MicrostockGroup
Agency Based Discussion => iStockPhoto.com => Topic started by: nruboc on September 15, 2010, 19:57
-
They are marked by a blue camera icon
-
I think buyers are going to wonder why stuff like this costs 100 credits for a Large:
http://www.istockphoto.com/stock-photo-14242019-a-boy-pushing-a-toy-truck-on-a-sidewalk.php (http://www.istockphoto.com/stock-photo-14242019-a-boy-pushing-a-toy-truck-on-a-sidewalk.php)
When they can get this for 15:
http://www.istockphoto.com/stock-photo-7358894-little-boy-playing-with-toy-bulldozer.php (http://www.istockphoto.com/stock-photo-7358894-little-boy-playing-with-toy-bulldozer.php)
I mean no disrespect to the photographer of the former, I just don't see so far how these are "Niche images offering high production value, regional content and cultural diversity."
-
I was expecting something more shocking. These seem plain average shots, and without the edge of Vetta images.
-
What the...?
-
http://www.istockphoto.com/stock-photo-14156766-beautiful-young-woman-with-shopping-bags.php (http://www.istockphoto.com/stock-photo-14156766-beautiful-young-woman-with-shopping-bags.php)
http://www.istockphoto.com/stock-photo-14241908-man-holding-gift.php (http://www.istockphoto.com/stock-photo-14241908-man-holding-gift.php)
http://www.istockphoto.com/stock-photo-14241775-close-up-of-fake-vampire-teeth.php (http://www.istockphoto.com/stock-photo-14241775-close-up-of-fake-vampire-teeth.php)
OMFG.
-
not sure how these get through. i don't have all great photos, and i'm sure a lot of mine are so-so, but those were early on when I was learning. Maybe I'm missing the point here of this Agency Collection
-
[url]http://www.istockphoto.com/stock-photo-14156766-beautiful-young-woman-with-shopping-bags.php[/url] ([url]http://www.istockphoto.com/stock-photo-14156766-beautiful-young-woman-with-shopping-bags.php[/url])
[url]http://www.istockphoto.com/stock-photo-14241908-man-holding-gift.php[/url] ([url]http://www.istockphoto.com/stock-photo-14241908-man-holding-gift.php[/url])
[url]http://www.istockphoto.com/stock-photo-14241775-close-up-of-fake-vampire-teeth.php[/url] ([url]http://www.istockphoto.com/stock-photo-14241775-close-up-of-fake-vampire-teeth.php[/url])
OMFG.
These are pretty bad
-
IMHO, a lot of these are the kind of things people post in the Critique Forum.
-
Quite odd indeed. This really reeks of Getty trying to infiltrate more and more and muddy the waters with photos that don't quite fit in the different categories. I mean, they certainly aren't Vetta quality. What is going on here?
-
[url]http://www.istockphoto.com/stock-photo-14156766-beautiful-young-woman-with-shopping-bags.php[/url] ([url]http://www.istockphoto.com/stock-photo-14156766-beautiful-young-woman-with-shopping-bags.php[/url])
Shocking, what need does this fill? Oh maybe the other 1000's of identical shots
-
Maybe I am being too harsh but a lot of these Agency pictures look soft too. Zoom in on these:
http://www.istockphoto.com/stock-photo-14241977-a-young-boy-being-served-breakfast.php (http://www.istockphoto.com/stock-photo-14241977-a-young-boy-being-served-breakfast.php)
http://www.istockphoto.com/stock-photo-14241973-a-young-boy-playing-with-a-toy-truck-on-a-neighborhood-sidewalk.php (http://www.istockphoto.com/stock-photo-14241973-a-young-boy-playing-with-a-toy-truck-on-a-neighborhood-sidewalk.php)
http://www.istockphoto.com/stock-photo-14241811-young-boy-standing-in-park-in-autumn.php (http://www.istockphoto.com/stock-photo-14241811-young-boy-standing-in-park-in-autumn.php)
This is really not good.
-
Wow! This is amazing. Would any of these pass Istock's inspection?
-
Wow, those are are really bad - no way they're gonna command premium pricing.
I was expecting something to compete with Blend (http://www.blendimages.com), or maybe even select images from Blend.
Early prediction: Agency will fail even worse than E+.
-
[url]http://www.istockphoto.com/stock-photo-14156766-beautiful-young-woman-with-shopping-bags.php[/url] ([url]http://www.istockphoto.com/stock-photo-14156766-beautiful-young-woman-with-shopping-bags.php[/url])
Shocking, what need does this fill? Oh maybe the other 1000's of identical shots
That's not Agency!
-
OMG. My poor buyers. Having to wade through this stuff... :(
-
Whoops, you are right, that one was my bad, it was in between two others and I must have missed the color.
Is it me? Or are those logos in the blurry photo of the kid with the toy trucks?
-
Logos, logos everywhere, but not a drop to drink
http://www.istockphoto.com/stock-photo-14242109-combs-and-brushes-in-a-drawer.php (http://www.istockphoto.com/stock-photo-14242109-combs-and-brushes-in-a-drawer.php)
-
Oh WOW. If you want to exclude these Agency files from your search, the only option is to exclude both Agency AND Vetta.
-
LMAO... who gonna buy those with 55 credits or so...
Poor contributors... because nobody gonna pay for that in the end of the day.
If it is at 10 credits or so, I will consider.
Istock gonna kill himself... do they really think buyers are stupid? Buyers can buy somewhere else for 10x times cheaper.
This is a lose-lose-lose situation. Istock lose. Buyer lose. Contributor lose.
-
It's like the nightmare that never ends. ???
-
This is a lose-lose-lose situation. Istock lose. Buyer lose. Contributor lose.
I don't know. Feels like an opportunity to turn lemons into lemonade. If iStock thinks this crap can sell at 10x the price, I wonder how well higher quality recreations would do somewhere else. Just a thought...
-
Yeah, if this is some of the best of the best of traditional RF stock, wow, we really have been giving away the kitchen sink selling through microstock agencies.
-
Reminds me of Fotolia's "Infinite" collection when it began. Has that one gotten any better?
-
Anyone else notice that all of these extremely blah pics are from the same person?
-
they are just plain bad. putting them next to our work and charging more for them is insulting. this is only one contributor so far, but you'd think they would have put the best foot forward. no way these are being inspected by the same standards. otherwise we might as well quit spending money on good equipment and start uploading pictures from our cellphones.
I'm embarrassed iStock. and disappointed. I hope you know what you are doing. sigh. I feel tested beyond the limit now.
-
I'm embarrassed iStock. and disappointed. I hope you know what you are doing. sigh. I feel tested beyond the limit now.
Remember what I said about it being ok? I was wrong. Time to panic.
-
Well look at the bright side: buyers won't be tempted to spend their credits on that garbage.
-
Yeah, but you can't turn them off without turning off vetta, too!
Here is the IS discussion:
http://www.istockphoto.com/forum_messages.php?threadid=255782&page=1 (http://www.istockphoto.com/forum_messages.php?threadid=255782&page=1)
-
I think this might just be the worst one I've seen yet.
http://www.istockphoto.com/stock-photo-14241929-vacant-sign-on-toilet-door.php (http://www.istockphoto.com/stock-photo-14241929-vacant-sign-on-toilet-door.php)
-
I'd like to see what data they're looking at that tells them these images will sell for that much.
Some of the Vetta stuff I can understand being higher priced because of the costs or massive time Photoshopping.
No offense to the photographers who took the images but I don't understand how these images will sell for top dollar on a site already stuffed with cheaper images. Why would a buyer not just look for a cheaper version?
And again, they've now dumped yet another price category into the mix which may further confuse buyers. I still think the search results should display separate "standard" and "premium" sections.
-
No offense to the photographers who took the images but I don't understand how these images will sell for top dollar on a site already stuffed with cheaper images. Why would a buyer not just look for a cheaper version?
Why no offense? Please, offend.
-
I'm offended to have that garbage next to my work, and priced higher. I think I already said that.
-
I think this might just be the worst one I've seen yet.
[url]http://www.istockphoto.com/stock-photo-14241929-vacant-sign-on-toilet-door.php[/url] ([url]http://www.istockphoto.com/stock-photo-14241929-vacant-sign-on-toilet-door.php[/url])
Ahhh... but its in German... that should explain the premium pricing.
-
No offense to the photographers who took the images but I don't understand how these images will sell for top dollar on a site already stuffed with cheaper images. Why would a buyer not just look for a cheaper version?
Why no offense? Please, offend.
You first.
-
Looks like these new files are getting wonderful reviews too...
-
allow me, those images aren't even up to vacation snapshot standards, let alone iStock standards. they are utter crap. total nonsense.
-
....
Don't even know what to say...
I am speechless...
Should I laugh or cry? Maybe both at the same time.
OMG
Someone please tell me all this is a joke. Please, please!!!
-
you think you want it to be a joke? I look like a total ass for being so trusting. and to boot, it's a factory....unbelievable
-
No offense to the photographers who took the images but I don't understand how these images will sell for top dollar on a site already stuffed with cheaper images. Why would a buyer not just look for a cheaper version?
Why no offense? Please, offend.
