pancakes

MicrostockGroup Sponsors


Author Topic: Please explain the hate towards Getty Images  (Read 5673 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

ShadySue

  • There is a crack in everything
« Reply #25 on: November 09, 2017, 09:15 »
+7
Plus:
- asking for certain types of content then deactivating it, sometimes for legal reasons which should have been checked out beforehand, sometimes apparently randomly, 'on a whim' (or because forced by Getty suppliers?).
- 'disappearing' keywords so that files can't be found on their main keyword
- changing file numbers, making chasing these 'disappeared' keywords up more difficult and time-consuming
- premium access whereby Getty pocket the premium and you only get your percentage of the sale, meaning you aren't getting even the percentage you thought you'd signed up for.


« Reply #26 on: November 10, 2017, 09:14 »
+4
Start here: http://www.seanlockephotography.com/2013/02/11/a-change-in-things/

 
That sure was a mean, nasty, vindictive way to handle a disagreement. How long did it take to recover after they removed you with 30 day notice. I remember you were diversifying to many agencies after being forced out of iStock.

Plus:
- asking for certain types of content then deactivating it, sometimes for legal reasons which should have been checked out beforehand, sometimes apparently randomly, 'on a whim' (or because forced by Getty suppliers?).
- 'disappearing' keywords so that files can't be found on their main keyword
- changing file numbers, making chasing these 'disappeared' keywords up more difficult and time-consuming
- premium access whereby Getty pocket the premium and you only get your percentage of the sale, meaning you aren't getting even the percentage you thought you'd signed up for.


And banning people like you from the forum. Which you haven't mentioned but most of us here know about. Hostile member treatment and negative relationships were part of the reason, not just commission and income cuts.

« Reply #27 on: November 12, 2017, 12:21 »
+21
The hatred towards Getty started long before microstock. Microstock just created a new opportunity for Getty to show their true colors to a new audience. In the traditional stock world, there are plenty of people who regard Getty with the same contempt that many microstock artists do, and plenty who left Getty because of the mistreatment they received.

Microstock was better off without Getty getting involved. Everything they touched here turned to garbage. They wrecked istock and closed great sites like StockXpert, sites where contributors used to make good money. When they have this history of doing things that almost always hurt contributors far more than they help us, it's not hard to see why there is such negativity directed towards them.

Add in the disparaging comments they've made over the years, as well as perpetuating lies and myths about the industry to keep contributors earning as little as possible (like the myth that paying contributors more than 20% is impossible), and you've got a pretty good picture of a culture of greed and deception that has done nothing but hurt the stock image industry as a whole.


« Reply #28 on: November 12, 2017, 23:33 »
+3

 Getty simply does not have the best interests for the hand that feeds them. They are actually very out of touch in this regard.


The customers are the hands that feed Getty, not contributors.

« Reply #29 on: November 13, 2017, 01:53 »
+6
Jeez!  I been with them since 95 with over 8000 images and many scans from trannies etc in fact back in the old days when they made 4x5 inch dupes of LF trannies the sales were 100 times more! with the "house" collection and in two accounts. Their selling power is nothing to what it used to be. They have wrecked the market completely by slashing prices and commissions and they are an extremely arrogant bunch.

Said it before companies like SS and Getty would do best in just go away. Both of them stand for price reductions and commissions and constant troubles. One is the imbecile of subscriptions the other one suffering from Napoleon complex!
« Last Edit: November 13, 2017, 02:01 by derek »

« Reply #30 on: November 13, 2017, 09:36 »
+2
Jeez!  I been with them since 95 with over 8000 images and many scans from trannies etc in fact back in the old days when they made 4x5 inch dupes of LF trannies the sales were 100 times more! with the "house" collection and in two accounts. Their selling power is nothing to what it used to be. They have wrecked the market completely by slashing prices and commissions and they are an extremely arrogant bunch.

Said it before companies like SS and Getty would do best in just go away. Both of them stand for price reductions and commissions and constant troubles. One is the imbecile of subscriptions the other one suffering from Napoleon complex!

They aren't going away and the times have changed, now what? I say adapt to the situation instead of spending years complaining about the good old days of film before the internet. It's the 21st century not the 80s.

« Reply #31 on: November 13, 2017, 10:01 »
+2
Jeez!  I been with them since 95 with over 8000 images and many scans from trannies etc in fact back in the old days when they made 4x5 inch dupes of LF trannies the sales were 100 times more! with the "house" collection and in two accounts. Their selling power is nothing to what it used to be. They have wrecked the market completely by slashing prices and commissions and they are an extremely arrogant bunch.

