Author Topic: iStock changing royalty structure (Read 353187 times)

Karen · « **Reply #1125 on:** October 07, 2010, 09:47 »

iStock changing ~~royalty structure~~ exclusivity definition:
http://www.istockphoto.com/stock-photo-14244133-young-man-thinking.php
http://images.inmagine.com/img/imagesource/is485/is485031.jpg

Sean Locke Photography · « **Reply #1126 on:** October 07, 2010, 09:47 »

Quote from: caspixel on October 07, 2010, 09:30

Wow. It's getting even worse over at iStock with the censoring. And look who the new user/forum moderator is that snipped the links for the "Setting the Table" search. "iStock Collections"?

http://www.istockphoto.com/forum_messages.php?threadid=262721&page=1

Yeah, I know. what is that? We can't post searches now? Dang.

Sean Locke Photography · « **Reply #1127 on:** October 07, 2010, 09:48 »

Quote from: Karen on October 07, 2010, 09:47

iStock changing ~~royalty structure~~ exclusivity definition:
http://www.istockphoto.com/stock-photo-14244133-young-man-thinking.php
http://images.inmagine.com/img/imagesource/is485/is485031.jpg

Yeah, looks like they pulled all of the ImageSource images from inMagine, so they could be "exclusively" at iStock.

cthoman · « **Reply #1128 on:** October 07, 2010, 10:16 »

Quote from: caspixel on October 07, 2010, 09:30

Wow. It's getting even worse over at iStock with the censoring. And look who the new user/forum moderator is that snipped the links for the "Setting the Table" search. "iStock Collections"?

http://www.istockphoto.com/forum_messages.php?threadid=262721&page=1

So does "Setting the Table" have some other meaning?

It must be some kind of glitch. I can't imagine that anyone would add one strange and irrelevant term to all their images.

bittersweet · « **Reply #1129 on:** October 07, 2010, 10:27 »

It has to be some weird disambiguation mapping to a box that should not be checked, but I've tried a bunch of possibilities and can't replicate it.

jamirae · « **Reply #1130 on:** October 07, 2010, 10:51 »

Quote from: whatalife on October 07, 2010, 10:27

It has to be some weird disambiguation mapping to a box that should not be checked, but I've tried a bunch of possibilities and can't replicate it.

yes, it's a keyword disambiguation problem.

I love how it's okay for this crap because these "special" new artists are allowed to add their content in bulk. Although, perhaps that's even being done for them and they don't have to do any work at all?

further irritation with the new iStockgetty

jamirae · « **Reply #1131 on:** October 07, 2010, 10:52 »

Quote from: sjlocke on October 07, 2010, 09:48

Quote from: Karen on October 07, 2010, 09:47
iStock changing ~~royalty structure~~ exclusivity definition:
http://www.istockphoto.com/stock-photo-14244133-young-man-thinking.php
http://images.inmagine.com/img/imagesource/is485/is485031.jpg

Yeah, looks like they pulled all of the ImageSource images from inMagine, so they could be "exclusively" at iStock.

Are inMagine or ImageSource part of the "Getty Family" ?

traveler1116 · « **Reply #1132 on:** October 07, 2010, 10:54 »

Awesome a large Vetta sale, 70 credits!!

Oh wait the last 2 medium sales from last month were more.

I thought we would get more money now, $16.80 large today (that means I got about 24 cents per credit), $18 and $19 for the last two mediums. Thanks IStock.

traveler1116 · « **Reply #1133 on:** October 07, 2010, 11:01 »

Just saw sean's post on the best match and agency. It's all agency and hulton archive and almost all of the files in the first spots of the best match have no sales. That's crazy how can they be the best match when 0 buyers have picked them. I have a feeling I'll never be able to post in the forums again since they told me to wait until all of these changes have taken place and we can calm down about it.

Jo Ann Snover · « **Reply #1134 on:** October 07, 2010, 11:01 »

Quote from: jamirae on October 07, 2010, 10:52

Are inMagine or ImageSource part of the "Getty Family" ?

Inmagine isn't - not sure about ImageSource.

gostwyck · « **Reply #1135 on:** October 07, 2010, 11:18 »

The 'Agency' images that I've seen so far look desperately ordinary to me. They're nowhere near up to the standard of Vetta and, for the most part, are not particularly 'unique' either.

