MicrostockGroup Sponsors


Author Topic: Free iStock images for Google Blogger Template Designer  (Read 8414 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

red

« on: March 12, 2010, 10:19 »
0
What's your take on iStock providing free images to Google Blogger for Blogger Template Designer? Do you think it will really move users to their paid images?

http://www.businesswire.com/portal/site/home/permalink/?ndmViewId=news_view&newsId=20100311006456&newsLang=en
« Last Edit: March 12, 2010, 22:20 by cuppacoffee »


« Reply #1 on: March 12, 2010, 20:19 »
0
+1

PaulieWalnuts

  • On the Wrong Side of the Business
« Reply #2 on: March 12, 2010, 21:33 »
0
I'm surprised there's no angry mob with torches and pitchforks for this post.

I wonder which images they're offering for free. Especially when Getty is charging for small web usage.

I could use an angry mob torches-and-pitchforks image right now

donding

  • Think before you speak
« Reply #3 on: March 12, 2010, 21:36 »
0
I'm surprised there's no angry mob with torches and pitchforks for this post.

I wonder which images they're offering for free. Especially when Getty is charging for small web usage.

I could use an angry mob torches-and-pitchforks image right now

I would assume it would be the ones that are in their free section.

PaulieWalnuts

  • On the Wrong Side of the Business
« Reply #4 on: March 12, 2010, 21:45 »
0
As far as I know the only free section on Istock is the free photo of the week.

I can't imagine them issuing a press release for blogging use of one free photo.

« Reply #5 on: March 12, 2010, 22:14 »
0
Looks like it's a selection of pretty-pretty istock images used for backgrounds in the web template (I just gave it a whirl on the Google blog site). It's not free image downloads. And there's lots of cross promotion back to the istock site if you want to buy something different. No pitch forks here. I presume the images have been purchased for the purpose with the appropriate extended licence for template use .

« Reply #6 on: March 13, 2010, 01:24 »
0
My guess is they didnt pay much or anything at all.  They would not link back to Istock so heavily if that was the case.

Would like to hear what Istocks say about this.  No need to crash the house before they can defend themself...

« Reply #7 on: March 13, 2010, 02:33 »
0
My guess is they didnt pay much or anything at all.  They would not link back to Istock so heavily if that was the case.

Would like to hear what Istocks say about this.  No need to crash the house before they can defend themself...
Given the linkback is to the individual portfolio of the image uploader as well as to istock as a whole, I'd like for one of my images to be chosen! Similar deals with microsoft for non-commercial use in the Office Suite have resulted in hefty extended licences for the participants, and I'd expect that to be the case here.

ShadySue

« Reply #8 on: March 13, 2010, 05:37 »
0
My guess is they didnt pay much or anything at all.  They would not link back to Istock so heavily if that was the case.

Would like to hear what Istocks say about this.  No need to crash the house before they can defend themself...
As usual, this was announced on a Friday ...
I don't use Blogger, or any other blog stuff, so this will seem like a really stupid question. If 'one' used one of these templates, and had even an ounce of HTML savvy, could one delete the links etc if one wanted to?

« Reply #9 on: March 13, 2010, 08:32 »
0
I'm surprised there's no angry mob with torches and pitchforks for this post.

I wonder which images they're offering for free. Especially when Getty is charging for small web usage.

I could use an angry mob torches-and-pitchforks image right now

They're from any contributor who has the "promotional use" option checked in their profile.  So, it could be any image out there almost.

PaulieWalnuts

  • On the Wrong Side of the Business
« Reply #10 on: March 13, 2010, 09:05 »
0
I just checked out the promotional use terms and it does say they can provide limited free content to a strategic partner in exchange for traffic.

RacePhoto

« Reply #11 on: March 15, 2010, 13:19 »
0
I'm surprised there's no angry mob with torches and pitchforks for this post.

I wonder which images they're offering for free. Especially when Getty is charging for small web usage.

I could use an angry mob torches-and-pitchforks image right now


I went and looked. It would only count for me if I could have figured out what they were using and how. Since I don't understand the whole program, I can't get angry. (although I am against free images and free promotions unless I'm the one getting something for nothing) Free photo promotion is a fallacy. People take free stuff because it's free, not because they wanted to buy it or something like it. And once they have the free background, why do they need to buy one?  ???

Will this do, consider the source kind of ironic...


RacePhoto

« Reply #12 on: March 15, 2010, 17:00 »
0
I really think I should be doing something more productive with my time...  ::)



Now serving # 24
« Last Edit: March 16, 2010, 20:19 by RacePhoto »

PaulieWalnuts

  • On the Wrong Side of the Business
« Reply #13 on: March 15, 2010, 17:08 »
0
I was just kidding about the picture but that is perfect and also ironic  :)

« Reply #14 on: March 15, 2010, 18:03 »
0
OMG, race, that is too funny!

I'm opted out of promotional use and third party feeds, so hopefully I won't see my images being given away for free for blog templates.

Didn't istock try this once before? I can't remember the name of that whole promotion, but it quietly faded off into the sunset. It was free photos for web pages that supposedly linked back to your istock port. Wonder if any millionaires came about because of that promotion?

« Reply #15 on: March 15, 2010, 18:36 »
0
That was Vox. Actually, there's no way to know if sales come from there or from anywhere. Sales are and have been good, that's what matters,

« Reply #16 on: March 15, 2010, 19:18 »
0
Vox, that's it.

Quote
Actually, there's no way to know if sales come from there or from anywhere.

Yeah, that's kind of the whole problem with these programs. There's just no way to track what works and what doesn't, whether you got any sales from images on Vox or Google templates or....

PaulieWalnuts

  • On the Wrong Side of the Business
« Reply #17 on: March 15, 2010, 21:48 »
0
I really think I should be doing something more productive with my time...  ::)
Now 22

Haa ha. I just noticed the faces. Pretty funny. Yep, you have way too much time on your hands. You have model releases for this image?  ;)

RacePhoto

« Reply #18 on: March 15, 2010, 22:04 »
0
I really think I should be doing something more productive with my time...  ::)
Now 22

Haa ha. I just noticed the faces. Pretty funny. Yep, you have way too much time on your hands. You have model releases for this image?  ;)

News, editorial, celebrity, parody, public figures? It's not being sold. I think one of those should cover it. Honestly a tribute to MSG and the people who make it what it is. If you meant the original shot, it's acceptable as a parody.

The First Amendment protects satire and parody as a form of free speech and expression.
« Last Edit: March 16, 2010, 20:33 by RacePhoto »


 

Related Topics

  Subject / Started by Replies Last post
0 Replies
2085 Views
Last post February 29, 2008, 15:45
by News Feed
0 Replies
2054 Views
Last post February 29, 2008, 16:30
by News Feed
28 Replies
7651 Views
Last post September 02, 2009, 11:27
by Microbius
1253 Replies
145672 Views
Last post April 13, 2013, 16:16
by cobalt
9 Replies
4215 Views
Last post March 04, 2013, 23:07
by bruce_blake

Sponsors

Microstock Poll Results