Author Topic: Istock F5 epic fail (Read 284616 times)

Graffoto · « **Reply #225 on:** December 23, 2010, 11:16 »

Quote from: sjlocke on December 23, 2010, 10:16

Quote from: caspixel on December 23, 2010, 10:05
Another apparent fiasco:

http://www.istockphoto.com/forum_messages.php?threadid=284542

More of a software "we didn't anticipate the consequences of our actions" type thing. I'm glad to see that they are upping the value of the collections, and picking up the bill for it. Aside from the reporting fiasco, this is a plus on both sides.

Dosen't anyone at IS test the software changes before pushing them through live?
In keeping with the spirit of this thread: FAIL

caspixel · « **Reply #226 on:** December 23, 2010, 12:55 »

Another fiasco - The Stockey's drawing. It's happening "soon". This one was well advertised too. Did anyone even know about it?

http://www.istockphoto.com/forum_messages.php?threadid=283382&page=1

cathyslife · « **Reply #227 on:** December 23, 2010, 13:57 »

Quote from: caspixel on December 23, 2010, 12:55

Another fiasco - The Stockey's drawing. It's happening "soon". This one was well advertised too. Did anyone even know about it?

http://www.istockphoto.com/forum_messages.php?threadid=283382&page=1

No. But I'm not really interested anyway.

Jo Ann Snover · « **Reply #228 on:** December 23, 2010, 15:00 »

Quote from: sjlocke on December 23, 2010, 10:16

Quote from: caspixel on December 23, 2010, 10:05
Another apparent fiasco:

http://www.istockphoto.com/forum_messages.php?threadid=284542

More of a software "we didn't anticipate the consequences of our actions" type thing. I'm glad to see that they are upping the value of the collections, and picking up the bill for it. Aside from the reporting fiasco, this is a plus on both sides.

I no longer have any Vetta images, so I've no skin in this game directly, but it seems to me there are two worrying aspects to this.

One is that they didn't take a few minutes to think through a proposed change - this shoot from the hip mentality continues in spite of the many times it has caused problems.

Two is that they're playing with the redeemed credits the contributor earns - reducing them, effectively - as a way to deal with the side effects of a misguided price increase (when they doubled Vetta prices and then halved the sales).

It used to be that the legal guarantee earned a contributor 100 RCs (even though no cash in royalties). So for an old Vetta sale of a Large with a legal guarantee, a contributor would have received 40 + 100 RCs, but now it's just 70 - half the RCs for the same items.

I honestly doubt that very many buyers were purchasing the legal guarantee, so giving away something of dubious value "free" would not have enticed me, but they can at least try to advertise they're sweetening the pot at the higher price.

lisafx · « **Reply #229 on:** December 23, 2010, 15:49 »

This invention of the magical "guarantee", charging an arm and a leg for it, then suddenly including it as an "extra value" in overpriced collections just smacks of unethical sales tactics. A variation on the old game of retailers jacking the prices then offering a "sale".

Sorry to hear it will also affect people's RC counts. But then, nothing they do surprises me at this point.

Sean Locke Photography · « **Reply #230 on:** December 23, 2010, 16:24 »

Quote from: lisafx on December 23, 2010, 15:49

This invention of the magical "guarantee", charging an arm and a leg for it, then suddenly including it as an "extra value" in overpriced collections just smacks of unethical sales tactics. A variation on the old game of retailers jacking the prices then offering a "sale".

Sorry to hear it will also affect people's RC counts. But then, nothing they do surprises me at this point.

