MicrostockGroup
Microstock Photography Forum - General => General Stock Discussion => Topic started by: rinderart on August 18, 2009, 00:46
-
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?
-
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?
Sometimes I look at the exclusive only cue, and chuckle to myself what exclusives can get through. However, the last thing I would do, would be to send them to a friend who is exclusive, thereby negating my ability to send to other sites.
Let IStock self-destruct by themselves, whenever a customer searches on a competitors site, and finds what they need, that they were unable to find on IStock, the more likely they will do it again in the future.
-
what I learned about istock as a non-exclusive is to:
- do not send series larger than 2-3 photos. I sent for example about 7 shots from an ancient castle in mountains, a very popular travel destination and after accepting 3 of them, they started seeing noise and artefacts in the rest of the shots. Which were with the same settings, same day, same camera and same lens
- pay attention to the CV. It's horror, but you ought to.
-
>...
<...
Let IStock self-destruct by themselves, whenever a customer searches on a competitors site, and finds what they need, that they were unable to find on IStock, the more likely they will do it again in the future.
Is this not the same argument the exclusives will use, "they can go to the other big sites find the exact same images including most of those rejected by istock, all sites, same images, same artists at different price points, how frustrating for the buyers, then they can come to istock and find quality exclusive content, and more likely they will do it again in the future".
I am not a contributor to Istock so I have no hidden agenda, but your comment does not make sense, if I am looking for a specific images what is the point of me looking on many websites and only seeing the same 100 images for my search time and time again, when I find a website that has some of the better images I have already seen and a few more good images that were not on any of the other websites where will I look next time I want a image?
It is more possible that the other 'open door' websites will self-destruct by presenting almost the exact same set of images for a search as thier rivals, then to one that will win would be the cheapest, and the only way to be the cheapest is by lowering commisions.
David ;)
-
I don't think they just mean filters on the lens, it is also what you do in photoshop. Some reviewers are more lenient than others and it does get frustrating.
Singing over my copyright to an exclusive just to get them accepted doesn't seem like a good solution. Just remove a bit of saturation for istock and keep sending rejections to scout. It is funny that lots of their best selling images should of been rejected for over filtration, if all the reviewers had the same strict standards.
-
ditto what sharpshot said.
taking it easy on the curves is also a way to reduce 'filters'
I have recently been downsizing most of my istock submissions and have had much better luck getting them accepted. A shame they have to be a smaller file, but much better than getting rejects all the time.
-
IStock is right.
i've never seen so many overphotoshopped images like on micros.
you'll hardly find anything "normal", even a simply postcard style
picture with a sky and a mountain will need to have purple layers
in the clouds and oversharpened rocks and ice on the mountain
with more sh-it layered here and there to add more fakeness to
whole composition.
and colors .. gosh .. you'll hardly find a picture on micros with normal
colors .. everything must be oversaturated by default .. grass is always
supergreen, sky is as blue as a diving pool, flowers are booming in a lysergic
raimbow ...
what ?
-
^^^and these sell really well, that is why you see so many.
-
^^^and these sell really well, that is why you see so many.
Exactly. And requires (again) talent in photoshop.
-
i've never seen so many overphotoshopped images like on micros.
you'll hardly find anything "normal", even a simply postcard style
picture with a sky and a mountain will need to have purple layers
in the clouds and oversharpened rocks and ice on the mountain
with more sh-it layered here and there to add more fakeness to
whole composition.
and colors .. gosh .. you'll hardly find a picture on micros with normal
colors .. everything must be oversaturated by default .. grass is always
supergreen, sky is as blue as a diving pool, flowers are booming in a lysergic
raimbow ...
what ?
You obviously know precious little about stock photography if you think that the majority of buyers want 'normal' colours and saturation! It doesn't work like that, never has, never will. Stock images need to have maximum visual impact and you don't get that with everything looking 'normal'. Same with Getty, Corbis, etc.
-
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?
Believe me, ignorant rejections are not in the sole ownership of non exclusives.
For example I posted in a thread on istock this week, I had a series of images of a stormy sea rejected for 'noise', this after a previous image of the same subject in a previous storm had been an IOTW and a "punctum" finalist. I got them overturned and since then 3 were sent to 'vetta' and one was published in istocks recent coffee table charity book.
Only this week images made from the same source material to be in the same series as ones that sold in their thousands last year were rejected as non suitable for stock.
It's easy to be paranoid, but when you're dealing with poorly paid conveyer belt human inspectors snafus and stupidity is commonplace.
-
It's easy to be paranoid, but when you're dealing with poorly paid conveyer belt human inspectors snafus and stupidity is commonplace.
Unfortunately that's the truth.
As they say "Those who can, do; those who can't, inspect". There's a very good reason why virtually none of the major players on IS are inspectors.
-
It's easy to be paranoid, but when you're dealing with poorly paid conveyer belt human inspectors snafus and stupidity is commonplace.
Unfortunately that's the truth.
As they say "Those who can, do; those who can't, inspect". There's a very good reason why virtually none of the major players on IS are inspectors.
lisegagne? spxchrome? - only black diamonds but I guess that doesn't count for much (and yes admins do inspect). mevans (190000), aldra (110000) - no doubt quite a few others, these are just off the top of my head.
-
wrong.
on RM there's plenty of unphotoshopped images that sell.
the reason is simple : the authors managed to get the shot looking good
in the first place just with a normal polarizer and a correct exposure and
catching the right light at the right moment.
besides, you won't see all those oversaturated images in normal
travel magazines for instance, you only see them in photographic magazines
where photgs showoff and agree with each other, see the new fad about HDR
which is the ultimate heresy in photography.
reality is already very colorful by itself, it your pictures are washed out is because maybe
you're more a photoshopper than a photographer ... which once again reminds me of my rant about how much time you guys waste on photoshop instead of making saleable pictures straight out of the camera.
-
It's easy to be paranoid, but when you're dealing with poorly paid conveyer belt human inspectors snafus and stupidity is commonplace.
I'm sorry but I don't agree with your assessment of IS inspectors.
My experience is that they are fair, and highly skilled. And that is both as a non exclusive and an exclusive.
-
on RM there's plenty of unphotoshopped images that sell.
the reason is simple : the authors managed to get the shot looking good
in the first place just with a normal polarizer and a correct exposure and
catching the right light at the right moment.
Seriously, will you shut up with this? There is an entire world of images that sell, from more illustrative photoshopped images to straight out of the camera. Both on microstock, and other licensing models. There is no need to constantly hype on your technology phobia every chance you get.
-
IStock is right.
i've never seen so many overphotoshopped images like on micros.
you'll hardly find anything "normal", even a simply postcard style
picture with a sky and a mountain will need to have purple layers
in the clouds and oversharpened rocks and ice on the mountain
with more sh-it layered here and there to add more fakeness to
whole composition.
and colors .. gosh .. you'll hardly find a picture on micros with normal
colors .. everything must be oversaturated by default .. grass is always
supergreen, sky is as blue as a diving pool, flowers are booming in a lysergic
raimbow ...
what ?
