pancakes

MicrostockGroup Sponsors


Author Topic: Agency Collection Now Showing up on IStock  (Read 35814 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

« Reply #200 on: September 18, 2010, 13:53 »
0
Do they have model releases for these pics?


« Reply #201 on: September 18, 2010, 19:57 »
0
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!

donding

  • Think before you speak
« Reply #202 on: September 19, 2010, 10:43 »
0
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!!

SNP

  • Canadian Photographer
« Reply #203 on: September 19, 2010, 17:13 »
0
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.

« Reply #204 on: September 19, 2010, 17:32 »
0
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?

SNP

  • Canadian Photographer
« Reply #205 on: September 19, 2010, 17:38 »
0
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.

« Reply #206 on: September 19, 2010, 17:59 »
0
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.

« Reply #207 on: September 20, 2010, 01:58 »
0
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.

« Reply #208 on: September 20, 2010, 02:39 »
0
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.

« Reply #209 on: September 20, 2010, 03:51 »
0
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   ;)

Microbius

« Reply #210 on: September 20, 2010, 04:00 »
0
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
« Last Edit: September 20, 2010, 04:05 by Microbius »

« Reply #211 on: September 20, 2010, 04:58 »
0
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?

Microbius

« Reply #212 on: September 20, 2010, 05:53 »
0
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.

« Reply #213 on: September 20, 2010, 06:15 »
0
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.

« Reply #214 on: September 20, 2010, 06:26 »
0
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.

Microbius

« Reply #215 on: September 20, 2010, 07:06 »
0
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.


 

Related Topics

  Subject / Started by Replies Last post
6 Replies
3634 Views
Last post September 17, 2010, 01:08
by leaf
85 Replies
17798 Views
Last post November 09, 2010, 20:54
by Chico
10 Replies
2806 Views
Last post October 28, 2010, 11:34
by WarrenPrice
Agency collection? oh! boy!

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

125 Replies
23573 Views
Last post December 04, 2010, 13:45
by jbarber873
6 Replies
2489 Views
Last post July 30, 2011, 13:19
by leaf

Sponsors

Microstock Poll Results