|
MicrostockGroup Sponsors
This section allows you to view all posts made by this member. Note that you can only see posts made in areas you currently have access to.
Messages - SNP
Pages: 1 ... 39 40 41 42 43 [44] 45 46 47 48 49 ... 54
1076
« on: December 03, 2010, 17:13 »
well I hope she was wrong. I spoke to CR, and then she sent me a follow up email which explicitly states I can't sell any photo I already have on iStock as RM anywhere, nor similars to that photo. I had asked in the context of researching avenues through which I can sell my editorial images. I was thinking of applying to Alamy to sell Editorial RM and wanted to be sure not to infringe on my exclusivity contract.
so I hope you're right Sean. because what you're saying is how I've always read the ASA.
1077
« on: December 03, 2010, 17:05 »
is it true now? I spoke to CR two weeks ago about this very issue...I'll find my response and post it for everyone. I'd be very pleased if I was misreading it, would make life easier.
1078
« on: December 03, 2010, 17:01 »
when I started, it took two weeks for each review, thereabouts. and of course with a few rejections, they then make you wait out a certain length of time like a month or three months or something like that. it took me five attempts to get on iStock. that was four years ago.
1079
« on: December 03, 2010, 16:57 »
I didn't know you couldn't sell them as RM on other sites. I always thought that you just couldn't sell them on other microstock sites. Did it use to be you could, because it seems people have talked about having their images on Alamy.
As I understand it, Istock exclusives can sell RM elsewhere, but the images have to be completely different (and dissimilar) to the ones in their Istock portfolio. Also they cannot be Istock rejects.
Ok...that's where I got it from. It kinds sucks they can't sale rejects as RM. I could see that would be the case where they were similar, but a totally different subject, I wouldn't understand. A lot of times those will sale elsewhere. Just glad I ain't exclusive and never will be... 
In practice, you can ask CR to release a rejected photo to be sold as RM. The strict rules about 'completely different and dissimilar' is for iStockers selling on Getty, though it could be considered 'doubtful practice' to sell 'very similar' shots elsewhere.
yes exactly. and to be honest, it's such a convoluted process that I don't bother because I don't want to take the chance of infringing on my exclusivity. when I first read the ASA, I read it that anything we didn't have on iStock, we could sell as RM. but I contacted CR to be certain, and sure enough, as Sue says, you can't even sell similars. similar is such a subjective term that I just don't take the chance. the only thing I sell outside of iStock is editorial and prints.
1080
« on: December 03, 2010, 14:07 »
Lisa - I believe you're not rooting for iStock to fail. but I think you're a minority. I think a lot of contributors would like to see iStock fail out of spite, as well as seeing iStock exclusives fail in order to say I Told You So, or to feed some other insecurity-motivated complex. The reality is, if we magnify it to the worst case scenario and iStock fails tomorrow. then what? the next agencies follow suit, because another Agency will then be the iStock-villain and become the new agency to hate. iStock's failure would actually be a very dangerous signal to the remainder of the industry.
I think lagereek says it best when he says that the doom and gloom terror-speak is largely not commented on by many higher-level contributors because they simply know it's the nature of the business and they're disinterested and too busy producing and managing their business to comment.
I think iStock is handling buyers's concerns. of course they are, but certainly not in public forums. to be honest, I think the last few outcry campaigns have really handicapped us as contributors. the same contributors cried wolf and now the voice of the community is somewhat muted. that's not cheerleading, that's common sense.
1081
« on: December 03, 2010, 13:58 »
I guess you have to have your principles.
so...any insights on what is going to happen with regard to Agency contributors brought in via Getty channels who don't have the same exclusivity requirements that the rest of us have? of all the issues surrounding the Agency Collection, this seems the most pressing and so far pretty much no word from admin about it. I would like the opportunity to sell my images elsewhere too. I adhere very strictly to my exclusivity agreement, which means I basically can sell my prints and custom work only in addition to selling through iStock.