Wow, I may decide to offend after reading this post by Derick Rhodes. It's from 2007 but arrogance usually doesn't change over time.
http://www.abouttheimage.com/2811/editorial_microstock_in_context/author7 (http://www.abouttheimage.com/2811/editorial_microstock_in_context/author7)
-
OMG!
"...end users love a bargain, but they also love not burning money by having to spend precious time sorting through substandard imagery." Derick Rhodes
"...I think Microstock is actually healthy for our industry, because what it essentially does is help to differentiate imagery that is easy/inexpensive to produce (and, as a result, shouldn’t be costly) from imagery that is more difficult/expensive to produce (and necessarily costs more)." Derick Rhodes
Thanks for the link PaulieWalnuts
-
No offense to the photographers who took the images but I don't understand how these images will sell for top dollar on a site already stuffed with cheaper images. Why would a buyer not just look for a cheaper version?
Why no offense? Please, offend.
Wow, I may decide to offend after reading this post by Derick Rhodes. It's from 2007 but arrogance usually doesn't change over time.
[url]http://www.abouttheimage.com/2811/editorial_microstock_in_context/author7[/url] ([url]http://www.abouttheimage.com/2811/editorial_microstock_in_context/author7[/url])
This is my favourite quote from his article: "Stylistically, Microstock seems to be dominated by imagery with a late 80s sensibility..."
-
Reminds me of Fotolia's "Infinite" collection when it began. Has that one gotten any better?
In a word... no.
-
iSuck just keeps getting better and better.
-
@hawk eye, welcome to the dark side.
-
You know the worst part? I don't know of a single microstock agency that would have accepted half those images.
Traditional RF togs have ripped us a new one over the years, I guess we know why now, they couldn't compete with our image quality.
-
I can tell you that there is a snow balls chance in hell that buyers will be willing to wade through this crap. It cements the deal for me I will be buying from agencies with higher ethics and review standards.
The writing is on the wall Istock has lost complete control of its business model and they are being forced into this!
-
Wow, those are are really bad - no way they're gonna command premium pricing.
I was expecting something to compete with Blend ([url]http://www.blendimages.com[/url]), or maybe even select images from Blend.
Early prediction: Agency will fail even worse than E+.
Man, I really hope you are right.... actually, I can't see any way you could be wrong on this.
These are awful.
-
Wow. As much as I've grown to hate iStock, this is just sad. Getty has a lot to answer for.
-
The natives are going crazy over these at iSuck, while at the same time watching their p's and q's.
-
It has been speculated that these are just a test batch to see if he program works....
-
.
-
Seriously... 55 credit for this Small Size.
I think no other agencies will accept the quality of this image, except iSuck itself.
I am not a photographer myself, but I think this picture is taken with a compact digital camera with a flash on.
(http://www.istockphoto.com//file_thumbview_approve/14241929/2/istockphoto_14241929-vacant-sign-on-toilet-door.jpg)
-
Wow, those are are really bad - no way they're gonna command premium pricing.
I was expecting something to compete with Blend ([url]http://www.blendimages.com[/url]), or maybe even select images from Blend.
Early prediction: Agency will fail even worse than E+.
Man, I really hope you are right.... actually, I can't see any way you could be wrong on this.
These are awful.
The Agency Collection on Getty (http://www.gettyimages.com/Search/Search.aspx?query=z.i.H4sIAAAAAAAEAO29B2AcSZYlJi9tynt_SvVK1-B0oQiAYBMk2JBAEOzBiM3mkuwdaUcjKasqgcplVmVdZhZAzO2dvPfee--999577733ujudTif33_8_XGZkAWz2zkrayZ4hgKrIHz9-fB8_In7dfLn91etf49f4NX6PX_dskV3kvyb9mtD_f41f8_-m59fY-Pya5mdSV1X7MquzRWM--7Xw_92d34h-_HrvXl83p-_MG7-m9ze3zM4tQP0dL__a2fnUduD_8Wvjgx2Gv2jdm4v219Xff4tfg7u2v-65X--5X--7X_f511-H-igtPPsXuvt16Y96YRDo_Pnro_ku_vr1-POJhdH5m187t2MK_2QoOxbKeQfK-cQ0xCh_7TfHJxZiHeJl_2SIexZi3YHo_ibi5haG-QP_Z0rvgtJEjXxl3w_--rXzSWO_MX_w7OSuR-_3Xyt3zb3ff-1mtbKf4w-D0W9lX7ycuhcvp7-2_v5b4u8d-9u-_W0Xv_06Ve1xnv2Lv5rk_lfmLzy_9uxqaX7_Nc0fvw7-36y90QZ__dp55vDz_6DfV_4X9o9ftwmghX_-2u-ePXfsT3_YL7Law8374zdqptUqf7JezkqPxMGnBuCPA86Dnfv4_dch3lrb5sFfv868lj-EQuYvPL_ei_wqb1oG2P_2_wGRy0N9VQQAAA..#2) does have some Blend Images stuff from John Lund.
ETA: Looked at more pages and there's a lot of Blend. Some nice stuff by them.
-
It has been speculated that these are just a test batch to see if he program works....
Maybe, but this looks like a normal image on Getty. (http://www.gettyimages.com/detail/71550592)
-
It has been speculated that these are just a test batch to see if he program works....
Look at the Agency Collection on gettyimages.com. It is for real. And it is ugly.
-
Maybe, but this looks like a normal image on Getty. ([url]http://www.gettyimages.com/detail/71550592[/url])
It's German culture! What's more, it's in Studio. A real mystery. ;D
Keywords: Mystery, Text, Vertical, Studio Shot, Indoors, Close-up, Domestic Bathroom, Door, Circle, Metal, Wood, German Culture, Closed, Curve, Relief, Toilet, Color Image, Silver, Single Word, Vacant Sign, Wood Grain, No People, Photography, Public Restroom, Colored Background.
-
This does seem like a sad replay of FT's Infinite collection introduction. I'm sure the thread is still here somewhere with the many examples of truly abysmal images being lampooned here. FT then tried to clean it up a bit, but it was old tired crap and there wasn't much to be done.
This garbage that is now getting accepted by IS doesn't meet copyright standards (logos in many of the images), lighting, composition or just about any metric for the main collection, let alone these stratospheric prices.
They just posted a FAQ saying the same inspection process would be used for the Agency Collection - utter BS. On top of it all, with 103 accepted images (all today) this person/factory is exclusive. Zero downloads, no criteria to meet.
A total disgrace. They need to remove this stuff and go back to the drawing board. It's an embarrassment to the site to have these images on it.
-
Some of it is starting to disappear now.
-
they removed all the urgly image we all point out..i think we should stop pointing out those urgly image, let them do their own home work, not us to help them find the urgly image!!
-
a test? gawd I hope so
-
I don't think it was a test, I think it was a screwup and this shouldn't have happened until September 27th, when a flood of 'Agency' images would have hidden some of the crap we just saw.
Be wary though, this looks like it was purely designed to push through content without inspection. I write programs for a living, and it is highly unlikely you could make this kind of a mistake, pushing images directly into their portfolios when they should have been in an inspection queue of some kind. You are talking about a lot of varying database calls that would have had to been all wrong to see something like this happen.
-
If the images are already owned by Getty or at least hosted by Getty, does it not stand to reason that they have already passed muster?
-
then muster is an idiot
-
then muster is an idiot
Yup.
-
They only removed a few, still a lot of noisy images, blurry images, logo issues, etc in there.
-
After reading the istock thread, it reminds me of drowning rats clinging to the hope that the cat will save them!
If this does not wake people up, nothing will, I am shocked the denial is so pervasive.
-
what denial? it is 100% agreement in there.
-
Yes more than a few agree it must be "a test batch"
http://www.istockphoto.com/forum_messages.php?threadid=255782&page=17 (http://www.istockphoto.com/forum_messages.php?threadid=255782&page=17)
"Quote A: Wager they are a test Batch Any takers ????
$1
Quote B: Someone posted a link earlier to the Agency collection on the getty site. It's not pretty.
Quote A: Besides, I really don't believe istock would voluntarily subject itself to this negative PR just for testing purposes.
Ah but if they flipped or didnt flip the proper switch, Or simply grabbed the wrong batch.
I refuse to believe its nothing more than a mistake IT !
Now back to our normally scheduled progam......."
-
hmmmm - JJ post. error. bad error. bad bad bad.
-
It looks like the Agency plan is about putting some of the run-of-the-mill Getty stuff in the Istock collection and pricing it somewhere between Vetta and traditional collections now. They don't want to take the best of the best and place it at these new prices.
The big flaw with this strategy is that in any given search the best match on the istock collection is by and large better than most of what comes out of the traditional agencies - maybe with the exception of a few places like blend. Maybe a to a beancounter the logic of selling one product at 10 times the price of another means that its significantly better, but that's not really how it works in this industry.
Look at the way its developed: from something like 30,000 contributors competing in a free marketplace with no restrictions on what they can shoot and nobody telling them how to go about their business. The only restrictions being on copyright and technical perfection of the content. Over the last 10 years its resulted in the cream of a very large talent pool rising to the top, and incidentally a pool of photographers that has the ability and discipline to create technically exceptional material. It hasn't however created a marketplace where there is any correlation between price and value.
