MicrostockGroup Sponsors


Author Topic: The "New" IS  (Read 92927 times)

0 Members and 2 Guests are viewing this topic.

shudderstok

« Reply #450 on: April 29, 2014, 00:36 »
-1
1 year after going exclusive

74071 pictures (http://www.agefotostock.com/253clwghjz/en/Search.aspx?author=YURI+ARCURS)
52470 pictures (http://www.the3dstudio.com/product_search.aspx?id_category_0=290&id_author=543004&ipst=0&sort=rank)
45702 pictures (http://www.superstock.com/resultsframe.asp?tag=results&imgextra0=1&txtkeys1=PG_41979
25763 pictures (http://www.viscoimages.com/list/advanced_search/?find=&photographer[]=1289)
12115 pictures (http://pt.dreamstime.com/yuri_arcurs_info)


somebody sure has a lot of time on their hands. and man talk about holding on to things. i find it saddening to see one is creeping yuri one year on and spending so much time creeping his every move on other agencies. and people wonder why i remain anonymous.


It seems a legitimate matter of public interest to me. I would expect real exclusives to be quite angry about iS and Yuri destroying the concept of exclusivity, because if it is as important a selling point as iStock have maintained then a loss of confidence by buyers in whether high-priced files really are exclusive is damaging to all the proper exclusives.


Noted and valid point. Perhaps it might get more mileage bringing it up on the IS forum, and send a message to contributor relations. I think this would get more mileage as then you would get the real exclusives in conversation, including the one or two that replied to this.



« Reply #451 on: April 29, 2014, 01:52 »
+10

It seems a legitimate matter of public interest to me. I would expect real exclusives to be quite angry about iS and Yuri destroying the concept of exclusivity, because if it is as important a selling point as iStock have maintained then a loss of confidence by buyers in whether high-priced files really are exclusive is damaging to all the proper exclusives.

Noted and valid point. Perhaps it might get more mileage bringing it up on the IS forum, and send a message to contributor relations. I think this would get more mileage as then you would get the real exclusives in conversation, including the one or two that replied to this.

There'd be no meaningful response from CR and a forum post would be locked quicker than you could say 'oneruleforaselectfewanotherforeveryoneelse'.

So this is the only place we can discuss these issues, even if it is pointless.

shudderstok

« Reply #452 on: April 29, 2014, 02:37 »
-4

It seems a legitimate matter of public interest to me. I would expect real exclusives to be quite angry about iS and Yuri destroying the concept of exclusivity, because if it is as important a selling point as iStock have maintained then a loss of confidence by buyers in whether high-priced files really are exclusive is damaging to all the proper exclusives.

Noted and valid point. Perhaps it might get more mileage bringing it up on the IS forum, and send a message to contributor relations. I think this would get more mileage as then you would get the real exclusives in conversation, including the one or two that replied to this.

There'd be no meaningful response from CR and a forum post would be locked quicker than you could say 'oneruleforaselectfewanotherforeveryoneelse'.

So this is the only place we can discuss these issues, even if it is pointless.

take action to find out if your above comment is speculation. you never know, they might not lock it, and you never know CR might do something about it. if no action is taken, then the speculation will always continue. did you ever stop to think that GI and IS might not even know that yuri is double dipping without their knowledge? maybe yuri has requested to close the accounts and they did not close them. i actually think if they locked the thread or deleted it, that would be the kiss of death for them. it would really piss a lot of people off, including me. i am not a fan of the IS nonsense of all in or all out, especially when GI allows image exclusivity.

nobody will ever know till someone takes action and does the old copy and paste of what has been noted above.

it won't be me that posts it, but if it does get posted, then i will certainly get involved and ask why  'oneruleforaselectfewanotherforeveryoneelse'

« Reply #453 on: April 29, 2014, 03:10 »
+8
did you ever stop to think that GI and IS might not even know that yuri is double dipping without their knowledge?