Sergey, I already posted once several IS exclusive images that are super-oversaturated, plus filtered in totally unnatural filter, plus they are sold more than 1000 times. In the same time we get rejections for oversaturation and overfiltering for some slightly altered images. SO, you are not right when you say that IS images look always natural. If you don't believe me, just type "sunset, beach" in IS search box, and click search button. You will see that all images with flames are oversaturated, and some of them have even green sky and yellow water....not just blue.
-
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?
I'm sure support would love to hear about your friend submitting images he doesn't own the copyright for. Perhaps you'd like to pass your experience on to them?
Or post them here for critique?
-
RM is full of unedited images because there are buyers who need do to THEIR OWN editing afterwards and this couldnt be possible or very limited starting from an overphotoshopped image.
yellow water/green sky ? you can do that with any 20$ polarizer filter, but it will not look as fake as if done with PS, that's the difference.
buyers loving oversaturation are the ones who obviously have a tight budget and need something "done" to use right away.
serious buyers, the ones with $$$, always go RM and have their own photo editors.
it's not technology phobia, it's you guys who are born in the digital world and think there was nothing before digital and PS, believe it or not there are plenty of guys making big $$ shooting film (yes !) and b/w with ancient Leicas both in stock RM as in artistic photography and much more.
but as micros are very limited in their offering they only accept oversaturations etc
so now you're sort of thinking one-way ...
in fact the many microstockers who tried their luck with Getty etc and got rejected had to realize the fact
they shoot "micro" the hard way.
-
wrong.
on RM there's plenty of unphotoshopped images that sell.
the reason is simple : the authors managed to get the shot looking good
in the first place just with a normal polarizer and a correct exposure and
catching the right light at the right moment.
besides, you won't see all those oversaturated images in normal
travel magazines for instance, you only see them in photographic magazines
where photgs showoff and agree with each other, see the new fad about HDR
which is the ultimate heresy in photography.
reality is already very colorful by itself, it your pictures are washed out is because maybe
you're more a photoshopper than a photographer ... which once again reminds me of my rant about how much time you guys waste on photoshop instead of making saleable pictures straight out of the camera.
There are also plenty of photoshopped images that sell on the macros and I have seen loads in magazines and holiday brochures. And it only takes seconds to add a bit of saturation. Digital camera files can look a bit dull compared to slide film, so I don't see much problem with adding a bit of saturation. Some people go way over the top but if it makes them money and is what the buyer wants, as is often clearly the case, they shouldn't be criticized.
-
<...
>...
RM is full of unedited images because there are buyers who need do to THEIR OWN editing afterwards and this couldnt be possible or very limited starting from an overphotoshopped image.
Sergey, from what I read you shoot photojournalism, social documentry and travel, and when you are shooting or talking RM you would have editorial in mind, lets look at Alamy where they sell over 80% editorial and RM, in a lot of editorial area's any image manipulation other than slight adjustments of levels would get you 'No Sales', and has got the editor fired more than once from thier jobs, so it is horses for courses, what works for one area of the stock business is a no-no to another.
Commercial images for advertising and advertorial are often enhanced as they are trying to sell something and make you dream of the blue skys and hot summer days, where your gritty type of social documentry and editorial would look silly enhanced as the images are meant to be realistic and bring the hard reality home to the reader.
The oversaturated images are not replacing your social documentry images and affecting your bottom line, on the other hand if the oversaturated travel images are hurting your revenue, then maybe you need to look at how you can enhance your travel images.
David ;)
-
There are also plenty of photoshopped images that sell on the macros and I have seen loads in magazines and holiday brochures. And it only takes seconds to add a bit of saturation. Digital camera files can look a bit dull compared to slide film, so I don't see much problem with adding a bit of saturation. Some people go way over the top but if it makes them money and is what the buyer wants, as is often clearly the case, they shouldn't be criticized.
wrong wrong wrong again.
RM costs more because is mainly targeted at PRINT.
print is not RGB, it's CMYK, that's why it's important to start from images
as neutral as they can, provided they're very good already regarding colors
as the conversion RGB->CMYK almost always will screw up some gamut range
and you will need to recalibrate etc
the photoshopped RMs you see around are there because the buyers decided
they like 'em that way but this is not the norm in the industry.
digital files vs film : no no no, if they look washed out is because you
shoot in AUTO mode or never set correctly exposure contrast and saturation
or use crappy UV/polarizers.
digital can be extremely saturated if you want, all looking much more natural
than with PS, it's up to you but you see nowadays people shoot almost everything AUTO
with bad lights and bad weather and then complain their pictures suck.
the only thing film is still superior is about resolution and dynamic range.
people just go out of their way because they have uncalibrated monitors,
they're maybe also a bit daltonic or need new eyeglasses, or simply because
they've no idea their camera can be setup in 100s different ways and produce
excellent images without any need for postprocessing.
this may sound amazing to some of you but until few years ago
photographers were supposed to make perfect shoots with just
film and uv/polarizer and their 30 yrs-old photos are still selling
on RM even now in 2009.
and finally, oversaturated crap sells fine because buyers have usually very gross and bad tastes.
-
RM is full of unedited images because there are buyers who need do to THEIR OWN editing afterwards and this couldnt be possible or very limited starting from an overphotoshopped image.
yellow water/green sky ? you can do that with any 20$ polarizer filter, but it will not look as fake as if done with PS, that's the difference.
buyers loving oversaturation are the ones who obviously have a tight budget and need something "done" to use right away.
serious buyers, the ones with $$$, always go RM and have their own photo editors.
it's not technology phobia, it's you guys who are born in the digital world and think there was nothing before digital and PS, believe it or not there are plenty of guys making big $$ shooting film (yes !) and b/w with ancient Leicas both in stock RM as in artistic photography and much more.
but as micros are very limited in their offering they only accept oversaturations etc
so now you're sort of thinking one-way ...
in fact the many microstockers who tried their luck with Getty etc and got rejected had to realize the fact
they shoot "micro" the hard way.
Do you hear yourself?? What RM? Which buyers with real $$$?? We talk here about microstock and images for few dollars, not $$$. We talk here about buyers who want cheap images. Who asked you about RM and expensive images?
The image with green sky and yellow sea is not made using real filter. It's made using PS and that's very obvious.
Rinder, I think you did right no matter you gave images with your copyright to another person. You wanted to prove inconsistence in reviewing regarding exclusives/non-exclusives, and you proved it. It was brave of you to post it here, but the truth is on your side.
-
<...
>...
RM is full of unedited images because there are buyers who need do to THEIR OWN editing afterwards and this couldnt be possible or very limited starting from an overphotoshopped image.
Sergey, from what I read you shoot photojournalism, social documentry and travel, and when you are shooting or talking RM you would have editorial in mind, lets look at Alamy where they sell over 80% editorial and RM, in a lot of editorial area's any image manipulation other than slight adjustments of levels would get you 'No Sales', and has got the editor fired more than once from thier jobs, so it is horses for courses, what works for one area of the stock business is a no-no to another.
Commercial images for advertising and advertorial are often enhanced as they are trying to sell something and make you dream of the blue skys and hot summer days, where your gritty type of social documentry and editorial would look silly enhanced as the images are meant to be realistic and bring the hard reality home to the reader.
