Author Topic: iStock a shadow of its former self (Read 10219 times)

djmorgan · « **on:** March 05, 2017, 04:56 »

My problems started back in October last year well before the new ESP

I started loosing images! they were shown as in my portfolio but when called up they got a 404 message image not found, this started at about 20 images and grew to 52, emails to contributor services simply got we know and are working on it. $:-\$

The new ESP gre more missing images, images got approved but never got to go on sale, more emails to Contributor Services are still open at the time of writing but no results.

I am not the only user with this problem, these images are my property, Getty/iStock is an agent meant to be marketing my work for a fee.

It would not be so bad if emails and posts were answered not just ignored, having worked extensively in the IT industry I can tell you this re-organisation is the worst implemented plan ever embarked upon, seem like there are 2 poorly qualified IT guy doing a very bad job and only working after school and on the weekends.

sharpshot · « **Reply #1 on:** March 05, 2017, 05:17 »

Are you exclusive? If not, there's lots of other sites to sell your images. Leaving was an easy decision for me. I understand how it isn't as easy for exclusives but I would be concentrating on building up an RM portfolio with other sites or selling prints, as relying on istock doesn't look like much fun.

djmorgan · « **Reply #2 on:** March 05, 2017, 17:27 »

Quote from: sharpshot on March 05, 2017, 05:17

Are you exclusive? If not, there's lots of other sites to sell your images. Leaving was an easy decision for me. I understand how it isn't as easy for exclusives but I would be concentrating on building up an RM portfolio with other sites or selling prints, as relying on istock doesn't look like much fun.

Yes Exclusive, but I also contribute to Alamy with images not given to Getty, giving more and more to Alamy and less and less to Getty, also throwing some towards Adobe.

My time with Getty is limited, the way they are loosing my images it won't be long before I have a portfolio with NO images.

And given their attitude towards contributors I wonder if I should be concerned about the 'exclusive' agreement anyway, they don't seem to concerned about any agreement they have with their contributors.

worriedistocker · « **Reply #3 on:** March 05, 2017, 20:21 »

revised because of misunderstanding.

sharpshot · « **Reply #4 on:** March 06, 2017, 03:43 »

Quote from: WorriedIstocker on March 05, 2017, 20:21

And given their attitude towards contributors I wonder if I should be concerned about the 'exclusive' agreement anyway, they don't seem to concerned about any agreement they have with their contributors.

Quote

I'd definitely take the high road there. If they catch you and decide to make an example out of you, I can't even imagine the grief an army of Getty's fire breathing lawyers could cause. Best just to close up shop with them and move on.
[/quote

I think their fire breathing lawyers would struggle to justify letting Yuri stay on other sites while being "exclusive". The same rules should apply to everyone. I wouldn't want to be the one to test that though.

ShadySue · « **Reply #5 on:** March 06, 2017, 04:07 »

Quote from: sharpshot on March 06, 2017, 03:43

Quote from: WorriedIstocker on March 05, 2017, 20:21
And given their attitude towards contributors I wonder if I should be concerned about the 'exclusive' agreement anyway, they don't seem to concerned about any agreement they have with their contributors.

Quote
I'd definitely take the high road there. If they catch you and decide to make an example out of you, I can't even imagine the grief an army of Getty's fire breathing lawyers could cause. Best just to close up shop with them and move on.
[/quote
I think their fire breathing lawyers would struggle to justify letting Yuri stay on other sites while being "exclusive". The same rules should apply to everyone. I wouldn't want to be the one to test that though.

The fact is, they can end their contract without any 'legal' reason; just as we can end our contract as/when we choose.

djmorgan · « **Reply #6 on:** March 06, 2017, 17:06 »

Quote from: WorriedIstocker on March 05, 2017, 20:21

I'd definitely take the high road there. If they catch you and decide to make an example out of you, I can't even imagine the grief an army of Getty's fire breathing lawyers could cause. Best just to close up shop with them and move on.

You mis-quote me! nowhere did I say I was uploading the same images to iStock and Alamy

worriedistocker · « **Reply #7 on:** March 06, 2017, 19:02 »

DJ, I misunderstood your post and I've removed the reply. Sorry, I meant well.

PixelBytes · « **Reply #8 on:** March 07, 2017, 19:03 »

Quote from: sharpshot on March 05, 2017, 05:17

Are you exclusive? If not, there's lots of other sites to sell your images. Leaving was an easy decision for me. I understand how it isn't as easy for exclusives but I would be concentrating on building up an RM portfolio with other sites or selling prints, as relying on istock doesn't look like much fun.

