BTW aren't they getting rid of the "only from istock" tag?

To make an "only from istock" search filter button.  Which they already have.  The exclusive filter button.

Looks like they're building it around the lie of "only on istock" content.  From the ad images on that page.

surely it's just a model release with your mum as the guardian?

it does pose an interesting question: what about if my mum is dead?  sorry, off topic a bit.

No, the OP just signs the release.  No need for guardian.

Why should Yuri make all the details of its agreements with Getty publicly? Who knows, maybe it's completely okay, if he offers his image on MP. And, incidentally, MP is such a bizarre agency, I do not even know if you could call MP  "agency" at all.

Perhaps you're missing the point that the label "Only On iStock" is not negotiable, nor consolable with him selling his content on other sites, including his own.

Quote from: bhr on September 12, 2013, 11:35

Quote from: ShadySue on September 12, 2013, 10:50

They have said for years that best match depends only on the top four keywords, as determined by buyer behaviour.

I have never heard that before. Are you sure they have been saying this for years?

Yes, at least since BM2.

No, there was never any restriction to the top four keywords.  best match did depend on the relevancy factor of the term vs. the terms on the image, and yes, the top four were used in the "see more" link.  But best match was not restricted to four.

I use blurb for my personal scrapbooks.

That interview is laughable.  He should have given it on stage with a microphone and a brick wall behind him.

"We also have a love and respect for the product, which is a problem, to be honest. I'm often told by critics that we're not customer-focused enough, and it's true. Every decision that we make, the first question that we ask ourselves is not: "Is this good for the customer?" It should be the first question. Instead, it's: "How will our contributors and partners react? Does it make sense for them? Is it the right thing to do in the long-term?""

Have we ever had the sense that contributors were first?  For example, I am trying to remove some content from Getty, and I'm basically told that it is being held hostage (as is every image there), unless I terminate.  I don't imagine they thought how contributors and partners would react when they sold work to Google for $12 to the contributor.

"You see businesses like Shutterstock that are doing extremely well with no content. Their pictures are available on pretty much every other website, but they are doing extremely well because it's so easy."

I don't even know what "no content" is supposed to mean.

there is no wall unless you covered all possible subjects which is kind of hard I believe

Oh, it's there.  While you're off busy covering Y and Z, having already done W and X, some other person is just doing W and X, and yours get shuffled out of sight.

I uploaded a few clips and then "forgot about" Pond5 for quite a while. It was only when I got a sale that I figured it was worth looking into more. Most of the content was uploaded in the last 2 years and a lot of it is SD which obviously is less in demand. My current split is around 2700 HD and 4500 SD.

My view on stock is that it is a long term investment - I earn my "corn" in other areas of TV (I'll give you a clue - my username!).

At the moment I earn $X00 a month from this stock on Pond5. The goal through adding more footage by either shooting more myself (over 1000 clips currently in edit / upload) or buying other portfolios is to get to $X000 fairly quickly at which point it should be self financing (i.e to allow me to pay people to shoot and edit for me).

At least that is the plan! I already completed the purchase of 1 library which I am keeping separate at the moment and am negotiating to buy another.

TE

So, if there is so much money, why would anyone want to sell you their work?

Quote from: wordplanet on September 03, 2013, 18:40

I have no clue what stocksy really wants but just had to chime in here and say your stuff is gorgeous. The animals are particularly fine and would seem IMHO to fit their style in terms of being well-crafted for stock without feeling so stocky. Difficult to explain but the animals have the kind of feel I get from looking at the site.

Lots of your other stuff has that same feel - I'd say make a gallery with the stuff you think they'd like - you have a sense of what they're looking for I'm sure - trust your instincts - and send them that link in October. Good luck. Their loss if they say no again - really fine work.

Well said, I couldn't agree more.

I'm confused too. I'd have thought Pete's work was spot-on for Stocksy. I struggle to accept Sean's theory of Stocksy's 'look' being so ultra-defined. It seems to me that if you happen to be an ex-Istock exclusive 'good old boy' you can get plenty of weak rubbish accepted that in no way conveys the precious 'look'.

I'm staggered that Stocksy appear to be so far up their own arse that they turn down outstanding portfolios like Pete's. It's not as if Pete is demanding his entire portfolio be accepted ... Stocksy won't even accept him as an artist. Ridiculous.

I'm not saying that it isn't a nice collection of imagery that wouldn't be saleable elsewhere.  I'm just saying my opinion that the portrait section is heavily filtered and very stylized, and that may be something that jumped out at them when looking and it certainly isn't 'spot on'.  Also, as mentioned, it does appear that the available collection of work is small.

Not to worry - I won't be offering comment in the future on what portfolio might work or not.  You'll just have to opine from the available material, and then complain a lot.

"I assume the content and style in these mail outs changes each week?"

You don't have to assume.  You can go look at the Facebook page for previous mail outs.  The look is pretty consistent across the weeks.

Sorry, my thoughts are from looking at the images on the site, what they are promoting, and the Pinterest board.  All publicly available so you can draw your own thoughts.

Now, this is just my opinion of course. 

Your portraits section appears overly filtered for the kind of image I think they are wanting.  Lots of grain, heavy contrast, color manipulation.  I'm not saying it isn't interesting, but it isn't what they clearly promo in their weekly mail outs, for instance. 

The landscape section is nice, I especially like: http://www.petesherrardphotography.com/Portfolio/Landscapes/20876662_WFmF2f#!i=1657604413&k=VTtrGJS .  Perhaps it is not extensive or iconic enough in it's representation of the world.

The people in places doesn't show a lot of variety - there are several of the same person running through a dark area.  They are mostly far shots/anonymous. 

You do have some great animal shots.  Some better than others.

At this point, maybe it is because you seem to be concentrating on the kind of thing in your people section, but that isn't really the style they are looking for.

Quote from: jen on September 02, 2013, 19:36

Did you put your email address in their "put your email address here if you're curious" page before the site launched?

highly unlikely, honestly i can't remember. but if i did, it would not have been using the email they contacted me on. as a general rule, for all unknowns in the www world, of which stocksy would have been at the time, i never use my personal email, instead i have a special email just for www land. another reason it is unlikely is that i did not like the whole secrecy aspect of the clique, that too was a turn off.

i do know there was a period when there was referrals going on from the people in the know, perhaps mine got passed along. it was a rather secretive clique at the beginning and i most likely knew one or two of them. that's my guess.

anyway, not interested in stocksy for the reasons mentioned and for a few other reasons.

good luck with it.

Instead of getting your panties in a twist over "might" or whatever, be excited that a friend of yours thought that your work was good enough to submit your name to an organization with a limited membership.  Or don't.