|
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
14926
« on: September 27, 2010, 12:36 »
admin note: A rather untasteful (politically incorrect etc.) image has been removed along with comments responding to that image
Thank you.
14927
« on: September 27, 2010, 12:16 »
@shady: I don't know if I agree with that, but it's probably a topic for another thread. I'm entirely offended by the usage of the image. but at the same time, if I use another example...I had every one of my Dachau Concentration Camp shots deactivated, even though they had sold, because the camp is considered a Nazi symbol and they have a zero tolerance on anything related to the Nazi party. one of the suggested reasons was that it could be used to promote the ideology.
maybe it is my perspective as an exclusive, since we have a bit more protection regarding the use of our images, but frankly almost any image could be construed to convey a negative or offensive message with the right copy. to suggest that we keep end use in mind in this context when shooting is absurd. in my example, Dachau is now a memorial to those lives lost. it is a sombre reminder of a terrible period in history. it has a place in the collection, as do images of people with disabilities.
Everyone has to make up their own mind. If I had photos of Dachau, I'd put them as RM editorial only. The legal uses for RF are too wide, far less that it's more likely that an abuser would be happier to pay less at a Macro site. Also, I'm not sure how much 'protection' we really get, even as iStock exclusives for abuse of images outside the t&c: IMO, they should name and shame and stress what action they took. They never do that, and the only 'punishment' I know of for abused images (where I've sitemailled 'togs) is a 'cease and desist', or if the damage is done, a rap over the knuckles. Hardly likely to discourage others.
14928
« on: September 27, 2010, 10:43 »
Not cool dude, not cool
Agree. Bad taste
I agree too. Completely unwarranted.
That's exactly why I'd be extremely wary about using special needs models in micro.
Not that I'm suggesting that the image used above was sourced from a micro (I don't know), but it does show the danger.
And that poster has been posted in 261 forums or blogs already. :-(
14929
« on: September 27, 2010, 10:41 »
Not cool dude, not cool
Agree. Bad taste
I agree too. Completely unwarranted.
That's exactly why I'd be extremely wary about using special needs models in micro. Not that I'm suggesting that the image used above was sourced from a micro (I don't know), but it does show the danger.
14930
« on: September 26, 2010, 18:28 »
It occurs to me that someone like Holgs, having only recently gone exclusive, could be quite seriously disadvantaged by being paid next year according to his RC's for this year, most of which he was independent for.
Actually, that makes the big push to encourage people to become exclusive (and the honeyed, but empty promises) earlier in the year seem really cynical.
14932
« on: September 25, 2010, 05:52 »
I posted a reply on that site's thread, but it hasn't appeared yet. Does it have to be 'approved'?
14933
« on: September 25, 2010, 03:07 »
Rogermexico hasn't shown up since the announcement either. I'm worried he's another person departing from his official role.
He's iStock's offical spin doctor. Maybe he hasn't been given any 'spinning' to do? Or maybe it's just too unpalatable.
[Pollyanna] Or maybe there will be some news coming sometime, just 'not yet'. [/Pollyanna]
Or maybe not.Seems he's very busy with the Japan Lypse arrangements.
14934
« on: September 24, 2010, 13:14 »
Ha~ I voted 'normal' on Tuesday because last week seemed to be really picking up. But this week has been very slow.  Added: but a strange mini-rush in icebergs over the weekend, when recent weekends have been moribund.
14935
« on: September 23, 2010, 02:17 »
So far, mine are consistently updating the day after the sales.
Really?! Hmm.... strange, mine have updated 3 or 4 times after 'the announcement', every time for a fraction of the amount i sold. Maybe time to shoot a mail to support.
This issue has been brought up a few times in the 'where do we go to from here?' thread, but there is a main thread on the help forum: http://www.istockphoto.com/forum_messages.php?threadid=253622&page=1However, I can't explain why Lobo couldn't get a straight answer way back when the thread was started. His current posting, that he'd rather give an accurate answer is creditable, but rather disingenuous. It's surely a simple enough question, and you'd think he could get a simple enough answer. (even if it's only, "Your reported RCs are not currently accurate, but they're working on it"). Seems very odd that he can't.
14936
« on: September 23, 2010, 02:13 »
I guess i have to take 'their word' that in the end the amount will be correct? "Their word", ha! (hahaha!)
With all stock sites, you have to 'take their word' that their reporting figures are correct.
14937
« on: September 21, 2010, 11:42 »
Since you guys are mostly in photos/illustrations, I will keep it short.
After deleting my audios from IS I decided to contact several audio libraries, and I was quite shocked how they all hate Istock/Getty. No one had nice words for them. And not only that. The comments were describing Istock management with words like "idiots", "very bad for artists", "people who are destroying this business"etc. These words are not mine. They are quoted directly from emails I received from contact persons who work on other sites.
Istock is reducing prices of audio in general.
How would that be different from the complaints macro agencies made and make about micros?
14938
« on: September 19, 2010, 11:58 »
50c seems a lot compared to the amounts I have seen for other sites. Would a site that is about to cut the already lowest commissions for contributors pay lots more to inspectors?
Probably, if for no other reason than they have the legal guarantee and the extended legal guarantee.
14939
« on: September 19, 2010, 08:20 »
Someone mentioned in a post on the 'Where we go from here" thread that inspectors are paid 50c per image. The entire post has since been deleted.
