pancakes

MicrostockGroup Sponsors


Author Topic: 'Edstock' now has over 15,000 files...  (Read 33056 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

RacePhoto

« Reply #100 on: September 19, 2011, 13:20 »
0
The induction of Edstock files has been going on since April.  That's at a rate of about 400 files a day.  It sickens me. :(


15,000 on Aug 24 when this thread started, about 60,000 on Sept 17, that's 45,000 in 24 days - close to 2,000 files a day, all piling into the front of the search, pushing up Getty's share and pushing down our sales and RCs. It's win-win for Getty as usual. I'm sure a lot of these "editorial" files are going to end up used in questionable "advertorial" publications which used to use our commercial pictures.  


Agree, Agree, Agree!

Here's my sad update at the 60,000 point. Maybe we could start a pool for the number on Jan. 1st 2012 at Noon?  :o



I haven't searched to see if there's anything that I'd potentially upload, I'm still working Alamy. But what Stacy pointed out makes sense as Getty never answers a direct question about sports or sports celebrities. I'll call her answer the basic truth, they are doing their own thing and don't feel a need to give honest answers or tell the truth.


ShadySue

  • There is a crack in everything
« Reply #101 on: September 19, 2011, 15:28 »
0
I haven't searched to see if there's anything that I'd potentially upload, I'm still working Alamy. But what Stacy pointed out makes sense as Getty never answers a direct question about sports or sports celebrities. I'll call her answer the basic truth, they are doing their own thing and don't feel a need to give honest answers or tell the truth.
I had a series of photos taken at a small, local Highland Games (local lads in kilts, have kilt, try to throw caber) rejected 'no resubmit' because I didn't have proper accredition. (Note: you might have expected them to be 'can resubmit' if I could get the accredition). In fact, no-one I asked knew what possible accredition I would need as it's in a public park. So I wrote to Scout asking what would count as 'proper accredition'. At that point, the file I'd directly referenced, as you need to provide an image # with a query, was accepted, but there was no answer to the 'proper accredition' question. Meanwhile, I'd asked for all the rejection images to be released so that I could send them to Alamy RM. Taken aback by the single acceptance, I opened another Scout ticket re the others, and got the reply:
Hi Sue
The Highland games is an organised event and is held as you know mostly on public areas within the city area. We feel that the participants in the games are regarded as "semi" pro, it's a big event. Imagery of the bands in the street, spectators etc we would gladly accept. For the athlete's, we regard that as editorial content for Getty.
Kind regards
Scout

SNP

  • Canadian Photographer
« Reply #102 on: September 19, 2011, 16:32 »
0
I don't think the inspectors even know what proper accreditation is in the true sense. what they're asking for is 'cover-you-a55' documentation and that is a whole other thing. more and more it just isn't worth it to upload editorial to iStock. at least nothing that matters. any photo taken, no matter how public the situation, can result in liability. that is the nature of shooting without explicit permission. and journalists typically are not granted absolute, written permission unless the shoot is a posed portrait session.

even if you have accreditation, that doesn't mean everyone where you're shooting is willing to be photographed by you. I personally don't see why iStock has gone to the trouble of building an editorial collection for their contributors. just bring over the Getty content and stop doing it under the guise that it's going to benefit us. how exactly does it benefit me when I'm not allowed to upload anything that matters? and when I do upload I'm made to jump through arbitrary hoops?

« Reply #103 on: September 19, 2011, 17:00 »
0
I personally don't see why iStock has gone to the trouble of building an editorial collection for their contributors. just bring over the Getty content and stop doing it under the guise that it's going to benefit us. how exactly does it benefit me when I'm not allowed to upload anything that matters? and when I do upload I'm made to jump through arbitrary hoops?

Nor do I. I don't really understand why you've set such store in 'IS editorial'. Most editorial images are always going to be low volume sellers (because by nature they are so specific) and have a relatively short working life. At microstock prices it is just not going to be worth your time to process, keyword and upload most images, let alone actually pay the time and travel costs of obtaining them in the first place. It's simply not worth it and it's not what microstock is really about. Better sticking to what you know will pay the bills.

