Author Topic: yuri arcurs is IS exclusive (Read 147090 times)

fotografer · « **Reply #500 on:** June 10, 2013, 05:45 »

Quote from: Lizard on June 09, 2013, 19:12

I'm of deep belief that if one thinks money is main goal in literary anything in life, then one is heavily misguided by wrong values.

Money is definitely my main goal for shooting stock. If it wasn't I would be shooting a lot more arty stuff. I don't see anything wrong with that. It's just something I do to make money. I certainly don't dislike it and I would rather be doing it than many other jobs but money is still my main goal for shooting stock type images.

WarrenPrice · « **Reply #501 on:** June 10, 2013, 07:33 »

Quote from: ShadySue on June 10, 2013, 03:24

Quote from: luissantos84 on June 09, 2013, 21:23
why don't you open yourself his portfolios links? 400 files at iStock vs 20k on other agencies, believe you got your answer
Are we still talking about Yuri?
If so, don't foget the almost 13k under his urilux account.
(I'm currently speculating that the reason for the portfolio split is that somehow there's a different %age being paid on the two ports as part of the deal.)

Otherwise who are we talking about (400 vs 20k)? I've got confused. Oops, we can't be talking about Yuri as his 'new' portfolio has nearly 3000 files.

I think he is referring to Disorderly?

yuliang11 · « **Reply #502 on:** June 11, 2013, 07:01 »

saw this today

http://depositphotos.com/portfolio-1011061.html

RacePhoto · « **Reply #503 on:** June 12, 2013, 12:13 »

Quote from: disorderly on June 09, 2013, 20:06

I like the money, but I pretty much run my microstock business to break even. It pays for the shoots and sometimes for photo gear but is a trickle compared to my day job. And even when I wish that weren't the case, I don't know how I'd feel if this was my major source of income. Because I shoot what I want, not what will bring in the most sales. And I can't picture it any other way.

Wait a minute you break even? What's the secret!

Yes, I'm a shoot what I like person and have other sources of reliable income. I'd hate to be in the vise between low paying agencies, changing commissions, unfulfilled promises and every other way they seem to be putting the screws to people. They offer hope and then pull the rug out from under the dedicated hard working people.

I'm having fun, I'm challenged and it's educational. The pay is nice too. Yes I'm very happy with the income from SS and the subs.

I find this whole thread about someone else's business to be interesting. Not related to anything I do or ever will do. I think the whole exclusive, somewhat exclusive and special contract deal, will eventually come to light. I considered that one collection could be exclusive and for the future, while the other was already exposed to the market, so it's free content. Hardly "exclusive" when it's been for sale to the world from 50 sites for eight years?

Anyone who can makes special contracts and deals, best to them.

ShadySue · « **Reply #504 on:** June 15, 2013, 19:05 »

Quote from: yuliang11 on June 11, 2013, 07:01

saw this today:
http://depositphotos.com/portfolio-1011061.html

Oh well, in the new iStock, pointing out that "there are a number of recent high profile "Exclusive" contributors who continue to sell their files at their own sites and a number of other sites that are completely unrelated to Getty."
http://www.istockphoto.com/forum_messages.php?threadid=354349&messageid=6901059

is merely "pedantic semantics"
http://www.istockphoto.com/forum_messages.php?threadid=354349&messageid=6901065

So, stop with your legalistic nitpicking already, OK.

To be honest, I'm pretty shocked that Kelvin has let himself be assimilated.

luissantos84 · « **Reply #505 on:** June 15, 2013, 19:36 »

its unbelievable really, there is no shame, how rotten is iStock?

Sean Locke Photography · « **Reply #506 on:** June 15, 2013, 21:03 »

"If only this were true. "Exclusive" images can be purchased at a large number of different sites at different price points. Some of those sites are clearly Getty entities but a number of those sites you have to dig to find out they are Getty sites. Additionally there are a number of recent high profile "Exclusive" contributors who continue to sell their files at their own sites and a number of other sites that are completely unrelated to Getty. There are also a number of contributors ingested through the former Agency program who are not even exclusive to Getty.

"Exclusivity" is only relevant when it is accurate, and the people in charge of Getty only see it as relevant when it is convenient and suits their business purposes, regardless of how it affects the customer."

Excellent point. Exclusivity has no meaning anymore. IS has abused the term so much, it's lost any meaning as a USP. The only benefit to exclusivity is the royalty bump. And these days I see no quality or any other difference between IS and other content. With all the * about, I just don't know why buyers stay there.

BaldricksTrousers · « **Reply #507 on:** June 16, 2013, 00:46 »

Quote from: Sean Locke Photography on June 15, 2013, 21:03

these days I see no quality or any other difference between IS and other content. With all the * about, I just don't know why buyers stay there.

