Author Topic: ‘BTV’ Released – Cutcaster’s Untapped Photo and Vector Collection (Read 17128 times)

HerrMursilgo · « **Reply #50 on:** August 05, 2009, 16:28 »

I am sure Mr. Griffin considered his actions well before making it known to us. He is not a silly person and of course not unprofessional. He would not send us an email just to act like an idiot.
I am all for Mr. Griffin BETTA THAN VETTA.

What is the worse that can happen? He makes a fool of himself?
Well, I don't think whatever Mr. Griffin do can exceed whatever Getty has done, and any other CEOs of the Big 6 before him.

Adeptris · « **Reply #51 on:** August 05, 2009, 16:34 »

There could be a claim that the reference to Vetta is damaging the 'brand' of 'Vetta' but as both are new collections then it would be hard to prove, and any action may never get off the ground and just end in a cease and desist.
With any claim for defamation, slander or libel the onus will be on john to prove that ‘Betta is better than Vetta, but as it is a subjective media it would be hard to prove the claim either way.

There is nothing wrong in the UK to name a competitor in a factual way, like with supermarket 'A' saying we have a given number of products cheaper than a competitor supermarket 'B', then the supermarket 'B' comes back and says a basket of the most popular items are cheaper than supermarket 'A', so there is nothing wrong with saying “artists earn 30% more with us than they do at [Named Agency] as that is factual, or we have xx number of images more, or we are xx% cheaper.

Any business needs to find it strengths and focus thier marketing on them, as already said it looks a bit tacky and a cheap shot, however it is also cheap marketing, and it is working as Sean said it is posted on the Istock forum so one side of the marketing is working, think why it was posted in a 'contributors forum' photographers are the target market here not buyers, so there may be new artists joining MSG and CC.

David

HerrMursilgo · « **Reply #52 on:** August 05, 2009, 16:52 »

Adeptris right.
The basis of civil cases is a set precedent.
If you bring in Vetta and Betta and said this is liable, all the lawyer for Cutcaster needs to bring in Pepsi Cola and Coca Cola.
If the Cola name can be used without Coca charging Pepsi. Vetta has no leg to stand on. If so, it will open a can of worms for Pepsi .

We have been taking the Pepsi challenge for as long as I can remember. From highschool to past adulthood. Cheapshot for Pepsi? I don't think so. Pepsi actually gained momentum with this.
So if that is unprofessional and cheap shot, you don't have any idea about marketing and brand competition.

I highly doubt that Vetta is going to change the legal name world in an amazing case of the micro stock .

Vetta is not an original either. So even if they succeed to stop Betta to use it,
some other Vetta before IStock will come after IS and this is highly unlikely that Vetta wants to encourage.

It cost money to retain a lawyer. Getty already has one case with those photographers sueing them.
I don't think Getty wants to get themselves tied up in court with Cutcaster as well.
That would have to take a lot of subscription sales to pay to retain the lawyers and a lot of time spent in court.

Highly unlikely.

Is Betta than Vetta provable ?
Sure, ask any of those Cutcaster contributors who will submit their images to Betta Than Vetta.
There will be enough people to uphold the proof that BETTA is in fact BETTA THAN VETTA.

And since Vetta has no history beyond a reasonable doubt than it is in fact better than Betta than Vetta, it is their word against some others' words.
You don't win court cases this way. It will be thrown out of court in an instant.

travismanley · « **Reply #53 on:** August 05, 2009, 17:11 »

Quote from: azurelaroux on August 05, 2009, 16:26

Vetta is only available to exclusives at IS, and if history is correct, only select exclusives ever get their work accepted. Betta is open to all CC contributors who submit outstanding work. I will admit I'm not fond of the name but at least CC has some variety and is not making up a payment system so confusing that you can't figure out what your royalty is supposed to be.

This pretty much sums up how I feel. Maybe "Betta than Vetta" isnt the best name, but at least its a collection of the truly best photos Cuctcaster has to offer, where as the Vetta collection is only the best of what their exclusive contributors have to offer.

Is photo really any "betta" just because it's coming from an exclusive photographer?

