Quote from: jsnover on August 30, 2011, 18:19
What independents could choose to do, with some cost to them, but not as much as pulling their portfolios from iStock, is give new content to other sites first - for a few months - and only to iStock later.

That's been happening for years for a lot of independents, especially the large producers - because of the upload limits.

In some ways it only goes to strengthen the iStock "campaign" of having the best quality images, because by the time it comes to being able to upload content you did from a shoot 6,12,18 months ago you already know which are the best sellers so you upload them to iStock.

Quote from: lagereek on August 30, 2011, 16:34
Getty have NO option but to sooner or later enforce a 100% exclusivity.....

Can't see that happening, considering iStock recently introduced 'The Agency Collection' which is non-exclusive, and a very large (if not the largest) portion of work on GettyImages is non-exclusive.

Quote from: stockmarketer on August 30, 2011, 15:08
Does anyone realize the real impact this survey will have?  Someone at ISP is no doubt watching these results and saying to a co-worker, "See, I told you we could stick it to them even harder than last time and they'd end up asking for more."

Apparently there's no breaking point at which people will say No More.  And if ISP didn't know it before, they do now.

I respect everyone's right to make a decision on their own, but I fear this type of forum is essentially organizing a response from some of ISP's most prolific and successful contributors to send a loud and clear message: "We're OK with this.  Keep the abuse coming."

As I hinted at earlier, for a long time the vast majority of people here have been singing the praises of Shutterstock - a site where a buyer can license an XXL image for which the contributor receives 38c or less, why when other sites lower commissions or take moves like this recent one by iS people are surprised or outraged is beyond me.

Dress it up however you want but we all (well probably 99% or us) value our work at 38c or less for an XXL. My RPI has been and no doubt still will be higher at iS than any of the other microstock sites, and yes there are many things I grudge about iS but as long as they continue to bring me the most revenue for my portfolio each month I'll stay there.

For ages independent contributors having been coming to this forum and stating how their sales on Shutterstock have been growing and that they are their biggest earning site - well guess what, iStock read it and now they're taking action.

Quote from: lisafx on August 28, 2011, 20:51
He talks about the fact that their one shareholder "care very much" about how Getty is run, but that "we paid them a very large dividend last year" so they are happy for the time being. 

Contributor commissions - Unsustainable

Very large dividends for shareholders - Sustainable

Quote from: lisafx on August 04, 2011, 23:39
Well, lets give the guy credit.  He got through a whole announcement without saying anything boneheaded

Haha.....exactly what I thought, clearly he didn't write it. Let's just be thankful that they're finally moving this (insert whichever term you feel suits him best) into some made up position in Manhattan where he can take charge of the 'packaging' of the brand ( I'm guessing they're putting him in charge of filling the goody bags for the lypses)

Quote from: Freedom on August 02, 2011, 23:59
That's possible, but there are a few out there..., don't know what to think. 

I'm sure there are, but if you apply Newtons third law.....

Quote from: cclapper on August 02, 2011, 23:52
I know I have seen a thread in the past (over the past 6 years at some point) where cards were copyrighted.

If I remember correctly it was to do with this brand of card : http://www.usplayingcard.com/pages/copyright/16.php

I'm guessing that they've instigated this policy because to the untrained eye it would be impossible for a reviewer to know whether the card is from them or someone else, therefore blanket policy.

Quote from: KB on August 02, 2011, 18:58
I'd expect IS to begin notifying exclusives "soon" that they are in violation of their contracts. Well, once they figure that out, of course.   

They'll probably figure it out now you've highlighted it here! Oh and don't forget it takes 6 months to disable an image on Alamy.

Quote from: Freedom on August 02, 2011, 23:42
What makes it happen?

Paranoia 

Quote from: Microstock Posts on August 02, 2011, 20:10
Often after the 30 days it still shows as exclusive and often I email again.

Why? You've followed their rules, if they can't stick to their own rules then that's their problem not yours.

