MicrostockGroup
Agency Based Discussion => iStockPhoto.com => Topic started by: Sean Locke Photography on December 13, 2010, 12:19
-
See here: http://bit.ly/flA7rB (http://bit.ly/flA7rB)
-
Ah so this is the big 'Monday news' everyone's been on tenterhooks about.
Funny coincidence given the other discussion here that's going on today.
-
Oh good. Another big announcement that is supposed to "benefit contributors" but doesn't put one thin dime in my pocket. ::)
-
I haven't really read Happy Announcements posts in the Istock forum before, I thought you were kidding about the wooyays and stuff. But there are actually people there crying Hallelujah for something several other microstock sites have offered for years. They are being sarcastic, right?
-
its about time...this is going to create an inspection queue mess though
-
Oh good. Another big announcement that is supposed to "benefit contributors" but doesn't put one thin dime in my pocket. ::)
Seems like a good announcement, but it doesn't really affect me either.
-
No they really are that happy over this. At least until IS decides to limit it to exclusives only or announce that it will be supplemented with images already owned by Getty. Interesting that they don't want any celebrity or sports images. That's ok, other sites are happy to have my shots of Ice-T, Pamela Anderson, Andre Tippin, Doug Flutie and Duff Goldman (to name a few).
Can someone link me to the "other conversation"? I must have missed that one.
-
Admins have referenced the need to "caption" editorial images a couple of times. I can't seem to find what that means. Anybody know?
Wonder what the pricing structure will be for editorial images. It might be worth trying out after all...
-
Admins have referenced the need to "caption" editorial images a couple of times. I can't seem to find what that means. Anybody know?
Wonder what the pricing structure will be for editorial images. It might be worth trying out after all...
A two sentence description of the image content.
Pricing is same as regular collection pricing.
-
@ Sean
I see someone asked you why you don't go 'wild with joy for once'.
Made me laugh, anyway :D
-
Until about two years ago I was shouting for this. Now, I'm not so sure. This now means I have to make decisions (Almy or iStock) for each of my images, whereas ATM, editorial is clearly 'for Alamy'. I still think most of the editorial images I shoot are of limited end-use, so not great for Micro. It will be interesting to see what sort of Editorial sells well enough on iStock to make it work well.
-
I see they are requiring releases signed by parents for images of minors. I wonder if there will be an 'editorial-use-only' release for that purpose.
-
This would have been good news for me, if they hadn't excluded news, sports and celebreties... :(
But, no, there's way for me right there: "Again, Getty Images are the experts in these fields and we encourage people interested in news, sport and entertainment to work with them." My short career as Getty photographer would probably look something like this:
Me: "Hi, this is Ploink, could you please tell me on which FTP-server I can submit my news, sports and entertainment photos?"
Getty: "What gives you the idea that we are interested in those photos?"
Me: "The good people at IstockPhoto encouraged me to work with you..."
Getty: "Yeah, right..." - click
-
Admins have referenced the need to "caption" editorial images a couple of times. I can't seem to find what that means. Anybody know?
Most of the details are spelled out here:
http://www.istockphoto.com/article_view.php?ID=939#3 (http://www.istockphoto.com/article_view.php?ID=939#3)
Although they have a tight close up of a man and woman through a window, and say :
"A good caption:
Istanbul Turkey - November, 2009:
A man and woman ride a tram on İstiklal Caddesi, a busy pedestrian shopping street leading to Taksim Square in Istanbul."
Despite the fact that you can hardly tell it's a tram window, and the location is totally invisible in the image.
I'm confused - but can't post on the forum for a better explanation.
-
They say, "• In most places police and emergency crews will require that photographers have press accreditation to shoot accident scenes or similar sites. You must show us that you have the necessary permission to upload any images of this kind of thing."
This is not a requirement in the UK, certainly not in Scotland. Will the inspectors know which countries need this and which don't?
-
They also say that they won't take, for example, 'improved' skin - an example is shown. Given that many iStockers have been doing this invisibly (unlike the rough and ready improvement in the example) for years, how would the inspectors know it had been done?
Of course, they're relying on the photographer's honesty, but they have rather put themselves on the spot (pun unintended) by saying that.
-
Thanks Sean and Sue, for answering my question about captions. I skimmed the article, but must have skimmed over that part.
Releases for minors? That leaves out quite a bit of travel and lifestyle editorial stuff.
-
It's RF editorial so the same release you always use should cover it.
@Lisa Captions contain the pertinent information about the image. Ask yourself, "What point does the image have?" and then write the answer. It usually also contains information about the date and the location depicted.
IS is requiring a date, country and description. If your image is product related (ie cell phone on white) then you need to list the exact product name and manufacturer.
There is an accepted format for captions but I don't know if IS will have us do the formatting or just have us put in the information like on other sites.
-
It's RF editorial so the same release you always use should cover it.
I've never been able to find an editorial release, and I've asked at least three times in the past for a link to one (though for RM).
-
Editorial by definition doesn't need a release. Editorial is "newsworthy" images. IS is the only site that requires an MR for editorial images be released. Any MR that IS accepts now should work for the editorial images.
-
Question - could exclusives distribute RF Editorial elsewhere in the past? Was just wondering if now they have to be editorial exclusive also?
-
Question - could exclusives distribute RF Editorial elsewhere in the past? Was just wondering if now they have to be editorial exclusive also?
No. Exclusivity covers all RF.
