Author Topic: Here we go again! (Read 12964 times)

loop · « **Reply #25 on:** November 23, 2010, 12:29 »

When talking about rejecting "competition" shots... Are you talking of what is done or of what you would o if you were inspector? Because you can't know what is done, and which are the rules and the procedures for inspecting at IS.

lagereek · « **Reply #26 on:** November 23, 2010, 12:53 »

Quote from: loop on November 23, 2010, 12:29

When talking about rejecting "competition" shots... Are you talking of what is done or of what you would o if you were inspector? Because you can't know what is done, and which are the rules and the procedures for inspecting at IS.

Dont know what you mean?? to cut it short you wouldnt ask a participating player to umpire a tennis-match in a grand-slam tournament.

VB inc · « **Reply #27 on:** November 23, 2010, 15:20 »

What are the rules for inspecting at istock? or anywhere for that matter. Is there a way for anyone to find this out? It seems highly plausible that inspectors would be more generous to approve their colleagues and friends while rejecting most of their competition for very minor things that could go either ways.

Sean Locke Photography · « **Reply #28 on:** November 23, 2010, 15:33 »

Quote from: VB inc on November 23, 2010, 15:20

What are the rules for inspecting at istock? or anywhere for that matter. Is there a way for anyone to find this out? It seems highly plausible that inspectors would be more generous to approve their colleagues and friends while rejecting most of their competition for very minor things that could go either ways.

Of all the stuff that goes on at IS, this could be the lowest thing on my list that concerns me.

lisafx · « **Reply #29 on:** November 23, 2010, 15:43 »

I'd like to throw it out there that, in spite of Christian's image which appears to have been rejected in error, I still find Istock inspectors overall to be very consistent. As is said often, it is a human process, and there will be differences of opinion.

Although I agree with much of what Allsa says
(as usual

I don't think decreased upload limits are the answer. Istock already has the most restrictive upload limits in the business and it hasn't made a difference in anyone's acceptance rate.

I also don't think inspections should be scrapped in favor of self-policing. Buyers have said over and over again that they prefer the sites with the tightly edited collections. As much as we contributors might like to do away with inspections, the buyers needs will take priority.

And overall, with the exception of the occasional visit from Attila the Reviewer, I think the sites do a good job of reviewing the content.

VB inc · « **Reply #30 on:** November 23, 2010, 15:47 »

thats you... Im sure reviewers take one look at your sn and get the big approval stamp ready. Your already in the club so this would be the last thing for you to even think about.

Quote from: sjlocke on November 23, 2010, 15:33

Quote from: VB inc on November 23, 2010, 15:20
What are the rules for inspecting at istock? or anywhere for that matter. Is there a way for anyone to find this out? It seems highly plausible that inspectors would be more generous to approve their colleagues and friends while rejecting most of their competition for very minor things that could go either ways.

Of all the stuff that goes on at IS, this could be the lowest thing on my list that concerns me.

jamirae · « **Reply #31 on:** November 23, 2010, 16:02 »

Quote from: lisafx on November 23, 2010, 15:43

I'd like to throw it out there that, in spite of Christian's image which appears to have been rejected in error, I still find Istock inspectors overall to be very consistent. As is said often, it is a human process, and there will be differences of opinion.

Although I agree with much of what Allsa says (as usual ) I don't think increased upload limits are the answer. Istock already has the most restrictive upload limits in the business and it hasn't made a difference in anyone's acceptance rate.

I also don't think inspections should be scrapped in favor of self-policing. Buyers have said over and over again that they prefer the sites with the tightly edited collections. As much as we contributors might like to do away with inspections, the buyers needs will take priority.

And overall, with the exception of the occasional visit from Attila the Reviewer, I think the sites do a good job of reviewing the content.

I would have to agree with this as well.

lagereek · « **Reply #32 on:** November 23, 2010, 16:38 »

Quote from: sjlocke on November 23, 2010, 15:33

Quote from: VB inc on November 23, 2010, 15:20
What are the rules for inspecting at istock? or anywhere for that matter. Is there a way for anyone to find this out? It seems highly plausible that inspectors would be more generous to approve their colleagues and friends while rejecting most of their competition for very minor things that could go either ways.

Of all the stuff that goes on at IS, this could be the lowest thing on my list that concerns me.

Too true! its really just a minor thingie, still. I agree with Lisa actually, overall The IS reviewers are good, there used to be the "old gang" as I call them, about two, three years back and these guys were brillant in reviewing but they seamed to be on a much more creative level.
Whatever happend to them?

pet_chia · « **Reply #33 on:** November 23, 2010, 16:43 »

Other than the occasional anomaly, I agree that the reviews are mostly fair. The only thing that disturbs me is that some entire classes of photos are mostly rejected (such as outdoor shots in natural light and very usable isolations which they deem to be not "perfect").

Those who are exclusive must either stop shooting those kind of shots, keep shooting them and just swallow the loss of time, etc. if they are rejected, or else do something tricky such as transfer copyright to another individual or entity so that they can be sold elsewhere.