I can't sell any files that are on iStock or resemble files on iStock as RM anywhere. but these new Agency contributors seem to be allowed to do all of that. I initially thought they'd be bound by image exclusivity requirements at least, but that doesn't even seem to be the case.
1082
« on: December 03, 2010, 12:31 »
since you're new here, in general, no matter how much you dislike someone, we respect one anothers' anonymity. Cathy doesn't respect much of anything over here, but you might, since you;re new...and apologies. I hadn't noticed cathy used my name since I am ignoring her posts....
1083
« on: December 03, 2010, 11:38 »
I think loop's point was that the loudest, ranty and usually inaccurate statements over here tend to come from people who don't actually do any business on iStock. why post so vehemently about something you know little to nothing about?
...edited to be less snarky
You can always use the ignore button. molka is up to 40 now  I can't be bothered reading peoples posts if they are just 100% against microstck. I have done a lot of business with istock but I rant about them all the time. It's good to have a place where you can express your feelings without getting the thread locked. There's an anti istock bias here but I prefer it to the censorship on the istock forums. We can all make up our own minds about the credibility of the person expressing their opinions here, much better than having a biased forum moderator doing it for us.
good post. but, I don't agree that the lack of moderation breeds truth and freedom over here. where moderators are not present, thugs are. there are still a number of posters over here whose points of view I find very informative and of course a place offsite is good for getting some version of the real scoop when things are announced etc. anyways, back to Agency -- my biggest beef with Agency is the exclusivity 'flexibility' for Agency contributors trucked in. no word from admin on that. I think it's unfair and BS that some contributors get flexible exclusivity. that's the biggest issue as far as I'm concerned about Agency.
1084
« on: December 03, 2010, 11:32 »
how can you split Getty out from iStock? that's seems like a new one. iStock clearly state they're on board and more or less 100% behind Getty decisions. whether that is actually true, or whether iStock admin are held hostage by Getty mandates---same end result. good or bad depending on your perseptive. AFAIK it's somewhere in the middle. Getty have pushed iStock forward, in really positive ways. but there are definitely casualties.
1085
« on: December 03, 2010, 11:27 »
brilliant powers of deduction.
1086
« on: December 02, 2010, 20:28 »
starting a thread as a pissed off buyer, without revealing you are also a contributor is indeed a conflict of interest, and slimy to boot. as for pissing off buyers, NO ONE as far as I'm concerned cares more about buyers than the people working at and for HQ. having said that, if a buyer posts comments that are framed as rants, the thread should obviously be taken offline and dealt with via proper channels.
considering what I've read about the forums at other sites, iStock has been lenient way too long about dirty laundry in the form of rants being aired in their forums. it's not a democracy, it's a business. Lobo's sarcasm is certainly loved by many of the people bitching over here while flirting with him in the iStock forums. at least be consistent. he pointed out something that the OP should have openly disclosed. too bad....
let's face it. iStock could spend their entire efforts attempting to please every demand by every buyer, and there would still be unhappy buyers. that's life. doesn't mean buyers can dump all over their business.
1087
« on: December 02, 2010, 19:52 »
that isn't in fact all Lobo does. I've been on iStock for over four years. in that time, I've had many exchanges with Lobo. no matter how angry or frustrated, I can recall only one time I felt he was rude to me and we talked about it and he sincerely dealt with how I felt. he has a sh*tty job a lot of the time, gets very little in terms of accolades from contributors, but wears most of the garbage thrown around the minute people are pissed off and decide to send off knee jerk and belligerent messages.
I couldn't, and wouldn't do his job. I doubt anyone here would have the stomach for it. his sarcasm is probably the one thing that keeps him sane. you can't expect a thread started ON a site you are bashing to go unresponded to. and being a contributor AS WELL as a buyer certainly is relevant and a conflict of interest in this case I might add...
1088
« on: December 02, 2010, 19:36 »
well thank you for restirring the pot I tried to unstir....I think most of the people here enjoy conflict. stupid me for trying to avoid it
1089
« on: December 02, 2010, 19:23 »
I think loop's point was that the loudest, ranty and usually inaccurate statements over here tend to come from people who don't actually do any business on iStock. why post so vehemently about something you know little to nothing about?
