Author Topic: Lots of rants about random stuff (was: More Getty content on iStock) (Read 72127 times)

Jo Ann Snover · « **Reply #50 on:** June 08, 2011, 10:41 »

Whether it's their intention to damage iStock or not, the moves to dump Getty content on iStock can have that effect if they're not careful. Then Getty is left with two sites in trouble instead of one.

Those buyers who came to iStock for value won't all stick around as the prices rise. When Vetta was initially introduced, there was pretty good acceptance of the notion of a premium collection. When they virtually doubled the Vetta prices last year, I think they pushed a good thing too far (I understand they had the Agency stuff from Getty that had to have a high price and they'd have had a bigger riot if they left Vetta so much cheaper than agency; still was a crappy end result).

Artemis · « **Reply #51 on:** June 08, 2011, 10:50 »

Is there any word on how these files will be priced yet...? Very curious about that one...

jamirae · « **Reply #52 on:** June 08, 2011, 11:28 »

every time there's one of these announcements at iStock I get a bump in sales at DT and SS. purely coincidental, I'm sure, but it makes me smile anyway.

Jo Ann Snover · « **Reply #53 on:** June 08, 2011, 11:39 »

Quote from: Artemis on June 08, 2011, 10:50

Is there any word on how these files will be priced yet...? Very curious about that one...

I asked earlier in the thread, but as with other questions, so far no admin responses.

travelstock · « **Reply #54 on:** June 08, 2011, 12:25 »

Quote from: jsnover on June 08, 2011, 11:39

Quote from: Artemis on June 08, 2011, 10:50
Is there any word on how these files will be priced yet...? Very curious about that one...

I asked earlier in the thread, but as with other questions, so far no admin responses.

A premium editorial collection was on the cards from day one - I'm pretty sure it was acknowledged as such by IS but put on hold to await some volume in the collection first. My guess is that this move will hasten the introduction of a premium editorial collection.

gclk · « **Reply #55 on:** June 08, 2011, 14:20 »

Quote from: holgs on June 08, 2011, 12:25

Quote from: jsnover on June 08, 2011, 11:39
Quote from: Artemis on June 08, 2011, 10:50
Is there any word on how these files will be priced yet...? Very curious about that one...

I asked earlier in the thread, but as with other questions, so far no admin responses.

A premium editorial collection was on the cards from day one - I'm pretty sure it was acknowledged as such by IS but put on hold to await some volume in the collection first. My guess is that this move will hasten the introduction of a premium editorial collection.

I agree - the potential to make more money will have been seen, and almost certainly won't be resisted.

But surely, no matter how trusting of iStock people choose to be, not many artists will sign up for a new premium collection at the derisory "three for us, one for you" royalty rates of 22%-28% that Vetta for photos gets. Not while the new Vetta for Video and Vectors collections are getting 10% more.

Still don't quite understand why photographic contributors should be paid so much less for their best work, and are now looking at a 25% hike in RC targets, while targets for other media are unchanged.

Artemis · « **Reply #56 on:** June 08, 2011, 14:56 »

Quote from: holgs on June 08, 2011, 12:25

Quote from: jsnover on June 08, 2011, 11:39
Quote from: Artemis on June 08, 2011, 10:50
Is there any word on how these files will be priced yet...? Very curious about that one...

I asked earlier in the thread, but as with other questions, so far no admin responses.

A premium editorial collection was on the cards from day one - I'm pretty sure it was acknowledged as such by IS but put on hold to await some volume in the collection first. My guess is that this move will hasten the introduction of a premium editorial collection.

Good thinking... i'd have guessed the 'istock-plebs' editorial thats there now is the regular editorial and the announced influx the premium editorial collection, but your scenario probably is more likely.

ShadySue · « **Reply #57 on:** June 08, 2011, 17:28 »

Poste4d by Joyze:
Here are the Q&A I've pulled together for you. I hope I haven't missed anyones questions, but if I have, send me a site mail and I'll get on it.

