Author Topic: E+ on getty (Read 10278 times)

stockxfoto · « **on:** July 14, 2013, 02:23 »

just wondering how you exclusives are doing with your new E+ files on Getty? Is it helping much?
...and also how many exclusive photos are there on istock? anyone know?
Thanks

MichaelJayFoto · « **Reply #1 on:** July 14, 2013, 03:01 »

Quote from: stockxfoto on July 14, 2013, 02:23

...and also how many exclusive photos are there on istock? anyone know?

Nobody knows exact numbers but if you do searches with popular terms you will find that 50-55% of results are exclusive. And the total numbers of files seems to be around 14.5 million at the moment.

Quote from: stockxfoto on July 14, 2013, 02:23

just wondering how you exclusives are doing with your new E+ files on Getty? Is it helping much?

You will get different answers from contributors. It never worked for me, even with 300-400 images online at Getty I hardly ever had any sales at all. Some others are reporting that GI Sales makes some 20% of their overall royalties on iStock.

Gannet77 · « **Reply #2 on:** July 14, 2013, 03:32 »

My GI Sales account for between about 12% and 22% of my total royalties, with 391 images there.

Working well I'd say.

ShadySue · « **Reply #3 on:** July 14, 2013, 04:43 »

Quote from: stockxfoto on July 14, 2013, 02:23

...and also how many exclusive photos are there on istock? anyone know?
Thanks

I don't think anyone can know, because a proportion of the 'only on iStock' images are pseudo, quasi or faux-exclusive, and can be found furth of the 'Getty family', far less 'only on iStock'.
It would be interesting to know what proportion of 'only on iStock' images are actually found 'only on iStock', i.e. not on Getty, PP or other places.

shudderstok · « **Reply #4 on:** July 14, 2013, 18:36 »

Quote from: ShadySue on July 14, 2013, 04:43

Quote from: stockxfoto on July 14, 2013, 02:23
...and also how many exclusive photos are there on istock? anyone know?
Thanks
I don't think anyone can know, because a proportion of the 'only on iStock' images are pseudo, quasi or faux-exclusive, and can be found furth of the 'Getty family', far less 'only on iStock'.
It would be interesting to know what proportion of 'only on iStock' images are actually found 'only on iStock', i.e. not on Getty, PP or other places.

this might be splitting hairs, but it's "only 'from' iStock" which is totally different from "only 'on' iStock".

ShadySue · « **Reply #5 on:** July 14, 2013, 18:40 »

Quote from: shudderstok on July 14, 2013, 18:36

Quote from: ShadySue on July 14, 2013, 04:43
Quote from: stockxfoto on July 14, 2013, 02:23
...and also how many exclusive photos are there on istock? anyone know?
Thanks
I don't think anyone can know, because a proportion of the 'only on iStock' images are pseudo, quasi or faux-exclusive, and can be found furth of the 'Getty family', far less 'only on iStock'.
It would be interesting to know what proportion of 'only on iStock' images are actually found 'only on iStock', i.e. not on Getty, PP or other places.

this might be splitting hairs, but it's "only 'from' iStock" which is totally different from "only 'on' iStock".

That's what Lobo said, and I accept my mistake; but I don't actually see the legal difference.

shudderstok · « **Reply #6 on:** July 14, 2013, 19:27 »

Quote from: ShadySue on July 14, 2013, 18:40

Quote from: shudderstok on July 14, 2013, 18:36
Quote from: ShadySue on July 14, 2013, 04:43
Quote from: stockxfoto on July 14, 2013, 02:23
...and also how many exclusive photos are there on istock? anyone know?
Thanks
I don't think anyone can know, because a proportion of the 'only on iStock' images are pseudo, quasi or faux-exclusive, and can be found furth of the 'Getty family', far less 'only on iStock'.
It would be interesting to know what proportion of 'only on iStock' images are actually found 'only on iStock', i.e. not on Getty, PP or other places.

this might be splitting hairs, but it's "only 'from' iStock" which is totally different from "only 'on' iStock".
That's what Lobo said, and I accept my mistake; but I don't actually see the legal difference.

from: used to indicate source or origin
on: so as to be attached to or unified with

from/on <<< whatever... yes, it sounds misleading in many ways, but the correct use of the language does indicate a huge difference, and that is the legal difference.

i too think this "from" usage of the english language does imply that it is only available on iStock, but that is also my misinterpretation of "from" when in fact it does not mean that it is only available from iStock, rather it does mean it is sourced only from iStock.

hope this makes sense. lawyers and language, it will get you every time

.

