Author Topic: Nice going, Istock... (Read 19187 times)

Dantheman · « **Reply #25 on:** June 20, 2012, 05:43 »

Quote from: ShadySue on June 20, 2012, 05:10

Quote from: Dantheman on June 20, 2012, 01:59

I got this Pic rejected : http://www.shutterstock.com/cat.mhtml?gallery_id=796441#id=104893088&src=f3620557102e69a9591bcac772a6e5d1-1-21

for the Keyword {[ White (Descriptive Color)]} $:-\$

Would you say that this is normal? Cause i am totally confused with iStocks keyword rejections, since i take out at least 50% of my keywords i use for the other agencys.
I mean the background is isolated to white and the guy is white (caucasian), or doesn't this count?

Not for White (descriptive colour).
The DA for the guy is White (Caucasian)
For the background you have all of: isolated, isolated on white, plain background, white background.

Ok thanks, this helps a lot. I was a bit confused, since english also isn't my first language. Now i know!

ShadySue · « **Reply #26 on:** June 20, 2012, 06:01 »

Quote from: Dantheman on June 20, 2012, 05:43

Quote from: ShadySue on June 20, 2012, 05:10
Quote from: Dantheman on June 20, 2012, 01:59

I got this Pic rejected : http://www.shutterstock.com/cat.mhtml?gallery_id=796441#id=104893088&src=f3620557102e69a9591bcac772a6e5d1-1-21

for the Keyword {[ White (Descriptive Color)]} $:-\$

Would you say that this is normal? Cause i am totally confused with iStocks keyword rejections, since i take out at least 50% of my keywords i use for the other agencys.
I mean the background is isolated to white and the guy is white (caucasian), or doesn't this count?

Not for White (descriptive colour).
The DA for the guy is White (Caucasian)
For the background you have all of: isolated, isolated on white, plain background, white background.

Ok thanks, this helps a lot. I was a bit confused, since english also isn't my first language. Now i know!

I can't imagine how I would manage if English (i.e., Standard Scots English) weren't my first language.
At least you'd get a laugh!

Wim · « **Reply #27 on:** June 20, 2012, 08:28 »

Quote from: Dantheman on June 20, 2012, 05:43

Quote from: ShadySue on June 20, 2012, 05:10
Quote from: Dantheman on June 20, 2012, 01:59

I got this Pic rejected : http://www.shutterstock.com/cat.mhtml?gallery_id=796441#id=104893088&src=f3620557102e69a9591bcac772a6e5d1-1-21

for the Keyword {[ White (Descriptive Color)]} $:-\$

Would you say that this is normal? Cause i am totally confused with iStocks keyword rejections, since i take out at least 50% of my keywords i use for the other agencys.
I mean the background is isolated to white and the guy is white (caucasian), or doesn't this count?

Not for White (descriptive colour).
The DA for the guy is White (Caucasian)
For the background you have all of: isolated, isolated on white, plain background, white background.

Ok thanks, this helps a lot. I was a bit confused, since english also isn't my first language. Now i know!

- isolated on white (no shadow/255)
- white background (shadow)

It's a bit annoying to re-type keywords just for IS, especially since sales aren't that great but that's just the way it is.

Dantheman · « **Reply #28 on:** June 20, 2012, 10:51 »

Quote from: ShadySue on June 20, 2012, 06:01

Quote from: Dantheman on June 20, 2012, 05:43
Quote from: ShadySue on June 20, 2012, 05:10
Quote from: Dantheman on June 20, 2012, 01:59

I got this Pic rejected : http://www.shutterstock.com/cat.mhtml?gallery_id=796441#id=104893088&src=f3620557102e69a9591bcac772a6e5d1-1-21

for the Keyword {[ White (Descriptive Color)]} $:-\$

Would you say that this is normal? Cause i am totally confused with iStocks keyword rejections, since i take out at least 50% of my keywords i use for the other agencys.
I mean the background is isolated to white and the guy is white (caucasian), or doesn't this count?

Not for White (descriptive colour).
The DA for the guy is White (Caucasian)
For the background you have all of: isolated, isolated on white, plain background, white background.

Ok thanks, this helps a lot. I was a bit confused, since english also isn't my first language. Now i know!

I can't imagine how I would manage if English (i.e., Standard Scots English) weren't my first language.
At least you'd get a laugh!

