pancakes

MicrostockGroup Sponsors


Author Topic: Fotolia still at it - they closed my account  (Read 19525 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

« Reply #50 on: May 29, 2014, 09:46 »
+22
https://twitter.com/joannsnover/status/472025923135741952

Other than avoiding libel, there's not much Fotolia can do to me by hollering about their actions. If I get time I'll do a blog post later too.


« Reply #51 on: May 29, 2014, 10:13 »
+5
I'm not sure mine is really closed.  It's blocked, and my images are gone.  I do not know if this is permanent or not, as I have not received any message from Fotolia yet.
If there's no message in the next few days, I'll contact support.


I'm so sorry - both for you and Ron - but I'm not surprised.

 I know I've said several times that Fotolia threatened to close my account back in June 2008 for organizing contributors to protest the lousy deal when they introduced subscriptions. They backed off then but closed it after I went exclusive and refused to have me back - actually wrote in an e-mail that they did not want to do business with me - when I returned to independence in 2011. They shut down Bobby Deal's account too (he was pretty blunt in his public criticism of them).

Things are different now - largely iStock's free fall - but even without Fotolia, by the 4th quarter of 2012 I had matched my 4th quarter 2010 exclusive income. It's no consolation in the short term I know.

Back in 2008 when Chad passed on the threat from his bosses, he said in an e-mail that he was a nice guy, just trying to give me the lay of the land. But here he still is, putting his names to letters that are trying to bully everyone by harming a few chosen individuals. I find the attempt to separate personal nice-ness from the actions of one's employer done under his name pretty hard to swallow.

What Fotolia reminds me most of are the businesses a century ago hiring Pinkerton's thugs to beat up union organizers and fire at strikers. And Getty's public hanging of Sean and Rob Sylvan.

Fotolia should be ashamed of itself. They know no shame, but they've scraped off any remaining veneer of respectability and ethics with this move.


http://tinyurl.com/owg724t

Hmmm. I wonder why would they risk alienating a lot of their existing contributors to go after what appears to be a fairly small group of new contributors?

And the fact that maybe only a small percentage of that small group will bite.




Why the would risk alienating ther existing contributors?
That's simple.
Because they have done time and time again in the past without any noticeable impact on their bottom line. Sure, there will be some ranting and complains in the forums, maybe even a few contributors may leave, but after a few weeks it's back to business as usual...

That's why they'll do it.


SOP for Fotolia is if you complain loudly about the way they treat you as a contributor they delete your account and deny you any further referral earnings even when you still have 2 years of referral earnings left from referring top contributors to them.

Fair and honest treatment of the contributor base has never been part of the company credo. I spent many hours consulting (for free) back and forth with Oleg when he was first launching FT and in my personal opinion in the end as in the beginning he never showed any true concern for anything other then his own profit position in the operation. The contributors are simply a means to an end for him and that end is personal profit. Of course we all get into business with profit as the goal but in the case of FT it would seem to be the only true aspiration of the company. I expect that were I to sit down and extrapolate my potential earnings at FT over the past year had I not been railroaded off the site for standing up for contributor rights that I have lost out on $12,000 or more in royalty and referral earnings that would have come as the result of the elevated ranking which I was denied in the last ranking fiasco. Fotolia has a long and well documented track history of mistreating their contributor base yet the staus quo is maintained there. This change will no doubt go forward as has every other change in the history of the agency. In the end a handful will suffer the closing of their accounts and involuntary deleting of their portfolios and after a short time the roar will quiet and it will be business as usual at Fotolia until they announce their next scheme meant to further trample the rights of their contributor base.
« Last Edit: May 29, 2014, 10:15 by gbalex »

« Reply #52 on: May 29, 2014, 10:25 »
0
What about the Russian artists? Are they affected as well or is this action focussed on msg?

Ron

« Reply #53 on: May 29, 2014, 10:26 »
+4
https://twitter.com/joannsnover/status/472025923135741952

Other than avoiding libel, there's not much Fotolia can do to me by hollering about their actions. If I get time I'll do a blog post later too.
I'll blog about it too, and retweet that too when I get home :)

Tryingmybest

  • Stand up for what is right
« Reply #54 on: May 29, 2014, 10:38 »
+10
Wow. This is definitely a case for keeping anonymous on this forum. Sorry to read about that...  :P

Goofy

« Reply #55 on: May 29, 2014, 10:50 »
+10
Wow. This is definitely a case for keeping anonymous on this forum. Sorry to read about that...  :P

anonymous is okay as long as we don't troll. 

