Author Topic: How much do you like Istockphoto? (Read 35238 times)

Graffoto · « **Reply #25 on:** November 28, 2009, 12:16 »

I liked IS enough that I went exclusive. 'Nuff said.

lisafx · « **Reply #26 on:** November 28, 2009, 14:38 »

Quote from: Albert Martin on November 28, 2009, 10:14

Yup... It is very huge problem there. Exclusives are inspectors and they decide what is stock and what isn't regarding to that what THEY have in their own portfolios. So if they see anything even far similar to their work or to their fellow inspectors they just reject it as not for stock... That is called abusing power to protect their positions. Also, they seems to work as team and that is what is wrong there.

Sorry, I am afraid I can't agree with this. I am a non-exclusive and I have managed to maintain over a 90% acceptance rate with istock. I shoot a lot of very commonplace subjects that I am sure one or probably several inspectors have also covered.

I have speculated there may possibly be a small bias in favor of exclusives on borderline images (though I don't know this for a fact), but to be honest I think that would be justified because exclusives have no other RF outlet.

Overall one of the things I most LIKE about istock is the consistency of it's inspections. Frankly it would be nice if all sites' reviews were as reasonable as Istock's.

KB · « **Reply #27 on:** November 28, 2009, 16:42 »

Quote from: lisafx on November 28, 2009, 14:38

Overall one of the things I most LIKE about istock is the consistency of it's inspections. Frankly it would be nice if all sites' reviews were as reasonable as Istock's.

Amen, Amen, AMEN!

Albert Martin · « **Reply #28 on:** November 28, 2009, 17:04 »

Amen indeed ;-)

dbvirago · « **Reply #29 on:** November 28, 2009, 17:16 »

Quote from: Albert Martin on November 16, 2009, 17:06

I am not member of istockphoto and I don't plan to become one either. But, considering some words I saw here and there I have very justified reasons to suspect that istockphoto contributors are not very pleased with their administration as well with policies.
So, I'd like to see if I am right or wrong about my suspicion... I know that many of people who have to say anything will stay silent because they are afraid of istock administators wraith. Maybe you who are customers as well you who got bullied there have something to say? Maybe someone isn't afraid?

I've read this several times and I still can't quite follow. You want to know if people aren't happy with a site that you aren't going to join? I'm not going to paint my house green. How does everyone feel about green?

Sean Locke Photography · « **Reply #30 on:** November 28, 2009, 17:50 »

Quote from: Albert Martin on November 28, 2009, 10:14

Yup... It is very huge problem there. Exclusives are inspectors and they decide what is stock and what isn't regarding to that what THEY have in their own portfolios. So if they see anything even far similar to their work or to their fellow inspectors they just reject it as not for stock... That is called abusing power to protect their positions. Also, they seems to work as team and that is what is wrong there.

How I know that? Well I can say that I am very well informed person of what is going on where ;-)
I know many people doing stock as well those on micros too... They all have very great experience when combined on one place.

Sorry Albert, but you're just full of it. Your conspiracy theories don't hold water.

Dreamframer · « **Reply #31 on:** November 28, 2009, 22:01 »

There is no agency that every contributors will like. We often see topics about bad things that agencies do to us, so I am sure that any answer you are going to find here won't be relevant.
But, it would be nice of you if you could be honest and tell as the truth behind your story. Why would anybody want to know what we like/dislike about IS if that person doesn't want to have any business with IS. I consider myself very curious person, but still, I don't care what anybody here thinks about any agency I'm not, and I don't plan to be with.
Maybe we could help you if we know what really bothers you.

mwp1969 · « **Reply #32 on:** November 28, 2009, 23:38 »

The 15 image upload limit is very restrictive. This hurts me as I currently appx. 400+ image backlog waiting to be uploaded into their queue.

On the upside my sales on my small portfolio of images have been growing. Each of the my last three months has been higher than the preceding month.

