MicrostockGroup

Top Tier - Big 4 => iStockPhoto.com => Topic started by: Jo Ann Snover on July 14, 2016, 10:43

Title: Getty e-mail about iStock "Contributor Facing Changes"
Post by: Jo Ann Snover on July 14, 2016, 10:43
I received e-mail from Getty this morning and over the next month or two they'll be removing the ability to edit keywords, titles or descriptions after acceptance. Perhaps more importantly, you won't be able to delete your own work any more - you'll have to contact support.

"Please note that we will only consider deactivating files for legal or similar justifiable reasons as it provides a negative experience for customers when files are suddenly unavailable for license. "

I've always considered the inability to delete my own files a pretty big red flag for any agency (after some bad experiences with now-defunct startups). I can live with Alamy's 6 month wait given their business model (and you don't have to justify anything, just wait).

Seems to me that Getty wants to sell at micro prices for rock bottom royalties but have all the red tape and restrictions of the higher priced macro business.

Contributor e-mails are now coming from e(dot)gettyimages(dot)com so if any of you use whitelists, you'll want to add that (an earlier piece of mail from them was ID'd as spam as I only had gettyimages(dot)com on the whitelist.
Title: Re: Getty e-mail about iStock "Contributor Facing Changes"
Post by: PhotoLA on July 14, 2016, 10:49
Yeah, pretty crazy. Not being able to delete your own files and also not being able to change any of your keywords or descriptions after you've uploaded.
Title: Re: Getty e-mail about iStock "Contributor Facing Changes"
Post by: Justanotherphotographer on July 14, 2016, 10:55
It's not only that we can't directly delete our own files (which is bad enough but not unique) it's that they will refuse to delete our files if they wish!!!!!!!!!

"Please note that we will only consider deactivating files for legal or similar justifiable reasons as it provides a negative experience for customers when files are suddenly unavailable for license."

This is way too far. They are taking ownership of our content. There's no excuse for this.
Title: Re: Getty e-mail about iStock "Contributor Facing Changes"
Post by: Justanotherphotographer on July 14, 2016, 10:56
They could change their terms or compensation level to whatever they like and refuse to delete our content. The announcement says as much, they will only consider deleting them for legal reasons. Not because we may not like changes they have made.
Title: Re: Getty e-mail about iStock "Contributor Facing Changes"
Post by: Jogga0 on July 14, 2016, 10:57
Think I will delete all my files now while I still can, prefer to have control over my work!
Title: Re: Getty e-mail about iStock "Contributor Facing Changes"
Post by: senicphoto on July 14, 2016, 11:15
I have no doubt this is illegal but likely won't be challenged in court. If at any point Getty decide to sell our content for 25C per image you will have no say or ability to refuse this type of business relation with agency. Personally, I refuse to conduct business with Getty on these terms therefore as of today I am in process of removing my content from IStock ...   
Title: Re: Getty e-mail about iStock "Contributor Facing Changes"
Post by: Tror on July 14, 2016, 11:37
Anybody knows the wording regarding a complete deletion of the account?

If you cannot delete individual files you might still be able to delete the whole thing if they apply changes to the conditions you do not like.
Title: Re: Getty e-mail about iStock "Contributor Facing Changes"
Post by: senicphoto on July 14, 2016, 11:44
Anybody knows the wording regarding a complete deletion of the account?

If you cannot delete individual files you might still be able to delete the whole thing if they apply changes to the conditions you do not like.

Not possible ... btw what you mean by "if they apply changes to the conditions you do not like"? They're pretty clear what changes will be introduced ... what portion of that anyone will like?
Title: Re: Getty e-mail about iStock "Contributor Facing Changes"
Post by: Tror on July 14, 2016, 11:47
Anybody knows the wording regarding a complete deletion of the account?

If you cannot delete individual files you might still be able to delete the whole thing if they apply changes to the conditions you do not like.

Not possible ... btw what you mean by "if they apply changes to the conditions you do not like"? They're pretty clear what changes will be introduced ... what portion of that anyone will like?

I mean that e.g. if they reduce royalties in a year from now and you do not agree with that. Not talking about the current changes but the ones they might apply one day.

What do you mean with "not possible"? You cannot delete your istock account?

From the TOS of istock (Section 11):
"This Agreement is effective until terminated. You may terminate this Agreement at any time by giving thirty (30) days written notice to iStock using artists@iStock.com or such other means of written notice acceptable to iStock which enables confirmation of your identity and your intention to terminate."
Title: Re: Getty e-mail about iStock "Contributor Facing Changes"
Post by: ShadySue on July 14, 2016, 11:59
"Please note that we will only consider deactivating files for legal or similar justifiable reasons as it provides a negative experience for customers when files are suddenly unavailable for license. "
Since when did they care about negative experiences for customers?
... when the site is down (again?)
... when you get logged out in the middle of doing something?
... when files are extremely poorly keyworded leading to spammy searches?
... when the site doesn't 'hold' your preferences when searching, so that you have to keep choosing your parameters again and again
... when their own system somehow adds, subtracts or conflates keywords, in some cases totally wrongly.
... when inexplicably files show up wrongly in a search, and the keyword you searched on isn't in their keywords at all
... when the SEO titling experiment went badly wrong, and the eternal optimists with heads in the sand who signed up for it haven't been able to correct them in over a year despite many pleas and promises?
... when they removed descriptions?
... how long have you got?

Not happy about this, but then which recent-ish changes have been positive for contributors?
Title: Re: Getty e-mail about iStock "Contributor Facing Changes"
Post by: senicphoto on July 14, 2016, 11:59
Anybody knows the wording regarding a complete deletion of the account?

If you cannot delete individual files you might still be able to delete the whole thing if they apply changes to the conditions you do not like.

Not possible ... btw what you mean by "if they apply changes to the conditions you do not like"? They're pretty clear what changes will be introduced ... what portion of that anyone will like?

I mean that e.g. if they reduce royalties in a year from now and you do not agree with that. Not talking about the current changes but the ones they might apply one day.

What do you mean with "not possible"? You cannot delete your istock account?

From the TOS of istock (Section 11):
"This Agreement is effective until terminated. You may terminate this Agreement at any time by giving thirty (30) days written notice to iStock using artists@iStock.com or such other means of written notice acceptable to iStock which enables confirmation of your identity and your intention to terminate."

I hope you're right. In that case you gotta move pretty fast because changes will take effect on August 20th which leaves you 5 weeks to delete/cancel the account.
Title: Re: Getty e-mail about iStock "Contributor Facing Changes"
Post by: Tror on July 14, 2016, 12:02
Anybody knows the wording regarding a complete deletion of the account?

If you cannot delete individual files you might still be able to delete the whole thing if they apply changes to the conditions you do not like.

Not possible ... btw what you mean by "if they apply changes to the conditions you do not like"? They're pretty clear what changes will be introduced ... what portion of that anyone will like?

I mean that e.g. if they reduce royalties in a year from now and you do not agree with that. Not talking about the current changes but the ones they might apply one day.

What do you mean with "not possible"? You cannot delete your istock account?

From the TOS of istock (Section 11):
"This Agreement is effective until terminated. You may terminate this Agreement at any time by giving thirty (30) days written notice to iStock using artists@iStock.com or such other means of written notice acceptable to iStock which enables confirmation of your identity and your intention to terminate."

I hope you're right. In that case you gotta move pretty fast because changes will take effect on August 20th which leaves you 5 weeks to delete/cancel the account.

I don`t think so. Please correct me if I am wrong, but as I understand it they just refuse to deactivate files from the portfolio. Terminating the agreement and deleting the whole account is another beast and should not be affected by that.
Title: Re: Getty e-mail about iStock "Contributor Facing Changes"
Post by: senicphoto on July 14, 2016, 12:09
Anybody knows the wording regarding a complete deletion of the account?

If you cannot delete individual files you might still be able to delete the whole thing if they apply changes to the conditions you do not like.

Not possible ... btw what you mean by "if they apply changes to the conditions you do not like"? They're pretty clear what changes will be introduced ... what portion of that anyone will like?

I mean that e.g. if they reduce royalties in a year from now and you do not agree with that. Not talking about the current changes but the ones they might apply one day.

What do you mean with "not possible"? You cannot delete your istock account?

From the TOS of istock (Section 11):
"This Agreement is effective until terminated. You may terminate this Agreement at any time by giving thirty (30) days written notice to iStock using artists@iStock.com or such other means of written notice acceptable to iStock which enables confirmation of your identity and your intention to terminate."

I hope you're right. In that case you gotta move pretty fast because changes will take effect on August 20th which leaves you 5 weeks to delete/cancel the account.

I don`t think so. Please correct me if I am wrong, but as I understand it they just refuse to deactivate files from the portfolio. Terminating the agreement and deleting the whole account is another beast and should not be affected by that.

Do you have any legal document that points out that account termination won't be affected by this. I don't but being IStock contributor since 2005 I learned my lesson not to trust IStock or Getty. It comes down to personal decision. I'm not waiting for some future shocker or hoping for the best ... I'm in process of removing the content because I'm trully fed up with these vampires.   
Title: Re: Getty e-mail about iStock "Contributor Facing Changes"
Post by: etudiante_rapide on July 14, 2016, 12:13
Do you have any legal document that points out that account termination won't be affected by this. I don't but being IStock contributor since 2005 I learned my lesson not to trust IStock or Getty. It comes down to personal decision. I'm not waiting for some future shocker or hoping for the best ... I'm in process of removing the content because I'm trully fed up with these vampires.   

lol, with ss this nice, and getty even nicer,
this month looks like a gift to stock photography.

maybe, just maybe , the main shareholder of ss is getty.
wipe out the competition like they did with istock

and start all over again from zero.
Title: Re: Getty e-mail about iStock "Contributor Facing Changes"
Post by: nitrus on July 14, 2016, 12:23
I can't find anything on their forum about this so I was wondering if this means that istock is going to disappear. Will our images be on Getty instead of istock, I don't think Getty contributors would be happy about that. What will happen to exclusives, are they still going to exist or are they out the window. Presumably the only way to get your files off there if you don't like what they are doing would be to do something bad and get booted, they would view that as a punishment or maybe they would just keep the files and say they belonged to them...
Title: Re: Getty e-mail about iStock "Contributor Facing Changes"
Post by: Lana on July 14, 2016, 12:44
I started with IS exactly 2 years ago - can I still delete all the crap I uploaded there in the beginning or is it too late? I always meant to do it..

And do I get it right that it is already not possible to edit keywords?  :(
Title: Re: Getty e-mail about iStock "Contributor Facing Changes"
Post by: Karen on July 14, 2016, 12:44
I can't find anything on their forum about this so I was wondering if this means that istock is going to disappear.
Also no word about Thinkstock and the partner program.
Looks like Getty is simplifying their over complicated system.
Nobody there is able to handle this mountain of crap anymore.
Title: Re: Getty e-mail about iStock "Contributor Facing Changes"
Post by: kaboom on July 14, 2016, 12:49
I started with IS exactly 2 years ago - can I still delete all the crap I uploaded there in the beginning or is it too late? I always meant to do it..

And do I get it right that it is already not possible to edit keywords?  :(

We should be able to delete images until 20th August. I deleted a couple of images today without problems. I also tried editing keywords and I was still able to (I dont know if 20th August is also the date for editing keywords though...).
Title: Re: Getty e-mail about iStock "Contributor Facing Changes"
Post by: skyfish on July 14, 2016, 12:50
Thinking to delete the files. Every agency in difficulties tries to keep uploads in any way. How many examples already were published about sales after account closing?
Title: Re: Getty e-mail about iStock "Contributor Facing Changes"
Post by: ShadySue on July 14, 2016, 12:59
I can't find anything on their forum about this
What? It's a sticky on the very top of the discussion forum.
Title: Re: Getty e-mail about iStock "Contributor Facing Changes"
Post by: polar on July 14, 2016, 13:00
I started with IS exactly 2 years ago - can I still delete all the crap I uploaded there in the beginning or is it too late? I always meant to do it..

And do I get it right that it is already not possible to edit keywords?  :(

We should be able to delete images until 20th August. I deleted a couple of images today without problems. I also tried editing keywords and I was still able to (I dont know if 20th August is also the date for editing keywords though...).

I think you're actually "deactivating" them, not deleting them. Keep in mind that iStock can and has sold deactivated files.
Title: Re: Getty e-mail about iStock "Contributor Facing Changes"
Post by: Lana on July 14, 2016, 13:01
I started with IS exactly 2 years ago - can I still delete all the crap I uploaded there in the beginning or is it too late? I always meant to do it..

And do I get it right that it is already not possible to edit keywords?  :(

We should be able to delete images until 20th August. I deleted a couple of images today without problems. I also tried editing keywords and I was still able to (I dont know if 20th August is also the date for editing keywords though...).

Their message seem to say the edited keywords are already not reflected in the search anymore..
Title: Re: Getty e-mail about iStock "Contributor Facing Changes"
Post by: Mantis on July 14, 2016, 13:02
I sent a site email to them asking if we can still freely close our accounts after the new terms are in affect or does closing your account equate to deactivation and we are at their mercy to give us permission to close our accounts. I want clarity so I can move to take action prior to August 20.
Title: Re: Getty e-mail about iStock "Contributor Facing Changes"
Post by: kaboom on July 14, 2016, 13:06
I started with IS exactly 2 years ago - can I still delete all the crap I uploaded there in the beginning or is it too late? I always meant to do it..

And do I get it right that it is already not possible to edit keywords?  :(

We should be able to delete images until 20th August. I deleted a couple of images today without problems. I also tried editing keywords and I was still able to (I dont know if 20th August is also the date for editing keywords though...).

I think you're actually "deactivating" them, not deleting them. Keep in mind that iStock can and has sold deactivated files.

Yes, well, that is the term they use. I have deactivated a lot of images in last couple of years and they always disappeared from my iStock port and Thinkstock port within next day... there is no way for me to find out if they sold them after deactivation since we dont have further control over it :-/
Title: Re: Getty e-mail about iStock "Contributor Facing Changes"
Post by: Pauws99 on July 14, 2016, 13:11
Do you have any legal document that points out that account termination won't be affected by this. I don't but being IStock contributor since 2005 I learned my lesson not to trust IStock or Getty. It comes down to personal decision. I'm not waiting for some future shocker or hoping for the best ... I'm in process of removing the content because I'm trully fed up with these vampires.   

lol, with ss this nice, and getty even nicer,
this month looks like a gift to stock photography.

maybe, just maybe , the main shareholder of ss is getty.
wipe out the competition like they did with istock

and start all over again from zero.
I doubt it very much getty has a mountain of debt and SS is sitting on a pile of cash.......
Title: Re: Getty e-mail about iStock "Contributor Facing Changes"
Post by: PixelBytes on July 14, 2016, 13:14
I sent a site email to them asking if we can still freely close our accounts after the new terms are in affect or does closing your account equate to deactivation and we are at their mercy to give us permission to close our accounts. I want clarity so I can move to take action prior to August 20.

Yes, this is key.  They cannot legally prevent us from closing our accounts and hold our images hostage.  We are still the copyright holders!
Title: Re: Getty e-mail about iStock "Contributor Facing Changes"
Post by: etudiante_rapide on July 14, 2016, 13:19
I sent a site email to them asking if we can still freely close our accounts after the new terms are in affect or does closing your account equate to deactivation and we are at their mercy to give us permission to close our accounts. I want clarity so I can move to take action prior to August 20.

Yes, this is key.  They cannot legally prevent us from closing our accounts and hold our images hostage.  We are still the copyright holders!

so what does that mean ???
there is going to be a class suit taken by all contributors who had deactivated their port???

who owns the images these days , really???
if you live in a country where ownership of the photos are automatic,
photographers can gather together to get Getty to delete their images.

why is it so diificult to claim ownership of your own work and regain control of how youwant iit used???
Title: Re: Getty e-mail about iStock "Contributor Facing Changes"
Post by: etudiante_rapide on July 14, 2016, 13:20
I doubt it very much getty has a mountain of debt and SS is sitting on a pile of cash.......
[/quote]

who is sitting on a pile of cash in ss???
it is only until we all short the stocks???
Title: Re: Getty e-mail about iStock "Contributor Facing Changes"
Post by: drd on July 14, 2016, 13:21
I can see where this is going... after 20th august exclusive files will go into essentials and no one will be able to do anthing about.
Title: Re: Getty e-mail about iStock "Contributor Facing Changes"
Post by: ShadySue on July 14, 2016, 13:23
I can see where this is going... after 20th august exclusive files will go into essentials and no one will be able to do anthing about.
Because the price difference is 'too confusing' for buyers.

Could be, or any number of other undesirable scenarios down the line.
As we've said so often, it's death by a thousand cuts.
Title: Re: Getty e-mail about iStock "Contributor Facing Changes"
Post by: Rose Tinted Glasses on July 14, 2016, 13:27
I can see where this is going... after 20th august exclusive files will go into essentials and no one will be able to do anthing about.

I see it going the other direction. I think they are paving the way for exclusive content to become image exclusive and slowly phase out contributors who are non-exclusive. After all, if you don't show a commitment from your end, why should they show commitment from their end. I think it makes sense to not be able to delete an image on a whim, or to change keywords after the fact. I think they are cleaning house to be more competitive for the long term in an ever evolving industry.

Title: Re: Getty e-mail about iStock "Contributor Facing Changes"
Post by: drd on July 14, 2016, 13:32
As we've said so often, it's death by a thousand cuts.

Or, there might be another September announcement which will provoke mass deactivations.
Title: Re: Getty e-mail about iStock "Contributor Facing Changes"
Post by: Pauws99 on July 14, 2016, 13:32
I can see where this is going... after 20th august exclusive files will go into essentials and no one will be able to do anthing about.

I see it going the other direction. I think they are paving the way for exclusive content to become image exclusive and slowly phase out contributors who are non-exclusive. After all, if you don't show a commitment from your end, why should they show commitment from their end. I think it makes sense to not be able to delete an image on a whim, or to change keywords after the fact. I think they are cleaning house to be more competitive for the long term in an ever evolving industry.
you chose your name wisely....the exclusive model seems to me to have comprehensively failed but we will see I guess
Title: Re: Getty e-mail about iStock "Contributor Facing Changes"
Post by: PixelBytes on July 14, 2016, 13:46
As we've said so often, it's death by a thousand cuts.

Or, there might be another September announcement which will provoke mass deactivations.

Based on past experience,  I  would bet on this scenario.
Title: Re: Getty e-mail about iStock "Contributor Facing Changes"
Post by: drd on July 14, 2016, 13:50
I can see where this is going... after 20th august exclusive files will go into essentials and no one will be able to do anthing about.

I see it going the other direction. I think they are paving the way for exclusive content to become image exclusive and slowly phase out contributors who are non-exclusive. After all, if you don't show a commitment from your end, why should they show commitment from their end. I think it makes sense to not be able to delete an image on a whim, or to change keywords after the fact. I think they are cleaning house to be more competitive for the long term in an ever evolving industry.


Seeing that despite my commitment to shoot/keyword/upload regularly only a small amount of images compared to previous years are selected for the S+ collection, proves that you might be wrong. They are cleaning exclusives out of the house.
After all it comes down to how much % share they get after each E, S or S+ image.
Title: Re: Getty e-mail about iStock "Contributor Facing Changes"
Post by: trek on July 14, 2016, 13:54
As we've said so often, it's death by a thousand cuts.

Or, there might be another September announcement which will provoke mass deactivations.

Based on past experience,  I  would bet on this scenario.

Sounds like they're getting ready for the next D-Day. 
Title: Re: Getty e-mail about iStock "Contributor Facing Changes"
Post by: Karen on July 14, 2016, 14:24
As we've said so often, it's death by a thousand cuts.

Or, there might be another September announcement which will provoke mass deactivations.

Based on past experience,  I  would bet on this scenario.

Sounds like they're getting ready for the next D-Day.
They are ready for D-day - contributors won't be able to deactivate their own photos.
Title: Re: Getty e-mail about iStock "Contributor Facing Changes"
Post by: polar on July 14, 2016, 14:33
I started with IS exactly 2 years ago - can I still delete all the crap I uploaded there in the beginning or is it too late? I always meant to do it..

And do I get it right that it is already not possible to edit keywords?  :(

We should be able to delete images until 20th August. I deleted a couple of images today without problems. I also tried editing keywords and I was still able to (I dont know if 20th August is also the date for editing keywords though...).

I think you're actually "deactivating" them, not deleting them. Keep in mind that iStock can and has sold deactivated files.

Yes, well, that is the term they use. I have deactivated a lot of images in last couple of years and they always disappeared from my iStock port and Thinkstock port within next day... there is no way for me to find out if they sold them after deactivation since we dont have further control over it :-/

They do actually pay you when they sell a deactivated image, so you get an email about it.

I'm not sure what would happen if the contributor has actually closed the account, though.
Title: Re: Getty e-mail about iStock "Contributor Facing Changes"
Post by: Jo Ann Snover on July 14, 2016, 14:47
They do actually pay you when they sell a deactivated image, so you get an email about it.

They do pay (although I had to get in touch with support to get the image IDs for the money they initially sent me e-mail about), but they have no right to license deactivated images. Their rights were terminated when the file was deactivated.

I had an e-mail back and forth with them about this as they initially said they could sell extended licenses to someone who purchased an RF license while the file was active and I disagreed. After a long time, they admitted that they shouldn't have done that and that they do have checks to be sure they don't license deactivated files but they failed in this case.

I wasn't angry enough (and don't have endless free time and spare cash) to pursue this to make them undo the license once they admitted that they should not do that. But they were technically violating my rights over that image by selling a license to it without my consent.
Title: Re: Getty e-mail about iStock "Contributor Facing Changes"
Post by: kaboom on July 14, 2016, 14:59
They do actually pay you when they sell a deactivated image, so you get an email about it.

I'm not sure what would happen if the contributor has actually closed the account, though.

I see. It never happened to me but good to know.

