|
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 - Sean Locke Photography
2926
« on: September 19, 2013, 20:53 »
The article seems to indicate it was taken and submitted as editorial content and was resold as RF or RM. She does not appear to be suing the photographer.
You mean "taken and submitted as editorial content and" licensed for commercial usage.
2928
« on: September 19, 2013, 09:16 »
Good, Ron. It would be usefull if those people who had a clear understanding educated the rest of us. If they are stocksy contributors they could even show us examples and tell us why the images qualify.
Not falling into that trap again. Examples: Front curated page: www.stocksy.comFacebook timeline with spotlighted images: https://www.facebook.com/stocksyunitedWeekly favorites from FB timeline post: http://www.stocksy.com/stock-photos?g=2678
2930
« on: September 18, 2013, 14:54 »
there are a lot of Stocksy contributors here that would probably be able to give you some direction.
I wouldn't dare any more ! 
2931
« on: September 18, 2013, 14:46 »
I think that ShadySue is correct when she says that Stocksy is primarily a lifestyle site. When I do a search for "Landscapes" or "Seascapes" what I mostly see are flat and washed-out images; kind of reminds me of depressing Soviet era architecture.
There are plenty of beautiful landscape, animal, insect, food and everything else images as much as there are people images.
2932
« on: September 18, 2013, 06:15 »
It leaves me bewildered and worried.
Can that kind of pictures sell? Is it art on a level I do not comprehend?
I guess it isn't for you then. We've already done the "I don't see a style" thing and all.
2933
« on: September 17, 2013, 15:13 »
The new logo is good, but it'll take a concerted effort and real rewards to return the trust of designers and artists. iStock's dead in the water without them.
But... but... it's got a period at the end!
2934
« on: September 17, 2013, 14:55 »
Yep, free ideas for everyone! Auto parts! Hip mom!
2935
« on: September 17, 2013, 13:48 »
2936
« on: September 17, 2013, 13:38 »
But within the stock category, hands down, and very easy decision, priority goes to Stocksy.
Yep, since I am only on DP, Pond, Photoshelter and GL, the obvious choice for effort goes to Stocksy, which beats them all combined by about 1000%.
2937
« on: September 17, 2013, 11:07 »
"we respectfully ask that you do the same and keep specific information about your earnings private. General characterizations are fine."
That seems a bit restrictive. Wonder what extent is too much.
90 days seems fine now, until someone decides they need out this minute! I'm not a fan of restrictions like that. If you wanted that thing at the store, you should have bought it when you saw it.
2938
« on: September 17, 2013, 10:13 »
Anyone else think they should have left any mention of Getty out of the logo? If they're looking to rebrand and ditch the perception that they are overpriced (I'm assuming that's part of this since they made an effort to lower prices and let buyers know about it), why tie in to Getty so clearly, when Getty is known among designers as a more expensive option?
It also doesn't look very good when squeezed down to a tiny icon in the top left of the site pages. Do "logos" really have statements like "by Getty Images" as part?
2940
« on: September 17, 2013, 08:41 »
2941
« on: September 17, 2013, 08:36 »
"Study: 7 out of 7 reviewers have eight different opinions.
Impress them the first time with
original content available only from iStock.
Visit iStock.com for the best content at the right price. [iStock. logo; free the creatives logo]"
I don't even know what that all means. I think it's supposed to be funny but it isn't. And we all know that the deal with "original content". Well, we know the deal with "unique" content and "exclusive" content. I'm not sure what "original" content is supposed to tell us.
2943
« on: September 16, 2013, 15:50 »
Haha... I was hoping for a brand new, fast site. All I got was a new logo.
At least it's fast.
2944
« on: September 16, 2013, 15:49 »
istock period end of story, no more istockphoto. it shows a clear break with the past.
I might buy that. But that will lose meaning over time.
2945
« on: September 16, 2013, 15:41 »
Right. It does for me too.
I just wondered if they'd bought that domain or whether it was a porn site or Shutterstock had bought it or...
Looks like it's been redirecting to istockphoto.com for almost a decade.
Well, yes, but the point is, if you're now "iStock", then part of that "launch", should be to redirect to the domain of the same name. Not the old name. Sort of like the legal documents all say iStockphoto. So, is it still iStockphoto, and they just chop off the "photo" bit for a logo graphic, or is it a company name change?
2946
« on: September 16, 2013, 15:40 »
I'm sticking by my answer, it looks like a website with the dot in front of and behind 'istock'. But who knows, I don't get most logos. It's up on the website now.
I might buy that if they were trying to be clever and incorporate the TM like that, but the circles are different sizes, so obviously, the period doesn't relate.
2947
« on: September 16, 2013, 15:32 »
At least they own www.iStock.com (although it doesn't load any faster than istockphoto.com 
I'm sure the agencies paid to design all of this are happy, but I don't see any customer-focused anything that gets improved by a lick of paint on the front door.
They need to fix the slow broken things on the site, not design a new logo or slap fake hand-picked signs on batches of ingested Getty files.
For me, istock just redirects to istockphoto.
2948
« on: September 16, 2013, 15:30 »
I still don't get it.  The first one is a trademark symbol.
2950
« on: September 16, 2013, 14:38 »
Oops! The forum thread went poof! No ruining surprises there, lol.
|
Sponsors
Microstock Poll Results
Sponsors
|
Show Posts
