PDA

View Full Version : RIPOFF!!!!! iStockPhoto



Steve Clarkson
10-04-2008, 5:00 PM
So, when I bought my new CorelDRAW suite, it came with 20 free photos from iStockPhoto and you also get 10 free "credits" for signing up.

Anyway, so I went on there to retrieve my 20 free photos....but then I discovered that you couldn't reproduce them for resale (their example was on a t-shirt or mug) unless you bought the "extended license".

Well, each photo typically costs 5 "credits" but the "extended license" costs 100 "credits"......for a total of 105 "credits".

OK......here's the punchline......each "credit" costs $0.95.......so basically it costs $100 USD for EACH image you want to use!!!!!!!!

So my advice is......don't waste your time signing up for iStockPhoto!

Anthony Scira
10-04-2008, 5:35 PM
Professional photographs for resale can be expensive. I have not priced them but the 100 bucks does not sound out of line.

The alternative is to get expensive camera equipment and learn how to use it. Which is still a pretty expensive ordeal.

But it is sticker shock.

Doug Griffith
10-04-2008, 6:08 PM
I wouldn't call it a rip-off but it is deceiving if their examples are shown on retail products. Finding the subject matter, taking photos, retouching, building the infrastructure for electronic distribution, camera and computer equipment and talent all cost time or money and should be paid for. 100 bucks isn't that much if you need the photo and will turn a profit from it.

Scott Shepherd
10-04-2008, 7:01 PM
I agree with the others, it's a fair price for what you get in the photography world. You'll be hard pressed to find high resolution images for any possible use for less than that.

Think about it, if you were a photographer and you took a photo and sold it with free rights for $5 and Coke or Pepsi picked up your photo and made a national advertising campaign out of it and made millions from it, would you be happy?

Lee DeRaud
10-04-2008, 7:28 PM
I agree with the others, it's a fair price for what you get in the photography world. You'll be hard pressed to find high resolution images for any possible use for less than that.I have no doubt that's a fair price, but the OP is correct: when someone offers you something free and then says you can't use it for its implied purpose without paying extra, it's effectively "bait and switch".

Darren Null
10-04-2008, 7:30 PM
http://www.sxc.hu/
Free stock photos. You can usually pick up something useful there and it is free. I upload a few if I use anything, but you don't have to.

Ron Dunn
10-04-2008, 8:49 PM
I use iStockPhoto a lot. My company is rigorous in policing the use of copyrighted images in presentations, etc., and this is the best source I've found for great material at great prices.

You could have used those credits for small images for use in internal documents, presentations, etc. I think the extended licence only comes into play when you want to resell or broadcast those images.

Matt Meiser
10-04-2008, 9:13 PM
I used them when I developed my company's web site and thouht it was a great deal. Plus, the selection was great and I was able to find images that made both the president and marketing director happy.

Scott Shepherd
10-04-2008, 9:23 PM
but the OP is correct: when someone offers you something free and then says you can't use it for its implied purpose without paying extra, it's effectively "bait and switch".

I think you'd have to believe that Corel and istock setup that deal with the idea that someone wanted to use their products to produce items for resale. My guess is that 99% of people using Corel aren't people who make things with lasers to resell. From the laser person's perspective, it might seem excessive or unfair or a bait and switch, but for the 99% of people who use Corel for creating graphics for print or web work, my guess is it sounded like a great deal and it wasn't a bait and switch feeling for them.

Lee DeRaud
10-04-2008, 10:04 PM
I think the extended licence only comes into play when you want to resell or broadcast those images.

...but for the 99% of people who use Corel for creating graphics for print or web work, my guess is it sounded like a great deal and it wasn't a bait and switch feeling for them.Doesn't "web work" for an externally-accessable site count as "broadcast" these days?

