MicrostockGroup Sponsors


Author Topic: Did a Test at IStock  (Read 33588 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

« Reply #100 on: August 19, 2009, 05:29 »
0
There are many many contributors who submit under one copyright but are actually a number of different photographers ... heck there are several husband and wife teams who talk about it openly in the forums ... the coyright owner and the person who actually took the image need not be the same legal person - people assign copyright all the time ... we require it in my business everyday.


« Reply #101 on: August 19, 2009, 06:02 »
0
Yes, the copyright thing shouldn't be an issue.  I think this more falls under the "Rules of Conduct" here:
http://www.istockphoto.com/legal.php

« Reply #102 on: August 19, 2009, 06:43 »
0
No I don't think MicroStock is the bad guy but I do believe that the agencies have lost sight of the reality of an Agent / Client relationship. Somehow they have gotten it twisted and believe that we are employees but we should all remember that without OUR CONTENT they have nothing but empty servers and Databases with no data. Their livelihood is 100% dependent on our intellectual property. The relationship is meant to be symbiotic but like Government the agencies gain strength from the collective because while each of us earns a small amount each month they earn from each of us exponentially. This exponential financial growth equates to power for them and eventually they loose sight of how they got so powerful in the first place. In the end they are wealthy and they sell their servers and databases to even wealthier people for many millions of dollars and they go off and live the lives of wealthy people while we sit here shaking our head wondering how they got rich and we did not even get a thank you.


++  ;)

« Reply #103 on: August 19, 2009, 06:44 »
0
His exclusive friend violated these 2 rules:

2. You must own the full copyright to any image you upload. This means you must be the photographer or artist that created the image.
7. Legal notice: uploading images/artwork that belongs to somebody else (copyright or otherwise) will result in a suspended membership and in some cases may have legal ramifications.
I found it here:
http://www.istockphoto.com/faq.php?FormName=FaqSearchForm&Category=5

I am not sure if there is a specific rule that says it's forbidden to give your images to somebody else.


number 2 is incorrect. you can own full copyright without being the photographer or artist that created the image. It is common practice for people / companies that hire photographers or artists to stipulate that the hirer owns copyright of the photographers work done for the company. If it was correct it also means you cannot operate through a company as it is a seperate legal entity.

(OT in another thread was IT work, the contracts I was given (early 90's) assigned all copyright and IP to the company of all work I did, irrespective of whether it was IT related and specifically stating that it included stuff in my own time that was not work related (I was through an international agency with tens of thousands of it people on similar contracts.)


 

Microbius

« Reply #104 on: August 19, 2009, 06:46 »
0
  I still don't know if the test actually took place, any idea who the other person is supposed to be? It's worse if it didn't because then it's bad mouthing the agency without any evidence. Either way, I think IStock can suspend an account for any reason they like, you're not an employee of the company.

What better reason then going out of your way to discredit their review process then posting the evidence all over contributor forums?

Just found the SS forum post from today where LR admits it was three images not ten (exaggeration surprise, surprise) and it was a year ago and the other guy deleted them straight away.
Not sure if this means:
A. I made this up and hope they can't trace the images from that long ago or may let me not name other "person"
or
B. This happened but I'm pointlessly trawling it up now and making it sound recent when what IStock was doing back then is totally irrelevant  just because I got a rejection

Also, pretty unwise to be further publicizing the incident on a competitor's website. Even if you are being contrite you are still saying IS reviews are inconsistent on the SS forum (and also still heralding yourself as a hero of the microstock community for exposing it quote "If any of you have read me, really read me, Im for US. Not them, I always will be and they will never shut me up... PERIOD.")

EDIT: just reread the first post in this thread "I'll just submit through him from now on" really? from a year ago?
« Last Edit: August 19, 2009, 06:49 by Microbius »

« Reply #105 on: August 19, 2009, 06:50 »
0
@Phil:
 Well, I just did copy/paste these rules from IS terms and conditions. I don't know if it's legal or not, but they say just like that: "....This means you must be the photographer or artist that created the image."

« Reply #106 on: August 19, 2009, 07:00 »
0
learn to use polarizer filters and you can make the water green or yellow or orange and the sky green or purple or whatever in between, and much much more

Do you even know what a polarizer is?

« Reply #107 on: August 19, 2009, 07:15 »
0
Just found the SS forum post from today where LR admits it was three images not ten (exaggeration surprise, surprise) and it was a year ago and the other guy deleted them straight away.


Boy, they quite idolize him over there.  Odd how everyone seems to think this was quite the excellent idea.

http://submit.shutterstock.com/forum/abt67917.html

Microbius

« Reply #108 on: August 19, 2009, 07:26 »
0
Just found the SS forum post from today where LR admits it was three images not ten (exaggeration surprise, surprise) and it was a year ago and the other guy deleted them straight away.


Boy, they quite idolize him over there.  Odd how everyone seems to think this was quite the excellent idea.

http://submit.shutterstock.com/forum/abt67917.html


Yeah he's got a whole weird fantasy persona over there. Built himself quite a little empire. I think he's in tight with the management or something because they let him advertize on the forums etc.