I can understand customers being prepared to pay extra for Vetta but I doubt they'll feel the same about the Agency stuff. Surely they're going to be irritated by having their searches cluttered with expensive images that have nothing to do with the microstock concept. There are now 5 price points for a Large image ranging from 10 to 100 credits. Barely more than a year ago, before Vetta was introduced, there was just one ... 10.

lisafx · « **Reply #1136 on:** October 07, 2010, 14:21 »

Those results for "Setting the table" are really, unbelievably TERRIBLE!

It's easy to spot the Agency and Hulton files without looking for the icon. They are all the ones that have absolutely NOTHING to do with setting the table.

This is a complete fiasco. Can you imagine buyer's reactions when they come to IS and see this? http://bit.ly/bUEiS5

Here's what Dreamstime offers for setting table people: http://www.dreamstime.com/search.php?s_ph=y&s_il=y&s_rf=y&s_ed=y&srh_field=setting+table+people&firstvalue=setting+table+people&lastsearchvalue=setting+table+people&s_sm=all&s_st=new&memso=y&s_cf=0&s_catid=&s_cliid=&s_colid=&memorize_search=1&s_exc=&s_excp=&s_sp=&s_sl1=y&s_sl2=y&s_sl3=y&s_sl4=y&s_sl5=y&s_color1=FFFFFF&s_percent1=10&s_color2=FFFFFF&s_percent2=10&s_rsf=0&s_rst=7&s_clc=y&s_clm=y&s_orp=y&s_ors=y&s_orl=y&s_orw=y

Admittedly way too many shots with no people, but all at least are of set tables. No bathing beauties or people lying in bed reading.

What a horrible, horrible joke. Please tell me it's April 1st over at Istock?!

pet_chia · « **Reply #1137 on:** October 07, 2010, 14:41 »

Why would you introduce and make a big fuss over "agency" photos? You ARE an agency already. It's like the New York Yankees announcing with tremendous fanfare that they are now offering their fans a new "Baseball Team (tm)" which is older, lousier, and more expensive than their existing sports franchise. Talk about muddying the waters. More like, trampling all over your brand.

Amanda_K · « **Reply #1138 on:** October 07, 2010, 14:47 »

I'm going to bet they had the keyword "setting" maybe outdoor setting or something of that nature that got "disambiguated" to setting the table within iStock's lovely keywording system. And perhaps since they all got dumped in so fast and have other special privileges the keywords are not being reviewed at time of upload. I looked at a few of the images keywords and setting the table is the only really funky one in there and its there for a ton of them. The one that irritates me more is "business" on an image of a young guy in a t-shirt with no business props clothing or backgrounds, mentioned earlier. I'm quite sure under normal circumstances that wouldn't fly.

jamirae · « **Reply #1139 on:** October 07, 2010, 15:25 »

Quote from: 9lives on October 07, 2010, 14:47

I'm going to bet they had the keyword "setting" maybe outdoor setting or something of that nature that got "disambiguated" to setting the table within iStock's lovely keywording system. And perhaps since they all got dumped in so fast and have other special privileges the keywords are not being reviewed at time of upload. I looked at a few of the images keywords and setting the table is the only really funky one in there and its there for a ton of them. The one that irritates me more is "business" on an image of a young guy in a t-shirt with no business props clothing or backgrounds, mentioned earlier. I'm quite sure under normal circumstances that wouldn't fly.

yes, it was an admitted keyword CV issue, but STILL... the fact that this "Agency Collection" is allowed to do the following (listed in no particular order) really stinks:
1) have the exact same file for sale on other sites
2) get uploaded in bulk without regard to quotas
3) get listed as an "exclusive" photographer (see #1)
4) have higher weight in the best match, especially after it has been written in the FAQs that they would not
5) have a huge price premium for shots that mostly do not stand out from other non-Agency images thus causing buyer confusion (and outrage)

Jo Ann Snover · « **Reply #1140 on:** October 07, 2010, 15:28 »

Even if you ignore the keyword spamming (which is hard to given how bad it is - but they say they've run a batch job to fix this, so whenever the results of that make it into search (which could be days given current problems with that) it will be taken care of), the utter ordinary quality of them is hard to miss.

There's a thread in the exclusive forum about what's Agency vs. what's Vetta, and the examples of Agency (from iStock stuff) are so far and away better than anything from the outside Getty material that it's not funny. I don't see why Agency should be more than Vetta although I think it'd be nice to have the happy shiny collection to contrast with the dark and quirky collection.

