MicrostockGroup

Somehow I managed to miss the announcement of this and any discussion of it both here and on iStock's forums.
I see that on Agency and Vetta files, the extended licences are on the files' page as add-ons, so that it's clear that they're needed for certain purposes.

But my question, which I can't ask on the iStock site, and everyone's 'home for the holidays' anyway, is:
Why aren't these 'add-on' options on the file page for each file? I'm perfectly sure that many ELs are missed, either because people are in a hurry, and just don't know, or because they won't be caught. Why don't iStock want to maximise their income, and by extension ours, on every file, not just Vettas and Agency files?
If this has already been discussed here or there, please point me to the link. Tx.

I did see the discussion on the legal guarantee ELs with Agency and Vettas..
What I didn't see was the question of why all the EL options are listed, with adjacent tickboxes, on all Agency and Vetta pics, but not on the others.

Sounds confusing any way you look at it. They just keep making things more and more convoluted for the buyers.

I don't understand the confusion.  There's the EL options, one is checked, and it costs 0 credits.  Sorry, I don't see this as an issue.  It's a benefit for the buyers that the EL legal guarantee is free.  I'm afraid you're just grasping trying to make negatives out of anything that happens.

And yet, it isn't.

It's not that I think it's confusing, just that it could be worked out better for everyone's benefit, especially iStock as they stand to gain most.
Put the upgrade options on all pages (tickboxes). Wouldn't affect most buyers at all, but it brings directly to their notice that ELs are required and available for certain uses.
Then non-purchase would be deliberate theft and not just 'ignorance'.
I've recently bought flowers from two different companies - in both cases there were plenty of optional upsells right on the page, I didn't need to wonder what to do if I wanted a vase, chocolates, champagne, a teddy, whatever, they were right there on the page.
And ELs aren't 'optional extras' - they're required when needed, but I'm sure lots of buyers don't know that.

I really have to agree with Sue on this one. That radio button is very easy to overlook. I never even paid any attention to it, until Sean mentioned it.
Further, there is a drop down IF you hover over the word "extended" that is totally invisible. Not intuitive at all.
The simple and very real fact is that most buyers aren't aware that extended license is required for certain use and making the fact that they are there and sometimes needed more obvious would be in everyone's best interest.

I'm sure there are several ways in which it could be done.
What's interesting is that they think it's OK to have an 'ugly' layout on the Premium pages, but not on the others.
As I've said before, if Time Magazine can 'avoid' paying the EL (because of 'ignorance', apparently) - TWICE! - (until challenged), how many others are avoiding it too, through ignorance (or otherwise)

Side issue: Has Time used an iStock image since it was called out on these two? (I haven't seen any reference if so)
Have they used 'cheaper' imagery or even Flickr pics?
Or have they reverted to commissioned pics/macro?
(a quick shuftie of their website suggests that they're using Getty for their generic, even when equally suitable 'generic' images are on iStock)