|
MicrostockGroup Sponsors
This section allows you to view all posts made by this member. Note that you can only see posts made in areas you currently have access to.
Messages - ShadySue
14451
« on: December 27, 2010, 11:14 »
Maybe it is just a very rich someone stocking up on sale price 'premium content' that hasn't been sold much.
The removal of the higher credit packs seems to suggest otherwise.
Yup, I hadn't noticed Opla's post in the other thread.
14452
« on: December 27, 2010, 11:13 »
They took the bigger packages offline on account of http://www.microstockgroup.com/istockphoto-com/fraud-going-down-at-is/
Oh, you're right, the maximum package on sale now is 120. Though the 'buy credits page' is still saying "prices as low as 95c", which you can't currently get, so could cause some flak with genuine buyers. Front page should have been changed 'for the duration', to reflect the current reality.
14454
« on: December 27, 2010, 10:33 »
Conspiracy Theory suggests that maybe its just iStock is trying to be sure that the "right people" have enough RCs for the new year. Seems to be mostly exclusives who are affected, right? or perhaps someone just trying to be sure that the Kelly's statement about the 50% of all sales coming at the end of the year holds true. 
Oh, shusssssh! I've been trying to expunge my mind of conspiracy theories. Maybe it is just a very rich someone stocking up on sale price 'premium content' that hasn't been sold much. Does no-one have Kelly or JJRD's hotline number? They (or someone, why does RM have to be the only one that can make an announcement?) should be making an announcement, even if, "it's all above board".
14455
« on: December 27, 2010, 10:18 »
And then there's the question of whether, even if they don't let you keep the $$$, they'd at least let you keep the RCs, which could be very important for some.
14456
« on: December 27, 2010, 10:11 »
Good points. But I still think it is a question of legal liability on intellectual property. Remember, when we upload images to iStock we are trusting that iStock's servers are fully secure. If our images get stolen from their site then are you are suggesting we cannot hold them liable in any way?
In the Artists supply agreement, http://www.istockphoto.com/license.php it says: "10 Indemnity 1. You agree to indemnify, defend and hold iStockphoto and its affiliates, and their respective directors, officers, employees, shareholders, agents and licensees of Content (collectively, the iStockphoto Parties) harmless from and against any and all claims, liability, losses, costs and expenses (including reasonable legal fees on a solicitor and client basis) incurred by any iStockphoto Party as a result of or in connection with: (i) any use or alleged use of the Site or provision of Content under your Member Name by any person, whether or not authorized by you; (ii) or resulting from any communication made or Content uploaded under your Member Name; (iii) any breach by you of this Agreement; or (iv) any claim threatened or asserted against any iStockphoto Party to the extent such claim is based upon a contention that any of the Content used within the scope of this Agreement infringes any copyrights, trade secrets, trademarks, right of privacy or publicity, or other intellectual property rights of any third party. " That sort of clause tends not to hold much water in Scotland, but I guess it does in the US or Canada.
14457
« on: December 27, 2010, 10:05 »
http://www.istockphoto.com/forum_messages.php?threadid=286152&page=1
Just keep an eye on your downloads from IS today. Someone is rampantly downloading large sized files at a $1 per credit price.
By the way, none of my rampant large sized downloads were at $1 a pop or less. They all averaged around $7-$9, depending on size. Although, the royalties do seem lower than what they normally would be on downloads of the XXL and XXXL file sizes.
The price reported was exactly $1 per credit, not per sale.
14458
« on: December 27, 2010, 09:11 »
The lowest advertised price is 'as low as 95c per credit', but big buyers get lower deals.
Plus there are old credits still flying around, and discount codes being given out when anyone sneezes, particularly if the site goes down. Despite that not being out fault, we lose out.
It's all swings and roundabouts. Small companies with small budgets have to pay higher prices. Large companies with big budgets get deep discounts - but otherwise they might buy subs at Thinkstock, and then were would we be?
14459
« on: December 27, 2010, 07:55 »
I haven't seen any posts about this yet here on the forum,
http://www.microstockgroup.com/image-sleuth/fraud-going-down-at-is/msg176791/?topicseen#newMichaelJay has said we're unlikely to get any official news until the New Year. Although not personally directly affected, I'm hoping it's legit, maybe a huge company in an area not subject to the current holiday. It seems unlikely, but on the other hand, it's been going on for ages, and you'd have thought if dodgy, iStock could have either stopped the fraudster/s or even stopped downloads altogether. If it is a fraud, I would expect heads to roll, not because of the hack itself (that will always happen) but because most of the team seems to be away from their computers, and they announced this to the world.