-
@Lisa Captions contain the pertinent information about the image. Ask yourself, "What point does the image have?" and then write the answer. It usually also contains information about the date and the location depicted.
IS is requiring a date, country and description. If your image is product related (ie cell phone on white) then you need to list the exact product name and manufacturer.
There is an accepted format for captions but I don't know if IS will have us do the formatting or just have us put in the information like on other sites.
Thanks Nancy. Seems like the "captions" fill the same function as "description" currently fills, except with specific details required.
-
For me it's the deliverance of cloning logos and people off my photographs. And that was 70% of my tasks. Omg I'm happy, even though there will be gray areas, it's a real deliverance
-
I know that one of the reasons textbook manufacturers haven't used iStock (and presumably the others) in the past was that they didn't know if the images were unaltered.
I hope there will be some way of indicating that our images are unaltered (to editorial standards, i.e. a bit of levels etc, but that's all) even if they don't need to be designated as 'editorial'. E.g. unaltered wildlife.
I have always indicated this in my description if I've altered a wildlife pic., but it's never been a requirement.
-
I will stick with alamy for editorial. It doesn't seem to of taken off with the micros and I wonder why it has taken so many years for istock to have editorial? As they aren't likely to sell in the same volume as non-editorial, it seems like a waste of time with low microstock prices under 20% commission.
-
I will stick with alamy for editorial. It doesn't seem to of taken off with the micros and I wonder why it has taken so many years for istock to have editorial? As they aren't likely to sell in the same volume as non-editorial, it seems like a waste of time with low microstock prices under 20% commission.
I'd agree. Most editorial shots are going to be low-volume sellers more suited to RM prices.
-
Editorial by definition doesn't need a release. Editorial is "newsworthy" images. IS is the only site that requires an MR for editorial images be released. Any MR that IS accepts now should work for the editorial images.
I'd hope they'd provide one which is very specific for editorial only. (I do understand it's only for non-group images of minors, so will only apply to a few images).
-
Releases for minors? That leaves out quite a bit of travel and lifestyle editorial stuff.
Seems to be only for unattended minors. They showed a picture of a group of people with minors and that was deemed OK.
-
Releases for minors? That leaves out quite a bit of travel and lifestyle editorial stuff.
Seems to be only for unattended minors. They showed a picture of a group of people with minors and that was deemed OK.
Ah, that makes it easier. Thanks Jen. Things are moving fast - hard to keep up!
-
Would they enable FTP submission or I have to go thru 15/week process???
-
Would they enable FTP submission or I have to go thru 15/week process???
I have a feeling DeepMeta is going to be their "official" FTP solution, since they are now working together and someone said somewhere in that thread that you will be able to upload editorial through DeepMeta.
-
It was difficult to get agencies to take editorial images in the days when you could actually make money in stock. They have low sales volume, high hassle factor associated with them. Micro seems a very poor place for such images. But of course people will jump in with them. Some Alamy sales I had last few months for editorial images, $166, $50, $328, $50, $270, $59, $177, $105, $73, $49, $165, $92, $100, $160, $200, $50, $80, $161, $205, $301 I'm sure I could make a lot more 25 cents at a time.
-
Thanks Sean and Sue, for answering my question about captions. I skimmed the article, but must have skimmed over that part.
Releases for minors? That leaves out quite a bit of travel and lifestyle editorial stuff.
I understand is for minors alone, not, for example, for minors in a crowd.
-
The text states
We will reject all unreleased portraits of unaccompanied children.
It appears that only images of children on their own without an adult or who are not in part of a group need an MR.
-
Here is a link to a editorial captioning tool that somebody on microstockgroup pull together. http://www.microstockgroup.com/software-general/editorial-caption-tool/msg152686 (http://www.microstockgroup.com/software-general/editorial-caption-tool/msg152686)
http://postpop.drivehq.com/microstockphoto/editorialcaption.html (http://postpop.drivehq.com/microstockphoto/editorialcaption.html)
I would imagine Istock would have somewhat similar requirements.
-
I will stick with alamy for editorial. It doesn't seem to of taken off with the micros and I wonder why it has taken so many years for istock to have editorial? As they aren't likely to sell in the same volume as non-editorial, it seems like a waste of time with low microstock prices under 20% commission.
I'd agree. Most editorial shots are going to be low-volume sellers more suited to RM prices.
I agree in general. But RM prices are coming down rapidly, e.g. newspapers and educational publications, and iStock has a higher reach, according to Alexa:
(http://www.lizworld.com/iStock/iStock-Alamy.jpg)
I'll be very interesting to see what happens. But I'm hopeless at making decisions!
-
I will stick with alamy for editorial. It doesn't seem to of taken off with the micros and I wonder why it has taken so many years for istock to have editorial? As they aren't likely to sell in the same volume as non-editorial, it seems like a waste of time with low microstock prices under 20% commission.
I'd agree. Most editorial shots are going to be low-volume sellers more suited to RM prices.
Good points.
As soon as my IS exclusivity is no more, come the New Year, I will try a mix of both and adjust where I'm submitting as needed.
-
I send most things to Alamy. If they don't take it then I'll send it to DT. My editorial sales on both sites are about even.
-
I noticed one interesting point: iStock does have a better understanding about what "editorial" means than most of the micro sites. In fact it's total opposite.
I think they have chosen a strategy that encourages to upload images that have a long "shelf life" instead of snaps of events that are downloaded once or twice while they are new and nothing afterwards.
