Jo-Ann, although not a Vector artist, I'd like to applaud you for the persistent but polite manner in which you pursued that independent vector issue and forced them to come up with a joined-up policy.
Why it took them so long, I can't imagine.
Well done!

Thanks. I don't like the answer I got, but it's at least clear

Quote from: ShadySue on January 21, 2011, 05:53

Jo-Ann, although not a Vector artist, I'd like to applaud you for the persistent but polite manner in which you pursued that independent vector issue and forced them to come up with a joined-up policy.
Why it took them so long, I can't imagine.
Well done!

Thanks. I don't like the answer I got, but it's at least clear

Yep, thanks for forcing IS to spell things out.  I didn't think they would be able to build the "trap" without changing their language, or at least the definition of the word "illustration". But I guess it worked when they provided the little lexicon at the top.  Tricky work lawyers.  Seriously though, I feel really bad for people with mixed portfolios.  Definition of IS 2011 = where you go to get punished for mastering multiple disciplines. 

trying - I'm new to this...

http://www.istockphoto.com/forum_messages.php?threadid=284872&page=5#post5670792


JJRD

Posted 12 hours ago
Quote

Ok first things first. For the sake of this communication, let me start by sharing the structure of the Illustrations department here at iStock:

Senior Manager, Illustrations : bortonia, who reports to me

* Vector Lead : Colonel, who reports to bortonia
* 3D Lead : mevans, who reports to bortonia
* Raster Lead : diane555, who reports to bortonia
* Logo Lead : Paulywood, who reports to bortonia

This core team, working as a tight unit & assisted by selected Inspectors according to ''the file type'', define the basic rules of what it is to ''accept an illustration'' at iStock. This core team also works with key people in photo and video, in order to sync ''file types'' as much as possible & create an overall coherent unit. Yep... all these ''file types'' are illustrations. Yet, at iStock, we incorporate 3D renders as well as scanned and or pure digital raster illustrations within the broader ''photography'' category, due to the fact that they are by definition rasters. The team works as a unified unit to create and apply standards, yet the ''file type'' defines the actual product.

Within the context of this post, this is not up for debate.

Now, with that said, let's keep a tight focus here. The OP's proposed discussion is about ''considering going independent for illustrations but remaining exclusive for photos''. Within this scenario, here are the identified questions from the OP:

1. Question: Some other sites take JPEGs of illustrations and sell the Vector as an additional format (for more money). Is it OK for an independent illustrator but exclusive photographer to sell such JPEGS?

1. Answer: Yes, that is perfectly acceptable. At iStockphoto, the definition of ''an illustration'' (as a file type) is a vector EPS file. Yet, at Getty Images (as an example) the
iStockvectors Collection also offers to clients jpeg derivatives from those vector EPS files. What matters here and what is important to remember is the following: if an illustration is created in any Postscript driven software, iStock asks for the EPS, period (along with other zipped offerings to add value to the client). That doesn't mean that at other sites, the very same illustration couldn't come with jpeg versions. Selling jpg versions of an EPS file within this context will not affect your photography exclusivity status at iStock in no way, shape or form.

2. Question: What about JPEG illustrations that aren't photographs but aren't vectors either? There is a market for (and I used to sell when I was independent) non-vector illustrations. Seems to me that should be fair game.

2. Answer: They are not fair game, no. An exclusive iStockphoto photographer (file type) must agree to upload 3D renders & raster illustrations (scans or pure digital raster creations) to iStockphoto as RF. Again, the only difference that we consider is the file type for vector EPS files. Now, within this context, an independent artist for illustrations being exclusive for photos simply can't create any derivative of an actual Postscript driven illustration and upload it to iStockphoto. Needless to say, such cases are to be looked at on a case by case basis and common sense is to provide the proper decision from iStock.

3. Is it OK for an independent artist for illustrations being exclusive at iStock for photos to upload vectors elsewhere that are using a photo sold as an iStock exclusive file as a reference?

3. No. This would create a singular (and quite rare) situation in which we would need to take action.


I believe in iStockphoto, thousands of our artists (unfortunately the silent majority) also believe in iStockphoto... and I hope these answers will help clarify the conversation. I also fully hope that soon, we will be in a position here to prove that remaining an exclusive at iStock is the way to go for our talented Illustrators. Perhaps the proposition will be surprising at first glance, perhaps part of that proposition will be a different offering starting with the letter V... who knows? I just want everybody, especially our Illustrators, to fully realize that you are a radically important part of who we are as a community of artists.

I believe in iStockphoto, thousands of our artists (unfortunately the silent majority) also believe in iStockphoto...

Hallelujah! I believe lord! I believe! We shall not turn from the path! Show us the way oh mighty priest of IStock (eyes glaze over)

Quote from: dhanford on January 21, 2011, 11:41

http://www.istockphoto.com/forum_messages.php?threadid=284872&page=5#post5670792

Perhaps the proposition will be surprising at first glance, perhaps part of that proposition will be a different offering starting with the letter V... who knows?

Hm... That almost sounds as if they will build a new website for vectors?

That is from here...
http://www.istockphoto.com/forum_messages.php?threadid=291202&page=1
says this:
We've been dropping vague hints for a while about upcoming initiatives for Vector artists here at iStock. One of those things is coming along well enough here that we can start talking about it.

When Vetta first came out, it was mostly about photo. Complexity wasn't really the best way to look at what should and shouldn't be in there.

We took vectors out of Vetta because we wanted to eventually create a premium Vector collection here at iStock that made sense for vectors. With it's own criteria and it's own pricing structure - something that really works for illustrators and lets you see higher prices for higher tiered stuff.

