pancakes

MicrostockGroup Sponsors


Author Topic: iStock offering split exclusivity deal to vector artists.  (Read 8776 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

bittersweet

« Reply #25 on: September 29, 2010, 22:22 »
0
It was suggested by a contributor in the IS thread that the word "illustrations" was used rather than the word vector intentionally.  They were suggesting that the split could be putting rastor and vector illustrations in one catagory.

http://www.istockphoto.com/forum_messages.php?threadid=252412&page=19

No one official has yet denied that conclusion (mind you that post was only a few hours ago).

What a total calamity that would be, IMO!



Wow. So NOW they want to count rasters illustrations as illustrations when they've been perfectly fine returning them in photo searches for years. Classic.

Does that mean that they are gonna try to start a new pricing structure for rasters? How will they justify the ridiculous redeemed credits bias against vectors if rasters are combined under the same exclusivity blanket?

This is crazy.
« Last Edit: September 29, 2010, 22:27 by whatalife »


« Reply #26 on: September 29, 2010, 22:57 »
0
This is what rogermexico said,

"The plan is to make separate exclusivity options for illustration in the same way that video and audio are. So you could be an exclusive illustrator and non-exclusive photographer."

I don't read that as combining raster illos and vectors into one category. Perhaps I should get better at reading between the lines if that's what it says. Who knows these days ?

bittersweet

« Reply #27 on: September 29, 2010, 23:20 »
0
This is what rogermexico said,

"The plan is to make separate exclusivity options for illustration in the same way that video and audio are. So you could be an exclusive illustrator and non-exclusive photographer."

I don't read that as combining raster illos and vectors into one category. Perhaps I should get better at reading between the lines if that's what it says. Who knows these days ?

No sorry, I wasn't saying that is what he said. I was responding to Pixel's speculation. Either scenario opens up a big ole can of worms for them.

Pixel-Pizzazz

« Reply #28 on: September 29, 2010, 23:37 »
0
This is what rogermexico said,

"The plan is to make separate exclusivity options for illustration in the same way that video and audio are. So you could be an exclusive illustrator and non-exclusive photographer."

I don't read that as combining raster illos and vectors into one category. Perhaps I should get better at reading between the lines if that's what it says. Who knows these days ?

I was just mentioning what a contributor had said (I took it a bit more to heart than I might normally, since the person who said it used to work on the inside, so to speak - as an inspector at one time).  I'm sure HQ will clear up any speculation that wording has caused.

And welcome to 'MSG' - you'll be hungry for more of the bold flavours here, before you know it :D

« Reply #29 on: September 29, 2010, 23:59 »
0
This is what rogermexico said,

"The plan is to make separate exclusivity options for illustration in the same way that video and audio are. So you could be an exclusive illustrator and non-exclusive photographer."

I don't read that as combining raster illos and vectors into one category. Perhaps I should get better at reading between the lines if that's what it says. Who knows these days ?

I was just mentioning what a contributor had said (I took it a bit more to heart than I might normally, since the person who said it used to work on the inside, so to speak - as an inspector at one time).  I'm sure HQ will clear up any speculation that wording has caused.

And welcome to 'MSG' - you'll be hungry for more of the bold flavours here, before you know it :D

I don't know how they could draw any sort of line that would allow them to separate raster illustrations from photographs if they decided to go that route. So many "photographs" are not straight from the camera - composites, heavily processed, collages, stitches. Then there are 3D renders which have always been treated as photographs even though they aren't.

Once you have pixels vs. vectors I don't know how you'd make the distinction clearly and unambiguously between pixels that were "illustrations" and pixels that were "photographs".

I'm sure they'll want to avoid rasterized vectors showing up elsewhere if exclusive illustrators become independent for photographs, but they've brought this mess on themselves with this series of crazy decisions to hose contributors.  I couldn't blame any vector contributor for wanting to keep vector exclusivity and make a little extra on the side with rasters.

« Reply #30 on: September 30, 2010, 01:04 »
0
This is what rogermexico said,

"The plan is to make separate exclusivity options for illustration in the same way that video and audio are. So you could be an exclusive illustrator and non-exclusive photographer."

I don't read that as combining raster illos and vectors into one category. Perhaps I should get better at reading between the lines if that's what it says. Who knows these days ?

I was just mentioning what a contributor had said (I took it a bit more to heart than I might normally, since the person who said it used to work on the inside, so to speak - as an inspector at one time).  I'm sure HQ will clear up any speculation that wording has caused.

And welcome to 'MSG' - you'll be hungry for more of the bold flavours here, before you know it :D

I should have added his post to put everything in context. It would have made more sense.

Thanks for welcoming me to Wild West of the microstock forums!  ;D
« Last Edit: September 30, 2010, 01:06 by retrorocket »

« Reply #31 on: September 30, 2010, 09:23 »
0
I'm sure they'll want to avoid rasterized vectors showing up elsewhere if exclusive illustrators become independent for photographs, but they've brought this mess on themselves with this series of crazy decisions to hose contributors.  I couldn't blame any vector contributor for wanting to keep vector exclusivity and make a little extra on the side with rasters.

These announcements all seem to beg the question, "Did you guys really think this through?". It seems to be about 5 seconds in the forum before someone pokes a big giant hole in their "special" announcement.

« Reply #32 on: September 30, 2010, 13:13 »
0
Seams that they guts are not empty jet. They really have fat cheek to suggest anything after greedy mess what they produced.

I dont like them from the first day. For now I still dont like them (I hate them precisely) + I dont believe them anymore.
Anyhow I don have any good or positive word about them.
I always hate tricky little pussies geeks with primitive foxy attitude.
Its really not coincidence that they name on my language is iStock, Cattle and *insult removed* (all in one word)

Better for them to cover themselves with ears, shut up an crawl under rock where they come from.

Sorry for trolling again, I am very tired of them and with they new insanely or other lunatic future offers which cant surprise me anymore in anything...


 

Related Topics

  Subject / Started by Replies Last post
27 Replies
8674 Views
Last post June 14, 2009, 14:12
by MisterElements
1 Replies
2996 Views
Last post May 21, 2009, 21:28
by helix7
14 Replies
4115 Views
Last post December 01, 2011, 21:07
by Susan S.
20 Replies
5863 Views
Last post January 05, 2012, 16:19
by rinderart
9 Replies
2917 Views
Last post September 04, 2014, 10:51
by pixsol

Sponsors

Microstock Poll Results