MicrostockGroup Sponsors


Author Topic: When is it.. (OK).. to complain about poor sales..  (Read 8069 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

shank_ali

« Reply #25 on: January 09, 2009, 15:39 »
0
Well it's fine if you wish to read my past  forum threads.over on istock.I have made a few and i suspect i may make a few more if my ban is lifted.
I am happy being EXCLUSIVE on istockphoto.As the new higher prices of credit bundles the buyers have to pay start to filter through all EXCLUSIVES will start to see $2 for a medium and $4 for a large file sale and i am only bronze.Less sales,same money works for me !


« Reply #26 on: January 09, 2009, 15:42 »
0

bittersweet

« Reply #27 on: January 09, 2009, 16:07 »
0

There you go, another success story from an IS exclusive.  ::)


Right, he's the new poster boy.

« Reply #28 on: January 11, 2009, 02:28 »
0
I do not see you practicing what you preach, Yuri and other Istock Exclusives also upload Different Images to the traditional sites like Alamy without affecting thier status.
When did Yuri go exclusive? And what other exclusives are you talking about?

« Reply #29 on: January 11, 2009, 04:46 »
0
I do not see you practicing what you preach, Yuri and other Istock Exclusives also upload Different Images to the traditional sites like Alamy without affecting thier status.
When did Yuri go exclusive? And what other exclusives are you talking about?

Sorry rephrased, "Yuri and some Istock Exclusives", Yuris does contribute to Alamy, and so do some Istock exclusive contributors, and many non exclusive, I will not name anyone as some use different names on Alamy, but a search of the forum here and at Alamy will return some answers.

It is not against Istock exclusive policy to contribute images to other Traditional agencies just not other microsites, it is not even against Alamy terms to put the same RF Miro images on thier site and similars as RM, but is not welcomed by other and could lead to crediting back a sale.

Also Alamy sales are 75% editorial and 78% RM, and as they do not edit content therefore  non RF images of buildings and people without releases will not be rejected as they may have editorial use, this reduces the micro vs macro conflict of interest, an example is the "London Eye" main focus in an image is restricted, and would get a rejection on Istock, Istock 216 images, Alamy 9365 Images.

The point of my reply was that even as an Istock Exclusive there are other types of images and Macro sites where you could upload to, rather than putting all eggs in the one basket, then any sales variances could be balanced by other types of sales.

It is confusing to some Photographers as they think that it is Micro or Macro, but as a vendor you should supply your goods to any outlet you are comfortable with, you will find the same day to day branded goods in low and high end outlets at different price points.

David :)      
« Last Edit: January 11, 2009, 05:12 by Adeptris »

abimages

« Reply #30 on: January 11, 2009, 09:14 »
0
I do not see you practicing what you preach, Yuri and other Istock Exclusives also upload Different Images to the traditional sites like Alamy without affecting thier status.
When did Yuri go exclusive? And what other exclusives are you talking about?

Sorry rephrased, "Yuri and some Istock Exclusives", Yuris does contribute to Alamy, and so do some Istock exclusive contributors, and many non exclusive, I will not name anyone as some use different names on Alamy, but a search of the forum here and at Alamy will return some answers.

It is not against Istock exclusive policy to contribute images to other Traditional agencies just not other microsites, it is not even against Alamy terms to put the same RF Miro images on thier site and similars as RM, but is not welcomed by other and could lead to crediting back a sale.

Also Alamy sales are 75% editorial and 78% RM, and as they do not edit content therefore  non RF images of buildings and people without releases will not be rejected as they may have editorial use, this reduces the micro vs macro conflict of interest, an example is the "London Eye" main focus in an image is restricted, and would get a rejection on Istock, Istock 216 images, Alamy 9365 Images.

The point of my reply was that even as an Istock Exclusive there are other types of images and Macro sites where you could upload to, rather than putting all eggs in the one basket, then any sales variances could be balanced by other types of sales.

It is confusing to some Photographers as they think that it is Micro or Macro, but as a vendor you should supply your goods to any outlet you are comfortable with, you will find the same day to day branded goods in low and high end outlets at different price points.

David :)      

Adeptris, thanks but that could still be misleading to some.
To clarify:
Anyone who is exclusive at IS would NOT be allowed to sell RF ANYWHERE, even macro.
They can however sell RM anywhere they want.

Cheers
Anthony

« Reply #31 on: January 11, 2009, 09:19 »
0
To me it is okay to complain about poor sales any time.  One of my favorite hobbies - second only to rejoicing in good sales :D


Maybe we should have a survey? Which is more common, (and fun) to complain about:
 
1) poor sales, 2) Rejections/Reviewers, 3) Slow reviews, 4) Keywording, 5) Uploading or reading IPTC data problems, 6) Low pay for subscriptions.

