pancakes

MicrostockGroup Sponsors


Author Topic: PP Sales October 2013 started  (Read 19189 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

ShadySue

  • There is a crack in everything
« Reply #25 on: November 13, 2013, 13:58 »
+1
Isn't it weird that they've removed the choice of uploading to the PP for Exclusives.
It must be significant.


Ron

« Reply #26 on: November 13, 2013, 14:02 »
0
1.12$ and counting

mlwinphoto

« Reply #27 on: November 13, 2013, 14:07 »
+1
Isn't it weird that they've removed the choice of uploading to the PP for Exclusives.
It must be significant.

Pretty difficult to flaunt the 'Only on iStock' theme if most of the exclusive content is on the PP.  Although, in reality, that tag is a joke for a good number of images anyway, those exclusive images that are on the PP now and other reasons that have been discussed to death in other threads.
I suspect indie content will eventually be removed from iStock and exist only on the PP sites...but, if they do that, they had better remove the present exclusive content from those sites.

« Reply #28 on: November 13, 2013, 14:17 »
-1
Pretty difficult to flaunt the 'Only on iStock' theme if most of the exclusive content is on the PP.

It's from, not on.

« Reply #29 on: November 13, 2013, 14:30 »
0
Double digits for the PP sales this month :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :)

ShadySue

  • There is a crack in everything
« Reply #30 on: November 13, 2013, 14:43 »
+2
Pretty difficult to flaunt the 'Only on iStock' theme if most of the exclusive content is on the PP.

It's from, not on.

Would you care to explain that nuance. L*bo came out with it, but I don't see the technical difference, as they're clearly not only 'from' iStock either.

« Reply #31 on: November 13, 2013, 14:50 »
+1
I have so few files remaining on iStock (109) that I was surprised to see a big balance jump from the start of the PP numbers. On Nov 3rd there was a 24.02 PP sale - just one, so I assume that must be some sort of EL?

If people start reporting good sales there would you think about uploading again ?

Not unless they do something to give back contributor control over special deals.

It was the Getty-Google deal and their unwillingness to offer an opt out that had me pull most of my portfolio earlier this year. They have made it pretty clear in what I've read that they will not offer an opt out and feel they may make any sort of deal with contributor content they see fit.

Things change - it's possible they may decide that their high-handed approach to their suppliers has been ill advised - but I'm not holding my breath :)

« Reply #32 on: November 13, 2013, 15:04 »
0
If I remember correctly, Getty 360 included exclusives, not just indies. Someone posted a link to the forums where Lobo said that Getty 360 sales were showing up in the PP "bucket" for contributors.

So isn't it possible that the big jump is because of Getty 360 taking off? And in that case, where would exclusive returns from Getty 360 show up in the iStock UI? In the PP section?

« Reply #33 on: November 13, 2013, 15:18 »
-2
Pretty difficult to flaunt the 'Only on iStock' theme if most of the exclusive content is on the PP.

It's from, not on.

Would you care to explain that nuance. L*bo came out with it, but I don't see the technical difference, as they're clearly not only 'from' iStock either.

I cannot speak for anyone else, but in this context it seems completely obvious that content uploaded to iStock which is also part of the PP or is sold at GI is from iStock. From iStock the brand. Clearly it is not only on iStock, the portal.

ShadySue

  • There is a crack in everything
« Reply #34 on: November 13, 2013, 15:23 »
+2
Pretty difficult to flaunt the 'Only on iStock' theme if most of the exclusive content is on the PP.

It's from, not on.

Would you care to explain that nuance. L*bo came out with it, but I don't see the technical difference, as they're clearly not only 'from' iStock either.

I cannot speak for anyone else, but in this context it seems completely obvious that content uploaded to iStock which is also part of the PP or is sold at GI is from iStock. From iStock the brand. Clearly it is not only on iStock, the portal.
That's just legal semantics. In this context, it may technically be accurate, even if that's not how most of the public would see it. Of course, the label is still slapped on images which are available outwith iStock the brand, but that's a different thread.