...edited to be less snarky
1090
« on: December 02, 2010, 19:04 »
I can't for the life of me understand why more exclusives aren't bothered by this. I would be freaking out if all my eggs were in that basket.
As I told you in another thread, at least for me, the DLs are not dropping significantly and revenue is improving.
same for me, things are good in general...but I suspect that won't be cut and paste across the threads here
1091
« on: December 02, 2010, 12:27 »
unfortunately the downside to having a relative lack of moderation here is having to wade through all sorts of petty stuff. bad manners posting someone else's work, but bad manners seem to be the culture over here.
1092
« on: December 02, 2010, 11:41 »
I think it's very poor manners to bring someone else's work into a public forum. anyone who does it deserves it right back as far as I'm concerned. as for the example at hand, regardless of what collection the editors deemed those photos to be in--that is one crazy talented photographer. I've admired his work since well before Vetta. Do I think all those images should be Vetta....actually no. but I have four Vetta images myself that I wouldn't have placed in Vetta, and the ones I wanted in Vetta weren't accepted into the collection.
the bottom line is that buyers are deciding what deserves to be paid for and what doesn't. iStock is a close knit community despite the actual size of the community. realistically, I would expect some visibility for inspectors--especially since they are inspectors because of their talent and ability to begin with.
there's a handful of other contributors who do 'real people' REALLY well and I watch new contributors try to rip it off all the time...poorly, with crap lighting. just because a portrait is perfectly simple doesn't mean it isn't perfect. those portraits are bang on.
1093
« on: December 01, 2010, 16:53 »
1. your comment has already been made three or four times, hence the discussion
2. TRADS and microstock contributors are arguably no longer mutually exclusive. there's a whole lot of overlap. I shoot both, I know lots of colleagues who do too...what's the big deal....
1094
« on: December 01, 2010, 15:22 »
^ yes. on the other hand, as someone has posted in another thread, microstock technical requirements have the potential to change the way we shoot. sometimes I worry about missing a great shot, a beautiful photograph, simply because I know it wouldn't meet iStock tech requirements.
Vetta is a whole other entity. now that they're placing 'perfect' stock images in Agency and no longer in Vetta, I have less interest in Vetta and more interest in contributing to Agency. Vetta is a 'look what I can do' art gallery. I want to have files in the art gallery, but I'm more interested in producing highly usable images.
1095
« on: December 01, 2010, 15:03 »
got to love irony
1096
« on: December 01, 2010, 14:25 »
^ that is great advice about cropping. I have overcropped too. I've really made a push to process less and crop less lately. pretty photos are great and all, but I'm realizing that designers really prefer a nice, clean, colour-corrected file that is simply useful. I hate to say it this way, because it's not entirely correct and there is a good deal of artistic vision in good stock, but I'm separating the art out of my stock images....
1097
« on: December 01, 2010, 14:13 »
you win, your mathematician is better than mine. like I said, who cares?
if only I had a penny for every too-good-for-microstock 'pro' I've heard complain about not being able to get their images accepted on iStock--and then decided they are just too good and too 'pro' for microstock. it's a silly, and old argument based on dated ideas.
1098
« on: December 01, 2010, 13:37 »
lol
1099
« on: December 01, 2010, 13:31 »
the best equipment doesn't buy you talent. but if you have talent to begin with, chances are you're going to evolve in terms of your equipment and invest in the improvement of your product. that investment should be apparent.
1100
« on: December 01, 2010, 12:56 »
^ that's only partly true and it's an oversimplified argument. again, if it were that easy, none of us would be wasting money on good equipment. there's always someone in any industry who wants to make the same money as other suppliers without the same investment.
Pages: 1 ... 39 40 41 42 43 [44] 45 46 47 48 49 ... 54
|
Sponsors
Microstock Poll Results
Sponsors
|
Show Posts
