I think that while ago I see in Stokas and other sites TOS that you can use they small watermarked image in you jabbering or blogging within any cost!!!
Now flyby thru this site "author" says that iStock has too much patient and now they are angry about violating about copyright infringement and that it must be stopped?!?
what???

A Day before I want to bet if this thumbling thru they site will bee fully functional at all until the end of this year. Finally geeks do something but only as I see is few changes in CSS basically as I mention before.
They only "BIG THING IS TO PUT SEARCH FIELD IN LINE WITH THEY LOGO"
and put our stuff at the bottom (Wow what a big deal)
So is that all what are they talking about too much time?
In my language it is called "Fart in the pot", (let say for better hearing something which can't be loud basically and not have purpose at all)
As an old septic about them, money at end of month will say all.
See you in the next "Storm in cup of tea" pool results...

PS
If sales dont give up after they cheap CSS games I will comb hairdo of geek from "professional iStock video" on other side (of his head I mean)... Head will be in same direction untouched 

Quote from: waseefakhtar on August 05, 2010, 18:31

Okay.. this is my first ever thread here.. couldn't decide which category should this belong to.. Sorry admins/mods if this is posted in wrong category.

Well, I've been contacted by a flickr member asking for this photo of mine http://www.flickr.com/photos/waseef/2851057533/#sizes/l/ for a project of an educational institution. You can see the company logo prominently on the photo. His demo webapp is here http://wendlink.com/magpie and I just don't wanna give it for free. A few images similar to that has been used by the company officially, but not this one. And I just can't decide that should I tell him to use Getty's Request to license, will they allow selling the image with a logo if somebody needs it? or should I ask him to give me a few bucks for it. Also suggest me how much is this worth?

I�ll let you know what he says in the email later on...

Are you selling your images or just having fun making them and giving them away?
If not, don't give it for free!
From my experience, if you give them the image for free, they will soon ask for another one, and you will be their favorite photographer! Also, maybe their friend will show up asking for another image (for free). This has no end, so end it now.
One more time my suggestion is: no freebies.

Regards

Maybe for this kind of wrong WB and noisy crap snap is OK to bee freebee as is on this "filcker" but to define it with "gift away buyer" to link this image to some of referal links to you gallery is maybe OK.
I am not on Flicker so I dont have this problems about wasting time...

$100K is a bit optimistic... however it's a good picture, I like colours - whatever she earned it's well deserved

Is it joke or another glitch in they perfect fabulous "system"
For me it is good snapshot with lets say good composition but wrong white balance at all, and if I am inspector I will refuse it. (I dont look image in full size but maybe there is some noise and all over an all over overprocessing problems which I gave from them form day to day)
Actually I see that author of image improve his skills and he also knows that he shoot image as snap and in his early days didnt know about Levels and Curves or other Photoshop tools, just for bad manipulation on color balance tool and thats it.
Allsoo I thing this image is in some kind of they dollar bin which survive month after month with downloads.
Lets compare this case in this way.
If there is half millions of buyers at iStock its means that 3.8% of them by this image.
Anyhow he/she/it is exclusives and for them iStock have another optics...

Okay.. this is my first ever thread here.. couldn't decide which category should this belong to.. Sorry admins/mods if this is posted in wrong category.

Well, I've been contacted by a flickr member asking for this photo of mine http://www.flickr.com/photos/waseef/2851057533/#sizes/l/ for a project of an educational institution. You can see the company logo prominently on the photo. His demo webapp is here http://wendlink.com/magpie and I just don't wanna give it for free. A few images similar to that has been used by the company officially, but not this one. And I just can't decide that should I tell him to use Getty's Request to license, will they allow selling the image with a logo if somebody needs it? or should I ask him to give me a few bucks for it. Also suggest me how much is this worth?

I�ll let you know what he says in the email later on...

As I see wannabe buyer has educational site from all kind of various programs. Maybe some of this is course in photography so he want to show how to deal with wrong white balance... 

There's also some worrying stuff about agreeing to indemnify iStock against any accusations made against them, valid or not... Right up to the point of paying their legal fees for them!

I'm obviously not planning to infringe upon anyone else's copyright. But this looks like cause for concern. Does anyone else share my concern? Has this ever affected anyone here?

First is for pain in the ass, and second is for ass paining...
Wellcome to club of unbreakable ass plasters.
Otherways you will must prepare youself to study which is you most prefered lubricant. 

As old tovarish AKA dictator Stalin says: People means problem. So no people no problemos...

I'll try to explain more precisely what Suljo means when he says "iStock" instead of Istock.
I think the best comparison in English would be "*insult removed*".
I mean, when we say for someone that he is "iStock", that means he is the most primitive, rude, not always stupid, but mean person without any feelings for people around him.

I hope the term "iStock" is more clear to everybody here now.

Obviously Suljo, you really hate Istock. I always wondered why you hate them so much? Is it because of rejection rate, or something else? Do they reject your images mostly because of keywords or not?
It confuses me a bit that you have decent sales there, and yet you are very angry at them. Maybe you explained in some thread why you feel that way, but I missed it.

I will try to explain it but my forum skills are not good enough to quote all "dilemma" about my "adoration" and explanation what my famous iStock site means to me and where are I see me in they hierarchy.
So lets start in this way.

