|
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 - ShadySue
13551
« on: June 16, 2011, 05:28 »
Hey, an unexpected positive: I was checking one of my pics, and found the actual name of a feature within the image that I didn't know - and which is even in iStock's CV! So I got an important keyword. 
13552
« on: June 16, 2011, 04:20 »
Dead giveaway: one of my icebergs on a blog with the title, "I'm not sure where this is ..." - the location is pinned right down in the iStock description, so it must have been lifted from another site.
... and at the bottom of the page, someone has written in for permission to use one of the pics (all of which he's trawlled from the net) [not mine] and he's said, "Take any pic you want." [including mine], which obviously is then an invitation to anyone else visiting that page.
Hey, this is too timeconsuming and too depressing and the sky is blue. I need to get out and do some photography!
Later: well, that didn't work, I'm still googling. And another giveaway. I found a use where the bottom corner had been cut off, for no obvious reason: all the other pics on the page are rectangular, and there is nothing in the image that needed to be cut off (a pic of stepping stones in a stream, and the 'cut off' bit was a bit of stream). Then I found the same pic in another use, with the corner cut off, but stuck into a black box so the cut off corner really stuck out. Haven't found the original 'cutter', though; I guess someone did it to fit in with their wordflow or something!
13553
« on: June 16, 2011, 03:46 »
Hopefully now with this better technology people will start getting busted more often.
I'm not sure. As I posted above, I found at least 50 uses of one of my images with exactly the same crop, mostly on blogs etc. In all sorts of languages etc, so not convinced it was one legitimage buyer. I doubt if iStock would pursue each one of them, and that was only one pic from one subscriber. Another type of use I've seen a few of is where one site is linking to another and quotes a few paragraphs as a 'teaser' with a link to the original article, and they've also 'lifted' the accompanying image. More likely as mentioned above, it will be a great way for users to get free images. Although to be fair, that would be people deliberately stealing images, whereas I think a lot of people think you can legitimately just 'lift' images from the web, especially if its for non-commercial use. And another thing I've seen a few times is that a lot of sites seem to allow you to click on a larger size - larger than permitted - and encourage visitors to 'download the larger size image'. Huh  I can't even do that with non iStock images. A big downer for the RF model: if iStock employed students on minimum wage during the summer holiday working on this all day, would it be financially worth their while?
13554
« on: June 15, 2011, 19:14 »
Seems to be working again.
13555
« on: June 15, 2011, 17:58 »
I just noticed that iStock search wasn't working at all (though you can go into personal portfolios or public lightboxes) and hopped onto the forums. Strangely, only three people have posted about it. Oh, as I was typing this I fired up IE, and search is working there, but not on Firefox. Don't they test their 'tweaks' on Firefox?
I'm using IE and it didn't work for me....FINALLY some positive news after a few slow days!!!!!!
Oh, it's still working here, but I'm on such an old version of IE (Win), I get that orange banner telling me to upgrade. Ironic, huh?
13556
« on: June 15, 2011, 17:50 »
tumblr -
It's a free blog service that's easy to use and really pretty cool.
Tx for the info.
13557
« on: June 15, 2011, 17:39 »
Well, I found one of my images right away with no watermark, but credited to another site which has three of my images probably legitimately purchased. So I guess they just 'lifted' the image from the other site.
One of my top-sellers, so apparently 10 pages of hits. That was just the first one, on a tumblr, whatever that is.
Of course, once someone posts a photo without a watermark, even if licensed, that's it up for grabs.
Later - I've just found many incidences of one image on different sites with exactly the same crop. Coincidence? I don't think so!
13558
« on: June 15, 2011, 17:05 »
I just noticed that iStock search wasn't working at all (though you can go into personal portfolios or public lightboxes) and hopped onto the forums. Strangely, only three people have posted about it. Oh, as I was typing this I fired up IE, and search is working there, but not on Firefox. Don't they test their 'tweaks' on Firefox?
13559
« on: June 15, 2011, 16:35 »
On the subscription side I suspect that sooner or later content will be literally linked to a subscription - such that the content and user agreement expires if the subscription lapses. Subscription based services are potentially easier to control.
I think I'm misunderstanding what you mean - could you clarify please? Thinkstock for one has in their user agreement that images may not be used after a subscription expires (except where it has already been put into use) so you're not supposed to 'stash' images. From the user point of view, the stashing of images must be an attraction of subs. It has been generally agreed when this point has been made that it would be impossible to police. But I think you must mean something else.
13560
« on: June 15, 2011, 10:49 »
I don't see the camera yet.
I hope the agencies are geared up for dealing with all the 'found but never downloaded' images, or wrongly used images etc.
13561
« on: June 15, 2011, 07:31 »
To be honest, the 'glitch' is your best hope. Other people have been getting the cut and paste 'old credits' answer, others have been getting the 'discounts' answer. At least with 'glitch', there's a good chance you'll get your correct payment eventually.
