pancakes

MicrostockGroup Sponsors


Author Topic: More evidence that IS favors Exclusives  (Read 15887 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

« on: February 07, 2008, 21:00 »
0
OK, I don't mean to pick on anyone in particular (sorry adamdodd you have some great images, but really...), but I just saw this image come across the latest approved images and I couldn't believe it. Take a look: http://www.istockphoto.com/file_closeup.php?id=5307738

If I ever tried to take a picture of dirt, and not even an interesting one it would be rejected so fast...

Do you guys see this as evidence of exclusives having a lower bar for approvals? I think I could give a hundred examples of such images...


« Reply #1 on: February 07, 2008, 21:22 »
0
I agree 100% but it's their business and they can do what ever they like, when ever they like, how ever they like.
... and there is NOTHING you or I can do about it, or even complain to someone who will change it!

The bottom line is at least now we realize this, and we know what to expect, and we won't be disappointed in the future.
Right now I need to go out to my living room and take a picture of my carpet. I think it would be the perfect compliment to the image of dirt you so kindly linked us to.

Best regards,
The MIZ


« Reply #2 on: February 07, 2008, 21:29 »
0
...
Right now I need to go out to my living room and take a picture of my carpet. I think it would be the perfect compliment to the image of dirt you so kindly linked us to.

Best regards,
The MIZ
Taking a picture of dirt? Sure, they'll take it, but it's not going to sell.

I'll keep my eyes open for your upcoming tutorial showing how to morph carpet into dirt, rjmiz!
« Last Edit: February 07, 2008, 21:31 by sharply_done »

« Reply #3 on: February 07, 2008, 22:04 »
0
Actually with global warming and drought around the world, shots of dried up mud and cracks in the ground do suprisingly well to illustrate  (I've got one, marginally more interesting) that is one of my better, if not stellar sellers!

« Reply #4 on: February 07, 2008, 22:24 »
0
I had a wonderful idea....
.... I thought IS might like an image taken from the little town in which I live called Kerhonkson.

It's located 100 mile North West of NYC as the crow flies. Let me see them reject this!

1. It's got no noise at all.
2. It's in super sharp focus.
3. There are no release forms to deal with.
4. I am the copyright holder.
5. Perfect depth of field.

It was an relatively difficult shot however. I had to wait for the light to be just right.
It's a sunset picture of the clouds 4 hours after the sun set this evening.

Have a look. I could not post it at 100% but I would appreciate any comments on my composition and framing of this shot.



Thanks to all in advance,
The MIZ





« Reply #5 on: February 07, 2008, 22:25 »
0
Tomorrow I am going to walk all around my neighborhood with my camera and lens pointed downwards and keep the shutter release button depressed, changing batteries as necessary, then submit the best (?) of those shots and see what happens. :D

« Reply #6 on: February 07, 2008, 22:29 »
0
I hope you have a "Image Stabilized" lens.
Other wise you apt to be rejected for motion blur.

The MIZ

« Reply #7 on: February 08, 2008, 00:08 »
0
That is a terrible photo of dirt...i think i can take a better pic  ???

« Reply #8 on: February 08, 2008, 00:52 »
0
I still don't see where the evidence is. Did you have a image of dirt rejected? Take a photo of dirt and submit it. As long as it is technically sound, I bet it will get accepted.

DanP68

« Reply #9 on: February 08, 2008, 02:56 »
0
I cannot tell you how many times I have submitted NCAA football photos to iStock, with the players face hidden from camera and the logos removed, and gotten the "sorry, player identifiable" rejection.

But they accepted this one from an exclusive photographer:

http://www.istockphoto.com/file_closeup/object/4260212_running_back.php?id=4260212

You cannot tell me that player is not identifiable.  For goodness sake, his face is in the picture!  This is a lawsuit waiting to happen, and with 700 DL's already, it is just a matter of time.  Great picture, awesome shot.  Crisp, clean, great story.  But it is editorial only until that face is removed.

I am in the process of writing a PC based football game and was considering purchasing this picture for a game screen.  But I knew I was asking for a lawsuit if I did.  If I do end up making a EL purchase this year, it will probably be one of Rinder's excellent photos.

Seriously, the reviewer who let this one by should have to explain himself/herself. 
« Last Edit: February 08, 2008, 02:59 by DanP68 »

« Reply #10 on: February 08, 2008, 03:02 »
0
Hey Dan,

Anyone ever tell you that you (your avatar photo)  looks like Bruce Willis.