(I still hate iStock)
-
I noticed one interesting point: iStock does have a better understanding about what "editorial" means than most of the micro sites. In fact it's total opposite.
I think they have chosen a strategy that encourages to upload images that have a long "shelf life" instead of snaps of events that are downloaded once or twice while they are new and nothing afterwards.
(I still hate iStock)
Maybe that's because their inspection process won't facilitate timely images from getting online, unless there was a 'fast track', which wasn't mentioned.
-
I think it has more to do with a non-compete and Getty. The rules page states no news, sports or celebrities because Getty does it better.
-
I send most things to Alamy. If they don't take it then I'll send it to DT. My editorial sales on both sites are about even.
DT accepts editorial (or RM)? I didn't realize that. Good to know, as I plan on submitting there in 2011 as well. Wheee!
-
DT does Editorial. Alamy does Editorial, RM and RF
-
I send most things to Alamy. If they don't take it then I'll send it to DT. My editorial sales on both sites are about even.
Do you mean in terms of dls, $$$ or both?
-
I see that the editorial pictures must have the same acceptance standards as the general collection.
That'll rule out a lot of genuine natural light images, then.
-
I will stick with alamy for editorial. It doesn't seem to of taken off with the micros and I wonder why it has taken so many years for istock to have editorial? As they aren't likely to sell in the same volume as non-editorial, it seems like a waste of time with low microstock prices under 20% commission.
I'd agree. Most editorial shots are going to be low-volume sellers more suited to RM prices.
And although RM prices are sinking, at least a separate payment has to be made for each use. RF one fee, many possible uses.
-
I see that the editorial pictures must have the same acceptance standards as the general collection.
That'll rule out a lot of genuine natural light images, then.
---------------------------
I agree and it does not make any sense. Since technical standards need to be the same and they won't take news/sports/celebs, it seems their version of "editorial" is commercial stock with the logos not cloned out.
Everybody rush to shoot your favorite toys/Iphone on white background!!!
-
Illustrators out again. :-[
-
I see that the editorial pictures must have the same acceptance standards as the general collection.
That'll rule out a lot of genuine natural light images, then.
---------------------------
I agree and it does not make any sense. Since technical standards need to be the same and they won't take news/sports/celebs, it seems their version of "editorial" is commercial stock with the logos not cloned out.
Everybody rush to shoot your favorite toys/Iphone on white background!!!
I think there's a lot of editorial of various cities and activities in well known places with lots of unleleased people around - lifestyle, not sports/news/celebs. Picadilly Circus and Times Square become viable, for example.
And my portfolio is full of genuine natural light images, so that's not an issue. Some cityscape or beach shots that previously were refused without model releases will now be usable. I can't have as much fun with post processing though :)
I don't do events or celebrities anyway, so this opens up a lot of additional material in locations I'm currently shooting stock.
-
I see that the editorial pictures must have the same acceptance standards as the general collection.
That'll rule out a lot of genuine natural light images, then.
The images have still got to be useable as stock therefore they must have the same standards applied. Like Jo Ann I have hundreds of 'natural light' images too. It was all I used for my first couple of years doing microstock.
-
a bit off topic, but I'm amazed how many photographers consider natural light images to be more amateur. harnessing and using natural light effectively, IMO, is one of the hallmarks of some of the world's best photographers. I absolutely love shooting in natural light. properly.
-
so.. what are the guidelines at DT for editorial? I looked around the site and through the contributor FAQ but my ADD took over and I gave up looking for it. anyone know where those guidelines/rules for editorial at DT are? I'm wondering how they compare to istock. I do see that they accept sports and celebrities because I browsed the collection and saw a bunch of those.
-
I think they key reason for not accepting celebrities and sports editorial on iStock is that Getty already does this so well, they don't see any reason to compete with themselves on iStock. where I think iStock editorial will compete is timeless editorial like travel backgrounds, landmarks etc./ general protests etc., product and company backgrounds for new items/papers/mags...images that I see coming from shutterstock right now in a lot of major papers.
-
I think they key reason for not accepting celebrities and sports editorial on iStock is that Getty already does this so well, they don't see any reason to compete with themselves on iStock. where I think iStock editorial will compete is timeless editorial like travel backgrounds, landmarks etc./ general protests etc., product and company backgrounds for new items/papers/mags...images that I see coming from shutterstock right now in a lot of major papers.
Istockphoto could lose out badly to Shutterstock if they're not going to compete those images at a similar price point. SS does a lot to help their contributors gain access to events with their 'Red Carpet' programme including press passes, etc.
-
a bit off topic, but I'm amazed how many photographers consider natural light images to be more amateur. harnessing and using natural light effectively, IMO, is one of the hallmarks of some of the world's best photographers. I absolutely love shooting in natural light. properly.
That's because most shooters I see that claim "natural light", natural light means "I can't afford strobes or reflectors or anything, so I go outside and hope for a cloudy day"...
-
a bit off topic, but I'm amazed how many photographers consider natural light images to be more amateur...
They apparently haven't priced daily rental rates for daylight photo studios in NYC...
-
so.. what are the guidelines at DT for editorial? I looked around the site and through the contributor FAQ but my ADD took over and I gave up looking for it. anyone know where those guidelines/rules for editorial at DT are? I'm wondering how they compare to istock. I do see that they accept sports and celebrities because I browsed the collection and saw a bunch of those.
