MicrostockGroup Sponsors


Author Topic: READ THIS if you're fed up with iStock  (Read 34266 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

SNP

  • Canadian Photographer
« Reply #75 on: April 09, 2011, 10:10 »
0
it's not worth repeating in this ridiculous thread which includes serial posts from two people who have nothing to do with iStock except that they've made a career out of being haters.

Les deux Tricoteuse ?!

had to look it up, great reference


« Reply #76 on: April 09, 2011, 10:40 »
0
Lol, Stacey said 'haters'.

jbarber873

« Reply #77 on: April 09, 2011, 11:07 »
+1
Agree, if I was a design company on the receiving end of this call, not knowing the alternatives out there and the way IStock was treating contributors, I would be thankful for the info.

If I was running a design house, busy doing my work, and some random person called me to "inform me" of his opinions about how I should run my business, I'd hang up.  Who asked you for your opinion?

And if I want to think you're a jerk for trying to damage my primary source of income, I think I'm allowed to feel that way.

I wouldn't even have replied, but I'm glad you did. I've already said what I think about contributors like this attempting to destroy business at iStock. it's not worth repeating in this ridiculous thread which includes serial posts from two people who have nothing to do with iStock except that they've made a career out of being haters.

     I don't think that those contributors who see what is going on at Istock and look for ways to react to it should be called "haters". That's so tea party/fox news it's just childish. Creating images is a valid way to make a living, and if a particular site is not giving a fair percentage to those contributors, it's perfectly normal to look for ways to get more return for your efforts. This is just another example of the exclusive vs independent divide and conquer game going on at Istock. If there are ways to influence and create a better deal for contributors, then I say go for it. Istock is doing all they can to punish and marginalize non-exclusives, and it's sad to see the exclusive contributors buying into this. Once they drive away the non-exclusives, do you really think they will reward the exclusives with a better deal?

« Reply #78 on: April 09, 2011, 11:15 »
+1
Agree, if I was a design company on the receiving end of this call, not knowing the alternatives out there and the way IStock was treating contributors, I would be thankful for the info.

If I was running a design house, busy doing my work, and some random person called me to "inform me" of his opinions about how I should run my business, I'd hang up.  Who asked you for your opinion?

And if I want to think you're a jerk for trying to damage my primary source of income, I think I'm allowed to feel that way.

I wouldn't even have replied, but I'm glad you did. I've already said what I think about contributors like this attempting to destroy business at iStock. it's not worth repeating in this ridiculous thread which includes serial posts from two people who have nothing to do with iStock except that they've made a career out of being haters.

Again...pot...kettle...black. Hypocrite.

When someone here states their point of view over and over, they're a hater. When you, and now, Sean, come and post your point of view, you're what...??? That you have narrowed down the number of posters who are adamantly speaking out about istock to just two is pretty ridiculous...that makes me think that in fact you too must be a hater against those specific two people and have mounted your own personal campaign to misalign them. Check out all of the other threads on this forum AND on the istock forum (oh, but wait, you can't...all of the threads have been deleted there). You will see WAY more than 2 people speaking out.

And that you specifically keep coming back here to repeat the same thing over and over and over makes you a hater too, no? You keep saying you don't need to repeat it, but then you do.  ;)

I truly feel bad for you two, and other exclusives. That you have backed yourselves into a corner by being exclusive is YOUR choice, not anyone elses. Blame the abuser, Getty/istock instead of all the people choosing to take a stand. If you aren't happy with your choice, do something about. People who have chosen to make a different choice...good on them!

And another funny thing is that the sentinel jumps in too...but wait...I think I remember seeing a post from him/her complaining about the best match and/or sales being down. Why I think that constitutes a hater!  ::)

« Reply #79 on: April 09, 2011, 11:19 »
0
Acting out a desire to put iStock out of business doesn't automatically make you a hater.  It might just be strategic.  To quote Voltaire, "Dans ce pays-ci, il est bon de tuer de temps en temps un amiral pour encourager les autres." ("In this country, it is wise to kill an admiral from time to time to encourage the others.")

nruboc

« Reply #80 on: April 09, 2011, 11:23 »
0
Agree, if I was a design company on the receiving end of this call, not knowing the alternatives out there and the way IStock was treating contributors, I would be thankful for the info.

