thinkstockphotos.com - Getty New Family

« Reply #75 on: February 02, 2010, 19:42 »

#link

A couple of things surprise me about this latest move by Getty, firstly that they didn't use this opportunity to create an exclusive subscription collection which is something that could be marketed with unique appeal, secondly that they didn't complete the collection before launch.

I could understand this whole thing if they had announced they were going to segment the RF sector between high quality/production value guaranteed images that remain on the macro side at macro prices, and the low cost low production RF images available via subscription, it all seems a bit of a rush job to me.

Although it pains me to say it Wink

I do agree with JR they do have "gobs of great images" on the RF side, it'll be a shame if some of these go to the thinkstock collection.


	Ignore \| Logged

gostwyck

« Reply #76 on: February 02, 2010, 19:57 »

#link

Quote from: donding on February 02, 2010, 19:29

When I put in my name I get nothing what so ever...no hemera...no iStock,

Same here __ my images don't appear either. That's because I don't need to risk undermining my sales elsewhere by s*cking up to this feeble low-life nonsense of an 'agency'.


« Last Edit: February 02, 2010, 20:38 by gostwyck »	Ignore \| Logged

Jonathan Ross

« Reply #77 on: February 02, 2010, 21:09 »

#link

Hey Loop,

I was just messin with you Cheesy

but I am impressed by your reply Wink

I found out a bit of info for certain that they will not be moving any images from contributors that they will only stick to Holly owned when it comes to Macro RF being added to this new collection, along with other micro work they have recently acquired through their purchase of Jupiter. In a way this removes a great deal of competition from the old Getty site for Macro RF because people with content at Getty will no longer have their work hidden behind any holly owned stuff, it will all slowly move to the new sub site. Still have to wait and see.
Seriously though Loop, if you wanta put a wager down drop me a PM, it will make a bit of fun out of all this guess work Wink

Cheers,
Jonathan


	Ignore \| Logged

dbvirago

« Reply #78 on: February 02, 2010, 21:16 »

#link

Quote from: ragsac on February 02, 2010, 19:37

I input my last name start with R ans only Istock content..no Hemera!

Me too, but I have more images there than I have on Istock ?!?


« Last Edit: February 02, 2010, 21:18 by dbvirago »	Ignore \| Logged

« Reply #79 on: February 02, 2010, 21:17 »

#link

Quote from: RacePhoto on February 02, 2010, 19:11

Maybe they started at the letter "A" and haven't gotten to "P" yet? Like I said, not a one! Every photo of mine on ThinkStock says iStock. Nothing of mine is under Hemera. I did a search for Hemera then search only this collection for "my name".

I'm sure others will look and see what they had moved, or not moved. It's not the same as if I had identical photos on both sites, some were never uploaded to IS. I suppose I can go cross reference and submit them all and hope? Oh wait, we can't submit to ThinkStock can we?

Maybe they were all refused? Maybe some reviewer looked and said, looks like most are dupes, "next please" Wink

Let me put is in a simple way. Not One Photo Moved from StockXpert to ThinkStock? Huh

Still searching hemera all I see are AbleStock.com, Photos.com and PhotoObjects.net. None marked stockxpert.com

Could you link to one photo so I can see how they are spelling it and listing them? Thanks

i searched under my real name, first and last, in quotes (" "). it starts with s, not a. with that search, all my images from both the "istock" and "hemera" collection show up together, about 135 in total, which is more than what i have at istock, but less than StockXpert. if you are not aware yet, the StockXpert brand is now the "hemera" brand.

to encapsulate, we're no longer searching under pseudonyms, only real names.


	Ignore \| Logged

PixelBitch

« Reply #80 on: February 02, 2010, 22:14 »

#link

Well that's a lot more positive scenario than 'the end of macro rf is nigh' that was floating around earlier.

I should imagine there would be a macro artist revolution if they put our images on the sub site...I for one would stop submitting to Getty if that happened

Quote from: Jonathan Ross on February 02, 2010, 21:09

Hey Loop,

I was just messin with you Cheesy

but I am impressed by your reply Wink

Cheers,
Jonathan


	Ignore \| Logged

PaulieWalnuts

« Reply #81 on: February 02, 2010, 22:37 »

#link

Quote from: Jonathan Ross on February 02, 2010, 21:09

Hey Loop,
I was just messin with you Cheesy

but I am impressed by your reply Wink

Cheers, Jonathan

Only a portion of the Photodisc stuff is showing up so I was wondering how they picked them. Hope your info is accurate about them leaving the contributor stuff out... for now.