14460
« on: December 26, 2010, 15:03 »
I've had four, in the last 24 hours, that it could apply to - all largest size available, and all with $1 credits. In my case, with only 4, I am not too worried. I think for the most part it is exclusives who are targeted.
Sorry, Lisa, I forgot you'd mentioned it on here earlier. Still, worrying if the pics are going to be sold on. Maybe it's a weatlhy company in the Middle East not affected by the current general holiday season. Hopefully, for all concerned. (But if so, that would be obvious and Lobo could have reported it.)
14461
« on: December 26, 2010, 14:55 »
From what I was reading over there it looks as if the exclusives are the ones reporting these sales.
It seems to be Vettas and Agency images that are being targetted, and downloaded at maximum sizes.
Sorry to those who've been affected, and hope the images don't get misused down the line. :-(
I had a bunch of regular ones as well.
OK, fair enough. Seems everyone reporting so far has been exclusive, though, as donding suggests.
14462
« on: December 26, 2010, 12:36 »
From what I was reading over there it looks as if the exclusives are the ones reporting these sales.
It seems to be Vettas and Agency images that are being targetted, and downloaded at maximum sizes. Sorry to those who've been affected, and hope the images don't get misused down the line. :-(
14463
« on: December 26, 2010, 06:31 »
Crazy! Seems like if it is a render of a non-specific location it shouldn't be able to use ANY specific locations in the keywords. 
I agree - location keywords are a common problem, both for illustrations and for photos. Just because its a beach doesn't mean its Hawaii.
Its not just a problem at IS though - all the sites have contributors that decide its a good way to rank higher in searches by adding keywords for many popular destinations. The danger is when a buyer uses one mistakenly and gets in trouble for including an image of the Philippines on an advertisement for Hawaii (for example).
In actual (real) photos, iStock says that only the real location can be keyworded, for exactly that reason. Individual offenders can be wikied, but in the past at least there have been so many that it's worth reporting them for a bulk wiki. In the past, I've suggested e.g. "Caribbean" AND "Mediterranean", (88 have snuck in since the last bulk wiki) but you can substitute just about any similar: Maldives, Seycelles, "Indian Ocean". 256 ATM for Caribbean AND Maldives; 1029 France AND Italy (a few are relevant) I have also suggested that whenever a bulk wiki is undertaken, note of the offending terms should be circulated to inspectors, but that either hasn't been done or the inspectors are ignoring the notification. (Or, of course, people are sneakily putting the multiple locations in after acceptance, but it's usually obvious when that's been done.)
14464
« on: December 26, 2010, 05:39 »
I think they're both right.
It's very easy to overlook (I've never noticed it in 3+ years on the site), but now that I know it's there, it's simple & obvious. And as Sean said, opening it up pushes down the "Stock photo description" and "details" quite a bit (leaving a large and rather ugly amount of white space).
Too bad there isn't a way to easily show the EL options (for those who haven't noticed the radio buttons) yet not ruin the layout. Maybe they'll find a way for the next F5.
I'm sure there are several ways in which it could be done. What's interesting is that they think it's OK to have an 'ugly' layout on the Premium pages, but not on the others. As I've said before, if Time Magazine can 'avoid' paying the EL (because of 'ignorance', apparently) - TWICE! - (until challenged), how many others are avoiding it too, through ignorance (or otherwise) Side issue: Has Time used an iStock image since it was called out on these two? (I haven't seen any reference if so) Have they used 'cheaper' imagery or even Flickr pics? Or have they reverted to commissioned pics/macro? (a quick shuftie of their website suggests that they're using Getty for their generic, even when equally suitable 'generic' images are on iStock)
14465
« on: December 25, 2010, 05:11 »
It's not that I think it's confusing, just that it could be worked out better for everyone's benefit, especially iStock as they stand to gain most.
Put the upgrade options on all pages (tickboxes). Wouldn't affect most buyers at all, but it brings directly to their notice that ELs are required and available for certain uses.
Then non-purchase would be deliberate theft and not just 'ignorance'.
I've recently bought flowers from two different companies - in both cases there were plenty of optional upsells right on the page, I didn't need to wonder what to do if I wanted a vase, chocolates, champagne, a teddy, whatever, they were right there on the page.
And ELs aren't 'optional extras' - they're required when needed, but I'm sure lots of buyers don't know that.
14466
« on: December 24, 2010, 18:39 »
Like I said, I'd prefer that these upgrades are obvious on every file page.
They could easily just have a line saying that there's an extended legal guarantee with the Agency and Vetta files, then have the ticky boxes for everything else, and all optional boxes for non A/V files.
14467
« on: December 24, 2010, 15:28 »
Oh dear lord. Now they are saying that raster illustrations and 3D renders are "photography"? Somebody please get those people a dictionary!! 
