Author Topic: Update about subs...(iStock vs photos.com) (Read 27032 times)

le_cyclope · « **on:** May 21, 2009, 17:01 »

So here we go!
http://www.istockphoto.com/forum_messages.php?threadid=88663/
Claude

Jo Ann Snover · « **Reply #1 on:** May 21, 2009, 17:05 »

Still trying to digest the new proposal but I'm waiting to see answers to some questions I posted on the IS forum. It certainly seems at first glance to be a big step forward. Not sure where StockXpert ends up in all of this though - it sounds as though it goes away given a future ability to upload directly to photos.com/JIU from IS

Dreamframer · « **Reply #2 on:** May 21, 2009, 17:09 »

Well, it means that I, as nonexclusive, will have much more chance to sell my images at photos.com and JUI, because I have all those files at StockXpert, but with different keywords, thanks to IS disambiguation system.

madelaide · « **Reply #3 on:** May 21, 2009, 17:10 »

What will be the default when June arrives, opt-in? I may be travelling by then and I certainly do not want to join.

le_cyclope · « **Reply #4 on:** May 21, 2009, 17:13 »

From what I understand, after agreeing, if you don't make any choice, you will be opt-out.

quote:
«If you click Opt-Out, we will not add anything. And if you leave the page without choosing either option, you will remain opted-out. »

Claude

goldenangel · « **Reply #5 on:** May 21, 2009, 17:14 »

Yes, that's my understanding too.

"If you click Opt-Out, we will not add anything. And if you leave the page without choosing either option, you will remain opted-out."

RT · « **Reply #6 on:** May 21, 2009, 17:20 »

Whatever your opinion is about the iStock deal, take my advice in that you should not rely on your photos you have on StockXpert now being featured on Photos.com/JUI in the not so distant future.

madelaide · « **Reply #7 on:** May 21, 2009, 17:20 »

I should stop making questions. You guys will get too many "useful posts" votes.

KB · « **Reply #8 on:** May 21, 2009, 17:22 »

Quote from: Whitechild on May 21, 2009, 17:09

Well, it means that I, as nonexclusive, will have much more chance to sell my images at photos.com and JUI, because I have all those files at StockXpert, but with different keywords, thanks to IS disambiguation system.

I wouldn't count on that. It wouldn't surprise me if their software will do a search for duplicates (similar to tineye's ability), thereby eliminating your ability to have your images listed twice.

Not to mention, you'd be giving up a whole nickel every time your IS-listed image sold.

lbarn · « **Reply #9 on:** May 21, 2009, 17:22 »

It appears to me its a better deal for nonexclusives to continue to sell this content at photos.com & Jupiter Unlmited thru Stockxpert since the subs royalty is higher, or am I missing something?

It does look better for the exclusives this time around.

WarrenPrice · « **Reply #10 on:** May 21, 2009, 17:25 »

Quote from: RT on May 21, 2009, 17:20

Whatever your opinion is about the iStock deal, take my advice in that you should not rely on your photos you have on StockXpert now being featured on Photos.com/JUI in the not so distant future.

Are you saying we should Opt Out of subs? Or, that StockXpert will cease to exist?

goldenangel · « **Reply #11 on:** May 21, 2009, 17:32 »

Quote from: KB on May 21, 2009, 17:22

I wouldn't count on that. It wouldn't surprise me if their software will do a search for duplicates (similar to tineye's ability), thereby eliminating your ability to have your images listed twice.

Not to mention, you'd be giving up a whole nickel every time your IS-listed image sold.

The search would work with the same keywords, but that might not be true with the iStock Controlled Vocabulary.
Also, the image can be found using IS keyword, where the StockXpert image would not show at all.

Dreamframer · « **Reply #12 on:** May 21, 2009, 17:33 »

Quote from: KB on May 21, 2009, 17:22

Quote from: Whitechild on May 21, 2009, 17:09
Well, it means that I, as nonexclusive, will have much more chance to sell my images at photos.com and JUI, because I have all those files at StockXpert, but with different keywords, thanks to IS disambiguation system.
I wouldn't count on that. It wouldn't surprise me if their software will do a search for duplicates (similar to tineye's ability), thereby eliminating your ability to have your images listed twice.

Not to mention, you'd be giving up a whole nickel every time your IS-listed image sold.

