pancakes

MicrostockGroup Sponsors


Author Topic: 'Edstock' now has over 15,000 files...  (Read 33116 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

ShadySue

  • There is a crack in everything
« Reply #25 on: September 05, 2011, 11:19 »
0
Isock contributors needing to open an account on Getty to be able to put files on Istock.... wow that's *removed coarse language* up really good !
Yup, yesterday I got some photos of a celebrity in a public place. I'll send the best one to Alamy, but I can't see how iStock/Getty thinks that policy is beneficial to them.


ShadySue

  • There is a crack in everything
« Reply #26 on: September 05, 2011, 20:01 »
0
Ooooh, Ed has a load of Ele photos popped in and featuring highly in the best match.
Oddly, 'editorial only'. Weird.

SNP

  • Canadian Photographer
« Reply #27 on: September 06, 2011, 12:03 »
0
close to 40K now, so much for a few thousand images....and a banner on the home page advertising celebrity images we're not allowed to upload. explanations include documentation concerns....utter nonsense. they don't want iStock editorial competing with Getty. they want to maximize Getty editorial exposure by moving over GE files, but as far as I can see, there is no real plan to build an editorial contributor base from within iStock. incredibly disappointing.
« Last Edit: September 06, 2011, 12:16 by SNP »

« Reply #28 on: September 06, 2011, 12:07 »
0
Well, there are no single plans now to .... 

But you can see how they operate. Don't be surprised when this happens again with something else. I can see why sites would want to push wholly owned content though. If Getty can sell all of the Getty files on IS and all the IS files on Getty and PP sites, what % royalties do you think they will be paying out?

RacePhoto

« Reply #29 on: September 06, 2011, 12:13 »
0
And I see plenty of locations that are easy to get shots of sneaking in.


I also see plenty where no sneaking is needed - famous London landmarks, the street scenes in India and landmarks in Berlin (for example) are already well covered subjects, as are many of the locations they're flooding with what are in some cases quite awful looking images.

I'm pretty sure I have photos of this same squirrel - good to see Edstock didn't get a model release either: http://www.istockphoto.com/stock-photo-17622926-scenes-of-india.php?st=8c89378


Is the chipmunk famous maybe?  ??? Or the cast embossed stones on the building protected? LOL

Passing 36,000 files now. My uploads from July still not reviewed. Ticket to Scout from July not answered. Almost all the rules they made for us for Ed. are being broken by EdStock. Sure special case and money to be made, but then, lets have the same rules and limits for everyone for captions and content. This is a full blown insult. New files in 30 days, 31,600+ fine, special case, maybe IS owns them now, but still the rules?



For those of you keeping score, 38883 as of Noon today.

ShadySue

  • There is a crack in everything
« Reply #30 on: September 06, 2011, 15:29 »
0
39261 files as of ten minutes ago.
And like I said over on the iStock forum, try a Best Match search on 'African Elephant'. (Unless I've got a weird geographic bias, there are 7 EdStock pics in the top 20. (Actually, that best match has changed a lot since last night, when 'ED' had even more).

Is there a big market for 'red carpet' images after the event? Usually if I see pics of celebs they are much more 'generic', unless the article is actually about the red carpet event. (But that's in general publications, I don't read celeb mags).

lthn

    This user is banned.
« Reply #31 on: September 06, 2011, 15:55 »
0
just add a zero to the title...

ShadySue

  • There is a crack in everything
« Reply #32 on: September 06, 2011, 16:07 »
0
I see there are now about a couple of hundred 'editorial only' images of 'safari animals'. I'm not sure what part of 'celebs' or 'iconic places that are being shown on iStock for the first time ever' they fulfil. Must be celebrity animals we plebs would need special permission to photograph.
I'm not overawed by these photos, but what other pics are they going to be sneaking in contrary to Joyze's original statement?

« Reply #33 on: September 06, 2011, 16:11 »
0
I guess your banning has temporarily ended :) By that I mean that if you keep pointing out the obvious deep double standard - Getty can produce these shots but not you rabble - you'll end up banned again.

