MicrostockGroup
Agency Based Discussion => iStockPhoto.com => Topic started by: lagereek on November 30, 2010, 11:55
-
Not untill now have I had the time to sort of browse the Agency collection and I understand why the Admin and supplyers got so uptight. Man, this is such a piece of serious crap its unbelievable, its the same old plastic, dead-pale codswhallop people as we saw the first year in the Micro business, BAD photography as well.
How can anybody with any self-esteam even want to show they got this for sale? its an insult, a mega insult to buyers, clients, even contributors.
-
Not untill now have I had the time to sort of browse the Agency collection and I understand why the Admin and supplyers got so uptight. Man, this is such a piece of serious crap its unbelievable, its the same old plastic, dead-pale codswhallop people as we saw the first year in the Micro business, BAD photography as well.
How can anybody with any self-esteam even want to show they got this for sale? its an insult, a mega insult to buyers, clients, even contributors.
I searched for "business" in Agency and Vetta, and I feel the agency ones are good shots, they remind me ALOT of Yuri's style, I wouldn't be able to distinguish between the two. So based on that, they are definitely not worth the price premium when Yuri's are so much cheaper. Granted I didn't zoom in on any to see quality and I didn't search on any other keywords. What did you browse for?
-
I don't think they are all that bad, I just don't think they are worth the astronomical prices being charged. They definitely look like standard stock fare that can be found at any site so I dont see the compelling reason for them to be so highly priced. I think it's just a way for Getty to move all their images to their cash-cow, iStock. they want to take advantage of the huge buyer-base there. Sadly, I feel they will just begin to alienate all those buyers that made iStock what it is today (or perhaps I should say "what it was yesterday").
-
Not untill now have I had the time to sort of browse the Agency collection and I understand why the Admin and supplyers got so uptight. Man, this is such a piece of serious crap its unbelievable, its the same old plastic, dead-pale codswhallop people as we saw the first year in the Micro business, BAD photography as well.
How can anybody with any self-esteam even want to show they got this for sale? its an insult, a mega insult to buyers, clients, even contributors.
So, trying to raise prices to a mid level is bad... Micro pricing is bad... What's the answer?
-
What's the answer?
42
-
I hope this agency thing is the begining of a new model where prices grow for all of us in general microstock. I´m not exclusive so the agency collection has no interest to me other than that.
Why would a photographer complain about the prices being too expensive?
-
I hope this agency thing is the begining of a new model where prices grow for all of us in general microstock. I´m not exclusive so the agency collection has no interest to me other than that.
Why would a photographer complain about the prices being too expensive?
Because the number of downloads falls. I don't mind different price levels but as a non-exclusive with istock, there isn't any incentive anymore. They are scaring away buyers with higher prices and my images are stuck way down the search behind all these collections. And to make me feel better, they cut my commission :)
-
Why would a photographer complain about the prices being too expensive?
I suspect that few of us would be complaining if they were raising the price and giving us our originally contracted % of those raises. The problem comes when they are raising the prices and lowering commissions. Putting the squeeze on buyers and sellers both is....wait for it...."unsustainable".
Also agree with Sharpshot - scaring away buyers is not in anybody's interest.
-
I'd rather suggest to raise quality standards along with image prices (along with the original % commission iStock once gave us).
Drop all the colelctions and Vettas etc. Have an agency with one price point so buyers know what they are in for from the beginning.
Keep it simple, stupid.
-
What's the answer?
42
:D
-
Putting the squeeze on buyers and sellers both is....wait for it...."unsustainable".
Also agree with Sharpshot - scaring away buyers is not in anybody's interest.
We all now know that IS decided at some point that it could do whatever it wanted to squeeze its long time contributors. The cut in royalties, the Agency collection, take its favoritism for its pets to new highs (or lows), etc. IS would let us whine and 'vent' on the forums for a while and then everything would always go back to normal.
But I don't think anyone will forget that one word 'unsustainable'.
IS might as well rename itself 'unstustainableStock.com'.
-
SJLOCKE:
So, trying to raise prices to a mid level is bad... Micro pricing is bad... What's the answer?
I think the answer is fair pricing for better images (Vetta), fair commission for the contributors AND a better licensing model.
A national magazine (Time) should not be able to get away with running a cover image and only paying a few pennies + extended license. Neither should a national or multi- national be able to put a model's image on a multi- million dollar product (Shampoo for instance) and only have to pay a few dollars + extended license. That is just highway robbery.
A cheap image for a blog is fine. A cheap image for a website that will be changed out in a few weeks, also fine.
We need to have a better license set up for the use of our imagery.
-
SJLOCKE:
So, trying to raise prices to a mid level is bad... Micro pricing is bad... What's the answer?
I think the answer is fair pricing for better images (Vetta), fair commission for the contributors AND a better licensing model.
A national magazine (Time) should not be able to get away with running a cover image and only paying a few pennies + extended license. Neither should a national or multi- national be able to put a model's image on a multi- million dollar product (Shampoo for instance) and only have to pay a few dollars + extended license. That is just highway robbery.
A cheap image for a blog is fine. A cheap image for a website that will be changed out in a few weeks, also fine.
We need to have a better license set up for the use of our imagery.
The trouble is that even on the macros/midstocks (I know about Alamy, and understand some others are the same) the newspapers, who in the UK at least are seriously feeling the pinch, have negotiated rock bottom prices - and often don't pay for months.
Also, it would be almost impossible to police usage. I can just imagine companies getting their employees to download images onto their home pcs looking as if it was for personal use. Given that the worst that's likely to happen is that they'd be made to cough up the full price, it could be worth it, given they'd seldom be found out, especially if they used well-sold images.
Think that wouldn't happen? Remember, Time didn't pay the EL on both images until they were made to. The first time may be put down to carelessness, and serve as anecdotal evidence for my theory that lots of purchasers don't even know they're supposed to be buying ELs. But the second time?
Finally, on iStock (I haven't a clue about the others) the large companies get huge discounts for huge credit bundles, which we didn't know about until fairly recently: much lower than the "prices as low as" which are advertised on the site, whereas of course the private individual, charity or small business has to pay full whack. It's called 'business', and is the way of the world. For better or worse.
-
Not untill now have I had the time to sort of browse the Agency collection and I understand why the Admin and supplyers got so uptight. Man, this is such a piece of serious crap its unbelievable, its the same old plastic, dead-pale codswhallop people as we saw the first year in the Micro business, BAD photography as well.
How can anybody with any self-esteam even want to show they got this for sale? its an insult, a mega insult to buyers, clients, even contributors.
So, trying to raise prices to a mid level is bad... Micro pricing is bad... What's the answer?
I don't think raising prices is necessarily bad - depends on how much and what for.
I think most of the Agency material that came from iStock contributors is very good stock and having a Vetta-like collection for those premium items - at the same price as the old Vetta prices - would have made some sense. Light and dark; pure stock and offbeat/edgy; Agency & Vetta as two premium collections at the same price but with different editing criteria.
I cannot for one moment see anything sane in Agency being priced higher than Vetta. Some of the outside content brought from Getty just shouldn't be on iStock at all; some is fine, but only at the old Vetta pricing.
I think that it's theoretically possible to raise prices too high so that income actually falls. Once you've done that, dropping prices back and trying to persuade those who've left that you didn't really mean it is hard.
-
SJLOCKE:
So, trying to raise prices to a mid level is bad... Micro pricing is bad... What's the answer?
I think the answer is fair pricing for better images (Vetta), fair commission for the contributors AND a better licensing model.
A national magazine (Time) should not be able to get away with running a cover image and only paying a few pennies + extended license. Neither should a national or multi- national be able to put a model's image on a multi- million dollar product (Shampoo for instance) and only have to pay a few dollars + extended license. That is just highway robbery.
A cheap image for a blog is fine. A cheap image for a website that will be changed out in a few weeks, also fine.
We need to have a better license set up for the use of our imagery.
What you are wishing for is RM. Interesting how microstockers -which is based on RF- dream about RM in the name of fairness, after they underminded that licencing scheme and pricing. What a facepalm. : ) I was amused to see that Istock, as * dumb as they always are, even have this designer spotlight thing, where ppl can see their images used in maybe even multi million dollar campaigns, and ponder upon how they got 5 bucks for 'getting involved' : ) Epic fail.
-
Not exactly RM. At least as I understand it RM specifies exactly how long an image may be used.
Also as I understand it RM often requires an image not be made available for anyone else to license during that use period.
Please feel free to correct me if I am mistaken about this.
-
Not exactly RM. At least as I understand it RM specifies exactly how long an image may be used.
Also as I understand it RM often requires an image not be made available for anyone else to license during that use period.
Please feel free to correct me if I am mistaken about this.
RM can require an image not to be made available to anyone else during that period. That is extremely expensive.
Or it can require particular usage, e.g. a calendar, a book cover, an advertisement for a particular industry for a particular period.
Or it can just be licensed for a particular use for a particular time, with no exclusivity clause.
-
SJLOCKE:
So, trying to raise prices to a mid level is bad... Micro pricing is bad... What's the answer?
I think the answer is fair pricing for better images (Vetta), fair commission for the contributors AND a better licensing model.
A national magazine (Time) should not be able to get away with running a cover image and only paying a few pennies + extended license. Neither should a national or multi- national be able to put a model's image on a multi- million dollar product (Shampoo for instance) and only have to pay a few dollars + extended license. That is just highway robbery.
why not? my image was used on the cover of TIME. I got an extended license, my name credited inside the cover of TIME, TIME sent me 20 copies of the cover without being asked, I can include TIME Magazine cover in my portfolio, and--most importantly--I still get to sell the image they used and continue to make money on it. I don't feel jilted at all by TIME Magazine purchasing my image via iStock.
The Agency images are good images overall IMO. Like Vetta, there is some crap in there that I can't believe made it in. But overall it's a fairly good collection of purely great stock imagery. Kind of a sure thing collection. My concern is that iStock is looking through gold-coloured glasses after the success of Vetta. only time will tell if they're pushing the envelope right off the table. But as things stand, buyers are buying the higher priced files. Higher prices are good for us (exclusives). I've certainly enjoyed my income growth as an exclusive.