Said it before companies like SS and Getty would do best in just go away. Both of them stand for price reductions and commissions and constant troubles. One is the imbecile of subscriptions the other one suffering from Napoleon complex!

They aren't going away and the times have changed, now what? I say adapt to the situation instead of spending years complaining about the good old days of film before the internet. It's the 21st century not the 80s.

Nah you're reading it wrong and yes its the 21st century and they should really be better organized then shouldnt they.

« Reply #32 on: November 13, 2017, 15:39 »
+3
Yeah the prevailing philosophy from some is to keep bending over and taking it

How weak an argument is that?

Sheriff

« Reply #33 on: November 13, 2017, 19:36 »
+3
I am sure others have said this before- but to wait to the 20th of the following month to get my sales information truly sucks...

« Reply #34 on: November 13, 2017, 22:38 »
+3
Yeah the prevailing philosophy from some is to keep bending over and taking it

How weak an argument is that?

Weak, or realistic? Better to get some money, or none at all?

If you don't like it, don't use Getty. Getty is far, far bigger than any individual contributor, and there's no shortage (yet) of people wanting to sell their pictures to take your place. So, as a contributor, you have no bargaining power.

Rather than fighting a battle you will never win, make a strategic withdrawal and concentrate your energy on the agencies you do like.





 

« Reply #35 on: November 13, 2017, 22:42 »
0
Jeez!  I been with them since 95 with over 8000 images and many scans from trannies etc in fact back in the old days when they made 4x5 inch dupes of LF trannies the sales were 100 times more! with the "house" collection and in two accounts. Their selling power is nothing to what it used to be. They have wrecked the market completely by slashing prices and commissions and they are an extremely arrogant bunch.

Said it before companies like SS and Getty would do best in just go away. Both of them stand for price reductions and commissions and constant troubles. One is the imbecile of subscriptions the other one suffering from Napoleon complex!

Of course their selling power has declined. There are far more agencies now, and (thanks to digital) a much bigger supply of competent-enough photos. 




« Reply #36 on: November 14, 2017, 01:50 »
+5
Yeah the prevailing philosophy from some is to keep bending over and taking it

How weak an argument is that?

Weak, or realistic? Better to get some money, or none at all?

If you don't like it, don't use Getty. Getty is far, far bigger than any individual contributor, and there's no shortage (yet) of people wanting to sell their pictures to take your place. So, as a contributor, you have no bargaining power.

Rather than fighting a battle you will never win, make a strategic withdrawal and concentrate your energy on the agencies you do like.

Such a pathetic reason to keep feeding this outfit

I dumped them back in February

A colleague who was a Getty exclusive dumped them last year for the 1 cent royalties.

You keep feeding into this abusive relationship along with others and you just end up encouraging them.

« Reply #37 on: November 14, 2017, 02:03 »
+1
Yeah the prevailing philosophy from some is to keep bending over and taking it

How weak an argument is that?

Weak, or realistic? Better to get some money, or none at all?

If you don't like it, don't use Getty. Getty is far, far bigger than any individual contributor, and there's no shortage (yet) of people wanting to sell their pictures to take your place. So, as a contributor, you have no bargaining power.

Rather than fighting a battle you will never win, make a strategic withdrawal and concentrate your energy on the agencies you do like.

Such a pathetic reason to keep feeding this outfit

I dumped them back in February

A colleague who was a Getty exclusive dumped them last year for the 1 cent royalties.

You keep feeding into this abusive relationship along with others and you just end up encouraging them.


Well said!!  its basically the same with SS you keep feeding them and you can have 20K top commercial files there but theyre only as good as until the next search change!
I know an old guy there was with them from the word go with a port of 50K files and thats a lot! just after new year he was slammed down over 50% SS was the only micro he belonged to! Few months later he took his portfolio and placed it all into some RF agency.

« Reply #38 on: November 14, 2017, 09:18 »
+2
I am sure others have said this before- but to wait to the 20th of the following month to get my sales information truly sucks...

My last statement on ESP is Sept. 1st which means August data, not Sept data. 2 1/2 months or longer is not really the following month, and I'm just as unhappy as you are about the slow reporting. Then they take longer to pay, so they are holding our money for almost three months most of the time. That's wrong.

