Author Topic: Potential Conflict of interests (Read 7603 times)

Freedom · « **on:** February 17, 2008, 21:09 »

One of my conceptual shot was rejected by a stock agency. A few weeks later, I saw another photo with shockingly similar concept and arrangement on the front page of the same site. When I looked at the dates, the similar image was submitted on the same day when my photo was refused.

It's a known fact that many reviewers are also contributing photograhers. I have no idea whether or not it was a pure coincidence.

But, it occurs to me that stock agencies should consider the potential conflict of interests. Most reviewers must be persons of high integrity but it remains a possiblity that some reviewers may refuse photos similar to their own or even copy another photographer's idea.

Think about it.

madelaide · « **Reply #1 on:** February 17, 2008, 21:28 »

Have you reported it? The agency may (and probably will) deny the coincidence, but at least they will probably do something with the reviewer/member, especially as it may not be an isolated case.

Regards,
Adelaide

Freedom · « **Reply #2 on:** February 17, 2008, 23:10 »

It is not my concern that my own photo was rejected. I don't want to cause trouble for that person either. Besides, I don't know if that person was a reviewer.

I think stockphoto agencies should take this possibility into consideration, that's my point.

sharpshot · « **Reply #3 on:** February 18, 2008, 02:44 »

I don't think they will take the conflict of interest in to consideration because reviewers are paid very little and most don't seem to do it for very long. If they stopped using contributors to review, who would do the job?

rjmiz · « **Reply #4 on:** February 18, 2008, 04:17 »

I would like to make a comment about reviewers:

When I first got into this game, I thought they were Gods chosen specifically
by Ansel Adams and the like. I would would have bowed, and fallen to my knees
in humility if one had directly addressed me in during a rejection.
After all, it was the "Reviewer Gods" that determined if any of my images lived
or died in the world of stock. They had the "POWER".

I imagined that the reviewer who rejected my images, and told me things like
"Not stock worthy", "noise", focus, and other terms I have come to know,
were learned by the reviewer in his years of experience, knowledge, and schooling
he received during the course of his career as a professional.
Who was I to question a God anyway?

Can you imagine my horror one day while browsing thru the SS forums, I discovered
one of the Gods at SS said they were looking for more Gods to review images.
.....And that if you had 250 images in your portfolio (or gallery) You too could become a God!
WHAT! No way is that possible!

I have been doing stock now for 3 years, and most of the Gods, have turned into stay at home wifes
with 5 kids running around the house, or some grocery store stock clerk. Thats when I cried out in protest
and was eventually kicked off of SS for opening my big mouth once too often.

So now I just bide my time and have learned how to incorporate the the word "Acceptance" in my daily life.
I still get rejections, but I live a much happier life now, and I have not been kicked off of anymore stock sites since.

The best to all,
The MIZ

Freedom · « **Reply #5 on:** February 18, 2008, 08:35 »

If reviewers are paid very little, does it mean they should be permitted to refuse the photos from "better paid" contributors and sneak in and sell more of their own?

Does it mean if a person is poor, it's ok to steal from anyone, richer or poorer?

I am not trying to run down any reviewers, it's about ethics. Should ethics be compromised as a bonus to poorly paid people?

True, reviewers are not gods, they are only human. However, reviewers are actully in the position of power over even more poorer photograpers.

Any profession and trade should have their own code of conducts if they want to have any credibility.

lisafx · « **Reply #6 on:** February 18, 2008, 09:19 »

I can certainly understand the concern in theory. However in practice I have not seen evidence of that type of bias from reviewers. I am often surprised at how evenhanded they are.

To the OP, even if the person who reviewed your image was the person who uploaded the similar image, there is virtually no chance they could have run out and copied and uploaded the same day. More likely it was just a coincidence. I didn't see either image, so please don't be offended by the question, but is it at all possible that your image had technical or lighting issues that the accepted one didn't?

I have found over 3 years of doing this that my acceptance rates have improved in direct proportion with my technical and lighting skills, and this is across all sites. Unless there is hard evidence of some sort of bias then it probably more productive to spend time taking pictures and improving skills than theorizing about biased inspections.

fotografer · « **Reply #7 on:** February 18, 2008, 10:21 »

I agree with Lisa here. I don't remember ever having an image refused where I thought that they were unjust. Sometimes a little bit too picky but they have always been right in my experience.

le_cyclope · « **Reply #8 on:** February 18, 2008, 12:21 »

This stock business is a business of mutual trust.