HerrMursilgo · « **Reply #54 on:** August 05, 2009, 17:19 »

Quote from: travismanley on August 05, 2009, 17:11

Quote from: azurelaroux on August 05, 2009, 16:26
Vetta is only available to exclusives at IS, and if history is correct, only select exclusives ever get their work accepted. Betta is open to all CC contributors who submit outstanding work. I will admit I'm not fond of the name but at least CC has some variety and is not making up a payment system so confusing that you can't figure out what your royalty is supposed to be.

This pretty much sums up how I feel. Maybe "Betta than Vetta" isnt the best name, but at least its a collection of the truly best photos Cuctcaster has to offer, where as the Vetta collection is only the best of what their exclusive contributors have to offer.

Is photo really any "betta" just because it's coming from an exclusive photographer?

Is photo really any "betta" just because it's coming from an exclusive photographer?

There is not enough proof of this. And if there is a case, the onus of proof will be on Vetta, not on CC.

I'm with John and CC on this one, for sure

willie · « **Reply #55 on:** August 05, 2009, 17:25 »

Quote from: Adeptris on August 05, 2009, 16:34

There could be a claim that the reference to Vetta is damaging the 'brand' of 'Vetta' but as both are new collections then it would be hard to prove, and any action may never get off the ground and just end in a cease and desist.
With any claim for defamation, slander or libel the onus will be on john to prove that ‘Betta is better than Vetta, but as it is a subjective media it would be hard to prove the claim either way.

Actually David, I think you got it the other way around.
In litigation, the burden of proof is placed on Vetta "to proof the claim Betta than Vetta is false beyond any reasonable doubt"...
not the other way around.

bittersweet · « **Reply #56 on:** August 05, 2009, 17:28 »

iStock is not the site making claims about who is betta.

I think the whole thing is silly. The reason that the images are priced higher on istock is because you can't get them anywhere else. If non-exclusive images were included, there would be little reason to purchase them there for 10X what they could be purchased for on any number of other sites. However, the new collection at CC will see how that strategy pays off. Maybe there are people who only shop at CC and who have no idea that these "betta" images are available elsewhere for a much much lower price.

WarrenPrice · « **Reply #57 on:** August 05, 2009, 17:32 »

Yes... the whole argument is silly. Who really gives a big rat's a$$. If it increases sales, GREAT. Otherwise, the Nay Sayers can say "I told you so."

My only objection is ... none of my images are included. LOL

Sean Locke Photography · « **Reply #58 on:** August 05, 2009, 17:53 »

Sorry. There's a difference between an Apple commercial naming Vista, and actually naming your product to include a trademark. You can't call the new Pepsi 'Not Coca-Cola' any more than this situation here.

willie · « **Reply #59 on:** August 05, 2009, 18:24 »

Quote from: sjlocke on August 05, 2009, 17:53

Sorry. There's a difference between an Apple commercial naming Vista, and actually naming your product to include a trademark. You can't call the new Pepsi 'Not Coca-Cola' any more than this situation here.

Quote from: whatalife on August 05, 2009, 17:28

iStock is not the site making claims about who is betta.

I think the whole thing is silly. The reason that the images are priced higher on istock is because you can't get them anywhere else. If non-exclusive images were included, there would be little reason to purchase them there for 10X what they could be purchased for on any number of other sites. However, the new collection at CC will see how that strategy pays off. Maybe there are people who only shop at CC and who have no idea that these "betta" images are available elsewhere for a much much lower price.

ok, there is some justification in what both you (Sean and whatalife) say.
i won't dispute either.
we also know that IS vetta exclusive have a better chance of selling.

so , what if, CC wants to give Getty a heave-ho, and do what they did.
what are you IS people so afraid of?
are you really afraid CC will cut into your breadline? if so, why the fuss?

all John is getting is a lot more publicity with this forum about his new thing.
good or bad, the buyers will decide.

and if being exclusive is going to make the diff. well, the CC contributors can make their Betta than Vetta exclusive to CC. if that's the deal, why not?

maybe John will make BTV exclusive.

the big diff is as azure and travis pointed out. Vetta is only available for IS exclusives, we the indies are not eligible. so to us, BTV is a good thing.
,...simply because there is no discrimination.

Which is why we are cheering for John and CC.
It's only a cheapshot to you , but not to us who cannot submit to Vetta.

