pancakes

MicrostockGroup Sponsors


Author Topic: Third Party Reselling or Distribution Sales  (Read 13389 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

« Reply #25 on: February 02, 2007, 21:20 »
0
(though from the tone of their communications you'd think they were tipping out crocks of gold at the photographer's feet).


LOL LOL  ;D  Ain't that the truth!!


« Reply #26 on: February 02, 2007, 23:34 »
0
It is important to remember her, that the "personal, non-commercial use" they are talking about, is a very big chunk of the microstock market. If the personal, non-commercial users don't get or buy the images they need through MS, they would have to buy them directly from IS, FT etc.
I don't quite understand this statement. You really think there are a lot of photos being purchased for personal, non-commercial use on microstock agencies? No one I know purchases photos online for non-commercial uses. If it's not for a commercial use, they just use google image search and take it from there. How did you come up with this conclusion?

« Reply #27 on: February 03, 2007, 04:19 »
0

1) It doesn't say that MS customers can use the image as they wish.


Okay ... I'll grant you that. It is a bit more restrictive.

What it says is, "... the MS Office perpetual license which restricts the user to a personal, non-commercial use only ..."

Ying Yang - your the lawyer, what is" personal, non commercial use".  Obviously we dont have full detail so you cant say for certain but does an internal company powerpoint presentation fall into this.  If not, and it is truely only an internal company powerpoint presentation, how is MS or IS going to track it.

What I would have prefered (if I was exclusive) is for MS to have a few examples in office and then a link to a mirror site of IS (ie.  looks like MS but is actually IS) where they then buy, even for personal use.  Now that would be great marketing!

« Reply #28 on: February 03, 2007, 13:04 »
0
...what is" personal, non commercial use".  Obviously we dont have full detail so you cant say for certain but does an internal company powerpoint presentation fall into this.  If not, and it is truely only an internal company powerpoint presentation, how is MS or IS going to track it...

You're right that no matter what the license actually ends up saying, there is no way to police how someone uses it in an internal company powerpoint presentation. The service is actually up and running if you want to check it out:
http://office.microsoft.com/en-us/clipart/default.aspx

« Reply #29 on: February 03, 2007, 13:37 »
0
It is important to remember her, that the "personal, non-commercial use" they are talking about, is a very big chunk of the microstock market. If the personal, non-commercial users don't get or buy the images they need through MS, they would have to buy them directly from IS, FT etc.
I don't quite understand this statement. You really think there are a lot of photos being purchased for personal, non-commercial use on microstock agencies? No one I know purchases photos online for non-commercial uses. If it's not for a commercial use, they just use google image search and take it from there. How did you come up with this conclusion?

That depends on how we define "personal, non-commercial use". I think we can forget about the "personal" thing. Very few people will acquire images for birthday invitations from MS. The customers are businesses and NGO's. Most businesses will consider internal use as "non-commercial". That is one of the biggest potentials for microstock, since there's such a huge amount of internal presentations and reports produced every day worldwide. Those are of course also the customers that are interesting to MS.

I noticed btw., that when clicking on the istock link at the MS site, and making a search, one of my photos came up, and I'm not exclusive. That means that there's something to gain for all of us at that end of the deal (unless there's some hidden, reduced profit when sold through the MS-link).

« Reply #30 on: February 03, 2007, 13:55 »
0
... Most businesses will consider internal use as "non-commercial". That is one of the biggest potentials for microstock, since there's such a huge amount of internal presentations and reports produced every day worldwide...when clicking on the istock link at the MS site, and making a search, one of my photos came up, and I'm not exclusive. That means that there's something to gain for all of us at that end of the deal (unless there's some hidden, reduced profit when sold through the MS-link).
All I was saying is that for internal presentations, most people don't buy the photos. They just "steal" them off the internet.
I also noticed the link from MS to istock, which is why I wasn't so quick to jump on the "this is horrible" band-wagon.

« Reply #31 on: February 03, 2007, 16:05 »
0
I noticed btw., that when clicking on the istock link at the MS site, and making a search, one of my photos came up, and I'm not exclusive. That means that there's something to gain for all of us at that end of the deal (unless there's some hidden, reduced profit when sold through the MS-link).
The link on that page is to the actual istock page. 

I think the "exclusive only" are "clipart" actually in the office program.  ie. MS chooses some photos, pays $75 and every MSOffice user can then use them free for personal use without leaving office.

Does anyone one know of the other stock sites that are on that link above?.


« Reply #32 on: February 03, 2007, 22:17 »
0
The link on that page is to the actual istock page. 