Contributors have to trust the sites that they will take good care of their photos, that every sale will be reported, that they will use efficient watermark and so on...

The sites have to trust the contributors that every photo is legitimate, model releases if any are valid, etc.

Sites and contributor have to trust the buyers in that they will respect the terms of service...

Buyers have to trust that photos are legitimate and that there are no copyright issues...

Yes I believe that there is a potential conflict of interest as you mentioned, but I live with it and I believe that without a mutual trust, this business will not survive.

Claude

Freedom · « **Reply #9 on:** February 18, 2008, 13:53 »

Lisafx, I do not found your comments to be fair.

First, I wan to make it clear that my photo was NOT submitted on the same day that the other photo was submitted. My photo was submitted a few days earlier. If that person was a reviewer, it was possible to shoot the same thing after looking at my photo, and refuse my photo on the same day of his own submission.

You can always find technical flaws in any photo. One poorly lit photo can be applauded as being "moody" and dramatic. It's very subjective but as long as there is no abuse, I can live with rejecitons. I am not talking about rejections, I am talking about potential abuse.

By the way, my photo was accepted by all other agencies and had sales.

If you have not found any bias or abuse in the stockphoto industry, it does not mean other people have the same experience. It's unfair to discredit other people's findings of bias or suspicion of abuse. Using an inappropriate example, if you have not been beaten up by your husband, it does not mean that other women have never been abused.

I am even more disappointed that you try to dispute other people's rights to discuss issues and improve the industry's standards. You can spend every minute of your life shooting photos and submitting them, other people may find the fairness issue equally important to their sense of justice.

If you are a stock photographer or even if you are a newbie, it does not mean you should be reduced to a submissive technical slave, and only say "yes" to people who may be in the positive of power or even the beneficiaries of the status quo.

I trust this forum was created to offer people an opportunity of free speech, and such an opportunity should be treasured and not discarded.

Quote from: lisafx on February 18, 2008, 09:19

I can certainly understand the concern in theory. However in practice I have not seen evidence of that type of bias from reviewers. I am often surprised at how evenhanded they are.

To the OP, even if the person who reviewed your image was the person who uploaded the similar image, there is virtually no chance they could have run out and copied and uploaded the same day. More likely it was just a coincidence. I didn't see either image, so please don't be offended by the question, but is it at all possible that your image had technical or lighting issues that the accepted one didn't?

I have found over 3 years of doing this that my acceptance rates have improved in direct proportion with my technical and lighting skills, and this is across all sites. Unless there is hard evidence of some sort of bias then it probably more productive to spend time taking pictures and improving skills than theorizing about biased inspections.

anonymous · « **Reply #10 on:** February 18, 2008, 16:42 »

Quote from: Freedom on February 18, 2008, 13:53

Lisafx, I do not found your comments to be fair.

First, I wan to make it clear that my photo was NOT submitted on the same day that the other photo was submitted. My photo was submitted a few days earlier. If that person was a reviewer, it was possible to shoot the same thing after looking at my photo, and refuse my photo on the same day of his own submission.

You can always find technical flaws in any photo. One poorly lit photo can be applauded as being "moody" and dramatic. It's very subjective but as long as there is no abuse, I can live with rejecitons. I am not talking about rejections, I am talking about potential abuse.

By the way, my photo was accepted by all other agencies and had sales.

If you have not found any bias or abuse in the stockphoto industry, it does not mean other people have the same experience. It's unfair to discredit other people's findings of bias or suspicion of abuse. Using an inappropriate example, if you have not been beaten up by your husband, it does not mean that other women have never been abused.

I am even more disappointed that you try to dispute other people's rights to discuss issues and improve the industry's standards. You can spend every minute of your life shooting photos and submitting them, other people may find the fairness issue equally important to their sense of justice.

If you are a stock photographer or even if you are a newbie, it does not mean you should be reduced to a submissive technical slave, and only say "yes" to people who may be in the positive of power or even the beneficiaries of the status quo.