Both DT and SS have supposedly been 'doing editorial' for several years but nobody, as far as I'm aware, is making serious money at it. Probably not even the agencies themselves in the greater scheme of things. A couple of years ago I had a significant news event about an hours drive away from my home. I had a nice day out, the $5 per image that DT generously paid up-front (for exclusive images) more than covered my travel costs and I've probably had a few drinks out of subsequent sales. Even so it was amongst the worst return I've ever had for my time doing anything related to photography. DT didn't make money out of it either. If something similar happened again I'd be regarding it as an opportunity for some interest or fun rather than paying some bills.

SNP

  • Canadian Photographer
« Reply #104 on: September 19, 2011, 17:12 »
0
^ agreed. to be clear, my interest in iStock editorial was never primarily fueled by financial ambition. editorial is not where the money is. I'm sorry to be cliche, but it really is about telling stories for me. it's something I really enjoy. but not if while doing it I am simultaneously beating my head against ridiculous walls. there are far more avenues through which to gain satisfaction than this route.

« Reply #105 on: September 20, 2011, 02:43 »
0
The only "editorial" worth doing is street scenes - or generic events like a Highland Games which represent something more than just the people pictured. Neither celebrities nor news events have any microstock value, the former because their agent will gladly flood publishers with free pictures, the latter because any window for sales is probably already shut before it's online. Shooting major sports events could easily lose you money because last month's football match is already ancient history and fans have already posted another two hundred pictures of the same teams since then. If your overall rank is affected by the average sales per image, then 1,000 easy-to-get editorial non-sellers sitting in your portfolio might push all the rest of your portfolio down a page in the search. I've disabled almost all my DT editorial because of that.

michealo

« Reply #106 on: September 20, 2011, 05:43 »
0
it really is about telling stories for me.

enough said

SNP

  • Canadian Photographer
« Reply #107 on: September 20, 2011, 12:26 »
0
The only "editorial" worth doing is street scenes - or generic events like a Highland Games which represent something more than just the people pictured. Neither celebrities nor news events have any microstock value, the former because their agent will gladly flood publishers with free pictures, the latter because any window for sales is probably already shut before it's online. Shooting major sports events could easily lose you money because last month's football match is already ancient history and fans have already posted another two hundred pictures of the same teams since then. If your overall rank is affected by the average sales per image, then 1,000 easy-to-get editorial non-sellers sitting in your portfolio might push all the rest of your portfolio down a page in the search. I've disabled almost all my DT editorial because of that.

I've all but stopped uploading editorial (temporarily, maybe not) on iStock....not sure what I'm planning on doing, I'm just not worrying about it right now and trying to get back to the creative content I also really enjoy producing. I'll still shoot editorial for me and for other agencies where I'm selling as RM. but I don't see an exciting future for iStock editorial contributors.

SNP

  • Canadian Photographer
« Reply #108 on: September 22, 2011, 15:59 »
0
just received my Contact Sheet. feels like such an insult to see them advertising celebrity images on iStock in it. get your celebrity images here, just not by anyone who is actually an iStockphoto contributor.

« Reply #109 on: September 24, 2011, 03:26 »
0
no new files in a couple of days

RacePhoto

« Reply #110 on: October 03, 2011, 08:55 »
0
no new files in a couple of days


Ah, someone stuck their finder in the dike?  ;D



Interesting take on all of this from JOYZE and it says, amusing enough, they are testing with 7,000 files.  ??? What part of 7,000 is 60,000 files? LOL

http://www.istockphoto.com/forum_messages.php?threadid=330294

30,000 new in the last 30 days. WOW. Maybe this will open some doors for those of us who do shoot celebrities and news events. The interesting detail for myself was the 180 day old limit so it wasn't considered news and doesn't conflict with Getty. I could enjoy that and maybe get some celeb shots working for me? Sports are excluded, I'll guess that means, I'm excluded?

Before the questions, these excerpts may help answer some of the issues I've been reading here since this started.

"At the outset we said we would be leaving politicians and celebrities to our colleagues at Getty Images and that is still the case."

There is still no plan to get into current, timely news none of the new content we are adding will be more recent than 180 days.