-
What you are wishing for is RM. Interesting how microstockers -which is based on RF- dream about RM in the name of fairness, after they underminded that licencing scheme and pricing. What a facepalm. : )
While it may be true that RF undermined RM, RF at trad agencies long predated microstock.
I think tightening up the licensing terms for a standard license (and reducing the print run limits a bit) makes sense, but you can't realistically do RM licensing on a mass-market scale. Extended licenses - as prepackaged RM rights - have worked well with microstock IMO.
-
@SNP
Why not?
Well, (takes deep breath) because while periodicals are not wiling to pay much of anything for editorial imagery (the stuff they use to illustrate the stories on the inside), the cover is a different story altogether. The cover is what moves magazines off the shelf at the newsstands and that is worth more than a measly cut of an anemic extended license.
I'm glad you are happy that you got twenty free issues of the magazine and have a tear sheet for your portfolio.
Sorry to say that the mention on the inside cover is practically next to worthless except for bragging rights.
It's highly doubtful that you will get further jobs from that.
Your attitude tells me that you don't yet make a living with your imagery and are probably very young.
I expect that your tune will change ten years or so down the road.
-
I hope this agency thing is the begining of a new model where prices grow for all of us in general microstock. I´m not exclusive so the agency collection has no interest to me other than that.
Why would a photographer complain about the prices being too expensive?
Because many people don't believe in midstock as the wave of the future. I'm certainly one of those people. If istock plans to go midstock, that's fine and it's certainly their choice to do so. I just don't believe it's the right move, and I think buyers who have become accustomed to microstock prices will remain with microstock agencies.
So istock's move is counterproductive, at least in my humble opinion. Fortunately for me, I'm not exclusive. But if I were, and I shared in the opinion that midstock is a bad move, then as much as I'd appreciate the higher prices I'd be concerned about the long-term future of the company under a midstock pricing model.
-
Not untill now have I had the time to sort of browse the Agency collection and I understand why the Admin and supplyers got so uptight. Man, this is such a piece of serious crap its unbelievable, its the same old plastic, dead-pale codswhallop people as we saw the first year in the Micro business, BAD photography as well.
How can anybody with any self-esteam even want to show they got this for sale? its an insult, a mega insult to buyers, clients, even contributors.
While they may not have gotten the collections right, they got the idea right. Prices need to go up overall and especially for premium content.
Why should a group of models shot with a $5K 24MP DSLR be the same price as a brick wall shot with a $100 2MP pocket camera?
A few years ago a buyer would have paid a few hundred or a few thousand dollars for a lot of those shots.
It's an insult to talented contributors to keep charging peanuts for their excellent work.
The problem is that I don't think IS knows where the line is between premium and average content. They'll continue experimenting until they find it. At least somebody is trying.
-
@SNP
Why not?
Well, (takes deep breath) because while periodicals are not wiling to pay much of anything for editorial imagery (the stuff they use to illustrate the stories on the inside), the cover is a different story altogether. The cover is what moves magazines off the shelf at the newsstands and that is worth more than a measly cut of an anemic extended license.
I'm glad you are happy that you got twenty free issues of the magazine and have a tear sheet for your portfolio.
Sorry to say that the mention on the inside cover is practically next to worthless except for bragging rights.
It's highly doubtful that you will get further jobs from that.
Your attitude tells me that you don't yet make a living with your imagery and are probably very young.
I expect that your tune will change ten years or so down the road.
I do this full-time, I also work as an editorial photographer for 'real' money on images I neither own the rights to, nor have the ability to continue selling. Either way, one image sold on istock OR as a custom shoot typically garners me a few cents to up to a few thousand dollars.
the main point I made, which you didn't address and which makes a huge amount of difference, is that I keep the rights and continue to sell the image. it's not like once it was on TIME, it's off the market. they do not gain exclusive use of that image on their cover. as for thinking I'm young, thank you ;-) I am still young, though my niece and nephew think 36 is old.
ETA: despite disagreeing, I've had a look at your website nosaya...beautiful photographs.
-
Not untill now have I had the time to sort of browse the Agency collection and I understand why the Admin and supplyers got so uptight. Man, this is such a piece of serious crap its unbelievable, its the same old plastic, dead-pale codswhallop people as we saw the first year in the Micro business, BAD photography as well.
How can anybody with any self-esteam even want to show they got this for sale? its an insult, a mega insult to buyers, clients, even contributors.
While they may not have gotten the collections right, they got the idea right. Prices need to go up overall and especially for premium content.
Why should a group of models shot with a $5K 24MP DSLR be the same price as a brick wall shot with a $100 2MP pocket camera?
A few years ago a buyer would have paid a few hundred or a few thousand dollars for a lot of those shots.
It's an insult to talented contributors to keep charging peanuts for their excellent work.
The problem is that I don't think IS knows where the line is between premium and average content. They'll continue experimenting until they find it. At least somebody is trying.
some great points Paulie
-
Not untill now have I had the time to sort of browse the Agency collection and I understand why the Admin and supplyers got so uptight. Man, this is such a piece of serious crap its unbelievable, its the same old plastic, dead-pale codswhallop people as we saw the first year in the Micro business, BAD photography as well.
How can anybody with any self-esteam even want to show they got this for sale? its an insult, a mega insult to buyers, clients, even contributors.
So, trying to raise prices to a mid level is bad... Micro pricing is bad... What's the answer?
Hi there!
Well Im all for price increases actually but the material has to go with it, IMO, and Im afraid of what I saw in this collection, IS, have got far superior stuff, even the early stuff at IS was better.
-
Not exactly RM. At least as I understand it RM specifies exactly how long an image may be used.
Also as I understand it RM often requires an image not be made available for anyone else to license during that use period.
Please feel free to correct me if I am mistaken about this.
You wanted more money if the pic is used in something 'big' (otherwise you feel ripped of). Well that's exactly what RM does. Interesting how it gets reinvented. It can exclusive for a time period, and it should be for any self respecting company that doesn't want their 'face' to pop up in the competitions ad, and that means even more money for the shooter.
-
Anyone remember this? April 24, 2007
The managers of micro-stock site Lucky Oliver have attempted to find a middle ground between the low, low micro-stock prices and the higher prices one expects to pay for higher end royalty free imagery. Aptly named “midstock,” the model allows for Lucky Oliver’s best-selling photographers to set their own prices for images of their own choosing. In addition, the midstock images will appear more prominently in search results by way of placement in a highlighted grouping of images called Sideshow.
[url]http://www.abouttheimage.com/2744/micro_stock_site_lucky_oliver_introduces_new_midstock_pricing_option/author3[/url] ([url]http://www.abouttheimage.com/2744/micro_stock_site_lucky_oliver_introduces_new_midstock_pricing_option/author3[/url])
Perhaps the flaw with the Lucky Oliver model was that they were using most of the same images that sold at lower prices on their rival sites but I still think it's ironic that they led the way in microstock sites selling higher priced images within their main site.
I don't think istock will suffer the same fate as Lucky Oliver but it does seem like a big gamble to me, especially with all the other changes they have made that have angered both contributors and buyers.
-
What you are wishing for is RM. Interesting how microstockers -which is based on RF- dream about RM in the name of fairness, after they underminded that licencing scheme and pricing. What a facepalm. : )
While it may be true that RF undermined RM, RF at trad agencies long predated microstock.
I think tightening up the licensing terms for a standard license (and reducing the print run limits a bit) makes sense, but you can't realistically do RM licensing on a mass-market scale. Extended licenses - as prepackaged RM rights - have worked well with microstock IMO.
"but you can't realistically do RM licensing on a mass-market scale."
????????? getty and the like have millions of RM images. Extended license sucks for two reasons. It doesn't seem to cover some serious ATL print ad usage for example in most cases, if the print run is not large, altho it would be fair to ask a higher price for that stuff, like in RM. Second: almost nobody takes it seriuosly, because almost nobody takes the sites or it's contributors seriuosly, sadly. I garantuee you there many pictures purchased for EL type usage witout EL, because frankly, they dont give a fck, many don't even know about it. Tineye ain't gonna find you billboards in Hungary or south France. Actually tineye won't find you most of the stuff on the net.
-
While they may not have gotten the collections right, they got the idea right. Prices need to go up overall and especially for premium content.
Why should a group of models shot with a $5K 24MP DSLR be the same price as a brick wall shot with a $100 2MP pocket camera?
....
The problem is that I don't think IS knows where the line is between premium and average content. They'll continue experimenting until they find it. At least somebody is trying.
but right there you seem to display the same attitude as IS an the rest, that has higher class creatives rolling on the floor laughing (or crying) when IS 'staff' tries to separate a real premuim content for them: coming up with only technical parameters. IS and SS is full of xxxxxxx MP 'model' shots that could make a graphic artist rather stare at a brick wall (any MP), or carve his eyes out with his nails like dr. Weir in event horizon, beleive me. : )
-
While they may not have gotten the collections right, they got the idea right. Prices need to go up overall and especially for premium content.
Why should a group of models shot with a $5K 24MP DSLR be the same price as a brick wall shot with a $100 2MP pocket camera?
....
The problem is that I don't think IS knows where the line is between premium and average content. They'll continue experimenting until they find it. At least somebody is trying.
but right there you seem to display the same attitude as IS an the rest, that has higher class creatives rolling on the floor laughing (or crying) when IS 'staff' tries to separate a real premuim content for them: coming up with only technical parameters. IS and SS is full of xxxxxxx MP 'model' shots that could make a graphic artist rather stare at a brick wall (any MP), or carve his eyes out with his nails like dr. Weir in event horizon, beleive me. : )
Don't bother painting me as an IS fanboi. I don't agree with them all the time but they're at least trying something. What are the rest of the sites doing to address pricing? Anything?
It's not about class. It's about costs. The shoot of models with pro equipment cost a lot more than the passing snapshot of the brick wall. Ultimately, it's the perceived value of the image regardless of what it cost to create. But people with $200 compacts usually aren't setting up model shoots, right? It's all relative.