I regularly deactivate my older illustrations to re-work them and submit an improved version. I dont think iStock will accept this as a justifiable reason for deactivation after 20 August, so I guess I will have to remove the weaker part of my portfolio all at once before that day. I would have done it anyway but not so hastily..
Title: Re: Getty e-mail about iStock "Contributor Facing Changes"
Post by: Sammy the Cat on July 14, 2016, 15:15
Oh well time to stop uploading to them

It was a waste of time didn't matter how many images they took the earnings never grew.

I spoke to a Getty contributor who reported getting 2 cents for a an RM image they sold as RF!

What a crowd of maroons  ::)

Title: Re: Getty e-mail about iStock "Contributor Facing Changes"
Post by: everest on July 14, 2016, 15:31
Indeed bad news. But who expects good news from them anyway. They are shielding themself from what's to come which I bet will be not good in a few months.....
Title: Re: Getty e-mail about iStock "Contributor Facing Changes"
Post by: Noedelhap on July 14, 2016, 15:46
We own the copyright to our images, therefore they cannot legally hold our images. If you demand your images to be deleted (for whatever reason), they will have to do so.
If they decide to keep your images online against your will, that's a reason to sue Getty for copyright infringement and / or image theft. It's as simple as that.

I'm waiting for the fog to clear and if they persist in keeping up this bizarre new deactivation policy, I'll delete my portfolio. Can't risk them stealing our work.
Title: Re: Getty e-mail about iStock "Contributor Facing Changes"
Post by: Pauws99 on July 14, 2016, 15:51
We own the copyright to our images, therefore they cannot legally hold our images. If you demand your images to be deleted (for whatever reason), they will have to do so.
If they decide to keep your images online against your will, that's a reason to sue Getty for copyright infringement and / or image theft. It's as simple as that.

I'm waiting for the fog to clear and if they persist in keeping up this bizarre new deactivation policy, I'll delete my portfolio. Can't risk them stealing our work.
I guess the argument is they could say OK then we can close your account as they don't have to host any of your images. I imagine there will be some clarification as it doesn't seem to make much sense...but then it is Istock.....
Title: Re: Getty e-mail about iStock "Contributor Facing Changes"
Post by: Sammy the Cat on July 14, 2016, 15:56
These people need a deactivation day!

I moved them to the "Do not upload" bookmark and I'm canceling all outstanding uploads
Title: Re: Getty e-mail about iStock "Contributor Facing Changes"
Post by: polar on July 14, 2016, 16:21
They do actually pay you when they sell a deactivated image, so you get an email about it.

They do pay (although I had to get in touch with support to get the image IDs for the money they initially sent me e-mail about), but they have no right to license deactivated images. Their rights were terminated when the file was deactivated.

I had an e-mail back and forth with them about this as they initially said they could sell extended licenses to someone who purchased an RF license while the file was active and I disagreed. After a long time, they admitted that they shouldn't have done that and that they do have checks to be sure they don't license deactivated files but they failed in this case.

I wasn't angry enough (and don't have endless free time and spare cash) to pursue this to make them undo the license once they admitted that they should not do that. But they were technically violating my rights over that image by selling a license to it without my consent.

Oh, I agree it shouldn't have happened. I was just pointing out that contributors are notified when it happens -- or at least they were. Who knows what's going on now. 

I wouldn't put too much stock in their claim that they have checks in place to prevent this from happening. Several such sales (and the attendant promises) have been reported here and they were a considerable distance apart in time, so it's clear that any "checks" in place are non-functional, if they even really exist.

As they say, it's easier to ask for forgiveness than for permission.
Title: Re: Getty e-mail about iStock "Contributor Facing Changes"
Post by: Rose Tinted Glasses on July 14, 2016, 16:29
We own the copyright to our images, therefore they cannot legally hold our images. If you demand your images to be deleted (for whatever reason), they will have to do so.
If they decide to keep your images online against your will, that's a reason to sue Getty for copyright infringement and / or image theft. It's as simple as that.

I'm waiting for the fog to clear and if they persist in keeping up this bizarre new deactivation policy, I'll delete my portfolio. Can't risk them stealing our work.

Of course you own the images and the copyright, I don't recall Istock was going to change that. All they are doing is changing the terms in regards to deactivation and keyword adjustments with advance notice. You either agree to it and stick around or you disagree and remove the images you deem fit to remove with the ample notice given.

Pretty straight forward in my books.

Title: Re: Getty e-mail about iStock "Contributor Facing Changes"
Post by: Jogga0 on July 14, 2016, 16:42
Not straight forward deleting 1500 files one at a time though, only 1100 to go!
Title: Re: Getty e-mail about iStock "Contributor Facing Changes"
Post by: ShadySue on July 14, 2016, 16:51
Not straight forward deleting 1500 files one at a time though, only 1100 to go!
Are you deactivating all your files? If so, wouldn't it be easier just to contact CR to close your account?
Title: Re: Getty e-mail about iStock "Contributor Facing Changes"
Post by: Jogga0 on July 14, 2016, 16:59
Not straight forward deleting 1500 files one at a time though, only 1100 to go!
Are you deactivating all your files? If so, wouldn't it be easier just to contact CR to close your account?

Would love to, but have audio files too and Getty offering good terms for those sales
Title: Re: Getty e-mail about iStock "Contributor Facing Changes"
Post by: CJH Photography on July 14, 2016, 17:00
Hmmmm....I've made a grand total of $.28 there this year, sell mostly editorial elsewhere that I very rarely get through their system, and want to be able to deactivate my files just in case I make one of those ever rare exclusive rights sales.   Might be time for me to deactivate the few files I have up there before August 20.

I understand and agree we hold the copyright and they "should not be able" to  hold files captive against our will but, meh, who wants to fight them over it for no more than I make?
Title: Re: Getty e-mail about iStock "Contributor Facing Changes"
Post by: r2d2 on July 14, 2016, 17:00
iam so sick about all this agency scam.
These companys live from our work=parasites.
Hopefully coming soon the day on which they are superfluous!

Title: Re: Getty e-mail about iStock "Contributor Facing Changes"
Post by: Jo Ann Snover on July 14, 2016, 17:18
Not straight forward deleting 1500 files one at a time though, only 1100 to go!
Are you deactivating all your files? If so, wouldn't it be easier just to contact CR to close your account?

Would love to, but have audio files too and Getty offering good terms for those sales

A contributor who submits audio says that Getty's changing the terms there too (I don't have any source material on this; just another contributor summarizing what he received)

- They are going to remove whole audio section from istock to a new site
- New pending times for audio will be 3-4 months
- Royalty statements will be issued monthly and payments will be made every quarter. (!)
Title: Re: Getty e-mail about iStock "Contributor Facing Changes"
Post by: Jogga0 on July 14, 2016, 17:20
Yep paying 35% though
Title: Re: Getty e-mail about iStock "Contributor Facing Changes"
Post by: stockVid on July 14, 2016, 17:30
How do you delete videos?
I can't find a delete button.
Title: Re: Getty e-mail about iStock "Contributor Facing Changes"
Post by: LDV81 on July 14, 2016, 18:19
Sorry for the dumb question but how do you delete/deactivate photos?
I deleted many on D-day, haven't bothered to log in for many months and now I cannot find a way to delete anything.

EDIT: I found it. You have to open the file in customer's view and in the upper right corner there is a button "Maintenance".
Title: Re: Getty e-mail about iStock "Contributor Facing Changes"
Post by: Rose Tinted Glasses on July 14, 2016, 18:24
How do you delete videos?
I can't find a delete button.

my uploads > click on the video > file maintenance > deactivate file

you really should use the Istock forum for these sorts of questions, very helpful crew there in the video team.



Title: Re: Getty e-mail about iStock "Contributor Facing Changes"
Post by: stockVid on July 14, 2016, 18:35
How do you delete videos?
I can't find a delete button.

my uploads > click on the video > file maintenance > deactivate file

you really should use the Istock forum for these sorts of questions, very helpful crew there in the video team.

Ahhh THANKS!

You click on the thumbnail.

If you click on either the 'Edit Button', 'Edit' or the file number link you are not given the option of deactivating.

Sneaky.
Title: Re: Getty e-mail about iStock "Contributor Facing Changes"
Post by: goober on July 14, 2016, 18:51
I'm leaving or deleting 99% before the 20th. One is quicker but I want access to my stats for future reference.
Title: Re: Getty e-mail about iStock "Contributor Facing Changes"
Post by: stockVid on July 14, 2016, 18:56
I see that it's just as painful deactivating as it was uploading   :'(
Title: Re: Getty e-mail about iStock "Contributor Facing Changes"
Post by: ShadySue on July 14, 2016, 19:38
Not straight forward deleting 1500 files one at a time though, only 1100 to go!
Are you deactivating all your files? If so, wouldn't it be easier just to contact CR to close your account?

Would love to, but have audio files too and Getty offering good terms for those sales

Aren't there separate contracts/accounts for different media? (I'm not sure, but I think so)
Title: Re: Getty e-mail about iStock "Contributor Facing Changes"
Post by: Rose Tinted Glasses on July 14, 2016, 19:53
Not straight forward deleting 1500 files one at a time though, only 1100 to go!
Are you deactivating all your files? If so, wouldn't it be easier just to contact CR to close your account?

Would love to, but have audio files too and Getty offering good terms for those sales

Aren't there separate contracts/accounts for different media? (I'm not sure, but I think so)

Shady Lady, can you please stop being so pragmatic. ;)
Title: Re: Getty e-mail about iStock "Contributor Facing Changes"
Post by: Holmes on July 14, 2016, 21:23
From Getty website...

How Unification impacts contributors
Unification may affect parts of how you work with us, because it touches almost all of our systems, including content upload, statistics and royalties. We will contact you in the coming months when specific changes affect you directly, but we’re sharing the background now so you’ll understand those changes in context.



...royalties? uh oh.
Title: Re: Getty e-mail about iStock "Contributor Facing Changes"
Post by: angelawaye on July 14, 2016, 21:33
I just started uploading new files to istock after many years of nothing and now THIS!
Unbelievable. I'm now deactivating my files...

I wish I was a fly on the wall in these conference rooms.
"Hey Dave, let's make it so contributors can't delete their files EVER - then we can drop their royalties and they will have no choice but to accept it - hahaha!"

Title: Re: Getty e-mail about iStock "Contributor Facing Changes"
Post by: Mantis on July 14, 2016, 21:34
From Getty website...

How Unification impacts contributors
Unification may affect parts of how you work with us, because it touches almost all of our systems, including content upload, statistics and royalties. We will contact you in the coming months when specific changes affect you directly, but we’re sharing the background now so you’ll understand those changes in context.



...royalties? uh oh.

It will be officially in the Getty platform now, so I expect royalty cuts to 10-15 percent for nons.
Title: Re: Getty e-mail about iStock "Contributor Facing Changes"
Post by: BlueMoonPics on July 14, 2016, 21:42
I am not a happy camper.  I'm strongly considering deleting all my files and closing my account.  Need to find a better place to upload my pictures.  What the heck are they thinking over there?
Title: Re: Getty e-mail about iStock "Contributor Facing Changes"
Post by: Shelma1 on July 14, 2016, 21:59
Ha ha. Just checked my email and was shocked to see a bunch of my files had been deactivated. Then I remembered I did it. Lol. Dementia's setting in.
Title: Re: Getty e-mail about iStock "Contributor Facing Changes"
Post by: stockVid on July 14, 2016, 22:01
One way or another they've always managed to screw the artist.
The question is what's next?

I'm getting out while I can.
Title: Re: Getty e-mail about iStock "Contributor Facing Changes"
Post by: YadaYadaYada on July 14, 2016, 23:01
From Getty website...

How Unification impacts contributors
Unification may affect parts of how you work with us, because it touches almost all of our systems, including content upload, statistics and royalties. We will contact you in the coming months when specific changes affect you directly, but we’re sharing the background now so you’ll understand those changes in context.



...royalties? uh oh.

https://contributors.gettyimages.com/article_public.aspx?article_id=3949

It's public not secret. What this means is unknown. Audio has been moved or will be, to Getty. Images will be shared with Getty. People predicted this a year ago.
Title: Re: Getty e-mail about iStock "Contributor Facing Changes"
Post by: eyewave on July 15, 2016, 01:44
"Please note that we will only consider deactivating files for legal or similar justifiable reasons as it provides a negative experience for customers when files are suddenly unavailable for license. "

As I read this, we could still deactivate files when we make them exclusive elsewhere (DT or FT) or sell them as RM at Alamy. These are "legal or justifiable reasons". For pictures with people we could just remove the Model Release.
Title: Re: Getty e-mail about iStock "Contributor Facing Changes"
Post by: Jogga0 on July 15, 2016, 02:03
Not straight forward deleting 1500 files one at a time though, only 1100 to go!
Are you deactivating all your files? If so, wouldn't it be easier just to contact CR to close your account?

Would love to, but have audio files too and Getty offering good terms for those sales

Aren't there separate contracts/accounts for different media? (I'm not sure, but I think so)

Have sent a ticket to see if this is possible thanks
Title: Re: Getty e-mail about iStock "Contributor Facing Changes"
Post by: Justanotherphotographer on July 15, 2016, 02:24
"Please note that we will only consider deactivating files for legal or similar justifiable reasons as it provides a negative experience for customers when files are suddenly unavailable for license. "

As I read this, we could still deactivate files when we make them exclusive elsewhere (DT or FT) or sell them as RM at Alamy. These are "legal or justifiable reasons". For pictures with people we could just remove the Model Release.
I find it scary that we now have to think about when it would be okay or not to delete our own copyright content from a site. We have lost control of our own work.
Title: Re: Getty e-mail about iStock "Contributor Facing Changes"
Post by: drd on July 15, 2016, 02:32
From Getty website...

How Unification impacts contributors
Unification may affect parts of how you work with us, because it touches almost all of our systems, including content upload, statistics and royalties. We will contact you in the coming months when specific changes affect you directly, but we’re sharing the background now so you’ll understand those changes in context.



...royalties? uh oh.

Quote
quote cmcburney aka Lobo from the getty forum
We'll be making an announcement regarding the Redeemed Credits system that has been in serious need of revamping. Until such time as we can provide communications on that lets keep this discussion focused on the subjects highlighted in the notification we sent today.

It seems there is also a surprise about the Redeemed Credits system coming...
Title: Re: Getty e-mail about iStock "Contributor Facing Changes"
Post by: Microstockphoto on July 15, 2016, 02:37
well this is great
Title: Re: Getty e-mail about iStock "Contributor Facing Changes"
Post by: sharpshot on July 15, 2016, 04:14
It was good when Sean did a script to help with deactivation.  Don't know if anyone can do that now?  I deactivated all my best selling images and all but 1 video years ago.  Not sure I can be bothered wasting more time on it now.  I never visit the site and get the occasional payment.

I think when we deactivate images, it does hit them with Google and their buyers are more likely to look elsewhere, so perhaps I will do some more.
Title: Re: Getty e-mail about iStock "Contributor Facing Changes"
Post by: Justanotherphotographer on July 15, 2016, 04:25
It has been hinted at in this thread but just to spell it out, this is blatantly because they are about to slice their already terrible commissions down to 10% come September right?

How is it they can't seem to learn from their mistakes. Here's what will happen. Some people will email them at that point asking for deactivations. The contributors will be told "No it's all or nothing, your with us or against us". Most people will not want to delete their whole portfolio so will opt for leaving their work up. Getty will think they have won. Contributors will stop uploading any new or decent content to the site. The decline of Getty's micro offering will continue. They will wonder what could have happened. They will react by cutting commissions again.
Title: Re: Getty e-mail about iStock "Contributor Facing Changes"
Post by: Sammy the Cat on July 15, 2016, 05:18
When can this awful company be relegated to the "Sites that no longer exist" section

I pray it will be very soon!  ;D
Title: Re: Getty e-mail about iStock "Contributor Facing Changes"
Post by: ShadySue on July 15, 2016, 06:55
I'm guessing that Sig and Ess files will be on the subs site, and Sig+ files will be on Getty only. Royalties will be maxed at 20%, for the lucky few.

However, that's pure speculation on my part, and their reality is always worse than I've imagined.
Title: Re: Getty e-mail about iStock "Contributor Facing Changes"
Post by: U11 on July 15, 2016, 09:38
another possibility is preparation for a sale,
remember Corbis sold to Visual China Group?
Title: Re: Getty e-mail about iStock "Contributor Facing Changes"
Post by: Sean Locke Photography on July 15, 2016, 12:04
"I wasn't angry enough (and don't have endless free time and spare cash) to pursue this to make them undo the license once they admitted that they should not do that. But they were technically violating my rights over that image by selling a license to it without my consent."

I just got another email about money they owe me, lol.
Title: Re: Getty e-mail about iStock "Contributor Facing Changes"
Post by: Sean Locke Photography on July 15, 2016, 12:21
another possibility is preparation for a sale,
remember Corbis sold to Visual China Group?

No, Getty bought Corbis, and got in bed with vcg, right?
Title: Re: Getty e-mail about iStock "Contributor Facing Changes"
Post by: Jo Ann Snover on July 15, 2016, 12:23
another possibility is preparation for a sale,
remember Corbis sold to Visual China Group?


No, Getty bought Corbis, and got in bed with vcg, right?


http://petapixel.com/2016/01/22/corbis-images-sold-by-bill-gates-to-china-visual-group/ (http://petapixel.com/2016/01/22/corbis-images-sold-by-bill-gates-to-china-visual-group/)

Getty just has the distribution rights (outside of China)
Title: Re: Getty e-mail about iStock "Contributor Facing Changes"
Post by: robsters on July 15, 2016, 12:58
Hi everyone new to this forum ive been selling stock on shutterstock and pond 5 for over 2 years now, i just got approval for istock today but saw this thread so im guessing it would be a bad move to upload my stuff there? i've recently tried videoblocks but find there site quite buggy.


Title: Re: Getty e-mail about iStock "Contributor Facing Changes"
Post by: cobalt on July 15, 2016, 13:22
Since you won't be able to deactivate your files anymore, I would only upload what you can risk to leave up there, even if they give you even worse roylties than now.


For video I get 4-8 dollars, the same for hd and 4k.

no comparison to all the other sites.

This is the biggest problem if you can't deactivate: you submit your files under the current royalty system and can't pull your best work if they decide to drop the royalties, even lower.

From now on, you always have to assume the worst case scenario, another getty microsoft or google deal where your files are downloaded millions of times without compensation etc...

You put your portfolio completly at their mercy and their track record is not good.

They never tell us what the new royalty system will be. Instead they want to lock down all files for good (unless there is a legal reason that will convince their lawyers you need to pull the file).

simply: I now got a better offer elsewhere, or I just don't want to offer it anymore, maybe it is too old and shaby and I want to clean up my port...all these are no longer valid reasons.

why should I justify changes in my portfolio?

The content is mine, not theirs.

Taking control away from the artist is a move that always backfires.

There is a reason SS and Adobe are successful without taking control over the portfolio away from the artist. Doesn't seem to trouble their customers...

It is the same thing we have seen for years from istock/getty.

Whatever they change doesn't seem to improve our lives or earn us more money.

I keep hoping they get sold to new owners with a longterm vision. But there doesn't seem to be much light ahead.

September is coming...

The time for the yearly istock drama theater.

The most important buying season of the year - what will they break this time?


Title: Re: Getty e-mail about iStock "Contributor Facing Changes"
Post by: Digital66 on July 15, 2016, 14:16
"Please note that we will only consider deactivating files for legal or similar justifiable reasons as it provides a negative experience for customers when files are suddenly unavailable for license. "

As I read this, we could still deactivate files when we make them exclusive elsewhere (DT or FT) or sell them as RM at Alamy. These are "legal or justifiable reasons". For pictures with people we could just remove the Model Release.
Do you really think Getty will agree to deactivate a file so you can make it exclusive somewhere else?  Don't think so...
And as far as I know there's no way to remove a model release from an image.
Title: Re: Getty e-mail about iStock "Contributor Facing Changes"
Post by: robsters on July 15, 2016, 15:02
so best to try fotolia then, what do folks think of videoblocks i read the post but whats the latest view on this? safe to upload there?
Title: Re: Getty e-mail about iStock "Contributor Facing Changes"
Post by: ShadySue on July 15, 2016, 15:07

This is the biggest problem if you can't deactivate: you submit your files under the current royalty system and can't pull your best work if they decide to drop the royalties, even lower.

From now on, you always have to assume the worst case scenario, another getty microsoft or google deal where your files are downloaded millions of times without compensation etc...

You put your portfolio completely at their mercy and their track record is not good.

They never tell us what the new royalty system will be. Instead they want to lock down all files for good (unless there is a legal reason that will convince their lawyers you need to pull the file).

+100
Title: Re: Getty e-mail about iStock "Contributor Facing Changes"
Post by: CJH Photography on July 15, 2016, 15:07
"Please note that we will only consider deactivating files for legal or similar justifiable reasons as it provides a negative experience for customers when files are suddenly unavailable for license. "

As I read this, we could still deactivate files when we make them exclusive elsewhere (DT or FT) or sell them as RM at Alamy. These are "legal or justifiable reasons". For pictures with people we could just remove the Model Release.
Do you really think Getty will agree to deactivate a file so you can make it exclusive somewhere else?  Don't think so...
And as far as I know there's no way to remove a model release from an image.

But what if I sell exclusive rights on another agency?   DT offers that on non-exclusive files, just demands they be pulled from the market when sold.   It's my content, dammit....
Title: Re: Getty e-mail about iStock "Contributor Facing Changes"
Post by: cobalt on July 15, 2016, 15:17
"But what if I sell exclusive rights on another agency?   DT offers that on non-exclusive files, just demands they be pulled from the market when sold.   It's my content, dammit...."

Not anymore...once you upload to them, you can´t offer exclusive buy outs anymore. You can´t take a series down to send it exclusively elsewhere. And yes, people do that.


It´s going to be the same system like the Getty contributors. they can´t deactivate files, they can´t change their keywords etc...

The whole entrepreneurial approach of istock is disappearing, no lightbox system to self organize your port to make it easy for the customer etc...no visible community life that attracts more people and allows you to connect and network...


Upload to Getty and it is there forever...

If you are non exclusive, this will be a problem. And if you are exclusive it means, if you give up artist exclusivity you can no longer take your best work and offer it to stocksy or other places. Or add exclusive images to Adobe etc...

