Ok thanks

Quote from: Vonkara on December 27, 2009, 16:32

I am confused... Can we submit editorial images elsewhere (like on Alamy) when we are exclusive at Istock ? Are we still debating this... If so, I will send a support ticket to Istock, because it's a question I need an answer on.

all "editorial" images without releases will require rm licencing, at alamy or elsewhere. so, yes, you're ok by is exclusivity rules.

No, Shutterstock offers editorial images under an RF license.

Look:  RM and RF are types of licenses.  Within these, you the license can allow editorial or commercial usage.

You can submit whatever images you like to Alamy as long as they are not offered with the RF license.

No, Shutterstock offers editorial images under an RF license.

yes, you're right, and i've actually sold a few of those. sean, you may be an is exclusive, but you sure are keeping a tab on things elsewhere.  have you ever been tempted to, er, go indie?

Quote from: sjlocke on December 27, 2009, 17:20

No, Shutterstock offers editorial images under an RF license.

yes, you're right, and i've actually sold a few of those. sean, you may be an is exclusive, but you sure are keeping a tab on things elsewhere.  have you ever been tempted to, er, go indie?

Nope, but I keep my eyes and ears open.

I hope they do that shortly, but the fact that they doesn't yet mean a lot to me. Add, editorial and more tolerance for raster images, there's so much nice work in this category

But a recent 'lypse in Turkey was specifically to train iStockers for shooting editorial for Getty. (Sadly, I had to do my day job, APU.)

Yap that caught my attention too. As or now, iStock exclusives have no outlet at all for their RF Editorial. Some people here don't think high of Editorial (thinking it's sloppiness about asking releases) but it's a fun way to shoot. I can't get most of my Editorial into microstock, but when it happens, it's amongst my best sellers.

If you clone things out of Editorial, you MUST mark it altered. You seem to be missing the second part about news/editorial photos. They cannot be photoshopped, heavily altered or have things pasted or removed. This would include taking out people, changing the color of the sky, adding a Moon and all kinds of creative modifications. There is a certain level of accuracy and integrity that's necessary.

The whole sloppy releases is an over simplification. (a cheap shot!) Many photos and situations you couldn't get a release if you wanted, it's impossible. Most news coverage easily falls into this area. Sporting events. Multiple people, agencies, clubs, individuals, leagues, locations... claiming rights at an event, where none honestly can overstep the rights of the others.

The end use is what determines how a photo fits into the law. The end user is responsible, even if you mark it RF and it's not released. Just having something marked editorial doesn't stop some end users from using them illegally! Taking a photo is fine in almost any location or situation, it's what you can or can't do with that photo, that is what's regulated by the law.

Oh yes, Editorial / News is protected in the US by First Amendment rights, that's freedom of the press. Education has been included in the freedom to share knowledge and ideas along with freedom of the press.

But you can't alter Editorial, like you seem to think you can, by cloning out things that you don't like. You can't add things either! That's dishonest. Maybe we should have a whole different thread about this, since this one has been hijacked! 

Quote from: FD-amateur on December 28, 2009, 16:03

Quote from: ShadySue on December 28, 2009, 15:51

But a recent 'lypse in Turkey was specifically to train iStockers for shooting editorial for Getty. (Sadly, I had to do my day job, APU.)

Yap that caught my attention too. As or now, iStock exclusives have no outlet at all for their RF Editorial. Some people here don't think high of Editorial (thinking it's sloppiness about asking releases) but it's a fun way to shoot. I can't get most of my Editorial into microstock, but when it happens, it's amongst my best sellers.

I've just broken my Alamy/editorial duck with two sales this month (only just noticed the second!). The first one was a very specific photo that I thought might have sold once or twice at most on iStock. It had some incidental people, which would have been marginal by iStock's standard, but I could have cloned them out if I'd throught there was any point in sending it to iStock. The second one was a specific location (landscape) with absolutely no need for any PR or MRs. So the comment that editorial is just for unreleased images makes no sense whatsoever. I can and have cloned out with the best of them - one of my iStock landscapes has 13 (unrecogniseable except maybe by context) people cloned out. (However, if I were doing it now, it would go to Alamy - a very specific travel location with little iStock interest.)
I'm still learning where to make the split between what goes where.

Quote from: RacePhoto on December 28, 2009, 16:52

If you clone things out of Editorial, you MUST mark it altered. You seem to be missing the second part about news/editorial photos. They cannot be photoshopped, heavily altered or have things pasted or removed.

Did you read what I wrote? I said I had cloned people out of photos I sent to iStock. I am perfectly aware of the need for editorial to be unaltered.

Yup, but someone else may miss the point, with all the talk of cloning and landscapes and people. 

Also just slapping a label on it as editorial doesn't make it news. As someone else pointed out, we can have released Editorial and RM as well.

Nice going on the Alamy sales!

If you clone things out of Editorial, you MUST mark it altered. You seem to be missing the second part about news/editorial photos. They cannot be photoshopped, heavily altered or have things pasted or removed. This would include taking out people, changing the color of the sky, adding a Moon and all kinds of creative modifications. There is a certain level of accuracy and integrity that's necessary.

As mentioned, "editorial" restrictions usually only refer to the idea that the content in them is unreleased.  There is no requirement that they be unaltered or anything else, in general.  That would be a per agent thing, ie "Any submissions marked editorial must be generally unaltered" or something.

Hi MichaelJay,

 Did you used to play a little B-ball back in the day : ) Great post thank you for being so helpful, and I love your boxers

Cheers,
J

I answered... I am exclusive to IS.

I am new to the microstockgroup forms. Hello!

If they can't sustain their business with a fair number of people reaching the level where IS only gets 60% of each sale, then I doubt they would ever let me get to that level (by lowering top % by the time I get there or continuous moving goalposts every few years as I approach). I might make sense for diamonds, but not for me. I have the feeling that these large price raises will have to be carried on the back of exclusive content getting buried in the best match though if they want to increase income enough to make up for the canister moves.

In summary, I doubt it would be worth it for me now, and now I doubt it ever will be.
I am a little frightened of what they will do with the huge increases they are expecting to make though, after seeing what is happening to StockXpert/JIU/Photos.com

Looking to revive this thread so people could change their answers on the poll. But look at what Tom wrote in December. A prophet!

Here's what it was before today:

Are you going exclusive with Istock in the next 6 months ?

I am already exclusive    - 33 (15.9%)
I am going to be exclusive    - 11 (5.3%)
I am not sure yet    - 28 (13.5%)
No I will stay independant    - 130 (62.5%)
Other (exclusive at DT/can't in the next 6 months)    - 6 (2.9%)
Total Voters: 207

Which was eight months from today. I'm still wondering about the 11% who said they were going to  become an exclusive, since the numbers on IS didn't change over the year. Of course the whole poll is dead now, with the new commission announcement.

Looked at IS for the information and here it is for the record so people can see if something changes. Monday Sept. 13th, exclusive contributors 18.10% or 5534 people. Check next year or next month or whenever you feel it will be interesting.

I did became exclusive after this poll... Now I don't know what to do. All I know it's it will take me a couple of hours to reactivate my portfolio at Dreamstime, and one check (click) at Shutterstock

I know DT support won't help deactivate your port, but I assumed they would be willing to reactivate it. Are you sure you have to do it yourself?

Like you, I became exclusive after this poll -- but I was one of those who answered "I am not sure yet". Too bad I went the way I did.