Author Topic: Northern Ireland Poster Row (Read 8458 times)

Pixart · « **on:** April 16, 2010, 14:44 »

Political war using Istock model! Yet another valid reason to hire your own photog and model.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/northern_ireland/8621712.stm

Now they are in trouble with Istock for abusing the depicting personal endorsement rules.

gostwyck · « **Reply #1 on:** April 16, 2010, 16:11 »

Nice bit of free publicity for Istock.

It really was incredibly lazy of the DUP. I'm quite sure the people that designed and paid for the poster would have been well aware of general political advertising rules, irrespective of the terms of the Istock license.

ShadySue · « **Reply #2 on:** April 16, 2010, 16:26 »

And they've used a male model too:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/election_2010/northern_ireland/8624978.stm

Sean Locke Photography · « **Reply #3 on:** April 16, 2010, 19:12 »

Or is the right one a purposeful jab at the left one?

"I want this!"

"On second thought, I want this other!"

Talanis · « **Reply #4 on:** April 17, 2010, 07:03 »

They might be in trouble but this is soooo funny. Good jab from the Tories, I guess DUP will lose some points over this.

ShadySue · « **Reply #5 on:** April 17, 2010, 08:49 »

Quote from: sjlocke on April 16, 2010, 19:12

Or is the right one a purposeful jab at the left one?

"I want this!"

"On second thought, I want this other!"

That's what they claim. They claim they were making the point that this was only a model, not a real party supporter.

sharpshot · « **Reply #6 on:** April 17, 2010, 15:39 »

UKIP have the best poster this election, I wouldn't vote for them but this made me laugh.

macrosaur · « **Reply #7 on:** April 17, 2010, 18:47 »

hahaha !

millions of euros spent in the advertising campaign and barely 20$ to buy the photo on istock.

it reminds me of another scandal involving the BNP using istock images of a "typical british family"
that was later found to be the italian parents of the istock photographer...

macrosaur · « **Reply #8 on:** April 17, 2010, 18:51 »

Quote from: gostwyck on April 16, 2010, 16:11

Nice bit of free publicity for Istock.

It really was incredibly lazy of the DUP. I'm quite sure the people that designed and paid for the poster would have been well aware of general political advertising rules, irrespective of the terms of the Istock license.

as usual the wording "royalty free" is to blame.
buyers just think they can do whatever they like and never read contracts.

with RM instead they pay based on usage type so they can't make mistakes
like this.

sharply_done · « **Reply #9 on:** April 17, 2010, 22:56 »

That was a brilliant heads-up play by the Concervative & Unionists party - I like how they even kept the same look and feel of the original ad.

click_click · « **Reply #10 on:** April 18, 2010, 10:03 »

I'm curious to see what the "penalty" from iStock will be.

However, I assume that in the worst case they will only get a slap on the hand for not reading the fine print they signed.

They wanted to make a point, did it and moved on. They could have cared less about the fine print as the strategic move was most important.

How does a lawyer justify a $5000 fine for an image that was licensed for $20? Or what else: the accounts the images were purchased from get banned?

Furthermore what compensation does the model or photographer get for such abuse? iStock is acting in its own best interest (their right) but the model and photographer will have to fight that battle with their own pocket money - good luck.

macrosaur · « **Reply #11 on:** April 18, 2010, 20:04 »

Quote from: click_click on April 18, 2010, 10:03

How does a lawyer justify a $5000 fine for an image that was licensed for $20?

exactly my point.

and going further, what if the image was licenced for as low as 5$ or even 0.2$ with subs ?

don't you guys see your images ARE worth nothing, no matter if they sell 1K times ?

even your hero Yuri recently admitted he's now doing 50% RM.
no clear and/or straight reasons about this switch but it must be obvious.

macrosaur · « **Reply #12 on:** April 18, 2010, 20:06 »

FD · « **Reply #13 on:** April 19, 2010, 13:21 »

Quote from: macrosaur on April 18, 2010, 20:04

even your hero Yuri recently admitted he's now doing 50% RM.