The fact that they're forcing Vetta and any IS Agency work onto Getty sites (no opt out), plus dumping this dreck at high prices onto IS is just wretched. My guess is that Getty traffic is down IS is up and management wants to put the Getty material where the traffic is in the hope it might sell.

The fact that in doing this they may not only fail to sell the tired old stuff but also screw the pooch and alienate otherwise happy IS buyers in the process is just infuriating.

Did anyone look at these files before approving them for this high price collection??

ichiro17 · « **Reply #1141 on:** October 07, 2010, 15:43 »

Quote from: jsnover on October 07, 2010, 15:28

The fact that they're forcing Vetta and any IS Agency work onto Getty sites (no opt out), plus dumping this dreck at high prices onto IS is just wretched. My guess is that Getty traffic is down IS is up and management wants to put the Getty material where the traffic is in the hope it might sell.

There's a reason for the traffic disparities. A lot of the Agency stuff is crap and people will go where they don't have to hurt their eyes looking at it/and the prices for it

Amanda_K · « **Reply #1142 on:** October 07, 2010, 16:53 »

Quote from: jamirae on October 07, 2010, 15:25

Quote from: 9lives on October 07, 2010, 14:47
I'm going to bet they had the keyword "setting" maybe outdoor setting or something of that nature that got "disambiguated" to setting the table within iStock's lovely keywording system. And perhaps since they all got dumped in so fast and have other special privileges the keywords are not being reviewed at time of upload. I looked at a few of the images keywords and setting the table is the only really funky one in there and its there for a ton of them. The one that irritates me more is "business" on an image of a young guy in a t-shirt with no business props clothing or backgrounds, mentioned earlier. I'm quite sure under normal circumstances that wouldn't fly.

yes, it was an admitted keyword CV issue, but STILL... the fact that this "Agency Collection" is allowed to do the following (listed in no particular order) really stinks:
1) have the exact same file for sale on other sites
2) get uploaded in bulk without regard to quotas
3) get listed as an "exclusive" photographer (see #1)
4) have higher weight in the best match, especially after it has been written in the FAQs that they would not
5) have a huge price premium for shots that mostly do not stand out from other non-Agency images thus causing buyer confusion (and outrage)

Totally agree. I have given up on anything making sense there anymore, there are just too many crap things over the last month to list. If this wasn't affecting every aspect of my business and to some extent my sanity it might be comical how many errors are being made on the part of iStock/Getty management. It's like a course in how not to run a business.

molka · « **Reply #1145 on:** October 08, 2010, 08:21 »

Quote from: jamirae on October 07, 2010, 15:25

Quote from: 9lives on October 07, 2010, 14:47
I'm going to bet they had the keyword "setting" maybe outdoor setting or something of that nature that got "disambiguated" to setting the table within iStock's lovely keywording system. And perhaps since they all got dumped in so fast and have other special privileges the keywords are not being reviewed at time of upload. I looked at a few of the images keywords and setting the table is the only really funky one in there and its there for a ton of them. The one that irritates me more is "business" on an image of a young guy in a t-shirt with no business props clothing or backgrounds, mentioned earlier. I'm quite sure under normal circumstances that wouldn't fly.

yes, it was an admitted keyword CV issue, but STILL... the fact that this "Agency Collection" is allowed to do the following (listed in no particular order) really stinks:
1) have the exact same file for sale on other sites
2) get uploaded in bulk without regard to quotas
3) get listed as an "exclusive" photographer (see #1)
4) have higher weight in the best match, especially after it has been written in the FAQs that they would not
5) have a huge price premium for shots that mostly do not stand out from other non-Agency images thus causing buyer confusion (and outrage)

You guys really are being treated as 4th class citizens there. They also lied to you: they said the new content gonna go thru inspection just like your stuff. You have to go thru inspections, get a lot of rejections, and if you do get rejections, start all over with uploading, keywording, etc... The agency stuff was uploaded in bulk, and when found to have bad keywording, it just gets corrected by the nice people at istock for them : ) But if you do wrong keywording, you have to start all over and it's deducted from your upload limit. This is humiliating beyond all measures.