If I was running a design house, busy doing my work, and some random person called me to "inform me" of his opinions about how I should run my business, I'd hang up.  Who asked you for your opinion?And if I want to think you're a jerk for trying to damage my primary source of income, I think I'm allowed to feel that way.

Oh wait, let me wait next time until the all mighty sjlocke asks for my opinion before I give it....lol

« Reply #81 on: April 09, 2011, 11:28 »
0
'I truly feel bad for you two, and other exclusives. '

Aw gosh, thanks.  That makes me feel better.  Could you send me some flowers?

Right now, my choice has proved beneficial, so I'm good.  No need to waste your pity.

Obviously, because of my choice, it is not in my interest to stand and applaud your efforts to derail my business.  I'm surprised that is such an unexpected revelation.  Do I think 15% or whatever sucks?  Yes.  I don't think it's necessary or warranted, really.  However that does not directly affect my dealings with IS currently.  If you want to boycott uploads or change avatars or whatever, that's great.  But trying to directly affect my business will not make any exclusive particularly happy.

SNP

  • Canadian Photographer
« Reply #82 on: April 09, 2011, 11:29 »
0
Lol, Stacey said 'haters'.

no right-wing tea party reference intended. definitely do not support anything of that sort.

« Reply #83 on: April 09, 2011, 11:31 »
0
Oh wait, let me wait next time until the all mighty sjlocke asks for my opinion before I give it....lol

Try addressing things in the context they were said instead of bolding a bit and trying to be funny.

« Reply #84 on: April 09, 2011, 11:37 »
+1
Agree, if I was a design company on the receiving end of this call, not knowing the alternatives out there and the way IStock was treating contributors, I would be thankful for the info.

If I was running a design house, busy doing my work, and some random person called me to "inform me" of his opinions about how I should run my business, I'd hang up.  Who asked you for your opinion?

And if I want to think you're a jerk for trying to damage my primary source of income, I think I'm allowed to feel that way.

I wouldn't even have replied, but I'm glad you did. I've already said what I think about contributors like this attempting to destroy business at iStock. it's not worth repeating in this ridiculous thread which includes serial posts from two people who have nothing to do with iStock except that they've made a career out of being haters.

Again...pot...kettle...black. Hypocrite.

When someone here states their point of view over and over, they're a hater. When you, and now, Sean, come and post your point of view, you're what...??? That you have narrowed down the number of posters who are adamantly speaking out about istock to just two is pretty ridiculous...that makes me think that in fact you too must be a hater against those specific two people and have mounted your own personal campaign to misalign them. Check out all of the other threads on this forum AND on the istock forum (oh, but wait, you can't...all of the threads have been deleted there). You will see WAY more than 2 people speaking out.

And that you specifically keep coming back here to repeat the same thing over and over and over makes you a hater too, no? You keep saying you don't need to repeat it, but then you do.  ;)

I truly feel bad for you two, and other exclusives. That you have backed yourselves into a corner by being exclusive is YOUR choice, not anyone elses. Blame the abuser, Getty/istock instead of all the people choosing to take a stand. If you aren't happy with your choice, do something about. People who have chosen to make a different choice...good on them!

And another funny thing is that the sentinel jumps in too...but wait...I think I remember seeing a post from him/her complaining about the best match and/or sales being down. Why I think that constitutes a hater!  ::)

Great post as usual cclapper! This whole thing of calling people "haters" because they are critical of a company that deserves it is beyond childish.

nruboc

« Reply #85 on: April 09, 2011, 11:42 »
0
Oh wait, let me wait next time until the all mighty sjlocke asks for my opinion before I give it....lol

Try addressing things in the context they were said instead of bolding a bit and trying to be funny.

Your post made no sense, where did the OP tell the people he called how to run their business? Talk about taking things out of context..LOL

Trying to justify your pettiness name calling doesn't seem to be working, everyone's fed up with that here.

« Reply #86 on: April 09, 2011, 11:59 »
0
Oh wait, let me wait next time until the all mighty sjlocke asks for my opinion before I give it....lol

Try addressing things in the context they were said instead of bolding a bit and trying to be funny.

