New Getty contributor on IS

RacePhoto

« Reply #25 on: December 19, 2011, 02:41 »

#link

Quote from: ShadySue on December 18, 2011, 06:44

Quote from: RacePhoto on December 17, 2011, 21:31

Quote from: kelby on December 17, 2011, 08:00

seems that there's a new contributor from Getty in the istock agency collection http://www.istockphoto.com/user_view.php?id=8294224 how many agencies still will land on istock?

Someone help me. Exclusive, I see the the crown and 56 images. Are we going to be watching the same kind of flood as EdStock or what's going on? Do some people get made instant Exclusive?

They're more quasi- or pseudo-Exclusive. There have been quite a few already.

I don't know what a Quasi or Pseudo exclusive is. Either they are or aren't, but they didn't get their crown by having the history or any of the other requirements. Kind of like getting a honorary designation without earning a real one.

Just figured out something else. Exclusives don't have the photos dropped into ThinkStock. That makes sense. IS keeps those house images protected from subs, unlike everyone else who's independent. OK got that one. Wink


	Ignore \| Logged

fujiko

« Reply #26 on: December 19, 2011, 02:44 »

#link

Istock/Getty will become a lesson for the industry.

Internet is about content. A site doesn't create content, a site is made by content and content is made by contributors.

Istock is an example of a site that has grown by content created by contributors. Getty is a site that lost against sites like Istock and its management seems to think that they can move content around to sell it and that it can only be good. It's not. Moving content from Getty to Istock may make the content sell for a short time but will kill Istock in the long run as it did with Getty. Getty brand, Istock brand, any brand means nothing without content on internet.

Meanwhile, other sites that treat contributors better will get the best content and they will gain an edge against sites that try to enforce their will to contributors.

Because in the end, it's all about content. Sites don't create content, contributors do.


	Ignore \| Logged

Lagereek

« Reply #27 on: December 19, 2011, 03:09 »

#link

Nothing to do with how contributors are treated. Buyers of content couldnt care one bit about treatments or anything, they just want to get in, quickly find the shot and get out, no messing around.
getty, was very late, coming into the digital and micro, so rather then go their own way and create, they bought-up.

Getty has never created anything of their own, never been innovators or anything, they have always somehow amalgamated, what has stood in their way,i.e. serious competitors, etc. I mean to be frank, I dont know who has been schooling who, Getty or Lord Hanson ?

Back in the early 90s, Getty, was nothing really and their only way out in the commercial world was through Stones and Image-Bank, thats what put them on the map. Plus the fact, the old Mark-Getty, had an awful lot of money.
Now, Mark Getty, no matter what one thinks, he was lightyears above todays "triers". Differant cup of tea.


« Last Edit: December 19, 2011, 03:12 by lagereek »	Ignore \| Logged

fujiko

« Reply #28 on: December 19, 2011, 03:44 »

#link

Quote from: lagereek on December 19, 2011, 03:09

Nothing to do with how contributors are treated. Buyers of content couldnt care one bit about treatments or anything, they just want to get in, quickly find the shot and get out, no messing around.

You paint it as if a buyer could find a shot on a site regardless of the fact that it has to be uploaded first by a contributor.
Unfairness to contributors only results in less or no uploads, no new content, buyer cannot find it, no sale, buyer goes elsewhere.
Didn't you remove some best sellers from IS? How many of those shots do you think a buyer can find on IS?


	Ignore \| Logged

traveler1116

« Reply #29 on: December 19, 2011, 03:48 »

#link

Quote from: leaf on December 17, 2011, 11:09

Hey, he's got my business man Wink

My pic

His pic

Funny


« Last Edit: December 19, 2011, 03:50 by traveler1116 »	Ignore \| Logged

qwerty

« Reply #30 on: December 19, 2011, 04:06 »

#link

Edstocks now at 77590 so only 77534 to go


	Ignore \| Logged

Lagereek

« Reply #31 on: December 19, 2011, 05:39 »

#link

Quote from: fujiko on December 19, 2011, 03:44

Quote from: lagereek on December 19, 2011, 03:09

Nothing to do with how contributors are treated. Buyers of content couldnt care one bit about treatments or anything, they just want to get in, quickly find the shot and get out, no messing around.

Sure! listen Im on your side here. Yes I removed in the region of 100, files, blue flames, red ones, the lot. I know what you mean but mainly because i did not want them mirrored at TS.

Here is a thing! I dont know if its coincidence or what? but a number of files that I removed are showing LOTS! of increased revenue at mainly two other sites and I mean lots.

Buyers are conservative, they might scream and haggle a bit and then its blown over, know what I mean. Much worse for IS, are all the bugs, glitches, useless interface, etc, now thats really something which angers buyers.


	Ignore \| Logged

heywoody

« Reply #32 on: December 19, 2011, 06:18 »

#link

Quote from: BaldricksTrousers on December 18, 2011, 16:26

That camera was announced at the end of 2005. I don't know if it was available before 2006. Get your facts right.

Robert Doiseneau's Paris kiss is being sold as new, with no mention that it was taken in 1950. So your point is?

I suppose that if one believes quality = technical quality, then images made with older kit will be considered not as good. I like to think that the person behind the lens still has some bearing on the quality of an image.


	Ignore \| Logged

leaf

Premium Member

« Reply #33 on: December 19, 2011, 07:08 »

#link

Quote from: Pixart on December 17, 2011, 22:35

Peter Keller, International Man of Mystery....

Is he from an Istockalypse Tyler? He does look the same, the shape of his front teeth esp. Or are you the mysterious new Istock contributor?

I always wondered why people don't set up businesses to be exclusive at Istock and go indie as an individual. ( I myself am not ambitious enough

)

No he wasn't an istockalypse model (that I know of). I just used him myself once in a shoot, and the model obviously was used by the other photographer as well.


	Ignore \| Logged

Pages: 1 [2]

« previous next »

MicrostockGroup

Microstockgroup Sponsors

Topic: New Getty contributor on IS

Microstockgroup Sponsors

Microstock Poll Results