Unfortunately, there's no way to find 'em.

The consipiracy theorists would say that's the whole point

It's easier when you've got very few ELs, but still time-consuming (I was only checking two ELs and it still took ages): certainly not 'easy'.

It's just silly to see one photo that is Vetta (or Agency for that matter) right next to another in the same series that is in the regular collection. So arbitrary and makes it look like a total rip off.

Interesting point of view. Here's my spin on the same phenomenon. My Vettas were almost all chosen by 'someone else'; I think only about two of those I nominated were accepted into Vetta. However, most of those I have have 'similars' in my port. The Vettas which sell (some don't!) sell better than the non-Vettas.
So that formed my strategies for Exc+. Where I had a series and one or two outsold the others, I made them Exc+, since history had shown that buyers preferred them. Buyers on a budget still have a choice of non Exc+ images from the series. Still, the Exc+ images outsell the non-Esc+, presumably proving that these particular ones, for reasons not always apparent to me, are more useful to buyers. Win-win.

Quote from: grp_photo on October 30, 2010, 15:42

Another possible reason why the lion is not anymore on FT,SS etc. It is very obviously a picture shot in a Zoo, and I highly doubt the photographer got a property-release for it. That could be result in big problems for Apple AND the photographer.

I don't really see anything that says zoo. It's a close-up of a lion's head. Oh but wait...I'll bet the lion has some distinguishing mark that allows the zoo/owner/whoever to completely say without a doubt that that lion is their lion and therefore no one has the rights to use it! Sounds preposterous, but I guarantee it's coming, if it's not here already. Yikes.

The dark 'spots' which their whiskers 'come out of' are distinctive, like fingerprints, so lions can be individualy identified.
However, Sean has posted a link to a site by some USian legal expert who says that zoo animals can be used in RF stock unless they are a particular animal which is a particular draw to that zoo. E.g. I noticed that Memphis Zoo said that its pandas (only) were trademarked (actually, it might only have been the names of the pandas. The wording was 'Ya Ya and Le Le are trademarks of Memphis Zoo".

Quote from: N.Exposure on October 30, 2010, 08:59

I think there was one professional model who at some stage did a shoot for a microstock photographer.

She was later rejected from a top modeling contact because someone had used the microstock image and 'ported' it to sell cheap adult entertainment on billboards.

Yeah, this is bad.  It's a good idea to warn your models about this sort of thing if they want to pursue a serious modeling career. 

Or even if they don't. How would your church friends/models feel about being used like that?

I'm pretty sure iStock doesn't care what buyers think either.

Unfortunately, it seems that way to me too. 

No doubt if the OP posts in the iStock forums that thread will be deleted almost immediately.

I didn't think it would be deleted, but I suspected it might be locked.
Either way, it would send out a clear message that iStock has heard of customers, but wants no truck with them, if that's the case.
[Kool-aid]Or they could surprise us and be regretful and helpful.[/Kool-aid] And take the comment as a kick up the janxie/ call to action.

Quote

I think if iStock believes everything they do is good, it's about time that buyers provide some feedback as well to them.

I understand that it's easier for a buyer to just switch to another agency without handing out some feedback.

But it appears that basic issues like the OP mentions should be brought to IS attention from the buyer side - since these people put the money into their unsustainable pockets.

I couldn't agree more.
Please, OP, if you are able to make the time, please post to support AND copy to the forums. Of course, 'we' can read what you said here, but it would be even better if you made your feelings known on and to iStock.
Sorry about your negative experience. Please know that a lot of iStock contributers are very concerned about the Agency ingestion.
Added: if you searched on 'colour', you would get any colour images, so most of the pics would be Agency.
You could consider searching (if it's not too late for your project) on colours, which maps to 'descriptive colour', it may be that these images would be nearer what you were looking for.
Also try 'bright color' > bright (luminosity) or 'bright color' (Vibrant colour)(colour intensity) or indeed 'pastel' (pastel colour) (colour intensity) or 'saturated colour' (colour intensity)

Has it ever been confirmed that all the Hulton Archive pics on iStock are properly model released? If you look at the Winter Wonderland lightbox featured on the front page (images rotate, you might have to wait) there's a photo of several people walking in snow. Looks about 1950s-ish. Of course, this image may well have been set up with models, but I can't help but wonder. And even if the image is fully MRed, are the MRs really of the current MR standards that we'd have to submit? We've been assured that these images are inspected to the same standards as the rest of us have to reach, but sometimes, it's really questionable.

The two problem areas I see in micro for buyers are people who falsify releases or don't follow proper practices, and the "image thief" type contributors.
In travel imagery, I'm starting to see a lot more model released indigenous shots - now its possible that the photographers get the document explained to people who can't read and that this is in their native language, track down the child's parents and do the same, as they're passing through - or its possible that they just get someone to sign a bit of paper for an extra dollar.

When this has been discussed in the iStock forums (many's the time and oft) there are always togs who claim either that they just pay money and get signatures that way; or that they just ask people to 'OK the paperwork' - I've been told more than once (on and off forum) that I shouldn't tell potential subjects 'worse case scenario', just vaguely say, as they claim to, that the pics will be used 'for adverts and such'.
In developing countries, I realise that just offering small amounts of money would guarantee signatures: in some, I can't imagine trying to explain, even if I knew the language, all the uses they could be used for to people who have never seen magazines, TV, internet or hoardings. I can also imagine how difficult it would be, for example, to establish that the adult eager to sign for a few dollars was actually the parent of a particular child.

^^ Thanks. I don't even know if you can 'register' them in the UK: they're copyright the moment you take them.
I did, however, read a series in Photoshop world a couple of years back which suggested - with real life examples - why it's very much worth your while registering them.
Ah, the Land of the Litigious.

When I joined microstockgroup in June 2009 I was hoping to find out more about RM

So why hang out in the iStock forum?

I will leave this place for good. ... A lot of half truths are disseminated .....

Would that be halftruths like:
"Point me to a single person who has had decreasing returns at iStock. The absolute figures people have earned over the years has risen constantly. That's what people keep admitting on iStock's forums."
If you read the how was your ...last month? forums through, you'd find that even some diamond/admins say that their sales and $$$ are well down from two years ago.
Also, several people have stated on the iStock forums that they don't post when their sales are down, either because of embarrassment (sic) or because of not wanting to be negative.
I am however, prepared to concede that overall earnings for the site have generally risen, and of course some/many people will be earning more year on year.
The interesting thing was that when I and a few others said we were having a dire October, neither Lobo nor RogerMexico jumped in to say that overall sales this month are well up, which is what would usually happen.
Anyway, if you want to buy several Vetta ELs from me before the month is out, I'll be forced to 'admit' I got more this October than last October. 
Of course, that might just have been tact, given the commission clawbacks which are about to happen. i guess they're in a lose-lose situation on that one!

Quote from: zzz on October 23, 2010, 13:27

Again, I don't know if people have done their math, but I find it naive if contributors think the shared wealth of $20,000 among more than 50,000 contributors amounts to much.

$20,000 split among 50,000 contributors is nothing. $20,000 by itself is a helluva lot of money. For instance, maybe it could go towards paying a good IT guy to fix just one of the problems with the website (like maybe the search) instead of pissing it away on yet another contest. Fixing the website would go a long ways towards helping the buyers with a better buying experience.

Brilliant point!