I think the "exclusive only" are "clipart" actually in the office program.  ie. MS chooses some photos, pays $75 and every MSOffice user can then use them free for personal use without leaving office.

Does anyone one know of the other stock sites that are on that link above?.
If you go to insert -> picture -> clipart in Microsoft Word and then do a search for construction you get the same results as you do when you click on the construction photo that is on the page that I linked to above. It's the same thing.

And no, I've never heard of the other stock sites that are listed.

« Reply #33 on: February 04, 2007, 06:07 »
0
Does anyone one know of the other stock sites that are on that link above?.

AbleStock, Animation Factory, and Royalty Free Music are all part of the JupiterImages brand (which also owns Stockxpert).

I'm not sure about the others.

But I had only heard of AbleStock before (when I was browsing thru a design magazine).

grp_photo

« Reply #34 on: February 04, 2007, 12:12 »
0
Now comes the excuse (and I think this is the intended effect).

-=-=-=-=-

Hi there,

Well, what do you know. We just addressed an email to our Exclusive contributors which went out to, well, a whole bunch of our contributors - not necessarily our Exclusive ones. Lots of people were fired as a result.

In the meantime, you're probably curious about all the things the email actually said. We were planning to make this announcement to everyone at iStock early next week. It looks like you've just got a sneak peek at it. So we'll be making the announcement sooner rather than later now. That is if someone hasn't already gone and started a forum thread about it...

Sincerely,

The iStockphoto Damage-Control Team
If someone is trying to fool you in such a dumb way it's time to wake up!
what they are thinking how stupid we are?
One reason more to stay independent don't trust a bunch of arrogant liars!
"lots of people are fired" - lol time to fire istock!

vicu

« Reply #35 on: February 05, 2007, 16:29 »
0
Now comes the excuse (and I think this is the intended effect).

-=-=-=-=-

Hi there,

Well, what do you know. We just addressed an email to our Exclusive contributors which went out to, well, a whole bunch of our contributors - not necessarily our Exclusive ones. Lots of people were fired as a result.

In the meantime, you're probably curious about all the things the email actually said. We were planning to make this announcement to everyone at iStock early next week. It looks like you've just got a sneak peek at it. So we'll be making the announcement sooner rather than later now. That is if someone hasn't already gone and started a forum thread about it...

Sincerely,

The iStockphoto Damage-Control Team
If someone is trying to fool you in such a dumb way it's time to wake up!
what they are thinking how stupid we are?
One reason more to stay independent don't trust a bunch of arrogant liars!
"lots of people are fired" - lol time to fire istock!

Geesh. Obviously that was meant to be humorous.

FYI>
1. The exclusives WERE consulted before this became public.
2. The exclusives are given the ability to opt-out of this program.
3. The exclusives are not all brainless sheep drinking the istock kool-aid. Some very successful people are included in that group. The endless insults around here directed towards them are pretty juvenile. If you don't want to be exclusive FINE. If someone else does, why do you care? Why do you think you are entitled to judge what decisions other people make about their OWN business?

« Reply #36 on: February 05, 2007, 16:48 »
0
Quote from: vicu link=topic=1132.msg9325#msg9325
The exclusives are not all brainless sheep drinking the istock kool-aid.

Are you sure?  ;)

« Reply #37 on: February 05, 2007, 17:18 »
0
vicu,

I don't think anyone was insulting the exclusives here.  What we were discussing is IS's way to make it look like they were sharing a secret by accident with non-exclusives.  If someone should feel insulted, it was us non-exclusives, if they think we would believe in such accidental release.  :)

Regards,
Adelaide

Lj

« Reply #38 on: February 05, 2007, 17:42 »
0
I got one of the emails about Microsoft wanting to buy one of my pics. I'm more than happy to give it a try - not for the initial money, but the hope that more people will be directed to my picture and portfolio (as buyers). The more of these partnership deals the better - bring 'em on :) I guess only time will tell though, hey?

YingYang - I really don't mind my pics being only available to istockphoto. This is a side hobby for me. I don't have a great deal of time and so keeping them at one place works out well for me.

Each to their own :)

« Reply #39 on: February 05, 2007, 18:08 »
0
I got one of the emails about Microsoft wanting to buy one of my pics.

Are you exclusive?

« Reply #40 on: February 05, 2007, 23:35 »
0
YingYang - I really don't mind my pics being only available to istockphoto. This is a side hobby for me. I don't have a great deal of time and so keeping them at one place works out well for me.