It is a very significant barrier.

Which makes you wonder what on earth is coming in September.

ETA:

I won´t be deleting now, because I already did after the Getty Google deal. And since then i have only uploaded what i can risk to lose or that will survive whatever drama comes next. But for many people with thousands of files...checking all the keywords alone or making decisions what they might seriously need if they went non exclusive, I think a few holidays will get cancelled this summer.

It is very, very short notice and just shows again how little they care about us and our business. (I don´t mean the individual hard working admins...this is not their fault)
Title: Re: Getty e-mail about iStock "Contributor Facing Changes"
Post by: stockVid on July 15, 2016, 15:28
Since you won't be able to deactivate your files anymore, I would only upload what you can risk to leave up there, even if they give you even worse roylties than now.


For video I get 4-8 dollars, the same for hd and 4k.


Why risk so much if you only get 4-8 dollars a clip? - INCLUDING 4K !!

Their royalty rate or price per clip is only going to get worse.

Deactivate everything now while you have a chance.
Title: Re: Getty e-mail about iStock "Contributor Facing Changes"
Post by: Lana on July 15, 2016, 15:32
I was asking earlier and still am confused about editing keywords - please, enlighten me!

The message says:
QTE
In the meantime, between August 20th (or shortly thereafter) and until contributor tools are fully unified.....

..You will no longer be able to edit your keywords via iStock.com or other third-party applications once submitted.
UNQTE

And then:

QTE
"The functionality for editing keywords may still appear on the file edit page, but it no longer supports updates to iStock.com. In fact, you may have already noticed that keyword updates are not being reflected on the ADP and/or do not surface in search results."
UNQTE

So if we re-keyword images now, prior to Aug 20, the search results won't be updated anyway?



Title: Re: Getty e-mail about iStock "Contributor Facing Changes"
Post by: Digital66 on July 15, 2016, 15:42
I was asking earlier and still am confused about editing keywords - please, enlighten me!

The message says:
QTE
In the meantime, between August 20th (or shortly thereafter) and until contributor tools are fully unified.....

..You will no longer be able to edit your keywords via iStock.com or other third-party applications once submitted.
UNQTE

And then:

QTE
"The functionality for editing keywords may still appear on the file edit page, but it no longer supports updates to iStock.com. In fact, you may have already noticed that keyword updates are not being reflected on the ADP and/or do not surface in search results."
UNQTE

So if we re-keyword images now, prior to Aug 20, the search results won't be updated anyway?
Yes.  You'll be just wasting your time.
Title: Re: Getty e-mail about iStock "Contributor Facing Changes"
Post by: cobalt on July 15, 2016, 15:43
Since you won't be able to deactivate your files anymore, I would only upload what you can risk to leave up there, even if they give you even worse roylties than now.


For video I get 4-8 dollars, the same for hd and 4k.


Why risk so much if you only get 4-8 dollars a clip? - INCLUDING 4K !!

Their royalty rate or price per clip is only going to get worse.

Deactivate everything now while you have a chance.

I only upload the testshots that I offer for 10 dollars elsewhere. Or files from Lypses that are exclusive to istock.

they do have sales, more than Fotolia, the only problem is the royalty.

I keep hoping they will offer a more normal rate, because the quality of their video offerings is extremly poor compared to the other sites that pay a lot more money.

The istock video team are extremly kind and helpful people, so I feed the beast once in a while out of nostalgia and to keep one foot in the door, in case things improve. Especially now with all the serious problems at pond5 you would think they would use the opportunity to come to us with an attractive offer...

Instead we get pushed away again...

Title: Re: Getty e-mail about iStock "Contributor Facing Changes"
Post by: Rose Tinted Glasses on July 15, 2016, 15:47
Since you won't be able to deactivate your files anymore, I would only upload what you can risk to leave up there, even if they give you even worse roylties than now.


For video I get 4-8 dollars, the same for hd and 4k.


Why risk so much if you only get 4-8 dollars a clip? - INCLUDING 4K !!

Their royalty rate or price per clip is only going to get worse.

Deactivate everything now while you have a chance.

Never understood why a non-exclusive contributor of video would upload at Istock with full disclosure on $4-$8 per sale and then complain about it. Let me guess Istock tricked you into it?

Please whatever you do, don't move near the airport flight path then complain there is plane noise.

Also of note, if you are exclusive the average royalty is closer to $40-$45 for HD and commonly royalties of $100+ from the clips sent over to Getty.

If I chose to be non-exclusive I would not upload video to Istock. Simple as that. It would also save a lot of poor me talk.
Title: Re: Getty e-mail about iStock "Contributor Facing Changes"
Post by: stockVid on July 15, 2016, 15:49
Since you won't be able to deactivate your files anymore, I would only upload what you can risk to leave up there, even if they give you even worse roylties than now.


For video I get 4-8 dollars, the same for hd and 4k.


Why risk so much if you only get 4-8 dollars a clip? - INCLUDING 4K !!

Their royalty rate or price per clip is only going to get worse.

Deactivate everything now while you have a chance.

I only upload the testshots that I offer for 10 dollars elsewhere. Or files from Lypses that are exclusive to istock.

they do have sales, more than Fotolia, the only problem is the royalty.

I keep hoping they will offer a more normal rate, because the quality of their video offerings is extremly poor compared to the other sites that pay a lot more money.

The istock video team are extremly kind and helpful people, so I feed the beast once in a while out of nostalgia and to keep one foot in the door, in case things improve. Especially now with all the serious problems at pond5 you would think they would use the opportunity to come to us with an attractive offer...

Instead we get pushed away again...

I'm sorry Cobalt but if you are selling 4K clips for $4-$8 the demise of the industry is inevitable and you only have yourself to blame.
Title: Re: Getty e-mail about iStock "Contributor Facing Changes"
Post by: cobalt on July 15, 2016, 15:54
I sincerly doubt the stock industry cares about my files.

 Getty and istock offer them for very high prices, so the customer is not getting them cheap. It is just their royalty sytem that gives me such lousy results.

pond5 is offering 500 dollar 4k files for 5 dollars in their membership program. Over 200 000 files in there...

I think that would make a much bigger difference than 100 files from me.

But we really don't need another useless discussion about how to price testshots. If you want to throw yours away, that is up to you, I have system that also squeezes money out of the stuff that has no value.

Title: Re: Getty e-mail about iStock "Contributor Facing Changes"
Post by: Digital66 on July 15, 2016, 16:04
Upload to Getty and it is there forever...

If you are non exclusive, this will be a problem. And if you are exclusive it means, if you give up artist exclusivity you can no longer take your best work and offer it to stocksy or other places. Or add exclusive images to Adobe etc...
And that's why non exclusives and even exclusives considering to cancel exclusivity, should better deactivate now any image that could be sold exclusively somewhere else. 

After Aug 20 we can test the new system and see whether deactivating an image to sell it exclusively somewhere else is possible or not.  If there's no problem, we can re-upload or re-activate our images.  If Getty says that's not an acceptable reason, we'll be happy to have deactivated our valuable images then.
Title: Re: Getty e-mail about iStock "Contributor Facing Changes"
Post by: CJH Photography on July 15, 2016, 16:30
I think I will just delete and then upload stuff that I am not offering exclusive rights on anywhere else.  I hate to cross istock off my list all together as I was really excited to be accepted there.  But I am narrowing it down to the higher-returning sites and istock, well, not one of them for my files right now.  To be fair, it's sort of a self-fulfilling thing because I don't upload much there because of low sales so I continue to get low sales.
Title: Re: Getty e-mail about iStock "Contributor Facing Changes"
Post by: w7lwi on July 15, 2016, 21:14
Last month, IS was number 9 out of the 10 sites I submit to.  If I'm lucky, I may get one payout a year these days.  Didn't used to be this way, with monthly payouts, but no more.  I plan on dumping the entire site in the next few days.  With the 30 day waiting period, I have no idea what Getty would do if the end of the 30 day period happened to fall on August 21.  Just no longer trustworthy.  Maybe they should change their name to Clintonstock.  >:(
Title: Re: Getty e-mail about iStock "Contributor Facing Changes"
Post by: Microstockphoto on July 16, 2016, 00:42
Trumpstock is a way better comparison
Title: Re: Getty e-mail about iStock "Contributor Facing Changes"
Post by: everest on July 16, 2016, 01:36
It has been hinted at in this thread but just to spell it out, this is blatantly because they are about to slice their already terrible commissions down to 10% come September right?

How is it they can't seem to learn from their mistakes. Here's what will happen. Some people will email them at that point asking for deactivations. The contributors will be told "No it's all or nothing, your with us or against us". Most people will not want to delete their whole portfolio so will opt for leaving their work up. Getty will think they have won. Contributors will stop uploading any new or decent content to the site. The decline of Getty's micro offering will continue. They will wonder what could have happened. They will react by cutting commissions again.

Getty is against the wall. Cornered by an unpayable debt they have no other way than reduce royalties to contributors.Your analisis is spot on. They are acting cowardly and with mischief.First they lock files and then here they come the bad news. In any case this is an act of desperation. Their creative business is doomed and they know it.

They lost nearly all the big guns they had at Getty already a long time ago. They still have some people from the Moment Flickr contributors that submit Mr Yuri and some people at Istock still holding a badge.Thats it In the low revenue sector Shutter has won many years ago and in the premium collection new actors are growing at their expense continously .

They will keep the news market and sport event for some time. Difficult times ahead for them and their contributors
Title: Re: Getty e-mail about iStock "Contributor Facing Changes"
Post by: skyfish on July 16, 2016, 02:46
I have old version of DeepMeta, because i don't upload already long time. Started it to see the balance. Modal popup on start:
"Attention. Please note that keywords cannot be edited once the file has been uploaded. Please donwload the latest version of DeepMeta, v2.0.23, which is conform to this change".
And current version of DeepMeta delets only local copy of file, not at IS.
Title: Re: Getty e-mail about iStock "Contributor Facing Changes"
Post by: Pauws99 on July 16, 2016, 03:03
Other than poor software that can't cope with it is there any rational explanation as to why keywords shouldn't be editable? I would have thought it should be encouraged if files were not being found or to take advantage of changing trends e.g Brexit?
Title: Re: Getty e-mail about iStock "Contributor Facing Changes"
Post by: skyfish on July 16, 2016, 03:20
If in the same time the keywords editing will be not accessible for their employees, then it is a positive, but so poor solution or decision.
Title: Re: Getty e-mail about iStock "Contributor Facing Changes"
Post by: skyfish on July 16, 2016, 03:35
I saw in Twitter Getty Images News with photos. Are photographers paid if Getty uses their photos in its own channel?
Title: Re: Getty e-mail about iStock "Contributor Facing Changes"
Post by: Sammy the Cat on July 16, 2016, 06:52
I saw in Twitter Getty Images News with photos. Are photographers paid if Getty uses their photos in its own channel?

Bet they don't

But seriously just stop uploading to iStock.  Their royalty rates are terrible their RC system makes it impossible to get up the ladder.

They roll out rubbish like this and treat contributors like crap.

It's an abusive relationship.

Write to them and post on their forum how you feel! 

Tweet the dairy king Jonathon Klein and stick it on their FB page too.
Title: Re: Getty e-mail about iStock "Contributor Facing Changes"
Post by: Ozzy75 on July 16, 2016, 07:00
If it wasn't such an enormous effort to shift a few thousand images over to another agency plus making sure at least 80% of them get accepted, keywording them all, waiting for the number of sales to build up so you slip into a higher royalty class...

I have gone through such an infinte number of crappy changes with Istock that had always been promised as a general improvement with big talking of admins, but always turned out to decrease sales or site stability or both.
have swallowed every * technical site error that sent customers to competitors.
I have withstood inspectors telling me I am not able to light my images properly for years.
I was always thankful for Istock being my entrance in a world where I can make money from doing what I like.
I have never doubted to be exclusive with them and I have never felt like dropping them to move my stuff somewhere else, just because I could increase my income in any way.

But the times in which I have taken disadvantages from them and let them push and shove me around while enabeling Istock to earn more and more from my work are now officially over. We have holidays in Germany now and I'll finally pull my port and move on.

It' s not the loss of money. It's just that I feel stupid while taking all this crap from them and keeping calm and my family starts asking me, why I am still taking all this. And you know what? I don't have justifications towards them and not even towards myself anymore.

Let them earn 1.500 bucks a month from my files, now their income will decrease by that. I know noone will care, but maybe if 10 or even 50 contributors feel the same and leave, 10.000 bucks a month is an ammount someone will maybe take note of.

Thank you Istock for 4,5 great years, but the limit of what I can bare and stand has now been exceeded. You've been asking for this to happen, I hope a lot of contributors hear and follow your call and leave.


Title: Re: Getty e-mail about iStock "Contributor Facing Changes"
Post by: ShadySue on July 16, 2016, 07:53
Write to them and post on their forum how you feel! 
Tweet the dairy king Jonathon Klein and stick it on their FB page too.
Assuming you did all that, they've been removed, so this kind of protest is almost pointless, even if vaguely cathartic.
Title: Re: Getty e-mail about iStock "Contributor Facing Changes"
Post by: skyfish on July 16, 2016, 09:01
I stopped upload there long time ago, and after their demand of unsanely detailed title for medieval vitrage i didn't try anymore editorials with them. I have old images there and i think who worked intensively to build portfolio there can be very concerned.
Anyway i was surprised to see today on Twitter that Getty is using images for their news channel. I think contributor should be compensated, because this is the same usage like usage by their clients, no difference at all - @GettyImagesNews looks like usual newspaper channel.
About keywording - yes it was too visible that my images were edited and exactly essential keywords removed, i have posts here about this. Once spent time to correct and after some images had keywords changed again i stopped uploads.
ShadySue, you answered i think not to me, but to Teddy the Cat
Title: Re: Getty e-mail about iStock "Contributor Facing Changes"
Post by: Sammy the Cat on July 16, 2016, 09:08
[quote author=skyfish link=topic=27996.msg459349#msg459349
Write to them and post on their forum how you feel! 
Tweet the dairy king Jonathon Klein and stick it on their FB page too.
Assuming you did all that, they've been removed, so this kind of protest is almost pointless, even if vaguely cathartic.

I don't use twitter it's an abomination :D
Title: Re: Getty e-mail about iStock "Contributor Facing Changes"
Post by: ShadySue on July 16, 2016, 09:10
Anyway i was surprised to see today on Twitter that Getty is using images for their news channel. I think contributor should be compensated, because this is the same usage like usage by their clients, no difference at all - @GettyImagesNews looks like usual newspaper channel.
I can't speak for the Getty contract, but a few years back iStock's contract was changed to include this specific clause, so all we would do was close our port totally if we didn't agree:
"In addition to the foregoing grant iStock and its Distribution Partners may post, reproduce, modify, display, make derivative works or otherwise use any Accepted Content for their own business purposes relating to the promotion of the Site, the Content and their distribution programs, and promote the licensing of Accepted Content (including, without limitation, the use of the Accepted Content and the Supplier’s registered and unregistered trademarks for marketing, sales and promotional efforts whether on the Site or through third parties). No compensation shall be due to the Supplier for use of Accepted Content for such business purposes. " Of course, it's ridiculous that they don't even pay us the insulting subs fee for these uses, but they have debts to pay, and they don't claim to be a Fair Trade company.

Quote
ShadySue, you answered i think not to me, but to Teddy the Cat
Indeed. I even quoted Teddy's post I was replying to.
Title: Re: Getty e-mail about iStock "Contributor Facing Changes"
Post by: skyfish on July 16, 2016, 09:25
This was confusing:  [quote author=skyfish link=topic=27996.msg459349#msg459349
Title: Re: Getty e-mail about iStock "Contributor Facing Changes"
Post by: ShadySue on July 16, 2016, 09:40
This was confusing: 
Quote from: skyfish link=topic=27996.msg459349#msg459349
[/quote
Fairy Nuff.
Deleted in the interests of clarity.
Title: Re: Getty e-mail about iStock "Contributor Facing Changes"
Post by: StanRohrer on July 16, 2016, 15:17
So these are the wonderful advancements that Yuri eluded to 1-2 years ago?
Title: Re: Getty e-mail about iStock "Contributor Facing Changes"
Post by: H2O on July 16, 2016, 16:02
Does it matter Getty are going down we all know this, ride the end of the revenue and move on.
Title: Re: Getty e-mail about iStock "Contributor Facing Changes"
Post by: B8 on July 16, 2016, 23:36
Is August 20th conclusively the date after which you wont be able to self deactivate files anymore or is this just an estimated date based upon the announcement?
Title: Re: Getty e-mail about iStock "Contributor Facing Changes"
Post by: Justanotherphotographer on July 17, 2016, 00:46
The announcement says "on August 20th or shortly there after" I think that means it should be August 20th but they could miss it depending on IT competence
Title: Re: Getty e-mail about iStock "Contributor Facing Changes"
Post by: lionheart on July 17, 2016, 05:59
After the "threatening" iStock announcement and a month of June, where partner sales have only been one fifth compared to month of May, i finally decided to delete one third of my uploaded pictures at once. I hate to do it - but i think it is a MUST concerning the changes to come. In the last 10 years i have seen earnings fall and fall on IS whereas other agencies have been profitable. Although the sum of sales on IS (including partner site sales) were somewhat acceptable - the trend showed and shows a regular decrease. So maybe the time has come ...
Title: Re: Getty e-mail about iStock "Contributor Facing Changes"
Post by: ShadySue on July 17, 2016, 06:25
Is August 20th conclusively the date after which you wont be able to self deactivate files anymore or is this just an estimated date based upon the announcement?
Who knows? They said in the email Aug 20th 'or shortly thereafter' for deactivation removal and changing keywords, but it seems that in fact, keyword changing was stopped as of the time of the email, so who knows when self-deactivation will happen.
Historically, bad announcements tend to actuate on time or even before; good promises seldom arrive, far less arrive on time.
Title: Re: Getty e-mail about iStock "Contributor Facing Changes"
Post by: PaulieWalnuts on July 17, 2016, 07:00
I said a while back they would remove the ability to deactivate/delete. After all of the coordinated contributor deactivation days I'm surprised it took this long to happen.
Title: Re: Getty e-mail about iStock "Contributor Facing Changes"
Post by: andy_arden on July 17, 2016, 07:12
have 45k photos but on istock only 15k that i uploaded in last 3 months and the revenues aren't bad but won't be able to delete my files? what?? i don't know if i should let the files on or to disable them. uploading new files clearly isn't going to happen any more
Title: Re: Getty e-mail about iStock "Contributor Facing Changes"
Post by: Karen on July 17, 2016, 08:26
So these are the wonderful advancements that Yuri eluded to 1-2 years ago?
Maybe Yuri will remove his port before August 20th and will go exclusive with another agency.
Title: Re: Getty e-mail about iStock "Contributor Facing Changes"
Post by: trek on July 17, 2016, 08:39
The ability to edit my portfolio is important to me and should be to all artists.  Moving forward I will invest my time and uploads elsewhere.  I plan to remove about 20% of my portfolio before the deadline.  Hopefully they will reconsider this misguided policy. 
Title: Re: Getty e-mail about iStock "Contributor Facing Changes"
Post by: stockVid on July 17, 2016, 08:41
What happens after the 20th if they say: "Yes, you can close your account. It will take us 12-18 months to remove your files".

Files should be deactivated or accounts closed as quickly as possible. While you still have control over your own content.
Title: Re: Getty e-mail about iStock "Contributor Facing Changes"
Post by: ShadySue on July 17, 2016, 08:50
What happens after the 20th if they say: "Yes, you can close your account. It will take us 12-18 months to remove your files".
They would be in breach of their own contract.

Of course, they may impose that or any other obnoxious condition they wish, by giving us 30 days notice of their intention to do so.
Title: Re: Getty e-mail about iStock "Contributor Facing Changes"
Post by: stockVid on July 17, 2016, 08:54
It's obvious by now that they think they can change the contract any way they wish and at any time.

A contract with iStock is worthless.
Title: Re: Getty e-mail about iStock "Contributor Facing Changes"
Post by: PaulieWalnuts on July 17, 2016, 08:57
It's obvious by now that they think they can change the contract any way they wish and at any time.

Now? I think most agency contracts have always had language in them that says they can change the terms at any time without notification or contributor approval.
Title: Re: Getty e-mail about iStock "Contributor Facing Changes"
Post by: stockVid on July 17, 2016, 09:08
It's obvious by now that they think they can change the contract any way they wish and at any time.

Now? I think most agency contracts have always had language in them that says they can change the terms at any time without notification or contributor approval.

I agree. But I think that over the last few years contracts have become irrelevant other than to tell you what % you will get next month. Even that is not set in stone (Revostock for example).
Title: Re: Getty e-mail about iStock "Contributor Facing Changes"
Post by: Pauws99 on July 17, 2016, 10:20
So these are the wonderful advancements that Yuri eluded to 1-2 years ago?
Maybe Yuri will remove his port before August 20th and will go exclusive with another agency.
Or maybe we wont remove his port and still go "exclusive" with another agency
Title: Re: Getty e-mail about iStock "Contributor Facing Changes"
Post by: BlueMoonPics on July 17, 2016, 11:25
Well, I just deleted all files in my exclusive account.  After almost 10 years I'm closing it down. 
I just don't want to deal with Getty/iStock's bs any longer.  Locking my files up and not allowing to change keyword was what did me in.  I didn't upload that much compared to most others but it got to be not worth the effort any more.  I'll be looking for somewhere else to post and sell my stock pictures.  Anyone have any suggestions, I'm all ears.
Title: Re: Getty e-mail about iStock "Contributor Facing Changes"
Post by: PaulieWalnuts on July 17, 2016, 12:06
Well, I just deleted all files in my exclusive account.  After almost 10 years I'm closing it down. 
I just don't want to deal with Getty/iStock's bs any longer.  Locking my files up and not allowing to change keyword was what did me in.  I didn't upload that much compared to most others but it got to be not worth the effort any more.  I'll be looking for somewhere else to post and sell my stock pictures.  Anyone have any suggestions, I'm all ears.