« Reply #109 on: August 19, 2009, 07:43 »
0
The SS forums are full of crap, and many of them drink whatever poison is put in front of them.  I cannot stand looking at the posts anymore. 

« Reply #110 on: August 19, 2009, 07:52 »
0
@Phil:
 Well, I just did copy/paste these rules from IS terms and conditions. I don't know if it's legal or not, but they say just like that: "....This means you must be the photographer or artist that created the image."

HI,

sorry didn't mean it to say you wrong, just that the rule is wrong (and of course it could be that I'm the one who is wrong :))

bittersweet

« Reply #111 on: August 19, 2009, 07:54 »
0
Yes, the copyright thing shouldn't be an issue.  I think this more falls under the "Rules of Conduct" here:
http://www.istockphoto.com/legal.php


I agree.

« Reply #112 on: August 19, 2009, 07:54 »
0
The SS forums are full of crap, and many of them drink whatever poison is put in front of them.  I cannot stand looking at the posts anymore. 

often feel that way about all the sites forum's... then we get the trolls and garbage here...

« Reply #113 on: August 19, 2009, 08:16 »
0
I think Laurin doesn't need a protection here, but I would just like to tell you a little story about my application at SS, and the way he helped me to make it.

When I applied third time at SS I posted my 10 images at SS critique forum, and after several positive and negative answers from other users Laurin gave me his opinion. He was pretty harsh, and I must say my blood pressure raised to about 200 I guess :D but I decided to stay calm, not to fight, but to try to apply some things he said to me. We started some kind of a chat on the forum, and he sounded pretty arrogant to me, and I wanted so badly to say something rude to him, something to release my anger...but I kept my mouths shut and I decided to do whatever he says to make my images look the way he wanted. The thread became a conversation of two of us, and I continued to edit my images and post them there for him to see what I did. After it we continued our conversation by p.m. later that day, I submitted my 10 images for application, and I passed. I was so happy! I wrote a p.m. to him to say how thankful I am, and he told me that he knew I'll make it, because he saw my great desire to get into SS, and he saw how persistent I am. His help meant a lot to me.
After it, I helped in similar way to few other people to pass SS application.

So, he maybe often sounds arrogant and cruel, but I think he is not that bad person at all. I guess I am not the only person he helped. We all are good and bad in the same time, in some way.
« Last Edit: August 19, 2009, 08:18 by Whitechild »

« Reply #114 on: August 19, 2009, 08:28 »
0
It is nice to know that IS is not easily manipulated or intimidated for that matter. Ethics are in short supply these days. IS made a wise choice, lets hope that they stick to their gun

I personally have seen IS exert some of their own brand of intimidation, so let's not be calling LR unethical without including some of these microstock companies in the conversation about ethics.

By the way, I personally believe that LR's ONE test may have proved his theory. But I know that on any given day at any of the microstocks, my image could be rejected and if I chose to immediately resubmit, could very possibly be accepted the second time around by a different reviewer. So in the end, his test indeed did not really prove a lot. If he submitted 50 images over a period of time and every single one of them had exactly the same outcome, then I would agree that he had proved something we all suspect is true.

« Reply #115 on: August 19, 2009, 09:46 »
0
OK, well I've been with them since the beginning, Im sick of the silly ignorant rejections. I sent a friend of mine 10 Images that were rejected for  You know   "Over filtered" the only thing I think they teach them. i dont use filters so It's always funny.   Anyway He's Exclusive and has all the little BS hats, crowns and stuff they give you. He submitted them and Bingo all 10 approved. there ya go. Your Mileage may vary. I'll just submit through Him from now on. for what they pay, Who in . are they Kidding?
hmm you should have  control tests and give those 10 images to a non exclusive with many sales, and to a newbie, and send them in one batch,and in small batches, on wendsdays, when tougher inspectors are on vacation, send some that are trully overfiltered and some that aren't, some that are very good despite the overfiltering, and some that can't be saved no matter how much filtering.
I'm afraid that to prove something like that a more elaborate test is needed.

« Reply #116 on: August 19, 2009, 12:02 »
0
 I still don't know if the test actually took place, any idea who the other person is supposed to be? It's worse if it didn't because then it's bad mouthing the agency without any evidence. Either way, I think IStock can suspend an account for any reason they like, you're not an employee of the company.

What better reason then going out of your way to discredit their review process then posting the evidence all over contributor forums?

Just found the SS forum post from today where LR admits it was three images not ten (exaggeration surprise, surprise) and it was a year ago and the other guy deleted them straight away.
Not sure if this means:
A. I made this up and hope they can't trace the images from that long ago or may let me not name other "person"
or
B. This happened but I'm pointlessly trawling it up now and making it sound recent when what IStock was doing back then is totally irrelevant  just because I got a rejection

Also, pretty unwise to be further publicizing the incident on a competitor's website. Even if you are being contrite you are still saying IS reviews are inconsistent on the SS forum (and also still heralding yourself as a hero of the microstock community for exposing it quote "If any of you have read me, really read me, Im for US. Not them, I always will be and they will never shut me up... PERIOD.")

