Author Topic: Nice going, Istock... (Read 19176 times)

Noedelhap · « **on:** June 19, 2012, 01:12 »

*sarcasm*

So I searched for 'mouse character' and by chance came across this image:
http://www.istockphoto.com/stock-illustration-18309482-cat-and-mouse.php?st=20d94b5

You may have noticed the mouse closely resembles Jerry from the famous duo Tom & Jerry.

A further look into this contributor's portfolio reveals this image:
http://www.istockphoto.com/stock-illustration-18695475-bulldog-and-dachshund.php?st=a3eafb5

Yep, that's awfully similar to Spike the Dog from the same cartoon series.

How in the seven hells did this pass the quality control at Istock? I already sent a ticket to Contributor Relations. I'm not out to screw this contributor, because the rest of his work seems genuine, but I think it's better if these two images are removed from their database.

Lagereek · « **Reply #1 on:** June 19, 2012, 01:21 »

Not only IS. I nearly fell off the chair yesterday, laughing. I saw several shots of this so called young business-man, dressed in the most ill-fitted suit, wearing a hardhat, big ponytail sticking out under the helmet and posing like a ballerina with some industry in background, man! how this could pass the reviewers, is just unbelieavable? I mean, everything was just wrong, the setting, the body-language of the hippie model and the hardhat stuck on top, even the industry backdrop looked wonky.

ShadySue · « **Reply #2 on:** June 19, 2012, 02:32 »

Quote from: Lagereek on June 19, 2012, 01:21

... everything was just wrong, the setting, the body-language of the hippie model and the hardhat stuck on top, even the industry backdrop looked wonky.

I bet there isn't a stray pixel.

Added: or maybe it's the beefcake equivalent of this cliche:
http://www.istockphoto.com/search/text/woman%20bikini%20hard%20hat/source/basic#14cc68a

ProImage · « **Reply #3 on:** June 19, 2012, 04:27 »

I'm pretty sure it's a bunch of fatigued men/women. Don't catch them on a bad day!

qwerty · « **Reply #4 on:** June 19, 2012, 04:57 »

Quote from: ShadySue on June 19, 2012, 02:32

Quote from: Lagereek on June 19, 2012, 01:21
... everything was just wrong, the setting, the body-language of the hippie model and the hardhat stuck on top, even the industry backdrop looked wonky.

I bet there isn't a stray pixel.

Added: or maybe it's the beefcake equivalent of this cliche:
http://www.istockphoto.com/search/text/woman%20bikini%20hard%20hat/source/basic#14cc68a

I like that some of the photos don't even have hard hats in them. Unless a mirror ball counts

ShadySue · « **Reply #5 on:** June 19, 2012, 05:29 »

Quote from: qwerty on June 19, 2012, 04:57

Quote from: ShadySue on June 19, 2012, 02:32
Quote from: Lagereek on June 19, 2012, 01:21
... everything was just wrong, the setting, the body-language of the hippie model and the hardhat stuck on top, even the industry backdrop looked wonky.

I bet there isn't a stray pixel.

Added: or maybe it's the beefcake equivalent of this cliche:
http://www.istockphoto.com/search/text/woman%20bikini%20hard%20hat/source/basic#14cc68a

I like that some of the photos don't even have hard hats in them. Unless a mirror ball counts

Yeah, while I always get the inspector who takes 'horizontal' out of a horizontal photo, or 'copy space' out of a photo that's mostly copy space.

Wim · « **Reply #6 on:** June 19, 2012, 06:40 »

Quote from: ShadySue on June 19, 2012, 05:29

Quote from: qwerty on June 19, 2012, 04:57
Quote from: ShadySue on June 19, 2012, 02:32
Quote from: Lagereek on June 19, 2012, 01:21
... everything was just wrong, the setting, the body-language of the hippie model and the hardhat stuck on top, even the industry backdrop looked wonky.

I bet there isn't a stray pixel.

