pancakes

MicrostockGroup Sponsors


Author Topic: Image Deactivation Tally for iStockPhoto  (Read 94329 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

« Reply #125 on: January 17, 2013, 20:08 »
+4
Glad you're all having fun ;) .

BTW, I've stopped uploading for now.


« Reply #126 on: January 17, 2013, 21:59 »
0
I'm ready to start deactivating, but I have a couple of questions first.  If you deactivate images from IS, are they deactivated on Thinkstock as well, or will it take IS/Getty forever to get around to deactivating them on TS? I mean if the images remain available on TS for a long time after deactivation, then what will we have accomplished by mass deactivation? Also, I seem to remember someone on this forum saying that if you deactivate images older than 1 1/2 years then they must be reinspected before being reactivated, is that true?

« Reply #127 on: January 17, 2013, 22:41 »
+1
You could always give the classic:  "It's not me....it's you."
Good one. I alternate among:
"Unsuitable for stock"
"Unsustainable"
"Peebert made me do it"

gillian vann

  • *Gillian*
« Reply #128 on: January 18, 2013, 04:13 »
+4
You could always give the classic:  "It's not me....it's you."
Good one. I alternate among:
"Unsuitable for stock"
"Unsustainable"
"Peebert made me do it"

LCV, esp after you give it to Google.

« Reply #129 on: January 18, 2013, 04:50 »
-11
Listen fellas and try and understand something!  this is a formidable and courages effort to make things better but go back in history a bit, to the stoneage in fact.
This scenario has been tried before, a unanimous effort and that was back when agencies were not this powerful and STLL, it didnt have any impact at all.
Imagine then whats it like today and with powerful agencies, this and that.

For every image you deactivate there are 20 being uploaded either by new members, old members or new applicants constantly knocking at the door.
Like we have all agreed on before, its a numbers game, got nothing to do with how good you are how well known you are its just numbers. Cant beat that. Its like getting a straight-flush in stud poker. And youre loosing money at the same time.

all the best.

rubyroo

« Reply #130 on: January 18, 2013, 04:54 »
+4
This scenario has been tried before, a unanimous effort and that was back when agencies were not this powerful and STLL, it didnt have any impact at all.

I very much hope that you're wrong and that things will be different this time - because the only alternative is to do nothing, and that just leaves them doing whatever they like with our property.

In any case, for many of us it's not so much about trying to make a point, it's a considered and personal decision to withdraw our IP from careless handlers.

« Reply #131 on: January 18, 2013, 05:02 »
+4
Listen fellas and try and understand something!  this is a formidable and courages effort to make things better but go back in history a bit, to the stoneage in fact.
This scenario has been tried before, a unanimous effort and that was back when agencies were not this powerful and STLL, it didnt have any impact at all.
Imagine then whats it like today and with powerful agencies, this and that.

For every image you deactivate there are 20 being uploaded either by new members, old members or new applicants constantly knocking at the door.
Like we have all agreed on before, its a numbers game, got nothing to do with how good you are how well known you are its just numbers. Cant beat that. Its like getting a straight-flush in stud poker. And youre loosing money at the same time.

all the best.

Like it has been said before, this is more about protecting my images than it is making a giant fall down. There are plenty of other places that Getty don't have control over.

« Reply #132 on: January 18, 2013, 05:04 »
+2
Listen fellas and try and understand something!  this is a formidable and courages effort to make things better but go back in history a bit, to the stoneage in fact.
This scenario has been tried before, a unanimous effort and that was back when agencies were not this powerful and STLL, it didnt have any impact at all.
Imagine then whats it like today and with powerful agencies, this and that.

For every image you deactivate there are 20 being uploaded either by new members, old members or new applicants constantly knocking at the door.
Like we have all agreed on before, its a numbers game, got nothing to do with how good you are how well known you are its just numbers. Cant beat that. Its like getting a straight-flush in stud poker. And youre loosing money at the same time.

all the best.