Your thinking seems to have become more closely aligned with mine at some point in the last six months. Can't think why.

sharpshot · « **Reply #508 on:** June 16, 2013, 03:41 »

Quote from: Sean Locke Photography on June 15, 2013, 21:03

..these days I see no quality or any other difference between IS and other content. With all the * about, I just don't know why buyers stay there...

With the latest policy of accepting 999 images a week from contributors with what looks like almost no QC, I think istock is going to fall way behind most of the other sites in terms of overall quality.

tickstock · « **Reply #509 on:** June 16, 2013, 15:07 »

Quote from: sharpshot on June 16, 2013, 03:41

Quote from: Sean Locke Photography on June 15, 2013, 21:03
..these days I see no quality or any other difference between IS and other content. With all the * about, I just don't know why buyers stay there...
With the latest policy of accepting 999 images a week from contributors with what looks like almost no QC, I think istock is going to fall way behind most of the other sites in terms of overall quality.

I did a few searches of new content on Istock and Shutterstock, I don't think the Istock content looks any worse and many of the same nonexclusive files are both sites. I don't see how Istock having 999 uploads a week and Shutterstock having infinity uploads a week means Istock is going to fall way behind because they are accepting too much stuff. Shutterstock is still adding twice the number of images, I guess you think all those are gems?

I do agree with you though that Istock shouldn't be lowering it's standards to allow more nonexclusive work into the collection.

sharpshot · « **Reply #510 on:** June 16, 2013, 16:21 »

Looking at some of the examples of what istock is now accepting, there's no doubt they have much lower standards than SS. So they will have a lot of new LCV images that wont make any money and will make it difficult for buyers to find the higher quality images. I think sites shouldn't be too strict with QC but they need to reject at least the worst 20% of images that have no chance of selling and just make the site look bad.

tickstock · « **Reply #511 on:** June 16, 2013, 16:40 »

The latest uploads don't look too horrible and many of those same images that I would say shouldn't have been accepted were also accepted on Shutterstock.

Sean Locke Photography · « **Reply #512 on:** June 16, 2013, 16:43 »

Quote from: tickstock on June 16, 2013, 16:40

The latest uploads don't look too horrible and many of those same images that I would say shouldn't have been accepted were also accepted on Shutterstock.

Not sure why you'd be so excited about your earnings being diluted by the engorged competition.

lisafx · « **Reply #513 on:** June 16, 2013, 16:45 »

Quote from: fotografer on June 10, 2013, 05:45

Quote from: Lizard on June 09, 2013, 19:12

I'm of deep belief that if one thinks money is main goal in literary anything in life, then one is heavily misguided by wrong values.
Money is definitely my main goal for shooting stock. If it wasn't I would be shooting a lot more arty stuff. I don't see anything wrong with that. It's just something I do to make money. I certainly don't dislike it and I would rather be doing it than many other jobs but money is still my main goal for shooting stock type images.

Yes, exactly. I tried shooting photographs simply for the creative satisfaction, but unfortunately, my mortgage company, electric company and other utilities wouldn't accept my sense of artistic satisfaction as payment. So I shoot stock for the money. Sorry if some people think feeding my family is immoral or a less than noble motive.

tickstock · « **Reply #514 on:** June 16, 2013, 16:46 »

Quote from: Sean Locke Photography on June 16, 2013, 16:43

Quote from: tickstock on June 16, 2013, 16:40
The latest uploads don't look too horrible and many of those same images that I would say shouldn't have been accepted were also accepted on Shutterstock.

Not sure why you'd be so excited about your earnings being diluted by the engorged competition.

I'm not excited but again what are the options? I could leave Istock because they are accepting lots of images (half as many as Shutterstock) and then contribute to Shutterstock and 20 other sites and make less money than I am now and be competing in an even more diluted market. I don't see the alternatives as being better, in fact they look much worse.

Ron · « **Reply #515 on:** June 16, 2013, 17:13 »

Quote from: lisafx on June 16, 2013, 16:45

Quote from: fotografer on June 10, 2013, 05:45
Quote from: Lizard on June 09, 2013, 19:12

I'm of deep belief that if one thinks money is main goal in literary anything in life, then one is heavily misguided by wrong values.
Money is definitely my main goal for shooting stock. If it wasn't I would be shooting a lot more arty stuff. I don't see anything wrong with that. It's just something I do to make money. I certainly don't dislike it and I would rather be doing it than many other jobs but money is still my main goal for shooting stock type images.

Yes, exactly. I tried shooting photographs simply for the creative satisfaction, but unfortunately, my mortgage company, electric company and other utilities wouldn't accept my sense of artistic satisfaction as payment. So I shoot stock for the money. Sorry if some people think feeding my family is immoral or a less than noble motive.

What Lizard says has truth, money doesnt have to be the main goal in life, but people saying that confuse having a paycheck to pay the bills and buy groceries with having money as your main goal in life. You often get accused of stuff because of their fallacies. I fully agree with what you are saying, money is not my main goal in life, but I certainly love having lots of it, to achieve the real goals I have set in life.