I don't think Suljo hates IStock.
If he truly did, he would have stopped uploading.
I think he likes complaining, he's very vocal, and gets irritated by some of IStock's policies.
And he's right. I do too.
To keep it in a nutshell, everything about IStock is overly complicated.

I dont hate them (little bit of course when reject my image or illusrtation) because of they nonconsitanceand and nonobjectively policy, iStock wants from non exclusives flat dull images and flat illustrations which not pick stick in eye of wanabee buyer designers (after that they send you "lets say gentle explanation how they "wanabee" "Designers" like it just flat how they to this image they own crappy filters, while they accept exclusive image which was over saturated, over manipulated and over and over of everything???
I understand that is they primitive way to put away our images from buyers + they best match strategy.
Illustrations are story for lobotomy there too.
For even better image they incriminate you in first place that you copy that from someone image for which you dont have copyright and dont have image shotted by youself???
Of course that I dont have that because I draw it from my head.
How I can tell them that I am not naive and that I dont need to sketch something on paper and draw it under this fckin sketch?!?

@Suljo:
If you'd ever shown a potential (albeit probably small, but steady) buyer iStock, and let them search to see how it worked, and the search result (because of poor keywording) was so bad they were calling their colleagues over for a laugh, you'd wish that everyone who spammed their keywords would have a six-month ban.
Of course, that was before BM2, which has obviated some of the worst excesses.
But then came Vetta, where a lot of the keywording is poor, but it dominates the search results.
 :'(

PS: granted that keywording if your own language isn't one of the supported languages must be a real nightmare.

You are right for bad keywords, they are real nightmare. I also buy images from time to time but form DT mostly (in principle way I DONT WANT TO BUY/CONVERT by earnings from iStock even they have eg "better" search engine for exclusive image which I DONT WANT in same reason mentioned above.

Yes Lisa,
Basic meaning of the term "iStock" is a livestock. People are using the term normally when they talk about domestic animals like cows, pigs etc.
But when you say that someone is "iStock" that means what I said before. Someone who is "iStock" probably acts like a pig.

Heh Ivan
In our language it is more clear what iStock is but for meanings what iStock is deserves better explanation.
When I talk with my stock friends on coffee/beer on our language in our we omit letter "i" and after that is word STOcK and thru our declinations iStock eg. (iStock mi opet odkantala fotku/ilistraciju/iStock again reject my image/illustration)

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Anyhow this post above is my interpretation of meaning/s of what iStock is. But somehow I watch Mad Max 1, 2, 3 again and try to compare it in my vision how it works in my perspective.

Mad Max 3: Beyond Thunderdome Battle

During and after watching I somehow recognize that Tina Turner is "Daddy Getty", Midget MasterBlaster is "iStock", Ugly Blaster is/are "reviewer/s", public behind are iStock exclusives on they forum and we nonexclusives are not Mel Gibson but we are representing all what Ugly Blaster kills before his advent.
Only if we keep our mouth shut we can be in they *insult removed* arena...

From my degenerative optics sweetest part of movie is when they lift down Midget (iStock) to pigs (lets say us ... 
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
So from different perspectives iSTOCK or iStock doesn't necessary means that they are Cattle or Livestock, anyhow they are not cruel *insult removed* in other way like some kind of introduction of Frantz Kafka mentioned in his PROCESS but *insult removed* are lets say Ok muvie...


---------------------------------------------------------------------------------
My conclusion anyhow if I am rude or whatever is they not evaluate same work in same manner, and that is well of injustice which is presented all time which I spend with them.
The movie has multiple layers and in some times I wonder that I am pig while they drop lifting "Midget Master Blaster" to us (contributors)
Njamyyyyyy......

I remember istock raising the limits in the summer months a few times before.  They then lower them again when uploads increase in the autumn.

+1
Just before my vacation.
Anyhow I needed bigger canister few months when I started with them. For now I cant remember when I upload more that 10 images per week.

Quote from: Suljo on July 29, 2010, 21:34

Time lapse videos from hatching will be cool too 

I only witnessed one hatching and I didn't want to be too intrusive, so the video was shot on a low ambient light.

With time lapse I mean that you shoot stills from tripod eg every 5 seconds (I think it is minimum for canon timelapse software, or shoot with remote every few seconds) I dont mean to record in video mode in first place.
After that you can import images as image sequence in some video software and woila you have time lapse video. 

Quote from: Suljo on July 29, 2010, 21:07

why you dont have them in you port 

I do, but not in micros.

Time lapse videos from hatching will be cool too 

After my complains they introduce new HQ professional iStock video interview from RodgerNewMexico from they new studio about pre launch of August implementation of lamentation.
There is minor bug in they system so for now only Croatian version is available  

Normalnofobija Krastavi

I have a very strange Veer trend for the last 4 months: Views Way UP, Sales Zero.
What a disappointment.

Did you mean something like that?
For me from they beginnings they looks like some kind of wanabee designers spot light like, not flicker but profiled Deviant. Eg like Getty has Fljiker koljekshn, somehow Veer has they own collection of over priced wannabee items.
After that when microstock come in they place they realize that they wanabee design mode is overpriced and that "photo snapers" from SnapWillage has something larger in they heads than one salt crystal eg (Homers brain).
I thing they are so confused in which quantity they got good work and some how want to join it together...
So there is the second lounch 
Something like
even a blind squirrel find a nut once in a while.
In my language there is no blind squirrel but blind chicken in same phase anyhow with last sales on them they made more than BigStock and 123 combined