Yuri having his images allover while claiming to be exclusive has been discussed for many months now. They are certainly aware of it. Maybe the deal was only about not sending and removing content from SS, who knows?

There have also been many exclusives asking about how deals like these are possible and if they can have exclusive images as well. The answer I have seen is that it "shouldnt concern them what Getty does". Exclusive images and some exclusives have also tried to negotiate their own "special deal". But from what I have heard they have not succeeded (yet). I suppose you need to be a large stock factory with many employees to be considered by Getty for "deals"


msg is the best place for open discussions.  Sometimes the facebook group has some information as well. These days the istock forums are unfortunately not a place where people feel welcome or heard.

« Reply #454 on: April 29, 2014, 03:27 »
+8
take action to find out if your above comment is speculation. you never know, they might not lock it, and you never know CR might do something about it. if no action is taken, then the speculation will always continue. did you ever stop to think that GI and IS might not even know that yuri is double dipping without their knowledge? maybe yuri has requested to close the accounts and they did not close them. i actually think if they locked the thread or deleted it, that would be the kiss of death for them. it would really piss a lot of people off, including me. i am not a fan of the IS nonsense of all in or all out, especially when GI allows image exclusivity.

nobody will ever know till someone takes action and does the old copy and paste of what has been noted above.

it won't be me that posts it, but if it does get posted, then i will certainly get involved and ask why  'oneruleforaselectfewanotherforeveryoneelse'


Done!

http://www.istockphoto.com/forum_messages.php?threadid=360692&page=1

Here is the text I posted on the IS forum - just in case it gets lost  ;D

"My understanding of exclusivity so far was, that not only did you have to have at least 250 sales and an approval rating of > 50%, you are also not allowed to have royalty-free photos on sale anywhere. This is also what it says in the FAQs.

My  simple question is this: How can it be that literally tens of thousans of photos by a prominent Danish photographer, who went exclusive last summer, are still on sale on several RF-sites?

Are there two kinds of exclusivity and, if so, how does one apply for the second, not-quite-so-exclusive kind?"


I expect the following to happen:

-) The thread gets locked and then disappears

-) I get banned

-) Lobo writes me a nasty PM

-) Shudderstok takes action based on the points above

shudderstok

« Reply #455 on: April 29, 2014, 03:29 »
-1
did you ever stop to think that GI and IS might not even know that yuri is double dipping without their knowledge?

Yuri having his images allover while claiming to be exclusive has been discussed for many months now. They are certainly aware of it. Maybe the deal was only about not sending and removing content from SS, who knows?

There have also been many exclusives asking about how deals like these are possible and if they can have exclusive images as well. The answer I have seen is that it "shouldnt concern them what Getty does". Exclusive images and some exclusives have also tried to negotiate their own "special deal". But from what I have heard they have not succeeded (yet). I suppose you need to be a large stock factory with many employees to be considered by Getty for "deals"


msg is the best place for open discussions.  Sometimes the facebook group has some information as well. These days the istock forums are unfortunately not a place where people feel welcome or heard.

so what you are saying is that for me to be "exclusive" they have a strangle hold on all my RF images - accepted or not - and they can legally market my work as "exclusive", but for yuri they can willfully market his work as "exclusive" knowing full well it is not "exclusive" as indicated, and that those same "exclusive" images are being sold elsewhere.
to me that sounds illegal from the part of IS and GI. how can one even possibly have a contract of a "special deal" and willfully market images as "exclusive" when in deed the images are not "exclusive" at all.
i'd love to see the lawyer speak on that one.

shudderstok

« Reply #456 on: April 29, 2014, 03:30 »
-1
take action to find out if your above comment is speculation. you never know, they might not lock it, and you never know CR might do something about it. if no action is taken, then the speculation will always continue. did you ever stop to think that GI and IS might not even know that yuri is double dipping without their knowledge? maybe yuri has requested to close the accounts and they did not close them. i actually think if they locked the thread or deleted it, that would be the kiss of death for them. it would really piss a lot of people off, including me. i am not a fan of the IS nonsense of all in or all out, especially when GI allows image exclusivity.