DT technically defines an editorial image as "newsworthy" but they accept other types of editorial images if you include a note to the reviewer stating why it should be considered as such. It also helps if you put a link to an article about the subject of the photo. If you upload a truly newsworthy and timely image of an international event there is a $5 bonus.
Here is their verbage - The editorial section provides news worthy images reflecting events from social, cultural and political scenes. The high-resolution images that you download with the editorial license may be used to illustrate truthful articles or broadcasts appearing in magazines, newspapers or any other editorial context, in either printed or electronic media.
They don't really state anywhere on the site what they consider editorial if it is not newsworthy (I couldn't find anything either) but they do accept non-news images. I've sold some editorial images of trademarked buildings, a rock concert and the weinermobile - not exactly newsworthy international events.
-
a bit off topic, but I'm amazed how many photographers consider natural light images to be more amateur. harnessing and using natural light effectively, IMO, is one of the hallmarks of some of the world's best photographers. I absolutely love shooting in natural light. properly.
That's because most shooters I see that claim "natural light", natural light means "I can't afford strobes or reflectors or anything, so I go outside and hope for a cloudy day"...
You'd have to weigh that up against images of creatures and especially plants which only thrive in dark areas, yet risibly appear in iStock lit up like like sun-worshippers. That is sub-amateur, if an amateur is defined as one who photographs a subject for the love of the subject. The fake lighter doesn't even care about the subject enough to learn about it.
-
a bit off topic, but I'm amazed how many photographers consider natural light images to be more amateur. harnessing and using natural light effectively, IMO, is one of the hallmarks of some of the world's best photographers. I absolutely love shooting in natural light. properly.
That's because most shooters I see that claim "natural light", natural light means "I can't afford strobes or reflectors or anything, so I go outside and hope for a cloudy day"...
yeah, I guess. I'm talking about people who have lights/strobes etc., and CHOOSE to shoot with natural light, really beautifully :-)
-
I think they key reason for not accepting celebrities and sports editorial on iStock is that Getty already does this so well, they don't see any reason to compete with themselves on iStock. where I think iStock editorial will compete is timeless editorial like travel backgrounds, landmarks etc./ general protests etc., product and company backgrounds for new items/papers/mags...images that I see coming from shutterstock right now in a lot of major papers.
Istockphoto could lose out badly to Shutterstock if they're not going to compete those images at a similar price point. SS does a lot to help their contributors gain access to events with their 'Red Carpet' programme including press passes, etc.
I agree. they should be competing in these areas too. obviously they feel there would be cannibalization. I still think there's plenty of room for the type of editorial iStock will be offering. I'm certain they'll truck in a sh*tload of Getty images too. but I'm still very excited to have an editorial avenue as an exclusive.
-
I don't make studio pictures outside but I agree, studio stuff have been invented to pinch, burn, make trip and untie knot everyone.
-
I've seen no indication that Getty stuff will be trucked in.
-
I'm sure someone asked and answered this somewhere, but is this editorial going to be available to exclusives only?
-
I'm sure someone asked and answered this somewhere, but is this editorial going to be available to exclusives only?
It hasn't been stated that that will be the case, i.e. it looks like it will be open for all. Hey, they want to get the bigger percentages from nons.
-
I've seen no indication that Getty stuff will be trucked in.
other than the Getty files being trucked into every other new collection....Hulton Archive into Vetta, Rubberball into Agency etc....I'm not too concerned about it. but I think it will happen.
-
I'm sure someone asked and answered this somewhere, but is this editorial going to be available to exclusives only?
It hasn't been stated that that will be the case, i.e. it looks like it will be open for all. Hey, they want to get the bigger percentages from nons.
OK, thanks for clarifying.
-
Inspections will become more subjective.No expierance.Quality will be checked.ok- then depending if the inspector is wearing the right hat that day...Vetta/Agency/Exclusive content, contributors might get a correct and measured decision on weather it will be suitable as editorial.Would you trust that decision.Will Scout and the team have the expierance to decide.
Istockphoto as a COMPANY<does not give me much confidence to edit
-
Inspections will become more subjective.No expierance.Quality will be checked.ok- then depending if the inspector is wearing the right hat that day...Vetta/Agency/Exclusive content, contributors might get a correct and measured decision on weather it will be suitable as editorial.Would you trust that decision.Will Scout and the team have the expierance to decide.
Istockphoto as a COMPANY<does not give me much confidence to edit
[/inspect and showcase editorial content>Time will tell>
BTW_EDITORIAL CONTENT IS COMING TO ISTOCKPHOTO TO MAKE ISTOCKPHOTO MORE MONEY>>BOTTOM LINE<<<FOR THE ROMANTICS !
-
I've seen no indication that Getty stuff will be trucked in.
I agree there has been no indication so far, having said that I can imagine after the "success of agency" Getty trying to milk the last drops of blood out of their billion and trillions of photos on file.
-
Are we twins? ;D
Yes, on everything, the things I shoot are excluded. When I did contact Getty, not only didn't I get a click, I didn't even get an answer to my first question. Then their system puts a cookie on your computer so you can't see the application page, after you have applied. Wow, how difficult can they make it to even ask about sports, entertainment and news photos?.
Someone here who claims to be in contact with the higher up at Getty, numerous times, I've asked and he says, Oh not that department, not those people. :( Ah, not the stock, nature and travel people, the elusive news and editorial people, that must wear black suits, hats and Sun glasses and sneak in and out of the offices through an underground garage in cars with tinted windows. They are so mysterious!