In another post you said 80%. What is it now? Could you please call Yuri and ask his exact numbers?

macrosaur · « **Reply #14 on:** April 19, 2010, 18:29 »

Quote from: FD-amateur on April 19, 2010, 13:21

Quote from: macrosaur on April 18, 2010, 20:04
even your hero Yuri recently admitted he's now doing 50% RM.
In another post you said 80%. What is it now? Could you please call Yuri and ask his exact numbers?

he wasn't very clear about this.

he said before he was doing 20% RM and now it's almost the opposite.
so is it 50% or 80% ? i don't know.

all i know is he's quickly moving to RM because it obviously pays more.

gostwyck · « **Reply #15 on:** April 19, 2010, 20:34 »

Quote from: macrosaur on April 19, 2010, 18:29

all i know is he's quickly moving to RM because it obviously pays more.

I see. How does that explain all the previous RM shooters that are now moving into microstock though?

Cathy Yeulet trousered $20M by flogging Banana Images to Jupiter in 2006. They paid her a staggering $1300 per image and those 15K images are now languishing on the scrap-heap otherwise known as 'Thinkstock'. Today she's operating as Monkey Business and would appear to be going 100% for the the microstock RF market. Obviously a clever girl who knows where the market is heading __ unlike your good self.

Just think how much you might have made if you'd sold your RM portfolio in 2006. Never mind.

Phil · « **Reply #16 on:** April 19, 2010, 21:18 »

Quote from: gostwyck on April 19, 2010, 20:34

Quote from: macrosaur on April 19, 2010, 18:29
all i know is he's quickly moving to RM because it obviously pays more.

I see. How does that explain all the previous RM shooters that are now moving into microstock though?

Cathy Yeulet trousered $20M by flogging Banana Images to Jupiter in 2006. They paid her a staggering $1300 per image and those 15K images are now languishing on the scrap-heap otherwise known as 'Thinkstock'. Today she's operating as Monkey Business and would appear to be going 100% for the the microstock RF market. Obviously a clever girl who knows where the market is heading __ unlike your good self.

Just think how much you might have made if you'd sold your RM portfolio in 2006. Never mind.

wow!

macrosaur · « **Reply #17 on:** April 20, 2010, 08:38 »

Quote from: gostwyck on April 19, 2010, 20:34

Quote from: macrosaur on April 19, 2010, 18:29
all i know is he's quickly moving to RM because it obviously pays more.

I see. How does that explain all the previous RM shooters that are now moving into microstock though?

Cathy Yeulet trousered $20M by flogging Banana Images to Jupiter in 2006. They paid her a staggering $1300 per image and those 15K images are now languishing on the scrap-heap otherwise known as 'Thinkstock'. Today she's operating as Monkey Business and would appear to be going 100% for the the microstock RF market. Obviously a clever girl who knows where the market is heading __ unlike your good self.

Just think how much you might have made if you'd sold your RM portfolio in 2006. Never mind.

no surprise Jupiter Images got bankrupt and sold at 1/100th of its previous stock value.

p.s.
my RM portfolio would be quite hard to sell as RF, i don't shoot bananas or dogs or ice creams.

recently by opposite i'm investing time in exploring new markets especially selling prints for 100$ a pop.
it was time i got the foot in the door of fine-art and galleries, we'll see how it goes.

macrosaur · « **Reply #18 on:** April 20, 2010, 08:40 »

and if she's so clever what are you guys waiting for ? run to your local Walmart, grab some bananas and get rich quick !

FD · « **Reply #19 on:** April 20, 2010, 12:01 »

Quote from: gostwyck on April 19, 2010, 20:34

Today she's operating as Monkey Business and would appear to be going 100% for the the microstock RF market.

Ah it is a collection, not a group of photogs like Iofoto? I have to say honestly, scouting for images, that I came across some very mediocre images of MB (frontal flash on messy background - looking dated), especially on Cutcaster where they were consistently in front in searches (venting a rant).

michaeldb · « **Reply #20 on:** April 20, 2010, 20:59 »

Great thread

This is the kind of thing I love to come to MSG for.

MicrostockGroup Sponsors

Author Topic: Northern Ireland Poster Row (Read 8458 times)

Pixart

gostwyck

ShadySue

Sean Locke Photography

Talanis

ShadySue

sharpshot

macrosaur

macrosaur

sharply_done

click_click

macrosaur

macrosaur

FD

macrosaur

gostwyck

Phil

macrosaur

macrosaur

FD

michaeldb

Related Topics

Sponsors

Microstock Poll Results

Sponsors