Some of the biggest Micro makers in the business don't have one clever idea in their heads. That is part of the reason they surf these sites to see what they can steal. I am already seeing people from this site start to try to incorporate my look into their newest uploads.  Then they have the audasity to take jabs at me every time I post. Don't worry the world is full of takers it doesn't mean they possess your skills.

Well, I don't know if you can really own a "look", but I think you've just proven my point about putting too much trade information out there.

Geez, December is always off from November, and most months of the year.  Don't ring the bell yet.

Only the one, actually, thanks.  But I bet it corners the market.

There is a difference between using a 3d character in a scene, and duplicating the pose, position and camera angle, which is what this seems to be.

I had someone almost exactly duplicate one of my 3d images on iStock, and I was able to have it removed.  This is one reason I don't do a lot of 3d anymore.

All this shows that micro images are short lived.  And if you want to enjoy them for a little longer then normal, make images that can hardly be reproduced.

All it shows is that images with a yearly date are short lived

Ahhh, Russia.  They're so cute sometimes.

Yeah, I protested it when I started doing 3d, but since it's allowed, there you go.  Good models are expensive though.

Hi All,

 Legally can Yuri transfer his copyright to her and then have her be exclusive with images he shot. Is there anything that is in writing to stop this from taking place or can he run his work through her name as long as legally she is the owner of the image. Does someone know where Istock stands on this and if they have a link to a post or part of their contract that points this out. Not saying this is happening at all I am sure they are her images. I just thought after seeing the post if others might work this way with Istock or if it is an option that is sort of unspoken. Any advice would be appreciated.

Thanks,
AVAVA

I imagine this would violate the spirit of what iStock is trying to accomplish.

Is that wrong?  What better way to see if a keyword is valid for an image, than if a buyer spent money on an image after finding it through that keyword?

This change is about adding in the relevancy factor.  Nothing was stated about changing anything else, although they normally do.  However, if a conscious exclusive/independent weighting was made, I don't see why they'd tweak it too much, especially since they want us to be happy about the new collection.

The fact of the matter is that best match can hurt a contributor just as easily as it can help them. No doubt, this next best match shift will hurt some people, including some of the same folks who are applauding and cheering "Go istock!" over this announcement. While we all hope the best match change will help everyone in a positive way, we also need to be a little more realistic and not be so surprised when next month there is another thread about best match killing sales with posts by some of the same people who are cheering for istock in today's thread.

I don't see this as a best match change.  This isn't factoring newness from 21% to %30 or something.  This is a fundamental change.  They're incorporating other buyers' satisfaction with a keyword/image relationship to present future buyers with the images that may actually best suit their needs.  It's a relevancy factor, and that hasn't been there before.  I don't think the minority of sales from people who search for "cow" but actually decide to buy a picture of a cookie for some reason, will throw things off too much.

The point is to show the buyers the best results with a relevancy factor, and that saves them time.  Those who save time are happy, and come back, and buy more. 

That's how I see it.  It's what we've been asking for forever.

It makes a lot of sense to me: tutoring is an excellent marketing tool and improves his brand. He has a lot more to gain from this than what he's losing from competition in my opinion.

Sure, it improves your brand if you're selling to photographers.  I just don't see how buyers care about who he trains to do what.  That's why it seems like he's moving to a consultancy position to other photographers.

And if you are good at what you do, competition is usually not a problem. So I'm totally against the idea that "giving advices is helping competition".

And I still disagree.  If you are training people to do exactly what you do, don't expect them to not compete with you.  I answer plenty of email questions about lighting, and cameras and 3d, but I don't believe in completely training someone to take over for me.  There's one contributor I know on iStock who uses his models, shoots in his place, and uses his "network".  Her stuff looks exactly like his.  So, when she makes a sale, she's likely taking a sale that would have been his.  Just doesn't make sense to me.

Quote from: sjlocke on December 09, 2008, 22:39

Why do you say they are losing market share?

First, look at the unbiased earnings rankings.  Did anyone expect 1 year ago that iStockphoto would be ranked 4th as of December 10, 2008?

Now let's confirm it with hard, unbiased data from Compete.com:

Yearly traffic increase/decrease

Fotolia +98%
Shutterstock +44%
Dreamstime +25%
iStockphoto -32%

It looks like clear evidence to me that iStockphoto has lost considerable market share.  Personally iS has dropped as a percentage earner for my portfolio from 28% one year ago to 12% today.  Almost every company I contribute to has significantly outpaced them.  Just browsing the boards, it appears almost every non-exclusive contributor says the same thing. 

You're looking at it as a group of independent individuals.  You can say that for independents, market share is dropping, but you don't know that overall, market share is dropping.  Exclusives could be more than making up the difference.