MicrostockGroup
Agency Based Discussion => iStockPhoto.com => Topic started by: gclk on August 24, 2011, 06:31
-
..putting that user in the top five of all contributors by number of files on the site.
Does anybody know if the promised work that was going to be done to bring Edstock's work closer to the standard required for everyone else on iStock was even started before this new gigantic ingestion? Or was that just quietly dropped like so many other things? Suppose we may as well forget about it if JJRD and his team would have to go though 15,000 files. Maybe it'll be 30,000 files by this time next week.
And - in case you want a laugh - from the OP of the original thread about the Edstock ingestion: The content will be treated just like any other content on iStockphoto and is not being given any special treatment.
-
Bahnhof
-
It explains the really slow editorial inspection que at the moment.
The most recent images seem to be about 2500 celebrity portraits, but digging a bit further there are a lot more very standard location images which compete directly with regular contributors, including in some already well covered areas. I can see many images that will compete directly with some of the material I've been uploading over the last month.
Its a frustrating process uploading files in these areas when the same search get flooded without warning with about 5000 images from a "contributor" with no limits.
-
It explains the really slow editorial inspection que at the moment.
The most recent images seem to be about 2500 celebrity portraits, but digging a bit further there are a lot more very standard location images which compete directly with regular contributors, including in some already well covered areas. I can see many images that will compete directly with some of the material I've been uploading over the last month.
Its a frustrating process uploading files in these areas when the same search get flooded without warning with about 5000 images from a "contributor" with no limits.
I'm not sure it does explain the really slow queue, as some of them have poor keywording and captions 'not to iStock's standard', so they're probably getting a 'free pass' through inspection. I've never heard of most of these people.
-
I've never heard of most of these people.
Maybe minor celebrity portraits then...?
My not having heard of someone doesn't preclude them from being a celebrity - its not really something that interests me. I just saw a whole lot of faces at movie events and glazed over.
-
I've never heard of most of these people.
Maybe minor celebrity portraits then...?
My not having heard of someone doesn't preclude them from being a celebrity - its not really something that interests me. I just saw a whole lot of faces at movie events and glazed over.
Yeah, someone has to be huge before I'll ever hear of them: not quite as bad as my husband who asked me who Brad Pitt was when Legends of the Fall was on TV over the w/e.
-
here's the link
http://www.istockphoto.com/edstock (http://www.istockphoto.com/edstock)
-
here's the link
[url]http://www.istockphoto.com/edstock[/url] ([url]http://www.istockphoto.com/edstock[/url])
thanks!:-)
-
And the total is now 16,909 and Lobo has locked a thread "congratulating" EdStock on having the largest iStock portfolio.
Only 700+ downloads so far though. Two files are over 10 and the rest are in single digits.
-
Make that 16,000 and here's a screen snapshot for the archives from IS EdStock as of August 23rd, 2011
(http://img710.imageshack.us/img710/1770/edstockaug2011.jpg)
Going for 17,000 images soon. Does IS own this collection? Member since April 2011, and Exclusive
http://www.istockphoto.com/user_view.php?id=7675241 (http://www.istockphoto.com/user_view.php?id=7675241)
-
^ Yep - seems that in 24 hours EdStock has had almost 10,000 files accepted. I've been waiting over a week to have one accepted, and probably still have 2 more weeks to wait.
Definitely no special treatment going on then.
-
guys can not speak of Edstock as a regular exclusive contributor, is a collection of getty's agencies ... we could never know what contracts exist between themselves and istock...
like lobo said Edstock is like Hulton Archive.....
We can only hope that those contents will attract new customers and not penalize our images
-
I'm going to have to put on my Shank hat for this response:
Ok guys, I'm sure this EdStock represents at least 1,000 photographers around the globe. Thus, doing the math, 1,000 x (what is the upload limit for new contributors these days - let's guesstimate 10) = 10,000. There you go, perfectly acceptable.
As far as content goes, and bringing in new customers, tell me please, who wouldn't need a photo of the legs of Carla Bruni-Sarkozy at the 2009 A.R.T-JOY-LOVE Charity Gala at the Pavillon d'Armenonville in Paris, France???
http://www.istockphoto.com/stock-photo-16841813-a-r-t-joy-love-charity-gala-for-association-hadassah.php?st=4ed8d73 (http://www.istockphoto.com/stock-photo-16841813-a-r-t-joy-love-charity-gala-for-association-hadassah.php?st=4ed8d73)
Case closed
-
I'm going to have to put on my Shank hat for this response:
Ok guys, I'm sure this EdStock represents at least 1,000 photographers around the globe. Thus, doing the math, 1,000 x (what is the upload limit for new contributors these days - let's guesstimate 10) = 10,000. There you go, perfectly acceptable.
As far as content goes, and bringing in new customers, tell me please, who wouldn't need a photo of the legs of Carla Bruni-Sarkozy at the 2009 A.R.T-JOY-LOVE Charity Gala at the Pavillon d'Armenonville in Paris, France???
[url]http://www.istockphoto.com/stock-photo-16841813-a-r-t-joy-love-charity-gala-for-association-hadassah.php?st=4ed8d73[/url] ([url]http://www.istockphoto.com/stock-photo-16841813-a-r-t-joy-love-charity-gala-for-association-hadassah.php?st=4ed8d73[/url])
Case closed
:D
To quote glck: Definitely no special treatment going on then.
-
I'm going to have to put on my Shank hat for this response:
You have a Shank hat?
Not something I'd want to wear, but each to his own... :D
-
As far as content goes, and bringing in new customers, tell me please, who wouldn't need a photo of the legs of Carla Bruni-Sarkozy at the 2009 A.R.T-JOY-LOVE Charity Gala at the Pavillon d'Armenonville in Paris, France???
[url]http://www.istockphoto.com/stock-photo-16841813-a-r-t-joy-love-charity-gala-for-association-hadassah.php?st=4ed8d73[/url] ([url]http://www.istockphoto.com/stock-photo-16841813-a-r-t-joy-love-charity-gala-for-association-hadassah.php?st=4ed8d73[/url])
LOL!! Glad it is so meticulously labeled. Could have sworn those were Kate Middleton's.
Definitely a must-have, up-to-the minute piece of journalism there. Bravo! ;D
-
Don't want this one to die just because the new ASA sucks more:
Aug 21st vs Aug. 29th, no special treatment EdStock. Yeah right. now 40 days for my last editorial, waiting for review. No favorites or special treatment? BS!
(http://img710.imageshack.us/img710/1770/edstockaug2011.jpg)
(http://img18.imageshack.us/img18/9998/edstockaug20112.jpg)
22 thousand images and still climbing?
(Shank Hat, what does it look like, what colors do they come in?) :D
-
I thought most of that crap was what they said don't load to IS editorial.
I looked at a few captions they'll say 2009 and 08 in another part.
This is an example of the cross platform stuff that we will get bombarded with. This stuff should have been dumped at thinkstock not istock.
-
I thought most of that crap was what they said don't load to IS editorial.
Indeed ::):
"We do not accept photographs of celebrities and public figures. It is a can of worms we just aren't opening. (http://www.istockphoto.com/article_view.php?ID=939#3)"
And I had one rejected because the location and date were on all caps. I resubmitted and now I'm expecting it to be rejected because it isn't on all caps :P.
-
Wow, a week and a bit later and now up to 31217 files :o
-
I thought most of that crap was what they said don't load to IS editorial.
Indeed ::):
"We do not accept photographs of celebrities and public figures. It is a can of worms we just aren't opening. ([url]http://www.istockphoto.com/article_view.php?ID=939#3[/url])"
Well, they couldn't have us doing it and competing with the agglomeration which is EdStock.
-
And I see plenty of locations that are easy to get shots of sneaking in.
-
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 (http://www.istockphoto.com/stock-photo-17622926-scenes-of-india.php?st=8c89378)
-
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: [url]http://www.istockphoto.com/stock-photo-17622926-scenes-of-india.php?st=8c89378[/url] ([url]http://www.istockphoto.com/stock-photo-17622926-scenes-of-india.php?st=8c89378[/url])
Yes, sorry, my poor syntax. I mean there are plenty of shots sneaking in to EdStock's port of places that are of free access, and which are not 'iconic' places as in the original announcement of EdStock. Well, we should know better than to believe or trust anything they say.
And yes, I've also noticed a few that should surely be in the main collection.
