Check the date you are manually entering as the created on date (that field is mandatory in ESP, I haven't used qHero but it must be there somewhere too) matches th shoot date written in your model release. If these two don't match you will get this rejection note

Quote from: tickstock on March 06, 2013, 20:54
I don't remember 1900 ever being used.  It's been 1884 for as long as I can remember, the wiki is wrong about a lot of things so I wouldn't put too much weight on it and that's the old wiki.  http://wiki.gettyimages.com/

You'll have to trust me when I tell you that 1900 is what inspectors are currently instructed to work to. It was changed from 1884, and added to iStock's wiki, back in November 2012. The new Getty wiki isn't fully populated yet.

IStock have been using 1900 as their required cut off period for copyright for quite some time.

http://www.istockphoto.com/tutorial_copyright_list.php
Nov 5/12 - Artwork
The creator of any piece of art owns copyright to the work. Any capture or scan of artwork requires a property release signed by the rights holder to the work(s).

If the works of another artist is to be incorporated into a new content, then a property release should be obtained from the owner of the incorporated work. A property release would not be required if the work being incorporated has been so fundamentally altered that it is no longer the original work of the author.

Some additional and useful guidelines are as follows:

Acceptable
- art that was created before 1900, by an artist who died before 1900
- art located in public space (created by an artist who died before 1900)
- artwork from a pre-1900 publication, or publication out of copyright, that has been scanned
- historical statues (i.e. war heroes, politicians) are acceptable provided they are in a public space.

Unacceptable
- art created after 1900 and/or created by an artist who died after 1900
- art (regardless of age) that is located in a museum, private location (inside or out), or exhibition (temporary or permanent)
- art as main focus in editorial (created after 1900)
- art (regardless of age) that has been pulled from a website, CD, DVD, or any other digital media

Quote from: leandrocrespi on March 02, 2013, 18:41
Hi everyone.
I got accepted yesterday.
I'm uploading several images by now, some ones got accepted and some others don't.
The "inspection" seems very good, with comments in human language. like one that i get,
"Love the image, but can you remove the white line in the middle? Please republish this file, really liked"

Is that really the language used on the rejection text? "Really liked" That's what it really said?

Quote from: captain on February 23, 2013, 07:40

Quote from: Poncke on February 15, 2013, 22:09
MR is only valid for 3 months is what I get from it

Yes ,same as my understanding.That's the reason I am complaining.

No, releases are valid for one shoot. If you have a shoot with a model today, that release will always be valid for images shot on that day. If you shoot the same model in a month from now, you need to get another release completed.

I have to say I'm gutted. I haven't had anything for sale on Shutterstock for many years but was happily making $75 payouts from referral earnings alone on referrals from way back when. Same happened with Fotolia before their time limit too, referred contributors from the site's start up were making me some nice money for nothing while I've had nothing for sale on their site for more than 5 years. I guess people like me are why it doesn't make any business sense for them to continue. Bah 

Quote from: Mantis on September 13, 2012, 00:42

Quote from: sjlocke on September 13, 2012, 00:22
Yes, they're shot with the instagram 'camera/filters'.

Are these photo apps you can download?

Yes.
Just as a general observation (I don't know that you are Mantis, but I suspect you could not have escaped knowing about these things otherwise), I've noticed those who are reluctant to embrace social media miss out on so many important trends that affect advertisting (and so what we should be shooting & how we do it) Downloadable apps like Instagram, Hipstamatic and Snapseed have been shaping how the majority of under 30's in the developed world communicate now. Hence my desire to quote Stocktastic above. Of course it's a fad, there'll be something different soon, but currently this is what people with products that they want to sell to people under 30 want.

Quote from: stockastic on September 08, 2012, 19:12

There's an ongoing change in ideas about photographic imagery.  When I was a kid my Dad had the camera (kids didn't) and he carefully lined us up for formal portraits.  Today, 15-year-olds all pack cameras and shoot by sticking the phone out at arm's length, unannounced. To sell products to kids today, you need photos that look like they were taken by their peers, not their parents.

Finally, someone who gets it! Gets it so much I wanted to quote it.

Quote from: ShadySue on September 05, 2012, 10:14
I found an apparently unreported bug (/feature?)

By default now, the prices are showing in £ (for me). If I change to credits, I see the price in credits for that image, but if I do another search, by the main search box or 'find similar' (where the lightbox link used to be) it reverts back to £ again. I'd find that annoying and unprofessional if I were a credit buyer. Using FF 15.0.PC.
I'm banned from iStock forums so if anyone else finds this is the same for them, could thy report it, please. (maybe on the New Way To Pay thread at the top of the discussion forum?)

