Author Topic: IS kills logo and png initiatives (Read 2841 times)

jsnover · « **Reply #25 on:** April 23, 2012, 18:49 »

Quote from: lisafx on April 23, 2012, 17:44

Quote from: jsnover on April 23, 2012, 16:48

The prices are higher, in credits - until the most recent price hike, it put an independent Photo+ image at the same price as an exclusive image - 2 credits for XS, 5 for S and so on.

Did I miss something again? Was there a price hike on exclusive images, P+ images, both, or neither?

They hiked regular exclusive images to 3 credits for XS a month or so ago. I think that was when P+/exclusive XXXL went down to 28 but I've lost track of some of the details. There was some change in E+ but I don't remember what that was as it doesn't apply to me

ShadySue · « **Reply #26 on:** April 23, 2012, 18:56 »

Quote from: lisafx on April 23, 2012, 17:44

Quote from: jsnover on April 23, 2012, 16:48

The prices are higher, in credits - until the most recent price hike, it put an independent Photo+ image at the same price as an exclusive image - 2 credits for XS, 5 for S and so on.

Did I miss something again? Was there a price hike on exclusive images, P+ images, both, or neither?

They don't bother to tell anybody nowadays: they just adjust prices as they feel like it.

lisafx · « **Reply #27 on:** April 23, 2012, 22:14 »

Quote from: ShadySue on April 23, 2012, 18:56

Quote from: lisafx on April 23, 2012, 17:44
Quote from: jsnover on April 23, 2012, 16:48

The prices are higher, in credits - until the most recent price hike, it put an independent Photo+ image at the same price as an exclusive image - 2 credits for XS, 5 for S and so on.

Did I miss something again? Was there a price hike on exclusive images, P+ images, both, or neither?

They don't bother to tell anybody nowadays: they just adjust prices as they feel like it.

Wow, yeah. I was totally in the dark. Thanks for posting about it here JoAnn. I can't keep up with the Istock forums anymore. Too much dreck to wade through.

jsmithzz · « **Reply #28 on:** April 24, 2012, 08:27 »

Quote from: KarenH on April 23, 2012, 15:21

There was a store on Zazzle a few weeks ago called Vetta-Images that consisted of products created from many different istock contributor artists' vettas. It might have been just anyone buying istock vetta images and selling products from them, which I think is legit. But the mention in the HQ newsletter makes me wonder. Whatever, the store is gone now.

Legit my a**. We were not paid for the use of these images. If anything, I imagine it was pulled because what they were doing was selling our work without compensating us. What there were doing was unethical and violated our contract. Plain and simple.

KarenH · « **Reply #29 on:** April 24, 2012, 08:32 »

Quote from: jsmithzz on April 24, 2012, 08:27

Quote from: KarenH on April 23, 2012, 15:21
There was a store on Zazzle a few weeks ago called Vetta-Images that consisted of products created from many different istock contributor artists' vettas. It might have been just anyone buying istock vetta images and selling products from them, which I think is legit. But the mention in the HQ newsletter makes me wonder. Whatever, the store is gone now.
Legit my a**. We were not paid for the use of these images. If anything, I imagine it was pulled because what they were doing was selling our work without compensating us. What there were doing was unethical and violated our contract. Plain and simple.

I wondered about that because there was one post in the forums asking about it, and it was never answered or mentioned again, until the HQ update came out yesterday and it said "We are pulling these Vetta images from Zazzle and Cafe Press. Contributors will be paid for any sales that have already occurred". Of course, contributors who may not have known their images were there -- how are they to know (other than blind faith) what sales occurred, and what they should be owing?

cclapper · « **Reply #30 on:** April 24, 2012, 09:22 »

Quote from: jsmithzz on April 24, 2012, 08:27

Quote from: KarenH on April 23, 2012, 15:21
There was a store on Zazzle a few weeks ago called Vetta-Images that consisted of products created from many different istock contributor artists' vettas. It might have been just anyone buying istock vetta images and selling products from them, which I think is legit. But the mention in the HQ newsletter makes me wonder. Whatever, the store is gone now.

Legit my a**. We were not paid for the use of these images. If anything, I imagine it was pulled because what they were doing was selling our work without compensating us. What there were doing was unethical and violated our contract. Plain and simple.

They've been unethical since Getty bought the place and yet tons of people still contribute. They will continue to take advantage as long as the contributors let them take advantage. This isn't the first time they tried to do something underhanded to contributors. Anyone remember Vox?

edit: just in case you don't

http://www.microstockgroup.com/istockphoto-com/istock-stepping-over-the-line-with-vox/

and actually they've been taking advantage pre-Getty, as I think this vox scheme was pre.

JPSDK · « **Reply #31 on:** April 24, 2012, 09:28 »

the business model sucks.
Its kind of pointless to design a logo and sell it as stock.

If someone wants a logo, they want it unique ,and not from stock.

sjlocke · « **Reply #32 on:** April 24, 2012, 09:32 »

Being a stock logo does not preclude it from being unique.