EDIT: just reread the first post in this thread "I'll just submit through him from now on" really? from a year ago?


Very few of us would intentionally mislead people and that is the very reason some people get away with doing so. We judge others based on who we are. In all fairness to IS we do not have a history of interactions between the person in question and their administration, reviewers etc. We do not have all the information they used to make their determination.

Business ethics and signed business agreements keep some of us from telling the rest of the story in regard to similar situations! However based on first hand experience with some of the methods employed, I can say that your questions and observations about this recent fiasco are completely in line with the modus operandi I have come to expect!


« Reply #117 on: August 19, 2009, 12:25 »
0
Great story Whitechild,

Good of you to keep your head on straight when the blood preasure went up :) Also Bravo for passing it forward and for supporting someone that was there for you. He was right you did make it, congrats!

Cheers,
Jonathan

SNP

  • Canadian Photographer
« Reply #118 on: August 19, 2009, 13:09 »
0
it may be a nice story whitechild, but the OP didn't show great judgment in testing a company and forcing the company to protect itself by publicly libeling istock. there are lots of us, exclusive or not, who deal with rejected files. sometimes the rejections make sense and many times they don't make sense--to us. obviously we felt the files were worthy or we would not submit them for inspection. to suggest that it is policy to reject non-exclusive (or anyone else's) files out of principle or out of malice is ridiculous, especially considering that they make more money if they sell a file via a non-exclusive vs. an exclusive. if you argue that once in a while special consideration is given to prominent, well known contributors or fellow inspectors....I MIGHT buy that. but I would not buy malicious treatment of contributors ever on the part of IS inspectors.

« Reply #119 on: August 19, 2009, 13:18 »
0
I think the iconclusion that IS makes more money selling a non-exclusive photo is an oversimplification.  They'd expect to sell an exclusive photo more times than a photo also available elsewhere.  They clearly have an interest in attracting and retaining exclusive contributors.

Off the top of my head, I'm guessing that photos from exclusives are routed to the more experienced reviewers.  

« Last Edit: August 19, 2009, 13:20 by stockastic »

SNP

  • Canadian Photographer
« Reply #120 on: August 19, 2009, 13:32 »
0
^ I didn't mean to oversimplify. but it is a much broader and less likely oversimplification to suggest that non-exclusives are railroaded intentionally. afterall, if a file is good, it will sell and make money for the company. why reject it just to be mean or out of some warped exclusionary principle?

« Reply #121 on: August 19, 2009, 13:44 »
0
Oh well, this topic seems to come up in many ways.  This new way though, I'm glad it was a bone-headed move by someone who is always at the centre of speculation and most likely a publicity stunt (no one can be that ridiculous to think they can post to a public, very popular forum and there would be no backlash) and that there is talk about it and how dumb of a move it was (outside of the SS forums because most of them are brainwashed). 

Bottom line is this.  The man talks and talks, and he's been asked and asked repeatedly to produce certain evidence (there was a very popular thread here a while back) but he has never pulled through on any of those requests to validate his claims.  At first, I can see how newbies can be blinded by his impeccable grammar, I know that in the beginning I did seem to read more of his posts.  However, over time, you come to realize that while he does have very nice photographs within his microstock portfolio, he also types a hell of a lot and gets under the skin of a lot more people - in the end, it always revolves around his 'classes' - as he claims he's never for "them" and he's "for us" on the SS forums - and I wouldn't be surprised if this was another attempt at that.


bittersweet

« Reply #122 on: August 19, 2009, 13:56 »
0
.

« Reply #123 on: August 19, 2009, 15:55 »
0
 Hi All,

 I also agree that I don't think Istock is as tough as people make them out to be between on how they treat their non exclusives vs. their exclusives. They offer some perks to exclusives like larger uploads and they can get an editor they like to work with but I don't believe higher acceptance rate is part of that package. I have been seeing my acceptance rate at Istock increase more and more as we have added files and learned what to do on our back end to meet their technical needs. All these agencies have different standards that others, some tighter than others. The trick is listening to them and finding a way to fix what isn't working. My last istock upload was 100% accepted and when I started it was down at 65% or something of that nature. The more you listen to your agencies requests I think you will find higher acceptance rates. My 2 cents.

Best,
Jonathan

« Reply #124 on: August 19, 2009, 15:56 »
0
they can get an editor they like to work with

?


 

Related Topics

  Subject / Started by Replies Last post
11 Replies
4814 Views
Last post July 16, 2011, 20:52
by Will Dutt
55 Replies
10294 Views
Last post August 16, 2011, 16:06
by Suljo
6 Replies
1207 Views
Last post December 17, 2012, 14:16
by WarrenPrice
6 Replies
1589 Views
Last post January 15, 2013, 03:49
by sdeva
12 Replies
2851 Views
Last post April 23, 2013, 07:23
by archibald1221

Sponsors

Microstock Poll Results