It's interesting that one of the iStock images was shot by a qualified doctor (who happens to be a contributor also). Perhaps there are some diveregencies in practice between doctors and veterinaries  

Quote from: traveler1116 on January 24, 2012, 02:43

I think they said when you get 500 DLs you should be ok.

I have over 500 DLs and my acceptance rate shows zero, so if they did say that, it's not correct.

It's always been the case that you can go exclusive when you have 500 downloads no matter what your acceptance rate. The acceptance rate is only an issue if you want to go exclusive when you only have 250-499 downloads.  In the time it's taken so far to get the bug fixed you'll probably have reached 500 downloads anyway, it's hardly a high bar to set.

I have a few Models I've used for years. every now and then . I'll update them. Not for each shoot. Never a problem.

It would be if you submitted them to iStock. For shots taken after September 2009, iStock requires a new release for each new shoot, and, on that release there needs to be a meaningful shoot description and the shoot date on the release needs to match the shoot date on your exif.

Its a bit worrying though. IS, stopped it simply because it can lend itself to abuse, especisally when fellow members are involved.
Surprises me this is still going on?

iStock still has the wiki facility, nothing changed.

IStock will not accept any paper currency shot straight on/flat that shows more than 30./. Of the note. Nor will they accept any currency showing Queen Elizabeth's head (coins, notes, stamps) and that involves several Commonwealth country currencies.
Nor will they accept any numbers (at all) on a credit card, or of course any logos.

Quote from: caspixel on March 09, 2011, 22:40

Well, this isn't a buyer bailing, but it sure is a frustrated buyer: http://www.istockphoto.com/forum_messages.php?threadid=312262&page=1

to have the largest size checked...in the hopes that someone will make that mistake and resign themselves to the fact that they effed up

Actually, this is a marketing ploy, marketing 101; at fast food restaurants they teach the cashiers
If a customer orders a coke and does not say the size; you ask them "large?", you don't ask them "what size?".  Granted, at IS they are not asking, they have the box checked and expect the buyer to make another choice.

It's common practice. If I buy train tickets from an machine, it gives me a peak time ticket unless I specifically select off peak. On Amazon, items that I added in my basket but didn't check out stay in my basket. If a few weeks later I'm in a rush and buy an item with the 1 click purchase system, I get the other items that I'd put in my basket weeks before too. It's my responsibility, it's not hidden in any way, it's right there in my face. I did that once, and had to return all the other items for refund (which is what the iStock buyer has been repeatedly told she can do), and since that one time, I take the extra one second to check what I'm doing.

So I had the reply for MorganRichardson saying they don't offer the other cover without covering the gear. My gear is covered until the third week in October, expensively, new-for-old; home-and-abroad, so I don't want to double up.
I guess if they'd wanted the business, they could have suggested covering just one piece of my equipment to get round that issue.
I've had no reply from aaduki or GloverHowe, and I emailled all three first thing on Tuesday morning, so I'm guessing they're not interested for the same reason.
My husband found a company which offered insurance for outdoor sculpture he was involved in. Their rates are extremely prohibitive and definitely unsustainable.
Any other UK suggestions?
Tx.

Why not just call them, then you won't be wondering if they're not interested or have lost your email etc?

I don't know why I continue to be surprised by human nature. I know there isn't any kind of rule (here) about not posting links to someone else's work for the sole purpose of drawing attention to what you perceive as a mistake/injustice/I've-run-out-of-charitable-reasons-behind-your-intention.  And as there is no such rule, other than common human decency, my opinion counts for nothing. But I have to wonder at the motivations of posting, and commenting on these. We all make mistakes, I'm sure we have images that wouldn't pass inspection today. I'm sure we can all find examples of images that were accepted in error. I'm also sure, however, that in my own little book, singling out a photographer's work for this kind of ridicule is crass. Not that Yuri needs me as an apologist.

Thanks for posting the link. Aran's photography is delicious, very much in fashion for food photography now and I love it.

Nothing like hiring an million-dollar salary fat cat as you steal money from the masses. Typical big business short-sightedness. Let them eat cake!

I didn't see his salary quoted, must have missed that, can you link for me?

Irritating or not, does it really warrant an outright ban and an entire thread devoted to the subject? C'mon.  

From Lobo's post :
"repeat offenders of the "+1" will be warned directly but if you become an annoyance I will just revoke your privileges for a while to see if that works. Don't make me have to do that"

That's a little different to just saying it's an "outright ban" . So how else would he advise people that there is a change in policy & +1'ers are no longer wanted other than starting a thread about it?  

ETA : there are a lot of things that I'm not happy about, and things that would be done better. I'm just saying that chosing this as your battle is pushing it. People are pissed off with iStock, yeah. But conspiracy theories can only be stretched so far. I'd save it for something more worth while.

You really don't need to do anything other than put a note at the beginning of the description field to tell the inspector it's a stiched image.

I don't think they want to get rid of any exclusives. I just think they don't want to keep paying 30% to 40% to exclusives who joined way back in the beginning and are coasting on high commissions while either not producing anything new or sellable.

So someone who joined in 2002, has 5,000 files, and 25,000 downloads is a Diamond. But they will suffer severly under the new model because their sales performance (RPI, DRI, Redeemed Credits) would probably be considered way below average.

I also don't think this is about new or old. It's about profits. More profitable contributors end up in the same or better position. Less profitable contributors end up in a worse position.

I agree with Paulie. As much as it pains me, because I'm one of those who'll be losing out big time, I do see how inequitable the old system is. If I'm honest with myself, I don't see why I should have a higher commission *just* because I've been there for years & years and so have built up sales over time.  There are some hugely talented new contributors producing much better stock than me who aren't getting my commission levels simply because I got there first. And, in the cold light of day, I think they're more talented than me. And if that's true, then they'll sell more each year than me and their talent will earn them higher commision than me. It sucks, because that's a big change to what I signed up for, and it will be a big change to my income. But when I look at it clinically, it makes perfect business sense to reward your best performers. At the rist of laboring the point, here's another analogy. My first job was for the government. Pay was structured in years of service. I was outraged that "the old guard" who'd been there for 30 years and did far less than me got paid more than me, simply because they'd been there longer.

That said, I do hope the cut off levels will be tweaked before January because I don't think they're in the right place (unless Kelly's predction for sales galore in the next 2 months magically comes true). But, in principle, I think the system is fairer (even though I'll be losing out)