MicrostockGroup Sponsors


Author Topic: 100+ Files Deactivation by IStock for Nudity  (Read 16640 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

« on: September 17, 2015, 10:02 »
0
Anyone else effected by evolving standards?

from Istock: "The content is not suitable for our broad Royalty Free license; the reason given was: As you may know, we periodically go through the collection to remove files that no longer meet our evolving standards. Even though Getty Images and iStock by Getty Images does accept artistic partial and full nudity in photography for royalty free photography we reserve the right to reject/deactivate any image, including images that we feel are clichd, overtly stereotypical, too explicit, verge on the pornographic, obscene or represents gender roles in a sexist manner. We may also reject/deactivate images in these categories that we feel are not commercially viable."

I can no longer even see which images have been rejected. When I put the file number in the search the image titles briefly shows in the address bar before it is replaced by 404 message. Pardon me if I don't remember the image title of every file uploaded. Here is one image that I recognized image title which is still available on Shutterstock and Dreamstime (*mild glamour nudity in file). But other files have more generic image titles and I can only generally guess which ones they might be. Seems like the deactivation would be more purposeful if you could actually see time image.

http://www.shutterstock.com/pic-191760374/stock-photo-beautiful-blonde-fashion-model-posing-in-colorful-arizona-desert-garden-scene-on-sunny-day.html?src=KqikWd3dc31UMv3AkWkSgQ-8-14

Not sure which of the above mentioned standards it has violated.
« Last Edit: September 17, 2015, 10:06 by danhowl »


« Reply #1 on: September 17, 2015, 10:55 »
+6
Well, their site, their choice.  I don't see anything wrong with that image.  Maybe they're being forced to be PC.

« Reply #2 on: September 17, 2015, 11:06 »
0
Nothing iStock does surprises me.  I don't have anything that would qualify for this particular cull, but I wonder what led them to this action.  Complaints from a potential buyer?

« Reply #3 on: September 17, 2015, 11:17 »
+1
Wonder if it heralds a change in policy re topless models?

« Reply #4 on: September 17, 2015, 11:48 »
+2
Yep they nailed five of mine shot tastefully with a Playboy model (paid).

Once again, iStock/Getty is just SO desperate. I guess they have to find something to tell the board members when asked how they are fixing things.

admin edit: image removed to keep the site SFW ... although I agree it was a tasteful nude that wasn't very nude.
« Last Edit: September 17, 2015, 15:53 by leaf »

« Reply #5 on: September 17, 2015, 12:12 »
+2
The internet is awash with porn for those who want it and Istock decide to purge tasteful nude images a recognised art form since the time of the Greeks (at least). Nice one :-[

« Reply #6 on: September 17, 2015, 12:28 »
0
You can always search by the deactivated files option, use the file number from the e-mail sent to find out which files have been taken off, that was what I had to do.   They only got 3 of mine so far.

I guess they need something for the inspectors to do now that they pretty much accept any file.

 :P

Shelma1

« Reply #7 on: September 17, 2015, 12:43 »
+6
Must we see the nude photos of women in the thread? I'm not interested in seeing them one bit, really.

« Reply #8 on: September 17, 2015, 12:45 »
0
I am not agreeing with the outcome, but I would guess it's was down to her expression.

xst

« Reply #9 on: September 17, 2015, 13:05 »
0
I got over 300 deactivated.
They are apparently getting read of anything sensual

BTW notice one of the reasons they mention "or represents gender roles in a sexist manner"

As far as I heard, there are complains from big clients that their employees are using corporate accounts to download this kind of images for "personal use".



 

« Reply #10 on: September 17, 2015, 13:49 »
+4
I got over 300 deactivated.
They are apparently getting read of anything sensual

BTW notice one of the reasons they mention "or represents gender roles in a sexist manner"

As far as I heard, there are complains from big clients that their employees are using corporate accounts to download this kind of images for "personal use".

Then it sounds like to me that the big clients need to police their own employees in what is downloaded on their accounts rather than complain to iStock/Getty to have some of our work taken down. 

But based on the reason mentioned above, it seems that the PC Police have come out to force iStock/Getty to censor our photos, but as was said before, this is iStock/Getty's site and they make the rules. 


« Reply #11 on: September 17, 2015, 13:52 »
+3
There is an economic reason for this measure , many subscription customers download erotic pictures even if they do not need it, and it cost money to Getty

50%

« Reply #12 on: September 17, 2015, 14:08 »
0
There is an economic reason for this measure , many subscription customers download erotic pictures even if they do not need it, and it cost money to Getty
guess you nailed it!

« Reply #13 on: September 17, 2015, 15:00 »
0
There's an exclusive who reported elsewhere that he had over 1,000 images deactivated for this reason.

xst

« Reply #14 on: September 17, 2015, 16:03 »
0
this is iStock/Getty's site and they make the rules.

I guess we should now charge more when people contact us directly for this kind of images.

« Reply #15 on: September 17, 2015, 16:08 »
0
this is iStock/Getty's site and they make the rules.

I guess we should now charge more when people contact us directly for this kind of images.

At least it won't sell for .75 cents on a subscription. 

« Reply #16 on: September 17, 2015, 16:11 »
+3
I still do not understand why all the news about Istock are negative for contributors for several years

« Reply #17 on: September 17, 2015, 16:48 »
0
Some exceptions are made, our friend from Denmark nudity images for example are not affected. Check the words naked and women.

