pancakes

MicrostockGroup Sponsors


Author Topic: Infringement of iStock exclusivity  (Read 12306 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

« Reply #25 on: January 14, 2015, 20:45 »
+2
Why does anyone care if someone is taking IS for a ride?  I don't condone it and sure there will be a reckoning at some point but not gonna waste any sympathy on either party.
This is what I was thinking.


« Reply #26 on: January 15, 2015, 00:14 »
0
NFL is right.  If there is a more tedious underpaid job than image inspecting I can't imagine what it is.

Umm...they seem to fair better than a micro stock contributor...

Maybe better than some.  Going by the yearly poll there are a number of microstockers making much more than that and putting in less time.

« Reply #27 on: January 15, 2015, 00:18 »
+14
Why does anyone care if someone is taking IS for a ride?  I don't condone it and sure there will be a reckoning at some point but not gonna waste any sympathy on either party.
This is what I was thinking.

I care.  If I would have played that same game I would have made hundreds of thousands of $ more than I have. 

This guy gets more money and better search positions than indies but still gets royalties on on the other micros also?  You don't think that screws the contributors who play by the rules?

« Reply #28 on: January 15, 2015, 00:33 »
+11
Why does anyone care if someone is taking IS for a ride?  I don't condone it and sure there will be a reckoning at some point but not gonna waste any sympathy on either party.

It's less about any harm done to iStock than it is harm done to all of us if the marketplace looks - to buyers, who are the ones making this all possible - like a sleazy back alley where you never know what you're getting or who you can trust. Ideally (and I realize we're not there), it should be a fair, honest and well regulated marketplace where buyers get a reasonable deal and know what they're paying for.

The harm to the buyer in this scenario, if they buy from iStock, is that they've paid a premium price for something that should have been main collection (not cheap, but not premium). A low level ripoff.

iStock tool the first image reported down within a few hours, so they were responsive once told.

« Reply #29 on: January 16, 2015, 02:42 »
0
Guess what?
The images on iStock disappeared.
I hope that was helpful this discussion  but I fear that this images will appear on other such accounts ...

ShadySue

  • There is a crack in everything
« Reply #30 on: January 16, 2015, 06:20 »
+3
Guess what?
The images on iStock disappeared.
I hope that was helpful this discussion  but I fear that this images will appear on other such accounts ...
Now that s/he's indie, they can place their files wherever they want.

« Reply #31 on: January 16, 2015, 06:42 »
+2
Guess what?
The images on iStock disappeared.
I hope that was helpful this discussion  but I fear that this images will appear on other such accounts ...
Now that s/he's indie, they can place their files wherever they want.
Seems that they didn't have any trouble with that earlier! :)
They were taking the whatsit IMHO. That's not just misunderstanding the rules or making an honest mistake.

« Reply #32 on: January 16, 2015, 07:48 »
+5
I hope stvagna never comes across yuri or any of his buddies or she's going to have a stroke.

« Reply #33 on: January 16, 2015, 08:35 »
0
Guess what?
The images on iStock disappeared.
I hope that was helpful this discussion  but I fear that this images will appear on other such accounts ...
Now that s/he's indie, they can place their files wherever they want.

That's funny.

« Reply #34 on: January 16, 2015, 15:24 »
-6
Why does anyone care if someone is taking IS for a ride?  I don't condone it and sure there will be a reckoning at some point but not gonna waste any sympathy on either party.

It's less about any harm done to iStock than it is harm done to all of us if the marketplace looks - to buyers, who are the ones making this all possible - like a sleazy back alley where you never know what you're getting or who you can trust. Ideally (and I realize we're not there), it should be a fair, honest and well regulated marketplace where buyers get a reasonable deal and know what they're paying for.

The harm to the buyer in this scenario, if they buy from iStock, is that they've paid a premium price for something that should have been main collection (not cheap, but not premium). A low level ripoff.

iStock tool the first image reported down within a few hours, so they were responsive once told.


errr...  no sympathy for such buyers either.  Anyone dumb enough to pay a premium for a product of no better quality than is available elsewhere for a fraction of the price because of a perception of a "label" deserves to be screwed.

« Reply #35 on: January 17, 2015, 11:51 »
+2
His 2700+ images from shutterStock are also gone.
http://www.shutterstock.com/gallery-802069p1.html
« Last Edit: January 17, 2015, 11:57 by Kamran »

« Reply #36 on: January 27, 2015, 12:54 »
+2

shudderstok

« Reply #37 on: January 27, 2015, 13:52 »
+3
Why does anyone care if someone is taking IS for a ride?  I don't condone it and sure there will be a reckoning at some point but not gonna waste any sympathy on either party.


It's less about any harm done to iStock than it is harm done to all of us if the marketplace looks - to buyers, who are the ones making this all possible - like a sleazy back alley where you never know what you're getting or who you can trust. Ideally (and I realize we're not there), it should be a fair, honest and well regulated marketplace where buyers get a reasonable deal and know what they're paying for.

The harm to the buyer in this scenario, if they buy from iStock, is that they've paid a premium price for something that should have been main collection (not cheap, but not premium). A low level ripoff.

iStock tool the first image reported down within a few hours, so they were responsive once told.



errr...  no sympathy for such buyers either.  Anyone dumb enough to pay a premium for a product of no better quality than is available elsewhere for a fraction of the price because of a perception of a "label" deserves to be screwed.


your lack of sympathy for buyers and to be so blunt as to call them "dumb" when it is people like you who willfully supply sites of "perception of label" so they can "deserve" to be screwed all the while you knowingly supply the cheap sites too makes you look rather lacking in character. think before you speak please, you kind of contradict yourself and make yourself look like an ignoramus, completely unethical, and unprofessional. you should pull your images from that "perception" site. Thanks for screwing the buyers, they deserved it.

http://www.istockphoto.com/profile/heywoody
http://www.shutterstock.com/gallery-485545p1.html&rid=102

ShadySue

  • There is a crack in everything
« Reply #38 on: January 27, 2015, 15:50 »
+2
So presumably the SS port was a rip-off?
I know we'll never be told, but if so, I wonder if SS compensated the author for any sales of the ripped off files.

Uncle Pete

« Reply #39 on: January 29, 2015, 12:16 »
0
And on FT also? I'm still kind of suspicious and hope the individual can somehow pass on the facts behind what happened, and end this.

So presumably the SS port was a rip-off?
I know we'll never be told, but if so, I wonder if SS compensated the author for any sales of the ripped off files.


 

Related Topics

  Subject / Started by Replies Last post
18 Replies
5317 Views
Last post May 27, 2014, 15:26
by bunhill
25 Replies
5849 Views
Last post July 21, 2014, 01:47
by disorderly
90 Replies
17761 Views
Last post September 11, 2014, 18:26
by KB
19 Replies
5615 Views
Last post July 24, 2017, 08:12
by MxR
8 Replies
7585 Views
Last post May 06, 2019, 16:44
by jjpd747

Sponsors

Mega Bundle of 5,900+ Professional Lightroom Presets

Microstock Poll Results

Sponsors

3100 Posing Cards Bundle