So are you saying they're going to remove the wholly owned stuff from Getty to put on Thinkstock? Why only wholly owned? Why wouldn't they purge slow selling contributor stuff too?


	Ignore \| Logged

cthoman

« Reply #82 on: February 03, 2010, 01:38 »

#link

It seems like they are feverishly adding them. There are more now than when I looked earlier. I unchecked the box on StockXpert, so hopefully that will put a stop to it.

Does anyone know how to get rid of the images there? I'm pretty cautious when it comes to stock, so I'd rather make a decision than have my images just thrown up there. Plus, I was pretty much disgusted by the previews for my CMYK vectors. They need to work out the kinks before I even think about making a decision.


	Ignore \| Logged

qwerty

« Reply #83 on: February 03, 2010, 02:24 »

#link

what does hemera mean or stand for ??

If I was Getty I would set the site up with say 2,000,000 photos holding back content so they can always have 20,000 new photos added this week. Maybe this is what is happening with the getty owned content.


	Ignore \| Logged

leaf

Premium Member

« Reply #84 on: February 03, 2010, 02:32 »

#link

I couldn't find the commission structure anywhere but finally found it on the istock site.

http://www.istockphoto.com/forum_messages.php?threadid=88699&page=1

Subscription Royalties – Photos.com & JIU
Photos.com/Thinkstock will pay a flat royalty per download to all iStockers.

Non-exclusives will earn $0.25 per download.

Exclusives will earn according to their canister level:
Bronze – 30¢
Silver – 32¢
Gold – 34¢
Diamond – 36¢
Black Diamond – 38¢

Single Image Sale Royalties
not yet set


« Last Edit: February 03, 2010, 02:36 by leaf »	Ignore \| Logged

Droubek

New Member

« Reply #85 on: February 03, 2010, 02:44 »

#link

Quote from: qwerty on February 03, 2010, 02:24

what does hemera mean or stand for ??

In Greek mythology Hemera (Greek: Ἡμέρα) was the personification of day and one of the Protogenoi or primordial deities. ...

Quoted from - en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hemera


	Ignore \| Logged

tamasvargyasi

« Reply #86 on: February 03, 2010, 02:48 »

#link

I found only 1 image (vector) yet, that is not in my istock port, but it was in my StockXpert.
As I see it is on Hemera.


	Ignore \| Logged

qwerty

« Reply #87 on: February 03, 2010, 02:49 »

#link

Quote from: Droubek on February 03, 2010, 02:44

Quote from: qwerty on February 03, 2010, 02:24

what does hemera mean or stand for ??

In Greek mythology Hemera (Greek: Ἡμέρα) was the personification of day and one of the Protogenoi or primordial deities. ...

Quoted from - en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hemera

what does Protogenoi or primordial deities mean or stand for ?? Wink


	Ignore \| Logged

« Reply #88 on: February 03, 2010, 03:05 »

#link

Quote from: qwerty on February 03, 2010, 02:49

what does Protogenoi or primordial deities mean or stand for ??

Quote

First Born or Primeval and are a group of deities who were born in the beginning of our universe.
The Protogenoi are the first entities or beings that come into existence. They form the very fabric of our universe and as such are immortal.

Can you click links? Sad


	Ignore \| Logged

« Reply #89 on: February 03, 2010, 03:12 »

#link

Quote from: leaf on February 03, 2010, 02:32

Non-exclusives will earn $0.25 per download.

No pasaran! (well at least not for me).
DT is 0.35$ for level 1-2 images, and SS is 0.36$. Even a new site like DP gives 0.30$. Getty can stick its stinkstock where the sun doesn't shine. Wink


« Last Edit: February 03, 2010, 03:15 by FD-amateur »	Ignore \| Logged

iclick

« Reply #90 on: February 03, 2010, 03:53 »

#link

Quote from: FD-amateur on February 03, 2010, 03:12

Quote from: leaf on February 03, 2010, 02:32

Non-exclusives will earn $0.25 per download.

No pasaran! (well at least not for me).
DT is 0.35$ for level 1-2 images, and SS is 0.36$. Even a new site like DP gives 0.30$. Getty can stick its stinkstock where the sun doesn't shine. Wink

LOL Exactly you and me both Wink

will remain opted out here, not very impressive and think SS HQ will still sleep well at nights.