Added: or maybe it's the beefcake equivalent of this cliche:
http://www.istockphoto.com/search/text/woman%20bikini%20hard%20hat/source/basic#14cc68a

I like that some of the photos don't even have hard hats in them. Unless a mirror ball counts

Yeah, while I always get the inspector who takes 'horizontal' out of a horizontal photo, or 'copy space' out of a photo that's mostly copy space.

I thought this was only a problem for us independents. This is one of the 2 issues I still have with IS:

1. Overly strict about keywords. I'm affraid to get rejections for keywords and therefore remove most, this in turn will surely affect my sales.
2. Rejection of all my composites (for overfiltering) which are my best selling images. Do they reject for all contributors or selectively, I wonder, can't be bothered to check, got better things to do.

I'm actually not that bothered anymore since sales are miserable lately.

ShadySue · « **Reply #7 on:** June 19, 2012, 07:02 »

Quote from: Wim on June 19, 2012, 06:40

Quote from: ShadySue on June 19, 2012, 05:29
... while I always get the inspector who takes 'horizontal' out of a horizontal photo, or 'copy space' out of a photo that's mostly copy space.

I thought this was only a problem for us independents. This is one of the 2 issues I still have with IS:

1. Overly strict about keywords. I'm affraid to get rejections for keywords and therefore remove most, this in turn will surely affect my sales.
2. Rejection of all my composites (for overfiltering) which are my best selling images. Do they reject for all contributors or selectively, I wonder, can't be bothered to check, got better things to do.

I'm actually not that bothered anymore since sales are miserable lately.

Exclusives don't get photos rejected for keywording, but get them removed on upload.
Some inspectors are stricter than others, for indies and non. Just check 'commercial kitchen' sorted by age.

Depends how well the composite is done: I've had rejections and acceptances.

Wim · « **Reply #8 on:** June 19, 2012, 07:26 »

Well, like I've said, they are my best selling images on all other agencies so I guess they must be ok

I even get overfiltered rejections for the slightest saturation adjustment, according to my reviews none of the images that are the most popular on SS, DT and FT would get accepted there.

By rejecting my ( and probably from a lot more then myself) composites they miss out on all the conceptual stuff which is in fact the most valuable stock imagery, a pitty.

Lagereek · « **Reply #9 on:** June 19, 2012, 07:35 »

Quote from: ShadySue on June 19, 2012, 02:32

Quote from: Lagereek on June 19, 2012, 01:21
... everything was just wrong, the setting, the body-language of the hippie model and the hardhat stuck on top, even the industry backdrop looked wonky.

I bet there isn't a stray pixel.

Added: or maybe it's the beefcake equivalent of this cliche:
http://www.istockphoto.com/search/text/woman%20bikini%20hard%20hat/source/basic#14cc68a

Yeah that just about wraps it up, good one. Totally pathetic BUT! my example is even worse, at least here is a felale semin-nude model, fair enough but what I saw is something like a male hippie ballerina who was so out of place the reviewer in question must have been zozzled on a really bad whiskey and I mean bad!

Seriously though! it just goes to show, any old crap and I mean crap, is accepted as long as its technically sound, isnt it? no wonder the micro is getting a reputation from bad to worse.

Noedelhap · « **Reply #10 on:** June 19, 2012, 08:51 »

A quick search with Google Images showed the images were also approved at Dreamstime and 123RF

heywoody · « **Reply #11 on:** June 19, 2012, 08:59 »

Quote from: Lagereek on June 19, 2012, 07:35

Seriously though! it just goes to show, any old crap and I mean crap, is accepted as long as its technically sound, isnt it? no wonder the micro is getting a reputation from bad to worse.