Eliminate these and the forum would really slow down.  ::)


Well the complaints on 1-4 are most amusing and frequent from those who have half a dozen photos in their portfolio and have been doing stock for 3 months. Especially when they begin: I got a rejection for noise, even though I'm shooting with a 5D...

5) The IPTC problem is a valid complaint, especially when you only get a correct answer the 5th time you make the complaint.
6) It seems to be mostly those who don't do it at all that complain about this....

bittersweet

« Reply #32 on: January 11, 2009, 09:20 »
0
It is not against Istock exclusive policy to contribute images to other Traditional agencies just not other microsites,

Wrong. It is against exclusive policy to contribute RF images to ANY site other than iStock or Getty. However, exclusives can upload images under any other licensing model to any other site. So either you are referring to someone or someones who are violating the exclusive agreement, or you are confused by their RM images appearing elsewhere.

(ETA: Sorry, Anthony, we were posting at the same time and I apparently ignored the warning. ;) )
« Last Edit: January 11, 2009, 09:22 by whatalife »

« Reply #33 on: January 11, 2009, 11:34 »
0
Yep sorry Guys my mistake no RF for Istock Exclusive only RM to other sites :-[.

The point still stands in that at the moment, if you do some research and look at the type of images Alamy sell which are mainly editorial, travel etc: logo's and Landmarks not rejected, these are not the same as you would consider shooting or trying to upload to the microsites, you could however expand your business without hurting your Istock Exclusive Status and without feeling you are doing something wrong  :o

David  ;D     

Uncle Pete

  • Evidence please...

« Reply #34 on: January 11, 2009, 17:28 »
0
The previous statements are true:

http://www.istockphoto.com/asa_exclusive.php

[excluded materials] but shall not include (1) Content that is produced as "work for hire" within the meaning of United States federal copyright legislation or is otherwise the result of a specific commission by a bona fide client of the Supplier evidenced by written agreement where the Content deliverable from such commission is for the personal use of the client and not for resale or license to any other person or entity, except to the extent Supplier retains in such Content any royalty free rights of the type outlined in the Content License Agreement; (2) Content that is produced for "Editorial" purposes except to the extent the Supplier retains in such Content any royalty free rights of the type outlined in the Content License Agreement, where "Editorial" means visual reporting to illustrate general interest and specialty stories for information, documentary or photojournalism (but not advertorial) purposes only; (3) Content that is "Rights Managed", which is defined as Content produced by the Supplier and licensed for a fee that is based on one or more limited uses and for which usage history is tracked; (4) Content that is of a category not currently offered for sale by iStockphoto (such as stand alone audio files); or (5) other Content specifically designated by the Supplier and agreed by iStockphoto as being non-exclusive Content.

...nothing shall restrict the Supplier from (i) establishing or maintaining a personal portfolio web-site on which Exclusive Content is posted for the purposes of art display but not the sale or licensing or giving away of rights to the digital Content; or (ii) using Exclusive Content in connection with the sale by Supplier of prints, t-shirts and other merchandise where the sale or licensing or giving away of rights to the digital images or other Content beyond such merchandising use is not involved. (you can sell things as long as you don't license the images outside of iStock)

7 b You further agree that any Exclusive Content that is not accepted by iStockphoto and does not form Accepted Exclusive Content cannot be sold, licensed or otherwise made available to purchasers, licensees or other potential users without the prior written consent of iStockphoto. iStockphoto reserves the right to sell non-accepted Exclusive Content through another site or distribution venue determined by it, the compensation for which will be subject to a new rate schedule agreed between the parties.

-=-=-

You can sell prints, shirts, Etc., editorial or RM. You can't sell the similar images, RF anywhere else, even if it's a photo rejected by iStock. You can sell video or audio or anything else that's not photographer art, if you don't have that material as an exclusive contract with IS, or if they don't sell that type of product.

Exclusive should mean you only sell RF on iStock or the whole idea of a special enhanced payments and "exclusive" content, makes no sense.

I don't see how someone can want to be exclusive and get the benefits and then claim they can sell on other sites as well.

shank_ali

« Reply #35 on: January 12, 2009, 02:22 »
0
My point of contributing to lots of different  micro sites was made if you earn a living at being a photograph and seems the sensible course to follow.
I do see the majority of complaining on istockphoto from exclusive contributors.Loose the crown and upload to the many micro sites now online to make more money.
I use my photography as a hobby and pleased that i make a bit of money at it as well.

