pancakes

MicrostockGroup Sponsors


Author Topic: Did a Test at IStock  (Read 33585 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

« Reply #75 on: August 18, 2009, 21:44 »
0
the mea culpa is all a bit too wierd for me ... even rinder is drinking the kool aid ... jeesh ...


« Reply #76 on: August 18, 2009, 21:49 »
0
Eh
what to say
iStock = iStock

« Reply #77 on: August 18, 2009, 22:07 »
0
of course he got himself suspended.  you try to show up the site, they are going to nail you in some way. 

I don't blame the site for doing it, and I hope they set a precedent because you can't have non-exclusives and exclusives doing that sort of stuff to completely tarnish whatever image remains to the buyers.

« Reply #78 on: August 18, 2009, 22:20 »
0
of course he got himself suspended.  you try to show up the site, they are going to nail you in some way. 

I don't blame the site for doing it, and I hope they set a precedent because you can't have non-exclusives and exclusives doing that sort of stuff to completely tarnish whatever image remains to the buyers.


I agree with you ... business is business and this is a business ... nothing more and nothing less ...

PaulieWalnuts

  • On the Wrong Side of the Business
« Reply #79 on: August 18, 2009, 22:35 »
0
Eh
what to say
iStock = iStock
Suljo, you realize this is an inside joke and you're the only insider, right?  Maybe we'll get it someday. Keep at it.

Noodles

« Reply #80 on: August 18, 2009, 22:36 »
0
"ALL ANIMALS ARE EQUAL, BUT SOME ARE MORE EQUAL THAN OTHERS"  


....  :)

SNP

  • Canadian Photographer
« Reply #81 on: August 18, 2009, 22:39 »
0
I have to chuckle sometimes...I'm sure the iStock admins sit around and read the stupid things people say about them in here and laugh it off entirely. I would if I were them. the OP deserved a suspended account, if not more for essentially and dishonestly gaming the system. it isn't communist to protect your capital interests...if you're going to use a political analogy, at least be sure it applies.

bittersweet

« Reply #82 on: August 18, 2009, 23:43 »
0
Eh
what to say
iStock = iStock
Suljo, you realize this is an inside joke and you're the only insider, right?  Maybe we'll get it someday. Keep at it.

Thanks for saying what we've all been thinking.  ;)

« Reply #83 on: August 18, 2009, 23:50 »
0
I feel for ya Laurin, I stood up against the BS treatment we were all getting and everyone else is still getting at Fotolia and they deleted me. Was booted from Istock once too a long time ago though I went back later. In truth though I am not sure they have legitimate grounds to dump you here. If you truly transferred the to the exclusive who then uploaded them then he owns them and can distribute them as he sees fit. I think you are simply being punished in a banging on the shield sort of way as IStock wants you to know they are bigger and badder then you are. But come on every agency out there has forgotten their place in this industry. They seem to think that we work for them but lets face it, they are the agent and as such they work for us. We own the content and united we have the power. The problem lies in the fact that microstock contributors have never had the balls to band together and demand to be treated like clients rather then employees.

« Reply #84 on: August 18, 2009, 23:57 »
+1
of course he got himself suspended.  you try to show up the site, they are going to nail you in some way. 

I don't blame the site for doing it, and I hope they set a precedent because you can't have non-exclusives and exclusives doing that sort of stuff to completely tarnish whatever image remains to the buyers.


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 guns.  

Oh well, iStock will probably have something to say about it at some point, we may never hear about it though.  Regardless, I would take anything Rinder says with a grain of salt (or a cube, or a kilo) - but the proof for that kind of stuff is in previous threads  

Have a good one

Your are being generous. Does anyone actually read rinders posts?  I don't believe a word he posts 90% of the time, he contradicts himself within minutes or at best days. I think the majority of his responses are made up on the spot to facilitate his agenda.  Need I say more?  If you actually care about integrity do yourself a favor and spend some time looking at the inconsistency's in his relentless promotional spins.