I agree. Personally I don't believe that iS will change themselves. And I know that deactivation of few thousands of images won't hurt them. If they decide that their policy of arrogance and their way of communication with contributors is right - then nothing will change.
But "And youre loosing money at the same time." doesn't have to me true. I will lose money by deactivating images, but I could lose much more if I keep them on iS - if they appear on Google Drive and their sales on other sites will drop.

« Reply #133 on: January 18, 2013, 05:12 »
0
Glad you're all having fun ;) .

BTW, I've stopped uploading for now.

I've just installed your greasemonkey de-activation script. Thank you very much !
I've stopped uploading anything on iStock and will keep ready for D-Day

« Reply #134 on: January 18, 2013, 05:20 »
+2
my account closed completely.  so i guess that means 921 images 'deactivated'.

« Reply #135 on: January 18, 2013, 05:39 »
+6
Listen fellas and try and understand something!  this is a formidable and courages effort to make things better but go back in history a bit, to the stoneage in fact.
This scenario has been tried before, a unanimous effort and that was back when agencies were not this powerful and STLL, it didnt have any impact at all.
Imagine then whats it like today and with powerful agencies, this and that.

For every image you deactivate there are 20 being uploaded either by new members, old members or new applicants constantly knocking at the door.
Like we have all agreed on before, its a numbers game, got nothing to do with how good you are how well known you are its just numbers. Cant beat that. Its like getting a straight-flush in stud poker. And youre loosing money at the same time.

all the best.

That may well be true for the time being, but the continuous bad publicity from their greedy behaviour will effect them in the long term.

Recently I was talking to a friend in Salt Lake City who's a keen amateur and I was telling him who sells my images and the first thing he said to me, unprompted, since I prefer not to slag off my agent in public, was 'I hear iStock treats their photographers really badly'.

So the message seeps out and has a corrosive effect. They must realise that they have to do something to stop the rot or their billion dollar investment is going to be worthless.

« Reply #136 on: January 18, 2013, 06:06 »
+3
Listen fellas and try and understand something!  this is a formidable and courages effort to make things better but go back in history a bit, to the stoneage in fact.
This scenario has been tried before, a unanimous effort and that was back when agencies were not this powerful and STLL, it didnt have any impact at all.
Imagine then whats it like today and with powerful agencies, this and that.

For every image you deactivate there are 20 being uploaded either by new members, old members or new applicants constantly knocking at the door.
Like we have all agreed on before, its a numbers game, got nothing to do with how good you are how well known you are its just numbers. Cant beat that. Its like getting a straight-flush in stud poker. And youre loosing money at the same time.

all the best.
That's exactly the mentality that has caused this mess.  I don't really blame the sites.  Some of the owners sold out for millions, so would I.  The hedge funds have taken all the money, that's what they do.  The majority of contributors have carried on uploading after commissions were cut and every trick was used to grab more money from us.  So the sites that are only interested in making quick profits for their investors are going to keep squeezing us.  But it can't go on forever, just as the banks got in to a mess, so has Getty/istock.  The market leaders aren't guaranteed to always dominate.  I think Getty are killing istock .  Why hang around and get less money for more work each year until there's nothing left?

Anyone putting up with having their images virtually given away for $12 is losing money.  It's a shame so many people are blinded by the fact that Getty has been the market leader but I remember when Kodak were the biggest thing in photography and look how that's worked out.  It's hard to see how Getty are going to cope when they've been saddled with debt and passed on to new owners that don't seem interested in the stock images business.  Every decision seems to be made for the short term with no plan for the long term.  I have no confidence in their future.

ShadySue

  • There is a crack in everything
« Reply #137 on: January 18, 2013, 06:46 »
+14
Listen fellas and try and understand something!  this is a formidable and courages effort to make things better but go back in history a bit, to the stoneage in fact.
This scenario has been tried before, a unanimous effort and that was back when agencies were not this powerful and STLL, it didnt have any impact at all.
Imagine then whats it like today and with powerful agencies, this and that.
Three years ago a large multinational group of companies decided they wanted to build a coal-fired power station near here. The locals were furious on all sorts of grounds, but most said, "It's a done deal, there's no point in fighting it". So a small group of locals, backed by some large environmental and developmental groups, had to do it ourselves, with the rest saying, "You're right, but you've no chance; save your energy."
But first of all we persuaded our local council, so that it had to go to a National Enquiry; but last autumn, out of the blue and before the national enquiry, they caved in.