1. How likely is it for iStock contributors to be accepted at Getty?
It really depends on the specific photographer. If one of our contributors has the skills and interest to work with Getty we will do our best to work with them to make it happen. It is really something that has to be addressed on an individual basis.

2. What is the price point of these images?
These images will all be priced at Exclusive+.

3. How many images will be added to iStock?
The goal is to add enough images to give iStockphoto an editorial collection that is competitive. For the first round, we will be adding approximately 7,000 images. More images will be added over time, however, at this point we don’t have specific numbers.

4. How are the images being selected?
The images are being selected by our content team and the Getty editorial team.

5. Why locations, when iStock contributors can shoot locations as well? How much of an overlap will there be? Will you stop accepting locations from iStock contributors?
We will still accept location shots from our contributors. The location images coming in as part of this content have been selected because of their specific subject matter or newsworthiness. In addition, the content will include images of some locations that our contributors generally don’t have the permission to shoot, even for editorial purposes.

6. Will we be allowed to submit similar images to iStock if we are accredited, or do these all have to go via Getty?
From a contributor point of view nothing has changed in terms of what you can submit. That means we will accept images of products, locations, and news imagery addressing ongoing issues. If you are interested in shooting celebrities or “breaking news” you would have to become accepted at Getty, at which point you would submit your images directly to Getty.

7. Are there plans to put iStock editorial content on Getty as well?
There are no immediate plans to do this, but if the editorial collection continues to do well it is something we would look at.

8. Will this new content be mixed into the regular best match, or will it be a separate collection?
The content will be treated just like any other content on iStockphoto and is not being given any special treatment.

9. Can we upload Sports and sporting events?
Due to the complexity that comes with Sports teams and sporting events, we're not able to accept those types of files at this time.

10. How will these files under the Edstock member name be credited?
They will be credited exactly the same as current iStock files are. So, it will look like this:
©istockphoto.com/edstock

So the 'togs aren't having their copyright acknowledged?
Is this 'wholly owned content'?

And note:
"More images will be added over time" - so no doubt eventually as much editorial content as they can get off with, not just celebrities or 'iconic locations'.
If George Clooney walks down my street and I can take a steady picture (doubtful), it'll be bound for Alamy: who on earth could 'accredit' that?
Talking about Alamy, how come are they able to take sports events without 'all the complexity'. There must be local sports without 'all the complexity' - I guess my local football team wouldn't have 'all the complexity'. How come can you take a local sports event for the main collection if you have model releases and clone out all logos, sponsorship etc, but not for the editorial collection?

Risamay · « **Reply #58 on:** June 08, 2011, 18:12 »

Quote from: ShadySue on June 08, 2011, 17:28

Talking about Alamy, how are they able to take sports events with out 'all the complexity'. There must be local sports without 'all the complexity' - I guess my local football team wouldn't have 'all the complexity'. How come can you take a local sports event for the main collection if you have model releases and clone out all logos, sponsorship etc, but not for the editorial collection?

+1

danhowl · « **Reply #59 on:** June 08, 2011, 18:19 »

Quote from: ShadySue on June 08, 2011, 17:28

Seems like if George Clooney walks down my street and I can take a steady picture (doubtful), it'll be bound for Alamy since without accredition, I couldn't even send it to Getty.

The part about 'accreditation' is at least partially a ruse. Not all celebrity/personality/event shoots are accredited. Getty does its best to lock out all photographers except their own from a number of events. Getty staff/contract photographers get wages, not percentages, so the more exclusive they can make an image or subject appear the better for Getty corporate--not individual photographers. Some magazine editors I know groan when they think of dealing with Getty and actively look for alternatives.

Ironically, I realized today that the young lady caught up in the Congressman Weiner text-photos scandal is a model I shot and have up on IS already! So I guess there ARE ways of submitting 'celebrity' stock to IS!

Jo Ann Snover · « **Reply #60 on:** June 08, 2011, 18:24 »

Quote from: Risamay on June 08, 2011, 18:12

Quote from: ShadySue on June 08, 2011, 17:28
Talking about Alamy, how are they able to take sports events with out 'all the complexity'. There must be local sports without 'all the complexity' - I guess my local football team wouldn't have 'all the complexity'. How come can you take a local sports event for the main collection if you have model releases and clone out all logos, sponsorship etc, but not for the editorial collection?

