MicrostockGroup
Microstock Photography Forum - General => Image Sleuth => Topic started by: stvagna on January 13, 2015, 15:25
-
iStock exclusive account selling images elsewhere under different accounts.
iStock exclusive © "frender": http://www.istockphoto.com/photo/computer-key-feedback-47922796 (http://www.istockphoto.com/photo/computer-key-feedback-47922796)
Shutterstock © "mstanley": http://www.shutterstock.com/pic-167677004/stock-photo-feedback-computer-key.html (http://www.shutterstock.com/pic-167677004/stock-photo-feedback-computer-key.html)
-
Everything in there is duplicated. Maybe he doesn't understand the meaning of the word?
-
Everything in there is duplicated. Maybe he doesn't understand the meaning of the word?
Just so:
iStock exclusive © "frender": http://www.istockphoto.com/photo/free-shipping-tag-19077992 (http://www.istockphoto.com/photo/free-shipping-tag-19077992)
Shutterstock © "mstanley": http://www.shutterstock.com/pic-161862611/stock-photo-free-shipping-price-tag-on-white-background.html (http://www.shutterstock.com/pic-161862611/stock-photo-free-shipping-price-tag-on-white-background.html)
iStock exclusive © "frender": http://www.istockphoto.com/photo/free-shipping-19085822 (http://www.istockphoto.com/photo/free-shipping-19085822)
Shutterstock © "mstanley": http://www.shutterstock.com/pic-234679543/stock-photo-free-shipping-cardboard-box.html (http://www.shutterstock.com/pic-234679543/stock-photo-free-shipping-cardboard-box.html)
-
Everything in there is duplicated. Maybe he doesn't understand the meaning of the word?
I don't see the problem. 'Exclusive' means he has the exclusive right to upload his files wherever he wishes, right? ::)
Based on the SS file numbers, this isn't someone who is in the midst of dropping exclusivity -- at least some of those files have been up there quite a while.
I suspect, however, that frender won't be an exclusive contributor much longer. ;D
-
.
-
Makes you wonder how many are playing this game for percentages?
IS Member since: November 2010
SS Member since 2011
Just a little honest mistake in the translation. ::)
-
Istock's Exclusive © "frender": http://www.istockphoto.com/photo/tm-symbol-26816739 (http://www.istockphoto.com/photo/tm-symbol-26816739)
Shutterstock © "mstanley": http://www.shutterstock.com/pic-159334409/stock-photo-tm-trade-mark-symbol.html (http://www.shutterstock.com/pic-159334409/stock-photo-tm-trade-mark-symbol.html)
Fotolia © "mstanley13": http://en.fotolia.com/id/64291379 (http://en.fotolia.com/id/64291379)
Istock's Exclusive © "frender": http://www.istockphoto.com/photo/copyright-26816826 (http://www.istockphoto.com/photo/copyright-26816826)
Shutterstock © "mstanley": http://www.shutterstock.com/pic-159344906/stock-photo-copyright-mark.html (http://www.shutterstock.com/pic-159344906/stock-photo-copyright-mark.html)
Fotolia © "mstanley13": http://en.fotolia.com/id/64286413 (http://en.fotolia.com/id/64286413)
-
He said that December was his WORST MONTH OF ALL TIME on iStock. ::)
http://www.istockphoto.com/forum_messages.php?threadid=364739&messageid=7072057 (http://www.istockphoto.com/forum_messages.php?threadid=364739&messageid=7072057)
-
He said that December was his WORST MONTH OF ALL TIME on iStock. ::)
[url]http://www.istockphoto.com/forum_messages.php?threadid=364739&messageid=7072057[/url] ([url]http://www.istockphoto.com/forum_messages.php?threadid=364739&messageid=7072057[/url])
Someone should let KJ or support know. This is quite egregious.
-
Istock's Exclusive © "frender": [url]http://www.istockphoto.com/photo/tm-symbol-26816739[/url] ([url]http://www.istockphoto.com/photo/tm-symbol-26816739[/url])
Shutterstock © "mstanley": [url]http://www.shutterstock.com/pic-159334409/stock-photo-tm-trade-mark-symbol.html[/url] ([url]http://www.shutterstock.com/pic-159334409/stock-photo-tm-trade-mark-symbol.html[/url])
Fotolia © "mstanley13": [url]http://en.fotolia.com/id/64291379[/url] ([url]http://en.fotolia.com/id/64291379[/url])
Istock's Exclusive © "frender": [url]http://www.istockphoto.com/photo/copyright-26816826[/url] ([url]http://www.istockphoto.com/photo/copyright-26816826[/url])
Shutterstock © "mstanley": [url]http://www.shutterstock.com/pic-159344906/stock-photo-copyright-mark.html[/url] ([url]http://www.shutterstock.com/pic-159344906/stock-photo-copyright-mark.html[/url])
Fotolia © "mstanley13": [url]http://en.fotolia.com/id/64286413[/url] ([url]http://en.fotolia.com/id/64286413[/url])
All the images (also the others ones) are not identical. It's the very same motive but it's a different image - see the shadows below the circle, in the other images the other keys on the keyboard have a different name, the fringe on the price tag is different.
Also, "mstanley" has different (and more) images than frender.
If you ask me, I'd rather assume that "mstanley" is a copycat.
