Author Topic: iStockphoto to offer "Editorial Use" license (Read 26968 times)

gostwyck · « **Reply #50 on:** December 13, 2010, 17:18 »

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.

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.

SNP · « **Reply #51 on:** December 13, 2010, 17:27 »

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.

jamirae · « **Reply #52 on:** December 13, 2010, 17:39 »

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.

SNP · « **Reply #53 on:** December 13, 2010, 17:47 »

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.

gostwyck · « **Reply #54 on:** December 13, 2010, 17:57 »

Quote from: SNP on December 13, 2010, 17:47

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.

Sean Locke Photography · « **Reply #55 on:** December 13, 2010, 17:57 »

Quote from: SNP on December 13, 2010, 17:27

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"...

danhowl · « **Reply #56 on:** December 13, 2010, 18:41 »

Quote from: SNP on December 13, 2010, 17:27

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...

red · « **Reply #57 on:** December 13, 2010, 19:02 »

Quote from: jamirae on December 13, 2010, 17:39

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.

ShadySue · « **Reply #58 on:** December 13, 2010, 19:10 »

Quote from: sjlocke on December 13, 2010, 17:57

Quote from: SNP on December 13, 2010, 17:27
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.

SNP · « **Reply #59 on:** December 13, 2010, 19:41 »

Quote from: sjlocke on December 13, 2010, 17:57

Quote from: SNP on December 13, 2010, 17:27
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 :-)

SNP · « **Reply #60 on:** December 13, 2010, 19:45 »

Quote from: gostwyck on December 13, 2010, 17:57

Quote from: SNP on December 13, 2010, 17:47
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.

vonkara · « **Reply #61 on:** December 13, 2010, 19:50 »

I don't make studio pictures outside but I agree, studio stuff have been invented to pinch, burn, make trip and untie knot everyone.

Sean Locke Photography · « **Reply #62 on:** December 13, 2010, 19:55 »

I've seen no indication that Getty stuff will be trucked in.

cathyslife · « **Reply #63 on:** December 13, 2010, 19:59 »

I'm sure someone asked and answered this somewhere, but is this editorial going to be available to exclusives only?

ShadySue · « **Reply #64 on:** December 13, 2010, 20:02 »

Quote from: cclapper on December 13, 2010, 19:59

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.

SNP · « **Reply #65 on:** December 13, 2010, 20:06 »

Quote from: sjlocke on December 13, 2010, 19:55

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.

cathyslife · « **Reply #66 on:** December 13, 2010, 20:21 »

Quote from: ShadySue on December 13, 2010, 20:02

Quote from: cclapper on December 13, 2010, 19:59
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.

Shank_ali · « **Reply #67 on:** December 14, 2010, 00:14 »

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

Shank_ali · « **Reply #68 on:** December 14, 2010, 00:17 »

Quote from: shank_ali_reborn on December 14, 2010, 00:14

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 !

qwerty · « **Reply #69 on:** December 14, 2010, 00:50 »

Quote from: sjlocke on December 13, 2010, 19:55

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.

RacePhoto · « **Reply #70 on:** December 14, 2010, 01:30 »

Are we twins?

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

Quote from: Ploink on December 13, 2010, 13:06

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!

Quote from: ShadySue on December 14, 2010, 10:29

Quote from: MatHayward on December 14, 2010, 10:25
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.

Ploink · « **Reply #71 on:** December 14, 2010, 02:04 »

Quote from: RacePhoto on December 14, 2010, 01:30

Are we twins?

"Great minds think alike"

Or - a little less respectful - in german: "Zwei Dumme, ein Gedanke"

ShadySue · « **Reply #72 on:** December 14, 2010, 05:04 »

sorry - see below.

ShadySue · « **Reply #73 on:** December 14, 2010, 05:19 »

Quote from: ShadySue on December 14, 2010, 05:04

Quote from: sjlocke on December 13, 2010, 19:55
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.

danhowl · « **Reply #74 on:** December 14, 2010, 09:33 »

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.

MicrostockGroup Sponsors

Author Topic: iStockphoto to offer "Editorial Use" license (Read 26968 times)

gostwyck

SNP

jamirae

SNP

gostwyck

Sean Locke Photography

danhowl

red

ShadySue

SNP

SNP

vonkara

Sean Locke Photography

cathyslife

ShadySue

SNP

cathyslife

Shank_ali

Shank_ali

qwerty

RacePhoto

Ploink

ShadySue

ShadySue

danhowl

Related Topics

Sponsors

Microstock Poll Results

Sponsors