Now suddenly Getty wants to put it next to content that is the product of the old way of doing things - the sheltered environment of photographers used to big prices, shot lists, relying on creative directors and stylists etc. without a strict adherence to technical issues like noise, trademarks, lighting etc. This is the part of the industry that has been protected by the inertia of big ad agencies and the rest of the industry that is stuck into he old way of doing things.
Its an experiment like throwing dinosaurs back into the modern world. Sure they're big and scary, but they also haven't adapted to pollution, cars or people with guns.
-
Right, but we did get to see what is in the rest of the 'Agency' collection on Getty. Still not what they described it would be, and still not on par with the Vetta files they will be ranked (and priced) higher than.
Add the fact that you can't turn off Agency without also turning off Vetta in the searches, and some of the higher end exclusives depending on Vetta sales to make their credit targets might be in a bit of a spot.
-
1. Apologies for this maelstrom.
2. At this very moment & due to a technical glitch, both accepted and rejected files are showing up as active files in Agency.
3. Until this glitch is addressed and fixed, all ingestion into Agency has been paused.
Thank you so very much for your understanding.
A quote from iStock admin. They couldn't make this more of a PR disaster if they tried.
-
Another example that some of the managers there don't have a clue. I think there is a real chance that istock is going to be hit hard by losing millions of images at the same time as putting off buyers with high prices, sending them to thinkstock and all these collections. I just hope they wake up and make some changes before too much damage is done.
-
Ha ha ha - Istock * up - Yet again - how funney to see - selfdestruction at open carpet - oh my oh my...
-
Has anyone see Agency-Images from other Agencies not just fstop?
-
It's obvious macro shooters are some steps behind.
-
1. Apologies for this maelstrom.
2. At this very moment & due to a technical glitch, both accepted and rejected files are showing up as active files in Agency.
3. Until this glitch is addressed and fixed, all ingestion into Agency has been paused.
Thank you so very much for your understanding.
A quote from iStock admin. They couldn't make this more of a PR disaster if they tried.
Does anyone actually believe this?
They are temporarily putting the brakes on the deluge to begin damage control that is all, it is clear there is no review process.
-
http://www.fstopimages.com/collections/showimage.php?id=9320&c=init
(http://www.fstopimages.com/collections/showimage.php?id=9320&c=init)
This is the link to the famous german toilet shot being sold on another website other than getty/istock.
-
I said from the beginning that istock was nothing special and everyone jumped down my throat.
I said from the beginning that istock was nuts and everyone jumped down my throat.
I said from the beginning that istock was on it's way out and everyone jumped down my throat.
I said from the beginning that istock spawned as much crap in the mix as any other photo stock agency and everyone jumped down my throat.
Now have a look at you all! I have to admit, the 180 turnaround has been very entertaining but I do feel you guys especially exclusives.
-
Epic fall!
What is next is going to happen in this never ending nightmare?
-
I said from the beginning that istock was nothing special and everyone jumped down my throat.
I said from the beginning that istock was nuts and everyone jumped down my throat.
I said from the beginning that istock was on it's way out and everyone jumped down my throat.
I said from the beginning that istock spawned as much crap in the mix as any other photo stock agency and everyone jumped down my throat.
Now have a look at you all! I have to admit, the 180 turnaround has been very entertaining but I do feel you guys especially exclusives.
pseudonymous, formally known as sunnymars ;D
In the beginning iStock was special :)
-
To go from nothing to a company worth $50 million is special. It looks like the mistake they made was selling to Getty but I am sure all of us would of done the same for that money. This isn't really istock anymore, its just Getty and their owners trying to make as much money as possible.
-
I said from the beginning that istock was nothing special and everyone jumped down my throat.
I said from the beginning that istock was nuts and everyone jumped down my throat.
I said from the beginning that istock was on it's way out and everyone jumped down my throat.
I said from the beginning that istock spawned as much crap in the mix as any other photo stock agency and everyone jumped down my throat.
Now have a look at you all! I have to admit, the 180 turnaround has been very entertaining but I do feel you guys especially exclusives.
In the beginning iStock was special :)
I didn't say that years ago, I said that in May and repeated it a couple of weeks before the sh1tstorm. So realy the only difference between them being 'special' and them being as pitiful as they are is your lowered commissions.
Realistically, they've been on a downward trend for a while now and every loyal istocker had their blinkers on and refused to see what was happening around them. It's really unfortunate because it was your loyalty that lead them to shaft you in the end.
-
It's really unfortunate because it was your loyalty that lead them to shaft you in the end.
That's about it. It was the exclusivity programme that gave Istock the power ... and it'll only be when exclusives leave in droves that it will reduce.
-
No offense to the photographers who took the images but I don't understand how these images will sell for top dollar on a site already stuffed with cheaper images. Why would a buyer not just look for a cheaper version?
Why no offense? Please, offend.
Wow, I may decide to offend after reading this post by Derick Rhodes. It's from 2007 but arrogance usually doesn't change over time.
[url]http://www.abouttheimage.com/2811/editorial_microstock_in_context/author7[/url] ([url]http://www.abouttheimage.com/2811/editorial_microstock_in_context/author7[/url])
Derrick Rhodes is a dumbass. I will offend him until I see more crap from other 'talented' photographers
-
This collection appears to me, being the RF counterpart of the RM Flickr Collection on Getty.
Now the buyers have the choice of buying "premium" images as RF AND RM which they could shoot themselves.
I bet there is a market for that and if not, buyers will see the much more fantastic images in the Vetta, exlcusive(+) and regular collection and will happily buy more images (at a lower price) from there instead of the former premium site where they used to buy.
With all this crying and moaning from iStock's side about sustainability and the future of iStock it sounds like that Getty is about to be buried in 10 years while iStock will emerge as a big image discounter (offering RM images in 2015).
-
Derrick Rhodes is a dumbass. I will offend him until I see more crap from other 'talented' photographers
I had a short look at Fstop.
"Snapshot in a jam with blown out sky"
http://www.fstopimages.com/collections/showimage.php?id=10612&c=init (http://www.fstopimages.com/collections/showimage.php?id=10612&c=init)
It's yours for only 700$.
Suddenly, I feel very pity for all those great iStock exclusives. :o
-
I have too say that after seeing this "collection", I feel a hell of a lot better about my own work. I may be new, but seriously, my 10 year takes better stuff.
-
They will have to change the terms of exclusivity. Fstop is selling his RF work via Getty and his own website while also being listed as 'Excluisve' on IS. I can't see how they can allow him to do both without opening it up for other exclusives to sell elsewhere as well.
http://www.istockphoto.com/user_view.php?id=6549575 (http://www.istockphoto.com/user_view.php?id=6549575)
-
I have too say that after seeing this "collection", I feel a hell of a lot better about my own work. I may be new, but seriously, my 10 year takes better stuff.
Yes me too. I'd like to personally thank the microstock agencies for setting the bar high and forcing us to attain it, and to thank iStock for showing us how low the bar was before.
Now we have even more reason to be paid what we're worth!! ;D
-
Derrick Rhodes is a dumbass. I will offend him until I see more crap from other 'talented' photographers
I had a short look at Fstop.
"Snapshot in a jam with blown out sky"
[url]http://www.fstopimages.com/collections/showimage.php?id=10612&c=init[/url] ([url]http://www.fstopimages.com/collections/showimage.php?id=10612&c=init[/url])
It's yours for only 700$.
Suddenly, I feel very pity for all those great iStock exclusives. :o
Why would anyone pay for that piece of crap. My point and shoot has better dynamic range
-
Shetta Collection....
-
Derrick Rhodes is a dumbass. I will offend him until I see more crap from other 'talented' photographers
I had a short look at Fstop.
"Snapshot in a jam with blown out sky"
[url]http://www.fstopimages.com/collections/showimage.php?id=10612&c=init[/url] ([url]http://www.fstopimages.com/collections/showimage.php?id=10612&c=init[/url])
It's yours for only 700$.
Suddenly, I feel very pity for all those great iStock exclusives. :o
Why would anyone pay for that piece of crap. My point and shoot has better dynamic range
I'm not defending the image, but just for accuracy, that price is for a CD. The single image price is $425 high res, $325 medium res, $49 web res. Which of course is still ridiculously overpriced.
-
What a complete disaster! Isn't this the kind of crap that should be populating Thinkstock, rather than cluttering up Istock?
Can you imagine the reaction of buyers when they come to Istock and see this stuff cluttering up the searches?
Istock is self-destructing before our eyes. Or more accurately being murdered.
I feel bad for the exclusives. I can imagine how devastating this is for them. If it wasn't clear before that the familiar team in Calgary is no longer in charge, it certainly is now.
-
Looks like Istock's been taken over by Zombies... ;D
-
What a tremendous cock-up. Competitors must be doing cartwheels down the office hallway and giving each other
high-fives on their way to the coffee machine.
I feel for the contributors who built iStock up from the ground. And those who put the hard work and creativity into building the Vetta collection.
In most organisations, the announcements/events of these past days would result in disciplinary action at best or blood on the carpet at worst.
