.
-
Not negativity really, its more frustration, venting frustration over something we cant controle, not even with our magnificent uploads. The power of the picture, stops right there.
So true. It is really about the frustration of seeing incomes and royalties fall, even in the face of hard work.
I also think that the human tendency is to focus on the negative because we hope - vainly or not - on a subconscious level, to fix whatever the problem is.
It may be the same reason that those who object to the complaining about Istock may have overlooked the recent positive comments. For example, when P+ came out a few weeks ago, after initial skepticism, I and quite a few others, posted about how we liked the program and were seeing income rise as a result of participating.
Istock seems to have some people who are reflexively loyal to them, whatever happens, and others who are reflexively negative about them. But a lot of us are somewhere in the middle. We are happy when they make a move that benefits us, and unhappy when they make a move harms us. Just the harmful kind of moves seem more prevalent lately.
If its any comfort to those who are upset about the negativity, I doubt TPTB at Getty pay it any mind.
-
Re. positivity/negativity:
I'm an iStock exclusive (probably until January, maybe not beyond), and I think it's great for contributors and buyers that iStock are increasingly being challenged by other sites. For me the ongoing move away from iStock dominance towards a more open and competative market is a good thing, even if it could be painful for exclusives in the short term.
iStock's ongoing 'how to lose friends and alienate people' campaign - though sometimes excrutiatingly annoying when you're involved - could eventually be good for everyone. Everyone except iStockphoto of course, who seem to be setting themselves up to be the biggest losers.
-
The fact that the UK government has devalued its currency while inflation is relatively high really magnifies the problem for me.
Relative to which currency ? For anyone living in the UK and earning income in $US it is the relative strength of sterling which is an issue (which is really about the weakness of the $US). People in the UK should wish for a weaker currency.
He is correct, the UK undertook quantitative easing (which is a euphemism for printed money) so they have devalued sterling relative to other currencies that didn't.
-
I think the dollar and sterling have both been devalued by quantitative easing. If it isn't that, it's inflation. The dollars I earn are worth less than a few years ago and when I exchange them for pounds, they are also worth less. Economics is very complicated, someone said that economic forecasters were invented to make astrologers look more credible. I think we will have to be very lucky to avoid an even worse situation in years to come. Economies around the world are looking very fragile and I just hope those in charge really know what they're doing.
-
The dollars I earn are worth less than a few years ago and when I exchange them for pounds, they are also worth less.
Which means that sterling is relatively stronger vs $US than "a few years ago".
EG - suppose your $1 used to be worth 75p but now it is worth 59p. You get less pence per cent. That means that sterling is relatively stronger vs the $US. Or that the $US you earn is relatively weaker vs £ than "a few years ago".
the UK undertook quantitative easing (which is a euphemism for printed money) so they have devalued sterling relative to other currencies that didn't.
True. But wallet inflation and the effects of QE would be different issue. You could say that the currency has been devalued against, say, commodities or bond market sentiment. For the most part sterling has been more or less tracking the €. And other currencies have been equally affected by bond market sentiment with or without QE. So it's a mixed picture.
The cause of commodities inflation is difficult to pin point. One significant factor is speculation. Personally my basket of goods seems to be less expensive lately. I am not experiencing the inflation which I read about - except when I occasionally put some fuel in a car which I seldom use. I can see it in the commodities numbers but not when I shop. I am spending less if anything.