Quote from: lthn on July 27, 2011, 14:10

Quote from: rinderart on July 24, 2011, 05:52
... 3 people in a office situation or a spa was done 30 years ago Folks....

So why do ppl like Yuri, Andresr, etc, keep reshooting those endlessly? You all go on fantasizing and seem to forget that its micro: sales need to pile up, which meands generic... well, generic everything. I also strongly suggest not to dream about things like getting bookmarked by whoever client. I'v been a buyer for many years without even knowing the pics belong to certain indivduals... it was just a site with lots of pics. I downloaded some shots from yuri, andresr, and many others without having the slightest clue that those come from different ppl (they are so generic). I had tight deadlines, looking for shots was considered the most wasteful time spent in the workflow, what I wanted was generaly hard to find, the clock was ticking so who the f. cares who shot what, to be honest? Forget it, I -or any of my colleagues, often a dozen at a time working next to me- was never-eva'-ever looking for certain shooters, but certain kind of shots.

There's a reason you're the only one who's replied to his comment!

Quote from: Microbius on July 22, 2011, 12:18
Good point, maybe I should have said:
"It's hard to bite your tongue when people are talking BS but there's a lot to be said for perpetuating the dribble these guys are spouting.
I can see no downside to a lot of people with cameras thinking micro is a waste of time, and quite a lot wrong with convincing them otherwise."

What a lot of these folks don't realise is that they should be grateful that their work can still sell on RM at a quite decent price when in all fairness it should be that kind of work that is sold at micro prices, the majority of the people who take the anti microstock approach are those who's portfolios are full of "travel" (*) type images, the sort my 87yr old mother could take given an slr on fully automatic, they seem to think they are entitled to demand a higher price because they've had to go somewhere to take the shot. Generally speaking there's no photographic skill involved other than being somewhere with a camera and pressing a button, what they don't understand is that the internet has created a worldwide selling platform and the guy who leans out of his bedroom window to take a shot of the Great wall of China can now license his image in the same place that they can, the fact it's cost them $3000 dollars to get there is irrelevant, it's cost him nothing and his shot is as good as theirs. They should also be grateful that they can license their images on the same price platform as the guy that's made a creative conceptual image spending a lot of time and money and taking great skills to complete. The people I feel sorry for are the highly talented photographers that can spend two weeks creating one image at great expense, because their work being sold on RM is being sold at the same price as the GWC who took 100 shots in a 10 minute walk down a street market whilst on holiday with his wife and kids.
Of course I could try and argue this point with them, but I don't - they're too stupid to understand and I don't care what they think of RF and microstock.

* - There are some very talented travel photographers and I mean no disrespect to them but just like wedding and portrait photographers there are many that call themselves travel photographers when in fact they are just people that travel with a camera.

Quote from: Microbius on July 22, 2011, 11:37
It's hard to bite your tongue when people are talking BS but there's a lot to be said for perpetuating the dribble these guys are spouting.
I can see no downside to a lot of pro image makers thinking micro is a waste of time, and quite a lot wrong with convincing them otherwise.

If they we're "pro image makers" you wouldn't need to convince them, as usual in these cases the one's arguing against microstock and in most cases RF in general are the wannabee happy travel snappers who have had a few good RM sales in the past and think they're the big guns of the stock industry.

Once is a mistake, twice is incompetence and three times IMO looks very dubious. Personally I don't like my images appearing on any of the third party selling agreements the major microstocks have.

IMO they were right to reject it. Just change the red to green if the image means that much to you.

Quote from: leaf on July 20, 2011, 16:37
well it doesn't look like this would be a very easy thing to add, unless I manage to find a better way to do it than I tried yesterday.  It may have to wait until if / when the forum is upgraded to 2.0

On that note, this topic was also brought up a few years ago and the request / solution then was to put the originator of the topic on the front page so you can easily see if you probably prefer not to read the topic.  Hopefully that still helps some people.