There are at least five points here:
1. "It's better to light one candle than curse forever the darkness" (origin vague)
2. It's not only to send a warning blow to Getty, it's to protect our images (any I deactivate at this stage will not be going back up on iStock, even with a backtrack on their part.)
3. If Getty gets off with this, the other agencies could be champing at the bit to try similar scams.
4. You don't have to participate if you don't want to, and if you do, the level of participation is optional.
5. "A journey of a hundred miles starts with a single step" (Lao Tzu)

rubyroo

« Reply #138 on: January 18, 2013, 07:15 »
0

1. "It's better to light one candle than curse forever the darkness" (origin vague)

5. "A journey of a hundred miles starts with a single step" (Lao Tzu)


Aside:  Congrats on your success against the multinational - and thanks for those two quotes... along with your sig that's three of my all time favourites.  Love a bit of Lau Tzu in the mornings...  :)

« Reply #139 on: January 18, 2013, 08:14 »
-5
Listen fellas and try and understand something!  this is a formidable and courages effort to make things better but go back in history a bit, to the stoneage in fact.
This scenario has been tried before, a unanimous effort and that was back when agencies were not this powerful and STLL, it didnt have any impact at all.
Imagine then whats it like today and with powerful agencies, this and that.
Three years ago a large multinational group of companies decided they wanted to build a coal-fired power station near here. The locals were furious on all sorts of grounds, but most said, "It's a done deal, there's no point in fighting it". So a small group of locals, backed by some large environmental and developmental groups, had to do it ourselves, with the rest saying, "You're right, but you've no chance; save your energy."
But first of all we persuaded our local council, so that it had to go to a National Enquiry; but last autumn, out of the blue and before the national enquiry, they caved in.

There are at least five points here:
1. "It's better to light one candle than curse forever the darkness" (origin vague)
2. It's not only to send a warning blow to Getty, it's to protect our images (any I deactivate at this stage will not be going back up on iStock, even with a backtrack on their part.)
3. If Getty gets off with this, the other agencies could be champing at the bit to try similar scams.
4. You don't have to participate if you don't want to, and if you do, the level of participation is optional.
5. "A journey of a hundred miles starts with a single step" (Lao Tzu)

True!  but very differant concept, that had to do with coal, toxic, waste, smog, global warming, etc. These things takes place all the time and in most cases the opposition wins.

This is stock-photography, micro stock Sue! differant kettle of fish.

Listen just to underline my original post. I mean well, I hope it makes a dent. I dont want to see anybody losing money, etc. you know me! Im the first one to raise hell. In this case though ONLY because its sporadic images being deactivated instead of full portfolios, sorry but I cant see this make an impact.

ShadySue

  • There is a crack in everything
« Reply #140 on: January 18, 2013, 08:20 »
+1
Opposition to coal doesn't always win in the UK. There have been some quite notorious coal victories, especially in England.

However, many people aren't deactivating to make a point.
People are deactivating to keep their best-sellers from being given away willy-nilly;, i.e. to keep their ownership of their work.
Others are deactivating model-released work, as there seem to be no 'senstive use' restrictions via Google.
(I'm so ignorant about the Google Drive thing. Do they have a PS equivalent where they'd be able to take a head from an image and stick it onto e.g. a scuddy body (or worse)? If not, that would be a violation, as it wasn't done with the Google software - but would Getty pursue it?)

