MicrostockGroup Sponsors


Author Topic: Buyers Bailing on Istock  (Read 387793 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

« Reply #350 on: October 23, 2010, 22:12 »
0
  I think that there are a lot of buyers that worry about the security of Micro model ... releases in general. It can really hurt and has many times since Micro has been strong that there are legal problems. The agencies keep this pretty tight lipped for good reason but this isn't based on just opinion. There have been several cases of improper releases in Micro.

You are right there Jonathan - I know for an absolute fact that there are a fair number of contributors who "fake" model releases ... so this is a proper area of concern for some.


« Reply #351 on: October 23, 2010, 23:12 »
0
  I think that there are a lot of buyers that worry about the security of Micro model ... releases in general. It can really hurt and has many times since Micro has been strong that there are legal problems. The agencies keep this pretty tight lipped for good reason but this isn't based on just opinion. There have been several cases of improper releases in Micro.

You are right there Jonathan - I know for an absolute fact that there are a fair number of contributors who "fake" model releases ... so this is a proper area of concern for some.

Oh, crikey.  You mean they never phone a random sample of models at their given phone# (or write letters) and try to determine if they're fo' real, fo' sure?  I would think that using one's gut instincts one could pick out the likeliest suspects for this ... for example someone who has a lot of candid-looking photos of different people as opposed to having a stable of familiar models.

Even if the agencies spent very little time and effort doing this, I think it would be pretty good business practice to do it some, especially for a photog who appears to be "just too smooth or too * lucky" convincing dozens of complete strangers to sign releases.  And most important of all, let photogs know that your agency is going to be doing this and seriously scare them about the potential legal consequences of messing around.  Remember that Turkish guy who found his face on a can of Greek sardines, or whatever it was.

If there are many problems like that, or even a perception that there are a lot of problems, then I can see things moving away from crowdsourcing back to agencies using a stable, trusted handful of image factories.

« Reply #352 on: October 24, 2010, 08:01 »
0
snip
If there are many problems like that, or even a perception that there are a lot of problems, then I can see things moving away from crowdsourcing back to agencies using a stable, trusted handful of image factories.

Which is exactly what IS/Getty is in the process of doing.

PaulieWalnuts

  • We Have Exciting News For You
« Reply #353 on: October 24, 2010, 08:36 »
0
If there are many problems like that, or even a perception that there are a lot of problems, then I can see things moving away from crowdsourcing back to agencies using a stable, trusted handful of image factories.

I think the fact that a protection program, or whatever it's called, is now being offered at an extra cost is a good sign that there's a problem.

« Reply #354 on: October 24, 2010, 09:27 »
0
If there are many problems like that, or even a perception that there are a lot of problems, then I can see things moving away from crowdsourcing back to agencies using a stable, trusted handful of image factories.

I think the fact that a protection program, or whatever it's called, is now being offered at an extra cost is a good sign that there's a problem.

I remain unconvinced.  It could just be an marketing exercise, a way to both get revenue and sow fear and doubt of other agencies that don't have such a program.  Think Death Panels.

« Reply #355 on: October 24, 2010, 10:11 »
0
I think that there are a lot of buyers that worry about the security of Micro model and property releases in general. It can really hurt and has many times since Micro has been strong that there are legal problems. The agencies keep this pretty tight lipped for good reason but this isn't based on just opinion. There have been several cases of improper releases in Micro.


What makes you think that this is an issue confined to micro? All the well publicised cases I've heard of relate to images from 'macro' agencies. Remember this one earlier this year?

http://www.swedishwire.com/politics/5363-greek-gets-compensation-over-turkish-yoghurt-

Can you detail any of the cases you are referring to in micro? I haven't heard of any. In my experience micro have generally been tighter on releases than the majority of macro agencies and they are getting more so every year. There's a general mis-conception that micro are always playing catch-up to the macros but in fact it mostly works the other way around.

