Here's how it stands: I'm most acquainted with rejections on iStock. I already debated my approval ratios about iStock vs. everywhere-else (40% vs. averagely 90% and above) on an other thread and those that read my "rants" are familiar with that. They're mostly "overfiltered" rejections that I can't see no glimpse of sense in, but I accepted their criteria (however sadly) and I'm ok with it.
But. This time I got a rejections I deem one of the most rudest and symptomatic (of their relationship with submitters) EVER. Here's the accompanying text:
"++++please clarify if you are the original photographer on all the elements of this photograph composite+++", "Please provide a focused description for this file. Aim to describe the main subject as well as possible (its location and origin), as a creative work of any kind, other than your own, needs to be in the public domain to be considered for royalty-free photography. Please include any valuable information regarding the file and the ownership of the original artwork. Make sure that your description is clear, helpful and targeted to the client who may be interested in your image (and not to the inspector). Thank you."
Here's the image (I'm posting it only as an example - this issue revolves around a bigger picture, their relationship to customers - it has nothing to do with only one rejection):
Really briefly: the image is a conceptual composite of a number of clocks hanging from the sky with Dollar banknotes falling. ALL the shots were OBVIOUSLY taken from me. The background is again MY work. But this is superficial information, since I agreed to their license, their terms and I AM A PHOTOGRAPHER, for God's sake. I'm no child stealing other's work and posting it redesigned to their site. Are they serious? I mean it: is this a joke? Every time I upload I agree with those four stupid checkboxes saying that I'm the original photographer and what not, blablabla. But this isn't enough for them, hah, they want me to write it down personally in the description field. And I'm sure this is the opinion of only one reviewer, 'cause if I wrote down that all the shots were taken from me, where they were taken and so on in the description field, the image would get rejected once again for improper (nondescriptive) description (or overfiltered reasons, of course). I'm not smiling anymore to these rejectiosn, the "accusation" that I'm a thief has made my day for good. It is serious: I'm fed up with their relation to little submitters. This is an abuse.
For how I see it, something's terribly wrong with the "business fairness" iStock is supposed to have. We're all aware they have a disastrous uploading system. It's time consuming, ridiculously slow and far from optimized. People continue to use it because their marketing skills and the buyer's side of the service is top-notch and their site sales stuff very efficiently. They're not investing in it (speak about income/business fairness - they're paying us "mortal" contributors the lowest percentage anyways) again for some obscure reason and I have a couple of ideas why:
- even if the disambiguation system is crap and the uploading with a multiple-step process takes ages, it keeps their search engine clean, the regulars (top submitters) have come to accept (and love the income),
- us, "punny little photographers", on the other hand, can't do nothing about it anyways,
- it is structured to optimize their profit, I'm sure of it: kick out the "mob", reward the buyers and the top-sellers (even if they spend ridiculous amounts of time submitting),
It is obvious that the system works even if it's unfriendly as hell. No FTP uploading, no flash or java uploading applets, stupid categories (and I mean it, really, really unintuitive). On top of that reviewers that are trained to wipe-clean submissions that would sell, but not sell enough. Their service works by the power of inertia. They're the "credit sales" leader, Shutterstock is "the subscription scheme competitor" (targeting a different audience, I'm sure), and they don't give a crap about it. And I pray a day will come when all the other competitors (Dreamstime, Stockxpert, Fotolia, Luckyoliver and all the others) will kick them off of their seats.
They've raised the prices once again, they have done NOTHING to easy the pain of uploading. Obviously they don't care about waiting queues (it is the only site, don't forget that, that has upload limitations for everybody, even the best submitters (and there is a profit reason behind it as well: 1. lower the inspectors outcome, 2. keep the flow of photos steady (limit the mob, reward the high-sellers)) and has a Scout backdoor that is slower than Macchiavelli's trip (btw, Scout is only a joke to keep the mob devil at bay - why is it so slow and "understaffed" than?).
I'm completely in sync with what Sabrina Dent (
Link) has said about iStock (briefly and even if she's a designer and I'm a starting submitter, really rookieish on top that). I'm through with them, the abuse got too heavy to handle. All the mentioned reasons have made me realize that time and nerves are more important than those Dollars I could earn from working my ass off with them. When I spend hours uploading, rechecking keywords (only for them), sorting and filtering already submitted images (because of their upload limits that apply to different extent to EVERY submitter), waiting a week to get the unsympathetic rejection reasons (those that are not coming elsewhere), I crumble upon my thoughts when I realized iStock is not for me. Crumble out of liberation, that is.
iStock? Bye, bye.
p.s.: And if someones comes up with the "hey, guy, this is a business, don't take it personal, there's no "friendly" where money's involved", I'm responding with "sure, in a balanced business relationship (balanced IS friendly), but this is a master-slave dominance and won't be part of it anymore".
p.p.s.: Sure I am just a beginner and I might be taking sides too fast and abruptly, but right now it feels better than ever to have written in down. Eight other microstock sites are more than enough of a judge to establish if my stakes were handled positively.
p.p.p.s.: And some stats: I've made more money (25 times more) elsewhere in one month than I've done on iStock since late August. Here's food for thought. To me it doesn't matter that much: the most important thing is time and frustration - and I've spent enough of both on iStock. It might be the best site ever to others, but to me this is the personification of a communist dictator (metaphorically speaking): "contribute to the greater good and shut up once and for all".
