MicrostockGroup Sponsors


Author Topic: Agency Collection Now Showing up on IStock  (Read 41795 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

« Reply #125 on: September 16, 2010, 13:26 »
0
Please note, that file belongs to an inspector.


abimages

« Reply #126 on: September 16, 2010, 13:42 »
0
Please note, that file belongs to an inspector.

Uploaded to iStock 11-07-07

Photographer oversight or breach of exclusive contract?

« Reply #127 on: September 16, 2010, 13:57 »
0
WOW!  One of the new "Agency" accounts in Ingram publishing, look what Camrocker just found:

Quote
Posted By Camrocker:

Ok, so maybe Vetta files are so exclusive already? 


Vetta file Same file on IngramPublishing


This is getting funnier every time I check the forums. OMG!

« Reply #128 on: September 16, 2010, 13:59 »
0
This started because Sean Locke found that IngramPublishing had an iStock a/c  as an exclusive, although no images uploaded to it yet.

That started people looking at what Ingram had and Paul Cowan (independent) mentioned that he had some files that were sold through Ingram and wondered how it would be if those ended up in the high price Agency Collection, supposedly an iStock/Getty "family" exclusive.

I found one of Jaimie Duplass' images (the young girl dressed as an angel that's sold all over) at Ingram, so if iStock isn't careful, it'll end up taking independent content into this supposedly exclusive program - and have the same file twice on its own site at two different prices.

An industrious contributor found the inspectors images (it's more than one) on Ingram. It isn't every Vetta image there though, just some...

What a total Cl*#$%r F(@k!

« Reply #129 on: September 16, 2010, 14:04 »
0
You took the words right out of my mouth,jsnover. I've been reading the thread over there and it certainly is a ginormous cluster...

« Reply #130 on: September 16, 2010, 14:10 »
0
It rather looks as if someone has been playing away from home, doesn't it? What an effing embarrassment.

lisafx

« Reply #131 on: September 16, 2010, 14:27 »
0
It would be funny if it wasn't so sad. 

No wait.  It's still funny.  ;D

« Reply #132 on: September 16, 2010, 14:29 »
0
This is so depressing. I've got to stop reading the forums or I'll finish up down by the railway tracks drinking Special Brew and sitting next to someone who smells like a drain.

« Reply #133 on: September 16, 2010, 14:38 »
0
This is like watching an imploding building in slow motion. I want to look away, but it's just too fascinating.

abimages

« Reply #134 on: September 16, 2010, 14:46 »
0

« Reply #135 on: September 16, 2010, 14:53 »
0
I like her lightbox, - Portraito Fartist. ;D ;)

lisafx

« Reply #136 on: September 16, 2010, 14:59 »
0
This just came up in the forum at IS
http://www.istockphoto.com/stock-photo-2623466-twin-girls-dressed-in-men-s-clothes.php

http://www.canstockphoto.com/twin-girls-dressed-in-mens-clothes-0484750.html

Same contributor! I cant wait to see the outcome of this ::)


Wow.  Nice find. 

I always wondered if some exclusives somewhere might try to cheat on their exclusive agreement.  But even so, this is shocking.  And a Vetta, no less?! 

« Reply #137 on: September 16, 2010, 15:03 »
0
This just came up in the forum at IS
http://www.istockphoto.com/stock-photo-2623466-twin-girls-dressed-in-men-s-clothes.php

http://www.canstockphoto.com/twin-girls-dressed-in-mens-clothes-0484750.html

Same contributor! I cant wait to see the outcome of this ::)


Wow.  Nice find. 

I always wondered if some exclusives somewhere might try to cheat on their exclusive agreement.  But even so, this is shocking.  And a Vetta, no less?! 


I can't keep up and I can't keep off the * forums - I have other work I need to do.  I think this is uneffingbelievable.  I'm sure they will come back and say it was some oversight or their account was hacked or something lame like that. an INSPECTOR for f-sake!  what?! 

If iStockers weren't pissed before, this should really top it.  I can't possibly see any reasonable explanation for this. 

grp_photo

« Reply #138 on: September 16, 2010, 15:04 »
0
This is one area where I actually agree with the direction Getty is taking. I would think that the collection needs to be different than that of what is on iStock already. Micro has really narrowed the perception of what a good stock image is for a lot of photographers who participate in it. With it's never ending technical requirements. It's like making rules for writing that only allow for certain phrases or word combinations. Pretty soon everything reads the same. The same can be said for music. Think of music where only certain beats and chord combinations could be used. If you hear enough of it, that's all that sounds good to you. Then you hear something different and call it garbage. That's what micro has done for photographic style.  I don't mean to offend anyone here, it's just a general observation. The other thing that micro has really narrowed is photographer's perception of what a client is willing to pay for an image. There are lots of clients paying lots of money still. Let them pay. Quite trying to drag high paying clients down.
WOW WOW WOW this is such an incredible good post! I totally agree with you!
 

It's easy to pick bad examples but even than it is still a matter of taste.

« Reply #139 on: September 16, 2010, 15:07 »
0
This just came up in the forum at IS
http://www.istockphoto.com/stock-photo-2623466-twin-girls-dressed-in-men-s-clothes.php

http://www.canstockphoto.com/twin-girls-dressed-in-mens-clothes-0484750.html

Same contributor! I cant wait to see the outcome of this ::)


Wow.  Nice find. 