But after all that, if IS wants to pay micro prices for real news and editorial, how many people are willing to take a couple of bucks for an image that has a shelf life of about half a day. They are right to not want to waste the space and we are right to sell them on Alamy. Everyone is happy in a sideways kind of way.
Cool is that I've been asking this question for years and when I saw the thread had hoped it would be opening the door for other editorial, but not for me. Now about that SS offering and exclusive photographers bonus and I can cut back to one agency? LOL :D
This would have been good news for me, if they hadn't excluded news, sports and celebreties... :(
But, no, there's way for me right there: "Again, Getty Images are the experts in these fields and we encourage people interested in news, sport and entertainment to work with them." My short career as Getty photographer would probably look something like this:
Me: "Hi, this is Ploink, could you please tell me on which FTP-server I can submit my news, sports and entertainment photos?"
Getty: "What gives you the idea that we are interested in those photos?"
Me: "The good people at IstockPhoto encouraged me to work with you..."
Getty: "Yeah, right..." - click
Yes to both of you... exactly correct!
Dang, this had me excited for a second...pretty weak they won't be accepting celebrities or sports considering it is next to impossible to get in with Getty at this point.
Mat
They're not going to let micro compete with the mother ship, when celeb/sport is probably what's still making Getty the most money at Macro prices.
-
Are we twins? ;D
"Great minds think alike" ;D
Or - a little less respectful - in german: "Zwei Dumme, ein Gedanke" ;)
-
sorry - see below.
-
I've seen no indication that Getty stuff will be trucked in.
Of course not. They're posting it as Good News.
If (I suspect it's 'when') they're going to 'populate' editorial, they'll tell us later.
(Logical speculation) And these will automatically be at Agency prices, ingested as 'exclusives' though not exclusive as we're 'golden handcuffed' to. The Getty togs wouldn't appreciate micro prices.
After all, they can hardly start advertising editorial until they have a goodly number of images, and at the rate inspections are going, and the backlog of editorial pics so many contributers on the woo-way (aka "I haven't thought through the possible implications") thread couldn't be bothered to send to Alamy or elsewhere, it could be some time before istockers uploaded enough to make it worthwhile to advertise.
Unless they've got a lineup of new Editorial editors on tap and waiting.
Look how long the Logos programme has been going and logos haven't gone live (yet).
I guess the editorial line has been brought in to help Kelly make his 50% target increase for NEXT year. After all, until very recently, word was that they weren't planning editorial in the near future. Now, suddenly, this. I'm not convinced iStock has any 'long-term planning' process.
-
For me it's too little, too late. I have mid-collapse World Trade Center photos from the morning of 9/11 that appeared on the front page of newspapers across the country. When I submitted one to iStock last year when I joined it took them 4 months to decide it wasn't right for iStock. Ironically, I am also with Getty and they didn't want to start and editorial account with me because I am primarily a fashion/commercial photographer and unlikely to be covering more breaking news in the near future. Some of my WTC photos are with Alamy now.
What further seems odd is that they don't want celebrity photos because that is what Getty 'does'. It makes you wonder why Alamy/Corbis doesn't have a problem with the overlap. My celebrity portraits are currently with Retna, but I would consider consolidating to one company for lifestyle and portraiture if one company proved to have a better RM/RF program. Getty/iStock seems to be going in the other direction.
-
Dang, this had me excited for a second...pretty weak they won't be accepting celebrities or sports considering it is next to impossible to get in with Getty at this point.
Mat
-
Dang, this had me excited for a second...pretty weak they won't be accepting celebrities or sports considering it is next to impossible to get in with Getty at this point.
Mat
They're not going to let micro compete with the mother ship, when celeb/sport is probably what's still making Getty the most money at Macro prices.
-
Hasn't the feedback from Micros been that it isn't worth sending editorial images RF/micro? Even though iStock still seems to have a higher reach, that's hardly going to make a difference.
Maybe Getty has some 'wholly owned editorial content' from somewhere?
-
^^^I would agree with that and I would think istock did as well, otherwise they would of introduced editorial years ago. Can't help but feel this is being set up to try and get more money from images that don't make much with Getty, what other reason can there be?
-
I'm sure someone asked and answered this somewhere, but is this editorial going to be available to exclusives only?
It hasn't been stated that that will be the case, i.e. it looks like it will be open for all. Hey, they want to get the bigger percentages from nons.
Page 2 of the Xnet Blog: Editorial Use Only thread on IS -
Posted By AndrewJohnson:
Will everyone be able to upload to editorial?
Posted By rogermexico:
Yes.
And then again on Page 11 -
Posted By cnicbc:
Awesome! I think I remember something similar being introduced a while ago, but it was limited to "elite" photographers. I did read everything, but for assurances sake: this time it's for everybody?
Posted By rogermexico:
If you can upload photographs to iStockphoto, you can upload photographs to iStock for editorial use. So yes.
-
I'm sure someone asked and answered this somewhere, but is this editorial going to be available to exclusives only?
It hasn't been stated that that will be the case, i.e. it looks like it will be open for all. Hey, they want to get the bigger percentages from nons.
Page 2 of the Xnet Blog: Editorial Use Only thread on IS -
Posted By AndrewJohnson:
Will everyone be able to upload to editorial?
Posted By rogermexico:
Yes.
And then again on Page 11 -
Posted By cnicbc:
Awesome! I think I remember something similar being introduced a while ago, but it was limited to "elite" photographers. I did read everything, but for assurances sake: this time it's for everybody?