We are going to create this collection. It is still in the development stages and I don't have a lot of news yet, other than - it's coming.

JJRD

Posted 12 hours ago
Quote

Ok first things first. I believe in iStockphoto, thousands of our artists (unfortunately the silent majority) also believe in iStockphoto... and I hope these answers will help clarify the conversation. I also fully hope that soon, we will be in a position here to prove that remaining an exclusive at iStock is the way to go for our talented Illustrators. Perhaps the proposition will be surprising at first glance, perhaps part of that proposition will be a different offering starting with the letter V... who knows? I just want everybody, especially our Illustrators, to fully realize that you are a radically important part of who we are as a community of artists.

------------------------


To paraphrase KK I think what JJ meant to say was "I believe in iStockphoto, thousands of our artists (unfortunately the uninformed silent majority) also believe in iStockphoto."

[ This probably a bit late, but I wanted to post here since this is where I saw mention of me]

My ears are burning!

I was quite surprised when a friend of mine told me I was being talked about here, especially since there were so few posts on my iS thread. I figured it was small-time news from a little fish, so I wasn't really surprised. I did know of this site but have never posted here before.
Anyway, the main reason I posted anything at all was simply to make my small statement regarding everything that has been happening at iS. It had gotten to the point that I just felt I could no longer contribute to their bottom line, not only because of what they were doing to their contributors, but also how they were doing it. Calgary has always had an attitude problem, so desperate to appear hip, trendy, and edgy. Bringing in people like JJRD and a few others added a new dimension, the �we know best, you don�t know what you�re talking about, have a nice day*BOOT*�. Combine that �who-the--cares-what-you-think� mindset with Getty now moving in and trying to milk their cash cow and you have one big messy fan.
I should have posted sooner than I did, closer to the time all the poo was flying, but things always get in the way. And I want you to know, for no particular reason that this decision was not a gut-wrenching, soul-searching one to make. Let�s be honest here...my port is small, nothing great and not indicative of the great talent on iS and not a big money maker. I am not a pro photographer, merely a hobbyist, so I am not cutting off my nose to spite my face. And I do not begrudge anyone who feels as I do but decides to stay on iS. My intention was certainly not to guilt anyone into making a stand. My hope was that by being part of a small group of small fish, we could maybe make Calgary feel it and take some notice. Watch out for bubbles!! 

welcome Ray!  I admire you for doing it, and I totally agree.  There probably wasn't much response on the iStock thread because it's kind of difficult to find where the line is drawn these days in the iStock forums. 

geee.. maybe we should start a new thread for "new istockers start here and say hello"   

[ This probably a bit late, but I wanted to post here since this is where I saw mention of me]

My ears are burning!

I was quite surprised when a friend of mine told me I was being talked about here, especially since there were so few posts on my iS thread. I figured it was small-time news from a little fish, so I wasn't really surprised. I did know of this site but have never posted here before.
Anyway, the main reason I posted anything at all was simply to make my small statement regarding everything that has been happening at iS. It had gotten to the point that I just felt I could no longer contribute to their bottom line, not only because of what they were doing to their contributors, but also how they were doing it. Calgary has always had an attitude problem, so desperate to appear hip, trendy, and edgy. Bringing in people like JJRD and a few others added a new dimension, the �we know best, you don�t know what you�re talking about, have a nice day*BOOT*�. Combine that �who-the--cares-what-you-think� mindset with Getty now moving in and trying to milk their cash cow and you have one big messy fan.
I should have posted sooner than I did, closer to the time all the poo was flying, but things always get in the way. And I want you to know, for no particular reason that this decision was not a gut-wrenching, soul-searching one to make. Let�s be honest here...my port is small, nothing great and not indicative of the great talent on iS and not a big money maker. I am not a pro photographer, merely a hobbyist, so I am not cutting off my nose to spite my face. And I do not begrudge anyone who feels as I do but decides to stay on iS. My intention was certainly not to guilt anyone into making a stand. My hope was that by being part of a small group of small fish, we could maybe make Calgary feel it and take some notice. Watch out for bubbles!! 

I feel EXACTLY like you do. I have been systematically deactivating my images over the past couple of months and should be finished soon. I don't think my leaving will even cause a tiny blip on the IS radar, but that's ok. This is about how much I am willing to take and how much I am NOT willing to take, and let's just say they crossed the line a long time ago.

Thanks for checking in, and as i said before, I admire your courage, even if the decision was easy.

Ray, you made a courageous stand.  Even if your port is small, you have invested time in the Istock community almost from the very beginning.  To lose people like you says volumes about what has happened to community spirit there.  Very sad.

Hope you will not be a stranger over here

Seems yet another thing is broken. People are reporting $0 royalties.

http://www.istockphoto.com/forum_messages.php?threadid=294962&page=1

I see that Steel Cage suggestion was made. You'd think they could have some way of reporting that.
Also, if someone redeems free credits, e.g. if they manage to work out how to do it via a Moo card, how does that show on our uploads page?

"A stereotypical computer programmer dreams up a piece of software and insists that humans work by its rules.  In contrast, office ethnographers tend to assume that people know what they are doing. So if a computer program isn't being used as intended, it's the program's fault, not the human's."

Excellent!  This is supposed to be the logic behind the iPad isn't it?  To create products more in line with the way we work instinctively?  Great stuff.  It will probably take a while for the message to seep through...

Sounds as though 'Office Ethnographer' is a new term for the old 'HCI Specialist'?

Funnily enough, Sue, I really wanted to be a HCI Specialist when I was at uni.... but it was too new, and the material was too vast.

Perhaps if microstock goes down the tubes, I'll look at becoming an 'Office Ethnographer'  

Life... it's all in the timing, eh?