Author Topic: Istock deleting files without warning (Read 12793 times)

kosmikkreeper · « **on:** July 30, 2009, 17:08 »

Hey guys

I'm currently getting emails from istock informing me that image#xxxxxxx has been deleted because the new guidelines now require a model release for this file.

Why not give us a chance to upload a model release? Maybe a 48 hour window?

The worst part is that since the image has been deleted, I don't know which one it is!

Very frustrating.

Your thoughts?

m@m · « **Reply #1 on:** July 30, 2009, 17:11 »

Sounds to me like the same thing StockXpert was doing a few weeks ago...scary

Talanis · « **Reply #2 on:** July 30, 2009, 17:23 »

Wow, that's bad. Sorry for you Yanik. It sure would be nice to have some time to correct the problem.

KB · « **Reply #3 on:** July 30, 2009, 17:29 »

Quote from: kosmikkreeper on July 30, 2009, 17:08

The worst part is that since the image has been deleted, I don't know which one it is! Very frustrating.

No, the worst part is that it happened.

It's easy to find out which images they are. Just go to "My Uploads" (the briefcase icon), and change the dropdown box to "Deactivated files".

I always hate it when this happens.

puravida · « **Reply #4 on:** July 30, 2009, 19:11 »

contaminated soil? global warming?
what do you think is causing these phenomenon, guys?

every day we see the Big 6 trying to compete for these two awards:

1) the most contributor-unfriendly site of the Big 6

2) the lowest paying sub commissions

I wonder which site will be the ultimate winner on both counts. And of course, their contributors being the stool pigeon and joint winner of the award:
BIGGEST LOSERS OF ALL CONTRIBUTORS.

a.k.a.-tom · « **Reply #5 on:** July 30, 2009, 19:18 »

Yeah... I wrote in another thread, I got an email from them last week informing me that they dumped all my Las Vegas strip pix.... that I have been selling there for a few years... now.... they're proprietary?

=tom

photoshow · « **Reply #6 on:** July 30, 2009, 19:30 »

Quote from: a.k.a.-tom on July 30, 2009, 19:18

Yeah... I wrote in another thread, I got an email from them last week informing me that they dumped all my Las Vegas strip pix.... that I have been selling there for a few years... now.... they're proprietary? =tom

Every Casino on the strip is trademarked and the sidewalks of the strip belong to the casinos not to the city. You could still license the images as editorial but not as RF stock. In fact if you look closely most of them have small signs posted around the grounds and major attractions with a no commertcial photography notice. One that comes to mind right off the top is the Mirage, has signs dispersed all along the perimiter, they are small but they are there.

a.k.a.-tom · « **Reply #7 on:** July 30, 2009, 19:40 »

Quote from: photoshow on July 30, 2009, 19:30

Every Casino on the strip is trademarked and the sidewalks of the strip belong to the casinos not to the city. You could still license the images as editorial but not as RF stock. In fact if you look closely most of them have small signs posted around the grounds and major attractions with a no commertcial photography notice. One that comes to mind right off the top is the Mirage, has signs dispersed all along the perimiter, they are small but they are there.

Photoshow... is this something recent? All my Vegas shots were taken in '06. None-the-less, I've uploaded them to every site I belong to over the years and have never had them shot down and... have sold plenty.

Fact is, they're still on all the other sites... who knows..
Maybe I should be pro-active and pull them off everywhere before somebody's knocking on my door?? ...or redirect them to editorial.