In comparision:

My SS Portfolio: 485
My IS Portfolio: 35 (Application approved at the end of April)

I will keep uploading there as fast as the upload restrictions will allow ...

-Mark

FD · « **Reply #33 on:** November 29, 2009, 01:36 »

Quote from: sjlocke on November 28, 2009, 17:50

Quote from: Albert Martin on November 28, 2009, 10:14
Yup... It is very huge problem there. Exclusives are inspectors and they decide what is stock and what isn't regarding to that what THEY have in their own portfolios. So if they see anything even far similar to their work or to their fellow inspectors they just reject it as not for stock... That is called abusing power to protect their positions. Also, they seems to work as team and that is what is wrong there.

How I know that? Well I can say that I am very well informed person of what is going on where ;-)
I know many people doing stock as well those on micros too... They all have very great experience when combined on one place.

Sorry Albert, but you're just full of it. Your conspiracy theories don't hold water.

Milinz is back.

eppic · « **Reply #34 on:** November 29, 2009, 02:30 »

Istock accounts for over half of my earnings, so I like Istock for that reason.

FD · « **Reply #35 on:** November 29, 2009, 05:17 »

Quote from: eppic on November 29, 2009, 02:30

Istock accounts for over half of my earnings, so I like Istock for that reason.

SS earned me 3x as much as IS, and DT 2.4x as much, so I love them all, but not in the same amount

LostOne · « **Reply #36 on:** November 29, 2009, 05:34 »

Quote from: sgcallaway1994 on November 28, 2009, 12:12

I'm bugged by the simple fact that SOOO many of my imags get refused for artifacting! I look at them at 100%, but darnned if I can see what they are talking about.

Same here, just had 3 from the batch declined for that reason. It's funny to read their instructions about jpeg compression and stuff like that especially if you shoot a studio picture in raw mode, ISO 100, with just tiny ammount of contrast boost and only saving the picture in jpg as the final step. Looks like my camera produces artifacting out of the box

Appart from that and troublesome upload procedures I quite like IS. Earns a lot of money even with less images online

ShadySue · « **Reply #37 on:** November 29, 2009, 05:46 »

I'm currently exclusive, though my sales have been in freefall all year. E.g. this is my best month of the year, and my downloads are 30% below Nov 07 and over 50% below Nov '08. so I may have to revisit - if only time weren't so much of an issue.
However, what I dislike most is the doublespeak, for example, on the enticement to become exclusive, it says:
"Protection and resolution
Exclusivity makes it easier for us to protect our contributors. We can better enforce compliance issues when we know an image came from us and must follow our licensing agreement."

However, in the actual badly-written, ambiguous and obfuscating Exclusivity Agreement, it says:

"Notwithstanding the foregoing, given the exigencies of the stock photography business and the prevalence of royalty-free content, iStockphoto cannot take responsibility for the compliance by purchasers and licensees of the terms of such agreements. Accordingly, you acknowledge and agree to the possibility of Exclusive Content being used in a manner that is not contemplated in this Agreement or the Content License Agreement or any distribution partner license agreement, and you agree that notwithstanding any rights you may have to pursue the licensees of such Exclusive Content at law, iStockphoto shall have no liability to you or any person claiming through you for any breach by a licensee of the terms of any agreement respecting Accepted Exclusive Content."

So basically, if someone uses one of your models and portrays them as a member of the British National Party (as has happened) or the KKK (nearest US equivalent, which AFAIK, hasn't happened), any legal case is on your own and at your own expense, even if exclusive.

IMO, that is grossly misleading (the 'enticement' vis a vis the actuality) and unfair - and basically gives buyers carte blanche knowing that individuals are unlikely to have the wherewithal to pursue. I have heard of cease and desists for inappropriate web uses, but what happens if, as in the BNP scenario, the photo is distributed in print to thousands of homes?

sharpshot · « **Reply #38 on:** November 29, 2009, 06:13 »

I love these internet conspiracy theories, 99.9% are wrong but people still believe in them. In my experience, there are categories of images that istock don't like, they sometimes seem to check images at 400% to find problems that aren't really there but I have never felt that there is a bias towards exclusives from the reviewers. I sometimes disagree with reviews on most sites and I like the istock scout system. If an image is rejected by scout, there is almost certainly something wrong with it or it isn't something istock are interested in.

