Yep I agree, hopeffuly this is ok with Tyler. In addition in this thread, members could make a tally of the feb 2nd projected total of all deactivated files which would be different from the actual one from the other thread. This would further encouraged this initiative and could have a snowball effect. As I said earlier, we need that projected one million files to make a dent else this won't work
Count me in for 1163 files
Feb 2nd projected total 1163
I'm not up to date!
What was a trigger for this rapid decision?
Only have a small portfolio but count me in, just deleted all my pending files too :(
me in.48 + 18 pending
me in.48 + 18 pending
I see the photos of the best sellers, included ones in this thread who are always active, it won't hurt anything if they choose to keep they flames burning. Deleting the crappy ones doesn't mean nothing.
Count me in for Feb 2nd also.
Unless they change their tune, I can't see any other option.
I am small peanuts in this game, but I am in. This whole debacle has been very upsetting to read. And to think I was considering going exclusive with IS at the beginning of last year when I got back into microstock.
I will deactivate 126 photos (leaving 1 just so I can keep the account active for the numerous months I am sure it will take to get my stuff off Thinkstock)
New total: 7570 images
I am not sure how Photo+ slots work if by deleting a huge portion of your portfolio you have more Photo+ images than your "allowance". I'm guessing that they don't automatically remove them, probably 'cause they haven't written the software to make that happen. If you are deactivating and plan to leave some images there, I'd suggest using up your remaining P+ slots to lock in any images you plan to keep on site prior to starting the deactivation. No sense in leaving any money on the table for any images you leave on the site.
Consider this analogy:
We are soldiers going to battle. Would our enemy be more likely to retreat if we said:
1. "We will all give our left leg and right pinky finger for this cause."
or
2. "We will all die for this cause."
Consider this analogy:
We are soldiers going to battle. Would our enemy be more likely to retreat if we said:
1. "We will all give our left leg and right pinky finger for this cause."
or
2. "We will all die for this cause."
I think I'd be more scared of someone that would cut off their leg and pinky. That's demented.
when people delete their ports, it is dying for the case.
I have a photo session that day but will try to deactivate at least 500 (+ 4364 = 4864).
Just out of principle I will NOT delete the 10 worst selling images of my port (oldest + zero sales). You never know if Istock will (next time) ask us to donate free images for the next batch, do we? ;)
I am a little confused. When this was first discussed, I was under the impression that we would be deactivating our entire portfolios. I understand the reasons not to close our accounts entirely, but I'm not sure that deleting a percentage of our portfolios will carry the same message.My plan is to only leave the worst images I have. All the ones that have made money are going. I want to leave some because they will probably take months to remove my images from Thinkstock and I want to make sure I can withdraw all my earnings. If I'm a few dollars short, I can wait a year for a few sales from my worst images.
I am, therefore, on the fence. I have 6600+ images, but am not as willing to sacrifice a percentage as I am to throw in the towel as a mass exodus. The message will likely not be acknowledged by Getty, but will likely ring throughout the industry sending a message of solidarity and intolerance of disrespect for our intellectual property.
Looks like we can easily get up to 10.000 images deleted on 2. feb.
That is a message!
If the 10000 are top sellers of each contributors, it makes a huge difference!Looks like we can easily get up to 10.000 images deleted on 2. feb.
That is a message!
Sorry but 10.000 will not be a message. It will be 0.1% of the total library. And it will be 1 day worth of uploading.
Not that I have much hope anyways that things will change. But I think to make a point the minimum you'd need is a 100k.
I see D-Day as the starting line, not the finish line.
Sort of like hostage negotiation. If you kill off all your hostages at once, there's no reason for anyone to negotiate with you. Kill off a significant portion - enough to let them know you're serious, then wait to see if they negotiate. If not, kill some more.
Eventually, they will blink, or else huge portions of their content, and yes, entire portfolios, are gone. Those of us who want out of this have to be prepared to delete our entire ports, absolutely. How that is accomplished is up for debate.
Looks like we can easily get up to 10.000 images deleted on 2. feb.
That is a message!
Sorry but 10.000 will not be a message. It will be 0.1% of the total library. And it will be 1 day worth of uploading.
Not that I have much hope anyways that things will change. But I think to make a point the minimum you'd need is a 100k.
If it could be clear cut and I could have all my images removed from Thinkstock and get all my earnings, I'd do it in one go but unfortunately it's not like that.Lobo was adamant that, contary to our contract, if you leave iStock you will get paid, even if under $100. Suggesting otherwise, in good faith, was one of the reasons I got banned.
...That's what I don't understand about the Getty/Google Drive 'deal'. As I said before, if the deal is bad for us then, being as Getty keeps 80% of the sale price, it must be just as bad or worse for them. With the information we have now it doesn't make sense unless Getty derives some huge benefit in terms of advertising or data. Of course Google's data is it's main asset so maybe they are sharing some of it with Getty?
If users were worried about it not being safe to use Google Drive images commercially, it would effectively remove their commercial value to Google and thus in the end Getty. So if users don't like this then Getty and Google don't have more future deals.
Has anyone thought of setting up a tumblr site to catalog some of the best deactivated files? That would give everyone a decent visual representation of what's going on, and could be really powerful.
The problem I have is that I mentally can't come up with a realistic response they could give that would make me feel optimistic things would change.You are right. There is no statement that they could make that would impress me.
you're not only affecting yourselves by 'notifying' the design community, you're affecting all of us. sure, go out into the world and libel a company in a rant.
an organized community-driven, well-led business plan is one thing.....the way some of you are approaching this is absurd. that you will simply run out into the street and shout out your anger so haphazardly is as much a red flag to me as Getty's greed and lack of concern for contributors.
you're not only affecting yourselves by 'notifying' the design community, you're affecting all of us. sure, go out into the world and libel a company in a rant.
an organized community-driven, well-led business plan is one thing.....the way some of you are approaching this is absurd. that you will simply run out into the street and shout out your anger so haphazardly is as much a red flag to me as Getty's greed and lack of concern for contributors.
If it is so absurd as you think why iStock forum thread entiltled "Google Stealing Images or Another Deal" followed by another thread entitled "Google Drive + update" totalling 54 pages of angry members, have not been deleted and still going strong without any intervention from iStock to stop it?
What's the point of deactivating just a few? Deactivate all, for maximum impact, it's still gonna be just a fraction of the library anyway. You're deactivating, not deleting files! Meaning they're right back online if you want them to be. So there's no point in holding back, contemplating strategies (Lisa explained well comparing it to a hostage situation). But as we now know, it makes no sense, it's not logical since, the number of deactivated files is still going to be negligible, but hopefully enough for those greedy bas.tards to notice ;)
you're not only affecting yourselves by 'notifying' the design community, you're affecting all of us. sure, go out into the world and libel a company in a rant.
an organized community-driven, well-led business plan is one thing.....the way some of you are approaching this is absurd. that you will simply run out into the street and shout out your anger so haphazardly is as much a red flag to me as Getty's greed and lack of concern for contributors.
If it is so absurd as you think why iStock forum thread entiltled "Google Stealing Images or Another Deal" followed by another thread entitled "Google Drive + update" totalling 54 pages of angry members, have not been deleted and still going strong without any intervention from iStock to stop it?
I didn't say the concern is absurd. and I'm certainly not going to get into a forum p*ssing contest over here. it is those types of comments, and writing letters, posting here and there and everywhere--carpet bombing tactics that I think are absurd at this point.
please don't speak for "all of us" because you're not speaking for all of us. I'll speak for myself thanks.
you're not only affecting yourselves by 'notifying' the design community, you're affecting all of us. sure, go out into the world and libel a company in a rant.
an organized community-driven, well-led business plan is one thing.....the way some of you are approaching this is absurd. that you will simply run out into the street and shout out your anger so haphazardly is as much a red flag to me as Getty's greed and lack of concern for contributors.
If it is so absurd as you think why iStock forum thread entiltled "Google Stealing Images or Another Deal" followed by another thread entitled "Google Drive + update" totalling 54 pages of angry members, have not been deleted and still going strong without any intervention from iStock to stop it?
I didn't say the concern is absurd. and I'm certainly not going to get into a forum p*ssing contest over here. it is those types of comments, and writing letters, posting here and there and everywhere--carpet bombing tactics that I think are absurd at this point.
please don't speak for "all of us" because you're not speaking for all of us. I'll speak for myself thanks.
go out into the world and libel a company in a rant.
Looks like we can easily get up to 10.000 images deleted on 2. feb.
That is a message!
Sorry but 10.000 will not be a message. It will be 0.1% of the total library. And it will be 1 day worth of uploading.
Not that I have much hope anyways that things will change. But I think to make a point the minimum you'd need is a 100k.
Furthermore this needs to stop with this one deal. Right now there are other ways to sell your images and still make money. If this precedence isn't squashed right now- soon there won't be any other outlets.
Its all being worked on, in case you missed it.Furthermore this needs to stop with this one deal. Right now there are other ways to sell your images and still make money. If this precedence isn't squashed right now- soon there won't be any other outlets.
I completely agree with you on this. but I question the wisdom of reacting versus planning a strategy based on facts.
Furthermore this needs to stop with this one deal. Right now there are other ways to sell your images and still make money. If this precedence isn't squashed right now- soon there won't be any other outlets.
I completely agree with you on this. but I question the wisdom of reacting versus planning a strategy based on facts.
Even if your image is better and perhaps more appropriate why would they pay for your image when mine is available for free. 6000 free images may kill the value of 60K images still for sale.+1
Furthermore this needs to stop with this one deal. Right now there are other ways to sell your images and still make money. If this precedence isn't squashed right now- soon there won't be any other outlets.
I completely agree with you on this. but I question the wisdom of reacting versus planning a strategy based on facts.
So far, the facts are that Getty decided to give away my image for free on Google and stated they have more plans to do so. My reaction to these facts are that I'm going to deactivate my images.
I'll for sure do 1000 on feb 2. Not sure I feel like clicking that many boxes for too many hours but I'll commit to 1000. I may get addicted and do more though :)
Furthermore this needs to stop with this one deal. Right now there are other ways to sell your images and still make money. If this precedence isn't squashed right now- soon there won't be any other outlets.
I completely agree with you on this. but I question the wisdom of reacting versus planning a strategy based on facts.
So far, the facts are that Getty decided to give away my image for free on Google and stated they have more plans to do so. My reaction to these facts are that I'm going to deactivate my images.
I'll for sure do 1000 on feb 2. Not sure I feel like clicking that many boxes for too many hours but I'll commit to 1000. I may get addicted and do more though :)
^ fair enough leaf. no one is questioning the anger or the concern, or what this deals means for all of us, so all the power to you and how you choose to handle this. how you handle it is your prerogative. you're not speaking for me, you are speaking for yourself and that's cool. it's those speaking for all of us that I take issue with. spamming this concern into social media without organization or strategy, or answers from Getty doesn't help anyone.
^ where did I say I want to go it alone? nowhere.
I think it's bad for all concerned to go off half-cocked. I'm simply expressing that concern. I care very much about our community and that something like this be handled carefully and in the best interest of our industry. I won't participate in an angry mob, though I don't for a moment question the anger and frustration.
anyways, I knew what to expect posting here and I rarely bother anymore. but a lot of people read here who don't post and it bears representing that many of us are awaiting an answer before making concrete decisions. if someone else finds that helpful, there it is.
^ where did I say I want to go it alone? nowhere.
I think it's bad for all concerned to go off half-cocked. I'm simply expressing that concern. I care very much about our community and that something like this be handled carefully and in the best interest of our industry. I won't participate in an angry mob, though I don't for a moment question the anger and frustration.
anyways, I knew what to expect posting here and I rarely bother anymore. but a lot of people read here who don't post and it bears representing that many of us are awaiting an answer before making concrete decisions. if someone else finds that helpful, there it is.
^ where did I say I want to go it alone? nowhere."please don't speak for "all of us" because you're not speaking for all of us. I'll speak for myself thanks."
it bears representing that many of us are awaiting an answer before making concrete decisions.
this is fairly standard practice for this type of ripoff.
^ where did I say I want to go it alone? nowhere."please don't speak for "all of us" because you're not speaking for all of us. I'll speak for myself thanks."
sorry, I got the impression from that statement. you of course know that alone we can't achieve anything, so speaking for yourself is even more useless. even united we may not be able to make a difference, but I'm willing to join in and try.
^ where did I say I want to go it alone? nowhere."please don't speak for "all of us" because you're not speaking for all of us. I'll speak for myself thanks."
sorry, I got the impression from that statement. you of course know that alone we can't achieve anything, so speaking for yourself is even more useless. even united we may not be able to make a difference, but I'm willing to join in and try.
Stop the off-topic bickering. This is a big serious issue that we need to discuss rationally.
Stacey's got a point. There is no point going off half-cocked on this. Don't forget that Getty 'sold' nearly 7000 images to Google ... of which only about 700 were directly from Istock ... from about 500 contributors, most of whom had only one image involved.
The truth is that 90% of the images involved in this 'deal' were from non-istock artists. Whatever we do to Istock is very unlikely to make any difference at all to Getty. We need to let this news spread and see how others, the biggest and most influential names in the industry, are reacting to it. This is an issue that is probably going to take months, not days or weeks, to resolve or at least get an answer.
This is a major STOCK INDUSTRY-WIDE issue. In terms of the potential losses I'm sure the Grill family (who must have had well over 100 images in there) and many other top 'macro' photographers, who literally invest thousands on each shoot, would ruefully laugh at our complaints in relation to theirs. We need to see what they and others do next.
...and it bears representing that many of us are awaiting an answer before making concrete decisions. ...
Thats it, just wait a bit longer. And then wait some more. Because if the big guns dont say or do anything, you can wait until you weigh an ounce. The jeanny is out of the bottle and the bull is running through the china shop. There is no way this can be stopped. D-Day is in the making. ???^ where did I say I want to go it alone? nowhere."please don't speak for "all of us" because you're not speaking for all of us. I'll speak for myself thanks."
sorry, I got the impression from that statement. you of course know that alone we can't achieve anything, so speaking for yourself is even more useless. even united we may not be able to make a difference, but I'm willing to join in and try.
Stop the off-topic bickering. This is a big serious issue that we need to discuss rationally.
Stacey's got a point. There is no point going off half-cocked on this. Don't forget that Getty 'sold' nearly 7000 images to Google ... of which only about 700 were directly from Istock ... from about 500 contributors, most of whom had only one image involved.
The truth is that 90% of the images involved in this 'deal' were from non-istock artists. Whatever we do to Istock is very unlikely to make any difference at all to Getty. We need to let this news spread and see how others, the biggest and most influential names in the industry, are reacting to it. This is an issue that is probably going to take months, not days or weeks, to resolve or at least get an answer.
This is a major STOCK INDUSTRY-WIDE issue. In terms of the potential losses I'm sure the Grill family (who must have had well over 100 images in there) and many other top 'macro' photographers, who literally invest thousands on each shoot, would ruefully laugh at our complaints in relation to theirs. We need to see what they and others do next.
many of us are awaiting an answer before making concrete decisions. if someone else finds that helpful, there it is.
^ where did I say I want to go it alone? nowhere."please don't speak for "all of us" because you're not speaking for all of us. I'll speak for myself thanks."
sorry, I got the impression from that statement. you of course know that alone we can't achieve anything, so speaking for yourself is even more useless. even united we may not be able to make a difference, but I'm willing to join in and try.
Stop the off-topic bickering. This is a big serious issue that we need to discuss rationally.
Stacey's got a point. There is no point going off half-cocked on this. Don't forget that Getty 'sold' nearly 7000 images to Google ... of which only about 700 were directly from Istock ... from about 500 contributors, most of whom had only one image involved.
The truth is that 90% of the images involved in this 'deal' were from non-istock artists. Whatever we do to Istock is very unlikely to make any difference at all to Getty. We need to let this news spread and see how others, the biggest and most influential names in the industry, are reacting to it. This is an issue that is probably going to take months, not days or weeks, to resolve or at least get an answer.
This is a major STOCK INDUSTRY-WIDE issue. In terms of the potential losses I'm sure the Grill family (who must have had well over 100 images in there) and many other top 'macro' photographers, who literally invest thousands on each shoot, would ruefully laugh at our complaints in relation to theirs. We need to see what they and others do next.
I think a pig just flew past my window. I agree on all points.
many of us are awaiting an answer before making concrete decisions. if someone else finds that helpful, there it is.
I sincerely hope you are right and that another answer will be forthcoming that is more satisfactory to the majority of contributors. That would save me a fortune in time, aggravation, and money. However I was under the impression that the post my "mr erin" WAS the answer and the only one we are likely to get.
I haven't been on the istock thread in a few hours. Has there been any indication from anybody at HQ or Getty that another answer is in the works?
^ where did I say I want to go it alone? nowhere.
I think it's bad for all concerned to go off half-cocked. I'm simply expressing that concern. I care very much about our community and that something like this be handled carefully and in the best interest of our industry. I won't participate in an angry mob, though I don't for a moment question the anger and frustration.
anyways, I knew what to expect posting here and I rarely bother anymore. but a lot of people read here who don't post and it bears representing that many of us are awaiting an answer before making concrete decisions. if someone else finds that helpful, there it is.
If you want to wait for concrete answers, that's your choice. The deal is already done. The damage is already done, and no one asked contributors for their permission. There is lots of planning and strategy going on, you just need to read through several threads to get the answers. As far as half-cocked...THIS HAS BEEN GOING ON FROM ISTOCKGETTY FOR YEARS! People have had PLENTY of time to weigh their choices and make a decision. This is more like the final straw for some. For me and some others, that happened last year.
^ where did I say I want to go it alone? nowhere.
I think it's bad for all concerned to go off half-cocked. I'm simply expressing that concern. I care very much about our community and that something like this be handled carefully and in the best interest of our industry. I won't participate in an angry mob, though I don't for a moment question the anger and frustration.
anyways, I knew what to expect posting here and I rarely bother anymore. but a lot of people read here who don't post and it bears representing that many of us are awaiting an answer before making concrete decisions. if someone else finds that helpful, there it is.
We have the proof that Getty, from their own admittance, have willfully destroy the value of 6,000+ images. What part of "free image = a worthless one" don't you understand. We did get an answer, which they said they will continue on doing so.....How would you like to wake up tomorrow morning with a worthless portfolio after you find out that all your images are being distributed for free by such powerhouse as Google. They did say they have several similar deals going on....but they will not let us know what it is?.....I wonder why?
Nope, and there has been no promise of any future answer.
They told it how they want us to think it is, and that's that.
Unless they decide to say something else, but they've had a full working day drinking coffee, filing nails, finding other way to screw contributors.
^ where did I say I want to go it alone? nowhere.
I think it's bad for all concerned to go off half-cocked. I'm simply expressing that concern. I care very much about our community and that something like this be handled carefully and in the best interest of our industry. I won't participate in an angry mob, though I don't for a moment question the anger and frustration.
anyways, I knew what to expect posting here and I rarely bother anymore. but a lot of people read here who don't post and it bears representing that many of us are awaiting an answer before making concrete decisions. if someone else finds that helpful, there it is.
If you want to wait for concrete answers, that's your choice. The deal is already done. The damage is already done, and no one asked contributors for their permission. There is lots of planning and strategy going on, you just need to read through several threads to get the answers. As far as half-cocked...THIS HAS BEEN GOING ON FROM ISTOCKGETTY FOR YEARS! People have had PLENTY of time to weigh their choices and make a decision. This is more like the final straw for some. For me and some others, that happened last year.
What concrete answers? The type of answers we got in Sep 2010? That money doesn't make us happy? I'd say I can't believe how incredibly naive some people are, but I suspect you're paid for to stir sh!t up here. Divide and conquer, it's worked for 2k years. People stick together this time, let's bring this monster down! Enough of exploitation!
^ where did I say I want to go it alone? nowhere.
I think it's bad for all concerned to go off half-cocked. I'm simply expressing that concern. I care very much about our community and that something like this be handled carefully and in the best interest of our industry. I won't participate in an angry mob, though I don't for a moment question the anger and frustration.
anyways, I knew what to expect posting here and I rarely bother anymore. but a lot of people read here who don't post and it bears representing that many of us are awaiting an answer before making concrete decisions. if someone else finds that helpful, there it is.
If you want to wait for concrete answers, that's your choice. The deal is already done. The damage is already done, and no one asked contributors for their permission. There is lots of planning and strategy going on, you just need to read through several threads to get the answers. As far as half-cocked...THIS HAS BEEN GOING ON FROM ISTOCKGETTY FOR YEARS! People have had PLENTY of time to weigh their choices and make a decision. This is more like the final straw for some. For me and some others, that happened last year.
What concrete answers? The type of answers we got in Sep 2010? That money doesn't make us happy? I'd say I can't believe how incredibly naive some people are, but I suspect you're paid for to stir sh!t up here. Divide and conquer, it's worked for 2k years. People stick together this time, let's bring this monster down! Enough of exploitation!
Was this directed at Cathy? Because you were quoting her, and think you may have not been talking to her...?
I really can't understand why now, not only after starting his agency, but also opening a thread saying how great sales are and that they're constantly increasing, Yuri doesn't pull his port. After all, his images have been given away.
This isn't about Istock or Getty taking notice. This is about taking a stand and saving the industry. If my images stay at IS and they wind up for free on Google or elsewhere not only do I lose but so does every other contributor who is trying to sell a similar image. Even if your image is better and perhaps more appropriate why would they pay for your image when mine is available for free. 6000 free images may kill the value of 60K images still for sale. I have only 20% of my port on IS and none in the Google deal but this move scares the h*ll out of me. I already have enough issues with legitimate theft. I don't need the agencies speeding the process along.
Furthermore this needs to stop with this one deal. Right now there are other ways to sell your images and still make money. If this precedence isn't squashed right now- soon there won't be any other outlets. At least not any that work well enough to justify the work involved.
(BTW his portfolio link isn't working here, [url]http://www.dreamstime.com/yuri-arcurs_info[/url] ([url]http://www.dreamstime.com/yuri-arcurs_info[/url]))
^ where did I say I want to go it alone? nowhere."please don't speak for "all of us" because you're not speaking for all of us. I'll speak for myself thanks."
sorry, I got the impression from that statement. you of course know that alone we can't achieve anything, so speaking for yourself is even more useless. even united we may not be able to make a difference, but I'm willing to join in and try.
Stop the off-topic bickering. This is a big serious issue that we need to discuss rationally.
Stacey's got a point. There is no point going off half-cocked on this. Don't forget that Getty 'sold' nearly 7000 images to Google ... of which only about 700 were directly from Istock ... from about 500 contributors, most of whom had only one image involved.
The truth is that 90% of the images involved in this 'deal' were from non-istock artists. Whatever we do to Istock is very unlikely to make any difference at all to Getty. We need to let this news spread and see how others, the biggest and most influential names in the industry, are reacting to it. This is an issue that is probably going to take months, not days or weeks, to resolve or at least get an answer.
This is a major STOCK INDUSTRY-WIDE issue. In terms of the potential losses I'm sure the Grill family (who must have had well over 100 images in there) and many other top 'macro' photographers, who literally invest thousands on each shoot, would ruefully laugh at our complaints in relation to theirs. We need to see what they and others do next.
Quote(BTW his portfolio link isn't working here, [url]http://www.dreamstime.com/yuri-arcurs_info[/url] ([url]http://www.dreamstime.com/yuri-arcurs_info[/url]))
wow thats strange. Yet his images are easily found...
[url]http://www.dreamstime.com/royalty-free-stock-images-business-man-stretching-his-hand-handshake-image10130379[/url] ([url]http://www.dreamstime.com/royalty-free-stock-images-business-man-stretching-his-hand-handshake-image10130379[/url])
With a firm date of Feb. 2 - Ground Hog Day, we can coordinate to send a powerful message message to Getty.
Some exclusives have mentioned in the Istock thread that it might be a good day to turn in the crown too.
Also, with a set date, it might make for a more compelling story for the media.
Quote(BTW his portfolio link isn't working here, [url]http://www.dreamstime.com/yuri-arcurs_info[/url] ([url]http://www.dreamstime.com/yuri-arcurs_info[/url]))
wow thats strange. Yet his images are easily found...
[url]http://www.dreamstime.com/royalty-free-stock-images-business-man-stretching-his-hand-handshake-image10130379[/url] ([url]http://www.dreamstime.com/royalty-free-stock-images-business-man-stretching-his-hand-handshake-image10130379[/url])
If I had to guess, they don't want him promoting his own web site from his DT profile page so they disabled it.
...As an IS exclusive, it possibly benefits me when you nice folks delete your files. But the majority of you are friends and really wonderful people and I do not wish to benefit from my friend's actions when I feel they are involved in a martyrdom activity that will have little affect or significance to Getty management. The files you are deleting can make money for you. You worked hard creating them. They should stay and work for you....
If you feel strongly about trying to make a statement; do it. But I feel the only one you will be hurting will be yourself.
Quote "As an IS exclusive, it possibly benefits me when you nice folks delete your files. But the majority of you are friends and really wonderful people and I do not wish to benefit from my friend's actions when I feel they are involved in a martyrdom activity that will have little affect or significance to Getty management."
You are absolutely right that you are going to benefit from this. As an exclusive your view of microstock is IStock. So your perspective is skewed to think that this initiative is just about Getty/Istock which is actually quite reasonable. Your argument holds a lot of value from your perspective but not a lot of value from mine.
This is my perspective. I have a product that I want to sell for many more years. My product will sell as long as there are people who are willing to buy it. I know that as long as there are customers I will find an outlet or an agency to represent my product and I can continue to make a living off of my images. I am willing to change and adapt as needed but as long as I have potential customers I will find a way to sell to them. If all of a sudden all of your images are offered for free because your agent decides to give them away, my customers start to go away. Pretty soon free is what is expected and I can no longer make a living because I no longer have customers. Am I scared to have my images given away by Getty... yes, but not nearly as scared as I am of them giving away everyone's images. I can create new images and I can change sales avenues but I cannot compete with free. There needs to be a stand and if I need to take a hit to my income to ensure my future that is what I need to do.
I agree that Getty/IS could care less about me, but they aren't the only players in this game. The industry is bigger than that and others are watching. The contributors need to make a stand and show a united front. If enough people step up the agencies will take notice and maybe, just maybe they will think twice before one of them strikes the next "deal".
I may keep one (insignificant) image in case they close my account if there are no files at all.
Quote(BTW his portfolio link isn't working here, [url]http://www.dreamstime.com/yuri-arcurs_info[/url] ([url]http://www.dreamstime.com/yuri-arcurs_info[/url]))
wow thats strange. Yet his images are easily found...
[url]http://www.dreamstime.com/royalty-free-stock-images-business-man-stretching-his-hand-handshake-image10130379[/url] ([url]http://www.dreamstime.com/royalty-free-stock-images-business-man-stretching-his-hand-handshake-image10130379[/url])
If I had to guess, they don't want him promoting his own web site from his DT profile page so they disabled it.
