Author Topic: I simply don't understand exclusivity? (Read 38368 times)

Perrush · « **Reply #25 on:** December 03, 2008, 12:28 »

grp_photo · « **Reply #26 on:** December 03, 2008, 12:34 »

Quote from: Allsa on December 03, 2008, 12:18

Quote from: Perrush on December 03, 2008, 05:09
exclusivity in a microstock environment doesn't make sense. Images are so easy the reproduce, it's just a matter of time before all IS images are also available at other agencies.

my tip : see what sells well by IS exclusives and isn't found on other sites in large numbers -> then begin shooting Don't think you're a thief. I've several examples of exclusives doing the same to non-exclusive images and then outrunning them because they are exclusive. So go and get them

It's this type of attitude that has led to the mind numbing repetition and boring lack of originality that has been so typical of microstock imagery these days. Since when are creativity and originality dirty words? Would it kill you to take a risk and try something that hasn't been tried before? As a microstocker who at least attempts to be original, I resent those who regard my portfolio as their personal grab bag for ideas to rip-off.

Its not really rewarding to be original in the Microstockworld, take your time and look at the portfolios and the stats of it, you will see its always the same stuff that sell well though really original and innovative portfolios seems to get no significant downloads at all. So my tip would be if you really create something original don't submit it to a Microstocksite save it for a traditional or macro agency ;-). But note some microstockers think they are original but they aren't at all ;-)

bittersweet · « **Reply #27 on:** December 03, 2008, 12:35 »

Quote from: Perrush on December 03, 2008, 12:28

<allsa puts his head in the sand>

There's nothing wrong with wanting to believe there are a few people left in the world with personal integrity.

bittersweet · « **Reply #28 on:** December 03, 2008, 12:43 »

Quote from: lagereek on December 03, 2008, 10:04

Nothing to understand really! and especially not in the Micro world but, there you go.
Lets move on from this IS/best match rubbish? just dont upload anymore, concentrate on all the rest. Theres an ocean out there. Ive spent three hours, uploading Dealers on Trading-floors, Stockexchange, to two of my other Agencies.
Lets try and leave them alone and move on. Youre gonna feel a lot better.

Best.

Very good advice, Christian! I've tried saying basically the same thing, but when I say it all people hear is "Hurry up and leave so I'll have less competition!"

We all have choices and free will, don't we? Why make a choice that makes us miserable?

Allsa · « **Reply #29 on:** December 03, 2008, 13:07 »

Quote

Its not really rewarding to be original in the Microstockworld, take your time and look at the portfolios and the stats of it, you will see its always the same stuff that sell well though really original and innovative portfolios seems to get no significant downloads at all. So my tip would be if you really create something original don't submit it to a Microstocksite save it for a traditional or macro agency ;-). But note some microstockers think they are original but they aren't at all ;-)

I don't agree, I think it's possible to be both original and successful in microstock. It's true that you're limited to certain types imagery (business concepts, holidays, lifestyle, ect), but it's possible to approach these subjects in new and innovative ways; it just takes a little effort and a willingness to take a risk. It's true that I've spent a great deal of time on illustrations that are hardly ever downloaded, but then I've had a lot of successful experiments as well.
As an artist, you risk harming yourself by limiting yourself to tried and true ideas - the danger is you get bored, and that boredom reflects itself in your portfolio, consequently, your work can become stale and boring.

pet_chia · « **Reply #30 on:** December 03, 2008, 14:00 »

Quote from: grp_photo on December 03, 2008, 12:34

Its not really rewarding to be original in the Microstockworld, take your time and look at the portfolios and the stats of it, you will see its always the same stuff that sell well though really original and innovative portfolios seems to get no significant downloads at all. So my tip would be if you really create something original don't submit it to a Microstocksite save it for a traditional or macro agency ;-). But note some microstockers think they are original but they aren't at all ;-)

Not only that, but shooting outside the box is also likely to result in rejections because the reviewers are specifically trained to think inside the box with respect to subject, lighting, color, composition, etc. This motivates a contributor to be a boring copycat and to use other, not-merit based factors to get sales, such as keyword spamming and best match spamming using whatever techniques happen to work with the current algorithm.

I speculate that this tendency is more pronounced right now because the prevailing economic pessimism is leading to generally conservative and cautious business attitudes. A more optimistic business climate would presumably lead to more originality and creativity in business-related graphic arts.

hali · « **Reply #31 on:** December 03, 2008, 14:28 »

I am not going to talk about exclusivity as that's a bit early for me, but I can certainly express my views based on the other exclusives and free agents here.

As mentioned, exclusives are locked to one server, or master, if you like. So it's not surprising that you get their goad when you come here or IS to make hell about being unfairly treated, or worse, threaten the downfall of IS.
It is their pocket book you're threatening to cut, their life support.