That is why exclusivity should be "per shoot" and not "per artist". Nobody should care if an artist has exclusive model shots at agency 'A' and exclusive travel/tourism shots at agency 'B'. All the shots are exclusive, which is all that (some of) the customers would care about.

IS might want to also watch out for the tax authorities coming to gun for them, if it decides that IS exclusivity has made thousands of photographers "de facto" employees. At least for the Canadian residents who contribute to IS. It's a nightmare scenario, but IS could potentially get a HUGE bill for years' worth of payroll deductions which they did not make on "behalf" of "their employees". (I'm using sarcasm-quotes because IMHO this would be a sick joke, but governments desperate to scare up more revenue will stop at nothing ... look at the 1099 fiasco)

ShadySue · « **Reply #34 on:** November 23, 2010, 17:25 »

Quote from: pet_chia on November 23, 2010, 16:43

Those who are exclusive must either stop shooting those kind of shots, keep shooting them and just swallow the loss of time, etc. if they are rejected, or else do something tricky such as transfer copyright to another individual or entity so that they can be sold elsewhere.

Or sell them RM.

michaeldb · « **Reply #35 on:** November 23, 2010, 19:09 »

Quote from: pet_chia on November 23, 2010, 16:43

IS might want to also watch out for the tax authorities coming to gun for them, if it decides that IS exclusivity has made thousands of photographers "de facto" employees.

This is a good point. One of main tests the IRS uses to determine whether a person is an independent contractor or an employee is: Is the person free to do similar work for a competing company?

If not, the person is likely to be considered an employee.

pet_chia · « **Reply #36 on:** November 23, 2010, 20:24 »

If you have any other photography income, e.g. RM, wedding, portrait, etc. you're OK ... but if exclusive at IS is all you sell then maybe you're vulnerable.

I heard of someone who was an IT contractor for several years for just one company, and then WHAM they got nailed. At another big hi-tech company that I heard of, a contractor actually SUED the company to try get retroactive benefits. All the jerk did was get himself a huge bill for expenses he had previously deducted which were no longer considered eligible, another huge bill for employee payroll deductions (SS or whatever), he gave the company a massive headache (because the gummint found hundreds of contractors in the same position), and spoiled things for a lot of other contractors. After that fiasco, this large company refused to hire ANY contractor for more than 42 consecutive weeks, lest the taxman come and wallop them upside the head (again).

This is all the government's fault, with their swinish taxes and labyrinthine rules, but you have to be practical about trying to keep them out of your hair.

jbarber873 · « **Reply #37 on:** November 23, 2010, 20:39 »

Quote from: michaeldb on November 23, 2010, 19:09

Quote from: pet_chia on November 23, 2010, 16:43
IS might want to also watch out for the tax authorities coming to gun for them, if it decides that IS exclusivity has made thousands of photographers "de facto" employees.
This is a good point. One of main tests the IRS uses to determine whether a person is an independent contractor or an employee is: Is the person free to do similar work for a competing company?

If not, the person is likely to be considered an employee.

In my dealings with my good friends at the IRS ( i was audited for 6 years in a row at one point), the test for a freelance contractor was that they used their own equipment, operated without direct oversight from the payer, and had more than one employer. Needless to say all my freelance assistants couldn't meet all these tests, and the result was pretty ugly. I don't know about canada, but the point about governments going after any income they can scare up is a good one. I wonder if there's any money in being a whistleblower?

Sadstock · « **Reply #38 on:** November 23, 2010, 23:17 »

From the IRS
"The law provides for two types of awards. If the taxes, penalties, interest and other amounts in dispute exceed $2 million, and a few other qualifications are met, the IRS will pay 15 percent to 30 percent of the amount collected. If the case deals with an individual, his or her annual gross income must be more than $200,000. If the whistleblower disagrees with the outcome of the claim, he or she can appeal to the Tax Court. These rules are found at Internal Revenue Code IRC Section 7623(b) - Whistleblower Rules.

The IRS also has an award program for other whistleblowers - generally those who do not meet the dollar thresholds of $2 million in dispute or cases involving individual taxpayers with gross income of less that $200,000. The awards through this program are less, with a maximum award of 15 percent up to $10 million. In addition, the awards are discretionary and the informant cannot dispute the outcome of the claim in Tax Court. The rules for these cases are found at Internal Revenue Code IRC Section 7623(a) - Informant Claims Program, and some of the rules are different from those that apply to cases involving more than $2 million."

http://www.irs.gov/compliance/article/0,,id=180171,00.html

No idea what Canadian tax whistle blowing pays :-)

pet_chia · « **Reply #39 on:** November 23, 2010, 23:28 »

Quote from: Sadstock on November 23, 2010, 23:17

...
No idea what Canadian tax whistle blowing pays :-)

Probably, a kick in the pants. The witness protection part would be a bus ticket to Flin Flon, Manitoba.

MicrostockGroup Sponsors

Author Topic: Here we go again! (Read 12964 times)

loop

lagereek

VB inc

Sean Locke Photography

lisafx

VB inc

jamirae

lagereek

pet_chia

ShadySue

michaeldb

pet_chia

jbarber873

Sadstock

pet_chia

Sponsors

Microstock Poll Results

Sponsors