Hey guys, I got this from the Micropayment stock photography group:


"Does anyone know anything about Vox's (http://www.vox.com/) very
recent integration with iStock? I am not a Vox user, so I can't be
sure, but it looks like Vox users can pull photos from iStock (as well
as from their own computer, the web, Flickr, etc.) and use them in
their blogs for free (with a watermark on the lower right). Given the
watermark, I am assuming that the photographer does not get paid for
this usage.

This seems like it would be a great thing for bloggers (unlimited free
photos from a large library via a great search engine), but I am not
sure why this would be good for photographers or even for iStock.
Does anyone have any thoughts on this? Maybe I am missing the larger
picture, like that it's good for exposure or something. (For example,
does a download from Vox count as a download on iStock, even if you
don't get paid for it, thereby increasing the "rank" of the photo when
the images are filtered by downloads?) I can't find anything on
iStock about this.

(As for the legality of using stock images, in general, is it ok to
use a stock image in a non-commericial use as long as it is watermarked?)"



"For anyone interested, Bruce just posted a reply:
http://www.istockphoto.com/forum_messages.php?
threadid=36670&page=2#post529028

It's a new promotional campaign. The Vox users will be able to
hotlink to watermarked iStock comps for free. The images will link
directly to istock.

It's always good to try new marketing campaigns. Here you're
essentially giving away the content to one person, in hopes that the
multiple readers of the blog will think about going and buying it
for some use. I'm not sure if I like that or not yet."



"I would really like to see some protections in place. The watermark
needsd to be the same one that shows on our download page, not a
smaller faint one in the corner of the image. The thumbs are plenty
large enough for web use, even with cropping.

Something else that concerns me is protecting my models. I am always
assuring them that nobody can download and use their images without
being a member of the sites I contribute to, and that these sites have
licensing agreements in place preventing sensitive or defamitory use
of their images. What I really DON'T WANT is to see my people photos
presented in a sensitive or defamatory way. Or worse yet, have the
models see them!

I would very much like to know what sort of protections are going to
be put in place regarding usages on these blogs. If someone presents
our images in a way that is against istock's license agreement, will
istock have them take it down, or are they operating completely
outside the agreement AS WELL AS completely outside the royalty structure?"



And this guy got especially pissed:

"After beeing bached by Peebert over at the Istock forum, for saying
that giving away our images is a matter of principle.
(The VOX thing me beeing Asist there), I've desided, that if they are
going to give away my images for free I'll leave Istock as soon as the
next payment are up.

Sadly, because I'll say goodbye to some good money, but the VOX thing
clearly tells me three things:

1. They don't value their contributers enough to ask them first

2. They don't value our work, as they are giving it away

3. They are stepping down the ladder and not up like for instance DT
and Fotolia are.

The last beeing the worst. But this is a sign to me about, that there's
no room for Istock further up the ladder. Proabably because Getty sits
there. So they step down. Degrading our woork, giving it away,
promoting the idear to bloggers that images are for free grabbing at
Istock.
What they shuold do, was protecting our right, promote that pictures
have a value, and they shold be payed for, not beeing up for grabs for
free.

Guys and Galls - this is not good - not good at all."

So now the images are just given away free to bloggers. Great.

I really don't want some of my minor model-released photos ending up on some unruly blog. Chances are it won't happen to me, but it will happen to others.

I am just scratching my head. Thanks for posting this.


ETA: Bigstock just announced a new *vague* marketing plan to a third party as well.

__________________
[link]http://www.dreamstime.com/smphoto_info[/link]

They are going to presumably have an opt out, opt in option, but it is technically still in the works... even though people are able to use the images as we speak without the submitters having the option to like it or not!!! I personally will definately opt out.
I read the thread and i can see where some people can see it as a good thing, but i do not see how it could really benefit me when someone can google my name and having my image pop up in someone's blog!! Not the kind of professional represantation i'm looking for to further my career endeavours


G

__________________
My Canstock Portfolio
My Shutterstock Portfolio
My Dreamstime Portfolio

Does the blog image link back to your portfolio, or to the Istock homepage?

