Old topic alert, but they are pretty ridiculous.  I have a bunch of photos that got rejected for too similar.  For some reason I guess they don't understand that a designer JUST MIGHT need photos of different age/gender/race people in the same pose for different demographics and markets.

I also got a new type of rejection I haven't seen before:  "This image is a little simplistic as a single image, please submit a more complex version, or submit a series of such works related by a concept, as one image."

Yeah, its a series of hands counting down (5, 4, 3, etc).  what Dreamstime?  I think they are trying to get people to combine multiple images from a series into a single image, much like all the illustrators buttonsets, etc.   Thats crap, its already cheap enough at microstock prices, why would I be offering buy one get four free?

I just deleted about a hundred other images in the queue that I suspect might get slapped with 'too similar' labels.

I have 2,500+ images (with many multiracial shots) on Shutterstock and 0 on BigStock.  I have never gotten around to uploading them to BigStock myself, and at this point I never will.  I asked support politely if they might consider including me in the program, as there would be no filtering for duplicate images required and they mentioned it was invitation only.  So either my portfolio is insufficiently performing, or they actually don't need my photos on BigStock.

Would have still been a drop.  Ho hum, iStocks done.

People who write viruses these days want to turn your computer into zombie, not erase its contents.  They want it to send them your banking login info, it behooves them to leave your system viable so they can get the information back from the keystroke loggers, etc.

Probably reflects most files in the collection falling into that moderately complex category.  Seems like someone needs to make up for some slower sales with a tiny 20% bump on what is probably the most common vector class

Well, of course their forums are wooing, they expunged the naysayers.  Gee, I wonder what happens to people who surround themselves with yesmen, oh wait... Enron.

Just another sign that they are having serious financial issues from contributors spreading the word to shop elsewhere. 

So many oversights make it seem intentional.

Page 2, a little more than halfway down:

http://www.istockphoto.com/forum_messages.php?threadid=264141&page=2


Rogermexico admits it was iStock's fault, they forgot to transfer the money to Paypal.

There will be no changes that Lobo is aware of at this time.

Really, really annoying.  Maybe they are going to switch to bi-monthly payouts?  The timing would be right for that.   Keep an eye out for another announcement that you have to put your requests in by the mid-month Monday for the end month Friday payout  Woo HOO interest!

Quote from: molka on October 08, 2010, 16:11
I guess every genre of forum has it's infantile local little long time bullies

Interesting.

Some parts of their web page don't work, that is kind of damning right there.

I looked into it at one point and basically the quality was crap.  Maybe I'm just too picky, but I tested several places and none of them were up to my standards.

So basically, iStock found a way to "throw a bone" to contributors without actually giving away anything.

How much for a copy of the website I can run locally on my system?

Sorry, go back and re-read that quote from Wikipedia, you yourself have made that very admission earlier on in this whole drama (in the buyers leaving thread if I recall correctly), that you were on the attack because your income was on the line.  That is all I was really pointing out.

As for your perception and theorizing about any particular loss I will take from this, as I have said repeatedly it is far less than you are trying to make out.  This appears to be another one of your defensive strategies, as convincing exclusives not to leave (fear tactics) would in theory help iStock retain its buyers with its exclusive images (their sole remaining advantage over the other microstocks).  You don't even have the data to make any valid claims, as you have never been independent.


All this talk about martyrdom, etc is from you.  You seem to believe I am making some kind of noble sacrifice here, but I'm really just choosing not to do business with an unethical company.  You keep claiming you don't shop at Walmart, and then throw in the caveat that you do shop there when it is convenient for you (curry powder I believe?).  This says as much as anyone needs to know about any argument you will put forth:  "I don't do it, unless its convenient for me, regardless of impact to others".

Quote from: caspixel on September 29, 2010, 16:15
Frankly, as someone who seemed so anti-establishment in the past, "& then...", I'm quite surprised you keep sticking up for "the man".

See below:

Quote from: & then... on September 29, 2010, 02:18
even if the community aspect were to dissolve or become more of a corporate culture, I wouldn't necessarily leave.

Corporate Shill

Quote from: Wikipedia"Shill" can also be used pejoratively to describe a critic who appears either all-too-eager to heap glowing praise upon mediocre offerings, or who acts as an apologist for glaring flaws. In this sense, they would be an implicit "shill" for the industry at large, possibly because their income is tied to its prosperity.

Quote from: leaf on September 29, 2010, 15:42
that makes 12 sites that used to be in the monthly microstock polls that have now gone under.   Added to that is all the sites I didn't bother adding to the poll in the first place.

So are you saying there can be only five?

Quote from: & then... on September 29, 2010, 16:02
the friendly neighbourhood naysayers

You seem to be missing the fact that *you* are the naysayer in this neighborhood.

Quote from: & then... on September 29, 2010, 03:42
I think our brand is being given some steroids....not necessarily a bad thing

Steroids cause brain cancer....

Are you a professional or an amateur?   Honestly, I think you will find that some hobbyist/"amateur" photographers will have just as much knowledge as professionals.  That has always been the case with photography.

Or, in typical iStock fashion, they completely goofed the announcements, and did not fully understand what the reaction would be. 

This isn't a move to help people make up the difference.  The vetta price increase came with a pretty severe cut in royalty percentage.  In the end the exclusives only end up making *slightly* more than they would have under the old price/royalty.   iStock rakes in the cash though.

Changes to the search engine take 24-48 to show up fully, or some such.

Conspiracy theories aside, it seems awfully sudden.  If it were financial difficulties, you would have thought they could have written a straightforward announcement to people who have been using their distribution service, explaining their predicament in an open and upfront manner, then announced some kind of increased pricing for the service.

Or they could have pulled an iStock, and just announced a price hike as if it was great for us, but we know how that went.

To just fold up shop seems unusual, must have been *really* unsusatinable.