Well my english isn't to bad, i used to live in South Africa for quite some time. You also learn a great amount of new vocabulary when doing keywording!

michealo · « **Reply #29 on:** June 20, 2012, 10:54 »

Quote from: Dantheman on June 20, 2012, 10:51

Well my english isn't to bad, i used to live in South Africa for quite some time. You also learn a great amount of new vocabulary when doing keywording!

too bad rather than to bad ;-)

lisafx · « **Reply #30 on:** June 20, 2012, 11:17 »

Quote from: Poncke on June 20, 2012, 05:22

Is it common to rat out other contributors about there images? Who are we to judge? Or is this about copyright? Isnt that up to IS what they put in their database?

First question: No, it is generally frowned upon to "rat out other contributors about their images", the exception being when someone is violating someone else's copyright.

Second question: Contributors who expect consistent standards, and artists who respect the copyrights of other artists.

Third question: Close - it's about well known trademarked cartoon characters.

Fourth question: Only up to a point. They are not allowed to add plagiarized, trademarked, or copyrighted images without the permission of the trademark/copyright holders. And again, as contributors, we have a right to expect a certain amount of consistency.

Slightly related to question #4: I once saw a series of extremely and offensively racist images added to Istock. And no, I'm not talking memorabilia stuff like vintage Nazi or Confederate stuff that might have some historic value. Just blatantly racist images. I didn't publicly out the contributor, but I did contact support to see if this was the type of imagery that Istock wanted to have on its site and plastered with its watermark. After some discussion at HQ, it was decided that they were NOT the type of images IS wanted to have associated with it. Good decision, I thought.

But the fact remains that they had been approved by the initial inspector, probably because they were technically acceptable. It took someone (me) bringing the concept to the attention of others so that the images could be judged conceptually, not just on technical merit.

gostwyck · « **Reply #31 on:** June 20, 2012, 11:39 »

Quote from: lisafx on June 20, 2012, 11:17

Quote from: Poncke on June 20, 2012, 05:22
Is it common to rat out other contributors about there images? Who are we to judge? Or is this about copyright? Isnt that up to IS what they put in their database?

First question: No, it is generally frowned upon to "rat out other contributors about their images", the exception being when someone is violating someone else's copyright.

Second question: Contributors who expect consistent standards, and artists who respect the copyrights of other artists.

Third question: Close - it's about well known trademarked cartoon characters.

Fourth question: Only up to a point. They are not allowed to add plagiarized, trademarked, or copyrighted images without the permission of the trademark/copyright holders. And again, as contributors, we have a right to expect a certain amount of consistency.

Slightly related to question #4: I once saw a series of extremely and offensively racist images added to Istock. And no, I'm not talking memorabilia stuff like vintage Nazi or Confederate stuff that might have some historic value. Just blatantly racist images. I didn't publicly out the contributor, but I did contact support to see if this was the type of imagery that Istock wanted to have on its site and plastered with its watermark. After some discussion at HQ, it was decided that they were NOT the type of images IS wanted to have associated with it. Good decision, I thought.

But the fact remains that they had been approved by the initial inspector, probably because they were technically acceptable. It took someone (me) bringing the concept to the attention of others so that the images could be judged conceptually, not just on technical merit.

^^^ KAPOW!!! Great answer.

Noedelhap · « **Reply #32 on:** June 20, 2012, 11:41 »

Quote from: Poncke on June 20, 2012, 05:22

Is it common to rat out other contributors about there images? Who are we to judge? Or is this about copyright? Isnt that up to IS what they put in their database?

I clearly said I'm NOT out to screw this contributor, since his other work seems his own, but when infringement of copyright is involved (and proven) then I don't feel sorry for that contributor.

There is nothing wrong with pointing out something this obvious, either.

Poncke · « **Reply #33 on:** June 20, 2012, 12:40 »

Quote from: Noedelhap on June 20, 2012, 11:41

Quote from: Poncke on June 20, 2012, 05:22
Is it common to rat out other contributors about there images? Who are we to judge? Or is this about copyright? Isnt that up to IS what they put in their database?

I clearly said I'm NOT out to screw this contributor, since his other work seems his own, but when infringement of copyright is involved (and proven) then I don't feel sorry for that contributor.

There is nothing wrong with pointing out something this obvious, either.

