MicrostockGroup Sponsors


Author Topic: D-Day (Deactivation Day) on Istock - Feb 2  (Read 56767 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

« Reply #100 on: January 14, 2013, 18:49 »
0
^ 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.


« Reply #101 on: January 14, 2013, 18:51 »
+2
...and it bears representing that many of us are awaiting an answer before making concrete decisions. ...

No one here has claimed to speak for all stock photographers, or all Getty submitters or all iStock submitters.

Sorry if you don't like action that people are considering, but other than waiting, do you have any proposals?

This stock library went live in December 2012. Getty took 2 days to put together the rather uninformative forum post that went up on iStock late Friday and then has ignored the feedback completely.

They didn't promise any more information when they posted on Friday so what exactly is it you're waiting for?

No one will be foolish enough to libel or slander Getty or Google, but making the knowledge of what they're doing as broad as possible is neither.

Poncke

« Reply #102 on: January 14, 2013, 18:54 »
0
^ 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.
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.  ???

« Reply #103 on: January 14, 2013, 19:16 »
+1
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?

« Reply #104 on: January 14, 2013, 19:20 »
0
^ 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.

LOL!  I was thinking the same thing.  Surely this is a sign of the Apocalypse?! ;D

ShadySue

« Reply #105 on: January 14, 2013, 19:21 »
+2
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?

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.

CJ6

    This user is banned.
« Reply #106 on: January 14, 2013, 19:23 »
0
^ 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!

CJ6

    This user is banned.
« Reply #107 on: January 14, 2013, 19:28 »
+1
^ 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?

The indirect damage is huge as it is, without any further steals deals. If it's free, it doesn't matter whether an image is perfect, it's good enough for most people if it's close enough to what they're looking for. With 6000+ images you cover all the subjects pretty well with people being satisfied with close enough images, as long as they're free.

« Reply #108 on: January 14, 2013, 19:28 »
0

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.

Thanks for the update Liz.  In the absence of any further meaningful communication from Getty, I think we are all on our own to decide what to do. 

Like Gostwyck and Stacy, I am very interested to see what the big guns do.  It will probably be something behind the scenes, because if lawyers are involved, which they must surely be, they will have advised that people not post about their plans in a public forum.  It may take quite awhile - months - for this to play out. 

Meanwhile, our content is vulnerable.  I plan to participate in sending a group message.  I plan to be as public about that as possible and I plan to welcome anyone else who wants to join in. 

Everyone is free to do what they like, even if that is nothing at all. 
« Last Edit: January 14, 2013, 19:32 by lisafx »

« Reply #109 on: January 14, 2013, 19:30 »
0
^ 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...?

CJ6

    This user is banned.
« Reply #110 on: January 14, 2013, 19:34 »
+1
^ 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...?

Of course not! SNP. Sorry for not being absolutely clear.

ETA: wow now I see how my post is confusing; I used Cathy's phrase "concrete answers".

But I quoted a few of SNP's post, always strongly disagreeing with her
« Last Edit: January 14, 2013, 19:37 by CJ6 »

« Reply #111 on: January 14, 2013, 19:42 »
+1
I saw some Getty photogs' who I know who had their photos on the list and let them know.

I have a very tiny portfolio on iStock, under 50 photos, but I'll deactivate a chunk of those I've added in the last 18 months 25 - negligible number I know but I want to support this action. Since my port's so small I don't get a payout very regularly so I want to leave some pix to be sure I get what I've earned. It's a shame, I was ready to upload about 100 new photos & more than triple my portfolio after barely adding anything in 2012 - because sales were picking up for me  - it's too bad they want to destroy the value of our photos. As if what we earn per sale already isn't small enough - but it does add up - 0x0=0 though - big difference.

Total is now 10,645. Over the 10,000 mark - but it would be great to see some more of the really big producers involved.

CJ6

    This user is banned.
« Reply #112 on: January 14, 2013, 19:48 »
+3
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.

« Reply #113 on: January 14, 2013, 19:49 »
+1
I doubt that threatening to delete files will have much effect, but it's about all the small players can do. I've already deleted all my model released photo files when this first came to light as I simply don't trust istock/Getty anymore, whatever they say as they have proved themselves so untrustworthy. The other photo files up at istock I don't care so much about, but I may delete all my illustrations. I'll hold off until Feb 2 doing that, so I can join in to the Great Delete.

It's easy for me to do as it's just toy money (but the last month it hasn't even been coffee money let alone toys, so it makes it easier still). Not so easy for those who depend on istock for income - but the way things are going I can't see that income holding up to anything even for the full timers. Getty seem to have nailed their colours to the mast for treating the photos as their own personal property and there is no future in that for image creators.

« Reply #114 on: January 14, 2013, 20:04 »
0
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.


July 2012 (http://hunchmag.com/interview-yuri-arcurs-the-top-selling-microstock-photographer/)

- 8 Million $
- 10k files sold per day
- over 100 employees

October 2012 (http://www.microstockgroup.com/selling-direct/today-is-a-good-day-peopleimages-com-is-up-up-up!/)

- 11900$ (357k $ x 12 = 4.28 M $)

why leaving 8 Million ?

