It wasn't just canstock, they only found them there later after using TinEye.  It was first found on the Macro RF agency IngramPublishing, which just became one of iStock's 'Agency' exclusive members.  Someone noticed one of the files there, then found the same image in Vetta.  These images were found on multiple sites, uploaded within the past few years, selling as both Macro and Micro, and under the same name.  The only reason it came to anyone's attention was because Camrocker checked out the agency's website after Sean posted about there being a new 'Agency' contributor.


Also, from the same set of issues, it turns out that 'Agency' has work from independents in its collection, so its conceivable that their images might end up on iStock at two price points at the same time, while also being available on many other sites.

It was multiple Vetta images, and on several other sites, micro and macrostock included, plus some were uploaded fairly recently.

They locked that person's account, and Lobo says the compliance and enforcement folks are looking into things.  No real answer, but I'm guessing they just haven't been able to reach the person in question yet.

Please note, that file belongs to an inspector.

Looks like when it came back up it reset the Adult Content filters to 'on', only noticed it when I went to delete a flagged image and it told me I couldn't view it.

Actually, it showed that it was switched on in my preferences, and when I switched it off, then back on, it still says I can't view the image.

Here is an example:



Now, granted, this image was later retracted, and iStock tried to gloss it over as being an accident, but that is still for sale at Getty for $500 and on that 'exclusive' photographer's own website for $699.

Ok, iStock's twitter feed says they have sorted out the problem.

Maybe a truck ran into a telephone pole again.


Hawk_eye, heh yeah, but I was right in the middle of deleting a bunch of images, just annoying more than anything else, but still sucks for everyone else.

Unless you are 'Agency', they probably pay them same-day.

Right, but we did get to see what is in the rest of the 'Agency' collection on Getty.  Still not what they described it would be, and still not on par with the Vetta files they will be ranked (and priced) higher than.

Add the fact that you can't turn off Agency without also turning off Vetta in the searches, and some of the higher end exclusives depending on Vetta sales to make their credit targets might be in a bit of a spot.

I don't think it was a test, I think it was a screwup and this shouldn't have happened until September 27th, when a flood of 'Agency' images would have hidden some of the crap we just saw.

Be wary though, this looks like it was purely designed to push through content without inspection.  I write programs for a living, and it is highly unlikely you could make this kind of a mistake, pushing images directly into their portfolios when they should have been in an inspection queue of some kind.  You are talking about a lot of varying database calls that would have had to been all wrong to see something like this happen.

You know the worst part?  I don't know of a single microstock agency that would have accepted half those images.

Traditional RF togs have ripped us a new one over the years, I guess we know why now, they couldn't compete with our image quality.

And do you really think the majority of buyers care?

They are going to care a lot more once they see the uninspected crap iStock just blew through the queue and unleashed as 'Agency' images:

http://www.istockphoto.com/forum_messages.php?threadid=255782&page=1

By the way, you can't turn off just Agency in searches, you have to turn off both Agency *and* Vetta.

I'm embarrassed iStock. and disappointed. I hope you know what you are doing. sigh. I feel tested beyond the limit now.

Remember what I said about it being ok?  I was wrong.  Time to panic.