=tom

m@m · « **Reply #8 on:** July 30, 2009, 20:29 »

Tom, I think this Vegas coyright thing has being going on for a while, I remember some years back when the Wynn hotel first open, I stayed there for a few days and took some wonderful photos of the place, well I'm glad I got into a conversation with a local that informed me that everything was under copyright from the Parasol room inside to the exterior of the building, as well as any other Hotel/Casino on the strip...well little to say that was a big disappointment and a wasted effort...must of the photos had to be uploaded as editorial...so careful with those photos of yours, you just might get that knock on the door. $:-\$
BTW, if the person knocking is a big ugly guy wearing a black leather jacket and his name is Vinny, RUUUUN!

a.k.a.-tom · « **Reply #9 on:** July 30, 2009, 20:56 »

Quote from: m@m on July 30, 2009, 20:29

Tom, I think this Vegas coyright thing has being going on for a while, I remember some years back when the Wynn hotel first open, I stayed there for a few days and took some wonderful photos of the place, well I'm glad I got into a conversation with a local that informed me that everything was under copyright from the Parasol room inside to the exterior of the building, as well as any other Hotel/Casino on the strip...well little to say that was a big disappointment and a wasted effort...must of the photos had to be uploaded as editorial...so careful with those photos of yours, you just might get that knock on the door. $:-\$
BTW, if the person knocking is a big ugly guy wearing a black leather jacket and his name is Vinny, RUUUUN!

HA!

, thanks M@M, that dates it for me. The Wynn was nothing but girders when I was last in Vegas. I think you are correct, I'll be getting online and changing all my Vegas stuff to editorial. At least then, I may have opportunity to continue to sell them......... UNLIKE at IS where they all got 86'd.

=tom

Now that I think of it... why couldn't IS ask me if I'd like to put them on in editorial??? WTH? They were selling, why dump pix that were proven sellers?

KB · « **Reply #10 on:** July 30, 2009, 21:03 »

Quote from: a.k.a.-tom on July 30, 2009, 20:56

Now that I think of it... why couldn't IS ask me if I'd like to put them on in editorial??? WTH? They were selling, why dump pix that were proven sellers?

Maybe because IS doesn't sell editorial?

a.k.a.-tom · « **Reply #11 on:** July 30, 2009, 21:11 »

Quote from: KB on July 30, 2009, 21:03

Quote from: a.k.a.-tom on July 30, 2009, 20:56
Now that I think of it... why couldn't IS ask me if I'd like to put them on in editorial??? WTH? They were selling, why dump pix that were proven sellers?
Maybe because IS doesn't sell editorial?

I stand corrected and informed! Much thanks

=tom

erwinova · « **Reply #12 on:** July 30, 2009, 21:37 »

they also closing my account (with 400 photos) without warning, just because external link in description and profile, even it's very easy to fix. Now I'm start from zero again

Gannet77 · « **Reply #13 on:** July 31, 2009, 04:51 »

Quote from: erwinova on July 30, 2009, 21:37

they also closing my account (with 400 photos) without warning, just because external link in description and profile, even it's very easy to fix. Now I'm start from zero again

That's a bit harsh! Though in truth, it does contravene the terms of the contributor agreement as I recall... what were you linking to?

erwinova · « **Reply #14 on:** July 31, 2009, 05:06 »

Quote from: Gannet77 on July 31, 2009, 04:51

Quote from: erwinova on July 30, 2009, 21:37
they also closing my account (with 400 photos) without warning, just because external link in description and profile, even it's very easy to fix. Now I'm start from zero again

That's a bit harsh! Though in truth, it does contravene the terms of the contributor agreement as I recall... what were you linking to?

I linking to my portfolio from other microstock agencies...
In contributor agreement we can linking url but not mention about competitor link right? better ask before you put link on your portfolio.

Gannet77 · « **Reply #15 on:** July 31, 2009, 05:56 »

Quote from: erwinova on July 31, 2009, 05:06

Quote from: Gannet77 on July 31, 2009, 04:51
Quote from: erwinova on July 30, 2009, 21:37
they also closing my account (with 400 photos) without warning, just because external link in description and profile, even it's very easy to fix. Now I'm start from zero again

That's a bit harsh! Though in truth, it does contravene the terms of the contributor agreement as I recall... what were you linking to?

I linking to my portfolio from other microstock agencies...
In contributor agreement we can linking url but not mention about competitor link right? better ask before you put link on your portfolio.

Er... you mean you were linking to other microstock sites from within your iStock profile?

