rgbstock
Why join RGBstock?
1. 1101001012 January 2010, 18:24 GMT +00:00
hey.. i got invited from SXC and came to check out RGB. thanks for the invitation..
site: nice and good.. but why should i join with all my photos?
what are the advantages?
what is different from sxc?
who owns/runs the page? i cannot find any real adress
for now, it seems pretty similar, except that the webdesign is a bit different and it is not owned by jupiterimages.. but that's about it. for granting the right to distribute my photos i might want to have some more information about all this stuff..
thanks in advance for the answers.. :-)
2. xymonau12 January 2010, 23:08 GMT +00:00
Jupiter Images doesn't own sxc. Getty owns sxc. If you are happy with sxc, there is no reason to remove your images from there. Many people have images on various free and pay sites, and this is another alternative. Naturally, downloads will be limited for a period of time while we become known. Having pics all over the web gives you more exposure and more likelihood that they will be used.
The terms of use and image licence are slightly different from sxc, but similar. And if you want to contact the admin, there is a contact form.
The difference? People here all want to be here and are unpaid volunteers. They assume uploaders are good people and respect them and their opinions. They are experienced in this type of environment and don't assume a difference of opinion means people must be pulled into line or threads locked.
Obviously, there are always issues that need to be dealt with - spammers and outright trouble makers - but we understand the difference between that and healthy debate.
I say "we" meaning those who originated this site, but claiming no credit for anything involved in its establishment.
3. 1101001013 January 2010, 16:32 GMT +00:00
ok. getty. forgot that.
regarding the contact-thing. sure, i could use the contact-form. but that's not what i am looking for. more a real adress, like every other page has in the imprint. especially for pages who have such a big disclaimer regarding image rights.. this might give more confidence to the visitor. if no real person/company is responsible for the disclaimer, it might be useless...
but well, seems like everything is still new so it might come in the future..
4. Zela13 January 2010, 20:28 GMT +00:00
You have a valid point there.
The site is still beta. Actually we are a little overwhelmed by this amount of new accounts and uploads so we do need to work faster on important details like this.
One thing to consider is that the site is not owned by a single individual or company. It is a community initiative by members for members.
Thank you for bringing this under our attention. We hope to make RGBStock the best free site on the net and we cannot get there without questions, remarks and opinions.
I hope you will continue to use RGBStock and wish you welcome on board.
Regards,
Marja (Zela - RGBStock admin)
5. Stephen28 February 2010, 10:25 GMT +01:00
I think its a question that still hasn't been answered and I'd hate to think that rgb has any semblance of lack of transparency which it seemed to me was one of the most central criticisms of sxc. It costs to put up a website and administer it. Maybe I missed something somewhere about who actually owns rgb but I do feel more explanation would help, rather than it is a community initiative. Please, can I be pointed to where the answer to this question lies. Much appreciated.
6. Zela28 February 2010, 14:04 GMT +01:00
I think you might be just a little 'quick' with assuming that lack of transparency was the only or main issue with sxc.
It was the hijack of the site from the server, the lack of respect towards the former admin team, the rude interaction from the new forum moderators and how people were answered and locked out in the forums.
The rigid new upload rules, the slow review process, the poor quality of accepted files that lowers down the grade of available useful files to lure buyers to Istock.
Etc. etc. just to name some forum quotes or complaints.
This all results in discouraging good photographers to submit their work to this hostile environment. That is where the founders of RGBStock.com stepped in.
To create a friendly free photo sharing place where the opinion of every community member will be treated with respect is our goal.
I think it's a good starting point. There is nothing going on that should not be out in the open. We are still in the process of balancing and learning.
7. xymonau1 March 2010, 0:36 GMT +01:00
The place is being run right now by volunteers who got together to make an alternative. Someone volunteered time and webspace, and we are here. Nothing is formal, although a handful of people are leading out - in the sense that they are doing the bulk of the work. There is programming, photo approvals, publicity, writing things like our blurbs, all sorts of things to do. Anyone who has been involved with a multi-faceted site or organisation understands that too many cooks spoil the broth, so there needs to be leadership and decision making, after consultation where possible. Sometimes, that is not possible. The place hasn't evolved far enough to look at too many things yet. No-one can make promises about the future. We are expressing our desire to have this site not controlled by major corporations. So far, so good. That is the most important thing. No-one is lining their pockets by the use of your images. The costs of keeping the place going are borne by a few.
It does not behoove us to talk too openly about some things, as we do not want corporate sites to be interested. One day we will be huge, and we want to be able to resist their interest. Also, at this point there isn't much to tell. Individuals involved do not always want their names bandied about. I remember a lot of abuse and negativity on sxc towards the approvers, which forced admin to suppress their names. That's a very legitimate reason for not waffling on about who is doing what. We are all volunteers and doing the very best we can to provide a great site, and it seems to be working. Enjoy it.
8. krayker21 March 2010, 18:35 GMT +01:00
@7 spot on. approval is very subjective. people who's images are rejected feel an instant "wtf?" well, i did feel that way at least for a couple of rejected images! but, you know over a period of time - one learns what is accepted in this stock site and the priorities here are. Like I have some images which do not qualify as stock images here , but are likely to be used under CC or it might have more than average views in flickr.
