Quote from: SNP on March 30, 2011, 11:30

Quote from: ShadySue on March 30, 2011, 11:22

Quote from: SNP on March 30, 2011, 11:19

the article is fine IMO.

Including the blatant lie: "commission levels stretch from 20% to 45%"?

Can we hazard a guess as to the extent of this lie:
Number of contributors earning less than 20% commission = ?
Number of contributors earning 45% = ?

would it have mattered if he had said 15% to 40%? it wouldn't have changed the context of the article in any way.

So you see no difference in value between the truth and a lie? They are equally valid in your eyes? And you used to write for magazines? It explains a lot about the media today.

you know that isn't what I meant, nor is it even what I said. calling it a 'lie' is a value judgment. it's precisely that type of paraphrasing that is one of the main problems with bad journalism. other than Kelly and the reporter, who knows how the information was exchanged and how it was summarized in the article. you can call it misinformation, you can call it flat out wrong, but calling it a lie is spin. You're stating that Kelly actively sought to deceive readers of the article. FWIW, I believe very strongly in ethical journalism, it's how I have always worked, so I found your comment particularly insulting. maybe that was your objective.

as for other comments that it doesn't matter if Kelly is a nice guy....yes, in fact it does. ethical people are usually ethical in all aspects of their lives. conversely unscrupulous people are unscrupulous in most areas of their lives. As I haven't met Kelly, I can only go on what I've been told and I've always heard he's an honest, nice and smart guy. I think that's relevant.

In Hungary - Palinka
in Ireland - Irish Coffee

mmm, I forgot about Irish coffee

^ that's true, but in this case I don't really think it matters.

the article is fine IMO. it's remarkable that it's so taboo here to say anything positive at all about iStock. It was good advertising for iStock and though Kelly's comments were very general and broadly focused, that is undoubtedly the design of the publication and the interviewer. FWIW, I've never met or even spoken to him, but very good friends of mine and even other colleagues I don't know that well have consistently told me what a nice, very genuine person KK is. unfortunately being genuine almost always comes across as foot-in-mouth syndrome when a person is being paraphrased by media.

when I worked as a reporter/interviewer for magazines back when writing was my main work, magazines always have their agenda. they usually want broad statements, nothing drilled down and nothing too intimate. each article in that type of publication is simply an advertisement for both the magazine and the interviewee. The only obvious inference from the 'spin' is that Getty is actively for sale. but we already suspect that is underway. my concern with that is that iStock remains intact through a sale.

sees the slider is gone very soon. good riddance. I agree most people probably didn't even know about it. March isn't great here either.

So I guess political advertising is perfectly fine for model released content. I consider advertising for republican candidates defamatory however.

lol, I agree! but jokes aside...this could be considered a breach of the license agreement. AFAIK people cannot be depicted to endorse a product or party or what have you without a disclaimer on the ad that indicates it is dramatization.

I don't think any company cross marketing with charities does so purely altruistically. I don't have that expectation. it's about doing something good, but of course it's also about marketing your good deeds.

Quote from: lisafx on March 17, 2011, 18:12

Quote from: chrisboy2004 on March 17, 2011, 18:04

... am sorely tempted to reply to the call for contributions for Japan with a sarcastic comment, but I'm better than that ....

I know what you mean.  I fully intend to donate to Japan, but not through some fund administered through Istock.  After all, I want the money to actually GET to Japan.  

We donated through my husband's employer so they match our donation. If we didn't have that option, having iStock do a match (and trying to look on the bright side that the money will make it) would be a good way to get more money to those in need.

I agree Jo Ann. I usually donate through Red Cross or Medecins sans Frontieres directly. I know people are frustrated and worried. But I can't believe some of you are suggesting iStock is lining their pockets with donations for Japan. arguments like that are just absurd. I donated through iStock because they are matching donations. I read all the fine print and their program for donation delivery is split across three reputable charities. I wonder how many here complaining about it even read the fine print, which covers information regarding tax receipts for international donations.

Quote from: jsmithzz on March 18, 2011, 10:29

Some of the posts from Admins and Moderators never cease to amaze me. Kelvinjay is now telling everyone almost mockingly to just to calm down and take a valium when there are peoples' livelihoods at stake. Unbelievable.

http://www.istockphoto.com/forum_messages.php?threadid=314342&page=24

That is so rude and inaccurate. Valium is for pain, Xanax is the chill pill of choice. Can't even get medication right. Geez.

um, no. Valium as far as I know is precisely for anxiety. and I think it's obvious that kelvin was joking. that book cover is all over the place, it's on t-shirts and journals.

ETA: oops, donding beat me to it.

Quote from: caspixel on March 16, 2011, 19:16

Quote from: lisafx on March 16, 2011, 16:21

I just got a whole series of XL sales in a row at Istock.  How worried should I be?

http://www.istockphoto.com/forum_messages.php?threadid=314612&page=1

You gotta be kidding me,...AGAIN....  well at least they get to keep them this time, the Admin said no more clawbacks...

the thread you posted isn't an official confirmation of unusual dls. they also did a search/best match push of some kind, which could explain increased sales. I have had my BWE by far and felt very concerned. but I've opened a support ticket just in case.

Patrick's at Fotolia, right?

Geez guys, chill out a bit.  Everyone's all "they never tell us anything", and here they are going to tell us something, and then it's all "it's a conspiracy", "they're going to lie", "why do they hate independents", "they're going to gag everyone with this NDA", "istock sux", rhetorical example this that and the other.  Why not just relax and see what the outcome is?

I actually heard that in your best valley girl...good post and glad you said it

Take this FWIW, but I just wanted to add a bit of historical context, the distrust of non-exclusive contributors is ingrained in the iStock DNA. Back in 2003-04 (pre-exclusivity) it was becoming rather common to see people who were contributors one day turn competitors the next. Serban's iStock username was Dreamstime (he even had a FIOTW way back when). Duncan, Canstock's founder, was M5laser or something like that on iStock before he started his site. Tim and Dawn at Bigstock, yep, former iStock contributors. I'm sure there were others, but the point is, this is all old stuff that is hard for them to forget. Around the same time as these contributors turned competitors appeared on the scene there was also increasing heat from the so-called "traditional" stock photographers (most notably a group of Alamy contributors), which further contributed to the siege mentality that exists today.

Of course the irony is that current exclusive contributors largely owe their exclusive benefits to these folks, as the exclusivity program was largely a circling of the wagons reaction to everything happening at the time. So, don't take it too personally, this is all old stuff.

isn't Patrick Lor an ex-pat too? thanks for the post Rob. a lot of that stuff is invisible to those of us who weren't here then.

^ I guess if I put myself on the HQ side, in the current climate, I would choose to keep something like this involving sensitive data with exclusives too. again, absolutely no implication that any individual non-exclusive is not trustworthy. any contributor, whether exclusive or not, could be potentially abusive with the data despite signing the NDA. but in this industry, competition is fierce and I see the logic behind it. 

I think we're probably thinking of the panel as a two way information exchange or mediation. in which case I'd say absolutely every type of contributor should be represented. but I think it's more of a here's the situation, the five participants simply listening and then told what portions of the information they can disseminate to members within the community. that will include all contributors including indies.