Has anyone with E+ images noticed whether all E+ got a boost or just the Getty dregs dumped into iStock "editorial"?

ShadySue

  • There is a crack in everything
« Reply #34 on: September 06, 2011, 16:16 »
0
I guess your banning has temporarily ended :) By that I mean that if you keep pointing out the obvious deep double standard - Getty can produce these shots but not you rabble - you'll end up banned again.
See SM  ;)
Quote
Has anyone with E+ images noticed whether all E+ got a boost or just the Getty dregs dumped into iStock "editorial"?
No, the promised E+ boost never materialised.
The best match has changed quite noticeably since last night on my two 'test checks'.

traveler1116

« Reply #35 on: September 06, 2011, 21:33 »
0
A lot of these images are pretty bad.  I don't understand why they have all of these images that can be perfectly fine for commercial RF listed as editorial, doesn't that blur the lines and confuse buyers?   Also why did they make such a huge deal about captioning and then allow all these files to come in that would be rejected for caption.   

« Reply #36 on: September 06, 2011, 23:06 »
0
A lot of these images are pretty bad.  I don't understand why they have all of these images that can be perfectly fine for commercial RF listed as editorial, doesn't that blur the lines and confuse buyers?   Also why did they make such a huge deal about captioning and then allow all these files to come in that would be rejected for caption.   

I think the answer's pretty simple. Getty wants to use iStock's traffic to flog wholly owned items and doesn't want to invest any money in meeting iStock contributor standards to do so. Getty doesn't care about the double standard, and I'm not even sure they mind if a buyer or two is confused or driven away as long as they can get more revenue coming in.

In an ideal world, I'm sure the iStock standards for captions are what Getty'd like, but they're not willing to spend their money to upgrade old tired content to get it. With iStock contributor submissions, we do all the work, so Getty can set the bar as high as they'd like without it costing them much (I think they could save on inspection costs if they streamlined the process of keeping contributors fully and clearly informed about standards, but that's a separate topic).

I think Getty's approach is very short term-ist. I do think they're going to drive buyers away with this "dump and run" strategy with their existing wholly-owned or partner content. Just imagine what the Agency collection would have looked like if contributors hadn't screamed loudly about the awful files that initially got sent to iStock.

JJRD's mantra is to focus on the things we can control - might be necessary for him given he wants to remain employed by Getty, but it's tough doing that if you're convinced that Getty is eroding instead of building up the future of iStock

RacePhoto

« Reply #37 on: September 07, 2011, 02:43 »
0
39261 files as of ten minutes ago.
And like I said over on the iStock forum, try a Best Match search on 'African Elephant'. (Unless I've got a weird geographic bias, there are 7 EdStock pics in the top 20. (Actually, that best match has changed a lot since last night, when 'ED' had even more).

Is there a big market for 'red carpet' images after the event? Usually if I see pics of celebs they are much more 'generic', unless the article is actually about the red carpet event. (But that's in general publications, I don't read celeb mags).

From my experience, event photos lose their demand very fast. Sometimes within hours and most of the time, within a day. When there were weekly's you could expect a little longer, but we have a 24 hour a day news cycle. Deadlines are not based on getting the paper to bed and on the printing press. It's electronic, I've been beat to the web by someone who uploads the photos faster, so now I have a deal that I don't edit for one website, the editor says he knows how to use Photoshop. Way Cool!

I run back into the media room, select the important 10 or less images, ftp them and drop him an email with a page of thumbs made on Irfanview, so he knows what they are, simply, before ever going to the full size. I've had more usage since that change.

When I get done with my own picks and upload someplace, I haven't found news photos and sports celebrities to be much of a demand and they have publicity people who distribute images for free. Events often have contract photographers, distributing photos to the media for free. Hey look, more free competition!

As much as I hate the double standard, the collection is likely to make some money for IS. Give it a couple months and look at downloads. That should be interesting and tell us about the demand for celebrity subs.