Jonathan will attest that many companies will not work with agencies that do not offer some sort of indemnity or warrant or legal what have you to protect them. Adding the guarantee for free to the higher priced collections will probably make more in sales RCs than it would have in the paid for RCs.

caspixel · « **Reply #231 on:** December 23, 2010, 22:20 »

Breaking up the file exclusivity looks like it's turning into yet another fiasco. Yet another of those "didn't anticipate the consequences of our actions" type of thing. They keep making this more and more and more complicated that it is inevitably going to fall like a house of cards. Talk about unsustainable.

http://www.istockphoto.com/forum_messages.php?threadid=284872&page=2

cathyslife · « **Reply #232 on:** December 24, 2010, 07:50 »

Quote from: caspixel on December 23, 2010, 22:20

Breaking up the file exclusivity looks like it's turning into yet another fiasco. Yet another of those "didn't anticipate the consequences of our actions" type of thing. They keep making this more and more and more complicated that it is inevitably going to fall like a house of cards. Talk about unsustainable.

http://www.istockphoto.com/forum_messages.php?threadid=284872&page=2

Don't you just love the stupid act they put on?

loop · « **Reply #233 on:** December 24, 2010, 08:14 »

Quote from: caspixel on December 23, 2010, 10:05

Another apparent fiasco:

http://www.istockphoto.com/forum_messages.php?threadid=284542

That, a fiasco? That's nice. It would be better to keep 40% for Vetta and Agency sales, true, but in just two days seems to have had a better effect on V and A sales that the sale at minus prices, and the stats "messing up" doesn't matter at all to me, after all I can see Vetta sales ordered by date. Well, nothing more, it's better being short and not wasting the time needed for those dedicated to the Fiasco Warching Mission.

ShadySue · « **Reply #234 on:** December 24, 2010, 08:18 »

Quote from: caspixel on December 23, 2010, 22:20

Breaking up the file exclusivity looks like it's turning into yet another fiasco. Yet another of those "didn't anticipate the consequences of our actions" type of thing. They keep making this more and more and more complicated that it is inevitably going to fall like a house of cards. Talk about unsustainable.

http://www.istockphoto.com/forum_messages.php?threadid=284872&page=2

The real problem was right back when they decided to call vectors 'illustrations' rather than 'vectors', not anticipating the consequences of their actions. Someone who doesn't know what a vector is shouldn't be buying one.

lisafx · « **Reply #235 on:** December 24, 2010, 10:08 »

Oh dear lord. Now they are saying that raster illustrations and 3D renders are "photography"? Somebody please get those people a dictionary!!

You can call it a duck, but if it doesn't walk like a duck, talk like a duck, and if it's a$$ isn't watertight, it ain't a duck...

ShadySue · « **Reply #236 on:** December 24, 2010, 10:10 »

Quote from: lisafx on December 24, 2010, 10:08

Oh dear lord. Now they are saying that raster illustrations and 3D renders are "photography"? Somebody please get those people a dictionary!!

They always did.

caspixel · « **Reply #237 on:** December 24, 2010, 10:22 »

Well, I'm just curious to know what they are going to do about people who upload to sites that require an accompanying JPG of the vector image, or want to sell a JPG of the vector image. What then? That's where their definition really falls apart. Once it becomes a JPG is it an illustration or a photo?

lisafx · « **Reply #238 on:** December 24, 2010, 10:22 »

Quote from: ShadySue on December 24, 2010, 10:10

Quote from: lisafx on December 24, 2010, 10:08
Oh dear lord. Now they are saying that raster illustrations and 3D renders are "photography"? Somebody please get those people a dictionary!!
They always did.

Fair enough. It was always stupid, but until now it didn't really matter. If they are going to make it an issue of exclusivity, they really need a better definition, right?

lisafx · « **Reply #239 on:** December 24, 2010, 10:24 »

Quote from: caspixel on December 24, 2010, 10:22

Well, I'm just curious to know what they are going to do about people who upload to sites that require an accompanying JPG of the vector image, or want to sell a JPG of the vector image. What then? That's where their definition really falls apart. Once it becomes a JPG is it an illustration or a photo?

Exactly!

I don't see why other sites' requirements should have bearing on Istock exclusivity. This is just another muddy swamp Istock has created for its contributors.

donding · « **Reply #240 on:** December 24, 2010, 10:56 »

so what happens to the exclusive photographer that are not exclusive illustrators and have these jpeg's already on these other sites? Will iStock consider them in breach of contract?