« Reply #11 on: February 08, 2008, 03:03 »
0
Have a look at the recent non-exclusive accepted images and there are usually a few that I would expect to get rejected.  This proves nothing.  Some reviewers have lower standards than others.  It is very subjective and sometimes what we consider to be good images get rejected while what we consider to be poor gets accepted.

DanP68

« Reply #12 on: February 08, 2008, 03:15 »
0
Hey Dan,

Anyone ever tell you that you (your avatar photo)  looks like Bruce Willis.


Not anymore. 

« Reply #13 on: February 08, 2008, 04:43 »
0
I dunno.. i didn't think it was THAT bad of a picture of dirt.

I have done allright selling solid background pictures of things like snow, old walls, and different types of textures.

« Reply #14 on: February 08, 2008, 06:58 »
0
I cannot tell you how many times I have submitted NCAA football photos to iStock, with the players face hidden from camera and the logos removed, and gotten the "sorry, player identifiable" rejection.

But they accepted this one from an exclusive photographer:

http://www.istockphoto.com/file_closeup/object/4260212_running_back.php?id=4260212 [nofollow]

You cannot tell me that player is not identifiable.  For goodness sake, his face is in the picture!  This is a lawsuit waiting to happen, and with 700 DL's already, it is just a matter of time.  Great picture, awesome shot.  Crisp, clean, great story.  But it is editorial only until that face is removed.

I am in the process of writing a PC based football game and was considering purchasing this picture for a game screen.  But I knew I was asking for a lawsuit if I did.  If I do end up making a EL purchase this year, it will probably be one of Rinder's excellent photos.

Seriously, the reviewer who let this one by should have to explain himself/herself. 


Perhaps they have a model release for that shot? I'm not sure but it looks like a high school or college player so it's very possible that a release was signed.

I do know from personal experience that ANYTHING NFL related is summarily rejected on iStock, whether their faces are showing or not. I had an image of an NFL official taken from the back rejected because of the type of shoes he was wearing...evidently only pro officials wear them.

« Reply #15 on: February 08, 2008, 07:00 »
0
You cannot tell me that player is not identifiable.  For goodness sake, his face is in the picture!  This is a lawsuit waiting to happen, and with 700 DL's already, it is just a matter of time.  Great picture, awesome shot.  Crisp, clean, great story.  But it is editorial only until that face is removed.


Um... did you consider the possibility that the photog has a model release for that image? Maybe it was his/her child...

Darn Diane beat me to it LOL!

DanP68

« Reply #16 on: February 08, 2008, 07:29 »
0
I sincerely doubt it.  Check his series.  There is another photo which is obviously from the same run, and the head is cropped off.  They wouldn't crop off the head if they had a model release.

http://www.istockphoto.com/file_closeup/object/4267252_running_back.php?id=4267252

Heck I've even cropped off the head/helmet entirely and submitted it to iStock, and was still told I needed a model release.  Many times.  They just don't accept this type of stuff.  I was lucky in that I had 3 sports images accepted when I first joined, and all became best sellers.  Since then they've probably turned down 20 or 30 more claiming property/model releases were needed.  I'm amazed they let an exclusive submit an image with the face clearly visible.

I guarantee you, even if I had a model release for a player photo iStock would claim I needed a property release from the school too.
« Last Edit: February 08, 2008, 07:36 by DanP68 »

DanP68

« Reply #17 on: February 08, 2008, 07:38 »
0
Miz, your picture sucks.   :-*

« Reply #18 on: February 08, 2008, 07:44 »
0
I sincerely doubt it.  Check his series.  There is another photo which is obviously from the same run, and the head is cropped off.  They wouldn't crop off the head if they had a model release.

http://www.istockphoto.com/file_closeup/object/4267252_running_back.php?id=4267252 [nofollow]

Heck I've even cropped off the head/helmet entirely and submitted it to iStock, and was still told I needed a model release.  Many times.  They just don't accept this type of stuff.  I was lucky in that I had 3 sports images accepted when I first joined, and all became best sellers.  Since then they've probably turned down 20 or 30 more claiming property/model releases were needed.  I'm amazed they let an exclusive submit an image with the face clearly visible.

I guarantee you, even if I had a model release for a player photo iStock would claim I needed a property release from the school too.


I'm not sure what you're trying to say here. You say that IStock rejected your shots, even with cropped heads, for no model release...yet you are assuming that these are live on the site without one? I seriously doubt that these shots have no release...you DO NOT get a break in this area if you are exclusive.

« Reply #19 on: February 08, 2008, 07:48 »
0
Miz, your picture sucks.   :-*

I don't know, Dan, I kinda like Miz's shot. It reminds me of that "I am not quite asleep enough to dream, my acid reflux is kicking in, and what . is that cat up to now?"  feeling I get every night about 10PM.

