Quote from: RT on September 10, 2010, 13:07

Quote from: Brandon Seidel on September 09, 2010, 21:11
The point is simple.  They are working on trying to make iStock exclusive only and pay 20%.

Exclusivity in RF means nothing these days, the images on Getty's main site aren't all exclusive and haven't been for a long time, I can't see any reason why they'd want iS as an all exclusive agency.

I agree with lagereeks statement "Getty wants more money"

OK Getty wants more money.  They don't want to pay more than 20% to any contributor.  They want to maintain the illusion of Exslcusivity for marketing purposes and therefore need to maintain some spread between exclusive and non-exclusive content.  They aren't trying to get rid of independent contributors; they just don't care if they keep them.
Seriously there are major parts of this decision that seem to defy logic.

Quote from: Brandon Seidel on September 09, 2010, 21:11
The point is simple.  They are working on trying to make iStock exclusive only and pay 20%.

They will continue to drop the % for non-exclusives until they all leave (or work for free).  In the process they will drive exclusives down also to 20% like the rest of Getty and throw a few unreachable goals to keep the mice turning the wheel.

Once that is done, the door to iStock will be exclusive only and 20% (or less starting out).

That is my prediction.  Only time will tell.

As others have said, its not about "losing" money or being about to "sustain" the business; its about their long term (or short) goals and how they can get there.

+++++1  And we have a winner!
The sad irony is they are modeling the profitable segment of their business after the unprofitable segment.  They don't care about losing non-exclusives or the casual contributor because they are planning on doing their "crowdsourcing" through Flickr.

Any chance they're referring to necessary information in your profile?

Quote from: djpadavona on August 26, 2010, 23:41
FWIW I have had 4 consecutive solid week days at iStockphoto, and today is my best DL day since June 16. 

I noticed a bit of an uptick myself right after I read about the 25% discount.  Perhaps the discount is making a difference or perhaps some people are getting back into work mode now that school has started.

Quote from: nruboc on August 26, 2010, 20:08

Quote from: lisafx on August 26, 2010, 19:59

Quote from: gostwyck on August 26, 2010, 17:08

Quote from: sjlocke on August 26, 2010, 16:45
Sounds like little Miss Sunnymars has taken their toys and gone home.

No point in acknowledging (let alone feeding) the trolls. The Ignore button was invented for such cases.

Normally I would agree with you about ignoring trolls, but there is something oddly compelling and entertaining about watching someone have a complete psychotic break in the forums.  Which appears to be what we are witnessing here.   

LOL...... I was thinking the same thing

LOL!

There are a lot of Exclusives as well as Non-exclusives who have great school images that were ignored or overloooked.  I don't think it's IStock catering to Exclusive's as much as IStock pushing Vetta, catering to a few select photographers and not wanting to be bothered taking the time to do it right.

If you have had an entire series rejected, try Scouting one of them and ask for clarification on the rejection reason.  It might surprise you.

As cropped "B" no contest.

As for "A", I agree with the previous post.  Upload both but crop "A" down more. 

Quote from: lisafx on August 10, 2010, 18:20
My sales at IS are the same level of lousy that they have been for the last couple of months.  No change here, unfortunately...

Ditto.  I was thinking all the sales had gone over to Non-Exclusive Photogs because of the price increase.  Guess that isn't so.

B & H has it for new for only $300 more.  Why take a chance on what essentially is a used camera?

Stop with the cropping already.  I looked at the first three.  As others noted the first one would have been OK but for the cropping.  Glanced at a few in the second batch and every one was cropped.  You're shooting for designers.  They like to do their own cropping.

In the legal definitions section are Collection and Content the same? 

Offhand, I think of Collection as all those items for license and Content as everything on the site which would include forum postings.

If the definitions are the same, the first statement is telling you why they'll reject your photo and the second is telling you why the other guy's got in.

Actually parody or no, they are using the website to make money.  Note Google ads down left column.

Kudos for the school though for not hiding behind the "fair use" doctrine that is so often abused.

This week's Hot Shots is enough to make me consider the whole Fickr Getty thing.

Somehow the comment that if IStock rejected it then Getty wouldn't think it's good enough over on Flickr just doesn't ring true.

Looks like her last post was April 2007.  Guess she gave up after all.

Two months of nonsense F5 posts.  I can't wait.... 

What's not to be concerned about?  The "new improved best match" or the "changed lightboxes"

Designer's actually use lightboxes.  If a file isn't selling but it's in a lot of private lightboxes, I know it's a winner.  It will just take time.

As for the best match, I could have sworn they said E* files got a boost so I put a file that had decent views into the collection and views stopped dead in the water?  Um, yeah.

I think it's probably time to redesign the site with all the social networking and mobile devices that have come into play in the past few years, but that doesn't mean it doesn't make me very nervous.

Quote from: lisafx on June 17, 2010, 14:47
Interesting.  Jonathan, it sounds like you shoot and upload in big batches and then have some periods of relatively little activity.  Is that correct?