ShadySue · « **Reply #7 on:** July 14, 2013, 19:39 »

Quote from: shudderstok on July 14, 2013, 19:27

Quote from: ShadySue on July 14, 2013, 18:40
Quote from: shudderstok on July 14, 2013, 18:36
Quote from: ShadySue on July 14, 2013, 04:43
Quote from: stockxfoto on July 14, 2013, 02:23
...and also how many exclusive photos are there on istock? anyone know?
Thanks

I don't think anyone can know, because a proportion of the 'only on iStock' images are pseudo, quasi or faux-exclusive, and can be found furth of the 'Getty family', far less 'only on iStock'.
It would be interesting to know what proportion of 'only on iStock' images are actually found 'only on iStock', i.e. not on Getty, PP or other places.

this might be splitting hairs, but it's "only 'from' iStock" which is totally different from "only 'on' iStock".

That's what Lobo said, and I accept my mistake; but I don't actually see the legal difference.

from: used to indicate source or origin
on: so as to be attached to or unified with

from/on <<< whatever... yes, it sounds misleading in many ways, but the correct use of the language does indicate a huge difference, and that is the legal difference.

i too think this "from" usage of the english language does imply that it is only available on iStock, but that is also my misinterpretation of "from" when in fact it does not mean that it is only available from iStock, rather it does mean it is sourced only from iStock.

hope this makes sense. lawyers and language, it will get you every time .

But loads of the images don't originate on iStock - not only are some of the ingested Vetta files 'originated' on the websites of the pseudo exclusives, or from Getty but even some really now 'only from iStock' files didn't originate on iStock, i.e. a proportion of exclusives were previously indie and had the files on other sites, possibly before they were at iStock. The latter would be more difficult to prove, as real exclusives shouldn't have the files elsewhere.

From the Canadian Code of Advertising Standards:
"In assessing the truthfulness and accuracy of a message, advertising claim or representation under Clause 1 of the Code the concern is not with the intent of the sender or precise legality of the presentation. Rather the focus is on the message, claim or representation as received or perceived, i.e. the general impression conveyed by the advertisement."
http://www.adstandards.com/en/standards/canCodeOfAdStandards-feb2013.aspx#accuracy
Most people would surely perceive that 'only from iStock' means 'only available from iStock'.

Sean Locke Photography · « **Reply #8 on:** July 14, 2013, 20:15 »

I detailed this on my blog. It's at least misleading and at most a lie. Especially for yurilux and Getty imports.

tickstock · « **Reply #9 on:** July 14, 2013, 20:24 »

ShadySue · « **Reply #10 on:** July 14, 2013, 20:35 »

Quote from: tickstock on July 14, 2013, 20:24

Quote from: Sean Locke Photography on July 14, 2013, 20:15
I detailed this on my blog. It's at least misleading and at most a lie. Especially for yurilux and Getty imports.
Where else can you download one of Yuri's photos with the same license as from Istock? Aren't people paying for a license and isn't the Istock license unique? Maybe all content should say only from Istock.

PS Yuri is no longer on Fotolia.

Is "with the same licence" written in invisible ink? How do you get it to show up?

luissantos84 · « **Reply #11 on:** July 14, 2013, 20:42 »

Quote from: tickstock on July 14, 2013, 20:24

Quote from: Sean Locke Photography on July 14, 2013, 20:15
I detailed this on my blog. It's at least misleading and at most a lie. Especially for yurilux and Getty imports.
Where else can you download one of Yuri's photos with the same license as from Istock? Aren't people paying for a license and isn't the Istock license unique? Maybe all content should say only from Istock.

PS Yuri is no longer on Fotolia.

there is still DT, DP, PD (and more for sure)

tickstock · « **Reply #12 on:** July 14, 2013, 20:45 »

ShadySue · « **Reply #13 on:** July 14, 2013, 20:51 »

Quote from: tickstock on July 14, 2013, 20:45

Quote from: luissantos84 on July 14, 2013, 20:42
Quote from: tickstock on July 14, 2013, 20:24
Quote from: Sean Locke Photography on July 14, 2013, 20:15
I detailed this on my blog. It's at least misleading and at most a lie. Especially for yurilux and Getty imports.
Where else can you download one of Yuri's photos with the same license as from Istock? Aren't people paying for a license and isn't the Istock license unique? Maybe all content should say only from Istock.

