Author Topic: Getty e-mail about iStock "Contributor Facing Changes" (Read 78582 times)

ShadySue · « **Reply #275 on:** August 19, 2016, 03:55 »

IIRC, Getty has long had a no individual image deactivation policy.

Rose Tinted Glasses · « **Reply #276 on:** August 19, 2016, 11:32 »

Quote from: ShadySue on August 19, 2016, 03:55

IIRC, Getty has long had a no individual image deactivation policy.

Because Getty is for adults who submit an image without the intention of removing them on some emotional whim because of the illusion on this forum that everyone else is removing their images.

Who has the time to micro manage single images?

Shelma1 · « **Reply #277 on:** August 19, 2016, 11:40 »

I micromanage images sometimes, for example when I see one of my newer images take off and realize an older image would also sell well if I added a few relevant but less obvious keywords. But that only works on other sites anyway, because Getty has their own wackadoo set of search terms. so I guess, yeah, take that option away so sales plummet a little faster.

cathyslife · « **Reply #278 on:** August 19, 2016, 11:46 »

Quote from: Rose Tinted Glasses on August 19, 2016, 11:32

Quote from: ShadySue on August 19, 2016, 03:55
IIRC, Getty has long had a no individual image deactivation policy.
snip
Because Getty is for adults who submit an image without the intention of removing them on some emotional whim because of the illusion on this forum that everyone else is removing their images.

I certainly agree there is some of that going on here, but images are the property of the copyright holder, not Getty. There are plenty of other reasons why a person might want to change/remove images besides being a flaky photographer.

ShadySue · « **Reply #279 on:** August 19, 2016, 12:03 »

New keywords haven't been getting added to the CV from the official request list since at least mid-March (that I know of). Therefore it is not unreasonable to want to deactivate files which can never sell because their main keyword is unfindable, to send them RM. At the time the files were uploaded, there was a reasonable expectation that the required keywords would be added to the system quickly, as formerly happened.

BaldricksTrousers · « **Reply #280 on:** August 19, 2016, 12:05 »

Isn't there any kind of forum or even a place where they post notices to us on the iStock site any more? I can't find it in the links or in the site map.
They don't seem to be bothering to review files, either. I uploaded a handful a few weeks back and they're just sitting there pending, except one they rejected because it was editorial and they don't like shutterstock's caption style.

Rose Tinted Glasses · « **Reply #281 on:** August 19, 2016, 12:10 »

Quote from: cathyslife on August 19, 2016, 11:46

Quote from: Rose Tinted Glasses on August 19, 2016, 11:32
Quote from: ShadySue on August 19, 2016, 03:55
IIRC, Getty has long had a no individual image deactivation policy.
snip
Because Getty is for adults who submit an image without the intention of removing them on some emotional whim because of the illusion on this forum that everyone else is removing their images.

I certainly agree there is some of that going on here, but images are the property of the copyright holder, not Getty. There are plenty of other reasons why a person might want to change/remove images besides being a flaky photographer.

In the 25+ years I have been a stock photographer I have only once removed an image because of a request from the property owner, even though they signed a property release. Apart from that I see no need to remove anything. I am a shoot it, upload it, forget about it sort of photographer. I have no clue which image will sell better and/or where it will sell better. I have shots that I thought would be total winners and they have never sold, I have a shot that is average that ended up on IS and it has made over 12K. I guess I simply prefer to spend my time out shooting as opposed to micro managing single images.

I am also fairly certain GI is aware you are the copyright holder and if you want to remove an image they will do so for a legitimate reason. Just use this forum for example, a classic herd mentality of removing images. Remember when Sean go the boot? Herd mentality again protesting a personal conflict and removing images. Kind of silly I think.

I also don't like Getty as far as a company is concerned and further to that I really think the attitude of the former CEO is arrogant, but that still does not change the fact (in my view) they are in many ways the only game in town if you really want to make a full on living.

ShadySue · « **Reply #282 on:** August 19, 2016, 12:11 »

Quote from: BaldricksTrousers on August 19, 2016, 12:05

Isn't there any kind of forum or even a place where they post notices to us on the iStock site any more? I can't find it in the links or in the site map.