However, I couldn't work out whether they were quoting an accurate figure or merely as I might have said something like, "the inspectors get their pittance for inspecting a file ..." Interesting that they deleted it, though. Maybe it was too near the truth. Earlier in the week, in reply to posts on the point that unlike selling apples where you have to go and buy another apple wholesale every time you sell one to maintain your stocks, once a file has been inspected it can sell numerous times only 'costing' server space, someone posted that the 'cost' of inspecting a file was $60, which sounded like a bizarre number pulled out of thin air to me, and they didn't make an attempt to justify it.
14941
« on: September 19, 2010, 07:36 »
Okay, well it looks like a happened to take a random sample that may have been a scout image or something. I went back and looked at a bunch more and now it looks like both exclusives and non-exclusives are at 5-7 days. So I wonder what happened to the exclusive faster reviews benefit.
It disappears from time to time until enough exclusives get tetchy about it. The queue is currently standing at 72554, though there have been speculations as to how accurate that is. Maybe the inspectors are on a go-slow; maybe some have resigned; maybe they're tied up inspecting Agency files. Who knows?
14942
« on: September 18, 2010, 11:46 »
Sue, it may not set them worrying, but are you really concerned with their worrying at this point? It sounds like you are still expecting them to about-face on this. They are too deeply invested in their new strategy, and they wouldn't have started in on it so drastically if they weren't flat out required to do so.
Anyone who is hoping that anything they do is going to change iStock's mind is missing the point. This isn't about changing minds anymore, this is about who you feel comfortable doing business with.
Don't be the battered spouse who stays.
I am absolutely not expecting an about-face. They wouldn't have had the coders make the 'redeemed credits' visible if it weren't already a 'done deal'. I got a very surprising email from Support a few weeks ago in reply to a question I asked, and it confirmed my plan moving on, which is to focus on Editorial/RM at Alamy for the moment, improve my skills, then look for specialist libraries. That is the path I intend to follow until/unless I can see a benefit in doing something else. I already handed in my notice at the day job because I couldn't stand my boss's BS. Of course, I was never going to be a 'full-time iStocker' without models etc, but I'm still banking on that income stream as a big help while I figure out what to do next. I'm not hearing such fantastic things about the other micros from people who were/are independent as to think my personal grass would be greener on the other micros. YMMV - I realise that you have recent experience of being independent, but our genres are vastly different, which is fine.
14943
« on: September 18, 2010, 10:11 »
If you delete some of your port now, it will stick in your head better that there was a significant enough problem that it demanded action.
Why not take the opportunity to cull slow/non sellers and subpar images?
Unfortunately, that won't set iStock worrying.
14944
« on: September 18, 2010, 09:21 »
Good info to know. I will a little while longer. Thanks.
On a side note: I never though Right-Managed would be a direction I would go in but something in the back of my mind always had me not putting some of my favorite images up on the Micro sites because I believed those pictures were worth much more than a few dollars.
I always wanted to do Editorial/RM, but had to earn the equipment on iStock before I could afford/justify the gear! But gosh, Alamy's such a slow waiting game - to get sales and then to get paid after you get the sales.
14945
« on: September 18, 2010, 04:43 »
Sorry, Sue, I thought what I said to start with was clear enough. I still do think it is . You're misreading it (did your eye skip the word "NOT"?).
Total unreserved apology. I did miss the word 'not'.
14946
« on: September 18, 2010, 04:41 »
Also, if there's a 'processing' (i.e. technical) problem with one of your images in a batch, that whole batch (but not subsequent ones) will be held up for a week, then someone goes in and manually shifts the problem.
That doesn't necessarily mean there's something wrong with your file. I put three 'stickers' (without change) in one batch and uploaded them and they all went through in the usual 24 hours.
14947
« on: September 18, 2010, 04:25 »
If the files were stolen, why should the photographer be punished?
Indeed, if her files were stolen and her account was frozen while the matter was investigated, she should be recompensed for the time her images were offline.
They weren't stolen. She forgot to deactivate them.
You said they were stolen in your OP! How could anyone interpret what you said in the OP: "The "exclusive" inspector who was found to be selling on other sites has been reinstated. The files on Canstock have been "deactivated by the photographer" not removed from the site because they were stolen." in the way you now explain?
14948
« on: September 18, 2010, 04:11 »
If the files were stolen, why should the photographer be punished?
Indeed, if her files were stolen and her account was frozen while the matter was investigated, she should be recompensed for the time her images were offline.
14949
« on: September 17, 2010, 16:51 »
I just wanted to discuss what you all think about how the IS management is handling this circus. They've completely isolated themselves from anything that has to do with the introduced changes. They simply ignore all the contributors and the site is running like nothing is happening. Are they trying to say "We don't care what you think, so we'll ignore you" or are they unable to come up with a reasonable response - as we've seen all of their attempts so far backfired at them, so maybe they got scared. Are the higher ups not allowing them to respond?
I really don't think what to make of it.
PS: Yeah I know we have a lot of IS topics. Tyler if you think this should go to some other topic please move it.
In the OP of the current long thread, Kelly said, "But this is the system we need to go forward with, and there isn't any flexibility for now." What more would you expect him to say?
14950
« on: September 17, 2010, 16:48 »
At this point I think the best thing everyone can hope for is that iStock decides to hire a proper PR firm to try and clean up the PR disaster started by Kelly. Sounds like the way BP handled the oil spill or the pope took care of the child abuse scandal in the church. 
I absolutely do NOT want a PR spin. I want the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth. But I'm almost certainly whistling down the wind.
|
Sponsors
Microstock Poll Results
Sponsors
|
Show Posts