There are lots of things I don't like about istock, the 20% commission probably being the big one but it looks like Albert is the biased one here, not the istock inspectors.

FD · « **Reply #39 on:** November 29, 2009, 09:42 »

Quote from: sharpshot on November 29, 2009, 06:13

...but it looks like Albert is the biased one here, not the istock inspectors.

If I got it right, "Albert" is not even a member of, let alone an uploader to iStock. How then he can judge about rejection reasons and practices on that site?

lisafx · « **Reply #40 on:** November 29, 2009, 11:55 »

Quote from: ShadySue on November 29, 2009, 05:46

However, what I dislike most is the doublespeak, for example, on the enticement to become exclusive, it says:
"Protection and resolution
Exclusivity makes it easier for us to protect our contributors. We can better enforce compliance issues when we know an image came from us and must follow our licensing agreement."

However, in the actual badly-written, ambiguous and obfuscating Exclusivity Agreement, it says:

"Notwithstanding the foregoing, given the exigencies of the stock photography business and the prevalence of royalty-free content, iStockphoto cannot take responsibility for the compliance by purchasers and licensees of the terms of such agreements. Accordingly, you acknowledge and agree to the possibility of Exclusive Content being used in a manner that is not contemplated in this Agreement or the Content License Agreement or any distribution partner license agreement, and you agree that notwithstanding any rights you may have to pursue the licensees of such Exclusive Content at law, iStockphoto shall have no liability to you or any person claiming through you for any breach by a licensee of the terms of any agreement respecting Accepted Exclusive Content."

I am totally stunned by this. You are right, Sue - the ability to enforce license compliance and protect your images from misuse has been touted by Istock for years as a major reason to be exclusive.

If the exclusivity contract itself negates that protection it diminishes the attractiveness of exclusivity quite a lot in my eyes.

I have already had to fight my legal battles over misuse of an istock image, but at least I have the extra income from being independent (20% over what I would make as a diamond exclusive) to pay the legal costs.

abimages · « **Reply #41 on:** November 30, 2009, 11:42 »

Quote from: KB on November 28, 2009, 16:42

Quote from: lisafx on November 28, 2009, 14:38
Overall one of the things I most LIKE about istock is the consistency of it's inspections. Frankly it would be nice if all sites' reviews were as reasonable as Istock's.
Amen, Amen, AMEN!

Gotta agree with this! Plus their support are the most professional and helpful I have come across.

Dan · « **Reply #42 on:** November 30, 2009, 16:49 »

Haven't made it in yet. Maybe my next batch will be accepted. Sounds like a great place.

le_cyclope · « **Reply #43 on:** November 30, 2009, 18:14 »

Quote from: lisafx on November 29, 2009, 11:55

Quote from: ShadySue on November 29, 2009, 05:46

However, what I dislike most is the doublespeak, for example, on the enticement to become exclusive, it says:
"Protection and resolution
Exclusivity makes it easier for us to protect our contributors. We can better enforce compliance issues when we know an image came from us and must follow our licensing agreement."

However, in the actual badly-written, ambiguous and obfuscating Exclusivity Agreement, it says:

"Notwithstanding the foregoing, given the exigencies of the stock photography business and the prevalence of royalty-free content, iStockphoto cannot take responsibility for the compliance by purchasers and licensees of the terms of such agreements. Accordingly, you acknowledge and agree to the possibility of Exclusive Content being used in a manner that is not contemplated in this Agreement or the Content License Agreement or any distribution partner license agreement, and you agree that notwithstanding any rights you may have to pursue the licensees of such Exclusive Content at law, iStockphoto shall have no liability to you or any person claiming through you for any breach by a licensee of the terms of any agreement respecting Accepted Exclusive Content."