« Reply #36 on: January 12, 2009, 09:49 »
0
My point of contributing to lots of different  micro sites was made if you earn a living at being a photograph and seems the sensible course to follow.
I do see the majority of complaining on istockphoto from exclusive contributors.Loose the crown and upload to the many micro sites now online to make more money.
I use my photography as a hobby and pleased that i make a bit of money at it as well.

This may be the new reality for full time contributors if iStock keeps letting exclusive sales slide in the way they're doing now according to the complaints on iStock's forum. Expect a stiff warning from Lobo on said forums to follow for daring to complain in public shortly.

bittersweet

« Reply #37 on: January 12, 2009, 11:04 »
0
My point of contributing to lots of different  micro sites was made if you earn a living at being a photograph and seems the sensible course to follow.
I do see the majority of complaining on istockphoto from exclusive contributors.Loose the crown and upload to the many micro sites now online to make more money.
I use my photography as a hobby and pleased that i make a bit of money at it as well.

This may be the new reality for full time contributors if iStock keeps letting exclusive sales slide in the way they're doing now according to the complaints on iStock's forum. Expect a stiff warning from Lobo on said forums to follow for daring to complain in public shortly.

Seriously. The thread that just got locked did not get locked because of complaining. It got locked because one person was taking his own personal stats and trying to extrapolate them to every other contributor at istock, insisting that istock sales are drastically down because of the BM changes made by the inept IT department, blah blah blah... which there is no possible way for him to know. Any attempt to reason with this person was met with hands over ears and then it deteriorated into childish name calling.

If you consider locking this thread as some kind of prohibition to "complaining in public" then I guess there is no reasoning with you either.

shank_ali

« Reply #38 on: January 12, 2009, 13:45 »
0
Mr JLocke's opinion on why he stays exclusive with istockphoto would be interesting to read.......

bittersweet

« Reply #39 on: January 12, 2009, 13:48 »
0
Mr JLocke's opinion on why he stays exclusive with istockphoto would be interesting to read.......

LOL If you mean he should speculate why the other guy stays exclusive, I think so too.   ;D

« Reply #40 on: January 12, 2009, 14:21 »
0
It is not against Istock exclusive policy to contribute images to other Traditional agencies just not other microsites, it is not even against Alamy terms to put the same RF Miro images on thier site and similars as RM, but is not welcomed by other and could lead to crediting back a sale.
David :)      

It is absolutely against iStock exclusive policy to contribute images to other agencies, traditional or otherwise, if you are licensing RF.  There is no question about that.

shank_ali

« Reply #41 on: January 12, 2009, 14:50 »
0
It is not against Istock exclusive policy to contribute images to other Traditional agencies just not other microsites, it is not even against Alamy terms to put the same RF Miro images on thier site and similars as RM, but is not welcomed by other and could lead to crediting back a sale.
David :)      

It is absolutely against iStock exclusive policy to contribute images to other agencies, traditional or otherwise, if you are licensing RF.  There is no question about that.
I knew that already as did most on here but did not feel the need to say so.Now why do you remain exclusive on istockphoto when you could be earning alot more money submitting your fine work to every micro site on planet earth.

« Reply #42 on: January 12, 2009, 17:51 »
0
I do not see you practicing what you preach, Yuri and other Istock Exclusives also upload Different Images to the traditional sites like Alamy without affecting thier status.
When did Yuri go exclusive? And what other exclusives are you talking about?

Sorry rephrased, "Yuri and some Istock Exclusives", Yuris does contribute to Alamy, and so do some Istock exclusive contributors, and many non exclusive, I will not name anyone as some use different names on Alamy, but a search of the forum here and at Alamy will return some answers.

It is not against Istock exclusive policy to contribute images to other Traditional agencies just not other microsites, it is not even against Alamy terms to put the same RF Miro images on thier site and similars as RM, but is not welcomed by other and could lead to crediting back a sale.
I'm aware of istock policies, and the differences between RM and RF. They were simple questions that only needed simple answers. 1)Yuri is not exclusive, and 2) "unidentified" others.


 

Related Topics

  Subject / Started by Replies Last post
53 Replies
5450 Views
Last post February 04, 2012, 03:16
by PinnacleAnimates
43 Replies
4037 Views
Last post December 04, 2012, 11:42
by JPSDK
Dreamstime- Poor Sales

Started by tab62 « 1 2  All » Off Topic

34 Replies
1922 Views
Last post June 13, 2013, 02:06
by nicku
Fotolia - Poor Sales

Started by tab62 « 1 2 3  All » Fotolia.com

59 Replies
4676 Views
Last post September 11, 2013, 03:33
by OM
24 Replies
1370 Views
Last post December 07, 2013, 18:40
by Ed

Sponsors

Microstock Poll Results

Sponsors