Posted By rogermexico:
If you can upload photographs to iStockphoto, you can upload photographs to iStock for editorial use. So yes.
For today, everyone can submit editorial. As if none of the admins at IS have ever gone back on their words before.
-
Posted By cnicbc:
Awesome! I think I remember something similar being introduced a while ago, but it was limited to "elite" photographers
That's probably a reference to that ill-fated Istanbul editorial lypse, after which submitters didn't have a portal for their images. I guess they'll now be able to send them editorial to the new iStock collection. Hope they didn't delete them in frustration!
-
I heard Getty contributors will be able to submit as well. I can't remember where I read that in the editorial thread on Istock. I think it would be advantageous to submit editorial. But if even a portion of the Getty collection is online the first days, it's almost worthless.
If this is right, then would they sell the same portfolio they have at Getty or what... for a fraction of the price? I don't really understand if it's the case.
-
I heard Getty contributors will be able to submit as well. I can't remember where I read that in the editorial thread on Istock. I think it would be advantageous to submit editorial. But if even a portion of the Getty collection is online the first days, it's almost worthless
That hasn't been said anywhere, afaik.
-
Here it is, i found it. It was shank ali...
My concern is...Getty editorial contributors are able to contribute to OUR collection.The 1000's upon 1000's of Agency files added to our library was a bitter sweet pill to swallow IMO.(one Getty contributor already has over 600 Agency sales ! )
I didn't say it was true, just that I heard. It's also on my mind though.
-
so ? they must be joking if they are offering 17% commissions while stuffs at alamy is 50%. no way i'm putting editorial to istock
-
so ? they must be joking if they are offering 17% commissions while stuffs at alamy is 50%. no way i'm putting editorial to istock
Alamy commission is 60% for most people and 89% of their profits go to a medical research programmme. http://www.alamy.com/medical-research.asp (http://www.alamy.com/medical-research.asp)
I'm not doing this for charity but it highlights the difference between the two businesses and makes istock's justification for cutting commissions look pathetic.
-
so ? they must be joking if they are offering 17% commissions while stuffs at alamy is 50%. no way i'm putting editorial to istock
Alamy commission is 60% for most people and 89% of their profits go to a medical research programmme. [url]http://www.alamy.com/medical-research.asp[/url] ([url]http://www.alamy.com/medical-research.asp[/url])
I'm not doing this for charity but it highlights the difference between the two businesses and makes istock's justification for cutting commissions look pathetic.
Heaven forfend that I should be seen as an apologist for iStock, but that Alexa chart
(http://www.lizworld.com/iStock/iStock-Alamy.jpg)
... suggests that they're spending more on marketing.
(yeah, yeah, then getting the punters in, they p*ss them off by a site that seldom works properly, bugs that take years to fix and slag them off on the forums)
But yes, I'd rather support Alamy's range of charities than JK's Manhattan flat.
But I WISH Alamy would set a simple 'Editorial only' button.
Added: thanks for your reminder about Alamy's charities. At the time I had a photo uploading to iStock and a horizontal 'similar' I was working on to remove 'possible' IP problems, i.e. iStock would always reject to 'be on the safe side'. I cancelled the upload, went back to the original RAWs and will upload to Alamy. Funny how you get into habits ... or 'muscle memory'. In fact, I think it's probably more of an Alamy/editorial image anyway, but I still find it hard to call beween them.
-
I wonder how much of that traffic is editorial buyers? If it was significant, I think istock would of offered it years ago.
-
so ? they must be joking if they are offering 17% commissions while stuffs at alamy is 50%. no way i'm putting editorial to istock
Alamy commission is 60% for most people
60%/40% for most people. ('agency' sales being 40%). Your actual average will depend on which markets buy your work.
-
Here it is, i found it. It was shank ali...
My concern is...Getty editorial contributors are able to contribute to OUR collection.The 1000's upon 1000's of Agency files added to our library was a bitter sweet pill to swallow IMO.(one Getty contributor already has over 600 Agency sales ! )
I didn't say it was true, just that I heard. It's also on my mind though.
You need to interpret shank's writing. Read "are" as "will be allowed". Actually imagine he's talking in the present tense of some future possible universe time line.
-
I think it has more to do with a non-compete and Getty. The rules page states no news, sports or celebrities because Getty does it better.
Yep my reading too.
-
Hmmm, reading some of the most recent posts about sports images, it seems like Sean's assessment of it being editorial-lite may have some truth.
Just like there are some images they won't accept in the main because US equivalents might not be allowable, even if perfectly legal in other countries and links to legislation are provided, it seems the same will apply to editorial.
-
so ? they must be joking if they are offering 17% commissions while stuffs at alamy is 50%. no way i'm putting editorial to istock
Alamy commission is 60% for most people and 89% of their profits go to a medical research program. [url]http://www.alamy.com/medical-research.asp[/url] ([url]http://www.alamy.com/medical-research.asp[/url])
I'm not doing this for charity but it highlights the difference between the two businesses and makes istock's justification for cutting commissions look pathetic.
Now that's my kind of company! ;D
No way am I sending editorial to iStock. What I already have at Shutterstock, Dreamstime and BigStock doesn't sell often enough to justify sending anymore to them, so there's no reason for me to stop sending stuff to Alamy just so I can earn a few cents at iStock.
-
Yes , istock definately has more traffic , possibly just 0.30subs or 17% comission from maybe a 5usd sales. at alamy, 1 RM sale per year from alamy would possibly cover your entire year sales in stock. i think contributor should start to take a stand against bullying agencies.