Sure, I was just surprised that you posted in public you reported this guy and sounded quite content with it. I would keep that to myself instead of bringing it to a public forum and publicly shame the guy. Unnecessary in my humble opinion. I would have thread differently. But thanks for the response. I agree infringing copyright is not cool either.

Thanks

Poncke · « **Reply #34 on:** June 20, 2012, 12:44 »

@ Lisafix,

Thanks for a vast explanation, makes a lot of sense. Also thanks for correcting the spelling error. I am not native English, but it was a slip up. I normally do not make that mistake. Fortunately my English is still better than some of the native English posters.

Peace.

lisafx · « **Reply #35 on:** June 20, 2012, 12:46 »

Quote from: Poncke on June 20, 2012, 12:44

Thanks for a vast explanation, makes a lot of sense. Also thanks for correcting the spelling error. I am not native English, but it was a slip up. I normally do not make that mistake. Fortunately my English is still better than some of the native English posters.

Never would have guessed it. Your English is great, and us native English speakers make the their, there, they're mistake all the time too. Sometimes your fingers have a mind of their own when typing

Poncke · « **Reply #36 on:** June 20, 2012, 12:56 »

Quote from: lisafx on June 20, 2012, 12:46

Quote from: Poncke on June 20, 2012, 12:44

Thanks for a vast explanation, makes a lot of sense. Also thanks for correcting the spelling error. I am not native English, but it was a slip up. I normally do not make that mistake. Fortunately my English is still better than some of the native English posters.

Never would have guessed it. Your English is great, and us native English speakers make the their, there, they're mistake all the time too. Sometimes your fingers have a mind of their own when typing

LOLOL. I know about the their, there, they're mistakes amongst the English speakers, thats why I am trying so hard not to make them

This one slipped through. And because their, there, they're are correctly spelled, the spell checker doesnt ring the alarm bell either. Haha.

Noedelhap · « **Reply #37 on:** June 20, 2012, 17:39 »

Quote from: Poncke on June 20, 2012, 12:40

Quote from: Noedelhap on June 20, 2012, 11:41
Quote from: Poncke on June 20, 2012, 05:22
Is it common to rat out other contributors about there images? Who are we to judge? Or is this about copyright? Isnt that up to IS what they put in their database?

I clearly said I'm NOT out to screw this contributor, since his other work seems his own, but when infringement of copyright is involved (and proven) then I don't feel sorry for that contributor.

There is nothing wrong with pointing out something this obvious, either.

Sure, I was just surprised that you posted in public you reported this guy and sounded quite content with it. I would keep that to myself instead of bringing it to a public forum and publicly shame the guy. Unnecessary in my humble opinion. I would have thread differently. But thanks for the response. I agree infringing copyright is not cool either.

Thanks

Well, it's more publicly shaming Istock than shaming the contributor. That's why I didn't mention his name.

Although anyone can look it up for himself.

Are you Flemish, btw? Your name (Poncke) sounds Belgian.

Sadstock · « **Reply #38 on:** June 20, 2012, 19:06 »

Both files are no longer available. Is the contributor's account still active?

ShadySue · « **Reply #39 on:** June 20, 2012, 19:19 »

Quote from: Wim on June 20, 2012, 08:28

- isolated on white (no shadow/255)
- white background (shadow)

Oh yes, sorry; isolated on white should have no shadow.
A shadow isn't actually 'necessary' for white (etc) background.

lisafx · « **Reply #40 on:** June 20, 2012, 20:52 »

Quote from: Sadstock on June 20, 2012, 19:06

Both files are no longer available. Is the contributor's account still active?

I just noticed the same thing. I'm curious whether the account is still active too. Wish I had bookmarked the contributor.

click_click · « **Reply #41 on:** June 20, 2012, 21:54 »

Quote from: lisafx on June 20, 2012, 20:52

Quote from: Sadstock on June 20, 2012, 19:06
Both files are no longer available. Is the contributor's account still active?

I just noticed the same thing. I'm curious whether the account is still active too. Wish I had bookmarked the contributor.

His/her entire portfolio is gone. I hope it's just an investigative measure, would be a shame if this thread caused the boot from iStock...

luissantos84 · « **Reply #42 on:** June 20, 2012, 22:05 »

Quote from: click_click on June 20, 2012, 21:54

Quote from: lisafx on June 20, 2012, 20:52
Quote from: Sadstock on June 20, 2012, 19:06
Both files are no longer available. Is the contributor's account still active?