What strikes me however is with this and the constant dilution of the Exclusive content at istock surly it is now about 'Image Exclusivity' you can argue all you like about 'Yes but out latest or best content is not there' and so forth however the fact remain that Artists bearing Crowns are no longer Exclusive to iStockphoto which in the past has been an attraction and the IS sales pitch for their customer base?

Oh and someone asked about The Name

"About Our Name.

Hemera stands for clarity - literally.

And what better label for a provider of digital image content? We chose to name ourselves after the Greek goddess of Light (or Day), because light is the primal ingredient of photography, and dictates the quality, and resolution, of each image.

Because our image collection meets every standard of photographic and digital quality, we believe we deserve to name ourselves after the essence of light. And besides, H-E-M-E-R-A really isn't that hard to remember, is it?"


« Last Edit: February 03, 2010, 03:54 by iclick »	Ignore \| Logged

sharpshot

« Reply #91 on: February 03, 2010, 03:57 »

#link

Quote from: leaf on February 03, 2010, 02:32

I preferred the initial subs deal they came up with for photos.com, where non-exclusives and exclusives were treated the same. Not sure why exclusives should get higher commissions for using a site other than istock and we are offered the lowest commission going. There is no way I will ever opt in to this. I am so annoyed with Getty/istock lowering subs commissions, if shutterstock came up with a decent image exclusivity deal, they would be history for me.


	Ignore \| Logged

Sign up with Shutterstock

sharpshot

« Reply #92 on: February 03, 2010, 04:01 »

#link

Quote from: iclick on February 03, 2010, 03:53

Because our image collection meets every standard of photographic and digital quality, we believe we deserve to name ourselves after the essence of light. And besides, H-E-M-E-R-A really isn't that hard to remember, is it?"

I know what that name makes me think of and it is nothing to do with clarity and quality


« Last Edit: February 03, 2010, 04:05 by sharpshot »	Ignore \| Logged

« Reply #93 on: February 03, 2010, 05:12 »

#link

Quote from: sharpshot on February 03, 2010, 04:01

I know what that name makes me think of and it is nothing to do with clarity and quality

No that starts with "hemor" and not with "hemer" Tongue


« Last Edit: February 03, 2010, 05:19 by FD-amateur »	Ignore \| Logged

massman

« Reply #94 on: February 03, 2010, 05:20 »

#link

If you are looking to see if your stuff is at ThinkStock you need to use your real full name in single quotes.

'John Smith' not "John Smith"


	Ignore \| Logged

Phil

« Reply #95 on: February 03, 2010, 05:25 »

#link

Quote from: sharpshot on February 03, 2010, 03:57

Quote from: leaf on February 03, 2010, 02:32

the original (or at least one of the early

) deals was roughly 20% on what the customers subscription cost. Pixmac do this with (I think) 50% and that gets $0.03 sales on current prices. Considering that getty have no reviewing costs etc with this site and their history of undercutting by large margins, a % royalty with them on subs scared . out of me.


	Ignore \| Logged

Gannet77

« Reply #96 on: February 03, 2010, 05:27 »

#link

Quote from: massman on February 03, 2010, 05:20

If you are looking to see if your stuff is at ThinkStock you need to use your real full name in single quotes.

'John Smith' not "John Smith"

Not so for me.

Mine only works if I enter "firstname lastname" in double quotes (") and with TWO spaces between the names...


	Ignore \| Logged

massman

« Reply #97 on: February 03, 2010, 05:33 »

#link

Quote from: Gannet77 on February 03, 2010, 05:27

Quote from: massman on February 03, 2010, 05:20

If you are looking to see if your stuff is at ThinkStock you need to use your real full name in single quotes.

'John Smith' not "John Smith"

Not so for me.

Mine only works if I enter "firstname lastname" in double quotes (") and with TWO spaces between the names...

Single quotes work for me, double quotes don't. Here is part of the message from StockXpert:

As an StockXpert contributor who is opted-in to subscriptions, some of your content has been migrated to Thinkstock.com. You can find your content on Thinkstock by searching for your first and last name in single quotes: 'John Doe'. Please note that the migration is still ongoing and will take some more time to complete. If don't see your opted-in files, be patient –Â they will show up eventually. StockXpert content will show up as the Hemera Collection.
See Thinkstock here: http://www.thinkstock.com .