Author Topic: Another case of faux-exclusivity? (Read 6403 times)

dirkr · « **on:** September 30, 2014, 04:36 »

Or another case of big scale theft?

Exclusive Istock contributor:

http://www.istockphoto.com/portfolio/westend_61#e0551bb

Portfolio on 123RF:

http://www.123rf.com/profile_tunedin123/new/

Interesting name of the Istock contributor, no idea if this is really related to the German agency Westend 61 or if somebody just chose that name.

I came across that example on a German stock forum, thought it might be worth a post here.

gostwyck · « **Reply #1 on:** September 30, 2014, 05:04 »

It appears that they only joined IS in August and have only 5 sales since. I thought you needed 250+ sales to become exclusive?

Looks like it may be another 'special' deal that Istock has done. As we've been told many times ... "Professionals deal with professionals".

Sean Locke Photography · « **Reply #2 on:** September 30, 2014, 05:36 »

WestEnd is definitely a macro agency. Maybe they have a low end micro portfolio: http://www.michaeljayfoto.com/distribution-channels/signing-a-macro-content/

moniet · « **Reply #3 on:** September 30, 2014, 15:38 »

...and very quick they have changed the name

http://www.istockphoto.com/profile/tuned_in [nofollow]

gostwyck · « **Reply #4 on:** September 30, 2014, 17:01 »

Quote from: moniet on September 30, 2014, 15:38

...and very quick they have changed the name

http://www.istockphoto.com/profile/tuned_in

Well spotted! Of course that can only be done with Istock's assistance ....

Karen · « **Reply #5 on:** October 26, 2014, 14:41 »

iStock has no shame and no respect for his clients and contributors.

iStock is lying by selling these photos as "Only from iStock"
http://www.istockphoto.com/photo/young-blonde-woman-against-white-background-confident-49645520
And making them available everywhere else
http://www.123rf.com/photo_32385238_young-blonde-woman-against-white-background-confident.html

Making these special deals behind the scene is like spitting in clients and contributors faces.

Sean Locke Photography · « **Reply #6 on:** October 26, 2014, 14:58 »

Why did they change their IS name? So they wouldn't be caught at something?

loop · « **Reply #7 on:** October 26, 2014, 16:59 »

But they have some photos uploaded in 2010.

Jo Ann Snover · « **Reply #8 on:** October 26, 2014, 18:44 »

Quote from: loop on October 26, 2014, 16:59

But they have some photos uploaded in 2010.

The profile page says a member since August 2014, so I'm guessing that date was changed to be the date it was shot - didn't they talk about doing that for Getty images ingested a few years back to avoid messing with best match?

r2d2 · « **Reply #9 on:** October 27, 2014, 07:05 »

http://macrostock.blogspot.de/2014/09/community.html

In this german article Westend explains why they offer now on microstockagencys.
Supposedly predominantly there are only old pictures that would be otherwise deleted.

cuppacoffee · « **Reply #10 on:** October 27, 2014, 08:49 »

Isn't it nice that he/she/they consider microstock a dumping ground for "old pictures that would be otherwise deleted"?

r2d2 · « **Reply #11 on:** October 27, 2014, 09:33 »

Quote from: cuppacoffee on October 27, 2014, 08:49

Isn't it nice that he/she/they consider microstock a dumping ground for "old pictures that would be otherwise deleted"?

That does not surprise me especially the managing director of Westend has months before in a german forum microstock contributors offended because they deliver to microstock agencies.

JPSDK · « **Reply #12 on:** October 27, 2014, 12:24 »

Quote from: Karen on October 26, 2014, 14:41

iStock has no shame and no respect for his clients and contributors.

iStock is lying by selling these photos as "Only from iStock"
http://www.istockphoto.com/photo/young-blonde-woman-against-white-background-confident-49645520
And making them available everywhere else
http://www.123rf.com/photo_32385238_young-blonde-woman-against-white-background-confident.html

Making these special deals behind the scene is like spitting in clients and contributors faces.

I like this post
Istock has always been spitting us in the face. It just gets worse and worse. Its like every dirty trick that can be done, will be done and there are no limits and no decency at all. Half of the things they do are illegal, and they would fall tomorrow if the rule of law was applied to them. Which it should be.

akaWinning · « **Reply #13 on:** October 27, 2014, 22:40 »

Well that article would explain it then, because I see nothing in the IS portfolio that I would consider any thing more than just "average" or "barely adequate", when taking the whole of the photographs into consideration....

MichaelJayFoto · « **Reply #14 on:** October 28, 2014, 01:31 »

Quote from: akaWinning on October 27, 2014, 22:40

Well that article would explain it then, because I see nothing in the IS portfolio that I would consider any thing more than just "average" or "barely adequate", when taking the whole of the photographs into consideration....

Well, that's the beauty of microstock, isn't it? Anyone can play along, and in the end it's up to the customer to decide which of the images they are going to license for their project.

Jo Ann Snover · « **Reply #15 on:** October 28, 2014, 09:26 »

I wouldn't see microstock as a dumping ground, but a lower priced outlet. You start selling things at the highest price you think you can get and when you've exhausted that, you offer them at a discounted price, often elsewhere.

That seems pretty reasonable in principle. If the images are not outdated (because of cell phones the size of a brick, or other obsolete props/fashions) people may buy an image for $10 that they wouldn't have for $100 or more. iStock's expensive collection may not be the best place for these images though as they're pretty run-of-the-mill.

Uncle Pete · « **Reply #16 on:** October 28, 2014, 11:27 »

That's why I like Alamy. Good quality image and it's in. Let the buyers decide. If some microstock agency had the same concept, we'd see millions of LCV images, and I'm not sure that's really a bad thing? Let the buyers decide...

Quote from: MichaelJayFoto on October 28, 2014, 01:31

Well, that's the beauty of microstock, isn't it? Anyone can play along, and in the end it's up to the customer to decide which of the images they are going to license for their project.

MicrostockGroup Sponsors

Author Topic: Another case of faux-exclusivity? (Read 6403 times)

dirkr

gostwyck

Sean Locke Photography

moniet

gostwyck

Karen

Sean Locke Photography

loop

Jo Ann Snover

r2d2

cuppacoffee

r2d2

JPSDK

akaWinning

MichaelJayFoto

Jo Ann Snover

Uncle Pete

Related Topics

Sponsors

Microstock Poll Results

Sponsors