(BTW his portfolio link isn't working here, http://www.dreamstime.com/yuri-arcurs_info)
« Last Edit: January 14, 2013, 20:13 by luissantos84 »

« Reply #115 on: January 14, 2013, 20:07 »
+3
Getting ready to sign off for the evening and go have a real life, if I can concentrate while I am worried about this situation, that is.

But I just wanted to say a big Woo Yay for everybody who is already taking down images, and/or planning to participate in D-Day.  There is hope for this industry yet, if we can all work together to protect our intellectual property.  Lot of courageous and principled people here.  :)

« Reply #116 on: January 14, 2013, 20:09 »
0
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.

Exactly!  Every agency should be concerned about Istock's actions.  This affects every contributor and every agency, regardless of their inclusion in this initial deal. 

« Reply #117 on: January 14, 2013, 21:45 »
+4
Already cancelled exclusivity on jan 2nd because of refund stuff And tanking sales. Then this stuff happens, and makes me glad i did it when I did.  Also I find it funny how when I voiced my opinion in the forums over these latest issues.  My downloads completely stopped.  Today has been 6 days without 1 single download.   Like really!!!  Good thing they don't mess with people's ports when they speak out in the forums against iStock/Getty.   6 days 0 dls.   I crap you not
« Last Edit: January 14, 2013, 21:48 by sshaw »

Microstock Man

  • microstockman.com

« Reply #118 on: January 14, 2013, 21:56 »
0
Quote
(BTW his portfolio link isn't working here, http://www.dreamstime.com/yuri-arcurs_info)


wow thats strange. Yet his images are easily found...

http://www.dreamstime.com/royalty-free-stock-images-business-man-stretching-his-hand-handshake-image10130379

Could he have done the dash from DT?

Would be very interesting to get his thoughts on this whole debacle. Yuri, you out there?

« Reply #119 on: January 14, 2013, 22:10 »
0
If you look through the portfolios of the top 10 iStock contributors, nearly all of them added new images in December and January. What message does that send to iStock/Getty and tell you about the continued commitment of iStock's top selling contributors despite falling sales, shake-ups, shake-downs, unethical Getty practices, etc?

I guess none of the top deck will be joining this little tea party because they know where their bread is buttered.

So while this group will be deleting, they will be adding.
« Last Edit: January 14, 2013, 22:16 by iStop »

« Reply #120 on: January 14, 2013, 22:26 »
+4
^ 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.

The fact that my actions may not make any difference to Getty survival is not as important to me as protecting the value of my images. Getty dictate and while I observe, my only course of action is to abandon ship...what else can I do..I have nothing against iStock, but I will not risk to lose my images just because iStock are nice people.

Getty have been continuously devaluing the RF industry and their contributors since they acquired iStock .

So no, it is not about Getty, it is about my images.

« Reply #121 on: January 14, 2013, 22:44 »
0
Quote
(BTW his portfolio link isn't working here, http://www.dreamstime.com/yuri-arcurs_info)


wow thats strange. Yet his images are easily found...

http://www.dreamstime.com/royalty-free-stock-images-business-man-stretching-his-hand-handshake-image10130379


If I had to guess, they don't want him promoting his own web site from his DT profile page so they disabled it.

« Reply #122 on: January 14, 2013, 23:09 »
+2

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. 


I'm in - will deactivate certain number of my files on this date.  In the reason do we write 'Deactivate day' or what? Great initiative .. that may not only send a resounding message but also become a forerunner as a meaningful action platform for microstockers!!  :)

« Reply #123 on: January 14, 2013, 23:44 »
+1
You can count me in.  Removed the majority of my images in 2011 and the remaining images containing people a few daya ago.

Will disable the remaining 500 next month, thou I may take them down sooner, need to sleep on it.  Sean thankyou for the script, it will make it easier to wade through the rest.

« Reply #124 on: January 14, 2013, 23:52 »
+2
This concerted action of microstock contributors can be only the beginning - otherwise it wont change a thing. Because the Getty campaign was just the beginning, too, IMO.

So every single image counts, every single little needle stinging the bum of the agencies is important. I never cared much about IS, because never felt comfy there, so my portfolio is close to nothing - and so my contribution to D-Day are only 20 images, half of the portfolio and the best selling ones. And as soon as I get my payment, I delete the rest.

But whenever there is a plan to make another statement somewhere else, I am in again - with my full support and some hundred images. Because doing nothing and keep my mouth shut is like accepting the immorality and the greed of those companies with their own personal legislation. And even if I cant change it - now - I feel better to do something to stop anarchic acting companies, to give other people a good example and a motivation to stand up for their rights - anywhere and anytime.

So, where are we now? I lost track. Just add another 20 images and another fellow on your side.


 

Related Topics

  Subject / Started by Replies Last post
13 Replies
2656 Views
Last post November 20, 2010, 09:14
by ShadySue
4 Replies
3037 Views
Last post February 28, 2011, 17:43
by click_click
17 Replies
1710 Views
Last post January 15, 2013, 08:21
by jtyler
494 Replies
30048 Views
Last post March 22, 2013, 16:57
by Lizard
35 Replies
1274 Views
Last post November 22, 2013, 14:24
by BaldricksTrousers

Sponsors

Microstock Poll Results

Sponsors