Quote(BTW his portfolio link isn't working here, [url]http://www.dreamstime.com/yuri-arcurs_info[/url] ([url]http://www.dreamstime.com/yuri-arcurs_info[/url]))
wow thats strange. Yet his images are easily found...
[url]http://www.dreamstime.com/royalty-free-stock-images-business-man-stretching-his-hand-handshake-image10130379[/url] ([url]http://www.dreamstime.com/royalty-free-stock-images-business-man-stretching-his-hand-handshake-image10130379[/url])
If I had to guess, they don't want him promoting his own web site from his DT profile page so they disabled it.
Stop stirring the pot for a typo. It's yuri_arcurs, not yuri-arcurs.
So far, the facts are that Getty decided to give away my image for free on Google and stated they have more plans to do so. My reaction to these facts are that I'm going to deactivate my images.
I'll for sure do 1000 on feb 2. Not sure I feel like clicking that many boxes for too many hours but I'll commit to 1000. I may get addicted and do more though :)
Leaf - I have heard that Sean Locke added a 'deactivate' button to his Greasemonkey script that helps with that sort of thing. I have absolutely no idea what a 'greasemonkey' or a 'script' are, but I have heard tell it is a nifty thing for those in the know and saves a lot of bother...
What's the point of deactivating just a few? Deactivate all, for maximum impact, it's still gonna be just a fraction of the library anyway. You're deactivating, not deleting files! Meaning they're right back online if you want them to be. So there's no point in holding back, contemplating strategies (Lisa explained well comparing it to a hostage situation). But as we now know, it makes no sense, it's not logical since, the number of deactivated files is still going to be negligible, but hopefully enough for those greedy bas.tards to notice ;)
Bear in mind that deactivated files over 18 months old must be re-inspected, so not 'right back online if you want them to be' unless all your files are under 18 months old.
The problem I have is that I mentally can't come up with a realistic response they could give that would make me feel optimistic things would change.You are right. There is no statement that they could make that would impress me.
They would need to compensate the affected artists with thousands $ for each file, which will never happen.
Deactivating should not be about wanting to achieve something but about protecting our portfolios from becoming worthless.
Why Don't we get behind a site like GL, our images need a good home after D-Day, we could use D-Day to hit iStock and at the same time help build up another site for our work! D-Day at iStock means V-Day at GL a dual message would be better as it is also a positive one for buyers. Picking a small site like GL and boosting its business is good for all of us. We could then take all our negative energy and focus on driving buyers to a new place for our content. I would love to sing the praise of another just to get my mind off if iStock.I'm all for being positive about GL. I would also recommend Pond5 for anyone with video clips. They pay 50% commission, let us set prices and have lots of buyers.
Why Don't we get behind a site like GL, our images need a good home after D-Day, we could use D-Day to hit iStock and at the same time help build up another site for our work! D-Day at iStock means V-Day at GL a dual message would be better as it is also a positive one for buyers. Picking a small site like GL and boosting its business is good for all of us. We could then take all our negative energy and focus on driving buyers to a new place for our content. I would love to sing the praise of another just to get my mind off if iStock.
Sorry my experience with GL has not been positive >:(. I find their rejections unacceptable as they have managed to reject my images that have been accepted by other sites (I'm on 10+ sites) including Istock, SS etc. On other hand they sell pretty little! Someone commented on another thread that they may be prioritizing illustrations, vectors etc as against photographic images and in that case your proposal may be relevant for some of those contributors. Just my take. However the Deactivation day sounds like a plan and I will participate unless things change and its called off.
On the Istock forums they have removed all posts with Sean's Greasmonkey script.I'm surprised they left it there so long
On the Istock forums they have removed all posts with Sean's Greasmonkey script.I'm surprised they left it there so long
On the Istock forums they have removed all posts with Sean's Greasmonkey script.
On the Istock forums they have removed all posts with Sean's Greasmonkey script.
No they haven't. It's right here
[url]http://www.istockphoto.com/forum_messages.php?threadid=350491&messageid=6818805#post6818805[/url] ([url]http://www.istockphoto.com/forum_messages.php?threadid=350491&messageid=6818805#post6818805[/url])
.. but here's the direct link in case they do remove it
[url]http://digitalplanetdesign.com/scripts/IS_myUploads_fixes.user.js[/url] ([url]http://digitalplanetdesign.com/scripts/IS_myUploads_fixes.user.js[/url])
I might have missed it somewhere but can anyone tell me what will happen to the images on PP-sites when I disable them on IS?
If I had to guess, they don't want him promoting his own web site from his DT profile page so they disabled it.
Stop stirring the pot for a typo. It's yuri_arcurs, not yuri-arcurs.
The problem I have is that I mentally can't come up with a realistic response they could give that would make me feel optimistic things would change.You are right. There is no statement that they could make that would impress me.
They would need to compensate the affected artists with thousands $ for each file, which will never happen.
Deactivating should not be about wanting to achieve something but about protecting our portfolios from becoming worthless.
After thinking about this long and hard throughout the night, if you deactivate, those images are worthless also, except if you are non-exclusive and have them at other site. How do we know that we will be able to reactivate. IS has been known to close people's accounts and take other measures, such as banning people from Forums. They would feel it is within their right to not allow deactivation. They have already taken away opt out. IS can be very vindictive behind their "we are supportive of contributors doing well" lines. I am very concerned about being able to reactivate. Going elsewhere is not an option for me.
Those of you who have other outlets, there will still be income coming in. At this moment I need every penny I can get from IS. My top sellers are no longer being downloaded in any significant numbers. I am almost only selling images before 2009, and they differ all the time.
I can certainly deactivate non-selling images, which will add to the total. I think it is irrelevant whether they are top sellers or not. Even with a lightbox showing what images, I don't think IS would care. There are thousands of top contributors, who have been vocal about issues in the past and we are not hearing from them now.. Numbers alone are more significant, but it is only a gesture.
The only way there will be action is if there is a law suit. Even if we don't win, they have to spend $, maybe lots of it to defend a class action suit. I absolutely do not think they will respond to anything else. The deals have been struck and they are not going to be changed. But if we can show disregard for copyright and putting models at risk, then we have a bargaining chip. If we get models saying they do not want their images handled this way (which would be done in a lawsuit as evidence), that would be pretty powerful.
I think the deactivation may get press coverage and affect sales some. Buyers may form a boycott and once they leave and find the many quality images that can be gotten elsewhere, cheaper from new agencies, they may not come back.
Anyway, these are my concerns and should be thought over very carefully before to something that only hurts the contributor in the long run.
That was my 50 cents worth. Just things to consider.
Hope it's okay. I thought this deserved its own thread, apart from the tally thread and the google one. Easier to get the word out if it is prominently displayed.
With a firm date of Feb. 2 - Ground Hog Day, we can coordinate to send a powerful message message to Getty.
Some exclusives have mentioned in the Istock thread that it might be a good day to turn in the crown too.
Also, with a set date, it might make for a more compelling story for the media.
(and a note to the "I've tried nothing and I'm all out of ideas" gang, this is a thread for people who plan to participate in this initiative. Keep your wet blankets to yourself)
...Monday I had $4 in sales. Not sure I was ever near that low on a week day. So that could be the factor that puts me over the edge. Leaves the door open for all those who did not take a stand.
Looks like we can easily get up to 10.000 images deleted on 2. feb.
That is a message!
Sorry but 10.000 will not be a message. It will be 0.1% of the total library. And it will be 1 day worth of uploading.
Not that I have much hope anyways that things will change. But I think to make a point the minimum you'd need is a 100k.
Getty management will not care about what you do and will be glad a bunch of "squeaky wheel malcontents" are out of the system. They have plenty of images. The iStock "amateurs" are not that important to them. That is why they will cut unethical deals and cut your commissions and leave iStock staff in the dark about what shady dealings they are doing. Getty and Klien are unethical, back stabbing, ruthless, money-grubbing, narcissistic shysters. YOU don't matter. And buyers don't care as long as they find an image they want at a good price.
Getty management will not care about what you do and will be glad a bunch of "squeaky wheel malcontents" are out of the system. They have plenty of images. The iStock "amateurs" are not that important to them. That is why they will cut unethical deals and cut your commissions and leave iStock staff in the dark about what shady dealings they are doing. Getty and Klien are unethical, back stabbing, ruthless, money-grubbing, narcissistic shysters. YOU don't matter. And buyers don't care as long as they find an image they want at a good price.
Ox, you are a great guy and I sincerely do appreciate your advice and your consideration. But I would ask you to please reread the above paragraph you've written (which is quite eloquent IMO) and ask yourself why ANY of us, exclusive or not, would want to be in business with this company.
Even for those of us that have port elsewhere are effected by this, and even those that don't plan to leave because they think it is better for them that a bunch of you are leaving. Put simply, if you were a customer, and saw an image you liked, but then saw one on the Google Drive that might be as good but is free....wouldn't you go for the free one? It affects us all. Think about it.
For anyone who feels this initiative 'won't make a difference anyhow', here's why I don't agree.
It will make a BIG difference to me and my images. My images will no longer be licensed through an agency who is willing to let my images be given away from free. That is the big difference I'm trying to make. Anything more is bonus. Having everyone remove their images on the same day may or may not raise iStock's proverbial eyebrows but no matter what, it will save my portfolio from being given away for free as part of an exciting 'deal'
snip..... I really find it hard to believe that Getty only got $60.00 a pop for these images. This company is based on GREED. Why would they put top selling images on Goggle to be downloaded for free if they weren't making a huge profit. Some of you figured at $60.00 a pop that's about $360,000.00 based on 6000 images. Getty is a huge company and $360,000.00 isn't much money in their eyes for a long term deal like Google. Then if they paid everyone their share of $12.00, then that puts their profit at $288,000.00. I don't think they would do that for such a low amount of money. We'll probably never see the contract to know what they really were paid for these images....
For anyone who feels this initiative 'won't make a difference anyhow', here's why I don't agree.
It will make a BIG difference to me and my images. My images will no longer be licensed through an agency who is willing to let my images be given away from free. That is the big difference I'm trying to make. Anything more is bonus. Having everyone remove their images on the same day may or may not raise iStock's proverbial eyebrows but no matter what, it will save my portfolio from being given away for free as part of an exciting 'deal'
Quote(BTW his portfolio link isn't working here, [url]http://www.dreamstime.com/yuri-arcurs_info[/url] ([url]http://www.dreamstime.com/yuri-arcurs_info[/url]))
wow thats strange. Yet his images are easily found...
[url]http://www.dreamstime.com/royalty-free-stock-images-business-man-stretching-his-hand-handshake-image10130379[/url] ([url]http://www.dreamstime.com/royalty-free-stock-images-business-man-stretching-his-hand-handshake-image10130379[/url])
If I had to guess, they don't want him promoting his own web site from his DT profile page so they disabled it.
Stop stirring the pot for a typo. It's yuri_arcurs, not yuri-arcurs.
Here's the link
[url]http://www.dreamstime.com/yuri_arcurs_info[/url] ([url]http://www.dreamstime.com/yuri_arcurs_info[/url])
The thing is, how would you word exactly what you want to opt out of?
Clearly many would want to opt out of taking part in promotions without payment.
But the Google deal wasn't a promotion, it was a special EL.
But it may be that other special ELs may not be so objectionable.
So you'd need to be incredibly prescient to clarify what you wanted to be opted out of, making sure you hadn't allowed them any space to out you into any unforeseen deal in future, but also making sure that you were 'in' anything that was reasonable.
'Future imponderables' consitute a very difficult semantic quagmire to negotiate, also perhaps different suppliers have different tolerance levels.
For example, we could all say we wanted opted out of deals like the Getty one, but they could decide to put our work onto FAA and cream off 80% plus their 'brokerage commission' or whatever they'd call it.
The thing is, how would you word exactly what you want to opt out of?
Clearly many would want to opt out of taking part in promotions without payment.
But the Google deal wasn't a promotion, it was a special EL.
But it may be that other special ELs may not be so objectionable.
So you'd need to be incredibly prescient to clarify what you wanted to be opted out of, making sure you hadn't allowed them any space to out you into any unforeseen deal in future, but also making sure that you were 'in' anything that was reasonable.
'Future imponderables' consitute a very difficult semantic quagmire to negotiate, also perhaps different suppliers have different tolerance levels.
For example, we could all say we wanted opted out of deals like the Getty one, but they could decide to put our work onto FAA and cream off 80% plus their 'brokerage commission' or whatever they'd call it.
IMO it would make more sense for them to opt everyone out of all extra deals by default, and then run these deals by the contributors and ask for volunteers to select images for donation, and offer reasonable compensation. Alternatively they could approach contributors whose files have been selected individually and negotiate terms with them. You know, kind of like an agent would do... :)
I thankfully deleted my port there over a year ago and am so thankful I did. The morals behind this company are so questionable which was why I left. I really find it hard to believe that Getty only got $60.00 a pop for these images. This company is based on GREED. Why would they put top selling images on Goggle to be downloaded for free if they weren't making a huge profit. Some of you figured at $60.00 a pop that's about $360,000.00 based on 6000 images. Getty is a huge company and $360,000.00 isn't much money in their eyes for a long term deal like Google. Then if they paid everyone their share of $12.00, then that puts their profit at $288,000.00. I don't think they would do that for such a low amount of money. We'll probably never see the contract to know what they really were paid for these images.
I really feel for you contributors that depend on this income for a living. Your really stuck between a rock and a hard place and iStock has you by the balls. I really believe this is probably why the majority of these images are exclusives. I know there is a count going on here as far as how many images will be deleted on Feb 2nd, which is really a small amount, but there are many contributors out there that don't post on forums that are or have already deleted their images to protect what is left. The number is probably higher than you think.
I feel that deactivating images is a good idea, but I see some mentioning they are deactivating the ones that are non sellers. How does that protect your images? Getty isn't going to put an image that hasn't sold on Google, only the sellers which Google would want. They are probably still supplying images as we speak, so as some have mentioned they are deactivating their best sellers and model released images.
Even for those of us that have port elsewhere are effected by this, and even those that don't plan to leave because they think it is better for them that a bunch of you are leaving. Put simply, if you were a customer, and saw an image you liked, but then saw one on the Google Drive that might be as good but is free....wouldn't you go for the free one? It effects us all. Think about it.
A member form the German community who has just quit hois exclusivity has started a new facebook group that is highly active. he will also delete his content at the end of the 30 days. he works with TV stations and he explained to us in painful detail if he ever gave a client a project and that client then discovered teh files could have been had for free with google docs or office. he said this would impact his reputation so badly, he might lose that client. So he has also decided he will avoid both istock and getty in the future as a buyer and look for exclusive content on agencies where the content is only available from them.
I have certainly thought about it and have made some inquiries to other sites. I'm watching suggestions carefully, as many of you are more familiar with other sites than I am. We'll see where it goes. There could be retaliation by IS for those posting negatively. Believe me, I do not put it past them, and how would we know except when our sales keep going down. Monday I had $4 in sales. Not sure I was ever near that low on a week day. So that could be the factor that puts me over the edge. Leaves the door open for all those who did not take a stand.
I don't know if this has been brought up or not but what if when we deactivate our images they then in retaliation decide to move them over to google from the partner programme in the 90 days that they still have the images there. Would they be able to do that legally?
Guys, I am not sure if this has been mentioned in the 10 previous pages, but deleted x0,000 images from istock is completely useless if you only delete them. The news will not get to the decision makers at Getty or Carlyle.
This need to be followed by a PRESS RELEASE in newspapers if you want it to get noticed....
After seeing what Craig Peters told people at Luminance 2012 I understand that today we are facing some changes.
I am not supporting the Getty deal but let face it: today a "thief" can find almost any best seller with the google image search function at a reasonable size.
Yeah, I'm not sure what Craig Peters had to say has any bearing on this deal. This just seems like a money grab on Getty's part with p*ss poor returns for the contributor. Not one of these super innovative deals Peters was on about.
....I believe that by deactivating my own files I will only harm my personal economy and no one others.By not taking a stand, they will just continue giving away images with virtually no compensation and cutting commissions until there's very little left. So what would they have to do to make you deactivate images? They've passed my tolerance limit.
I am not supporting the Getty deal but let face it: today a "thief" can find almost any best seller with the google image search function at a reasonable size.
Here's the problem. These images aren't just being marketed to "thieves". They are being marketed to design pros as acceptable content they can legally license for FREE to use in commercial applications. These aren't thieves, they are our legitimate customers!
I am not supporting the Getty deal but let face it: today a "thief" can find almost any best seller with the google image search function at a reasonable size.
Here's the problem. These images aren't just being marketed to "thieves". They are being marketed to design pros as acceptable content they can legally license for FREE to use in commercial applications. These aren't thieves, they are our legitimate customers!
If the total payment to the photographer is the $12, as a one time thing, then that is totally unacceptable.
I am not supporting the Getty deal but let face it: today a "thief" can find almost any best seller with the google image search function at a reasonable size.
Here's the problem. These images aren't just being marketed to "thieves". They are being marketed to design pros as acceptable content they can legally license for FREE to use in commercial applications. These aren't thieves, they are our legitimate customers!
Exactly. Well stated Lisa. And I wonder if Getty even considered that they are shooting themselves in the foot by driving buyers away from them to google.
I am not supporting the Getty deal but let face it: today a "thief" can find almost any best seller with the google image search function at a reasonable size.
Here's the problem. These images aren't just being marketed to "thieves". They are being marketed to design pros as acceptable content they can legally license for FREE to use in commercial applications. These aren't thieves, they are our legitimate customers!
Exactly. Well stated Lisa. And I wonder if Getty even considered that they are shooting themselves in the foot by driving buyers away from them to google.
I suspect they are NOT shooting themselves in the foot in any way. They may have taken a hit financially short term, but in their long term plans they will a. (Try to) kill microstock and b. eliminate all the "riff-raff" (contributors not part of their elite group). Sounds like getty is right on target.
Have people forgotten about SS? Far from killing them, everything Getty or their owners has done in the past few years seems to of strengthened them. Some people say that Thinkstock was made to kill SS but SS now sell more pay per download and are overall in a much better position than a few years ago. Driving a lot of exclusives and non-exclusives away from istock with the latest fiasco is likely to strengthen SS even more. So I don't quite buy the killing microstock argument, unless they're incompetent at that as well.I am not supporting the Getty deal but let face it: today a "thief" can find almost any best seller with the google image search function at a reasonable size.
Here's the problem. These images aren't just being marketed to "thieves". They are being marketed to design pros as acceptable content they can legally license for FREE to use in commercial applications. These aren't thieves, they are our legitimate customers!
Exactly. Well stated Lisa. And I wonder if Getty even considered that they are shooting themselves in the foot by driving buyers away from them to google.
I suspect they are NOT shooting themselves in the foot in any way. They may have taken a hit financially short term, but in their long term plans they will a. (Try to) kill microstock and b. eliminate all the "riff-raff" (contributors not part of their elite group). Sounds like getty is right on target.
I am not supporting the Getty deal but let face it: today a "thief" can find almost any best seller with the google image search function at a reasonable size.
Here's the problem. These images aren't just being marketed to "thieves". They are being marketed to design pros as acceptable content they can legally license for FREE to use in commercial applications. These aren't thieves, they are our legitimate customers!
Exactly. Well stated Lisa. And I wonder if Getty even considered that they are shooting themselves in the foot by driving buyers away from them to google.
I suspect they are NOT shooting themselves in the foot in any way. They may have taken a hit financially short term, but in their long term plans they will a. (Try to) kill microstock and b. eliminate all the "riff-raff" (contributors not part of their elite group). Sounds like getty is right on target.
...Have people forgotten about SS? Far from killing them, everything Getty or their owners has done in the past few years seems to of strengthened them. Some people say that Thinkstock was made to kill SS but SS now sell more pay per download and are overall in a much better position than a few years ago. Driving a lot of exclusives and non-exclusives away from istock with the latest fiasco is likely to strengthen SS even more. So I don't quite buy the killing microstock argument, unless they're incompetent at that as well....
...Have people forgotten about SS? Far from killing them, everything Getty or their owners has done in the past few years seems to of strengthened them. Some people say that Thinkstock was made to kill SS but SS now sell more pay per download and are overall in a much better position than a few years ago. Driving a lot of exclusives and non-exclusives away from istock with the latest fiasco is likely to strengthen SS even more. So I don't quite buy the killing microstock argument, unless they're incompetent at that as well....
I think the Google Drive deal could very well be their latest tack on beating Shutterstock - kill their opportunity to sell subscriptions by making images "free" to end users (no additional fee once you've paid for Google Docs/Drive for businesses). Google and Getty make money and cut out the contributor (beyond the one time pittance payment).
A member form the German community who has just quit hois exclusivity has started a new facebook group that is highly active.
I agree. And isn't a lot of the content in the Google deal from exclusives? Hard to see how that will hit SS more than Getty. Thanks to this, SS will probably end up with lots more images that istock don't have and more of their buyers. I can think of better ways to destroy microstock :)...Have people forgotten about SS? Far from killing them, everything Getty or their owners has done in the past few years seems to of strengthened them. Some people say that Thinkstock was made to kill SS but SS now sell more pay per download and are overall in a much better position than a few years ago. Driving a lot of exclusives and non-exclusives away from istock with the latest fiasco is likely to strengthen SS even more. So I don't quite buy the killing microstock argument, unless they're incompetent at that as well....
I think the Google Drive deal could very well be their latest tack on beating Shutterstock - kill their opportunity to sell subscriptions by making images "free" to end users (no additional fee once you've paid for Google Docs/Drive for businesses). Google and Getty make money and cut out the contributor (beyond the one time pittance payment).
To beat Shutterstock this way they'd have to put their entire collection on Google and go out of business (which kind of defeats the point of "beating"). 7000 images or whatever they are willing to give away is not going to change the game. Plus their actions caused many people to delete their images or even take down entire portfolios.... so the only thing they achieved here is more damage to their already bad reputation... they are just clueless.
Nobody can "kill" microstock:) Microstock is a new and very viable business model and it's not going away. Any "elite" group will always lose to inclusive business model (=microstock). Open and evolving system always beats closed and inflexible one. High volume of legit sales always beats occasional big one. Getty doesn't understand the value of selling images to general public the same way IBM in it's time didn't understand the value of OS for personal computers, and this is how Microsoft came to life. We all know that story. So really, Getty is just old inflexible dinosaur trying it's best to adapt to fast-changing world, but doing really bad at it since they keep using their old business methods. They see the changing conditions, and they think they are adapting to them, but in reality they are stumbling about with a blindfold on their eyes.
Re main topic - I am working on getting most my stuff off Thinkstock right now (through one of my distributors). I've stopped all uploads to iStock, Getty and all my distributors that deal with Getty and Getty owned companies. I am NOT trying to show Getty anything, I am just making a choice not to deal with them anymore.
Re main topic - I am working on getting most my stuff off Thinkstock right now (through one of my distributors). I've stopped all uploads to iStock, Getty and all my distributors that deal with Getty and Getty owned companies. I am NOT trying to show Getty anything, I am just making a choice not to deal with them anymore.
Elena, how can you get your images off TS if they are still on Istock? Or did you already delete your entire portfolio from Istock?
Re main topic - I am working on getting most my stuff off Thinkstock right now (through one of my distributors). I've stopped all uploads to iStock, Getty and all my distributors that deal with Getty and Getty owned companies. I am NOT trying to show Getty anything, I am just making a choice not to deal with them anymore.
Elena, how can you get your images off TS if they are still on Istock? Or did you already delete your entire portfolio from Istock?
In the early days there's no doubt that some microstockers would peruse macro sites for 'inspiration'. Nowadays I'm certain that the flow of inspiration is mainly in the other direction. A couple of years ago the macros virtually ignored my niche subjects and had very few such images. Now they have lots of them __ looking remarkably similar to the best-selling images of mine and others on the micros.
I forgot about Ingram, just sent them a request. I wish all the sites had a nice list of all the 3rd party sites they use with an opt-out option. Some do, like YayMicro and Zoonar, it's so nice to be able to have some control over my portfolio. I was going to stop uploading new images to alamy this year but after recent events, I'll be working on my non-microstock portfolio there again.
Re main topic - I am working on getting most my stuff off Thinkstock right now (through one of my distributors). I've stopped all uploads to iStock, Getty and all my distributors that deal with Getty and Getty owned companies. I am NOT trying to show Getty anything, I am just making a choice not to deal with them anymore.
Elena, how can you get your images off TS if they are still on Istock? Or did you already delete your entire portfolio from Istock?
I have stuff on TS through Ingram Publishing - they already courteously agreed to remove my images. They have way more of my images than Istock does.
Sent a request to Getty to remove all my PC RF files.
Tetra is a different story, needs different approach... working on it.
Oldladybird just stated in a thread in the 'Exclusivity Program' section that Getty cannot process changes in collections and Agency/Vetta/E+ images that had been mirrored over there will probably remain there even though you/we are now removing them from the Vetta ,etc. collections here on iStock. She does go on to say that they are looking for solutions but it will probably remain this way for at least several months. [url]http://www.istockphoto.com/forum_messages.php?threadid=350613&messageid=6823417[/url] ([url]http://www.istockphoto.com/forum_messages.php?threadid=350613&messageid=6823417[/url])
I'm not exclusive so I can't read the original thread but it looks like they might be being a bit difficult about people deactivating?QuoteOldladybird just stated in a thread in the 'Exclusivity Program' section that Getty cannot process changes in collections and Agency/Vetta/E+ images that had been mirrored over there will probably remain there even though you/we are now removing them from the Vetta ,etc. collections here on iStock. She does go on to say that they are looking for solutions but it will probably remain this way for at least several months. [url]http://www.istockphoto.com/forum_messages.php?threadid=350613&messageid=6823417[/url] ([url]http://www.istockphoto.com/forum_messages.php?threadid=350613&messageid=6823417[/url])
Re main topic - I am working on getting most my stuff off Thinkstock right now (through one of my distributors). I've stopped all uploads to iStock, Getty and all my distributors that deal with Getty and Getty owned companies. I am NOT trying to show Getty anything, I am just making a choice not to deal with them anymore.
Elena, how can you get your images off TS if they are still on Istock? Or did you already delete your entire portfolio from Istock?
I have stuff on TS through Ingram Publishing - they already courteously agreed to remove my images. They have way more of my images than Istock does.
Sent a request to Getty to remove all my PC RF files.
Tetra is a different story, needs different approach... working on it.
I forgot about Ingram, just sent them a request. I wish all the sites had a nice list of all the 3rd party sites they use with an opt-out option. Some do, like YayMicro and Zoonar, it's so nice to be able to have some control over my portfolio. I was going to stop uploading new images to alamy this year but after recent events, I'll be working on my non-microstock portfolio there again.
Re main topic - I am working on getting most my stuff off Thinkstock right now (through one of my distributors). I've stopped all uploads to iStock, Getty and all my distributors that deal with Getty and Getty owned companies. I am NOT trying to show Getty anything, I am just making a choice not to deal with them anymore.
