Author Topic: Photos from Gettyimages direct to Thinkstock - ouch (Read 26852 times)

disorderly · « **Reply #50 on:** April 05, 2011, 16:51 »

Quote from: jsnover on April 05, 2011, 16:38

Here is a definition of dividend recapitalization. And here is an explanatory article (that guy with bundles of cash has got to be a stock image!).

This sounds an awful lot like a leveraged buyout, only one done after the fact of taking ownership. In an LBO, you take out an enormous loan using the company to be acquired as collateral. You get the company for virtually no cost, and the company gets to pay off the massive debt you incurred to make the purchase. Successful, profitable companies get turned into struggling debt payment machines, and a few villains emerge with lots and lots of dollars.

Every time I see one of these, I become a little less fond of capitalism.

lisafx · « **Reply #51 on:** April 05, 2011, 17:00 »

Quote from: disorderly on April 05, 2011, 16:51

This sounds an awful lot like a leveraged buyout, only one done after the fact of taking ownership. In an LBO, you take out an enormous loan using the company to be acquired as collateral. You get the company for virtually no cost, and the company gets to pay off the massive debt you incurred to make the purchase. Successful, profitable companies get turned into struggling debt payment machines, and a few villains emerge with lots and lots of dollars.

Every time I see one of these, I become a little less fond of capitalism.

Thanks for the synopsis, Disorderly, and thanks JoAnn for the articles. This sounds like exactly what is happening.

Jami, I did read your story about being unable to get your images off Getty. Really horrifying. From what I can tell in your case, it sounds like it was their policy that you could leave, but in practical terms you are stuck because they won't delete your images. I am still wondering if they are instituting an official policy that nobody can leave. You know, kind of like the mafia.

LSD72 · « **Reply #52 on:** April 05, 2011, 17:13 »

Sounds like a good opportunity for Corbis if they just get up and notice.

jamirae · « **Reply #53 on:** April 05, 2011, 17:24 »

Quote from: lisafx on April 05, 2011, 17:00

Quote from: disorderly on April 05, 2011, 16:51

This sounds an awful lot like a leveraged buyout, only one done after the fact of taking ownership. In an LBO, you take out an enormous loan using the company to be acquired as collateral. You get the company for virtually no cost, and the company gets to pay off the massive debt you incurred to make the purchase. Successful, profitable companies get turned into struggling debt payment machines, and a few villains emerge with lots and lots of dollars.

Every time I see one of these, I become a little less fond of capitalism.

Thanks for the synopsis, Disorderly, and thanks JoAnn for the articles. This sounds like exactly what is happening.

Jami, I did read your story about being unable to get your images off Getty. Really horrifying. From what I can tell in your case, it sounds like it was their policy that you could leave, but in practical terms you are stuck because they won't delete your images. I am still wondering if they are instituting an official policy that nobody can leave. You know, kind of like the mafia.

yep.. I think JoAnn hit it on the head and Disorderly translated it for us all nicely. does sound like the current operation.

wrt Getty -- yes, I think I'm at the Hotel California there - "you can check out anytime you like, but you can never leave"

Jo Ann Snover · « **Reply #54 on:** April 05, 2011, 17:25 »

Quote from: lisafx on April 05, 2011, 17:00

...I am still wondering if they are instituting an official policy that nobody can leave. ...

It's not that you can't leave - there are termination clauses in the agreement - but that you can't remove selected images during the term of the agreement and still keep contributing. The all-or-nothing approach.