Shame but thanks for trying

Quote from: Catastrophe on July 19, 2011, 05:30
What I mean is that I see a ton of RM images that have copyright protected content - iphones, logos, even a DVD cover, etc. How is this stuff sold as stock photography?

Because it isn't illegal to do so. RM and RF are just terms to describe how an image is licensed, it's nothing to do with the content of the image.

Quote from: Catastrophe on July 19, 2011, 05:30
Is it somehow being sold as editorial only?

Maybe but that's only because the site it's being sold on requires it to be so because of their policy. Not the case on Alamy unless you set an editorial restriction yourself.

Quote from: Catastrophe on July 19, 2011, 05:30
It seems that images like this could not be used without a release except for in very specific journalistic instances.

Yes and No, as others have pointed out it all depends on the end usage.

I don't want to confuse you (it will and many others to) but there is no law to say that a copyright or trademarked product can not be used in a commercial sense, it happens every single day in thousands of adverts around the world - confused? To understand how you need to understand copyright and trademark law, which is very hard if your knowledge base is from the stock industry. No stock agency in the world would be able to control or indeed specify the exact terms to what, where and when certain products in an image could and couldn't be used, therefore they make general terms to protect themselves plus to a certain extent the contributor and in the case of Alamy they ask a general question as to whether anything in the image requires a property release to use the image commercially, it would be more accurate if they asked 'Is there anything in the image that might infringe on another parties IP rights' and as Racephoto pointed out above they then issue a more accurate disclaimer to buyers.

And before you or anybody else asks for examples, next time you watch TV carefully examine the adverts especially the ones shot in a city or home, look out for background objects and see how many you can spot that would likely be trademarked, copyright or design protected, the people who made the ad won't have got a property release for those objects because they don't need one.

Quote from: leaf on July 19, 2011, 21:27
I see the use in such a feature and I'm not sure yet how much work it would be.  There doesn't seem to be any add-ons that do exactly what you are asking so it would have to be a bit of a hack, which is do-able certainly but the time needed to do so is not certain.

I wouldn't ask for any payment though.. if there was enough people who were interested in the feature it would be worthwhile to add.

Thanks Tyler

Quote from: lagereek on July 18, 2011, 07:36
However it has to be understood, there is a VAST differance between a Micro reviewer and a professional picture-editor. A micro reviewer will get thrown a few softwares and will then sit there trying to detect technical issues, while a picture-editor is much more concerned with, say composition, colors, commercial value and saleabillity, does the shot convey a message? fit the product and so on.

I'm not going to argue you with you on this point, you and I both know two of the worlds most successful stock photographers who's work wouldn't pass a microstock inspection and yet they outselll every microstocker that there is. However a microstock reviewer is told to review for technical issues first and foremost, it's the microstock genre 'cheap technically sound photos' to complain about a reviewer doing what they've been told to do isn't an issue I have, I do however have an issue being told that an image I submit which is technically fine isn't going to sell - especially by a reviewer who's had less sales in five years that I get in one week with a portfolio one third the size of theirs - now that's something that should be addressed.

I've added a poll to keep it simply and to enable people to make their views known without having to comment, if you've previously commented please add your vote.

To be totally clear for those that are unsure what this is all about the thread ignore button would be a way for you personally to organise the site so that when you visit the home page you have the ability to remove the threads you don't want to read, that could be for whatever reason you so wish. It would not effect the way others see the site, it wouldn't remove any threads for others to see and most importantly it doesn't infringe on anybodies right of free speech.

Quote from: thesentinel on July 19, 2011, 20:18
Where would we be if we always had to to pander to those "can't be bothered" - I think that says more about the OP than the posters he wishes to ignore.

You might be in a situation whereby you spent less time here filtering through threads which would enable you to get more work done, maybe even enough to reach black diamond.