Tryingmybest

  • Stand up for what is right
« Reply #56 on: May 29, 2014, 11:18 »
+2
Wow. This is definitely a case for keeping anonymous on this forum. Sorry to read about that...  :P

anonymous is okay as long as we don't troll.

Agreed.

Ron

« Reply #57 on: May 29, 2014, 12:33 »
+17
I think its a combination of things, I was a gnat in their fur annoying them and they squashed me.


I have been in Matts hair for a while, he probably had enough of me
I have contacted these guys http://wallsheaven.de asking them where they got my images from
I have been actively fighting DPC by sending letters to the EU and other parties
I have been tweeting about boycotting Fotolia


I would ban myself too.

stocked

« Reply #58 on: May 29, 2014, 13:13 »
+14
I always thought FT is the worst of all (yes worse than iStock/Getty) I think they proved it finally!
Really sorry for you Ron and Anyka time to fight them harder.
Any ideas for more actions?

Beppe Grillo

« Reply #59 on: May 29, 2014, 13:29 »
+11
I think its a combination of things, I was a gnat in their fur annoying them and they squashed me.


I have been in Matts hair for a while, he probably had enough of me
I have contacted these guys http://wallsheaven.de asking them where they got my images from
I have been actively fighting DPC by sending letters to the EU and other parties
I have been tweeting about boycotting Fotolia


I would ban myself too.


I think that humanly you were in your right to do it Ron.
If we let these companies sit on our heads it is the end of everything.

And you can continue the fight, they cannot ban you another time!

« Reply #60 on: May 29, 2014, 13:29 »
0

I have contacted these guys http://wallsheaven.de asking them where they got my images from


Off-Topic: Where i can find the list of agencies partner sites?

« Reply #61 on: May 29, 2014, 13:35 »
+1

I have contacted these guys http://wallsheaven.de asking them where they got my images from


Off-Topic: Where i can find the list of agencies partner sites?


50 for FT

http://www.microstockgroup.com/general-stock-discussion/a-list-of-partner-programs/

« Reply #62 on: May 29, 2014, 14:30 »
+1
Do you mean that in USA someone signs a contract allowing another one to be his master and to have him as a slave is legal? (it's an example)

I'm pretty sure there would be laws trumping any such contract - maybe even something in their Constitution - but a contract that says both parties have the right to terminate it at any time for any reason is perfectly normal.  Indeed, having one side banned from terminating it would be closer to a master-slave relationship.

Yes/No. The US Constitution is about the relationship between a free citizen and the Federal Govt. It restricts the scope of the Federal Govt. My understanding of it is that beyond this it does not specifically enshrine rights.

The Constitution, for example, prohibits The Congress from enacting any law which inhibits freedom of speech. But two parties can voluntarily sign a legally binding NDA. The govt is not involved.

« Reply #63 on: May 29, 2014, 14:33 »
+1

I have contacted these guys http://wallsheaven.de asking them where they got my images from



The images are sourced from fotolia for sure.

« Reply #64 on: May 29, 2014, 14:51 »
+3
I think its a combination of things, I was a gnat in their fur annoying them and they squashed me.


I have been in Matts hair for a while, he probably had enough of me
I have contacted these guys http://wallsheaven.de asking them where they got my images from
I have been actively fighting DPC by sending letters to the EU and other parties
I have been tweeting about boycotting Fotolia


I would ban myself too.


I think that humanly you were in your right to do it Ron.
If we let these companies sit on our heads it is the end of everything.

And you can continue the fight, they cannot ban you another time!


you can continue the fight, they cannot ban you another time!
+1

« Reply #65 on: May 29, 2014, 16:15 »
+1
I think its a combination of things, I was a gnat in their fur annoying them and they squashed me.