After 9 years I'm considering closing my account. I dropped exclusivity a year ago and deactivated over half of my images. Last month I did $50 in sales. I used to earn that on a slow day or weekend day a couple years ago.

I just went back and checked some old stats. When I was new and still independent back in 2007, I had 50 files uploaded in the first few months and had $100 in sales the fourth month. Now I still have over 10x the images and make half that amount. The images are old and outdated but the trend was still the same. Royalties weren't keeping up with upload quantity.

Besides sales, lack of control of my images was one of the main reasons I dropped exclusivity. This is a another step in the wrong direction.

I have images with SS, FT, and Alamy. I don't really think any of the rest are worth the time. SS is the only one of those three where I'm making decent sales.
Title: Re: Getty e-mail about iStock "Contributor Facing Changes"
Post by: Karen on July 17, 2016, 13:08
Well, I just deleted all files in my exclusive account.  After almost 10 years I'm closing it down. 
I just don't want to deal with Getty/iStock's bs any longer.  Locking my files up and not allowing to change keyword was what did me in.  I didn't upload that much compared to most others but it got to be not worth the effort any more.  I'll be looking for somewhere else to post and sell my stock pictures.  Anyone have any suggestions, I'm all ears.
From what I can see from the last year - video is the only fast growing area in stock industry: iStock sales disappeared 3 years ago. SS is flooded with millions of photos each week. Fotolia under Adobe is allure to attract more clients to their Creative Cloud their sales are worsening.
Title: Re: Getty e-mail about iStock "Contributor Facing Changes"
Post by: BlueMoonPics on July 17, 2016, 13:58
Well, I just deleted all files in my exclusive account.  After almost 10 years I'm closing it down. 
I just don't want to deal with Getty/iStock's bs any longer.  Locking my files up and not allowing to change keyword was what did me in.  I didn't upload that much compared to most others but it got to be not worth the effort any more.  I'll be looking for somewhere else to post and sell my stock pictures.  Anyone have any suggestions, I'm all ears.
From what I can see from the last year - video is the only fast growing area in stock industry: iStock sales disappeared 3 years ago. SS is flooded with millions of photos each week. Fotolia under Adobe is allure to attract more clients to their Creative Cloud their sales are worsening.

I'll probably look into SS anyway and see.  Video is something I'd like to get into.
I don't know much about it yet but need to research what equipment to use and software to get myself started.
Title: Re: Getty e-mail about iStock "Contributor Facing Changes"
Post by: andy_arden on July 17, 2016, 16:00
any idea how to disable my 15k photos without taking me forever?
Title: Re: Getty e-mail about iStock "Contributor Facing Changes"
Post by: ShadySue on July 17, 2016, 16:00
any idea how to disable my 15k photos without taking me forever?
Contact CR and ask for your account to be closed. It may take some time, but you should be out before the key date.
Title: Re: Getty e-mail about iStock "Contributor Facing Changes"
Post by: StanRohrer on July 17, 2016, 16:41
This whole thing is just one more step with the integration into Getty. This step seems to be putting iS images onto the Getty servers (for "unification" as they call it). Efficiency is the corporate buzzword when combining companies. Unification is efficiency in this case. Another step is to make it a Getty collection and remove the iS web site. With the removal of descriptions, recent locking of edits and deletions, I think they want to make this just a "clip art" collection. It will be further linked to many external web sites and photo outlets. Anything with specific details are no longer of their interest in this collection.
Title: Re: Getty e-mail about iStock "Contributor Facing Changes"
Post by: Tryingmybest on July 17, 2016, 17:01
Corporate gobblygoop. NONE of it makes any sense. I had to check this forum to get the truth. A big reason I quit working for others. Yeah, self-employed can be stressful. But not as stressful as working in a culture like this. I feel some pity for Getty employees.
Title: Re: Getty e-mail about iStock "Contributor Facing Changes"
Post by: trek on July 17, 2016, 17:03
This whole thing is just one more step with the integration into Getty. This step seems to be putting iS images onto the Getty servers (for "unification" as they call it). Efficiency is the corporate buzzword when combining companies. Unification is efficiency in this case. Another step is to make it a Getty collection and remove the iS web site. With the removal of descriptions, recent locking of edits and deletions, I think they want to make this just a "clip art" collection. It will be further linked to many external web sites and photo outlets. Anything with specific details are no longer of their interest in this collection.

Are all Getty contributors unable to edit their portfolios or is this a special restriction for istock contributors? 
Title: Re: Getty e-mail about iStock "Contributor Facing Changes"
Post by: Rose Tinted Glasses on July 17, 2016, 17:17
This whole thing is just one more step with the integration into Getty. This step seems to be putting iS images onto the Getty servers (for "unification" as they call it). Efficiency is the corporate buzzword when combining companies. Unification is efficiency in this case. Another step is to make it a Getty collection and remove the iS web site. With the removal of descriptions, recent locking of edits and deletions, I think they want to make this just a "clip art" collection. It will be further linked to many external web sites and photo outlets. Anything with specific details are no longer of their interest in this collection.

Are all Getty contributors unable to edit their portfolios or is this a special restriction for istock contributors?  Just curious.  Either way it's a deal breaker for me.

Getty has never allowed you to remove an image unless it is for the same reasons they have posted for removal from Istock. Hmmmm, come to think of it most of the macros operate the same way ever since I can remember. At least the ones I have dealt with did not allow you to remove anything on a bipolar whim which seems to be common place in the microstock world.
Title: Re: Getty e-mail about iStock "Contributor Facing Changes"
Post by: Jo Ann Snover on July 17, 2016, 19:56
Getty has never allowed you to remove an image unless it is for the same reasons they have posted for removal from Istock. Hmmmm, come to think of it most of the macros operate the same way ever since I can remember. At least the ones I have dealt with did not allow you to remove anything on a bipolar whim which seems to be common place in the microstock world.

Alamy may not count in your definition of macro, but their 6 month wait is a very different thing from what Getty is looking to impose. Alamy just makes you wait to delete so customers can complete their cycle of transactions, but you don't have to justify what you're doing to them.

Alamy's restrictions (given their business model) seem very reasonable and a good balance of customer and contributor interests. Getty's are one-sided and unreasonable, especially given the much lower royalty rates they offer contributors.
Title: Re: Getty e-mail about iStock "Contributor Facing Changes"
Post by: Gel-O Shooter on July 17, 2016, 21:42
They are obviously trying to prevent another "D-day".  The nasty surprises they have planned for contributors soon after August 20th must be disgraceful, even for them.  I just hope that it won't take an act of Congress, 3 months, 25 emails, and the threat of a lawsuit to remove my account and the few old files I still have there when September rolls around.
Title: Re: Getty e-mail about iStock "Contributor Facing Changes"
Post by: Microstockphoto on July 18, 2016, 05:06
agree
Title: Re: Getty e-mail about iStock "Contributor Facing Changes"
Post by: pixmicro on July 18, 2016, 05:42
As a contributor, the only change I will be facing with Getty/Istock is that 123RF is now ahead in terms of revenue.
Title: Re: Getty e-mail about iStock "Contributor Facing Changes"
Post by: iStop on July 18, 2016, 07:36
Getty has never allowed you to remove an image unless it is for the same reasons they have posted for removal from Istock. Hmmmm, come to think of it most of the macros operate the same way ever since I can remember. At least the ones I have dealt with did not allow you to remove anything on a bipolar whim which seems to be common place in the microstock world.

Alamy may not count in your definition of macro, but their 6 month wait is a very different thing from what Getty is looking to impose. Alamy just makes you wait to delete so customers can complete their cycle of transactions, but you don't have to justify what you're doing to them.

Alamy's restrictions (given their business model) seem very reasonable and a good balance of customer and contributor interests. Getty's are one-sided and unreasonable, especially given the much lower royalty rates they offer contributors.

The easiest thing with Alamy that you can do is just remove all your keywords from all of your images in a batch so that all the files are left with only one nondescript keyword.

After that the files wont appear in searches any longer. This way, whilst you are awaiting the 6 month period for the files to be removed, they at least no longer appear on the site.

At the moment, you may still be able to do the same thing on iStock using version older versions of Deep Meta.
Title: Re: Getty e-mail about iStock "Contributor Facing Changes"
Post by: skyfish on July 18, 2016, 07:51
I have a popup demanding to install a new version. The warning is - that keywords will not be edited. Did somebody try this with old version already?
Title: Re: Getty e-mail about iStock "Contributor Facing Changes"
Post by: ShadySue on July 18, 2016, 07:56
I have a popup demanding to install a new version. The warning is - that keywords will not be edited. Did somebody try this with old version already?
I didn't try it, but word is that although it will look as though you have changed the keywords, they won't change on the site.
Title: Re: Getty e-mail about iStock "Contributor Facing Changes"
Post by: NewStocker on July 18, 2016, 08:00
I have a popup demanding to install a new version. The warning is - that keywords will not be edited. Did somebody try this with old version already?

I just opened one file in Deep Meta 2.0.22 and changed one keyword. I then hit F6 to send updates to iStock and it seems to have done so. But I then checked the file on iStock and the keyword still appears to be in the file on the site. So in theory it works, but I am afraid in practice I don't think it does.
Title: Re: Getty e-mail about iStock "Contributor Facing Changes"
Post by: NewStocker on July 18, 2016, 08:04
I don't meant to hijack this post, or go off topic here, but is there any way to change keywords on files on Shutterstock in a group temporarily so that they don't appear in site searches for a period of time?

Is there perhaps a way to even select all the files within a set on Shutterstock that you have created and do a keyword edit like this to the entire set?

Lastly, I know on Shutterstock that you are able to remove your entire portfolio from the site temporarily (without deleting and of your files) by opting your portfolio out of active status. Then you can put your portfolio back online later if you like with just one click. Is there any way to do this to individual files on Shutterstock perhaps?
Title: Re: Getty e-mail about iStock "Contributor Facing Changes"
Post by: Microstockphoto on July 18, 2016, 08:09
you don't meant to hijack this post, or go off topic here, but then you do.

this is an istock thread, ask your question here http://www.microstockgroup.com/shutterstock-com/ (http://www.microstockgroup.com/shutterstock-com/)
Title: Re: Getty e-mail about iStock "Contributor Facing Changes"
Post by: B8 on July 18, 2016, 08:28
you don't meant to hijack this post, or go off topic here, but then you do.

this is an istock thread, ask your question here [url]http://www.microstockgroup.com/shutterstock-com/[/url] ([url]http://www.microstockgroup.com/shutterstock-com/[/url])


Sheesh. That's not cool. The poster just offered some useful information in his/her previous post and then was very polite about asking some questions.

I see many people hijacking posts on this forum all the time and are never polite about it at all in any way. At least this person had some polite etiquette and should be recognized for that.

In fact, within this thread there are already various mentions of other sites and their policies on removing images and portfolios, Alamy, etc. So I don't see the questions of this poster about removing images from Shutterstock to be unrelated to this thread at this point.
Title: Re: Getty e-mail about iStock "Contributor Facing Changes"
Post by: Rose Tinted Glasses on July 18, 2016, 09:19
Getty has never allowed you to remove an image unless it is for the same reasons they have posted for removal from Istock. Hmmmm, come to think of it most of the macros operate the same way ever since I can remember. At least the ones I have dealt with did not allow you to remove anything on a bipolar whim which seems to be common place in the microstock world.

Alamy may not count in your definition of macro, but their 6 month wait is a very different thing from what Getty is looking to impose. Alamy just makes you wait to delete so customers can complete their cycle of transactions, but you don't have to justify what you're doing to them.

Alamy's restrictions (given their business model) seem very reasonable and a good balance of customer and contributor interests. Getty's are one-sided and unreasonable, especially given the much lower royalty rates they offer contributors.

Jo Ann,  I agree with you. Alamy's terms for removal are sweet and make total sense. I have been shooting stock for way too long, and I honestly don't feel the doom and gloom on having a image locked in as I have become accustomed to it with the macros for years so it's not a big surprise to me. In my view, the micros are full of amateur behaving photographers that take this business personally and pull what they want when they want and more often than not in a herd mentality based on what a select few say on a forum like this one. Not a way to run a business in my view. Also with keywords, do it once and do it right then you don't have to keep going back and changing them.

As much as I don't like Getty Images I also think they are doing the right thing here as they have clearly mentioned why in their correspondence and on their forums. (granted I would prefer if they did the Alamy model, but they don't)

On the other hand, if they start to mess with things such as suddenly dropping royalties, then in my view that would warrant a complete closing of the account, not just withdrawal of images.

For me stock photography is really no different from the stock market. You can keep buying and selling on the flavor of the day which does lead to a few people getting rich and most losing their shirts, or you can just buy good old boring index dividend funds and wait it out, and more often then not come out ahead in the long run.

I prefer to create some work, place it where I choose be it macro or micro, then forget about it and move on. Over the years it has worked out just like a really good dividend fund.
Title: Re: Getty e-mail about iStock "Contributor Facing Changes"
Post by: PixBoxx on July 18, 2016, 09:42
This definitely seems like the lead-up to the release of iStock September Self-Destruct v3.0, as they drop everybody's royalty rates to the flat Getty 20%.
Title: Re: Getty e-mail about iStock "Contributor Facing Changes"
Post by: B8 on July 18, 2016, 09:50
This definitely seems like the lead-up to a iStock September Self-Destruct v3.0 as they drop everybody's royalty rates to the flat Getty 20%.

Agreed, but the part I can't work out though is how they are going to justify only paying people 20% when all the other micros are paying much higher.

Also, there will be this mass exodus of Exclusives when that happens, as there will be no economic benefit to being exclusive anymore. But maybe that is no longer a relevant concern to them either.

I can see paying Getty content creators 20% when the average download price is over $50 a pop. But when people are now paying mostly subs rates for a download on iStock, and you cut the royalty rate in half for exclusives, it leaves you with a royalty of only a few cents on a download.

Then again, Shutterstock only pays you on average $0.33 on a download too. So I guess it wouldn't be much different. But at least the volume of downloads on a file on Shutterstock is many multiples of what it is on iStock.
Title: Re: Getty e-mail about iStock "Contributor Facing Changes"
Post by: PixBoxx on July 18, 2016, 10:09
This definitely seems like the lead-up to a iStock September Self-Destruct v3.0 as they drop everybody's royalty rates to the flat Getty 20%.

Agreed, but the part I can't work out though is how they are going to justify only paying people 20% when all the other micros are paying much higher.

Also, there will be this mass exodus of Exclusives when that happens, as there will be no economic benefit to being exclusive anymore. But maybe that is no longer a relevant concern to them either.

I can see paying Getty content creators 20% when the average download price is over $50 a pop. But when people are now paying mostly subs rates for a download on iStock, and you cut the royalty rate in half for exclusives, it leaves you with a royalty of only a few cents on a download.

Then again, Shutterstock only pays you on average $0.33 on a download too. So I guess it wouldn't be much different. But at least the volume of downloads on a file on Shutterstock is many multiples of what it is on iStock.

I don't think they have the critical thinking skills to foresee the cause and effect of anything they do to screw themselves. History has already proven that. They have already dropped self destruct bombs twice during the month of September in the past, which resulted in massive losses of revenue, etc. So this is going to be no different come September when they drop another self destruct bomb and end up screwing everyone and themselves yet again.

I also think Getty is at a point where they don't care as much about what actually happens to iStock sales. They seem more focused on wanting to simply absorb it into the Getty system and standardize all their sites under one brand/business model.

So I think when they do drop everyone to 20%, you get this mass exodus of Exclusives, and they are only left with perhaps 1/3 of their contributors who are even willing to continue to upload to the site for such low payouts, they just wont care. As long as the buyers keep buying that is all they are focused on. They have enough content now under the Getty umbrella that they probably feel they can just sail this ship with its slow, rotting leak until it just finally sinks completely and they have to file for bankruptcy reorganization.

I think we as contributors, who are emotionally attached to the health of a site where we upload our content to like iStock, focus too much on trying to see the logic in all the mistakes they make. Maybe they don't even see these loses of revenue and good will as being mistakes, but the path of consolidating and absorbing their smaller brands into a bigger, and more significant machine.

But if you said "Hey Getty, How's That Business Approach Been Workin' For Ya So Far?" I think the answer lies clearly in all the red on their balance sheets.
Title: Re: Getty e-mail about iStock "Contributor Facing Changes"
Post by: Sammy the Cat on July 18, 2016, 11:45
This definitely seems like the lead-up to the release of iStock September Self-Destruct v3.0, as they drop everybody's royalty rates to the flat Getty 20%.

Now that would be an improvement on the crappy 15% they give to none exclusives
with no chance of making it to the 16% threshold
Title: Re: Getty e-mail about iStock "Contributor Facing Changes"
Post by: everest on July 18, 2016, 11:45
This definitely seems like the lead-up to a iStock September Self-Destruct v3.0 as they drop everybody's royalty rates to the flat Getty 20%.

Agreed, but the part I can't work out though is how they are going to justify only paying people 20% when all the other micros are paying much higher.

Also, there will be this mass exodus of Exclusives when that happens, as there will be no economic benefit to being exclusive anymore. But maybe that is no longer a relevant concern to them either.

I can see paying Getty content creators 20% when the average download price is over $50 a pop. But when people are now paying mostly subs rates for a download on iStock, and you cut the royalty rate in half for exclusives, it leaves you with a royalty of only a few cents on a download.

Then again, Shutterstock only pays you on average $0.33 on a download too. So I guess it wouldn't be much different. But at least the volume of downloads on a file on Shutterstock is many multiples of what it is on iStock.

I don't think they have the critical thinking skills to foresee the cause and effect of anything they do to screw themselves. History has already proven that. They have already dropped self destruct bombs twice during the month of September in the past, which resulted in massive losses of revenue, etc. So this is going to be no different come September when they drop another self destruct bomb and end up screwing everyone and themselves yet again.

I also think Getty is at a point where they don't care as much about what actually happens to iStock sales. They seem more focused on wanting to simply absorb it into the Getty system and standardize all their sites under one brand/business model.

So I think when they do drop everyone to 20%, you get this mass exodus of Exclusives, and they are only left with perhaps 1/3 of their contributors who are even willing to continue to upload to the site for such low payouts, they just wont care. As long as the buyers keep buying that is all they are focused on. They have enough content now under the Getty umbrella that they probably feel they can just sail this ship with its slow, rotting leak until it just finally sinks completely and they have to file for bankruptcy reorganization.

I think we as contributors, who are emotionally attached to the health of a site where we upload our content to like iStock, focus too much on trying to see the logic in all the mistakes they make. Maybe they don't even see these loses of revenue and good will as being mistakes, but the path of consolidating and absorbing their smaller brands into a bigger, and more significant machine.

But if you said "Hey Getty, How's That Business Approach Been Workin' For Ya So Far?" I think the answer lies clearly in all the red on their balance sheets.

Great post....we all see this coming....it's up to everyone to act accordingly. It doesn't matter what they say.......their actions are much louder  In any case they still act under the moto " "money isn't going to be what makes you happy""......... ??? I wonder how many will have thrown their crowns by december 31th
Title: Re: Getty e-mail about iStock "Contributor Facing Changes"
Post by: Digital66 on July 18, 2016, 12:34
This definitely seems like the lead-up to the release of iStock September Self-Destruct v3.0, as they drop everybody's royalty rates to the flat Getty 20%.

Now that would be an improvement on the crappy 15% they give to none exclusives
with no chance of making it to the 16% threshold
I wouldn't count on that.  They could rather drop all non exclusive's royalties to 10%.    :-\
Title: Re: Getty e-mail about iStock "Contributor Facing Changes"
Post by: Karen on July 18, 2016, 13:10
I think the answer lies clearly in all the red on their balance sheets.
Getty has a HUGE DEBT...
Many years they have been squeezing iStock until the last drop of a juice, until it's dead.
Now they have no choice but to lock everybody in their cage before they die.  >:(
Title: Re: Getty e-mail about iStock "Contributor Facing Changes"
Post by: drd on July 18, 2016, 13:55
File deactivation seems to be locked at the moment. Has anyone else experienced the same?
Title: Re: Getty e-mail about iStock "Contributor Facing Changes"
Post by: kaboom on July 18, 2016, 14:06
Im just trying it - and yep, it doesnt work. When I get to the screen where you need to put the deactivation reason and click on Deactivate file button - nothing happens! Is this a joke?  >:(
Title: Re: Getty e-mail about iStock "Contributor Facing Changes"
Post by: ShadySue on July 18, 2016, 14:07
Working fine here.
Title: Re: Getty e-mail about iStock "Contributor Facing Changes"
Post by: Lizard on July 18, 2016, 14:08
Didnt visit their site for a while...

So whats the procedure to delete files or if they dont let me to do that, then to close the account or whatever name they gave for that?

Thx
Title: Re: Getty e-mail about iStock "Contributor Facing Changes"
Post by: PixelBytes on July 18, 2016, 14:19
This definitely seems like the lead-up to the release of iStock September Self-Destruct v3.0, as they drop everybody's royalty rates to the flat Getty 20%.

Now that would be an improvement on the crappy 15% they give to none exclusives
with no chance of making it to the 16% threshold

LOL.  I was thinking the same thing.  I'd love it if they would drop me to 20%.
Title: Re: Getty e-mail about iStock "Contributor Facing Changes"
Post by: ShadySue on July 18, 2016, 14:29
Didnt visit their site for a while...

So whats the procedure to delete files or if they dont let me to do that, then to close the account or whatever name they gave for that?

Thx
Deactivate files one at a time via Manage File, or contact CR to close your account, as per your contract with them.
Title: Re: Getty e-mail about iStock "Contributor Facing Changes"
Post by: Lizard on July 18, 2016, 14:31
Didnt visit their site for a while...

So whats the procedure to delete files or if they dont let me to do that, then to close the account or whatever name they gave for that?

Thx
Deactivate files one at a time via Manage File, or contact CR to close your account, as per your contract with them.

