Author Topic: Istock stepping over the line with VOX (Read 16499 times)

leaf · « **on:** July 15, 2006, 00:49 »

in case you haven't heard. the personal blogging site VOX now has the capability for users to click on any istock photo and add it to their blog clickety-slick, FREE of charge. there is a little watermark mind you but it is minor.

here is an example

http://kristine.vox.com/library/photo/6a00b8ea0714f21bc000c2251d00b68fdb.html

is this a low cut or good advertising by istock?

IRCrockett · « **Reply #1 on:** July 15, 2006, 01:36 »

I don't like it. It's microstock after all, cough up the buck ya cheap *insult removed*.

Of course I may be more than a little biased because of blogging/lame websites like xanga/myspace that have been a pain in my butt with their users incessantly trying to hotlink to resources on the websites I've managed.

Seems like more than a little counter-productive when you're trying to sell web sized images and people can use them without paying as long as they don't mind the watermark.

EDIT: It should be an opt-in situation with this sort of thing rather than having to find out about this on a third party website.

leaf · « **Reply #2 on:** July 15, 2006, 01:40 »

yeah the opt in idea would be good.

I think it creates a very grey zone for the buyers. they will then think it is ok to hot link and steal images from the net as long as they keep the watermark on them.

chellyar · « **Reply #3 on:** July 15, 2006, 02:32 »

Urrr, Umm...

I'm not sure I'm so keen on that myself.... I agree that it creates a very grey area.

Although it's good to see the istock link etc. I can't imagine many potential microstock customers will come via this way, in fact it may turn off some as they wont want to use images in their designs that potentially appear in a users blog that dosn't have to conform to the TOS for Istock, and therefore may be defamatory to their business or customers.

Hmmm, very grey.

rjmiz · « **Reply #4 on:** July 15, 2006, 02:52 »

I just want to demonstrate how it sooooo very easy for anyone to remove the simple "Istockphoto"
on this "give-away" image.

I think if this were my image, I would sort of resent the fact that Istock is putting my images
in jeopardy of being pirated. It is really like Istock using my photo to advertise everyone elses images
on their website

leaf · « **Reply #5 on:** July 15, 2006, 03:06 »

well in the user agreement we agree to let istock use our images in their advertising.

rjmiz · « **Reply #6 on:** July 15, 2006, 03:19 »

Quote from: leaf on July 15, 2006, 03:06

well in the user agreement we agree to let istock use our images in their advertising.

You are correct, however, If im using your image on MY website to domonstrate how well
MY eggs will make someone else's baking better, this is a clear cut use by a third disinterested party
using YOUR image to their benefit, without paying any compensation to YOU the photographer!

I can understand Istock using my image to advertise the Istock website in magazines, and web advertising.
That just makes alot of sense since all parties benefit. But to make use of my image by a third party for
personal benefit....well it seems values are misaligned here.

leaf · « **Reply #7 on:** July 15, 2006, 03:38 »

well i agree and don't agree

I don't think VOX is advertising with our images. They are just getting use of them for their blogs. Once in the blog they are a quassy ad. for istock, although a poor one.

not sure what istock is thinking on this though.
maybe higher their search ranking with all the vox links?, maybe try and get customers.. although I can't see that being true as they are just getting customers who hot link images.. not much for sales for either istock or us.

They must have some sort of a plan as no downloads for us, is just the same (or worse) for them - no downloads. Just have no idea what the plan is.... and maybe it is just plain old, a dumb plan.

CJPhoto · « **Reply #8 on:** July 15, 2006, 15:01 »

Dont istock sell images to be used on websites and blogs

- defeats the point if they give them away.

madelaide · « **Reply #9 on:** July 15, 2006, 17:08 »

Has anyone reported it to iStock? Maybe they are not even aware of it?

Watermarks have always been a problem in some images they are so wasy to remove, like rjmiz showed.

Regards,
Adelaide

leaf · « **Reply #10 on:** July 15, 2006, 17:50 »

They went into an agreement with VOX about it.

Threads about vox have been going on at istock.
some deleted, some locked and some left open.

Quevaal · « **Reply #11 on:** July 15, 2006, 17:51 »

Here's a thread about it:
http://www.istockphoto.com/forum_messages.php?threadid=36670&page=2

leaf · « **Reply #12 on:** July 15, 2006, 18:20 »

that post by bitter on the istock site seems to be rather contradictory inside of itself.

saying that the vox way, giving away free watermarked thumbnails is great business and will promote proper use of the images... hmmmm..

saying that it is beter than those other sites that use images without watermarks (umm.. that probably means they bought them, if they got them from a stock site)

leaf · « **Reply #13 on:** July 16, 2006, 09:12 »

i just saw a thread on istock
http://www.istockphoto.com/forum_messages.php?threadid=36670&page=14

where the istock rep says he is disapointed in the poor response to vox. also disapointed about the lack of community spirit that istock is built on. Lack of people wanting to pitch in.... hmm.. it almost sounds like istock is a non-profit organization where it runs on volunteer help of the members...