Maybet that's the 'next iteration' of EdStock.
:-(
ETA: I just came in to correct the typo 'maybet', but 'maybe' it's short for 'what's the betting...?'
-
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 !
-
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.
-
Ooooh, Ed has a load of Ele photos popped in and featuring highly in the best match.
Oddly, 'editorial only'. Weird.
-
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.
-
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?
-
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: [url]http://www.istockphoto.com/stock-photo-17622926-scenes-of-india.php?st=8c89378[/url] ([url]http://www.istockphoto.com/stock-photo-17622926-scenes-of-india.php?st=8c89378[/url])
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?
(http://img819.imageshack.us/img819/2919/edstocksept2011.jpg)
For those of you keeping score, 38883 as of Noon today.
-
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).
-
just add a zero to the title...
-
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?
-
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"?
-
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 ;)
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'.
-
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.
-
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
-
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.
-
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?)
-
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 (http://www.istockphoto.com/stock-photo-17622466-an-african-safari.php?st=b6afe6a)
-
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... [url]http://www.istockphoto.com/stock-photo-17622466-an-african-safari.php?st=b6afe6a[/url] ([url]http://www.istockphoto.com/stock-photo-17622466-an-african-safari.php?st=b6afe6a[/url])
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.
-
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 (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Qx-uuum2MSU#)
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. :-*
-
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:
(http://i.istockimg.com/file_thumbview_approve/17622167/2/17622167-17622167-an-african-safari.jpg) (http://www.istockphoto.com/stock-photo-17622167-an-african-safari.php?st=4e9df4e)
(http://i.istockimg.com/file_thumbview_approve/17622169/2/17622169-17622169-an-african-safari.jpg) (http://www.istockphoto.com/stock-photo-17622169-an-african-safari.php?st=4e9df4e)
(http://i.istockimg.com/file_thumbview_approve/17622171/2/17622171-17622171-an-african-safari.jpg) (http://www.istockphoto.com/stock-photo-17622171-an-african-safari.php?st=4e9df4e)
(http://i.istockimg.com/file_thumbview_approve/16840608/2/16840608-16840608-dust-storm-blankets-sydney.jpg) (http://www.istockphoto.com/stock-photo-16840608-dust-storm-blankets-sydney.php?st=190d2f6)
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...
-
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?
-
@ JoAnn: absolutely, and great examples. +1
-
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".
-
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.
-
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.
-
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:
([url]http://i.istockimg.com/file_thumbview_approve/17622167/2/17622167-17622167-an-african-safari.jpg[/url]) ([url]http://www.istockphoto.com/stock-photo-17622167-an-african-safari.php?st=4e9df4e[/url])
([url]http://i.istockimg.com/file_thumbview_approve/17622169/2/17622169-17622169-an-african-safari.jpg[/url]) ([url]http://www.istockphoto.com/stock-photo-17622169-an-african-safari.php?st=4e9df4e[/url])
([url]http://i.istockimg.com/file_thumbview_approve/17622171/2/17622171-17622171-an-african-safari.jpg[/url]) ([url]http://www.istockphoto.com/stock-photo-17622171-an-african-safari.php?st=4e9df4e[/url])
([url]http://i.istockimg.com/file_thumbview_approve/16840608/2/16840608-16840608-dust-storm-blankets-sydney.jpg[/url]) ([url]http://www.istockphoto.com/stock-photo-16840608-dust-storm-blankets-sydney.php?st=190d2f6[/url])
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.
-
^ 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.
-
I kind of like the bottom one actually. At first glance I thought it looked like an illustration with a lot of copy space, but now it's been pointed out I can see the faint presence of the Sydney Opera House. I've never photographed in those conditions - so I don't have a clue how easy or hard that is to achieve.
In trying to find the photographer, I came across some cracking weather shots on this page. A bit of an aside - but thought others here might like to see some of these:
http://www.bigpicture.in/18-top-weather-photos-2009/ (http://www.bigpicture.in/18-top-weather-photos-2009/)
-
Hmm... Spagetty Images both market maker and competing with suppliers placed at a disadvantage... Don't that make you think of Google and what happened when they were pushing their own?
-
That dust storm was amazing. Woke up in the morning and complete red glow, maybe 200m visibility, street lights still on at 10am. Driving to work it was like someone had started WW3 and dropped some A bombs.
I'm surprised that photo wasn't rejected for white balance not correct. :) I don't think I've seen a camera with a WB setting of dust storm before.
-
^ 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.
Maybe Getty is the "downstream" for them.
-
Maybe Getty is the "downstream" for them.
:D
Also @ qwerty: Glad you weathered that storm! "WB setting of dust storm" :D
-
I don't know who said it earlier...but yup, iStock is "downstream" from Getty.....at least according to their model.
-
Editorial just seems like way too much * work when it comes to selling it under a microstock pricing model. You'll need 100 decent shots to equal the sames of 1 good generic stock image. No thanks... Ed can have that piece of the market, for all I care. Good for him. I wish I had the patience and time to crank out a keyworded and edited portfolio of that size, no matter if he's a one man operation, or a team.
-
'edstock' is a collection of existing wholly owned Getty content from a variety of editorial photographers. It isn't one man or a team, and it's already keyworded and sitting on Getty. You're right though. Under 1k sales from 40k images show it's not really working.
-
by sending in this pile of photos they might make something like $2/image per year or so for not much effort for stuff that wouldn't be selling on Getty. There'll be 100,000 on there within another month, obviously there is no reviewing cost so $200K or so extra profit.
-
by sending in this pile of photos they might make something like $2/image per year or so for not much effort for stuff that wouldn't be selling on Getty. There'll be 100,000 on there within another month, obviously there is no reviewing cost so $200K or so extra profit.
Pity they're saving on reviewing costs: titling, captioning and keywording could do with review - and in the why-the-h*ck-is-this-editorial? category quality also, diluting the overall atrractivelness of the iStockphoto collection.
-
by sending in this pile of photos they might make something like $2/image per year or so for not much effort for stuff that wouldn't be selling on Getty. There'll be 100,000 on there within another month, obviously there is no reviewing cost so $200K or so extra profit.
Exactly. Most of those images have only just arrived in the last couple of weeks so 1000 sales isn't too bad. With no commissions being paid, at say $8 per average sale, the money is totting up fairly quickly.
-
by sending in this pile of photos they might make something like $2/image per year or so for not much effort for stuff that wouldn't be selling on Getty. There'll be 100,000 on there within another month, obviously there is no reviewing cost so $200K or so extra profit.
Exactly. Most of those images have only just arrived in the last couple of weeks so 1000 sales isn't too bad. With no commissions being paid, at say $8 per average sale, the money is totting up fairly quickly.
Poor lighting & noise = fit with Edstock. Nice.
-
'edstock' is a collection of existing wholly owned Getty content from a variety of editorial photographers. It isn't one man or a team, and it's already keyworded and sitting on Getty.
Oh, I didn't realise it was wholly-owned content. That's why even non-editorial stuff is getting shovelled up, then.
Am I right in thinking that Getty keywording is done by Getty staff? I've often thought they do a poor job, and this lot confirms it.
-
'edstock' is a collection of existing wholly owned Getty content from a variety of editorial photographers. It isn't one man or a team, and it's already keyworded and sitting on Getty. You're right though. Under 1k sales from 40k images show it's not really working.
Didn't Getty try this wholly owned content thing somewhere else with similar results a while back? I seem to remember reading something ages ago.
They seem to think that if they jump this stuff off the back of an existing successful site it will take off, whereas what would seem more likely is that too much of it will upset the delicate balance of what buyers actually want, and cause the original to crash.
To state the obvious it seems to me that they really are in danger of turning iStock into something that no-one will recognise any more, and which buyers may well find a turn off. Nobody looking for images wants to be told what to buy by the seller. They want what fits their needs best.
-
'edstock' is a collection of existing wholly owned Getty content from a variety of editorial photographers. It isn't one man or a team, and it's already keyworded and sitting on Getty. You're right though. Under 1k sales from 40k images show it's not really working.
Didn't Getty try this wholly owned content thing somewhere else with similar results a while back? I seem to remember reading something ages ago.
They seem to think that if they jump this stuff off the back of an existing successful site it will take off, whereas what would seem more likely is that too much of it will upset the delicate balance of what buyers actually want, and cause the original to crash.