Originally the contract I signed (but never uploaded any content under) was for 3 years with automatic one year renewals and a 60 day notice for termination. The new contract says they're reducing the termination notice on the conributor side to 90 days, so I assume for "real" Getty photographers, not iStockers, the old contract was something longer.

cobalt · « **Reply #55 on:** April 05, 2011, 18:23 »

JJRD just confirmed that Vetta/Agency files are not going to Thinkstock. They are mirrored on Getty, but won´t go elsewhere.

cathyslife · « **Reply #56 on:** April 05, 2011, 18:24 »

Quote from: jamirae on April 05, 2011, 17:24

yep.. I think JoAnn hit it on the head and Disorderly translated it for us all nicely. does sound like the current operation.

wrt Getty -- yes, I think I'm at the Hotel California there - "you can check out anytime you like, but you can never leave"

Too funny, that's exactly what I thought of too!

cathyslife · « **Reply #57 on:** April 05, 2011, 18:26 »

Quote from: cobalt on April 05, 2011, 18:23

JJRD just confirmed that Vetta/Agency files are not going to Thinkstock. They are mirrored on Getty, but won´t go elsewhere.

That sounds like good news, assuming you are one of the people who still believes everything you are told by the admins.

SNP · « **Reply #58 on:** April 05, 2011, 18:34 »

Quote from: cobalt on April 05, 2011, 18:23

JJRD just confirmed that Vetta/Agency files are not going to Thinkstock. They are mirrored on Getty, but won´t go elsewhere.

that's good news. I'm not a big Vetta or Agency contributor, but I'm glad to see they don't have plans for database-wide mirroring, right now anyways.

cobalt · « **Reply #59 on:** April 05, 2011, 18:45 »

Quote from: cclapper on April 05, 2011, 18:26

Quote from: cobalt on April 05, 2011, 18:23
JJRD just confirmed that Vetta/Agency files are not going to Thinkstock. They are mirrored on Getty, but won´t go elsewhere.

That sounds like good news, assuming you are one of the people who still believes everything you are told by the admins.

Well, not so long ago I used to be an admin...so, let´s say I believe this statement. ;-)

OM · « **Reply #60 on:** April 05, 2011, 21:20 »

Quote from: jamirae on April 05, 2011, 17:24

Quote from: lisafx on April 05, 2011, 17:00
Quote from: disorderly on April 05, 2011, 16:51

yep.. I think JoAnn hit it on the head and Disorderly translated it for us all nicely. does sound like the current operation.

wrt Getty -- yes, I think I'm at the Hotel California there - "you can check out anytime you like, but you can never leave"

Oh, and we get to keep your credit card for a while too.

Sean Locke Photography · « **Reply #61 on:** April 06, 2011, 04:26 »

Anyone heard of evostock before? Sounds like the collective is already underway.

http://www.aphotoeditor.com/2011/04/05/new-getty-contract-met-with-apathy/#comments

PaulieWalnuts · « **Reply #62 on:** April 06, 2011, 06:19 »

Quote from: sjlocke on April 06, 2011, 04:26

Anyone heard of evostock before? Sounds like the collective is already underway.

http://www.aphotoeditor.com/2011/04/05/new-getty-contract-met-with-apathy/#comments

Just looked at the site and some of the Vision Statement. Like all other direct approaches it looks like a good idea but it seems they're trying to use an old declining business model to move into the future.

The design screams 1995 amateur and they're marketing to designers who are probably critical of design. Maybe not a deal killer I wouldn't use a dentist who has rotted teeth.

It's another macro good ole' boy club saying "Evostock is not open to amateurs or hobbyists". I realize that handholding amateurs isn't ideal but there are thousands of microstock contributors who could easily qualify and produce as good or better images than these pros. AND, micro contributors are also reaching a point of being fed up with being mistreated. To automatically exclude amateurs is pretty shortsighted and will hurt this group in the long run. Especially when they are trying to fight Getty and Getty is recruiting amateurs. If these people had any business savvy they would be trying to lure good amateurs away from Getty and microstock. Also, for amateurs and hobbyists stock is mostly supplemental income so they don't have much to lose and would probably be more likely to support something like this. Full timers are only concerned with paying bills and are less likely to take risks like dropping Getty and supporting this.

