Fantastic idea for a thread Denis!  Really inspiring to see so many media outlets picking up this story.

Quote from: oxman on January 17, 2013, 16:16

The problem with all the PR on this issue is that it will drive "buyers" to Google Drive to snag free images. Sorta like free advertising.

it is a double edged sword of the worst kind.

OX
...the drain spins faster

I completely disagree.  I'll acknowledge this may send casual users (housewives, students), running to google drive to grab these images while they can (before they become entangled in a lawsuit, for example). 

But this is sending a very loud clear warning to designers and other commercial users, who make up the bulk of our paying customers.  Nobody is going to want to use a free image for a client that may end up getting them sued by the copyright holder, or model, or need to be removed later.  Not when they can properly license the same or a similar image through a micro site for a few dollars.

Very good point Lisa.  Perhaps our efforts should be directed at letting buyers know.  I wonder what a two page spread in Photoshop users and Layers would cost.  Probably less than a law suit or starting a new site.

I tried that link and it appears to be dysfunctional.  Tried to open twice - from the link and after saving it.  Sean could you post it here?

Quote from: MichaelJayFoto on January 14, 2013, 15:35

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.

It is OK if you have  a properly prepared legal document of transfer.

I've got black diamond status, but it doesn't really mean much these. Gold members can easily outsell black diamonds. The canister program is now out of date and for the most part irrelevant.

Actual sales figures are a different story, and by the look of it, it looks like this month could be 20 - 25% less in sales then expected. That is a lot. I try not to complain. Last year my sales dropped in October by 20% and that was the first time ever. Prior to that, I always saw constant growth. So I was a little bummed out, but 2011 looked to be recovering. Not anymore.

My guess has always been that declining sales was a result of overly aggressive pricing for Agency files (250 credits) and Vetta files (150 credits). This suggests that iStock has lost sight of it's values as being a simple, good value image market.

Also, more recently, and this was based on the survey results (obviously), the newer files were given more room up front in the searches. This hurt a lot of seasoned artists and benefitted the newer ones. But now, even the newer artists are suffering from less sales.

I'm really curious to see how the management will respond...

Well, they have started putting back our missing royalties, but who has any idea that they are accurate. I would not expect any reply unless you know who comes back to tell IS'ers what a great year it was, and Oh BTW we are cutting your royalty as this unsustainable. It used to be "Pride goeth before a fall", but in this day and age in the American and Global economy "Greed goeth before a fall" seems more accurate.