Tnx  ;)
Title: Re: Getty e-mail about iStock "Contributor Facing Changes"
Post by: Jogga0 on July 18, 2016, 14:50
Im just trying it - and yep, it doesnt work. When I get to the screen where you need to put the deactivation reason and click on Deactivate file button - nothing happens! Is this a joke?  >:(

agreed this has stopped working and only 700 to go
Title: Re: Getty e-mail about iStock "Contributor Facing Changes"
Post by: ShadySue on July 18, 2016, 15:02
Working fine here.
Strange, I deactivated one after reading the previous post and it worked.
Now I tried another one and it didn't.
No message to say I couldn't do it; it just seemed to 'time out' without generating a time out message.
Title: Re: Getty e-mail about iStock "Contributor Facing Changes"
Post by: ShadySue on July 18, 2016, 15:55
Working again, at least once.
iSNAFU

PS, I read that uploading was 'iffy' during that period, so just a normal iSnafu, rather than a particular deactivating one.
Title: Re: Getty e-mail about iStock "Contributor Facing Changes"
Post by: YadaYadaYada on July 18, 2016, 16:06
I have old version of DeepMeta, because i don't upload already long time. Started it to see the balance. Modal popup on start:
"Attention. Please note that keywords cannot be edited once the file has been uploaded. Please donwload the latest version of DeepMeta, v2.0.23, which is conform to this change".
And current version of DeepMeta delets only local copy of file, not at IS.

Always been that way for deletions with DM.

I think it's time to let what's there make a little money, see what changes. I won't be sending anything new. A little money was a view of the future at IS since they are already terrible and getting worse with this new version. RC, Royalty changes, who knows what prices will be, in a general way, this totally sucks.
Title: Re: Getty e-mail about iStock "Contributor Facing Changes"
Post by: Holmes on July 18, 2016, 16:53
This definitely seems like the lead-up to the release of iStock September Self-Destruct v3.0, as they drop everybody's royalty rates to the flat Getty 20%.

I have been anticipating this for years. But wondered if they had the balls to do it. Lowering all exclusives to 20% will kill or greatly damage this segment for them. When they use the term "unification", it implies 20% for all...well, to me. I hope I am wrong but locking down accounts is an ominous sign.
Title: Re: Getty e-mail about iStock "Contributor Facing Changes"
Post by: CJH Photography on July 18, 2016, 17:02
File deactivation seems to be locked at the moment. Has anyone else experienced the same?
I was able to deactivate a few-at least that's what the site said....I will check later and make sure it sticks.  Lol.
Title: Re: Getty e-mail about iStock "Contributor Facing Changes"
Post by: PhotoBomb on July 18, 2016, 18:02
I deactivated all pending images last night - no problem, and several recently accepted images this morning - no problem. And just deactivated another with no problem.
Title: Re: Getty e-mail about iStock "Contributor Facing Changes"
Post by: BlueMoonPics on July 18, 2016, 19:45
I deactivated all pending images last night - no problem, and several recently accepted images this morning - no problem. And just deactivated another with no problem.

I deactivated all my files yesterday afternoon also.  Sent them a request to cancel my exclusivity.
I've waited around a few years already and watched this ship sinking.  I'm swimming away now.
Title: Re: Getty e-mail about iStock "Contributor Facing Changes"
Post by: YadaYadaYada on July 18, 2016, 19:55
This definitely seems like the lead-up to the release of iStock September Self-Destruct v3.0, as they drop everybody's royalty rates to the flat Getty 20%.

Now that would be an improvement on the crappy 15% they give to none exclusives
with no chance of making it to the 16% threshold

Thanks for making that point. Seems like the conversation mixes exclusive vs indie and it  can get confusing. As a nonex I'd look forward to 20% flat rate. If I was Exc and happy, I'd be pissed off.

We won't know until IS drops the details but as usual, they miss that their greatist selling point is they have exclusive pictures. Everybody can get everything else from anyplace for the lowest price. Maybe not you or me, but most people prostitute their work to anyplace that will pay them pennies a download. Exclusive in IS don't.

Not changing keywords means the seo will be stable. I can undrestand why they would do that. Also stop people from spamming keywords and data after accepted. No more childs play, serious, what you have on upload is what youy get.

This is all looking like making the database stable instead of a mess that flows and changes all the time. No I don't like the nondelete, but I can see why.

If it means more money for me and more exposure on Getty I'm all for this. If it's just another way to put frosting on a Getty Turd Spinning deal, we've come to expect sugar coated BS from them. If it means they kill partners and TS I'll celebrate.
Title: Re: Getty e-mail about iStock "Contributor Facing Changes"
Post by: Mantis on July 18, 2016, 20:15
I received a email from Istock today who said that the new system will still allow you to close your account with a 30-day notice.  You can also close parts of your account, videos, for example, and keep your stills if you want. 
Title: Re: Getty e-mail about iStock "Contributor Facing Changes"
Post by: Mantis on July 18, 2016, 20:45
This definitely seems like the lead-up to the release of iStock September Self-Destruct v3.0, as they drop everybody's royalty rates to the flat Getty 20%.

Now that would be an improvement on the crappy 15% they give to none exclusives
with no chance of making it to the 16% threshold

I agree. I do not believe for one second that we will all get bumped to 20 percent.  Video is 10 percent or less now and I am at 15% on stills. 20 would be a big fat raise. No way they level set to 20 for those getting less.
Title: Re: Getty e-mail about iStock "Contributor Facing Changes"
Post by: sharpshot on July 19, 2016, 01:58
If they lose enough exclusives, they might scrap exclusivity and give us all 20%.  It would be a way to make it look like they were increasing their commission without costing much.  It might make me consider uploading again but I doubt it.
Title: Re: Getty e-mail about iStock "Contributor Facing Changes"
Post by: Microstockphoto on July 19, 2016, 02:29
sharpshot has a point though, the offset against exclusives dropping from 35-40% t0 20% against a rise from 15-16-17 to 20% might just give them the edge below the line
Title: Re: Getty e-mail about iStock "Contributor Facing Changes"
Post by: PixBoxx on July 19, 2016, 02:33
Right, you cut all Exclusives from 35%-40% down to 20% and you can easily afford to bump Indies from 15% up to 20%.

This way they streamline everyone to 20% and then it is just like on Getty where everyone is already locked in at 20%.

Then they can tell the bankers they still might have a chance to survive and "Woo-Yays" all around.

So, one, single, shi**y rate for everyone, except Yuri of course.
Title: Re: Getty e-mail about iStock "Contributor Facing Changes"
Post by: iFlop on July 19, 2016, 02:40
And the reason to drop the big royalty-cut bomb in September is simple. iStock has had one of its worst revenue years in the last 15. If they reduce their contributor payouts during the 3 best selling months of the year, then they still have a chance of dressing up their balance sheet a bit to show a revenue spike in Q4.
Title: Re: Getty e-mail about iStock "Contributor Facing Changes"
Post by: CraigMiller on July 19, 2016, 02:47
Great. So glad I was never in this for the money. Since I wont even be making lens cap money anymore, I need to call KK Thompson and thank him for his great vision.

http://www.istockphoto.com/article_view.php?ID=371 (http://www.istockphoto.com/article_view.php?ID=371)
Title: Re: Getty e-mail about iStock "Contributor Facing Changes"
Post by: Karen on July 19, 2016, 03:18
So, one, single, shi**y rate for everyone, except Yuri of course.

Yuri grandfathered with his 50% "exclusive"/"non-exclusive" deal with them 8)
Even if it will be 50% from... Zero sales ;D
Title: Re: Getty e-mail about iStock "Contributor Facing Changes"
Post by: Karen on July 19, 2016, 03:27
Anyway, I am removing all my images but one from iStock before August 20th - whilst I can.
I don't have any more positive expectations from them. Nothing good for contributors will happen this September on Getty in that I am sure.  >:(
Title: Re: Getty e-mail about iStock "Contributor Facing Changes"
Post by: goober on July 19, 2016, 04:38
It's back to the future! istock will be selling your images for 10 cents. :)
Title: Re: Getty e-mail about iStock "Contributor Facing Changes"
Post by: CJH Photography on July 19, 2016, 12:08
Anyway, I am removing all my images but one from iStock before August 20th - whilst I can.
I don't have any more positive expectations from them. Nothing good for contributors will happen this September on Getty in that I am sure.  >:(
Curious why you are leaving one?  If we deactivate them all do we need to retest?  I may want to upload some things there in the future, but they will not be as many as I would before.
Title: Re: Getty e-mail about iStock "Contributor Facing Changes"
Post by: cathyslife on July 19, 2016, 13:23
Curious why you are leaving one?  If we deactivate them all do we need to retest?  I may want to upload some things there in the future, but they will not be as many as I would before.

When I quit uploading to / dealing with istock, I didn't even leave one image, but I didn't close my account either. I left it open just in case something turned around...which, of course, it never has. It also allowed me to use my profile page as a "reference"...I could provide a link and show that I had reached gold. Not sure if those are the same reasons Karen is leaving only one image.

https://secure.istockphoto.com/profile/cathyclapper2 (https://secure.istockphoto.com/profile/cathyclapper2)
Title: Re: Getty e-mail about iStock "Contributor Facing Changes"
Post by: spc on July 19, 2016, 13:29
We can only expect things to get worse if they'll have full control over a huge collection of images. I just removed mine. It was an easy decision because I only had a small portfolio there.
Title: Re: Getty e-mail about iStock "Contributor Facing Changes"
Post by: Jo Ann Snover on July 19, 2016, 15:23
Curious why you are leaving one?  If we deactivate them all do we need to retest?  I may want to upload some things there in the future, but they will not be as many as I would before.

In my case I left 100 images that were shot at an iStockalypse (when I was exclusive) and which I contractually may not sell elsewhere. I have access to my account and all the history that way - I'd leave one image just so I could look at deactivation dates, upload dates and so on (until they remove or break all the software that provides that information).

They can make any rules they want about passing a test - they could say that as I haven't uploaded since 2013 I'd have to retest if they wanted; contract can change whenever, and if you don't like it you can leave :) So keeping images doesn't insulate you from anything, but, for the moment at least, preserves some history
Title: Re: Getty e-mail about iStock "Contributor Facing Changes"
Post by: senicphoto on July 19, 2016, 16:23
Sent an email to IStock ... closing my account. It's been a good ride since 2005. Can't deal with Getty's nonsense any longer.
Title: Re: Getty e-mail about iStock "Contributor Facing Changes"
Post by: goober on July 19, 2016, 21:06
I'm go go going. It's go time.
Title: Re: Getty e-mail about iStock "Contributor Facing Changes"
Post by: stockVid on July 19, 2016, 21:32
I've gone.
Title: Re: Getty e-mail about iStock "Contributor Facing Changes"
Post by: PixBoxx on July 20, 2016, 00:17
Wooohoooo, with everyone pulling their portfolios on iStock, pretty soon I will have all those $0.10 royalties all to myself. I'll just be rolling in dough and buy a round of lens-caps for everyone!
Title: Re: Getty e-mail about iStock "Contributor Facing Changes"
Post by: JPSDK on July 20, 2016, 02:00
This article is relevant:

https://www.theguardian.com/books/2015/jul/17/postcapitalism-end-of-capitalism-begun (https://www.theguardian.com/books/2015/jul/17/postcapitalism-end-of-capitalism-begun)
Title: Re: Getty e-mail about iStock "Contributor Facing Changes"
Post by: LizS on July 21, 2016, 11:19
Can anyone tell me the procedure to close my iStock account? I deleted all my files, and emailed them on the same day the notice about the changes came out, requesting to close my account and be paid out the balance of my earnings. I have received nothing but an auto-response back. Replied to that a couple days later and... nothing.

Is there any other way I am supposed to be doing this or must I just wait indefinitely to hear back from them?
Title: Re: Getty e-mail about iStock "Contributor Facing Changes"
Post by: ShadySue on July 21, 2016, 11:43
...must I just wait indefinitely to hear back from them?
Yup. They're busy just now.
Title: Re: Getty e-mail about iStock "Contributor Facing Changes"
Post by: Mantis on July 21, 2016, 18:03
...must I just wait indefinitely to hear back from them?
Yup. They're busy just now.

I just got a reply from them and it took almost a week.
Title: Re: Getty e-mail about iStock "Contributor Facing Changes"
Post by: zstoimenov on July 22, 2016, 00:35
It's been a couple of days for me. No answer still.
Title: Re: Getty e-mail about iStock "Contributor Facing Changes"
Post by: skyfish on July 22, 2016, 01:57
And? Will they pay the balance?
Title: Re: Getty e-mail about iStock "Contributor Facing Changes"
Post by: ShadySue on July 22, 2016, 04:54
It's been a couple of days for me. No answer still.
At times, four weeks and counting is not unusual.
Also, I've had tickets just 'disappear' after a few weeks.
And sometimes tickets are answered almost instantly.
Title: Re: Getty e-mail about iStock "Contributor Facing Changes"
Post by: ShadySue on July 22, 2016, 04:55
And? Will they pay the balance?
As I said earlier in this thread, previous msg posts say that they do, but it might come in stages, like reporting.
Title: Re: Getty e-mail about iStock "Contributor Facing Changes"
Post by: skyfish on July 22, 2016, 05:25
Ok thank you probably i read the thread very quickly
Title: Re: Getty e-mail about iStock "Contributor Facing Changes"
Post by: PixelBytes on July 22, 2016, 13:22
...must I just wait indefinitely to hear back from them?
Yup. They're busy just now.

I just got a reply from them and it took almost a week.

I gave up on their support system years ago.   That's why I really appreciate your asking the question about whether we'll still be able to close accounts and posting the answer here.  Thanks man.  You saved alot of us from wondering.
Title: Re: Getty e-mail about iStock "Contributor Facing Changes"
Post by: Rose Tinted Glasses on July 22, 2016, 14:24
...must I just wait indefinitely to hear back from them?
Yup. They're busy just now.

I just got a reply from them and it took almost a week.

I gave up on their support system years ago.   That's why I really appreciate your asking the question about whether we'll still be able to close accounts and posting the answer here.  Thanks man.  You saved alot of us from wondering.

Lot's of drama... There was never a mention of not being able to close accounts -ever- not once- nowhere- nada- zilch-at any time. So why are you all worked up and in a tizzy about speculation and self fabricated drama?

Please, act like adults, read the email, go to their forums and you will quickly find that all this drama is just that, drama.

It's seriously overkill in the kiddy drama department.





Title: Re: Getty e-mail about iStock "Contributor Facing Changes"
Post by: Sammy the Cat on July 26, 2016, 02:35
Kiddy drama dept?

No people are genuinely worried and unhappy given iStock/Getty's previous shennigans

But plus 100 points for effectively closing down the debate fanboy  ;D
Title: Re: Getty e-mail about iStock "Contributor Facing Changes"
Post by: Justanotherphotographer on July 26, 2016, 04:05
Why is it drama? They have said they will refuse to let us delete our own content based on rules they control and  weren't in place when the content was uploaded.
Title: Re: Getty e-mail about iStock "Contributor Facing Changes"
Post by: Mantis on July 26, 2016, 08:00
...must I just wait indefinitely to hear back from them?
Yup. They're busy just now.

I just got a reply from them and it took almost a week.

I gave up on their support system years ago.   That's why I really appreciate your asking the question about whether we'll still be able to close accounts and posting the answer here.  Thanks man.  You saved alot of us from wondering.

Lot's of drama... There was never a mention of not being able to close accounts -ever- not once- nowhere- nada- zilch-at any time. So why are you all worked up and in a tizzy about speculation and self fabricated drama?

Please, act like adults, read the email, go to their forums and you will quickly find that all this drama is just that, drama.

It's seriously overkill in the kiddy drama department.

Well, let me educate you on cause and effect.  You must admit that the microstock industry as a whole throws us curve balls quite often. Leading the pack is Istock/Getty.  So lets put some facts together.

1. Istock sent us an email stating that we cannot remove any images at all unless there is a legal reason for which they agree. Then the mighty giant will grant us permission and delete our images on a case by case basis. We bow and say thank you.

2. Why do they put the screws to us with this policy? They stated in their forums that they do not want to disrupt a buyer who might have your image in a light box for consideration to purchase. So therefore, we cannot ever delete an image except for legal purposes.  Ever? Really?

3. So if one of my images is in a light box, what are the odds that other images are in aggregate light boxes? Well, depending on your port size and content blend, very possible. So, Istock sets a policy whereby they have a fear in which we lowly contributors will yank one in XXX images that will anger a buyer.  Yea, ONE IMAGE YANKED will upset a buyer. Did I say ONE, yes I said ONE. 

4. So given Istock's track record relative to the treatment of their contributor base, I CAN EASILY INFER from number three above that if they are so * worried about one image being yanked from a buyers light box, they would be petrified if one had many images in various buyers' light boxes and the contributor decided to close their account. So the natural response from a contributor's perspective would be to ask, "if Istock is so worried about one image being deactivated and no longer available to buyers, they would be crapping their pants if contributors simply closed their accounts and disrupted many buyers". 

Why is 30 days to close your account any different than 30 days to deactivate an image? There is no difference and that is why we should rightfully have enquired about whether these terms apply to closing your account. To me this is a double standard. If I can close my account in 30 days, effectively deactivating many images in a buyer's light box, why isn't it okay to deactivate one or two or 10 images when the damage to closing an account could be far more painful to a buyer than deactivating an entire portfolio? I mean, their concern is for the buyer losing access to an image. Scalability is why I asked and as a businessperson like you who claims to be so mightily knowledgeable about the stock business, connecting the dots seems to be an area where you need help.
Title: Re: Getty e-mail about iStock "Contributor Facing Changes"
Post by: ShadySue on July 26, 2016, 08:24
^^
But then again, when does the bigG's alleged reason for doing something bear any relationship to the truth?
They promised  exclusive editorials were going to be mirrored onto Getty, and I'll say at least 80% of mine were migrated in a timely manner. Then they unmirrored them, saying that they had to educate buyers in how they could be used.
That was over a year ago. How stupid are these buyers, considering that editorial has been sold for many years on Getty.
OTOH, they suddenly decided to introduce editorial on iS, only weeks after a moderator had said categorically that there were no plans to introduce editorial there. iStock's buyers must be more intelligent as there didn't have to be a year's education programme so that they'd know how they could use the files.
Disclaimer 1: 'editorial at Getty is a double edged sword, given that we only get 20% (which may be all anyone is going to get from Getty RSN) and royalties can be down to 18c at least).
Disclaimer 2: some iS editorial sales have been used commercially; sometimes they are removed swiftly, sometimes extremely slowly. But then, there is a small proportion of buyers who misuse commercial files also, either when they should have bought ELs or used them for 'sensitive use' without being within the criteria.
Title: Re: Getty e-mail about iStock "Contributor Facing Changes"
Post by: Rose Tinted Glasses on July 26, 2016, 09:11
Well, let me educate you on cause and effect.  You must admit that the microstock industry as a whole throws us curve balls quite often. Leading the pack is Istock/Getty.  So lets put some facts together.

Please do educate me/us...

I have been shooting stock since roughly around the time RF was the new way to destroy stock photography, before Getty was even a name in the stock industry and way before the digital world and microstock.

I think it safe to say I have seen pretty much every curve ball the industry has thrown at us and my conclusion is that not being able to change my keywords or being able to remove an image on a whim is not of too much concern as I have always since day one put my images up where I choose and simply forget them.

That all said, I am not a fan of Getty by any stretch but for me at the end of the day they provide me a living and I am not totally convinced the grass is greener on the other side - as SJL and Hatman have suggested on another post.

I remember way back I said that microstock would be a home run for a spell then it would eventually cannibalize itself... only to be chastised for such negativity, and voila here we are at check... further to this, I actually see check mate just around the corner with the industry going into deeper despair in the next few years. The current model of selling stock is not sustainable... I think I have heard that before.
Title: Re: Getty e-mail about iStock "Contributor Facing Changes"
Post by: jjneff on July 26, 2016, 09:25
For images iStock is no worse then anyone else. I dropped my video exclusive and yes that has paid off to be non-exclusive in video!!! SS is the one to blame for the low photo prices! I at least get 0.75 for subs on iStock and remain image exclusive there. They all try to play games at some point. I am doing more and more custom work outside of stock. There will always be a market for good work so that is what I care about!
Title: Re: Getty e-mail about iStock "Contributor Facing Changes"
Post by: stocker2011 on July 26, 2016, 15:52
I am considering requesting my account to be terminated or have my videos deactivated and just keep my account there. The only thing that is stopping me is that I heard I think in this forum that they are planning big things for video sometime this year, can anyone confirm this or have any details? I would just like to know if this is true though I doubt I would be a game changer unless they seriously overhauled the royalty scheme.

Thanks.
Title: Re: Getty e-mail about iStock "Contributor Facing Changes"
Post by: PixelBytes on July 26, 2016, 17:05
I am considering requesting my account to be terminated or have my videos deactivated and just keep my account there. The only thing that is stopping me is that I heard I think in this forum that they are planning big things for video sometime this year, can anyone confirm this or have any details? I would just like to know if this is true though I doubt I would be a game changer unless they seriously overhauled the royalty scheme.

Thanks.

Whatever BIG THINGS they are planning for video, it will most likely include a cut to your royalties and a fiction that it will be made up in sales volume.
Title: Re: Getty e-mail about iStock "Contributor Facing Changes"
Post by: trek on July 26, 2016, 18:05
istock's "big things" in the past have been poignant for our collective posteriors.  I'm abstaining from uploading until we learn the full details of the istock-getty absorption.  I don't want to invest anymore workflow in a situation that may trigger an exodus.   
Title: Re: Getty e-mail about iStock "Contributor Facing Changes"
Post by: ForrestBrown on July 26, 2016, 18:10
I am considering requesting my account to be terminated or have my videos deactivated and just keep my account there. The only thing that is stopping me is that I heard I think in this forum that they are planning big things for video sometime this year, can anyone confirm this or have any details? I would just like to know if this is true though I doubt I would be a game changer unless they seriously overhauled the royalty scheme.

Thanks.

I wouldn't hold your breath.

Why terminate your account? Why not just leave what you have there and not upload any more. I'm a diamond level footage contributor and I just dropped iStock video exclusivity after being exclusive for 9 years. I'm going to leave my footage on iStock, but I'm not planning on uploading any more. If iStock does make some changes that are good for the contributors, then I might start uploading again.