To state the obvious it seems to me that they really are in danger of turning iStock into something that no-one will recognise any more, and which buyers may well find a turn off. Nobody looking for images wants to be told what to buy by the seller. They want what fits their needs best.
A lot of the original Thinkstock stuff was wholly-owned content, and perhaps (?) some of the original ingestion of Agency, some of which were dire, too, and were removed after forum protests. They're not allowing public protest about quality, keywording or captioning with the EdStock dump. To be fair, I'm keeping an eye on the 'dark safari' stuff and it is sinking fairly fast in best match, just like my own new uploads. If you don't sell within the first 24 hours, you're going down, fast.
-
'edstock' is a collection of existing wholly owned Getty content from a variety of editorial photographers. It isn't one man or a team, and it's already keyworded and sitting on Getty. You're right though. Under 1k sales from 40k images show it's not really working.
Didn't Getty try this wholly owned content thing somewhere else with similar results a while back? I seem to remember reading something ages ago.
They seem to think that if they jump this stuff off the back of an existing successful site it will take off, whereas what would seem more likely is that too much of it will upset the delicate balance of what buyers actually want, and cause the original to crash.
To state the obvious it seems to me that they really are in danger of turning iStock into something that no-one will recognise any more, and which buyers may well find a turn off. Nobody looking for images wants to be told what to buy by the seller. They want what fits their needs best.
Yeah, well that started happening the day Getty bought istock and they stepped up their game last year, before they even started shoveling edstock. This might just be the nail in the coffin.
-
What they don't seem to realise is that selling art in any form is not like selling tins of beans. You have to have a carefully targeted market, and "ambience" to appeal to and sell to a certain client base at a certain price point. Make it too cheap, and they'll go elsewhere because the perceived value is wrong. Make it too expensive and people will simply find the prices a turn off or find it too elitist. Put the wrong items in there, even if you keep the existing work, and watch the buyers walk away. "It's full of very ordinary stuff you can see anywhere"
There is a contradiction that while as a business it may be "all about the money" if you make that too obvious both artists and buyers won't like it. It spoils the ambience. The best galleries are run by artists with good business sense, not money men with no artistic knowledge.
I spent 20 odd years making and selling bespoke furniture, both to commission and through galleries. I've seen a number of real world galleries go one way or the other. Mostly through trying to introduce cheaper goods, bought in by the gallery to increase turnover and have a bigger mark up, and so losing premium sales when clients either see it as going down market, or can no longer find what they want because artists start pulling work from somewhere which no longer sells and / or gets the price they want. Sound familiar? I've no reason to think that selling online is really that different to selling in the real world.
The point about new work not selling is also very valid. How long can that be "sustainable" for we artists?
-
What they don't seem to realise is that selling art in any form is not like selling tins of beans.
<snip>
How long can that be "sustainable" for we artists?
Huh? You couldn't be more wrong. Microstock is not 'art' but a commodity. A piece of art generally speaking has no use or function, quite unlike microstock. Microstock is used on posters, websites, leaflets, TV, etc to illustrate the message being promulgated. It is very much more like 'selling tins of beans' than selling art.
The most successful microstock agency is SS, most probably because it does indeed treat images 'like tins of beans', which are all priced the same. One of Istock's biggest mistakes IMHO is trying to treat images like art with their over-priced collections cluttering up the search.
For the most part we are not 'artists' either, even if Istock does sometimes refer to us as such. Most of us are simply producers of content, primarily concerned with how much money an image or a series will make relative to it's cost of production. Hardly the selfless, immaterial devotion of a true artist.
-
this place is becoming more negative than ever, now even doing stock is CRAP :)
I really don´t understand, ok the money is the more important and yes you will collect royalties after royalties, you are the man but all this talk every week, almost everyday about devaluating work is really annoying but sure it makes competition more bored and perhaps depressed to the point of stop eheh just like other strategy it might work
-
I actually think that Getty might be happy to get IS to die- or at least wither away. As long as they can get the buyers to move either downstream or upstream or laterally. That way they can avoid paying those unsustainable ( >20%) royalties out. So first move IS content elsewhere and move wholly owned and crap to IS. When buyers complain suggest they go to one of the other Getty "family" sources. When sellers complain tell them to take it or leave. Eventually you might think you are submitting to IS, but more and more of your sales will be somewhere else with lower % and no RC.
-
What they don't seem to realise is that selling art in any form is not like selling tins of beans. You have to have a carefully targeted market, and "ambience" to appeal to and sell to a certain client base at a certain price point. Make it too cheap, and they'll go elsewhere because the perceived value is wrong. Make it too expensive and people will simply find the prices a turn off or find it too elitist. Put the wrong items in there, even if you keep the existing work, and watch the buyers walk away. "It's full of very ordinary stuff you can see anywhere"
Without getting into the "are we artists or aren't we" debate, I do think this is a very good point about the ambiance, and perceived value of Istock images. Every designer I have spoken with personally over the years who uses Istock mentions that the reason is because they have "higher quality images" or "higher standards" than the other sites. Whether they do or not is certainly debatable, but that is a widely held perception among their (remaining) customer base.
By shoveling tens of thousands of obviously sub-par images into the searches, and even slapping a crown on them, Getty is ruining the "ambiance", not to mention the perceived value of "exclusive" images, and will ultimately squander the last remaining draw that the site has.
-
By shoveling tens of thousands of obviously sub-par images into the searches, and even slapping a crown on them, Getty is ruining the "ambiance", not to mention the perceived value of "exclusive" images, and will ultimately squander the last remaining draw that the site has.
Exactly. It's a difficult game to get right, and going for the biggest profit isn't really the right way to play it. It's not as straightforward as a "normal" retail business where you buy in mass produced stuff at a price and resell it at a profit.
As far as the "Artists or not" thing goes, then OK we're not producing great art most of the time, but on the other hand it ain't baked beans either. The "Churn out enough of anything and people will buy it" thing just doesn't work. (Wholly owned content for example?)
One thing about successful real world artists is no matter what they are producing they never miss a chance to tell an audience how wonderful it is. You'll never really hear them criticise their own work.
-
I actually think that Getty might be happy to get IS to die- or at least wither away. As long as they can get the buyers to move either downstream or upstream or laterally. That way they can avoid paying those unsustainable ( >20%) royalties out. So first move IS content elsewhere and move wholly owned and crap to IS. When buyers complain suggest they go to one of the other Getty "family" sources. When sellers complain tell them to take it or leave. Eventually you might think you are submitting to IS, but more and more of your sales will be somewhere else with lower % and no RC.
Makes sense to me that that is what they are doing.
-
49253 now
-
49253 now
The last thousand + are back to red carpet celebs. These dark safari pics were an odd 'insert'.
Wonder what they'll sneak in try out next?
-
'edstock' is a collection of existing wholly owned Getty content from a variety of editorial photographers. It isn't one man or a team, and it's already keyworded and sitting on Getty.
Oh, I didn't realise it was wholly-owned content. That's why even non-editorial stuff is getting shovelled up, then.
Am I right in thinking that Getty keywording is done by Getty staff? I've often thought they do a poor job, and this lot confirms it.
I suspected that it was, now confirmed by SJL. And yes, this is the same as ThinkStock which wasn't early use of wholly owned, it still is a majority of Getty collections and purchases. The IS pp additions are just some frosting on the Getty cake. Take all your old stale collections that have no home and nearly no sales and put them onto a new subscription site, cheap.
Now EdStock is profitable, whatever level it earns at, because it is making money, instead of sitting in a warehouse. Also no commission and as some others have pointed out, it's riding on the backs of people who work hard to produce good new and interesting content.
I thought it had slowed down. Now 57,401 images!
-
'edstock' is a collection of existing wholly owned Getty content from a variety of editorial photographers. It isn't one man or a team, and it's already keyworded and sitting on Getty.
Oh, I didn't realise it was wholly-owned content. That's why even non-editorial stuff is getting shovelled up, then.
Am I right in thinking that Getty keywording is done by Getty staff? I've often thought they do a poor job, and this lot confirms it.
I suspected that it was, now confirmed by SJL. And yes, this is the same as ThinkStock which wasn't early use of wholly owned, it still is a majority of Getty collections and purchases. The IS pp additions are just some frosting on the Getty cake. Take all your old stale collections that have no home and nearly no sales and put them onto a new subscription site, cheap.
