The Getty Photographers are not happy.

What surprised me that they are not sharing any content with istock. I mean, they already put the agency collection on istock, I would have thought if they are moving "downstream" that istock would be the next stop.

But from what I read from the non exclusives the duality of shutterstock and non subsctription sites works as long as it is not done on the same site.

I signed the contract, but I don�t have many images on Getty anyway.

I have most of my istock images in the PP program and I am not seeing a drop in downloads that I can in any way relate to the programm. In the beginning I only opted non sellers in, then gradually added most files. The images sell, but the sales pattern is not the same as on istock. I have some images that sell really well there that are not moving on istock at all.

As long as Thinkstock is kept on a different site, I feel fine with it. I hope they don�t merge it with istock.

This is one of the reasons I am glad to be exclusive. i�ll be happy to let Lobo and co hunt the thieves down...

I actually found one of my images on getty pics flickr two days ago and it has already dissapeared...

on getty themselves copyright is correct. It is some of their many partner sites that are worrying photographers. And it is possible to have instant sales on getty. Even with only one image on getty when I started I had an instant sale, although it went online at the end of the month.

I like the sales on getty, for me it works well. But getting images in has become very difficult. That is why many istocker prefer to take the Vetta/agency route.

Hi Lisa,

loads of respect here as well! :-)

I really don�t think the storm cloud has left istock untouched. But no, the decision wasn�t reversed.

But do you really think that a union would have achieved more? I doubt it, but here we differ of course.

Sometimes a management has to try something new even if it is unpopular. Inspite of the protest the new system had many good points, especially for new incoming exclusives (there was nothing to like for the non exclusives, I agree). Under the old system it had become extremely difficult to reach higher canister levels, the downloads had dropped as the prices increased, so the new RC levels that connect real value of the sale with your royalty level was intended as an improvement.

I know it backfired for many, especially mixed media contributors. I also dropped a level. But many people benefitted, you just don�t see them brag about it. Hardly anyone quit exclusivity about it.

Of course, I wasn�t happy about the lack of communication. As a moderator...well...you sit between all fires, nothing much you can do.

But if a union had existed - what would they have done???

And how do you organize a union with 80 000 people from around the globe?? If you have a union, then the members will have to sign voting power over to them for negotiations. I would never do that.

And just last week istock asked for contributors to nominate people they trust to discuss the fraud issue with them. I think that is a very good idea. If they do that more often, we would have a form of representation - free of charge, by the way (and thanks again to all the participants).

Ideally they would ask for new nominations depending on subject matter than we could have a fresh team everytime. Although Sean would be in high demand ;-)

So, no, we don�t have a union, but maybe "trusted contributors" are already a step in that direction.

So they do listen to the community. They have to anyway, internet marketing demands happy contributors. Discontent is bad for business.

But as the agencies grow, we also have to accept that decisions and changes will no longer be instant, but probably go through several layers of management.

And like I said in the thread on fraud: I look forward to any IPO, because the contributors become shareholders. Strong contributors like Sean might be asked by investors to sit on the board.

The internet changes at light speed, so I believe that we have all have more direct influence with our posts and discussions than we think.

I know istock is unpopular over here and with all the site problems, I can�t say I blame you, but FWIW anyone I ever met from management was genuinly interested in promoting the artists and the community. They are also very, very talented people. If they really just wanted to make money, they would be working in other industries. Doesn�t mean they don�t make mistakes. But they really do listen and read everything we write.

So, even without a badge I am optimistic...:-)

Completely out of touch and completely anti micro. Very arrogant whenever you came across them on the internet.

They could have easily survived by targeting the successful new photographers, but they were too interested in protecting their little club...

The succsessful artists had long included micro anyway.

@Curt

my sympathies. But most forum bans are temporary, they are more of a time out to take a step back and refocus. The world is bigger than istock :-)

Also keep in mind that the istock forums are very diverse and not everyone has the same type of humour. Some artists are extremely sensitive and read "critical" language as strong insults, not just on istock, but on themselves. They will then complain to the moderators. Other contributors, especially those with poorer English language skills, will just avoid the forums alltogether if they see "all that emotion". And it is not just the exclusives that withdraw. I live in Germany so the very direct "in your face talk" suits me fine, but people from other countries or cultures react differently.