These new editorial files will all be in a single contributor portfolio called EdStock. On a technical note, we will be dating these files so that our system recognizes their original creation date, and not the date they are uploaded to iStock. This is being done to ensure that these new files do not dominate our Best Match sort en masse.


(hey folks a clue, best match does look at the date!) Also this: "The content will be treated just like any other content on iStockphoto and is not being given any special treatment."

2. What is the price point of these images?
These images will all be priced at Exclusive+.


Being a non I'll be at the 15% level anyway. That's life.

Funny, thread started June 7th, Thread Lobo locked June 17th. I read the first page and the last, I think I understand how members and contributors feel about the whole situation.  ::) But it does provide some answers...

« Reply #111 on: October 05, 2011, 05:45 »
0
61226 files now and >1600 dl's. probably joyze wanted to say 70000 files not 7000.

ShadySue

  • There is a crack in everything
« Reply #112 on: October 05, 2011, 06:52 »
0
no new files in a couple of days


Ah, someone stuck their finder in the dike?  ;D



Interesting take on all of this from JOYZE and it says, amusing enough, they are testing with 7,000 files.  ??? What part of 7,000 is 60,000 files? LOL


I guess the test was in June, and now the test is over?  ;)
I actually SMd Joyze on 21st Sept specifically on the issue of the images which were 'snuck in' which don't come under the 'celebrities' or 'iconic places' categories (and indeed don't seem to be 'editorial') and the issue of best match, which at that time 'Ed' was hogging.

Surprise, surprise, no reply.

« Reply #113 on: October 06, 2011, 02:19 »
0
63003 files today. the test is still running ;).
almost 2000 files in one day.

« Reply #114 on: October 06, 2011, 05:34 »
0


60876 now ! any guesses on when it'll stop. My guess it 99,942
[/quote]

looks like my bet is still live

ShadySue

  • There is a crack in everything
« Reply #115 on: October 06, 2011, 05:43 »
0
The most recent 200 additions to Ed's portfolio seem to be general editorial photos, not 'hot news', 'celebs' or 'iconic images'. At least half of these with lighting I'd have had rejected. (Maybe I'd have a better time at Getty?  ;)
At most two pics out of the 200 might be a 'celebrity', and many of them have no need to be editorial. (I haven't looked beyond the newest page yet). Like before, they are 'sneaking' in pictures that directly compete with those which 'regular' iStockers can supply.
I'm also surmising that down the line, lots of these will quietly be switched to the main collection, when (or more likely before) they have their captions and keywords sorted.
« Last Edit: October 06, 2011, 05:46 by ShadySue »

« Reply #116 on: October 06, 2011, 12:24 »
0
I haven't searched to see if there's anything that I'd potentially upload, I'm still working Alamy. But what Stacy pointed out makes sense as Getty never answers a direct question about sports or sports celebrities. I'll call her answer the basic truth, they are doing their own thing and don't feel a need to give honest answers or tell the truth.

I had a series of photos taken at a small, local Highland Games (local lads in kilts, have kilt, try to throw caber) rejected 'no resubmit' because I didn't have proper accredition. (Note: you might have expected them to be 'can resubmit' if I could get the accredition). In fact, no-one I asked knew what possible accredition I would need as it's in a public park. So I wrote to Scout asking what would count as 'proper accredition'. At that point, the file I'd directly referenced, as you need to provide an image # with a query, was accepted, but there was no answer to the 'proper accredition' question. Meanwhile, I'd asked for all the rejection images to be released so that I could send them to Alamy RM. Taken aback by the single acceptance, I opened another Scout ticket re the others, and got the reply:
Hi Sue
The Highland games is an organised event and is held as you know mostly on public areas within the city area. We feel that the participants in the games are regarded as "semi" pro, it's a big event. Imagery of the bands in the street, spectators etc we would gladly accept. For the athlete's, we regard that as editorial content for Getty.
Kind regards
Scout



Interesting to see the current "Featured Photo" in the context of some of these sporting type rejections:


RacePhoto

« Reply #117 on: October 06, 2011, 12:54 »
0
Getty owns iStock and they can pimp their own photos and collection any way they want. They own these images and pay outside people nothing to collect the commissions. Although they may have paid to own the collection they come from? Yes they are competing with many of us, accepting photos which they won't take from us and probably some other double standard considerations. They Own The Agency. Like it or not, that's the way it is.