Now EdStock is profitable, whatever level it earns at, because it is making money, instead of sitting in a warehouse. Also no commission and as some others have pointed out, it's riding on the backs of people who work hard to produce good new and interesting content.
I thought it had slowed down. Now 57,401 images!
60876 now ! any guesses on when it'll stop. My guess it 99,942
-
'Ed' certainly doesn't seem to be hampered by the 'too similar' rule! ;)
-
As I said before, if they put enough of this sort of material in and give it a preferential placement, they'll end up with the best match search looking as if it only has content from a few people. Some searches are already like that, not with necessarily "Edstock" but with all the other "Agency" stuff. No good saying buyers will find the other material. If a large amount of buyers looked farther than best match then this thing of putting preferred content up front wouldn't work in the first place. I'm afraid that with sales seemingly going the way they are we may be seeing buyers finding it all a turn off. The whole point of best match from a buyers perspective is that it gives good quality usable content with minimum time and effort.
-
As I said before, if they put enough of this sort of material in and give it a preferential placement, they'll end up with the best match search looking as if it only has content from a few people. Some searches are already like that, not with necessarily "Edstock" but with all the other "Agency" stuff.
Apart from the dark safari/general touristy stuff that snuck in last week, it does seem to be mainly red carpet celeb stuff, which is only available on iStock from 'a few people' all of them called EdStock. Very few of the celeb pics have 'generic' keywords.
-
The whole point of best match from a buyers perspective is that it gives good quality usable content with minimum time and effort.
Oh, screw that. It's not about the buyers, heaven forfend: it's all about profitability.
Keep up at the back!
-
The whole point of best match from a buyers perspective is that it gives good quality usable content with minimum time and effort.
Oh, screw that. It's not about the buyers, heaven forfend: it's all about profitability.
Keep up at the back!
I never fort of that! Dammit you noticed me at the back of the class!
-
apologies for the epic post, but for the benefit of other contributors, I'd hate to think of someone else spending the time and effort I've put in to get the same info. it was my work in marketing/journalism and publishing that led me to iStock in the first place. I was a full-time writer before any of my paid photography work. I shoot a lot of editorial, but have generally shot editorial images freelance, for regional papers, magazines and for myself as a strong interest. when iStock editorial launched, I thought it was an opportunity to get my editorial files 'out there' in addition to my creative work. then, the limitation placed on celebrities and politicians eliminated a lot of my imagery since it contains these subjects.
I've spent the months since editorial launched on iStock communicating with iStock and Getty. Particularly since I've been in contact with a number of major wire agencies about submitting my work. always bumping into the problem of granting RF rights as well as RM, and being stuck as an iStock exclusive since I can't license for RF. not all agencies require this, but some of the big ones do.
a year's worth of emails and calls to Getty editorial went unanswered until the last few days. the whole process had been educational/frustrating but ultimately enlightening.
I'd hoped to submit archives of my news coverage and celebrity content to Getty editorial. they don't do this. you'd think someone could have saved me months of work and just emailed that to me. This response from an editorial manager was communicated to me. I am paraphrasing the email sent to me. Getty doesn’t have a main editorial collection that they market. Their editorial divisions, News, Sport and Entertainment are treated as News and all content and events are coordinated by their assignment desk. For some of you this may have been obvious, but other news wire services I work with welcome archive photos. It seems Getty simply archives submissions by assignment shooters. and unfortunately, there are already some very established shooters in my region and they do not need or want another one. I've realized that I've probably spent far too much time trying to build some sort of editorial presence. when I really should continue focusing on what is working well for me, which is my creative content. I had a moment of clarity asking myself why I am busting my a55 to produce editorial series for Getty.
so it seems that edstock is simply the culmination of news outtakes and footage that they don't market via Getty after a story's time has passed. they have loads of images sitting there that they've realized they can make money on through iStock. so they are moving them into iStock to get something out of them. we've all speculated this is the case, now it seems more concretely so. it also seems there is no plan to cultivate any sort of collection on iStock that includes celebrities or politicians from iStock contributors. so I have my answer, and it's a relief at this point. I had attended the Lypse in London expecting some sort of editorial Mecca and came away feeling less than excited about editorial. and now that seems to have been a good instinct. so, will refocus on creative. but maybe other newish editorial shooters will knock on the right doors and save themselves some headaches.
-
It's good of you to share that. Thanks Stacey (I presume it's all right to call you that now that your photo is by your moniker....?)
-
It's good of you to share that. Thanks Stacey (I presume it's all right to call you that now that your photo is by your moniker....?)
no problem, I think people know who I am here :-)
-
Great, thanks. :)
-
Stacey, really great of you to take the time to post the results of your research. You probably saved a lot of people a lot of pointless frustration.
I doubt Istock is really the right venue for boatloads of (out)dated editorial content. Seems to me that Thinkstock would be a better place to put that sort of thing. It has to be pretty low demand, considering its news value is past.
-
Thanks for that Stacey. Very useful information.
Isn't just ironic that Editorial Scout is still suggesting that we should send our images to Getty? I got such a Scout reply only yesterday, but had no intention of following up on the suggestion anyway, for a 20% commission and that US tax hassle. Now I know I'm not missing anything.
Sold a 'celeb' photo through Alamy this week. :D
-
Stacey, really great of you to take the time to post the results of your research. You probably saved a lot of people a lot of pointless frustration.
I doubt Istock is really the right venue for boatloads of (out)dated editorial content. Seems to me that Thinkstock would be a better place to put that sort of thing. It has to be pretty low demand, considering its news value is past.
since I don't participate in the PP, and since istock don't accept this content, I can't get my editorial content over to TS anyways. but FWIW, my 'old' content is somewhat timeless. some of it is time-sensitive (like the deaths of politicians/inaugurations and that kind of coverage), but much of it is just celebrity red carpet content. some with festival and ceremony backdrops, but much of it without any (timestamped) backgrounds. they don't want that either. as a freelancer, I cover the cost of all this editorial coverage. parking in the city, travel, sometimes fees to apply for accreditation. ten hours of shooting and then rushing home to process and submit same day. it just isn't worth it.
I'm not wanting to step on colleagues' toes either, but they can't cover everything and discouraging new talent just seems pretty myopic. not to mention a lot of the pros they mentioned I've seen work and in some cases their assistants should be paid more than they are. they do nothing but press the shutter half the time and really don't care anymore about what they're shooting, at least by appearances and by tidbits of conversations. anyways, I'll still throw up generic editorial but I'm not busting my butt anymore on reportage and stories and all that jazz. I love doing it, but it's time consuming and expensive and I want to focus on what's working for me.
-
Stacey, really great of you to take the time to post the results of your research. You probably saved a lot of people a lot of pointless frustration.
I doubt Istock is really the right venue for boatloads of (out)dated editorial content. Seems to me that Thinkstock would be a better place to put that sort of thing. It has to be pretty low demand, considering its news value is past.
since I don't participate in the PP, and since istock don't accept this content, I can't get my editorial content over to TS anyways. but FWIW, my 'old' content is somewhat timeless. some of it is time-sensitive (like the deaths of politicians/inaugurations and that kind of coverage), but much of it is just celebrity red carpet content. some with festival and ceremony backdrops, but much of it without any (timestamped) backgrounds. they don't want that either. as a freelancer, I cover the cost of all this editorial coverage. parking in the city, travel, sometimes fees to apply for accreditation. ten hours of shooting and then rushing home to process and submit same day. it just isn't worth it.
I'm not wanting to step on colleagues' toes either, but they can't cover everything and discouraging new talent just seems pretty myopic. not to mention a lot of the pros they mentioned I've seen work and in some cases their assistants should be paid more than they are. they do nothing but press the shutter half the time and really don't care anymore about what they're shooting, at least by appearances and by tidbits of conversations. anyways, I'll still throw up generic editorial but I'm not busting my butt anymore on reportage and stories and all that jazz. I love doing it, but it's time consuming and expensive and I want to focus on what's working for me.
Oh, no, I was referring to Edstock's stuff as being old and better suited to Thinkstock.
The editorial photogs on Istock, including you, are producing very good stuff, from what I have seen. It's not right that talented and motivated Istockers are being muscled out of the editorial category by the outdated dregs of Getty editorial.
-
Stacey, really great of you to take the time to post the results of your research. You probably saved a lot of people a lot of pointless frustration.
