http://www.thephotographybiz.com/comment/its-stock-jim-but-not-as-we-know-it-aka-are-photoshelter-having-a-laugh/

PP

if it was such a great business then why did the company decide to move in different direction? I don’t disagree that you you and others use their storage and love it, doesn’t mean the company can build a big business from it.

As for getting the facts straight – the information came from the company itself. I guess they know what is really going on with their business.

I look forward to meeting you and sitting down with you and discussing the photo business.

Happy Holidays. See you next year!

While the corrections have been made to everyone’s satisfaction (sorry about the spellings), I think you need to make sure that the about pages of the company are updated to reflect who are founders in a clear and explicit manner. it makes it harder to figure out things when official pages don’t do such a good job of making the point.

I think this is an interesting debate that deserves more expansion. Since iStock has been brought into the discussion, I thought I’d speak up.

PhotoShelter is an interesting idea and of course has appeal to some photographers, but they are a little late to the “commercializing crowdsourcing” game.

Further, to claim huge diversity or freshness is a bit of a stretch when iStock has 37,000 photographers from virtually every country in the world, submitting 50,000 plus images per week for review and approval.

You should know that iStock’s most prolific photogs have already been accepted as Getty Images artists, so we provide a true career path for those who have sold 25,000 images or more on iStock.

Second, I am curious about the legal and trademark checks done at PhotoShelter—or is this issue left solely in the hands of photographers? In three quick searches I found dozens of images that should not be sold as stock as they infringe on legal trademarks.

iStock reviews each image submiited by hand, and our 90 worldwide inspectors are responsible for intimate knowledge of the rules of several countries. iStock has one of the most comprehensive lists of what can & can’t be sold as royalty-free stock: http://www.istockphoto.com/tutorial_copyright_list.php

Om-I will be in your area mid-January—I’d like a chance to chat with you more if you are around.

Cheers,
Kelly

You’re making the assumption that all photos have the same value — namely $1. We believe images, like most products, fall along a continuum. Highly commoditized images have a place in microstock, but better images from better photographers should be sold for market prices, which in advertising and commercial use equates to hundreds, if not thousands, of dollars.

As for playing catch-up, I don’t agree either. Buyers are constantly looking for fresh imagery. The provider with the most diversity that can control quality will win.

Regards,
Allen