The oversaturated images are not replacing your social documentry images and affecting your bottom line, on the other hand if the oversaturated travel images are hurting your revenue, then maybe you need to look at how you can enhance your travel images.
David ;)
yeah but let's then look at travel advertising :
i don't see all this oversaturation with swimming pools, beaches, and bikinis...
they look vivid because they ARE vivid in the real world ...
maybe you guys are used to shoot washed out images and then think it is "normal"
to waste 1 hour with PS to revive your photos one by one and then in the meantime
add too much saturation here and there...
the typical travel advertisement is hardly oversaturated, as they preserve the reds
and yellow for the sales message, logos, and promotional text, which can not and should not
be colorfully put in second place by the photo itself.
i'm not affected by oversaturations in my field, not at all, i'm just disgusted by the trends
i see in other fields related to travel, temples and monuments for instance now are mostly
super vivd explodiing with sunsets etc etc i don't get it, it's a temple not a circus or fireworks ...
i'm of the idea that people need PS so badly because their pictures suck
and they suck because they're not real photographers, i.e. not able to make
a perfect shooting without the help of PS.
let's face it : NONE of you guys would have ever started selling photos without
the help of PS, all your pictures would have been miserably and rightfully rejected.
-
Do you hear yourself?? What RM? Which buyers with real $$$?? We talk here about microstock and images for few dollars, not $$$. We talk here about buyers who want cheap images. Who asked you about RM and expensive images?
The image with green sky and yellow sea is not made using real filter. It's made using PS and that's very obvious.
Rinder, I think you did right no matter you gave images with your copyright to another person. You wanted to prove inconsistence in reviewing regarding exclusives/non-exclusives, and you proved it. It was brave of you to post it here, but the truth is on your side.
then you're an amateur.
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, that's been the norm since the times of Ansel Adams who was using b/w by the way so go figure.
and you need more contrast ? use the camera, and it will look ten times better than with PS.
more grain ? same as above ?
more sharpness ? ditto.
color dots ? selective out of focus ? gradients ? use filters on the lens, as any other pro does since the rock age.
you guys crack me up ... if being a photographer is all about PS you better get another hobby.
what i enlisted so far are the very BASICS of photography, and it's more fun than messing with a laptop and PS for hours.
-
wrong wrong wrong again.
RM costs more because is mainly targeted at PRINT.
Wrong, wrong again, old hippy.
RM may cost more (than another image license) because it is priced based on usage. It may also cost less. You may find RM sales on Alamy as low as $10. You may also find them much higher than that.
Ok, your turn for another unfounded rant.
-
Sergey, I have to tell you this (which is not my style at all, and everyone will confirm that), but dude, you are full of crap. You can say what you want, and you can insult other people as much as you want, but you sound empty like a empty canister. I will quote some of your statements here:
"the photoshopped RMs you see around are there because the buyers decided
they like 'em that way but this is not the norm in the industry."
Buyers don't decide, reviewers do.
"and finally, oversaturated crap sells fine because buyers have usually very gross and bad tastes."
Doesn't matter. Buyers "buy" and that's the most important thing. Also, buyers have taste and they know what they need. They don't learn from you.
"yeah but let's then look at travel advertising :
i don't see all this oversaturation with swimming pools, beaches, and bikinis...
they look vivid because they ARE vivid in the real world ... "
Or maybe you should consider visiting ophthalmologist.
"maybe you guys are used to shoot washed out images and then think it is "normal"
to waste 1 hour with PS to revive your photos one by one and then in the meantime
add too much saturation here and there... "
When you say this you sound like you have no idea what is PS for. For this adjustments, one need 5-15 seconds in PS.
"i'm not affected by oversaturations in my field, not at all, i'm just disgusted by the trends
i see in other fields related to travel, temples and monuments for instance now are mostly
super vivd explodiing with sunsets etc etc i don't get it, it's a temple not a circus or fireworks ..."
From which century are you actually?
Look at this image. It's sold more than 1000 times. Tell me, can you do it using polarized filter? Look at the light blue tint over water. Does it look natural? Does it look like it's straight from the camera? But it's selling, and it's selling very good! And buyers love it!
(http://www2.istockphoto.com/file_thumbview_approve/1240662/2/istockphoto_1240662-beach-sunset-tide.jpg)
And I like it also! We are talking here about rejections for overfiltering. We don't talk about your analog v.s. digital crap. Thank God IS have scout. He/she accepted all my images rejected for overfiltering.
-
^^^ Save your time and your breath for more important things.
Sergey is just a troll from the Alamy forums (as Screwgle & Screwgle2) who has been kicked out and so now comes here. They've deleted most of his posts too, some of them since yesterday, but a few of his witterings still exist on this link (supplied by one of our senior members who has excellent troll-hunting skills);
http://www.google.com/search?q=screwgle+site%3Aalamy.com (http://www.google.com/search?q=screwgle+site%3Aalamy.com)
According to his posts on Alamy he "... knew nothing about stock until a few months ago ..." which is self-evident from what he writes here in the guise of 'expert old-timer'.
-
Rejections are just so random I would be nuts to go exclusive with any one site. At IS I just had one image in the vertical format accepted and the next image of the identical scene but in the horizontal format rejected for "artifacts". Same settings taken 10 seconds apart.
-
While most Istock Exclusives know how to take properly exposed, focused and composed images I do have to agree that quite a bunch of inferior images get through the exclusives queue.
While some stuff is plain out of focus many images are just snapshot like IMHO.
But what gets me most is the stats of some exclusives.
The other day I tripped over a guy's portfolio with 155 images and 39.000 sales. He's exclusive since 2007. 155 images in 2 years.
39.000 sales.
He (or she) only uploaded 3D images. Nothing out of this world but nicely executed I have to say. Although, I see many of the same or even better from other artists that don't even get close to this guy's sales figures. I'm stunned.
-
I wonder how long its going to take the folks over at IS HQ to get wind of Rinder's publicly posted 'experiment' that, though I'm not 100% sure and its not worth me going through, is probably in violation of a bunch of rules that you agree to.
As for the completely off-topic rant by some unknown weirdo, well, I got nothing to contribute to that.
-
I have recently been downsizing most of my istock submissions and have had much better luck getting them accepted. A shame they have to be a smaller file, but much better than getting rejects all the time.
Are the resized images getting accepted because they prefer smaller sizes? Or is it because there are fewer visible flaws in the resized images?
-
I wonder how long its going to take the folks over at IS HQ to get wind of Rinder's publicly posted 'experiment' that, though I'm not 100% sure and its not worth me going through, is probably in violation of a bunch of rules that you agree to.
As for the completely off-topic rant by some unknown weirdo, well, I got nothing to contribute to that.
If the experiment ever actually happened. I understand why Laurin would want to do it, but why would someone who was an exclusive jeopardise their IStock account for no good reason?
-
I wonder how long its going to take the folks over at IS HQ to get wind of Rinder's publicly posted 'experiment' that, though I'm not 100% sure and its not worth me going through, is probably in violation of a bunch of rules that you agree to.