We need a new license model that matches today's market. The current micro RF doesn't take usage, costs, perceived value, or anything else into consideration. Micro RF is too generic and too cheap. Macro RM is based on old media, is too complex, and too easily gamed. Macro RF is being choked by Micro RF. A new model needs to be created that raises prices overall to a happy buyer/seller median and takes cost and other factors into consideration. Vetta and Agency are workaround band-aids due to a lack of relevant pricing model that matches today's environment.
Photographers may have had it good in the old days but today that has swung way too far in the opposite direction in favor of buyers.
-
"Ultimately, it's the perceived value of the image regardless of what it cost to create."
yep, and thats very apparent in micro galleries where you often see pretty hq setups used to create junk, thats what I was talking about. It would be pretty hard to convince higher class creatives -or anyone- that they should pay a lot for a shot with crap lighting, composition and confused looking semi ugly ppl because it's a 24 MP L lens shot with strobes. Costs? The guy spent money on creating junk? He (she) is a pest, who has, and uses resources to create even more visual litter, that's the last thing the world needs. I don't think we need more licencing schemes. Just raise prices, or get rid of RF. but... how do you do any of those??
-
I think the answer is fair pricing for better images (Vetta), fair commission for the contributors AND a better licensing model.
A national magazine (Time) should not be able to get away with running a cover image and only paying a few pennies + extended license. Neither should a national or multi- national be able to put a model's image on a multi- million dollar product (Shampoo for instance) and only have to pay a few dollars + extended license. That is just highway robbery.
A cheap image for a blog is fine. A cheap image for a website that will be changed out in a few weeks, also fine.
We need to have a better license set up for the use of our imagery.
The problem with the last chapter is that blog might get really popular and seen by millions of people. Web sites are essentially "worldwide" and yet web uses are the most cheap ones, you often need just a small size image and it can be used on site of a huge company without any extended licences. They can also be distributed as banner ads on thousands of web pages.
My solution for the modern world where print is in decline: One price, one size (some sites are already trying this). Let's say $10 for a image, regardless of size. The big sizes gets cheaper and the small sizes more expensive. The current relation between size and price is just stupid. The sites should really give up the "cheap images from $1" thinking.
-
My solution for the modern world where print is in decline: One price, one size (some sites are already trying this). Let's say $10 for a image, regardless of size. The big sizes gets cheaper and the small sizes more expensive. The current relation between size and price is just stupid. The sites should really give up the "cheap images from $1" thinking.
Flat pricing isn't good for buyers or suppliers.
Price it too cheap ($1) and contributors won't make enough money. Price it too high ($1,000) and, unless it's a rare/spectacular/valuable, it won't sell. Prices need to match perceived value.
Pricing will end up tiered which is where it's already headed. Poor sellers in oversaturated categories will decrease in cost or at least stay with micro pricing. Good sellers in oversaturated categories will increase in cost. Unique images or underserved categories will get premium pricing.
And what? "The big sizes gets cheaper and the small sizes more expensive". Meaning XS is $10 and XXXL is $5? Why would anybody not buy the XXXL?
-
And what? "The big sizes gets cheaper and the small sizes more expensive". Meaning XS is $10 and XXXL is $5? Why would anybody not buy the XXXL?
Sorry my bad english... I meant that the big sizes gets cheaper from what they are now and the small sizes gets more expensive from what they are now. Also a flat pricing somewhere in the middle. I would of course the prices to get much higher but that's just wishful thinking.
I have very little big sales (XL-XXXL) at sites that charge the highest price (for example XXXL at istock costs 25 credits.). Most of my sales are between XS and L. If every sale would be 10 credits regardless of size I would me much better off. And at a price around $10 still everyone could afford to buy the image.
One local small agency has only two prices: print and web, and they cost 100% and 25%. I think that's an easy solution and the price of large and small image are much closer than - let's say - the IS difference of 100% and 4% (XS vs XXXL)
I really can't see why images for web/mobile etc. should be cheaper than for print.
I'd rather have a tiered system based on the image quality or sales or something than size which makes no sense at all nowdays (It propably did in the 1990's)
-
snip
Why should a group of models shot with a $5K 24MP DSLR be the same price as a brick wall shot with a $100 2MP pocket camera?
Because it shouldn't matter whether an image was taken with an expensive camera or a cheap camera. If the image is good, it shouldn't matter whether an exclusive took it or a non-exclusive took it. If it is a best-seller and it's making money, THAT's the deciding factor. If the image bombs, then by all means it should be eliminated from the collection. And the determinations about who gets to contribute should be all about the image, not about what camera that person shoots with or whether they are exclusive or not. My image that has sold 1,000 times should be worth just as much as an Agency image that has sold 1,000 times. Just as my image that has sold 0 times should be booted, just like an Agency image with 0 downloads should.
All images should be valued on how many times they have sold. Period. But exclusives aren't going to like that because human nature tends to make people think that they are better than someone else and they will constantly try to find someone who is lower in class than themselves. This is a business, not a human nature study.
I am all for raising contributor's prices but a whole bunch of exclusive contributors think that that they should be treated special just because they decided to go spend $5 or $30k on a camera. This business is about selling images, not about who has the biggest and best toys and who can play the game better.
I don't EVER expect to see my image which has sold over 1000 times move to the back of the sort just because I made a choice to stay independent or because I am not willing to keep spending tons of money on equipment or models or whatever. But that's what a whole bunch of exclusives at IS are on board to see happen. And really, Getty/IS themselves!
Now the game is all about who has what, not about how the images are selling. Like jsnover mentioned earlier in another thread, the eyes aren't on the ball anymore. They are on things like who spends the most money buying equipment or who sucks up to the IS admins the best.
-
My solution for the modern world where print is in decline: One price, one size (some sites are already trying this). Let's say $10 for a image, regardless of size. The big sizes gets cheaper and the small sizes more expensive. The current relation between size and price is just stupid. The sites should really give up the "cheap images from $1" thinking.
They are not trying, SS has been doing that for ages now... but with a very low price of course : ) The buyers love it, and SS makes a lot of money. The contributors... not so. As always.
-
Why should a group of models shot with a $5K 24MP DSLR be the same price as a brick wall shot with a $100 2MP pocket camera?
If the image subject is what the customer wants and it's a small size image, even a gazillion pixels doesn't mean anything.
It's really ironic that the megapixels keep going up but more and more images are used in smaller and smaller sizes.
-
How about letting the image price fluctuate inside certain borders? The image could have a certain start price that is set by an editor (not a pixel peeping reviewer) according to three factors: Cost/effort of creating the image, Subject matter, Artistic quality.
In addition to that the image would change it's price using a simple mathematical formula and sales statistics. If an image gets "hot" the price could go up, and when it's sold less the price gets down. And if the price gets too down the image is removed from the collection. If the start price has been wrong, the image price will start to rise or fall. This system would work a bit like a "stock market".
DT prices it's images according to sales, but that's an unfair system for the new images. It also "punishes" old images that have in many years slowly gathered downloads. Prices get too high for an old image that isn't up to modern standards.
-
^^^Looks like what cutcaster have done but it hasn't caught on yet. They even let buyers make a bid at a lower price. I have the feeling buyers prefer fixed prices, hopefully cutcaster can still prove that wrong but it really doesn't look promising at the moment.
-
how do you estimate cost / effort looking at an image?? artistic quality... there are probably a handful of people in any city who can judge that (or none)
RM could be extended for variable web usage, based on seo rank / alexa rank - commercial / non commercial, etc. Even more power to google : ((
-
snip
Why should a group of models shot with a $5K 24MP DSLR be the same price as a brick wall shot with a $100 2MP pocket camera?
Because it shouldn't matter whether an image was taken with an expensive camera or a cheap camera. If the image is good, it shouldn't matter whether an exclusive took it or a non-exclusive took it. If it is a best-seller and it's making money, THAT's the deciding factor. If the image bombs, then by all means it should be eliminated from the collection. And the determinations about who gets to contribute should be all about the image, not about what camera that person shoots with or whether they are exclusive or not. My image that has sold 1,000 times should be worth just as much as an Agency image that has sold 1,000 times. Just as my image that has sold 0 times should be booted, just like an Agency image with 0 downloads should.
All images should be valued on how many times they have sold. Period. But exclusives aren't going to like that because human nature tends to make people think that they are better than someone else and they will constantly try to find someone who is lower in class than themselves. This is a business, not a human nature study.
I am all for raising contributor's prices but a whole bunch of exclusive contributors think that that they should be treated special just because they decided to go spend $5 or $30k on a camera. This business is about selling images, not about who has the biggest and best toys and who can play the game better.
I don't EVER expect to see my image which has sold over 1000 times move to the back of the sort just because I made a choice to stay independent or because I am not willing to keep spending tons of money on equipment or models or whatever. But that's what a whole bunch of exclusives at IS are on board to see happen. And really, Getty/IS themselves!
Now the game is all about who has what, not about how the images are selling. Like jsnover mentioned earlier in another thread, the eyes aren't on the ball anymore. They are on things like who spends the most money buying equipment or who sucks up to the IS admins the best.
As I mentioned, ultimately it's about the buyers perceived value and photos should be priced accordingly. How that pricing gets established is still up for debate.
For whatever reason you seem to be one of the people with a grudge against all exclusives and paint us all as self consumed. Your words shape your credibility.
There is favoritism everywhere in life. Human nature drives business and it affects everything and everybody, including exclusives. I've had zero Vetta images approved although at least a handful are as good or better than some people who seem to have been born with a Vetta spoon in their mouth.
-
how do you estimate cost / effort looking at an image?? artistic quality... there are probably a handful of people in any city who can judge that (or none)
It's easy. It doesn't have to be anything too exact, just for example three categories:
3=expensive/hard (a group of people in a location)
2=medium (decently lit objects, one person in studio etc.)
1=cheap/easy (brick wall in available light)
Artistic quality is a bit more difficult... also the "needed images" factor is a bit difficult.