What I feel is unfair, and cannot understand why IS exclusives even accept this , is that , from my understanding, if IS rejects 2000 of your images, you cannot submit them elsewhere. This is croc to many, and scary to some. I see no sense in that.
Perharps some of the exclusives can explain why they accept that neck-restraint.

As for me, I do have some exclusives for Alamy, even though they do not require it. I just like the idea that my best images that require very little post processing getting the best quality in upsizing for Alamy, so I simply leave them there
for RM. The others are RF which I submit to micro as well, but not all, only the choice 2 or 3 top sellers for me.

So , in a way, I am already practising exclusiveness (exclusivity??) for some sites, even micro Dreamstime , for example, without saying I am. I just want to test the water.
But IS is certainly not on my agenda. I don't have enough there, and I don't like the culture. At least the way it has turn this lately.
No offense meant, just basing it on the consensus of both the exclusives and non-exclusives.
But hey, tomorrow can change everything. That's the only constant in this game... unpredicatability.

AVAVA · « **Reply #32 on:** December 03, 2008, 14:37 »

If you're happy and you know it clap your hands....

AVAVA

Allsa · « **Reply #33 on:** December 03, 2008, 14:51 »

Quote from: pet_chia on December 03, 2008, 14:00

Not only that, but shooting outside the box is also likely to result in rejections because the reviewers are specifically trained to think inside the box with respect to subject, lighting, color, composition, etc. This motivates a contributor to be a boring copycat and to use other, not-merit based factors to get sales, such as keyword spamming and best match spamming using whatever techniques happen to work with the current algorithm.

I speculate that this tendency is more pronounced right now because the prevailing economic pessimism is leading to generally conservative and cautious business attitudes. A more optimistic business climate would presumably lead to more originality and creativity in business-related graphic arts.

It's also true that if you upload an image that depicts an idea that has been done to death, the reviewer may be inclined to judge it more harshly, given that it's just a repetition of things that are already over-represented on the site. The benefits of being original are even greater when you're independent - you're not locked into one site's vision of what constitutes a good stock image.

...and what about personal integrity - wouldn't you rather believe that you are contributing something of value, instead of simply trying to steal sales from other people? Otherwise, you're just making money at other people's expense, and you haven't contributed anything worthwhile to the world. Why not take some pride in your work?

bittersweet · « **Reply #34 on:** December 03, 2008, 14:52 »

Quote from: hali on December 03, 2008, 14:28

As mentioned, exclusives are locked to one server, or master, if you like. So it's not surprising that you get their goad when you come here or IS to make hell about being unfairly treated, or worse, threaten the downfall of IS.
It is their pocket book you're threatening to cut, their life support.

What I feel is unfair, and cannot understand why IS exclusives even accept this , is that , from my understanding, if IS rejects 2000 of your images, you cannot submit them elsewhere. This is croc to many, and scary to some. I see no sense in that.
Perharps some of the exclusives can explain why they accept that neck-restraint.

To your first point, I have no problem with anyone criticizing istock policies, assuming their criticism is based in fact and not speculation. I do not think it is necessary to criticize exclusives in order to make your point.

To your second point, if I was getting that many rejections, I am sure I would be questioning (a) whether I might need to get some additional education on the technical aspects of my work, and/or (b) whether iStock is the best match for my portfolio. Since the rejections I have gotten are reasonable, or I have appealed through Scout, it has not been difficult for me to accept these terms.

On a side note, the fact that you even ask this question suggests that you do not buy into the belief some have that any old crap can get approved as long as it is from an exclusive. That's good news.

bittersweet · « **Reply #35 on:** December 03, 2008, 14:53 »

Quote from: AVAVA on December 03, 2008, 14:37

If you're happy and you know it clap your hands....

AVAVA

I'd rather stomp my feet, but if you insist...

Whiz · « **Reply #36 on:** December 03, 2008, 15:10 »

While we're on the subject of exclusivity, do you suppose that buyers receive some sort of discount to purchase exclusive only images?

bittersweet · « **Reply #37 on:** December 03, 2008, 15:14 »

Quote from: Whiz on December 03, 2008, 15:10

While we're on the subject of exclusivity, do you suppose that buyers receive some sort of discount to purchase exclusive only images?

No, they do not.

AVAVA · « **Reply #38 on:** December 03, 2008, 15:22 »

Thanks WhataLife,

That was excellent! Got a hearty chuckle out of me.

Touche.

AVAVA

grp_photo · « **Reply #39 on:** December 03, 2008, 15:30 »

Quote from: Allsa on December 03, 2008, 14:51

Why not take some pride in your work?

i put an incredible amount of pride in some of my work but this is not the work i sell for one dollar a pop

hali · « **Reply #40 on:** December 03, 2008, 15:31 »

whatalife, thanks.
my point wasn't so much about rejections, as my percentage is more or less 1 of every 2 ie. 20 acceptance now, 12 rejections, so it's not a big issue with me.

my question is more the other issue. if you had those images rejected as an exclusive. you cannot submit them elsewhere, right?
that doesn't make sense to me. what good does it do for IS to hold those images captive if they don't want them?

finally, do i think exclusives are treated better than free agents?
well, in the real world, i treat my regulars better than those who pop in once in a blue moon, so really, in some objective way, i would not be surprised or go into "micro - rage"

if IS do give their exclusive some leeway.

pet_chia · « **Reply #41 on:** December 03, 2008, 15:40 »

Quote from: Allsa on December 03, 2008, 14:51

...