Bill Cunningham
10-04-2008, 11:11 PM
For 20 years, I spent weeks in canoe access only areas with a camera and a canoe.. Took a lot of nice shots, if only by default, (remember the 1000 monkeys and typewriter story?):D and sold a few.. Where do these companies get a lot of their stock photos? It's a pretty good racket.. Photo contests.. for example, check out the Costco contest rules.. (all photos become the property of Costco...period...) Start a contest, offer 5-10k in prizes, get thousands of free photos that are considered by the photographer to be his or her very best, pick the top dozen from hundreds and hundreds of excellent photos, and a lot of crud) pay out the prizes, sell the rest of the top creme to stock photo suppliers like iStockPhoto, reap a tidy profit over the cost of your contest, and get lots of free advertising.. It's a win win situation, and the vast majority of the photographers get NOTHING for their photos, except the loss of ownership..

Wil Lambert
10-05-2008, 6:14 AM
I use iStockphoto all the time. The price is reasonable and in no way a rip off for the price they charge. $100 for a design that will reproduce hundreds if not thousands of time is a minimal cost. Try hiring a professional photographer to get some of those shots for you and see what the cost is. $100 will sound good then. The other alternative is take your own photos. It's all a cost of doing business. The photo cost is minimal compared to the machine you will run it on :).

Wil

Niklas Bjornestal
10-05-2008, 6:15 AM
http://www.sxc.hu/
Free stock photos. You can usually pick up something useful there and it is free. I upload a few if I use anything, but you don't have to.
According to the licence agreement you need to get permission from the photographer if you want to use the images to produce products that you intend to sell.

Doug Bergstrom
10-05-2008, 9:38 AM
A $100 is a cheap price for the photo. Before the internet got into this area stock photos would cost $300 - $1,000 or more and you had to go through huge catalogs to find them and only certain photographer benefited from this. Now just about anyone with a camera can sell their images online and make money. Its a great service for both parties and is a win for the consumer.

Darren Null
10-05-2008, 11:20 AM
According to the licence agreement you need to get permission from the photographer if you want to use the images to produce products that you intend to sell.
Yep. I'd rather send an email than cough up $100 any day. On the very few occasions that I've used stock photography for burning, permission has been granted with no problems. That's mostly for one-offs or very limited runs. If I was planning a big production run, there's no way I'd use somebody else's photos anyway.

Ron Dunn
10-05-2008, 6:39 PM
I thought I'd re-check the iStockPhoto licence. Here are the circumstances in which you need to pay the EXTENDED licence for an image:

1. Reproducing the image more than 500,000 times
2. Use of the image by more than one person (ie, employee designers)
3. You sell items incorporating the image.

I suggest that if you are in any of these categories, paying $100 for an image should not be an issue.

All of the other uses in this thread - presentations, web sites, advertising and promotion, etc. - are covered by the standard licence.

Standard licence: http://www.istockphoto.com/license.php
Extended licence: http://www.istockphoto.com/extended_license_provisions.php

David Brasfield
10-05-2008, 9:45 PM
I am confused as to the difference between items 1 and 3.

I read, and re-read their license structure, several times a while back. I even asked a lawyer friend to have a look. His advice, avoid any of the images like the plague, the license is far too ambiguous.

David

Ron Dunn
10-05-2008, 10:37 PM
Lawyers. A bigger plague than Wall Street.

David, #1 refers to things like advertising handbills or business cards that I produce for my own business. For example, I licensed an image for a business card for a hobby business I used to run. #3 refers to printing the image on mugs, t-shirts, anything for sale to third-parties.

David Brasfield
10-05-2008, 11:35 PM
Not trying to be combative, but if both lead to, and are intended for profit, then I don't recognize any major distinction.

David

martin g. boekers
10-05-2008, 11:58 PM
Stock photography is a big market. Typically photographers are put on contract to produce a range of images for the company. The photographer gets a percentage of the sale. The companies usually ask the photographer to send thousands if not tens of thousands of images in even before they agree to represent them.
Then the agreements are hashed out about rights and usage that both the company and photographer agree to.

When you deal with a stock agency (whether it's photography, illustration, music etc) you purchase certain rights and the price varies depending if you
do a local calendar or a two page spread in a national magazine. The lowest charge is usually a layout fee, that sounds like Istock was "giving away"
that is just to be used for testing and comp work.