Your post made no sense, where did the OP tell the people he called how to run their business? Talk about taking things out of context..LOL

Trying to justify your pettiness name calling doesn't seem to be working, everyone's fed up with that here.
I think many are fed up with the bickering, period. No matter from which side its coming. (not only in this thread)
This clash of interests is just going round and round in circles, why not just hit ignore instead of getting worked up over eachother...?
« Last Edit: April 09, 2011, 12:01 by Artemis »

« Reply #87 on: April 09, 2011, 12:01 »
0
If you've got no stake in iStock and you just repeatedly troll these forums stirring up hated for no reason other than you hate the company, then yes, you're a hater. That's you caspixel. You're obsessed with something that's nothing to do with you.

The others who are campaigning to send clients elsewhere because they'll benefit are just activists, right or wrong, but since they have something at stake they're perfectly justified in being annoyed with iStock and taking those actions.

As far as I can see you have no work with iStock and don't buy anything from there. You aren't a contributor to any of the agencies we discuss here just a designer who decided that they were paying too much for artists work and decided to continually rubbish the agent that other members rely on for their whole income.

I think it's a given that iStock's behaviour pisses its contibutors off, I just don't understand why you can't let it go since you have no involvement on either side of the buying or selling fence.

« Reply #88 on: April 09, 2011, 12:06 »
0
If you've got no stake in iStock and you just repeatedly troll these forums stirring up hated for no reason other than you hate the company, then yes, you're a hater. That's you caspixel. You're obsessed with something that's nothing to do with you.

The others who are campaigning to send clients elsewhere because they'll benefit are just activists, right or wrong, but since they have something at stake they're perfectly justified in being annoyed with iStock and taking those actions.

As far as I can see you have no work with iStock and don't buy anything from there. You aren't a contributor to any of the agencies we discuss here just a designer who decided that they were paying too much for artists work and decided to continually rubbish the agent that other members rely on for their whole income.

I think it's a given that iStock's behaviour pisses its contibutors off, I just don't understand why you can't let it go since you have no involvement on either side of the buying or selling fence.

This is in defense of ANYONE who chooses to post here...they have a right just as much as anyone else. Whatever anyone's affiliation with istock is, was, or will be, is really no one else's business. There are PLENTY of people posting against istock, here and formerly in the istock forum. Look at all the other threads. Even some of the name-callers here (who I would define as a hater too) are complaining in other threads.

I get that everyone is wanting to protect their own interests, but that is a two way street, whether you folks going the opposite way likes it or not.  ;)

« Reply #89 on: April 09, 2011, 12:12 »
+1
I just don't understand why you can't let it go since you have no involvement on either side of the buying or selling fence.

Excuse me? I am a buyer, used to be a loyal iStock customer and now purchase from other agencies, agencies that give the contributor a fairer royalty percentage. And I also have friends who are contributors. If you don't like reading my opinions or my posts, it's been said before, but I'll say it again, USE THE IGNORE BUTTON. It's absolutely stupid and childish to call someone a "hater". So photoagogo, if you don't like what you are reading from me, you are free to agogo go away.
« Last Edit: April 09, 2011, 12:16 by caspixel »

« Reply #90 on: April 09, 2011, 12:14 »
0
Sean and Stacey are sometimes critical of iStockphoto. When someone is often positive then I take more notice of them if they are sometimes critical. That seems like a much more neutral position.

nruboc

« Reply #91 on: April 09, 2011, 12:15 »
+1
I just don't understand why you can't let it go since you have no involvement on either side of the buying or selling fence.

Excuse me? I am a buyer, used to be a loyal iStock customer and now purchase from other agencies. And I also have friends who are contributors. If you don't like reading my opinions or my posts, it's been said before, but I'll say it again, USE THE IGNORE BUTTON. It's absolutely stupid and childish to call someone a "hater". So photoagogo, if you don't like what you are reading from me, why don't you just agogo go away.

My 12 year old nephew used to use 'hater' all the time. I think he's matured now, because he doesn't use it anymore. :)


nruboc

« Reply #92 on: April 09, 2011, 12:16 »
0
Sean and Stacey are sometimes critical of iStockphoto. When someone is often positive then I take more notice of them if they are sometimes critical. That seems like a much more neutral position.

I felt the same way too, until they started with the personal attacks.

KB

« Reply #93 on: April 09, 2011, 12:16 »
0
iHateiStock.com is available for registration if anyone wants it.

So is iHateGetty.com.

