(though from the tone of their communications you'd think they were tipping out crocks of gold at the photographer's feet).

LOL LOL    Ain't that the truth!!

Quote from: yingyang0 on February 02, 2007, 13:59

1) It doesn't say that MS customers can use the image as they wish.

Okay ... I'll grant you that. It is a bit more restrictive.

What it says is, "... the MS Office perpetual license which restricts the user to a personal, non-commercial use only ..."

Ying Yang - your the lawyer, what is" personal, non commercial use".  Obviously we dont have full detail so you cant say for certain but does an internal company powerpoint presentation fall into this.  If not, and it is truely only an internal company powerpoint presentation, how is MS or IS going to track it.

What I would have prefered (if I was exclusive) is for MS to have a few examples in office and then a link to a mirror site of IS (ie.  looks like MS but is actually IS) where they then buy, even for personal use.  Now that would be great marketing!

Quote from: epixx on February 02, 2007, 20:23

It is important to remember her, that the "personal, non-commercial use" they are talking about, is a very big chunk of the microstock market. If the personal, non-commercial users don't get or buy the images they need through MS, they would have to buy them directly from IS, FT etc.

I don't quite understand this statement. You really think there are a lot of photos being purchased for personal, non-commercial use on microstock agencies? No one I know purchases photos online for non-commercial uses. If it's not for a commercial use, they just use google image search and take it from there. How did you come up with this conclusion?

That depends on how we define "personal, non-commercial use". I think we can forget about the "personal" thing. Very few people will acquire images for birthday invitations from MS. The customers are businesses and NGO's. Most businesses will consider internal use as "non-commercial". That is one of the biggest potentials for microstock, since there's such a huge amount of internal presentations and reports produced every day worldwide. Those are of course also the customers that are interesting to MS.

I noticed btw., that when clicking on the istock link at the MS site, and making a search, one of my photos came up, and I'm not exclusive. That means that there's something to gain for all of us at that end of the deal (unless there's some hidden, reduced profit when sold through the MS-link).

I noticed btw., that when clicking on the istock link at the MS site, and making a search, one of my photos came up, and I'm not exclusive. That means that there's something to gain for all of us at that end of the deal (unless there's some hidden, reduced profit when sold through the MS-link).

The link on that page is to the actual istock page. 

I think the "exclusive only" are "clipart" actually in the office program.  ie. MS chooses some photos, pays $75 and every MSOffice user can then use them free for personal use without leaving office.

Does anyone one know of the other stock sites that are on that link above?.

Does anyone one know of the other stock sites that are on that link above?.

AbleStock, Animation Factory, and Royalty Free Music are all part of the JupiterImages brand (which also owns Stockxpert).

I'm not sure about the others.

But I had only heard of AbleStock before (when I was browsing thru a design magazine).

Quote from: madelaide on February 01, 2007, 19:05

Now comes the excuse (and I think this is the intended effect).

-=-=-=-=-

Hi there,

Well, what do you know. We just addressed an email to our Exclusive contributors which went out to, well, a whole bunch of our contributors - not necessarily our Exclusive ones. Lots of people were fired as a result.

In the meantime, you're probably curious about all the things the email actually said. We were planning to make this announcement to everyone at iStock early next week. It looks like you've just got a sneak peek at it. So we'll be making the announcement sooner rather than later now. That is if someone hasn't already gone and started a forum thread about it...

Sincerely,

The iStockphoto Damage-Control Team

If someone is trying to fool you in such a dumb way it's time to wake up!
what they are thinking how stupid we are?
One reason more to stay independent don't trust a bunch of arrogant liars!
"lots of people are fired" - lol time to fire istock!

Geesh. Obviously that was meant to be humorous.

FYI>
1. The exclusives WERE consulted before this became public.
2. The exclusives are given the ability to opt-out of this program.
3. The exclusives are not all brainless sheep drinking the istock kool-aid. Some very successful people are included in that group. The endless insults around here directed towards them are pretty juvenile. If you don't want to be exclusive FINE. If someone else does, why do you care? Why do you think you are entitled to judge what decisions other people make about their OWN business?

vicu,

I don't think anyone was insulting the exclusives here.  What we were discussing is IS's way to make it look like they were sharing a secret by accident with non-exclusives.  If someone should feel insulted, it was us non-exclusives, if they think we would believe in such accidental release. 

Regards,
Adelaide

I got one of the emails about Microsoft wanting to buy one of my pics.

Are you exclusive?

Sorry yingyang. Not sure what I thought I read there.

Yep, I'm exclusive to Istock.

The problem is that certain people (myself included) feel that iStock's exclusivity programme is far too restrictive and they are trying to corner the market by slightly questionable methods.

Is that insulting to anyone?

Why do you think so many people are buying into their "slightly questionable methods"? The implication that those buying in are doing so because they just don't know any better is what is insulting.

I guess it boils down to faith (or lack thereof) in the folks behind the scenes. I understand that is a hard concept for some to grasp when it comes to business ventures.

It's not so much that I (or others) take these comments personally. It's just that the wild and unfounded speculation takes conspiracy theory to a whole other realm. Every misstep is perceived as some diabolical plot. Somebody attaches an unsavory motive to something. Somebody else jumps in and says "YEAH, and I bet (insert new theory)" and it snowballs from there. Those poor misguided exclusives aren't alone in not being able to think for themselves. Jump on the crazy bandwagon, folks... there's room for all!

I guess after a while of reading these endless dramatic rants... I've grown weary.

Yes, the simple solution is to not read or respond to them, and generally that is the approach I take.

Why do you think so many people are buying into their "slightly questionable methods"? The implication that those buying in are doing so because they just don't know any better is what is insulting.

(Jaw drops ... huh?)

I cannot understand how you draw that conclusion. Where has anyone made that implication?

What a company does, and what it's independent suppliers do, are two entirely different things.

And where has the 'conspiracy' bit suddenly come from? It seems to me extraordinary that, if someone voices doubt about a company's business practices it then it become a 'conspiracy theory', complete with phrases like "crazy bandwagon".

I can't speak for others on this forum, but I believe that iStock's exclusivity requirements are unfairly restrictive, and I voice my doubts here because such discussion is rapidly squashed on iStock.

Also, I am not exactly enchanted (based on past experience) with iStock's treatment of photographers ... people who make up the very foundation of their business. Example ... the keywording fiasco of last year. I'm still trying to sort that one out with my iStock portfolio.

However, the doubts I voice are absolutely no reflection on iStock contributors, exclusive or otherwise.