The iS selling site? Not for a long time - around a year!
You know they now have a new forum site? You should have got your invite ages ago. If not, contact CR.

Rose Tinted Glasses · « **Reply #283 on:** August 19, 2016, 12:11 »

Quote from: BaldricksTrousers on August 19, 2016, 12:05

Isn't there any kind of forum or even a place where they post notices to us on the iStock site any more? I can't find it in the links or in the site map.

If the notices are important they email them to you, and they also post these notices on their forum which has been removed from the actual IS site.

You will find what you need here... https://contributors.gettyimages.com/

Rose Tinted Glasses · « **Reply #284 on:** August 19, 2016, 12:14 »

Quote from: BaldricksTrousers on August 19, 2016, 12:05

Isn't there any kind of forum or even a place where they post notices to us on the iStock site any more? I can't find it in the links or in the site map.
They don't seem to be bothering to review files, either. I uploaded a handful a few weeks back and they're just sitting there pending, except one they rejected because it was editorial and they don't like shutterstock's caption style.

Are you exclusive? I am and my editorial goes through more often than not in an hour or two, if the images are not flagged as S+ it can take up to a day, and if it is flagged as S+ it can take up to 5 days. If you submit directly to Getty it is currently taking around 2 months to have an editor have a look. I tend to put all my ***** images to Getty and my * images to IS and roughly 5% of those end up being S+ and ends up on both sites, so it all works out well.

BaldricksTrousers · « **Reply #285 on:** August 19, 2016, 12:17 »

Quote from: ShadySue on August 19, 2016, 12:11

Quote from: BaldricksTrousers on August 19, 2016, 12:05
Isn't there any kind of forum or even a place where they post notices to us on the iStock site any more? I can't find it in the links or in the site map.
The iS selling site? Not for a long time - around a year!
You know they now have a new forum site? You should have got your invite ages ago. If not, contact CR.

Oh, I've been doing other stuff besides chasing around after iStock's quirks. Sales have reached the point where it's hardly worth looking at now. Less than $100 for the last couple of months - like 2004 all over again, only with a good few thousand more files.

BaldricksTrousers · « **Reply #286 on:** August 19, 2016, 12:18 »

Quote from: Rose Tinted Glasses on August 19, 2016, 12:14

Quote from: BaldricksTrousers on August 19, 2016, 12:05
Isn't there any kind of forum or even a place where they post notices to us on the iStock site any more? I can't find it in the links or in the site map.
They don't seem to be bothering to review files, either. I uploaded a handful a few weeks back and they're just sitting there pending, except one they rejected because it was editorial and they don't like shutterstock's caption style.

Are you exclusive? I am and my editorial goes through more often than not in an hour or two, if the images are not flagged as S+ it can take up to a day, and if it is flagged as S+ it can take up to 5 days. If you submit directly to Getty it is currently taking around 2 months to have an editor have a look. I tend to put all my ***** images to Getty and my * images to IS and roughly 5% of those end up being S+ and ends up on both sites, so it all works out well.

No, I've always been independent.

ShadySue · « **Reply #287 on:** August 19, 2016, 12:27 »

Quote from: BaldricksTrousers on August 19, 2016, 12:05

They don't seem to be bothering to review files, either. I uploaded a handful a few weeks back and they're just sitting there pending

Pending doesn't mean they haven't been reviewed. It means they have been reviewed, and are accepted, but they are in some sort of limbo that their techies apparently deliberately introduced some time ago. (viz. it's an alleged 'feature' not an actual 'fault'.) I've read that some files have been stuck in pending for a month, and there's nothing anyone can do to help.
The only thing you can do is click on the pending file and save it without doing anything. That worked for me, but it hasn't worked for everyone, and I haven't uploaded anything for a while (so it might not now work at all, FAIK).
(My mistake, that refers to 'file is publishing'.)

Quote

except one they rejected because it was editorial and they don't like shutterstock's caption style.