Elena, how can you get your images off TS if they are still on Istock? Or did you already delete your entire portfolio from Istock?
I have stuff on TS through Ingram Publishing - they already courteously agreed to remove my images. They have way more of my images than Istock does.
Sent a request to Getty to remove all my PC RF files.
Tetra is a different story, needs different approach... working on it.
A member form the German community who has just quit hois exclusivity has started a new facebook group that is highly active.
Can you give us a link to that group?
I wrote to my CN or whatever they call it now - friends? - on IS and most of them didn't know about this. Some that aren't active anymore but still get a pay out sometimes were interested in deleting files to show support. They don't need the extra couple hundred bucks a year and want to protect their pictures from abuse. If anybody didn't write their CN yet, might be a good idea.Good idea! Just did the same thing : a short message to the members of my creative network with a link to Sean's initial post on the Istock forum, asking them to join us on D-Day, even if they are not active on Istock anymore, but still have images there.
...Can't remove my Photo+ collection images right away, ...If you meant that you can't afford to remove them, that's obviously understandable. If you meant that you thought iStock would prevent you from removing them, that's not the case.
All of this - and still no response from Getty/IS. Unbelievable.
A member form the German community who has just quit hois exclusivity has started a new facebook group that is highly active.
Can you give us a link to that group?
It is a closed group in German language only. I think he wants to keep it for his friends and colleagues. If you are fluent in German, send me a sitemail, then I can send you a link and you can ask him to join.
Deactivated few files and learnt how the system works, in preparation for 2nd Feb. Got an email promptly saying.. we regret to inform you that image has been deactivated from database..etc So it appears to work fine.To be reactivated, AFAIK, you have to ask CR, I don't think there's a way to do it yourself.
Painful but necessary..
Have also stopped uploading new content since almost a week.
Just wondering, if in few months things get reversed to normal in a good way - do all deactivated files need to go thru usual upload process once again? Or do they lie in the depths of some server and can be brought back to life by contributors?
hi all,Whats the use of that? ;) No, keep deactivated until you get a result from iStock or Getty
when you mean deactivate it, do you mean you will activate back the next day?
hi all,
when you mean deactivate it, do you mean you will activate back the next day?
hi all,For me, deactivated = deleted. I can't see how they can turn back time and make the site like it was 5 years ago when I was reasonably content. They can't sell istock because it's too integrated with Getty now. So we're stuck with things getting worse each year and I've finally had enough.
when you mean deactivate it, do you mean you will activate back the next day?
If we really want that this action will bring any success, we must inform media !
Maybe then will buyers start to ask themselves, if is worth to do business with such a company..
Not all, but honest fair thinking customers...
20.000, 30.000 deleted pics among 20, 30 millions are smal stone in mosaick, but this mosaick will be from day to day bigger!!!
Just my 5 c
Thank you! I guess I misunderstood it. that's great. Let's see what will happen on Feb 2....Can't remove my Photo+ collection images right away, ...You can disable Photo+ images at any time. The 6 month lock is only to prevent movement back to the main collection. It's not like DT's 6 month hold which really means you can't delete them for that time.
Feb 2nd projected total 12032+
Feb 2nd projected total 12032+
can i add 921 to the total for 2nd feb even though my files have already gone?
Feb 2nd projected total 13453+
We really need a million.....it is either the microstock industry dies of a slow and painful death while the RM industry gets wounded further or you cut loose....your choice.
For me, I would be willing to remove my entire portfolio of 6646 images as a group initiative if there were a large enough number willing to do the same.I presume that they wont pay out if we leave and have under $100 in our accounts? That's why I'm not deleting everything in one go. I've removed everything that's sold well allready but they take months to get them off Thinkstock. I don't want them keeping that money, so I'll leave some of my portfolio up for a few months. It would be nice to remove everything but it wouldn't be good to leave them my money. I think everyone should make sure they can withdraw as much of the money they have made as possible before leaving, or we will be giving them a big pile of cash.
I'm just not certain that deleting a percentage of images on Feb. 2nd sends a strong enough message. It's kind of like a parent that threatens to discipline their children like this: "I'm going to count to three. 1.......2........2 1/2........2 3/4.........". The child continues to disobey because the parent has not committed to the discipline and the child knows it.
I will delete 500, to support the group, but I'm afraid that won't even sting Getty. If there are others willing to delete their entire portfolio, as I am, please speak up.
eta: if enough sizable, good selling, portfolios are deleted, I believe the message that we will not tolerate abuse to our IP will be heard loud and clear in the industry. And that is a good goal.
I presume that they wont pay out if we leave and have under $100 in our accounts?
We should all keep an eye on the library total on Feb 2 and 3rd to see how it changes.
we don't know how much uploads are approved on Feb 2nd so it will be kind of impossible
we don't know how much uploads are approved on Feb 2nd so it will be kind of impossible
No exact science, no. But as Feb 2nd is a Saturday, the number of inspections won't be too high. Best guess: 3,000-4,000.
I presume that they wont pay out if we leave and have under $100 in our accounts?According to Lobo, they will pay out if you close your account with under $100.
The total might be higher. We should combine the totals from the Deactivation Tally thread where people have already deactivated with this total.Better keep an eye on it starting from Feb 1 late evening ... my Feb 2 starts a LOT earlier than yours ;)
Also, I think there are people deactivating or planning to deactivate who aren't posting. We should all keep an eye on the library total on Feb 2 and 3rd to see how it changes.
Feb 2nd projected total 13453+
We really need a million.....it is either the microstock industry dies of a slow and painful death while the RM industry gets wounded further or you cut loose....your choice.
The total might be higher. We should combine the totals from the Deactivation Tally thread where people have already deactivated with this total.
Also, I think there are people deactivating or planning to deactivate who aren't posting. We should all keep an eye on the library total on Feb 2 and 3rd to see how it changes.
Feb 2nd projected total 13453+
We really need a million.....it is either the microstock industry dies of a slow and painful death while the RM industry gets wounded further or you cut loose....your choice.
The total might be higher. We should combine the totals from the Deactivation Tally thread where people have already deactivated with this total.
Also, I think there are people deactivating or planning to deactivate who aren't posting. We should all keep an eye on the library total on Feb 2 and 3rd to see how it changes.
who runs the microstock time stats page? [url]http://www.microstocktime.com/[/url] ([url]http://www.microstocktime.com/[/url])
their last update on istock was June 6 could be interesting to get an update if they are interested in doing it
every morning I wake up hoping that while I slept (and the US/Canada was awake) that something significant happened to make this nightmare go away.
*sigh*
Posted By cobalt:
The microstockgroup has around 31 000 registered users. i would think that anyone serious in this industry will be registered and actively reading there.
I may not activate my images, but I'm considering removing my Illustrator Exclusive status.
This gives me the freedom to sell anywhere.
Will miss the money, but cant sit there and do nothing, and unless a significant amount of contributors take action, it will only get worse with more images being added to Googledrive.
Ok I re-calculated the projected tally for Feb 2nd including numbers from the other tally thread without doubling poster numbers that had already been written in this one. I might figure numbers from the IS forum later on.
Feb 2nd projected total 20,159+
The only way Getty will stop its unethical practices is if contributors 1) Stop contributing and 2) Contributors pull their files.I may not activate my images, but I'm considering removing my Illustrator Exclusive status.
This gives me the freedom to sell anywhere.
... Until your files are available everywhere for free.
You can count me in for dropping my Exclusive Crown and for deleting all my people pictures on Istock. That is over 1,000 images from my portfolio. I can't afford to be making $7- $45 a day with them anymore or for them to give away my files that I spent so much money on with wardrobe, props, renting studio space, and paying models.Congrats on dropping your crown! You have a great portfolio with even greater models. It's Istock's loss.
Congrats on dropping your crown! You have a great portfolio with even greater models. It's Istock's loss.
Feb 2nd projected total 13453+
We really need a million.....it is either the microstock industry dies of a slow and painful death while the RM industry gets wounded further or you cut loose....your choice.
The total might be higher. We should combine the totals from the Deactivation Tally thread where people have already deactivated with this total.
Also, I think there are people deactivating or planning to deactivate who aren't posting. We should all keep an eye on the library total on Feb 2 and 3rd to see how it changes.
The only way Getty will stop its unethical practices is if contributors 1) Stop contributing and 2) Contributors pull their files.
I was to fast, missed this thread. I closed my account allready...
3) Sue the pants off them.
I do not feel Getty is susceptible to any kind of a message from aligned contributors. What is needed to secure the future viability of fair monetary partnership between contributors and distributors, IMO, is for concerned contributors to walk away completely from any further relationship with Getty, sending a message to the industry that we will not tolerate abuse or disrespect of our Intellectual Property.
We must join together and deactivate our entire accounts with Getty.
I do not feel Getty is susceptible to any kind of a message from aligned contributors. What is needed to secure the future viability of fair monetary partnership between contributors and distributors, IMO, is for concerned contributors to walk away completely from any further relationship with Getty, sending a message to the industry that we will not tolerate abuse or disrespect of our Intellectual Property.
We must join together and deactivate our entire accounts with Getty.
I believe total deactivation by most contributors is inevitable if Getty continues down the road they are on. However I think it's unrealistic to expect that a majority are going to do that all at once on Feb. 2. For ports with many thousands of images that is going to be logistically difficult.
Like it or not, this thing is going to play out over months, not days. Microstockers have always been a diverse bunch, and up to now impossible to get everyone to agree on any action at all. Each person has a different tolerance for risk and a different set of circumstances to consider.
I think it is really awesome and amazing that so many people in this diverse group are willing to act together on one day. It has never happened before in microstock, so it is historic.
I don't see the "I'm deactivating more than you" debate as constructive. Any and all images deactivated on, before, or near Feb 2 send a powerful statement to Getty.
I prefer to appreciate and praise everyone's individual efforts rather than focusing on who's doing more or less. Let's choose to see this glass as half full, shall we? This is the time to come together and any divisiveness just undermines the whole effort.
I do not feel Getty is susceptible to any kind of a message from aligned contributors. What is needed to secure the future viability of fair monetary partnership between contributors and distributors, IMO, is for concerned contributors to walk away completely from any further relationship with Getty, sending a message to the industry that we will not tolerate abuse or disrespect of our Intellectual Property.
We must join together and deactivate our entire accounts with Getty.
I believe total deactivation by most contributors is inevitable if Getty continues down the road they are on. However I think it's unrealistic to expect that a majority are going to do that all at once on Feb. 2. For ports with many thousands of images that is going to be logistically difficult.
Like it or not, this thing is going to play out over months, not days. Microstockers have always been a diverse bunch, and up to now impossible to get everyone to agree on any action at all. Each person has a different tolerance for risk and a different set of circumstances to consider.
I think it is really awesome and amazing that so many people in this diverse group are willing to act together on one day. It has never happened before in microstock, so it is historic.
I don't see the "I'm deactivating more than you" debate as constructive. Any and all images deactivated on, before, or near Feb 2 send a powerful statement to Getty.
I prefer to appreciate and praise everyone's individual efforts rather than focusing on who's doing more or less. Let's choose to see this glass as half full, shall we? This is the time to come together and any divisiveness just undermines the whole effort.
I think Getty would take more notice if buyers were involved as well. I'd like to see them not buy from istock on February 2end or only buy from exclusives. I'd also like to see those that only use istock commit to trying another site.
I vote Lisa for President (joint President with Sean of course!).
I think Getty would take more notice if buyers were involved as well. I'd like to see them not buy from istock on February 2end or only buy from exclusives. I'd also like to see those that only use istock commit to trying another site.
Brilliant! It would be great to buyers participate. Maybe add close their accounts to the list of possible things they could do.
Let's try to get the word out to buyers to boycott on that day. Great thinking Sharpshot!
I vote Lisa for President (joint President with Sean of course!).
LOL! Thanks, but NO THANKS! I'd be happy to carry President Locke's water for him, and maybe light his cigars ;D
So the D-Day threats have been answered by Getty with 14 more images added to Google Drive on Thursday?
[url]http://www.microstockgroup.com/istockphoto-com/google-giving-photos-away-free-for-commercial-use-and-istock-agrees/825/[/url] ([url]http://www.microstockgroup.com/istockphoto-com/google-giving-photos-away-free-for-commercial-use-and-istock-agrees/825/[/url])
I suspect that on February 4th (which is a Monday), Getty will respond to the mass deactivation by adding thousands more images to Google.
I think Getty would take more notice if buyers were involved as well. I'd like to see them not buy from istock on February 2end or only buy from exclusives. I'd also like to see those that only use istock commit to trying another site.
What does a buyer lose if they close their account? A history of what they've bought - do they have any rights to re-download something previously purchased and lost (I seem to remember that being added sometime in the last year or two)?
Perhaps we could frame the buyer protest a little differently? Some buyers will have credits to use up and if they can't get refunds, there's no reason for them to just give that money to iStockGood idea, but may-be not on Feb.1st. If this get much reponse, it will look like a sales boost. So why not ask buyers to use up their credits "before then end of January", and close their accounts on Feb.1st ?
How about setting the last weekday before D-Day as one to use up all your credits and close your account? Make February 1st Buy-and-Bye Day (or something catchier)?
It'll be harder for corporate accounts to do something like this as decisions get made by people other than the art buyer (and often made slowly).
What does a buyer lose if they close their account? A history of what they've bought - do they have any rights to re-download something previously purchased and lost (I seem to remember that being added sometime in the last year or two)?
The lower the pain for the buyer to join in the protest, the more buyers will likely be willing to participate.
I think Getty would take more notice if buyers were involved as well. I'd like to see them not buy from istock on February 2end or only buy from exclusives. I'd also like to see those that only use istock commit to trying another site.
Brilliant! It would be great to buyers participate. Maybe add close their accounts to the list of possible things they could do.
Let's try to get the word out to buyers to boycott on that day. Great thinking Sharpshot!
I think Getty would take more notice if buyers were involved as well. I'd like to see them not buy from istock on February 2end or only buy from exclusives. I'd also like to see those that only use istock commit to trying another site.
Brilliant! It would be great to buyers participate. Maybe add close their accounts to the list of possible things they could do.
Let's try to get the word out to buyers to boycott on that day. Great thinking Sharpshot!
I accidentally did that. I sent an email to my CN (excluding the ones that I know for sure are aware of this), pointing to a link of Sean's blog post, and mentioning Deactivation Day, and that I would no longer be uploading to iStock and in fact deactivating my images and probably closing the account soon and going elsewhere. I left my personal email address. After I did that, I realized that a couple of regular buyers were in my CN. Oops. Oh well.
I think it is really awesome and amazing that so many people in this diverse group are willing to act together on one day. It has never happened before in microstock, so it is historic.
I prefer to appreciate and praise everyone's individual efforts rather than focusing on who's doing more or less. Let's choose to see this glass as half full, shall we? This is the time to come together and any divisiveness just undermines the whole effort.
I think Getty would take more notice if buyers were involved as well. I'd like to see them not buy from istock on February 2end or only buy from exclusives. I'd also like to see those that only use istock commit to trying another site.
Today is the first I have heard of this, I'm not in any of the forums much. It would seem to be a way of sending a message that perhaps won't be commented on much, but will alert them to the level of discontent (surely they already know, but this is a bold statement).
I do have to ask a sincere question, especially of those who are exclusive with very large portfolios. Since you are exclusive, all your eggs are in one basket at this time. Is it really worth dumping all the thousands of hours spent building your portfolio, not to mention the significant monthly income to make such a point? Not arguing, but I have no time or energy to reload my 7000 photos anywhere else (especially when I would be worried that most companies will have similar issues in the future it they don't yet). I read a great deal of dissatisfaction in other microstock company forums. The grass is perhaps greener, but will it remain? I think not. I fear microstock has irreversibly entered the world of big business, maximum profits with minimal cost to suppliers (us). I am sure many of you will follow through and deactivate real sellers, not just 2005 images that clearly do not reflect your current standard of excellence, but don't sell anyway. But the thought runs through my head that I could jump in and deactivate a few hundred that have never sold, make myself feel better, but iStock will recognize exactly what I am doing and not feel at all bad about it. I respect your decision, but it seems a little like shooting yourself in the foot unless you have little or nothing to lose. Multiply your anticipated total de-activations by 5 and iStock will fill those slots in very short order with new uploads, ti won't even be a blip on their graph. Not defending iStock/Getty or disagreeing with your cause and passion. Just asking if you really think it will change the way things work there, and is it worth it to you personally?
Is Bill Brooks some big name, or someone that's supposed to know something?Just a different take on it. I have no idea who he is, but thought that was an interesting opinion.
Today is the first I have heard of this, I'm not in any of the forums much. It would seem to be a way of sending a message that perhaps won't be commented on much, but will alert them to the level of discontent (surely they already know, but this is a bold statement).
I do have to ask a sincere question, especially of those who are exclusive with very large portfolios. Since you are exclusive, all your eggs are in one basket at this time. Is it really worth dumping all the thousands of hours spent building your portfolio, not to mention the significant monthly income to make such a point? Not arguing, but I have no time or energy to reload my 7000 photos anywhere else (especially when I would be worried that most companies will have similar issues in the future it they don't yet). I read a great deal of dissatisfaction in other microstock company forums. The grass is perhaps greener, but will it remain? I think not. I fear microstock has irreversibly entered the world of big business, maximum profits with minimal cost to suppliers (us). I am sure many of you will follow through and deactivate real sellers, not just 2005 images that clearly do not reflect your current standard of excellence, but don't sell anyway. But the thought runs through my head that I could jump in and deactivate a few hundred that have never sold, make myself feel better, but iStock will recognize exactly what I am doing and not feel at all bad about it. I respect your decision, but it seems a little like shooting yourself in the foot unless you have little or nothing to lose. Multiply your anticipated total de-activations by 5 and iStock will fill those slots in very short order with new uploads, ti won't even be a blip on their graph. Not defending iStock/Getty or disagreeing with your cause and passion. Just asking if you really think it will change the way things work there, and is it worth it to you personally?
It must be very anguishing, being an exclusive right now - I feel for you. I just have a couple comments. If you are curious about your options, contact the other agencies and from what I understand, the most important ones will accept a drive and help you with getting your photos online.
On another note, if you have people photos in these programs now or in the future, how will you feel if a photo of your child has been downloaded by a pedophile or a dating site and they claim "it's public domain - I can do what I want" because that is what your exif will say. Also, you may be subject to lawsuits by your models - you may feel you are not in the wrong - but they will sue you and Getty and Google and you will still have to lawyer up.
Interesting post by Bill Brooks over on Alamy's forum:
Interesting post by Bill Brooks over on Alamy's forum:
This is interesting and it does seem Getty is headed down this path. Problem is that app makers seem to be reasonably compensated. If this Google deal is any indication of the future of royalty compensation I can't see who they would expect to be producing content at a loss.
I do not feel Getty is susceptible to any kind of a message from aligned contributors. What is needed to secure the future viability of fair monetary partnership between contributors and distributors, IMO, is for concerned contributors to walk away completely from any further relationship with Getty, sending a message to the industry that we will not tolerate abuse or disrespect of our Intellectual Property.
We must join together and deactivate our entire accounts with Getty.
I believe total deactivation by most contributors is inevitable if Getty continues down the road they are on. However I think it's unrealistic to expect that a majority are going to do that all at once on Feb. 2. For ports with many thousands of images that is going to be logistically difficult.
Like it or not, this thing is going to play out over months, not days. Microstockers have always been a diverse bunch, and up to now impossible to get everyone to agree on any action at all. Each person has a different tolerance for risk and a different set of circumstances to consider.
I think it is really awesome and amazing that so many people in this diverse group are willing to act together on one day. It has never happened before in microstock, so it is historic.
I don't see the "I'm deactivating more than you" debate as constructive. Any and all images deactivated on, before, or near Feb 2 send a powerful statement to Getty.
I prefer to appreciate and praise everyone's individual efforts rather than focusing on who's doing more or less. Let's choose to see this glass as half full, shall we? This is the time to come together and any divisiveness just undermines the whole effort.
Interesting post by Bill Brooks over on Alamy's forum:
"I think this will work for Getty, if history is any indication. As the market leader, I think Getty can set the terms of business, and other stock libraries have to follow.
Around 2002 Getty reset the terms of the stock business, and most full time professional stock photographers found that they could not make a living. Professional stock photographers protested, formed the Stock Artists Alliance, and Getty responded with statements like "we are not the photographers friend". Full time professional stock photographers mainly went out of the stock business. They turned to assignments, books, blogs, teaching, to generate their main income. They made beer money from the occasional stock image produced as a byproduct of their non stock photographic activities.
Getty were able to keep new images flowing through istockphoto and Flickr. Amateur istockphoto photographers felt good about putting professionals out of business.
I think Getty is again resetting the terms of business. This time I think it is the microstock photographers that will feel the pinch. In my opinion the move of Getty's part is entirely legal and not outrageous at all.
I think the internet end game is to have all intellectual property free of charge. Internet sites make money by offering freebies to the general public. To obtain the freebie you have to give up personal information and agree to be monitored by your devices. The information collected is used by advertisers to target individuals with custom advertising sent through their devices. This is where the money is. As an example of device monitoring, I sometimes use a free translation app on my iPhone. It is so useful that I would have paid big bucks for the app, but got it for free instead. The translation app sends advertising for products and services to my iphone every time I use the app. The advertising is so accurate, that I realized the translating computer, somewhere in cyberspace, is reading my translating requests and determining my preferences. Accurate personal information on users is where the money is. No using the translation app in foreign bordellos.
The money is in offering the public free intellectual property as an inducement for the public to give up their personal information.
Free stock photos are part of that trend. I think Getty understands the internet."
Interesting post by Bill Brooks over on Alamy's forum:
"I think this will work for Getty, if history is any indication. As the market leader, I think Getty can set the terms of business, and other stock libraries have to follow.
Around 2002 Getty reset the terms of the stock business, and most full time professional stock photographers found that they could not make a living. Professional stock photographers protested, formed the Stock Artists Alliance, and Getty responded with statements like "we are not the photographers friend". Full time professional stock photographers mainly went out of the stock business. They turned to assignments, books, blogs, teaching, to generate their main income. They made beer money from the occasional stock image produced as a byproduct of their non stock photographic activities.
Getty were able to keep new images flowing through istockphoto and Flickr. Amateur istockphoto photographers felt good about putting professionals out of business.
I think Getty is again resetting the terms of business. This time I think it is the microstock photographers that will feel the pinch. In my opinion the move of Getty's part is entirely legal and not outrageous at all.
I think the internet end game is to have all intellectual property free of charge. Internet sites make money by offering freebies to the general public. To obtain the freebie you have to give up personal information and agree to be monitored by your devices. The information collected is used by advertisers to target individuals with custom advertising sent through their devices. This is where the money is. As an example of device monitoring, I sometimes use a free translation app on my iPhone. It is so useful that I would have paid big bucks for the app, but got it for free instead. The translation app sends advertising for products and services to my iphone every time I use the app. The advertising is so accurate, that I realized the translating computer, somewhere in cyberspace, is reading my translating requests and determining my preferences. Accurate personal information on users is where the money is. No using the translation app in foreign bordellos.
The money is in offering the public free intellectual property as an inducement for the public to give up their personal information.
Free stock photos are part of that trend. I think Getty understands the internet."
Not arguing with you Liz. You are just the messenger, but I think the message is full of holes. First off, a lot of it just sounds like schadenfreude from a guy who was upset when micro photographers came along and demonstrated they could make images just as good or better than what was in the trad libraries.
Secondly, as already pointed out, Getty had nothing to do with micro until they bought out Bruce in, what , 2006 or 07. The three years after that, when Istock still continued to grow and flourish, it was under the guidance of Bruce. Only once Getty became solely responsible for Istock did it begin its decline.
And lastly, ifagenciesdistributorscheap b@$t@rds wont pay for content, then shooters will stop spending money and time to shoot high quality marketable stock. The stock industry will go back to being pictures of somebody's cat or a flower from their garden, or a duck in the park, uploaded just for the fun of maybe getting it in print.
The micro industry cannot survive, much less flourish, without investment from talented image creators, and that's going to require the sites to pay fairly. They are in the process of finding that out. This isn't some brilliant master plan by Getty. It is simply short-sighted, short-term, mistaken thinking. You'd think it would be obvious of course, but evidently the geniuses running Getty aren't geniuses at all.
...The money is in offering the public free intellectual property as an inducement for the public to give up their personal information.Not applicable to stock images, as we're not selling to the public. And the public seem quite happy to buy eBooks, music, art etc. Getty could get away with things in 2002 but the internet was young then. They have serious competition in the microstock business and so far, they don't give the impression that they understand it at all.
Free stock photos are part of that trend. I think Getty understands the internet."[/i]
Not arguing with you Liz. You are just the messenger, but I think the message is full of holes. First off, a lot of it just sounds like schadenfreude from a guy who was upset when micro photographers came along and demonstrated they could make images just as good or better than what was in the trad libraries.
Secondly, as already pointed out, Getty had nothing to do with micro until they bought out Bruce in, what , 2006 or 07. The three years after that, when Istock still continued to grow and flourish, it was under the guidance of Bruce. Only once Getty became solely responsible for Istock did it begin its decline.
And lastly, ifagenciesdistributorscheap b@$t@rds wont pay for content, then shooters will stop spending money and time to shoot high quality marketable stock. The stock industry will go back to being pictures of somebody's cat or a flower from their garden, or a duck in the park, uploaded just for the fun of maybe getting it in print.
The micro industry cannot survive, much less flourish, without investment from talented image creators, and that's going to require the sites to pay fairly. They are in the process of finding that out. This isn't some brilliant master plan by Getty. It is simply short-sighted, short-term, mistaken thinking. You'd think it would be obvious of course, but evidently the geniuses running Getty aren't geniuses at all.
So why is everyone waiting for another two weeks to go by?Very true. Waiting until Groundhog Day makes this all sound like a joke, or some kind of goofball protest. But this is not a joke, this is serious. We can hurt Getty and help ourselves and each other but, as the commercials say, we must act now.
The longer you leave your images there the more the chance of them being sold off as well as the others that were sold I would think you would want to remove them pronto.
If I drop istock exclusive, how long before I can hookup with other sites (30 days?)30 days until your files can go live on other sites.
thanks
So why is everyone waiting for another two weeks to go by?I think you may be right, by the looks of it getty are not going to bother even issuing another statement and the longer are files are there the more risk of them being abused. I seem to remember seeing something on here about Yuri Arcurs and a lawyer meeting with getty, does anyone know what happened?
The longer you leave your images there the more the chance of them being sold off as well as the others that were sold I would think you would want to remove them pronto.
It was today, and I'm sure he'll post the results if and when he chooses to do so.So why is everyone waiting for another two weeks to go by?I think you may be right, by the looks of it getty are not going to bother even issuing another statement and the longer are files are there the more risk of them being abused. I seem to remember seeing something on here about Yuri Arcurs and a lawyer meeting with getty, does anyone know what happened?