Sean Locke Photography · « **Reply #241 on:** December 24, 2010, 11:20 »

Quote from: donding on December 24, 2010, 10:56

so what happens to the exclusive photographer that are not exclusive illustrators and have these jpeg's already on these other sites? Will iStock consider them in breach of contract?

Up until this point, they should not have had them on other sites, as most exclusive contributors realize any raster in a "photo" and thus, no-go on other sites. So that is a non-issue.

donding · « **Reply #242 on:** December 24, 2010, 11:33 »

Quote from: sjlocke on December 24, 2010, 11:20

Quote from: donding on December 24, 2010, 10:56
so what happens to the exclusive photographer that are not exclusive illustrators and have these jpeg's already on these other sites? Will iStock consider them in breach of contract?

Up until this point, they should not have had them on other sites, as most exclusive contributors realize any raster in a "photo" and thus, no-go on other sites. So that is a non-issue.

So that's always been the case? If that is so it really does no good to offer non exclusive illustration to exclusive photographer's. Doesn't make a bit of sense.

ShadySue · « **Reply #243 on:** December 24, 2010, 12:00 »

Quote from: donding on December 24, 2010, 11:33

Quote from: sjlocke on December 24, 2010, 11:20
Quote from: donding on December 24, 2010, 10:56
so what happens to the exclusive photographer that are not exclusive illustrators and have these jpeg's already on these other sites? Will iStock consider them in breach of contract?

Up until this point, they should not have had them on other sites, as most exclusive contributors realize any raster in a "photo" and thus, no-go on other sites. So that is a non-issue.

So that's always been the case? If that is so it really does no good to offer non exclusive illustration to exclusive photographer's. Doesn't make a bit of sense.

It makes no sense whatsoever. Looks like you will not be able to be an independent vector contributor and independent raster contributor, but not the other way around. Again, a decision which was not carefully thought through, or certainly not researched. Although it doesn't affect me personally, it certainly lowers my estimation of, and confidence in, 'them in charge' by another notch.

ShadySue · « **Reply #244 on:** December 24, 2010, 12:04 »

Quote from: lisafx on December 24, 2010, 10:22

Quote from: ShadySue on December 24, 2010, 10:10
Quote from: lisafx on December 24, 2010, 10:08
Oh dear lord. Now they are saying that raster illustrations and 3D renders are "photography"? Somebody please get those people a dictionary!!
They always did.

Fair enough. It was always stupid, but until now it didn't really matter. If they are going to make it an issue of exclusivity, they really need a better definition, right?

It actually mattered to me. I have certain photos which are of fairly-common-subject X, but their (almost) USP is that they were taken in location Y. But there are many 3D photo-realistic images of X which, since they don't exist, so have no location, are allowed to have as many locations as they like in their keywords, including Y. So they turn up in searches for photos of X, Y. Grrrr. I quizzed Ethan about this, and he promised to look into it. As nothing has changed, I'm guessing it was deemed to be OK.

cathyslife · « **Reply #245 on:** December 24, 2010, 13:54 »

Quote from: lisafx on December 24, 2010, 10:08

Oh dear lord. Now they are saying that raster illustrations and 3D renders are "photography"? Somebody please get those people a dictionary!!

You can call it a duck, but if it doesn't walk like a duck, talk like a duck, and if it's a$$ isn't watertight, it ain't a duck...

This is OT, but Lisa, I just love the expressions you come up with! LOL!

ShadySue · « **Reply #246 on:** December 24, 2010, 15:28 »

Quote from: cclapper on December 24, 2010, 13:54

Quote from: lisafx on December 24, 2010, 10:08
Oh dear lord. Now they are saying that raster illustrations and 3D renders are "photography"? Somebody please get those people a dictionary!!