Just sayin' ....  ;D

« Reply #94 on: April 09, 2011, 12:17 »
+1
iHateiStock.com is available for registration if anyone wants it.

So is iHateGetty.com.

Just sayin' ....  ;D

I'm actually surprised iHateGetty.com is available.  ;D

« Reply #95 on: April 09, 2011, 12:18 »
0

My 12 year old nephew used to use 'hater' all the time. I think he's matured now, because he doesn't use it anymore. :)

LOL

« Reply #96 on: April 09, 2011, 12:20 »
0
If you don't like reading my opinions or my posts, it's been said before, but I'll say it again, USE THE IGNORE BUTTON. It's absolutely stupid and childish to call someone a "hater". So photoagogo, if you don't like what you are reading from me, you are free to agogo go away.

There wouldn't be anything left to read here if I did that.

« Reply #97 on: April 09, 2011, 12:22 »
0
And if I want to think you're a jerk for trying to damage my primary source of income, I think I'm allowed to feel that way.

Why do I feel like I'm watching an abused spouse lashing out at those who are trying to stop that long cycle of abuse?  Sean, I can't stop you from feeling the way you feel, and don't know that I'd try even if I thought it would work.  But insulting those who have decided to stand up to their abusers?  That's both counterproductive and wrong.

Granted, my income from iStock was never enough to matter except in a personal satisfaction sense.  And granted, I never would have entered into an exclusivity arrangement with any agency, much less one that made such (in my view) unreasonable demands.  But I can see what you either can't or just won't acknowledge: that the arrangement we have with iStock is unequal and, dare I repeat the word, abusive.  We all have to deal with that reality in our own ways, including having to acknowledge that some people will react to mistreatment more strongly and more angrily than others.  They have cause for that anger, and much as I might wish they might channel it into something more positive, I doubt insulting them will have any desirable effect.  It just makes you look petty and dishonest as you attempt to defend the indefensible.
Totally agree about the abusive spouse thing.  I wonder if psychologists will one day coin a term for this type of Stockholm Syndrome thing where the abused party tries to protect their abuser in an effort to help themselves feel more in control of the abusive situation.  I think professors will be teaching their psych 101 classes all about Classic Istock-exclusive-syndrome, where the abused party continues to protect the abuser as their commissions slowly get lowered over time to 1%. It is one thing to think that being exclusive will make you the most money but it is another thing to actually call people jerks who are looking out for your best interest long term. In the end if those "jerks" get istock to raise commissions back up you will be calling them your heros.

I have been doing my part and referring clients to the sites that pay the larges royalty per download....for me that is Canstock and dreamstime, not counting alamy who I refer my clients to if I think they will actually pay the big bucks. Why would I refer clients to a company where I know I will get paid the lowest average Royalty for a sale of any stock site that exists

« Reply #98 on: April 09, 2011, 12:23 »
0
If you don't like reading my opinions or my posts, it's been said before, but I'll say it again, USE THE IGNORE BUTTON. It's absolutely stupid and childish to call someone a "hater". So photoagogo, if you don't like what you are reading from me, you are free to agogo go away.

There wouldn't be anything left to read here if I did that.

If you ignored me there wouldn't be anything left to read? Well, that makes no sense. Um, in case you haven't noticed, I'm not the only one who posts here. And clearly, if you continue to come here, despite being bothered by all the "haters" then you want to read what they have to say. So stop complaining about it and calling people names.

« Reply #99 on: April 09, 2011, 12:26 »
0
snip
Totally agree about the abusive spouse thing.  I wonder if psychologists will one day coin a term for this type of Stockholm Syndrome thing where the abused party tries to protect their abuser in an effort to help themselves feel more in control of the abusive situation.

Now that's funny!


 

Related Topics

  Subject / Started by Replies Last post
1 Replies
3723 Views
Last post May 12, 2008, 10:13
by grp_photo
3 Replies
2188 Views
Last post June 19, 2012, 13:33
by Karimala
0 Replies
2437 Views
Last post September 30, 2019, 08:16
by vectorsforall
13 Replies
4073 Views
Last post June 15, 2020, 23:14
by cascoly
1 Replies
4158 Views
Last post June 18, 2020, 14:59
by CommuniCat

Sponsors

Mega Bundle of 5,900+ Professional Lightroom Presets

Microstock Poll Results

Sponsors