I saw this come up in my headlines of my home page, yahoo. It's an article that talks about how it might snow here.

http://www.goupstate.com/article/20101223/articles/12231027

Right underneath the photo, are the words "Buy Photo". I'm thinking, what?, this was likely just a photo taken by the staff photographer. Click on it...sure enough, it does look like it was taken by a staff photographer and they are selling the photos as prints or on coffee mugs, etc. Wonder who gets the money from the sales? Maybe both the photog and the newspaper? Anyone heard of this before, or is this something new, thanks to the internet.

Funny thing is, I looked for that photo by search Gerry Pate and couldn't find it. They must use istock's search engine.  

Local papers in Scotland have for years sold prints of the photos they use. I haven't looked online to see if they do this nowadays.
Some papers do very well by free crowdsourcing, and any I've checked out are rights grabs, so this could be a lucrative sideline for them.

Possibly and possibly not relevant, a page from 2000 - SHUTTERFLY PARTNERS WITH KODAK TO OFFER FILM DEVELOPING AND SCANNING SERVICES (not my caps)
http://ir.shutterfly.com/releasedetail.cfm?ReleaseID=202256

Wall St Journal 15th Dec:
"NEW YORK (Dow Jones)--Eastman Kodak Co. (EK) and Shutterfly Inc. (SFLY) have filed suit against each other, claiming patent infringement as competition heats up in the online photography market.

Shutterfly, an Internet-based photo publishing service, said in a securities filing Wednesday that it received notice Friday that Kodak had filed suit against the company, alleging it infringes Kodak's patents by making and selling image products through its website, Shutterfly.com.

Kodak, which sells similar photo prints, albums and picture-stamped mugs via its Kodak Gallery site, is seeking an injunction and damages, Shutterfly said in a filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission. Shutterfly said it intends to defend itself vigorously.

Shutterfly then sued Kodak Monday over its Kodak Gallery Software, according to the filing. It's also seeking an injunction and damages.

"Consistent with our intellectual property strategy, we are committed to taking appropriate action to enforce our patents against unauthorized use," Kodak spokesman David Lanzillo said in an emailed statement.

Kodak for years has been trying to rebrand itself as a digital imaging powerhouse as revenue slides in its traditional film business. Kodak, which helped popularize consumer photography but has struggled amid the rise of new digital technology, has reported only one full-year profit--in 2007--since 2004. The company has relied in large part on patent settlements for revenue in recent years as it waits for new business lines, such as inkjet printers, to gain traction. Kodak has suits pending against Apple Inc. (AAPL) and Research in Motion Ltd. (RIMM), and last winter scored significant royalty deals with Samsung Electronics Co. Ltd. (SSNHY, 005930.SE) and LG Electronics Inc. (066570.SE) for its digital-camera technology.

In another sign of its woes, Kodak--a component of the Dow Jones Industrial Average until 2004--will be removed from the Standard & Poor's 500 index at the end of trading Friday, in part due to its declining market capitalization. The company's market value is about $1.4 billion.

Kodak shares were up about 5 cents at $5.28 in recent trading and have risen 25% this year, while Shutterfly climbed 2.4% to $34.36 and has almost doubled in 2010. "
http://online.wsj.com/article/BT-CO-20101215-710289.html

Tons more if you google Shutterfly Kodak.

Quote from: elvinstar on December 20, 2010, 21:54

I check the whois through GoDaddy and it was registered through DomainsByProxy, so we'll never know

Maybe I'll email them ...

Unless you are one of iStock's lawyers with a good case, which is questionable, they'd be in major trouble if they told you, I suspect.

Quote from: ShadySue on December 20, 2010, 20:57

Apparently not.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Faceted_search

I don't think Istock's Fiasco Search, or whatever it is supposed to be called, qualifies for the Wiki definition because it dosen't actually work. Every time I to try to delve deeper it simply returns zero results.

Yeah, well, ya know ...
Just about constantly since I joined they've had a vacancy for a QA specialist "can you break our software?". So I guess in four years, they've never found anyone who can.
Strange, since everyone else seems perfectly able to do it without even trying, even without all the qualifications on the list. Indeed, without even one of the fifteen 'required qualifications'.
Hmmmm.

Is there a way to tell who owns the site?

Sometimes.
All I can find is:

Domain Name: istockvector.com

Registrar: GODADDY.COM, INC.
Whois Server: whois.godaddy.com
Referral URL: http://registrar.godaddy.com
Status: clientDeleteProhibited, clientRenewProhibited, clientTransferProhibited, clientUpdateProhibited

Expiration Date: 2011-12-01
Creation Date: 2005-12-01
Last Update Date: 2010-10-05

ISTOCKVECTOR.COM SITE INFORMATION
IP: 182.50.134.128
Website Status: active
Server Type: Microsoft-IIS/7.0

I knew i had a book somewhere that had credit from istock and i just found it:

http://cd.pbsstatic.com/xl/07/1107/9780753821107.jpg

Clearly states in the back cover " cover photograph : (c) GlennBristol/iStockphoto - Design: Sue Michniewicz"

Maybe it's the subscription sites that don't require to credit photographers.