« Reply #35 on: November 13, 2013, 15:33 »
-2
I cannot speak for anyone else, but in this context it seems completely obvious that content uploaded to iStock which is also part of the PP or is sold at GI is from iStock. From iStock the brand. Clearly it is not only on iStock, the portal.
That's just legal semantics. In this context, it may technically be accurate, even if that's not how most of the public would see it. Of course, the label is still slapped on images which are available outwith iStock the brand, but that's a different thread.

No it isn't. It's iStock branded content. The iPad, only from Apple, is available on many different websites. It's a perfect reasonable distinction, the difference between from and on. And it is a distinction which anyone would understand properly.

« Reply #36 on: November 13, 2013, 15:42 »
+1
I cannot speak for anyone else, but in this context it seems completely obvious that content uploaded to iStock which is also part of the PP or is sold at GI is from iStock. From iStock the brand. Clearly it is not only on iStock, the portal.
That's just legal semantics. In this context, it may technically be accurate, even if that's not how most of the public would see it. Of course, the label is still slapped on images which are available outwith iStock the brand, but that's a different thread.

No it isn't. It's iStock branded content. The iPad, only from Apple, is available on many different websites. It's a perfect reasonable distinction, the difference between from and on. And it is a distinction which anyone would understand properly.

Haven't they shoved stuff in from Getty's collections and possibly from elsewhere and put that "only from istock" line on it? Yuri's "only from iStock" files  should be labelled "only from Yuri", since he, not istock is the one who supplies them to the other agencies.

« Reply #37 on: November 13, 2013, 15:43 »
+3
I cannot speak for anyone else, but in this context it seems completely obvious that content uploaded to iStock which is also part of the PP or is sold at GI is from iStock. From iStock the brand. Clearly it is not only on iStock, the portal.
That's just legal semantics. In this context, it may technically be accurate, even if that's not how most of the public would see it. Of course, the label is still slapped on images which are available outwith iStock the brand, but that's a different thread.

No it isn't. It's iStock branded content. The iPad, only from Apple, is available on many different websites. It's a perfect reasonable distinction, the difference between from and on. And it is a distinction which anyone would understand properly.

Nope, an analogous situation would be "Only From LisaFX" as the content is produced, owned and uploaded by Lisa.  iStock is merely a distributor, not the owner, or copyright holder or any such thing.

eta: Great Minds and all that... :)

« Reply #38 on: November 13, 2013, 15:47 »
-1
.
« Last Edit: May 12, 2014, 01:03 by Audi 5000 »

ShadySue

  • There is a crack in everything
« Reply #39 on: November 13, 2013, 15:54 »
+1
I cannot speak for anyone else, but in this context it seems completely obvious that content uploaded to iStock which is also part of the PP or is sold at GI is from iStock. From iStock the brand. Clearly it is not only on iStock, the portal.
That's just legal semantics. In this context, it may technically be accurate, even if that's not how most of the public would see it. Of course, the label is still slapped on images which are available outwith iStock the brand, but that's a different thread.

No it isn't. It's iStock branded content. The iPad, only from Apple, is available on many different websites. It's a perfect reasonable distinction, the difference between from and on. And it is a distinction which anyone would understand properly.
They wouldn't understand it when they can find the files in other, non iS-branded places.

ShadySue

  • There is a crack in everything
« Reply #40 on: November 13, 2013, 15:58 »
+1
Haven't they shoved stuff in from Getty's collections and possibly from elsewhere and put that "only from istock" line on it? Yuri's "only from iStock" files  should be labelled "only from Yuri", since he, not istock is the one who supplies them to the other agencies.
Yuri's stuff has the 'only from iStock' tag, which often isn't true in any sense; and he himself has his iStock link banners saying, "by PeopleImages.com and YuriArcurs"

« Reply #41 on: November 13, 2013, 15:58 »
+1
So it is an impossibility to get any content from Stocksy?  I thought we could get your content from Stocksy now and on top of that it is the only place I can get that content from.  Seems like normal use of the word 'from' to me?

You're losing the "Only From" distinction, as well as iStock is using "from" in conjunction with a multi-site distributor, neither of which you are doing with your Stocksy example.