Heaven forfend that I should be seen as an apologist for iStock, but that Alexa chart
([url]http://www.lizworld.com/iStock/iStock-Alamy.jpg[/url])
... suggests that they're spending more on marketing.
(yeah, yeah, then getting the punters in, they p*ss them off by a site that seldom works properly, bugs that take years to fix and slag them off on the forums)
But yes, I'd rather support Alamy's range of charities than JK's Manhattan flat.
But I WISH Alamy would set a simple 'Editorial only' button.
Added: thanks for your reminder about Alamy's charities. At the time I had a photo uploading to iStock and a horizontal 'similar' I was working on to remove 'possible' IP problems, i.e. iStock would always reject to 'be on the safe side'. I cancelled the upload, went back to the original RAWs and will upload to Alamy. Funny how you get into habits ... or 'muscle memory'. In fact, I think it's probably more of an Alamy/editorial image anyway, but I still find it hard to call beween them.
-
Yes , istock definately has more traffic , possibly just 0.30subs or 17% comission from maybe a 5usd sales. at alamy, 1 RM sale per year from alamy would possibly cover your entire year sales in stock. i think contributor should start to take a stand against bullying agencies.
You'd have to get a very good RM sale for that. Many RM sales are made with deep, deep discounts, and iStock has ELs, which would apply to some editorial sales, though their print run is very high.
-
Yes , istock definately has more traffic , possibly just 0.30subs or 17% comission from maybe a 5usd sales. at alamy, 1 RM sale per year from alamy would possibly cover your entire year sales in stock. i think contributor should start to take a stand against bullying agencies.
You'd have to get a very good RM sale for that. Many RM sales are made with deep, deep discounts, and iStock has ELs, which would apply to some editorial sales, though their print run is very high.
Yep. Most of the sales in the forum are gripes about $10 sales or $15. Dreams of $1500 sales are rarely fulfilled.
-
Yes , istock definately has more traffic , possibly just 0.30subs or 17% comission from maybe a 5usd sales. at alamy, 1 RM sale per year from alamy would possibly cover your entire year sales in stock. i think contributor should start to take a stand against bullying agencies.
You'd have to get a very good RM sale for that. Many RM sales are made with deep, deep discounts, and iStock has ELs, which would apply to some editorial sales, though their print run is very high.
most of my editorials are only getting 1 sub download and the photo just dies. i get EL when i'm lucky. anyway i think i have trust issue with istock. i think contributors should be vary agencies with dodgy practices. Do not forget what someone did to you and said it is fair cause it will happen again someday ;D
-
Yes , istock definately has more traffic , possibly just 0.30subs or 17% comission from maybe a 5usd sales. at alamy, 1 RM sale per year from alamy would possibly cover your entire year sales in stock. i think contributor should start to take a stand against bullying agencies.
You'd have to get a very good RM sale for that. Many RM sales are made with deep, deep discounts, and iStock has ELs, which would apply to some editorial sales, though their print run is very high.
most of my editorials are only getting 1 sub download and the photo just dies. i get EL when i'm lucky. anyway i think i have trust issue with istock. i think contributors should be vary agencies with dodgy practices. Do not forget what someone did to you and said it is fair cause it will happen again someday ;D
It'll be a matter of working out what will sell best where. If it's my small obscure home town, Alamy would be the place for it. It'd never sell on iStock, and if something newsworthy happens there one day, I might make a few Alamy sales. I'm guessing I'll stick with Alamy for most of my editorials, especially as I won't reach 35% on iStock when I hit gold in a few weeks.
Times Square - well, there are 9825 TS images already on Alamy, so it might be better for the contributor to get in early on iStock. Sadly that would undercut the traditional editorial market, which of course is what they're aiming to do.
Looking at the sales I've made on Alamy, I doubt if I'd have made more than a couple of sales from any of them on iStock. Looking at the pics that haven't sold on Alamy: same. So still better off on Alamy.
-
so ? they must be joking if they are offering 17% commissions while stuffs at alamy is 50%. no way i'm putting editorial to istock
50% looks better than 17% but 50% of what?
I like Alamy. They seem like decent people. I like the idea of higher commissions and higher prices. But for me Alamy performed about as bad as bottom of the barrel micros. The posts on their forums seem to back that up with a lot people saying they're earning a couple hundred dollars a month in sales from several thousand photos. That seems way below average compared to micro.
So what's more important? The percentage or the total dollars?
-
^ I think that's the big question facing us contributors in general these days.
-
so ? they must be joking if they are offering 17% commissions while stuffs at alamy is 50%. no way i'm putting editorial to istock
50% looks better than 17% but 50% of what?
I like Alamy. They seem like decent people. I like the idea of higher commissions and higher prices. But for me Alamy performed about as bad as bottom of the barrel micros. The posts on their forums seem to back that up with a lot people saying they're earning a couple hundred dollars a month in sales from several thousand photos. That seems way below average compared to micro.
So what's more important? The percentage or the total dollars?
i'll go for agencies who are fair , and percentage 2nd. anyway my istock sales has not been doing well recently. macros has performed better by ratios for me lately.
-
I've seen no indication that Getty stuff will be trucked in.
I agree there has been no indication so far, having said that I can imagine after the "success of agency" Getty trying to milk the last drops of blood out of their billion and trillions of photos on file.