Watch my lips: iStock doesn't require credits except for editorial.
That doesn't mean they can't give credits either because they want to or (maybe: me speculating again) if they have a reciprocal arrangement with iStock. E.g. in the past I've noticed websites, magazines and even two books which credited iStock and offered a discount if you signed up to buy images. That would need to be an official arrangement.
Credits are not forbidden.

I cannot speak about other agencies.

I'm not required to wear shoes when I go out in the snow. I can if I want to. :-)

I searched the forum but couldn't find an answer, are we supposed to be credited if our image is used in book covers?

Just found a new book today published in November 2010 with a detail from one of my photos on the cover, but only the designer is credited, no photographer credit. The cover design is a white box and line over my photo with the author name and book title. Should we be credited for this use?

Thanks!

Depends on the terms of the agency the pic was bought from, but not from iStock, sadly. I have found three book covers, two have my credit and one doesn't. It's not required.

BBC website blocks many of their video content to Brazilian viewers.

As far as I know, a lot of their video is locked outside the UK, as it's intended for licence payers, though I don't think they can check on whether you have a licence in the UK before you can access it. But abroad, it (virtually?) no-one will have paid for the licence.
Probably (?) they make any BBC worldwide materials available abroad.

Quote from: seawhisper on December 19, 2010, 13:29

(But that's just to make things clear, and a bit off topic.) I still I don't know what's the difference between resubmitting and submitting again photos. And what are advantages / disadvantages of both. I thought ppl who are longer on IS should know, I don't believe everyone 100% agrees to reviewers. 

I explain once again. If the reviewer give you the resubmit option available for a rejected picture, it's because he/she give you the chance to modify that image according to the rejected reasons. This way, the same reviewer can compare on his computer screen the last image you submitted with the new modified one.

If you don't want to make modification, and think it should got through the inspection, you can always make a scout ticket for the file to be reviewed again, by a second inspector. Or, submit it the normal way again... but that's your personal choice.

If you have to get through the process of keywording again, it's probably in case your image was rejected for keywords ect. I hope I said it an understandable way

Either you or I have misunderstood the original question.
I took it that the OP was asking whether to resubmit using the resubmit button, or just to submit again from fresh.
You are taking it that the OP is asking whether it was worthwhile to resubmit rejections.

People can obviously choose to do things that are against the rules and hope they don't get caught. With the large number of inspectors, it's  possible that you may get away with submitting images marked no resubmit.

That's as may be, but nothing was mentioned about 'no resubmit' images(?)

The problem is the human doing the search, not the search computer. That's been my point from the start.

Ah. The 'myth of the stupid user'.

Originally coined by Jakob Nielsen:
"Wsability is important to me. If the purpose of technology is to make our lives better, then that purpose is subverted when designers fail to pay due regard to the user and the context of use. The software industry has been particularly negligent in this regard, to the extent that a large number of people feel that they are 'too stupid' to handle computers. In effect, these people have been disenfranchised - one of the greatest boons of our times has been denied them because software designers have failed to meet their needs.
For me, usability is about the move to counter this trend. I believe that usability activities can have a direct and beneficial impact on the quality of people's lives. I get enormous satisfaction from doing work that results in products that are easier to use.
I believe that we are far too willing to accept what I call 'the myth of the stupid user'. It's time that we started to reject products that confuse use, are rude to us or in any way belittle us."

"By 'the myth of the stupid user' I mean the belief that users are stupid, and the concomitant inference that inability to use a particular product can be blamed on the user, thus exonerating the product itself and the development team.

Anyone who hangs around with IT professionals knows that many of them consider users to be stupid. Do an internet search for 'stupid users' and you will find thousands of stories about the stupid things people do with their computers. For example, you can read dozens of variations of the story on the person who rang up their ISP and asked 'Is this the Internet?'

This attitude permeates the whole of the IT and web development industry. Many people will be familiar with this attitude from dealing with technical support staff whose technical skills far outweigh their ability to communicate with other humans.

My take on this is that it's a cop-out. Retailers don't treat their customers as if they are stupid. If a shop had a sign that no-one could read, the owners would change the sign, rather than throwing their hands in the air and lamenting the stupidity of shoppers."

See also: http://www.goodexperience.com

Nowadays, if Google does something one way (phrases in "..."), it behooves everyone else to do it the same way. (at the moment. Two, five, ten years hence, who knows).
The visitor should NOT have to learn how to navigate or search in a site. That's the designers' job.

Usability studies with a group of people not connected with the site (possible new buyers would be ideal!) and see how they do searches without instruction other than "think of something you might buy an image of and try to find it", don't help them, don't make suggestions, get them to articulate aloud what they're doing and why (without interrupting), and what they think about the search process and results. Interview them afterwards.
Make changes.

Yours was a friend, who might have expected some sort of favour (though not as it was for his business, maybe for a photo for the wall).
A former colleague's brother also shoots aerials and gets a few emails each month (fromj non-buyers) asking  him to remove the watermark from the pics on his website - sometimes really unpleasantly: "How am I supposed to use this with your watermark all over it?" was one question from someone wishing just to 'lift' the photo for free.
And he wasn't even selling them royalty free.
(When I taught, I was always looking for 'free images' to use in the classroom on the smartboard. At first, when I didn't know about RF, I used to wonder why there were big watermarks on photos that 'didn't charge a royalty' after all, they showed up on search for 'free photos' or 'free images')