Blow up the image to 200% and hold up the yardstick and you could train monkeys to make a technical evaluation. Making a call on the marketability of the subject matter would require a degree of actual critical judgement

lisafx · « **Reply #12 on:** June 19, 2012, 09:08 »

Quote from: Noedelhap on June 19, 2012, 08:51

A quick search with Google Images showed the images were also approved at Dreamstime and 123RF

There are reviewers from all over the world. Maybe whoever approved the images didn't recognize them as cartoon characters that are well known in the US (and possibly the rest of the Western world)?

It probably could get them in trouble though, if Hanna Barbera, or whoever owns the rights to the cartoons discovers it...

Noedelhap · « **Reply #13 on:** June 19, 2012, 09:11 »

Quote from: lisafx on June 19, 2012, 09:08

Quote from: Noedelhap on June 19, 2012, 08:51
A quick search with Google Images showed the images were also approved at Dreamstime and 123RF

There are reviewers from all over the world. Maybe whoever approved the images didn't recognize them as cartoon characters that are well known in the US (and possibly the rest of the Western world)?

It probably could get them in trouble though, if Hanna Barbera, or whoever owns the rights to the cartoons discovers it...

Maybe I should have contacted Time Warner, in an effort to punish Istock for what they did to us in the past

wut · « **Reply #14 on:** June 19, 2012, 09:15 »

Quote from: Noedelhap on June 19, 2012, 09:11

Quote from: lisafx on June 19, 2012, 09:08
Quote from: Noedelhap on June 19, 2012, 08:51
A quick search with Google Images showed the images were also approved at Dreamstime and 123RF

There are reviewers from all over the world. Maybe whoever approved the images didn't recognize them as cartoon characters that are well known in the US (and possibly the rest of the Western world)?

It probably could get them in trouble though, if Hanna Barbera, or whoever owns the rights to the cartoons discovers it...

Maybe I should have contacted Time Warner, in an effort to punish Istock for what they did to us in the past

And whose pocket do you think that will be coming out?

Tryingmybest · « **Reply #15 on:** June 19, 2012, 09:17 »

Quote from: Noedelhap on June 19, 2012, 01:12

*sarcasm*

So I searched for 'mouse character' and by chance came across this image:
http://www.istockphoto.com/stock-illustration-18309482-cat-and-mouse.php?st=20d94b5

You may have noticed the mouse closely resembles Jerry from the famous duo Tom & Jerry.

A further look into this contributor's portfolio reveals this image:
http://www.istockphoto.com/stock-illustration-18695475-bulldog-and-dachshund.php?st=a3eafb5

Yep, that's awfully similar to Spike the Dog from the same cartoon series.

How in the seven hells did this pass the quality control at Istock? I already sent a ticket to Contributor Relations. I'm not out to screw this contributor, because the rest of his work seems genuine, but I think it's better if these two images are removed from their database.

I've given up trying to understand—and submit—what's "suitable for stock" at iStock. They are the strangest bunch of the entire pack. Consistently inconsistent.

Lagereek · « **Reply #16 on:** June 19, 2012, 09:33 »

Quote from: lisafx on June 19, 2012, 09:08

Quote from: Noedelhap on June 19, 2012, 08:51
A quick search with Google Images showed the images were also approved at Dreamstime and 123RF

There are reviewers from all over the world. Maybe whoever approved the images didn't recognize them as cartoon characters that are well known in the US (and possibly the rest of the Western world)?

It probably could get them in trouble though, if Hanna Barbera, or whoever owns the rights to the cartoons discovers it...

Or like Walt Disney

, however, the sad fact that effect us all are the reviewers incompetance, totally and utterly blind to the word, creative, just that the WB and no noise is correct. SAD!, very sad indeed.

lisafx · « **Reply #17 on:** June 19, 2012, 10:15 »

For anyone not familiar with the characters, here's a link showing both the mouse, and also Spike the dog. The linked images DO look very much like the Hanna Barbera cartoon characters.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tom_and_Jerry

FreeTransform · « **Reply #18 on:** June 19, 2012, 18:50 »

I wrote to CE months ago regarding these files, and others, that have a red tab on the jeans pocket:

http://www.istockphoto.com/stock-illustration-13405135-jeans-pocket.php?st=7f886ed

http://www.istockphoto.com/stock-illustration-15807647-jeans-pocket-with-money.php?st=7f886ed

The red tab, regardless of the stitching on the pocket, is trademarked by Levi's, and is one of the most recognizable marks in the world. And Levi's is one of the most litigious companies in the world when it comes to protecting their marks.