I doubt Istock is really the right venue for boatloads of (out)dated editorial content. Seems to me that Thinkstock would be a better place to put that sort of thing. It has to be pretty low demand, considering its news value is past.
since I don't participate in the PP, and since istock don't accept this content, I can't get my editorial content over to TS anyways. but FWIW, my 'old' content is somewhat timeless. some of it is time-sensitive (like the deaths of politicians/inaugurations and that kind of coverage), but much of it is just celebrity red carpet content. some with festival and ceremony backdrops, but much of it without any (timestamped) backgrounds. they don't want that either. as a freelancer, I cover the cost of all this editorial coverage. parking in the city, travel, sometimes fees to apply for accreditation. ten hours of shooting and then rushing home to process and submit same day. it just isn't worth it.
I'm not wanting to step on colleagues' toes either, but they can't cover everything and discouraging new talent just seems pretty myopic. not to mention a lot of the pros they mentioned I've seen work and in some cases their assistants should be paid more than they are. they do nothing but press the shutter half the time and really don't care anymore about what they're shooting, at least by appearances and by tidbits of conversations. anyways, I'll still throw up generic editorial but I'm not busting my butt anymore on reportage and stories and all that jazz. I love doing it, but it's time consuming and expensive and I want to focus on what's working for me.
Oh, no, I was referring to Edstock's stuff as being old and better suited to Thinkstock.
The editorial photogs on Istock, including you, are producing very good stuff, from what I have seen. It's not right that talented and motivated Istockers are being muscled out of the editorial category by the outdated dregs of Getty editorial.
ahhh, lol. yeah, send it to TS! actually, it creeps me right out every time I see TS images used in major papers, print and online. and they are all over CNN. I think the Getty mandate these days is pay as little to expensive contributors as possible and market . out of wholly owned content. which certainly sucks for any of us with ambition.
-
ahhh, lol. yeah, send it to TS! actually, it creeps me right out every time I see TS images used in major papers, print and online. and they are all over CNN. I think the Getty mandate these days is pay as little to expensive contributors as possible and market . out of wholly owned content. which certainly sucks for any of us with ambition.
And even for those of us without ;)
Know what you mean about TS images. I see them everywhere too. Getty must have one he11 of a marketing dept.
-
lol....yeah, Lisa, you're a huge slacker..... ;D
-
Freeze out the newcomers is a very old Getty tradition. It's why iStock had to come into existence once digital arrived.
Edstock has screwed one of my key niches horribly, pages packed with unreleased general views and unrelated minor celebrities who have visited all flooding out my stuff.
-
Freeze out the newcomers is a very old Getty tradition. It's why iStock had to come into existence once digital arrived.
I guess I just learned this the hard way. should have asked here first...
-
lol....yeah, Lisa, you're a huge slacker..... ;D
Seriously, I have lost a lot of my motivation for a variety of reasons that most here can probably relate to.
But I'm happy to coast on my former busy bee reputation for as long as I can get away with it ;)
-
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. :(
-
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. :(
...and now we also officially know it'll be a neverending influx. blegh.
-
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.
-
Getty has been into news since forever. It might be million+ : P
-
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
(http://img593.imageshack.us/img593/9006/edstocksept201119.jpg)
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 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
-
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?
-
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.
-
^ 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.
-
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.
-
it really is about telling stories for me.
enough said
-
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.
-
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.
-
no new files in a couple of days
-
no new files in a couple of days
Ah, someone stuck their finder in the dike? ;D
(http://img854.imageshack.us/img854/5650/edstockoct32011.jpg)
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 (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...
-
61226 files now and >1600 dl's. probably joyze wanted to say 70000 files not 7000.
-
no new files in a couple of days
Ah, someone stuck their finder in the dike? ;D
([url]http://img854.imageshack.us/img854/5650/edstockoct32011.jpg[/url])
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.
-
63003 files today. the test is still running ;).
almost 2000 files in one day.
-
60876 now ! any guesses on when it'll stop. My guess it 99,942
[/quote]
looks like my bet is still live
-
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.
-
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:
(http://i.istockimg.com/file_thumbview_approve/16179992/2/stock-photo-16179992-palio-of-siena.jpg)
-
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.
-
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:
([url]http://i.istockimg.com/file_thumbview_approve/16179992/2/stock-photo-16179992-palio-of-siena.jpg[/url])
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.
-
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?
-
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.
-
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! (http://s1.postimage.org/1fesfbdz8/doh.gif)
-
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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
So I click on their featured Celebrities lightbox to see a page full of Mandy Moore and I think that I haven't seen her in a while and she must be in a new movie. WRONG. The photos are from 2004. My default was set to Age. Then I sort the lightbox by best match and David Cameron, 2008 comes up. Most popular brings up Steve Jobs (of course) then Obama, NO YEAR in the date though, and of course the 5th best match of a celebrity is a sidewalk star with the name Tom Hanks in it.
Wow, what a useful relevant lightbox. As it happened, I got a survey at the same time and I asked them why they wasted my time with such old irrelevant photos in a featured front page lightbox.
-
Edstock now up to 72,000 files. Seems they are now uploading lots more general news shots and less celebrity headshots. with many generic outdoors type shots that compete with istock contributors.
Meanwhile it appears the regular editorial inspection system may have been shut down to retrain inspectors over new policies. Appears nothing approved since about 10/5/2011. Also appears admins now have privilege of uploading same day self inspected editorial. Edstock and a few admin shots seem to be the only images coming thru.
-
Edstock now up to 72,000 files. Seems they are now uploading lots more general news shots and less celebrity headshots. with many generic outdoors type shots that compete with istock contributors.
Meanwhile it appears the regular editorial inspection system may have been shut down to retrain inspectors over new policies. Appears nothing approved since about 10/5/2011. Also appears admins now have privilege of uploading same day self inspected editorial. Edstock and a few admin shots seem to be the only images coming thru.
Yea, I notice old 'Ed' has been to Glasgow in the same 'flat' light I get rejected. No surprise there. To be honest, 'Ed' has got some Glasgow pics I'd never have dreamt of submitting because of the light, even though it's 'normal'.
There have been certain contributors whose images aren't inspected for quite some time. JJRD said they'd 'earned the right'.
I wish they'd at least make sure all inspectors are aware of the 'old' policies.
-
Edstock now up to 72,000 files. Seems they are now uploading lots more general news shots and less celebrity headshots. with many generic outdoors type shots that compete with istock contributors.
Meanwhile it appears the regular editorial inspection system may have been shut down to retrain inspectors over new policies. Appears nothing approved since about 10/5/2011. Also appears admins now have privilege of uploading same day self inspected editorial. Edstock and a few admin shots seem to be the only images coming thru.
In most ways true, but not 100%. Two of my editorial accepted on the 11th and one rejected on the 15th. (last one based on the new rules) The two from the 11th were third time resubmit for EXIF not matching Caption date... On A Scan! ::) With the new rules I've stopped sending in Editorial.
Edstock is at 75,000 maybe next week, another screen snapshot. ;) Are we going to have that pool for a total on Jan. 1st? Some winner should get a prize for being closest. Say a free membership to MSG for a year?
Admins same day self inspection? Oh wow, another class of member, true editorial and news. By the time we get something approved in two weeks or more, it's not news and useless.
-
Already 75624 files. Keeping the inspectors busy and customers away from our files.
-
Already 75624 files. Keeping the inspectors busy and customers away from our files.
I'm pretty certain they're not keeping the inspectors busy. Many of them would/should have been rejected for poor lighting.
The captions are not as required, and the keywording is often wrong or inadequate.
They are, however, enjoying a boost in the best match. The queleas are still 23 and 24 on a best match search for 'African Elephant' (with no AE in either of them).
-
Already 75624 files. Keeping the inspectors busy and customers away from our files.
I'm pretty certain they're not keeping the inspectors busy. Many of them would/should have been rejected for poor lighting.
The captions are not as required, and the keywording is often wrong or inadequate.
They are, however, enjoying a boost in the best match. The queleas are still 23 and 24 on a best match search for 'African Elephant' (with no AE in either of them).
Not likely anyone at Istock has anything to do with the submission process for Edstock. Edstock has pretty much killed any incentive to do any type of travel or big city editorial in the USA. Look at best match for cities like Washington, Los Angeles or Las Vegas. Edstock owns all but a few of the top slots. Its not just celebrity and politician headshots anymore. There are tons of cityscapes, gas station signs, street scenes etc.
