MicrostockGroup Sponsors


Author Topic: D-Day (Deactivation Day) on Istock - Feb 2  (Read 56635 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

« Reply #75 on: January 14, 2013, 17:15 »
-1
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.


CJ6

    This user is banned.
« Reply #76 on: January 14, 2013, 17:17 »
+1
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 ;)

ShadySue

« Reply #77 on: January 14, 2013, 17:19 »
0
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.

CJ6

    This user is banned.
« Reply #78 on: January 14, 2013, 17:20 »
0
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.

We wouldn't expect anything more from someone working for free for the Getty empire ;) . You're a loyal servant, I hope you get rewarded somehow ;)

« Reply #79 on: January 14, 2013, 17:29 »
+1
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.

Well... I guess I am certainly not speaking for you....I guess if I like what the majority stand for and I feel and experience what they're saying than I will speak for the majority. .else whats the point? 
« Last Edit: January 14, 2013, 17:44 by cybernesco »

« Reply #80 on: January 14, 2013, 17:29 »
+4
go out into the world and libel a company in a rant.

It's libel only if it's not true.


« Reply #81 on: January 14, 2013, 17:30 »
+6
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.

« Reply #82 on: January 14, 2013, 17:35 »
0
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 was thinking the same thing.  A million would send a message...and a million of their meatiest images.

« Reply #83 on: January 14, 2013, 17:39 »
-2
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.


Poncke

« Reply #84 on: January 14, 2013, 17:44 »
+2
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.
Its all being worked on, in case you missed it.

« Reply #85 on: January 14, 2013, 17:45 »
+4
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 :)

gillian

  • *Gillian*

« Reply #86 on: January 14, 2013, 17:49 »
+2
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
very well said and exactly the reason why we should ALL be worried, regardless of our images being on Google Drive or not. And they are training people to expect free images, how sustainable is that?

« Reply #87 on: January 14, 2013, 17:50 »
0
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.

« Reply #88 on: January 14, 2013, 17:51 »
+1
Feb 2nd projected total is now 10,620

We do need a million to make a dent

gillian

  • *Gillian*

« Reply #89 on: January 14, 2013, 17:55 »
+5
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.

no disrespect, but what are you doing in a community forum if you want to go it alone?

« Reply #90 on: January 14, 2013, 18:03 »
-5
^ 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.

« Reply #91 on: January 14, 2013, 18:11 »
+3
^ 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.

« Reply #92 on: January 14, 2013, 18:13 »
+2
I dont know if anyone suggested this already but wouldn`t it be great to contact any news agencies to announce D-Day?

News coverage would put some more pressure on iStock.

Unfortunately I have no experience with this or have any contacts in the news industry but maybe someone here on the forums can pull some strings.

Twitter and facebook should be utilized to the max as well.

« Reply #93 on: January 14, 2013, 18:19 »
+3
^ 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?
« Last Edit: January 14, 2013, 18:23 by cybernesco »

gillian

  • *Gillian*

« Reply #94 on: January 14, 2013, 18:22 »
+1
^ 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.

« Reply #95 on: January 14, 2013, 18:28 »
0


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 :)
[/quote]

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...

ShadySue

« Reply #96 on: January 14, 2013, 18:30 »
0
it bears representing that many of us are awaiting an answer before making concrete decisions.

We got an answer, inter alia:
"There have been copyright concerns raised specifically around the right click functionality and lack of embedded metadata within the Google platform, although not ideal from some perspectives this is fairly standard practice for this type of product placement. Lack of attribution has also been mentioned, but this being a license deal rather than a promotional arrangement attribution is not typical or required."
As though the mighty Getty could ot have required right click disabling, retention of copyright metadata and requirement for attribution, although the latter is more honoured in the breach than in the observance.

"Google is an important partner for us and we have many innovative licensing arrangements with them in place and in negotiations. "
despite him having said above that:
"There may eventually be additional content added to this pool/agreement, but at the moment there are no concrete plans"

OP http://www.istockphoto.com/forum_messages.php?threadid=350491&page=1

Even if they spent all weekend sipping Malibus on the beach, it's now 16:25 Calgary time, time enough for them to spin us some more.

NB, at the first school I taught in, back in 1979, when pupils were caught out lying, their first defence was an indignant, "It wisnae a lie, it wis a spin", meaning, "if you were daft enough to believe it, that's your lookout. The derivation is 'spinning a yarn'.
Seems MrErin has taken over from RogerMexico as iStock's official spindoctor. What a demoralising job.


« Reply #97 on: January 14, 2013, 18:34 »
0
FTFY:
Quote
this is fairly standard practice for this type of ripoff.

gillian

  • *Gillian*

« Reply #98 on: January 14, 2013, 18:36 »
0
well it's quarter to 5 on Monday in Calgary, has there been any response from them today?

« Reply #99 on: January 14, 2013, 18:45 »
+1
^ 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.


 

Related Topics

  Subject / Started by Replies Last post
13 Replies
2652 Views
Last post November 20, 2010, 09:14
by ShadySue
4 Replies
3033 Views
Last post February 28, 2011, 17:43
by click_click
17 Replies
1703 Views
Last post January 15, 2013, 08:21
by jtyler
494 Replies
29978 Views
Last post March 22, 2013, 16:57
by Lizard
35 Replies
1265 Views
Last post November 22, 2013, 14:24
by BaldricksTrousers

Sponsors

Microstock Poll Results

Sponsors