ShadySue

  • There is a crack in everything
« Reply #39 on: November 14, 2017, 10:17 »
0
I am sure others have said this before- but to wait to the 20th of the following month to get my sales information truly sucks...

My last statement on ESP is Sept. 1st which means August data, not Sept data. 2 1/2 months or longer is not really the following month, and I'm just as unhappy as you are about the slow reporting. Then they take longer to pay, so they are holding our money for almost three months most of the time. That's wrong.
1st September means 'the month of September', not 'the month of August', though I only know that for sure (as that's not exactly self-evident) by looking at the charts, which show entries for January - September.

« Reply #40 on: November 14, 2017, 12:09 »
0
I am sure others have said this before- but to wait to the 20th of the following month to get my sales information truly sucks...

My last statement on ESP is Sept. 1st which means August data, not Sept data. 2 1/2 months or longer is not really the following month, and I'm just as unhappy as you are about the slow reporting. Then they take longer to pay, so they are holding our money for almost three months most of the time. That's wrong.
1st September means 'the month of September', not 'the month of August', though I only know that for sure (as that's not exactly self-evident) by looking at the charts, which show entries for January - September.

I guess I'm lost on that one. How does a 1st of Sept. statement, which comes on the 20th of Oct, mean it's all of Sept. Never mind I'm just making myself more confused.  :) Shouldn't it just say Sept. 30th then? Royalty payments are processed on the 25th of the month. If the statement isn't issued until the following month, then the 25th would be for the preceding month, not Sept.

I see you are correct, I missed that, I have credit pack $15.33 for Sept. 2017 which should mean that's Sept. not August sales, reported in Sept? And DM3 shows Sept income and sales from the 1st to the 30th. I got paid on the following month Oct 25. I see every months payment is processed around that same date.

It still seems to take a long time for them to figure out what's going on when all the rest are same day within hours. Thanks for the correction, it won't be the last time.

Tyson Anderson

  • www.openrangestudios.com
« Reply #41 on: November 14, 2017, 16:06 »
+1
Some very informative responses and then there's some great rants here.  I'm still with Getty/iStock after a couple years and I'll give some reasons why I'm not thrilled about them.

1)  Uploading high quality 4K videos and seeing them sell for under a dollar.  I don't care if it's a small res web purchase.  If I put in the work to produce videos at a certain level, I can't help but be disappointed with that low of return.

2)  Delayed sales reporting is ridiculous.  If all these smaller companies can report live sales, it shouldn't be that hard.  Probably just a strategy to hide the low payouts.

3)  This is not my personal experience, but I read about a contributor receiving an email from them saying they made a mistake and payed him too much last month.  Now his next couple months of earnings will be withheld until it's payed back.  That would really piss me off!

Even with these points combined with all the other contributors points, I still see it as counter productive to delete my files and close my account.  I don't buy into the theory that my files there are competing with my same files on other sites.  I believe most customers buy content from the site they're already comfortable with and are already logged onto.  I truly don't think pulling my portfolio will increase my sales on other sites.

Now would I recommend a newbie to upload there... Hell No!


ShadySue

  • There is a crack in everything
« Reply #42 on: November 14, 2017, 18:50 »
0
2)  Delayed sales reporting is ridiculous.  If all these smaller companies can report live sales, it shouldn't be that hard.  Probably just a strategy to hide the low payouts.
They claim that it's because they work out the subs payment on the basis of how much a buyer paid and how many files they used, therefore they can't know how much a sub payment made until that part of their sub runs out, bearing in mind that there's a fairly complicated scheme whereby buyers can roll forward subs downloads.
Easy answer: do away with subs.
Still, I seem to be doing a bit better on rpd with subs now than when it was a flat rate. Which is but a tiny crumb of comfort in the overall dire scheme of things there.
BTW, allegedly the downloads ytd counter on your profile page) is working in more-or-less real time, though it only tells you the number of downloads, not which files were downloaded or how much you earned.
« Last Edit: November 14, 2017, 19:36 by ShadySue »

« Reply #43 on: November 14, 2017, 21:14 »
0
The quality of content they are getting is dropping drastically. If they didnt have the high end partnerships it would be a real problem.

Everybody I know has either stopped supplying them or they send them the outtakes or the test shootings.

All the really good material goes elsewhere and if Getty wants it, they have to license it from smaller high end collections that make sure their files are well placed and that have negotiated special deals, so the content is not exclusive.