Now about the newest "EdStock" images. Interesting local Editorial. Ulet Ifansasti from Indonesia. His FB profile lists this. No slouch, more of an industry giant?   

National Geographic Indonesia, Liverpool FC, The British Journal of Photography, Jogjakarta City, Papeda, Magnum Photos, National Geographic, I ♥ Indonesia, Republic of Indonesia, Open Society Institute: Documentary Photography Project, Photo-Festivals / Foto-Festivals, World Wildlife Fund, Save the Children, Monica Bellucci, Pewarta Foto Indonesia (PFI) Yogyakartaand 33 more

Nice work too.

ShadySue

  • There is a crack in everything
« Reply #118 on: October 07, 2011, 05:52 »
0
I haven't searched to see if there's anything that I'd potentially upload, I'm still working Alamy. But what Stacy pointed out makes sense as Getty never answers a direct question about sports or sports celebrities. I'll call her answer the basic truth, they are doing their own thing and don't feel a need to give honest answers or tell the truth.

I had a series of photos taken at a small, local Highland Games (local lads in kilts, have kilt, try to throw caber) rejected 'no resubmit' because I didn't have proper accredition. (Note: you might have expected them to be 'can resubmit' if I could get the accredition). In fact, no-one I asked knew what possible accredition I would need as it's in a public park. So I wrote to Scout asking what would count as 'proper accredition'. At that point, the file I'd directly referenced, as you need to provide an image # with a query, was accepted, but there was no answer to the 'proper accredition' question. Meanwhile, I'd asked for all the rejection images to be released so that I could send them to Alamy RM. Taken aback by the single acceptance, I opened another Scout ticket re the others, and got the reply:
Hi Sue
The Highland games is an organised event and is held as you know mostly on public areas within the city area. We feel that the participants in the games are regarded as "semi" pro, it's a big event. Imagery of the bands in the street, spectators etc we would gladly accept. For the athlete's, we regard that as editorial content for Getty.
Kind regards
Scout



Interesting to see the current "Featured Photo" in the context of some of these sporting type rejections:



I guess the Palio in Siena must be less of a 'big event' than a village Highland Games  :o
Like Race says, it's their ball, they can make up or change the rules as they want, and frequently do.
There seem to be a few justified complaints about editorial rejections recently.

« Reply #119 on: October 07, 2011, 09:19 »
0
some people are sending products photos as editorial with studio lightning and background.
as i recall sjlocke had an image rejected because the lightning was a "set up" one.

just search for "Editorial" and "Beer". what is the diference between studio and editorial?

ShadySue

  • There is a crack in everything
« Reply #120 on: October 07, 2011, 09:22 »
0
some people are sending products photos as editorial with studio lightning and background.
as i recall sjlocke had an image rejected because the lightning was a "set up" one.

just search for "Editorial" and "Beer". what is the diference between studio and editorial?
The name of the beer, for example, would make it editorial. Studio shots with products are allowed, but there seems to be a glitch lately in inspectors not having read the same information that was sent to contributors.

RacePhoto

« Reply #121 on: October 10, 2011, 07:44 »
0
some people are sending products photos as editorial with studio lightning and background.
as i recall sjlocke had an image rejected because the lightning was a "set up" one.

just search for "Editorial" and "Beer". what is the diference between studio and editorial?

The name of the beer, for example, would make it editorial. Studio shots with products are allowed, but there seems to be a glitch lately in inspectors not having read the same information that was sent to contributors.


Ha Ha, now that was a nice short accurate analysis. Nothing changes, SNAFU we get one version of the rules the reviewers have their own.

As for the obvious double standards, I'm not saying I'm pleased, just that, they own the show, they allow their own shots for sale then turn around and refuse ours for venue or picky contrived releases that don't exist. I suppose you could go to the people who run the Highland games and ask for a publication release for news purposes. I wonder if that would satisfy IS. The point is, unless the laws have changed, for editorial and news, you don't need a release!