« Reply #85 on: August 19, 2009, 00:27 »
0
I feel for ya Laurin, I stood up against the BS treatment we were all getting and everyone else is still getting at Fotolia and they deleted me. Was booted from Istock once too a long time ago though I went back later. In truth though I am not sure they have legitimate grounds to dump you here. If you truly transferred the to the exclusive who then uploaded them then he owns them and can distribute them as he sees fit. I think you are simply being punished in a banging on the shield sort of way as IStock wants you to know they are bigger and badder then you are. But come on every agency out there has forgotten their place in this industry. They seem to think that we work for them but lets face it, they are the agent and as such they work for us. We own the content and united we have the power. The problem lies in the fact that microstock contributors have never had the balls to band together and demand to be treated like clients rather then employees.

Well that's the bottom line issue is it not? at the end of the day they don't need the photographers as much as the photographers need them ... it's like crossing a picket line ... in this business there are 5 people who will not cross the line and thousands who not only cross the picket line, but see doing so as a wonderful chance to make more money for themselves cause their competition is holding up the signs on the line ... it might be sad but it is what it is ... the contributor pool is infinite ... the number of sites that make people decent money is very very small ...

« Reply #86 on: August 19, 2009, 01:01 »
0
I feel for ya Laurin, I stood up against the BS treatment we were all getting and everyone else is still getting at Fotolia and they deleted me. Was booted from Istock once too a long time ago though I went back later. In truth though I am not sure they have legitimate grounds to dump you here. If you truly transferred the to the exclusive who then uploaded them then he owns them and can distribute them as he sees fit. I think you are simply being punished in a banging on the shield sort of way as IStock wants you to know they are bigger and badder then you are. But come on every agency out there has forgotten their place in this industry. They seem to think that we work for them but lets face it, they are the agent and as such they work for us. We own the content and united we have the power. The problem lies in the fact that microstock contributors have never had the balls to band together and demand to be treated like clients rather then employees.

Well that's the bottom line issue is it not? at the end of the day they don't need the photographers as much as the photographers need them ... it's like crossing a picket line ... in this business there are 5 people who will not cross the line and thousands who not only cross the picket line, but see doing so as a wonderful chance to make more money for themselves cause their competition is holding up the signs on the line ... it might be sad but it is what it is ... the contributor pool is infinite ... the number of sites that make people decent money is very very small ...

It is without doubt the fly in the ointment in this industry and is a big part of why I have moved so much of my effort away from microstock and stated focusing on my commercial and glamour work as well as my workshops and building the reputation of my studio as the place to rent when you need a studio space in Las Vegas. I do believe stock still offers a lot of opportunity for the professional and enthusiastic amateur I just think that most of those opportunities now lie in the niche mid stock priced markets and in new markets which microstock has yet to find an avenue to exploit. Commercial client shooting is changing it is becoming more royalty free focused with the client looking to be able to maximize the utility of the images they pay the commercial photographer to create. More often then not today my commercial shoots include licensing  rights for internal royalty free stock use in the contract. Three years ago this was rare, today it is common place for the client to ask for it.

« Reply #87 on: August 19, 2009, 01:29 »
0
If it is just a temporary suspension, I don't think it is a problem.  istock have the right to suspend people if they want and it is understandable that they don't want people doing this.  Just reading the OP, I can see why they have taken this action.  I just hope the exclusive was suspended as well.

« Reply #88 on: August 19, 2009, 02:09 »
0
and let's not forget too that microstock is not the entirely "bad guy" in this whole thing either ... it has opened up an opportunity - for both buyers and sellers - that did not previously exist and I am for one am grateful for that.

BTW - the issue would not have beeon one of copyright ... you are perfectly free to assign your copyright to any party - I expect the issue is more of pulling a sneaky and then publicly discussing it ... free speach is one thing ... but the consequences of speaking freely are another ...

