MicrostockGroup Sponsors


Author Topic: Makes you wonder...  (Read 17735 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

« on: May 05, 2009, 12:42 »
0
I got t his message in my StockXpert inbox today and wondered why they weren't doing this before...

As you know, StockXpert.com was recently acquired by Gettyimages as part of the Jupiterimages acquisition. The StockXpert team is now working closely with our new friends to align our application and submission policies to ensure a legally safe and sound marketplace for selling your images.

In the upcoming weeks, we are going to review the entire Stockxpert collection in order to identify and remove any images that infringe on someone's intellectual property. At the same time, we will be tightening our image approval process to filter out images that we simply do not feel comfortable with.

As an example, any future uploads that contain unmodified NASA images will no longer be accepted. These images will also be removed permanently from the Stockxpert collection.

For images that will be removed from the Stockxpert collection for legal reasons, you will receive a deactivation notice to identify the image(s) that are being removed and, the legal reason that prompted the removal.

We will do our best to provide you with as much information as possible on our evolving intellectual property policies and procedures. Also, we will be updating our FAQ section on Stockxpert to highlight changes to our policies and to better reflect our future legal standards.

We look forward to working with all of you and thank you for your continued collaboration to build Stockxpert into a creative resource that designers everywhere can enjoy.

Best Regards,
The Stockxpert Team
[email protected]


« Reply #1 on: May 05, 2009, 13:03 »
0
lets just hope they don't start with disambiguation. ... if they do they will go from one of the best sites in regards to upload to the worst.

lisafx

« Reply #2 on: May 05, 2009, 13:07 »
0
Interesting.  Hope the next communication from them isn't something lowering our commissions like they are trying to ram down istock's throat.

Xalanx

« Reply #3 on: May 05, 2009, 13:08 »
0
This would be my last concern. I'm waiting for them to solve the zero views problem. And zero sales on images from march on. Or february on. I stopped uploading to them for now.

tan510jomast

« Reply #4 on: May 05, 2009, 13:15 »
0
Interesting.  Hope the next communication from them isn't something lowering our commissions like they are trying to ram down istock's throat.
lets just hope they don't start with disambiguation. ... if they do they will go from one of the best sites in regards to upload to the worst.

lisa and tyler , my sentiments exactly.

« Reply #5 on: May 05, 2009, 14:16 »
0
Maybe they should worry about getting decent stats in place for us! It would be nice to be able to view all sales for the day on one page with number of dl's from each site clearly marked. Also a way to see month-to-month stats...

batman

« Reply #6 on: May 05, 2009, 15:21 »
0
isn't it a bummer how getty monopolizes this forum lately?  if leaf gets a penny for every mention of getty or related keywords, tyler will be a millionaire by now  8)

« Reply #7 on: May 05, 2009, 15:30 »
0
Exactly what Xalanx said.


I'm thrilled that StockXpert is spending time hunting for old NASA images instead of fixing this problem.   

I too am done with StockXpert.  I started in January and it's been a complete waste of time.


DanP68

« Reply #8 on: May 05, 2009, 15:40 »
0
Stockxpert has been phased out, if my statistics are any indication.  My downloads at "StockXpert" in April were 98% from Photos.com + Jupiter Unlimited.  StockXpert subs + credit sales made up 2% of the downloads.

In March the difference was about 80/20.

In May, although early, it is 95/5.

I would not be surprised if the domain "Stockxpert" was available 1 year from now.  It doesn't seem anyone cares about it anymore.

If you are still contributing there, then you are almost certainly contributing to Photos.com/JUI in actuality.  These are the domains being pushed by Getty, and quite frankly I don't blame them.  Photos.com is a Grade A domain name, best in the business imo.  Jupiter Unlimited piggybacks off the well known Jupiter name.  Stockxpert?  Not even easy to remember.  Cannot blame Getty for pushing the other two.  But I wish the offer was something less of an embarassment than 30c per subs sale.  They are racing to the bottom with the best of them.
« Last Edit: May 05, 2009, 15:44 by DanP68 »

« Reply #9 on: May 05, 2009, 16:05 »
0
I still get good sales with stockxpert.  istock has always had stricter copyright and trademark rules than most of the other sites, so it does make sense to bring the same standards to StockXpert.

If they did bring in disambiguation, I would just delete my account.  I don't care if I lose out, there is no way I am wasting time doing that now I have a big portfolio.

« Reply #10 on: May 05, 2009, 16:48 »
0
Well, they are not (yet) talking about CA or whatever, just images with legal issues.

« Reply #11 on: May 05, 2009, 17:59 »
0
I'm glad they're doing this!
I'm sick and tired of competing with all those morons who trace their granny's wallpaper and sell it as their own design!

Oh and now at least we know Getty isn't getting rid of StockXpert in the near future.

« Reply #12 on: May 06, 2009, 21:39 »
0
until I read this i was sure that StockXpert was going to gradually disappear down the drain, the 'hold' on new uploads being shown to buyers and broken parts of the site seem to make sense now, it will be interesting to see if getty also try to style or theme StockXpert to differentiate if from istock - somewhere they can try out new licensing models without damage to istock.