Artistic quality could be as following:
3=high (a "stopper", an image that looks interesting, images with emotion, creative images)
2=medium (more elaborate object shots, good solid people shots)
1=low (isolated on white objects, basic people shots)
But the main point was that the that's only the starting price, the price will go up or down depending on the demand. Of course the system could work without a special starting price, but it might take an unnecessary long time for the image to hit the "sweet spot" because the system would only allow relatively slow price movements.
My fluctuating price system would be very rewarding for images that are in high demand and punish bad stuff. It would encourage people to submit quality instead of quantity. If you hit a jackpot with your image you could have an image that both sells well and sells at a high price.
With current systems you can either upload some mediocre stuff that gets downloaded 10 times, or put 10 times more time and effort to it to make an image that gets downloaded 100 times. Neither of these options make it possible to make MORE money for your work.
-
how do you estimate cost / effort looking at an image?? artistic quality... there are probably a handful of people in any city who can judge that (or none)
It's easy. It doesn't have to be anything too exact, just for example three categories:
3=expensive/hard (a group of people in a location)
2=medium (decently lit objects, one person in studio etc.)
1=cheap/easy (brick wall in available light)
It's not that easy.
I travel many thousands of miles to shoot.
Maybe someone local can shoot the same pics, and has more time to wait for excellent light etc, but it costs them much less.
(However, in the specific example I'm thinking of, there don't seem to be locals supplying the market.)
How would an editor decide on 'cost of production'?
-
how do you estimate cost / effort looking at an image?? artistic quality... there are probably a handful of people in any city who can judge that (or none)
It's easy. It doesn't have to be anything too exact, just for example three categories:
3=expensive/hard (a group of people in a location)
2=medium (decently lit objects, one person in studio etc.)
1=cheap/easy (brick wall in available light)
Artistic quality is a bit more difficult... also the "needed images" factor is a bit difficult.
Artistic quality could be as following:
3=high (a "stopper", an image that looks interesting, images with emotion, creative images)
2=medium (more elaborate object shots, good solid people shots)
1=low (isolated on white objects, basic people shots)
But the main point was that the that's only the starting price, the price will go up or down depending on the demand. Of course the system could work without a special starting price, but it might take an unnecessary long time for the image to hit the "sweet spot" because the system would only allow relatively slow price movements.
My fluctuating price system would be very rewarding for images that are in high demand and punish bad stuff. It would encourage people to submit quality instead of quantity. If you hit a jackpot with your image you could have an image that both sells well and sells at a high price.
okay, estimate the cost of this: (and effort? - what is that?)
http://lh3.ggpht.com/_fQ_dSgvRe_E/TPPpONUfCOI/AAAAAAAAAF4/HEJvnGM81rY/_MG_7541.jpg (http://lh3.ggpht.com/_fQ_dSgvRe_E/TPPpONUfCOI/AAAAAAAAAF4/HEJvnGM81rY/_MG_7541.jpg)
http://lh3.ggpht.com/_fQ_dSgvRe_E/TPPo13gs9kI/AAAAAAAAAF0/hlDk1wl__PU/_MG_7540.jpg (http://lh3.ggpht.com/_fQ_dSgvRe_E/TPPo13gs9kI/AAAAAAAAAF0/hlDk1wl__PU/_MG_7540.jpg)
Fotolia does smthng like that, don't they? you can increase your prices if you want after reaching a level. Yuri wrote increasing his prices a lot hardly effected sales. That shows the shots are too cheap. (doh, what a discovery).
-
It's not that easy.
I travel many thousands of miles to shoot.
Maybe someone local can shoot the same pics, and has more time to wait for excellent light etc, but it costs them much less.
(However, in the specific example I'm thinking of, there don't seem to be locals supplying the market.)
How would an editor decide on 'cost of production'?
This is a bit tricky, I admit. But as I said, this would be only one factor in the starting price and if the starting price is wrong it will either climb up or fall down.
In travel photography there is still the "effort" factory that applies, this could be interpreted
3=hard (model-released travel images, places that are clearly hard to access like mountain tops, aerial photos, underwater etc.)
2=medium (places shot clearly with tripods, night shots)
1=easy (tourist snapshots of places that are already shot to death)
-
It's not that easy.
I travel many thousands of miles to shoot.
Maybe someone local can shoot the same pics, and has more time to wait for excellent light etc, but it costs them much less.
(However, in the specific example I'm thinking of, there don't seem to be locals supplying the market.)
How would an editor decide on 'cost of production'?
This is a bit tricky, I admit. But as I said, this would be only one factor in the starting price and if the starting price is wrong it will either climb up or fall down.
In travel photography there is still the "effort" factory that applies, this could be interpreted
3=hard (model-released travel images, places that are clearly hard to access like mountain tops, aerial photos, underwater etc.)
2=medium (places shot clearly with tripods, night shots)
1=easy (tourist snapshots of places that are already shot to death)
I really wouldn't trust a reviewer to have that sort of general knowledge in all specialisms. I've seen too many badly-labelled images on all sites, even macros.
-
okay, estimate the cost of this: (and effort? - what is that?)
[url]http://lh3.ggpht.com/_fQ_dSgvRe_E/TPPpONUfCOI/AAAAAAAAAF4/HEJvnGM81rY/_MG_7541.jpg[/url] ([url]http://lh3.ggpht.com/_fQ_dSgvRe_E/TPPpONUfCOI/AAAAAAAAAF4/HEJvnGM81rY/_MG_7541.jpg[/url])
[url]http://lh3.ggpht.com/_fQ_dSgvRe_E/TPPo13gs9kI/AAAAAAAAAF0/hlDk1wl__PU/_MG_7540.jpg[/url] ([url]http://lh3.ggpht.com/_fQ_dSgvRe_E/TPPo13gs9kI/AAAAAAAAAF0/hlDk1wl__PU/_MG_7540.jpg[/url])
"effort" is how much work, time, skill, patience, photoshop work is needed for creating the shot.
I'd say your images may be in the highest category (at least in the medium category); released model, outdoor location with lighting and a classic car. Requires scheduling, planning and time.
-
okay, estimate the cost of this: (and effort? - what is that?)
[url]http://lh3.ggpht.com/_fQ_dSgvRe_E/TPPpONUfCOI/AAAAAAAAAF4/HEJvnGM81rY/_MG_7541.jpg[/url] ([url]http://lh3.ggpht.com/_fQ_dSgvRe_E/TPPpONUfCOI/AAAAAAAAAF4/HEJvnGM81rY/_MG_7541.jpg[/url])
[url]http://lh3.ggpht.com/_fQ_dSgvRe_E/TPPo13gs9kI/AAAAAAAAAF0/hlDk1wl__PU/_MG_7540.jpg[/url] ([url]http://lh3.ggpht.com/_fQ_dSgvRe_E/TPPo13gs9kI/AAAAAAAAAF0/hlDk1wl__PU/_MG_7540.jpg[/url])
"effort" is how much work, time, skill, patience, photoshop work is needed for creating the shot.
I'd say your images may be in the highest category (at least in the medium category); released model, outdoor location with lighting and a classic car. Requires scheduling, planning and time.
that's your cost estimate?
-
It's not that easy.
I travel many thousands of miles to shoot.
Maybe someone local can shoot the same pics, and has more time to wait for excellent light etc, but it costs them much less.
(However, in the specific example I'm thinking of, there don't seem to be locals supplying the market.)
How would an editor decide on 'cost of production'?
This is a bit tricky, I admit. But as I said, this would be only one factor in the starting price and if the starting price is wrong it will either climb up or fall down.
In travel photography there is still the "effort" factory that applies, this could be interpreted
3=hard (model-released travel images, places that are clearly hard to access like mountain tops, aerial photos, underwater etc.)
2=medium (places shot clearly with tripods, night shots)
1=easy (tourist snapshots of places that are already shot to death)
I really wouldn't trust a reviewer to have that sort of general knowledge in all specialisms. I've seen too many badly-labelled images on all sites, even macros.
Yes, but the main point is that it's just a part of the starting price calculation, and the price would change additionally according to the sales. Maybe the system would work with every image starting at a "medium" price point, who knows. The cost would be less when each image wouldn't have to be reviewed for pricing.
But the main point is that prices of "hot" images would go up and price of "bomb" images would go down. Also images that were hot years ago would get cheaper when their downloads goes down due to their age. Now at DT many old images suffer for their high price.
-
okay, estimate the cost of this: (and effort? - what is that?)
[url]http://lh3.ggpht.com/_fQ_dSgvRe_E/TPPpONUfCOI/AAAAAAAAAF4/HEJvnGM81rY/_MG_7541.jpg[/url] ([url]http://lh3.ggpht.com/_fQ_dSgvRe_E/TPPpONUfCOI/AAAAAAAAAF4/HEJvnGM81rY/_MG_7541.jpg[/url])
[url]http://lh3.ggpht.com/_fQ_dSgvRe_E/TPPo13gs9kI/AAAAAAAAAF0/hlDk1wl__PU/_MG_7540.jpg[/url] ([url]http://lh3.ggpht.com/_fQ_dSgvRe_E/TPPo13gs9kI/AAAAAAAAAF0/hlDk1wl__PU/_MG_7540.jpg[/url])
"effort" is how much work, time, skill, patience, photoshop work is needed for creating the shot.
I'd say your images may be in the highest category (at least in the medium category); released model, outdoor location with lighting and a classic car. Requires scheduling, planning and time.
that's your cost estimate?
it's cost and effort. It may not have cost you $$$ if the model is your friend and the car is yours. But it clearly has taken you much more time and effort to create these images than shooting an isolated apple.
It's also very much about perceived cost/effort. "How much money/work would be required if I shot a similar image myself?".
-
okay, estimate the cost of this: (and effort? - what is that?)