Its pretty obvious now that the only reason IStock was allowed to start an editorial collection was so that Getty could dump their old editorial junk on the site and take advantage of Istock's traffic.
I am still not sure if the omission of the year from the Edstock captions is intentional to deceive customers and make them think the content is current. It forces buyers to click on the image if they want to dig out the actual full date of the image. I just can't imagine why any agency would show only the month and day of an image and hide the year in the description which is not even visible. Woe to any regular Istock contributor who tries a trick like that.
-
Edstock makes me ill.
Didn't JJRD say back in the spring that the moment Istock stopped working for its contributors he was gone? Should I stop holding my breath yet? ::)
-
Didn't JJRD say back in the spring that the moment Istock stopped working for its contributors he was gone?
Yippers!
-
Its pretty obvious now that the only reason IStock was allowed to start an editorial collection was so that Getty could dump their old editorial junk on the site and take advantage of Istock's traffic.
I think this is exactly what's happening. I feel the same way, and very frustrated about the situation. I've started a thread in iStock's suggestion forum imploring admins to treat iStock editorial contributors fairly.
-
Not likely anyone at Istock has anything to do with the submission process for Edstock. Edstock has pretty much killed any incentive to do any type of travel or big city editorial in the USA. Look at best match for cities like Washington, Los Angeles or Las Vegas. Edstock owns all but a few of the top slots. Its not just celebrity and politician headshots anymore. There are tons of cityscapes, gas station signs, street scenes etc.
Its pretty obvious now that the only reason IStock was allowed to start an editorial collection was so that Getty could dump their old editorial junk on the site and take advantage of Istock's traffic.
I am still not sure if the omission of the year from the Edstock captions is intentional to deceive customers and make them think the content is current. It forces buyers to click on the image if they want to dig out the actual full date of the image. I just can't imagine why any agency would show only the month and day of an image and hide the year in the description which is not even visible. Woe to any regular Istock contributor who tries a trick like that.
I was with you until your last paragraph.
The Edstock caption format happens to be exactly the same format as that used at SS. So perhaps it's an industry wide standard, or perhaps Edstock is filled with photos that were originally submitted on SS (now that would be funny!).
-
I've started a thread in iStock's suggestion forum imploring admins to treat iStock editorial contributors fairly.
Nice effort, but we contributors have already tried to get fair treatment re: the RC debacle / commission cuts and failed miserably. There's no reason to hope for that to suddenly change now.
-
I've started a thread in iStock's suggestion forum imploring admins to treat iStock editorial contributors fairly.
Nice effort, but we contributors have already tried to get fair treatment re: the RC debacle / commission cuts and failed miserably. There's no reason to hope for that to suddenly change now.
it isn't about making a nice effort. it's about getting a point across, and it's about making them aware of what they're putting iStock editorial contributors through by handicapping us the way they are. in the long run, I hope they see that they are creating a situation where we're be forced to compete with their editorial. currently I sell far more creative than editorial. editorial certainly isn't about money. but should editorial become a primary venture for me, and should I become entrenched in relationships with other agencies...I would consider dropping exclusivity for the sake of having more freedom to contribute to companies that value my work.
-
I've started a thread in iStock's suggestion forum imploring admins to treat iStock editorial contributors fairly.
Nice effort, but we contributors have already tried to get fair treatment re: the RC debacle / commission cuts and failed miserably. There's no reason to hope for that to suddenly change now.
it isn't about making a nice effort. it's about getting a point across, and it's about making them aware of what they're putting iStock editorial contributors through by handicapping us the way they are. in the long run, I hope they see that they are creating a situation where we're be forced to compete with their editorial. currently I sell far more creative than editorial. editorial certainly isn't about money. but should editorial become a primary venture for me, and should I become entrenched in relationships with other agencies...I would consider dropping exclusivity for the sake of having more freedom to contribute to companies that value my work.
To be honest, I'd rather not have all my eggs in one basket, especially the basket which is proving to have many holes. At the rate my sales have plummeted for the past three weeks, even RF exclusivity isn't looking that great right now.
-
fortunately, or unfortunately (in terms of dependence on income), my sales are very good right now....and have been this year. it makes it very hard for me to grow as an artist in both creative imagery and editorial when Getty is pitting exclusives against ourselves in the iStock collections.
-
it isn't about making a nice effort. it's about getting a point across, and it's about making them aware of what they're putting iStock editorial contributors through by handicapping us the way they are.
My point was that all it will be is a nice effort. Because they are well aware of what they're putting contributors through and they do not care. They have demonstrated this time and again over the last year, if not longer.
In fact, they're taking a harder line stance than they used to. They used to let us complain, rant, and rave nearly unedited in the forums. Now Lobo is deleting posts left and right, even those that are not critical, but well reasoned and helpful.
The message is clear, at least to me: "This is the way it is; like it or not, but it won't change."
-
Not likely anyone at Istock has anything to do with the submission process for Edstock. Edstock has pretty much killed any incentive to do any type of travel or big city editorial in the USA. Look at best match for cities like Washington, Los Angeles or Las Vegas. Edstock owns all but a few of the top slots. Its not just celebrity and politician headshots anymore. There are tons of cityscapes, gas station signs, street scenes etc.
Its pretty obvious now that the only reason IStock was allowed to start an editorial collection was so that Getty could dump their old editorial junk on the site and take advantage of Istock's traffic.
I am still not sure if the omission of the year from the Edstock captions is intentional to deceive customers and make them think the content is current. It forces buyers to click on the image if they want to dig out the actual full date of the image. I just can't imagine why any agency would show only the month and day of an image and hide the year in the description which is not even visible. Woe to any regular Istock contributor who tries a trick like that.
I was with you until your last paragraph.
The Edstock caption format happens to be exactly the same format as that used at SS. So perhaps it's an industry wide standard, or perhaps Edstock is filled with photos that were originally submitted on SS (now that would be funny!).
Sorry, I wasn't aware of SS's policy of only month, date. I guess that blows my conspiracy theory. Although some of the SS's editorial that I just randomly checked seems to follow the Alamy standard where you can put as much or as little as you want.
On Istock the caption requirements are so rigid and restrictive that they cause contributors endless hardship. The first line of the caption is also visible when you hover over the thumbnail and get the preview. So on the edstock images you only see the month, date while on the Istock images you see the entire date and immediately know how old the picture is. Probably not a big thing in retrospect. Just annoying that the istock amateurs are held to higher standards than the Getty pros.
-
it isn't about making a nice effort. it's about getting a point across, and it's about making them aware of what they're putting iStock editorial contributors through by handicapping us the way they are.
My point was that all it will be is a nice effort. Because they are well aware of what they're putting contributors through and they do not care. They have demonstrated this time and again over the last year, if not longer.
In fact, they're taking a harder line stance than they used to. They used to let us complain, rant, and rave nearly unedited in the forums. Now Lobo is deleting posts left and right, even those that are not critical, but well reasoned and helpful.
The message is clear, at least to me: "This is the way it is; like it or not, but it won't change."
yes, that's the message. I agree.
-
Although some of the SS's editorial that I just randomly checked seems to follow the Alamy standard where you can put as much or as little as you want.
On Istock the caption requirements are so rigid and restrictive that they cause contributors endless hardship. The first line of the caption is also visible when you hover over the thumbnail and get the preview. So on the edstock images you only see the month, date while on the Istock images you see the entire date and immediately know how old the picture is. Probably not a big thing in retrospect. Just annoying that the istock amateurs are held to higher standards than the Getty pros.
I agree, and it isn't limited to just captioning. ;D
I was a contributor there when SS introduced their caption format. At the time, they were very, very picky about it, too -- very similar to how iStock is now. If there was anything that even slightly deviated from the specified format, it was rejected. Perhaps they've eased up on it now, or maybe the examples you saw were older ones UL'd before the caption format went into effect.
-
Its pretty obvious now that the only reason IStock was allowed to start an editorial collection was so that Getty could dump their old editorial junk on the site and take advantage of Istock's traffic.
Done, that said it all and is the correct answer. (http://s1.postimage.org/1fczxcupw/bowing.gif)
-
Ed has 27 of the top 50 files keyworded Glasgow, and his queleas have moved up to 20 and 21 in the African Elephant search since this morning.
-
Thanks to the person who had saved out the expunged post I mentioned earlier, in response to Lobo's nippy note about 'we won't be answering your questions in the forum: contact CR, Scout or artists@.