« Reply #122 on: October 10, 2011, 07:58 »
0
The point is, unless the laws have changed, for editorial and news, you don't need a release!

As far as I can make out, while a news organisation would not need permission to run a photo, the argument is that you can't just go anywhere to take a shot. So it might be illegal to create a photo even if it is legal to publish it. The end user would be in the clear but the agency/photographer might not be.

Sports events have got into the habit of selling coverage rights and presumably the terms of entry are that you don't take photos to sell. The agencies seem to be taking the ultra-cautious view that all events are subject to such terms, so you should prove that you have a right to shoot there.

Of course, it doesn't hurt that SS had its "red carpet" programme, which gives it exclusive rights to use your shots, and iS has its own (Getty's) content for such events.

RacePhoto

« Reply #123 on: October 10, 2011, 08:18 »
0
The point is, unless the laws have changed, for editorial and news, you don't need a release!

As far as I can make out, while a news organisation would not need permission to run a photo, the argument is that you can't just go anywhere to take a shot. So it might be illegal to create a photo even if it is legal to publish it. The end user would be in the clear but the agency/photographer might not be.

Sports events have got into the habit of selling coverage rights and presumably the terms of entry are that you don't take photos to sell. The agencies seem to be taking the ultra-cautious view that all events are subject to such terms, so you should prove that you have a right to shoot there.

Of course, it doesn't hurt that SS had its "red carpet" programme, which gives it exclusive rights to use your shots, and iS has its own (Getty's) content for such events.

Yes, here's the problem. I have credentials from the organizers, I have access through the venue, all kinds of permissions and forms that had to be filed before I got through the gate into the media areas, and IS wants me to go ask for a release, that the events don't issue? DUMB! If I could scan my credentials or something, I'd be happy to prove I was shooting with a news organization.

But still, NEWS is NEWS (maybe not where you are?) Freedom of the press in the United States is protected by the First Amendment to the United States Constitution. However I'm not so sure about Canada or GB!

They have this phoney "editorial" for products, and logos, but real news photos, they reject for permission? Come on. IS is blocking people from uploading news, because it's a Getty market and they don't want the competition from IS. Fine, their choice, but lets not dance around about, a right to shoot a news photo in a public place or the right to distribute a news photo when it was shot with permission and media credentials.  

When we got the answer about the 180 days, that was fine with me. I can wait and then it's not breaking news anymore. Fair enough. In Nov. I can start uploading April photos.
« Last Edit: October 10, 2011, 14:40 by RacePhoto »

ShadySue

  • There is a crack in everything
« Reply #124 on: October 10, 2011, 08:43 »
0
As for the obvious double standards, I'm not saying I'm pleased, just that, they own the show, they allow their own shots for sale then turn around and refuse ours for venue or picky contrived releases that don't exist. I suppose you could go to the people who run the Highland games and ask for a publication release for news purposes. I wonder if that would satisfy IS.
No, it wouldn't. I asked specifically what they would accept (as I know the organiser personally, so I was hoping for a pro-forma or at least an outline that he could sign) and they said they wouldn't accept sports, they had to go to Getty. Of course they don't have to go to Getty and mine went to Alamy. Even if Getty would accept me (hahaha) I'm not happy with the 20% or especially that double tax thing.


 

Related Topics

  Subject / Started by Replies Last post
new files and 2.0

Started by yecatsdoherty iStockPhoto.com

6 Replies
3109 Views
Last post March 11, 2009, 10:32
by lisafx
10 Replies
8528 Views
Last post February 02, 2010, 10:45
by Stu49
17 Replies
5752 Views
Last post November 04, 2010, 00:29
by RacePhoto
7 Replies
2597 Views
Last post September 19, 2011, 11:53
by ShadySue
22 Replies
5610 Views
Last post January 15, 2012, 17:47
by ShadySue

Sponsors

Mega Bundle of 5,900+ Professional Lightroom Presets

Microstock Poll Results

Sponsors

3100 Posing Cards Bundle