iStock naming rules?

e-person · #1 (**permalink**) 12-11-2007, 06:19 PM

Today, for the first time, I had a rejection based on title.

I have several series of photos of the same, or similar, subjects in different positions and usually name them like: egg01, egg02, egg03.

Well, today, after they have already accepted number one and two, rejected three for other reasons, they rejected number four for title.

I think the inspector has gone nuts. Of course I have written to scout. Half of my portfolio is like that and I have never had a single complaint from iStock. I am also one of the very few that does not do keyword spamming. That they should go after, not my logical titles.

Anyone else with similar rejections?

Karimala · #2 (**permalink**) 12-11-2007, 07:54 PM

IS instituted a policy about naming photos "Subject/#" a couple of years ago...strictly forbidden. I didn't pay much attention to the reasons behind it, because the policy didn't affect me, but you might find something about it by searching their forums.

helix7 · #3 (**permalink**) 12-12-2007, 02:06 AM

They also more recently have addressed naming issues, somewhere in the blogs or email notices I believe. They are cracking down on those sorts of names.

e-person · #4 (**permalink**) 12-12-2007, 09:36 AM

"They are cracking down on those sorts of names"

Hell yes, it is certainly a crime...

How is one supposed to recognize one from another, if not by using a number at the end of the title? I find this very silly.

There must be a reason why on SS I make 4x the amount I make on IS... All these silly rules add a overhead to the real core business. They should know better. In fact I am pretty sure they do. They are killing the site on purpose. Getty does not like competition. They have acquired it only to kill it. It would not be the first time. Time will tell.

helix7 · #5 (**permalink**) 12-12-2007, 03:57 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by e-person

...They have acquired it only to kill it. It would not be the first time. Time will tell.

They spent $50 million, put the CEo in charge of a larger division at Getty, and invested heavily in greater marketing and site development, just to put the company out of business? Right...

helix7 · #6 (**permalink**) 12-12-2007, 04:00 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by e-person

I will add that microstock does not generally pay a fair price to contributors either. That makes me feel silly. How on earth did I even think of doing it?

Looking at that quote of yours from another thread, I have to ask why this is even an issue? Why are you still uploading to any sites if you're so opposed to microstock?

e-person · #7 (**permalink**) 12-12-2007, 11:43 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by helix7

Looking at that quote of yours from another thread, I have to ask why this is even an issue? Why are you still uploading to any sites if you're so opposed to microstock?

I do not usually explain the obvious. If you do not get it now, maybe you will get it in future. It will be late, though.

RacePhoto · #8 (**permalink**) 12-13-2007, 05:42 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by e-person

I do not usually explain the obvious. If you do not get it now, maybe you will get it in future. It will be late, though.

Put my name on the list of people who "do not get it".

If you are still working MStock but you don't think the pay is fair and don't like most of the sites, why are you so active here and other forums, running down MicroStock. Some sort of revenge mission?

Please explain the obvious?

Getty got stomped on big time by the Stock Artists Alliance when they offered the $49 stock photo.

Quote:

SAA leads Coalition of Artists' Groups Calling on Getty Images to Remove RM Collections from their $49 "Web Use" License

If they were going to kill off the IS stock site, so Getty could control the market with RM images, as your conspiracy theory suggests, I think they had a sudden change of mind. :-D

StockArtistsAlliance

My point being that Getty wants to continue in the RF market as well as the RM market as a profit leader.

Gracey · #9 (**permalink**) 12-13-2007, 10:06 AM

Well, one can dislike the micros and microstock in general and still participate on this site (here and other forums). Without opposition to the industry whose voice will help to change the industry? (not that I think there's a big chance of this happening, but opposition does help to create change if you go about it in the right way)

The point of talkmicro is to allow the varying opinions on the industry in general.

I no longer contribute to "most sites" - in fact none (other than FP which I don't consider in terms of microstock) but I have a voice here, like any other.

In terms of opposition, I'm not opposed to the "industry" in every aspect, just their mini-payments and staunch "this is not stock" thinking.

You can still work outside of the industry and hold an opinion on it...at least you can if you've worked in it and have had time to formulate an opinion.

RacePhoto · #10 (**permalink**) 12-13-2007, 05:51 PM

I've agreed with Mr-e on a number of opinions and views, I just don't embrace the conspiracy theory and don't recognize the "obvious". :-D But I'm willing to admit it, so he can clarify what he's trying to say in words, instead of saying something that's a non-answer. "If you don't get it now..."

I keep telling myself that this is close to the MLM business plan. You get promises of income, reward levels, more money for recruiting and referrals, and in general work hard, so the company can have a huge sales force, working for peanuts. The people who get in, in the beginning and a small percentage who excel are held up as "you can do this too". But the truth is, it's hard work, long hours and most will not succeed at making much, if anything.

I'm adding new sites, getting better, and taking more stock oriented photos. Considering I recognize the above, I'm not sure why I'm knocking myself out, but it's enjoyable and there is a challenge to improve, while looking forward to the future possible returns.