I have been in Matts hair for a while, he probably had enough of me
I have contacted these guys http://wallsheaven.de asking them where they got my images from
I have been actively fighting DPC by sending letters to the EU and other parties
I have been tweeting about boycotting Fotolia


I would ban myself too.


Probably more that list than anything said here - pretty upfront & being anonymous here would not have helped.  Bad action from FT but not surprising. 

« Reply #66 on: May 29, 2014, 18:04 »
+1
People who post anonymously have less credibility. That's all there is to it. I don't have a problem with people doing that, but I have no frame of reference to judge their opinions.

For example, if the next big boycott is against Shutterstock and people with 50 images on there are telling me to delete my port because they did too, I'm going to call BS.

Sometimes you're going to get backlash when people know who you are, but that makes you watch what you say as well. It's a matter of accountability and being an adult. If I say something, I stand by it. Now if Fotolia banned my friend, Ron, for his forum postings, that's a * cheap shot and quite petty. I don't think they'd do that, but I could be wrong.

« Reply #67 on: May 29, 2014, 18:21 »
+17
People who post anonymously have less credibility. That's all there is to it. I don't have a problem with people doing that, but I have no frame of reference to judge their opinions.

For example, if the next big boycott is against Shutterstock and people with 50 images on there are telling me to delete my port because they did too, I'm going to call BS.

Sometimes you're going to get backlash when people know who you are, but that makes you watch what you say as well. It's a matter of accountability and being an adult. If I say something, I stand by it. Now if Fotolia banned my friend, Ron, for his forum postings, that's a * cheap shot and quite petty. I don't think they'd do that, but I could be wrong.

Fotolia "banned" me for public forum postings and nothing more. Likewise Bobby Deal. Why do you think that what they just did to Ron is any different?

It's clearly a very hard thing to see an agency that makes you money behave very, very badly, but you have to  be clear headed about how it could just as easily be you next as any of the rest of us.

I don't blame anyone for being anonymous here because of Fotolia. You can spot the trolls a mile off and ignore them.

« Reply #68 on: May 29, 2014, 19:12 »
0
If it's just stock photographer forum posts, then I think it's petty.

But if I were running a site and people were posting negative stuff on my Twitter feed where I'm trying to market my business, that'd be a different story.

Also, y'all need to be careful. I have no idea how litigious these stock companies are. Hate to see someone hit with a libel suit. You'd be OK in a U.S. court, but some other countries have libel laws that are much more favorable to plantiffs in libel cases.
« Last Edit: May 29, 2014, 19:18 by robhainer »

Shelma1

« Reply #69 on: May 29, 2014, 19:36 »
+7
If it's just stock photographer forum posts, then I think it's petty.

But if I were running a site and people were posting negative stuff on my Twitter feed where I'm trying to market my business, that'd be a different story.

Also, y'all need to be careful. I have no idea how litigious these stock companies are. Hate to see someone hit with a libel suit. You'd be OK in a U.S. court, but some other countries have libel laws that are much more favorable to plantiffs in libel cases.

It's only libel if it's false.

« Reply #70 on: May 29, 2014, 19:49 »
+2
Hypothetically, if you were to say one of these sites was 'stealing' from photographers or 'ripping off' photographers or  some other similar language, would that be true or false? All I'm saying is be careful what language you use. Make sure it's true and not up for interpretation.

« Reply #71 on: May 29, 2014, 20:29 »
+5
I'd love to see the discovery documents in a case about if a site was ripping off photographers.

Shelma1

« Reply #72 on: May 29, 2014, 20:46 »
+9

For example, if the next big boycott

"The next big boycott." Isn't it great that we can act together like that? Who'd a thunk it?


ethan

« Reply #74 on: May 30, 2014, 02:41 »
+1
^ Most excellent :)


 

Related Topics

  Subject / Started by Replies Last post
5 Replies
4844 Views
Last post June 20, 2006, 08:58
by fintastique
5 Replies
4113 Views
Last post May 15, 2008, 22:02
by ichiro17
7 Replies
4594 Views
Last post December 28, 2008, 10:26
by hali
6 Replies
3230 Views
Last post February 09, 2012, 15:56
by ann
1 Replies
1501 Views
Last post September 12, 2013, 08:59
by luissantos84

Sponsors

Microstock Poll Results

Sponsors