The longer you leave your images there the more the chance of them being sold off as well as the others that were sold I would think you would want to remove them pronto.
So why is everyone waiting for another two weeks to go by?Very true. Waiting until Groundhog Day makes this all sound like a joke, or some kind of goofball protest. But this is not a joke, this is serious. We can hurt Getty and help ourselves and each other but, as the commercials say, we must act now.
The longer you leave your images there the more the chance of them being sold off as well as the others that were sold I would think you would want to remove them pronto.
I seem to remember seeing something on here about Yuri Arcurs and a lawyer meeting with getty, does anyone know what happened?
Sure so where is the link to the thread?comment moved to a more appropriate thread.And the purpose of this is?
Huh? Are you serious? This site doesn't allow you to delete a comment entirely. You have to write something. You've been around awhile, surely you know this?
+1Interesting post by Bill Brooks over on Alamy's forum:
This is interesting and it does seem Getty is headed down this path. Problem is that app makers seem to be reasonably compensated. If this Google deal is any indication of the future of royalty compensation I can't see who they would expect to be producing content at a loss.
It is true that in some cases more money can be made from selling the data of your own buyers than from the products you actually sell them, allowing other business to accurately target them. However this normally relates to very low-value products (such as balloons and stuff for kids' parties) and the information is valuable to those to wish to sell much higher value goods to the same buyers.
Even so I don't understand how Getty can monetize the giving away of quality content that should cost $hundreds to license. If reports are to be believed they currently have annual sales close to $1B. If they are going to wilfully destroy a good chunk of that market, along with the livelihoods of their content providers, what are they going to replace the revenue with?
If this continues then surely the next step would be for Getty's content providers to exit en-masse with their portfolios. Where would that leave Getty then?
The theory that 'everything on the internet should be free' might sound good, but it's not true (at least legally) and it's never going to be because they'd be no incentive to produce stuff. Music is not free, neither are (modern) books and nor are magazines. They all cost money to produce and distribute, represent a financial investment/risk to those who do so ... and endlessly collecting data from 'clicks' is not going to pay for it all.
Just deactivated every file except one - a rubbish image with 0 views.
Only ever made about a $100 a quarter from istock anyway so no great financial loss.
I cannot believe the naivety of the istock members there waiting until the 2 Feb to remove/deactivate their images. That makes no sense to me at all, even as a marker for the press to focus on. Publishing the date was a big mistake.
Do they not think that Getty read the forums? The reason the amount of image transfers to Google Drive has gone up from 5000 to 11000 (ish) in a week is to pre-empt the 2nd of Feb action. By the 2nd, they'll have moved up to 20,000 plus images to the free site.
I wouldn't be surprised either if Getty instruct istock to do computer maintenance on the 2 Feb just to spite people trying to achieve their goals of deactivation. That is exactly the sort of thing they'll think of and it being a Saturday, no-one will be available to face the fury of the members until the following week.
Well in case anyone missed it and they probably did here is a quote from someone else and it makes sense!Doesn't really make sense. I doubt istock will be doing computer maintenance 2 Feb as that will stop people buying as well. If they did just stop contributors deactivating, that's only going to make them want to do it more. I think it's great that a lot of us have got together on this. There will always be some people saying we should do it sooner and others saying we should give them more time. I think by holding off a few weeks, it shows that it's been planned and isn't just a knee jerk reaction. I did deactivate all the images that have made the most money for me there but I'll save a big chunk for February 2end.QuoteJust deactivated every file except one - a rubbish image with 0 views.
Only ever made about a $100 a quarter from istock anyway so no great financial loss.
I cannot believe the naivety of the istock members there waiting until the 2 Feb to remove/deactivate their images. That makes no sense to me at all, even as a marker for the press to focus on. Publishing the date was a big mistake.
Do they not think that Getty read the forums? The reason the amount of image transfers to Google Drive has gone up from 5000 to 11000 (ish) in a week is to pre-empt the 2nd of Feb action. By the 2nd, they'll have moved up to 20,000 plus images to the free site.
I wouldn't be surprised either if Getty instruct istock to do computer maintenance on the 2 Feb just to spite people trying to achieve their goals of deactivation. That is exactly the sort of thing they'll think of and it being a Saturday, no-one will be available to face the fury of the members until the following week.
It's not illegal, and in fact, every single contributor to iS agreed to it the last time they changed the ASA. (Remember, a little over a year ago, when you had to agree or your account would be deleted?) Did anybody read the changes? They were clearly stated and iS covered themselves by doing that. Don't you think they have an army of lawyers figuring this stuff out for them? The changes said they were taking away contributors rights to opt out of any partner agreements, and pretty much said the agency can negotiate any license, for whatever price they want, and you will get your 15% or 20% or whatever. And that's what you get. 20% of a "special extended license" that was negotiated with Google. If this goes to court, G will likely win since all their contributors agreed to these terms. The only thing I can see that might get them in hot water is the stripping of the exif data. In any case, lawsuits take years to settle and you can't unring the bell once your images are out there for free.
Well in case anyone missed it and they probably did here is a quote from someone else and it makes sense!Now I understand why the place is so buggy. iStock is run from a computer instead from a server farm. LMAO !! Computer maintenance.QuoteJust deactivated every file except one - a rubbish image with 0 views.
Only ever made about a $100 a quarter from istock anyway so no great financial loss.
I cannot believe the naivety of the istock members there waiting until the 2 Feb to remove/deactivate their images. That makes no sense to me at all, even as a marker for the press to focus on. Publishing the date was a big mistake.
Do they not think that Getty read the forums? The reason the amount of image transfers to Google Drive has gone up from 5000 to 11000 (ish) in a week is to pre-empt the 2nd of Feb action. By the 2nd, they'll have moved up to 20,000 plus images to the free site.
I wouldn't be surprised either if Getty instruct istock to do computer maintenance on the 2 Feb just to spite people trying to achieve their goals of deactivation. That is exactly the sort of thing they'll think of and it being a Saturday, no-one will be available to face the fury of the members until the following week.
And from someone else again.You are pressing Lisa to post a link to her own moved comment, yet you are plastering quoted comments here without a link to source, rendering all these comments useless as noone knows who said it, where and in what context.QuoteIt's not illegal, and in fact, every single contributor to iS agreed to it the last time they changed the ASA. (Remember, a little over a year ago, when you had to agree or your account would be deleted?) Did anybody read the changes? They were clearly stated and iS covered themselves by doing that. Don't you think they have an army of lawyers figuring this stuff out for them? The changes said they were taking away contributors rights to opt out of any partner agreements, and pretty much said the agency can negotiate any license, for whatever price they want, and you will get your 15% or 20% or whatever. And that's what you get. 20% of a "special extended license" that was negotiated with Google. If this goes to court, G will likely win since all their contributors agreed to these terms. The only thing I can see that might get them in hot water is the stripping of the exif data. In any case, lawsuits take years to settle and you can't unring the bell once your images are out there for free.
Well in case anyone missed it and they probably did here is a quote from someone else and it makes sense!QuoteJust deactivated every file except one - a rubbish image with 0 views.
Only ever made about a $100 a quarter from istock anyway so no great financial loss.
I cannot believe the naivety of the istock members there waiting until the 2 Feb to remove/deactivate their images. That makes no sense to me at all, even as a marker for the press to focus on. Publishing the date was a big mistake.
Yep I have absolutely nothing on IS and glad because it means I have nothing to deactivate.
Has anyone thought of starting up Facebook invitation about this date? It would be hard to get it out there, as non photographers will not join and pass it on but If it gets momentum it might help.
You make some very compelling points. I see what you mean about the Feb 2 date making sense from a public relations point of view. Sort of focuses things. On the target date, I will probably deactivate some more of the few images I have remaining there. Bonzai!!!So why is everyone waiting for another two weeks to go by?Very true. Waiting until Groundhog Day makes this all sound like a joke, or some kind of goofball protest. But this is not a joke, this is serious. We can hurt Getty and help ourselves and each other but, as the commercials say, we must act now.
The longer you leave your images there the more the chance of them being sold off as well as the others that were sold I would think you would want to remove them pronto.
While I see no problem at all with deactivating sooner than Feb 2, and would encourage anyone who wants to do do that, I disagree that anyone is going to interpret the concerted protest of hundreds of content providers as a joke. Quite the contrary.
I didn't set the date as Feb 2, but as I understand it, there were a number of good reasons to set the date a couple of weeks in the future. Among them were to give people time to make alternative plans (find other outlets, etc.); to get the word out to the media and throughout the industry; to give anyone thinking of suing time for their lawyers to make contact and offer advice; and/or to give Getty a chance to set the record straight or modify their behavior if this was some sort of mistake.
Obviously this isn't some sort of mistake, and Getty doesn't want to modify their behavior. They will have to be forced to. But the other reasons are still valid. Lots of blogs, and other media outlets are spreading the word, so this protest is likely to be BIG.
Acting precipitously is easy for an individual, but difficult to coordinate as a group, and group action is what's called for here.
But like I said, if you don't want to wait until the 2nd, by all means don't. :)
Has anyone thought of starting up Facebook invitation about this date? It would be hard to get it out there, as non photographers will not join and pass it on but If it gets momentum it might help.
Snobs indeed. "Get back to SS forum where you can act like you know something" What a bunch of bullies you sound like.
A number of back and forth bickering posts were removed from this thread.
I'm going to drop my crown. That's about all I can do. I've started an Angry Istockers Facebook page if anyone wants to join.
https://www.facebook.com/AngryIstockers? (https://www.facebook.com/AngryIstockers?)
I'd be more than happy to add some admin.
Looks like there are some buyer concerns about D-Day popping up in forums. Could someone who works with RM files address the question at the Graphics Design Forum: [url]http://www.graphicdesignforum.com/forum/showthread.php?t=82573[/url] ([url]http://www.graphicdesignforum.com/forum/showthread.php?t=82573[/url])
I'm going to drop my crown. That's about all I can do. I've started an Angry Istockers Facebook page if anyone wants to join.
https://www.facebook.com/AngryIstockers? (https://www.facebook.com/AngryIstockers?)
I'd be more than happy to add some admin.
Hi All,
I have mentioned this here for years about the stock industry " Do not sign an exclusive contract ". Now you see why you must diversify, those that chose the carrot at the beginning are now getting the stick for being Exclusive. Best of luck I hope you can pull out of this with little to no damage and please stay away from exclusive contracts in the future. It is like working for the man instead of being your own boss.
Best,
Jonathan
Hi All,
I have mentioned this here for years about the stock industry " Do not sign an exclusive contract ". Now you see why you must diversify, those that chose the carrot at the beginning are now getting the stick for being Exclusive. Best of luck I hope you can pull out of this with little to no damage and please stay away from exclusive contracts in the future. It is like working for the man instead of being your own boss.
Best,
Jonathan
Jon, you realize Blend has several dozen images in this, right? This isn't an iStock Exclusive thing.
Yes of coarse I am aware. The best part of that is I have an agency that will go to bat for me and wields a great deal more power than I do as an individual.
There are many third party agencies that are speaking to Getty right now and they will be heard much quicker than a handful of Istock Exclusives. One person does not get the same ear time as a leading agency does.
...Again, sorry, but Rick (Blend) has said he has no problem with this scheme.
M@M don't forget January's sub sales don't come till Feb. Deactivate but don't delete so you can collect what is due.
Looks like there are some buyer concerns about D-Day popping up in forums. Could someone who works with RM files address the question at the Graphic Design Forum: [url]http://www.graphicdesignforum.com/forum/showthread.php?t=82573[/url] ([url]http://www.graphicdesignforum.com/forum/showthread.php?t=82573[/url])
Here's part of it (public forum):
-----
Yes, the deal is for images in "premium access" which licenses bulk content
deals largely for new-media, non traditional, usages. In this case it look like
Google licensed about 2000 images for between $60-$100 each to allow for use in
their Drive / Docs program. Images can be used to terms of Google's EULA. This
deal is exactly like any of the other deals that have been done in the past when
a software manufacturer wants to have some clip art images in the box for use in
demoing the software. I'm not a big fan of micro priced sales. But I do
understand both the client and agency perspective. Google needs imagery to show
off their software. It has to be somewhat up to date and relevant, but not
necessarily the best content available. Due to the small number of images it's
not likely the collection will be that useful for clients for actual end use,
but does show off the technology nicely. From Getty's perspective it's a
$150,000 sale where the imagery is not likely to get a lot of exposure or
end-use by potentially paying clients.
I understand the feeling that the images could be downloaded in bulk and put
into an image library and used forever. But, in general, the professional image
user - those who WILL buy imagery (even if they're a grandma working in a church
office) would like to search for and find the most relevant content for their
needs, and with microstock available, it's unlikely that the difference between
free and 5 "credits" would be a deterrent. For those hell bent on using images
outside of license agreements, sure, they'll have at it.
---------
Here's a later statement - I hadn't been back because it was kind of a hostile audience...
----------
What's MOST bizarre about the way Google has set up the image insertion system
is that they have a disclaimer "Before reusing content that you've found..." and
yet they don't clearly state how one CAN use the images in their "stock" search.
Basically it says "you better do your research" but then it doesn't tell you
what rights the images in the stock library have. So, yes, this is ambiguous.
The onus is ultimately on the user to figure out. I would think that after
reading the warning, and not finding a clear description of rights granted, any
commercial user of the imagery would be wary to use it at all. Those who
wouldn't, aren't content buyers. It's truly bizarre.
I think it's been made very clear to Getty that deals of this nature probably
need a little more disclosure to the troops. But the nature of the deal is
really not that different than those that have been done since the inception of
RF, same kind of terms, same kind of price. As for what I'm most concerned
about with regard our content - maximizing revenue across the entire licensing
space. The same image that just sold for $12.00 on Google Docs will likely sell
to a different customer multiple times for $300 or more each sale (netting say
between $60.00 - $150 "rpd") We try to harvest as much incremental income as
possible with our RF content. I was once told (by a very reliable source at
Getty) that if PA was it's own agency - only PA sales - it would be in the top 5
grossing agencies in the world. Kinda makes you think.
Personally, I would have handled the Google Docs sale differently on a few
levels - but I wasn't driving. I've given Getty my input on how they might
better approach future licenses of this type in the future. I'm sure they're
enjoying your posts as well. But what I'm most surprised about is the level of
anger and frustration about this deal. It's a really very typical kind of
software bundle license.
-----------
So, sounds like they did contact Getty, but not really to be opposed to this deal.
If you look under you keywords there is a link Administration click it and you can deactivate you file.
If you look under you keywords there is a link Administration click it and you can deactivate you file.
The only option I see is to deactivate the file. How do I delete the file or is there no link to do that?
If you look under you keywords there is a link Administration click it and you can deactivate you file.
The only option I see is to deactivate the file. How do I delete the file or is there no link to do that?
There is no 'delete'. Only 'deactivate'. Exact same as the script.
Hi Sean,
Can you share where you found this post from Rick, what open forum was it posted on? Very important if I am to approach the board on this topic to gain more information. Happy to share what I find out.
Thanks,
Jonathan
Hi Sean,
Can you share where you found this post from Rick, what open forum was it posted on? Very important if I am to approach the board on this topic to gain more information. Happy to share what I find out.
Thanks,
Jonathan
Yes of coarse I am aware. The best part of that is I have an agency that will go to bat for me and wields a great deal more power than I do as an individual.
Again, sorry, but Rick (Blend) has said he has no problem with this scheme.QuoteThere are many third party agencies that are speaking to Getty right now and they will be heard much quicker than a handful of Istock Exclusives. One person does not get the same ear time as a leading agency does.
That's wonderful. How about we join together instead of being separated, or would it bother them to sink to our level? Jon, can we count on you to be our liaison to this group of leading agencies in this matter?
Yes of coarse I am aware. The best part of that is I have an agency that will go to bat for me and wields a great deal more power than I do as an individual.
Again, sorry, but Rick (Blend) has said he has no problem with this scheme.QuoteThere are many third party agencies that are speaking to Getty right now and they will be heard much quicker than a handful of Istock Exclusives. One person does not get the same ear time as a leading agency does.
That's wonderful. How about we join together instead of being separated, or would it bother them to sink to our level? Jon, can we count on you to be our liaison to this group of leading agencies in this matter?
Sean, fyi, majority of high-priced images is sold through Getty - this is valid for any distributor agency, Blend included. If they drop Getty some of them will lose 90-95% of their sales, even though they boast they have many more distributors. They know it, Getty knows it. They don't have much leverage here really, apart from threatening to sue, but suing is a lot of trouble and money, it's so much easier to say -well this is business these days, whatcha gonna do:)
Looks like there are some buyer concerns about D-Day popping up in forums. Could someone who works with RM files address the question at the Graphic Design Forum: [url]http://www.graphicdesignforum.com/forum/showthread.php?t=82573[/url] ([url]http://www.graphicdesignforum.com/forum/showthread.php?t=82573[/url])
The question is still sitting there on their forum, unanswered. Anyone want to give them a knowledgeable answer? Thanks.
Hi Leaf,
Don't know about another post I was going off the message Sean had posted in this link. If it is somewhere else it is very hard to know if you are not in that thread. Please share the link to the other thread so I can reply there instead of here.
Thanks,
Jonathan
Hi to all,
First of all, sorry for my english;
This is my first post in the forum. I Have been following microstock group since i started to upload my portfolio to different sites, like shutter, fotolia, istock...for 8 months now.
All this time i have been working hard for building a portfolio as best as i could. I promised myself to sign this forum as soon as a got the 1000 files online (200 left to reach). But the situation with de google/getty deal, has made me decided to advance my official registration here.
In istock i had 539 files online. I say "i had" because in this right moment i am deactivating all my portfolio.
I am totally disagree with the google/getty deal, its absolutly outrageous, so i decided, sadly after working so hard, to support this initiative.
I hope that this move serves something. In any case, greetings to all and my support to the community, especially those who have exclusivity, so hard hit.
Guenter, when you hand in the crown all your portfolio goes back into the PP! thats why we need an opt out option.True, but there's nothing to stop them using image from the main iStock collection for this heist.
Guenter, when you hand in the crown all your portfolio goes back into the PP! thats why we need an opt out option.
Guenter, when you hand in the crown all your portfolio goes back into the PP! thats why we need an opt out option.
The other point would be: Do you have images that you think shouldn't be sold through subscription sites at all? Then I think you only have two options: Stay exclusive at iStock; or look for a different venue outside of the microstock world for those images. Just make sure that you know where your agency is going to distribute your images because at many agencies you will find out they are distributing through Getty as well - as can be seen from the images in the Google Drive deal.In addition, read any contract with a very cynical/sceptical/conspiracy theorist's eye.
Please add my 300 that will definately come down 02 Feb - if I take down any more I'll update here, thanks :)
Please add my 300 that will definately come down 02 Feb - if I take down any more I'll update here, thanks :)
Just got 85 pictures rejected some minutes ago....That was one h*lluva backup they cleared.
I'm tired of Istock..... They've rejected so many of my pictures that are actually selling ok on SS and other sites...... Just got 85 pictures rejected some minutes ago.... And they've already been selling a fair bit on SS for some time now...... Count me in for a very small portfolio of only 33 pictures.
Just got 85 pictures rejected some minutes ago....That was one h*lluva backup they cleared.
...Unfortunately I don't think you pulling your content from Istock is going to hurt anyone but yourselves....Keeping my portfolio there was hurting. Deleting my best images felt really good. I can't afford to do this but hopefully it will force me in to action and I'll be able to replace my lost earnings.
I sometimes like to turn things upside down.
Now what if, we instead of clinging to our files, gave them away for free.
Since they are being given away anyway.
That would take the breath out of those pirating agencies.
Like shooting back with their own ammunition.
So I hereby declare, that if I ever find one of my files in these giveaway shows. Ill give it away from my homepage, in the original size and resolution.
What about that?
I can't read this entire thread but has anyone considered the fact that now the Feb 2 deletion extravaganza has been announced that they have plenty of time to change their policy on deletions and also work on disabling deletion functionality? Keep in mind that GI.com doesn't allow deletions. It's likely only a matter for time before this trickles down to IS especially with the recent events.
I can't read this entire thread but has anyone considered the fact that now the Feb 2 deletion extravaganza has been announced that they have plenty of time to change their policy on deletions and also work on disabling deletion functionality? Keep in mind that GI.com doesn't allow deletions. It's likely only a matter for time before this trickles down to IS especially with the recent events.
They could be total bandits, but in theory they are supposed to give us 30 days notice of a change in the ASA. That would give us time to clear out our ports if they imposed some unacceptable new terms
When you deactivate a file, and it's already been sold to Google, will Getty deactivate it from Goog, or does it stay in the realm of worldwide free forever without hope of reclamation?
I sometimes like to turn things upside down.
Now what if, we instead of clinging to our files, gave them away for free.
Since they are being given away anyway.
That would take the breath out of those pirating agencies.
Like shooting back with their own ammunition.
So I hereby declare, that if I ever find one of my files in these giveaway shows. Ill give it away from my homepage, in the original size and resolution.
What about that?
As misguided as it may seem to some, I like your line of thinking!
I was also speaking to another person that said " to survive today you must deversify outside of your own business " and I completely agree with his statement.
Google Drive want those files inside of Google Drive, but what if we threatened to publish them outside of Google Drive unless they made a deal with the content owners.Not a bad idea at all. Of course we would NOT download them from Google Drive and upload them elsewhere, as that would mean :
Same with istock, they have played fancy games with our content, the market value of their trades could easily be hollowed out.
Copyright means the right to copy and distribute. When we have produced an image it is only us and those we allow, who can distribute our files.
There is already a list of the involved files, it would be easy enough to upload them to a base somewhere.
And again with the attitude that "microstockers took away trad photographers' livelihood when istock came about, it's only right that getty now takes your images from you." Forget that the market demanded the Micro model. It wasnt a spite-against-getty thing...it was to fulfill a big gap, and that market still remains.
And i am convinced that this attitude is exactly the party line being passed along to getty club members (on top of gettys need to steal images to make a fast buck). You bet i would love to see istockgetty go down. But even more important, i want to see every contributor protecting their ability to put food on the table for their families in the near future.
I can't read this entire thread but has anyone considered the fact that now the Feb 2 deletion extravaganza has been announced that they have plenty of time to change their policy on deletions and also work on disabling deletion functionality? Keep in mind that GI.com doesn't allow deletions. It's likely only a matter for time before this trickles down to IS especially with the recent events.That's why I removed all my highest earning images. I'll remove another 500 on D-Day and leave them the low selling stuff that isn't making me any money. Don't think I'll close my account, as there's always the slim chance that they might change strategy one day or be bought by SS :)
I have spoken directly with Blend about our images that were used. They were from our Legacy collection images that have been with us from the start and are no longer making sales. For our company to sell 62 images that were no longer selling from our 100,000+ collection is a good gesture and a strong building block in our future relations with the biggest reseller of imagery in the world.
.....I see so many different reasons on this post for why people are pulling their images from Istock but the one I see the most is " they aren't making me the money I used to " That unfortunately is what happens when there are more photographers then their are buyers, it is sad but true......
....Now, the shoe is on the other foot and its retaliation time, taking it all back time, etc and now most here are peeing themselves.
Its called " reap what you sow" the law of justice and fairness. Besides, isnt it obvious?
And again with the attitude that "microstockers took away trad photographers' livelihood when istock came about, it's only right that getty now takes your images from you." Forget that the market demanded the Micro model. It wasnt a spite-against-getty thing...it was to fulfill a big gap, and that market still remains.
And i am convinced that this attitude is exactly the party line being passed along to getty club members (on top of gettys need to steal images to make a fast buck). You bet i would love to see istockgetty go down. But even more important, i want to see every contributor protecting their ability to put food on the table for their families in the near future.
Oh come on. Now I think youre being a bit unfair. How many times havent we all, at least the old hands here agreed on that, yes, ofcourse micro did kill off much of the trads, etc. I think you have to be completely blind NOT to understand that.
Now, the shoe is on the other foot and its retaliation time, taking it all back time, etc and now most here are peeing themselves.
Its called " reap what you sow" the law of justice and fairness. Besides, isnt it obvious?
Unfortunately I don't think you pulling your content from Istock is going to hurt anyone but yourselves but once again I respect everyone's right to do as they choose and those that do pull their entire collection I applaud.Jonathan, my relation with my models, professionals and "free" (family, neighbors, friends...) is based on trust. It is very important for me. This was one of the reason to become exclusive at iStock - control of images with people. I knew that there was a risk and I clearly explained this to my models before signing releases. But this risk was limited. Now the risk is huge. I don't what to see people who trusted my suffering because two morons signed a contract they shouldn't. No choice, these images have to be removed before it is too late.
everybody is working on deactivating and or deleting pictures while some are still uploading, one of them is Yuri, he is meeting with GI next Monday right, what will he say? Hi guys, I am still uploading so go ahead with more google stuff, how about yahoo? ::)Several of the BDs are still uploading, including some whose images were put into the Google deal.
Hardly surprising. They're mostly wearing solid-gold handcuffs that prevent them doing anything without suffering a catastrophic fall in their income.everybody is working on deactivating and or deleting pictures while some are still uploading, one of them is Yuri, he is meeting with GI next Monday right, what will he say? Hi guys, I am still uploading so go ahead with more google stuff, how about yahoo? ::)I've noticed that several of the BDs are still uploading.
everybody is working on deactivating and or deleting pictures while some are still uploading, one of them is Yuri, he is meeting with GI next Monday right, what will he say? Hi guys, I am still uploading so go ahead with more google stuff, how about yahoo? ::)Several of the BDs are still uploading, including some whose images were put into the Google deal.
You might think at least they'd be concerned enough to stop uploading model released images until there's some sort of satisfactory resolution, if one can be found.Hardly surprising. They're mostly wearing solid-gold handcuffs that prevent them doing anything without suffering a catastrophic fall in their income.everybody is working on deactivating and or deleting pictures while some are still uploading, one of them is Yuri, he is meeting with GI next Monday right, what will he say? Hi guys, I am still uploading so go ahead with more google stuff, how about yahoo? ::)I've noticed that several of the BDs are still uploading.
everybody is working on deactivating and or deleting picturesClearly, not 'everybody'.
I think I could scrape by on the money Yuri makes from the sites other than Getty/istock :) I'm determined not to think everyone else is still using them, so what's the point in me deactivating images? I did that after istock cut commissions and I've been unhappy about it ever since. This time they're only going to change my mind with some big compromises and as they don't do that, I'll be taking part in D-Day.Hardly surprising. They're mostly wearing solid-gold handcuffs that prevent them doing anything without suffering a catastrophic fall in their income.everybody is working on deactivating and or deleting pictures while some are still uploading, one of them is Yuri, he is meeting with GI next Monday right, what will he say? Hi guys, I am still uploading so go ahead with more google stuff, how about yahoo? ::)I've noticed that several of the BDs are still uploading.