No idea why IS had so many issues when there are plenty of players already doing it.

stocker2011 · « **Reply #33 on:** April 24, 2012, 09:55 »

I gotta say that i feel sorry for the logo folk, i remember sjlocke reminding everyone in the logo forum to put their efforts out there on other sites and make it work for you instead of waiting for istock to get their act together, just hope most of them listened. Patience is a virtue they say, but maybe this doesn't apply to the microstock industry.

ShadySue · « **Reply #34 on:** April 24, 2012, 10:00 »

Quote from: stocker2011 on April 24, 2012, 09:55

I gotta say that i feel sorry for the logo folk, i remember sjlocke reminding everyone in the logo forum to put their efforts out there on other sites and make it work for you instead of waiting for istock to get their act together, just hope most of them listened. Patience is a virtue they say, but maybe this doesn't apply to the microstock industry.

They're going to find it incredibly difficult to get anyone to jump next time they hold up a new hoop.

"Please supply audio/video/flash/illustrations" Then we'll be able to split your RCs and pay you less commission.
"Please supply logos/get ready to supply PNGs" So's we can waste your time and p*ss you off

Yup, SuperSean called it right again.

jsnover · « **Reply #35 on:** April 24, 2012, 11:27 »

You forgot a couple of other trust-breaking initiatives, in particular,

"Please supply editorial images (other media will come later)" so we can then dump a bunch of rubbish from Getty and tighten the rules on you so you can't compete with it
"Please produce content for our new Agency collection" You have to follow all the iStock submission rules, but we'll dump lots of content from Getty that doesn't follow any of them. If you notice, we'll claim it was an inspection error and remove a few to pacify you

helix7 · « **Reply #36 on:** April 24, 2012, 11:35 »

Quote from: ShadySue on April 24, 2012, 10:00

...They're going to find it incredibly difficult to get anyone to jump next time they hold up a new hoop...

I doubt they'll even try. They can't pull it off, and they probably know it. They've already cut staff, they obviously couldn't make the logo and png initiatives work, despite other (smaller) companies managing to find ways to do it. istock is no longer a company capable of rolling out any new products outside of their current lineup.

FreeTransform · « **Reply #37 on:** April 24, 2012, 11:53 »

Quote from: sjlocke on April 24, 2012, 09:32

Being a stock logo does not preclude it from being unique.

No idea why IS had so many issues when there are plenty of players already doing it.

iS is no longer the nimble upstart — it's a corporate behemoth. Other sites can deploy new stuff much faster. iS was the last of the micros to implement EPS10 files for vectors. That was six months ago, btw, and they haven't changed the upload page or the training manual.

cthoman · « **Reply #38 on:** April 24, 2012, 12:01 »

Quote from: sjlocke on April 24, 2012, 09:32

Being a stock logo does not preclude it from being unique.

No idea why IS had so many issues when there are plenty of players already doing it.

It does seem odd, although the whole thing was probably more of undercutting artists. I already have a logo program. It's called ask me, and I'll make a logo or something exclusive for you.

rimglow · « **Reply #39 on:** April 24, 2012, 12:25 »

I wonder if it would be advantageous to be able to opt in for clients to be able to contact us for Logos & PNGs?

stormchaser · « **Reply #40 on:** April 25, 2012, 02:40 »

Quote from: rimglow on April 24, 2012, 12:25

I wonder if it would be advantageous to be able to opt in for clients to be able to contact us for Logos & PNGs?

And have IS miss the chance to get their cut? Fat chance of that!

RacePhoto · « **Reply #41 on:** April 25, 2012, 15:14 »

Quote from: jsnover on April 24, 2012, 11:27

You forgot a couple of other trust-breaking initiatives, in particular,

"Please supply editorial images (other media will come later)" so we can then dump a bunch of rubbish from Getty and tighten the rules on you so you can't compete with it
"Please produce content for our new Agency collection" You have to follow all the iStock submission rules, but we'll dump lots of content from Getty that doesn't follow any of them. If you notice, we'll claim it was an inspection error and remove a few to pacify you

Almost missed who it was writing with the new Avatar.

You are so right about the bait and switch tactics they have been pulling with new collections, new products and submission flooding with their own products.

Hey Warren I was as confused as you. I thought it was just some credit benefit thing, so I dropped my top 12 in there to see if it kills them or if I make more. But from the responses, even people who know, have some questions about what it really does and means? Being and Indy at base level, the RC doesn't matter.

Update: first sale of a P+ file today, XS, instead of 23c I got 58c, it works! I could like this?

wiser · « **Reply #42 on:** May 01, 2012, 08:04 »

It stinks that IS could not muster the logo program into operation. It really stinks that they strung people along for two plus years. Most contributors (including myself) stopped uploading after six months. Most folks have long since moved on and no longer give a rats patootie, as noted by the eleven posts in the "logo cancelled" thread on the forum. There is one contributor in that thread that uploaded over 200 logos, talk about a true believer! I feel especially bad for those people who think/thought IS is/was a community-centric, contributor-centric company. Those days are over, especially for the little guy.