-
The thing I really just can't get my head around is why they would tie this crap to vetta in the search engine, you can't disable agency without also removing Vetta. That is mind boggling, that is equating some of this stuff to Vetta, and we all know how good the Vetta collection really is. Buyers will have to turn both off just to find what they need and can afford, and any exclusive banking on vetta to meet their credit quotas are in deep crap.
-
This is not about the Agency or even about their latest royalty changes.
This is about IStock disintegrating right before our eyes.
Everything is spinning out of control - forums, trust, standards, inspections, collections, rules and agreements.
IStock admins - deleting posts and locking / deleting threads is not going to work anymore. This is out of control and is not going away.
Your best move would probably be to get someone from IStock (someone trusted by contributors) to open a new thread and start a dialogue. A real dialogue, questions, answers, facts.
You need to do it fast.
The longer you avoid it, the more damage.
-
I'm surprised ( I know, who am I kidding?) that there has been no address by the head hooha's this morning on the fiasco of this agency collection.
-
Istock site is down for me now. Maybe they're trying to re-set things after their little glitch?
-
OMG. My poor buyers. Having to wade through this stuff... :(
And mine!
-
Istock site is down for me now. Maybe they're trying to re-set things after their little glitch?
Down for me too. Probably server overload from all 30,000 contributors trying to get on at the same time to voice their objections.
-
Istock site is down for me now. Maybe they're trying to re-set things after their little glitch?
Even the maintenance message looks like a glitch:
iStockphoto is getting some upgrades
To improve iStockphoto's performance we're doing a little site maintenance.
The site will be down Saturday, June 26 from 8:00 a.m. to 11:30 a.m. MST. and then again from approximately noon to 4:00 p.m. MST
To reward your patience, get 15% off your next purchase of 50 credits or more next time you visit by using promo code UPGRADE. But use it fast — it's only good for a little while (offer expires July 10, 2010).
-
Someone switched off the life support.
-
ding dong
-
down....
-
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.
-
^ um, okay........those images are crap dude. don't even try to see a silver lining, there isn't one
-
Looks like Istock's been taken over by Zombies... ;D
Yup, note the 404 message:
"iStockphoto is getting some upgrades
To improve iStockphoto's performance we're doing a little site maintenance.
The site will be down Saturday, June 26 from 8:00 a.m. to 11:30 a.m. MST. and then again from approximately noon to 4:00 p.m. MST
To reward your patience, get 15% off your next purchase of 50 credits or more next time you visit by using promo code UPGRADE. But use it fast — it's only good for a little while (offer expires July 10, 2010).
For up to the minute news, please visit: www.istockscoop.com (http://www.istockscoop.com), or follow us on Twitter"
Can't even get their 404 right.
:'(
-
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.
A new idea...
Kitsch 'n' Sink Collection :D
-
^ um, okay........those images are crap dude. don't even try to see a silver lining, there isn't one
The stock industry has gone through dozens of artistic phases over the years,
There was the everything silhouetted phase, the everything lit with soft box phase, the light painting phase, the motion phase, the everyone tilted phase, the Agfa 1000 with soft filter phase, the cross processing phase, on and on. Now we are in everything done to a super high ultra boring technical phase and everyone thinks it's the last one. The one phase that will endure. But it won't. It will pass, thankfully, and we can move on to being creative again.
-
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.
A new idea...
Kitsch 'n' Sink Collection :D
Is it the collection you don't like or the fact that the photographer gets way more money?
-
^ um, okay........those images are crap dude. don't even try to see a silver lining, there isn't one
The stock industry has gone through dozens of artistic phases over the years,
There was the everything silhouetted phase, the everything lit with soft box phase, the light painting phase, the motion phase, the everyone tilted phase, the Agfa 1000 with soft filter phase, the cross processing phase, on and on. Now we are in everything done to a super high ultra boring technical phase and everyone thinks it's the last one. The one phase that will endure. But it won't. It will pass, thankfully, and we can move on to being creative again.
We're talking about stock, not art photography. What's next - tacky clip art becomes the norm again?...Amazing - the Cavier and Escargot of stock.
-
^ um, okay........those images are crap dude. don't even try to see a silver lining, there isn't one
The stock industry has gone through dozens of artistic phases over the years,
There was the everything silhouetted phase, the everything lit with soft box phase, the light painting phase, the motion phase, the everyone tilted phase, the Agfa 1000 with soft filter phase, the cross processing phase, on and on. Now we are in everything done to a super high ultra boring technical phase and everyone thinks it's the last one. The one phase that will endure. But it won't. It will pass, thankfully, and we can move on to being creative again.
You're just talking nonsense. This is just about getty dumping their crap on Istock.
Nothing to do with new phases, creativity or anything else.
-
I predict we are on the verge of the HDR era, especially since iPhones now do it automatically, and we can get cellphone images onto iStock by setting up our own Agency and cutting a deal with Getty.
-
My mistake sorry!
-
total fiasco. I'm still pretty surprised, this is the biggest snafu in terms of PR I've seen them commit. as for these files being an artistic phase, sorry, that's just ridiculous. despite my relationship with iStock, even I will say this is a royal f up. those images are crap and they've opened a can of worms.
-
^ um, okay........those images are crap dude. don't even try to see a silver lining, there isn't one
The stock industry has gone through dozens of artistic phases over the years,
There was the everything silhouetted phase, the everything lit with soft box phase, the light painting phase, the motion phase, the everyone tilted phase, the Agfa 1000 with soft filter phase, the cross processing phase, on and on. Now we are in everything done to a super high ultra boring technical phase and everyone thinks it's the last one. The one phase that will endure. But it won't. It will pass, thankfully, and we can move on to being creative again.
You're just talking nonsense. This is just about getty dumping their crap on Istock.
Nothing to do with new phases, creativity or anything else.
You will have to forgive hawk_eye, it is clear he drank the coolaide and is waiting for the space ship now.
um, that is not my post....look up, way up. my post is the one at the top. get off my back now please. if you're going to quote me, quote ME...please
-
respectfully snipped...they've opened a can of worms.
A delicacy in some parts of the globe ;)
The Agency - Niche images offering high production value, regional content and cultural diversity
::)
-
The Agency - Niche images offering high production value, regional content and cultural diversity
Well they were very 'diverse' __ someone had gone all the way to Germany to capture that toilet sign.
-
The Agency - Niche images offering high production value, regional content and cultural diversity
Well they were very 'diverse' __ someone had gone all the way to Germany to capture that toilet sign.
Nope. f-Stop is based in Germany. It's an agency itself, so I suppose the exclusive crown means that all those people who contribute to it are also exclusive at iStock, even if they don't know it.
Here are some Xmas images to feast your eyes on (look out iStock exclusives, you might be having to compete against this stuff) http://www.fstopimages.com/collections/showcoll.php?id=390 (http://www.fstopimages.com/collections/showcoll.php?id=390)
-
I have asked a number of times about whether or not Agency Collection contributors will have exclusivity required of them. no response. and looking at the sanfu hier soir, seems they won't. fstop in berlin is a huge factory. unbelievable.
-
Wow! to this fstop xmas image :-X
(http://www.fstopimages.com/prodimages/390/water/390.021.jpg)
-
...Here are some Xmas images to feast your eyes on (look out iStock exclusives, you might be having to compete against this stuff) [url]http://www.fstopimages.com/collections/showcoll.php?id=390[/url] ([url]http://www.fstopimages.com/collections/showcoll.php?id=390[/url])
This set - and all the others I glanced at on the site - seem to me to highlight why microstock was able to be successful in the first place.
fStop's site has a pile of really run of the mill, unexciting, easy to produce images for $49 to $435. Old, tired-looking, over priced - and those are the good ones (i.e. not the toilet door).
I sincerely hope that the risk of massive public ridicule will keep this crap off IS - it belongs on Thinkstock (and I only say that because none of my work is on TS - apologies to those of you contributing there :))
-
WOW! One of the new "Agency" accounts in Ingram publishing, look what Camrocker just found:
Posted By Camrocker:
Ok, so maybe Vetta files are so exclusive already?
Vetta file ([url]http://stock-photo-4640187-beautiful-high-key-portrait.php[/url]) Same file on IngramPublishing ([url]http://www.ingrampublishing.com/imagedetails/20724391_extInt0/02A15HQ0-Ingram-high%2Dkey%2Dportrait%2Dof%2Da%2Dbeautiful%2Dmade%2Dup%2Dwoman%2Dlay.html[/url])
-
Please note, that file belongs to an inspector.
-
Please note, that file belongs to an inspector.
Uploaded to iStock 11-07-07
Photographer oversight or breach of exclusive contract?
-
WOW! One of the new "Agency" accounts in Ingram publishing, look what Camrocker just found:
Posted By Camrocker:
Ok, so maybe Vetta files are so exclusive already?
Vetta file ([url]http://stock-photo-4640187-beautiful-high-key-portrait.php[/url]) Same file on IngramPublishing ([url]http://www.ingrampublishing.com/imagedetails/20724391_extInt0/02A15HQ0-Ingram-high%2Dkey%2Dportrait%2Dof%2Da%2Dbeautiful%2Dmade%2Dup%2Dwoman%2Dlay.html[/url])
This is getting funnier every time I check the forums. OMG!
-
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!
-
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...
-
It rather looks as if someone has been playing away from home, doesn't it? What an effing embarrassment.