If so, I wonder how that would stack up against someone who shoots and uploads consistently about the same amount of images every week or month.  

Most of us have seen that we can sit on our laurels for at least a few months with relatively little drop in sales.  I wonder if flooding the market with a thousand or so images after a relative dry spell would be likely to produce a big bump in sales, where just uploading the same images at a rate of 30-50/week would go unnoticed by buyers.

Shooting subject matter at a certain time isn't going to influence when it's needed.  Sure on some of the sub sites, designers might download a file just because it's there.  But for the most part, I think if they need "an elephant perfoming in a circus in spring", they're not going to download something else because someone uploaded a lot at one time.

These scam artists are too cheap to even license different pictures.  Looks like they used the same pictures several times.

Since there are no real names associated with the pictures only the people who know the models in real life would be able to make the connection.  Hopefully these people can figure out that their next door neighbor isn't really flying to some foreign country to rip people off.

I tell professional models to visit the site and read all licensing agreements prior to our shoot.  Friends, family and people on the street, I try to inform them as best as possible.

I'd check with support or have the buyer check to be sure but I think you're right.  They would be redistributing an electronic version of your file.

Quote from: donding on May 29, 2010, 01:14
You need to try to get a hold of Chad. Try through the customer support on the main page if you have to. They are suppose to pay you the money owed. From what I understood, Chad said, they will issue 1099's rather you withdrew the money or not. I don't know if this relates to you, but Chad told me they make final payout if you close your account rather it was to the payout limit or not, so keep on them. I just ask to have my account deleted last week and still am waiting for a reply. They withheld taxes on me at the beginning of the year for my screw up, but they HAVE to pay you that money especially if they give you a 1099 or withheld taxes. Otherwise they'll have the IRS on their back.

A 1099 whether you were paid the money or not?  Sorry to be OT but I've having a hard time wrapping my mind around that.

click_click- A photographer reselling an image as their own is a violation of copyright regardless of where it was licensed it but that wasn't the original parameter for this thread.

I'm all for protecting copyright but be careful how you do it.  I still maintain that if I legally license an image and am using it within the guidelines of the license, I have no obligation to produce documentation to the photographer proving that I am doing so.  I would contact the agency that I licensed it from and make a complaint. Furthermore if a false allegation was made on a blog damaging my brand I would pursue legal action.

As for ELs, have you carefully read the user agreements on all the sites you contribute to?  Several of them allow usage that would be considered EL by some sites.

Quote from: click_click on May 18, 2010, 13:30

Quote from: fullvalue on May 18, 2010, 13:15
...I think if I was contacted by a photographer after licensing an image and proof was demanded I'd immediately contact the agency and file a complaint.  Who needs that hassle.  If you "exposed me" because I refused to give you proof, you'd be talking to my llawyer.  What if every RF photographer did this?  Obviously you have a problem with the RF model.

Fullvalue, would you mind explaining this a little more? I seem to have a problem understanding what you are trying to say.

From what you wrote above I understand that you won't tell or show proof to any photographer that contacts you asking where you purchased the image?

So even though you are a paying image user you will not tell the copyright holder of the image that you chose to use, where you purchased the image?

Sorry for repeating myself, I just thought I might have misunderstood you there for a moment.

Let's say I design a website that uses 6 images.  Do I need to provide proof now to 6 photographers?

Also, don't forget, I licesned the images from a third party.  My contract is with them.  The photographer's contract is with them.  I don't have a contract with the photographer.  They have no reason to contact me.  If they have a problem they need to contact the third party.

Quote from: sjlocke on May 18, 2010, 12:23

Quote from: elvinstar on May 18, 2010, 05:03
It's my understanding that you have to buy a new license for each website if you would like to use the same image for more than one project.

I could be wrong though.

Yeah, you're definitely wrong.

Yep.  Maybe contributing photographers should take the time to read the usage agreement.

Although I can't speak for every site, when you down load an image from IS you get a receipt for the download.  A good practice is to print out the current usage agreement in force at the time of the license and staple it to the image, although I'll admit I don't always do this step.

I think if I was contacted by a photographer after licensing an image and proof was demanded I'd immediately contact the agency and file a complaint.  Who needs that hassle.  If you "exposed me" because I refused to give you proof, you'd be talking to my llawyer.  What if every RF photographer did this?  Obviously you have a problem with the RF model.

Quote from: ShadySue on May 02, 2010, 18:25

Quote from: fullvalue on May 02, 2010, 18:21
I'm not talking about the quality of the photography simple the availability of correct subject matter, locations and accessories for those photographers.
Clothing styles, architecture, furniture, etc. all vary from country to country and designers do care about those details.

I'm guessing that markets in other countries will be targetted as time goes on. Any time I've looked actually to buy (very seldom, to be honest) I haven't found what I wanted because the 'look' is too American. That's understandable as it's the main market. But the style doesn't translate, even to the UK a lot of the time, far less other cultures.

True.  And you prove my point.  There may be openings for more microstock photographers around the world but a single low cost source "flooding the market" isn't going to happen.