So, chill already

we can still be friends agreeing to disagree .

m@m · « **Reply #60 on:** August 05, 2009, 18:33 »

Quote from: WarrenPrice on August 05, 2009, 17:32

Yes... the whole argument is silly. Who really gives a big rat's a$$. If it increases sales, GREAT. Otherwise, the Nay Sayers can say "I told you so."

My only objection is ... none of my images are included. LOL

OR MINE!...LOL

HerrMursilgo · « **Reply #61 on:** August 05, 2009, 18:37 »

Quote from: perseus on August 05, 2009, 18:24

we can still be friends agreeing to disagree .

Or a love-hate relationship (we love to hate you and you hate to love us, heh!heh).

HerrMursilgo · « **Reply #62 on:** August 05, 2009, 18:52 »

Jokes aside, IS exclusives,.
The thing is that buyers are going to wonder , "Betta than Vetta" ... what is Vetta.
Then they will go to IStock and see your Vetta images.
If they think your Vetta images are indeed BETTA THAN BETTA , ha!ha!...
you laugh your way to the bank.

So, really, you Vetta exclusives will profit too, because BETTA THAN VETTA
refers to Vetta.
And since you say that your Vetta images are BETTA THAN BETTA,
well, that's for the buyers to decide, and which ever ways either one or us get a sale. So, everyone's happy.

BETTA THAN VETTA actually makes it BETTA FOR VETTA too.

but if we contributors of BETTA THAN VETTA make sure our images are in fact BETTA THAN VETTA then the buyers will come back to BETTA THAN VETTA
because in fact, CC has images that are truly BETTA THAN VETTA.

capische ? everyone get happy !

m@m · « **Reply #63 on:** August 05, 2009, 19:01 »

I can't believe you guys that are so against the whole BTV thing, but the way I see it is that for a group of guys and gals that thinks the idea is a silly and stupid one, you sure can carry on about it, who are you trying to convince? your self's?
just don't upload there, very simple, and let everyone else that thinks this may attract good sales and customer traffic to CC enjoy the moment, and take you criticism else where...I'm sure there are other threads on this forum you would enjoy criticising and putting down...time will tell if it works or not, but I'm a bit tired of listening to you bunch of downers talking crap about just about anything that does not come out of the big sites, IF YOU DON'T LIKE IT, HIT THE ROAD JACK...

Who cares what your oppinion is

Sean Locke Photography · « **Reply #64 on:** August 05, 2009, 19:22 »

I'm not sure why you all think we're against the collection per se. John ( or anyone else ) can make whatever collections they want to compete with whomever they want and include whoever they want.

The issue is with the name ( if it really isn't a joke ). 'Infinite Collection' ? Great - whatever... 'betta then Vetta' -

?? It comes off as a childish Nya-Nya-Nya ..

microstockinsider · « **Reply #65 on:** August 05, 2009, 19:25 »

my oh my, what a lot of people taking about cutcaster

who'd of thought it...

bittersweet · « **Reply #66 on:** August 05, 2009, 19:47 »

Quote from: sjlocke on August 05, 2009, 19:22

I'm not sure why you all think we're against the collection per se. John ( or anyone else ) can make whatever collections they want to compete with whomever they want and include whoever they want.

The issue is with the name ( if it really isn't a joke ). 'Infinite Collection' ? Great - whatever... 'betta then Vetta' - ?? It comes off as a childish Nya-Nya-Nya ..

Exactly.

And for the record, I'm not eligible to participate in Vetta either, so don't assume you know anything about me other than that I think the name is childish.

Phil · « **Reply #67 on:** August 05, 2009, 20:21 »

Quote from: photohome on August 05, 2009, 19:25

my oh my, what a lot of people taking about cutcaster
who'd of thought it...