They always had their own editorial caption style, which is even different from Getty's.

BaldricksTrousers · « **Reply #288 on:** August 19, 2016, 13:10 »

Quote from: ShadySue on August 19, 2016, 12:27

Quote from: BaldricksTrousers on August 19, 2016, 12:05
They don't seem to be bothering to review files, either. I uploaded a handful a few weeks back and they're just sitting there pending
Pending doesn't mean they haven't been reviewed. It means they have been reviewed, and are accepted, but they are in some sort of limbo that their techies apparently deliberately introduced some time ago. (viz. it's an alleged 'feature' not an actual 'fault'.) I've read that some files have been stuck in pending for a month, and there's nothing anyone can do to help.

To avoid having rubbish clogging up my portfolio landing page I just deleted 20 old "pending" files, from 2012-2014. I've left the latest ones to languish, maybe they'll get past the "feature". As they are nature subjects they're not going to sell since they can't be keyworded properly ... you know why.

ShadySue · « **Reply #289 on:** August 19, 2016, 13:20 »

Quote from: BaldricksTrousers on August 19, 2016, 13:10

Quote from: ShadySue on August 19, 2016, 12:27
Quote from: BaldricksTrousers on August 19, 2016, 12:05
They don't seem to be bothering to review files, either. I uploaded a handful a few weeks back and they're just sitting there pending
Pending doesn't mean they haven't been reviewed. It means they have been reviewed, and are accepted, but they are in some sort of limbo that their techies apparently deliberately introduced some time ago. (viz. it's an alleged 'feature' not an actual 'fault'.) I've read that some files have been stuck in pending for a month, and there's nothing anyone can do to help.
To avoid having rubbish clogging up my portfolio landing page I just deleted 20 old "pending" files, from 2012-2014. I've left the latest ones to languish, maybe they'll get past the "feature". As they are nature subjects they're not going to sell since they can't be keyworded properly ... you know why.

Whoops, like I said, I'm not uploading atm. Pending still means it hasn't been inspected. That funny limbo the techies introduced is "This file is publishing". You can indeed abort files which are pending, but once they're publishing, you can't.
Sorry for the confusion.

trek · « **Reply #290 on:** August 19, 2016, 15:41 »

Quote from: Rose Tinted Glasses on August 19, 2016, 11:32

Quote from: ShadySue on August 19, 2016, 03:55
IIRC, Getty has long had a no individual image deactivation policy.

Because Getty is for adults who submit an image without the intention of removing them on some emotional whim because of the illusion on this forum that everyone else is removing their images.

Who has the time to micro manage single images?

I have time to micro manage single images. I didn't get to go to art school... and it shows in my early work. Occasional culling of unsold aging crap in my portfolio should be allowable. It should be encouraged. Could even be considered a community service.

sharpshot · « **Reply #291 on:** August 19, 2016, 15:54 »

Quote from: Rose Tinted Glasses on August 19, 2016, 12:10

Quote from: cathyslife on August 19, 2016, 11:46
Quote from: Rose Tinted Glasses on August 19, 2016, 11:32
Quote from: ShadySue on August 19, 2016, 03:55
IIRC, Getty has long had a no individual image deactivation policy.
snip
Because Getty is for adults who submit an image without the intention of removing them on some emotional whim because of the illusion on this forum that everyone else is removing their images.

I certainly agree there is some of that going on here, but images are the property of the copyright holder, not Getty. There are plenty of other reasons why a person might want to change/remove images besides being a flaky photographer.

In the 25+ years I have been a stock photographer I have only once removed an image because of a request from the property owner, even though they signed a property release. Apart from that I see no need to remove anything. I am a shoot it, upload it, forget about it sort of photographer. I have no clue which image will sell better and/or where it will sell better. I have shots that I thought would be total winners and they have never sold, I have a shot that is average that ended up on IS and it has made over 12K. I guess I simply prefer to spend my time out shooting as opposed to micro managing single images.