I think I could scrape by on the money Yuri makes from the sites other than Getty/istock :)Hardly surprising. They're mostly wearing solid-gold handcuffs that prevent them doing anything without suffering a catastrophic fall in their income.everybody is working on deactivating and or deleting pictures while some are still uploading, one of them is Yuri, he is meeting with GI next Monday right, what will he say? Hi guys, I am still uploading so go ahead with more google stuff, how about yahoo? ::)I've noticed that several of the BDs are still uploading.
everybody is working on deactivating and or deleting pictures while some are still uploading, one of them is Yuri, he is meeting with GI next Monday right, what will he say? Hi guys, I am still uploading so go ahead with more google stuff, how about yahoo? ::)
I think I could scrape by on the money Yuri makes from the sites other than Getty/istock :)Hardly surprising. They're mostly wearing solid-gold handcuffs that prevent them doing anything without suffering a catastrophic fall in their income.everybody is working on deactivating and or deleting pictures while some are still uploading, one of them is Yuri, he is meeting with GI next Monday right, what will he say? Hi guys, I am still uploading so go ahead with more google stuff, how about yahoo? ::)I've noticed that several of the BDs are still uploading.
Yeah, the thing is that the independent black diamonds are the exception rather than the rule. If you know that come what may you won't deactivate your portfolio or hand in your crown and your future is entirely in Getty's hands, then it's valid to ask whether you should rock the boat or do anything to depart from your usual business activities. I'm not passing any judgement, I'm just saying I can understand why they might carry on regardless.
Yeah, the thing is that the independent black diamonds are the exception rather than the rule. If you know that come what may you won't deactivate your portfolio or hand in your crown and your future is entirely in Getty's hands, then it's valid to ask whether you should rock the boat or do anything to depart from your usual business activities. I'm not passing any judgement, I'm just saying I can understand why they might carry on regardless.
Now, the shoe is on the other foot and its retaliation time, taking it all back time, etc and now most here are peeing themselves.
Apparently Yuri is moving his entire business to Cape Town in South Africa.
[url]http://translate.googleusercontent.com/translate_c?depth=1&ei=u14BUbqUBIWHtAbanoGoBw&hl=en&prev=/search%3Fq%3Dhttp://www.pressefotografforbundet.dk/index.php%253Fid%253D15277%26hl%3Den%26tbo%3Dd%26biw%3D1084%26bih%3D647&rurl=translate.google.dk&sl=da&twu=1&u=http://www.pressefotografforbundet.dk/index.php%3Fid%3D15277&usg=ALkJrhgp4NTRTHT8XtM8brapOmU2x23zEQ[/url] ([url]http://translate.googleusercontent.com/translate_c?depth=1&ei=u14BUbqUBIWHtAbanoGoBw&hl=en&prev=/search%3Fq%3Dhttp://www.pressefotografforbundet.dk/index.php%253Fid%253D15277%26hl%3Den%26tbo%3Dd%26biw%3D1084%26bih%3D647&rurl=translate.google.dk&sl=da&twu=1&u=http://www.pressefotografforbundet.dk/index.php%3Fid%3D15277&usg=ALkJrhgp4NTRTHT8XtM8brapOmU2x23zEQ[/url])
everybody is working on deactivating and or deleting pictures while some are still uploading, one of them is Yuri, he is meeting with GI next Monday right, what will he say? Hi guys, I am still uploading so go ahead with more google stuff, how about yahoo? ::)Several of the BDs are still uploading, including some whose images were put into the Google deal.
I've stop uploading, fyi. Lol at Luis.
As for people pulling a few hundred of your images from Istock I say either go for it and make your stand and leave Istock or just leave your images up. Taking a few hundred of your non sellers is not really supporting what is being asked of in this group support concept " to pull your entire collection from Istock".
Interestingly enough this is exactly what I think made iStock successful: Yes, it certainly did take away some business from traditional image buyers but it was mainly growing because it found a way to make imagery available to millions of people who could or would not afford three digits for an image they wanted to use in a local brochure or on their website. They brought image licensing outside of the traditional business into an SMB or even consumer market. Just like Apple is making a fortune by selling 99 cent songs. The potential consumer market for imagery certainly isn't as big as the market for music but it definitely adds up to a huge amount.
The reason I am disappointed with iStock - or actually Getty because things went down only since they decided to become more involved in decisions made at iStock after letting it successfully run almost independent for four or five years - is that Getty still does not understand this part of the market. It knows the customers it used to deal with for a decade or two with personal relationships between a sales person and an image editor or an art buyer.
When giving out images for almost free to Google Drive, it did not just make a big single sale for themselves which I believe was celebrated internally, it also gave away images for free to the people iStock had proved are willing to pay a dollar or two for each of these uses. It did not understand that 400 million users of which maybe 10% would be willing to buy a few images per year spending $10 or $20 would add up to a market that is actually bigger than all ad agencies combined.
I think this is one of the biggest frustrations for people coming from microstock that none of the macro people will ever understand because their lack of vision that there could be a huge market out there if they for once were able to think outside their tiny box.
Hardly surprising. They're mostly wearing solid-gold handcuffs that prevent them doing anything without suffering a catastrophic fall in their income.everybody is working on deactivating and or deleting pictures while some are still uploading, one of them is Yuri, he is meeting with GI next Monday right, what will he say? Hi guys, I am still uploading so go ahead with more google stuff, how about yahoo? ::)I've noticed that several of the BDs are still uploading.
Once again the "all or nothing" argument rears its ugly head. Are we on a middle school playground? What adult is going to allow themselves to be goaded into deleting images they otherwise wouldn't by a forum post anyway?
We are each curators of our own collections and as such, are the only ones in the position of choosing what we delete or don't.
Hundreds of people deleting all or part of their portfolios will send a much louder message, and more negatively affect the overall collection and its diversity, than if a couple dozen delete ALL of their portfolio. That already happened when the RC credit scheme was introduced and we all saw how NOT effective that was.
Any and all images deleted on or before Feb 2 add to the value of this protest.
Which Yuri isn't. I couldn't understand his logic in continuing to UL images to other agencies, after starting his own, but continuing to do so even now, makes me wonder if he's gone completely mental.He has a sizeable staff to keep paying.
Which Yuri isn't. I couldn't understand his logic in continuing to UL images to other agencies, after starting his own, but continuing to do so even now, makes me wonder if he's gone completely mental.He has a sizeable staff to keep paying.
Once again the "all or nothing" argument rears its ugly head. Are we on a middle school playground? What adult is going to allow themselves to be goaded into deleting images they otherwise wouldn't by a forum post anyway?
We are each curators of our own collections and as such, are the only ones in the position of choosing what we delete or don't.
Hundreds of people deleting all or part of their portfolios will send a much louder message, and more negatively affect the overall collection and its diversity, than if a couple dozen delete ALL of their portfolio. That already happened when the RC credit scheme was introduced and we all saw how NOT effective that was.
Any and all images deleted on or before Feb 2 add to the value of this protest.
Exactly! So why on earth do you keep on trying so hard to convince us otherwise all the time? Or better said, why are you dictating to us what, why and when we should and should not do?
To everyone his own, opinion, posts and actions ;) . It's a free forum, innit?
Once again the "all or nothing" argument rears its ugly head. Are we on a middle school playground? What adult is going to allow themselves to be goaded into deleting images they otherwise wouldn't by a forum post anyway?
We are each curators of our own collections and as such, are the only ones in the position of choosing what we delete or don't.
Hundreds of people deleting all or part of their portfolios will send a much louder message, and more negatively affect the overall collection and its diversity, than if a couple dozen delete ALL of their portfolio. That already happened when the RC credit scheme was introduced and we all saw how NOT effective that was.
Any and all images deleted on or before Feb 2 add to the value of this protest.
Exactly! So why on earth do you keep on trying so hard to convince us otherwise all the time? Or better said, why are you dictating to us what, why and when we should and should not do?
To everyone his own, opinion, posts and actions ;) . It's a free forum, innit?
Huh?? Can you please point to any post of mine where I am dictating that anybody has to do anything? I've certainly attempted to spread awareness that this was happening, but if you reread my posts, you will see I have gone out of my way to say each person can decide at what, if any level, they participate.
You seem to either be misunderstanding every post I've made (if you've even read them) or else are confused about what the term "dictating" means. ???
Which Yuri isn't. I couldn't understand his logic in continuing to UL images to other agencies, after starting his own, but continuing to do so even now, makes me wonder if he's gone completely mental.He has a sizeable staff to keep paying.
But OTOH so much more to loose
I don't want to fight, I really don't, I strongly support this initiative and us (contributors) staying divided rather than united only make it less likely for this initiative to succeed. Kudos to you for starting this, but please, let free opinions flow, don't object or try to convince people that are thinking differently otherwise or what's better for them.
Once again the "all or nothing" argument rears its ugly head. Are we on a middle school playground? What adult is going to allow themselves to be goaded into deleting images they otherwise wouldn't by a forum post anyway?
We are each curators of our own collections and as such, are the only ones in the position of choosing what we delete or don't.
Hundreds of people deleting all or part of their portfolios will send a much louder message, and more negatively affect the overall collection and its diversity, than if a couple dozen delete ALL of their portfolio. That already happened when the RC credit scheme was introduced and we all saw how NOT effective that was.
Any and all images deleted on or before Feb 2 add to the value of this protest.
Exactly! So why on earth do you keep on trying so hard to convince us otherwise all the time? Or better said, why are you dictating to us what, why and when we should and should not do?
To everyone his own, opinion, posts and actions ;) . It's a free forum, innit?
Huh?? Can you please point to any post of mine where I am dictating that anybody has to do anything? I've certainly attempted to spread awareness that this was happening, but if you reread my posts, you will see I have gone out of my way to say each person can decide at what, if any level, they participate.
You seem to either be misunderstanding every post I've made (if you've even read them) or else are confused about what the term "dictating" means. ???
It's in bold. Good enough?
I don't want to fight, I really don't, I strongly support this initiative and us (contributors) staying divided rather than united only make it less likely for this initiative to succeed. Kudos to you for starting this, but please, let free opinions flow, don't object or try to convince people that are thinking differently otherwise or what's better for them.
Okay, I am going to say this again because you still aren't getting it. I HAVEN'T TOLD ANYONE ELSE WHAT THEY HAVE TO DO or "what's better for them"!!!!! Nowhere can you point to anyplace that I have. It didn't happen. It is a fiction you have created.
How about you don't keep posting lies about what my words and motivations are and I won't have to keep correcting them? Sound fair?
On one thing we agree. This bickering isn't helping anything.
I guess you can't read bold. You're like politicians, both in implying and not admitting anything even if the proof is right in front of them. Of course, they're lies.
I don't want to fight, I really don't, I strongly support this initiative and us (contributors) staying divided rather than united only make it less likely for this initiative to succeed. Kudos to you for starting this, but please, let free opinions flow, don't object or try to convince people that are thinking differently otherwise or what's better for them.
Okay, I am going to say this again because you still aren't getting it. I HAVEN'T TOLD ANYONE ELSE WHAT THEY HAVE TO DO or "what's better for them"!!!!! Nowhere can you point to anyplace that I have. It didn't happen. It is a fiction you have created.
How about you don't keep posting lies about what my words and motivations are and I won't have to keep correcting them? Sound fair?
On one thing we agree. This bickering isn't helping anything.
I guess you can't read bold. You're like politicians, both in implying and not admitting anything even if the proof is right in front of them. Of course, they're lies.
Indeed, I'm out of this, just so you know, I'm on to you ;)
I guess you can't read bold. You're like politicians, both in implying and not admitting anything even if the proof is right in front of them. Of course, they're lies.
Oh good, more insults and personal attacks. You continue to prove my playground analogy. ::)
Hardly surprising. They're mostly wearing solid-gold handcuffs that prevent them doing anything without suffering a catastrophic fall in their income.everybody is working on deactivating and or deleting pictures while some are still uploading, one of them is Yuri, he is meeting with GI next Monday right, what will he say? Hi guys, I am still uploading so go ahead with more google stuff, how about yahoo? ::)I've noticed that several of the BDs are still uploading.
Hi Lisa,
I think you were probably misunderstood. That happens a lot on forums sometimes it is a language barrier sometimes it is because they didn't read the entire post and sometimes it is because they have their own position and when they read your words they are misinterpreted because of what they already believe. I can see from reading a lot of the posts here that this is a very emotionally charged conversation for some. My only advice when making business decisions is to remove yourself emotionally as much as you can from your decision making. I know that is easier said than done but I would be out looking for as much solid information as possible rather than speculating.
Here are replies to three posts that I feel are speculation and not based on fact. Getty did not make a huge sale here if you knew the sale price it would blow your mind, very small. Getty did not make a deal to continue to feed Google anymore content and last Hughstoneian Getty makes $1 million dollars a year off of just my sales, they actually make more and if I deleted my account they would not bat an eye.
So my concern on this deal is that if you want to really make a stand and have people take notice you have to pull your entire collection especially the best sellers or don't bother. To remove your bottom feeder images is only helping Istock and Getty out by clearing out the trash to add new stronger content, this has to hurt Istock in order to work.
Once again this is only my opinion but it is based on some facts like the price they made for this sale. It was peanuts to Getty so I do not think Getty wants Google to take over their business these are very savvy business people that want to and hopefully will make Getty stronger I guarantee that is what Getty wants in the long run. Keep up the info sharing I think that is always a good idea but be carful not to believe all you read without first doing some investigating.
Best,
Jonathan
I guess you can't read bold. You're like politicians, both in implying and not admitting anything even if the proof is right in front of them. Of course, they're lies.
Oh good, more insults and personal attacks. You continue to prove my playground analogy. ::)
Just do what's right on the 2nd. I'll be watching your deactivations carefully. You, as the initiator of this mass deactivation movement, have an obligation to make a stand and that means deleting most, if not all of your flames.
And now you can say I'm telling you what to do. Exactly, I'm telling you what's expected of you. You put yourself out there after all ;)
Please use your brain people, make logical decisions ;)
you got one? it has PRICK written on it?
Hi Lisa,
I think you were probably misunderstood. That happens a lot on forums sometimes it is a language barrier sometimes it is because they didn't read the entire post and sometimes it is because they have their own position and when they read your words they are misinterpreted because of what they already believe. I can see from reading a lot of the posts here that this is a very emotionally charged conversation for some. My only advice when making business decisions is to remove yourself emotionally as much as you can from your decision making. I know that is easier said than done but I would be out looking for as much solid information as possible rather than speculating.
Here are replies to three posts that I feel are speculation and not based on fact. Getty did not make a huge sale here if you knew the sale price it would blow your mind, very small. Getty did not make a deal to continue to feed Google anymore content and last Hughstoneian Getty makes $1 million dollars a year off of just my sales, they actually make more and if I deleted my account they would not bat an eye.
So my concern on this deal is that if you want to really make a stand and have people take notice you have to pull your entire collection especially the best sellers or don't bother. To remove your bottom feeder images is only helping Istock and Getty out by clearing out the trash to add new stronger content, this has to hurt Istock in order to work.
Once again this is only my opinion but it is based on some facts like the price they made for this sale. It was peanuts to Getty so I do not think Getty wants Google to take over their business these are very savvy business people that want to and hopefully will make Getty stronger I guarantee that is what Getty wants in the long run. Keep up the info sharing I think that is always a good idea but be carful not to believe all you read without first doing some investigating.
Best,
Jonathan
Please use your brain people, make logical decisions ;)
you got one? it has PRICK written on it?
Who are you, anyway? What is the reason behind your personal attacks?
Now, the shoe is on the other foot and its retaliation time, taking it all back time, etc and now most here are peeing themselves.
But you know, this actually isn't what's going on here at all. This is not a case of microstock images being given away for free. It is GETTY images - the expensive stuff - being given away for free. This isn't the trads getting back at the micros. This is Getty slitting its own throat for short term profit.
Your glee at others misfortune has been duly noted Christian. Why don't you give it a rest. Even I have put you on ignore now, and I am usually one of your defenders. Your gloating is both uninformed and unseemly.
Feb 2nd projected total is now 39,328+ deactivated or deleted files
Some more from the iStock forum
Hi Lisa,
I think you were probably misunderstood. That happens a lot on forums sometimes it is a language barrier sometimes it is because they didn't read the entire post and sometimes it is because they have their own position and when they read your words they are misinterpreted because of what they already believe. I can see from reading a lot of the posts here that this is a very emotionally charged conversation for some. My only advice when making business decisions is to remove yourself emotionally as much as you can from your decision making. I know that is easier said than done but I would be out looking for as much solid information as possible rather than speculating.
As far as watching what I deactivate, if you are expecting me to start with my flames and work backward you are going to be disappointed. Like a number of others here, I am going to delete in stages, and starting with the older stuff.
Havent you asked yourself why these big-shots are not deactivating NOW? why wait? and why just deactivating? why not show them hell and DELETE?
You're making a big fool of yourself. I think I was the one that said I was going to deactivate files on February 1st and then someone mentioned ground hog day on the 2end and that seemed like a good day to coordinate it. What images we deactivate is up to us, not you. Personally I've already deleted my best images. It would be nice if everyone else did that but I fully understand that not everyone is willing to take the big risk I'm taking.
As far as watching what I deactivate, if you are expecting me to start with my flames and work backward you are going to be disappointed. Like a number of others here, I am going to delete in stages, and starting with the older stuff.
That's all I wanted to hear. **, I'm good.
Just so we're clear, you yourself are not going to do absolutely anything to send a message or hurt GI or protect your IP. The only message it'll be and GI will get is: I took out the trash for you, doing your work for you. And what others here will see: She started a thread, so many of us have deleted our ports or at least our bestseller, we did everything we could to make it work, to send a strong message. While she kept on selling her bestsellers and increased her earnings because she had less good images to compete with. I have to admit, you indeed are a smart woman. Great plan!
And of course it's not just you, there are other BDs (or lower canisters, but you folks are the people who can make the difference and others look up to), as pointed out, Yuri etc. I'm just saying, you're no better than them.
P.S. It's not a personal attack, it's just pointing out to people not at all attempting to do what they say they're trying to do.
As far as watching what I deactivate, if you are expecting me to start with my flames and work backward you are going to be disappointed. Like a number of others here, I am going to delete in stages, and starting with the older stuff.
That's all I wanted to hear. **, I'm good.
Just so we're clear, you yourself are not going to do absolutely anything to send a message or hurt GI or protect your IP. The only message it'll be and GI will get is: I took out the trash for you, doing your work for you. And what others here will see: She started a thread, so many of us have deleted our ports or at least our bestseller, we did everything we could to make it work, to send a strong message. While she kept on selling her bestsellers and increased her earnings because she had less good images to compete with. I have to admit, you indeed are a smart woman. Great plan!
And of course it's not just you, there are other BDs (or lower canisters, but you folks are the people who can make the difference and others look up to), as pointed out, Yuri etc. I'm just saying, you're no better than them.
P.S. It's not a personal attack, it's just pointing out to people not at all attempting to do what they say they're trying to do.
Isnt the saying someones dead is someone elses bread? At least its a saying where I come from. With all those people deleting images, someone else must get more sales.I think I could scrape by on the money Yuri makes from the sites other than Getty/istock :)Hardly surprising. They're mostly wearing solid-gold handcuffs that prevent them doing anything without suffering a catastrophic fall in their income.everybody is working on deactivating and or deleting pictures while some are still uploading, one of them is Yuri, he is meeting with GI next Monday right, what will he say? Hi guys, I am still uploading so go ahead with more google stuff, how about yahoo? ::)I've noticed that several of the BDs are still uploading.
Yeah, the thing is that the independent black diamonds are the exception rather than the rule. If you know that come what may you won't deactivate your portfolio or hand in your crown and your future is entirely in Getty's hands, then it's valid to ask whether you should rock the boat or do anything to depart from your usual business activities. I'm not passing any judgement, I'm just saying I can understand why they might carry on regardless.
No one will come to Yuri's rescue either when he is being sued for something that concerns the community as well. The glasses debacle. When he loses that case, we all lose. Not criticizing your comment though, just my thoughts. ;)everybody is working on deactivating and or deleting pictures while some are still uploading, one of them is Yuri, he is meeting with GI next Monday right, what will he say? Hi guys, I am still uploading so go ahead with more google stuff, how about yahoo? ::)
Yuri will take care of Yuri. He's not about community or the good of the industry as far as I can tell. He's entitled to run his business as he sees fit, but IMO no one else should think of him as in any way coming to the rescue of other people whose tit is caught in the wringer
No one will come to Yuri's rescue either when he is being sued for something that concerns the community as well. The glasses debacle. When he loses that case, we all lose. Not criticizing your comment though, just my thoughts. ;)everybody is working on deactivating and or deleting pictures while some are still uploading, one of them is Yuri, he is meeting with GI next Monday right, what will he say? Hi guys, I am still uploading so go ahead with more google stuff, how about yahoo? ::)
Yuri will take care of Yuri. He's not about community or the good of the industry as far as I can tell. He's entitled to run his business as he sees fit, but IMO no one else should think of him as in any way coming to the rescue of other people whose tit is caught in the wringer
^^^If it is, why doesn't Leaf just ban him for good? He can go back to annoying people on the alamy forum then.My thoughts exactly
^^^If it is, why doesn't Leaf just ban him for good? He can go back to annoying people on the alamy forum then.My thoughts exactly
Havent you asked yourself why these big-shots are not deactivating NOW? why wait? and why just deactivating? why not show them hell and DELETE?
1 - you have 16 flames active at iStock
2 - you have files uploaded on January 18th
3 - what . are you talking about?
now we have CJ6 and ClaridgeJ, isn't it boring to logout and login?
Can you people take your elementary school playground energy and try to focus it in the subject at hand instead of trying to one up bitch-slap your peers with your wittiness? No wonder nothing ever gets done around here.I am sorry Sean, but its tough when a few people try to disrupt. Unfortunately others who mean well get sucked in. Including me.
Yesterday i got all the PP files I had activated 2 years back off that list. Looking back at it it did more damage than good to sales as it devalued the chances of iStock sales. Sean and others did make the point back then but I didn't listen. I was wrong and I'm sorry! The best match had buried those files and I thought it wasa way to get some life back in, not worth it!Good for you, but although oldladybird assures us that no iStock files were given away (for $12 or $6) in the second giveaway, I don't think there's anything stopping them taking from iStock's main collection if they choose to do so.
So around 800 files less for Thinkstock and or Photos.com to give away.
I read several comments, the first of this thread, and now a bit confused...so, on Feb 2nd a lot of people is going to deactivate the entire or part of their portfolio on iStock. I have tried to de-activate a couple of files, but they ask for deactivation reason. Is there a way to bulk-deactivate the whole portfolio? I have about 300 files there, it would take an entire day doing one by one...please advise!
ciao
...
I have spoken directly with Blend about our images that were used. They were from our Legacy collection images that have been with us from the start and are no longer making sales.
...
Why has CJ6 been banned?
He's made a valid point: deleting just the non-sellers effectively doesn't do much. I also hold the opinion that if you're deleting your images, it should include your best sellers as well. Can this "issue" be discussed in a constructive way, without anyone being banned (maybe a new topic)? It sounds reasonable and logical because of that 20/80 distribution [20% of your photos make up 80% of your income (however, some say it's more like 10/80)] - if I delete or deactivate the bottom 50% of my portfolio, it'll only affect 5% of my earnings. Sure - the total number of photos available to iStock will be smaller, but only the non-selling files will be gone. We're actually curating the collective portfolio and making it more appealing to the buyers, right?
I firmly believe that every action should carry a meaning. And we need a strong action to carry a strong meaning. Is this really a strong action?
Hello aremafoto,
This was also to strengthen Blends position and relations with the largest distributor of imagery in the world, and that it did.
Why has CJ6 been banned?
He's made a valid point: deleting just the non-sellers effectively doesn't do much. I also hold the opinion that if you're deleting your images, it should include your best sellers as well. Can this "issue" be discussed in a constructive way, without anyone being banned (maybe a new topic)? It sounds reasonable and logical because of that 20/80 distribution [20% of your photos make up 80% of your income (however, some say it's more like 10/80)] - if I delete or deactivate the bottom 50% of my portfolio, it'll only affect 5% of my earnings. Sure - the total number of photos available to iStock will be smaller, but only the non-selling files will be gone. We're actually curating the collective portfolio and making it more appealing to the buyers, right?
I firmly believe that every action should carry a meaning. And we need a strong action to carry a strong meaning. Is this really a strong action?
Hi ffNixx,
I did answer it earlier when I said it was 62 of our bottom feeders that were agreed upon by Blend and Getty from our Legacy collection. Getty did not just pull our files. If you reread what I already wrote I think you will find I clearly stated this prior.
Jonathan
Hi ffNixx,So it looks like they have some respect for Blend but its different for the contributors that had some of their better selling images used in the Google collection without being consulted about it.
I did answer it earlier when I said it was 62 of our bottom feeders that were agreed upon by Blend and Getty from our Legacy collection. Getty did not just pull our files. If you reread what I already wrote I think you will find I clearly stated this prior.
Jonathan
Why has CJ6 been banned?
I can't seem to find it in the multitude of posts, but how can you tell if your photos have been sent over?
Anybody care to venture a guess on how much all this file deletion has cost Getty so far? With a very conservative estimate of 40,000 files by 02/02, my guess would be at the very least $1-million (including their 85% cut). And it will grow as the momentum continues. Many of these files are highly profitable bestsellers from experienced artists, and it's taken time for those images to reach their peak. So even if people are "waiting in line" to join IS, these file deletions have already taken a considerable toll on GI's bottom line for a long time to come. Wish there was a way to get the actual figures and send them to the investors.
I just want to inject a bit of reality here.Yes, the action - blogs, tweets, articles about D-Day, draw the attention, not the image drop itself. But the power of cooperation, voice of contributors. We are not silent lambs.
QuoteAnybody care to venture a guess on how much all this file deletion has cost Getty so far? With a very conservative estimate of 40,000 files by 02/02, my guess would be at the very least $1-million (including their 85% cut). And it will grow as the momentum continues. Many of these files are highly profitable bestsellers from experienced artists, and it's taken time for those images to reach their peak. So even if people are "waiting in line" to join IS, these file deletions have already taken a considerable toll on GI's bottom line for a long time to come. Wish there was a way to get the actual figures and send them to the investors.
Whilst I have every sympathy with the action to deactivate files, I even may do some of mine, comments like this one just make me laugh. Do you honestly think that, because someone has deactivated a file, the buyer doesn't just go and buy a different one? They don't even know your files have gone. 40k files out of 12 million? A minute drop in the ocean, a pinprick on the side of an elephant. Deactivating hasn't, in anyones wildest dreams, 'taken a considerable toll on Getty's bottom line'.
I just want to inject a bit of reality here.
...
Besides deactivation isnt strong enough, it can be reactivated. Deletion would be much worse but ofcourse they are not prepared to go down that road. Wonder why?