You can call it a duck, but if it doesn't walk like a duck, talk like a duck, and if it's a$$ isn't watertight, it ain't a duck...[/b]
This is OT, but Lisa, I just love the expressions you come up with! LOL!
And I wish someone would tell the iStock inspectors. I don't know how many non-ducks I've wikied: swans, geese, herons, moorhens, coots, grebes (oh, so often!) and even a flamingo (just the one IIRC). But still there's at least one a day slips through. And I won't be wiki-ing once I reach what would have been, but won't be (in %), Gold.
14468
« on: December 24, 2010, 14:35 »
Yes, you did miss the discussion both here and there.
http://www.istockphoto.com/forum_messages.php?threadid=284542&page=1
Extended license options are available on every IS file if you click the radio button for them under the pricing list. That's nothing new. On Vettas and Agency files, since it is included automatically, the extended button is "pushed" by default - ie, there is no "standard" button to push.
I did see the discussion on the legal guarantee ELs with Agency and Vettas.. What I didn't see was the question of why all the EL options are listed, with adjacent tickboxes, on all Agency and Vetta pics, but not on the others.
14469
« on: December 24, 2010, 13:54 »
Somehow I managed to miss the announcement of this and any discussion of it both here and on iStock's forums.
I see that on Agency and Vetta files, the extended licences are on the files' page as add-ons, so that it's clear that they're needed for certain purposes.
But my question, which I can't ask on the iStock site, and everyone's 'home for the holidays' anyway, is:
Why aren't these 'add-on' options on the file page for each file? I'm perfectly sure that many ELs are missed, either because people are in a hurry, and just don't know, or because they won't be caught. Why don't iStock want to maximise their income, and by extension ours, on every file, not just Vettas and Agency files?
If this has already been discussed here or there, please point me to the link. Tx.
14470
« on: December 24, 2010, 12:04 »
Oh dear lord. Now they are saying that raster illustrations and 3D renders are "photography"? Somebody please get those people a dictionary!!
They always did.
Fair enough. It was always stupid, but until now it didn't really matter. If they are going to make it an issue of exclusivity, they really need a better definition, right?
It actually mattered to me. I have certain photos which are of fairly-common-subject X, but their (almost) USP is that they were taken in location Y. But there are many 3D photo-realistic images of X which, since they don't exist, so have no location, are allowed to have as many locations as they like in their keywords, including Y. So they turn up in searches for photos of X, Y. Grrrr. I quizzed Ethan about this, and he promised to look into it. As nothing has changed, I'm guessing it was deemed to be OK.
14471
« on: December 24, 2010, 12:00 »
so what happens to the exclusive photographer that are not exclusive illustrators and have these jpeg's already on these other sites? Will iStock consider them in breach of contract?
Up until this point, they should not have had them on other sites, as most exclusive contributors realize any raster in a "photo" and thus, no-go on other sites. So that is a non-issue.
So that's always been the case? If that is so it really does no good to offer non exclusive illustration to exclusive photographer's. Doesn't make a bit of sense.
It makes no sense whatsoever. Looks like you will not be able to be an independent vector contributor and independent raster contributor, but not the other way around. Again, a decision which was not carefully thought through, or certainly not researched. Although it doesn't affect me personally, it certainly lowers my estimation of, and confidence in, 'them in charge' by another notch.
14472
« on: December 24, 2010, 10:10 »
Oh dear lord. Now they are saying that raster illustrations and 3D renders are "photography"? Somebody please get those people a dictionary!!
They always did.
14473
« on: December 24, 2010, 08:18 »
Breaking up the file exclusivity looks like it's turning into yet another fiasco. Yet another of those "didn't anticipate the consequences of our actions" type of thing. They keep making this more and more and more complicated that it is inevitably going to fall like a house of cards. Talk about unsustainable.
http://www.istockphoto.com/forum_messages.php?threadid=284872&page=2
The real problem was right back when they decided to call vectors 'illustrations' rather than 'vectors', not anticipating the consequences of their actions. Someone who doesn't know what a vector is shouldn't be buying one.
14474
« on: December 23, 2010, 18:46 »
I requested payment on monday, and received my payment today thursday. Very speedy, but that just is proof that they keep our money just for fun over a week, the CAN pay in four days if they would want to.
They used to pay 'on demand' but shifted to the current system to save money.
14475
« on: December 23, 2010, 17:59 »
I just checked out your website .. very impressive. Can we see what you put up on microstock as well? You've got me curious.
It's easy to find him on iStock at least!
|
Sponsors
Microstock Poll Results
Sponsors
|
Show Posts