I will not delete my old portfolio but I really dont see what I could upload. Now they sell 4k videos for 68 cents...I mean, whats the point? I have a few hundred files on tiny agencies and they now outsell Gettyimages or istock where I still have thousands.

They keep sending out these surveys about how to improve getty, but they never touch on the real problem: paying the industry standard of at least 30% for non exclusive content and an interface and stats that make sense.

real time sales, reliable reporting, no refunds or at least very rarely, a stats page that has meaning...like showing me which files sold?? I dont care about the license type, i need to see trends, so I need pictures and amounts.

Whoever designed that interface has never sold a single stock image.

One day getty will be sold, maybe Adobe will buy them or Shutterstock and adobe together and they each take what they need.

There is no question that they will dominate the industry, because they have vision and now what they are doing.

And there will always be many small and specialized places, so we have diversity. Which is good for artists, I dont think being exclusive with one place is healthy. istock was fantastic, but it will never come back and so far I havent met a single agency with that kind of vibe.

I still have many friends working at getty, i wish them well, but it is obvious that Adobe will be the dominant gorilla in a few years.

« Reply #44 on: November 14, 2017, 23:40 »
0

They claim that it's because they work out the subs payment on the basis of how much a buyer paid and how many files they used, therefore they can't know how much a sub payment made until that part of their sub runs out, bearing in mind that there's a fairly complicated scheme whereby buyers can roll forward subs downloads.
Easy answer: do away with subs.


I think Getty is more interested in what customers think about subs rather than contributors.

« Reply #45 on: November 15, 2017, 01:54 »
+2
The hatred towards Getty started long before microstock. Microstock just created a new opportunity for Getty to show their true colors to a new audience. In the traditional stock world, there are plenty of people who regard Getty with the same contempt that many microstock artists do, and plenty who left Getty because of the mistreatment they received.

Microstock was better off without Getty getting involved. Everything they touched here turned to garbage. They wrecked istock and closed great sites like StockXpert, sites where contributors used to make good money. When they have this history of doing things that almost always hurt contributors far more than they help us, it's not hard to see why there is such negativity directed towards them.

Add in the disparaging comments they've made over the years, as well as perpetuating lies and myths about the industry to keep contributors earning as little as possible (like the myth that paying contributors more than 20% is impossible), and you've got a pretty good picture of a culture of greed and deception that has done nothing but hurt the stock image industry as a whole.

As soon as they purchased TonyStone Worldwide and The Image Bank back in 94( the two premiere stock-agencies) at that time the problems started! Stones and TIB had been very choosey in accepting photographers then suddenly we found ourselves with a massive bunch of werird photography not at all associated with commercial content.

The they started to buy everything in sight photodisc Ernest Haas collection, news agencies, just about everything. Of course the sales started to fall drastically.

However Mark Getty was a heck of a lot better then todays bunch thats for sure.

« Reply #46 on: November 15, 2017, 06:51 »
0


The they started to buy everything in sight photodisc Ernest Haas collection, news agencies, just about everything. Of course the sales started to fall drastically.



Why "of course"?

« Reply #47 on: November 15, 2017, 11:16 »
+3
The hatred towards Getty started long before microstock. Microstock just created a new opportunity for Getty to show their true colors to a new audience. In the traditional stock world, there are plenty of people who regard Getty with the same contempt that many microstock artists do, and plenty who left Getty because of the mistreatment they received.

Microstock was better off without Getty getting involved. Everything they touched here turned to garbage. They wrecked istock and closed great sites like StockXpert, sites where contributors used to make good money. When they have this history of doing things that almost always hurt contributors far more than they help us, it's not hard to see why there is such negativity directed towards them.

Add in the disparaging comments they've made over the years, as well as perpetuating lies and myths about the industry to keep contributors earning as little as possible (like the myth that paying contributors more than 20% is impossible), and you've got a pretty good picture of a culture of greed and deception that has done nothing but hurt the stock image industry as a whole.

As soon as they purchased TonyStone Worldwide and The Image Bank back in 94( the two premiere stock-agencies) at that time the problems started! Stones and TIB had been very choosey in accepting photographers then suddenly we found ourselves with a massive bunch of werird photography not at all associated with commercial content.

The they started to buy everything in sight photodisc Ernest Haas collection, news agencies, just about everything. Of course the sales started to fall drastically.