Me? Im uploading as if nothing is happening.
You keep harping on this delete thing.
...
Besides deactivation isnt strong enough, it can be reactivated. Deletion would be much worse but ofcourse they are not prepared to go down that road. Wonder why?
Me? Im uploading as if nothing is happening.
The objective for me isn't just about what's removed, as that will probably be replaced. It's sending a message out to buyers that istock is no longer a place many of us are willing to have our best images. They have lost any trust we once had and there are better sites for non-exclusive contributors and buyers to use.
...
Besides deactivation isnt strong enough, it can be reactivated. Deletion would be much worse but ofcourse they are not prepared to go down that road. Wonder why?
Me? Im uploading as if nothing is happening.
You keep harping on this delete thing. The reason nobody is saying they are deleting their images is because iStock doesn't have a delete option. There is only a deactivate option.
...
Besides deactivation isnt strong enough, it can be reactivated. Deletion would be much worse but ofcourse they are not prepared to go down that road. Wonder why?
Me? Im uploading as if nothing is happening.
You keep harping on this delete thing. The reason nobody is saying they are deleting their images is because iStock doesn't have a delete option. There is only a deactivate option.
Well Tyler I like harping :D but at IS, if you want to reactivate, they all have to pass new QC ( new rules I think) and many older files wont make it.
...
Besides deactivation isnt strong enough, it can be reactivated. Deletion would be much worse but ofcourse they are not prepared to go down that road. Wonder why?
Me? Im uploading as if nothing is happening.
You keep harping on this delete thing. The reason nobody is saying they are deleting their images is because iStock doesn't have a delete option. There is only a deactivate option.
Well Tyler I like harping :D but at IS, if you want to reactivate, they all have to pass new QC ( new rules I think) and many older files wont make it.
I've read it that files over 18 months old must be reinspected, but I don't think we've had any official confirmation of that.
So it could well be that for many older files, deactivation would be an effective deletion.
I honestly hope more people take this attitude. It could get difficult for the folks ramping up to deactivate files to take a stand only to change their minds and request reactivations. We've already seen contacts from people who have deactivated a chunk of their portfolio who want reactivations. We've closed an account too. One whole account.
Imagine what will occur when the dust settles -and it will settle- after the contributor imposed deadline of Feb2. There are folks involved in that piece of protest that are currently running folks into a tough spot. Avatars, external forum campaigns and the like typically hurt the individual contributors more than they do Getty or iStock. Don't think we haven't been here before. Have we reached critical mass on all this issues? Maybe. I guess we will see.
Just seen this from Lobo:Wow, thats some typical reverse psychology tactics. Trying to create doubt and trying to set up people against each other. Stick together folks.QuoteI honestly hope more people take this attitude. It could get difficult for the folks ramping up to deactivate files to take a stand only to change their minds and request reactivations. We've already seen contacts from people who have deactivated a chunk of their portfolio who want reactivations. We've closed an account too. One whole account.
Imagine what will occur when the dust settles -and it will settle- after the contributor imposed deadline of Feb2. There are folks involved in that piece of protest that are currently running folks into a tough spot. Avatars, external forum campaigns and the like typically hurt the individual contributors more than they do Getty or iStock. Don't think we haven't been here before. Have we reached critical mass on all this issues? Maybe. I guess we will see.
Just seen this from Lobo:Odd, as more people have reported that they have closed their account.QuoteI honestly hope more people take this attitude. It could get difficult for the folks ramping up to deactivate files to take a stand only to change their minds and request reactivations. We've already seen contacts from people who have deactivated a chunk of their portfolio who want reactivations. We've closed an account too. One whole account.
Just seen this from Lobo:Odd, as more people have reported that they have closed their account.QuoteI honestly hope more people take this attitude. It could get difficult for the folks ramping up to deactivate files to take a stand only to change their minds and request reactivations. We've already seen contacts from people who have deactivated a chunk of their portfolio who want reactivations. We've closed an account too. One whole account.
Just seen this from Lobo:Odd, as more people have reported that they have closed their account.QuoteI honestly hope more people take this attitude. It could get difficult for the folks ramping up to deactivate files to take a stand only to change their minds and request reactivations. We've already seen contacts from people who have deactivated a chunk of their portfolio who want reactivations. We've closed an account too. One whole account.
Just seen this from Lobo:Odd, as more people have reported that they have closed their account.QuoteI honestly hope more people take this attitude. It could get difficult for the folks ramping up to deactivate files to take a stand only to change their minds and request reactivations. We've already seen contacts from people who have deactivated a chunk of their portfolio who want reactivations. We've closed an account too. One whole account.
Just seen this from Lobo:Odd, as more people have reported that they have closed their account.QuoteI honestly hope more people take this attitude. It could get difficult for the folks ramping up to deactivate files to take a stand only to change their minds and request reactivations. We've already seen contacts from people who have deactivated a chunk of their portfolio who want reactivations. We've closed an account too. One whole account.
I interpreted that statement differently, as in WE have closed one account (and WE being Istock).
He is threatening people: Don't expect we will re-activate your files if you change your opinion, we might even kick you out.
He expects that many people might de-activate (which is not permanent) images to see if there is any impact, and if not, they might want to return as if nothing has happened. And he wants to scare anybody that thinks like this...
Yep. You have to know that if your serious about closing your account we can accommodate that. You can manually say good bye to all you uploads one at a time if that's your pleasure but the reactivation of those files could be problematic. I just figure it's important for people to realize it takes way more work for contributor relations to reactivate files than it takes for you to deactivate them. I would really consider the ramifications before I got to far ahead of myself.
I do care about all this. It's concerns me that there are people who are already half gone from the site motivating people to jump on board this new band wagon. In the past we've seen exclusives dump their crown only to scramble back 3 months or so later. This deactivation excersise is understandable considering everything just don't say I didn't warn you all.
If the Istock forum was translated into Rusian and the word getty was replaced with gulag, we would all believe we had a historical source from the old USSR anno 1956.
Two of my istock posts asking for an opt out before Feb 2 are "missing". I think they're getting a little sensitive about the Feb 2nd thing.Probably because they think that the deletion of files may become unsustainable for their business... ;D
This was also to strengthen Blends position and relations with the largest distributor of imagery in the world, and that it did. In the end of the day you have to ask yourself " am I happy with what my agency is doing for me and if not is there someone else that could do better ".
This was also to strengthen Blends position and relations with the largest distributor of imagery in the world, and that it did. In the end of the day you have to ask yourself " am I happy with what my agency is doing for me and if not is there someone else that could do better ".
I am surprised that such an intelligent person as you Jonathan could write such a nonsense post.
In my day job I work as key account manager and area sales manager for a company manufacturing tangible goods. In my job I encounter several types of business partners and I always adapt my style of conducting business to their type. There are for example "pals" with which I can chat on the phone about everything and that can forgive almost any mess that we cause. There are also the "perfectionists" that require a very formal style. When we overdeliver goods, the perfectionist would send me a note "You overdelivered this item. We decided to keep the overdelivered quantity. Please invoice us". Then of course there are the "ruthless ones" who take advantage of your every weakness and the smallest mistake. Thankfully none of my current customers falls into this category but Getty Images is exactly this type of "business partner".
How to deal with such people? In my first job many years ago, we had a toxic boss who was a real pain for the employees. I was quite new there and one morning he started to make stupid remarks at me. I am a quiet person but by 11 my anger accumulated, I lost my temper and shouted at him in front of the whole sales team to p*ss off and leave me in peace. My shout was extremely loud and even our colleagues in the warehouse could hear it. They were sure I was a goner. I also thought that he would kick me out but I simply could not stand it anymore. Apparently I was too valuable to him and he just called me to his private room, told me I shouldn't have embarrassed him in front of the team, that he was just "TESTING" me and bla bla. I said that I could not tolerate this kind of treatment. He did not fire me. For 2 weeks he didn't say a single word to me. After 2 weeks he invited me to a restaurant for a Sunday dinner. Afterwards I became his most respected advisor.
On the other hand, a female co-worker who cried after he mobbed her, was fired.
Why am I telling this? In this whole Getty-Google mess there is only one person who "strengthened their position" with that distributor of imagery, as you say. But that person is Sean, not Blend. Sean did the same thing that I did many years ago. By publishing the list he adapted to the type of his "business partner" and hit the bully between the eyes - the only way to gain respect from the bully.
And Blend? Well, Blend should change their name to BEND IMAGES, because that must be their new nickname at Getty. Just like my former boss "tested" me, Getty "tested" Blend and Blend failed the „test“. Probably Getty categorizes their business partners into groups, like I do with mine. Sean would fall there into the category of „clever and tough players“. And Blend? I guess that could be the category of „not-so-clever wussies“. They gave up territory and received peanuts in return. I can imagine a dialogue at Getty: „Hey, these guys at BEND think they strengthened their position when we made them donate a few dozen images“, „Yeah, they should be made to donate like 50 thousand images so that they think they are the emperors of the f*****g stock universe“.
I repeat Jonathan, the only person who „strengthened their position“ is Sean.
Of course I sympathize with him because he was scammed and his sales my suffer as even more buyers leave iStock. But if you are talking about "positions" he is the winner.
Totally agree
one of the best posts i've ever read in a forum.
Totally agree
one of the best posts i've ever read in a forum.
This was also to strengthen Blends position and relations with the largest distributor of imagery in the world, and that it did. In the end of the day you have to ask yourself " am I happy with what my agency is doing for me and if not is there someone else that could do better ".
I am surprised that such an intelligent person as you Jonathan could write such a nonsense post......
Feb 2nd projected total is now 43,468+ deactivated or deleted files.
Feb 2nd projected total is now 43,468+ deactivated or deleted files.
The projection includes totals from the MSG and iStock threads as well as a total from one iStock site mail.
How can you think that giving awat 67 images to a pool of over 12.000 images gives you a strengthened position with the biggest company in stock. Its like a grocer with a stand on a corner on the street supplying a crate of oranges to Kroger and thinking he is now in a partnership with them.His company was given the choice of participating, and the chance to nominate some old low sellers. He said himself he wouldn't have been pleased if good sellers have been used.
I wouldn't call Mr. Ross's post 'nonsense' but I think it shows a desire to minimize, in one's thinking, the destructiveness of what IS is doing =, and a hope that this will all just blow over and things will get back to normal. I think that's unrealistic.
How can you think that giving awat 67 images to a pool of over 12.000 images gives you a strengthened position with the biggest company in stock. Its like a grocer with a stand on a corner on the street supplying a crate of oranges to Kroger and thinking he is now in a partnership with them.His company was given the choice of participating, and the chance to nominate some old low sellers. He said himself he wouldn't have been pleased if good sellers have been used.
Most people were not given the choice of participating, nor what files were taken, and that's a totally different scenario.
Yes, I know, but I was painting the image of how ridiculous it sounds. :DHow can you think that giving awat 67 images to a pool of over 12.000 images gives you a strengthened position with the biggest company in stock. Its like a grocer with a stand on a corner on the street supplying a crate of oranges to Kroger and thinking he is now in a partnership with them.His company was given the choice of participating, and the chance to nominate some old low sellers. He said himself he wouldn't have been pleased if good sellers have been used.
Most people were not given the choice of participating, nor what files were taken, and that's a totally different scenario.
Yeah, I keep wondering how he finds all these numbers all over the place ! ;DFeb 2nd projected total is now 43,468+ deactivated or deleted files.
The projection includes totals from the MSG and iStock threads as well as a total from one iStock site mail.
Denis, when all is said and done, I think you should get some sort of award or special badge for keeping the tally updated. Thank you, thank you for doing that!
I just said something that Lobo did't like and the result is:
The administration team at iStockphoto has revoked your forum privileges. Comments from iStockphoto Administrators :
Your account is not yet eligible for forum participation, but feel free to browse our forums until your posting privileges are activated.
Good grief. Have a nice break.
Cheers,
I just said something that Lobo did't like and the result is:
The administration team at iStockphoto has revoked your forum privileges. Comments from iStockphoto Administrators :
Your account is not yet eligible for forum participation, but feel free to browse our forums until your posting privileges are activated.
Good grief. Have a nice break.
Cheers,
Welcome to the Club.
[url]http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=103x414759[/url] ([url]http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=103x414759[/url])
Awesome post! Thank you. I say it's now or never for us to take a stand+1
I just said something that Lobo did't like and the result is:
The administration team at iStockphoto has revoked your forum privileges. Comments from iStockphoto Administrators :
Your account is not yet eligible for forum participation, but feel free to browse our forums until your posting privileges are activated.
Good grief. Have a nice break.
Cheers,
Welcome to the Club.
[url]http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=103x414759[/url] ([url]http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=103x414759[/url])
I guess we'll know we've reached a tipping point when more of us are in the community of the banned than are allowed to post :)
Thanks Snufkin,
I find your post a bit disrespectful. I am here trying to help I do not have to make excuses for my agency or for Blend they are allowed to conduct business the way they and I see fit. I am here trying to help share some information on what I know is taking place with our agency and Getty Images to hopefully add some insight for all photographers.
If you are mad at Getty then please direct your frustration at them if you don't agree with what I said a simple " I do not agree " works better than calling a post someone spent the time to offer up as "nonsense" or making up silly names about our agency " Bend " when I am trying to share info.
Posting this information does not benefit me or my agencies in any way it is shared to try to help, I thought we were trying to help each other out here with information on the topic?
Jonathan
The only emotional component of this decision for me is that for the moment I'm staying at iStock because I hate to leave the site I started with - sort of the reverse of the nonsense spouted by the OP in this thread. ([url]http://www.istockphoto.com/forum_messages.php?threadid=350913[/url])
The only emotional component of this decision for me is that for the moment I'm staying at iStock because I hate to leave the site I started with - sort of the reverse of the nonsense spouted by the OP in this thread. ([url]http://www.istockphoto.com/forum_messages.php?threadid=350913[/url])
Wow. That thread is truly unbelievable. I honestly cannot fathom why there would be any exclusives left who still think that Getty has any intention of protecting their interests. What does Getty have to do for these people to realize something's happening...literally F&*_k them, rather than just figuratively?
...
Besides deactivation isnt strong enough, it can be reactivated. Deletion would be much worse but ofcourse they are not prepared to go down that road. Wonder why?
Me? Im uploading as if nothing is happening.
You keep harping on this delete thing. The reason nobody is saying they are deleting their images is because iStock doesn't have a delete option. There is only a deactivate option.
Well Tyler I like harping :D but at IS, if you want to reactivate, they all have to pass new QC ( new rules I think) and many older files wont make it.
I've read it that files over 18 months old must be reinspected, but I don't think we've had any official confirmation of that.
So it could well be that for many older files, deactivation would be an effective deletion.
I just said something that Lobo did't like and the result is:The club's getting bigger by the minute I think, did you get a sarcastic email from him too?
The administration team at iStockphoto has revoked your forum privileges. Comments from iStockphoto Administrators :
Your account is not yet eligible for forum participation, but feel free to browse our forums until your posting privileges are activated.
Good grief. Have a nice break.
Cheers,
Wow. That thread is truly unbelievable. I honestly cannot fathom why there would be any exclusives left who still think that Getty has any intention of protecting their interests. What does Getty have to do for these people to realize something's happening...literally F&*_k them, rather than just figuratively?Yeah, but look who wrote the OP.
I did a test and tried to reactivate a 14 month old file. It's locked. Might need to try something newer and determine what the cutoff is, but it is NOT 18 months. I've deactivated some of my best selling older files (daily sellers). I hope I don't regret it because it's a done deal!
Wow. That thread is truly unbelievable. I honestly cannot fathom why there would be any exclusives left who still think that Getty has any intention of protecting their interests. What does Getty have to do for these people to realize something's happening...literally F&*_k them, rather than just figuratively?Yeah, but look who wrote the OP.
Oh yeah, exactly. But I knew that guy was a lackey for Getty. What surprises me is some of the others that are agreeing.
Hi CC,I do not care if its good for Blend or not. You are not allowed to redistribute peoples pictures without asking them.
Thanks for the feedback my biggest issue here is the Trolling. If you don't have to share who you are then you can say or make up stories about your work all day long and non of us are the wiser, it could all be B.S. for all we know. Someone else posted here that one of their images was taken from Blend without their approval I offered to help and try and solve the issue but this person was also a Troll and did not reply. I cannot take their word they are telling the truth because once again they are hiding off line.
I agree CC this deal is a concern for people in the Micro market I have completely agreed with that position in my earlier postings. It is a bad deal if your number 1 images are being put into this collection without your notice. Many Micro sales are for " in house use " if the buyer doesn't have to buy your images from Istock for in house use then you are definitly losing money.
I have never said this was good for Micro but please understand the dealings with image placement, acceptance rates, options for future development are all part of doing business with Getty for Blend and soon for Spaces as well. If Blend gave up 62 images and by doing so moved their position up the ranks on the pages at Getty then it is a big win for Blend and their photographers as we will see much higher returns with better image placement.
This is just a scenario but to say that negotiating with the biggest reseller to gain more ground for Blend is a bad move then I am sorry you have not played this game from the other side of the net. I feel your pain please everyone realize this that is why I have been looking into it and posting what I can find out just trying to help with the information I can share but some people still like to shoot the messenger :)
Cheers,
Jonathan
Thanks Snufkin,
I find your post a bit disrespectful. I am here trying to help I do not have to make excuses for my agency or for Blend they are allowed to conduct business the way they and I see fit. I am here trying to help share some information on what I know is taking place with our agency and Getty Images to hopefully add some insight for all photographers.
If you are mad at Getty then please direct your frustration at them if you don't agree with what I said a simple " I do not agree " works better than calling a post someone spent the time to offer up as "nonsense" or making up silly names about our agency " Bend " when I am trying to share info.
Posting this information does not benefit me or my agencies in any way it is shared to try to help, I thought we were trying to help each other out here with information on the topic?
Jonathan
If Blend gave up 62 images and by doing so moved their position up the ranks on the pages at Getty then it is a big win for Blend and their photographers as we will see much higher returns with better image placement.So, was it carrot or stick?
Thanks Snufkin,Personally, I like to see you posting here and it's great to know a bit about this deal from another perspective. I also respect your decisions, even though it's not always what I want to hear. It would be great if we could all just leave Getty/istock but that's not going to happen. So we all have to make the decisions that are best for us. It's a shame you're going to get a lot of flack here but that's also inevitable. Hopefully you can ignore it and keeping giving us some information that I'm sure many of us are very grateful for.
I find your post a bit disrespectful. I am here trying to help I do not have to make excuses for my agency or for Blend they are allowed to conduct business the way they and I see fit. I am here trying to help share some information on what I know is taking place with our agency and Getty Images to hopefully add some insight for all photographers.
If you are mad at Getty then please direct your frustration at them if you don't agree with what I said a simple " I do not agree " works better than calling a post someone spent the time to offer up as "nonsense" or making up silly names about our agency " Bend " when I am trying to share info.
Posting this information does not benefit me or my agencies in any way it is shared to try to help, I thought we were trying to help each other out here with information on the topic?
Jonathan
I have been following all this from the begining. Because english its not my native language, its sometimes dificult for me to understand everything. But i read all with great interest.
If you allow me, i would like to copy and paste here what i wrote in istock about my point of view. I wish my level of english would be better to take part more deeply in the conversation. This is what i think:
From the very first time i knew about all this, i deactivated my portfolio. I had only 539 images, but this was the product of much work during months working hard and with enthusiasm.. I had no doubts, for me the reason its absolutly clear. I explain why;
maybe Getty, Google, and any other company has discovered that the future is attracting users to their services giving to them free images. Its logical..People love free things.
Images, vectors, books, 3d models, maybe movies in the future...everything free for getting users for, indeed, free services. What nice, what utopic. But nothing is free in the life. We all know this. The users of those services become products their self. Its a kind of circle. And at the end only the big corporations earn money. Big amounts of money using another people work. I dont know if my level of english is enough for make me understand.
I love photography, its a passion for me, but its my job too and i do this as a bussines. Emotions apart, for me it is clear that the deal between google and getty only benefits to them. They do big business with our effort, thats easy. Are we going to allow them to drive this business into that? , who, in their right mind, would give away their images for others who will make money with them? I think this its the problem of this "new form" of business. They need the images...bait to attract the public. Am i, of any of us supossed to be so unconcern about our work to give them it?
No emotions here..only think. Last answer is from us.
I deactivated my files for protecting my work and my way of life. I would like to see a solution to the problem and reactivate my files again. Hope all this count for something in the future. For the moment this agency its in is quarantined for me.
greetings to all, from Spain.
Thanks for the reply Snufkin,
I have no issue with you disagreeing but I do believe in being a gentleman with people that are sharing information, just common courtesy. It seems most of the people that post in this manor here are also hiding their information. I have been here helping with what information I can without calling people names and have been open with my profile from the beginning. I know a lot of you say " if I share my info then the agencies are going to get mad at me and delete my stuff ".
I believe that if you share your opinion with others in a positive orderly manor then you will not have any issue with reasonable agencies. I have shared things one on one with the top folks at Getty that they didn't necessarily want to hear but we were able to have a reasonable conversation because there was no name calling and my images have never been deleted at Getty because of our interaction.
It just lowers you to a level that changes your credibility. Just my 2 cents but those that hide themselves and their identity that make up names and call peoples information nonsense just don't carry any weight with their comments and they certainly do not help us all figure out what is best to resolve the situation.
I would be happy to share with you anything I can about any inside information but when it is received with name calling then it is no longer a gentleman's conversation. One more thing I think most will agree on ( outside of MSG ) if you are going to make such statements then back them up by sharing who you are, or else what you say holds little water.
Best,
Jonathan
(snip) Someone else posted here that one of their images was taken from Blend without their approval I offered to help and try and solve the issue but this person was also a Troll and did not reply. I cannot take their word they are telling the truth because once again they are hiding off line.
(snip) If Blend gave up 62 images and by doing so moved their position up the ranks on the pages at Getty then it is a big win for Blend and their photographers as we will see much higher returns with better image placement.
I have a practical question for February 2nd :
I am not planning to reactivate anything afterwards, not even if Getty would give in and create an opt-out, but the few images I already deactivated (14th Jan) are still on Thinkstock.
I heard different experiences on that topic : some say it takes 30 days, others (Jsnover) have the luck to see them disappear immediately, and still others talk about cases where they stay on TS "forever" and you need to contact support to have them removed.
Now suppose I am in group 3 and after 30 days, I still see my deactivated stuff on Thinkstock. How should I inform support? I don't mean which e-mail address to use, but what info do they need? Should I just say "please delete all deactivated images from TS", or do they need every Istock number, or even worse : will they be asking for the TS numbers?
As I plan to deactivate 500 (or more) (already mentioned in a previous post, so don't add this up in the total amount), I would prefer to know if I should make a list. Sean's script is absolutely great, but it does not send reports with TS numbers afterwards ;D
Did any of you contact Support to have TS images deleted (after deactivation), and if yes, what was their reaction? Did they ask for file numbers, and if yes, did they need the IS file numbers or the TS numbers?
Thanks Snufkin,
I find your post a bit disrespectful. I am here trying to help I do not have to make excuses for my agency or for Blend they are allowed to conduct business the way they and I see fit. I am here trying to help share some information on what I know is taking place with our agency and Getty Images to hopefully add some insight for all photographers.
If you are mad at Getty then please direct your frustration at them if you don't agree with what I said a simple " I do not agree " works better than calling a post someone spent the time to offer up as "nonsense" or making up silly names about our agency " Bend " when I am trying to share info.
Posting this information does not benefit me or my agencies in any way it is shared to try to help, I thought we were trying to help each other out here with information on the topic?
Jonathan
I also can't help but wonder if Sean and other that got shafted by iS by having what they consider premium images, not bottom feeders, added to the Google deal will also benefit from better image placement (not that their best match algorithim would even be capable of that if it was intended).I wondered the same, but it seems unlikely.
Just seen this from Lobo:QuoteI honestly hope more people take this attitude. It could get difficult for the folks ramping up to deactivate files to take a stand only to change their minds and request reactivations. We've already seen contacts from people who have deactivated a chunk of their portfolio who want reactivations. We've closed an account too. One whole account.
Just seen this from Lobo:QuoteI honestly hope more people take this attitude. It could get difficult for the folks ramping up to deactivate files to take a stand only to change their minds and request reactivations. We've already seen contacts from people who have deactivated a chunk of their portfolio who want reactivations. We've closed an account too. One whole account.
I'm glad that IS have noticed our efforts, now that they are aware you would think they would act to resolve the problem. It does prove though that we are having an effect!
.....I see so many different reasons on this post for why people are pulling their images from Istock but the one I see the most is " they aren't making me the money I used to " That unfortunately is what happens when there are more photographers then their are buyers, it is sad but true......
Hi Jonathan, I have to reply to this part of your post, because that is most certainly NOT the main concern for most independent contributors to IStock with the current Google fiasco, and I'd hate for you to come away with that idea.
Even with IStock's declining market share, they are still among the top earning micro sites for most people that contribute there, all things being equal no one is going to stop contributing to them because of the fall in income.
The issues are to do with their treatment of their contributors. Most especially in the case of the Google deal, their willingness to wipe out the value of their contributor's work, thus jeopardizing their income across all sites. The nature of the deal clearly goes outside of the reasonable expectations of anyone agreeing to their terms, and shows at least a disregard for our work and I would also say contempt for us.
These are the issues, I am not sure where you came away with the idea that this is was simply griping about an income drop, I for one am continuing to see an increase in income across all the major sites including IStock (though their percentage of my total is sliding), and am nonetheless in the position where I need to consider dropping them to preserve my livelihood.
I don't know how anyone could read through these threads and infer that loss of income is the main reason for the removal of images. I, also, continue to make good money from Istock, as many of you do. The thought of deleting images and losing that income because of my own actions sickens me. But, what sickens me more is the much bigger loss of income that actions like these from Istock will cause. It's kind of a "pick your poison" choice. In this case, one poison will hurt you, but the other will kill you.
I have a practical question for February 2nd :
I am not planning to reactivate anything afterwards, not even if Getty would give in and create an opt-out, but the few images I already deactivated (14th Jan) are still on Thinkstock.
I heard different experiences on that topic : some say it takes 30 days, others (Jsnover) have the luck to see them disappear immediately, and still others talk about cases where they stay on TS "forever" and you need to contact support to have them removed.
Now suppose I am in group 3 and after 30 days, I still see my deactivated stuff on Thinkstock. How should I inform support? I don't mean which e-mail address to use, but what info do they need? Should I just say "please delete all deactivated images from TS", or do they need every Istock number, or even worse : will they be asking for the TS numbers?
As I plan to deactivate 500 (or more) (already mentioned in a previous post, so don't add this up in the total amount), I would prefer to know if I should make a list. Sean's script is absolutely great, but it does not send reports with TS numbers afterwards ;D
Did any of you contact Support to have TS images deleted (after deactivation), and if yes, what was their reaction? Did they ask for file numbers, and if yes, did they need the IS file numbers or the TS numbers?
