Author Topic: The "New" IS (Read 94420 times)

luissantos84 · « **Reply #150 on:** October 29, 2013, 11:11 »

Quote from: topol on October 29, 2013, 11:08

Do they still have this dumb policy of requiring a new model release for each shoot?

no idea but I hope they do because it is the only thing they are doing right

tickstock · « **Reply #151 on:** October 29, 2013, 11:11 »

topol · « **Reply #152 on:** October 29, 2013, 12:21 »

Quote from: tickstock on October 29, 2013, 11:11

Quote from: topol on October 29, 2013, 11:08
Do they still have this dumb policy of requiring a new model release for each shoot?
You should have a model release for each shoot.

No, practice makes it trivially nonsense.

topol · « **Reply #153 on:** October 29, 2013, 12:21 »

Quote from: luissantos84 on October 29, 2013, 11:11

Quote from: topol on October 29, 2013, 11:08
Do they still have this dumb policy of requiring a new model release for each shoot?

no idea but I hope they do because it is the only thing they are doing right

Same.

dingles · « **Reply #154 on:** October 29, 2013, 12:22 »

One plus is that a lot of the outdated features such as ratings seems to be gone. One downside is trends is gone too. I was hoping they actually updated that, but instead they just removed it. The funny thing is the older my files get the better they seem to be doing...new files still seem to get buried fast. Although not the improvements I feel are most important, it has been good to see some change...for a while it was all talk.

tickstock · « **Reply #155 on:** October 29, 2013, 12:23 »

topol · « **Reply #156 on:** October 29, 2013, 14:40 »

Quote from: tickstock on October 29, 2013, 12:23

Quote from: topol on October 29, 2013, 12:21
No, practice makes it trivially nonsense.
Is this some kind of riddle?

Not above IQ 80. Time (mine) wasting kiddie version: In practice, most agencies have been getting along with only a single model release without any problems for years and years. Which means more is unnecessary - actual practice is the ultima ratio.

luissantos84 · « **Reply #157 on:** October 29, 2013, 15:17 »

it's not and you know it, pretty much you are lazy, when you run into problems then you will change your workflow, having a MR for each session will cover you and your model as well

lisafx · « **Reply #158 on:** October 29, 2013, 15:37 »

I do a release for each shoot, to cover my own a$s, but the ponderous process of having to upload them to Istock, is a different issue.

I have some shoots with 8-10 people and you have to make a separate composite jpeg of releases for every possible combination you shot them in. Massive PITA/time-suck.

luissantos84 · « **Reply #159 on:** October 29, 2013, 15:41 »

right... only at iSucks!

ShadySue · « **Reply #160 on:** October 29, 2013, 16:23 »

Quote from: luissantos84 on October 29, 2013, 15:17

it's not and you know it, pretty much you are lazy, when you run into problems then you will change your workflow, having a MR for each session will cover you and your model as well

Those people who would never abuse their agreement with a model could use one release in perpetuity, and someone more unscrupulous could add in extra information to the description after the model has signed if they plan it beforehand. So the model is no better protected.
I've read people saying they fill in these details after the model has signed, and there is nothing to say that the model has agreed to these details. There should be a requirement that the tog gives the model a completed version of what s/he agreed to when signing in case there's debate down the line.

luissantos84 · « **Reply #161 on:** October 29, 2013, 16:27 »

that is correct and I agree Sue!

topol · « **Reply #162 on:** October 29, 2013, 18:46 »

Quote from: luissantos84 on October 29, 2013, 15:17

it's not and you know it, pretty much you are lazy, when you run into problems then you will change your workflow, having a MR for each session will cover you and your model as well

yep, lets breed 6 and 8 legged dogs. Never mind that they have been getting along fine with with 4 legs for millions of years... more must be better!

As long as you people only waste your own time, it's cool with me. But places like istock want to waste mine too. No way bayybee.

luissantos84 · « **Reply #163 on:** October 29, 2013, 19:42 »

you can play whatever you want, that is up to you

BTW iStock is my top priority, got a problem with that?

ShadySue · « **Reply #164 on:** October 30, 2013, 05:55 »

Just checked a particular search with 98 'hits'
Position 21: mine, 0 dls, uploaded 12th April, 1 view
Postion 58: mine, 2 dls, uploaded 21st June, 2 views.

By Fresh Match, these are 29 and 53!!!

I have found this with other files uploaded since September last year, but this was easier to quantify, as it is a small search. The curse of the download on iS.