If you have credits it doesn't revert back to £.

[quote author=Anyka link=topic=16797.msg270384#msg270384
Yes, I'd love some way to know if some one has a BIG or tiny port.  In fact, I respect the fact that many people want to hide their identity, so if Leaf could find a way to show us three facts about a poster without giving away the identity, that would be great :  (1) Size of port, (2) Microstocker since 20.., and (3) Photo/Vector/Footage/Sound.   This I find much more interesting than the number of posts he/she made.
[/quote]

Me too! I don't need to know who people are, but I do want to know whether they have any experience behind their opinions. If there's a way to impliment something like the speed dial again that would be great.

Quote from: Lagereek on August 08, 2012, 19:24

Quote from: pro@stockphotos on August 08, 2012, 17:31

Quote from: lisafx on August 08, 2012, 16:30
You're kidding, right?  

Even with sales down on all sites, Istock leads the pack.  Sales have crashed there.  Can't imagine limiting myself to fighting for the ever dwindling pool of remaining sales there.  

I would doubt that  Lagereek would loose out if he takes advantage of agency or vetta or E+ as exclusive.  It seems he would not need a lot of these sales to surpass the puny subscription SS sales and the lot.  The hedge of independence has not panned out in enough sales when compared to the large revenue avenues of the higher end sales at IS. 

It would be fascinating to compare an indie vs exclusive from the start both with 250000 downloads to see who was the smarter person.  One has made the wrong financial decision.  The data is out there!

I think youre right, I have quite a number of images that would qualify for Vettas, and thats where the revenue is, no doubt about that!  question is ofcourse, if they would accept me, or others like me? I mean we have enough given them some stick over the years.

Exclusivity doesn't work financially for everyone. If your portfolio relies on sheer numbers of walk around tourist shots, or what you ate for dinner each day then I don't think it's worth it. The money to be made is in Vetta, Agency and exclusive +. So, given that your portfolio is of high end, hard to get to, niche images then I think you're mad not to be cashing in on the extra $ available in the collections. Obviously it doesnt matter who you are, or what "stick" you've given iStock. To think otherwise is some sort of bizarre vanity. Of course, I'm also pretty sure you're not serious and are simply posting for posting's sake, in which case... meh.

Quote from: noodle on July 26, 2012, 03:18

Quote from: Suljo on July 26, 2012, 03:14

Quote from: noodle on July 26, 2012, 03:05

Quote from: Suljo on July 26, 2012, 01:32

anyhow you can write in this field fackaing anything, but if this field is empty they will reject you image like furious animals in captivity.  

THAT was funny!!!!

Did you try to dont fill this field for IS? V

No... but I will try now lol

The requirements for meaningful and relevant shoot descriptions for iStock are pretty clear. If you do "try don't fill this field" (sic) your release will be rejected so there's nothing to be gained, other than a new release request and a waste of time. Releases with shoot descriptions like "model shoot" or "woman" will also be rejected and you'll be asked for a new releases. Page 2 (and section 2) of this article gives clear instructions regarding iStock's shoot description requirements.
http://www.istockphoto.com/article_view.php?ID=648&Page=2

Do you mean at what point must you register with HMRC as self employed? As soon as you start selling any images. You should be declaring the income as self employed income, via a self assessment form every year, and pay tax on your earnings.

I resisted adding anything to TS on principle (along the lines of Joanne's thinking) But, I recently came to the realisation that I'm p*ssing in the wind, not having my images on there penalises no one except myself.  Not participating in TS wasn't sending a message to anyone - the genie is well and truely out of the bottle. So I added everything up to 18 months old with the exception of some sensitive content and my 5 best sellers (I might re-think that strategy as TS doesn't appear to have affected IS sales, although it's impossible to be 100% sure).

Quote from: wut on July 13, 2012, 12:56

Quote from: Caz on July 13, 2012, 12:10

Quote from: wut on July 12, 2012, 23:31
I can't really imagine how can you sign anything using your finger on a phone. Using Samsung Note for that is the only realistic option (it has a stylus and the biggest screen)

you can use a stylus on iphones, ipads and android phones.

It's just to handy, you have to carry it separately. I'd rather use a toothpick from a bar

Actually most either fit securely into the earphone socket of your device and stay there until you pull them out, or they are magnetic and stick to the device.  Sounds like there's a whole stylus technology world out there for you to discover 

Quote from: Poncke on July 13, 2012, 13:10
I have a cell phone, only to call and text. 39 euro simple nokia. Why do I need anything else?