Exclusive rights are usually available at a much higher price but that can guarentee that right before you release your campaign that some other company doesn't use the image and "steal" your thunder.

It sounds like you can use the images from Istock for display work though.

Contests, I'm sure there are some groups out there that might use contests
to aquire stock images, that's a hard way for them to develop a portfolio of images. When stock agencies work with photographers they can "cultivate" them on the types of and quality of images that are "buyable" making it a good relationship for both of them.

Most of the contests, if you read the disclaimer closely are not taking away your ownership rights. Typically they get permission to use you image in their marketing for future contests and to publicly acknowledge the winner. They say they will keep your photograph mostly because of the cost and labor involved in returning it as well as possiblity of damage or loss.

You can find images that for a set fee you can use it for whatever you want, (royalty free) but that doesn't give you exclusitivity as they will sell similiar rights to whoever else pays for it. Typically in larger stock agency these may be made available after a period of there "useful" life or images that for some reason didn't make the cut. (they be fine for our use though and some nice deals are out there)

Stock agencies came into being as companies can sort through many images to find one that fits their needs and at a cost of about a third of what it would cost to have a pro-photographer shoot it. Plus they get a shot instantly that fits their needs instead of taking a chance with a photographer and the time and environment he has to face.

Say you need a shot of a Caribbean island at sunset, I think definatly it would be cheaper to buy stock then to hire a photographer and pay for time and travel.

Marty

Paul Perkinson
10-06-2008, 7:46 AM
We discovered very soon after starting our business that having a great collection of art and vector graphics is essential to staying in business. Customers just don't respond to "We can create anything you can dream of". They have to have examples to look at. Lots and lots of examples. Some of them want to buy those examples and others get their own creative juices flowing by looking at them.
It has taken us a few years to put such a collection together and we will continue to add to it. It has required thousands of dollars along with thousands of hours working with Photoshop, Illustrator, Corel Paint and other software packages. In other words, the investment in artwork has far eclipsed the cost of our laser - and we have a 4' x 8' laser table.
At first it seems unfortunate that there isn't a LEGAL way to acquire this art cheaply, but after a while you realize that this is part of what will keep easily affordable laser engraving equipment from knocking you out of the marketplace. They may or may not be able to price their product below you because their overhead is cheaper, but if they cannot match your legal artwork collection (which also represents time in business, commitment, and professionalism to most customers) you still have a huge advantage.
I mean this to be encouraging. It's been a lot of work for us, but it has been worth every bit of it. My recommendation is not to just go out and buy a bunch of stuff - even if you can afford it - until you thoroughly research all the available options and do an honest assessment of how much you think you might be able to contribute yourself through photography and learning some software packages. The power of Photoshop and Illustrator to turn 2 or 3 so-so photographs into a single, dynamic, BAM photo (to quote Emeril Lagasse) is incredible. And the power of Illustrator to design medallions, abstracts, backsplashes, and signs is pretty much without equal. You can also use PhotoPaint and CorelDraw for good results.
As a matter of fact, you can become good enough at it that you can wind up selling some of your artwork through istockphotos.com. We have. And, frankly, we are not all that artistic.
Sorry for the long post. Bottom line is...keep plugging away at the artwork day by day by day - don't waste time looking for a quick shortcut - and it will pay off.

Michael Simpson Virgina
04-19-2009, 6:05 AM
Istockphoto is a rip off in many ways. First as a photographer I get like 25 cents for each photo that sells. The only one making real money is Istockphoto.

As a photographer I would not want someone to use my photos commercially if I am only getting 25 cents.

Frank Corker
04-19-2009, 6:27 AM
Istockphoto is a rip off in many ways. First as a photographer I get like 25 cents for each photo that sells. The only one making real money is Istockphoto.

As a photographer I would not want someone to use my photos commercially if I am only getting 25 cents.


There you have it from the horses mouth. I had no doubt that this was the case, the photographer is the one who really gets stiffed. Steve, maybe you should be contacting Mike here for some of his images, I'm sure it will be a better price than Istockphoto.