ShadySue

  • There is a crack in everything
« Reply #18 on: September 17, 2015, 17:19 »
+2
There's an exclusive who reported elsewhere that he had over 1,000 images deactivated for this reason.
Hmmm. The main 'scuddy wimmen' contributor that I know of still has thousands up, with a lot more 'on show' than I've read other people having rejected or deactivated.
Maybe it's more to do with 'who you are' than any sense of respect for women.

« Reply #19 on: September 17, 2015, 18:19 »
+1
Well, their site, their choice.  I don't see anything wrong with that image.  Maybe they're being forced to be PC.
Maybe models threaten to sue when those images are used for escort services, porn sites, or other things they don't like.

« Reply #20 on: September 17, 2015, 18:52 »
0
Well, their site, their choice.  I don't see anything wrong with that image.  Maybe they're being forced to be PC.
Maybe models threaten to sue when those images are used for escort services, porn sites, or other things they don't like.

That's a violation of Getty's own release (pornography or defamation), which is the one I use with all the agencies.  I've had it happen twice in ten years and was able to have the images taken down immediately with a DMCA request.  So no, whatever the reason for iStock's change in policy, I'm confident that you haven't identified it.

« Reply #21 on: September 17, 2015, 18:58 »
+1
Well, their site, their choice.  I don't see anything wrong with that image.  Maybe they're being forced to be PC.
Maybe models threaten to sue when those images are used for escort services, porn sites, or other things they don't like.

That's a violation of Getty's own release (pornography or defamation), which is the one I use with all the agencies.  I've had it happen twice in ten years and was able to have the images taken down immediately with a DMCA request.  So no, whatever the reason for iStock's change in policy, I'm confident that you haven't identified it.
Some of those images look like they could only be used for those kinds of things, if they can't legally be used per the terms then it makes sense to cull them.

« Reply #22 on: September 17, 2015, 19:14 »
+2
Well, their site, their choice.  I don't see anything wrong with that image.  Maybe they're being forced to be PC.
Maybe models threaten to sue when those images are used for escort services, porn sites, or other things they don't like.

That's a violation of Getty's own release (pornography or defamation), which is the one I use with all the agencies.  I've had it happen twice in ten years and was able to have the images taken down immediately with a DMCA request.  So no, whatever the reason for iStock's change in policy, I'm confident that you haven't identified it.
Some of those images look like they could only be used for those kinds of things, if they can't legally be used per the terms then it makes sense to cull them.

Still the question why certain contributors are not affected... many pics left are open pornography...many pics deleted are women in bikini

« Reply #23 on: September 17, 2015, 19:19 »
+1
Well, their site, their choice.  I don't see anything wrong with that image.  Maybe they're being forced to be PC.
Maybe models threaten to sue when those images are used for escort services, porn sites, or other things they don't like.

That's a violation of Getty's own release (pornography or defamation), which is the one I use with all the agencies.  I've had it happen twice in ten years and was able to have the images taken down immediately with a DMCA request.  So no, whatever the reason for iStock's change in policy, I'm confident that you haven't identified it.
Some of those images look like they could only be used for those kinds of things, if they can't legally be used per the terms then it makes sense to cull them.

Still the question why certain contributors are not affected... many pics left are open pornography...many pics deleted are women in bikini
The only examples I've seen are the couple here, not the bikini ones.  It's probably subjective in many cases and from what they said they haven't finished yet.  For the one in the OP it's hard to see what kind of commercial use would be allowed, at least in the US.

« Reply #24 on: September 17, 2015, 20:20 »
+1
There's an exclusive who reported elsewhere that he had over 1,000 images deactivated for this reason.
Hmmm. The main 'scuddy wimmen' contributor that I know of still has thousands up, with a lot more 'on show' than I've read other people having rejected or deactivated.
Maybe it's more to do with 'who you are' than any sense of respect for women.

Looks like the cull isn't finished yet: https://contributors.gettyimages.com/forum/default.aspx?g=posts&t=3551#post32058

Quote
As you may know, we periodically go through the collection to remove files that no longer meet our evolving standards. Even though Getty Images and iStock by Getty Images does accept artistic partial and full nudity in photography for royalty free photography we reserve the right to reject/deactivate any image, including images that we feel are clichd, overtly stereotypical, too explicit, verge on the pornographic, obscene or represents gender roles in a sexist manner. We may also reject/deactivate images in these categories that we feel are not commercially viable.

The above is the deactivation notification we've sent to contributors who are impacted by this Content Guidelines change. These deactivations should be completed over the next 48 hours.

Its long been known that these types of images are pretty low in sales volume - probably they've worked out that they sales generated don't make up for the damage though lost sales with high end clients that are put off.
« Last Edit: September 17, 2015, 20:48 by travelstock »


 

Related Topics

  Subject / Started by Replies Last post
4 Replies
6387 Views
Last post February 28, 2011, 17:43
by click_click
938 Replies
203484 Views
Last post April 30, 2014, 18:36
by deryl1975
35 Replies
18437 Views
Last post November 22, 2013, 14:24
by BaldricksTrousers
11 Replies
6433 Views
Last post October 01, 2014, 13:42
by Freedom
3 Replies
2176 Views
Last post January 27, 2017, 09:54
by russianbeardedman

Sponsors

Mega Bundle of 5,900+ Professional Lightroom Presets

Microstock Poll Results

Sponsors

3100 Posing Cards Bundle