13562
« on: June 14, 2011, 17:25 »
What would Amazon do? I went over to Amazon UK to see how much 4Gb CF cards cost, as I 'seem' to have lost two in the past week. :'( So I typed in SanDisk Compact Flash 4Gb and the 'above the fold' results were: 1. A SanDisk 8GB CF card (the upsell attempt) 2. A SanDisk 8GB SDHC card (in case I didn't have a clue what I was looking for?) 3. A SanDisk 4 GB card so cheap I'm assuming it's ancient, so slooooooow. 4. A book called "Quick snap guide to digital photography" with a mention of Sandisk 4GB cards on page 23, "SanDisk pioneered a 4GB CompactFlash card with a three-position switch on one edge that you can use to transform the card from a 4G/FAT32 ..." which I guess is news, as well as Geek, to me. http://www.lizworld.com/CF4.jpgI noticed the note at the top of the page which says, "select a department", but still, I thought my search term was pretty precise. So I selected 'electronics and photo', same search for a SanDisk 4GB compact flash. This time, at least they were all CF disks 1. 8GB card 2. Cheap, slow 4GB card 3. 4Gb, the kind I have at the moment 4. Cheap 4GB, claims to be the same speed as no 3, but less than half the price. 5. 32GB, costs 179.91. What I would get if I didn't keep losing them. 6 8GB slower and cheaper than no1 http://www.lizworld.com/SD4_2.jpgSo the first search got me one correct match out of 4 and the second, filtered, one, got me 3 out of 6. BTW, I'm only noting the actual search results, not the merits of various CF cards.
13563
« on: June 14, 2011, 08:05 »
her best sellers are Vettas, you can really find just a handful of e+ files among the first 200 files. So the 5300+ DLs are really more like 50k+ for someone who has just a handful of Vettas.
Have they always been Vettas, or does that include a heap of downloads from pre-Vetta times?
I get the impression (pure surmise) she was headhunted from social media. She was then hothoused (immediate image of the week) and got her 250dls to become exclusive extremely quickly (actually, while the same images were still available for free download from at least one 'image-sharing' site) so her pics became Vetta within a very short time of her arriving at iStock.
13564
« on: June 14, 2011, 07:58 »
She's a top-notch art photographer. She ought to be selling through galleries rather than through microstock. I doubt if much of her work has ended up in adverts rather than on walls.
The curious thing is that when she gets away from the surreal into ordinary stock she doesn't seem to have much of a clue. If you search by age, the first page is pretty mundane.
I just saw Ithn's remarks. He seems to have a very narrow idea of what art is allowed to be. I'm not sure why he counts Avedon's tedious studio mugshots as high art. Maybe he read somewhere that this guy is officially sanctioned as a great artist.
There. That should put the cat among the pigeons.
Agree on all three points.
13565
« on: June 14, 2011, 07:54 »
Revenue from last 3 sales at Alamy $2.49
Is that novel use ... or ...?
13566
« on: June 14, 2011, 07:53 »
Check out also this thread: http://www.istockphoto.com/forum_messages.php?threadid=330442&page=1#post6407718in which a contributor says: "I had a same "glitch" few days ago when I received only $14.40 for 100 credits EL. Support told that there is a some problem with EL's and they should fix it and pay us the rest."Strangely, however, the original post has apparently disappeared or 'been disappeared', and I can only see the post quoted in someone else's post.
13567
« on: June 14, 2011, 07:40 »
Also on Page 5 are photos of rows of iceburg lettuce. Not a horse in sight.
Oooooh, harsh - it's an XXXL file and if you zoom in to maximum size and go along the 'join' between the flat land and the mountain, there's a paddock with some tiny horses in it.  However, with the overnight update, a photo of a goat's had against a pink background has appeared on the first line of a search on 'horse' by age. I'll wiki it!
13568
« on: June 13, 2011, 19:00 »
Hmmm, incredibly I also searched 'horse', because that's the one I tend to go to since it is so Vetta-heavy by best match (except for the second-top image, which isn't even exclusive) But I have to admit, I only checked the top line, not the bottom of page 5.
13569
« on: June 13, 2011, 18:15 »
That is actually a hypothetical question. I have the misfortune to currently be conducting a search for a client project and I decided to by-pass the best match BS by searching by "File Age". "File Age" is supposed to mean newer first, right? Because I see files that are at least a year old at the beginning of the search, in front of more recent stuff. Or is this, yet again, an "iStock re-definition" of something?
Sorting by age usually works, I just tried a couple and it seems like it's working. I do notice sometimes that when you change search by, it doesn't immediately change, but this has been the case since I started iStock, mostly when inside someone's port. The workaround is to change to the search you want, then if it hasn't worked, go to any other search, then back to the one you want. That usually works IME, but if it doesn't, maybe you could say the search you're using, and we can try it out. (I might be in bed by the time you see this, though.)
13570
« on: June 13, 2011, 17:50 »
Honestly, I dont know why any buyer would consult a commercial stock-agency for editorials?
Maybe they can't always get what they want under creative commons at e.g. Flikr?
13571
« on: June 13, 2011, 09:29 »
Also, will iStock kill Alamy's RM?