It's also true that if you upload an image that depicts an idea that has been done to death, the reviewer may be inclined to judge it more harshly, given that it's just a repetition of things that are already over-represented on the site. The benefits of being original are even greater when you're independent - you're not locked into one site's vision of what constitutes a good stock image.

...and what about personal integrity - wouldn't you rather believe that you are contributing something of value, instead of simply trying to steal sales from other people? Otherwise, you're just making money at other people's expense, and you haven't contributed anything worthwhile to the world. Why not take some pride in your work?

These are very good points in favor of originality. Everyone has to find their own niche in which they trade off the competing factors of pride, integrity, hunger, creative satisfaction, ethics, etc.

It's possible to be too original for your own good ... Here is a story by Dave Brubeck about how he failed the audition for an army band because he played cutting edge, challenging jazz whereas all they wanted to know was if he could play the blues:

"... I was playing in two keys at once. This key was probably in G in this hand and B flat in the other hand, which was a device I was using a lot, I think before anybody in jazz. And it kind of shocked Paul and it wasn't smart of me to audition for the band playing at my wildest, which was very wild in those days and I didn't get into the band and I did go overseas in the infantry."

http://www.puredesmond.ca/bru-91.htm

Phil · « **Reply #42 on:** December 03, 2008, 15:41 »

Quote from: whatalife on December 03, 2008, 14:53

Quote from: AVAVA on December 03, 2008, 14:37
If you're happy and you know it clap your hands....

AVAVA

I'd rather stomp my feet, but if you insist...

ROFLAMO!

as for copying been plenty of times I thought gee what a great idea and then gone to look and seen that a hundred other people have had the same idea

(* them and their bell peppers on white background!

)
Phil

hali · « **Reply #43 on:** December 03, 2008, 15:46 »

Quote from: clearviewstock on December 03, 2008, 15:41

as for copying been plenty of times I thought gee what a great idea and then gone to look and seen that a hundred other people have had the same idea
( them and their bell peppers on white background! )
Phil

i was at least a little more original, even when copying, i added a large thick sausage to the bell peppers,

AVAVA · « **Reply #44 on:** December 03, 2008, 15:52 »

Pet Chia,

Great story on Brubeck one of my all time favorites. Did you here the remakes of some of his greats with his sons. Called two generations of Brubeck. A fun album, their remake of " Blue Rondo a la Turk " rocks. A real genius and just performed here a few months back at age 84. Still cranking it out.
I remember as a child listening to Take 5 with my father and saying " He is only playing one note there, even I could do that " My fathers reply was " you don't get it yet " He was so right.

Best,
AVAVA

hali · « **Reply #45 on:** December 03, 2008, 15:57 »

avava, pet_chia,
even today, many so called jazz musicians can't figure out how to play 5/4.
so really, if you're not a musician, not understanding odd metres and singularity , is quite forgivable. but if you're a musician, then that's something else.

remember they used to call robert johnson's blue "garbage", now they're taking anything clapton does from robert, and charlie parker's music "chinese music", and now everyone is playing donna lee since jaco pastorius.

a sign of genius is that they're always ahead of their time.

AVAVA · « **Reply #46 on:** December 03, 2008, 16:04 »

Can't disagree with you there Hali,

All increadible musicians. Thelonious especially for me.

Best,
AVAVA

zymmetricaldotcom · « **Reply #47 on:** December 03, 2008, 16:11 »

It's a little-known fact but there is an MSG member who is a famous jazz musician and has played for decades with A-list musicians. Not sure if he wants this to be promoted so I won't name him.. but my jaw for one hit the floor when I saw his background. Also a very successful photographer. Just thought i'd chime in while you're on the jazz theme.

Opla · « **Reply #48 on:** December 03, 2008, 16:27 »

It's on his website, so why wouldn't he?

AVAVA · « **Reply #49 on:** December 03, 2008, 16:44 »

Come on now no teasing... spill the beans I won't bug him I promise.

Oh masked musician please send me a PM.

Best,
AVAVA

MicrostockGroup Sponsors

Author Topic: I simply don't understand exclusivity? (Read 38368 times)

Perrush

grp_photo

bittersweet

bittersweet

Allsa

pet_chia

hali

AVAVA

Allsa

bittersweet

bittersweet

Whiz

bittersweet

AVAVA

grp_photo

hali

pet_chia

Phil

hali

AVAVA

hali

AVAVA

zymmetricaldotcom

Opla

AVAVA

Related Topics

Sponsors

Microstock Poll Results

Sponsors