-
It would be funny if it wasn't so sad.
No wait. It's still funny. ;D
-
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.
-
This is like watching an imploding building in slow motion. I want to look away, but it's just too fascinating.
-
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.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 (http://www.canstockphoto.com/twin-girls-dressed-in-mens-clothes-0484750.html)
Same contributor! I cant wait to see the outcome of this ::)
-
I like her lightbox, - Portraito Fartist. ;D ;)
-
This just came up in the forum at IS
[url]http://www.istockphoto.com/stock-photo-2623466-twin-girls-dressed-in-men-s-clothes.php[/url] ([url]http://www.istockphoto.com/stock-photo-2623466-twin-girls-dressed-in-men-s-clothes.php[/url])
[url]http://www.canstockphoto.com/twin-girls-dressed-in-mens-clothes-0484750.html[/url] ([url]http://www.canstockphoto.com/twin-girls-dressed-in-mens-clothes-0484750.html[/url])
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?!
-
This just came up in the forum at IS
[url]http://www.istockphoto.com/stock-photo-2623466-twin-girls-dressed-in-men-s-clothes.php[/url] ([url]http://www.istockphoto.com/stock-photo-2623466-twin-girls-dressed-in-men-s-clothes.php[/url])
[url]http://www.canstockphoto.com/twin-girls-dressed-in-mens-clothes-0484750.html[/url] ([url]http://www.canstockphoto.com/twin-girls-dressed-in-mens-clothes-0484750.html[/url])
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.
-
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.
-
This just came up in the forum at IS
[url]http://www.istockphoto.com/stock-photo-2623466-twin-girls-dressed-in-men-s-clothes.php[/url] ([url]http://www.istockphoto.com/stock-photo-2623466-twin-girls-dressed-in-men-s-clothes.php[/url])
[url]http://www.canstockphoto.com/twin-girls-dressed-in-mens-clothes-0484750.html[/url] ([url]http://www.canstockphoto.com/twin-girls-dressed-in-mens-clothes-0484750.html[/url])
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
-
This just came up in the forum at IS
[url]http://www.istockphoto.com/stock-photo-2623466-twin-girls-dressed-in-men-s-clothes.php[/url] ([url]http://www.istockphoto.com/stock-photo-2623466-twin-girls-dressed-in-men-s-clothes.php[/url])
[url]http://www.canstockphoto.com/twin-girls-dressed-in-mens-clothes-0484750.html[/url] ([url]http://www.canstockphoto.com/twin-girls-dressed-in-mens-clothes-0484750.html[/url])
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.
-
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.
-
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?
-
It's easy to pick bad examples but even than it is still a matter of taste.
(http://www.fstopimages.com/prodimages/242/water/242.020.jpg)
Taste. Yep.
-
But how does that explain the Ingram pics?
-
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.
-
It's easy to pick bad examples but even than it is still a matter of taste.
([url]http://www.fstopimages.com/prodimages/242/water/242.020.jpg[/url])
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 easy to pick bad examples but even than it is still a matter of taste.
([url]http://www.fstopimages.com/prodimages/242/water/242.020.jpg[/url])
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.
-
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 :-)
-
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.
-
It's easy to pick bad examples but even than it is still a matter of taste.
([url]http://www.fstopimages.com/prodimages/242/water/242.020.jpg[/url])
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.
This is actually a good thing. Price the standard mainstream microstock-image low but charge more for less mainstream images. Istock doesn't have the reviewers to do this job (they are more dedicated to technical stuff, maybe there are a few exceptions but not much). But why do you insist to remain in the microstock-market everyone can apply at f-stop images to become a contributor!
-
It's easy to pick bad examples but even than it is still a matter of taste.
([url]http://www.fstopimages.com/prodimages/242/water/242.020.jpg[/url])
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.
It wouldn't be accepted into a "microstock" collection which clearly the Agency Collection isn't and just as clearly it has been accepted into the collection and with great astonishment, they didn't ask microstock photographers about it.
-
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 :-)
Based on your own personal experience? This is what drives me nuts. Why wouldn't you try and pull micro prices up rather than complain macro is overpriced?
-
Based on your own personal experience? This is what drives me nuts. Why wouldn't you try and pull micro prices up rather than complain macro is overpriced?
Personally, I am all for higher prices, as long as photographers get their fair share.
But I do think Istock risks chasing buyers away if the quality of the content doesn't measure up to the price being asked.
-
Based on your own personal experience? This is what drives me nuts. Why wouldn't you try and pull micro prices up rather than complain macro is overpriced?
Personally, I am all for higher prices, as long as photographers get their fair share.
But I do think Istock risks chasing buyers away if the quality of the content doesn't measure up to the price being asked.
Lisa,
I couldn't agree more about the return to photographer. I don't think the golden goose is being choked by this move for higher prices.
-
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 :-)
Based on your own personal experience? This is what drives me nuts. Why wouldn't you try and pull micro prices up rather than complain macro is overpriced?
Based on what I saw in this thread :-) The micro seems to have higher quality.
On the other subject, micro prices would not go up significantly until all micro agencies stop competing on price which may happen when there is fewer of them and no other type of competition (like macro, midstock) exists. It may never happen and something else will be invented.
-
The micro seems to have higher quality.
You'll find plenty of exceptions but I think in general this isn't true. Micro probably has better technical quality but as I have often argued, who really cares?
On the other subject, micro prices would not go up significantly until all micro agencies stop competing on price which may happen when there is fewer of them and no other type of competition (like macro, midstock) exists. It may never happen and something else will be invented.
But haven't they in fact gone up lots already over the past few years? Why not more? An an agency that can supply great images is far more valuable to most buyers than saving 50 cents on a download.
-
Zeus, I totally get what you are saying about different types of pictures, quality in the eyes of the beholder etc and so on. The microstock pics are too uniform, and the variety of macro is still needed. But honestly, that toilet sign and some of those christmas photos; those are not good. I don't understand how anybody can disagree on that.
-
Zeus, I totally get what you are saying about different types of pictures, quality in the eyes of the beholder etc and so on. The microstock pics are too uniform, and the variety of macro is still needed. But honestly, that toilet sign and some of those christmas photos; those are not good. I don't understand how anybody can disagree on that.
Well some of them might be a little bit of a stretch for sure but until you have seen all the sales that Getty has seen you can't say. Honestly, there are some pretty weird images that sell. Too weird to comprehend sometime. Micro images are often very pretty but pretty is not all that is needed. Pretty outsells the weird, no doubt but in a few billion dollar industry that still leaves lots of money for the off beat. And in macro it doesn't have to sell often to make it worth while. So belittle all you want to but at your peril or maybe at least loss of opportunity.
-
Based on your own personal experience? This is what drives me nuts. Why wouldn't you try and pull micro prices up rather than complain macro is overpriced?
Personally, I am all for higher prices, as long as photographers get their fair share.
But I do think Istock risks chasing buyers away if the quality of the content doesn't measure up to the price being asked.
Hey, hold on, Lisa.
I'm banking on my rejects getting put into the Agency collection.
-
So belittle all you want to but at your peril or maybe at least loss of opportunity.
This is ironically enough the exact advice that macros needed to heed before micros started destroying them.
-
So belittle all you want to but at your peril or maybe at least loss of opportunity.
This is ironically enough the exact advice that macros needed to heed before micros started destroying them.
Touche, What goes around, comes around.
-
So belittle all you want to but at your peril or maybe at least loss of opportunity.
This is ironically enough the exact advice that macros needed to heed before micros started destroying them.
Touche, What goes around, comes around.
It's never going to come around if they're charging 20x the price for it.
-
Hi All,
I'd like to make a few quick comments, and clear up a few misconceptions:
1. I think the quality of microstock has vastly improved over the last few years (since I made the comments I made in the "About the Image" article). Please don't assume that I would make the same argument today (ah, the Internet!).
2. fStop currently represents 70+ photographers from around the world, and the images aren't mine, nor do I own the company.
and,
3. Somebody wrote, "fStop's site has a pile of really run of the mill, unexciting, easy to produce images for $49 to $435. Old, tired-looking, over priced - and those are the good ones (i.e. not the toilet door)."
Which, if you actually take a good, hard look at our collection, I don't think you'll agreed is accurate.
Here are links to a few recent fStop favorites. I think they are anything but "run of the mill," "unexciting," or "easy to produce," from my perspective. Of course you are welcome to disagree:
http://www.fstopimages.com/highlights/pages/000114002.htm (http://www.fstopimages.com/highlights/pages/000114002.htm)
http://www.fstopimages.com/highlights/pages/000001.htm (http://www.fstopimages.com/highlights/pages/000001.htm)
http://www.fstopimages.com/highlights/pages/7319002.htm (http://www.fstopimages.com/highlights/pages/7319002.htm)
I can't think of a single RF collection that is flawless, and it's important to keep in mind that sometimes people need very different kinds of images for very different projects. Some styles work really well in some cases, but not at all in others.
-
Thanks for taking the time to come in here and discuss this with us. I think you were mainly caught up as a victim in this whole debacle with the rejected images moving through the iStock queue and into your portfolio. It was stunning to see something like the toilet door photo as a representation of what we were told would be some of the best imagery available. I know this isn't your fault, and there were many higher quality images that were in your portfolio that were obviously more difficult to come by (lab environments, etc).
