It's just natural 'flat' light in this part of the world. I just meant it was my most common rejection reason, nothing more than that.

fair enough and I'm sorry my comment got trolled That said I think flat lighting can sometimes be an advantage. Next time you get a lighting rejection maybe go for peer review.

@Cogent Marketing - you are not including in your calculation the money which Getty makes from exclusive iStockphoto content sold via the main Getty site. Often for hundred$ per sale.

Hundreds of reports of this story seem to have all used the same original copy of the Julia Roberts advert. I wonder where from. There is something in the middle of her face which looks like it might be something coming through from the other side of the page. Or else a reflection. It's weird that they did not all use a more perfect version of the image to make the point.

I wonder how come they have all used the same picture. It is as if the whole thing has been syndicated ready to go as a package. I wonder how that works - does anyone know ? Does the standards authority have a PR department which puts out the finding as a package ?

Ironic a Lib Dem MP complaining about bogus promises

Thats. definitely the sort of thing I was thinking of although I obviously have no idea whether it will pass muster.

I think I would have said "Victorian style" TBH. And included "swing ride", "fairground" and "carousel". Partly because now or later captions might affect search or 3rd party search engines (who knows ?). Good luck. Great image.

if you link to the picture maybe you can crowdsource some positive suggestions

Getty Images could sell celebrity photo division WireImage to Reuters for more than $300M

the headline contradicts the copy

A spokeswoman for Getty Images would only say that the company is "not selling WireImage to Reuters." She refused to answer additional questions for this story.

I think I'm misunderstanding what you mean - could you clarify please?

It would be possible to build a subscription service such that the images would stop working if the subscription ended. Even before that, digital watermarking already exists. It is possible to track every copy of an image sold.

But I suppose this sort of thing doesn't work if a user wants to alter the image or use it in design.

The dollars I earn are worth less than a few years ago and when I exchange them for pounds, they are also worth less.

Which means that sterling is relatively stronger vs $US than "a few years ago".

EG - suppose your $1 used to be worth 75p but now it is worth 59p. You get less pence per cent. That means that sterling is relatively stronger vs the $US. Or that the $US you earn is relatively weaker vs � than "a few years ago".

the UK undertook quantitative easing (which is a euphemism for printed money) so they have devalued sterling relative to other currencies that didn't.

True. But wallet inflation and the effects of QE would be different issue.  You could say that the currency has been devalued against, say, commodities or bond market sentiment. For the most part sterling has been more or less tracking the �. And other currencies have been equally affected by bond market sentiment with or without QE. So it's a mixed picture.

The cause of commodities inflation is difficult to pin point. One significant factor is speculation. Personally my basket of goods seems to be less expensive lately. I am not experiencing the inflation which I read about - except when I occasionally put some fuel in a car which I seldom use. I can see it in the commodities numbers but not when I shop. I am spending less if anything.

The fact that the UK government has devalued its currency while inflation is relatively high really magnifies the problem for me.

Relative to which currency ? For anyone living in the UK and earning income in $US it is the relative strength of sterling which is an issue (which is really about the weakness of the $US). People in the UK should wish for a weaker currency.

I'm sure if istock/Getty raised commissions and made the search neutral for non-exclusive and exclusives, people would change their attitude towards them.

The miserabilist tendency would see it as a conspiracy

Good natured skepticism = good. Constant negativity = stupid. That constant negativity is unrepresentative IMO. I am certain that most people are most occupied with working to make better work - especially as the market is evolving and changing so quickly.

Honestly,  I dont know why any buyer would consult a commercial stock-agency for editorials?  

but the market for editorial has completely changed. For example almost nobody publishes whole picture stories today - apart from gossip and celebrity magazines (and coincidentally Hello launched about the time that the Sunday supplements started to stop doing picture stories).  I would bet that the greatest majority of editorial images are published by bloggers now.

Am I wrong ? Does anyone with a significant circulation publish picture stories today ? Most of the great editorial pictures of the past came out of longer projects which would have been published as picture stories.

I doubt many companies would discuss strategy too far ahead. That said I think they already give out lots of clues about where they see the trends going.

When I say "inevitable" - I'm not trying to pretend to be clever or bright. Sometimes it only becomes inevitable with hindsight.

iStockphoto is probably going to work less well for as a point of entry for content where there may need to be more of a conversation around the provenance of an image or a series. IMO that is likely to involve a more personal relationship of trust between the photographer and the bureau. Some work probably shouldn't just show up in the queue. iStockphoto have stressed that the opportunity exists to start a conversation via them about getting other content online - if that content is perhaps not immediately suitable for the queue. That seems like a good offer.

There are some good and often seemingly contradictory points raised in this conversation which serves to illustrate that there are sometimes complicated and very layered issues with respect to best practice, ethics, business relationships and even the law. Whilst a publisher is ultimately often most responsible for how an image is used, an agency or bureau also has a responsibility to its customers and to its own reputation. Doing stuff a particular way is not only about the law. SNP makes a great point about gathering as much information as possible - even down to photographing the sign which says that photography is allowed, for example.

I've got the first of some archival editorial images in the film queue which are part of something I have been working out how to approach for ages. People at iStockphoto have been friendly and enthusiastic about helping me work out some of my issues and questions about how to best approach this. Thing to do is to contact them if you've got a sensible question. Also - the whole model is still evolving IMO ... everything is still being worked out and there are inevitably going to be contradictions and things which are not always clear. Sometimes there are not definite answers at once.

People often confuse sarcasm and irony. English humour is certainly often about irony. Sarcasm is almost invariably deliberately caustic.