nobody will ever know till someone takes action and does the old copy and paste of what has been noted above.

it won't be me that posts it, but if it does get posted, then i will certainly get involved and ask why  'oneruleforaselectfewanotherforeveryoneelse'


Done!

http://www.istockphoto.com/forum_messages.php?threadid=360692&page=1

Here is the text I posted on the IS forum - just in case it gets lost  ;D

"My understanding of exclusivity so far was, that not only did you have to have at least 250 sales and an approval rating of > 50%, you are also not allowed to have royalty-free photos on sale anywhere. This is also what it says in the FAQs.

My  simple question is this: How can it be that literally tens of thousans of photos by a prominent Danish photographer, who went exclusive last summer, are still on sale on several RF-sites?

Are there two kinds of exclusivity and, if so, how does one apply for the second, not-quite-so-exclusive kind?"


I expect the following to happen:

-) The thread gets locked and then disappears

-) I get banned

-) Lobo writes me a nasty PM

-) Shudderstok takes action based on the points above


Thank you!

ShadySue

  • There is a crack in everything
« Reply #457 on: April 29, 2014, 03:41 »
+9
I still fail to understand why falsely claiming that a file is available 'only from iStock' isn't against the UK (and certain other) ASA(s).

Someone did question it on iS's forum a while back, and Lobo said, obscurely, that the wording was 'only from iStock', not 'only on iStock' as if that made it OK, but that doesn't work in UK English. Is the meaning/implication of these prepositions really that different in Canada? (Implication in advertising also counts for ASA.)
« Last Edit: April 29, 2014, 03:57 by ShadySue »

« Reply #458 on: April 29, 2014, 03:49 »
+1

so what you are saying is that for me to be "exclusive" they have a strangle hold on all my RF images - accepted or not - and they can legally market my work as "exclusive", but for yuri they can willfully market his work as "exclusive" knowing full well it is not "exclusive" as indicated, and that those same "exclusive" images are being sold elsewhere.


Sue mentioned the difference between from and on. If that is enough legally, I have no idea.

But Getty has a lot of "exclusive" content that is also being sold on other sites. Blendimages and others sell from their own website directly and getty also sublicenses their exclusive content to other agencies. So "exclusive" Getty content can be found on corbis, masterfile etc...I saw this with my own images when they were in the Getty House program.

Getty has a completely different understanding of "exclusive" content than istock does.

But it looks like the "exclusive yet not exclusive" option is only available for independents who are negotiating a contract with Getty directly not for people who are already istock artist exclusive.

istock has said they have considered exclusive images because many people asked for it, but apparently decided against it. Fotolia and dreamstime do it successfully, especially Fotolia, for local content.

So if you want to have the "special deal" option, you need to be independent and join one of the smaller stock firms as a contributing artist. Then the content you send to them exclusively can be marketed via Getty and everyone else apparently and you can send your other content to the micros or wherever you want. But you only have the option to decide where your content goes when you are indie.

It is one of the main reasons I went independent. To be able to decide price points and have image exclusivity.
« Last Edit: April 29, 2014, 03:55 by cobalt »

« Reply #459 on: April 29, 2014, 04:32 »
+17
I expect the following to happen:

-) The thread gets locked and then disappears

-) I get banned

-) Lobo writes me a nasty PM

-) Shudderstok takes action based on the points above

And it's gone - the thread lasted all of 60 minutes  :o

Edit: And I get a (nice) e-mail from Kelvin, stating that exclusivity works exactly as I described, but should I find myself selling photos worth millions of dollars I may apply for a special deal at HQ...