I think thats the point

how much reaction would there be to 'cutcaster premium' or similar

how many people are going to look (and generate traffic) to see if it really is better?

m@m · « **Reply #68 on:** August 05, 2009, 20:29 »

@whatalife, just for the record, I don't assume to know anything about you, because is plain and simple "I could care less who you are" or wether you're able or willing to upload to Vetta, or you opinion of the name of CC's new project, lets get that clear!
Bottom line is that if I spend my money, time and effort lets just say, to open my own photo stock site and decided to call it imStock, it is no one else's business what my choice of name is, and I would not loose one minute of sleep over what other people think of it, (including all of you guys that have a problem with John's choice of names) I would call my investment whatever . I want, and if anyone has a problem with it, they can always put their money where their mouth is and help me pay for the site (I'm using a site as an example whatalife, in case you get confused)...so as far as I'm concern, JOHN IS A GREAT NAME! use it with pride.

m@m · « **Reply #69 on:** August 05, 2009, 20:43 »

Quote from: Phil on August 05, 2009, 20:21

Quote from: photohome on August 05, 2009, 19:25
my oh my, what a lot of people taking about cutcaster
who'd of thought it...

I think that's the point how much reaction would there be to 'cutcaster premium' or similar

how many people are going to look (and generate traffic) to see if it really is better?

Controversy is a very powerful tool, as an example, look at how many people are talking about CC on this thread, some that would have not given Cutcaster a second look, just because they're new and small, are now here giving their opinion (positive and negative) about their new project, buyers will do the same, even if it is for a minute just to see what they got...I think that this new project will attract plenty of people, maybe out of curiosity at first, but you know what, if they do like what they see, they will come back...and that will make it all BETTA!!! for John, Cutcaster and the sites contributors...just the way I see it.

Sean Locke Photography · « **Reply #70 on:** August 05, 2009, 20:45 »

Sorry, as we've already discussed, it is a lot of other people's business. You cannot call your venture 'GettieImages", anymore than you can include a trademark in your product name. 'Microsoft Stock' for example.

But go on thinking what you like. It's probably good that John doesn't have you on his legal team

...

Also, controversy on this board won't do anything. Buyers certainly do not read this stuff.

m@m · « **Reply #71 on:** August 05, 2009, 20:58 »

sjlocke, we go back in circles to square one here, you've got your opinion and I have mine, TIME WILL TELL...as far as the legal side, I'm sure John and his legal team already did their homework before using that name, I really don't think that such a professional like John crawl out from under a rock, or is making legal decisions without researching his legal options. Also keep in mind that many photographers on this forum are also buyer...just some food for thought.

Have a good one.

HerrMursilgo · « **Reply #72 on:** August 05, 2009, 20:59 »

Quote from: sjlocke on August 05, 2009, 20:45

But go on thinking what you like. It's probably good that John doesn't have you on his legal team ...

I am sure John doesn't NEED any of us on his legal team.
He made that decision way before we did here on this forum. It isn't our idea that is BETTA THAN VETTA
It's John's idea.

Quote from: sjlocke on August 05, 2009, 20:45

..

Also, controversy on this board won't do anything. Buyers certainly do not read this stuff.

Then you have nothing to worry about. If as you say, "
controversy on this board won't do anything. Buyers certainly do not read this stuff."

So why are you shouting so loudly in this thread? lol
Buyers certainly do not read this stuff.

BUT, just for a moment, you could be wrong for once,
then you know what?
BETTA THAN VETTA is going to be what we all have been waiting for.

Quote from: m@m on August 05, 2009, 20:43

..and that will make it all BETTA!!! for John, Cutcaster and the sites contributors...just the way I see it.

Amen ! m@m
I second that.

HerrMursilgo · « **Reply #73 on:** August 05, 2009, 21:00 »

Quote from: m@m on August 05, 2009, 20:58

sjlocke, we go back in circles to square one here, you've got your opinion and I have mine, TIME WILL TELL...as far as the legal side, I'm sure John and his legal team already did their homework before using that name, I really don't think that such a professional like John craw out from under a rock, or is making legal decisions without researching his legal options.

This comment crossed mine as I was writing it,
and once again, I echo m@m
to say,
Hear ! Hear!
Well said, caballero !

puravida · « **Reply #74 on:** August 05, 2009, 21:10 »

Quote from: m@m on August 05, 2009, 20:58

..., I really don't think that such a professional like John crawl out from under a rock..

rofl, i highly doubt that Mr Griffin crawl out from under a rock.
but maybe if he was trying to emulate David, who did crawl out from under a rock, in his duel with Golaith, armed with only a slingshot. that might just be the inspiration Mr Griffin needs to bring his vision into fruition.

Cheapshot? Hell, no, it's a sling shot !
go for it David, i mean John !