Hi CC,
Thanks for the feedback my biggest issue here is the Trolling. If you don't have to share who you are then you can say or make up stories about your work all day long and non of us are the wiser, it could all be B.S. for all we know. Someone else posted here that one of their images was taken from Blend without their approval I offered to help and try and solve the issue but this person was also a Troll and did not reply. I cannot take their word they are telling the truth because once again they are hiding off line.
I agree CC this deal is a concern for people in the Micro market I have completely agreed with that position in my earlier postings. It is a bad deal if your number 1 images are being put into this collection without your notice. Many Micro sales are for " in house use " if the buyer doesn't have to buy your images from Istock for in house use then you are definitly losing money.
I have never said this was good for Micro but please understand the dealings with image placement, acceptance rates, options for future development are all part of doing business with Getty for Blend and soon for Spaces as well. If Blend gave up 62 images and by doing so moved their position up the ranks on the pages at Getty then it is a big win for Blend and their photographers as we will see much higher returns with better image placement.
This is just a scenario but to say that negotiating with the biggest reseller to gain more ground for Blend is a bad move then I am sorry you have not played this game from the other side of the net. I feel your pain please everyone realize this that is why I have been looking into it and posting what I can find out just trying to help with the information I can share but some people still like to shoot the messenger :)
Cheers,
Jonathan
Agree 100%. I agree with many others ( who doesnt post here anymore), unless they have the guts to reveal themselves, etc. They are not worth answering. Not that many are worth it anyway but to answer a nom de plume, whats the point? youre only going to get some garbage reply.Well done, that's my Good Laugh for the day. ;D
...and George Eliot, Currer, Acton and Ellis Bell laugh right along with you. :)
I don't know who I am any more.
I believe ShadySue was laughing at the fact that you are currently a pseudo, insulting pseudos. Hence my comment that some other well-known pseudos would also be laughing at this point (as well as at the idea that everything they wrote was valueless).
Yes yes, those of us who KNOW do know who you are, but it remains that the name ClaridgeJ is a pseudo.
I'm not insulted btw - I think all generalisations are nonsense and forums are so filled with them that a person would be rendered permanently into a state of trauma if they took them all to heart.
I think, as others have said previously, that you can get a feel for a person's views and the value of their thought process through their words. It doesn't matter to me at all who they are. Good sense is good sense and nonsense is nonsense, regardless of a person's perceived or invented status.
....You give yourself a bad rep.
I had no option but to change. Turned out that some private buyers of mine noticed the old member-name and that was no good. Gives a bad rep.
I did a test and tried to reactivate a 14 month old file. It's locked. Might need to try something newer and determine what the cutoff is, but it is NOT 18 months. I've deactivated some of my best selling older files (daily sellers). I hope I don't regret it because it's a done deal!
JMO, but I don't plan on reactivating anything I delete. If you don't want a file deleted, you might think twice about deactivating it. It seems Lobo has already made clear that people deactivating as part of D-Day may not have an easy time reactivating the files.
....You give yourself a bad rep.
I had no option but to change. Turned out that some private buyers of mine noticed the old member-name and that was no good. Gives a bad rep.
1. The value of an argument does not depend on the identity of the poster. 2 + 2 equals 4, whether it is written by a 5-year old, a science professor or a complete moron. The whole discussion about anonymous/nonanonymous users is a waste of time, it is a logical fallacy. The identity of the poster may only change your personal, subjective perception but not the value of the argument.
2. There is a huge difference between calling rude names and the use of satire as a rhetorical device.
This is a bit OT, but it found it funny that I made more on SS yesterday alone than I have all month on IS. I can't wait for the 2nd!
Slight tangent, but I wanted to point out that for those possibly having to delete everything (or all but a few to wait for this month's PP payout next month) February 2nd - D-Day - when you do your payout request this week, consider not clearing your balance to zero so you can be certain of being over the $100 threshold no matter how crappy sales are next week and in the January PP.
Slight tangent, but I wanted to point out that for those possibly having to delete everything (or all but a few to wait for this month's PP payout next month) February 2nd - D-Day - when you do your payout request this week, consider not clearing your balance to zero so you can be certain of being over the $100 threshold no matter how crappy sales are next week and in the January PP.
I normally pull out my entire balance each time, but this week left money so I can be certain of a cash-out if I end up leaving February 2nd. Even if I bail, I'm going to keep my account open (with an image or two) so I can keep my stats. That means, I think, that there's no chance of a payout under the limit (I think if you close your account they pay you?).
Yes, if you close your account you will be paid even if the balance is below $100...
A thought I had, also someone else just brought it up on another forum is this:All meta data is gone, and agencies wont accept images where the data is stripped, no? Or I might be wrong.
What if a user/s of google drive downloads some of these "free images" of some Istock/Getty contributors and uploads them as their own to stock agencies. How in hell's name would those stock agencies have any idea that those images do not belong to the uploader, especially if whoever these images belong to don't upload to those particular agencies. This means anyone could start making money from your images :o
It doesn't bear thinking about ???
All meta data is gone, and agencies wont accept images where the data is stripped, no? Or I might be wrong.
But as soon as the IP owner finds out, a simple DMCA is enough to shut them down.
All meta data is gone, and agencies wont accept images where the data is stripped, no? Or I might be wrong.
But as soon as the IP owner finds out, a simple DMCA is enough to shut them down.
Even if that's the case, it's easy enough to add meta data to an image...
All meta data is gone, and agencies wont accept images where the data is stripped, no? Or I might be wrong.
But as soon as the IP owner finds out, a simple DMCA is enough to shut them down.
Even if that's the case, it's easy enough to add meta data to an image...
A thought I had, also someone else just brought it up on another forum is this:
What if a user/s of google drive downloads some of these "free images" of some Istock/Getty contributors and uploads them as their own to stock agencies. How in hell's name would those stock agencies have any idea that those images do not belong to the uploader, especially if whoever these images belong to don't upload to those particular agencies. This means anyone could start making money from your images :o
It doesn't bear thinking about ???
Without naming names here, I cannot understand why the blow hard troll thread at Istock is being allowed to happen. Normally threads which are obviously devisive and disruptive and stupid would have been quickly deleted.Why not? It takes the focus (and collective energies) off the real issues at hand. Better to dissipate the group and bicker rather than have them unite and take an action.
I cannot understand what good that thread does or why the moderators took such an obviously misguided deliberate decision to officially sanction it. Of all the people who still post on the old forum, I cannot think of anyone worse to be leading any sort of Feb 2 counter argument.
Without naming names here, I cannot understand why the blow hard troll thread at Istock is being allowed to happen. Normally threads which are obviously devisive and disruptive and stupid would have been quickly deleted.
I cannot understand what good that thread does or why the moderators took such an obviously misguided deliberate decision to officially sanction it. Of all the people who still post on the old forum, I cannot think of anyone worse to be leading any sort of Feb 2 counter argument.
Lisa, does that include people from the IS forum, or only people here? My guess is only people from here, but just checking.
Lisa, does that include people from the IS forum, or only people here? My guess is only people from here, but just checking.
Lisa, does that include people from the IS forum, or only people here? My guess is only people from here, but just checking.
Oh, sorry, I put that in the OP, but didn't add it here. AFAIK this is just people on this forum. The Istock forum people aren't added. I would still take Denis (Cybernesco's) count as the official one.
I'm not sure how much difference this will make, there are over 60,000 files waiting inspection right now. If you want to protect your IP that's one thing but I don't see this as much of a protest in that the amount of images is too insignificant to have any wider effects. If this protest is to accomplish anything shouldn't there be some type of demands i.e. "Change the ASA to stop deals like this one or else we'll pull our images off". Right now I don't see a clear and concise message supported by the group being presented to Istock. Maybe a petition drafted and signed by the group would be more effective, right now it looks like people are planning to pull their images off no matter what. If that's the case why not do it already?
The queue is shown here [url]http://www.istockphoto.com/stats[/url] ([url]http://www.istockphoto.com/stats[/url])
I'm not sure how much difference this will make, there are over 60,000 files waiting inspection right now. If you want to protect your IP that's one thing but I don't see this as much of a protest in that the amount of images is too insignificant to have any wider effects. If this protest is to accomplish anything shouldn't there be some type of demands i.e. "Change the ASA to stop deals like this one or else we'll pull our images off". Right now I don't see a clear and concise message supported by the group being presented to Istock. Maybe a petition drafted and signed by the group would be more effective, right now it looks like people are planning to pull their images off no matter what. If that's the case why not do it already?
The queue is shown here [url]http://www.istockphoto.com/stats[/url] ([url]http://www.istockphoto.com/stats[/url])
I'm not sure how much difference this will make, there are over 60,000 files waiting inspection right now. If you want to protect your IP that's one thing but I don't see this as much of a protest in that the amount of images is too insignificant to have any wider effects. If this protest is to accomplish anything shouldn't there be some type of demands i.e. "Change the ASA to stop deals like this one or else we'll pull our images off". Right now I don't see a clear and concise message supported by the group being presented to Istock. Maybe a petition drafted and signed by the group would be more effective, right now it looks like people are planning to pull their images off no matter what. If that's the case why not do it already?
The queue is shown here [url]http://www.istockphoto.com/stats[/url] ([url]http://www.istockphoto.com/stats[/url])
I think having the story about deactivation day spreading around the internet might make some buyers think about using sites other than istock. That might be more successful than a few of us just deleting images.
...But a big steaming garbage barge of bad publicity is another matter. The goal is to do whatever we do as loudly and publicly as possible.
The actions people are taking now are entirely appropriate to the situation. At this point, Getty doesn't care about 20,000 images, or even a few hundred photographers. But a big steaming garbage barge of bad publicity is another matter. The goal is to do whatever we do as loudly and publicly as possible.
The actions people are taking now are entirely appropriate to the situation. At this point, Getty doesn't care about 20,000 images, or even a few hundred photographers. But a big steaming garbage barge of bad publicity is another matter. The goal is to do whatever we do as loudly and publicly as possible.
Agree 100%
A friend of mine who reads but doesn't post went to the trouble of creating a list of who's participating (according to the thread) and how many each has or will be deleting:I dare you to add a free stock image to the doc... I double-dog dare you ;D
https://docs.google.com/spreadsheet/ccc?key=0Ai9dhorY3ovxdHFCY2FqdkFVQUtLMGRrNUhsVzV0SFE#gid=0 (https://docs.google.com/spreadsheet/ccc?key=0Ai9dhorY3ovxdHFCY2FqdkFVQUtLMGRrNUhsVzV0SFE#gid=0)
For a bit of irony, it was created in Google docs ;D
I'm not sure how much difference this will make, there are over 60,000 files waiting inspection right now. If you want to protect your IP that's one thing but I don't see this as much of a protest in that the amount of images is too insignificant to have any wider effects. If this protest is to accomplish anything shouldn't there be some type of demands i.e. "Change the ASA to stop deals like this one or else we'll pull our images off". Right now I don't see a clear and concise message supported by the group being presented to Istock. Maybe a petition drafted and signed by the group would be more effective, right now it looks like people are planning to pull their images off no matter what. If that's the case why not do it already?
The queue is shown here [url]http://www.istockphoto.com/stats[/url] ([url]http://www.istockphoto.com/stats[/url])
Getty is NOT going to change a thing. It's the contributors responsibility to look out for their own welfare. When people are fed up, they will leave. Right now, there are too many people who depend on that income and just aren't ready to leave. I don't get it, because sales have been tanking for just about everybody anyway, but some think a little something is better than nothing. Getty knows that and banks on it.
I still think that people with good portfolios will lose much less than they think if they remove images from istock.
Getty won't care about the number of images deleted.
HOWEVER ... I am sure they will be watching what happens with interest and I think it would be helpful if everybody who is upset deletes at least one image. They are likely to be watching how many people participate, as well as how many files go, in order to assess the strength of contributor feeling.
I'm sure they would be more bothered by 20,000 people each deleting one photo (mass protest) than by one person deleting 20,000 photos (squeaky wheel coming off).
+1
I think the hapless responses of the Istock management and the increasing irritability of the forum moderator are quite telling on just how concerned they are (mainly for their own futures).
I suspect that they'll be somewhat more concerned and damaged by exclusives * their crowns. Exclusives are Istock's USP, the primary justification for higher prices and the only way they have been able to get away with such poor site functionality. Without exclusives Istock become just one of many microstock agencies, with the same images but at higher prices and on a slow, unreliable site. Every exclusive who ditches their crown and uploads elsewhere weakens Istock's position and also strengthens that of it's competitors. It's a gathering snowball.You'd think, but in recent times, they don't seem to have been looking after their exclusives at all; it has seemed to me like they'd like us all to ditch our crowns so that they could earn more percentage off us. Crazy to me, this profitability vs profit choice, but it really seems like it's the way they're going.
I think the hapless responses of the Istock management and the increasing irritability of the forum moderator are quite telling on just how concerned they are (mainly for their own futures).
You'd think, but in recent times, they don't seem to have been looking after their exclusives at all; it has seemed to me like they'd like us all to ditch our crowns so that they could earn more percentage off us. Crazy to me, this profitability vs profit choice, but it really seems like it's the way they're going.
But I agree with:QuoteI think the hapless responses of the Istock management and the increasing irritability of the forum moderator are quite telling on just how concerned they are (mainly for their own futures).
A friend of mine who reads but doesn't post went to the trouble of creating a list of who's participating (according to the thread) and how many each has or will be deleting:I dare you to add a free stock image to the doc... I double-dog dare you ;D
https://docs.google.com/spreadsheet/ccc?key=0Ai9dhorY3ovxdHFCY2FqdkFVQUtLMGRrNUhsVzV0SFE#gid=0 (https://docs.google.com/spreadsheet/ccc?key=0Ai9dhorY3ovxdHFCY2FqdkFVQUtLMGRrNUhsVzV0SFE#gid=0)
For a bit of irony, it was created in Google docs ;D
You'd think, but in recent times, they don't seem to have been looking after their exclusives at all; it has seemed to me like they'd like us all to ditch our crowns so that they could earn more percentage off us. Crazy to me, this profitability vs profit choice, but it really seems like it's the way they're going.
But I agree with:QuoteI think the hapless responses of the Istock management and the increasing irritability of the forum moderator are quite telling on just how concerned they are (mainly for their own futures).
This is the kind of thing that's driving me crazy, quite apart from my falling earnings. iStock has become so inscrutable it's no wonder that people resort to conspiracy theories.
Conspiracy theory? I think not. Almost every "conspiracy theory" that has been put forth in the past couple of years by contributors has come true. One only needs to list the facts of what has actually happened in that same time period to come to a factual conclusion. Some people just don't want to take their beer goggles off and take a true look. :)
But hey, nil desperandum - Lobo has promised some comms for exclusives this very week.
I'm beside myself with excitement. ;D ;)
But hey, nil desperandum - Lobo has promised some comms for exclusives this very week.
I'm beside myself with excitement. ;D ;)
Conspiracy theory? I think not. Almost every "conspiracy theory" that has been put forth in the past couple of years by contributors has come true. One only needs to list the facts of what has actually happened in that same time period to come to a factual conclusion. Some people just don't want to take their beer goggles off and take a true look. :)
I tend to agree Cathy. If someone told me in 2009 all the things that would go down at Istock in the following three years I would have assumed they were a conspiracy theorist at best and more likely batsh!t crazy. And yet here we are.... :-\
The worst of it with iStock is that no matter how bad I think it could get, they always manage to trump it. I hadn't foreseen the RC chicanery and would never have imagined the GoogleDocs disaster.
They certainly manage to exceed my conspiracy-theory-fuelled expections, and always in a negative way.
I tend to agree Cathy. If someone told me in 2009 all the things that would go down at Istock in the following three years I would have assumed they were a conspiracy theorist at best and more likely batsh!t crazy. And yet here we are.... :-\
It was predictable that Getty, after buying iStock, would try to drive costs down and revenues up -- i.e. royalty cuts and price hikes. It's a manoeuvre that seems to have failed but only because it's overshot, not because it was completely crazy. The whole disaster can probably be summarised by greed overshoot coupled with a lack of understanding of how crowdsourcing could work against a corporation that becomes disliked.
I believe you misunderstood my post. I didn't say Getty were crazy. I said if someone had told me all the cr@p they'd be pulling over the last few years I would have thought that person was a conspiracy theorist or crazy. :)
RapidEye, I just noticed your avatar pic. LOL! Love it! Kind of reminds me of that famous scene in Trainspotting ;D
RapidEye, I just noticed your avatar pic. LOL! Love it! Kind of reminds me of that famous scene in Trainspotting ;D
Ha. Thanks. I have to confess to a certain amount of inspiration from the movie, but I thought the pic summed things up.
The deactivation spread sheet is very nice... except it shows me pledging only 10. I've deactivated 26 at istock (plus 327 at stockexpert) so far. Will do more on Feb 2nd.
Providing an opt out would be a smart business decision. I hope Getty eventually realizes this.
The deactivation spread sheet is very nice... except it shows me pledging only 10. I've deactivated 26 at istock (plus 327 at stockexpert) so far. Will do more on Feb 2nd.
Providing an opt out would be a smart business decision. I hope Getty eventually realizes this.
Thanks for the update. So then yours should say 353? I will pass it along to Marina :)
... greed overshoot coupled with a lack of understanding of how crowdsourcing could work against a corporation that becomes disliked.
Havent you asked yourself why these big-shots are not deactivating NOW? why wait? and why just deactivating? why not show them hell and DELETE?
1 - you have 16 flames active at iStock
2 - you have files uploaded on January 18th
3 - what . are you talking about?
now we have CJ6 and ClaridgeJ, isn't it boring to logout and login?
a year back my friend I deleted 7 blue flames and over 20 red flames. Not for this reason but for uploading them as macro RF.
just for the info. I havent got the lightest idea of who or what this CJ6 person is, might be an extention of MI6 I suppose.
Last week I deleted and closed my accounts at 3 other agencies. I go all the way and delete not JUST deactivate, anybody can do that.
No not at IS and why should I? you mean to join the losers. No thanks.
Interesting quote from the Istock forums:
-----------------------------
Posted By PaulCowan:
I think I will delete at least one useless old file on the 2nd, just in case anybody is watching the numbers to see how many contributors are annoyed enough to make some minor gesture of protest.
(Edited on 2013-01-29 04:25:50 by PaulCowan)
Posted By Lobo:
Paul, we are watching everything.
Interesting quote from the Istock forums:
-----------------------------
Posted By PaulCowan:
I think I will delete at least one useless old file on the 2nd, just in case anybody is watching the numbers to see how many contributors are annoyed enough to make some minor gesture of protest.
(Edited on 2013-01-29 04:25:50 by PaulCowan)
Posted By Lobo:
Paul, we are watching everything.
I think what Cowan suggested here is very interesting : even if you do NOT plan to deactivate on Feb 2nd, or get rid of your crown, but you still want to show your concern : DEACTIVATE AT LEAST 1 IMAGE on that date.
Getty might not be impressed by the number of deactivated files, but they might be by the number of angry contributors.
Interesting quote from the Istock forums:
-----------------------------
Posted By PaulCowan:
I think I will delete at least one useless old file on the 2nd, just in case anybody is watching the numbers to see how many contributors are annoyed enough to make some minor gesture of protest.
(Edited on 2013-01-29 04:25:50 by PaulCowan)
Posted By Lobo:
Paul, we are watching everything.
I think what Cowan suggested here is very interesting : even if you do NOT plan to deactivate on Feb 2nd, or get rid of your crown, but you still want to show your concern : DEACTIVATE AT LEAST 1 IMAGE on that date.
Getty might not be impressed by the number of deactivated files, but they might be by the number of angry contributors.
Interesting quote from the Istock forums:
-----------------------------
Posted By PaulCowan:
I think I will delete at least one useless old file on the 2nd, just in case anybody is watching the numbers to see how many contributors are annoyed enough to make some minor gesture of protest.
(Edited on 2013-01-29 04:25:50 by PaulCowan)
Posted By Lobo:
Paul, we are watching everything.
Interesting quote from the Istock forums:
Posted By Lobo:
Paul, we are watching everything.
I'm betting they're going to put out something on Friday afternoon, if for no other reason than to try to disrupt D-Day.
I'm betting they're going to put out something on Friday afternoon, if for no other reason than to try to disrupt D-Day.
I'm betting they're going to put out something on Friday afternoon, if for no other reason than to try to disrupt D-Day.
I'm betting you're going to be disappointed then. They've already had 2-3 weeks to diffuse the situation but they've essentially done nothing other than confirm what we had already discovered for ourselves.
Istock management didn't even know about the Getty/Google deal until we informed them (and they went scurrying away to find out what Getty had done). At the moment they appear powerless to intervene or help even if they wanted to.
I think Istock management will be monitoring very closely the actions of contributors on D-Day and will then use that information to hopefully influence Getty. Unfortunately I believe that Getty will only react, if at all, when they see irrefutable evidence that the Google Drive deal is hurting them in the pocket.
I don't think it is hurting them in the pocket. They don't care if they lose some contributors and some images...there are millions more images and new contributors signing up all the time. I think whatever deal they made with Google is going to put money in their pockets. It's the contributors who continue to do business with them who are going to be hurting in the pockets.
I don't think it is hurting them in the pocket. They don't care if they lose some contributors and some images...there are millions more images and new contributors signing up all the time. I think whatever deal they made with Google is going to put money in their pockets. It's the contributors who continue to do business with them who are going to be hurting in the pockets.
If my sales at IS over the last few days are anything to go by it might already be happening. This week my sales have fallen off a cliff, to literally about one third of what they were during the same week in January 2012. Probably just the normal ebb and flow but I wonder how others are doing?
1 dl Mon, 3 yesterday, 0 so far today ...I don't think it is hurting them in the pocket. They don't care if they lose some contributors and some images...there are millions more images and new contributors signing up all the time. I think whatever deal they made with Google is going to put money in their pockets. It's the contributors who continue to do business with them who are going to be hurting in the pockets.
If my sales at IS over the last few days are anything to go by it might already be happening. This week my sales have fallen off a cliff, to literally about one third of what they were during the same week in January 2012. Probably just the normal ebb and flow but I wonder how others are doing?
If my sales at IS over the last few days are anything to go by it might already be happening. This week my sales have fallen off a cliff, to literally about one third of what they were during the same week in January 2012. Probably just the normal ebb and flow but I wonder how others are doing?
I'm betting they're going to put out something on Friday afternoon, if for no other reason than to try to disrupt D-Day.
I'm betting they're going to put out something on Friday afternoon, if for no other reason than to try to disrupt D-Day.
Historically, istock doesn't respond to threats of coordinated action. Lots of people removed images or left istock when royalty rtes were dropped, when they removed the ThinkStock opt-out for independents, etc.
I'd be amazed if they did anything this week in an effort to impact D-Day.
I'm betting they're going to put out something on Friday afternoon, if for no other reason than to try to disrupt D-Day.
Historically, istock doesn't respond to threats of coordinated action. Lots of people removed images or left istock when royalty rtes were dropped, when they removed the ThinkStock opt-out for independents, etc.
I'd be amazed if they did anything this week in an effort to impact D-Day.
yes nice sheet - shows 1 for me that I deleted - but I aim to remove around 200 on the 2nd (not removing my entire port yet )The deactivation spread sheet is very nice... except it shows me pledging only 10. I've deactivated 26 at istock (plus 327 at stockexpert) so far. Will do more on Feb 2nd.
Providing an opt out would be a smart business decision. I hope Getty eventually realizes this.
Thanks for the update. So then yours should say 353? I will pass it along to Marina :)
Interesting quote from the Istock forums:
-----------------------------
Posted By PaulCowan:
I think I will delete at least one useless old file on the 2nd, just in case anybody is watching the numbers to see how many contributors are annoyed enough to make some minor gesture of protest.
(Edited on 2013-01-29 04:25:50 by PaulCowan)
Posted By Lobo:
Paul, we are watching everything.
I'm betting they're going to put out something on Friday afternoon, if for no other reason than to try to disrupt D-Day.
I'm betting you're going to be disappointed then. They've already had 2-3 weeks to diffuse the situation but they've essentially done nothing other than confirm what we had already discovered for ourselves.
Istock management didn't even know about the Getty/Google deal until we informed them (and they went scurrying away to find out what Getty had done). At the moment they appear powerless to intervene or help even if they wanted to.
I think Istock management will be monitoring very closely the actions of contributors on D-Day and will then use that information to hopefully influence Getty. Unfortunately I believe that Getty will only react, if at all, when they see irrefutable evidence that the Google Drive deal is hurting them in the pocket.
Historically, istock doesn't respond to threats of coordinated action. Lots of people removed images or left istock when royalty rtes were dropped, when they removed the ThinkStock opt-out for independents, etc.
Interesting quote from the Istock forums:
-----------------------------
Posted By PaulCowan:
I think I will delete at least one useless old file on the 2nd, just in case anybody is watching the numbers to see how many contributors are annoyed enough to make some minor gesture of protest.
(Edited on 2013-01-29 04:25:50 by PaulCowan)
Posted By Lobo:
Paul, we are watching everything.
What a good thought!! If enough people do at least that much delete, the message will be stronger .. although what may hurt them most will be the long term implications .. at first there's D-Day and all the noise around that - and then, it probably stands to reason that many contributors participating in D-Day will not place new content in future, thus gradually weakening the solid contributor base that exists for them. However much they replace, the dice is still going to fall in favor of their top business rivals who will receive more content from many of their seasoned (ex-) contributors.
I'm a bit late to the party today, but just wanted to agree with others that I think Paul's idea about people deleting at least one image so they know how many people are upset and paying attention is brilliant!
Istock expects a lot of reactivations after Feb. 2., from Lobo:
"I should mention, I had a discussion with folks about how reactivations are going to work in the event we see a number of people request it after the FEB 2 event. The reactivations are entirely manual so we could be looking at a considerable wait for those people to have their files brought back to the live site. I asked about bulk-reactivations and it's not likely we will have that ability. "
I'm guessing the news they will announce won't be what contributors want to hear, that's why they will release it next week.
I'm guessing the news they will announce won't be what contributors want to hear, that's why they will release it next week.
Lobo has started a new thread, 'holding' on Google but with a bit of info about deactivation over the next few weeks of all images in the MS 'promotion'.
[url]http://www.istockphoto.com/forum_messages.php?threadid=351105&page=1[/url] ([url]http://www.istockphoto.com/forum_messages.php?threadid=351105&page=1[/url])
I'm guessing the news they will announce won't be what contributors want to hear, that's why they will release it next week.
Lobo has started a new thread, 'holding' on Google but with a bit of info about deactivation over the next few weeks of all images in the MS 'promotion'.
