Author Topic: iStockphoto to offer "Editorial Use" license (Read 26993 times)

sharpshot · « **Reply #25 on:** December 13, 2010, 14:08 »

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.

gostwyck · « **Reply #26 on:** December 13, 2010, 14:11 »

Quote from: sharpshot on December 13, 2010, 14:08

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.

ShadySue · « **Reply #27 on:** December 13, 2010, 14:16 »

Quote from: azurelaroux on December 13, 2010, 13:43

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).

jen · « **Reply #28 on:** December 13, 2010, 14:17 »

Quote from: lisafx on December 13, 2010, 13:25

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.

lisafx · « **Reply #29 on:** December 13, 2010, 14:25 »

Quote from: jen on December 13, 2010, 14:17

Quote from: lisafx on December 13, 2010, 13:25
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!

melastmohican · « **Reply #30 on:** December 13, 2010, 14:42 »

Would they enable FTP submission or I have to go thru 15/week process???

jen · « **Reply #31 on:** December 13, 2010, 14:44 »

Quote from: melastmohican on December 13, 2010, 14:42

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.

PeterChigmaroff · « **Reply #32 on:** December 13, 2010, 14:56 »

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.

loop · « **Reply #33 on:** December 13, 2010, 14:56 »

Quote from: lisafx on December 13, 2010, 13:25

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.

NancyCWalker · « **Reply #34 on:** December 13, 2010, 15:05 »

The text states

Quote

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.

Sadstock · « **Reply #35 on:** December 13, 2010, 15:10 »

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://postpop.drivehq.com/microstockphoto/editorialcaption.html‏

I would imagine Istock would have somewhat similar requirements.

ShadySue · « **Reply #36 on:** December 13, 2010, 15:13 »

Quote from: gostwyck on December 13, 2010, 14:11

Quote from: sharpshot on December 13, 2010, 14:08
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:

I'll be very interesting to see what happens. But I'm hopeless at making decisions!

Risamay · « **Reply #37 on:** December 13, 2010, 15:15 »

Quote from: gostwyck on December 13, 2010, 14:11

Quote from: sharpshot on December 13, 2010, 14:08
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.

NancyCWalker · « **Reply #38 on:** December 13, 2010, 15:21 »

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.

Perry · « **Reply #39 on:** December 13, 2010, 15:21 »

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)

ShadySue · « **Reply #40 on:** December 13, 2010, 15:23 »

Quote from: Perry on December 13, 2010, 15:21

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.

NancyCWalker · « **Reply #41 on:** December 13, 2010, 15:38 »

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.

Risamay · « **Reply #42 on:** December 13, 2010, 15:39 »

Quote from: azurelaroux on December 13, 2010, 15:21

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!

NancyCWalker · « **Reply #43 on:** December 13, 2010, 15:59 »

DT does Editorial. Alamy does Editorial, RM and RF

ShadySue · « **Reply #44 on:** December 13, 2010, 16:28 »

Quote from: azurelaroux on December 13, 2010, 15:21

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?

ShadySue · « **Reply #45 on:** December 13, 2010, 16:37 »

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.

ShadySue · « **Reply #46 on:** December 13, 2010, 16:38 »

Quote from: gostwyck on December 13, 2010, 14:11

Quote from: sharpshot on December 13, 2010, 14:08
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.

Sadstock · « **Reply #47 on:** December 13, 2010, 16:44 »

Quote from: ShadySue on December 13, 2010, 16:37

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!!!

Chico · « **Reply #48 on:** December 13, 2010, 17:03 »

Illustrators out again.

Jo Ann Snover · « **Reply #49 on:** December 13, 2010, 17:15 »

Quote from: Sadstock on December 13, 2010, 16:44

Quote from: ShadySue on December 13, 2010, 16:37
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.

MicrostockGroup Sponsors

Author Topic: iStockphoto to offer "Editorial Use" license (Read 26993 times)

sharpshot

gostwyck

ShadySue

jen

lisafx

melastmohican

jen

PeterChigmaroff

loop

NancyCWalker

Sadstock

ShadySue

Risamay

NancyCWalker

Perry

ShadySue

NancyCWalker

Risamay

NancyCWalker

ShadySue

ShadySue

ShadySue

Sadstock

Chico

Jo Ann Snover

Related Topics

Sponsors

Microstock Poll Results

Sponsors