I always wondered if some exclusives somewhere might try to cheat on their exclusive agreement.  But even so, this is shocking.  And a Vetta, no less?! 


I can't keep up and I can't keep off the  forums - I have other work I need to do.  I think this is uneffingbelievable.  I'm sure they will come back and say it was some oversight or their account was hacked or something lame like that. an INSPECTOR for f-sake!  what?! 

If iStockers weren't pissed before, this should really top it.  I can't possibly see any reasonable explanation for this. 

I guess this might lend a little credence to previous accusations that certain "reviewers" might make "biased" decisions :P

« Reply #140 on: September 16, 2010, 15:15 »
0
This just came up in the forum at IS
http://www.istockphoto.com/stock-photo-2623466-twin-girls-dressed-in-men-s-clothes.php

http://www.canstockphoto.com/twin-girls-dressed-in-mens-clothes-0484750.html

Same contributor! I cant wait to see the outcome of this ::)


Wow.  Nice find. 

I always wondered if some exclusives somewhere might try to cheat on their exclusive agreement.  But even so, this is shocking.  And a Vetta, no less?! 

That was removed from istock quick.  Might be that they just forgot to delete it from canstock, as they joined there in 2006 and only had 20 images.  They haven't even made enough there to get a payout, just 19 sales, so doesn't look like a deliberate cheat.

« Reply #141 on: September 16, 2010, 15:19 »
0
It was multiple Vetta images, and on several other sites, micro and macrostock included, plus some were uploaded fairly recently.

They locked that person's account, and Lobo says the compliance and enforcement folks are looking into things.  No real answer, but I'm guessing they just haven't been able to reach the person in question yet.

« Reply #142 on: September 16, 2010, 15:21 »
0
She's locked out now. But it is hard to attribute malice to someone leaving a couple of dozen files on Canstock. If you were deliberately screwing the system Canstock wouldn't be the place to do it. Probably just a f**K up that she's going to pay dearly for.

There were two on that macro site, what other micros were there, do you know?

« Reply #143 on: September 16, 2010, 15:21 »
0
It's easy to pick bad examples but even than it is still a matter of taste.




Taste.  Yep.

« Reply #144 on: September 16, 2010, 15:22 »
0
But how does that explain the Ingram pics?

« Reply #145 on: September 16, 2010, 15:25 »
0
It wasn't just canstock, they only found them there later after using TinEye.  It was first found on the Macro RF agency IngramPublishing, which just became one of iStock's 'Agency' exclusive members.  Someone noticed one of the files there, then found the same image in Vetta.  These images were found on multiple sites, uploaded within the past few years, selling as both Macro and Micro, and under the same name.  The only reason it came to anyone's attention was because Camrocker checked out the agency's website after Sean posted about there being a new 'Agency' contributor.


Also, from the same set of issues, it turns out that 'Agency' has work from independents in its collection, so its conceivable that their images might end up on iStock at two price points at the same time, while also being available on many other sites.

grp_photo

« Reply #146 on: September 16, 2010, 15:28 »
0
It's easy to pick bad examples but even than it is still a matter of taste.




Taste.  Yep.

It is actually very "stockish" but certainly only usable for the German-speaking market. The Germans, Swiss and Austrians are rich - let them pay big bucks ;-).
« Last Edit: September 16, 2010, 15:29 by grp_photo »

« Reply #147 on: September 16, 2010, 15:38 »
0
It's easy to pick bad examples but even than it is still a matter of taste.




Taste.  Yep.

It is actually very "stockish" but certainly only usable for the German-speaking market. The Germans, Swiss and Austrians are rich - let them pay big bucks ;-).


It's not about taste or whether it is stockish. the fact is that the picture would never be normally accepted into the collection. If any of us uploaded it. it would be rejected.

« Reply #148 on: September 16, 2010, 15:41 »
0
So maybe that's why macro agencies are falling. They have lots of old and overpriced stuff and they think they are superior to micros :-)

« Reply #149 on: September 16, 2010, 15:45 »
0
Lots of us independents have images on IngramPublishing, they work with another microstock site.  If they end up on Vetta or any other exclusive collection, it makes a mockery of exclusivity.  Amazing how many mistakes istock are making now, its hard to keep up with it all.  Really feels like the wheels have come off.


 

Related Topics

  Subject / Started by Replies Last post
6 Replies
4691 Views
Last post September 17, 2010, 01:08
by leaf
85 Replies
23799 Views
Last post November 09, 2010, 20:54
by Chico
10 Replies
3953 Views
Last post October 28, 2010, 11:34
by WarrenPrice
Agency collection? oh! boy!

Started by lagereek « 1 2 ... 5 6 » iStockPhoto.com

125 Replies
28393 Views
Last post December 04, 2010, 13:45
by jbarber873
6 Replies
3433 Views
Last post July 30, 2011, 13:19
by leaf

Sponsors

Mega Bundle of 5,900+ Professional Lightroom Presets

Microstock Poll Results

Sponsors

3100 Posing Cards Bundle