+1

The complexity has to do with treading on Getty's toes would be my guess. I'd also guess they'd never admit to that if it were true.

lisafx · « **Reply #61 on:** June 08, 2011, 18:37 »

Quote from: danhowl on June 08, 2011, 18:19

Quote from: ShadySue on June 08, 2011, 17:28
Seems like if George Clooney walks down my street and I can take a steady picture (doubtful), it'll be bound for Alamy since without accredition, I couldn't even send it to Getty.

The part about 'accreditation' is at least partially a ruse. Not all celebrity/personality/event shoots are accredited. Getty does its best to lock out all photographers except their own from a number of events. Getty staff/contract photographers get wages, not percentages, so the more exclusive they can make an image or subject appear the better for Getty corporate--not individual photographers. Some magazine editors I know groan when they think of dealing with Getty and actively look for alternatives.

Ironically, I realized today that the young lady caught up in the Congressman Weiner text-photos scandal is a model I shot and have up on IS already! So I guess there ARE ways of submitting 'celebrity' stock to IS!

OMG - hilarious! Do post us a link

Thanks for clearing up this "accreditation" business. My understanding of editorial usage is that no releases of any kind are required. Period. It's a first amendment freedom of the press thing. Otherwise, how could pararazzi and tabloids operate?

So I have been really confused by all this talk about proper permissions etc. Now that you have explained that it is mainly a Getty thing it makes a lot more sense

ShadySue · « **Reply #62 on:** June 08, 2011, 18:45 »

All the lies, half-truths, double-speak, forked tongue and subterfuges get me down.

SNP · « **Reply #63 on:** June 08, 2011, 19:06 »

Quote from: danhowl on June 08, 2011, 18:19

Quote from: ShadySue on June 08, 2011, 17:28
Seems like if George Clooney walks down my street and I can take a steady picture (doubtful), it'll be bound for Alamy since without accredition, I couldn't even send it to Getty.

The part about 'accreditation' is at least partially a ruse. Not all celebrity/personality/event shoots are accredited. Getty does its best to lock out all photographers except their own from a number of events. Getty staff/contract photographers get wages, not percentages, so the more exclusive they can make an image or subject appear the better for Getty corporate--not individual photographers. Some magazine editors I know groan when they think of dealing with Getty and actively look for alternatives.

Ironically, I realized today that the young lady caught up in the Congressman Weiner text-photos scandal is a model I shot and have up on IS already! So I guess there ARE ways of submitting 'celebrity' stock to IS!

assuming this is true, it's fairly unprofessional of you to have revealed her identity here for the sake of a quick laugh. I'm amazed at the lack of professionalism admitted to by so many photographers, especially on MSG.

SNP · « **Reply #64 on:** June 08, 2011, 19:10 »

Quote from: lisafx on June 08, 2011, 18:37

Quote from: danhowl on June 08, 2011, 18:19
Quote from: ShadySue on June 08, 2011, 17:28
Seems like if George Clooney walks down my street and I can take a steady picture (doubtful), it'll be bound for Alamy since without accredition, I couldn't even send it to Getty.

The part about 'accreditation' is at least partially a ruse. Not all celebrity/personality/event shoots are accredited. Getty does its best to lock out all photographers except their own from a number of events. Getty staff/contract photographers get wages, not percentages, so the more exclusive they can make an image or subject appear the better for Getty corporate--not individual photographers. Some magazine editors I know groan when they think of dealing with Getty and actively look for alternatives.

Ironically, I realized today that the young lady caught up in the Congressman Weiner text-photos scandal is a model I shot and have up on IS already! So I guess there ARE ways of submitting 'celebrity' stock to IS!

OMG - hilarious! Do post us a link

Thanks for clearing up this "accreditation" business. My understanding of editorial usage is that no releases of any kind are required. Period. It's a first amendment freedom of the press thing. Otherwise, how could pararazzi and tabloids operate?