I'm convinced this is whats behind this move though...opening the path to add another Getty Collection. They are already saying phase 2 will be a premium editorial collection (my bet is the majority of this premium collection will come from daddy G and select contributors can apply as well, same as agency now)...add the fact that editorial has to be submitted under the current upload restrictions keeping it somewhat restricted in size for now...
It's wild speculation, but i'd dare to put money on it... :)
-
Yes , istock definately has more traffic , possibly just 0.30subs or 17% comission from maybe a 5usd sales. at alamy, 1 RM sale per year from alamy would possibly cover your entire year sales in stock. i think contributor should start to take a stand against bullying agencies.
You'd have to get a very good RM sale for that. Many RM sales are made with deep, deep discounts, and iStock has ELs, which would apply to some editorial sales, though their print run is very high.
Yep. Most of the sales in the forum are gripes about $10 sales or $15. Dreams of $1500 sales are rarely fulfilled.
At the same time, only a very tiny proportion of Alamy contributers post regularly on the forums: manyfold fewer than post on, say, iStock forums. I have a former pupil who's doing very well there with his niche (clue: geographically unattainable for you and I).
-
Yes , istock definately has more traffic , possibly just 0.30subs or 17% comission from maybe a 5usd sales. at alamy, 1 RM sale per year from alamy would possibly cover your entire year sales in stock. i think contributor should start to take a stand against bullying agencies.
That's not quite true. I've got about the same income from IS and alamy with the difference that I have... 10 times more images on alamy!
In fact I have some sales on alamy that are just about the same I get at IS. And the license they give in alamy would be equivalent to a pile of EL's on IS. What I mean is that I sell images on alamy for about $6 with a license, that would cost almost $300 in IS.
Don't get me wrong after FL, IS is the agency I dislike the most because both are dishonest to their contributors making unilateral decisions with little or no communication, and I think alamy is a reference when it comes to communication and respect for it's contributors. But things are not as "pink" over there as you say.
-
Yes , istock definately has more traffic , possibly just 0.30subs or 17% comission from maybe a 5usd sales. at alamy, 1 RM sale per year from alamy would possibly cover your entire year sales in stock. i think contributor should start to take a stand against bullying agencies.
That's not quite true. I've got about the same income from IS and alamy with the difference that I have... 10 times more images on alamy!
In fact I have some sales on alamy that are just about the same I get at IS. And the license they give in alamy would be equivalent to a pile of EL's on IS. What I mean is that I sell images on alamy for about $6 with a license, that would cost almost $300 in IS.
ok, i like that . but i'll still post to alamy. sometimes it's not all about money ;D
-
Sorry, hit quote instead of modify. Again. :-[
-
In fact I have some sales on alamy that are just about the same I get at IS. And the license they give in alamy would be equivalent to a pile of EL's on IS. What I mean is that I sell images on alamy for about $6 with a license, that would cost almost $300 in IS.
Here's the down.
Alamy give big discounts to two main groups. Newspapers and textbook publishers. Their main market at the moment is the UK and Europe.
Speaking of the UK:
Newspapers are in big trouble, and some have already folded. They are not going to spend $300 on a non-specific photo. Also, on iStock, a print run has to be 1/2 million before you have to buy an EL, which apart from some huge newspapers doesn't happen often.
The UK economy is in a total mess. I was a uK teacher until very recently and know for a fact how much per capita has been cut. In my case, by 1/3 in the session 09-10, and to 50% of that for this current session. Projections were that the cuts would be even more swingeing for the next four years at least. That means very little budget for books. So the only way publishers will be able to stay afloat is to severely cut the price of their books (again, several educational publishers have gone out of business recently). And the best way to do that is by reducing the prices of their images.
iStock, on the other hand, offers deep, unadvertised discounts to huge corporations who spend lots on credit packages. So your 250 credit EL might be worth very little to you.
Remember that the $300 cost EL is worth a lot less to you, and will, for most of us, be less still in January, that drop being even worse for exclusives, who lose their 10%.
The Alamy vs IS for editorial will not be a simple decision.
-
Now they're discussing 'staging' photos for editorial at iStock. :-(
And some don't see why that is wrong (I suspect that might be a difference between general American and UK sensitivities on what 'truth' means).
Exactly why textbook publishers don't buy there just now.
Unless, of course, they're going to make a real distinction when searching between 'real' editorial and photos which can be used to illustrate editorial articles in magazines with a caption 'posed by model'.
I'd like some sort of check button to indicate that an image is natural, unposed and unaltered, in 'available' light, even to be applied to existing images.
Addded: I see someone has posted the obvious, that a staged photo (e.g. of a kid-on homeless person) should go into the main collection.
-
Staged editorial with perfect lighting and models? Isn't that just regular stock?
-
Regular stock with more forgiving release requirements.
Not 'true' editorial, for certain.
-
I'm really worried about the honest of captioning/integrity of labelling.
Until recently there was an iStock admin/inspector (both) who, for example, keyworded many photos of a man in a monkey suit as 'gorilla', 'animals in the wild' ('monkey suit' is in the CV) [1]. It's bad enough that he did this, and it got through inspection, over several days, hence presumably many inspectors, (most of his pics had several unquestionably wrong (i.e. objective as in my example, not debates about subjective terms like 'beautiful woman' or 'expressing positivity'), keywords, all apparently accepted) without this sort of thing (probably not literally that example) appearing in editorial.
[1]They're not there now. Don't bother to look and berate me for calling someone out. But it took months to get the keywords cleaned up.