Quote from: Saska on September 16, 2010, 16:37

An example from today:
http://www.istockphoto.com/stock-photo-14252406-christmas-presents.php

And what a fabulously innovative and creative idea! Taking a photo of Christmas presents! Who would ever have thought of that! No wonder IS wanted to rush it to the head of the line, ahead of all the less creative IS exclusives. Oh, 'less creative IS exclusives,' that's redundant, sorry.

2 years ago, i had (basically) the exact same shot rejected for copyright (wrapping paper), but it's okay if you're an employee...barf...

Quote from: lisafx on September 16, 2010, 14:59

Quote from: abimages on September 16, 2010, 14:46

This just came up in the forum at IS
http://www.istockphoto.com/stock-photo-2623466-twin-girls-dressed-in-men-s-clothes.php

http://www.canstockphoto.com/twin-girls-dressed-in-mens-clothes-0484750.html

Same contributor! I cant wait to see the outcome of this

Wow.  Nice find. 

I always wondered if some exclusives somewhere might try to cheat on their exclusive agreement.  But even so, this is shocking.  And a Vetta, no less?! 

I can't keep up and I can't keep off the  forums - I have other work I need to do.  I think this is uneffingbelievable.  I'm sure they will come back and say it was some oversight or their account was hacked or something lame like that. an INSPECTOR for f-sake!  what?! 

If iStockers weren't pissed before, this should really top it.  I can't possibly see any reasonable explanation for this. 

I guess this might lend a little credence to previous accusations that certain "reviewers" might make "biased" decisions

same here

There's no longer a pulse...DOA

Same inspection process regular contributors are held to:

http://www.istockphoto.com/stock-photo-14242109-combs-and-brushes-in-a-drawer.php

http://www.istockphoto.com/stock-photo-14241739-view-of-manhattan-skyline-from-central-park-new-york-city.php

http://www.istockphoto.com/stock-photo-14241973-a-young-boy-playing-with-a-toy-truck-on-a-neighborhood-sidewalk.php

They've pulled the files...too goofy. They're allowing the forums to act as reviewers - except of course on their website where they locked the thread

Quote from: hawk_eye on September 15, 2010, 16:31

I don't see why they would refer someone either. But actively canvassing for istock buyers to leave is a whole other thing. And based onisinformation. I hope buyers see through it.

No its not, its actually pretty much the same, think it through, you'll get this eventually and understand, I have faith in your cognition.

perhaps you are TOO optimistic  

Quote from: Norebbo on September 15, 2010, 17:07

Which is why all exclusives who wish to give up their crown should start uploading to other sites now, and tell iStock to pound sand about the 30-day notice in the contract.

Actually you already can upload to Dreamstime within the 30 day notice. Dreamstime will review the images and you already get the money for the uploading. After the 30 days they will publish your images.

they "get it" 

Quote

Funny how so recently most of us considered the biggest threat to our microstock incomes to be our fellow contributors and the volumes of images being produced. How wrong we were.

And if what you suggest will happen at iStock does happen, artists screwed into the ground, you think it won't start happening a your agency next?

it will if we bend over to IS and beg them for more...

Lisa - I'm not an apologist, I think your approach on this one couldn't be more wrong. Sadly, hate seeing you on this bandwagon. I resent you and others gouging my livelihood. I hope they don't kowtow, it will set another terrible precedent and I'm tired of these protests.

you should resent "iStock" gouging your livlihood...one of us just doesn't get it... *sigh*

I contribute to iStock for fun. My real job is Art Director at a Canadian Magazine. I'm starting to feel like I'm supporting a big corporation instead of the artists. After I burn up my last batch of credits, I'll be taking my business elsewhere. 85% percent is just too much profit IMO.

Excellent!
Just had lunch with VP of one of the top three online "travel" sites, went back to his office, and got him set up on a new stock site (I won't pimp it). He slapped the credit card down then and there. These guys spend a LOT of scratch on images, mostly EL's since they use them in print and television as well.
Rock On Garth!

I hope it is worth it. by your admission, seems you've made a bad business decision if all the emotion is removed and you're cutting corners on things like internet access in your studio. anyways, good luck, you're a nice guy...

I have no doubt iStock would welcome you back at any point, that much I have seen with others who went non-exclusive to make a statement over past changes. still trying to find the heroism in cutting off your nose to spite your face...

...he says while leaning over the table without a jar of Vasoline in sight 

Quote from: hawk_eye on September 14, 2010, 10:20

I'd say that is exactly what some of you want to hear. FWIW, any buyers at agencies here that I've spoken to, who I work with daily, don't really care. they aren't generally concerned with how the artists are being compensated. they are too busy working. I'm a designer first, it is how I ended up selling my photos on iStock, I see the outrage as just another iStock forum meltdown. it's like crying wolf now and it's always the same contributors, more or less, who are upset.

that doesn't mean that many contributors don't have a reason to be worried, concerned or angry about what they will be losing. but sending buyers away from a site is just plain stupid. talk about shooting off your entire leg.

It's only shooting yourself in the leg if you are exclusive, if not it's good business.  Am I missing something?

+1

Yep been Photoshopped to hell and back. For one thing it doesn't even look like the correct sky (and there's a funny halo round the horizon line). Who are the judges, have they ever held camera?
I can only see that it was saved from PSCS4 in the file info, they've deleted the paths etc..

+1

So, that was it. The thread on istock is slowing down, and we did nothing....

I did...closed my account and our firm just put them on the sh%t-list for purchasing...F'em and feed 'em fish heads. Alot will stay but I mad as hell and I'm not going to take it anymore...let Mr. Getty pay for his new house with the $ from those who stay, but it won't be mine anymore...."Thank you sir, may I have another?"

Seacrest, OUT