So I have been really confused by all this talk about proper permissions etc. Now that you have explained that it is mainly a Getty thing it makes a lot more sense

Lisa - with all due respect, permissions in editorial are not just a 'Getty thing'. there are many many MANY rules regarding editorial submissions to publications. editorial isn't a release-free-for-all...

danhowl · « **Reply #65 on:** June 08, 2011, 19:39 »

Quote from: SNP on June 08, 2011, 19:06

assuming this is true, it's fairly unprofessional of you to have revealed her identity here for the sake of a quick laugh. I'm amazed at the lack of professionalism admitted to by so many photographers, especially on MSG.

Are you serious? You truly have no clue. Photos and her stage name have been all over the media today. I made the realization at a newsstand when I saw a full page photo identifying her in the NY Post. I had no intention of releasing her real name, but I have every intention of getting the editorial package that I produced (photos not on IS and SS) to Renta tomorrow and making direct offers to magazines I already work with. That, in fact, is what is known as professionalism.

I have been creating editorial portrait and feature layouts for magazines for several years. Doing this puts me in contact with numerous subjects. This particular incident adds timeliness and interest to an editorial package that is already in the marketplace. I had considered signing with Getty for the editorial library I have, but my experience with them on RM lifestyle stock does not encourage me. This recent change in policy does not change that.

caspixel · « **Reply #66 on:** June 08, 2011, 19:52 »

Quote from: danhowl on June 08, 2011, 19:39

Photos and her stage name have been all over the media today. I made the realization at a newsstand when I saw a full page photo identifying her in the NY Post.

Where? I can't find a single one online. And my inquiring mind wants to know. And she had a stage name? So she was looking for publicity? I was wondering why all these women were suddenly coming forward. All looking for a quick buck now? That's the only reason I can think of why they would even engage in this type of thing with that guy.

/OT

danhowl · « **Reply #67 on:** June 08, 2011, 19:58 »

Quote from: caspixel on June 08, 2011, 19:52

Where? I can't find a single one online. And my inquiring mind wants to know. And she had a stage name? So she was looking for publicity? I was wondering why all these women were suddenly coming forward. All looking for a quick buck now? That's the only reason I can think of why they would even engage in this type of thing with that guy.

/OT

Numerous models and actresses use stage names. Are you a conspiracy nut? Or possibly living under a rock? This is not a new thing. You can google either parties' name and get numerous hits.

Sadstock · « **Reply #68 on:** June 08, 2011, 20:02 »

Quote from: lisafx on June 08, 2011, 09:54

Quote from: ShadySue on June 08, 2011, 06:07
Another point from the OP no-one has commented on:
"These new editorial files will all be in a single contributor portfolio called EdStock."
So the photographers are not being credited. Wonder if they'll be mad about that, or relieved that their names are not being 'outed' in Micro.
Will that mean the photo is listed as 'copyright EdStock'?

Well, who is this Ed Stock, and does he get to keep the royalties?

And here I thought ED stood for something else entirely

http://tiny.cc/7mgob

Suljo · « **Reply #69 on:** June 08, 2011, 20:43 »

Quote from: caspixel on June 07, 2011, 20:43

Jaw-dropping, really, some of the stuff that comes out of people's mouths over there.

Once Getty sees certain contributers standards, how good their work is and how well it sells, Istock admins will push those people in the right direction like they did with agency files. Neither Istock or Getty is going to give up the chance to make money on our skills and the people that excel will be noticed now.

Yes but for last year and ago we must call things with real names.
iStock or (iStock, milking cattle) = *insult removed*
Getty = Just Greedy

SNP · « **Reply #70 on:** June 08, 2011, 22:48 »

Quote from: danhowl on June 08, 2011, 19:39

Quote from: SNP on June 08, 2011, 19:06

assuming this is true, it's fairly unprofessional of you to have revealed her identity here for the sake of a quick laugh. I'm amazed at the lack of professionalism admitted to by so many photographers, especially on MSG.