[url]http://lh3.ggpht.com/_fQ_dSgvRe_E/TPPpONUfCOI/AAAAAAAAAF4/HEJvnGM81rY/_MG_7541.jpg[/url] ([url]http://lh3.ggpht.com/_fQ_dSgvRe_E/TPPpONUfCOI/AAAAAAAAAF4/HEJvnGM81rY/_MG_7541.jpg[/url])
[url]http://lh3.ggpht.com/_fQ_dSgvRe_E/TPPo13gs9kI/AAAAAAAAAF0/hlDk1wl__PU/_MG_7540.jpg[/url] ([url]http://lh3.ggpht.com/_fQ_dSgvRe_E/TPPo13gs9kI/AAAAAAAAAF0/hlDk1wl__PU/_MG_7540.jpg[/url])
"effort" is how much work, time, skill, patience, photoshop work is needed for creating the shot.
I'd say your images may be in the highest category (at least in the medium category); released model, outdoor location with lighting and a classic car. Requires scheduling, planning and time.
that's your cost estimate?
it's cost and effort. It may not have cost you $$$ if the model is your friend and the car is yours. But it clearly has taken you much more time and effort to create these images than shooting an isolated apple.
It's also very much about perceived cost/effort. "How much money/work would be required if I shot a similar image myself?".
I only wanted to address cost, because affort... honestly I can't even comprehend that. F.e.: I remember once i wanted to shoot some christmas baubles because other than a few packshots at work, I hardly done any object shots, I wanted a little training for myself. It was very hard, became a total mess with the setup, trying to hang stuff, akward reflections.... It got me totally pissed and I gave up. : )) Compared to that, this was easy. See? If you had that job of setting an initial price upon inspection, you'd be the most hated person on earth : ) If you had a phone line ppl would be screaming at you 24/7 "do you know how * hard it is to set this up?????" : ))
-
@ shady: IMO, it doesn't matter how many miles you travelled to shoot the image. the quality of the end result is what matters. your comment only makes sense if those miles travelled added aesthetic value to your shot somehow, but of course they don't.
@ cathy: this isn't a schoolyard. you don't get a pat on the back and the same loot bag as all the other kids for shooting with crap equipment. I would also suggest that there is a strong relationship between the attitude of professionally ambitious photographers and their choice of equipment. that doesn't mean everyone needs to be shooting with $10K cameras....but to suggest that a buyer should pay the same for a point and shoot image versus something shot on a pro camera with pro glass is ridiculous. if it were that easy, none of us would have bothered upgrading our equipment. instead I'd be spending those thousands hiring pro models and sets and shooting it all on my iphone.
-
@ shady: IMO, it doesn't matter how many miles you travelled to shoot the image. the quality of the end result is what matters. your comment only makes sense if those miles travelled added aesthetic value to your shot somehow, but of course they don't.
[/quote]
I was only talking about the 'cost' of the shoot.
@ cathy: this isn't a schoolyard. you don't get a pat on the back and the same loot bag as all the other kids for shooting with crap equipment. I would also suggest that there is a strong relationship between the attitude of professionally ambitious photographers and their choice of equipment. that doesn't mean everyone needs to be shooting with $10K cameras....but to suggest that a buyer should pay the same for a point and shoot image versus something shot on a pro camera with pro glass is ridiculous. if it were that easy, none of us would have bothered upgrading our equipment. instead I'd be spending those thousands hiring pro models and sets and shooting it all on my iphone.
But here's the thing. Your iphone pics would probably be rejected. Doesn't mean the buyers wouldn't choose them. My BS was shot on a G9. Subsequent G9 shots have been rejected, and I don't try now.
Later in my top 10 are pics shot with a 350D, and scanned slides taken on Pentax Super A and MS5N. The scanned slides certainly wouldn't be accepted nowadays, yet they by far outsell shots taken recently on the 5D2. One of my auto-designated 'most popular files' is a scan of a slide shot with a compact film camera. (It had one early dl, then sat 13 months before it got another, yet it got to be a mpf.
For most purposes, the camera doesn't matter to the end user, only the image. What will be accepted on the sites is a totally different ball game.
-
...I really can't see why images for web/mobile etc. should be cheaper than for print.
There are a number of pricing models around. Cost plus some profit; regulated in some way (like power or water utilites); subscriptions; value based pricing (and probably others).
The size model is value based pricing - IOW you don't base the pricing on your cost to produce or deliver the image, but on the value it represents to the buyer. Print costs more than web because typically the expense (and budget) for print materials is much higher than that for web sites which in turn are higher than for a typical blog.
Pretty much any pricing model has some inequities or odd behavior, but I would really, really oppose a flat pricing model. I do sell quite a few XL and up and wouldn't want to give up the XS sales (which you'd price out of the market by raising to the flat level) or the huge $$ boost of the XXXL sales. You'd also have a problem moving to a flat pricing scheme with other big agencies keeping tiers as you'd likely lose a lot of the blog customers to other sites.
-
What's the answer?
42
I knew that was coming and I still laughed.
-
It really doesn't matter what model you choose: there will always be anomlies and images/contributers whose production model will be unfairly disadvantaged. And there are always unintended consequences. I have often thought that agencies should pay more (e.g. an extra 5% at (e.g. 100) sales etc. Not customers, agencies. After all, that file has long paid back its inspection and storage costs.
A good side effect might be that people would be more selective, not having their 'similars' putting the bonus at risk.
BUT who can guess which from a shoot will sell best: I can't - not for my own and not for others'. I often see similars where one has vastly outsold the other and I can't imagine why. So we might put up the 'wrong' one. Also, the buyers get less choice (the lower selling similars also sell, so some buyers prefer them and would lose out).
-
@shady:
mostly agree. however, I think Agency prices (in general) are justifiable (in general) because of the inspection standards that files are required to meet in order to be included in Agency. and that's the context of this discussion. Agency files are not all great. some are real head-scratchers just like some Vetta, but it's also the beginning stage of image absorption into the Agency collection. like Vetta, they'll overturn some of the acceptance/rejections into the collection in future to ensure the overall quality criteria are met (as advertised to buyers).
bottom line, buyers decide what works by buying. but it would be a fairly poor business model and recipe for disaster if iStock were truly trying to screw over buyers by offering sub-standard products at higher prices just for the sake of it. that argument in here is simply wishful thinking.
-
My take is that some of those 'forced into' the Agency collection were of a pretty 'average' standard. I don't really follow doings in Agency closely as it's not relevant to me, but most of those I've seen getting in from iStockers have been good, though some seem to me 'average' - but what do I know.
Vetta is all smoke and mirrors. At one time, wrong keywords seemed to be almost a necessity, but it's not so bad now.
-
It doesn't matter what size MP camera you have.....it's the ability to capture that selling shot. It's in the eye of the photographer where the good shot comes into play rather it was taken with a 10MP or a 24MP. Just because the equipment is expensive and the best doesn't mean the photographer has the eye for selling shots. If I inherited a million dollars and went out and bought the biggest and the best, it still doesn't mean I can shoot any better than someone with a 10MP camera.
-
^ that's only partly true and it's an oversimplified argument. again, if it were that easy, none of us would be wasting money on good equipment. there's always someone in any industry who wants to make the same money as other suppliers without the same investment.
-
^ that's only partly true and it's an oversimplified argument. again, if it were that easy, none of us would be wasting money on good equipment. there's always someone in any industry who wants to make the same money as other suppliers without the same investment.
I agree with you but what I'm trying to say is that it's in the photographer's eye. Yes you get better quality technically, but that doesn't always make a selling shot. It's in the eye of the photographer, and the photographers knowledge of composition and lighting. I'm not saying it's easy...
-
the best equipment doesn't buy you talent. but if you have talent to begin with, chances are you're going to evolve in terms of your equipment and invest in the improvement of your product. that investment should be apparent.
-
the best equipment doesn't buy you talent. but if you have talent to begin with, chances are you're going to evolve in terms of your equipment and invest in the improvement of your product. that investment should be apparent.
Exactly..... ;)
-
lol
-
A lot of the arguments in this thread in favor of midstock pricing (equipment costs, production costs, travel costs, etc) sound an awful lot like the arguments in favor of RM and traditional RF pricing a bunch of years ago.
The trads must be laughing their asses off at us while we cry "Photos are too expensive to produce to sell them for just $1!"
-
1. your comment has already been made three or four times, hence the discussion
2. TRADS and microstock contributors are arguably no longer mutually exclusive. there's a whole lot of overlap. I shoot both, I know lots of colleagues who do too...what's the big deal....
-
A lot of the arguments in this thread in favor of midstock pricing (equipment costs, production costs, travel costs, etc) sound an awful lot like the arguments in favor of RM and traditional RF pricing a bunch of years ago.
The trads must be laughing their asses off at us while we cry "Photos are too expensive to produce to sell them for just $1!"
it took something like 3 years for reality to pop up from behind the forced fanboy yipee attitude while getting totally ripped of. I saw how the bunch was prone to even lie about how things are going just keep the face, playing the lameass wow-imkool-sellingmypicturz character even picking on people who bother with flickr and real citique community sites, when I first started to investigate them on a photography forum (not this one). It was a very tarnsparent act, wouldn't fool a blind 5 year old, and being the no bullscheise guy, when I did more than schratch the surcface they suddenly turned into hissy little vampire chimpunks in an instant, full of pent up frustration : ) It was kindergarten without the cuteness...
-
My take is that some of those 'forced into' the Agency collection were of a pretty 'average' standard. I don't really follow doings in Agency closely as it's not relevant to me, but most of those I've seen getting in from iStockers have been good, though some seem to me 'average' - but what do I know.
Vetta is all smoke and mirrors. At one time, wrong keywords seemed to be almost a necessity, but it's not so bad now.
Agency simply comes from getty's executive order that istock do not dare to try to sell their pics at dollarbin prices. Vetta is a childish joke, I just browsed into it from the front page advertising that rouge lightbox in it. Wonderful stuff. It's 'artistic level' with that kitschy plastic appearance and infantile oversaturated my little pony colorpalette is almost on level with a village fairs shooting gallery visually. Just almost, not there yet. : ) There were two really cool shots on two pages, but the rest would make anyone not raised in a * barn wanna poke his own eyes out with a couple of crowbars.