I am totally stunned by this. You are right, Sue - the ability to enforce license compliance and protect your images from misuse has been touted by Istock for years as a major reason to be exclusive.

If the exclusivity contract itself negates that protection it diminishes the attractiveness of exclusivity quite a lot in my eyes.

I have already had to fight my legal battles over misuse of an istock image, but at least I have the extra income from being independent (20% over what I would make as a diamond exclusive) to pay the legal costs.

I think that there is no contradictions in these two statements. In the first, IS states that they will do their best to defend its contributors.

But in no ways, IS should be held responsable in case of a buyer mis-using a photo. I think that there is a huge difference betwen helping someone against a «fraud» and being «responsable» for that fraud.

So the question is: How much help will IS provide accordingly to their first statement?

Claude

lisafx · « **Reply #44 on:** December 01, 2009, 12:17 »

Quote from: le_cyclope on November 30, 2009, 18:14

I think that there is a huge difference betwen helping someone against a «fraud» and being «responsable» for that fraud.

So the question is: How much help will IS provide accordingly to their first statement?

Good point Claude. Would be interesting to hear from exclusives who have had usage issues as to how much help IS provided.

ericfoltz · « **Reply #45 on:** December 01, 2009, 15:58 »

I used to submit to multiple agencies with IS consistently outselling them all combined.

I went exclusive back in 2007 and IS provided 40% of my income with print sales making up the other 60%.

With the collapse of the Art market last year, IS has made up 90% of my income for over a year now and my royalties have been increasing steadily since I joined.

Sorry, but I'm a loyal exclusive.

Albert Martin · « **Reply #46 on:** December 01, 2009, 18:05 »

Quote from: ericfoltz on December 01, 2009, 15:58

I used to submit to multiple agencies with IS consistently outselling them all combined.

I went exclusive back in 2007 and IS provided 40% of my income with print sales making up the other 60%.

With the collapse of the Art market last year, IS has made up 90% of my income for over a year now and my royalties have been increasing steadily since I joined.

Sorry, but I'm a loyal exclusive.

It is nice to see someone loyal these days indeed.
I just said my own opinion based on other people experience - most of them are not exclusive and some of them are exclusive on iStock.

Anyway, I love my macro outlets and am making very nice few figures and much higher royalty percentage a year with much lower quantity of sales than many microstockers.

BImages · « **Reply #47 on:** December 01, 2009, 18:10 »

If Istock was not there, I would have to work 40hrs a week for someone else. For less money...

Albert Martin · « **Reply #48 on:** December 01, 2009, 18:27 »

Quote from: Buzbuzzer on December 01, 2009, 18:10

If Istock was not there, I would have to work 40hrs a week for someone else. For less money...

Are you sure? Why you didn't tried Corbis or Alamy? I love them ;-)

Sean Locke Photography · « **Reply #49 on:** December 01, 2009, 19:06 »

Quote from: Albert Martin on December 01, 2009, 18:27

Quote from: Buzbuzzer on December 01, 2009, 18:10
If Istock was not there, I would have to work 40hrs a week for someone else. For less money...

Are you sure? Why you didn't tried Corbis or Alamy? I love them ;-)

Yeah, I love reading the Alamy forums where guys with portfolios of 5,000 pictures get 5 $90 sales a month.

MicrostockGroup Sponsors

Author Topic: How much do you like Istockphoto? (Read 35238 times)

Graffoto

lisafx

KB

Albert Martin

dbvirago

Sean Locke Photography

Dreamframer

mwp1969

FD

eppic

FD

LostOne

ShadySue

sharpshot

FD

lisafx

abimages

Dan

le_cyclope

lisafx

ericfoltz

Albert Martin

BImages

Albert Martin

Sean Locke Photography

Related Topics

Sponsors

Microstock Poll Results

Sponsors