Are you serious? You truly have no clue. Photos and her stage name have been all over the media today. I made the realization at a newsstand when I saw a full page photo identifying her in the NY Post. I had no intention of releasing her real name, but I have every intention of getting the editorial package that I produced (photos not on IS and Shutterstock) to Renta tomorrow and making direct offers to magazines I already work with. That, in fact, is what is known as professionalism.

I have been creating editorial portrait and feature layouts for magazines for several years. Doing this puts me in contact with numerous subjects. This particular incident adds timeliness and interest to an editorial package that is already in the marketplace. I had considered signing with Getty for the editorial library I have, but my experience with them on RM lifestyle stock does not encourage me. This recent change in policy does not change that.

sorry. I suppose in this case, what I said was unfair. I didn't realize her identity was already so public. I still question pointing her out in your iStock portfolio. probably would have sufficed to state you had worked with her, but whatever. I'm being nit picky.

caspixel · « **Reply #71 on:** June 08, 2011, 22:51 »

Quote from: danhowl on June 08, 2011, 19:58

Quote from: caspixel on June 08, 2011, 19:52

Where? I can't find a single one online. And my inquiring mind wants to know. And she had a stage name? So she was looking for publicity? I was wondering why all these women were suddenly coming forward. All looking for a quick buck now? That's the only reason I can think of why they would even engage in this type of thing with that guy.

/OT

Numerous models and actresses use stage names. Are you a conspiracy nut? Or possibly living under a rock? This is not a new thing. You can google either parties' name and get numerous hits.

No, what I want to know is what motivation does a model/actress have in engaging in a nasty chat with a prominent congressman. That doesn't seem at all strange to you?

BaldricksTrousers · « **Reply #72 on:** June 09, 2011, 00:35 »

Quote from: ShadySue on June 08, 2011, 06:07

Another point from the OP no-one has commented on:
"These new editorial files will all be in a single contributor portfolio called EdStock."
So the photographers are not being credited. Wonder if they'll be mad about that, or relieved that their names are not being 'outed' in Micro.
Will that mean the photo is listed as 'copyright EdStock'?

If the pictures are being sold without the photographer being named, how can organisers determine whether or not they issued credentials for the snapper who shot the event? Is iStock gearing up to cope with a swathe of inquiries from irate organisers? Or is this "you can't shoot editorial without permission" actually a load of b0llux?

ShadySue · « **Reply #73 on:** June 09, 2011, 01:26 »

Quote from: BaldricksTrousers on June 09, 2011, 00:35

Quote from: ShadySue on June 08, 2011, 06:07
Another point from the OP no-one has commented on:
"These new editorial files will all be in a single contributor portfolio called EdStock."
So the photographers are not being credited. Wonder if they'll be mad about that, or relieved that their names are not being 'outed' in Micro.
Will that mean the photo is listed as 'copyright EdStock'?

If the pictures are being sold without the photographer being named, how can organisers determine whether or not they issued credentials for the snapper who shot the event? Is iStock gearing up to cope with a swathe of inquiries from irate organisers? Or is this "you can't shoot editorial without permission" actually a load of b0llux?

It's possible that the rules are different in different countries. I don't think I'd take on France for example. But it must be pretty easy to issue inspectors with a list of countries where the rules are different rather than making a blank 'no accept'.

gclk · « **Reply #74 on:** June 09, 2011, 03:14 »

2. What is the price point of these images?
These images will all be priced at Exclusive+.

Would it be safe to assume that the long promised, but not yet implemented best match boost for E+ files will quickly become a priority?

MicrostockGroup Sponsors

Author Topic: Lots of rants about random stuff (was: More Getty content on iStock) (Read 72127 times)

Jo Ann Snover

Artemis

jamirae

Jo Ann Snover

travelstock

gclk

Artemis

ShadySue

Risamay

danhowl

Jo Ann Snover

lisafx

ShadySue

SNP

SNP

danhowl

caspixel

danhowl

Sadstock

Suljo

SNP

caspixel

BaldricksTrousers

ShadySue

gclk

Related Topics

Sponsors

Microstock Poll Results

Sponsors