I am also fairly certain GI is aware you are the copyright holder and if you want to remove an image they will do so for a legitimate reason. Just use this forum for example, a classic herd mentality of removing images. Remember when Sean go the boot? Herd mentality again protesting a personal conflict and removing images. Kind of silly I think.

I also don't like Getty as far as a company is concerned and further to that I really think the attitude of the former CEO is arrogant, but that still does not change the fact (in my view) they are in many ways the only game in town if you really want to make a full on living.

I think all the people putting up with whatever Getty/istock do to them have the herd mentality. Sean acted like an individual and I very much doubt he regrets leaving the herd. Getty want you to think they are the only game in town but you really need blinkers more than rose tinted glasses to believe that.

Rose Tinted Glasses · « **Reply #292 on:** August 19, 2016, 16:16 »

Quote from: sharpshot on August 19, 2016, 15:54

Quote from: Rose Tinted Glasses on August 19, 2016, 12:10
Quote from: cathyslife on August 19, 2016, 11:46
Quote from: Rose Tinted Glasses on August 19, 2016, 11:32
Quote from: ShadySue on August 19, 2016, 03:55
IIRC, Getty has long had a no individual image deactivation policy.
snip
Because Getty is for adults who submit an image without the intention of removing them on some emotional whim because of the illusion on this forum that everyone else is removing their images.

I certainly agree there is some of that going on here, but images are the property of the copyright holder, not Getty. There are plenty of other reasons why a person might want to change/remove images besides being a flaky photographer.

In the 25+ years I have been a stock photographer I have only once removed an image because of a request from the property owner, even though they signed a property release. Apart from that I see no need to remove anything. I am a shoot it, upload it, forget about it sort of photographer. I have no clue which image will sell better and/or where it will sell better. I have shots that I thought would be total winners and they have never sold, I have a shot that is average that ended up on IS and it has made over 12K. I guess I simply prefer to spend my time out shooting as opposed to micro managing single images.

I am also fairly certain GI is aware you are the copyright holder and if you want to remove an image they will do so for a legitimate reason. Just use this forum for example, a classic herd mentality of removing images. Remember when Sean go the boot? Herd mentality again protesting a personal conflict and removing images. Kind of silly I think.

I also don't like Getty as far as a company is concerned and further to that I really think the attitude of the former CEO is arrogant, but that still does not change the fact (in my view) they are in many ways the only game in town if you really want to make a full on living.
I think all the people putting up with whatever Getty/istock do to them have the herd mentality. Sean acted like an individual and I very much doubt he regrets leaving the herd. Getty want you to think they are the only game in town but you really need blinkers more than rose tinted glasses to believe that.

To help you with your comprehension, I did not remotely imply Getty is the only game in town, I clearly said in many ways they are - big difference. As for SJL, he did not leave the herd, he was forcefully terminated - again big difference.

Also of note, just in case it went over your head, I have never submitted an image to any agency with the intention of removing it - seems a tad counter productive to me.

sharpshot · « **Reply #293 on:** August 20, 2016, 05:09 »

Quote from: Rose Tinted Glasses on August 19, 2016, 16:16

Quote from: sharpshot on August 19, 2016, 15:54
Quote from: Rose Tinted Glasses on August 19, 2016, 12:10
Quote from: cathyslife on August 19, 2016, 11:46
Quote from: Rose Tinted Glasses on August 19, 2016, 11:32
Quote from: ShadySue on August 19, 2016, 03:55
IIRC, Getty has long had a no individual image deactivation policy.
snip
Because Getty is for adults who submit an image without the intention of removing them on some emotional whim because of the illusion on this forum that everyone else is removing their images.

I certainly agree there is some of that going on here, but images are the property of the copyright holder, not Getty. There are plenty of other reasons why a person might want to change/remove images besides being a flaky photographer.

In the 25+ years I have been a stock photographer I have only once removed an image because of a request from the property owner, even though they signed a property release. Apart from that I see no need to remove anything. I am a shoot it, upload it, forget about it sort of photographer. I have no clue which image will sell better and/or where it will sell better. I have shots that I thought would be total winners and they have never sold, I have a shot that is average that ended up on IS and it has made over 12K. I guess I simply prefer to spend my time out shooting as opposed to micro managing single images.