ShadySue

  • There is a crack in everything
« Reply #38 on: September 07, 2011, 03:41 »
0
When I get done with my own picks and upload someplace, I haven't found news photos and sports celebrities to be much of a demand and they have publicity people who distribute images for free. Events often have contract photographers, distributing photos to the media for free. Hey look, more free competition!
Plus many celebs are easily available CC on Flickr, for instance, so if the end use is editorial, and your end use doesn't require pixel peeping standards, there's another free source.
(Do we know that EdStock's pics are up to iStock's pixel peeping standards? Their captions weren't inspected, maybe the photos weren't either? Didn't JJ make some rererence to 'evolving' inspection standards?)
« Last Edit: September 07, 2011, 03:44 by ShadySue »

« Reply #39 on: September 07, 2011, 06:20 »
0
39261 files as of ten minutes ago.
And like I said over on the iStock forum, try a Best Match search on 'African Elephant'. (Unless I've got a weird geographic bias, there are 7 EdStock pics in the top 20. (Actually, that best match has changed a lot since last night, when 'ED' had even more).

Is there a big market for 'red carpet' images after the event? Usually if I see pics of celebs they are much more 'generic', unless the article is actually about the red carpet event. (But that's in general publications, I don't read celeb mags).


I only see flying "african elephants" near the top of that search... http://www.istockphoto.com/stock-photo-17622466-an-african-safari.php?st=b6afe6a

ShadySue

  • There is a crack in everything
« Reply #40 on: September 07, 2011, 06:36 »
0
39261 files as of ten minutes ago.
And like I said over on the iStock forum, try a Best Match search on 'African Elephant'. (Unless I've got a weird geographic bias, there are 7 EdStock pics in the top 20. (Actually, that best match has changed a lot since last night, when 'ED' had even more).

Is there a big market for 'red carpet' images after the event? Usually if I see pics of celebs they are much more 'generic', unless the article is actually about the red carpet event. (But that's in general publications, I don't read celeb mags).


I only see flying "african elephants" near the top of that search... http://www.istockphoto.com/stock-photo-17622466-an-african-safari.php?st=b6afe6a

Oh, *. That's ridiculous.
But also it wasn't there last night, and the best match has shuffled again since my screenshot last night. EdStock's are falling down the page.

ShadySue

  • There is a crack in everything
« Reply #41 on: September 07, 2011, 09:34 »
0
I guess your banning has temporarily ended :)

As I SM'd JoAnn, I was only accidentally unbanned apparently as a consequence of the same bug which changed our privacy preferences and keeps changing our browsing preferences.
Lobo has just wakenend up and sitemailled me:
Not sure why you got your privileges back but you aren't keeping them.
I've been banned since November, which must make me Public Enemy No.1.
Hahahaha - I even pointed out a bug: there's gratitude for you!

Face, look, am I bovvered?
Catherine Tate as Lauren


Plus again his post flew instantly into my email addy which Support have claimed twice that I haven't supplied them with, so I don't get official SMs. (and CR haven't replied to my third enquiry about that issue, since Feb/March (it's fallen off my radar). Funny? I should coco.

Well, I guess Lobo must be sweating and blue in the face screaming at the IT wallahs to switch me off. I did post in the Editorial forum to ask for four files wrongly rejected for date to be looked at. The four files were accepted almost immediately, and my post was deleted, so I can't thank 'whoever'. See, not even allowed to be nice.  :-*
« Last Edit: September 07, 2011, 11:35 by ShadySue »

« Reply #42 on: September 07, 2011, 12:25 »
0
So Mr Ed is now over 40K files, and in with the mind numbing pile of red carpet shots are some "gems" that I am 100.0% certain no iStock contributor would ever, ever, have had approved. I know the new ASA has some language about iStock not inspecting everything - I guess these would be the sorts of shots they had in mind:









I's really shameful that Getty's bringing iStock (as a site) down a notch by dumping the old and not so good stuff, plus, preventing iStock contributors from uploading their similar quality shots.