« Reply #141 on: January 18, 2013, 10:00 »
+13
i closed my account not simply because of the google thing, but it was the final straw. i used to be proud to be an istock contributor. the simple truth is i stopped being so. the google thing had little impact on me, and i very much doubt it or any other similar deals would ever have done. i have no axe to grind either. i understand how business works and sometimes how that includes making painful and unpopular decisions. i may not agree with it, but i can't deny the pursuit of profit is the holy grail for some folks.  however, there is an element of my (scottish) upbringing which is staunchly socialist (with a small 's').  the thought of sitting back doing nothing simply because there's a belief that any positive action would seem futile makes me want to cry. the truth of the matter is sitting back watching istock being run like a private club by some people, with total disregard and contempt for others has been making my skin crawl for sometime. like i say, i was a small player who's actions - as has been pointed out - will probably have little or no impact on the current situation.  i've lost an income (admittedly a small one) and i'm now searching for work outside of photography (to be fair, that was always on the agenda anyway), but i've felt nothing but liberation from the moment i received the email stating my account had been closed - and i was no longer part of the stench which had started to overpower me. to me that's worth an awful lot more than allowing myself to get shafted for the lame reason that in not doing so, i'd simply allow someone else to assume the position in my place.

« Reply #142 on: January 18, 2013, 10:22 »
0
...

« Reply #143 on: January 18, 2013, 10:23 »
+1
Listen fellas and try and understand something!  this is a formidable and courages effort to make things better but go back in history a bit, to the stoneage in fact.
This scenario has been tried before, a unanimous effort and that was back when agencies were not this powerful and STLL, it didnt have any impact at all.
Imagine then whats it like today and with powerful agencies, this and that.

For every image you deactivate there are 20 being uploaded either by new members, old members or new applicants constantly knocking at the door.
Like we have all agreed on before, its a numbers game, got nothing to do with how good you are how well known you are its just numbers. Cant beat that. Its like getting a straight-flush in stud poker. And youre loosing money at the same time.

all the best.

You know, normally Id agree but lots of significant players are at least pledging deactivations and, if even Sean has stopped uploading, there is a possible storming of the Bastille on the cards here.

Slightly off topic, Im amused at the -9 hearts maybe someone has cried Wolf too often or this is just the reaction to honest opinion pointing out something unpalatable.

« Reply #144 on: January 18, 2013, 10:31 »
0
I realize I've entered this discussion rather late and I'm behind the loop here, and so my questions may seem redundant, but I would appreciate it if someone would take a moment to answer them anyway. I have a port of about 1000 images on IS and want to participate in deactivation day, but I just need a couple of questions answered first.

I'm ready to start deactivating, but I have a couple of questions first.  If you deactivate images from IS, are they deactivated on Thinkstock as well, or will it take IS/Getty forever to get around to deactivating them on TS? I mean if the images remain available on TS for a long time after deactivation, then what will we have accomplished by mass deactivation? Also, I seem to remember someone on this forum saying that if you deactivate images older than 1 1/2 years then they must be reinspected before being reactivated, is that true?

« Reply #145 on: January 18, 2013, 10:43 »
+1
I'm ready to start deactivating, but I have a couple of questions first.  If you deactivate images from IS, are they deactivated on Thinkstock as well, or will it take IS/Getty forever to get around to deactivating them on TS? I mean if the images remain available on TS for a long time after deactivation, then what will we have accomplished by mass deactivation? Also, I seem to remember someone on this forum saying that if you deactivate images older than 1 1/2 years then they must be reinspected before being reactivated, is that true?

Allsa, bad new I'm afraid : 
Deactivated images will probably/hopefully/eventually be deleted on Thinkstock (estimated 2 months later).  There are known cases where TS did not delete the files until after an e-mail request by the contributor.
If you deactivate old images (we think older than 18 months), yes they have to be reinspected.  Younger files can be reactivated without reinspection.

Most of us have 2 reasons to deativate :  (1) make a point, let Istock/Getty/Google/theWorld know and (2) protect our files the only way we can, even if it's with 2 months delay.
Are you joining us?

« Reply #146 on: January 18, 2013, 11:56 »
0
I'm ready to start deactivating, but I have a couple of questions first.  If you deactivate images from IS, are they deactivated on Thinkstock as well, or will it take IS/Getty forever to get around to deactivating them on TS? I mean if the images remain available on TS for a long time after deactivation, then what will we have accomplished by mass deactivation? Also, I seem to remember someone on this forum saying that if you deactivate images older than 1 1/2 years then they must be reinspected before being reactivated, is that true?