I am also fairly certain GI is aware you are the copyright holder and if you want to remove an image they will do so for a legitimate reason. Just use this forum for example, a classic herd mentality of removing images. Remember when Sean go the boot? Herd mentality again protesting a personal conflict and removing images. Kind of silly I think.

I also don't like Getty as far as a company is concerned and further to that I really think the attitude of the former CEO is arrogant, but that still does not change the fact (in my view) they are in many ways the only game in town if you really want to make a full on living.
I think all the people putting up with whatever Getty/istock do to them have the herd mentality. Sean acted like an individual and I very much doubt he regrets leaving the herd. Getty want you to think they are the only game in town but you really need blinkers more than rose tinted glasses to believe that.

To help you with your comprehension, I did not remotely imply Getty is the only game in town, I clearly said in many ways they are - big difference. As for SJL, he did not leave the herd, he was forcefully terminated - again big difference.

Also of note, just in case it went over your head, I have never submitted an image to any agency with the intention of removing it - seems a tad counter productive to me.

Maybe one day you will learn not to be patronising but that seems in many ways unlikely

. I doubt anyone submits images with the intention of removing them but never using that option also seems ludicrous to me. I doubt even you would be dumb enough to not be able to think of a scenario where you would be better off removing an image rather than leaving it on a site?

Sean strikes me as being quite smart and I'm sure he was well aware that some of his actions could lead to a termination with Getty/istock. It might not of been the most sensible way to do it but his plan b seems to be working well and he isn't the only intelligent contributor that no longer works with Getty/istock.

PaulieWalnuts · « **Reply #294 on:** August 20, 2016, 08:12 »

Quote from: Rose Tinted Glasses on August 19, 2016, 12:10

Quote from: cathyslife on August 19, 2016, 11:46
Quote from: Rose Tinted Glasses on August 19, 2016, 11:32
Quote from: ShadySue on August 19, 2016, 03:55
IIRC, Getty has long had a no individual image deactivation policy.
snip
Because Getty is for adults who submit an image without the intention of removing them on some emotional whim because of the illusion on this forum that everyone else is removing their images.

I certainly agree there is some of that going on here, but images are the property of the copyright holder, not Getty. There are plenty of other reasons why a person might want to change/remove images besides being a flaky photographer.

In the 25+ years I have been a stock photographer I have only once removed an image because of a request from the property owner, even though they signed a property release. Apart from that I see no need to remove anything. I am a shoot it, upload it, forget about it sort of photographer. I have no clue which image will sell better and/or where it will sell better. I have shots that I thought would be total winners and they have never sold, I have a shot that is average that ended up on IS and it has made over 12K. I guess I simply prefer to spend my time out shooting as opposed to micro managing single images.

I am also fairly certain GI is aware you are the copyright holder and if you want to remove an image they will do so for a legitimate reason. Just use this forum for example, a classic herd mentality of removing images. Remember when Sean go the boot? Herd mentality again protesting a personal conflict and removing images. Kind of silly I think.

I also don't like Getty as far as a company is concerned and further to that I really think the attitude of the former CEO is arrogant, but that still does not change the fact (in my view) they are in many ways the only game in town if you really want to make a full on living.

With IS I removed about half of my images because I wanted to shift that category of images into a premium price level and only sell them directly from my website. This is my business and to run and optimize my business sometimes decisions like this need to be made.

Most of the policies these sites put in place are to protect them and also allow the flexibility to make changes to their business to be more profitable, competitive, or whatever. Totally understand. Unfortunately, these same policy changes can limit my ability to make changes to my business to be more profitable, competitive, or whatever. There needs to be a reasonable balance but that balance seems to be constantly shifting to the advantage of the sites and disadvantage to me.

Now, I totally understand if they wanted to have policies around the extreme situations where people flake and yank their portfolios, then resubmit them, then yank them again, etc. I'd guess that's fairly rare and maybe should be handled individually instead of penalizing everyone for the actions of a small percentage of people.