Much of the outrage was due to these first samples of the 'Agency' collection being photos many of us would not have even submitted because we knew they would not pass iStock inspection standards. It was handled poorly by iStock, and you/fStop bore the brunt of the ill will.
The samples you provided here are quite good. Thank you for showing us some of the work that is more along the lines of what we envisioned when iStock told us we'd be seeing a collection on par with Vetta.
Edit: By the way, the aerial airplane image is my favorite of the three. Excellent.
-
Hi All,
I'd like to make a few quick comments, and clear up a few misconceptions:
1. I think the quality of microstock has vastly improved over the last few years (since I made the comments I made in the "About the Image" article). Please don't assume that I would make the same argument today (ah, the Internet!).
2. fStop currently represents 70+ photographers from around the world, and the images aren't mine, nor do I own the company.
and,
3. Somebody wrote, "fStop's site has a pile of really run of the mill, unexciting, easy to produce images for $49 to $435. Old, tired-looking, over priced - and those are the good ones (i.e. not the toilet door)."
Which, if you actually take a good, hard look at our collection, I don't think you'll agreed is accurate.
Here are links to a few recent fStop favorites. I think they are anything but "run of the mill," "unexciting," or "easy to produce," from my perspective. Of course you are welcome to disagree:
[url]http://www.fstopimages.com/highlights/pages/000114002.htm[/url] ([url]http://www.fstopimages.com/highlights/pages/000114002.htm[/url])
[url]http://www.fstopimages.com/highlights/pages/000001.htm[/url] ([url]http://www.fstopimages.com/highlights/pages/000001.htm[/url])
[url]http://www.fstopimages.com/highlights/pages/7319002.htm[/url] ([url]http://www.fstopimages.com/highlights/pages/7319002.htm[/url])
I can't think of a single RF collection that is flawless, and it's important to keep in mind that sometimes people need very different kinds of images for very different projects. Some styles work really well in some cases, but not at all in others.
good to know that the Agency Collection will not consist of factory produced images.... ::)
-
Well, 'Agency' collection kind of implies it will have content from agencies of more than one person.
Not my problem though, in a couple more weeks I don't have to deal with iStock anymore.
Hey, maybe I should talk to Derick about submitting to fStop... ;)
-
dgilder wrote: "By the way, the aerial airplane image is my favorite of the three. Excellent."
Yeah, Stephan Zirwes is one of my favorite fStop photographers - he shoots almost exclusively from helicopters, and it's always exciting when he submits new images:
http://www.fstopimages.com/collections/showcoll.php?id=617 (http://www.fstopimages.com/collections/showcoll.php?id=617)
BTW: I know our site sucks for casual viewing - we'd always been more of a production/curation company than a direct-sales company.
-
It's never going to come around if they're charging 20x the price for it.
Do you believe this because they will be selling the images next to ones that cost less or that 20x the going rate at micro is too much to ask someone to pay?
-
Those are good images (much better than the toilet door) but compared to stuff we have in our vetta collection they won't make the cut... take a look for example at some dogs -
http://www.istockphoto.com/stock-photo-9967483-cocker-spaniel.php (http://www.istockphoto.com/stock-photo-9967483-cocker-spaniel.php)
http://www.istockphoto.com/stock-photo-6695621-dog.php (http://www.istockphoto.com/stock-photo-6695621-dog.php)
http://www.istockphoto.com/stock-photo-1654313-close-up-of-boston-terrier-dog-lying-on-couch.php (http://www.istockphoto.com/stock-photo-1654313-close-up-of-boston-terrier-dog-lying-on-couch.php)
Can you justify why the agency dog costs 5x more than the vetta dogs?
-
^ there isn't a valid justification. higher prices are fine when it is justified, but slapping higher prices on substandard to avergae files to dupe buyers and increase profits...no thanks.
-
Those are good images (much better than the toilet door) but compared to stuff we have in our vetta collection they won't make the cut... take a look for example at some dogs -
[url]http://www.istockphoto.com/stock-photo-9967483-cocker-spaniel.php[/url] ([url]http://www.istockphoto.com/stock-photo-9967483-cocker-spaniel.php[/url])
[url]http://www.istockphoto.com/stock-photo-6695621-dog.php[/url] ([url]http://www.istockphoto.com/stock-photo-6695621-dog.php[/url])
[url]http://www.istockphoto.com/stock-photo-1654313-close-up-of-boston-terrier-dog-lying-on-couch.php[/url] ([url]http://www.istockphoto.com/stock-photo-1654313-close-up-of-boston-terrier-dog-lying-on-couch.php[/url])
Can you justify why the agency dog costs 5x more than the vetta dogs?
If you look at IStock in isolation the justification is obvious, there is a pretty consistent samey Vetta look, if you want something different you have to pay more for it. The dog image from fstop is just as good, it just doesn't conform to IStocks particular "look". It looks more natural.
If you look at the market as a whole, there isn't a justification. Buyers who want something different should just go elsewhere and pay less.
So I guess maybe buyers not knowing any better? inertia?
-
1. I think the quality of microstock has vastly improved over the last few years (since I made the comments I made in the "About the Image" article). Please don't assume that I would make the same argument today (ah, the Internet!).
Thanks very much for stopping by Derick and also for 'clarifying' your thoughts on microstock today. Must admit I did find your 2007 statement infuriating __ especially in relation to the Agency images sent to Istock!
In the spirit of co-operation and solidarity are you able to enlighten us as to what commissions your agency will be paid on sales at Istock? Also, in your understanding, how does the 'exclusive' bit apply if they are also being sold elsewhere? Feel free to PM me if you'd prefer not to go public with this info.
As you are probably aware this battle with Istock began with them attempting to bully contributors into enforced reductions in commissions __ down to as little as 15% for non-exclusive contributors. The more information we can share amongst ourselves the stronger the hand we have. Cheers.
-
Sorry but i can´t find any agency image on istock, and the ones linked here are no longer there.
EDITED TO ADD THIS:
searching on the istock foru,m i saw this posted by an admin.
1. Apologies for this maelstrom.
2. At this very moment & due to a technical glitch, both accepted and rejected files are showing up as active files in Agency.
3. Until this glitch is addressed and fixed, all ingestion into Agency has been paused.
Thank you so very much for your understanding.
Guess that images shown here as crapy actually were rejected files??
-
^^^Probably but there have been so many mistakes made recently, you would hope they would get this right.
-
Is Inmagine under Getty?
HultonArchive (exklusive on iStockphoto) is selling the same picture as Inmagine
http://www.istockphoto.com/stock-photo-13314651-two-women-gossiping-in-studio-b-w.php (http://www.istockphoto.com/stock-photo-13314651-two-women-gossiping-in-studio-b-w.php)
http://es.inmagine.com/rets008/rets008080-photo (http://es.inmagine.com/rets008/rets008080-photo)
HultonArchive has 16123 pictures and the account is only from july 2007. I guess the rules for the others members did not apply for this account as well.
-
Is Inmagine under Getty?
HultonArchive (exklusive on iStockphoto) is selling the same picture as Inmagine
[url]http://www.istockphoto.com/stock-photo-13314651-two-women-gossiping-in-studio-b-w.php[/url] ([url]http://www.istockphoto.com/stock-photo-13314651-two-women-gossiping-in-studio-b-w.php[/url])
[url]http://es.inmagine.com/rets008/rets008080-photo[/url] ([url]http://es.inmagine.com/rets008/rets008080-photo[/url])
HultonArchive has 16123 pictures and the account is only from july 2007. I guess the rules for the others members did not apply for this account as well.
Istock has to know about that don't they?
-
Is Inmagine under Getty?
HultonArchive (exklusive on iStockphoto) is selling the same picture as Inmagine
[url]http://www.istockphoto.com/stock-photo-13314651-two-women-gossiping-in-studio-b-w.php[/url] ([url]http://www.istockphoto.com/stock-photo-13314651-two-women-gossiping-in-studio-b-w.php[/url])
[url]http://es.inmagine.com/rets008/rets008080-photo[/url] ([url]http://es.inmagine.com/rets008/rets008080-photo[/url])
HultonArchive has 16123 pictures and the account is only from july 2007. I guess the rules for the others members did not apply for this account as well.
Istock has to know about that don't they?
They don't seem in control any more. Has anyone posted this info in their forum? Don't Inmagine owne 123rf? Not a getty site.
-
What a mess... I just tweet both links.....
-
http://www.fotosearch.com/FSA019/x18615284/ (http://www.fotosearch.com/FSA019/x18615284/)
The image is also here.
-
[url]http://www.fotosearch.com/FSA019/x18615284/[/url] ([url]http://www.fotosearch.com/FSA019/x18615284/[/url])
The image is also here.
Yup. I found it here too.
-
Is Inmagine under Getty?