[url]http://www.istockphoto.com/forum_messages.php?threadid=351105&page=1[/url] ([url]http://www.istockphoto.com/forum_messages.php?threadid=351105&page=1[/url])
I am reservedly hopeful, and believe that the collective actions of many outspoken contributors are to thank for this "productive dialogue with Google".
That's not stable, it's been falling rapidly as the monthly sales over there have been showing since Sept.
And see the right sidebar, earning are stable at 40%,
I'm guessing the news they will announce won't be what contributors want to hear, that's why they will release it next week.
Lobo has started a new thread, 'holding' on Google but with a bit of info about deactivation over the next few weeks of all images in the MS 'promotion'.
[url]http://www.istockphoto.com/forum_messages.php?threadid=351105&page=1[/url] ([url]http://www.istockphoto.com/forum_messages.php?threadid=351105&page=1[/url])
I am reservedly hopeful, and believe that the collective actions of many outspoken contributors are to thank for this "productive dialogue with Google".
I'm just about the opposite. The Google deal is just one (albeit awful one) case. They think they can make other such deals - premium access with a license different from the ones on the iStock sites. Even if there's some amendment to the Google deal, what about the next one? Without an opt out, it would just be a matter of waiting for the next shoe to drop
If my sales at IS over the last few days are anything to go by it might already be happening. This week my sales have fallen off a cliff, to literally about one third of what they were during the same week in January 2012. Probably just the normal ebb and flow but I wonder how others are doing?
I have a question. If you're independent, can IS still include your photos in the Google Giveaway? And if they do and you have those files at another agency, wouldn't agency #2 have a huge problem with that?
Feb 2nd is tomorrow.
But which timezone.
Greenwich mean time?
I'm guessing the news they will announce won't be what contributors want to hear, that's why they will release it next week.Exactly, if it was good news, we would of had it already. It looks like they're having to wait for Google to agree to make changes on a contract they've already signed. If Google say no, what can they do? If Google do agree to some concessions, it doesn't change much because Getty/istock have demonstrated that they don't understand the value of our images and that there's nothing they wouldn't consider to make a quick buck at our expense.
I'm wait this thread ShadySue, I'm new and don't sell in iStock.
It's outrageous that iStockphoto & Co need this level of supervision by contributors and forums like this one.+1
Good luck with the first organised contributor led action tomorrow – a little bit of Microstock history in the making.
Google Drive
Once again, we'd like to thank you for your continued patience. To reiterate from previous posts, royalties have been paid in connection with the Google Drive usage based on all consideration received by Getty Images under the licensing agreement. We understand your concerns relating to the deal and we are making progress in a productive dialogue with Google about these concerns and potential solutions. As many of you have pointed out Google is a big company, much bigger than Getty Images, and coordinating across the teams there that will help with any modifications is taking longer than we might have hoped, but things are still proceeding.
Microsoft
Based on your concerns, we have also been working with Microsoft over the past several months to bring resolution to the license that was set up in 2007. Over the next 60 days all imagery licensed as part of this promotional arrangement will be removed from the online version of Microsoft Office. Keep in mind though that all licenses that were granted by Microsoft prior to the removal of the content remain valid licenses under the terms of the Microsoft EULA. As previously explained, if you see instances where your content is being used without or contrary to the iStock or Microsoft license terms, please let us know at [email protected].
Our contributors are extremely important to us. We take very seriously our obligation of representing your creative work. While every deal is not perfect out of the gate, we strive to license your content in a financially beneficial manner and believe we largely succeed in this effort across the millions of customers and transactions completed each year. We are also working hard to make your content available to new customers in new uses through investments in marketing, technology and new business models. At the same time, we are investing heavily in technology, education and industry efforts to protect your copyrighted work and license your content responsibly.
Thanks again for your time, patience and constructive feedback.
Istock have posted an update about google & microsft deals here: [url]http://www.istockphoto.com/forum_messages.php?threadid=351105&page=1[/url] ([url]http://www.istockphoto.com/forum_messages.php?threadid=351105&page=1[/url])QuoteGoogle Drive
Once again, we'd like to thank you for your continued patience. To reiterate from previous posts, royalties have been paid in connection with the Google Drive usage based on all consideration received by Getty Images under the licensing agreement. We understand your concerns relating to the deal and we are making progress in a productive dialogue with Google about these concerns and potential solutions. As many of you have pointed out Google is a big company, much bigger than Getty Images, and coordinating across the teams there that will help with any modifications is taking longer than we might have hoped, but things are still proceeding.
Microsoft
Based on your concerns, we have also been working with Microsoft over the past several months to bring resolution to the license that was set up in 2007. Over the next 60 days all imagery licensed as part of this promotional arrangement will be removed from the online version of Microsoft Office. Keep in mind though that all licenses that were granted by Microsoft prior to the removal of the content remain valid licenses under the terms of the Microsoft EULA. As previously explained, if you see instances where your content is being used without or contrary to the iStock or Microsoft license terms, please let us know at [email protected].
Our contributors are extremely important to us. We take very seriously our obligation of representing your creative work. While every deal is not perfect out of the gate, we strive to license your content in a financially beneficial manner and believe we largely succeed in this effort across the millions of customers and transactions completed each year. We are also working hard to make your content available to new customers in new uses through investments in marketing, technology and new business models. At the same time, we are investing heavily in technology, education and industry efforts to protect your copyrighted work and license your content responsibly.
Thanks again for your time, patience and constructive feedback.
Yes, I'm the one with 2 images on GD and I'm independent. So, no protection for both!I have a question. If you're independent, can IS still include your photos in the Google Giveaway? And if they do and you have those files at another agency, wouldn't agency #2 have a huge problem with that?Apparently some independent contributors files are included in the Google deal but being independent means that other agencies don't get to have a problem with what you do elsewhere.
They've had plenty of time to make a serious response to the contributor kickback. They've now turned on the fog machines and are teasing some sort of announcement for next week, because they want to blunt the impact of the bad publicity generated by D-Day by spreading out the deactivations. The hope is that many contributors will at least delay pulling out for another week in hopes of some miracle; that will reduce the raw number of deactivations on D-Day itself, which is the only thing the trade press might report.
They've had plenty of time to make a serious response to the contributor kickback. They've now turned on the fog machines and are teasing some sort of announcement for next week, because they want to blunt the impact of the bad publicity generated by D-Day by spreading out the deactivations. The hope is that many contributors will at least delay pulling out for another week in hopes of some miracle; that will reduce the raw number of deactivations on D-Day itself, which is the only thing the trade press might report.
They've had plenty of time to make a serious response to the contributor kickback. They've now turned on the fog machines and are teasing some sort of announcement for next week, because they want to blunt the impact of the bad publicity generated by D-Day by spreading out the deactivations. The hope is that many contributors will at least delay pulling out for another week in hopes of some miracle; that will reduce the raw number of deactivations on D-Day itself, which is the only thing the trade press might report.
By working together we can send a strong message that they need to consider us more carefully and distribute our content responsibility. Although they are a giant, we have strong support of strength in numbers.
If we let this issue slide, whats next?
I have a question. If you're independent, can IS still include your photos in the Google Giveaway? And if they do and you have those files at another agency, wouldn't agency #2 have a huge problem with that?
Apparently some independent contributors files are included in the Google deal but being independent means that other agencies don't get to have a problem with what you do elsewhere.
Yes, I'm the one with 2 images on GD and I'm independent. So, no protection for both!
They've had plenty of time to make a serious response to the contributor kickback. They've now turned on the fog machines and are teasing some sort of announcement for next week, because they want to blunt the impact of the bad publicity generated by D-Day by spreading out the deactivations. The hope is that many contributors will at least delay pulling out for another week in hopes of some miracle; that will reduce the raw number of deactivations on D-Day itself, which is the only thing the trade press might report.
I sincerely believe that the reason any response is delayed is because their response will be contingent on how big a response they get to D-Day. If people who said they were going to pull images don't do it, or if there is less response than anticipated, they will NOT CHANGE ANYTHING of any significance.
We are also working hard to make your content available to new customers in new uses...I think this part of their statement says it all - time to leave.
QuoteWe are also working hard to make your content available to new customers in new uses...I think this part of their statement says it all - time to leave.
QuoteWe are also working hard to make your content available to new customers in new uses...I think this part of their statement says it all - time to leave.
...I would like to suggest that we remain banded together, on high alert, ready to move, and visible as a concerned group to the outside world. But, that we acknowledge their initial response with a stated postponement of D-Day for 2 weeks pending more information. If we have no satisfying details regarding a revised agreement with Getty as well as their policy on such deals in the future, then we move to deactivate.
...I would like to suggest that we remain banded together, on high alert, ready to move, and visible as a concerned group to the outside world. But, that we acknowledge their initial response with a stated postponement of D-Day for 2 weeks pending more information. If we have no satisfying details regarding a revised agreement with Getty as well as their policy on such deals in the future, then we move to deactivate.
I disagree.
They aren't negotiating with us - they might be listening, but I tink the policies about future deals could be there now - they've had a couple of weeks to come up with that if they were so inclined. The Google deal might need more time to refine, but in the meantime, they're not putting anything on the table at all regarding their future actions. They couldn't even throw us a bone with a list of the images included or the planned final total.
Postponing D-Day just means we're going to hear the same platitudes a couple of weeks from now, IMO.
I believe they are listening. I believe that the collective group of contributors willing to take action to protect their rights is effective. I believe we are getting somewhere.
They have indicated that they are in discussion, acknowledging that our concerns are of interest to them. That is the first step. But, a train can't stop on a dime and this is a negotiation process that will reasonably take some time.
I would like to suggest that we remain banded together, on high alert, ready to move, and visible as a concerned group to the outside world. But, that we acknowledge their initial response with a stated postponement of D-Day for 2 weeks pending more information. If we have no satisfying details regarding a revised agreement with Getty as well as their policy on such deals in the future, then we move to deactivate. That is not evidence of a weak position, but rather of a serious party in the heat of negotiation.
I only had a tiny portfolio with them which was looking to be quite a nice earner if I'd stayed long enough to build it up but I've deactivated already. Getty have proven that they cannot be trusted and only care about their own profit, the feeble 'updates' they've produced in the last few weeks are nothing more than spin, they're definitely not interested in negotiating.
Let's do it.:D But we probably have 4000 pictures of ships and 11000 pictures of planes. And I hope we deactivate them all. As the owner of one of the images on the infamous Google-Drive deal, I wish everyone in the East a happy D-Day, and everyone in the West a happy D-Day Eve.
Quoting the Generals in "The Longest Day" 24h before D-Day : Gentlemen, it's on. Next stop Normandy.
Good Luck. Pity we don't have 4000 ships and 11000 planes ...
Looks like I deactivated my portfolio (except for 1 file that has never sold) just in time!
Full speed ahead!!
Hi all. I need help please.
I wanted to start to delete my files but somehow I am to blind to find a delete button.
An advice on how to delete would be much appreciated.
Thank you.
Happy deactivation day to you all. ;D
It's been weeks and they haven't even been able to issue a coherent statement.
Thank you so much jsnover.. Maybe a heart for Jo ?
First file deactivated.
Strange but good feeling. 8)
<...>However installing Greasemonkey and the script is very easy, very fast, and doesn't have any impact on your browsing other internet page.
To use the iStock interface, bring up an image's page and at the bottom is an Administration link. Deactivate is there (you can't delete; only deactivate). You need to put in a reason so have something to paste.
My reason is I'm opting out of special "licensing" deals the only way you've left open to me
Hey, i want to deactivate my files too, but how can i do this?Click on the image then the "administration" tab, you get a deactivate option there. Alternatively use Sean's greasemonkey script.
…Google is a big company, much bigger than Getty Images, and coordinating across the teams…
"To use the iStock interface, bring up an image's page and at the bottom is an Administration link. Deactivate is there"
I see no Admin link....
?????
"To use the iStock interface, bring up an image's page and at the bottom is an Administration link. Deactivate is there"Also it is on the normal image page when logged in, not on the "edit" page, that is where I got caught out at first.
I see no Admin link....
?????
Yes, you have to click on the image thumbnail, not on "edit" or on the image NUMBER."To use the iStock interface, bring up an image's page and at the bottom is an Administration link. Deactivate is there"Also it is on the normal image page when logged in, not on the "edit" page, that is where I got caught out at first.
I see no Admin link....
??? ??
The deed is done.You won the prize for most poetic deactivation!
Reason given:
“O, what a tangled web we weave when we practice to deceive.”
by Sir Walter Scott, not Shakespeare
I'm having a little problem with the deactivation process. I used the traditional method at first and everything worked fine. I then installed Sean's Grease Monkey Script and used that. It seemed to work, but my total file count did not change and the images are still there. Does this method take longer to process?That's weird. I did a little test, but my total count goes down within seconds after deactivating a file, and I receive the deactivation e-mail within a minute.
Also for me, it worked almost instantly without any problems.I'm having a little problem with the deactivation process. I used the traditional method at first and everything worked fine. I then installed Sean's Grease Monkey Script and used that. It seemed to work, but my total file count did not change and the images are still there. Does this method take longer to process?That's weird. I did a little test, but my total count goes down within seconds after deactivating a file, and I receive the deactivation e-mail within a minute.
... this is the first step in what we hope will be a great partnership with Google.
Also for me, it worked almost instantly without any problems.I'm having a little problem with the deactivation process. I used the traditional method at first and everything worked fine. I then installed Sean's Grease Monkey Script and used that. It seemed to work, but my total file count did not change and the images are still there. Does this method take longer to process?That's weird. I did a little test, but my total count goes down within seconds after deactivating a file, and I receive the deactivation e-mail within a minute.
If Getty wants to degrade the value of Microstock Images then I guess its their prerogative. For us, the creator of these assets, the only reasonable solution is to have an opt-out option. Failing this option, leaving is the only action open to us.
The stats page disappeared (istockphoto.com/stats). Any chance to check the current situation?15:07 GMT:
@11:49 GMT - it was 12701130 / 62513.
Just checkin' :Also for me, it worked almost instantly without any problems.I'm having a little problem with the deactivation process. I used the traditional method at first and everything worked fine. I then installed Sean's Grease Monkey Script and used that. It seemed to work, but my total file count did not change and the images are still there. Does this method take longer to process?That's weird. I did a little test, but my total count goes down within seconds after deactivating a file, and I receive the deactivation e-mail within a minute.
Tried again, but same problem. Don't know what I'm doing wrong. Guess I'll just do them one at a time.
Lobo
Posted 4 mins ago
QuoteQuotePosted By amygdala_imagery:Lol. Harsh, but understandable.
i'm not certain why individuals are posting their ongoing deactivation status here...? the assertion is that you are done with istock. why are you still here on the forums? you've decided to leave. now go away so that we can continue to try and makes things better.
I'll make some decisions about that over the next hour or so. I better start stretching my hammer finger
Just checkin' :Also for me, it worked almost instantly without any problems.I'm having a little problem with the deactivation process. I used the traditional method at first and everything worked fine. I then installed Sean's Grease Monkey Script and used that. It seemed to work, but my total file count did not change and the images are still there. Does this method take longer to process?That's weird. I did a little test, but my total count goes down within seconds after deactivating a file, and I receive the deactivation e-mail within a minute.
Tried again, but same problem. Don't know what I'm doing wrong. Guess I'll just do them one at a time.
(1) You use firefox? (2) you installed not only Greastmonkey, but also Sean Locke's script(s)? (3) In Firefox, you go to your portfolio details, and you have a new column on the right handside of the page, a column where you can click "deactivate" + room for a reason? (4) You paste/type a reason + click? (5) You can see the word "deactivate" change into "executed" ? (6) When you refresh your page with F5, your image total does NOT go down?
If you said yes to all 6 questions, then I really don't know why it's not working for you.
While I do not agree entirely with the current negotiating strategy of the group, I do believe strongly in the power of a collective and, therefore, have deactivated 500 files as promised.It's not a negotiating strategy for me. I've had enough of them. They lost my trust years ago and I really don't know why I have kept all my best images with them for so many years. It feels good to no longer have to worry about what despicable thing they will do next. I hope it will make other sites think about treating us with a bit more respect but I'm not sure that will happen. Hopefully we will have a decent way to sell direct soon and then we will have some negotiating power.
While I do not agree entirely with the current negotiating strategy of the group, I do believe strongly in the power of a collective and, therefore, have deactivated 500 files as promised.It's not a negotiating strategy for me. I've had enough of them. They lost my trust years ago and I really don't know why I have kept all my best images with them for so many years. It feels good to no longer have to worry about what despicable thing they will do next. I hope it will make other sites think about treating us with a bit more respect but I'm not sure that will happen. Hopefully we will have a decent way to sell direct soon and then we will have some negotiating power.
If you wana make a sound that Istock can hear...delet you acct. thats the only way to get respect. your deactivating a few files is a joke.
I think you are wrong. Everithing is good, its a protest. And a sign. If you delete the account, why istock would concern?
. If, in the future, a new deal is made that won't give away our photos, or strip the metadata, then we'll still have an open account.
reading this thread i cant stop feeling sad. you all are acting like little children pouting cause you are being made to go to bed early, cause you were bad. and you say "well il go to bed but you can make me sleep!".
If you wana make a sound that Istock can hear...delet you acct. thats the only way to get respect. your deactivating a few files is a joke. i can here istock laughing watching ppl deactivating files. they are probably having an office party placing bets as to how fast ppl reactivate them. they know you want a bite of the carrot they dangle in front of your face and they know you wont stop trying to get a bite of it.
even if istock wanted to go back and not make this deal with google. its not up to them anymore its up to google.
and where are the big hitters who were all gung ho abt feb 2nd?, and soo very loudand pushy abt making this movement happen, pushing ppl to deactivate there act. where are they today? did they just use you to send istock a message,yet they themselves did not delet a file?? i dont se any of them on here telling us how many they deactivated???
i guess im even more of a sucker then you all, cause i did not deactivat my acct i deleted it. but i would have dun it anyway cause i know the only way to be heard is to take all your marbals an walk away from the game. thats what yo need to do. cut your losses and walk away. cause its abvious istock has a pattern of trying to get as much from us as possible and so fare always getting away with it! the only way to stop them is to not play with them.
but then there is that darn carrot to think abt hugh?!
true- yea its something (deactivation), better then nothing. but when you delete the act with the intent or preceived intent of not returnig, thenistock will be asking you back not you asking istock for something. at the very least whe nu go they cant use you anymore.
but just for the recort i HOPE this worked out and im compleatl wrong and istock says yes we are wrong yo are right and wi will fix it.
I posted this last night in the Feburary 2 thread, ([url]http://www.microstockgroup.com/istockphoto-com/february-2/msg295709/#msg295709[/url]) but I'll repeat the info here. I'll send something to Tyler asking if he can pull all the posts about actual deactivations into one so we can keep track.
I deactivated 2,496 images, leaving 153 (editorial and iStockalypse) images in my portfolio. I'm leaving it open so I can collect my PP money from January in February and keep my stats.
For all intents and purposes I have left iStock.
I blogged about it, ([url]http://www.digitalbristles.com/leaving-istock-sadly/[/url]) changed the timeline image on my Facebook page a ([url]http://www.facebook.com/photo.php?fbid=10151478935671019&set=a.10151149063076019.499682.661701018&type=1&theater[/url])nd sent out a tweet ([url]https://twitter.com/joannsnover/status/297656035244658688[/url]).
My Thinkstock image count started dropping last night while I was deactivating. Checking this morning, it's now down to 1,869 (it was 2,486 on January 28th).
reading this thread i cant stop feeling sad. you all are acting like little children pouting cause you are being made to go to bed early, cause you were bad. and you say "well il go to bed but you can make me sleep!".
If you wana make a sound that Istock can hear...delet you acct. thats the only way to get respect. your deactivating a few files is a joke. i can here istock laughing watching ppl deactivating files. they are probably having an office party placing bets as to how fast ppl reactivate them. they know you want a bite of the carrot they dangle in front of your face and they know you wont stop trying to get a bite of it.
even if istock wanted to go back and not make this deal with google. its not up to them anymore its up to google.
and where are the big hitters who were all gung ho abt feb 2nd?, and soo very loudand pushy abt making this movement happen, pushing ppl to deactivate there act. where are they today? did they just use you to send istock a message,yet they themselves did not delet a file?? i dont se any of them on here telling us how many they deactivated???
i guess im even more of a sucker then you all, cause i did not deactivat my acct i deleted it. but i would have dun it anyway cause i know the only way to be heard is to take all your marbals an walk away from the game. thats what yo need to do. cut your losses and walk away. cause its abvious istock has a pattern of trying to get as much from us as possible and so fare always getting away with it! the only way to stop them is to not play with them.
but then there is that darn carrot to think abt hugh?!
I'm keeping my account open (with 1 file in it) until PP earnings are posted so that I can request my LAST payout. I have no intention of reactivating ANYTHING! Once I get my last payout, then I'll delete my account.
I can't trust them to play by the rules and actually pay me my earnings if I delete my account now.
true- yea its something (deactivation), better then nothing. but when you delete the act with the intent or preceived intent of not returnig, thenistock will be asking you back not you asking istock for something. at the very least whe nu go they cant use you anymore.
but just for the recort i HOPE this worked out and im compleatl wrong and istock says yes we are wrong yo are right and wi will fix it.
Do you honestly believe that iStock will come crawling back and ask you to return because you deleted your account? Good luck with that....
I'm not deactivating because I don't hold iStock responsible for the Google Drive deal....they didn't even know about it ahead of time. What I did do, however, is put the final touches on getting out of Getty House and also making sure they are removing files of mine (macro RM and RF) from their affiliate sites. I'll go elsewhere with my RM stuff.
Just so we can keep things a bit organized. Remember that this thread is mostly to discuss D-day and this thread is to post your numbers count ([url]http://www.microstockgroup.com/istockphoto-com/image-deactivation-tally-for-istockphoto/[/url]). Perhaps there should have only been one thread but it is a little late now to change.
I'm sure all the links to our images going will lose them traffic. Someone searching for a specific image on Google will now find it on the other sites, not istock.
Now how do the photos come off thinkstock and photos.com? About 20% are gone. Was hoping to cash out in Feb, but looks like there will still be partener sales coming through in March.Mine are moving at a snail's pace, but they are going down - just checked and it's 1846 (down from 1869 first thing this morning - and 2486 on Jan 28)
I did a search for my xmas ball on the beach which shows up still in Google images as an iS image, just deactivated. likewise all my deactivated xmas files are still there.
Apparently the files usually come down from Google faster than they went up.I did a search for my xmas ball on the beach which shows up still in Google images as an iS image, just deactivated. likewise all my deactivated xmas files are still there.
I'm sure that once IS "sells" and image to Google, there's no way the photographer can pull it back through IS. You'd have to take action against Google. And good luck with that.
Apparently the files usually come down from Google faster than they went up.I did a search for my xmas ball on the beach which shows up still in Google images as an iS image, just deactivated. likewise all my deactivated xmas files are still there.
I'm sure that once IS "sells" and image to Google, there's no way the photographer can pull it back through IS. You'd have to take action against Google. And good luck with that.
Sorry, can't find the link just now, I'm sure it was in the exclusive forum.
The stats page disappeared (istockphoto.com/stats). Any chance to check the current situation?15:07 GMT:
@11:49 GMT - it was 12701130 / 62513.
Total files 12696943
Waiting approval 63614
Apparently the files usually come down from Google faster than they went up.I did a search for my xmas ball on the beach which shows up still in Google images as an iS image, just deactivated. likewise all my deactivated xmas files are still there.
I'm sure that once IS "sells" and image to Google, there's no way the photographer can pull it back through IS. You'd have to take action against Google. And good luck with that.
Sorry, can't find the link just now, I'm sure it was in the exclusive forum.
Really? I thought that for all practical purposes they'd been "sold" to Google. But I suppose I'm not the only one who's confused about the actual terms of this deal, or how they might be interpreted.
I certainly assumed the images were now on Google's servers. And that IS wouldn't respond to a contributor's request to remove an image by asking Google (or any other customer) to do the same.
Apparently the files usually come down from Google faster than they went up.I did a search for my xmas ball on the beach which shows up still in Google images as an iS image, just deactivated. likewise all my deactivated xmas files are still there.
I'm sure that once IS "sells" and image to Google, there's no way the photographer can pull it back through IS. You'd have to take action against Google. And good luck with that.
Sorry, can't find the link just now, I'm sure it was in the exclusive forum.
Really? I thought that for all practical purposes they'd been "sold" to Google. But I suppose I'm not the only one who's confused about the actual terms of this deal, or how they might be interpreted.
I certainly assumed the images were now on Google's servers. And that IS wouldn't respond to a contributor's request to remove an image by asking Google (or any other customer) to do the same.
Apparently the files usually come down from Google faster than they went up.I did a search for my xmas ball on the beach which shows up still in Google images as an iS image, just deactivated. likewise all my deactivated xmas files are still there.
I'm sure that once IS "sells" and image to Google, there's no way the photographer can pull it back through IS. You'd have to take action against Google. And good luck with that.
Sorry, can't find the link just now, I'm sure it was in the exclusive forum.
Really? I thought that for all practical purposes they'd been "sold" to Google. But I suppose I'm not the only one who's confused about the actual terms of this deal, or how they might be interpreted.
I certainly assumed the images were now on Google's servers. And that IS wouldn't respond to a contributor's request to remove an image by asking Google (or any other customer) to do the same.
The initial comment was about Google Images, not Google Drive. Google Images is just part of Google's web search. Those will eventually disappear once the images are removed from the web. But, it will probably take a few days or more for Google's crawler to update and not show the links to Istock anymore. However, the images that Google bought for Google Drive are an entirely different matter. Those have been licensed and likely will remain available no matter what action a contributor takes.
Had a busy weekend so didn't post, Exclusive contract cancelled.
There were many reasons but the Google Drive deal and the nasty DMCA takedown of the site showing our files in the deal tipped me over the edge.
For me its about gaining control of my IP and having the freedom to support the more ethically minded businesses out there.
Having exclusive content has given Getty way too much power and recent events have shown they are not to be trusted with it at all, so I'm out.
.....
For me its about gaining control of my IP and having the freedom to support the more ethically minded businesses out there.
Having exclusive content has given Getty way too much power and recent events have shown they are not to be trusted with it at all, so I'm out.
Who are the more ethically minded businesses out there, if I may ask?
I don't believe these are ethically minded companies, I focus on the amount of money I'm making instead.That's what I did, and they stiffed all the exclusives with the money we made them. Not always the wisest choice.
Keep us up to date on what you decide to do, where you are submitting and how it's working out for you. I know many people will be very interested.
... so there are more forward thinking companies out there.
Shouldn't Thinkstock photos be removed within 1 month of deactivation on iStock? I'm a bit confused because I had/have files on StockXpert as well. ???
Does anyone know if the StockXpert thing makes a difference?
I'll speak for myself thanks.
I'll speak for myself thanks.
Say something new then. Please, and thanks.
ETA: P.S.I hate to say I told you so.I told you so. That is all.
Nice one, this thread brings back memories :)