Quote from: cobalt on July 19, 2011, 07:28
RT

I find your comments and those of the other posters above very offensive. This subject is of interest for many people, especially the istock exclusives.

If you personally dislike Shank than please take your sandbox fight elsewhere. Or just ignore him, problem solved.

I really don't need you to police a thread I am interested in.

Please stay out of threads if the subject doesn' interest you.

Really, you find my reply very offensive, wow you must be the most sensitive person on the planet sorry it wasn't meant to be, I've read over it a couple of times and I can't see why, and please don't accuse me of personally disliking Shank I've never met the guy and as far as I'm aware I'm not in any sandbox fight with him, I just want him to find something else to do over his morning coffee! 

With this in mind I'm surprised you're not supporting my 'thread ignore button'.

Oh and I really don't need you to police my right of free speech.

Quote from: SNP on July 19, 2011, 19:57
I tend to agree with you on this RT. It's a feature that could be used individually or not used. Not anything to do with policing.

Absolutely correct, it could be used, or not used however the individual pleases without it affecting the way anybody else uses the site. (by the way I've taken you off ignore now were agreeing with each other  )

Quote from: pseudonymous on July 19, 2011, 02:29
Come on all, have you seriously become that lazy that you can't skip over a thread or a post?

No, I'm very busy and like most things in my business life I want to reduce wasted time as much as possible.

Quote from: pseudonymous on July 19, 2011, 02:29
Have you all become this intollerant, ignorant and basically up yourselves that not only do you want to ignore posts and individuals but now entire threads?

Yes that's why I'm asking for this feature in the first place

Quote from: pseudonymous on July 19, 2011, 02:29
You are aware that you too will be ignored right?

Geez no I hadn't thought of that, thanks for pointing it out 

Quote from: pseudonymous on July 19, 2011, 02:29
Ignoring is the most idiotic feature in a forum because you end up with half-arsed conversations and people talking to themselves.  It causes more b.itch fights than it reduces them.  It will devalue the site and look stupid to new people who look in.

In your opinion, in mine it wouldn't which is why I was asking if others feel the same way, sorry this isn't a dictatorship.

Quote from: pseudonymous on July 19, 2011, 02:29
Have you seriously become that self-involved that you think this website/forum was built just for you only?

No I've never said that, my request no way effects the way anybody else chooses to use this forum, in fact my intention is that it could enhance the way the forum could be used.

Quote from: pseudonymous on July 19, 2011, 02:29
A forum exists so a group of people can get together and discuss their opinions on a matter.  You're never going to like everyone and everyone's opinion.  Can't you accept that and live with it?  If you're so bothered about it, the forum doesn't need changing, you do... you need thicker skin and the ability to not let things bother you so much. This isn't your living room, it's a forum that's open to the public.  Get over yourselves, it makes you look... I'm not even going to say the words... but grow up!  It's hard to believe you're all adults sometimes!

Thank you for the lecture, you're entitled to your opinion, personally I don't need, want or value your opinion and I'm asking for a way to deal with that whereby I don't feel the need to converse with you.

Quote from: pseudonymous on July 19, 2011, 02:29
Another thing.. what you're asking is a lot of work for leaf and you should pay him to do it if you really want it. 

I don't know if it's a lot of work, I'll take your word that you do, but if you read my initial post you'll see I asked if it was possible, I have no doubt Tyler would let me know if it involved a lot of work. As for paying him, this is his site and he earns revenue through it from advertising and the like, I've already stopped the renewal of my premium membership (yes I know he gives that to Kiva) because I felt the site has slipped from what it used to be, by the very nature of the fact I've made this request and others have pointed out they feel the same way would, I imagine, indicate to him that people who have been coming here for years are frustrated by the way the site has changed and that may be an indication to future loss of some readers.

As I pointed out in my reply to Cobalt above my request for a thread ignore button would in no way effect how you or anyone else uses the site, so if you feel the need to reply please bear this in mind and resist the urge to insult others over things you haven't understood.