Well, I'll leave all my photos at StockXpert, and I'll opt in at IS. If they announce some duplicates removal, I will opt out, since StockXpert gives me more than IS for subs download. And if StockXpert disappears, I will opt in again at IS.

lisafx · « **Reply #13 on:** May 21, 2009, 17:33 »

This sounds like a much better deal. And it's a relief to know the folks at Istock HQ still have enough pull within the Getty organization to successfully represent Istock's interests - particularly exclusive ones.

I agree with the others. No benefit to a non-exclusive of opting in when we can get more through StockXpert.

RT · « **Reply #14 on:** May 21, 2009, 17:36 »

Quote from: WarrenPrice on May 21, 2009, 17:25

Quote from: RT on May 21, 2009, 17:20
Whatever your opinion is about the iStock deal, take my advice in that you should not rely on your photos you have on StockXpert now being featured on Photos.com/JUI in the not so distant future.

Are you saying we should Opt Out of subs? Or, that StockXpert will cease to exist?

I'm saying that if Whitechild reads the statement he made earlier in this thread in the not so distant future he reaction will be "D'oh"

KB · « **Reply #15 on:** May 21, 2009, 17:45 »

Quote from: Whitechild on May 21, 2009, 17:33

Well, I'll leave all my photos at StockXpert, and I'll opt in at IS. If they announce some duplicates removal, I will opt out, since StockXpert gives me more than IS for subs download. And if StockXpert disappears, I will opt in again at IS.

Exactly what I was thinking, but should things happen that way, I've got to decide whether or not I want my images sold for $0.25 commission each. That's a new low, AFAIK, and not the direction I'd hoped iStock/Getty would move things.

sharpshot · « **Reply #16 on:** May 21, 2009, 17:46 »

There is no way I would opt in to sell for 25 cents. I still don't see this working well as there might not be many exclusives opting in and those that do will only be supplying their lowest selling files. It will just add a small number of low selling old images to photos.com

KB · « **Reply #17 on:** May 21, 2009, 17:47 »

Quote from: lisafx on May 21, 2009, 17:33

I agree with the others. No benefit to a non-exclusive of opting in when we can get more through StockXpert.

Maybe we should start a pool to bet on how long non-exclusives will be allowed to contribute via StockXpert? In fact, it wouldn't surprise me to see the demise of StockXpert, as many had predicted when Getty bought them.

Dreamframer · « **Reply #18 on:** May 21, 2009, 17:48 »

RT, did you read somewhere about StockXpert?

RT · « **Reply #19 on:** May 21, 2009, 17:54 »

Quote from: Whitechild on May 21, 2009, 17:48

RT, did you read somewhere about StockXpert?

Call it a well educated hunch!

sharpshot · « **Reply #20 on:** May 21, 2009, 17:58 »

If they ditch StockXpert, they will lose out on all images less than 18 months old and all the ones that are not on istock. That doesn't seem like a good idea, so they might well do it

Dreamframer · « **Reply #21 on:** May 21, 2009, 17:59 »

RT, can you read my palm?

Sorry, that was just a joke

lisafx · « **Reply #22 on:** May 21, 2009, 17:59 »

Quote from: KB on May 21, 2009, 17:47

Quote from: lisafx on May 21, 2009, 17:33
I agree with the others. No benefit to a non-exclusive of opting in when we can get more through StockXpert.
Maybe we should start a pool to bet on how long non-exclusives will be allowed to contribute via StockXpert? In fact, it wouldn't surprise me to see the demise of StockXpert, as many had predicted when Getty bought them.

If Getty were to close that avenue I still wouldn't opt in through istock.

Besides, with the sliding scale they are introducing through istock, it seems that the .30 they pay at StockXpert is well within what they are willing to pay.

FWIW I am having my best week in a long time at StockXpert so I don't think they are in danger of dying any time soon.

goldenangel · « **Reply #23 on:** May 21, 2009, 18:02 »

Whatever they do, it will be in their interest, and not ours. Somehow, I don't' see those interests as common as they are sometimes being portrayed.

Dreamframer · « **Reply #24 on:** May 21, 2009, 18:02 »

I am doing quite good at StockXpert too.

MicrostockGroup Sponsors

Author Topic: Update about subs...(iStock vs photos.com) (Read 27032 times)

le_cyclope

Jo Ann Snover

Dreamframer

madelaide

le_cyclope

goldenangel

RT

madelaide

KB

lbarn

WarrenPrice

goldenangel

Dreamframer

lisafx

RT

KB

sharpshot

KB

Dreamframer

RT

sharpshot

Dreamframer

lisafx

goldenangel

Dreamframer

Related Topics

Sponsors

Microstock Poll Results

Sponsors