Did it not occur to you that this might be something they would frown upon???

puravida · « **Reply #16 on:** July 31, 2009, 07:06 »

Quote from: m@m on July 30, 2009, 20:29

Tom, I think this Vegas coyright thing has being going on for a while, I remember some years back when the Wynn hotel first open, I stayed there for a few days and took some wonderful photos of the place, well I'm glad I got into a conversation with a local that informed me that everything was under copyright from the Parasol room inside to the exterior of the building, as well as any other Hotel/Casino on the strip...well little to say that was a big disappointment and a wasted effort...must of the photos had to be uploaded as editorial...so careful with those photos of yours, you just might get that knock on the door. $:-\$
BTW, if the person knocking is a big ugly guy wearing a black leather jacket and his name is Vinny, RUUUUN!

rofl, funny but very wise words m@m

i had a (casual conversation) once at some fashion show and spoke to certain (insiders) who took charge of ie. security, bouncers, trade shows, casinos, etc.. and was told not to meddle with casinos.
started out of just mentioning how i once unknowingly walked into a casino with my equipment dangling around my neck. Within seconds 2 "Vinny"s came at me with a few little "Vinny"s swooping around us (very James Bond scenario )...and I was told "nicely" to check my "stuff" or else "leave the premises stat" !
the (insiders) told me I was wise to "nicely" get out, as it would be much safer to meddle with Al Capone,

.

btw Tom, to add to what m@m said, to avoid having to open the door to see Vinny standing under your porch light, look through your window drapes first to see if Vinny came in a black Rolls with white wall tyres

oh, and make sure you get some bullet proof overcoat too. Try ebay

psst, and don't bother calling the constabulary, either. they got that covered

bittersweet · « **Reply #17 on:** July 31, 2009, 07:59 »

I just got a deactivate notice too, for lack of model release. It was a photo that contained a family member's back that did not require a model release at the time I uploaded it several years ago. I have other photos with this person in my portfolio that do contain a model release, per their guidelines at the time of upload. It would have been nice to be given a brief opportunity to upload a release, but I guess this is a good way for them to prune huge chunks from their collection. Oh well.

cathyslife · « **Reply #18 on:** July 31, 2009, 08:08 »

I will likely get some deactivations as well. The rule used to be as long as the persons face wasnt showing, you didn't need a model release. I think I have some of those that will be going bye bye.

The whole thing is getting ridiculous, IMHO. Inside the casinos, makes perfect sense. Outside, pictures of the strip, signs, etc? Give me a break. Pretty soon, every object on this freakin earth will be copyrighted and not available for shooting.

PixelBytes · « **Reply #19 on:** July 31, 2009, 09:23 »

Quote from: whatalife on July 31, 2009, 07:59

I just got a deactivate notice too, for lack of model release. It was a photo that contained a family member's back that did not require a model release at the time I uploaded it several years ago. I have other photos with this person in my portfolio that do contain a model release, per their guidelines at the time of upload. It would have been nice to be given a brief opportunity to upload a release, but I guess this is a good way for them to prune huge chunks from their collection. Oh well.

Yeah, this is frustrating. We should be given a chance to upload releases if we have them.

I agree it looks like a way to prune huge chunks from their collection, but if images could be saved by uploading releases, what is the benefit to istock of pulling sellable images from their collection? What marketing strategy are they planning? "We offer fewer images than the competition"

photoshow · « **Reply #20 on:** July 31, 2009, 10:21 »

Quote from: cclapper on July 31, 2009, 08:08

I will likely get some deactivations as well. The rule used to be as long as the persons face wasnt showing, you didn't need a model release. I think I have some of those that will be going bye bye.

The whole thing is getting ridiculous, IMHO. Inside the casinos, makes perfect sense. Outside, pictures of the strip, signs, etc? Give me a break. Pretty soon, every object on this freakin earth will be copyrighted and not available for shooting.

What if the sign happens to have one of your photos on it? Should iot then not be protected? Without proper license we have no more right to profit off the intellectual property of others then they have to profit from ours without license.

Seriously, someone designed those signs, they all contain trademarks and trade names and many contain photos or original art as well.