« Reply #356 on: October 24, 2010, 10:26 »
0
And that case wasn't caused by an improper model release anyway - there was no MR, the photographer had never claimed there was, the image was reportedly listed as RM Editorial, and it was the dairy in question that had used the image illegally, so not really relevant at all...

« Reply #357 on: October 24, 2010, 12:53 »
0
Hi SJ,

 Yes but our work is released as No release as editorial or documentary leaving us and the agencies clear with their contracts. I am talking about false releases which have been a problem in Micro more than the other markets. Non released images of the right subject can still make great returns but if I have my choice when receiving files I would much rather have them released, larger market for the images means higher returns. It is the lifestyle stuff that will get you in the biggest trouble if not properly released. We take photos of our models holding up their signed releases and smiling, and we have a witness at every signing, photographer can't sign release.

Jonathan

« Reply #358 on: October 24, 2010, 14:09 »
0
The two problem areas I see in micro for buyers are people who falsify releases or don't follow proper practices, and the "image thief" type contributors.

In travel imagery, I'm starting to see a lot more model released indigenous shots - now its possible that the photographers get the document explained to people who can't read and that this is in their native language, track down the child's parents and do the same, as they're passing through - or its possible that they just get someone to sign a bit of paper for an extra dollar.

ShadySue

  • There is a crack in everything
« Reply #359 on: October 24, 2010, 14:23 »
0
The two problem areas I see in micro for buyers are people who falsify releases or don't follow proper practices, and the "image thief" type contributors.
In travel imagery, I'm starting to see a lot more model released indigenous shots - now its possible that the photographers get the document explained to people who can't read and that this is in their native language, track down the child's parents and do the same, as they're passing through - or its possible that they just get someone to sign a bit of paper for an extra dollar.
When this has been discussed in the iStock forums (many's the time and oft) there are always togs who claim either that they just pay money and get signatures that way; or that they just ask people to 'OK the paperwork' - I've been told more than once (on and off forum) that I shouldn't tell potential subjects 'worse case scenario', just vaguely say, as they claim to, that the pics will be used 'for adverts and such'.
In developing countries, I realise that just offering small amounts of money would guarantee signatures: in some, I can't imagine trying to explain, even if I knew the language, all the uses they could be used for to people who have never seen magazines, TV, internet or hoardings. I can also imagine how difficult it would be, for example, to establish that the adult eager to sign for a few dollars was actually the parent of a particular child.
« Last Edit: October 24, 2010, 18:35 by ShadySue »

« Reply #360 on: October 24, 2010, 17:54 »
0
I am talking about false releases which have been a problem in Micro more than the other markets.

I asked before. Is there any chance whatsoever that you can substantiate your bizarre statements with any actual examples or factual statistics? Just two or three examples would do for now (out of the 600M+ microstock images sold per annum, probably about 2 billion since it started). Otherwise I can't help thinking that your statements are as much a fantasy of your own mind as most of your supposed sales figures turn out to be.

No? Thought not.

« Reply #361 on: October 24, 2010, 19:58 »
0
Hey Gostywick,

 I don't know what makes you so aggressive towards my posts but I am not interested in going backwards in life, I have taken responsibility over every mistake I have posted, ahh 2 this week and anything else I have been incorrect about. I might just make a false post on your birthday as a little gift, my mistakes seem to make your day ;D Please if you doubt me there is nothing I can do about it. Do others find this a bit unnecessary or is it just me?

Best,
Jonathan

« Reply #362 on: October 24, 2010, 20:23 »
0
One more thing G,

 If I am so full of crap why do all these companies and expos ask me to come speak on stock. Do you have a better grip on the business than the people running things out there. You have to be asked to speak at these functions you don't just show up. So it sounds like you are saying ASMP, PACA, PHOTO PLUS and several others are all ignorant and I have pulled the wool over all their eyes. Why do these people keep asking me to come and speak. Please if you can offer a logical explanation I am all ears. I await your reply.

Jonathan

« Reply #363 on: October 24, 2010, 21:05 »
0
I have also not heard of any big problems with faked releases on micro sites.