Only to some extent. iStock will be no great shakes for selling quirky, local things which Alamy is better for, especially in the UK.
13572
« on: June 13, 2011, 07:20 »
As far as the content of the edstock portfolio goes, there are more product and location type shots that don't require any special sort of permission than I'd like, but there is also some great content that adds value to the collection and wouldn't really be available through regular contributors. Try this image for example: http://www.istockphoto.com/stock-photo-16844219-king-bhumibol-adulyadej-of-thailand-celebrates-82nd-birthday.php?st=6ec82ef
Not sure if anyone has tried to get access to the King of Thailand for a photo shoot lately, but its not something that is easy. While I was there, he did a trip in public along the river in a boat. They basically lined the river with police to make sure you A. couldn't get a vantage point on bridges etc at a higher elevation than the king, B. couldn't take photos while he was actually passing.
Therefore if I was the lucky person to be granted access, I wouldn't be happy about the photo going for micro prices, especially as the number of sales of the photo is likely to be low. It's a 'niche' photo and should be sold for a 'niche' price.
Presumably the photo was sold for its niche value initially, now 2 years later they want to revive its earnings potential that the volumes from iStock may or may not bring. If I had one of the only images like this for sale online at the iStock E+ price-point of $5-30, I don't think I'd be overly upset. I don't think the image has such a low sales potential - assuming they add the keyword "King" I'd be very surprised if it doesn't get lots of sales.
I suppose it might (?) be better to have the only image on iStock compared to being one of a few on Getty. H*ck the Getty Search/keywording system seems to be about as bad as Alamy's. Half of the images which come up on a search for "King Bhumibol" don't feature the King at all, but are in some way connected with him. How annoying. If iStock's keywording system wasn't spammed, and even more importantly, if the best match worked properly with keyword relevancy, iStock could really crush the oppostion. Whether that would be a Good Thing is open to debate.
13573
« on: June 13, 2011, 05:49 »
As far as the content of the edstock portfolio goes, there are more product and location type shots that don't require any special sort of permission than I'd like, but there is also some great content that adds value to the collection and wouldn't really be available through regular contributors. Try this image for example: http://www.istockphoto.com/stock-photo-16844219-king-bhumibol-adulyadej-of-thailand-celebrates-82nd-birthday.php?st=6ec82ef
Not sure if anyone has tried to get access to the King of Thailand for a photo shoot lately, but its not something that is easy. While I was there, he did a trip in public along the river in a boat. They basically lined the river with police to make sure you A. couldn't get a vantage point on bridges etc at a higher elevation than the king, B. couldn't take photos while he was actually passing.
Noted that apparently the transfer from Getty - iStock won't be made for 18 months, when the maximum 'timely' sales of the pic will have been realised (wonder for how long that restriction will apply?).
However, there could be another time for the pic to be topical, when the King dies, so the 'tog should be able to benefit then too.
Therefore if I was the lucky person to be granted access, I wouldn't be happy about the photo going for micro prices, especially as the number of sales of the photo is likely to be low. It's a 'niche' photo and should be sold for a 'niche' price. Noted that apparently the transfer from Getty - iStock won't be made for 18 months, when the maximum 'timely' sales of the pic will have been realised (wonder for how long that restriction will apply?). However, there could be another time for the pic to be topical, when the King dies, so the 'tog should be able to benefit then too. UNLESS: Getty paid the tog to take these pics and arranged the permits etc (do they do that? I think I read once that they do) in which case they'll no doubt have it in their contract that they can do what the like with the photos.
13574
« on: June 12, 2011, 04:55 »
these images are not low-quality editorial. I'm certainly no fan of this ingestion of Getty content. but the images aren't low-quality. shooting editorial isn't like shooting stock. conditions are completely different. editorial is often shot at much higher ISO, low light conditions, from great distances...it's completely unreasonable to evaluate editorial images the way you would stock files.
As I said earlier in the thread, I've had 'lighting' rejections for editorial submissions, for the same natural, flat, Scottish light that has garnered me so many 'flat light' rejections for the main collection. Note that these editorial lighting rejections come with the same totally useless* tutorial links to the 'right way to use flash in a studio' that you get with main collection lighting rejections. As always, some inspectors are more picky than others, so some of a group might get in while others don't. * if you're using natural light.
13575
« on: June 11, 2011, 19:15 »
So, Lobo has posted:
There are clearly some bones to pick about the following:
1. Keywords
2. Titles
3. Apparent quality
4. Placement in search
5. Content flowing quicker to iStock than it's flowing to the Partner Program sites and Getty
These are obvious issues that people need to have addressed. That said the issues aren't going to be addressed this weekend. I will make sure to point the obvious out to the folks at HQ early next week. I know there are other people watching this thread besides me but I tend to be more visible because I play traffic cop when things like this are announced.
Hope it will do some good. They must have known about these issues before they ingested the images, so why should they do anything about it now?
|
Sponsors
Microstock Poll Results
Sponsors
|
Show Posts