I trust this forum was created to offer people an opportunity of free speech, and such an opportunity should be treasured and not discarded.

Quote from: lisafx on February 18, 2008, 09:19
I can certainly understand the concern in theory. However in practice I have not seen evidence of that type of bias from reviewers. I am often surprised at how evenhanded they are.

To the OP, even if the person who reviewed your image was the person who uploaded the similar image, there is virtually no chance they could have run out and copied and uploaded the same day. More likely it was just a coincidence. I didn't see either image, so please don't be offended by the question, but is it at all possible that your image had technical or lighting issues that the accepted one didn't?

I have found over 3 years of doing this that my acceptance rates have improved in direct proportion with my technical and lighting skills, and this is across all sites. Unless there is hard evidence of some sort of bias then it probably more productive to spend time taking pictures and improving skills than theorizing about biased inspections.

wow...like your fire!! : )

IMHO...I DO believe that there is and always will be a certain level of abuse when the fox guards the hen house...that being said, I also DO believe that the majority of this stock game is fair. It is not in the best interests of the agencies to have rogue reviewers (it costs them sales as well as us).

It's good to question because there will always be folks ready to take advantage of those who don't. It's also good to take a deep breath and move forward...don't let this incident deter you from persuing the fun.

Good luck!

Pixart · « **Reply #11 on:** February 18, 2008, 17:29 »

You could link the two images if you'd like us to give you an unbiased opinion. (Others have done that in the past and I've kept my thoughts to myself... "Are you out of your mind??? They aren't close at all!") The other thing is you could give it a couple weeks and resubmit. Obviously, if it is selling well elsewhere, maybe you got a reviewer with a hangover.

Freedom · « **Reply #12 on:** February 18, 2008, 18:20 »

I am sorry but some of you simply missed the point, with the best of intention!!

It is not important whether or not my image was rejected. I do not worry about this one rejection as the same photo has been accepted in all other agencies. This is not my first rejection and certainly will not be my last.

It is important that we, as photographers and agency administrators, to realize that there is real potential for ABUSE. We must address the issue, and not deny the possibility.

Of course, the majority people in this world are not criminals, and most reviewers are honourable and ethical professionals. However, police still parol the street and there are courts and jails. Why? Because there are criminals and accidents and disputes.

Personally, I have long moved on. It's not necessary to name the agency or the other photographer because I have no intention to target anyone personally.

This is NOT about one person and one photo. The question is wether or not the stockphoto agencies are aware of this and have the mechinism in place to deal with it. More importantly, do they have guidelines to educate the reviewers when conflict arises.

And, we photographers perhaps can see things beyond the dollars and cents and understand that we must make efforts to achieve fairness.

madelaide · « **Reply #13 on:** February 18, 2008, 18:30 »

Freedom,

I agree with you it's not a matter of accepting rejections, but I guess Pixart's suggestion is more to let other say what they think about the "similarity" of the images (as it was discussed in another thread).

Regards,
Adelaide

cathyslife · « **Reply #14 on:** February 18, 2008, 18:35 »

Quote

The question is wether or not the stockphoto agencies are aware of this and have the mechinism in place to deal with it.

Yes, they are and yes they do.

Freedom · « **Reply #15 on:** February 18, 2008, 19:21 »

Cclapper, I hope what you said is true and you are one of the people in the know. I'd appreciate if anyone can be more specifice about such guidelines.

P and M, I undertand your curiosity but sorry I am not going to show my photo. I do not wish to trivalize a policy discussion into personal resentment against any individual or agency. My photo has been reviewed and accepted by every agency, except the one which showcased a very smilar photo at a conspicuous time frame.

Quote from: cclapper on February 18, 2008, 18:35

Quote
The question is wether or not the stockphoto agencies are aware of this and have the mechinism in place to deal with it.

Yes, they are and yes they do.

MicrostockGroup Sponsors

Author Topic: Potential Conflict of interests (Read 7603 times)

Freedom

madelaide

Freedom

sharpshot

rjmiz

Freedom

lisafx

fotografer

le_cyclope

Freedom

anonymous

Pixart

Freedom

madelaide

cathyslife

Freedom

Related Topics

Sponsors

Microstock Poll Results

Sponsors