I assume you are asked, because like Yuri, you place an emphasis on marketing yourself to photographers.  And because from past experience, you're likely to say yes.

« Reply #364 on: October 24, 2010, 22:50 »
0
 Hi SJ,

  The information I said about model release problems is a problem, it has been in RM and RF and has existed since the dawn of stock. However, there has been an exceeded growth of the problem since Micro has joined the business. This only makes sense in numbers alone. I was not trying to point a finger at Micro it has just opened the opportunity for more release issues purely on the numbers of images that Micro have added ( do the numbers, as well as adding less professional business people than who used to produce for stock, I am not making that up it's just a fact ).
 I believe I just answered this but I am happy to repeat myself. I do not market myself to other photographers, I share on forums information that I think might help others. If I wanted to market to photographers I would build a Blog. I work at these gatherings and lectures to meet new people in the business and rub shoulders with the most influential people in the business, that is what helps myself and the companies I am owner in as well as to learn more and more about the industry itself. I am invited by these groups and seem to hold their respect for being factual and supportive to the photographic community.
 
Best
Jonathan

« Reply #365 on: October 25, 2010, 00:45 »
0
The two problem areas I see in micro for buyers are people who falsify releases or don't follow proper practices, and the "image thief" type contributors.

In travel imagery, I'm starting to see a lot more model released indigenous shots - now its possible that the photographers get the document explained to people who can't read and that this is in their native language, track down the child's parents and do the same, as they're passing through - or its possible that they just get someone to sign a bit of paper for an extra dollar.

This exacty - I travel a lot and to very far away and remote places, especially in Asia - yet I see model released images of people in places I have been where I know there are no addresses, no phones, etc (for example the mountains in Burma and in remotest Mongolia)  - and the internet? They don't even really know what a computer is - and this is why people think they are safe model releases to fake because the people pictured have no access to modern technology of any sort and have virtually zero chance of ever knowing that their image is for sale somewhere. Even if by some miracle they did find out, so what? It's not like they could do anything about it anyway. 

RacePhoto

« Reply #366 on: October 25, 2010, 01:03 »
0
Hi SJ,

  The information I said about model release problems is a problem, it has been in RM and RF and has existed since the dawn of stock. However, there has been an exceeded growth of the problem since Micro has joined the business. This only makes sense in numbers alone. I was not trying to point a finger at Micro it has just opened the opportunity for more release issues purely on the numbers of images that Micro have added ( do the numbers, as well as adding less professional business people than who used to produce for stock, I am not making that up it's just a fact ).
 I believe I just answered this but I am happy to repeat myself. I do not market myself to other photographers, I share on forums information that I think might help others. If I wanted to market to photographers I would build a Blog. I work at these gatherings and lectures to meet new people in the business and rub shoulders with the most influential people in the business, that is what helps myself and the companies I am owner in as well as to learn more and more about the industry itself. I am invited by these groups and seem to hold their respect for being factual and supportive to the photographic community.
 
Best
Jonathan

Oh good, could you possibly get me the email address for one person with Getty or Corbis that handles the editorial section, so I can ask them my simple question, which I've been trying to get someone to answer for over a year? Since you are "rubbing elbows" maybe I can finally get through to a human.
 
I believe someone asked a simple enough question, which I'd ask anyone making a broad claim. Do you have any proof or statistics related to fraudulent model releases being more prevalent in Micro than Macro, or more than historically in the stock industry? Something beyond the hypothetical assumption, professionals vs crowd source. Personal opinion, no matter how connected or how much of an industry insider you are?

To answer one more point:

Bernard Lawrence "Bernie" Madoff
Charles Ponzi
Billie Sol Estes
Charles Dawson
Frank Abagnale, Jr.
Christopher Rocancourt
Kenneth Lay

:D :D :D

« Reply #367 on: October 25, 2010, 02:30 »
0
The two problem areas I see in micro for buyers are people who falsify releases or don't follow proper practices, and the "image thief" type contributors.