As for the completely off-topic rant by some unknown weirdo, well, I got nothing to contribute to that.
Yes, sending images from which you don't own the copyright is the clumsiest move someone who wants to stay and grow in microstock can do, at istock or at any other site.
-
Technically it's no problem as long as he transferred the copyright to the exclusive photographer.
-
Technically it's no problem as long as he transferred the copyright to the exclusive photographer.
Exactly. You have to own the copyright, that's all.
-
Are the resized images getting accepted because they prefer smaller sizes? Or is it because there are fewer visible flaws in the resized images?
Because there are less visible flaws in smaller size...less noise for example.
-
However, if he submitted them to iStock, they stay in the rejected items area - and if they were resubmitted by an exclusive, then they would be linked to two users. Wouldn't that scream for penalty?
-
I have the same problem at IS. I upload only a few at a time with about a half hour inbetween because I have noticed it depends on what reviewer I get. Since I batch upload through Aperture, if I get a reviewer who doesn't like me, they all get rejected. When I "batch" only a few at a time with space inbetween, I get better luck.
I did bring it up on their site, once, and miraculously my sales tanked since then. Who knows why but anyways......
Oh and scout has always worked for me even though it's only a few here and there....
I so feel your pain :)
-
However, if he submitted them to iStock, they stay in the rejected items area - and if they were resubmitted by an exclusive, then they would be linked to two users. Wouldn't that scream for penalty?
But they were first submitted by a non-exclusive and rejected. Then the copyright was transferred (or sold, whichever the case) to an exclusive who submitted them and got them accepted. I don't recall anything in the rules that say a non-exclusive cannot sell the copyright to someone else. What that someone else does with the photo, under it's new copyright, to me, seems like a whole new ball game. As far as I can tell, no "crime" has been committed here.
The whole exercise was to prove a point anyway. Rinder knows the rules and I'm sure under normal circumstances follows them.
I'm sure istock will not appreciate the humor or truth. But I don't see where anyone has violated any written rule. Though now a new clause, the Rinder Clause, will be added to the Contributor terms document! :)
-
Technically it's no problem as long as he transferred the copyright to the exclusive photographer.
Yeah, I'm sure they wrote up a contract and had it witnessed and notarized for their 'experiment'.
-
Itīs just like scout. He also gets everything accepted. Iīll stick with him I think... :'( Transfer the copyright... cīmon... he he
-
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
-
Technically it's no problem as long as he transferred the copyright to the exclusive photographer.
Yeah, I'm sure they wrote up a contract and had it witnessed and notarized for their 'experiment'.
There must be lots of contracts drawn up and notarized with NASA :)
-
Yes, Sean We did, My wifes a notary and he's a neighbor. Im an Old hippy also My friend But Not stupid.LOL
Boy, Im sure glad I don't hang out here anymore. You guys sure do get your panties in a twist about silly stuff. I've been a reviewer for 3 years. The trend Im seeing is "Photography meets Graphic design" Big time. The "Cookie cutter" stuff is done. I also see lots of Semi photographers doing elements shooting to use in there own submissions as they are joining in record numbers. You can spot them a Mile away. And the numbers of Old School Photographers are diminishing who do Know how to get it right.
I mean seriously, How many more 2/3 Pretty plastic People getting spa massages or in an office do buyers need. nothing against it but, I think the new wave will be much more 1/2 Photo,1/2 Graphic. At least thats what Im seeing. Photoshop skills are becoming very quickly the new Normal. I do Love to search Places Like masterfile and the Like because the production value at least to me is on another level and Folks there don't send in 500 samo Pics. Not many people jumping against a Overcooked sky with fake grass either. But Hey, thats cool also I like it all if it's done well. I've always shot what turns me on, Im not a Real "Stock" shooter Perse" I teach photography, I can do any style anytime and do it well from Glamour to Bugs. Im just a Photographer, Not a Stock Photographer and When People come to my Classes and workshops they come to learn the tricks that took me 45 years to Learn.
As far as the test I did, It was ongoing, a few here and there that had issues or I added issues and The ones in question were deleted right after they were approved and No I dont need a critique on them. Im good enough to Know and yes I handed over the copyrights and if Istk wants My head, they can Have it.But, I needed to know.
I sold my first stock Image In 1968. Been there and done that guys. I use My portfolios on stock sites to get me "Other" work which works quite well. If I had to reley on this business for the nut I have to make. i'd be out of business But I do applaud those with the work Ethic they Put into this Like sean and Yuri and many others. As a Photographer though, I would be creatively sad. Thank god, I still have some of my Old clients so I don't "HAVE" to shoot what Sells this Month.
Just Have fun Guys. Now I gotta go back to my Home site and Help someone get approved. And I respect Older shooters that have paid there dues.
-
Well then, good for you for doing it legally. You get a bonus point!
-
For microstock I make what sells. Whatīs wrong with that ??? (oversaturated or not) The rest is another story...
-
Thanks Man, BTW, your also one of my heros along with my Old Pal Yuri for doing the work and knocking down some doors, I respect that and use you guys as examples as to what can be accomplished in this Crazy business. I don't post much here but, I do read.
-
Well then, good for you for doing it legally. You get a bonus point!
As long as Rinder is the legal owner of the images, it is within his full rights to give it away to someone else, free or not free, with or without notarization. The notarization is for the protection of the recipient, in case Rinder complains and wants compensation later or changes his mind, etc.
-
Great experiment Rinder! It's good to see the truth come out like this.
-
It hurts to read his posts. The complete lack of grammar and Random capitalization and run on sentences and the 'classes' and tricks and 40+ years. Thats all :)
-
It hurts to read his posts.
Cosmetically they might be ugly but I think his posts are rich in content. IMHO.
-
Someone's account at iStock seems to be missing now.... hmmm....
-
I don't mind that reviewer may be a bit more tolerant with exclusives, I only think this should be a clear rule.
-
Someone's account at iStock seems to be missing now.... hmmm....
When typing www.istockphoto.com/rinderart (http://www.istockphoto.com/rinderart), ti goes to IS home page. I just guessed Rinder's user name there. Other guesses say "Hang in there" page not found. So it might be true.
I agree with Adelaide. There should be a clear rule spelled out about this.
-
Yes, his profile is missing. IS obviously deleted it.
-
I wonder if his exclusive friend has been removed as well of if he has been given special treatment :)
-
This reminds me of times when communists ruled in my country. Many people were imprisoned and some people were even been killed for telling jokes about Tito (our president). One could never say something against communists or he could expect to be in jail the first morning after it.
OK, I understand Rinder did something that was against rules, but he proved something we all unofficially knew.
Maybe they could react in more human way, not by simple deleting his account without any notice or explanation.
-
Laurin has always reminded me of Harlen Ellison (if anyone here happens to know who he is).
Loads of talent, but zero tolerance for mere mortals. Having never met Laurin in person, perhaps he isn't quite as nasty as Ellison (whom I have met in person). But I've read some very ugly (I don't mean formatting-wise) posts from Laurin which led to my association of him with Ellison.