~~~~~~~~~~
Sorry, wrong thread, so I've moved it to the Unreleased Copyrighted Material No Longer Accepted thread. Sorry Stacey for 'orphaning' your comment.
-
I love pastorscott...he posts the best comments. thanks for resurfacing that one
-
I'm not religious, but his name has never gotten me upset, as it seems to have you...who cares? his posts are thoughtful and relevant. and long--my guess is that he seems to wait until he's read a lot about a discussion before jumping in. he is one of the posters I often keep an eye on in threads and he is generous with advice.
-
I'm not religious, but his name has never gotten me upset, as it seems to have you...who cares? his posts are thoughtful and relevant. and long--my guess is that he seems to wait until he's read a lot about a discussion before jumping in. he is one of the posters I often keep an eye on in threads and he is generous with advice.
Whatever. I can't believe you're still whinging about IS's editorial policy. It is the way it is __ get over it. There's precious little money to be made in it anyway (at microstock prices) other than using it as a dumping ground for 10K's of ex-newsworthy files, which is of course what they are doing with their own stuff. It is their own agency after all so why shouldn't they utilise it? I don't understand why you people are trying so hard to spend valuable time processing/uploading to a market that hardly exists at all anyway.
-
Thanks to the person who had saved out the expunged post I mentioned earlier, in response to Lobo's nippy note about 'we won't be answering your questions in the forum: contact CR, Scout or artists@.
~~~~~~~~~~
Sorry, wrong thread, so I've moved it to the Unreleased Copyrighted Material No Longer Accepted thread. Sorry Stacey for 'orphaning' your comment.
no problem. it provided fodder for gostwyck to whinge about tonight, so at least it was a productive evening for him ;-)
-
I'm not religious, but his name has never gotten me upset, as it seems to have you...who cares? his posts are thoughtful and relevant. and long--my guess is that he seems to wait until he's read a lot about a discussion before jumping in. he is one of the posters I often keep an eye on in threads and he is generous with advice.
Whatever. I can't believe you're still whinging about IS's editorial policy. It is the way it is __ get over it. There's precious little money to be made in it anyway (at microstock prices) other than using it as a dumping ground for 10K's of ex-newsworthy files, which is of course what they are doing with their own stuff. It is their own agency after all so why shouldn't they utilise it? I don't understand why you people are trying so hard to spend valuable time processing/uploading to a market that hardly exists at all anyway.
ARe you talking about IS, or Microstock in general as the market that hardly exists? Using your arguments, no one should be in any type of microstock, because "I don't understand why you people are trying so hard to spend valuable time processing/uploading"... Yeah I'm starting to agree, no Ed. not IS, no market.
-
These go through an inspection process?
http://www.istockphoto.com/stock-photo-17503581-santa-monkeys-around-with-the-chimps.php?st=b8e41c0 (http://www.istockphoto.com/stock-photo-17503581-santa-monkeys-around-with-the-chimps.php?st=b8e41c0)
-
These go through an inspection process?
[url]http://www.istockphoto.com/stock-photo-17503581-santa-monkeys-around-with-the-chimps.php?st=b8e41c0[/url] ([url]http://www.istockphoto.com/stock-photo-17503581-santa-monkeys-around-with-the-chimps.php?st=b8e41c0[/url])
:) Intresting to see that is uploaded in 12-19-03. So they changed the upload date to not gain place in the best match. That is nice from iStock.
The caption files have is not an iStock standard either. There is no year in the caption. All should be rejected ;)
-
These go through an inspection process?
[url]http://www.istockphoto.com/stock-photo-17503581-santa-monkeys-around-with-the-chimps.php?st=b8e41c0[/url] ([url]http://www.istockphoto.com/stock-photo-17503581-santa-monkeys-around-with-the-chimps.php?st=b8e41c0[/url])
just thought I'd post what your link was sending to as I'm guessing it'll now be taken down...
-
I'm not religious, but his name has never gotten me upset, as it seems to have you...who cares? his posts are thoughtful and relevant. and long--my guess is that he seems to wait until he's read a lot about a discussion before jumping in. he is one of the posters I often keep an eye on in threads and he is generous with advice.
Whatever. I can't believe you're still whinging about IS's editorial policy. It is the way it is __ get over it. There's precious little money to be made in it anyway (at microstock prices) other than using it as a dumping ground for 10K's of ex-newsworthy files, which is of course what they are doing with their own stuff. It is their own agency after all so why shouldn't they utilise it? I don't understand why you people are trying so hard to spend valuable time processing/uploading to a market that hardly exists at all anyway.
ARe you talking about IS, or Microstock in general as the market that hardly exists? Using your arguments, no one should be in any type of microstock, because "I don't understand why you people are trying so hard to spend valuable time processing/uploading"... Yeah I'm starting to agree, no Ed. not IS, no market.
No I don't think so, he is talking about 'Editorial Microstock' and I agree totally with him.
-
These go through an inspection process?
[url]http://www.istockphoto.com/stock-photo-17503581-santa-monkeys-around-with-the-chimps.php?st=b8e41c0[/url] ([url]http://www.istockphoto.com/stock-photo-17503581-santa-monkeys-around-with-the-chimps.php?st=b8e41c0[/url])
just thought I'd post what your link was sending to as I'm guessing it'll now be taken down...
-------------------------------------
Very nice. I'm sure the rest of the image is spectacular, more then making up for all the pipe bits.
Edited to add that this must be a case of the chimps doing a self inspection ;D
-
These go through an inspection process?
[url]http://www.istockphoto.com/stock-photo-17503581-santa-monkeys-around-with-the-chimps.php?st=b8e41c0[/url] ([url]http://www.istockphoto.com/stock-photo-17503581-santa-monkeys-around-with-the-chimps.php?st=b8e41c0[/url])
just thought I'd post what your link was sending to as I'm guessing it'll now be taken down...
-------------------------------------
Very nice. I'm sure the rest of the image is spectacular, more then making up for all the pipe bits.
Edited to add that this must be a case of the chimps doing a self inspection ;D
Loved it, I have my own personal screen capture in the archives. Yup, no special treatment, same standards as everyone else. Except maybe, no review of keywords, captions or the actual image? :o
-
seems that there are new 1975 agency editorial files in edstock account http://www.istockphoto.com/search/portfolio/7675241/?facets=%7B%2225%22%3A%226%22%7D#3927d6d (http://www.istockphoto.com/search/portfolio/7675241/?facets=%7B%2225%22%3A%226%22%7D#3927d6d) .... WOW^2
-
this is one of the situations on iStock that reminds me how site-oriented things have become, versus contributor-oriented. it is also a blatant contradiction of the standards we are rigorously held to. I've sorted the edstock files using the price slider to see the Agency file match match. the shots selected for Agency are utterly terrible. snapshots, red carpet outtakes and the shots that are usually between the good shots. there is no excuse for this kind of unfair and insulting double standard. particularly when contributors are already so hobbled when it comes to contributing editorial to iStock. look at some of these Agency files:
http://www.istockphoto.com/stock-photo-18425396-jessica-alba-little-fockers-world-premiere-inside-arrivals.php?st=e1f1916 (http://www.istockphoto.com/stock-photo-18425396-jessica-alba-little-fockers-world-premiere-inside-arrivals.php?st=e1f1916)
http://www.istockphoto.com/stock-photo-18425242-simon-o-connor-ry-russo-young-borden-capalino-you-won-t-mis.php?st=e1f1916 (http://www.istockphoto.com/stock-photo-18425242-simon-o-connor-ry-russo-young-borden-capalino-you-won-t-mis.php?st=e1f1916)
http://www.istockphoto.com/stock-photo-18425109-pedro-almodovar-women-on-the-verge-of-a-nervous.php?st=e1f1916 (http://www.istockphoto.com/stock-photo-18425109-pedro-almodovar-women-on-the-verge-of-a-nervous.php?st=e1f1916)
http://www.istockphoto.com/stock-photo-18425121-barbara-bobulova-ti-presento-un-amico-milan-premiere.php?st=e1f1916 (http://www.istockphoto.com/stock-photo-18425121-barbara-bobulova-ti-presento-un-amico-milan-premiere.php?st=e1f1916)
-
The agency thing must surely be a bug. It's a blanket of "Ed's" most recent pics on the site.
-
The agency thing must surely be a bug. It's a blanket of "Ed's" most recent pics on the site.