PS Yuri is no longer on Fotolia.

there is still DT, DP, PD (and more for sure)
Yep, that was just for Sean since he was pointing to his blog about Yuri and showing images of Yuri's on Fotolia.

Quote from: ShadySue on July 14, 2013, 20:35
Quote from: tickstock on July 14, 2013, 20:24
Quote from: Sean Locke Photography on July 14, 2013, 20:15
I detailed this on my blog. It's at least misleading and at most a lie. Especially for yurilux and Getty imports.
Where else can you download one of Yuri's photos with the same license as from Istock? Aren't people paying for a license and isn't the Istock license unique? Maybe all content should say only from Istock.

PS Yuri is no longer on Fotolia.
Is "with the same licence" written in invisible ink? How do you get it to show up?
Well the buyer is purchasing a license right? And if that license is only from Istock then that image and license are only from Istock. Buyers don't get the copyright when they buy our images, they get a license to use that image in certain ways depending what the terms are.

Legally, I think they'd find it hard to convince a court that "the general impression conveyed by the advertisement" to the general public, or even seasoned stock buyers, is that 'only from iStock' has anything to do with different licences.

Sean Locke Photography · « **Reply #14 on:** July 14, 2013, 20:55 »

"Where else can you download one of Yuri's photos with the same license as from Istock? Aren't people paying for a license and isn't the Istock license unique? Maybe all content should say only from Istock."

Ummmm, everywhere else, including his own site? Try again.

tickstock · « **Reply #15 on:** July 14, 2013, 21:02 »

ShadySue · « **Reply #16 on:** July 14, 2013, 21:14 »

Quote from: tickstock on July 14, 2013, 21:02

Quote from: Sean Locke Photography on July 14, 2013, 20:55
"Where else can you download one of Yuri's photos with the same license as from Istock? Aren't people paying for a license and isn't the Istock license unique? Maybe all content should say only from Istock."

Ummmm, everywhere else, including his own site? Try again.
I think every site has a different license with different terms. Print runs, legal aid, size limits on the internet, etc.. are different at different sites aren't they?

You will cling to any straw to defend iStock.I wonder why?

The licence thing is totally irrelvant.

tickstock · « **Reply #17 on:** July 14, 2013, 21:20 »

shudderstok · « **Reply #18 on:** July 14, 2013, 21:21 »

whatever the legalism is, i am pretty sure the lawyers at both getty and istock have sorted this out and concluded that "from" is acceptable by the letter of the law.

the difference between a rooster and lawyer...

the rooster clucks defiance

tickstock · « **Reply #19 on:** July 14, 2013, 21:27 »

shudderstok · « **Reply #20 on:** July 14, 2013, 21:33 »

Quote from: ShadySue on July 14, 2013, 19:39

Quote from: shudderstok on July 14, 2013, 19:27
Quote from: ShadySue on July 14, 2013, 18:40
Quote from: shudderstok on July 14, 2013, 18:36
Quote from: ShadySue on July 14, 2013, 04:43
Quote from: stockxfoto on July 14, 2013, 02:23
...and also how many exclusive photos are there on istock? anyone know?
Thanks

I don't think anyone can know, because a proportion of the 'only on iStock' images are pseudo, quasi or faux-exclusive, and can be found furth of the 'Getty family', far less 'only on iStock'.
It would be interesting to know what proportion of 'only on iStock' images are actually found 'only on iStock', i.e. not on Getty, PP or other places.

this might be splitting hairs, but it's "only 'from' iStock" which is totally different from "only 'on' iStock".

That's what Lobo said, and I accept my mistake; but I don't actually see the legal difference.

from: used to indicate source or origin
on: so as to be attached to or unified with

from/on <<< whatever... yes, it sounds misleading in many ways, but the correct use of the language does indicate a huge difference, and that is the legal difference.

i too think this "from" usage of the english language does imply that it is only available on iStock, but that is also my misinterpretation of "from" when in fact it does not mean that it is only available from iStock, rather it does mean it is sourced only from iStock.

hope this makes sense. lawyers and language, it will get you every time .