Steve Clarkson
04-19-2009, 7:47 AM
Mike,

I'll DOUBLE the price iStockphoto offered you!!!!!!!!

Albert Nix
04-19-2009, 8:59 AM
Scott I agree with you. I have ran into a lot of the same deals. It is nothing but marketing hype they try not to lie but if you do not know to ask the right question do not depend on them to open up. I feel most folks including you and myself will agree that a straight forward price of $100 for a nice detailed high resolution pic is a deal. What I hate is when the sales folks blow smoke and try to make it look like you are getting more than you really are. Most newbies do not know the difference. A good example was when I bought my vinyl cutter and I knew nothing about the software. They made it look like I was getting a nice bundle, but all I got was a watered down version of the real thing and they were counting on the fact that if I was going to do anything serious I would have to spend several hundred bucks to upgrade. Who has ever bought a piece equipment that came with Estimate software. I bet if you tried to do much with it you had to go back and buy at least one or two add ons at I think $99 each but when the sales guy was explaining what all come with the deal he did'nt mention that. Just like LXI software! be sure you research with version you are getting. I like it but if you are not careful you will get a bundle with the apprentice version and the salesman will most likely tell you that you that it will meet 95% of your needs but it is like a first grade version of the LXI 8.6V master plus. Also a lot of sales folks will tell you that LXI is the same as flexi pro but do not believe that either. And Oh yeah lets not forget the maketing claims about 10-20K hrs on our lazer tubes,I hope thats true but I will not hold my breath. All in all I think Scott is ticked not because of the price but because he thought he was getting more for him money and it didn't happen.

Michael Simpson Virgina
04-19-2009, 12:49 PM
I sell most of my stuff locally as prints. To be honest Im happy when I sell a print on consignment for $10. In that case I only get $7. The days of a photographer making a living selling $200 photos as fine are are over. Thats not to say you cant sell one at that price, its just real hard to make a living at it.

I do most of my work doing specialized photoagraphy. I am lucky enough to live in a rural area close to various cities. Things lik pet photography is real big where I am.

FYI here is some of my work thats on a bit of the artistic or fun side.

http://www.flickr.com/photos/8656232@N06/

Steve Clarkson
04-19-2009, 2:04 PM
Very nice work Michael! I really like the one entitled "In the Dark". How do you make the heads big like that?

Jack Harper
04-19-2009, 2:58 PM
Great images Michael. I would love to see a before and after of the same image to get a greater since of photo evolution. How long does it take on average to modify a photo to that level?

Scott Shepherd
04-19-2009, 3:03 PM
I'm still having a tough time figuring out the problem with istockphoto. You are upset because you can't spend 99 cents and make hundreds and hundreds of items to sell at a profit? I don't get it. Do you get paid for the work you do? Then so should the photographer who took the photo. Do you really think it's fair to pay him/her 99 cents and then make 1000's and 1000's of dollars off of their photo?

Are you running a business or a hobby? If it's a hobby, then it probably seems like a rip off. If you're running a business, a $100 for a photo you can use is a bargain.

Michael Simpson Virgina
04-19-2009, 4:20 PM
The problem with Istock is that you really are not paying the photographer. they get next to nothing for the items they post. The only ones making money is Istockphoto. I understand Steves issue is that he cant use the images for commercial use unless he pays an additional fee. Which is a way for Istock to get even more money.

My recomendation is go to another stock photo company. Its unreasonable when you purchace a photo from a stock photo agency that you cant use it as you see fit as long as its legal. I do know that most wont let you use them for logos or trade marked items. The reason for that is clear if the image was allowed for use in a logo then others would not be allowed to use that image for other purposes. Makes sence to me. But other than that you should be able to use it as general artwork for various products.