As to this thread, I would venture to say that had Laurin done the same thing but with another non-exclusive contributor, he might very well have had the identical result (all images accepted). Though I've found IS' reviewers to be the most consistent of any agency, that doesn't mean they are 100% consistent. Perhaps he encountered one who was new (or maybe one who Laurin had pissed off in the past!), and so submitting them under another contributor's name might very well have resulted in 100% acceptance.
Most of my CN is made up of exclusives, and I have read of plenty of odd rejections. I'm not convinced that exclusives enjoy more relaxed standards, but perhaps they do. But AFAIC, Laurin's little test proved nothing (at least, not relating to that ;D ).
-
Yes, his profile is missing. IS obviously deleted it.
Oooohh, that's bad. :-\
-
It seems that copyright reassignment would still be against IS rules:
"Uploading any of the following is strictly prohibited and may result in a lifetime ban or legal action:
...
2. A photograph that you didn't take.
...
"
Still, I agree with what Whitechild said about it and hope Rinder and IS get this resolved.
-
Yes, his profile is missing. IS obviously deleted it.
Oooohh, that's bad. :-\
I don't always agree with Rinder, but I cannot agree with Istock on this one either.
-
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. It looks like they don't give a sh*t about us, and it's proving how miserable we are comparing to agencies..... and I mean all agencies, not just IS. We are nothing to them...
-
I don't expect them to give any explanation. Even if they give one, it would be very simple: He violated the rules and was banned for it.
-
His account may have just been suspended. I'm aware of cases in which an offender (or accused offender) had his account suspended for a few weeks, and it was later re-instated once the matter was resolved. Perhaps that will be the case here.
-
It seems that copyright reassignment would still be against IS rules:
"Uploading any of the following is strictly prohibited and may result in a lifetime ban or legal action:
...
2. A photograph that you didn't take.
...
"
That would be a reason his partner in crime would be banned, not Laurin. Laurin did not upload a photograph he didn't take. ;D
-
It seems that copyright reassignment would still be against IS rules:
"Uploading any of the following is strictly prohibited and may result in a lifetime ban or legal action:
...
2. A photograph that you didn't take.
...
"
Still, I agree with what Whitechild said about it and hope Rinder and IS get this resolved.
So who took all those NASA photos? I have never understood why that rule is allowed to be broken all the time.
-
I don't expect them to give any explanation. Even if they give one, it would be very simple: He violated the rules and was banned for it.
He didn't violate any rules, he didn't upload any photos he didn't take. He was honest by using his real name. All he did was to test a point and then had the photos deleted.
I hope someone in IS higher management will review this case. Sounds like a power trip to me. This is BAD PR to say the least!
-
His account may have just been suspended. I'm aware of cases in which an offender (or accused offender) had his account suspended for a few weeks, and it was later re-instated once the matter was resolved. Perhaps that will be the case here.
Yes, this is true. They may have just suspended his account whilst they investigate; I hope so anyway. If Laurin and his accomplice grovel hard and tug their forelocks enough then they will probably be let off with a warning. Somehow I don't think that Laurin will play ball though!
Come to think of it didn't LR also state that he is (as in currently) a reviewer for SS too? If so that is an automatic account suspension/deletion anyway. You're not allowed to be an 'employee' of a competing agency.
-
His account may have just been suspended. I'm aware of cases in which an offender (or accused offender) had his account suspended for a few weeks, and it was later re-instated once the matter was resolved. Perhaps that will be the case here.
Yes, this is true. They may have just suspended his account whilst they investigate; I hope so anyway. If Laurin and his accomplice grovel hard and tug their forelocks enough then they will probably be let off with a warning. Somehow I don't think that Laurin will play ball though!
Come to think of it didn't LR also state that he is (as in currently) a reviewer for SS too? If so that is an automatic account suspension/deletion anyway. You're not allowed to be an 'employee' of a competing agency.
I thought most reviewers were freelance contractors who got paid on piece-work basis, just like the contributing photographers. Only salaried staff are considered employees in most situations.
-
I thought most reviewers were freelance contractors who got paid on piece-work basis, just like the contributing photographers. Only salaried staff are considered employees in most situations.
Not as far as IS are concerned. Been there and had to make the phone call. That's why almost all non-IS reviewers are effectively 'undercover' nowadays.
-
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?
-
Hey Guys. well... I screwed up doing this. I got a letter from them.My account has been suspended. It was a very, Very stupid thing to do and I broke the agreement with them I've had for 4 1/2 years and I take full and complete responsibility for my actions. If I would have not said anything, no One would have known. it didn't prove anything at all about exclusives getting better treatment at all. I did this as a test and maybe to shed some light on the long Lingering doubts about this long running issue. There are no images on the site that do not belong to me or anyone else. if they terminate my account for doing this, I don't Blame them One bit and I told them so. Bottom Line, it was a Dumb thing to do and Im sorry for it. I hope they understand but, If not I'll take the hit I deserve. Thanks to my friends for the support. laurin
Pls lets let it go now. I feel bad enough. Thanks. and no I don't review for SS.
-
Thanks. and no I don't review for SS.
Thank God for that __ you'd really have to be on your uppers to be doing that for 5c a pop or whatever they pay nowadays!
If you slip on your very best pair of Grovelling Pants (the ones with the knees completely worn out) you might, just this once, get a reprieve. Good luck!
-
Wow, bummer Laurin.
I feel for ya man.
-
the mea culpa is all a bit too wierd for me ... even rinder is drinking the kool aid ... jeesh ...
-
Eh
what to say
iStock = iStock
-
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.
-
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 ...
-
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.
-
"ALL ANIMALS ARE EQUAL, BUT SOME ARE MORE EQUAL THAN OTHERS"
.... :)
-
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.
-
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. ;)
-
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 Đ 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.
-
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.
-
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 Đ 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 ...
-
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 Đ 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.
-
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.
-
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 ...
-
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.
-
^^^^^ 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 ::)
-
^^^ 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.
-
^^^^^ 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.
-
^^^ 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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
<...
>...
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
-
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.
-
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 (http://www.istockphoto.com/user_view.php?id=2185525) 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.
-
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 (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.
-
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.
-
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 (http://www.istockphoto.com/legal.php)
-
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.
++ ;)
-
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:
[url]http://www.istockphoto.com/faq.php?FormName=FaqSearchForm&Category=5[/url] ([url]http://www.istockphoto.com/faq.php?FormName=FaqSearchForm&Category=5[/url])
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.)
-
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?
-
@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."
-
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?
-
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 (http://submit.shutterstock.com/forum/abt67917.html)
-
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.
[url]http://submit.shutterstock.com/forum/abt67917.html[/url] ([url]http://submit.shutterstock.com/forum/abt67917.html[/url])
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.
-
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.
-
@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 :))
-
Yes, the copyright thing shouldn't be an issue. I think this more falls under the "Rules of Conduct" here:
[url]http://www.istockphoto.com/legal.php[/url] ([url]http://www.istockphoto.com/legal.php[/url])
I agree.
-
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...
-
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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
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!
-
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
-
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.
-
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.
-
^ 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?
-
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.
-
.
-
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
-
they can get an editor they like to work with
?
-
they can get an editor they like to work with
?