Speaking of pocket stitching, there is this one, plus a handful of others, that has a 'W' on the pocket. Hello, Wrangler!

http://www.istockphoto.com/stock-illustration-18241655-back-pocket-with-tools.php?st=7f886ed

I've stopped caring. Let Levi's, et al, sue them. In fact, it's probably best to notify the companies directly rather than iStock.

FreeTransform · « **Reply #19 on:** June 19, 2012, 18:54 »

I just looked, and there's an entry in the wiki about Levi's red tab!

(no way to permalink it - but you can search for yourself)

pancaketom · « **Reply #20 on:** June 20, 2012, 00:30 »

Usually IS inspectors seem to be the most anal about copyright stuff noticing a little 5 pixel YKK on a zipper or something like that. I am sure they all miss stuff though.

Dantheman · « **Reply #21 on:** June 20, 2012, 01:59 »

Quote from: Wim on June 19, 2012, 06:40

Quote from: ShadySue on June 19, 2012, 05:29
Quote from: qwerty on June 19, 2012, 04:57
Quote from: ShadySue on June 19, 2012, 02:32
Quote from: Lagereek on June 19, 2012, 01:21
... everything was just wrong, the setting, the body-language of the hippie model and the hardhat stuck on top, even the industry backdrop looked wonky.

I bet there isn't a stray pixel.

Added: or maybe it's the beefcake equivalent of this cliche:
http://www.istockphoto.com/search/text/woman%20bikini%20hard%20hat/source/basic#14cc68a

I got this image rejected

I like that some of the photos don't even have hard hats in them. Unless a mirror ball counts

Yeah, while I always get the inspector who takes 'horizontal' out of a horizontal photo, or 'copy space' out of a photo that's mostly copy space.

I thought this was only a problem for us independents. This is one of the 2 issues I still have with IS:

1. Overly strict about keywords. I'm affraid to get rejections for keywords and therefore remove most, this in turn will surely affect my sales.
2. Rejection of all my composites (for overfiltering) which are my best selling images. Do they reject for all contributors or selectively, I wonder, can't be bothered to check, got better things to do.

I'm actually not that bothered anymore since sales are miserable lately.

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?

ShadySue · « **Reply #22 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.

Poncke · « **Reply #23 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?

Caz · « **Reply #24 on:** June 20, 2012, 05:27 »

Quote from: heywoody on June 19, 2012, 08:59

Quote from: Lagereek on June 19, 2012, 07:35
Seriously though! it just goes to show, any old crap and I mean crap, is accepted as long as its technically sound, isnt it? no wonder the micro is getting a reputation from bad to worse.

Blow up the image to 200% and hold up the yardstick and you could train monkeys to make a technical evaluation. Making a call on the marketability of the subject matter would require a degree of actual critical judgement

And then cue the deluge of posts here complaining that reviewers have no right/experience/ability/whatever to judge the "marketability" and that if an image is technically sound it should be accepted.

MicrostockGroup Sponsors

Author Topic: Nice going, Istock... (Read 19176 times)

Noedelhap

Lagereek

ShadySue

ProImage

qwerty

ShadySue

Wim

ShadySue

Wim

Lagereek

Noedelhap

heywoody

lisafx

Noedelhap

wut

Tryingmybest

Lagereek

lisafx

FreeTransform

FreeTransform

pancaketom

Dantheman

ShadySue

Poncke

Caz

Related Topics

Sponsors

Microstock Poll Results

Sponsors