Title: Re: Getty e-mail about iStock "Contributor Facing Changes"
Post by: stocker2011 on July 26, 2016, 18:38
I am considering requesting my account to be terminated or have my videos deactivated and just keep my account there. The only thing that is stopping me is that I heard I think in this forum that they are planning big things for video sometime this year, can anyone confirm this or have any details? I would just like to know if this is true though I doubt I would be a game changer unless they seriously overhauled the royalty scheme.

Thanks.

I wouldn't hold your breath.

Why terminate your account? Why not just leave what you have there and not upload any more. I'm a diamond level footage contributor and I just dropped iStock video exclusivity after being exclusive for 9 years. I'm going to leave my footage on iStock, but I'm not planning on uploading any more. If iStock does make some changes that are good for the contributors, then I might start uploading again.

Hi Forrest, I too am a long time contributor and stopped uploading about 2 years ago after the last set of contributor unfriendly changes as a 1st step to see how things would pan out at istock, and it looks like things are continuing down the path. If they are indeed going to make it difficult to remove videos then I may consider pulling the port altogether but keep my account there as my port is small and 15% isnt cutting it anymore. The difference in royalty really becomes evident once you are non-exclusive for a long time, although in your case with a large port an dmuch invested effort over th eyears I can see why you have decided to stop uploading for the time being.

Good luck.

 
Title: Re: Getty e-mail about iStock "Contributor Facing Changes"
Post by: Mantis on July 26, 2016, 19:04
Well, let me educate you on cause and effect.  You must admit that the microstock industry as a whole throws us curve balls quite often. Leading the pack is Istock/Getty.  So lets put some facts together.

Please do educate me/us...

I have been shooting stock since roughly around the time RF was the new way to destroy stock photography, before Getty was even a name in the stock industry and way before the digital world and microstock.

I think it safe to say I have seen pretty much every curve ball the industry has thrown at us and my conclusion is that not being able to change my keywords or being able to remove an image on a whim is not of too much concern as I have always since day one put my images up where I choose and simply forget them.

That all said, I am not a fan of Getty by any stretch but for me at the end of the day they provide me a living and I am not totally convinced the grass is greener on the other side - as SJL and Hatman have suggested on another post.

I remember way back I said that microstock would be a home run for a spell then it would eventually cannibalize itself... only to be chastised for such negativity, and voila here we are at check... further to this, I actually see check mate just around the corner with the industry going into deeper despair in the next few years. The current model of selling stock is not sustainable... I think I have heard that before.

I'm referring specifically how to link cause and effect and why asking about closure of accounts as a spinoff from not being allowed to deactivate images at will. I never said you were not experienced at the other stuff.
Title: Re: Getty e-mail about iStock "Contributor Facing Changes"
Post by: goober on July 27, 2016, 07:00

I remember way back I said that microstock would be a home run for a spell then it would eventually cannibalize itself... only to be chastised for such negativity, and voila here we are at check... further to this, I actually see check mate just around the corner with the industry going into deeper despair in the next few years. The current model of selling stock is not sustainable... I think I have heard that before.

When did you say this? Your profile says you've only been a member here for one year. Did you have another member name before Rose Tinted Glasses?
Title: Re: Getty e-mail about iStock "Contributor Facing Changes"
Post by: Rose Tinted Glasses on July 29, 2016, 09:36

I remember way back I said that microstock would be a home run for a spell then it would eventually cannibalize itself... only to be chastised for such negativity, and voila here we are at check... further to this, I actually see check mate just around the corner with the industry going into deeper despair in the next few years. The current model of selling stock is not sustainable... I think I have heard that before.

When did you say this? Your profile says you've only been a member here for one year. Did you have another member name before Rose Tinted Glasses?

Yes, I was on here for a spell, then left this forum for a long time as it was and still is quite conspiracy and speculatively driven. Also note this is not the only forum on the stock industry. 
Title: Re: Getty e-mail about iStock "Contributor Facing Changes"
Post by: skyfish on July 29, 2016, 11:39
Hello all! What about thinkstock?
Just discovered that they started to sell for 0.02$ - probably because it is less than 1$ to payout now.
Will they take our images for themselves too?
Title: Re: Getty e-mail about iStock "Contributor Facing Changes"
Post by: ShadySue on July 29, 2016, 11:44
Hello all! What about thinkstock?
Just discovered that they started to sell for 0.02$ - probably because it is less than 1$ to payout now.
Will they take our images for themselves too?

http://www.microstockgroup.com/istockphoto-com/earning-just-usd-0-02-!!!/msg460511/#msg460511 (http://www.microstockgroup.com/istockphoto-com/earning-just-usd-0-02-!!!/msg460511/#msg460511)
Title: Re: Getty e-mail about iStock "Contributor Facing Changes"
Post by: skyfish on July 29, 2016, 13:18
Thank you.
One of "exciting opportunities" by agency
Title: Re: Getty e-mail about iStock "Contributor Facing Changes"
Post by: Minsc on July 29, 2016, 19:20
Getty is planning to give everyone 10% royalty. When contributors get angry, they won't be able to delete anything so they can continue to reap the rewards. It has nothing to do with lightboxes. It has everything to do with control and specifically, pricing control.

I have a small portfolio on iStock, and I won't be uploading anymore images. I think a nice small lawsuit will force Getty to give people the delete function. What they are doing is not legal or ethical.
Title: Re: Getty e-mail about iStock "Contributor Facing Changes"
Post by: cathyslife on July 29, 2016, 20:24

I remember way back I said that microstock would be a home run for a spell then it would eventually cannibalize itself... only to be chastised for such negativity, and voila here we are at check... further to this, I actually see check mate just around the corner with the industry going into deeper despair in the next few years. The current model of selling stock is not sustainable... I think I have heard that before.

When did you say this? Your profile says you've only been a member here for one year. Did you have another member name before Rose Tinted Glasses?

Yes, I was on here for a spell, then left this forum for a long time as it was and still is quite conspiracy and speculatively driven. Also note this is not the only forum on the stock industry.


i wonder why you are here then. you think microstock ruined "your" industry (and yet from my point of view pros ruined it for amateurs/semi-pros). wouldnt your time be used more effectively by working on business instead of posting on this forum? Just wondering.


PS many of us here knew the good times wouldnt last forever and was not sustainable.
Title: Re: Getty e-mail about iStock "Contributor Facing Changes"
Post by: Sammy the Cat on July 31, 2016, 02:41

I remember way back I said that microstock would be a home run for a spell then it would eventually cannibalize itself... only to be chastised for such negativity, and voila here we are at check... further to this, I actually see check mate just around the corner with the industry going into deeper despair in the next few years. The current model of selling stock is not sustainable... I think I have heard that before.

When did you say this? Your profile says you've only been a member here for one year. Did you have another member name before Rose Tinted Glasses?

Yes, I was on here for a spell, then left this forum for a long time as it was and still is quite conspiracy and speculatively driven. Also note this is not the only forum on the stock industry.

...and the reason for all the speculation and conspiracy is purely at the door of the agencies due to their lack of transparency, lack of real communication failure to rectify genuine problems and their down right shady practices where contributors are concerned.

So it's hardly a big surprize now is it.

Title: Re: Getty e-mail about iStock "Contributor Facing Changes"
Post by: Gel-O Shooter on July 31, 2016, 10:24
The new keyword and deactivation policy is to prevent contributors from yanking their best files after August 20th.  If I couldn't delete my best ones, then my next move would be to change 20 relevant keywords to 5 unrelated terms and effectively make it un-searchable. They have closed this avenue of escape and seem to be thinking that most people will accept reduced royalties rather than accept zero royalties by deleting their accounts.  I don't know what they have in mind for September, but this move by them is a huge red flag to me.
I have gone through my files and deactivated anything I wouldn't take 5-10% royalty on.  It will be a pain, but if they don't do something stupid after August I can always re-submit them.  I hope they don't, but with their history of screwing contributors I won't be surprised.
Title: Re: Getty e-mail about iStock "Contributor Facing Changes"
Post by: skyfish on July 31, 2016, 10:56
Deleting files it is a nightmare. One by one, without reason it cannot be deactivated. I have feeling that they will continue to sell deactivated files.
Do i miss something? Deletion is possible only from Portfolio view, not from details. From Details i cannot open file, error page says "something was scrambled". First several files it was possible to find by ID, then search by ID stopped. After several minutes pause it finally showed the file, then next search again was a waste of time.
p.s. found shortcuts, but anyway their functionality is done to slowdown contributors
Title: Re: Getty e-mail about iStock "Contributor Facing Changes"
Post by: Nica on July 31, 2016, 12:27
The new keyword and deactivation policy is to prevent contributors from yanking their best files after August 20th.  If I couldn't delete my best ones, then my next move would be to change 20 relevant keywords to 5 unrelated terms and effectively make it un-searchable.

well as far as I understand we won't be able to change keywords, so this isn't any option  :-[
Title: Re: Getty e-mail about iStock "Contributor Facing Changes"
Post by: Mantis on July 31, 2016, 15:53
The new keyword and deactivation policy is to prevent contributors from yanking their best files after August 20th.  If I couldn't delete my best ones, then my next move would be to change 20 relevant keywords to 5 unrelated terms and effectively make it un-searchable.

well as far as I understand we won't be able to change keywords, so this isn't any option  :-[

The approach I am taking is wait and see.  If they crush royalties further I will just close my account there. I am hanging by a thread that they will will do something positive with video, but if it walks like a duck and quacks like a duck, it's probably a duck.
Title: Re: Getty e-mail about iStock "Contributor Facing Changes"
Post by: jamesbenet on July 31, 2016, 16:05
I canceled video exclusivity in 2010 and it was a great decision by any measure stopped uploading footage then aswell .  I remained exclusive in other media until now. If they make royalties 20% for exclusivity then I will become non exclusive on those other media also. 

Wonder how all of this will play out. It was so easy to fix back in 2007 when they still controlled most micro and macro but they decided to erode the contrinutors to the bone instead.   :-\

Title: Re: Getty e-mail about iStock "Contributor Facing Changes"
Post by: w7lwi on July 31, 2016, 21:04
I was going back and forth whether or not to leave IS now, or wait, as some have mentioned, and see what life holds after the big G.  However, after checking this week's sales and finding I had a whopping $0.05 to show for the entire week, it seems rather pointless to hang around any longer.  That sure as hell isn't going to get any better under a Getty regime, so why put up with the aggravation to no purpose.  I used to make multiple monthly payouts and, at one point, was seriously considering going exclusive.  Thank heavens I never went there.  Now I can say good riddance with a clear conscience.
Title: Re: Getty e-mail about iStock "Contributor Facing Changes"
Post by: epixx on August 01, 2016, 00:02
iStock has always been an annoying agency, but now it starts to get pointless. In 2010, I had as much royalties there as with SS, around 30% of my totals for each of them. Nowadays, iStock hovers around 10% of the total, and the figures are getting smaller by the month. Ad to that the fact that they're still as annoying as ever, that they still have the slowest and most complicated uploading procedure and revisions like this, and I'm for the first time looking at leaving an agency that offers reasonable sales. Their business model borders on the unethical and I don't see any reason to trust them. I'll hold off for a while, but if I let them go, it will be like removing a wart, nothing more.
Title: Re: Getty e-mail about iStock "Contributor Facing Changes"
Post by: skyfish on August 01, 2016, 02:40
I think IS policies are not different from all other greedy agencies trying intercepting any kind of job in any domain, setting themselves between job seekers and employers. They are interested in people which will be agree with all their actions and stay calm. Then like statistics in France: employers cannot find good employees, job seekers cannot find jobs. All because of these intermediates, which work in their own interests. Employer which doesn't want to use their services counts as their competitor. The same pattern.
Title: Re: Getty e-mail about iStock "Contributor Facing Changes"
Post by: sharpshot on August 01, 2016, 03:06
Would they really try and cut commissions again?  It has worked out so badly and now it would probably kill them.  Most of us don't need istock now and I doubt people that are willing to upload for less than 15% are going to give them high quality images.

Perhaps they are doing this to stop exclusives deleting images when they scrap exclusivity?
Title: Re: Getty e-mail about iStock "Contributor Facing Changes"
Post by: LizS on August 01, 2016, 05:25
Can anyone tell me the procedure to close my iStock account? I deleted all my files, and emailed them on the same day the notice about the changes came out, requesting to close my account and be paid out the balance of my earnings. I have received nothing but an auto-response back. Replied to that a couple days later and... nothing.

Is there any other way I am supposed to be doing this or must I just wait indefinitely to hear back from them?

UPDATE: After 2 weeks I finally heard back from them with a non-answer:

"We wanted to give you an update on the progress of your ticket. Your ticket has been received, read, and assigned to an individual or department for action.
 
Tickets are prioritized by Contributor Services according to urgency. We will respond as soon as possible. Thank you for your patience."

Yep, if I was them, closing a contributor's account would also not be a priority.



Title: Re: Getty e-mail about iStock "Contributor Facing Changes"
Post by: ShadySue on August 01, 2016, 05:44
Can anyone tell me the procedure to close my iStock account? I deleted all my files, and emailed them on the same day the notice about the changes came out, requesting to close my account and be paid out the balance of my earnings. I have received nothing but an auto-response back. Replied to that a couple days later and... nothing.

Is there any other way I am supposed to be doing this or must I just wait indefinitely to hear back from them?

UPDATE: After 2 weeks I finally heard back from them with a non-answer:

"We wanted to give you an update on the progress of your ticket. Your ticket has been received, read, and assigned to an individual or department for action.
 
Tickets are prioritized by Contributor Services according to urgency. We will respond as soon as possible. Thank you for your patience."

Yep, if I was them, closing a contributor's account would also not be a priority.

From your ASA:
"11a Term and Termination
This Agreement is effective until terminated. You may terminate this Agreement at any time by giving thirty (30) days written notice to iStock using artists@iStock.com or such other means of written notice acceptable to iStock which enables confirmation of your identity and your intention to terminate..."


also note, as this question has been brought up by others on this thread:
12.a Effect of Termination
Upon the termination of this Agreement, the grant of authority given to iStock shall cease subject to the following conditions: (i) iStock shall remove Accepted Content from the Site and Distribution Partners within ninety (90) days of the termination of this Agreement; (ii) notwithstanding termination, iStock and its Distribution Partners shall have the right to continue licensing Accepted Content until it is removed from the Site or other sites where Accepted Content is distributed and for up to (1) year following termination where such Accepted Content has previously appeared in iStock’s promotional materials, or Distribution Partner marketing programs; and (iii) regardless of the expiration or termination of this Agreement, iStock will continue, in accordance with this Agreement, to pay compensation due to the Supplier at the applicable non-exclusive royalty rate set out in the Rate Schedule in respect of licenses granted to members during any transitional period, subject to any rights of set-off under this Agreement or at law.
    Upon termination, iStock will be entitled to retain all amounts owing to the Supplier for a period of thirty (30) days to determine any applicable rights of set-off, and shall be entitled to deduct from such amounts, a reasonable administrative fee for establishing, managing and terminating your account.

Don't shoot the messenger. I'm absolutely not defending them, just stating what's in our contract.
If they haven't at least terminated your account within 30 days, you can jump all over them from a high height.
Title: Re: Getty e-mail about iStock "Contributor Facing Changes"
Post by: fotoVoyager on August 01, 2016, 07:46
Would they really try and cut commissions again?  It has worked out so badly and now it would probably kill them.  Most of us don't need istock now and I doubt people that are willing to upload for less than 15% are going to give them high quality images.

Perhaps they are doing this to stop exclusives deleting images when they scrap exclusivity?

My money's on them slightly increasing the independent percentages and greatly reducing exclusive royalties to a flat universal rate whilst still insisting on artist exclusivity. They can then sell it as a massive win for the thousands of small suppliers whilst quietly shafting the few remaining 40%ers.
Title: Re: Getty e-mail about iStock "Contributor Facing Changes"
Post by: Rose Tinted Glasses on August 01, 2016, 09:46
Would they really try and cut commissions again?  It has worked out so badly and now it would probably kill them.  Most of us don't need istock now and I doubt people that are willing to upload for less than 15% are going to give them high quality images.

Perhaps they are doing this to stop exclusives deleting images when they scrap exclusivity?

My money's on them slightly increasing the independent percentages and greatly reducing exclusive royalties to a flat universal rate whilst still insisting on artist exclusivity. They can then sell it as a massive win for the thousands of small suppliers whilst quietly shafting the few remaining 40%ers.

That would be a deal breaker for anyone making 40%. That 40% is the only reason I remain exclusive and the fact that several of my images make it into S+ for increased sales on Getty. These days it is a very delicate balance between being exclusive or non-exclusive. I will still try to have faith in the direction of Getty for the time being.
Title: Re: Getty e-mail about iStock "Contributor Facing Changes"
Post by: PixBoxx on August 01, 2016, 10:28
I think to continue to have faith in Getty at this point you really must have rose tinted glasses on. Getty is purely a money hungry behemoth. In their process of deciding how to try and squeeze another dollar out of a quarter, they never once think about what they might be doing to hurt people's livelihood or opinions of them. If a few exclusives get pissed off when they drop royalty iStock rates to a standard 20%, pull their files, or drop the crown, they don't care. They are going to make more money by paying out less and improve their Q4 earnings for the year. That is all they care about, full stop. They are a company completely ridden with debt and just trying to survive one day to the next. They are purely in it for the here and now. So then, if a few hundred, or even thousand exclusives, each pull a few thousand images off iStock, buyers won't even notice. They have more than a hundred million images under their control. In fact, it may make the searches less cumbersome with a few hundred thousand less images anyway. If you have any doubt about their integrity, or whether or not they ever consider doing the right thing, just look at the $1,000,000,000 lawsuit against them. Plus, a few more lawsuits like that, and they will be spending so much on lawyers and paying out settlements that they may not even be able to pay you your 20%.
Title: Re: Getty e-mail about iStock "Contributor Facing Changes"
Post by: Microstockphoto on August 01, 2016, 10:49
i am with a few RM agencies who pay out 50%, but one of their distribution partners is getty, so when a sale comes through getty i actually get 10% of the sale, not bad considering i am the creator, producer, investor, and owner of the images i sell. it is well worth the risk spending tens of thousands on nikon equipment these days,

but then again james cameron got only 13% of sales of avatar
Title: Re: Getty e-mail about iStock "Contributor Facing Changes"
Post by: Rose Tinted Glasses on August 01, 2016, 10:57
I think to continue to have faith in Getty at this point you really must have rose tinted glasses on. Getty is purely a money hungry behemoth. In their process of deciding how to try and squeeze another dollar out of a quarter, they never once think about what they might be doing to hurt people's livelihood or opinions of them. If a few exclusives get pissed off when they drop royalty iStock rates to a standard 20%, pull their files, or drop the crown, they don't care. They are going to make more money by paying out less and improve their Q4 earnings for the year. That is all they care about, full stop. They are a company completely ridden with debt and just trying to survive one day to the next. They are purely in it for the here and now. So then, if a few hundred, or even thousand exclusives, each pull a few thousand images off iStock, buyers won't even notice. They have more than a hundred million images under their control. In fact, it may make the searches less cumbersome with a few hundred thousand less images anyway. If you have any doubt about their integrity, or whether or not they ever consider doing the right thing, just look at the $1,000,000,000 lawsuit against them. Plus, a few more lawsuits like that, and they will be spending so much on lawyers and paying out settlements that they may not even be able to pay you your 20%.

So what to do? Drop exclusivity and a good income attached to a great lifestyle to try and get back to where I am at? No thanks.

All of what you say about Getty is true, ugly in every way. But what are the options? Pretty much every other agency is the same these days.

All I see is agencies getting richer while they skin us alive in the process.

The industry has changed and it's not to our benefit, it's now under the control of bankers, venture capitalists, shareholders etc. And that never ends well for the worker bees.

So it's not just Getty. Just sayin.
Title: Re: Getty e-mail about iStock "Contributor Facing Changes"
Post by: jjneff on August 01, 2016, 12:10
That is not true, no one has yanked me around more then iStock/Getty for my video clips!!! I often get over 50% Premium Ass. sales which are mostly $1-5 for my HD and 4K!! Pond5, VB, Fotolia and SS has never done that to me! I notice in the middle of last year my sales started to drop to the point I could not continue, it didn't matter what I shot my income would barley go up. Well I had a suspicion that the advantage for exclusive in search for video was gone. I can now state that is a FACT! My dl's since going non-exclusive have not gone down! Now I am happy about that at this point so no complaints from me, but there is no search advantage for exclusive video artist anymore! Other places just sell my work for a set price and focus on advertising and finding new markets. Novel idea I say!!
Title: Re: Getty e-mail about iStock "Contributor Facing Changes"
Post by: cobalt on August 01, 2016, 12:34
I am glad to hear you are doing well Jeff. I know it was a very difficult decision.

Didn't istock write somewhere that they want to unify royalties between istock and getty?

Well, what are the chances of Getty adding an artist exclusive royalty system...?

I think we all know if the new royalty system was going to be to our advantage, they would have announced it before locking in all our files...

The only silver lining might be that they cancel artist exclusivity and adopt the getty system of series/image exclusivity.

You'll get only 20%, but would have instant freedom to upload new files anywhere.

We will see what happens, but I wouldn't be banking on royalty rates that are higher than those for the getty house artists.

They can always give special deals to the chosen few...
Title: Re: Getty e-mail about iStock "Contributor Facing Changes"
Post by: PixBoxx on August 01, 2016, 15:30
I am glad to hear you are doing well Jeff. I know it was a very difficult decision.

Didn't istock write somewhere that they want to unify royalties between istock and getty?

Well, what are the chances of Getty adding an artist exclusive royalty system...?

I think we all know if the new royalty system was going to be to our advantage, they would have announced it before locking in all our files...

The only silver lining might be that they cancel artist exclusivity and adopt the getty system of series/image exclusivity.

You'll get only 20%, but would have instant freedom to upload new files anywhere.

We will see what happens, but I wouldn't be banking on royalty rates that are higher than those for the getty house artists.

They can always give special deals to the chosen few...

