Quote from: ThomasAmby on June 08, 2011, 09:33

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 

There's some "EdStock" coming through now: http://www.istockphoto.com/search/editorial

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?

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. 

Quote from: caspixel on June 09, 2011, 09:04

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*

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

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  

Quote from: caspixel on June 09, 2011, 09:04

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 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.

Thanks Sean, and Balderick for weighing in.  It's a relief to know my memory is still functioning properly

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.

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.  

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.