If you scroll down on this page, you can enter your email address to be added to their list. I've only heard of one person so far that's had an actual reply though.  Most are still waiting.

http://www.stocksy.com/

I have already done that, anyway thanks for the tip. ;0)

Oops! Sorry.  I misunderstood. 

Is that it? Stock-Artsy=Stocksy? Therefore V+A style images?

Aha!  You may have a great point there!   

Quote from: Xanox on February 21, 2013, 06:50

Quote from: rene on February 21, 2013, 04:10
How these people could participate to this masquerade after what has been done to SjLocke (aka Robin Hood)?

Because he's no Robin Hood.

I'm 100% with Getty on this story.
You can not blackmail the company who's feeding you.

You signed a contract, if you dont like it move elsewhere or start your own agency.

In no way was what Sean did 'blackmail'. It's called whistle-blowing. He told contributors that Getty was selling their images contrary to contract, especially as there were no restrictions on the use of model-released images, contrary to the model release and the terms and conditions of use from the agency they were first issued to.

Quote from: Xanox on February 21, 2013, 06:50

Quote from: rene on February 21, 2013, 04:10
How these people could participate to this masquerade after what has been done to SjLocke (aka Robin Hood)?

Because he's no Robin Hood.

I'm 100% with Getty on this story.
You can not blackmail the company who's feeding you.

You signed a contract, if you dont like it move elsewhere or start your own agency.

CONTRACT IS TWO PARTIES AGREEMENT !!!

Plus, its not because something is stated in a contract that its automatically valid by the law. They might just as well put in it they'll kill our firstborns, doesn't make it valid.

Quote from: ShadySue on February 21, 2013, 10:35
In no way was what Sean did 'blackmail'. It's called whistle-blowing. He told contributors that Getty was selling their images contrary to contract, especially as there were no restrictions on the use of model-released images, contrary to the model release and the terms and conditions of use from the agency they were first issued to.

And actually, initially, I was asking about it, because I wouldn't have thought such a dumb agreement would have been something set up by our Agent, and that Google was stealing the images or doing something illegal.

A bad move from Stocksy would be to refuse too much contributors. They don't want a bunch of frustated photographers to talk against them, specially in the beginning.
Being picky on images selection is something acceptable, but being picky on photographers is a no-no ...
The more photographers they will have, the bigger the social network and free publicity that goes with it will be...

Quote from: Buzbuzzer on February 21, 2013, 14:32
A bad move from Stocksy would be to refuse too much contributors. They don't want a bunch of frustated photographers to talk against them, specially in the beginning.
Being picky on images selection is something acceptable, but being picky on photographers is a no-no...

According to who? They have no obligation to satisfy some minimum acceptance rate you believe to be fair. They don't own you anything, nor do you have any right to expect anything from them.

If you aren't asked to join, are you going to whine about it here?

Quote from: Buzbuzzer on February 21, 2013, 14:32
A bad move from Stocksy would be to refuse too much contributors. They don't want a bunch of frustated photographers to talk against them, specially in the beginning.
Being picky on images selection is something acceptable, but being picky on photographers is a no-no ...
The more photographers they will have, the bigger the social network and free publicity that goes with it will be...

Couldn't agree more. Istock's success was built on a platform of 'crowd-sourcing' and accepting everyone who could pass the entry test. A huge number of contributors are also image buyers and/or highly influential in which agencies that those lucrative corporate accounts are opened.

Maybe it would be 'acceptance by connections', then. 

Quote from: EmberMike on February 21, 2013, 14:43

Quote from: Buzbuzzer on February 21, 2013, 14:32
A bad move from Stocksy would be to refuse too much contributors. They don't want a bunch of frustated photographers to talk against them, specially in the beginning.
Being picky on images selection is something acceptable, but being picky on photographers is a no-no...

According to who? They have no obligation to satisfy some minimum acceptance rate you believe to be fair. They don't own you anything, nor do you have any right to expect anything from them.

If you aren't asked to join, are you going to whine about it here?

Well, if they are my competitor, I just might... and not just here. 

Quote from: lucato on February 21, 2013, 08:23
How is the invite sent? From other photographers or from the Stocksy only?
I think I'm not qualified for their wish levels, I didn't even get an invite. :0(

If your name is not on their radar, then you will not get a response.   It really goes back to your relationship to the founder and the small group that has been formed.   Very few will be "founding photographers".   As far as an artsy type place that is not in line with Sean's great commercial work.