-
the best equipment doesn't buy you talent. but if you have talent to begin with, chances are you're going to evolve in terms of your equipment and invest in the improvement of your product. that investment should be apparent.
Absolutely. Good equipment doesn't buy talent, but if you have talent, better equipment makes it a whole lot easier to make your artistic vision a reality.
When I started in stock, using my 10D and hot lights, it was really difficult to create the images I wanted. I had to shoot twice as many pictures as I do now in a given session, because chances were that motion blur or camera shake would ruin many of the shots. I also had to do a lot of work in post processing because the exposures and focus on the 10D and 20D were all over the place, plus it was impossible to get a stark white background out of hot lights. Can't tell you how many hours I spent dodging vast areas of gray out of backgrounds. What a nightmare!
Good equipment has made my life so much easier!!
OTOH, I think a lot of the pricing schemes suggested in this thread are staying too far from the mantra of Keep It Simple Stupid (KISS), which I firmly believe in. I can see a couple if different pricing tiers, but the differences between Agency/Vetta prices are so high in comparison to the rest of the collection, I worry that it confuses buyers. I think the price difference is greater than any perceived added value, in many cases.
-
snip
Why should a group of models shot with a $5K 24MP DSLR be the same price as a brick wall shot with a $100 2MP pocket camera?
Because it shouldn't matter whether an image was taken with an expensive camera or a cheap camera. If the image is good, it shouldn't matter whether an exclusive took it or a non-exclusive took it. If it is a best-seller and it's making money, THAT's the deciding factor. If the image bombs, then by all means it should be eliminated from the collection. And the determinations about who gets to contribute should be all about the image, not about what camera that person shoots with or whether they are exclusive or not. My image that has sold 1,000 times should be worth just as much as an Agency image that has sold 1,000 times. Just as my image that has sold 0 times should be booted, just like an Agency image with 0 downloads should.
All images should be valued on how many times they have sold. Period. But exclusives aren't going to like that because human nature tends to make people think that they are better than someone else and they will constantly try to find someone who is lower in class than themselves. This is a business, not a human nature study.
I am all for raising contributor's prices but a whole bunch of exclusive contributors think that that they should be treated special just because they decided to go spend $5 or $30k on a camera. This business is about selling images, not about who has the biggest and best toys and who can play the game better.
I don't EVER expect to see my image which has sold over 1000 times move to the back of the sort just because I made a choice to stay independent or because I am not willing to keep spending tons of money on equipment or models or whatever. But that's what a whole bunch of exclusives at IS are on board to see happen. And really, Getty/IS themselves!
Now the game is all about who has what, not about how the images are selling. Like jsnover mentioned earlier in another thread, the eyes aren't on the ball anymore. They are on things like who spends the most money buying equipment or who sucks up to the IS admins the best.
As I mentioned, ultimately it's about the buyers perceived value and photos should be priced accordingly. How that pricing gets established is still up for debate.
For whatever reason you seem to be one of the people with a grudge against all exclusives and paint us all as self consumed. Your words shape your credibility.
There is favoritism everywhere in life. Human nature drives business and it affects everything and everybody, including exclusives. I've had zero Vetta images approved although at least a handful are as good or better than some people who seem to have been born with a Vetta spoon in their mouth.
Well, I gotta hand it to you, with zero Vetta's and then seeing an admin with so many Vettas like this, I commend you on not being "bitter":
http://www.istockphoto.com/file_search.php?action=file&userID=709242&order=6 (http://www.istockphoto.com/file_search.php?action=file&userID=709242&order=6)
-
For whatever reason you seem to be one of the people with a grudge against all exclusives and paint us all as self consumed. Your words shape your credibility.
There is favoritism everywhere in life. Human nature drives business and it affects everything and everybody, including exclusives. I've had zero Vetta images approved although at least a handful are as good or better than some people who seem to have been born with a Vetta spoon in their mouth.
Au contrare, Paulie. I shoot with IS exclusives. They are in my CN (or Friends, whichever you prefer). I have NO grudge against exclusives at all. I do have problems with exclusives who think that having a $10k camera means that their image should be worth more just because they have a crown by their name, whether the image is good or not. Again, it's all about the image. If it's good, it will sell...doesn't matter what or who shot it.
You are the person who said "Why should a group of models shot with a $5K 24MP DSLR be the same price as a brick wall shot with a $100 2MP pocket camera?" If the brick wall image sells, what do you care what it was shot with? I might think from your statement that you hold a grudge against people who have best sellers and have spent less money than you on equipment. And I don't really care whether you think I'm credible or not. Too bad you made that remark because on the whole, I really think that most of what you say is spot on.
There is favoritism everywhere in life. Human nature drives business and it affects everything and everybody, including exclusives.
You are correct sir. That's exactly what I was pointing out about SOME of the exclusives at IS, except I used plain, everyday words. Words that you didn't think credible. ???
-
^ that's only partly true and it's an oversimplified argument. again, if it were that easy, none of us would be wasting money on good equipment. there's always someone in any industry who wants to make the same money as other suppliers without the same investment.
And if they succeed, their business model is superior.
-
Well, I gotta hand it to you, with zero Vetta's and then seeing an admin with so many Vettas like this, I commend you on not being "bitter":
[url]http://www.istockphoto.com/file_search.php?action=file&userID=709242&order=6[/url] ([url]http://www.istockphoto.com/file_search.php?action=file&userID=709242&order=6[/url])
For whatever reason, the editors seem to enjoy those simple headshots. I don't get it, but there you go.
-
Well, I gotta hand it to you, with zero Vetta's and then seeing an admin with so many Vettas like this, I commend you on not being "bitter":
[url]http://www.istockphoto.com/file_search.php?action=file&userID=709242&order=6[/url] ([url]http://www.istockphoto.com/file_search.php?action=file&userID=709242&order=6[/url])
For whatever reason, the editors seem to enjoy those simple headshots. I don't get it, but there you go.
It wouldn't have anything to do with said contributor also holding the position title of "Content Administrator" at IStockphoto, would it?
-
Well, I gotta hand it to you, with zero Vetta's and then seeing an admin with so many Vettas like this, I commend you on not being "bitter":
[url]http://www.istockphoto.com/file_search.php?action=file&userID=709242&order=6[/url] ([url]http://www.istockphoto.com/file_search.php?action=file&userID=709242&order=6[/url])
For whatever reason, the editors seem to enjoy those simple headshots. I don't get it, but there you go.
Another fact is that customers seem to enjoy them as well. They sell from consistently to very well.
-
My take on the gear is that the fancier more expensive gear allows one to make high quality images more easily. Sure, you could get the money shot of the eagle flying by with a point and shoot, but you would have to be both talented and incredibly lucky with the shutter lag and needing to get a lot closer to the eagle etc. With a pro setup with high speed tele and 10 FPS your chance of getting it would be much higher. The other advantage is that you could have a much more efficient workflow etc. (as lisa says, no more hours burning out the gray, taking multiple shots because so many have motion blur etc.). But the few hits you do get with cheaper gear should sell for just as much if they are in fact good enough quality.
-
Well, I gotta hand it to you, with zero Vetta's and then seeing an admin with so many Vettas like this, I commend you on not being "bitter":
[url]http://www.istockphoto.com/file_search.php?action=file&userID=709242&order=6[/url] ([url]http://www.istockphoto.com/file_search.php?action=file&userID=709242&order=6[/url])
For whatever reason, the editors seem to enjoy those simple headshots. I don't get it, but there you go.
I don't get why they're Vetta images, but they're decently done photos of "real" people and they buyers do seem to like them.... although I can't really imagine how they're being used - but I guess that's not the point.
-
I think I need to get all my relatives lined up and take mug shots...
I don't get why they're Vetta images, but they're decently done photos of "real" people and they buyers do seem to like them.... although I can't really imagine how they're being used - but I guess that's not the point.
If your click on his profile there is a link to an outside portfolio. In that port he has a "published" section. Some of those shots are shown there.
-
I think I need to get all my relatives lined up and take mug shots...
I don't get why they're Vetta images, but they're decently done photos of "real" people and they buyers do seem to like them.... although I can't really imagine how they're being used - but I guess that's not the point.
If your click on his profile there is a link to an outside portfolio. In that port he has a "published" section. Some of those shots are shown there.
yes, I've seen them published several tim s... almost always several of them together to suggest a sense of community to wich a product or service is offered. The photos can be simple, but are very well lighted, and the expressions are ok.. Others that have been "inspired" by this concept, and have very similar shots don't sell so much, even if these photos are offered at regular exclusive or not exclusive prices.
-
I think it's very poor manners to bring someone else's work into a public forum. anyone who does it deserves it right back as far as I'm concerned. as for the example at hand, regardless of what collection the editors deemed those photos to be in--that is one crazy talented photographer. I've admired his work since well before Vetta. Do I think all those images should be Vetta....actually no. but I have four Vetta images myself that I wouldn't have placed in Vetta, and the ones I wanted in Vetta weren't accepted into the collection.
the bottom line is that buyers are deciding what deserves to be paid for and what doesn't. iStock is a close knit community despite the actual size of the community. realistically, I would expect some visibility for inspectors--especially since they are inspectors because of their talent and ability to begin with.
there's a handful of other contributors who do 'real people' REALLY well and I watch new contributors try to rip it off all the time...poorly, with crap lighting. just because a portrait is perfectly simple doesn't mean it isn't perfect. those portraits are bang on.
-
I think it's very poor manners to bring someone else's work into a public forum. anyone who does it deserves it right back as far as I'm concerned. as for the example at hand, regardless of what collection the editors deemed those photos to be in--that is one crazy talented photographer. I've admired his work since well before Vetta. Do I think all those images should be Vetta....actually no. but I have four Vetta images myself that I wouldn't have placed in Vetta, and the ones I wanted in Vetta weren't accepted into the collection.
the bottom line is that buyers are deciding what deserves to be paid for and what doesn't. iStock is a close knit community despite the actual size of the community. realistically, I would expect some visibility for inspectors--especially since they are inspectors because of their talent and ability to begin with.
there's a handful of other contributors who do 'real people' REALLY well and I watch new contributors try to rip it off all the time...poorly, with crap lighting. just because a portrait is perfectly simple doesn't mean it isn't perfect. those portraits are bang on.
