0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.
Quote from: molka on October 08, 2010, 11:13I'm not a fan of any stock, I'm a fan of photography.Gosh, too bad there aren't any "photography" forums on the internet for you to hang out in and you are forced to spend your time digging up old threads on a microstock forum, when you so clearly hate the medium...
I'm not a fan of any stock, I'm a fan of photography.
Well I'm not. I'm not a fan of any stock, I'm a fan of photography.
well you just have to live with the fact that people can have their say and opinion about things, because, hey, maybe that's what forums are actually invented for..
maybe in another life, where you are elected president of the universe, you'll get a remote controll that can mute people.
kkthompsonhttp://www.istockphoto.com/forum_messages.php?threadid=252322&page=1First, it needs to be noted that while iStock is a part of Getty, we are still run independently. The announced changes were decisions difficult decisions made by iStock for the benefit of iStock and its community.JJRDhttp://www.istockphoto.com/forum_messages.php?threadid=257202&page=3Over the course of the past 2 weeks, kkthompson & I have put our own asses on the line many, many times over for this community of artists... and we'll do it again and again every single time that we feel it necessary.
Quote from: molka on October 08, 2010, 11:36well you just have to live with the fact that people can have their say and opinion about things, because, hey, maybe that's what forums are actually invented for..Wrong. Forums are organized around an area of interest to share experiences and tips. It happens that this forum is organized around microstock. Since you're not interested in stock, your opinions are pretty worthless. Have a nice day and ploink.
Who's lying? Maybe neither. Maybe Kelly's statement is another of those factually-kind-of-correct-but-totally-misleading sentences that iStock seem to now specialize in. Jonathan Klein is the CEO of iStockphoto. So a decision made by him in that capacity could be spun as an iStockphoto decision.But I wish that back in 2006, more consideration had been given to the possibility of a management and artist buy out of iStockphoto. It would have been financially difficult, but possible I think.Certainly iStock has gained a lot from being part of Getty. But the level of profit taking is now getting really excessive, and iStock is ripe to get slapped hard by a well-run company who don't have the huge disadvantage of having to massively prop up a dinosaur and its owners.
Quote from: FD-regular on October 08, 2010, 08:49Quote from: molka on October 08, 2010, 08:42I don't get this. If you guys see that so clearly now, why didn't you see it years ago, and simply skip microstock?Welcome back, Macrosaur. Well spotted!
Quote from: molka on October 08, 2010, 08:42I don't get this. If you guys see that so clearly now, why didn't you see it years ago, and simply skip microstock?Welcome back, Macrosaur.
I don't get this. If you guys see that so clearly now, why didn't you see it years ago, and simply skip microstock?
Hey jbarber, did you get banned from the iStock forums yet?
... Lobo ( short for what?) ...
Quote from: jbarber873 on October 09, 2010, 07:33... Lobo ( short for what?) ...I always thought it must be short for Lobotomize - what he'll do to anyone who doesn't respect his authoritah...
I have to say, I'm really enjoying your posts . I'm surprised at the latitude you are being given. People have been banned for much less.
Quote from: caspixel on October 09, 2010, 09:22I have to say, I'm really enjoying your posts . I'm surprised at the latitude you are being given. People have been banned for much less.Speaking of my personal opinion - I particularily relish the ones with the self-important 'bozo' who is dilusional enough to think everyone should believe them when they make assurances (gee, have we had those before...) that there is no inner/upper gaming, when, by their own glaring example, it would be necessary to believe that their work is actually worthy of in excess of 125 (over 30% of their folio) inclusions in the VETTA collection. How many contributors with as good as, or better, offerings are hard pressed to get even 1 image deemed worthy of VETTA?It is my strong opinion, that they have, and apparently always will, do what they please because they are self-important and self-governing, and there is no accountablity.
Quote from: scorb on October 09, 2010, 09:58Quote from: jbarber873 on October 09, 2010, 07:33... Lobo ( short for what?) ...I always thought it must be short for Lobotomize - what he'll do to anyone who doesn't respect his authoritah... Lobo is Spanish for wolf. Maybe because I live in Florida I thought everybody knew that
Cool! Never knew that about the lobo apple. I'm going to guess from his biting comments in the forums that Lobo on IS is more likely to be the wolf variety than the delicious apple though Although, wait.... he does also go by pieman. Maybe his name is a reference to apple pie after all!