Yup, I agreed with Jonathan's post overall, but didn't understand this bit either.
-
we don't get to choose the editor/reviewer/inspector or whatever you wish to call them. but otherwise Jonathan, I would agree with what you are saying. and I would also argue that most of the energy spent here complaining and speculating about istock standards and their 'unfair' policies would be better spent learning how to improve images and perhaps on a few self-esteem courses. insecurity makes people awfully nasty and defensive.
-
My experience with inspections pre and post exclusive. Before I went exclusive I had a 55% acceptance, and after going exclusive it jumped to about 80% on recent uploads. HOWEVER...
I used to do a lot of walk around photography and frequently had lighting/focus issues. I have a strong personal preference for dark and moody imagery. After going exclusive, with 50 slots a week to fill, I started doing almost exclusively isolated on white studio work with a good lighting kit (three Bowens strobes, seamless, etc.) Pretty hard to get that wrong once you know how to clean up the background. The walk around shots I do now get nearly as many rejections for lighing, focus etc as before. Also, with a real opportunity to grow my portfolio, I tackled a few issues that I hadn't bothered with before, and I'm now better at producing stock style imagery.
-
And mine - prior to going exclusive, I had acceptance rates varying between 45% and 89% per month, an average of about 74%.
Since going exclusive, it's varied between 53% and 91% per month, and is currently averaging about - oh wow - 74%.
So not much change there then...
I don't buy all these theories.
-
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
I agree 100%
-
Hi All,
Please excuse me for my mistake on the editor part. That was how it was explained to me by Istock but I must have misunderstood. I was under the impression If you found an editor or editors you liked as an exclusive that you could request to work with that editor in the future, my error.
Other than that I hope I got the rest correct. Ask someone who is exclusive when in doubt. Some will help you out and correct the misinformation but others might just question you without explanation, depends on the person. Thanks to those that explained the system clearer to me about Istock standards.
Oh and after all this time I found this awesome button that let's you block anyone you want on this site if they seem to consistently badger your posts. Great tool, wish I had found it a year ago ;D
Best,
Jonathan
-
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.
I have no doubt that istock gives some preference in acceptance criteria for exclusives ... but so what? We know what the "rules" are going in ... if you choose exclusivity you get certain perks. If you choose not to be exclusive, you don't. I suspect the main difference in acceptance likely comes down to the close calls ... if the image is borderline from an acceptance viewpoint, an exclusive image will be accepted. If you are not exclusive it probably won't be. And I would argue that is somewhat fair given that non-exclusives can have their images elsewhere ... and sure mistakes get made and people have differing opinions. Bit it is what it is ...
The bottom line is that istock does not require a valid reason to ban somebody - they can ban anybody they want (assuming they are not being banned for race, gender etc reasons - then there may be a legal argument otherwise) - submitters do not have a right to membership. Istock could wake up one day and say - I hate that Hoi Ha - no reason, just don't like her/him ... and they could ban me. Now I don't think they would do that cause it makes no business sense ... but they could if they wanted to provided they cut me a cheque for whatever may be in my account and deactivated all my images ... fortunately most of these sites have enough business sense not to behave this way ... but our "rights" are very few indeed ... and that is the way it should be. Isn't it?
-
How can we help or do something that iStock return Rinders porfolio live???
Why they are doing that destructive things???
Where is they mathematics in first place???
He, like most of nonexlusives earn only 20% and on every his sales iStock earned 80% doing nothing??? For me this seams like that they dont need money.
Evolution is in this case very strange thing.
First like designers little djevery thing and now they are looked for nonexclusives in manner FuckU all.
Anyhow in this case some reviewer must have doggystile pose to explain what is going wrong in booth cases (eg. why he reject Laurin photos in first place which made him "mad" to prove what happens in second place)
Anyhow seems that reviewers are trash can employees for them and I dont care of them in the same manner.
I really dont undestand whatever big you are (iStock under getty shelter) and dont even think about that to admit they mistake.
If you want that kind of killing spree, kill my account and make Rinders acc live again.
Suljo
-
Some will help you out and correct the misinformation but others might just question you without explanation, depends on the person. Thanks to those that explained the system clearer to me about Istock standards.
I know this may be confusing to you Jonathan, but a question mark is usually used when someone doesn't understand what you've posted. ie. "I don't understand what this means".
-
okay, I'm sorry...but is this suljo person for real? do I really have to wade through posts like that ALL the time just to get information on this site? I suppose that is the price we pay to speak freely, less moderation = more info and more idiocy I guess.
-
okay, I'm sorry...but is this suljo person for real? do I really have to wade through posts like that ALL the time just to get information on this site? I suppose that is the price we pay to speak freely, less moderation = more info and more idiocy I guess.
lOOk
Suljo is REAL person and have same name and same avatar on other sites.
if you dont realize or easy find that search by photographers name on big 6 or more. (how they says PERIOD)
-
okay, I'm sorry...but is this suljo person for real? do I really have to wade through posts like that ALL the time just to get information on this site? I suppose that is the price we pay to speak freely, less moderation = more info and more idiocy I guess.
No, the quick fix is to click on the "ignore" button and future posts by this person will be collapsed from your view. Then you will have the choice of skipping past or taking a peek. :)
-
thank you....done
-
The web is so PC these days. In the heyday of usenet one put posters one didn't like into the KILLFILE. Very aggressive those Unix admin types. The usual final comment was plonk.
-
The web is so PC these days. In the heyday of usenet one put posters one didn't like into the KILLFILE. Very aggressive those Unix admin types. The usual final comment was plonk.
Ah yes, tis a kinder and gentler interweb ere the one a fore it ;D
-
How can we help or do something that iStock return Rinders porfolio live???
Why they are doing that destructive things???
Where is they mathematics in first place???
He, like most of nonexlusives earn only 20% and on every his sales iStock earned 80% doing nothing??? For me this seams like that they dont need money.
Sheesh
I think you may need to reread this thread.
This isn't the SS forums and that stuff ain't gonna fly here. What's so strange about closing the portfolio of someone who has never earned much for the site and has gone out of their way to damage your reputation?
Why not write to IS and ask them to disable your portfolio in exchange for Rinder's? They probably would refuse in any case because I'm sure you sell better there then Laurin ever has.
-
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
Jonathan I agree and I thing your approach is more business like than many photographers here, you get that IS or indeed any site does not want to reject images, they would much rather get a good saleable image, approve it and have it make money for them.
-
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.
I have no doubt that istock gives some preference in acceptance criteria for exclusives ... but so what?
<snip>
I don't know where you get this opinion; it's already been stated by myself and another exclusive that they don't see any significant preference in their rates of acceptance before and after becoming exclusive, and I've never seen any say otherwise though obviously other peoples experience may be different.
Certainly I've had images accepted which, on reflection, I don't think really make the grade - both before and after exclusivity. I've also had rejections on images that I thought were just as good as others that were accepted, again, both before and after. And I've had acceptances on images that were rejected by other agencies, though obviously only before being exclusive.