Do people photos do okay on POD sites like FAA, or is it mostly just landscapes, flowers, travel, animals, etc?

lostintimeline · « **Reply #9 on:** March 07, 2017, 20:00 »

unfo i ve heard many times and even on their forums the sales are not good there.unless you are superpromoting your work.and yes as i ve seen so far all these years landscapes and travel photos sell

LDV81 · « **Reply #10 on:** March 07, 2017, 20:27 »

Quote from: PixelBytes on March 07, 2017, 19:03

Do people photos do okay on POD sites like FAA, or is it mostly just landscapes, flowers, travel, animals, etc?

Well, I can't imagine myself hanging a Yuri Arcurs kind of photo on my wall. Even if they paid me to do so. Well, maybe if they paid me a thousand bucks. Then I would hang it in the basement.
Landscapes rule.

Pauws99 · « **Reply #11 on:** March 08, 2017, 02:05 »

Quote from: LDV81 on March 07, 2017, 20:27

Quote from: PixelBytes on March 07, 2017, 19:03

Do people photos do okay on POD sites like FAA, or is it mostly just landscapes, flowers, travel, animals, etc?

Well, I can't imagine myself hanging a Yuri Arcurs kind of photo on my wall. Even if they paid me to do so. Well, maybe if they paid me a thousand bucks. Then I would hang it in the basement.
Landscapes rule.

I don't think i've seen pictures of people other than family and celebrities hanging on peoples walls so my extensive market research says no. I would imagine its a very different market from mstock

NewStocker · « **Reply #12 on:** March 08, 2017, 12:28 »

If you are iStock exclusive and uploading stuff to Alamy as Rights Managed content then no problem. But I believe Adobe only sells royalty free. If that is the case, if you are exclusive with iStock, and uploading royalty free content to Adobe, then you would have a problem.

djmorgan · « **Reply #13 on:** March 08, 2017, 21:43 »

Quote from: NewStocker on March 08, 2017, 12:28

If you are iStock exclusive and uploading stuff to Alamy as Rights Managed content then no problem. But I believe Adobe only sells royalty free. If that is the case, if you are exclusive with iStock, and uploading royalty free content to Adobe, then you would have a problem.

Prove it!

derek · « **Reply #14 on:** March 09, 2017, 03:12 »

Todays Getty is a far cry from yesterdays. Today they set a prime example of how an agency should NOT perform. The way they have run Istock down into the ground is almost criminal.
Even the once so celebrated " house collection " members are fed up and messed around beyond belief.
Just the very name spells troubles.

Justanotherphotographer · « **Reply #15 on:** March 09, 2017, 05:55 »

Quote from: derek on March 09, 2017, 03:12

Todays Getty is a far cry from yesterdays. Today they set a prime example of how an agency should NOT perform. The way they have run Istock down into the ground is almost criminal.
Even the once so celebrated " house collection " members are fed up and messed around beyond belief.
Just the very name spells troubles.

I don't know, IMHO Getty has always been a predatory company expanding by buying up and shutting down the competition, then cutting payments to photographers as much as they can.

They had one innovation early on which was getting photos digitised back in 90s and that's about where the innovation stopped.

IStock is a far cry from what it was, I would say because Getty bought it and behaved in its typical Getty way.

derek · « **Reply #16 on:** March 09, 2017, 06:16 »

Quote from: Justanotherphotographer on March 09, 2017, 05:55

Quote from: derek on March 09, 2017, 03:12
Todays Getty is a far cry from yesterdays. Today they set a prime example of how an agency should NOT perform. The way they have run Istock down into the ground is almost criminal.
Even the once so celebrated " house collection " members are fed up and messed around beyond belief.
Just the very name spells troubles.
I don't know, IMHO Getty has always been a predatory company expanding by buying up and shutting down the competition, then cutting payments to photographers as much as they can.

They had one innovation early on which was getting photos digitised back in 90s and that's about where the innovation stopped.

IStock is a far cry from what it was, I would say because Getty bought it and behaved in its typical Getty way.

Correct! in the old film days they bought up Image Bank and Stones at that time the premiere agencies in the world. They made 4x5 inch dupes from all trannies and they were beautiful! then came the digital era and everything was digitiised BUT! they were beaten by Istock and SS launching first micros and it created turmoil in the older agencies.