PaulieWalnuts

  • We Have Exciting News For You
« Reply #20 on: February 08, 2008, 07:51 »
0
Miz, that picture has banding. But I like it. Maybe you should submit it.

DanP68

« Reply #21 on: February 08, 2008, 07:52 »
0
It isn't enough to have a player model release Diane.  Even with the logos removed, that player is identified with the school he is playing for.  Once you have the model release, you have the player's name.  Once you have the player's name, it is pretty obvious which school he is representing, even if the logo was Photoshopped out.  

If that image runs in a commercial campaign and the school sees it, there is no way they will not put up a fight.   The school itself is being used in any commercial campaign this image is used in.  And I seriously doubt ANYONE would have a release from a university to sell its imagery in RF.  I can just imagine Notre Dame smiling at one of its football players being used in a commercial campaign just because a model release was used.

I don't have to say anything Diane.  There is very little in the way of true sports imagery on iStock, but almost all of it comes from Exclusive members.  Maybe you would prefer to explain why that is?  And then explain why you would crop off someone's head if you had a model release?
« Last Edit: February 08, 2008, 07:56 by DanP68 »

« Reply #22 on: February 08, 2008, 08:11 »
0
it's  so obvious that IS treats exclusive members differently,and I agree with Miz's comment.it's their business and I don't see anything wrong with  encouraging people to go exclusive with them. I am not exclusive with them but sometime  I must admit I do envy of the benefits they get.but those benefits to my point of view isn't good enough yet,for me to go exclusive.
I too got some of my files rejected for not being stock worthy and later I discovered very similar but exclusive files were up there selling well  anyway I got them online elsewhere  and they are doing well, at the end of the day  it's not a great deal I think.
 
« Last Edit: February 08, 2008, 08:13 by stokfoto »

« Reply #23 on: February 08, 2008, 08:29 »
0

I too got some of my files rejected for not being stock worthy and later I discovered very similar but exclusive files were up there selling well  anyway I got them online elsewhere  and they are doing well, at the end of the day  it's not a great deal I think.
 

Funnily enough as an exclusive I've had  'not stock' and 'over filtered' rejections and then have seen similar files from non exclusives selling well... but I've not been able to sell them elsewhere.

Pah  istock  is obviously so biased against me 

« Reply #24 on: February 08, 2008, 08:40 »
0
It isn't enough to have a player model release Diane.  Even with the logos removed, that player is identified with the school he is playing for.  Once you have the model release, you have the player's name.  Once you have the player's name, it is pretty obvious which school he is representing, even if the logo was Photoshopped out.  

If that image runs in a commercial campaign and the school sees it, there is no way they will not put up a fight.   The school itself is being used in any commercial campaign this image is used in.  And I seriously doubt ANYONE would have a release from a university to sell its imagery in RF.  I can just imagine Notre Dame smiling at one of its football players being used in a commercial campaign just because a model release was used.

I don't have to say anything Diane.  There is very little in the way of true sports imagery on iStock, but almost all of it comes from Exclusive members.  Maybe you would prefer to explain why that is?  And then explain why you would crop off someone's head if you had a model release?

   First of all, I do not speak for IStock, and I do not work for them (other than being an exclusive contributor) so I can't "explain" anything. I'm an observer just as you are.

  I did a quick search of "football player" . MOST of the shots of players are unidentifiable, and some were non-exclusives.

My point here is that I don't see a conspiracy by iStock to dismiss the model release requirement for exclusive members. I know this by personal experience, not just from the perfunctory search I just did.

I am not saying that iStock doesn't have some problems implementing their policies (especially the copyright and "not suitable as stock" rejections) evenly across the board...they do. They are bound to with the inspection system that is in place. I do think it's wrong-headed to assume it's an exclusive/non-exclusive issue.


 

Related Topics

  Subject / Started by Replies Last post
9 Replies
5211 Views
Last post November 25, 2006, 10:26
by kosmikkreeper
31 Replies
10086 Views
Last post January 01, 2009, 11:02
by Perrush
0 Replies
2698 Views
Last post September 16, 2009, 07:07
by NancyCWalker
21 Replies
8248 Views
Last post September 10, 2010, 21:20
by FD
8 Replies
2460 Views
Last post January 25, 2014, 13:38
by JPSDK

Sponsors

Mega Bundle of 5,900+ Professional Lightroom Presets

Microstock Poll Results

Sponsors

3100 Posing Cards Bundle