And there's no direct correlation between being exclusive and great images - of course you'll see lots of mediocre images going through the exclusive queue, the exclusive criteria don't require you to produce better images, only to sell a certain amount. If you're anywhere near competent with a camera you will reach that limit sooner or later, maybe in only a couple of months if you're very good, maybe in a year or whatever, but you'll get there.
-
There is a positive side to the rejections for non-exclusives. istock must of rejected hundreds of thousands of big selling images because they don't like the over filtered look and most non vector illustrations. These are doing well on some of the other sites and will stop people going exclusive and istock dominating the market. Perhaps we should be celebrating every time we see a reject :)
They also accept shallow focus photos that sell well and get rejected by shutterstock. Those that say all the sites sell the same images should take a closer look.
-
I have no doubt that istock gives some preference in acceptance criteria for exclusives ... but so what?
<snip>
[/quote]
I don't know where you get this opinion; it's already been stated by myself and another exclusive that they don't see any significant preference in their rates of acceptance before and after becoming exclusive, and I've never seen any say otherwise though obviously other peoples experience may be different.
[/quote]
Because I used to be exclusive then gave it up ... but as mentioned I don't have a problem with that - assuming there are no major technical issues with an image, IS will accept what in their view is saleable ... they are not going to reject an image that could sell just because the person is not exclusive. But where the image might be borderline - say it is yet another image of a flower - I think the exclusive will likely have it accepted and the non-exclusive likely not. Again this is fair in my view as the non-exclusive has other options ...
-
I have no doubt that istock gives some preference in acceptance criteria for exclusives ... but so what?
<snip>
I don't know where you get this opinion; it's already been stated by myself and another exclusive that they don't see any significant preference in their rates of acceptance before and after becoming exclusive, and I've never seen any say otherwise though obviously other peoples experience may be different.
[/quote]
Because I used to be exclusive then gave it up ... but as mentioned I don't have a problem with that - assuming there are no major technical issues with an image, IS will accept what in their view is saleable ... they are not going to reject an image that could sell just because the person is not exclusive. But where the image might be borderline - say it is yet another image of a flower - I think the exclusive will likely have it accepted and the non-exclusive likely not. Again this is fair in my view as the non-exclusive has other options ...
[/quote]
Fair enough! Not my experience though.
-
deleted
-
I would not be a bit surprised if istock did favor exclusive contributors a bit on borderline images. That seems fair to me. They have no other outlet for their images.
However I don't think a 3 image sample, or even the 10 image sample given in the OP are anywhere near large enough to prove anything.
Jonathan is right that through trial and error, paying attention to rejection reasons, and a lot of work anyone can improve their acceptance rate at any agency.
And for the most part istock's reviews are still among the most consistent and logical in the business.
-
And for the most part istock's reviews are still among the most consistent and logical in the business.
Gotta agree with you there!
-
I would not be a bit surprised if istock did favor exclusive contributors a bit on borderline images. That seems fair to me. They have no other outlet for their images.
However I don't think a 3 image sample, or even the 10 image sample given in the OP are anywhere near large enough to prove anything.
Jonathan is right that through trial and error, paying attention to rejection reasons, and a lot of work anyone can improve their acceptance rate at any agency.
And for the most part istock's reviews are still among the most consistent and logical in the business.
Maybe they do - but Hoi Ha is the first posting I've seen to actually state that as personal experience, every other time I've seen it mentioned it appears to be just speculation.
Personally I don't think they should, and as I said it isn't my experience that they do, but obviously I'd be arguing against my own best interests there! In fact, ideally I would think the submitter should be anonymous to the reviewer, but I have no idea if that is in fact the case.
Otherwise yes, most certainly, paying attention to rejection reasons and learning from them is the way to go.
-
I think Lisa is right. the thing is, it would be impossible to remove subjectivity from the inspection process. and I'm sure they must have policies that favour exclusives in some regards. but I have seen no evidence of this personally and I was non-exclusive for over one year and now exclusive for two. my acceptance rate has improved gradually as my skills improved, but there was no obvious jump.
I believe it really is the borderline images that MIGHT receive slightly more leniency if submitted by exclusive rather than non-exclusive. then again, knowing that inspectors basically get paid a certain amount per image and review thousands and thousands of images a week, all of this speculation is probably just that.
I'd guess they use an assembly line approach to what they are doing, and to suggest they worry about who the contributor is most of the time seems unlikely as they plod through thousands of images, many of which are probably utterly terrible.
-
I'm sorry but I don't find that the OP is particular credible.
Initially he said the test was 10 images then 3.
What's to say it even happened at all?
And even if it did its highly unlikely it was the same inspector so one inspector rejected and another approved - thats not a big deal. This is a subjective process.
And bear in mind that non exclusives starting off sometimes get an easier inspection process so as to encourage them. But that is rarely mentioned.
-
the OP has never been very credible when you take his posts over a longer period of time given the contradictions
-
I think Lisa is right. the thing is, it would be impossible to remove subjectivity from the inspection process. and I'm sure they must have policies that favour exclusives in some regards. but I have seen no evidence of this personally and I was non-exclusive for over one year and now exclusive for two. my acceptance rate has improved gradually as my skills improved, but there was no obvious jump.
I believe it really is the borderline images that MIGHT receive slightly more leniency if submitted by exclusive rather than non-exclusive. then again, knowing that inspectors basically get paid a certain amount per image and review thousands and thousands of images a week, all of this speculation is probably just that.
I'd guess they use an assembly line approach to what they are doing, and to suggest they worry about who the contributor is most of the time seems unlikely as they plod through thousands of images, many of which are probably utterly terrible.
So that makes three posts, from exclusives or ex-exclusives, saying they personally see no evidence of inspectors favouring exclusives - and one who has.
Yet still it's stated as a known fact. Maybe we should have a poll!
-
Personally, I had a 50% success rate of photos uploaded when I was non-exclusive, and now its up to about 80% but this doesn't have to be directly linked to being exclusive. Other issues have been that I'm taking much better photos (when I compare to the stuff I used to upload) and I'm taking more time to make sure that the photos meet the standards of iStock. However, if I do submit a crappy photo, it still gets rejected for being crappy - that hasn't changed.
One thing I have noticed is that my rejections for artifacting, which have always bothered me, have gone down a bit...but I do still get them
-
I'm sorry but I don't find that the OP is particular credible.
Initially he said the test was 10 images then 3.
What's to say it even happened at all?
And even if it did its highly unlikely it was the same inspector so one inspector rejected and another approved - thats not a big deal. This is a subjective process.
And bear in mind that non exclusives starting off sometimes get an easier inspection process so as to encourage them. But that is rarely mentioned.
His statement on SS says it all. He feels entitled to lie to us if it facilitates his agenda for that day. Just one in a long line of misleading stories.
"I had a friend who is exclusive upload 3 of my images that were done in a way as to cause a rejection [ I said 10 in the post] so what!!."
-
I for one got the proof that istock editors are looking at the images at 200% zoom.
It goes like this: when I get a rejection from them (not very often I must say) it's usually related to keywords. They're right about this, almost every time. However, I got a rejection recently to a photo with my son reading a book while lying in a grassfield which said: "Readable words".
What the...