Quote

The key to success of any alternative to the big traditional agencies is a large number of contributing members. To create collections that can compete with the likes of Getty (say in 3-6 years) you need a lot of committed artists. So far, in my estimation artists have not been up to that test but I’m keeping hope alive with Evostock.

Not real confidence inspiring. Seems to indicate after a few years the results aren't meeting the vision. Why would anyone want to commit to what seems to be a stagnant project based on hope and no marketing. The pros don't want to commit in mass and they don't want amateurs. (

)

Plus the site has some nice images but I didn't see anything much different than what's already at Getty or even micro. So why would a buyer bother to go to Evostock?

I think groups like Blend Images have the right long term approach with specialized content and even appear to be selectively open to amateurs.

Jo Ann Snover · « **Reply #63 on:** April 06, 2011, 11:24 »

Quote from: sjlocke on April 06, 2011, 04:26

Anyone heard of evostock before? Sounds like the collective is already underway.

http://www.aphotoeditor.com/2011/04/05/new-getty-contract-met-with-apathy/#comments

Just for yucks I did a search for tropical beach. There were 150 or so very underwhelming images. I did a search on IS for the same phrase and there were over 56K photos, many of which were stunners. I did the same search on SS and there were over 116K photos, again with many stunners.

A search for woman office produced just 47 results, many of which were of someone SCUBA diving - spam is everywhere! At IS there were over 48K photos, the whole first page (200) of which were actually women in offices. At SS over 136K photos with all of the first page (100) non-spammed results.

If these folks are going to make a go of a site like this, they need some great content, not a lot of blather about how professional they are.

SNP · « **Reply #64 on:** April 06, 2011, 12:02 »

Quote from: jsnover on April 06, 2011, 11:24

Quote from: sjlocke on April 06, 2011, 04:26
Anyone heard of evostock before? Sounds like the collective is already underway.

http://www.aphotoeditor.com/2011/04/05/new-getty-contract-met-with-apathy/#comments

Just for yucks I did a search for tropical beach. There were 150 or so very underwhelming images. I did a search on IS for the same phrase and there were over 56K photos, many of which were stunners. I did the same search on Shutterstock and there were over 116K photos, again with many stunners.

A search for woman office produced just 47 results, many of which were of someone SCUBA diving - spam is everywhere! At IS there were over 48K photos, the whole first page (200) of which were actually women in offices. At Shutterstock over 136K photos with all of the first page (100) non-spammed results.

If these folks are going to make a go of a site like this, they need some great content, not a lot of blather about how professional they are.

agree 100%. the site seems dated. the content is the key and they don't seem to have a lot of content to offer. I don't think any collective will ever work unless there are contributors on board who are already very important to stock agencies. doesn't matter if you have a collective of thousands if major contributors are missing from the collective, it will have little power. there are lots of trad pro groups already and they want nothing to do with microstock, which has always seemed ridiculous to me. this group seems like one of those types--a good idea that is inaccessible in terms of content and reaching out to buyers. they're nowhere in Google searches. they definitely need to optimize their site for search engines on top of everything else.

bunhill · « **Reply #65 on:** April 08, 2011, 16:34 »

Quote from: cobalt on April 05, 2011, 13:00

I´ve been following the getty forum as well and concur that I am a little suprised why they have a forum if they are not intending to have a real dialogue with the contributors.

In general terms perhaps they prefer any debate to be taking place on a private moderated forum (which could even ultimately be deleted) instead of somewhere out there.

SNP · « **Reply #66 on:** April 09, 2011, 09:45 »

it's also strange to see that Claudia seems to be the only moderator and respondent from Getty in the Getty threads. I dislike their forum format too. it's really old school.

Sean Locke Photography · « **Reply #67 on:** April 09, 2011, 09:56 »

Yes, they seem to view it as some sort of one person moderated support system instead of a discussion forum. Everything I post isn't necessarily directed at her.