But loads of the images don't originate on iStock - not only are some of the ingested Vetta files 'originated' on the websites of the pseudo exclusives, or from Getty but even some really now 'only from iStock' files didn't originate on iStock, i.e. a proportion of exclusives were previously indie and had the files on other sites, possibly before they were at iStock. The latter would be more difficult to prove, as real exclusives shouldn't have the files elsewhere.

From the Canadian Code of Advertising Standards:
"In assessing the truthfulness and accuracy of a message, advertising claim or representation under Clause 1 of the Code the concern is not with the intent of the sender or precise legality of the presentation. Rather the focus is on the message, claim or representation as received or perceived, i.e. the general impression conveyed by the advertisement."
http://www.adstandards.com/en/standards/canCodeOfAdStandards-feb2013.aspx#accuracy
Most people would surely perceive that 'only from iStock' means 'only available from iStock'.

one could also argue that this is not advertising as it could also be a posted category of image internally on their site??? i don't think they are using the term "only from iStock" in advertising materials externally of the site.

as we all know, there are some shooters who submit to zillions of sites and some that only contribute to one, so the argument could be the image is only "from" iStock, and not available on other micro sites???

i am not a lawyer, but i am sure they'd come up with some argument of this sort.

i think if one is honest, most advertising is misleading in one way or the other, or at the very least designed to make you feel inferior and make you think you need the product. let's be real, when is the last time your shampoo made your hair look like the models hair with hundreds of takes, and dozens of key lights? when is the last time you went to any fast food chain and got what you saw in the picture?

Sean Locke Photography · « **Reply #21 on:** July 14, 2013, 21:52 »

"Who's going to sue if they find one of Yuri's images on Dreamstime?"

Yeah, wouldn't want any of that 'truth in advertising' stuff.

stockxfoto · « **Reply #22 on:** July 15, 2013, 02:47 »

So could it be 7 million exclusive photos on istock? (what they call exclusive)? ballpark? or is there just no way to tell at all.
From what I have read so far it does help for some exclusives and not so much for others having the E+ on Getty but only a few answers so far. I was wondering how much it helped with overall sales.
Thanks

BaldricksTrousers · « **Reply #23 on:** July 15, 2013, 03:27 »

Quote from: tickstock on July 14, 2013, 20:45

Quote from: luissantos84 on July 14, 2013, 20:42
Quote from: tickstock on July 14, 2013, 20:24
Quote from: Sean Locke Photography on July 14, 2013, 20:15
I detailed this on my blog. It's at least misleading and at most a lie. Especially for yurilux and Getty imports.
Where else can you download one of Yuri's photos with the same license as from Istock? Aren't people paying for a license and isn't the Istock license unique? Maybe all content should say only from Istock.

PS Yuri is no longer on Fotolia.

there is still DT, DP, PD (and more for sure)
Yep, that was just for Sean since he was pointing to his blog about Yuri and showing images of Yuri's on Fotolia.

Quote from: ShadySue on July 14, 2013, 20:35
Quote from: tickstock on July 14, 2013, 20:24
Quote from: Sean Locke Photography on July 14, 2013, 20:15
I detailed this on my blog. It's at least misleading and at most a lie. Especially for yurilux and Getty imports.
Where else can you download one of Yuri's photos with the same license as from Istock? Aren't people paying for a license and isn't the Istock license unique? Maybe all content should say only from Istock.

PS Yuri is no longer on Fotolia.
Is "with the same licence" written in invisible ink? How do you get it to show up?
Well the buyer is purchasing a license right? And if that license is only from Istock then that image and license are only from Istock. Buyers don't get the copyright when they buy our images, they get a license to use that image in certain ways depending what the terms are.

Oh, come on! That doesn't even make sense. If that was what it meant they could put "only from iStock" on mine, too, since the licenses on the other seven or eight agencies I use have slightly different terms and conditions. So why aren't they using the wording on all images, instead of just exclusives' and fake-exclusives'?

BaldricksTrousers · « **Reply #24 on:** July 15, 2013, 03:32 »

Quote from: shudderstok on July 14, 2013, 21:21

whatever the legalism is, i am pretty sure the lawyers at both getty and istock have sorted this out and concluded that "from" is acceptable by the letter of the law.