Quote from: gostwyck on February 21, 2013, 15:10

Quote from: Buzbuzzer on February 21, 2013, 14:32
A bad move from Stocksy would be to refuse too much contributors. They don't want a bunch of frustated photographers to talk against them, specially in the beginning.
Being picky on images selection is something acceptable, but being picky on photographers is a no-no ...
The more photographers they will have, the bigger the social network and free publicity that goes with it will be...

Couldn't agree more. Istock's success was built on a platform of 'crowd-sourcing' and accepting everyone who could pass the entry test. A huge number of contributors are also image buyers and/or highly influential in which agencies that those lucrative corporate accounts are opened.

+1 for both

ps: just because I agree at a comment in a topic doesn't mean I will agree on everything Buzz will say, anyway you guys can bring minus, not worried!

I don't think anyone should take a non-acceptance as an indication you didn't have enough nights out with someone.

Quote from: gostwyck on February 21, 2013, 15:10

Quote from: Buzbuzzer on February 21, 2013, 14:32
A bad move from Stocksy would be to refuse too much contributors. They don't want a bunch of frustated photographers to talk against them, specially in the beginning.
Being picky on images selection is something acceptable, but being picky on photographers is a no-no ...
The more photographers they will have, the bigger the social network and free publicity that goes with it will be...

Couldn't agree more. Istock's success was built on a platform of 'crowd-sourcing' and accepting everyone who could pass the entry test. A huge number of contributors are also image buyers and/or highly influential in which agencies that those lucrative corporate accounts are opened.

Until the details of what Stocksy is (or isn't) are made public, this is all conjecture.  Bruce is known for coming up with great ideas that are not the same as the 'status quo.'  How you become a part of Stocksy may have to do with your image style, your time in the industry, your acceptance rate or the amount of money in your bank account.  No one knows right now (except the Stocksy founders doing the planning).  To start jumping in and saying what they are doing right or wrong is just silly given that none of their business plan has been made public.

Let's be realistic:

How many exclusives (that were not kicked out) will be interested?
- Not much, hey, they don't have any sales after all, and it could take a couple of years before they see any relevant ones. I don't see anyone leaving exclusivity just for them right now (i'm exclusive).

How many independants?
- If they want "files exclusivity", independants will have to give them exclusive files, and take the chance of losing money they would have made, with these files, on others sites.
- If they don't care about exclusivity, they will have to compete against Shutterstock pricings, ouch...not good !!

Quote from: Poncke on February 18, 2013, 23:14
Well if you got rejected there is little hope for a lot of people. Makes me less enthusiastic about it. Just being honest here. Great for the people that get accepted, but so many people were hoping for something new will be disappointed.
Sorry to hear about Warm Picture. Good luck for the future. Its a shame Google killed another business.

Blaming Google search is a poor excuse. There are 800 more small sites, did Google kill them to?

Quote from: Buzbuzzer on February 21, 2013, 15:58
I don't see anyone leaving exclusivity just for them right now (i'm exclusive).

You are assuming it is RF. Suppose they introduce a single or limited use self service RM licence.

Quote from: aspp on February 21, 2013, 16:16

Quote from: Buzbuzzer on February 21, 2013, 15:58
I don't see anyone leaving exclusivity just for them right now (i'm exclusive).

You are assuming it is RF. Suppose they introduce a single or limited use self service RM licence.

You're right. But still, I would not put my best files there as RM, when I know they would probably sell more on Istock.

.

Quote from: Buzbuzzer on February 21, 2013, 15:58
- If they don't care about exclusivity, they will have to compete against Shutterstock pricings, ouch...not good !!

yep SS sucks, what is good anyway?

Quote from: Buzbuzzer on February 21, 2013, 15:17

Quote from: EmberMike on February 21, 2013, 14:43...If you aren't asked to join, are you going to whine about it here?

Well, if they are my competitor, I just might... and not just here.

Wow. That's really petty.

I always was impressed by the fact that we're all competitors and yet we all still choose to share information and help each other in this forum. Thanks for the reminder that some folks around here are still always looking to stick a knife in someone's back just because someone might have success where they can't.