All the old agencies started to laugh and ignoring micro and that was the kiss of death. When they finally realized micro was here to stay well instead of competing trying to create own initiatives they bought sites in pure desperation. The rest is history. They once had it all in the palm of their hand but screwed up. Simple as that.

Pauws99 · « **Reply #17 on:** March 09, 2017, 06:45 »

So often in industry the big boys seem to miss the threat....Kodak and digital for example. With size comes arrogance I guess.

derek · « **Reply #18 on:** March 09, 2017, 07:18 »

Quote from: Pauws99 on March 09, 2017, 06:45

So often in industry the big boys seem to miss the threat....Kodak and digital for example. With size comes arrogance I guess.

Absolutely!! and thats a brilliant example!!

djmorgan · « **Reply #19 on:** March 09, 2017, 17:54 »

After 3 months I finally get a response from iStock/Getty Contributor Services

"Hi Davis,

Thank you for your message and I apologize for the delay in my response. We are currently experiencing higher than normal contact volumes and appreciate your patience.

I recommend you re-upload these files, unfortunately there has been been an error with these files during our unification process and they will not be able to be repaired. I apologize for the inconvenience."

Firstly my name is David not Davis!

This is bloody disgraceful! the missing images, over 50, were in my portfolio for 3 years and making some sales, now gone worst it will take me an age to identify photos from my archive that match their number and then go through the whole process of upload and approval again..... don't think I will bother.

dragonblade · « **Reply #20 on:** March 09, 2017, 19:42 »

Quote from: djmorgan on March 09, 2017, 17:54

This is bloody disgraceful! the missing images, over 50[/u], were in my portfolio for 3 years and making some sales, now gone worst it will take me an age to identify photos from my archive that match their number and then go through the whole process of upload and approval again

Woah! That is totally unacceptable. Getty / iStockphoto have really sunk to a new low in terms of incompetence. And this is how they treat exclusives? I keep asking myself why I keep submitting to them....I honestly don't know why I do.

PixelBytes · « **Reply #21 on:** March 09, 2017, 22:10 »

Quote from: dragonblade on March 09, 2017, 19:42

Quote from: djmorgan on March 09, 2017, 17:54
This is bloody disgraceful! the missing images, over 50[/u], were in my portfolio for 3 years and making some sales, now gone worst it will take me an age to identify photos from my archive that match their number and then go through the whole process of upload and approval again

Woah! That is totally unacceptable. Getty / iStockphoto have really sunk to a new low in terms of incompetence. And this is how they treat exclusives? I keep asking myself why I keep submitting to them....I honestly don't know why I do.

What a disgraceful and dismissive response! No insult intended to exclusives, but unless you are making 6 figures I can't imagine why anyone would be artist exclusive at istock. Seems like some form of masochism.

EmberMike · « **Reply #22 on:** March 09, 2017, 22:57 »

People still upload to iStock?

People are still exclusive at iStock??

sharpshot · « **Reply #23 on:** March 10, 2017, 02:14 »

Quote from: dragonblade on March 09, 2017, 19:42

Quote from: djmorgan on March 09, 2017, 17:54
This is bloody disgraceful! the missing images, over 50[/u], were in my portfolio for 3 years and making some sales, now gone worst it will take me an age to identify photos from my archive that match their number and then go through the whole process of upload and approval again

Woah! That is totally unacceptable. Getty / iStockphoto have really sunk to a new low in terms of incompetence. And this is how they treat exclusives? I keep asking myself why I keep submitting to them....I honestly don't know why I do.

To try and keep them going and making a lot more money than you do? You must also want the other sites to see how much you will put up with, so they know they can pay you pennies and treat you like trash as well. What other reasons are there? If it's the fear of losing out on a few sales, maybe now is the time to get over it?

djmorgan · « **Reply #24 on:** March 10, 2017, 02:50 »

Err this may seem stupid but the ESP has buried most things so deep that you can't find them.

How do I go about opting out of exclusive? is it as simple as telling contributor services?

MicrostockGroup Sponsors

Author Topic: iStock a shadow of its former self (Read 10219 times)

djmorgan

sharpshot

djmorgan

worriedistocker

sharpshot

ShadySue

djmorgan

worriedistocker

PixelBytes

lostintimeline

LDV81

Pauws99

NewStocker

djmorgan

derek

Justanotherphotographer

derek

Pauws99

derek

djmorgan

dragonblade

PixelBytes

EmberMike

sharpshot

djmorgan

Related Topics

Sponsors

Microstock Poll Results

Sponsors