Or maybe they just reckon that nobody will sue because it would be too expensive and there's too little for anyone to gain from it. I read that in Canada most false advertising cases taken up by the authorities are settled amicably with the error being corrected and nobody paying any penalty. On balance, there seems to be very little risk to them, whether it's a violation or not.

ShadySue · « **Reply #25 on:** July 15, 2013, 05:24 »

Quote from: BaldricksTrousers on July 15, 2013, 03:32

Quote from: shudderstok on July 14, 2013, 21:21
whatever the legalism is, i am pretty sure the lawyers at both getty and istock have sorted this out and concluded that "from" is acceptable by the letter of the law.

Or maybe they just reckon that nobody will sue because it would be too expensive and there's too little for anyone to gain from it. I read that in Canada most false advertising cases taken up by the authorities are settled amicably with the error being corrected and nobody paying any penalty. On balance, there seems to be very little risk to them, whether it's a violation or not.

In the UK, there's often a lot of bad publicity around such cases, but some companies feel any publicity is good publicity.

ShadySue · « **Reply #26 on:** July 15, 2013, 05:25 »

Quote from: BaldricksTrousers on July 15, 2013, 03:32

Quote from: shudderstok on July 14, 2013, 21:21
whatever the legalism is, i am pretty sure the lawyers at both getty and istock have sorted this out and concluded that "from" is acceptable by the letter of the law.

Or maybe they just reckon that nobody will sue because it would be too expensive and there's too little for anyone to gain from it. I read that in Canada most false advertising cases taken up by the authorities are settled amicably with the error being corrected and nobody paying any penalty. On balance, there seems to be very little risk to them, whether it's a violation or not.

In the UK, it doesn't cost anything, as it's done through the ASA. Also the ASA has reciprocal arrangements with Canada.
If it made a company be more careful about their advertising in future, it would be a Good Thing.

ShadySue · « **Reply #27 on:** July 15, 2013, 05:36 »

Quote from: shudderstok on July 14, 2013, 21:33

one could also argue that this is not advertising as it could also be a posted category of image internally on their site??? i don't think they are using the term "only from iStock" in advertising materials externally of the site.

International sites trading in the UK must follow UK guidelines.
From the ASA:
"The types of ads we deal with include:
Magazine and newspaper advertisements
Radio and TV commercials (not programmes or programme sponsorship)
Television Shopping Channels
Advertisements on the Internet, including:
banner and display ads
paid-for (sponsored) search
Marketing on companies’ own websites and in other space they control like social networking sites Twitter and Facebook
Commercial e-mail and SMS text message ads
Posters on legitimate poster sites (not fly posters)
Leaflets and brochures
Cinema commercials
Direct mail (advertising sent through the post and addressed to you personally)
Door drops and circulars (advertising posted through the letter box without your name on)
Ads on CD ROMs, DVD and video, and faxes
Sales promotions, such as special offers, prize draws and competitions wherever they appear.
Online behavioural advertising"
http://www.asa.org.uk/Consumers/What-we-cover.aspx
What does 'online behavioural advertising' mean? Does it mean that 'only from iStock' might alter a buyer's behaviour so that s/he just clicks on that image rather than looking elsewhere? I guess that's the point of the claim.

In Canada:
"Advertising" and "advertisement(s)" are defined as any message (the content of which is controlled directly or indirectly by the advertiser) expressed in any language and communicated in any medium (except those listed under Exclusions) to Canadians with the intent to influence their choice, opinion or behaviour.
http://www.adstandards.com/en/standards/canCodeOfAdStandards-feb2013.aspx#definitions

tickstock · « **Reply #28 on:** July 15, 2013, 06:10 »

MicrostockGroup Sponsors

Author Topic: E+ on getty (Read 10278 times)

stockxfoto

MichaelJayFoto

Gannet77

ShadySue

shudderstok

ShadySue

shudderstok

ShadySue

Sean Locke Photography

tickstock

ShadySue

luissantos84

tickstock

ShadySue

Sean Locke Photography

tickstock

ShadySue

tickstock

shudderstok

tickstock

shudderstok

Sean Locke Photography

stockxfoto

BaldricksTrousers

BaldricksTrousers

ShadySue

ShadySue

ShadySue

tickstock

Related Topics

Sponsors

Microstock Poll Results

Sponsors