You don't. You're free to continue with paper releases 

Quote from: wut on July 12, 2012, 23:31
I can't really imagine how can you sign anything using your finger on a phone. Using Samsung Note for that is the only realistic option (it has a stylus and the biggest screen)

you can use a stylus on iphones, ipads and android phones.

Quote from: SNP on July 04, 2012, 21:45

....though KKR seems a better run than H&F, it freaks me out that they've invested in Fotolia.

Me too. I find the the most worrying thing of all

Quote from: heywoody on June 19, 2012, 14:59

Quote from: Lagereek on June 19, 2012, 13:35
Seriously though!  it just goes to show, any old crap and I mean crap, is accepted as long as its technically sound, isnt it?  no wonder the micro is getting a reputation from bad to worse.

Blow up the image to 200% and hold up the yardstick and you could train monkeys to make a technical evaluation.  Making a call on the marketability of the subject matter would require a degree of actual critical judgement  

And then cue the deluge of posts here complaining that reviewers have no right/experience/ability/whatever to judge the "marketability" and that if an image is technically sound it should be accepted.

http://www.istockphoto.com/article_view.php?ID=648&Page=2

^ is a link to the model release standards article published quite some time ago. Note section 2 :


2.. Shoot Description/Location
Each release should include the shoot description/reference and shoot location. The shoot description can be as simple as 'Business stock on white background', more specific or something far more descriptive linking to an indexed document with full description of all aspects of the shoot. Those are two important fields to make sure there's no confusion later on what the images depict and where the photo shoot occurred.

Quote from: lisafx on April 25, 2012, 14:53


I believe you, and I wouldn't encourage anyone to give up their anonymity.  What is confusing is that I have not heard a rationale that makes sense for the policy you are describing.  It is in direct conflict with the actual language of the release, as noted above in my previous post.

Well, mine is not to reason why..      but the issue is that you removed all the other locations. Well, to be more precise, the issue is that you removed Alberta. You just need to have Alberta back in the list and it'll be compliant with the current requirements.

Quote from: lisafx on April 24, 2012, 22:24

Quote from: Caz on April 24, 2012, 21:49
No. The inspector was right. IStock requires releases to either mention Alberta as it does in the standard iStock release, or to make no mention of a governing location.

What are you basing your opinion on Caz?  Istock is not a signatory to my agreement with my models.  Why do they get to dictate where it is supposed to be adjudicated? You may be right, but you have offered no evidence to support your claim.

I'm not going to give up my anonymity here, you'll just have to trust that I have first hand knowledge of iStock's  requirements. Or don't, I don't mind either way  I'm simply trying to help you to have a less frustrating inspection experience.

No. The inspector was right. IStock requires releases to either mention Alberta as it does in the standard iStock release, or to make no mention of a governing location.

Quote from: BaldricksTrousers on April 12, 2012, 12:07


I don't shoot people, anyway, so I don't have a vested interest in this but I think you are wrong. There certainly is a good market for people who look real and who aren't pretty, especially if they are in a proper working environment - and there always has been that demand. The reason the micros aren't full of those is that they are harder to arrange than studio shots.

But if you are saying that there is as big a market for really badly lit, badly composed food shots. or for heavily degraded shots with strange NIK filter effects, as there is for plastic people with toothpaste grins and white backgrounds I think you are wildly wide of the mark. There is a niche market for overfiltered or badly-lit images, though why a good designer would do the processing themselves I don't know, but it certainly doesn't compete with the market Arcurs feeds.

I've just looked through one newspaper and one magazine for the images you describe and in all the adverts the only one that fits the description is from Olympus cameras (and that just uses a retro style filter, the composition and lighting are excellent)  The rest all use traditional "good" images.

I think that this new design trend is for a specific (mostly young) target audience. I've seen a big shift towards this style for products like mobile phones, travel, food & beverages etc where I live. But understandably, the advertisements are placed with their audience in mind. You're unlikely to find them in the Times or Woman's Weekly   I see buses, bus-stops, billboards and music magazines carrying this style of image in their advertising every day. Advertisers know that their audience needs to identify with the images in an advert in order to buy into the brand. The fact that these images look like their life as shot through their iPhone is what makes them work for these brands. To the audience, it looks genuine, looks like their life and that's what builds brand loyalty (currently. I'm sure this too, as a phase, will pass). Of course it's not "replacing" the traditional (if there is such a thing) stock image for some brands, some products. This is a new thing, for the iPhone generation of consumers that advertisers need to reach.

Quote from: Dantheman on March 29, 2012, 08:49


Yes i also noticed this. I'm just wondering how detailed the shoot description needs to be. Would ,"Cape Town Vacation Shots from 3-5 February," be fine?

No, that's not a sufficient shoot description