I agree the caption is lacking in detail (for IS editorial criteria) and would include some brief information on what they are protesting against. What exactly is this carbon tax, does it merely tax vehicle emissions or electricity consumption or what does it entail and how would it affect these people? I would also provide more specific location information, such as "Protesters gather in front of the Town Hall in Canberra...". A simple one-liner caption won't usually cut it for IS - especially when half your caption repeats the same information. Basically, caption the images in such a way where someone (like me) living outside of Oz could look at the image, read the caption, and get a basic yet good understanding of what is going on:

Canberra, Australia - March 23, 2011: Thousands of protesters gather near blahblah Square on a Sunday afternoon to protest against the government's proposed new Carbon Tax. Under the new environmental tax, residents would be required to pay additional taxed based on vehicle mileage and blahblah.

Hope that helps.

hi Sue,

The yacht: Perhaps they're looking for the "editorial" content in an image to be a litte more prominent - if that makes sense - as in that regard the image is somewhat borderline. The colors and contrast also appear a little dull which probably helped push them towards a rejection - even if their stated reason is a little odd... unless the people are tiny and unrecognizeable. The yacht itself wouldn't be subject to IP though provided you can't see any names, logos, registration, etc... there are plenty of yachts in the main collection.

Church: The sign and graffiti appear to be generic with the sign being a phrase rather than the name of the store. It's a little hard to tell at this size but I probably wouldn't clone anything at all for submission as RF... I definitely wouldn't clone out "Adult fun" though - that would be the least of my concerns.

Construction site: As above, there's nothing wrong with including text such as "grid 7" or other generic scribblings in RF. Overall, in terms of subject and market value, this and the church image would be more suitable as RF anyhow.

Keep in mind their (standard) rejection notice says to remove any logos etc "if there are any". This doesn't necessarily mean they're asking you to remove anything prior to submission as RF.

Not just you.

And that captcha thing is driving me up the wall... many words impossible to read, some with special characters, etc.

Quote from: cclapper on April 01, 2011, 23:05
(...)I decided to put them on Veer...nowhere else.

Well, you decided to put them on Veer and, by doing so, as per contributor agreement, you thereby authorized them to "enter into agreements with other
affiliated companies or third party sites for distribution and licensing of your Content".

Granted, the execution was a bit sloppy... just sayin'.

how does stuff like this make it through the queue?
http://www.istockphoto.com/stock-photo-14262833-businessman-sleeping-on-sofa.php

Quote from: lisafx on October 05, 2010, 20:59

Quote from: Pixart on October 05, 2010, 20:52
Woohoo!  Just had a 15 cent sale on Istock!!!

If you think that's  cool, wait until you see what that sale will bring in come January

I'm hoping to see them raise their prices a little come January, perhaps bumping independent
images priced from 1, 3, and 6 credits to something like 2, 4, 7. Larger sizes could remain
unchanged for all I care and this would at least provide me with the incentive to keep
uploading my images there despite the % cut.

Quote from: jsnover on October 04, 2010, 20:25
And the list of things they broke that were once working (the list for extended licenses that no longer has a date column, for example).

instead they give us video faqs 

What baffles me is how seemingly out of touch istock is with its contributor base. If they seriously need a survey to understand and figure out how to simplify and accelerate the upload process then something's really amiss. For crying out loud, if they need help they can call Canstock. A giant leap forward would be to provide contributors with a model release library. Heck, how about just fixing the darn category-transfer thingy? Normally I'd be asking for FTP too but seeing as how they managed to muck that up on the video side that's probably a bad idea. So what we're left with after this whole royalty fiasco is just another botched project leaving us scratching our heads wondering what's up in Calgary. Why hasn't an admin jumped into the thread to shed some light on this ridiculous survey to tell us what our choice of focal lengths has to do with the upload process? If this is some sort of secret covert black ops thing then why didn't they just call it a general survey and spare people the confusion? Geez, 850 posts in the F5 bug thread and here they are asking questions in an apparent effort to muck things up even more.

The whole thing is a crock anyway. You simply can't call things unsustainable and cut people's commissions all while raising the commissions of the exclusive power-sellers from 40 to 45%. There's a serious disconnect right there. 

Quote from: zzz on September 27, 2010, 17:33
I think some of us are just tired of your posts over time how much you dislike where iStock is going (away from "the designer's dirty little secret") and that there are so many other places where you can buy good photos. Just do what you feel is right for you and be done with it.

Personally, I wish we had more vocal buyers like her voicing their discontent.

Quote from: retrorocket on September 28, 2010, 08:17
And another new member

how dare you 

Quote from: Dreamframer on September 28, 2010, 07:56
So many new members and "new members" here.

Sorry for signing up here.

Quote from: & then... on September 28, 2010, 06:36
picking cherries, search on:

dog
woman
car
environment
communication
computer network
computer

all as per usual search returns....

All you really need to do is check the individual portfolios of some of the top exclusives sorted by best match to get an idea how heavily Vettas are weighed. How do you think all their Vettas end up on top?

Quote from: Hawk_Eye on September 28, 2010, 02:41
I have done a bazillion searches throughout the day because the posts today have made it sound like the best match returns are Vetta saturated...not so at all. all I can say is thank goodness the 'statisticians' here are not scientists. every search I've returned using random keywords, including big ones like 'business', 'family' and so many others I can't remember them all. the returns are a balanced mix of Vettas, flames, newer uploads and files that seem to be newer well-selling files etc.

Apparently, your "bazillion" searches missed the following:

love
new york
wildlife
berlin
train
airplane
luxury
beauty
portrait
autumn
vacation
christmas
architecture
food
cooking
drink
spring
summer
winter

Let me know if you need more examples. This was a mere 10 minute effort with 100 results per page, filtered for photos only. In the case of "business" and "family", I suspect these aren't as saturated with Vetta files due to the large number of high-flaming regular images in those categories.

Taking "new york" as an example: there are about 25,000 photos in database, only 470 of which are Vetta. Yet there are 80 Vetta images on page 1.