In travel imagery, I'm starting to see a lot more model released indigenous shots - now its possible that the photographers get the document explained to people who can't read and that this is in their native language, track down the child's parents and do the same, as they're passing through - or its possible that they just get someone to sign a bit of paper for an extra dollar.

This exacty - I travel a lot and to very far away and remote places, especially in Asia - yet I see model released images of people in places I have been where I know there are no addresses, no phones, etc (for example the mountains in Burma and in remotest Mongolia)  - and the internet? They don't even really know what a computer is - and this is why people think they are safe model releases to fake because the people pictured have no access to modern technology of any sort and have virtually zero chance of ever knowing that their image is for sale somewhere. Even if by some miracle they did find out, so what? It's not like they could do anything about it anyway. 

Its very true that the chances of there being consequences are very slim, it doesn't make it right though. I also see MR images from out of the way places I've been where I know it would be almost impossible to get legitimate model releases.

As a photographer by submitting a model release you're claiming the person has consented to have their image used commercially. If they haven't in fact done so, and particularly if you're faking releases its a black and white case of fraud - you're faking a legal document for personal financial gain - which is a crime in most countries.

It annoys me that I get rejections for an unrecognizable person in the background of an image that's something like 10 pixels high, while others are making it to the front of searches with dubious model releases.

Microbius

« Reply #368 on: October 25, 2010, 03:51 »
0
All the high profile release scandals I can recall have been in macro.
I don't remember ever hearing any evidence of a greater problem in micro.
The big micro shooters who use pro models have as much to  lose as the macro shooters if they get locked down, while the small timers mainly shoot their families and people they know, no problems getting releases signed there.
Travel shots are an exception, but no more so on micro then macro.
Jonathan, you need to be a little bit more careful, your percentage of slip ups is looking a little high, word gets round in micro a lot faster then in macro I think.
Maybe if you are just guessing based on there being more people in micro than macro you should say I guess, or I think, or I feel, like you are discussing the issue rather than handing out wisdom?

« Reply #369 on: October 25, 2010, 05:48 »
0
'However, there has been an exceeded growth of the problem since Micro has joined the business. This only makes sense in numbers alone. I was not trying to point a finger at Micro it has just opened the opportunity for more release issues purely on the numbers of images that Micro have added ( do the numbers, as well as adding less professional business people than who used to produce for stock, I am not making that up it's just a fact ). '

This is what's known as 'conjecture'. 'A conjecture is a proposition that is unproven but appears correct and has not been disproven.'

Like I said, the conferences like to invite you because they know you put on a good show for photographers ( I assume you do), and that's what helps them up their attendance figures to make more cash.  What is going to make more money for them - 'J Ross tells how to make big money in stock' or 'SJ recommends not training your competition' - lol!

« Reply #370 on: October 25, 2010, 06:33 »
0
... And so what, with "devolutions"? With more than 80,000 files licensed daily (one every second) is absolutely normal to have a little fraction of this figure returned, for a variety of reasons. Now and then I get the odd regular license returned; normally, to buy a different size, often bigger. I've sold a lot of ELs; not a single one returned. I've sold also a lot of Vettas: just one returned, "dind't fit customer's project". It's ok with me.

PaulieWalnuts

  • We Have Exciting News For You
« Reply #371 on: October 25, 2010, 07:04 »
0
... And so what, with "devolutions"? With more than 80,000 files licensed daily (one every second) is absolutely normal to have a little fraction of this figure returned, for a variety of reasons. Now and then I get the odd regular license returned; normally, to buy a different size, often bigger. I've sold a lot of ELs; not a single one returned. I've sold also a lot of Vettas: just one returned, "dind't fit customer's project". It's ok with me.

I've had more refunds in the past month than I've had in the past year and this is trend is not okay with me. Mostly "didn't fit". You couldn't figure out it didn't fit before buying it?

I think for each refund the customer information should be provided. I wonder how many of these refunds end up with the image being used anyway, whether accidentally or intentionally. What percentage of buyers actually destroy the image? C'mon.