But there's something many of you should realize: you are experiencing the same kind of aggressive intrusion into your little playfield, as did old time pros by you with the onslaught of microstock. They are kinda getting back at you for that .

lisafx · « **Reply #1146 on:** October 08, 2010, 09:45 »

Quote from: molka on October 08, 2010, 08:21

But there's something many of you should realize: you are experiencing the same kind of aggressive intrusion into your little playfield, as did old time pros by you with the onslaught of microstock. They are kinda getting back at you for that .

Yeah. We get it. You don't like Microstock. Troll.

Pixel-Pizzazz · « **Reply #1147 on:** October 08, 2010, 10:24 »

Quote from: molka on October 08, 2010, 08:21

You guys really are being treated as 4th class citizens there. They also lied to you: they said the new content gonna go thru inspection just like your stuff. You have to go thru inspections, get a lot of rejections, and if you do get rejections, start all over with uploading, keywording, etc... The agency stuff was uploaded in bulk, and when found to have bad keywording, it just gets corrected by the nice people at istock for them : ) But if you do wrong keywording, you have to start all over and it's deducted from your upload limit. This is humiliating beyond all measures.

But there's something many of you should realize: you are experiencing the same kind of aggressive intrusion into your little playfield, as did old time pros by you with the onslaught of microstock. They are kinda getting back at you for that .

How this is different, is that it is our 'coachs and managers' have sold out to the big boys league and have invited them to take up residence and are giving them the advantage, on our home turf.

This is completely contrary to the field notes we were given:
QUOTE
"It's important for our professional photographers to understand that it's completely separate," says Getty director of photography and filmmaker relations Paul Banwell, adding, "It effectively means nothing changes. It's business as usual."

Similarly, iStock CEO Bruce Livingstone and vice president of marketing Kelly Thompson say their day-to-day operations will not change as a result of the sale to Getty.

"They want us to keep our culture. It's what makes our site great," Thompson says.

Getty spokesperson Deb Trevino and Thompson both say there are no plans to market the two brands together, or to direct traffic from one web site to the other.
END QUOTE

from this article - now only on the wayback machine

http://web.archive.org/web/20060317050825/http://www.pdnonline.com/pdn/search/article_display.jsp?vnu_content_id=1001994651

molka · « **Reply #1148 on:** October 08, 2010, 10:28 »

Quote from: lisafx on October 08, 2010, 09:45

Quote from: molka on October 08, 2010, 08:21

But there's something many of you should realize: you are experiencing the same kind of aggressive intrusion into your little playfield, as did old time pros by you with the onslaught of microstock. They are kinda getting back at you for that .

Yeah. We get it. You don't like Microstock. Troll.

Sure, it's always the easiest to just call anyone a troll who has a different opinion. I find it kinda curious tho, how many of you even go down to the level of getting personal with someone criticizing the system that they got repeteadly shafted by in a really mean way... prejiduce never shows much reason, does it? It wasn't getty or anything, the going of things was built into this system. It was inevitable. You get into a business with sites competing by having super low cut flea-market prices, and than they compete among each other starting from that point... what . do you expect? Do you people ever think? jesus... : )

Pixel-Pizzazz · « **Reply #1149 on:** October 08, 2010, 10:31 »

Quote from: molka on October 08, 2010, 10:28

Sure, it's always the easiest to just call anyone a troll who has a different opinion. I find it kinda curious tho, how many of you even go down to the level of getting personal with someone criticizing the system that they got repeteadly shafted by in a really mean way... prejiduce never shows much reason, does it? It wasn't getty or anything, the going of things was built into this system. It was inevitable. You get into a business with sites competing by having super low cut flea-market prices, and than they compete among each other starting from that point... what . do you expect? Do you people ever think?

Read the post above yours. Apparently the top brass was oblivious to what you think is so obvious. The game plan drastically changed and unfair advantage is being given to the other team.

MicrostockGroup Sponsors

Author Topic: iStock changing royalty structure (Read 353187 times)

Karen

Sean Locke Photography

Sean Locke Photography

cthoman

bittersweet

jamirae

jamirae

traveler1116

traveler1116

Jo Ann Snover

gostwyck

lisafx

pet_chia

Amanda_K

jamirae

Jo Ann Snover

ichiro17

Amanda_K

Penguin

Penguin

molka

lisafx

Pixel-Pizzazz

molka

Pixel-Pizzazz

Related Topics

Sponsors

Microstock Poll Results

Sponsors