HultonArchive (exklusive on iStockphoto) is selling the same picture as Inmagine
[url]http://www.istockphoto.com/stock-photo-13314651-two-women-gossiping-in-studio-b-w.php[/url] ([url]http://www.istockphoto.com/stock-photo-13314651-two-women-gossiping-in-studio-b-w.php[/url])
[url]http://es.inmagine.com/rets008/rets008080-photo[/url] ([url]http://es.inmagine.com/rets008/rets008080-photo[/url])
HultonArchive has 16123 pictures and the account is only from july 2007. I guess the rules for the others members did not apply for this account as well.
Istock has to know about that don't they?
Do you really think Istock did not know about this
http://es.inmagine.com/rets008/rets008080-photo (http://es.inmagine.com/rets008/rets008080-photo)
and also about this
http://www.fotosearch.com/FSA019/x18615284/ (http://www.fotosearch.com/FSA019/x18615284/)
when they made this "special contributor" ;) also "exclusive contributor" ;) with all it's 16,123 images ?
-
The imagine and thing is on their discussion board. So far not a single answer from anyone. You screw your contributors and they are going to hunt on their own to find all your dirty laundry.
Exclusivity - ur doin in wrong.
-
Reminds me of Fotolia's "Infinite" collection when it began. Has that one gotten any better?
Nope, only more pluriform. Denying valuable page space to images that stand a far better chance of selling. Be fair, buyers go to microstock for low prices and when they see the infinity prices, I'm sure they give up and go elsewhere.
-
Is Inmagine under Getty?
HultonArchive (exklusive on iStockphoto) is selling the same picture as Inmagine
[url]http://www.istockphoto.com/stock-photo-13314651-two-women-gossiping-in-studio-b-w.php[/url] ([url]http://www.istockphoto.com/stock-photo-13314651-two-women-gossiping-in-studio-b-w.php[/url])
[url]http://es.inmagine.com/rets008/rets008080-photo[/url] ([url]http://es.inmagine.com/rets008/rets008080-photo[/url])
HultonArchive has 16123 pictures and the account is only from july 2007. I guess the rules for the others members did not apply for this account as well.
Istock has to know about that don't they?
Do you really think Istock did not know about this
[url]http://es.inmagine.com/rets008/rets008080-photo[/url] ([url]http://es.inmagine.com/rets008/rets008080-photo[/url])
and also about this
[url]http://www.fotosearch.com/FSA019/x18615284/[/url] ([url]http://www.fotosearch.com/FSA019/x18615284/[/url])
when they made this "special contributor" ;) also "exclusive contributor" ;) with all it's 16,123 images ?
A stolen image, maybe?
-
Is Inmagine under Getty?
HultonArchive (exklusive on iStockphoto) is selling the same picture as Inmagine
[url]http://www.istockphoto.com/stock-photo-13314651-two-women-gossiping-in-studio-b-w.php[/url] ([url]http://www.istockphoto.com/stock-photo-13314651-two-women-gossiping-in-studio-b-w.php[/url])
[url]http://es.inmagine.com/rets008/rets008080-photo[/url] ([url]http://es.inmagine.com/rets008/rets008080-photo[/url])
HultonArchive has 16123 pictures and the account is only from july 2007. I guess the rules for the others members did not apply for this account as well.
Istock has to know about that don't they?
Do you really think Istock did not know about this
[url]http://es.inmagine.com/rets008/rets008080-photo[/url] ([url]http://es.inmagine.com/rets008/rets008080-photo[/url])
and also about this
[url]http://www.fotosearch.com/FSA019/x18615284/[/url] ([url]http://www.fotosearch.com/FSA019/x18615284/[/url])
when they made this "special contributor" ;) also "exclusive contributor" ;) with all it's 16,123 images ?
A stolen image, maybe?
You don't have to steal it! Once bought you can resell it as the copyright of these images is long expired - it's that simple - people in this forum are getting paranoid - IMHO.
-
You can't resell them, but they could have gotten it from the same source.
-
^ getting paranoid? lol. that's an understatement...though everything iStock is doing right now is bad, no other way to look at it. sometimes if it walks like a duck, and quacks like a duck, it's a duck....iStock have f'ed up royally. ROYALLY.
-
If this isn't so sad it would be very funny...
But, now it is really FAIL!
-
Derrick Rhodes is a dumbass. I will offend him until I see more crap from other 'talented' photographers
I had a short look at Fstop.
"Snapshot in a jam with blown out sky"
[url]http://www.fstopimages.com/collections/showimage.php?id=10612&c=init[/url] ([url]http://www.fstopimages.com/collections/showimage.php?id=10612&c=init[/url])
It's yours for only 700$.
Suddenly, I feel very pity for all those great iStock exclusives. :o
I am sorry I am jumping in the middle of the thread, but I just feel I have to say a few words here. First of all, I did not read all of the replies, but according to the reply from FD and his link to Fstop, I don't feel the same way as you guys, I don't see what most of you see. Come on, guys! I have to say I'm sorry to FD and everyone else, I have nothing personal against you but Fstop's site, at least the one that FD links to, I see a much better photographer than many of us. I wish I had a portfolio like his. Okay, there are some images that he probably should delete, but all in all, it is just superb. I don't know if I am looking at the same portfolio as you, but the link from FD leads me to the one I'm talking about.
I am sorry FD, but I have to say this and don't take it personally, I like your post and I will be reading them with interest.
Kone
-
I am sorry I am jumping in the middle of the thread, but I just feel I have to say a few words here. First of all, I did not read all of the replies, but according to the reply from FD and his link to Fstop, I don't feel the same way as you guys, I don't see what most of you see. Come on, guys! I have to say I'm sorry to FD and everyone else, I have nothing personal against you but Fstop's site, at least the one that FD links to, I see a much better photographer than many of us. I wish I had a portfolio like his. Okay, there are some images that he probably should delete, but all in all, it is just superb. I don't know if I am looking at the same portfolio as you, but the link from FD leads me to the one I'm talking about.
I am sorry FD, but I have to say this and don't take it personally, I like your post and I will be reading them with interest.
Kone
[/quote]
Have to agree to some extent....it's easy to pick out the crap but there is high quailty work on the site, superior to a lot of "exclusive" work on IS - inflammatory but true I'm afraid
-
I am sorry I am jumping in the middle of the thread, but I just feel I have to say a few words here. First of all, I did not read all of the replies, but according to the reply from FD and his link to Fstop, I don't feel the same way as you guys, I don't see what most of you see. Come on, guys! I have to say I'm sorry to FD and everyone else, I have nothing personal against you but Fstop's site, at least the one that FD links to, I see a much better photographer than many of us. I wish I had a portfolio like his. Okay, there are some images that he probably should delete, but all in all, it is just superb. I don't know if I am looking at the same portfolio as you, but the link from FD leads me to the one I'm talking about.
I am sorry FD, but I have to say this and don't take it personally, I like your post and I will be reading them with interest.
Kone
Have to agree to some extent....it's easy to pick out the crap but there is high quailty work on the site, superior to a lot of "exclusive" work on IS - inflammatory but true I'm afraid
[/quote]
Can't agree. And most, quality could be considered "similar". On the other hand, content at IS (and at SS FT etc) looks way "newer" and "fresher".
-
You don't have to steal it! Once bought you can resell it as the copyright of these images is long expired - it's that simple - people in this forum are getting paranoid - IMHO.
Exactly right - these images are in the public domain - JJ even says as much when they introduced contents of the collection. http://www.istockphoto.com/forum_messages.php?threadid=54443 (http://www.istockphoto.com/forum_messages.php?threadid=54443)
I don't however understand how istock justifies "licensing" these images for a fee. They don't have any copyright to license.
-
I don't however understand how istock justifies "licensing" these images for a fee. They don't have any copyright to license.
Don't they have copyright of their digital version or 'copy' of the image. For example if you scanned an old image (perhaps adding your own touch-ups, etc) then you would own the copyright to your digital version __ but not the original.
-
I don't however understand how istock justifies "licensing" these images for a fee. They don't have any copyright to license.
Don't they have copyright of their digital version or 'copy' of the image. For example if you scanned an old image (perhaps adding your own touch-ups, etc) then you would own the copyright to your digital version __ but not the original.
That's the official explanation and no doubt it is legally correct but it is also absurd. It means that if they scan a book they can claim copyright on that image and I am stealing it if I use it without paying them, but if I get the same book and scan it myself I can then not only use it but also upload it and sell it as my own. Thousands of us could all have identical scans of someone else's drawing that we apparently own the copyright to.
I suppose this also means that you can upload a scan of any negative or positive as being your own copyright.
If you have an Old Master in your mansion you can photograph it and sell the picture as your copyright but if the Old Master is in a museum and you photograph it, then the copyright no longer belongs to you, it belongs to the museum, apparently.
Go figure.
-
If you have an Old Master in your mansion you can photograph it and sell the picture as your copyright but if the Old Master is in a museum and you photograph it, then the copyright no longer belongs to you, it belongs to the museum, apparently.
No, I think in that case you would still own the copyright to your own image but you would not be able to use it for commercial purposes without the permission of the museum. Same thing with photographing zoo animals.
I don't see the complication or issue with this. If you owned an expensive painting or paid for the upkeep of exotic animals then surely you are entitled to benefit from any commercial exploitation of that asset?
-
I don't however understand how istock justifies "licensing" these images for a fee. They don't have any copyright to license.