And yes, most of the things we do cost money, even if the goal is having a healthy family.

luissantos84 · « **Reply #516 on:** June 17, 2013, 15:38 »

1 month and files still all around beside SS

that said his account at iStock was opened in April

Sean Locke Photography · « **Reply #517 on:** June 17, 2013, 15:41 »

Exclusive, but not really. Amazed that nobody wants to take a stand on anything anymore.

http://www.michaeljayfoto.com/distribution-channels/the-danish-taking-over-istockphoto/

lisafx · « **Reply #518 on:** June 17, 2013, 15:51 »

Quote from: Ron on June 16, 2013, 17:13

...money doesnt have to be the main goal in life, but people saying that confuse having a paycheck to pay the bills and buy groceries with having money as your main goal in life. You often get accused of stuff because of their fallacies. I fully agree with what you are saying, money is not my main goal in life, but I certainly love having lots of it, to achieve the real goals I have set in life.

Very well said! Thanks for putting that discussion into the proper perspective

tickstock · « **Reply #519 on:** June 17, 2013, 16:46 »

Quote from: Sean Locke Photography on June 17, 2013, 15:41

Exclusive, but not really. Amazed that nobody wants to take a stand on anything anymore.

http://www.michaeljayfoto.com/distribution-channels/the-danish-taking-over-istockphoto/

Take a stand on what? Is the idea that in a year and a half RC levels will be set too high for us, maybe or maybe not? The two guys that joined up are regular exclusives as far as I know aren't they? And again with Yuri, he's said he's taking down his microstock images from all the other microstock sites, I guess you're calling him a liar? I think if any of us legitimately wanted to join with another contributor through the proper legal channels there wouldn't be a problem from Istock with doing that, like michael says maybe that's what some of us should be looking into.

luissantos84 · « **Reply #520 on:** June 17, 2013, 16:55 »

Yuri isn't a liar, we all make mistakes, sure he meant a few months, not weeks

tickstock · « **Reply #521 on:** June 17, 2013, 17:10 »

Quote from: luissantos84 on June 17, 2013, 16:55

Yuri isn't a liar, we all make mistakes, sure he meant a few months, not weeks

"Few" could be a couple months, depends on what your perspective is.

ShadySue · « **Reply #522 on:** June 17, 2013, 17:16 »

Quote from: tickstock on June 17, 2013, 17:10

Quote from: luissantos84 on June 17, 2013, 16:55
Yuri isn't a liar, we all make mistakes, sure he meant a few months, not weeks
"Few" could be a couple months, depends on what your perspective is.

Heaven forbid that we should indulge in semantic nitpicking.

tickstock · « **Reply #523 on:** June 17, 2013, 17:20 »

Quote from: ShadySue on June 17, 2013, 17:16

Quote from: tickstock on June 17, 2013, 17:10
Quote from: luissantos84 on June 17, 2013, 16:55
Yuri isn't a liar, we all make mistakes, sure he meant a few months, not weeks
"Few" could be a couple months, depends on what your perspective is.
Heaven forbid that we should indulge in semantic nitpicking.

The word "few" is ambiguous it just means a small amount, I'm not sure who you are saying is nitpicking but I had a teacher that always used to say nitpicking is a good thing because nits grow up to become lice.

ShadySue · « **Reply #524 on:** June 17, 2013, 17:27 »

Quote from: tickstock on June 17, 2013, 17:20

Quote from: ShadySue on June 17, 2013, 17:16
Quote from: tickstock on June 17, 2013, 17:10
Quote from: luissantos84 on June 17, 2013, 16:55
Yuri isn't a liar, we all make mistakes, sure he meant a few months, not weeks

"Few" could be a couple months, depends on what your perspective is.

Heaven forbid that we should indulge in semantic nitpicking.

The word "few" is ambiguous it just means a small amount, I'm not sure who you are saying is nitpicking but I had a teacher that always used to say nitpicking is a good thing because nits grow up to become lice.

I'm referring back to Kelvin's unbelievable post about the meaning of 'exclusive':
http://www.istockphoto.com/forum_messages.php?threadid=354349&messageid=6901065
So what iStock "exclusive" mean? Not what the definition on the crown icon says, for sure.
I didn't actually know that Yuri has said he's taking his images down from competing micros, but he's certainly not in a hurry to do so.

MicrostockGroup Sponsors

Author Topic: yuri arcurs is IS exclusive (Read 147090 times)

fotografer

WarrenPrice

yuliang11

RacePhoto

ShadySue

luissantos84

Sean Locke Photography

BaldricksTrousers

sharpshot

tickstock

sharpshot

tickstock

Sean Locke Photography

lisafx

tickstock

Ron

luissantos84

Sean Locke Photography

lisafx

tickstock

luissantos84

tickstock

ShadySue

tickstock

ShadySue

Related Topics

Sponsors

Microstock Poll Results

Sponsors