Singling out seems to be a new fashion... Not so many days ago, someone felt free to link another's istock contributor Vetta photo, with a vague excuse about another similar photo not being Vetta (photos were absolutely different concepts, hard to understand how a seasoned stock photographer couldn't see that). But well, the thread went on to hundreds of posts, so it seems its ok to post links and references to other peoples work.
-
unfortunately the downside to having a relative lack of moderation here is having to wade through all sorts of petty stuff. bad manners posting someone else's work, but bad manners seem to be the culture over here.
-
unfortunately the downside to having a relative lack of moderation here is having to wade through all sorts of petty stuff. bad manners posting someone else's work, but bad manners seem to be the culture over here.
Sorry, but as I mentioned before, I have no problem posting to others portfolios where there is an apparent conflict of interest, and as I mentioned before, i will do so again in the future regardless about how you feel about it. You seem to be applying IStock's forum rules over here. What moderation is needed? I didn't make any judgements about the quality of the work. I made an observation that a "Content Administrator" at IStockphoto has a portfolio with an abnormally large amount of Vetta files that don't seem to fit with the "Vetta" criteria as stated by IStockphoto. If that hurts your feelings, oh well. That's what the IGNORE button is for.
-
unfortunately the downside to having a relative lack of moderation here is having to wade through all sorts of petty stuff. bad manners posting someone else's work, but bad manners seem to be the culture over here.
So why exactly are you here?
Frankly, if one wants to express a view about istock besides wooyay, this is about the only place it can be discussed without getting locked. I don't mind at all wading through the bad manners because there are also a lot of folks here who are very knowledgeable and I appreciate that I can get news about ALL of the sites I submit to in one place. One has to learn to let the petty stuff go and glean the useful information from ANY forum, including istock's.
-
unfortunately the downside to having a relative lack of moderation here is having to wade through all sorts of petty stuff. bad manners posting someone else's work, but bad manners seem to be the culture over here.
Sorry, but as I mentioned before, I have no problem posting to others portfolios where there is an apparent conflict of interest, and as I mentioned before, i will do so again in the future regardless about how you feel about it. You seem to be applying IStock's forum rules over here. What moderation is needed? I didn't make any judgements about the quality of the work. I made an observation that a "Content Administrator" at IStockphoto has a portfolio with an abnormally large amount of Vetta files that don't seem to fit with the "Vetta" criteria as stated by IStockphoto. If that hurts your feelings, oh well. That's what the IGNORE button is for.
Very brave attitude.
Considering that you don't have any photos at IS, neither buy there, it is difficult to understand how Vetta's or Agency's supposed issues and the fact that some contributors are selling at really higher prices and getting more net profit, affects you. Unless, of course, we should look at it from a very intricate psychological level.
-
unfortunately the downside to having a relative lack of moderation here is having to wade through all sorts of petty stuff. bad manners posting someone else's work, but bad manners seem to be the culture over here.
Sorry, but as I mentioned before, I have no problem posting to others portfolios where there is an apparent conflict of interest, and as I mentioned before, i will do so again in the future regardless about how you feel about it. You seem to be applying IStock's forum rules over here. What moderation is needed? I didn't make any judgements about the quality of the work. I made an observation that a "Content Administrator" at IStockphoto has a portfolio with an abnormally large amount of Vetta files that don't seem to fit with the "Vetta" criteria as stated by IStockphoto. If that hurts your feelings, oh well. That's what the IGNORE button is for.
Very brave attitude.
Considering that you don't have any photos at IS, neither buy there, it is difficult to understand how Vetta's supposed issues and the fact that some contributors are selling at really higher prices and getting more net profit, affects you. Unless, of course, we should look at it from a very intricate psychological level.
At least one of us is brave, don't have the courage to reveal your identity yet?...lol!
New Forum Rule From User Loop (Who chooses to hide identity)
- There will be no posting on topics unless you have a vested interest in such topic.
-
so apparently a comletely public photo can be dragged into publicity. : ) amazing that this concept of the mentally challenged still pops up after 10+ years of internet : )
-
unfortunately the downside to having a relative lack of moderation here is having to wade through all sorts of petty stuff. bad manners posting someone else's work, but bad manners seem to be the culture over here.
Sorry, but as I mentioned before, I have no problem posting to others portfolios where there is an apparent conflict of interest, and as I mentioned before, i will do so again in the future regardless about how you feel about it. You seem to be applying IStock's forum rules over here. What moderation is needed? I didn't make any judgements about the quality of the work. I made an observation that a "Content Administrator" at IStockphoto has a portfolio with an abnormally large amount of Vetta files that don't seem to fit with the "Vetta" criteria as stated by IStockphoto. If that hurts your feelings, oh well. That's what the IGNORE button is for.
Very brave attitude.
Considering that you don't have any photos at IS, neither buy there, it is difficult to understand how Vetta's supposed issues and the fact that some contributors are selling at really higher prices and getting more net profit, affects you. Unless, of course, we should look at it from a very intricate psychological level.
At least one of us is brave, don't have the courage to reveal your identity yet?...lol!
New Forum Rule From User Loop (Who chooses to hide identity)
- There will be no posting on topics unless you have a vested interest in such topic.
If those are all the arguments you can gather... case ended.
-
unfortunately the downside to having a relative lack of moderation here is having to wade through all sorts of petty stuff. bad manners posting someone else's work, but bad manners seem to be the culture over here.
Sorry, but as I mentioned before, I have no problem posting to others portfolios where there is an apparent conflict of interest, and as I mentioned before, i will do so again in the future regardless about how you feel about it. You seem to be applying IStock's forum rules over here. What moderation is needed? I didn't make any judgements about the quality of the work. I made an observation that a "Content Administrator" at IStockphoto has a portfolio with an abnormally large amount of Vetta files that don't seem to fit with the "Vetta" criteria as stated by IStockphoto. If that hurts your feelings, oh well. That's what the IGNORE button is for.
Very brave attitude.
Considering that you don't have any photos at IS, neither buy there, it is difficult to understand how Vetta's supposed issues and the fact that some contributors are selling at really higher prices and getting more net profit, affects you. Unless, of course, we should look at it from a very intricate psychological level.
At least one of us is brave, don't have the courage to reveal your identity yet?...lol!
New Forum Rule From User Loop (Who chooses to hide identity)
- There will be no posting on topics unless you have a vested interest in such topic.
If those are all the arguments you can gather... case ended.
You're the one who implied there was something psycologically wrong with me for posting in a thread I didn't have an "obvious" interest in, correct?
If you're going to make such an implication, why choose to hide? I can respect people who want to remain anonymous, but to make such an implication and then hide behind an unknown alias seems cowardly, no?
If you change your mind, You can site mail me who you are, I promise I won't reveal it to the group, then I will publicy recount my coward statement for all to see. Thanks.
-
I think loop's point was that the loudest, ranty and usually inaccurate statements over here tend to come from people who don't actually do any business on iStock. why post so vehemently about something you know little to nothing about?
...edited to be less snarky
-
I think loop's point was that the loudest, most ranty and inaccurate statements over here tend to come from people who know squat about actually doing business on iStock. why on earth ARE you posting so vehemently about something you know little to nothing about?
MSG = Many iStock disGruntleds
Ah, I was just waiting for someone to throw out the old disgruntled word. Too funny!
What's that FD-regular always says just before hitting the button? Ploink!
edited: oops, she edited out the disgruntled word before I could post, good thing I quoted her
edited again: since SNP remains anonymous, not exactly sure if it's a he or she. No matter.
-
well thank you for restirring the pot I tried to unstir....I think most of the people here enjoy conflict. stupid me for trying to avoid it
-
well thank you for restirring the pot I tried to unstir....I think most of the people here enjoy conflict. stupid me for trying to avoid it
Seems to me you enjoy it too. Otherwise why even post when it's pretty obvious the reaction you are going to get as the official iStock cheerleader.
-
I think loop's point was that the loudest, ranty and usually inaccurate statements over here tend to come from people who don't actually do any business on iStock. why post so vehemently about something you know little to nothing about?
...edited to be less snarky
You can always use the ignore button. molka is up to 40 now :) I can't be bothered reading peoples posts if they are just 100% against microstck. I have done a lot of business with istock but I rant about them all the time. It's good to have a place where you can express your feelings without getting the thread locked. There's an anti istock bias here but I prefer it to the censorship on the istock forums. We can all make up our own minds about the credibility of the person expressing their opinions here, much better than having a biased forum moderator doing it for us.
-
well thank you for restirring the pot I tried to unstir....I think most of the people here enjoy conflict. stupid me for trying to avoid it
StaceyN, you are a die-hard IS fan. Why are you here? I asked that earlier, but you must have missed it. Seems to me if you think this forum is so worthless and full of ignorant people, you wouldn't even waste your time here. I think it is you that enjoys the conflict, else you would be over at the IS forum wooyaying. Oh wait...there isn't much to wooyay about, is there? ;)
Here is my post #83 since you apparently missed it the first time:
So why exactly are you here?
Frankly, if one wants to express a view about istock besides wooyay, this is about the only place it can be discussed without getting locked. I don't mind at all wading through the bad manners because there are also a lot of folks here who are very knowledgeable and I appreciate that I can get news about ALL of the sites I submit to in one place. One has to learn to let the petty stuff go and glean the useful information from ANY forum, including istock's.
-
(removed)
-
brilliant powers of deduction.
-
I think loop's point was that the loudest, ranty and usually inaccurate statements over here tend to come from people who don't actually do any business on iStock. why post so vehemently about something you know little to nothing about?