« Reply #372 on: October 25, 2010, 10:17 »
0
However, there has been an exceeded growth of the problem since Micro has joined the business. This only makes sense in numbers alone. I was not trying to point a finger at Micro it has just opened the opportunity for more release issues purely on the numbers of images that Micro have added ( do the numbers, as well as adding less professional business people than who used to produce for stock, I am not making that up it's just a fact ).
I'm not 'being aggressive' to you Jonathon, I'm quite justifiably asking you to verify the source data on which your broad sweeping statements are made. It is no surprise to me that of course you have no data. Nobody other than perhaps Getty, who have a substantial stake in both micro and macro, can possibly know the truth behind your conjecture and as that information would be commercially sensitive it's unlikely that they'd be sharing it. They wouldn't want to be frightening their customers would they?

You strike me as exactly the sort of person that regurgitates myths and fallacies endlessly so that eventually they become 'the truth'. I guess you need to have something to speak about at these 'conferences'.

I'm absolutely with SJL on the conference issue too. The difference between me being able to make a living at this and not doing so is primarily down to the specialist knowledge I have in my chosen niches. I share that knowledge with my brother and a few close friends within microstock but certainly not with 'the world'. I wouldn't accept invitations to speak or write a book for less than $100K because that's the sort of money I could lose over the next few years by doing so.  To put that into context I recently met up for a chat with one of our learned members on this forum. They confided in me that one particular conceptual 'prop' on which they had based a series of images had already netted them over $50K. I can guarantee that they won't be 'sharing' that with the world any time soon either.

It was more than a little ironic that Yuri was on the platform a couple of years ago telling everyone who would listen how much money was to be made in microstock __ and the next year he was back complaining about all the competition and how difficult it was to get a worthwhile return on a shoot. Then there are his 'apprentices' too who, having been invited into his studio, are now churning out virtual replicas of his best-selling images as fast as they can.

« Reply #373 on: October 25, 2010, 12:51 »
0
 Hi All,

 If you can't figure out that release issues would climb when 6 million images are added from all corners of the world then that is your choice. I have heard many different explanations from people that own agencies I respect their opinion and i will take their positions in the ownership of agencies experiencing this over some of the people on this site. I am not going to share names of my sources out of respect to them. Why do I want to say something that hurts my business, think about it. We are all in this business together and bad press hurts all of us not just the few. I would like to see this issue covered tighter by all the agencies, what seems to be the trouble with that.

 Gostywk you don't do anything but be aggressive with my posts, maybe you are not aware of that.

"Otherwise I can't help thinking that your statements are as much a fantasy of your own mind as most of your supposed sales figures turn out to be. I thought not!" I find this aggressive but maybe it's just me and this is common for your interaction with others. Since my knowledge is based on nothing but conjecture then it is time to sign off this post and move on.

Good Luck,
Jonathan

RT


« Reply #374 on: October 25, 2010, 13:52 »
0
I would like to see this issue covered tighter by all the agencies, what seems to be the trouble with that.

Jonathan,

I'll put aside the opinions of others about your knowledge of whether people falsify releases or not, I won't even comment about your 'bat phone' direct line to the agency owners.

But in regards to this part of your statement that I've quoted above, in an ideal world I'm sure we'd all like to see this happen, but varying data protection laws around the world and a real life practicality issue means that it'll never be foolproof, even Gettys guarantee doesn't actually mean much because they can't guarantee the information, they're just insured against it.


 

Related Topics

  Subject / Started by Replies Last post
30 Replies
17294 Views
Last post October 23, 2010, 14:12
by gbalex
18 Replies
5817 Views
Last post November 24, 2011, 15:34
by lagereek
162 Replies
33330 Views
Last post May 14, 2012, 10:27
by jbryson
20 Replies
7321 Views
Last post February 14, 2013, 17:41
by Poncke
9 Replies
4677 Views
Last post January 15, 2014, 19:56
by djpadavona

Sponsors

Mega Bundle of 5,900+ Professional Lightroom Presets

Microstock Poll Results

Sponsors