Each to their own :)
What gave you the impression that I disapproved of iStock's exclusivity program? I'm probably going to sign on when I hit 500 for no other reason than it is easier to upload to only one site. The extra bonus programs don't hurt either.

Lj

« Reply #41 on: February 06, 2007, 01:22 »
0
Sorry yingyang. Not sure what I thought I read there.

Yep, I'm exclusive to Istock.

« Reply #42 on: February 06, 2007, 01:58 »
0
vicu,

 ... I don't think anyone was insulting the exclusives here ...

Regards,
Adelaide

Hear hear!

It mystifies me why people who have gone exclusive with iStock feel that they are being insulted personally when someone criticises iStock's exclusivity programme.

Each individual makes their own decision with regard to marketing their work, and no one can criticise that.

The problem is that certain people (myself included) feel that iStock's exclusivity programme is far too restrictive and they are trying to corner the market by slightly questionable methods.

Is that insulting to anyone?

vicu

« Reply #43 on: February 06, 2007, 07:08 »
0
The problem is that certain people (myself included) feel that iStock's exclusivity programme is far too restrictive and they are trying to corner the market by slightly questionable methods.

Is that insulting to anyone?

Why do you think so many people are buying into their "slightly questionable methods"? The implication that those buying in are doing so because they just don't know any better is what is insulting.

I guess it boils down to faith (or lack thereof) in the folks behind the scenes. I understand that is a hard concept for some to grasp when it comes to business ventures.

It's not so much that I (or others) take these comments personally. It's just that the wild and unfounded speculation takes conspiracy theory to a whole other realm. Every misstep is perceived as some diabolical plot. Somebody attaches an unsavory motive to something. Somebody else jumps in and says "YEAH, and I bet (insert new theory)" and it snowballs from there. Those poor misguided exclusives aren't alone in not being able to think for themselves. Jump on the crazy bandwagon, folks... there's room for all!

I guess after a while of reading these endless dramatic rants... I've grown weary.

Yes, the simple solution is to not read or respond to them, and generally that is the approach I take.

« Reply #44 on: February 06, 2007, 08:19 »
0
vicu,
I can understand your frustration level, however, like you, we all have our own opinions.  Believe me, I would love to go exclusive if for nothing else than to enjoy only having to upload to one site instead of 4.  Unfortunately, I have seen too many things go on at iStock over the past year that will prevent me from putting all of my eggs into one basket. There's no need in dredging up those demons here but I do feel they are valid for my decision.  Others feel differently and that is fine for them too.  To each his own.

Please keep something in mind though... the iStock forums are very restrictive and heavily censored, which is their right.  This forum here at microstockgroup is one of the few places where we are free to express our opinions about iStock, whether they are negative or otherwise, so I imagine you are going to see a lot more of the former here for that reason.  It's just the nature of the beast.
« Last Edit: February 06, 2007, 08:20 by pixelbrat »

« Reply #45 on: February 06, 2007, 09:06 »
0

Why do you think so many people are buying into their "slightly questionable methods"? The implication that those buying in are doing so because they just don't know any better is what is insulting.


(Jaw drops ... huh?)

I cannot understand how you draw that conclusion. Where has anyone made that implication?

What a company does, and what it's independent suppliers do, are two entirely different things.

And where has the 'conspiracy' bit suddenly come from? It seems to me extraordinary that, if someone voices doubt about a company's business practices it then it become a 'conspiracy theory', complete with phrases like "crazy bandwagon".

I can't speak for others on this forum, but I believe that iStock's exclusivity requirements are unfairly restrictive, and I voice my doubts here because such discussion is rapidly squashed on iStock.

Also, I am not exactly enchanted (based on past experience) with iStock's treatment of photographers ... people who make up the very foundation of their business. Example ... the keywording fiasco of last year. I'm still trying to sort that one out with my iStock portfolio.

However, the doubts I voice are absolutely no reflection on iStock contributors, exclusive or otherwise.



« Last Edit: February 06, 2007, 09:09 by Bateleur »


 

Related Topics

  Subject / Started by Replies Last post
51 Replies
14090 Views
Last post December 03, 2009, 14:13
by WarrenPrice
3 Replies
5497 Views
Last post July 14, 2009, 15:40
by Talanis
4 Replies
3549 Views
Last post August 29, 2009, 05:29
by ThomasAmby
26 Replies
10363 Views
Last post January 18, 2011, 04:15
by leaf
15 Replies
6149 Views
Last post November 18, 2010, 12:13
by leaf

Sponsors

Mega Bundle of 5,900+ Professional Lightroom Presets

Microstock Poll Results

Sponsors

3100 Posing Cards Bundle