« Reply #89 on: August 19, 2009, 02:23 »
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 #90 on: August 19, 2009, 02:34 »
0
^^^^^ That sums it up, the reality of all types of business, but many photographers do not have a business head and just upload everything everywhere, building up lots of smaller stocksites that are looking to make a buck with a buyout, futher diluting the customers revenue, weakening the contributors position in the business, adding pressure to the main stocksites revenue share and margins and causing reductions in commission percentages, next time a company cuts the contributors share we need to look closer to home for the reasons.

David  ::)
« Last Edit: August 19, 2009, 02:36 by Adeptris »

« Reply #91 on: August 19, 2009, 03:19 »
0
^^^ I disagree.  The smartest business heads are either exclusive or uploading to lots of sites, just look at the top earning non-exclusives and they have their portfolio on lots of sites.  Some of the smaller sites pay me 50-70% commission, have an extremely low rejection rate, let me set higher prices if I want to, do everything they can to keep their contributors happy and spend some of their valuable time answering questions here.  They also add a lot of additional income over time.  I would prefer it if buyers moved from a site that pays me 20% commission to one that pays me 50-70%.  I am sure the big sites could all pay us at least 50% commission and still make a good profit.  I don't believe they are having to cut our commissions, they are doing it to make more money.

If we all just used one or two sites, why would they raise our commission?  They would be able to do whatever they wanted.


« Reply #92 on: August 19, 2009, 03:20 »
0
^^^^^ That sums it up, the reality of all types of business, but many photographers do not have a business head and just upload everything everywhere, building up lots of smaller stocksites that are looking to make a buck with a buyout, further diluting the customers revenue, weakening the contributors position in the business, adding pressure to the main stocksites revenue share and margins and causing reductions in commission percentages, next time a company cuts the contributors share we need to look closer to home for the reasons.

David  ::)

It is true, we have no one to blame but ourselves. Because of the global nature of this collective as individuals known as the contributor base we lack the fundamental ability to rise cohesively as a single unit. If we could we could force changes. Sadly the contributor base comes from to many widely varying socio-economic environments for us to be able to rally a significant majority to support anything.  A great many of us live in Countries where  even in times of economic downturn our economy is very strong in comparison to many smaller, weaker less financially wealthy countries. So while we feel the sting of the loss of sales or cut royalty rates, those living in economies where the dollar is significantly stronger then their own currency don't care. By earning US Dollars they are still earning more at pennies a license then they do working a regular job 40 hours a week. In fact for those that are even marginally successful they are living at a very high standard for their homelands all because of Microstock. Getting those people to stand up against the machine simply is not going to happen yet for us to band together we need those people.
« Last Edit: August 19, 2009, 03:23 by photoshow »

« Reply #93 on: August 19, 2009, 03:31 »
0
^^^ I disagree.  The smartest business heads are either exclusive or uploading to lots of sites, just look at the top earning non-exclusives and they have their portfolio on lots of sites.  Some of the smaller sites pay me 50-70% commission, have an extremely low rejection rate, let me set higher prices if I want to, do everything they can to keep their contributors happy and spend some of their valuable time answering questions here.  They also add a lot of additional income over time.  I would prefer it if buyers moved from a site that pays me 20% commission to one that pays me 50-70%.  I am sure the big sites could all pay us at least 50% commission and still make a good profit.  I don't believe they are having to cut our commissions, they are doing it to make more money.

If we all just used one or two sites, why would they raise our commission?  They would be able to do whatever they wanted.

Until some of these agencies actually go out and start exploiting new markets for our images it is pretty much irrelevant which site the buyers move to. Even with higher royalties at one VS the other in the end your bottom line won't change significantly with the way they are currently operating. Right now they are all still competing for the same buyer pool. Nothing really changes in the big picture when one agency lowers prices or a new agency starts to get a toe hold in the market. The increased market share of one equates to the decreased market share of the competing agency. They are all just trading market share back and forth. Nothing will change until something changes. There are a great many untapped niche and longtail markets out there that would allow an agency to actually grow not steal it's market share. Sadly until one of them realizes this trend  these markets will remain unexploited and we will continue to watch the agencies play tennis with the same buyers as they swat them back and forth between themselves.