Two(ish) out of four - I'm on a roll here  ;D
« Last Edit: April 29, 2014, 04:41 by Ploink »

« Reply #460 on: April 29, 2014, 05:34 »
+10
Edit: And I get a (nice) e-mail from Kelvin, stating that exclusivity works exactly as I described, but should I find myself selling photos worth millions of dollars I may apply for a special deal at HQ...

Didn't work for me ... ;)

« Reply #461 on: April 29, 2014, 05:41 »
+4
The irony is of course that the istock exclusives as a collective group are bringing in a lot more money than yuri ever did, but getty prefers to subdivide them and focus attention on those coming in from outside.

There is so much more they could do with their exclusive contributors. They have some fantastic people.

The more deals they do with indie artists the more exclusives will be forced to put their energy into plan B projects. They have no choice, their files are no longer getting into the higher price bands and new content is basically cut of from the double istock/getty exposure. And in all price bands they are being squeezed out by indie artists, while the "special deal" getty artists get favored and their content is placed into higher bands automatically.

I hope they at least get some more sales if thinkstock customers migrate back to istock. Other than that, they arent being offered much to look forward to.

« Reply #462 on: April 29, 2014, 05:43 »
+3
Edit: And I get a (nice) e-mail from Kelvin, stating that exclusivity works exactly as I described, but should I find myself selling photos worth millions of dollars I may apply for a special deal at HQ...

Didn't work for me ... ;)

Maybe not Danish enough? Or maybe not enough millions? Or maybe alltogether too outspoken?

Wonder what it really was...  ;D

ShadySue

  • There is a crack in everything
« Reply #463 on: April 29, 2014, 05:51 »
+1
Edit: And I get a (nice) e-mail from Kelvin, stating that exclusivity works exactly as I described, but should I find myself selling photos worth millions of dollars I may apply for a special deal at HQ...

Didn't work for me ... ;)

Maybe not Danish enough? Or maybe not enough millions? Or maybe alltogether too outspoken?

Wonder what it really was...  ;D

The Great Dane has his current location set to Canada.


« Reply #465 on: April 29, 2014, 06:57 »
0
.
« Last Edit: May 11, 2014, 21:41 by tickstock »


« Reply #467 on: April 29, 2014, 09:44 »
0
.
« Last Edit: May 11, 2014, 21:41 by tickstock »

« Reply #468 on: April 29, 2014, 09:55 »
+7

It seems a legitimate matter of public interest to me. I would expect real exclusives to be quite angry about iS and Yuri destroying the concept of exclusivity, because if it is as important a selling point as iStock have maintained then a loss of confidence by buyers in whether high-priced files really are exclusive is damaging to all the proper exclusives.

Noted and valid point. Perhaps it might get more mileage bringing it up on the IS forum, and send a message to contributor relations. I think this would get more mileage as then you would get the real exclusives in conversation, including the one or two that replied to this.

There'd be no meaningful response from CR and a forum post would be locked quicker than you could say 'oneruleforaselectfewanotherforeveryoneelse'.

So this is the only place we can discuss these issues, even if it is pointless.

take action to find out if your above comment is speculation. you never know, they might not lock it, and you never know CR might do something about it. if no action is taken, then the speculation will always continue. did you ever stop to think that GI and IS might not even know that yuri is double dipping without their knowledge? maybe yuri has requested to close the accounts and they did not close them. i actually think if they locked the thread or deleted it, that would be the kiss of death for them. it would really piss a lot of people off, including me. i am not a fan of the IS nonsense of all in or all out, especially when GI allows image exclusivity.

nobody will ever know till someone takes action and does the old copy and paste of what has been noted above.

it won't be me that posts it, but if it does get posted, then i will certainly get involved and ask why  'oneruleforaselectfewanotherforeveryoneelse'

It appears someone took the required action, so we patiently await the results from your inquiries.

lisafx

« Reply #469 on: April 29, 2014, 13:39 »
0
Edit: And I get a (nice) e-mail from Kelvin, stating that exclusivity works exactly as I described, but should I find myself selling photos worth millions of dollars I may apply for a special deal at HQ...