...edited to be less snarky
You can always use the ignore button. molka is up to 40 now :) I can't be bothered reading peoples posts if they are just 100% against microstck. I have done a lot of business with istock but I rant about them all the time. It's good to have a place where you can express your feelings without getting the thread locked. There's an anti istock bias here but I prefer it to the censorship on the istock forums. We can all make up our own minds about the credibility of the person expressing their opinions here, much better than having a biased forum moderator doing it for us.
good post. but, I don't agree that the lack of moderation breeds truth and freedom over here. where moderators are not present, thugs are. there are still a number of posters over here whose points of view I find very informative and of course a place offsite is good for getting some version of the real scoop when things are announced etc.
anyways, back to Agency -- my biggest beef with Agency is the exclusivity 'flexibility' for Agency contributors trucked in. no word from admin on that. I think it's unfair and BS that some contributors get flexible exclusivity. that's the biggest issue as far as I'm concerned about Agency.
-
(removed)
-
since you're new here, in general, no matter how much you dislike someone, we respect one anothers' anonymity. Cathy doesn't respect much of anything over here, but you might, since you;re new...and apologies. I hadn't noticed cathy used my name since I am ignoring her posts....
-
I've removed the posts (naming you), don't want to get off on the wrong foot :) Best.
-
since you're new here, in general, no matter how much you dislike someone, we respect one anothers' anonymity. Cathy doesn't respect much of anything over here, but you might, since you;re new...and apologies. I hadn't noticed cathy used my name since I am ignoring her posts....
Speak for yourself, I don't respect others' anonymity if they're going to use it to attack someone else.
-
I guess you have to have your principles.
so...any insights on what is going to happen with regard to Agency contributors brought in via Getty channels who don't have the same exclusivity requirements that the rest of us have? of all the issues surrounding the Agency Collection, this seems the most pressing and so far pretty much no word from admin about it. I would like the opportunity to sell my images elsewhere too. I adhere very strictly to my exclusivity agreement, which means I basically can sell my prints and custom work only in addition to selling through iStock.
I can't sell any files that are on iStock or resemble files on iStock as RM anywhere. but these new Agency contributors seem to be allowed to do all of that. I initially thought they'd be bound by image exclusivity requirements at least, but that doesn't even seem to be the case.
-
I can't sell any files that are on iStock or resemble files on iStock as RM anywhere. but these new Agency contributors seem to be allowed to do all of that. I initially thought they'd be bound by image exclusivity requirements at least, but that doesn't even seem to be the case.
I didn't know you couldn't sell them as RM on other sites. I always thought that you just couldn't sell them on other microstock sites. Did it use to be you could, because it seems people have talked about having their images on Alamy.
-
I didn't know you couldn't sell them as RM on other sites. I always thought that you just couldn't sell them on other microstock sites. Did it use to be you could, because it seems people have talked about having their images on Alamy.
As I understand it, Istock exclusives can sell RM elsewhere, but the images have to be completely different (and dissimilar) to the ones in their Istock portfolio. Also they cannot be Istock rejects.
-
I didn't know you couldn't sell them as RM on other sites. I always thought that you just couldn't sell them on other microstock sites. Did it use to be you could, because it seems people have talked about having their images on Alamy.
As I understand it, Istock exclusives can sell RM elsewhere, but the images have to be completely different (and dissimilar) to the ones in their Istock portfolio. Also they cannot be Istock rejects.
Ok...that's where I got it from. It kinds sucks they can't sale rejects as RM. I could see that would be the case where they were similar, but a totally different subject, I wouldn't understand. A lot of times those will sale elsewhere. Just glad I ain't exclusive and never will be... ;)
-
I didn't know you couldn't sell them as RM on other sites. I always thought that you just couldn't sell them on other microstock sites. Did it use to be you could, because it seems people have talked about having their images on Alamy.
As I understand it, Istock exclusives can sell RM elsewhere, but the images have to be completely different (and dissimilar) to the ones in their Istock portfolio. Also they cannot be Istock rejects.
Ok...that's where I got it from. It kinds sucks they can't sale rejects as RM. I could see that would be the case where they were similar, but a totally different subject, I wouldn't understand. A lot of times those will sale elsewhere. Just glad I ain't exclusive and never will be... ;)
In practice, you can ask CR to release a rejected photo to be sold as RM. The strict rules about 'completely different and dissimilar' is for iStockers selling on Getty, though it could be considered 'doubtful practice' to sell 'very similar' shots elsewhere.
-
since you're new here, in general, no matter how much you dislike someone, we respect one anothers' anonymity. Cathy doesn't respect much of anything over here, but you might, since you;re new...and apologies. I hadn't noticed cathy used my name since I am ignoring her posts....
from nruboc
Speak for yourself, I don't respect others' anonymity if they're going to use it to attack someone else.
Me neither. And by the way, check some of the other posts and threads. Many of us know who you are and have outed you, SNP. You only think you are anonymous. ;)
-
I didn't know you couldn't sell them as RM on other sites. I always thought that you just couldn't sell them on other microstock sites. Did it use to be you could, because it seems people have talked about having their images on Alamy.
As I understand it, Istock exclusives can sell RM elsewhere, but the images have to be completely different (and dissimilar) to the ones in their Istock portfolio. Also they cannot be Istock rejects.
Ok...that's where I got it from. It kinds sucks they can't sale rejects as RM. I could see that would be the case where they were similar, but a totally different subject, I wouldn't understand. A lot of times those will sale elsewhere. Just glad I ain't exclusive and never will be... ;)
In practice, you can ask CR to release a rejected photo to be sold as RM. The strict rules about 'completely different and dissimilar' is for iStockers selling on Getty, though it could be considered 'doubtful practice' to sell 'very similar' shots elsewhere.
yes exactly. and to be honest, it's such a convoluted process that I don't bother because I don't want to take the chance of infringing on my exclusivity. when I first read the ASA, I read it that anything we didn't have on iStock, we could sell as RM. but I contacted CR to be certain, and sure enough, as Sue says, you can't even sell similars. similar is such a subjective term that I just don't take the chance.
the only thing I sell outside of iStock is editorial and prints.
-
yes exactly. and to be honest, it's such a convoluted process that I don't bother because I don't want to take the chance of infringing on my exclusivity. when I first read the ASA, I read it that anything we didn't have on iStock, we could sell as RM. but I contacted CR to be certain, and sure enough, as Sue says, you can't even sell similars. similar is such a subjective term that I just don't take the chance.
That certainly isn't true.
-
is it true now? I spoke to CR two weeks ago about this very issue...I'll find my response and post it for everyone. I'd be very pleased if I was misreading it, would make life easier.
-
CR has been incorrect in the past. There is nothing in the definition of "exclusive content" that would include similars.
Whether or not the RM agency is interested in having uncontrollable similars in an RF collection is another story.
-
well I hope she was wrong. I spoke to CR, and then she sent me a follow up email which explicitly states I can't sell any photo I already have on iStock as RM anywhere, nor similars to that photo. I had asked in the context of researching avenues through which I can sell my editorial images. I was thinking of applying to Alamy to sell Editorial RM and wanted to be sure not to infringe on my exclusivity contract.
so I hope you're right Sean. because what you're saying is how I've always read the ASA.
-
@SNP, as I understand it if you take the image down from istock you can sell it as RM.
-
that's what she told me and that all similars could not be sold either as RM unless they too were deactivated. same for images from the same series etc. which is what I said above, but Sean you disagree?
-
that's what she told me and that all similars could not be sold either as RM unless they too were deactivated. same for images from the same series etc. which is what I said above, but Sean you disagree?
Absolutively. Nothing in the ASA about restricting usage of similars. I don't know where they're coming up with that.
-
well, even though I usually think you know more about iStock than iStock....in this case I'm going to err on the side of caution. don't want them to take away my poms poms you know. but further clarification would be good.
-
since you're new here, in general, no matter how much you dislike someone, we respect one anothers' anonymity. Cathy doesn't respect much of anything over here, but you might, since you;re new...and apologies. I hadn't noticed cathy used my name since I am ignoring her posts....
I find Cathy's posts to be interesting and informative. If I wanted to read happy talk from cheerleading muffin tossers, I'd be over at the istock forum.
-
I find Cathy's posts to be interesting and informative.
+1
Although I sympathize with wanting to be anonymous here, most of the regular posters are easy to identify by their personalities, opinions, syntax, etc.
I tried having an alias for awhile and it didn't take long for several people to figure out who I was. Haven't bothered with another one, because in order to protect my anonymity I would have to hide my personality and opinions, which seems like a lot of trouble... :)
-
since you're new here, in general, no matter how much you dislike someone, we respect one anothers' anonymity. Cathy doesn't respect much of anything over here, but you might, since you;re new...and apologies. I hadn't noticed cathy used my name since I am ignoring her posts....
I find Cathy's posts to be interesting and informative. If I wanted to read happy talk from cheerleading muffin tossers, I'd be over at the istock forum.
I like Cathy's posts too.
-
I like Cathy's posts too.
So do I. Very much so. Much better than SNP's worthless, unpunctuated drivel.
-
I like the diversity of opinions you get here, I think there's room for us all ..... exclusive, independant, pompoms or pitchforks.
-
If I wanted to read happy talk from cheerleading muffin tossers, I'd be over at the istock forum.
Well said, most people here haven't had a lobotomy
-
If I wanted to read happy talk from cheerleading muffin tossers, I'd be over at the istock forum.
Well said, most people here haven't had a lobotomy
Not yet anyway.
-
I like the diversity of opinions you get here, I think there's room for us all ..... exclusive, independant, pompoms or pitchforks.
lol. if we were playing some version of rock paper scissors...I think I'd prefer to have a pitchfork rather than poms poms. to be honest, the poms poms have been thrust on me each time I say anything positive about istock. in reality, there's much about iStock I've not been on board with. Yes, overall I'm really happy there. some of the smartest, nicest people I know have come out of meeting my peers through iStock. not to mention the spirit of mentoring and the income.
I think they just like their villains over here. enjoy the drama ;-)
-
If I wanted to read happy talk from cheerleading muffin tossers, I'd be over at the istock forum.
Well said, most people here haven't had a lobotomy
Not yet anyway.
Well, actually, I was Lobotomized about a month ago. The funny thing is, i don't miss whatever it was he took away ;D