« Reply #13 on: May 07, 2009, 12:56 »
0
For a while on the StockXpert forum, an Admin was saying the '0 views' problem was a mystery that was being looked into.  Weeks went by and there was no resolution.  Currently, forum posts on the subject get no official response.   So if this is somehow related to the Getty takeover, someone has been less than forthcoming about that on their forum.

D@mn funny way to run a railroad.


« Reply #14 on: May 07, 2009, 14:17 »
0
This would be my last concern. I'm waiting for them to solve the zero views problem. And zero sales on images from march on. Or february on. I stopped uploading to them for now.

Strange. I had stopped uploading to them as well because it seemed like a dead in the water shell site with no contributor support or anything, but just in the last week I started having some good dollar value downloads. Go figure...

Needless to say I am starting to upload a bit to them again.
« Last Edit: May 07, 2009, 14:22 by marcbkk »

« Reply #15 on: May 07, 2009, 14:43 »
0
Last time I bothered to check my files on StockXpert, I think I saw that uploads since February  were getting just about 0 views - except for one batch, which somehow escaped death.  So I suspect it's a bug in the way new uploads are added to their database.  It only affects some contributors, some (apparently most) of the time. 

« Reply #16 on: May 08, 2009, 09:23 »
0
For a while on the StockXpert forum, an Admin was saying the '0 views' problem was a mystery that was being looked into.  Weeks went by and there was no resolution.  Currently, forum posts on the subject get no official response.   

That's what is so frustrating about this. Ignoring the problem won't make it go away! I really want to support StockXpert and be patient with them about this, but they aren't making it easy for me.

« Reply #17 on: May 10, 2009, 13:54 »
0
I just checked their forum again - no change. Some people still get posting that they get 0 views on new images.  Other contributors chime in and say "gee it works for me."   Um thanks for sharing, people, but for some of us, StockXpert is broken.

'Admin' no longer posts any replies.   

I think there's no one home at StockXpert anymore.  It's just a big web site sitting on a server somewhere, doing its job, maybe wondering what happened to the friendly humans that used to maintain it.




« Reply #18 on: May 12, 2009, 16:32 »
0
I had two images deactivated for "copyright or trademark protection."  These are images of the statue of * the Redeemer, a landmark of Rio.  I understand some uses may not be authorized, but possibly they would fall into the "offensive" or such prohibition.  Any travel advertisement of Rio shows the * and I doubt the archdiocese of Rio signed property releases or authorized each usage individually.  Well, ok.

« Reply #19 on: May 12, 2009, 16:39 »
0
I had two images deactivated for "copyright or trademark protection."  These are images of the statue of creepers the Redeemer, a landmark of Rio.  I understand some uses may not be authorized, but possibly they would fall into the "offensive" or such prohibition.  Any travel advertisement of Rio shows the creepers and I doubt the archdiocese of Rio signed property releases or authorized each usage individually.  Well, ok.
I thought the redeemer was public property now?

« Reply #20 on: May 12, 2009, 17:18 »
0
I don't know exactly what the situation is.  The statue is located inside a National Park, it was built 80+ years ago and I think it is maintained by the government, but the archidiocese of Rio has some rights over it (I read the federal government gave the statue to them by the time it was opened).  I know that any event, such as movie filming, has to be authorized by the archidiocese.

The family of the architect also claim rights over it, but I believe they can only claim the authorship (even this is disputed), as this was a hired contract.

« Reply #21 on: May 12, 2009, 18:43 »
0
I highly doubt as well that they are issuing property releases for every use of the stature. It was nonsense to deactivate your images for this reason. What's the next step, to take down all the photos of the Golden Gate bridge in SF?

« Reply #22 on: May 12, 2009, 18:51 »
0
Ouch!  How was C-h-r-i-s-t's name substituted by "creepeers"?

« Reply #23 on: May 12, 2009, 18:57 »
0
Ouch!  How was C-h-r-i-s-t's name substituted by "creepeers"?

leaf programmed it so :)

« Reply #24 on: May 12, 2009, 19:35 »
0
I had two images deactivated for "copyright or trademark protection."  These are images of the statue of creepers the Redeemer, a landmark of Rio.  I understand some uses may not be authorized, but possibly they would fall into the "offensive" or such prohibition.  Any travel advertisement of Rio shows the creepers and I doubt the archdiocese of Rio signed property releases or authorized each usage individually.  Well, ok.

bit like the sydney opera house, you have to pay for commercial use (editorial is ok) including print sales etc.  But everywhere you look is pics of it


 

Related Topics

  Subject / Started by Replies Last post
8 Replies
6616 Views
Last post October 08, 2006, 17:31
by suwanneeredhead
27 Replies
14002 Views
Last post June 14, 2009, 14:12
by MisterElements
12 Replies
4704 Views
Last post July 31, 2009, 18:41
by madelaide
11 Replies
6683 Views
Last post July 14, 2013, 13:42
by cthoman
11 Replies
6034 Views
Last post February 06, 2014, 03:09
by TheDrift-

Sponsors

Mega Bundle of 5,900+ Professional Lightroom Presets

Microstock Poll Results

Sponsors