I really hope it is a bug. no way many of those files should be agency.
-
The agency thing must surely be a bug. It's a blanket of "Ed's" most recent pics on the site.
I really hope it is a bug. no way many of those files should be agency.
Yeah, thankfully Sean posted over there and EvilClown confirmed it's a bug.
Now, how exactly can that happen?
-
yeah a bug. Why is up to contributors to consistently call them out and monitor their QC.
Surely trying to pull this isn't in their interest.
It is good to see that so called high quality getty content is just as crap as some of my stuff I'd hit delete on my camera. Makes me warm and fuzzy
-
So, five days later, this 'Agency bug' on EdStock's files hasn't been sorted - maybe it's on the list for the downtime tomorrow.
-
So, five days later, this 'Agency bug' on EdStock's files hasn't been sorted - maybe it's on the list for the downtime tomorrow.
The EdStock Aagency files are still Agency, so it appears fixing this problem isn't much of a priority. With a portfolio of over 77K files, only 2,200 have even one download, and on a quick scan, no blue cameras in those pages.
So if the idea was to do a little test to see if they could get more money for these files, I'd say they have their answer. Most of them are overpriced at E+ - who's going to pay premium prices for pictures of feet on a red carpet?
-
So, five days later, this 'Agency bug' on EdStock's files hasn't been sorted - maybe it's on the list for the downtime tomorrow.
The EdStock Aagency files are still Agency, so it appears fixing this problem isn't much of a priority. With a portfolio of over 77K files, only 2,200 have even one download, and on a quick scan, no blue cameras in those pages.
So if the idea was to do a little test to see if they could get more money for these files, I'd say they have their answer. Most of them are overpriced at E+ - who's going to pay premium prices for pictures of feet on a red carpet?
Sean brought it up again on the iStock forums a few days back. The thread was locked with a curt 'we're onto it'. I guess it hasn't been as important as the other bugs, but hey, someone could have manually deAgencied them by now.
-
Wth all the things going on, I really don´t think this is or should be a major priority right now. Let them fix the site first.
-
who cares if it takes a while for them to fix it, I can't imagine many will sell at Agency prices considering their lack of quality and time-sensitive content anyways. the problem was the apparent blanket Agency designation to Edstock files, regardless of quality. That isn't happening, so I'm not worried. I too think the focus should remain on keeping the site working for buyers.
-
Seems to me you're presupposing that no buyer actually wants to buy any of this "Agency" content. If they do, they're stuck with a ludicrous price for it. I think it is a buyer issue - things on the site at the wrong price.
-
considering there have been just 3,500 sales of Edstock files out of 77,000 files...and literally just 1 download on all the Agency files....not too worried. as long as it wasn't a decision to place some of those
crap files in Agency. what really kills me is that I have better shots from the TIFF premiere of The Town. I shoot the red carpets and press conferences/parties during the Toronto International Film Festival...along with all the other 'events' in Toronto...but Getty says they have Toronto covered...code for another pro shooter doesn't want anyone on his turf....
-
considering there have been just 3,500 sales of Edstock files out of 77,000 files...and literally just 1 download on all the Agency files....not too worried. as long as it wasn't a decision to place some of those crap files in Agency. what really kills me is that I have better shots from the TIFF premiere of The Town. I shoot the red carpets and press conferences/parties during the Toronto International Film Festival...along with all the other 'events' in Toronto...but Getty says they have Toronto covered...code for another pro shooter doesn't want anyone on his turf....
Put it up on Alamy.
-
considering there have been just 3,500 sales of Edstock files out of 77,000 files...and literally just 1 download on all the Agency files....not too worried. as long as it wasn't a decision to place some of those crap files in Agency. what really kills me is that I have better shots from the TIFF premiere of The Town. I shoot the red carpets and press conferences/parties during the Toronto International Film Festival...along with all the other 'events' in Toronto...but Getty says they have Toronto covered...code for another pro shooter doesn't want anyone on his turf....
Put it up on Alamy.
I got my Alamy ducks in a row and prepared some of my editorial content to go up there....but I don't want to get established selling there with some of my files if we'll be able to upload this content to iStock eventually. I'm reluctant to split my work across agencies.....it's not that I don't want to do the work. it's that I'm so busy, and my portfolio so big that I'm worried about inadvertently infringing on my exclusivity
-
I understand, I just removed all my alamy images because iStock began editorial which meant I had to wait 6 months to get the files down. Now that they are down a lot of those same files aren't allowed at iStock so I'll probably go ahead and put them back up on Alamy. I can't understand why sculptures and statues that are in public spaces can't be put up as editorial but Getty won't let me submit them either so I guess I don't have much choice.
-
^ yeah, exactly. and I've even been reluctant to sell too much as RM through traditional wires etc., in the event that down the road it limits my ability to sell editorial on iStock. I have patience for the evolution of iStock's editorial as long as it seems to be moving forward. I think it may be, jury is still out. It works so much better for me to be with one Agency selling....and then of course I have all my assignment stuff on the side too.
-
I wouldn't rest easy having all my eggs in one basket.
-
I'd argue that the industry is the basket, and not the agency. that's why I do a lot of assignment work outside stock.
-
Another massive dump by Edstock over the Christmas holidays - almost 10,000 additional files and possibly still coming. They are now up to 87,000 plus files. They are also now over 4000 downloads - not much you might say for 87 thousand files, but remember they only came onto the site in April, 2011. And all downloads are E+ premium prices.
Also interesting: CSA_Images now has 5677 Vetta cartoon raster illustrations cluttering up the photograph database. Three hundred plus downloads and they just started in mid September 2011.
-
Another massive dump by Edstock over the Christmas holidays - almost 10,000 additional files and possibly still coming. They are now up to 87,000 plus files. They are also now over 4000 downloads - not much you might say for 87 thousand files, but remember they only came onto the site in April, 2011. And all downloads are E+ premium prices.
Also interesting: CSA_Images now has 5677 Vetta cartoon raster illustrations cluttering up the photograph database. Three hundred plus downloads and they just started in mid September 2011.
Yeah, and while these uninspected files are flying in, (so 4000+ plus 300+ dls haven't even cost them inspection costs, though many of them could do with major keyword revision, I've still got an editorial file uploaded on the 16th not even locked yet. 11 days, and it's only a resubmission of a false rejection by the inspector who can't or won't read Sirimo's original caption sticky.
-
Another massive dump by Edstock over the Christmas holidays - almost 10,000 additional files and possibly still coming. They are now up to 87,000 plus files. They are also now over 4000 downloads - not much you might say for 87 thousand files, but remember they only came onto the site in April, 2011. And all downloads are E+ premium prices.
From ShadySue's link:
http://www.istockphoto.com/forum_messages.php?threadid=330294&page=1 (http://www.istockphoto.com/forum_messages.php?threadid=330294&page=1)
How many images will be added to iStock?
The goal is to add enough images to give iStockphoto an editorial collection that is competitive. For the first round, we will be adding approximately 7,000 images. More images will be added over time, however, at this point we don’t have specific numbers.
So it's been more like 7,000 images per month (actually closer to 10,000 per month). Bet they still don't have specific numbers.
5. Why locations, when iStock contributors can shoot locations as well? How much of an overlap will there be?
The location images coming in as part of this content have been selected because of their specific subject matter or newsworthiness. In addition, the content will include images of some locations that our contributors generally don’t have the permission to shoot, even for editorial purposes.
So, no worries. Few of those >4000 sales would have gone to "regular" iStock contributors anyway ... right? (Looking through Ed's port by sales, I have to say that for the majority of sales, that probably is true.)
Also interesting: CSA_Images now has 5677 Vetta cartoon raster illustrations cluttering up the photograph database. Three hundred plus downloads and they just started in mid September 2011.
"Cluttering up" is a nice way of putting it. They are totally dominating the search results by best match in some categories, likely frustrating those buyers who haven't yet figured out there is a way to filter Vetta files.
-
seems that there was another massive injection of file from getty to edstock in the past week and continue right now ....about 45000 files...incredible
hope that this can bring some getty customers to istock
-
seems that there was another massive injection of file from getty to edstock in the past week and continue right now ....about 45000 files...incredible
hope that this can bring some getty customers to istock
Interesting, as Ed2 (E, not E+) still only has 15 files showing at this moment and has 7 sales. So my theory that they were experimenting with price point falls.
-
122293 Ed - S H T - St oka and counting...