Shoot the strip millions do every day. Use the photos as art, you will have no problems, use the images as editorial stock and you will have no problem.

PixelBytes · « **Reply #21 on:** July 31, 2009, 11:42 »

Quote from: photoshow on July 31, 2009, 10:21

Seriously, someone designed those signs, they all contain trademarks and trade names and many contain photos or original art as well.

In general, I agree that we should be careful not to upload trademarked or copyrighted material.

But to play Devil's advocate in response to the above statement, hasn't most of what we photograph been designed by someone?

What about the clothes the models are wearing, the furniture they're sitting on, the buildings we stick them in or in front of, the props we surround them with etc., etc., etc. Even if they aren't clothes, objects, buildings designed by famous designers, they all had to be designed by somebody.

If we carry that idea to it's logical/absurd conclusion, we won't be able to photograph anything but trees and flowers, and even then only those occurring in nature, not in landscaped gardens.

I can definitely see Cathy's point.

Moonb007 · « **Reply #22 on:** July 31, 2009, 14:47 »

Quote from: a.k.a.-tom on July 30, 2009, 20:56

Quote from: m@m on July 30, 2009, 20:29
Tom, I think this Vegas coyright thing has being going on for a while, I remember some years back when the Wynn hotel first open, I stayed there for a few days and took some wonderful photos of the place, well I'm glad I got into a conversation with a local that informed me that everything was under copyright from the Parasol room inside to the exterior of the building, as well as any other Hotel/Casino on the strip...well little to say that was a big disappointment and a wasted effort...must of the photos had to be uploaded as editorial...so careful with those photos of yours, you just might get that knock on the door. $:-\$
BTW, if the person knocking is a big ugly guy wearing a black leather jacket and his name is Vinny, RUUUUN!

HA! , thanks M@M, that dates it for me. The Wynn was nothing but girders when I was last in Vegas. I think you are correct, I'll be getting online and changing all my Vegas stuff to editorial. At least then, I may have opportunity to continue to sell them......... UNLIKE at IS where they all got 86'd. =tom

Now that I think of it... why couldn't IS ask me if I'd like to put them on in editorial??? WTH? They were selling, why dump pix that were proven sellers?

Yea, everything I shoot in Vegas is under Editorial. I have been stopped many times by hotel staff asking why am I shooting and for what reason. I always tell them I am an architect and like the details of the building and they go away.

a.k.a.-tom · « **Reply #23 on:** July 31, 2009, 16:20 »

Quote from: puravida on July 31, 2009, 07:06

Quote from: m@m on July 30, 2009, 20:29

BTW, if the person knocking is a big ugly guy wearing a black leather jacket and his name is Vinny, RUUUUN!

rofl, funny but very wise words m@m

btw Tom, to add to what m@m said, to avoid having to open the door to see Vinny standing under your porch light, look through your window drapes first to see if Vinny came in a black Rolls with white wall tyres
oh, and make sure you get some bullet proof overcoat too. Try ebay

psst, and don't bother calling the constabulary, either. they got that covered

Words of wisdom, my friend!! I'll be changing what's left out there to editorial. One of the folks here pointed out to me that IS has no editorial cat.. I never noticed that, so obvious in my case why they just pulled the pix.
But some of the other stories cropping up here make no sense at all, especially the model release ones, and more so, if they are pix that are selling....
makes no sense.

=tom

m@m · « **Reply #24 on:** July 31, 2009, 17:01 »

Amen!!!

MicrostockGroup Sponsors

Author Topic: Istock deleting files without warning (Read 12793 times)

kosmikkreeper

m@m

Talanis

KB

puravida

a.k.a.-tom

photoshow

a.k.a.-tom

m@m

a.k.a.-tom

KB

a.k.a.-tom

erwinova

Gannet77

erwinova

Gannet77

puravida

bittersweet

cathyslife

PixelBytes

photoshow

PixelBytes

Moonb007

a.k.a.-tom

m@m

Related Topics

Sponsors

Microstock Poll Results

Sponsors