I just noticed the same thing. I'm curious whether the account is still active too. Wish I had bookmarked the contributor.
His/her entire portfolio is gone. I hope it's just an investigative measure, would be a shame if this thread caused the boot from iStock...

ouch! now I need to go! (heavy cleaning in my portfolio)

Lagereek · « **Reply #43 on:** June 21, 2012, 01:40 »

At least IS, is better then a few others who will plaster entire series of useless material on first or second places in a search. However its poinless getting flustered over this, we should be used to this by now.

sharpshot · « **Reply #44 on:** June 21, 2012, 03:56 »

It might be better to PM the contributor first and tell them they could get in to trouble with some images before informing the site. I would much rather have the chance to remove a few images than have my portfolio taken down. If a contributor ignores a PM for a few weeks, then it's time to inform the site admin.

It's different if the portfolio is full of copyright abuses but this didn't seem like that.

Poncke · « **Reply #45 on:** June 21, 2012, 04:37 »

If the guy/girl got his/her account suspended over this then I hope the OP can sleep well. It might have been someone's livelyhood taken away over 2 images. Not even stolen from the OP, it had nothing to do with the OP. OP himself said all the other content was fine.

One should contact the person first before you take action. It might even have been an honest mistake or misunderstanding of this person to create these images.

Prejudice. Think before you judge.

Please note, I am not condoning copyright infringement

wut · « **Reply #46 on:** June 21, 2012, 04:51 »

Quote from: click_click on June 20, 2012, 21:54

Quote from: lisafx on June 20, 2012, 20:52
Quote from: Sadstock on June 20, 2012, 19:06
Both files are no longer available. Is the contributor's account still active?

I just noticed the same thing. I'm curious whether the account is still active too. Wish I had bookmarked the contributor.
His/her entire portfolio is gone. I hope it's just an investigative measure, would be a shame if this thread caused the boot from iStock...

I hope that's exactly what happened

cathyslife · « **Reply #47 on:** June 21, 2012, 06:29 »

Quote from: Poncke on June 21, 2012, 04:37

If the guy/girl got his/her account suspended over this then I hope the OP can sleep well. It might have been someone's livelyhood taken away over 2 images. Not even stolen from the OP, it had nothing to do with the OP. OP himself said all the other content was fine.

One should contact the person first before you take action. It might even have been an honest mistake or misunderstanding of this person to create these images.

Prejudice. Think before you judge.

Please note, I am not condoning copyright infringement

Unfortunately, using ignorance as a defense rarely works. I can't imagine anyone around the stock photo business NOT knowing that using someone else's work, especially work as popular as Hanna Barbera's, wouldn't be an infringement.

You can't have it both ways...either thieves get punished or they don't. Just because the thief might be a nice person doesn't make them any less of a thief. And if istock investigates and finds no wrongdoing, the contributor's port will go back up. How do we know there aren't any other infringements in the port? The OP found two...there might be more.

Let's not be quick to judge the OP, either.

photo_noob · « **Reply #48 on:** June 21, 2012, 07:02 »

Poncke is voice of reason on this forum...
Next time when you want to do a noble thing...you can start thread about some kind of trade union or something that can be truly good... Playing policeman isn't

cathyslife · « **Reply #49 on:** June 21, 2012, 07:08 »

Quote from: photo_noob on June 21, 2012, 07:02

Poncke is voice of reason on this forum...
Next time when you want to do a noble thing...you can start thread about some kind of trade union or something that can be truly good... Playing policeman isn't

Well, someone has to be a policeman, don't they? And trade union threads have already been done. But you are entitled to your opinion. I just hope you never have to report items being stolen from your home. After all, policemen aren't noble, according to your logic.

MicrostockGroup Sponsors

Author Topic: Nice going, Istock... (Read 19187 times)

Dantheman

ShadySue

Wim

Dantheman

michealo

lisafx

gostwyck

Noedelhap

Poncke

Poncke

lisafx

Poncke

Noedelhap

Sadstock

ShadySue

lisafx

click_click

luissantos84

Lagereek

sharpshot

Poncke

wut

cathyslife

photo_noob

cathyslife

Related Topics

Sponsors

Microstock Poll Results

Sponsors