ShadySue · « **Reply #68 on:** April 09, 2011, 14:59 »

Quote from: cobalt on April 05, 2011, 18:23

JJRD just confirmed that Vetta/Agency files are not going to Thinkstock. They are mirrored on Getty, but won´t go elsewhere.

It's not that long ago that he confirmed that Disney would be sellable as editorial (can anyone find the thread?)

caspixel · « **Reply #69 on:** April 09, 2011, 15:04 »

Quote from: ShadySue on April 09, 2011, 14:59

Quote from: cobalt on April 05, 2011, 18:23
JJRD just confirmed that Vetta/Agency files are not going to Thinkstock. They are mirrored on Getty, but won´t go elsewhere.
It's not that long ago that he confirmed that Disney would be sellable as editorial (can anyone find the thread?)

Dare I say it? It was probably deleted.

PaulieWalnuts · « **Reply #70 on:** April 09, 2011, 15:12 »

Quote from: cobalt on April 05, 2011, 18:23

JJRD just confirmed that Vetta/Agency files are not going to Thinkstock.

I think that sentence is missing something. It should probably read:

JJRD just confirmed that Vetta/Agency files are not going to Thinkstock today

ShadySue · « **Reply #71 on:** April 10, 2011, 04:45 »

Quote from: PaulieWalnuts on April 09, 2011, 15:12

Quote from: cobalt on April 05, 2011, 18:23
JJRD just confirmed that Vetta/Agency files are not going to Thinkstock.

I think that sentence is missing something. It should probably read:

JJRD just confirmed that Vetta/Agency files are not going to Thinkstock today

Wasn't it JJRD who affirmed that the Exc+ files would get a best match boost. That never happened, even for one day.

Sean Locke Photography · « **Reply #72 on:** April 10, 2011, 06:54 »

Quote from: ShadySue on April 09, 2011, 14:59

Quote from: cobalt on April 05, 2011, 18:23
JJRD just confirmed that Vetta/Agency files are not going to Thinkstock. They are mirrored on Getty, but won´t go elsewhere.
It's not that long ago that he confirmed that Disney would be sellable as editorial (can anyone find the thread?)

True. That was a fail. I'd say that was more a result of poor planning due to rushing the thing out than something insidious.

ShadySue · « **Reply #73 on:** April 10, 2011, 08:01 »

Quote from: sjlocke on April 10, 2011, 06:54

Quote from: ShadySue on April 09, 2011, 14:59
Quote from: cobalt on April 05, 2011, 18:23
JJRD just confirmed that Vetta/Agency files are not going to Thinkstock. They are mirrored on Getty, but won´t go elsewhere.
It's not that long ago that he confirmed that Disney would be sellable as editorial (can anyone find the thread?)
True. That was a fail. I'd say that was more a result of poor planning due to rushing the thing out than something insidious.

You could be write, but 'poor planning' doesn't inspire confidence in the leadership, and even if not quiet as 'morally reprehensible' has the same net outcome.

BelIblis · « **Reply #74 on:** April 13, 2011, 23:57 »

The new Getty agreement has been changed to allow for an opt-out, so certain RM images can NOT be moved to RF (or Thinkstok) if the photographer so wishes. Getty Contributors should log onto the Contributors page & read the latest announcement.
This (positive) change of agreement also applies to photographers who've already signed the new contract in the past few weeks.

MicrostockGroup Sponsors

Author Topic: Photos from Gettyimages direct to Thinkstock - ouch (Read 26852 times)

disorderly

lisafx

LSD72

jamirae

Jo Ann Snover

cobalt

cathyslife

cathyslife

SNP

cobalt

OM

Sean Locke Photography

PaulieWalnuts

Jo Ann Snover

SNP

bunhill

SNP

Sean Locke Photography

ShadySue

caspixel

PaulieWalnuts

ShadySue

Sean Locke Photography

ShadySue

BelIblis

Related Topics

Sponsors

Microstock Poll Results

Sponsors