However Mark Getty was a heck of a lot better then todays bunch thats for sure.

Acceptance into Tony Stone Worldwide and/or The Image Bank was an accomplishment and a milestone in any photographers career. If you could make it into either one of those then I think it is pretty safe to say you can make it in microstock and have a very solid working knowledge of the stock industry. Can you imagine if most of today's photographers had to go through such a process? The first thing they would do is use the "it was a closed shop" card. I don't think a majority of today's shooters know what it is like to have to work so hard to get into such agencies like those two.


« Reply #48 on: November 15, 2017, 11:49 »
+2
No black cat. It's all about the money, and in this department they deliver more than all the other agencies/distributors combined (at least in the photo department-video seems to be a different story).

Why do you think that they still have so many top pros as exclusive contributors. I can tell you that those that are supplying images to stock as their main business are a thousand times more sensitive to revenue than anyone else that does it for pocket money. I can guarantee you that once they don't bring food to the table they will be gone in a heartbeat. As simple as that.


Yeah the prevailing philosophy from some is to keep bending over and taking it

How weak an argument is that?

Weak, or realistic? Better to get some money, or none at all?

If you don't like it, don't use Getty. Getty is far, far bigger than any individual contributor, and there's no shortage (yet) of people wanting to sell their pictures to take your place. So, as a contributor, you have no bargaining power.

Rather than fighting a battle you will never win, make a strategic withdrawal and concentrate your energy on the agencies you do like.

Such a pathetic reason to keep feeding this outfit

I dumped them back in February

A colleague who was a Getty exclusive dumped them last year for the 1 cent royalties.

You keep feeding into this abusive relationship along with others and you just end up encouraging them.

« Reply #49 on: November 15, 2017, 13:58 »
0
The hatred towards Getty started long before microstock. Microstock just created a new opportunity for Getty to show their true colors to a new audience. In the traditional stock world, there are plenty of people who regard Getty with the same contempt that many microstock artists do, and plenty who left Getty because of the mistreatment they received.

Microstock was better off without Getty getting involved. Everything they touched here turned to garbage. They wrecked istock and closed great sites like StockXpert, sites where contributors used to make good money. When they have this history of doing things that almost always hurt contributors far more than they help us, it's not hard to see why there is such negativity directed towards them.

Add in the disparaging comments they've made over the years, as well as perpetuating lies and myths about the industry to keep contributors earning as little as possible (like the myth that paying contributors more than 20% is impossible), and you've got a pretty good picture of a culture of greed and deception that has done nothing but hurt the stock image industry as a whole.

As soon as they purchased TonyStone Worldwide and The Image Bank back in 94( the two premiere stock-agencies) at that time the problems started! Stones and TIB had been very choosey in accepting photographers then suddenly we found ourselves with a massive bunch of werird photography not at all associated with commercial content.

The they started to buy everything in sight photodisc Ernest Haas collection, news agencies, just about everything. Of course the sales started to fall drastically.

However Mark Getty was a heck of a lot better then todays bunch thats for sure.

Acceptance into Tony Stone Worldwide and/or The Image Bank was an accomplishment and a milestone in any photographers career. If you could make it into either one of those then I think it is pretty safe to say you can make it in microstock and have a very solid working knowledge of the stock industry. Can you imagine if most of today's photographers had to go through such a process? The first thing they would do is use the "it was a closed shop" card. I don't think a majority of today's shooters know what it is like to have to work so hard to get into such agencies like those two.

Ditto!  I joined them in 88 they used to have a large white villa in st-johns wood. London. later they moved to a huge offices in Camden town. Brilliant outfit!...I havent seen many portfolios in micro-stock but of the ones I've seen maybe only a handfull would have gained entry. It was different it was an achievment just getting the right exposure in those days. You got no second chance of adjusting anything.
« Last Edit: November 15, 2017, 14:01 by derek »


 

Related Topics

  Subject / Started by Replies Last post
989 Replies
63939 Views
Last post March 18, 2014, 08:32
by KimsCreativeHub
1 Replies
1131 Views
Last post June 30, 2014, 16:08
by EmberMike
13 Replies
2750 Views
Last post July 17, 2015, 13:53
by izzikiorage
8 Replies
1102 Views
Last post December 02, 2015, 09:51
by Microstockphoto
189 Replies
9345 Views
Last post October 09, 2017, 15:38
by Zero Talent

Sponsors

Microstock Poll Results

Sponsors