It's a full body portrait and yea I have a 5D and the shot was taken with a very sharp 100mm f/2.8 macro, but still... a full body shot?
When I looked at the photo, the words were not readable at 100%. However.... they were at 200%.
The photo is this: http://www.shutterstock.com/pic-34501825.html (http://www.shutterstock.com/pic-34501825.html)
And I got these days again a rejection of some diggers and construction machinery because one of them had a note (big as a palm) sticked in the corner of the windshield. They wanted me to clone that writing out. The photo is this: http://www.shutterstock.com/pic-34427362.html (http://www.shutterstock.com/pic-34427362.html) - Indeed, some text is visible at 200%.
-
what you've 'proved' is that some editors might use 200% to check for copyright/logo concerns, and that's legit. still doesnt address the question whether they're using 200% to judge sharpness, etc
s
-
I for one got the proof that istock editors are looking at the images at 200% zoom.
It goes like this: when I get a rejection from them (not very often I must say) it's usually related to keywords. They're right about this, almost every time. However, I got a rejection recently to a photo with my son reading a book while lying in a grassfield which said: "Readable words".
What the...
It's a full body portrait and yea I have a 5D and the shot was taken with a very sharp 100mm f/2.8 macro, but still... a full body shot?
When I looked at the photo, the words were not readable at 100%. However.... they were at 200%.
The photo is this: [url]http://www.shutterstock.com/pic-34501825.html[/url] ([url]http://www.shutterstock.com/pic-34501825.html[/url])
And I got these days again a rejection of some diggers and construction machinery because one of them had a note (big as a palm) sticked in the corner of the windshield. They wanted me to clone that writing out. The photo is this: [url]http://www.shutterstock.com/pic-34427362.html[/url] ([url]http://www.shutterstock.com/pic-34427362.html[/url]) - Indeed, some text is visible at 200%.
I don't think that proves that they always check at 200%, but that if there's even the slightest hint of an IP/copyright issue, they will zoom in to see if it can be distinguished at any zoom (sometimes if you zoom in to writing, it becomes more unreadable). This is the same as if there's even a tiny person in silhouette, they'll crank up the exposure to see if the person could remotely be identified with a +4 exposure, or whatever.
-
Agree that going past %100 makes things more unreadable, not more legible. This isn't CSI ;).
-
rofl...... :D
-
well I would have felt much better if they hired a translator for Romanian - English so he'd tell them there's no copyright infringement :P
For zooming at 200% I would have expected to make it more unreadable, but it was the contrary. Also, there are some software who can make a very good quality zoom in. I'm sure the editors don't use irfanview.
-
Jonathan is right that through trial and error, paying attention to rejection reasons, and a lot of work anyone can improve their acceptance rate at any agency.
And for the most part istock's reviews are still among the most consistent and logical in the business.
[/quote]
once I figured the next equations:
istock, artifcats
fotolia, zip landscapes
shutter, sharp or oversharppened
my acceptance rates have risen considerably, so in this three, if I avoid swiming against current, reviews seems to be very consitent. Can't imgagine how being and exclusive to any of them would improve things regarding inspection.
-
VERY offtopic and I'm sorry, but... are the buyers reading MSG? I just sold this http://www.istockphoto.com/file_closeup.php?id=10243720 (http://www.istockphoto.com/file_closeup.php?id=10243720)
weird.
-
I'm sure it has nothing to do with it, but in that vein I'm sure anyone heavily involved in micrstock, including, and most importantly, admins from the various sites haunt these threads quite regularly.
as for the topic at hand, I think we've all but agreed that the test was not much of a test, assuming it happened at all.
-
...producing a .25 cent work of art is getting increasingly difficult.
-
...producing a .25 cent work of art is getting increasingly difficult.
Don't do it then.
-
Agree that going past %100 makes things more unreadable, not more legible. This isn't CSI ;).
Maybe IS revievers use this kind of observations ;D
Red Dwarf - Back To Earth - Picture Zoom Sketch (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KUFkb0d1kbU#ws-normal)
-
Maybe IS revievers use this kind of observations ;D
;D ;D ;D
-
IStock is right.
i've never seen so many overphotoshopped images like on micros.
you'll hardly find anything "normal", even a simply postcard style
picture with a sky and a mountain will need to have purple layers
in the clouds and oversharpened rocks and ice on the mountain
with more sh-it layered here and there to add more fakeness to
whole composition.
and colors .. gosh .. you'll hardly find a picture on micros with normal
colors .. everything must be oversaturated by default .. grass is always
supergreen, sky is as blue as a diving pool, flowers are booming in a lysergic
raimbow ...
what ?
From My own experience with Istock my images plain convert from RAW to JPG got rejected for over filtered while other images got accepted wich one I did indeed use some filters on it......
In Istocks point of view if your image looks over filtered it got rejected if you desaturate the colors or using filters as long as they looks natural they will accept
these images
-
IStock is right.
i've never seen so many overphotoshopped images like on micros.
you'll hardly find anything "normal", even a simply postcard style
picture with a sky and a mountain will need to have purple layers
in the clouds and oversharpened rocks and ice on the mountain
with more sh-it layered here and there to add more fakeness to
whole composition.
and colors .. gosh .. you'll hardly find a picture on micros with normal
colors .. everything must be oversaturated by default .. grass is always
supergreen, sky is as blue as a diving pool, flowers are booming in a lysergic
raimbow ...
what ?
From My own experience with Istock my images plain convert from RAW to JPG got rejected for over filtered while other images got accepted wich one I did indeed use some filters on it......
In Istocks point of view if your image looks over filtered it got rejected if you desaturate the colors or using filters as long as they looks natural they will accept
these images
Raw software adds sharpening as default if you didnīt know. Not much, but itīs Istock...
-
IStock is right.
i've never seen so many overphotoshopped images like on micros.
you'll hardly find anything "normal", even a simply postcard style
picture with a sky and a mountain will need to have purple layers
in the clouds and oversharpened rocks and ice on the mountain
with more sh-it layered here and there to add more fakeness to
whole composition.
and colors .. gosh .. you'll hardly find a picture on micros with normal
colors .. everything must be oversaturated by default .. grass is always
supergreen, sky is as blue as a diving pool, flowers are booming in a lysergic
raimbow ...
what ?
From My own experience with Istock my images plain convert from RAW to JPG got rejected for over filtered while other images got accepted wich one I did indeed use some filters on it......
In Istocks point of view if your image looks over filtered it got rejected if you desaturate the colors or using filters as long as they looks natural they will accept
these images
Raw software adds sharpening as default if you didnīt know. Not much, but itīs Istock...
Convert from RAW to JPG I did do it as long as I know.
Never had problems with it also most of my images got accepted with I stock.
I treat every image the same.
That was not the point.....
But if I stock thinks it's over filtered you know color wise they will reject it.
You can use filters,saturation,color etc as long as I stock beliefs they look natural.
for example: I can't help it if a red rock is indeed bright red ------->rejected for over filtered (converted RAW straight to JPG)
The same image and desaturate the bright red ------->accepted (import RAW file desaturate and make some minor
adjustments than convert the RAW straight to JPG)
That was what I mean.
-
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.
Agreed