Some excellent points. So come end of this month, no more contributor exclusivity, just image exclusivity as it already is on Getty for all other regular Getty contributors. Then just 20% royalties for everyone, all existing iStock images will become image exclusive with Getty and then be mirrored on the Getty site too.

Then there will just be one price for all iStock imagery, no more collections, and whatever you have on the iStock site now will be locked in with Getty forever. This further means you won't be able to upload any of your existing iStock files to other sites, even though you will no longer be an exclusive iStock contributor.

And the only way to remove images will be to remove all your images and close your Getty account completely. Any new work you create can of course be uploaded to other sites as royalty free if you like, but then it can't be uploaded to Getty.

So Getty will then be able to say all of their iStock content is now "Only on iStock", which is the goal. Pay less to exclusives and lock in all iStock imagery as exclusive.

I am not sure how they will handle the files of independents who already have their iStock files on many other sites. Guess the indies will be forced to take the files down from other sites, or close their Getty account.

And even though all exclusives will be taking a 10%-20% royalty cut, they will spin it to everyone by saying in their next announcement: "but you will be making more sales now because all your images will be on the Getty site and not just your existing S+ stuff. So don't worry about the royalty rate drop because you will be making lots more sales".

Then everyone can simply look forward to getting 35%-50% less in royalties than they are now, with perhaps a few more downloads on Getty in return. I guess those $0.16 GI royalties some people are earning now will drop to under $0.10 per download. Not much to be happy about.

So if you think you might want to put any of your existing iStock portfolio on other sites, without having to close your iStock account, then better to deactivate those files before the middle of this month.
Title: Re: Getty e-mail about iStock "Contributor Facing Changes"
Post by: cobalt on August 01, 2016, 16:25
I don´t think anyone at getty will try to lock in independent files.

Getty itself has tons of non exclusive content from over 200 partner companies. Only the Getty house artists are exclusive, the rest is content you see everywhere in the macro industry.

Title: Re: Getty e-mail about iStock "Contributor Facing Changes"
Post by: LizS on August 02, 2016, 07:01
Can anyone tell me the procedure to close my iStock account? I deleted all my files, and emailed them on the same day the notice about the changes came out, requesting to close my account and be paid out the balance of my earnings. I have received nothing but an auto-response back. Replied to that a couple days later and... nothing.

Is there any other way I am supposed to be doing this or must I just wait indefinitely to hear back from them?

UPDATE: After 2 weeks I finally heard back from them with a non-answer:

"We wanted to give you an update on the progress of your ticket. Your ticket has been received, read, and assigned to an individual or department for action.
 
Tickets are prioritized by Contributor Services according to urgency. We will respond as soon as possible. Thank you for your patience."

Yep, if I was them, closing a contributor's account would also not be a priority.

From your ASA:
"11a Term and Termination
This Agreement is effective until terminated. You may terminate this Agreement at any time by giving thirty (30) days written notice to iStock using artists@iStock.com or such other means of written notice acceptable to iStock which enables confirmation of your identity and your intention to terminate..."


also note, as this question has been brought up by others on this thread:
12.a Effect of Termination
Upon the termination of this Agreement, the grant of authority given to iStock shall cease subject to the following conditions: (i) iStock shall remove Accepted Content from the Site and Distribution Partners within ninety (90) days of the termination of this Agreement; (ii) notwithstanding termination, iStock and its Distribution Partners shall have the right to continue licensing Accepted Content until it is removed from the Site or other sites where Accepted Content is distributed and for up to (1) year following termination where such Accepted Content has previously appeared in iStock’s promotional materials, or Distribution Partner marketing programs; and (iii) regardless of the expiration or termination of this Agreement, iStock will continue, in accordance with this Agreement, to pay compensation due to the Supplier at the applicable non-exclusive royalty rate set out in the Rate Schedule in respect of licenses granted to members during any transitional period, subject to any rights of set-off under this Agreement or at law.
    Upon termination, iStock will be entitled to retain all amounts owing to the Supplier for a period of thirty (30) days to determine any applicable rights of set-off, and shall be entitled to deduct from such amounts, a reasonable administrative fee for establishing, managing and terminating your account.

Don't shoot the messenger. I'm absolutely not defending them, just stating what's in our contract.
If they haven't at least terminated your account within 30 days, you can jump all over them from a high height.

Thank you. I will wait it out. Am sure it will all get sorted eventually. And thanks for posting the details from the T's and C's.
Title: Re: Getty e-mail about iStock "Contributor Facing Changes"
Post by: PixBoxx on August 02, 2016, 10:07
I don´t think anyone at getty will try to lock in independent files.

Getty itself has tons of non exclusive content from over 200 partner companies. Only the Getty house artists are exclusive, the rest is content you see everywhere in the macro industry.

If they are going to pay all iStock contributors 20% across the board, and independent files are not going to be locked in, then there will be no incentive for any of the current iStock exclusive contributors to allow their images to be locked in as exclusive content with Getty either.

Meaning if independents can still earn 20% on Getty, and sell their files on other sites, then all exclusives will want to do the same.

Based upon what you are suggesting, they will need to pay exclusives a higher rate to keep their images exclusive with iStock. And I don't see that happening. This is why I suggested all images will be locked in at 20% under the new structure as there isn’t any other logical solution other than to lock in independent files too.
Title: Re: Getty e-mail about iStock "Contributor Facing Changes"
Post by: YadaYadaYada on August 02, 2016, 11:11
If they kill off exclusive and keep the new money, they will make a bunch more profit. I'd be happy if they gave indies a raise but why would they? This will be grab the money and nothing else. We get less or nothing more. That's the way Getty thinks. All for them, none for us.
Title: Re: Getty e-mail about iStock "Contributor Facing Changes"
Post by: mcuda on August 02, 2016, 11:35
My personal feeling on this is just delete your good stuff and leave the bad stuff out there.  Those are the images you really want to protect eg. Rights Managed work.
Title: Re: Getty e-mail about iStock "Contributor Facing Changes"
Post by: iFlop on August 02, 2016, 11:37
As was said before, cutting exclusives down to 20%, and raising independents up to 20%, will still be a huge net gain for them, especially if they lock in all the independent content as exclusive content in the process. But it seems what they also may want is a uniform system of everyone earning 20%, which is another valid reason for the change.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Title: Re: Getty e-mail about iStock "Contributor Facing Changes"
Post by: ShadySue on August 02, 2016, 12:32
As was said before, cutting exclusives down to 20%, and raising independents up to 20%, will still be a huge net gain for them, especially if they lock in all the independent content as exclusive content in the process. But it seems what they also may want is a uniform system of everyone earning 20%, which is another valid reason for the change.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

I don't see how they can lock in indie content as exclusive. Well, at least not without the contracted 30 days notice. They may well put exclusives down to 20%, and hold indies down at 15%.
Title: Re: Getty e-mail about iStock "Contributor Facing Changes"
Post by: iFlop on August 02, 2016, 12:44
As was said before, cutting exclusives down to 20%, and raising independents up to 20%, will still be a huge net gain for them, especially if they lock in all the independent content as exclusive content in the process. But it seems what they also may want is a uniform system of everyone earning 20%, which is another valid reason for the change.

I don't see how they can lock in indie content as exclusive. Well, at least not without the contracted 30 days notice. They may well put exclusives down to 20%, and hold indies down at 15%.

They could give all indies 30 days to remove their content from other sites, and then raise them from 15% to 20% when they do, or then force them to close their iStock accounts after 30 days if they aren't willing to comply.

But simply putting exclusives at 20% and indies at 15% wouldn't work. I think any exclusive would give up the extra 5% at that point to have the option to put their files onto as many sites as they want. They would need to offer a bigger reward to keep your files exclusive.

The only other incentive they could offer to exclusives to keep them file exclusive, versus going indy, would be to put all exclusive content onto Getty in exchange for the exclusive royalty cut to 20%, while keeping indies at 15%, but without mirroring any of their files on Getty.

Even so, I'm not sure exclusives would want to stay exclusive for only 5% more, with or without the Getty mirror. Not enough of an incentive.
Title: Re: Getty e-mail about iStock "Contributor Facing Changes"
Post by: cobalt on August 02, 2016, 14:00
How many istock exclusives are left? Why should Getty care about them?

Also the difference is not 5%, the exclusive content, which is simply a higher price band with lots of non exclusive content from Getty and partners, gives much higher returns than content in the indie price band.

I think if they offer to mirror all exclusive content to getty, that could give good balance, at least I keep reading that returns from getty seem to be good.

The number of people with good portfolios going exclusive - where are they? I only hear about good people leaving. Closing the istock forums shows again that they are not planning to grow the istock community.

All the focus is on Getty, so why should they keep a seperate system for a shrinking group alive.

Makes more sense to make Getty itself more attractive.
Title: Re: Getty e-mail about iStock "Contributor Facing Changes"
Post by: Pauws99 on August 04, 2016, 01:08
As was said before, cutting exclusives down to 20%, and raising independents up to 20%, will still be a huge net gain for them, especially if they lock in all the independent content as exclusive content in the process. But it seems what they also may want is a uniform system of everyone earning 20%, which is another valid reason for the change.

I don't see how they can lock in indie content as exclusive. Well, at least not without the contracted 30 days notice. They may well put exclusives down to 20%, and hold indies down at 15%.

They could give all indies 30 days to remove their content from other sites, and then raise them from 15% to 20% when they do, or then force them to close their iStock accounts after 30 days if they aren't willing to comply.

But simply putting exclusives at 20% and indies at 15% wouldn't work. I think any exclusive would give up the extra 5% at that point to have the option to put their files onto as many sites as they want. They would need to offer a bigger reward to keep your files exclusive.

The only other incentive they could offer to exclusives to keep them file exclusive, versus going indy, would be to put all exclusive content onto Getty in exchange for the exclusive royalty cut to 20%, while keeping indies at 15%, but without mirroring any of their files on Getty.

Even so, I'm not sure exclusives would want to stay exclusive for only 5% more, with or without the Getty mirror. Not enough of an incentive.
I would be dumbstruck if more than a tiny percentage of Indies stayed with Istock. Its all speculation with the various bizarre self destructive activities over the years who knows what might happen (probably not even Istock  :o)
Title: Re: Getty e-mail about iStock "Contributor Facing Changes"
Post by: zstoimenov on August 04, 2016, 07:27
I closed my account today. I have a small portfolio, but I don't really want to continue dealing with this agency.
Title: Re: Getty e-mail about iStock "Contributor Facing Changes"
Post by: gillian on August 04, 2016, 18:19
I've also sent an email requesting to close my account. It's too time consuming to remove certain files, and my royalties are only buying me one nice bottle of wine per month. 
Title: Re: Getty e-mail about iStock "Contributor Facing Changes"
Post by: coconut on August 08, 2016, 03:20
Probably they will come with a new price list in a few days so they take precaution.

Credit sale .... $0.56
Sub sale ....   - $0.18 (yes we pay to the customer)
Partner pr sale...$0.09

Title: Re: Getty e-mail about iStock "Contributor Facing Changes"
Post by: wordplanet on August 09, 2016, 14:07
I deactivated some of my images, have a small port and am keeping most there, mainly because I've already deleted a lot of them. It's just so discouraging.

The irony is that I actually tried uploading editorial images there lately, and I captioned them exactly as they request (I shoot newspaper and magazine assignments, I'm not new to this) but they kept getting rejected as not being properly captioned and I was at a loss as to figure out their objection. Meanwhile, a handful have done really well on shutterstock and one in particular is selling multiple times daily since I uploaded it a couple of weeks ago. iStock's loss.

It's too bad they just can't get their act together. When I started with them back around 2012, they earned me more per image than any other site.

The problem with many of these sites is that they are run by people who are motivated solely by profit and really don't care about offering a good product - sites like Stocksy and 500px which are about the photography as well as about making a living for everyone involved nd not just churning out profits with a dollar store mentality, are the way of the future.  (I know 500px dropped their royalties/photographer share)

I hate removing images that are selling, but I just don't want to be stuck if shutterstock, for example, somehow decides to go the exclusive route or if iStock drops their extended license terms even more. If I'm making ~$700 on shutterstock and ~$30 on iStock, removing the image is really not going to hurt my bottom line. The ones that have earned me over $100 on iStock and that are still selling - that's a tougher decision. I'll probably leave them, as well as those with comparable earnings elsewhere, online. Ironically, I'd like to upload more editorial work there, but I'll have to find a different reviewer.

I'm close to a payout - a wait that seems to get longer each time, and now the wait will be longer.
Title: Re: Getty e-mail about iStock "Contributor Facing Changes"
Post by: Pauws99 on August 09, 2016, 23:31
I find editorial rejections on there completely baffling......
Title: Re: Getty e-mail about iStock "Contributor Facing Changes"
Post by: Microstockphoto on August 10, 2016, 00:15
marianne, if you make 700 dollar a month with 400 images on SS you do extremely well (especially for a portfolio with mainly backgrounds and landscapes)
Title: Re: Getty e-mail about iStock "Contributor Facing Changes"
Post by: Stickystock on August 10, 2016, 08:21
I need to delete 4 images. One of my models asked me to. He is a friend and I want to remove them but I just can't find were to remove them. Can anyone help me before it is to late?

Thanks
Title: Re: Getty e-mail about iStock "Contributor Facing Changes"
Post by: ShadySue on August 10, 2016, 08:29
I need to delete 4 images. One of my models asked me to. He is a friend and I want to remove them but I just can't find were to remove them. Can anyone help me before it is to late?

Thanks

Near the top of the file page, there's a grey bar. At the right hand side of the bar, hover over maintenance and click 'deactivate'. You can give a reason or just put . in the box then confirm you want to deactivate.
Title: Re: Getty e-mail about iStock "Contributor Facing Changes"
Post by: wordplanet on August 10, 2016, 10:44
marianne, if you make 700 dollar a month with 400 images on SS you do extremely well (especially for a portfolio with mainly backgrounds and landscapes)

I wish, I'm talking about single images that earned me $700 in a year or so on SS vs. $30 on iStock. Wish I did that well monthly with my tiny port on just SS.
Title: Re: Getty e-mail about iStock "Contributor Facing Changes"
Post by: sweetgirll on August 10, 2016, 12:37

Hi, Just one thing to remember when you go deactive an image.

When you type the reason be mindful of what you write, it might show in a search. I don't remember well but I think that is what happens when you search a deactivated image by its number. I know because once I searched mine and the excuse for deactivation came up on the screen.

I think about deactivating some of mine, and i wonder if maybe putting "no longer available" is the best thing to put there.


I need to delete 4 images. One of my models asked me to. He is a friend and I want to remove them but I just can't find were to remove them. Can anyone help me before it is to late?

Thanks

Near the top of the file page, there's a grey bar. At the right hand side of the bar, hover over maintenance and click 'deactivate'. You can give a reason or just put . in the box then confirm you want to deactivate.
Title: Re: Getty e-mail about iStock "Contributor Facing Changes"
Post by: Stickystock on August 10, 2016, 16:29
Thanks!!! :)
Title: Re: Getty e-mail about iStock "Contributor Facing Changes"
Post by: iFlop on August 10, 2016, 18:10
I deactivated some of my images, have a small port and am keeping most there, mainly because I've already deleted a lot of them. It's just so discouraging.

The irony is that I actually tried uploading editorial images there lately, and I captioned them exactly as they request (I shoot newspaper and magazine assignments, I'm not new to this) but they kept getting rejected as not being properly captioned and I was at a loss as to figure out their objection. Meanwhile, a handful have done really well on shutterstock and one in particular is selling multiple times daily since I uploaded it a couple of weeks ago. iStock's loss.

It's too bad they just can't get their act together. When I started with them back around 2012, they earned me more per image than any other site.

The problem with many of these sites is that they are run by people who are motivated solely by profit and really don't care about offering a good product - sites like Stocksy and 500px which are about the photography as well as about making a living for everyone involved nd not just churning out profits with a dollar store mentality, are the way of the future.  (I know 500px dropped their royalties/photographer share)

I hate removing images that are selling, but I just don't want to be stuck if shutterstock, for example, somehow decides to go the exclusive route or if iStock drops their extended license terms even more. If I'm making ~$700 on shutterstock and ~$30 on iStock, removing the image is really not going to hurt my bottom line. The ones that have earned me over $100 on iStock and that are still selling - that's a tougher decision. I'll probably leave them, as well as those with comparable earnings elsewhere, online. Ironically, I'd like to upload more editorial work there, but I'll have to find a different reviewer.

I'm close to a payout - a wait that seems to get longer each time, and now the wait will be longer.

Try installing the latest version of DeepMeta for iStock uploads. It sets up the editorial captioning format for you when click to submit an image as editorial. It takes all the guesswork out. Then all you need to do is change the names and places. Make sure you got the dates correct in the captions and that they match the date in the EXIF data of your file. This can cause rejection problems too. DeepMeta takes care of that too though by reading the file date from EXIF and inserts for you. Hope that helps.
Title: Re: Getty e-mail about iStock "Contributor Facing Changes"
Post by: wordplanet on August 11, 2016, 01:20
I deactivated some of my images, have a small port and am keeping most there, mainly because I've already deleted a lot of them. It's just so discouraging.

The irony is that I actually tried uploading editorial images there lately, and I captioned them exactly as they request (I shoot newspaper and magazine assignments, I'm not new to this) but they kept getting rejected as not being properly captioned and I was at a loss as to figure out their objection. Meanwhile, a handful have done really well on shutterstock and one in particular is selling multiple times daily since I uploaded it a couple of weeks ago. iStock's loss.

It's too bad they just can't get their act together. When I started with them back around 2012, they earned me more per image than any other site.

The problem with many of these sites is that they are run by people who are motivated solely by profit and really don't care about offering a good product - sites like Stocksy and 500px which are about the photography as well as about making a living for everyone involved nd not just churning out profits with a dollar store mentality, are the way of the future.  (I know 500px dropped their royalties/photographer share)

I hate removing images that are selling, but I just don't want to be stuck if shutterstock, for example, somehow decides to go the exclusive route or if iStock drops their extended license terms even more. If I'm making ~$700 on shutterstock and ~$30 on iStock, removing the image is really not going to hurt my bottom line. The ones that have earned me over $100 on iStock and that are still selling - that's a tougher decision. I'll probably leave them, as well as those with comparable earnings elsewhere, online. Ironically, I'd like to upload more editorial work there, but I'll have to find a different reviewer.

I'm close to a payout - a wait that seems to get longer each time, and now the wait will be longer.

Try installing the latest version of DeepMeta for iStock uploads. It sets up the editorial captioning format for you when click to submit an image as editorial. It takes all the guesswork out. Then all you need to do is change the names and places. Make sure you got the dates correct in the captions and that they match the date in the EXIF data of your file. This can cause rejection problems too. DeepMeta takes care of that too though by reading the file date from EXIF and inserts for you. Hope that helps.

Thanks. I'll try that.
Title: Re: Getty e-mail about iStock "Contributor Facing Changes"
Post by: CJH Photography on August 11, 2016, 14:47
I gave up on uploading editorial there.  They wanted individualized credentials for political rallies and all kinds of crazy stuff.  Editorial is the best-performing portion of my port and I haven't had any trouble complying with requirements elsewhere.  It wasn't the captioning that got me at istock-it was the crazy:  Your name needs to be on the credential for this or you also need a property release for that (when you couldn't even tell what the property was the way the photo was framed)  Mind-boggling!   :o
Title: Re: Getty e-mail about iStock "Contributor Facing Changes"
Post by: VB inc on August 12, 2016, 12:22
can someone show me how to delete files individually on isuck? have they removed this feature?
Title: Re: Getty e-mail about iStock "Contributor Facing Changes"
Post by: ShadySue on August 12, 2016, 12:24
can someone show me how to delete files individually on isuck? have they removed this feature?

See reply #259, above.
Title: Re: Getty e-mail about iStock "Contributor Facing Changes"
Post by: VB inc on August 12, 2016, 12:28
nevermind... just scrolled up and saw the post... couldn't be bothered to spend more time being pissed at istock reading this entire thread. lol
Title: Re: Getty e-mail about iStock "Contributor Facing Changes"
Post by: VB inc on August 12, 2016, 12:41
Does deactivating your files on istock only do it for that site and leave it for its partner sites? I am wondering what is a better option...
Title: Re: Getty e-mail about iStock "Contributor Facing Changes"
Post by: senicphoto on August 16, 2016, 21:59
It's official ... as of today my IStock account is closed (confirmed by Getty). It was a good ride since 2006 but overshadowed with bitterness the moment Getty took over IStock. Anyway, I feel better knowing this is the end of a strange business relation in which only one party dictates rules of engagement ...
Title: Re: Getty e-mail about iStock "Contributor Facing Changes"
Post by: trek on August 18, 2016, 07:34
Reminder:  Only two days left before image deactivation is banned. 
Title: Re: Getty e-mail about iStock "Contributor Facing Changes"
Post by: heyoka on August 18, 2016, 16:07
I did it. Deactivated all files, just finished. This is very sad, each click on the deactivation button hurt.

They have put pressure on me to make a decision. So I did.

How stupid of them.

Loosing my small portfolio won't hurt them, but I simply can't stand pressure and captivity.

It was my first agency back in early 2006 ... *sigh*
Title: Re: Getty e-mail about iStock "Contributor Facing Changes"
Post by: CJH Photography on August 18, 2016, 16:16
I apparently have had a sale since I deactivated my last image.  Which doubled my all time istock income to $.56  :-\ It has not been a great market for me and I am sure that my tiny port will not be missed by them.   I never had any big beef with them; it just isn't the right market for my work. 
Title: Re: Getty e-mail about iStock "Contributor Facing Changes"
Post by: Noedelhap on August 19, 2016, 03:36
I've decided to stay (for now) and wait for the big announcement in September. After that I can always close my account if need be. I might even test their image deactivation process just to see what they think they can get away with. I get a feeling that despite all the uproar, they won't object to a reason like 'just because'. How could they? The copyright is still mine and always will be.
Title: Re: Getty e-mail about iStock "Contributor Facing Changes"
Post by: ShadySue on August 19, 2016, 03:55
IIRC, Getty has long had a no individual image deactivation policy.
Title: Re: Getty e-mail about iStock "Contributor Facing Changes"
Post by: Rose Tinted Glasses on August 19, 2016, 11:32
IIRC, Getty has long had a no individual image deactivation policy.