Moderators have to find a balance to allow as many people as possible to take part in the forums. Plus it�s a company forum, not a free for all student board.

FWIW, I hope you have fun here in the meantime and can get in touch with Lobo, when the time is right.

Thanks for sharing the background Rob. This makes istocks wariness of including non exclusives much more understandable.

Fantastic Food and pictures! Thank you very much for sharing!

http://www.worldphoto.org/festivals-events/festival-tickets/festivals/festivalslondon-festival-somerset-house/

World Photography Festival 26th Apr 2011 - 1st May 2011

"Rumour has it that some istock submitters have extraordinary luck in getting their images to go before lax reviewers. I had a very high ranking diamond portfolio pointed out to me which seemed to fall way below the minimum normal standard. But any inspection fiddling going on will be a private matter and will be nothing to do with the general policy."

As a former istock inspector I would like to point out that I have never seen or heard any of that. Of course it is possible that inspectors make a bad decision (they are only human) and that is why members can appeal to Scout to have an image overturned. Also while inspecting you usually don�t look at who is submitting the image, you just look at the file in 100%. Training is pretty rigorous and ongoing.

My own images get rejected from time to time. Sometimes I agree, sometimes I send them to Scout, just like anyone else. Of course my rejection rate is pretty low, but I already had 89% acceptance before training.

For those who consider exclusivity, image rejection shouldn�t really be a question. If you spend time in the critique forum you can optimize your workflow to minimize rejections. Many people have acceptance rates of over 90%, both exclusive and non exclusive, even with simple cameras.

This is the address given to the domain registrar. It does not list a company as the owner or that the company is located in Switzerland.

In Germany there are very high fines for not adding an impressum immediatly. I know, because it happened to a friend of mine. He had to pay over 6000 euros in fines because the impressum was put up only ONE WEEK after the website went online. It also was a beta version they were still working on. The court didn�t care. The law is the law. As soon as you operate a commercial website you have to have an Impressum page with all company details. And since they are signing up new business partners through this web site, they are a full commercial website under Swiss law (Swiss business laws are often more strict than those in Germany).

So either they are not based in Switzerland or if they are, they are extremely naive and have no business experience.

Quote from: Tom on October 25, 2010, 13:17

Hallo Herr Zag,

gibt es in der Schweiz keine Impressumspflicht?

Gru�
Tom

Hallo. Nat�rlich gibt es. In naher Zukunft werden alle Formen und Regeln auf unserer Website verf�gbar.

Gibt es dann auch Mitarbeiter die Deutsch als Muttersprache haben?

Just commenting that the sentence above wasn�t written by a native German speaker.

Maybe you should soon disclose which company is driving this website and where it is located.  In Switzerland, like in Germany, all businesses have to have an "Impressum" page with company details, name of the Managing Director etc...as soon as they put up a website, even if it is a beta test. If you don�t any competitor can sue you immediatly.

So - are you a Swiss company, based in Switzerland?

And why are you making the UK your legal base?

From your website:

"Applicable law
These terms and conditions and the content of this website are governed by English law whose courts shall have exclusive jurisdiction This Web site can be accessed from all territories of United Kingdom, as well as from other countries around the world. As each of these jurisdictions has laws that may differ from those of United Kingdom, by accessing this Web site, you acknowledge and agree that all matters relating to access to, or use of this Web site shall be governed by English law applicable therein (without reference to conflicts of laws principles).
You also agree that any claims or disputes whatsoever arising hereunder shall be submitted to the exclusive jurisdiction and venue of the courts of United Kingdom and acknowledge that you do so voluntarily."

Microstock has made me technically a much better photographer. Never knew what artefacts were before and I never used Photoshop. In the first few years, however it really changed the way I saw the world. While I was beginning to discover stock everywhere I was doing a lot less "artistic" i.e. blurry, unsharp, hip shot, iso 4000 images full of logos without a model release. Instead of throwing the camera in the air, I would carry a tripod and carefully plan my shoot.

But now I have my balance back. I try to make a point to just go out and shoot for myself and let go of "stock"whenever I can. I would also love to improve my Photoshopskills, because I am fascinated what designers can create from our stock pictures.

I enjoy photography even more than before. Somehow by learning a new set of skills for stock all my photography has improved.

And of course I am grateful that microstock provides me with a new day job that is so much more interesting than what I was doing before.