The image itself did not go anywhere last time i checked... underneath the image was an istock link that led to the image.. but it's still in the works... and let's not even mention the watermark.. anyhow, you can probably find all the info in istock's forums, both threads talking about it have been locked, but the first one is an interesting read.... this past week was my last 'day job' week... i'm doing fulltime photography only to find one site giving images for free and another offering to have .20 subscription downloads, what it is with today anyways.... where is the value of our images going, and i worry because they are presently paying my bills!!!!!!!

GVictoria

__________________
My Canstock Portfolio
My Shutterstock Portfolio
My Dreamstime Portfolio

This appears to be a worring trend - reducing the value (to 20c or nil) for smaller images rather than increasing the price for bigger images.

Qvictoria - good luck with the new day job.

__________________
shutterstock, fotolia , dreamtime , FP
My Blog
Web page

This was written in the Yahoo Groups's Micropayment Discussion Group:

"This is interesting for all Micro shooters.

What I write about here, is the end to "The Designers dirty little
secret", which until a few days ago was the position Istock had taken
on the image market.
The are now moving away from that position, trying to position
themselves differently in the market, persumebly by ordes from the
new owners ? Getty Images.

Many wondered what Getty Images would do with the Micro tocksite
Istock, when they bought it for 50.000 $ not long ago.

Resent developments at the Istock site has now given the answer.
(An alliance with the VOX blog community)

Getty are repositioning Istock towards the consumer segment. Their
goal is twofold:

A: Getting rid of the 1 ? 10 dollar pr. picture competition on their
exsisting collection (which were bought for a lot of money) and

B: for the first time in Getty history, try to break in to the huge
consumer market for pictures. (Mobile phones, screensavers,
bloggers, etc,etc)

How is this going to impact the photographers?
In several ways.
With Istock going for the huge consumer market, many of their
photographers will seek other outlets.

On the other hand, the business to business market (designers and
advertising agencies), will turn away from Istock and other Micros
going the consumer way, and look for pictures elsewhere, not wanting
using the same pictures in their adds and brochures that are used by
consumers.

The consumer market are HUGE: Every person with a dollar to spend, a
pc, mobile phone, PDA or the like is a potential customer.

There are some drawbacks though:
Image wearout is going to be quick. Abuse and illegal copying is
going to be huge, as consumers in general know nothing about
copyright and care even less.
So in order to be profitable at that market, one has to constantly
produce a lot of new images, and accept that the old ones wear out
very rapidly.

The present situation on the leading Microstock agencies are more or
less like this:

Buying a picture with the same rights as a buyer gets with a RF image
at Alamy or other trads, will cost almost the same, as the microes
introduced what they called extended licences.

Most of them has raised their prices, and are marketing themselves
towards the business to businees market (Fotolia and Dreamstime,
Sutterstock), designers, advertising agencies etc.

Looks like, that their goals are to brake in to this market segment,
and raise prices along the way, to try and close the gap to the
traditional agencies.

Istock, prompted by the new Getty ownership are heading straight for
the consumers pockets.

As I see it, this will stregthen those not going that way, Micros
and the other traditional agencies a like. It will also force the
rest of the Micros very soon to decide which market segment to go
after.

Photographers will also have to decide about what market segment they
want to go for. There's money to be made both ways.

Regards

Povl Eskild"

iStock has added an opt-out option. Also, the image links back to your portfolio. The image is no different than the free comp version that they already offer on there website.

true, but still - they're telling them - get your images HERE. Man, what ever happened to google imagesearch?

__________________
s e l l p h o t o s . t k

Top Sellers ? Shutterstock ? Fotolia ? Dreamstime ? BigStock ? StockXpert ? FeaturePics ? MostPhotos ?

Thanks for posting this. I had no idea. It's a screwy thing to do but then I've seen iStock do stuff like this before. I wonder if this is something Getty had them do? Whatever. Not good news...

Quite a discussion going on in the iStock forum on this. One poster said the image he(she) had checked out had a watermark on it, but not the big X--a small iStock logo in the corner. Obviously, if the image had been paid for there would be no mark on it.

G~