You can call it a duck, but if it doesn't walk like a duck, talk like a duck, and if it's a$$ isn't watertight, it ain't a duck...[/b]

This is OT, but Lisa, I just love the expressions you come up with! LOL!

And I wish someone would tell the iStock inspectors. I don't know how many non-ducks I've wikied: swans, geese, herons, moorhens, coots, grebes (oh, so often!) and even a flamingo (just the one IIRC). But still there's at least one a day slips through. And I won't be wiki-ing once I reach what would have been, but won't be (in %), Gold.

lisafx · « **Reply #247 on:** December 24, 2010, 17:32 »

Quote from: ShadySue on December 24, 2010, 12:04

It actually mattered to me. I have certain photos which are of fairly-common-subject X, but their (almost) USP is that they were taken in location Y. But there are many 3D photo-realistic images of X which, since they don't exist, so have no location, are allowed to have as many locations as they like in their keywords, including Y. So they turn up in searches for photos of X, Y. Grrrr. I quizzed Ethan about this, and he promised to look into it. As nothing has changed, I'm guessing it was deemed to be OK.

Crazy! Seems like if it is a render of a non-specific location it shouldn't be able to use ANY specific locations in the keywords.

On the duck's posterior, I wish I could take credit, but the guys my husband has worked with in construction use the term "tighter than a duck's a$$" all the time. I think it is a hoot, and was happy to throw it in there for emphasis. Glad you liked it Cathy!

travelstock · « **Reply #248 on:** December 26, 2010, 06:22 »

Quote from: lisafx on December 24, 2010, 17:32

Crazy! Seems like if it is a render of a non-specific location it shouldn't be able to use ANY specific locations in the keywords.

I agree - location keywords are a common problem, both for illustrations and for photos. Just because its a beach doesn't mean its Hawaii.

Its not just a problem at IS though - all the sites have contributors that decide its a good way to rank higher in searches by adding keywords for many popular destinations. The danger is when a buyer uses one mistakenly and gets in trouble for including an image of the Philippines on an advertisement for Hawaii (for example).

ShadySue · « **Reply #249 on:** December 26, 2010, 06:31 »

Quote from: holgs on December 26, 2010, 06:22

Quote from: lisafx on December 24, 2010, 17:32

Crazy! Seems like if it is a render of a non-specific location it shouldn't be able to use ANY specific locations in the keywords.

I agree - location keywords are a common problem, both for illustrations and for photos. Just because its a beach doesn't mean its Hawaii.

Its not just a problem at IS though - all the sites have contributors that decide its a good way to rank higher in searches by adding keywords for many popular destinations. The danger is when a buyer uses one mistakenly and gets in trouble for including an image of the Philippines on an advertisement for Hawaii (for example).

In actual (real) photos, iStock says that only the real location can be keyworded, for exactly that reason.
Individual offenders can be wikied, but in the past at least there have been so many that it's worth reporting them for a bulk wiki. In the past, I've suggested e.g. "Caribbean" AND "Mediterranean", (88 have snuck in since the last bulk wiki) but you can substitute just about any similar: Maldives, Seycelles, "Indian Ocean".
256 ATM for Caribbean AND Maldives; 1029 France AND Italy (a few are relevant)
I have also suggested that whenever a bulk wiki is undertaken, note of the offending terms should be circulated to inspectors, but that either hasn't been done or the inspectors are ignoring the notification. (Or, of course, people are sneakily putting the multiple locations in after acceptance, but it's usually obvious when that's been done.)

MicrostockGroup Sponsors

Author Topic: Istock F5 epic fail (Read 284616 times)

Graffoto

caspixel

cathyslife

Jo Ann Snover

lisafx

Sean Locke Photography

caspixel

cathyslife

loop

ShadySue

lisafx

ShadySue

caspixel

lisafx

lisafx

donding

Sean Locke Photography

donding

ShadySue

ShadySue

cathyslife

ShadySue

lisafx

travelstock

ShadySue

Related Topics

Sponsors

Microstock Poll Results

Sponsors