Because Getty is for adults who submit an image without the intention of removing them on some emotional whim because of the illusion on this forum that everyone else is removing their images.

Who has the time to micro manage single images?
Title: Re: Getty e-mail about iStock "Contributor Facing Changes"
Post by: Shelma1 on August 19, 2016, 11:40
I micromanage images sometimes, for example when I see one of my newer images take off and realize an older image would also sell well if I added a few relevant but less obvious keywords. But that only works on other sites anyway, because Getty has their own wackadoo set of search terms. so I guess, yeah, take that option away so sales plummet a little faster.
Title: Re: Getty e-mail about iStock "Contributor Facing Changes"
Post by: cathyslife on August 19, 2016, 11:46
IIRC, Getty has long had a no individual image deactivation policy.
snip
Because Getty is for adults who submit an image without the intention of removing them on some emotional whim because of the illusion on this forum that everyone else is removing their images.

I certainly agree there is some of that going on here, but images are the property of the copyright holder, not Getty. There are plenty of other reasons why a person might want to change/remove images besides being a flaky photographer.
Title: Re: Getty e-mail about iStock "Contributor Facing Changes"
Post by: ShadySue on August 19, 2016, 12:03
New keywords haven't been getting added to the CV from the official request list since at least mid-March (that I know of). Therefore it is not unreasonable to want to deactivate files which can never sell because their main keyword is unfindable, to send them RM. At the time the files were uploaded, there was a reasonable expectation that the required keywords would be added to the system quickly, as formerly happened.
Title: Re: Getty e-mail about iStock "Contributor Facing Changes"
Post by: BaldricksTrousers on August 19, 2016, 12:05
Isn't there any kind of forum or even a place where they post notices to us on the iStock site any more? I can't find it in the links or in the site map.
They don't seem to be bothering to review files, either. I uploaded a handful a few weeks back and they're just sitting there pending, except one they rejected  because it was editorial and they don't like shutterstock's caption style.
Title: Re: Getty e-mail about iStock "Contributor Facing Changes"
Post by: Rose Tinted Glasses on August 19, 2016, 12:10
IIRC, Getty has long had a no individual image deactivation policy.
snip
Because Getty is for adults who submit an image without the intention of removing them on some emotional whim because of the illusion on this forum that everyone else is removing their images.

I certainly agree there is some of that going on here, but images are the property of the copyright holder, not Getty. There are plenty of other reasons why a person might want to change/remove images besides being a flaky photographer.

In the 25+ years I have been a stock photographer I have only once removed an image because of a request from the property owner, even though they signed a property release. Apart from that I see no need to remove anything. I am a shoot it, upload it, forget about it sort of photographer. I have no clue which image will sell better and/or where it will sell better. I have shots that I thought would be total winners and they have never sold, I have a shot that is average that ended up on IS and it has made over 12K. I guess I simply prefer to spend my time out shooting as opposed to micro managing single images.

I am also fairly certain GI is aware you are the copyright holder and if you want to remove an image they will do so for a legitimate reason. Just use this forum for example, a classic herd mentality of removing images. Remember when Sean go the boot? Herd mentality again protesting a personal conflict and removing images. Kind of silly I think.

I also don't like Getty as far as a company is concerned and further to that I really think the attitude of the former CEO is arrogant, but that still does not change the fact (in my view) they are in many ways the only game in town if you really want to make a full on living.
Title: Re: Getty e-mail about iStock "Contributor Facing Changes"
Post by: ShadySue on August 19, 2016, 12:11
Isn't there any kind of forum or even a place where they post notices to us on the iStock site any more? I can't find it in the links or in the site map.
The iS selling site? Not for a long time - around a year!
You know they now have a new forum site? You should have got your invite ages ago. If not, contact CR.
Title: Re: Getty e-mail about iStock "Contributor Facing Changes"
Post by: Rose Tinted Glasses on August 19, 2016, 12:11
Isn't there any kind of forum or even a place where they post notices to us on the iStock site any more? I can't find it in the links or in the site map.

If the notices are important they email them to you, and they also post these notices on their forum which has been removed from the actual IS site.

You will find what you need here... https://contributors.gettyimages.com/
Title: Re: Getty e-mail about iStock "Contributor Facing Changes"
Post by: Rose Tinted Glasses on August 19, 2016, 12:14
Isn't there any kind of forum or even a place where they post notices to us on the iStock site any more? I can't find it in the links or in the site map.
They don't seem to be bothering to review files, either. I uploaded a handful a few weeks back and they're just sitting there pending, except one they rejected  because it was editorial and they don't like shutterstock's caption style.

Are you exclusive? I am and my editorial goes through more often than not in an hour or two, if the images are not flagged as S+ it can take up to a day, and if it is flagged as S+ it can take up to 5 days. If you submit directly to Getty it is currently taking around 2 months to have an editor have a look. I  tend to put all my ***** images to Getty and my * images to IS and roughly 5% of those end up being S+ and ends up on both sites, so it all works out well.
Title: Re: Getty e-mail about iStock "Contributor Facing Changes"
Post by: BaldricksTrousers on August 19, 2016, 12:17
Isn't there any kind of forum or even a place where they post notices to us on the iStock site any more? I can't find it in the links or in the site map.
The iS selling site? Not for a long time - around a year!
You know they now have a new forum site? You should have got your invite ages ago. If not, contact CR.
Oh, I've been doing other stuff besides chasing around after iStock's quirks. Sales have reached the point where it's hardly worth looking at now. Less than $100 for the last couple of months - like 2004 all over again, only with a good few thousand more files.
Title: Re: Getty e-mail about iStock "Contributor Facing Changes"
Post by: BaldricksTrousers on August 19, 2016, 12:18
Isn't there any kind of forum or even a place where they post notices to us on the iStock site any more? I can't find it in the links or in the site map.
They don't seem to be bothering to review files, either. I uploaded a handful a few weeks back and they're just sitting there pending, except one they rejected  because it was editorial and they don't like shutterstock's caption style.

Are you exclusive? I am and my editorial goes through more often than not in an hour or two, if the images are not flagged as S+ it can take up to a day, and if it is flagged as S+ it can take up to 5 days. If you submit directly to Getty it is currently taking around 2 months to have an editor have a look. I  tend to put all my ***** images to Getty and my * images to IS and roughly 5% of those end up being S+ and ends up on both sites, so it all works out well.
No, I've always been independent.
Title: Re: Getty e-mail about iStock "Contributor Facing Changes"
Post by: ShadySue on August 19, 2016, 12:27
They don't seem to be bothering to review files, either. I uploaded a handful a few weeks back and they're just sitting there pending
Pending doesn't mean they haven't been reviewed. It means they have been reviewed, and are accepted, but they are in some sort of limbo that their techies apparently deliberately introduced some time ago. (viz. it's an alleged 'feature' not an actual 'fault'.) I've read that some files have been stuck in pending for a month, and there's nothing anyone can do to help.
The only thing you can do is click on the pending file and save it without doing anything. That worked for me, but it hasn't worked for everyone, and I haven't uploaded anything for a while (so it might not now work at all, FAIK).

(My mistake, that refers to 'file is publishing'.)

Quote
except one they rejected  because it was editorial and they don't like shutterstock's caption style.
They always had their own editorial caption style, which is even different from Getty's.
Title: Re: Getty e-mail about iStock "Contributor Facing Changes"
Post by: BaldricksTrousers on August 19, 2016, 13:10
They don't seem to be bothering to review files, either. I uploaded a handful a few weeks back and they're just sitting there pending
Pending doesn't mean they haven't been reviewed. It means they have been reviewed, and are accepted, but they are in some sort of limbo that their techies apparently deliberately introduced some time ago. (viz. it's an alleged 'feature' not an actual 'fault'.) I've read that some files have been stuck in pending for a month, and there's nothing anyone can do to help.
To avoid having rubbish clogging up my portfolio landing page I just deleted 20 old "pending" files, from 2012-2014. I've left the latest ones to languish, maybe they'll get past the "feature". As they are nature subjects they're not going to sell since they can't be keyworded properly ... you know why.
Title: Re: Getty e-mail about iStock "Contributor Facing Changes"
Post by: ShadySue on August 19, 2016, 13:20
They don't seem to be bothering to review files, either. I uploaded a handful a few weeks back and they're just sitting there pending
Pending doesn't mean they haven't been reviewed. It means they have been reviewed, and are accepted, but they are in some sort of limbo that their techies apparently deliberately introduced some time ago. (viz. it's an alleged 'feature' not an actual 'fault'.) I've read that some files have been stuck in pending for a month, and there's nothing anyone can do to help.
To avoid having rubbish clogging up my portfolio landing page I just deleted 20 old "pending" files, from 2012-2014. I've left the latest ones to languish, maybe they'll get past the "feature". As they are nature subjects they're not going to sell since they can't be keyworded properly ... you know why.

Whoops, like I said, I'm not uploading atm. Pending still means it hasn't been inspected. That funny limbo the techies introduced is "This file is publishing". You can indeed abort files which are pending, but once they're publishing, you can't.
Sorry for the confusion.
Title: Re: Getty e-mail about iStock "Contributor Facing Changes"
Post by: trek on August 19, 2016, 15:41
IIRC, Getty has long had a no individual image deactivation policy.

Because Getty is for adults who submit an image without the intention of removing them on some emotional whim because of the illusion on this forum that everyone else is removing their images.

Who has the time to micro manage single images?

I have time to micro manage single images.  I didn't get to go to art school... and it shows in my early work.  Occasional culling of unsold aging crap in my portfolio should be allowable.  It should be encouraged.  Could even be considered a community service. 

 
Title: Re: Getty e-mail about iStock "Contributor Facing Changes"
Post by: sharpshot on August 19, 2016, 15:54
IIRC, Getty has long had a no individual image deactivation policy.
snip
Because Getty is for adults who submit an image without the intention of removing them on some emotional whim because of the illusion on this forum that everyone else is removing their images.

I certainly agree there is some of that going on here, but images are the property of the copyright holder, not Getty. There are plenty of other reasons why a person might want to change/remove images besides being a flaky photographer.

In the 25+ years I have been a stock photographer I have only once removed an image because of a request from the property owner, even though they signed a property release. Apart from that I see no need to remove anything. I am a shoot it, upload it, forget about it sort of photographer. I have no clue which image will sell better and/or where it will sell better. I have shots that I thought would be total winners and they have never sold, I have a shot that is average that ended up on IS and it has made over 12K. I guess I simply prefer to spend my time out shooting as opposed to micro managing single images.

I am also fairly certain GI is aware you are the copyright holder and if you want to remove an image they will do so for a legitimate reason. Just use this forum for example, a classic herd mentality of removing images. Remember when Sean go the boot? Herd mentality again protesting a personal conflict and removing images. Kind of silly I think.

I also don't like Getty as far as a company is concerned and further to that I really think the attitude of the former CEO is arrogant, but that still does not change the fact (in my view) they are in many ways the only game in town if you really want to make a full on living.
I think all the people putting up with whatever Getty/istock do to them have the herd mentality.  Sean acted like an individual and I very much doubt he regrets leaving the herd.  Getty want you to think they are the only game in town but you really need blinkers more than rose tinted glasses to believe that.
Title: Re: Getty e-mail about iStock "Contributor Facing Changes"
Post by: Rose Tinted Glasses on August 19, 2016, 16:16
IIRC, Getty has long had a no individual image deactivation policy.
snip
Because Getty is for adults who submit an image without the intention of removing them on some emotional whim because of the illusion on this forum that everyone else is removing their images.

I certainly agree there is some of that going on here, but images are the property of the copyright holder, not Getty. There are plenty of other reasons why a person might want to change/remove images besides being a flaky photographer.

In the 25+ years I have been a stock photographer I have only once removed an image because of a request from the property owner, even though they signed a property release. Apart from that I see no need to remove anything. I am a shoot it, upload it, forget about it sort of photographer. I have no clue which image will sell better and/or where it will sell better. I have shots that I thought would be total winners and they have never sold, I have a shot that is average that ended up on IS and it has made over 12K. I guess I simply prefer to spend my time out shooting as opposed to micro managing single images.

I am also fairly certain GI is aware you are the copyright holder and if you want to remove an image they will do so for a legitimate reason. Just use this forum for example, a classic herd mentality of removing images. Remember when Sean go the boot? Herd mentality again protesting a personal conflict and removing images. Kind of silly I think.

I also don't like Getty as far as a company is concerned and further to that I really think the attitude of the former CEO is arrogant, but that still does not change the fact (in my view) they are in many ways the only game in town if you really want to make a full on living.
I think all the people putting up with whatever Getty/istock do to them have the herd mentality.  Sean acted like an individual and I very much doubt he regrets leaving the herd.  Getty want you to think they are the only game in town but you really need blinkers more than rose tinted glasses to believe that.

To help you with your comprehension, I did not remotely imply Getty is the only game in town, I clearly said in many ways they are - big difference. As for SJL, he did not leave the herd, he was forcefully terminated - again big difference.

Also of note, just in case it went over your head, I have never submitted an image to any agency with the intention of removing it - seems a tad counter productive to me.

Title: Re: Getty e-mail about iStock "Contributor Facing Changes"
Post by: sharpshot on August 20, 2016, 05:09
IIRC, Getty has long had a no individual image deactivation policy.
snip
Because Getty is for adults who submit an image without the intention of removing them on some emotional whim because of the illusion on this forum that everyone else is removing their images.

I certainly agree there is some of that going on here, but images are the property of the copyright holder, not Getty. There are plenty of other reasons why a person might want to change/remove images besides being a flaky photographer.

In the 25+ years I have been a stock photographer I have only once removed an image because of a request from the property owner, even though they signed a property release. Apart from that I see no need to remove anything. I am a shoot it, upload it, forget about it sort of photographer. I have no clue which image will sell better and/or where it will sell better. I have shots that I thought would be total winners and they have never sold, I have a shot that is average that ended up on IS and it has made over 12K. I guess I simply prefer to spend my time out shooting as opposed to micro managing single images.

I am also fairly certain GI is aware you are the copyright holder and if you want to remove an image they will do so for a legitimate reason. Just use this forum for example, a classic herd mentality of removing images. Remember when Sean go the boot? Herd mentality again protesting a personal conflict and removing images. Kind of silly I think.

I also don't like Getty as far as a company is concerned and further to that I really think the attitude of the former CEO is arrogant, but that still does not change the fact (in my view) they are in many ways the only game in town if you really want to make a full on living.
I think all the people putting up with whatever Getty/istock do to them have the herd mentality.  Sean acted like an individual and I very much doubt he regrets leaving the herd.  Getty want you to think they are the only game in town but you really need blinkers more than rose tinted glasses to believe that.

To help you with your comprehension, I did not remotely imply Getty is the only game in town, I clearly said in many ways they are - big difference. As for SJL, he did not leave the herd, he was forcefully terminated - again big difference.

Also of note, just in case it went over your head, I have never submitted an image to any agency with the intention of removing it - seems a tad counter productive to me.
Maybe one day you will learn not to be patronising but that seems in many ways unlikely :). I doubt anyone submits images with the intention of removing them but never using that option also seems ludicrous to me.  I doubt even you would be dumb enough to not be able to think of a scenario where you would be better off removing an image rather than leaving it on a site?

Sean strikes me as being quite smart and I'm sure he was well aware that some of his actions could lead to a termination with Getty/istock.  It might not of been the most sensible way to do it but his plan b seems to be working well and he isn't the only intelligent contributor that no longer works with Getty/istock.
Title: Re: Getty e-mail about iStock "Contributor Facing Changes"
Post by: PaulieWalnuts on August 20, 2016, 08:12
IIRC, Getty has long had a no individual image deactivation policy.
snip
Because Getty is for adults who submit an image without the intention of removing them on some emotional whim because of the illusion on this forum that everyone else is removing their images.

I certainly agree there is some of that going on here, but images are the property of the copyright holder, not Getty. There are plenty of other reasons why a person might want to change/remove images besides being a flaky photographer.

In the 25+ years I have been a stock photographer I have only once removed an image because of a request from the property owner, even though they signed a property release. Apart from that I see no need to remove anything. I am a shoot it, upload it, forget about it sort of photographer. I have no clue which image will sell better and/or where it will sell better. I have shots that I thought would be total winners and they have never sold, I have a shot that is average that ended up on IS and it has made over 12K. I guess I simply prefer to spend my time out shooting as opposed to micro managing single images.

I am also fairly certain GI is aware you are the copyright holder and if you want to remove an image they will do so for a legitimate reason. Just use this forum for example, a classic herd mentality of removing images. Remember when Sean go the boot? Herd mentality again protesting a personal conflict and removing images. Kind of silly I think.

I also don't like Getty as far as a company is concerned and further to that I really think the attitude of the former CEO is arrogant, but that still does not change the fact (in my view) they are in many ways the only game in town if you really want to make a full on living.

With IS I removed about half of my images because I wanted to shift that category of images into a premium price level and only sell them directly from my website. This is my business and to run and optimize my business sometimes decisions like this need to be made.

Most of the policies these sites put in place are to protect them and also allow the flexibility to make changes to their business to be more profitable, competitive, or whatever. Totally understand. Unfortunately, these same policy changes can limit my ability to make changes to my business to be more profitable, competitive, or whatever. There needs to be a reasonable balance but that balance seems to be constantly shifting to the advantage of the sites and disadvantage to me.

Now, I totally understand if they wanted to have policies around the extreme situations where people flake and yank their portfolios, then resubmit them, then yank them again, etc. I'd guess that's fairly rare and maybe should be handled individually instead of penalizing everyone for the actions of a small percentage of people.

Ultimately it's their business and their contracts state they can make changes whenever they want. Until something comes along to disrupt the current stock business model we can only accept it or move on.
Title: Re: Getty e-mail about iStock "Contributor Facing Changes"
Post by: Sean Locke Photography on August 20, 2016, 09:02
IIRC, Getty has long had a no individual image deactivation policy.

Because Getty is for adults who submit an image without the intention of removing them on some emotional whim because of the illusion on this forum that everyone else is removing their images.

Who has the time to micro manage single images?

One reason I don't like the policy is because you have no idea of what they will accept from a series before they lock them in for eternity.  You could submit 30 images and they take five, leaving you no recourse.  With WestEnd, the pre-commital review lets you make that decision.
Title: Re: Getty e-mail about iStock "Contributor Facing Changes"
Post by: Rose Tinted Glasses on August 20, 2016, 11:31
IIRC, Getty has long had a no individual image deactivation policy.

Because Getty is for adults who submit an image without the intention of removing them on some emotional whim because of the illusion on this forum that everyone else is removing their images.

Who has the time to micro manage single images?

One reason I don't like the policy is because you have no idea of what they will accept from a series before they lock them in for eternity.  You could submit 30 images and they take five, leaving you no recourse.  With WestEnd, the pre-commital review lets you make that decision.

Are you happy with the results of Westend? It does look interesting. For me the big step is not whether I can or can't delete an image, it's more about dropping exclusivity, that would be a major financial hit. Also, I am not really hearing a lot of people saying they have done better by doing so. Keep in mind I don't shoot lifestyle imagery.

As far as locking in goes by Getty, is Stocksy not the same? You submit whatever and it's image/similar exclusive. What about Westend?
Title: Re: Getty e-mail about iStock "Contributor Facing Changes"
Post by: YadaYadaYada on August 20, 2016, 16:30
Isn't there any kind of forum or even a place where they post notices to us on the iStock site any more? I can't find it in the links or in the site map.
They don't seem to be bothering to review files, either. I uploaded a handful a few weeks back and they're just sitting there pending, except one they rejected  because it was editorial and they don't like shutterstock's caption style.

That's false and you know it. I change nothing between my SS and IS editorial file caption and they are accepted at both. The problem is something you are doing, like that old all caps or punctuation. I upload identical to both and get no style rejections. It must be you.
Title: Re: Getty e-mail about iStock "Contributor Facing Changes"
Post by: ShadySue on August 20, 2016, 16:59
If someone followed the instructions given here:
http://www.shutterstock.com/blog/creating-the-perfect-editorial-caption (http://www.shutterstock.com/blog/creating-the-perfect-editorial-caption)
their captions would certainly be rejected on iStock.
Title: Re: Getty e-mail about iStock "Contributor Facing Changes"
Post by: Pauws99 on August 20, 2016, 17:09
If someone followed the instructions given here:
[url]http://www.shutterstock.com/blog/creating-the-perfect-editorial-caption[/url] ([url]http://www.shutterstock.com/blog/creating-the-perfect-editorial-caption[/url])
their captions would certainly be rejected on iStock.
Useful link......However Shutterstock don't apply their own rules.......I changed my date style in line with I Stock and now get accepted on both?!
Title: Re: Getty e-mail about iStock "Contributor Facing Changes"
Post by: ShadySue on August 20, 2016, 17:24
If someone followed the instructions given here:
[url]http://www.shutterstock.com/blog/creating-the-perfect-editorial-caption[/url] ([url]http://www.shutterstock.com/blog/creating-the-perfect-editorial-caption[/url])
their captions would certainly be rejected on iStock.
Useful link......However Shutterstock don't apply their own rules.......I changed my date style in line with I Stock and now get accepted on both?!

They have no idea which cities are in the US and which are not, so nothing would surprise me.
Title: Re: Getty e-mail about iStock "Contributor Facing Changes"
Post by: ShadySue on August 21, 2016, 07:09
IIRC, Getty has long had a no individual image deactivation policy.

Because Getty is for adults who submit an image without the intention of removing them on some emotional whim because of the illusion on this forum that everyone else is removing their images.

Who has the time to micro manage single images?

From time to time, 'the process' (iStock) changes colours when a file has arrived on the database. In the past, I've just deactivated and reuploaded.
I presume they'll deactivate in such circumstances, but it's so much more hassle to have to contact them and wait, sometimes weeks, for a reply. Also costs them more in support time, though probably these requests, even when it's their fault, won't be prioritised.