Ultimately it's their business and their contracts state they can make changes whenever they want. Until something comes along to disrupt the current stock business model we can only accept it or move on.

Sean Locke Photography · « **Reply #295 on:** August 20, 2016, 09:02 »

Quote from: Rose Tinted Glasses on August 19, 2016, 11:32

Quote from: ShadySue on August 19, 2016, 03:55
IIRC, Getty has long had a no individual image deactivation policy.

Because Getty is for adults who submit an image without the intention of removing them on some emotional whim because of the illusion on this forum that everyone else is removing their images.

Who has the time to micro manage single images?

One reason I don't like the policy is because you have no idea of what they will accept from a series before they lock them in for eternity. You could submit 30 images and they take five, leaving you no recourse. With WestEnd, the pre-commital review lets you make that decision.

Rose Tinted Glasses · « **Reply #296 on:** August 20, 2016, 11:31 »

Quote from: Sean Locke Photography on August 20, 2016, 09:02

Quote from: Rose Tinted Glasses on August 19, 2016, 11:32
Quote from: ShadySue on August 19, 2016, 03:55
IIRC, Getty has long had a no individual image deactivation policy.

Because Getty is for adults who submit an image without the intention of removing them on some emotional whim because of the illusion on this forum that everyone else is removing their images.

Who has the time to micro manage single images?

One reason I don't like the policy is because you have no idea of what they will accept from a series before they lock them in for eternity. You could submit 30 images and they take five, leaving you no recourse. With WestEnd, the pre-commital review lets you make that decision.

Are you happy with the results of Westend? It does look interesting. For me the big step is not whether I can or can't delete an image, it's more about dropping exclusivity, that would be a major financial hit. Also, I am not really hearing a lot of people saying they have done better by doing so. Keep in mind I don't shoot lifestyle imagery.

As far as locking in goes by Getty, is Stocksy not the same? You submit whatever and it's image/similar exclusive. What about Westend?

YadaYadaYada · « **Reply #297 on:** August 20, 2016, 16:30 »

Quote from: BaldricksTrousers on August 19, 2016, 12:05

Isn't there any kind of forum or even a place where they post notices to us on the iStock site any more? I can't find it in the links or in the site map.
They don't seem to be bothering to review files, either. I uploaded a handful a few weeks back and they're just sitting there pending, except one they rejected because it was editorial and they don't like shutterstock's caption style.

That's false and you know it. I change nothing between my SS and IS editorial file caption and they are accepted at both. The problem is something you are doing, like that old all caps or punctuation. I upload identical to both and get no style rejections. It must be you.

ShadySue · « **Reply #298 on:** August 20, 2016, 16:59 »

If someone followed the instructions given here:
http://www.shutterstock.com/blog/creating-the-perfect-editorial-caption
their captions would certainly be rejected on iStock.

Pauws99 · « **Reply #299 on:** August 20, 2016, 17:09 »

Quote from: ShadySue on August 20, 2016, 16:59

If someone followed the instructions given here:
http://www.shutterstock.com/blog/creating-the-perfect-editorial-caption
their captions would certainly be rejected on iStock.

Useful link......However Shutterstock don't apply their own rules.......I changed my date style in line with I Stock and now get accepted on both?!

MicrostockGroup Sponsors

Author Topic: Getty e-mail about iStock "Contributor Facing Changes" (Read 78582 times)

ShadySue

Rose Tinted Glasses

Shelma1

cathyslife

ShadySue

BaldricksTrousers

Rose Tinted Glasses

ShadySue

Rose Tinted Glasses

Rose Tinted Glasses

BaldricksTrousers

BaldricksTrousers

ShadySue

BaldricksTrousers

ShadySue

trek

sharpshot

Rose Tinted Glasses

sharpshot

PaulieWalnuts

Sean Locke Photography

Rose Tinted Glasses

YadaYadaYada

ShadySue

Pauws99

Related Topics

Sponsors

Microstock Poll Results

Sponsors