To expand.  Yes, you can get my content "from" Stocksy, but when I get Lisa's content "from" TS, it is not "from" iStock in the sense of "only FROM istock".

« Reply #42 on: November 13, 2013, 16:00 »
-1
Haven't they shoved stuff in from Getty's collections and possibly from elsewhere and put that "only from istock" line on it? Yuri's "only from iStock" files  should be labelled "only from Yuri", since he, not istock is the one who supplies them to the other agencies.

I am not not responding. But, simply, I am not going to comment on (stick my nose into) someone elses business. I am not going to speculate about any contributor, agency etc.

Especially as I don't care.

@Sean - you will find that most, probably all, agencies will use expression such as "our content", "our images" etc. It does not imply ownership.

« Reply #43 on: November 13, 2013, 16:05 »
0
when I get Lisa's content "from" TS, it is not "from" iStock in the sense of "only FROM istock".

iStock content at TS is there via iStock. In that context it is iStock content. It is content which is on and which has come from iStock. The artist's arrangement is with iStock.

Obviously her content is not sold as being "only FROM iStock". I do not think you are deliberately implying that but there is room for misunderstanding I think, how you have written it.

Ron

« Reply #44 on: November 13, 2013, 16:09 »
+1
iPad only from Apple, but sold in many places, sure, but Yuris images, only from istock, sold in many places, is not the same. The ipad is exclusive to Apple, Yuris images are not exclusive to Istock. So its not only from istock, its a lie, they are everywhere.

« Reply #45 on: November 13, 2013, 16:10 »
+1
iPad only from Apple, but sold in many places, sure, but Yuris images, only from istock, sold in many places, is not the same. The ipad is exclusive to Apple, Yuris images are not exclusive to Istock. So its not only from istock, its a lie, they are everywhere.

You said it clearer than I.  I was starting to get all confunderated with my analogies.

« Reply #46 on: November 13, 2013, 16:14 »
-1
.
« Last Edit: May 12, 2014, 01:03 by Audi 5000 »

« Reply #47 on: November 13, 2013, 16:15 »
+2
Haven't they shoved stuff in from Getty's collections and possibly from elsewhere and put that "only from istock" line on it? Yuri's "only from iStock" files  should be labelled "only from Yuri", since he, not istock is the one who supplies them to the other agencies.

I am not not responding. But, simply, I am not going to comment on (stick my nose into) someone elses business. I am not going to speculate about any contributor, agency etc.

Especially as I don't care.

Who it is is completely irrelevant and it's not poking anyone's nose into his business, it's about istock. your response is purely evasive.

« Reply #48 on: November 13, 2013, 16:15 »
+1
iPad only from Apple, but sold in many places, sure, but Yuris images, only from istock, sold in many places, is not the same. The ipad is exclusive to Apple, Yuris images are not exclusive to Istock. So its not only from istock, its a lie, they are everywhere.
This wasn't about Yuri.  Go back an read the thread and you can see the context of that comment.  It was in response to this "Pretty difficult to flaunt the 'Only on iStock' theme if most of the exclusive content is on the PP."

Is it any different is "most of the exclusive content" is on Getty?

« Reply #49 on: November 13, 2013, 16:19 »
0
FWIW - I am not claiming that this whole thing is necessarily entirely squared quite just yet. There are definitely a few anomalies which I am sure will be resolved. And I would be the last person to speak for iStock.

In terms of the PP the distinction between from and on seems to work perfectly well in that context. Which is where I came in.


 

Related Topics

  Subject / Started by Replies Last post
6 Replies
4244 Views
Last post November 02, 2008, 15:27
by CofkoCof
11 Replies
4180 Views
Last post November 07, 2011, 18:40
by lisafx
9 Replies
2491 Views
Last post November 19, 2012, 02:06
by Jo Ann Snover
33 Replies
9777 Views
Last post November 26, 2014, 14:03
by PixelBytes
25 Replies
6842 Views
Last post October 06, 2016, 10:35
by Pauws99

Sponsors

Mega Bundle of 5,900+ Professional Lightroom Presets

Microstock Poll Results

Sponsors

3100 Posing Cards Bundle