-
You may be right. On closer inspection, there are ever so slight differences in all of them. Or more obvious ones.
http://www.shutterstock.com/pic-176811998/stock-photo-approved-stamp.html?src=WKBXwufPILqudHetbaTsTg-1-36&ws=0 (http://www.shutterstock.com/pic-176811998/stock-photo-approved-stamp.html?src=WKBXwufPILqudHetbaTsTg-1-36&ws=0)
http://www.istockphoto.com/photo/approved-stamp-19186962?st=12b763d (http://www.istockphoto.com/photo/approved-stamp-19186962?st=12b763d)
-
They're both from Turkey. My guess is same person, making slight changes to his own images.
-
Copycat uploads the copies before the originals?
Copycat that can predict the future?
"original" uploaded on 09-23-14 to Istock as Exclusive © "frender": http://www.istockphoto.com/photo/global-shipping-48206804 (http://www.istockphoto.com/photo/global-shipping-48206804)
"copycat" uploaded much earlier to Fotolia © "mstanley13": http://en.fotolia.com/id/64234894 (http://en.fotolia.com/id/64234894)
-
Copycat uploads the copies before the originals?
Copycat that can predict the future?
"original" uploaded on 09-23-14 to Istock as Exclusive © "frender": [url]http://www.istockphoto.com/photo/global-shipping-48206804[/url] ([url]http://www.istockphoto.com/photo/global-shipping-48206804[/url])
"copycat" uploaded much earlier to Fotolia © "mstanley13": [url]http://en.fotolia.com/id/64234894[/url] ([url]http://en.fotolia.com/id/64234894[/url])
Okay, that is correct. Then again, there is another image with the same model: http://www.istockphoto.com/photo/global-shipping-38078930?st=86288d1 (http://www.istockphoto.com/photo/global-shipping-38078930?st=86288d1) - uploaded in April 2014 which is about the same time as the Fotolia image.
Interesting... so it could be two people co-operating by exchanging their render models, make adaptations and upload them to different accounts. Anyways, it's not a simple "exclusive at iStock, same images elsewhere" thing. As far as I can see it is quite common in the 3D world to exchange models and adapt them. Almost any of them is using those white (or orange) men, right? So... who knows, it might actually be legal to do that...
-
As iStock exclusive artist "frender" is getting much higher royalty rates,
better search placement, distribution throw Getty website etc.
Making exclusive content available elsewhere is a breach of Artist Exclusivity.
ISTOCKPHOTO ARTIST'S SUPPLY AGREEMENT (EXCLUSIVE):
http://www.istockphoto.com/asa_exclusive.php (http://www.istockphoto.com/asa_exclusive.php)
The Supplier hereby appoints iStockphoto as Supplier's exclusive distributor to sell, license or sublicense Exclusive Content.
Provision of Exclusive Content - "Exclusive Content" , as applicable to Supplier, means
all Royalty Free stock photo content created by the supplier.
By uploading Exclusive Content, exclusive supplier is warranting that he is not making any of the Exclusive Content available to or through any other distributor, website or other marketing, distribution, sale or licensing venue of any kind not specifically permitted herein.
-
you are very boring people.
Istock remains between 85% and 55% of photographers money.
This large percentage is to pay INSPECTORS to control exclusivity among other things besides eating oysters and light cigars with money.
Do not be so foolish as to make them work for free. Those photos are cliché millions across the image banks.
-
This sort of thing happens a lot more than you think. A company I work with counts among its contributors exclusive contributors from various agencies, mostly DT.
-
you are very boring people.
Istock remains between 85% and 55% of photographers money.
This large percentage is to pay INSPECTORS to control exclusivity among other things besides eating oysters and light cigars with money.
Do not be so foolish as to make them work for free. Those photos are cliché millions across the image banks.
Although I don't think the folks here are boring, I have to agree that agencies need to earn their huge commissions by doing their part...again another time they are not living up to their end.
-
None of those images appear to be available on iStock at present - got 'page doesn't exist' message
-
you are very boring people.
Istock remains between 85% and 55% of photographers money.
This large percentage is to pay INSPECTORS to control exclusivity among other things besides eating oysters and light cigars with money.
Do not be so foolish as to make them work for free. Those photos are cliché millions across the image banks.
We surely are not boring! Maybe a little curt at times by telling the truth even if it hurts. As for inspectors making big money- NOT! Personally, I have a few as friends and they make from $30,000 to $45,000 year and review 2,000 images a day to include long hours and weekends. They probably could make more working at Wal-mart with those 60 plus hours per week.
-
NFL is right. If there is a more tedious underpaid job than image inspecting I can't imagine what it is.
-
...being paid pennies as a keymaster.
-
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.
-
there will be a reckoning at some point but not gonna waste any sympathy on either party.
www.istockphoto.com/profile/frender (http://www.istockphoto.com/profile/frender) no longer exists, so I'd say the reckoning has occurred.
-
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...
-
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.
-
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.
-
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?
-
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.
-
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 ...
-
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.
-
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.
-
I hope stvagna never comes across yuri or any of his buddies or she's going to have a stroke.
-
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.
-
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.
-
His 2700+ images from shutterStock are also gone.
http://www.shutterstock.com/gallery-802069p1.html (http://www.shutterstock.com/gallery-802069p1.html)
-
He's back now.
http://www.istockphoto.com/profile/frender?id=6894980 (http://www.istockphoto.com/profile/frender?id=6894980)
-
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.istockphoto.com/profile/heywoody)
http://www.shutterstock.com/gallery-485545p1.html&rid=102 (http://www.shutterstock.com/gallery-485545p1.html&rid=102)
-
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.
-
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.