Didn't work for me ... ;)

Maybe not Danish enough? Or maybe not enough millions? Or maybe alltogether too outspoken?

Wonder what it really was...  ;D

I've bolded my guess :)

« Reply #470 on: April 29, 2014, 14:43 »
+3
I've bolded my guess :)

That's gotta be it, since I'm 47.8 percent Danish.  Or I enjoy a good danish.  Can't remember which.

shudderstok

« Reply #471 on: April 29, 2014, 20:23 »
+16
the results are pure bullsh!t and a disgrace from IS.
so what have we learned today? exclusive is not exclusive.
GI and IS should be ashamed of themselves to conceal this fact that they are marketing certain photographs as exclusive when in fact they are not exclusive at all.
not impressed at all.
honestly, i thought IS would show a little bit more integrity and allow the forum to stay up. man was i ever wrong.

ShadySue

  • There is a crack in everything
« Reply #472 on: April 29, 2014, 20:42 »
+9

honestly, i thought IS would show a little bit more integrity ...


Based on what past history???

But I make mistakes as much as anyone, so I'm not down on you; kudos for now seeing them for what they are.

ShadySue

  • There is a crack in everything
« Reply #473 on: April 29, 2014, 21:01 »
+1
But Getty has a lot of "exclusive" content that is also being sold on other sites. Blendimages and others sell from their own website directly and getty also sublicenses their exclusive content to other agencies. So "exclusive" Getty content can be found on corbis, masterfile etc...I saw this with my own images when they were in the Getty House program.
Getty has a completely different understanding of "exclusive" content than istock does.

Do Getty claim to buyers that a faux-exclusive image is exclusive, or 'only on Getty'?

Hmmm, trying to find that out for myself, I did a search on 'horse'.
Discovered that the whole first page of images I got were editorial, although I had creative and editorial (and RM and RF) ticked by default.
Unticked editorial, and clicked on the first file I came to, which was RM.
Interestingly, at the top of that RM file's page, I saw, "Check out iStock.com for millions of unique, affordable images, or continue searching on Getty Images below." [1] which must be relatively new. I hadn't seen it before, and it was often commented that iS searches had a Getty link, but not vice versa. Also I see at the bottom of the Getty search page, "Search "horse" on iStock.com.

[1]Which being the case, I'm surprised we ever get good GI sale values, in among the paltry ones.
It seems that if you land on a file on Getty, you get a link to an iS search, and once you choose an image there, you get a big blue box persuading you to buy Subs.  :'(

« Last Edit: April 29, 2014, 21:06 by ShadySue »

shudderstok

« Reply #474 on: April 29, 2014, 21:06 »
+3

honestly, i thought IS would show a little bit more integrity ...


Based on what past history???

But I make mistakes as much as anyone, so I'm not down on you; kudos for now seeing them for what they are.

yes based on what??? i sometimes have to remind myself IS is GI and i really hate GI even though i remain with them. hate to say it but the alternatives are not much better and i still make coin with GI so i reluctantly stay with them as i really don't see any suitable alternative that will justify moving out and ruining years and years of momentum.
but to delete a post confronting the deception to buyers and also to it's own contributor's is down right slimy. and yes, for that i really did think IS/GI would have had a little more integrity.


 

Related Topics

  Subject / Started by Replies Last post
1 Replies
9660 Views
Last post March 14, 2011, 05:33
by fotorob
4 Replies
8948 Views
Last post December 01, 2010, 18:38
by ShadySue
5 Replies
8697 Views
Last post September 17, 2011, 22:33
by PeterChigmaroff
25 Replies
49848 Views
Last post May 26, 2015, 05:40
by cathyslife
8 Replies
5335 Views
Last post August 21, 2013, 23:16
by stockphoto-images.com

Sponsors

Mega Bundle of 5,900+ Professional Lightroom Presets

Microstock Poll Results

Sponsors