Sean Locke Photography · « **Reply #165 on:** October 30, 2013, 06:56 »

Some there are ready to boot y'all out: http://www.istockphoto.com/forum_messages.php?threadid=357138&page=1

luissantos84 · « **Reply #166 on:** October 30, 2013, 07:07 »

Quote from: Sean Locke Photography on October 30, 2013, 06:56

Some there are ready to boot y'all out: http://www.istockphoto.com/forum_messages.php?threadid=357138&page=1

thanks for sharing Sean, these days I don't even open their forum

funny to see tons of "pleases" for image exclusivity, like iStock listens to anyone, quite pathetic to beg...

Ron · « **Reply #167 on:** October 30, 2013, 07:40 »

Quote from: Sean Locke Photography on October 30, 2013, 06:56

Some there are ready to boot y'all out: http://www.istockphoto.com/forum_messages.php?threadid=357138&page=1

Classic, a riot between contributors. The forum nazi wont close that thread, that thread is exactly what they need. A fight amongst contributors, who then lose focus on the crap IS is pulling.

BaldricksTrousers · « **Reply #168 on:** October 30, 2013, 08:11 »

I just chucked a cat in among the pigeons

ShadySue · « **Reply #169 on:** October 30, 2013, 08:17 »

You're right, the watchword for all iS contributors, or any persuasion, should be "be careful what you wish for".

BaldricksTrousers · « **Reply #170 on:** October 30, 2013, 08:46 »

Quote from: ShadySue on October 30, 2013, 08:17

You're right, the watchword for all iS contributors, or any persuasion, should be "be careful what you wish for".

It's a good motto for life, really.

heywoody · « **Reply #171 on:** October 30, 2013, 18:22 »

Quote from: BaldricksTrousers on October 30, 2013, 08:11

I just chucked a cat in among the pigeons

Chucked pretty much the same cat in there yesterday but when folks are immersed in their fantasies they are not likely to let reality get in the way.

gostwyck · « **Reply #172 on:** October 30, 2013, 19:12 »

Quote from: BaldricksTrousers on October 30, 2013, 08:11

I just chucked a cat in among the pigeons

Your thinking that 'no new contributors could ever gain the sales to become exclusive' doesn't work because IS could simply remove the requirement of 250 sales (or whatever it is nowadays).

There's no incentive for IS to do this anyway. They would lose the revenue from the non-exclusive sales (and thereby a significant sector of their customers) and would also lose new content for the PP. It isn't going to happen although all of IS's competitors would love it to happen..

sodafish · « **Reply #173 on:** October 31, 2013, 03:55 »

Off course they can remove the 250 requirement. They can change just about everything they want, like royalty rates as well.
So why shouldn’t you be able to submit un-exclusive to TS while contributing only exclusive to IS? That’s done in a breeze. Why should they lose all un-exclusive content? You might be tempted by a lot of things if they do it right and give you time. And why shouldn’t they listen to valuable suggestions from the community? I admit it’s exceptional, but they sure did that in some earlier occasions.

No incentive for iStock? Well, if they don’t manage to give new work sales they will have their incentive very soon, it might be the only way to keep exclusive content. I wouldn’t underestimate some of the trouble the site has, a lot of things might be possible at the moment. Especially if it benefits istock and if they’re willing to think long-term. So, why should competitors be happy about that? They could as well lose valuable content by it.

True, I might be immersed in my fantasies, maybe it’s a result of too much thinking or personal business dev. But I have a feeling this discussion could use a bit more of that. In the end we all want decent marketplaces and revenue for our work. And a race to the bottom isn’t exactly what I’m looking for.

cobalt · « **Reply #174 on:** October 31, 2013, 04:11 »

The main problem is that istock is just one of many getty sites and no longer attempting to be the biggest marketplace. thus it can no longer be a site that will provide a fulltime income to a large number of exclusives from istock alone.

Even if it was exclusive content only, the only way contributors could gain a signifacnt income was if the number of contributors was limited, like on stocksy.

But even if the indie content was removed the site would still be flooded with getty exclusive content or content from their favored contributors.

Image exclusivity is a very sensible solution, probably the only one for those who want to do stock as a full time income.

If istock added that as a third option, a lot of the stress they have in working with contributors would go away immediatly.

Getty itself doesn't ask for artist exclusivity amd they know why.

So exclusive images as a third option would just bring istock back into what is a normal industry standard.

MicrostockGroup Sponsors

Author Topic: The "New" IS (Read 94420 times)

luissantos84

tickstock

topol

topol

dingles

tickstock

topol

luissantos84

lisafx

luissantos84

ShadySue

luissantos84

topol

luissantos84

ShadySue

Sean Locke Photography

luissantos84

Ron

BaldricksTrousers

ShadySue

BaldricksTrousers

heywoody

gostwyck

sodafish

cobalt

Related Topics

Sponsors

Microstock Poll Results

Sponsors