I guess Thinkstock is "downstream" from iStock, but iStock is "downstream" from Getty...

traveler1116

« Reply #43 on: September 07, 2011, 13:42 »
0
Wow that's a lot of noise in those lion shots.  I just don't understand the point of this.  The first file showing the lion while on safari doesn't even have "lion" or "safari" in the keywords, if someone wanted a file of this "quality" they couldn't even find it.  This is a huge waste of resources and I have editorial files waiting for over 6 weeks because these should have priority?
« Last Edit: September 07, 2011, 13:52 by traveler1116 »

SNP

  • Canadian Photographer
« Reply #44 on: September 07, 2011, 13:47 »
0
@ JoAnn: absolutely, and great examples. +1

« Reply #45 on: September 07, 2011, 14:06 »
0
I thought that first one was a red carpet image from the opening of "ET".

Why are safari photos editorial? I could see maybe if they were in a zoo or wildlife park maybe. I could possibly see some value to that last one, but not why it would be editorial.

I did notice that they said that some files might not be scrutinized fully. I guess this is what they meant. Get ready to have your images buried by worthless crap from "upstream".

SNP

  • Canadian Photographer
« Reply #46 on: September 07, 2011, 15:01 »
0
images being buried isn't my main concern...it's the principle of fair business standards that we're all strictly held to but to which TPTB do not adhere. it's watching Getty move images over when we're not allowed to either upload the same type of editorial content, nor may we sell it elsewhere as RF. it's these moves that are in bold contrast to what we're being told that make me realize that although on one level of management the efforts to advocate for us are sincere, that middle level of iStock content managers is becoming more and more impotent against the machine pushing the bottom line mandates.

lisafx

« Reply #47 on: September 07, 2011, 15:33 »
0

Get ready to have your images buried by worthless crap from "upstream".

Yeah, this is my worry too.  The more of that garbage clutters up the searches, the fewer buyers will find the excellent stock (still) available on Istock. 

@JoAnn - great examples (or terrible examples, depending on your POV). 

@Stacey - you are right, this type of content being dumped en mass onto Istock doesn't seem to indicate that TPTB at Getty think much of Istock, other than just another "downstream" dumping ground.  Istock employees are no doubt either being force to get onboard, or keep their mouths shut. 

« Reply #48 on: September 07, 2011, 18:37 »
0
So Mr Ed is now over 40K files, and in with the mind numbing pile of red carpet shots are some "gems" that I am 100.0% certain no iStock contributor would ever, ever, have had approved. I know the new ASA has some language about iStock not inspecting everything - I guess these would be the sorts of shots they had in mind:









I's really shameful that Getty's bringing iStock (as a site) down a notch by dumping the old and not so good stuff, plus, preventing iStock contributors from uploading their similar quality shots.

I guess Thinkstock is "downstream" from iStock, but iStock is "downstream" from Getty...


The bottom one I can kinda understand cause its in the middle of a massive dust storm, you can just make out the Sydney operahouse. But the others are just rubbish, maybe edstock could go to feast school.

« Reply #49 on: September 08, 2011, 01:13 »
0
^ Stranger and stranger... I googled the photographer in the top three images (he's named in the caption), and he's an extremely accomplished and well awarded photographer, with some very high quality sports images.  Can't imagine why he would have uploaded those safari images - especially the top one - to Getty in the first place.


 

Related Topics

  Subject / Started by Replies Last post
new files and 2.0

Started by yecatsdoherty iStockPhoto.com

6 Replies
3116 Views
Last post March 11, 2009, 10:32
by lisafx
10 Replies
8540 Views
Last post February 02, 2010, 10:45
by Stu49
17 Replies
5759 Views
Last post November 04, 2010, 00:29
by RacePhoto
7 Replies
2604 Views
Last post September 19, 2011, 11:53
by ShadySue
22 Replies
5622 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