I am not so keen on volunteering my help for an oganization that is plain and simple a business. That is like saying.. allright, everyone pitch in, we are going to all work for free and make mcdonalds the best it can be, so that the owners can swim in their $$

leaf · « **Reply #14 on:** July 16, 2006, 09:14 »

oh yeah, there will also be an option to opt-out.

can't say for sure what I'll do yet until it is in full swing. (it is still in the beta phase)

GeoPappas · « **Reply #15 on:** July 16, 2006, 12:21 »

Quote from: leaf on July 16, 2006, 09:14

...it [VOX] is still in the beta phase...

While they keep harping on this "it is in beta phase" routine, the fact is that bloggers are currently using images that can have the watermark easily removed and add them to the content of any type of blog that they want (porno, racial, etc).

leaf · « **Reply #16 on:** July 16, 2006, 12:24 »

yeah, pretty stilly if you ask me.

i think they should have prolonged their beta phase until their were ready to start using it. IE, let people opt out and give us some info about it.

madelaide · « **Reply #17 on:** July 16, 2006, 14:05 »

Odd indeed. Let's see how it develops. I could understand if we could submit images voluntarily to a very specific advertisement strategy in VOX. But if this is not a specilized site - like a designer's place, for instance - I don't think it's likely to provide finanical return to us in iStock.

Regards,
Adelaide

smphoto · « **Reply #18 on:** July 16, 2006, 17:55 »

I have a hard time figuring out why the istock administration seems to think that we'd be willing to give away our photos. And to bloggers, of all things! As a total newbie, I'm playing this game for the satisfaction it gives me to sell my photographs and to pull in a little monthly income for supplies and equipment. I am not interested in giving away photos for free for every joeschmoe so that their online diary can be 'decorated' with stock images. How are the photographers who pay/compensate models (friends and family) going to explain that their picture may very well end up on said joeschmoe's bog?

This lessens the integrity of the microstock market.

Anyway, thought I'd put in my thoughts and register

rjmiz · « **Reply #19 on:** July 16, 2006, 20:32 »

deleted

IRCrockett · « **Reply #20 on:** July 17, 2006, 02:57 »

Funny, this is the same argument people use against microstock.

Quote from: rjmiz on July 16, 2006, 20:32

Hey smphoto, I could not agree more! Listen here's the bottom line:
If I wanted to take photos for a hobby, I would have bought I hobbyist's camera, and lenses too!
My camera cost me $8000 and I didn't pay that money to give away free ....anything!
I want to make back my money. That's a reasonable expectation right?
How can I meet those expectations when someone I entrusted with
my work, starts giving it away for free?

Let's face it, there are plenty of free images out there on the web.
Let them get their stock photos from those sources. I worked hard
and expect to be compensated for my work.

The MIZ

rjmiz · « **Reply #21 on:** July 17, 2006, 03:04 »

deleted

leaf · « **Reply #22 on:** July 17, 2006, 03:38 »

Quote from: rjmiz on July 16, 2006, 20:32

Hey smphoto, I could not agree more! Listen here's the bottom line:
If I wanted to take photos for a hobby, I would have bought I hobbyist's camera, and lenses too!
My camera cost me $8000 and I didn't pay that money to give away free ....anything!
I want to make back my money. That's a reasonable expectation right?
How can I meet those expectations when someone I entrusted with
my work, starts giving it away for free?

Let's face it, there are plenty of free images out there on the web.
Let them get their stock photos from those sources. I worked hard
and expect to be compensated for my work.

The MIZ

well i have to agree with IRCrockett on this one.
that IS what they say. I'm not saying that microstock gives images away for free, but that is what the macrostock people are saying. I think the macrostock people feel the same way about microstock as the microstock people feel about giving away their images for free.

However I obviuosly don't think that selling on the microstocks is giving away images for free. Quite the contrary. I think the earning potential is just as high if not higher than many of the macros.

leaf · « **Reply #23 on:** July 17, 2006, 04:12 »

macrostock people = anyone who submits to the likes of

Alamy
Corbis
Getty Images
Myloupe
Comstock and so on and so on.

there are a number of people who are both into macro and microstock, but they are generally not naysayers.

chellyar · « **Reply #24 on:** July 17, 2006, 05:18 »

:-)...

Does that mean some of us have to beat ourselves up?

*, I was just coming to terms with that, and the doctors said I could go off the drugs soon....

MicrostockGroup Sponsors

Author Topic: Istock stepping over the line with VOX (Read 16499 times)

leaf

IRCrockett

leaf

chellyar

rjmiz

leaf

rjmiz

leaf

CJPhoto

madelaide

leaf

Quevaal

leaf

leaf

leaf

GeoPappas

leaf

madelaide

smphoto

rjmiz

IRCrockett

rjmiz

leaf

leaf

chellyar

Related Topics

Sponsors

Microstock Poll Results

Sponsors