0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.
I deleted all my images from Crestock, -Not enough sales -Lousy commision-Bad review process-and a spokesperson who (as this thread proves) hasn't got a clue about photography.IMO this isn't the way to conduct a successful business, especially one where there's so much competition.The only good thing about Crestock is Josh, if you read this Josh get a job with iStock!
Quote from: Contakt on April 28, 2008, 05:31if there's one dope thats going to hasten the death of any stock site its that arrogunt wigged gobshite waving his gavel around like he knows what hes talking about. so incensed wuz i by some of his off the wall critiques i simply stopped uploading, which reminds me i must delete whats already up there. You sound familiar. Contakt = Editorial?
if there's one dope thats going to hasten the death of any stock site its that arrogunt wigged gobshite waving his gavel around like he knows what hes talking about. so incensed wuz i by some of his off the wall critiques i simply stopped uploading, which reminds me i must delete whats already up there.
What I would like to know is why a site which has REJECTEDan image feels it has the right to use that image in any manner other than for record keeping purposes.
Quote from: rosta on April 29, 2008, 05:45What I would like to know is why a site which has REJECTEDan image feels it has the right to use that image in any manner other than for record keeping purposes.To be completely honest, as far as I was aware we were using images in this segment from a database that we'd taken ourselves. (We are quite the bunch of talented photographers). The image from Lior, seems to be an exception that has slipped thru because its from someone who is an active photographer and the image isn't so terrible. Again, I understand this to be a mistake, and an exception.
Lior, our apologies because there seems to have been a small error made here. Without wanting to kill any of the myth or controversy of Judge Ross, images are chosen so that they will not offend. That is, from contributors who haven't been active in 2 years. The chances that the original contributor will see the images are slim. And, then, in this case, it was a 'borderline' rejection (don't know exactly as i can't find the full-size original) and the reasons for rejection aren't apparent at preview size. I believe this was a mistake, and this is not the intended result of Judge Ross' picks.
I just noticed that Crestock has one of my images in the worst picture section. (A picture that has in fact sold quite well on other sites.) I have never been asked for permission to use this picture, and would not have given permission if I had been asked.I would like to know what recompense Crestock are going to offer for using my image without my permission.
... images are chosen so that they will not offend. That is, from contributors who haven't been active in 2 years. The chances that the original contributor will see the images are slim. ...
To be completely honest, as far as I was aware we were using images in this segment from a database that we'd taken ourselves.
Quote from: josh_crestock on April 29, 2008, 01:11... images are chosen so that they will not offend. That is, from contributors who haven't been active in 2 years. The chances that the original contributor will see the images are slim. ...Quote from: josh_crestock on April 29, 2008, 06:12To be completely honest, as far as I was aware we were using images in this segment from a database that we'd taken ourselves.Am I the only one who sees these two statements as contradicting one another?
to quote a former poster who was banned from this forum, i';d love to c things from his point of view but i don't think i could get my head that far up my ass
Here it is:https://www.crestock.com/todays-worst-image.aspx?id=327
Quote from: Clivia on April 29, 2008, 09:28Here it is:https://www.crestock.com/todays-worst-image.aspx?id=327While some people do find the 'worst image' feature quite entertaining, clearly the intention of Crestock is far removed from humiliating any photographer in any way. This is apparent as it would only be the owner of the photo who would be able to identify the image. There have been contributors in the past who have benefited from this compare and contrast approach of displaying images. However, i think, generally the level of ability of most readers on this forum tends to render this slightly less beneficial. And, i certainly think, that Crestock and the industry as a whole has moved past this and we will be looking to provide more stimulating and relevant content, in the very near future.Thanks,Josh - Crestock.com
Quote from: Clivia on April 29, 2008, 09:28Here it is:https://www.crestock.com/todays-worst-image.aspx?id=327Most of the Judge Ross photos only really work as sets, the 'worst' contrasting the best. - If I'm not mistaken that particular image was contrasting a bowl of fresh fruit or something like that,...
... I don't mind if my photos end up worst of the day but paying us just $0.25 for a download is making me wonder why I am there. ...
Those who know me, know that I speak my mind and have been banned from more than one forum for doing so but it won't shut me up either as you can see.
Quote from: Contakt on April 29, 2008, 10:46Those who know me, know that I speak my mind and have been banned from more than one forum for doing so but it won't shut me up either as you can see.I can think of 3 you have been banned from. It made me laugh the way you disguised some of your posts but it was pretty obvious who you are. I was going to report you but there isn't much point as you will just register under another name. You really do post too much though LOL.
Quote from: josh_crestock on April 29, 2008, 09:58Quote from: Clivia on April 29, 2008, 09:28Here it is:https://www.crestock.com/todays-worst-image.aspx?id=327While some people do find the 'worst image' feature quite entertaining, clearly the intention of Crestock is far removed from humiliating any photographer in any way. This is apparent as it would only be the owner of the photo who would be able to identify the image. There have been contributors in the past who have benefited from this compare and contrast approach of displaying images. However, i think, generally the level of ability of most readers on this forum tends to render this slightly less beneficial. And, i certainly think, that Crestock and the industry as a whole has moved past this and we will be looking to provide more stimulating and relevant content, in the very near future.Thanks,Josh - Crestock.comThose who know me, know that I speak my mind and have been banned from more than one forum for doing so but it won't shut me up either as you can see.I have no doubt that a lot people find Judge Ross's comments highly amusing but you've left out one very important caveat. It's humor at the expense of others. The reality is, Judge Ross's condescending critique is borderline abusive at worst and misguided rubbish at best. None of the comments I have seen to date are in the slightest bit educational and from my perspective seem more designed to humiliate rather than educate.For you to come on here and suggest otherwise is not only an affront to many people's intelligence but to go as far as to say they might not notice is only adding insult to injury.For what it's worth, Judge Ross is a surefire way to alienate some of the v very best photographers on this forum. I don't claim to be one myself but if you think you can get away with satire at any level and without any regard for the reputations you are hurting well then you are sorely mistaken Mr. Josh.
But I must say it's such a relief to be able to spell check again.
Author
Topic: oh, the humiliation... (Read 20335 times)