Don't they have copyright of their digital version or 'copy' of the image. For example if you scanned an old image (perhaps adding your own touch-ups, etc) then you would own the copyright to your digital version __ but not the original.
This is what I meant. Think about it like this. For me to sell a photo of a painting I would need the permission of the painter and copyright of the photo.
The permission of artist bit is taken care of; the picture is public domain. I still need to be the one who took the photo (or scan) or hold copyright to be allowed to sell it. This is probably true legally, but definitely true under the terms of a lot of the image libraries.
-
However, there is the Bridgeman Art Library vs. Corel Corporation case:
http://www.thelivingmoon.com/01library/08legal/FairUse.html (http://www.thelivingmoon.com/01library/08legal/FairUse.html)
In other words, an exact reproduction of an image in the public domain does not possess creativity itself. Therefore, the reproduction is not protected under copyright law.
Edit:
Here is a Wikipedia article about the case:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bridgeman_Art_Library_v._Corel_Corp. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bridgeman_Art_Library_v._Corel_Corp.)
-
I am sorry I am jumping in the middle of the thread, but I just feel I have to say a few words here. First of all, I did not read all of the replies, but according to the reply from FD and his link to Fstop, I don't feel the same way as you guys, I don't see what most of you see. Come on, guys! I have to say I'm sorry to FD and everyone else, I have nothing personal against you but Fstop's site, at least the one that FD links to, I see a much better photographer than many of us. I wish I had a portfolio like his. Okay, there are some images that he probably should delete, but all in all, it is just superb. I don't know if I am looking at the same portfolio as you, but the link from FD leads me to the one I'm talking about.
I am sorry FD, but I have to say this and don't take it personally, I like your post and I will be reading them with interest.
Kone
FWIW, Fstop is an agency that represents a number of photographers. There is wide variety on the site. Some of what I saw was quite good and some of lower quality or niche stuff.
But I feel Derick & Fstop are being dragged into this fight with Istock unfairly. Getty is simply one agency that carries the Fstop collection. It's not his fault if Getty royally F*d up the way it was introduced to Istock.
-
However, there is the Bridgeman Art Library vs. Corel Corporation case:
[url]http://www.thelivingmoon.com/01library/08legal/FairUse.html[/url] ([url]http://www.thelivingmoon.com/01library/08legal/FairUse.html[/url])
In other words, an exact reproduction of an image in the public domain does not possess creativity itself. Therefore, the reproduction is not protected under copyright law.
Edit:
Here is a Wikipedia article about the case:
[url]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bridgeman_Art_Library_v._Corel_Corp.[/url] ([url]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bridgeman_Art_Library_v._Corel_Corp.[/url])
Wow, that's fascinating stuff! So if that case stands as precedent, as long as you can get hold of a decent res scan or photo of out of copyright stuff you can resell it!
I'll have to read up on it.
-
Do they have model releases for these pics?
-
FWIW, Fstop is an agency that represents a number of photographers. There is wide variety on the site. Some of what I saw was quite good and some of lower quality or niche stuff.
But I feel Derick & Fstop are being dragged into this fight with Istock unfairly. Getty is simply one agency that carries the Fstop collection. It's not his fault if Getty royally F*d up the way it was introduced to Istock.
Oops!
You're right; I see it now. Under every single image is the name of the photographer. I don't know how I missed that one. Apologizes to everyone!
-
Wow....I've been in North Carolina photographing waterfalls since Tuesday and after reading all of this I think I want to go back. This is like reading a mystery novel...what's going to happen next. Read the next chapter in the life of iStock. Just unbelievable!!
-
I think at this point it's fairly clear it was just an error. I'm relieved by that personally, though I expect many contributors would actually prefer the conspiracy theories were true to justify their outrage.
-
I think at this point it's fairly clear it was just an error. I'm relieved by that personally
Thats because it is the easiest thing for you to believe. How do you feel on the subject of Darwinian Evolution?
-
dude, Jebus was supposedly a really nice guy. seriously? I'd sooner read Dawkins than the bible....and I still think anything other than the obvious--it was an error--is actually your own denial at work.
-
dude, Jebus was supposedly a really nice guy. seriously? I'd sooner read Dawkins than the bible....and I still think anything other than the obvious--it was an error--is actually your own denial at work.
Or other things - a lot of people seem to just love conspiracies.
-
I believe it was an error but one of many lately and it really shouldn't happen. There have been too many changes too quickly, perhaps the admins there are feeling the pressure and making mistakes? I still have the opt-in check mark for 3rd party sales, even though I never opted in and I still can't uncheck it. That's not been fixed for weeks now and is one of several problems that should be dealt with quickly.
-
I believe it was an error but one of many lately and it really shouldn't happen. There have been too many changes too quickly, perhaps the admins there are feeling the pressure and making mistakes? I still have the opt-in check mark for 3rd party sales, even though I never opted in and I still can't uncheck it. That's not been fixed for weeks now and is one of several problems that should be dealt with quickly.
The settings in the Control Panel are misleading. Various checkboxes are checked when you open the control panel even if those settings are not actually set. To see if you are opted in for the Partner Program go to My Uploads. If there is a Partner Program tab at the top then you're opted in, else you are not, irrespective of what that checkbox in the CP says. Even if you are opted in you select which images you want to appear on partner sites. You can be opted in but have no images available for the PP.
-
I don't however understand how istock justifies "licensing" these images for a fee. They don't have any copyright to license.
Don't they have copyright of their digital version or 'copy' of the image. For example if you scanned an old image (perhaps adding your own touch-ups, etc) then you would own the copyright to your digital version __ but not the original.
That's the official explanation and no doubt it is legally correct but it is also absurd. It means that if they scan a book they can claim copyright on that image and I am stealing it if I use it without paying them, but if I get the same book and scan it myself I can then not only use it but also upload it and sell it as my own. Thousands of us could all have identical scans of someone else's drawing that we apparently own the copyright to.
I suppose this also means that you can upload a scan of any negative or positive as being your own copyright.
If you have an Old Master in your mansion you can photograph it and sell the picture as your copyright but if the Old Master is in a museum and you photograph it, then the copyright no longer belongs to you, it belongs to the museum, apparently.
Go figure.
Interesting info thanks
Gee I must get a scanner ;)
-
People do need to be compensated for the effort of tracking down, scanning, retouching and indexing out of copyright images. I don't really have a problem with the idea of having to pay to whoever went to that effort. Especially at micro prices. The alternative is that you get out to some flea markets antique bookshops etc. whenever you want some retro/ antique images for a design.
ETA: retouching
-
I think at this point it's fairly clear it was just an error. I'm relieved by that personally, though I expect many contributors would actually prefer the conspiracy theories were true to justify their outrage.
Do you think that the exclusiveness of those contributors was also an error?
-
I think it's pretty clear some people have just signed up here for a bit of damage limitation.
IStock/ Getty will have their defenders whatever they do, I would just consider these people as employees of the company and not get too annoyed by their obtuseness.
-
People do need to be compensated for the effort of tracking down, scanning, retouching and indexing out of copyright images. I don't really have a problem with the idea of having to pay to whoever went to that effort. Especially at micro prices. The alternative is that you get out to some flea markets antique bookshops etc. whenever you want some retro/ antique images for a design.
ETA: retouching
Fair enough, but this process isn't protected by copyright. The policy behind copyright is aimed at rewarding the original creators for their work, and then allowing that work to pass into the general public's ownership in the longer term.
It isn't aimed at providing an ongoing revenue stream throughout the ages to whichever corporation is wealthy enough to buy the original works.
-
The settings in the Control Panel are misleading. Various checkboxes are checked when you open the control panel even if those settings are not actually set. To see if you are opted in for the Partner Program go to My Uploads. If there is a Partner Program tab at the top then you're opted in, else you are not, irrespective of what that checkbox in the CP says. Even if you are opted in you select which images you want to appear on partner sites. You can be opted in but have no images available for the PP.
Thanks for posting that about checking in the My Uploads. I just did that, and fortunately there are no boxes checked. But still, I should be able to check one box and it should opt me out, without having to go through each and every box on 40 pages and check or uncheck. If I wanted to opt in, I would expect that I would have a choice of which photos to opt in. And saying yes when you mean no is just plain misleading and deceitful. If the box isn't functional, get rid of it and send an email to everyone explaining the new procedure for checking your partner program choices. To me, this is just one of the straws at IS that helped in the back-breaking.
-
People do need to be compensated for the effort of tracking down, scanning, retouching and indexing out of copyright images. I don't really have a problem with the idea of having to pay to whoever went to that effort. Especially at micro prices. The alternative is that you get out to some flea markets antique bookshops etc. whenever you want some retro/ antique images for a design.
ETA: retouching
Fair enough, but this process isn't protected by copyright. The policy behind copyright is aimed at rewarding the original creators for their work, and then allowing that work to pass into the general public's ownership in the longer term.
It isn't aimed at providing an ongoing revenue stream throughout the ages to whichever corporation is wealthy enough to buy the original works.
You're right about the aim of copyright but it's difficult to think of another mechanism that would keep people motivated to distribute and upkeep public domain work if they can't get any payback for the costs and efforts involved. Whether you call their right of ownership to the copies they create "copyright" or something else I'm not sure makes all that much difference.