"they get some money, bragging rights, they get a credit and that’s the value they get"

I'm going to contact him and ask if he'll design me a new website and marketing campaign, in return I'll throw him a couple of dollars but the main appeal will obviously be the credit and bragging rights he'll get.

'custom stock shoots' sites have failed before.  This guy is no different, especially when you're trying to promote 'professional' work and all you have is weekend snappers.

"Ireland has produced world-class companies that have exploited the potential of supplying images online before."

Boy, he nailed it there.  "Ethical crowdsourcing".

Must admit I can't see how this is any different to the "Request New Content" forum on IS, other than it being much more complicated and not being addressed to a stock-shooting fraternity who understand the technical requirements, etc.

On the IS forum there is a magazine that every month gives out 3 recipes and requests vertical and horizontal shots of each. The 'lucky winner' gets to sell ... er, two images for their trouble. Oh, nearly forgot, they also get a 'credit' and a copy of the magazine too. Invariably the recipes are in tiny niche subjects which are unlikely to get many further sales (apart from the fact that the recipes themselves have all been done to death anyway). It always amazes me how many contributors beaver away in response to the request.

Here's one of the posts. Never in the field of stock photography have so many mushrooms been stuffed (with macadamia) by so many for so few potential sales. Makes me wonder who is getting the greater stuffing __ the mushrooms or the participants?

http://www.istockphoto.com/forum_messages.php?threadid=260401&page=1

I liked the idea of ethical crowdsourcing, but honestly don't see how this idea could possibly end up being a successful business. At 30K competitions a year, they'd have to sell the photos for a lot - or charge the camera clubs a ton for these competitions in the cloud  - to make any money.

Even if you forget the thought that camera clubs will deliver lovely black & whites to hang on a wall vs. the type of stock that gets bought, even if you don't worry about model releases, IP and other legal issues, even if you ignore the issue of not many camera clubs in some of the locations that sell a lot of stock, aren't the club members going to lose interest if one or two of the members always make the sale (the sjlocke of Celbridge Camera Club)?

Where was the "ethical" part of it?  I must have missed that.

I think that's the spin they're giving to the fact that they're not handing out money. Money is dirty and 'unethical' you see. This is confirmed by Kelly Thompson of Istockphoto who recently told us we don't really come to his website for it.

It would appear that the first competition is up & running too;

http://www.picturk.com/?p=1

Bizarrely the 'Leader Board' is currently topped by a Mr Joris Vreeke, who has 3 votes, and who also happens to be one of the three judges. Just as well they're so very 'ethical' otherwise we might think something funny was going on.

Well hope no one from Ireland is hoping to join the club in anticipation of a revenue stream. From the site:

Prizes will be in the form of Vouchers for Conns Cameras, Dublin

You know, if I wanted to harness the mighty power of the interweb to do some "ethical crowd-sourcing", I probably wouldn't choose a little Irish camera shop as the only place that prize vouchers could be exchanged.

According to the Siliconrepublic report Geraghty "... spent 3 months developing his idea for Picturk". Yeah right.

Quote from: stormchaser on January 14, 2011, 15:19

I really thought Jerry Kennelly was much smarter than this.

This isn't his venture, the article merely mentions that he was forthcoming with advice

Probably was "Don't quit your day job...".

& I'm sure that is what would have been said to a couple of bicycle makers from Dayton Ohio or two a couple of Steves making computers in a garage ....

Huh? You are comparing this obviously hopeless (and way behind the time) enterprise with the invention of flight, etc? Oh I see.

Particularly those who have to cower in anonymity because they fear reprisal from their agents for speaking their mind ...

I'm curious who is the one "cowering in anonymity" when we all know (and respect!) Sean but you have no website, portfolio links or anything else to identify YOU? Something about a pot and a kettle comes to mind, but in this case the kettle isn't even black!

Quote from: michealo on January 15, 2011, 13:36

Quote from: elvinstar on January 15, 2011, 11:02

Quote

Particularly those who have to cower in anonymity because they fear reprisal from their agents for speaking their mind ...

I'm curious who is the one "cowering in anonymity" when we all know (and respect!) Sean but you have no website, portfolio links or anything else to identify YOU? Something about a pot and a kettle comes to mind, but in this case the kettle isn't even black!

It's not that hard to work out who I am, it wouldn't take a plane scientist much less a rocket scientist

& I wasn't referring to Sean but rather Gostwyck, to whom my most recent reply was directed to ...

Sean's an iStock exclusive and they aren't the agency that has taken reprisals against people speaking out in off-site forums.

One of the other agencies has. They are a pain in the butt, but it's the reality. There are a number of anonymous people here who have been around microstock a while, have portfolios at most of the big agencies and have a lot to lose if they get their account cancelled at this agency that doesn't take criticism well. Don't blame the anonymous posters, blame the agency that plays hardball.

I do know who Gostwyck is, but I have no idea who you are. And I do think that one anonymous poster calling another out for being anonymous is a bit rich.

I know Sean is an iStock exclusive, in fact I would say he is the iStock exclusive.

I also know who Gostwyck is, there is no real anonymity on the web ...

I think that's the spin they're giving to the fact that they're not handing out money. Money is dirty and 'unethical' you see. This is confirmed by Kelly Thompson of Istockphoto who recently told us we don't really come to his website for it.

It would appear that the first competition is up & running too;

newbielink:http://www.picturk.com/?p=1 [nonactive]

Bizarrely the 'Leader Board' is currently topped by a Mr Joris Vreeke, who has 3 votes, and who also happens to be one of the three judges. Just as well they're so very 'ethical' otherwise we might think something funny was going on.

Thank you for the link and spotting the bug. Joris name was there in error and has been removed from the leader board.
Picturk