Scott Shepherd
04-19-2009, 6:01 PM
istock's been around for many years now. If they were ripping everyone off, they wouldn't be around. The market would take care of it. I've talked to people who have made their living off of istock photos. The problem most photographers have is they don't want to do the work required to make that living. You need to have over 1000 photos on istock before it starts really paying off, from what I understand. Those people who go out every day to take photos that will be appealing to that market are the ones who make it. Those who just put photos up every so often or photos that aren't highly sought after don't make much, I'm sure.

With everything, it's a free market. You have a right now to buy from them, not to use their photos, not to post your photos there. Doesn't mean they are a rip off, just means you don't accept their terms.

I know graphic artists who use it all the time. They make their living from pulling istock photos into their clients work. For them, is it a rip off? Probably not. It's a heck of a value to them. I've used them to create banners for customers. Not sure where else you can buy a high res photo for $15 to use on a banner. Seemed cheap to me.

Michael Simpson Virgina
04-19-2009, 6:53 PM
The thing is that things have changed. 5-10 years ago I could make a nice living selling my photos using various means. Its very difficult now. I took over 20,000 photos last year. Its now so competitive that in the last couple of years is not a very good living. I make much more money selling stock HD video than I do selling photos. 1000 photos wont do it any more. If you are going to make a living you need much more and its only going to get harder.

A 12 second HD video will sell for $40-$50 and with quality Stock agency I get 50% of that. I know that eventually as the price of quality HD cameras come down eventualy that stock industry will also suffer.

In any case my original comment still stands. Try a different stock agency some are better than others and the bigest isnt nessasrily the best.

Scott Shepherd
04-19-2009, 8:03 PM
Michael, I don't disagree with your comments, I just think it's odd that the original post says it's a rip off and you as a photographer say that they don't pay you enough. Clearly two totally opposite sides of the picture.

Michael Simpson Virgina
04-19-2009, 8:18 PM
I think what he was saying was a ripoff is that included points that he got with Coreldraw. While ripoff may not be the correct term I can see his point.

Paul Perkinson
04-20-2009, 8:59 AM
Having both bought and sold from iStockphotos I honestly empathize with both sides of the issue. But I gotta tell 'ya... the reason iStock and Getty images do so well is that graphic designers and others from around the world can get an image that will suite their purpose for a reasonable price within minutes. The alternative is to contract a photographer to go out on a shoot, possibly with professional models, and with a handful of release forms for both the properties and people in the shoot; a very expensive and time-consuming proposition that may, or may not, give the results they wanted. Even churches and schools can afford professional quality artwork this way and put that artwork on 10's of thousands of pamphlets, bulletins, brochures, or whatever for around $10. It's kinda like a big box store for photos.

On the other hand, many people love to be "weekend photographers" and really do take the occasional great shot. Most don't have the consistency or talent that Michael has, but they have some shots they're proud of and would love to have their ego stroked a bit by knowing that somebody was willing to pay a few bucks for their work. They know they'll never make a living at it, but that's not what they're after.

I guess I'm somewhere in the middle of that. My goal is to make enough from iStockphotos to pay for any artwork my bride or I need from them. There are a few photographers that make very nice money from iStock. Some of them have had a good number of pictures downloaded a thousand or more times each. Like many endeavors, the more you sell, the higher percentage you get.

Anyway, to me it is something like eBay. They get paid because they bring together a buyer who is having trouble locating something with a seller who is searching for a buyer. If the buyer could find the seller (and vice versa) without iStock then I believe they would, but apparently they can't. They aggravate me to no end sometimes when they reject what I think is one of my finer masterpieces for a supposed lighting issue that I can't find while offering countless ones that DO have the lighting issue they claim my has, but that's another story.

Nobody is forced to buy from them and nobody is forced to sell through them and yet they remain in business. There may be lawsuits against them, but I haven't heard of anything big like that. We don't have to like them, and often I don't, but I can't really squeeze them into the ripoff category.

Added after reading Michael's post again: I see your point on the ripoff part concerning Corel, but I'm used to getting all kinds of offers on product boxes that are absolutely worthless to me. Unfortunately it's made me just cynical enough that I don't believe I'll get the promised brass ring until it's proven, and that is not my usual nature :-(