« Reply #94 on: August 19, 2009, 03:48 »
0
I believe some of them are going out and finding new markets.  Some of them are using new 3rd party sites that none of the other sites have used before and some are using their own marketing to bring in new customers.  Do buyers leave the big established sites with millions of images to go to new smaller sites with smaller collections?  I don't think so.  It shouldn't be used as an excuse to cut our commissions.

Xalanx

« Reply #95 on: August 19, 2009, 03:51 »
0
What's even more funny is that the CEOs and admins of the agencies claim on their forums that they have respect for contributors and they care and so on and so forth.

« Reply #96 on: August 19, 2009, 03:53 »
0
<...
>...
I don't believe they are having to cut our commissions, they are doing it to make more money.

If we all just used one or two sites, why would they raise our commission?  They would be able to do whatever they wanted.

The stocksites are the same as the photographer and run thier business on RPI, thiers is the required RPI across all assets in the library and would be calculated for thier business plan, based on what would be needed to run thier business on the current and projected market share, revenue needed to covers overheads, marketing, and all the other running costs to produce a minimum profit margin.

When there were fewer sites competing the RPI was easier to predict, but increasingly it is coming under pressure from changes in buying patterns, the recession, the number of new sites with the same model chomping away at the same revenue, as much as we like to think that businesses are run on pure greed it is not always the case, and supporting smaller sites with higher commission may not be of benefit, you may make 50% - 60% on the new website but loose more revenue longer term when the bigger site have to squeeze the contributor to maintain RPI.

And you are correct that as the smaller website fail and the revenue returns to the larger websites they will not pass this back down to the contributors, still the same questions must be asked with a new site, what is the model and where is the customer base coming from, if it is from the same pool of customers we should avoid the new website, but how many are just taken in by the hype rather than asking the questions from a business perspective.

David  :D    

« Reply #97 on: August 19, 2009, 03:57 »
0
I am not surprised they deleted his account. He played against basic rules, and he said that here. But on the other hand, I think IS should just say something, and explain why they deleted his account, because that would be professional from their side.
This way, by deleting his account without a single note, it looks like they demonstrate power.
I'm curious why several believe that they did it with no notice. Do you have direct confirmation of this from Laurin? Or are you assuming it because they haven't come here to explain themselves to all of you?


I expected them to write something here because Laurin also wrote here what he did. I know it was stupid of me, but I guess I would do that in their place. This forum doesn't belong to IS and they are not in obligation to post here.

Does anyone know what happened to exclusive? IS policy say that one can submit only images taken by him/her self.

« Reply #98 on: August 19, 2009, 04:23 »
0
Seriously can anyone quote directly from the IStock TOS what rule Laurin actually violated other then potentially embarrassing a personality in power at IStock?
The exclusive uploaded the images not Laurin. When Laurin uploaded them they did indeed belong to him, taken by him. When he transfers the copyright to the exclusive they then belong to the exclusive as if he had indeed taken them himself. Istock is splitting hairs here. How many Wizdata type contributors do you think there are on IStock , does not ISotck actually represent some older vintage collections that are repped by another agency that simply holds the copyright to them. How about NASA Images, they are public domain and yet they get uploaded everyday.

How about this Exclusive portfolio with tons of Vintage Photos dating back as far as 1916 were these all uploaded by the person who shot them or by the person who controls the copyright? How about model releases on them, there are multiple people in them many of whom are presumably still living?

The response of Istock to Laurin is not about breaking some upload rule it is about Chest Thumping, it is Alpha Dog behavior. The only thing Laurin appears to be guilty of here is bad judgment and poking the bear.

« Reply #99 on: August 19, 2009, 04:46 »
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.


 

Related Topics

  Subject / Started by Replies Last post
11 Replies
4812 Views
Last post July 16, 2011, 20:52
by Will Dutt
55 Replies
10293 Views
Last post August 16, 2011, 16:06
by Suljo
6 Replies
1205 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
2849 Views
Last post April 23, 2013, 07:23
by archibald1221

Sponsors

Microstock Poll Results