Allsa, bad new I'm afraid : 
Deactivated images will probably/hopefully/eventually be deleted on Thinkstock (estimated 2 months later).  There are known cases where TS did not delete the files until after an e-mail request by the contributor.
If you deactivate old images (we think older than 18 months), yes they have to be reinspected.  Younger files can be reactivated without reinspection.

Most of us have 2 reasons to deativate :  (1) make a point, let Istock/Getty/Google/theWorld know and (2) protect our files the only way we can, even if it's with 2 months delay.
Are you joining us?

Problem is, I've uploaded very little since Sept 2011, which means that for me deactivating would be almost the same as deleting, since the vast majority of my deactivated files would have to be reinspected. Are most people deactivating only those files uploaded within the past year and a half?

« Reply #147 on: January 18, 2013, 12:07 »
+2
The thing to keep in mind is that Getty/iStock has shown us that they feel that they have the right to do as they please with OUR intellectual property. That includes licensing them to Google so that Google can give them away.

There is no trust left. I'm deleting my portfolio not to "make a difference," but to keep my images from being taken out of my control or given away completely.

Regardless of what Getty/iStock has to say now or in the future, my images will not be available for license through them.

« Reply #148 on: January 18, 2013, 12:14 »
+3
I'm a new member here, although I've been reading these forums for several years. I have a very small portfolio at iStock and stopped uploading two years ago. However, the images I do have there were bringing in some useful change until whatever iStock did in September sent DLs over the cliff. And now this unbelievable Google/Getty thing.

I just wanted to say that I've already deactivated 48 files, mostly my MR images. I only have three more MR images, which are among my best-sellers, and I'll likely deactivate them on D-Day. It's not as painful as it might have been since earnings have taken such a nose-dive recently. (Ironic that by screwing up DLs and site functionality, iStock has actually made it easier for a lot of people to take the step of deactivating files, giving up the crown and/or shutting down their accounts.)

I also moved my Vetta images back to the regular collection -- only to be told that Getty doesn't have the ability to remove such Vetta images mirrored on their site, although they're "working on it." So I've lost the Vetta royalty and the images are still vulnerable to being sent over to Google. Wonderful.

I'm not sure it's worth continuing with microstock. Even if Getty backpedals to some extent (which I doubt), I don't see how it's possible to trust any promises they make, and it's clear that iStock has absolutely no control over these things, so whatever they say is meaningless. I will definitely drop my crown and close my account if it becomes clear that files in the regular iStock collection are going to be included in these kinds of "deals" in the future. If they bother to tell us...

« Reply #149 on: January 18, 2013, 12:35 »
+6
Listen fellas and try and understand something!  this is a formidable and courages effort to make things better but go back in history a bit, to the stoneage in fact.
This scenario has been tried before, a unanimous effort and that was back when agencies were not this powerful and STLL, it didnt have any impact at all.
Imagine then whats it like today and with powerful agencies, this and that.

For every image you deactivate there are 20 being uploaded either by new members, old members or new applicants constantly knocking at the door.
Like we have all agreed on before, its a numbers game, got nothing to do with how good you are how well known you are its just numbers. Cant beat that. Its like getting a straight-flush in stud poker. And youre loosing money at the same time.

all the best.

Like it has been said before, this is more about protecting my images than it is making a giant fall down. There are plenty of other places that Getty don't have control over.

Yes there are A LOT of other places that Getty doesn't have control over, and this is where I will be concentrating my efforts from now on.
@ClaridgeJ - it seems that you're quite out of touch with modern world. A company dependent on wide base of contributors/users CAN NOT survive a lot of bad publicity. With this thingy called internet news spread far and wide around the world. People deactivating images might not have impact on immediate iStock sales figures, but it sends a very powerful message to general public, both buyers and contributors. Apart from saving your work from misuse, it is also a political action.
The problem is, most people who worked in stock industry for more than 10 years are still trying to apply obsolete concepts and rules to it. Getty's butchering of iStock is a telling example. The industry is very different these days, but somehow the rigidity of the minds of "traditional" stock people doesn't allow them to understand the changes... and this is not the first time in history... remember Luddites? "


 

Related Topics

  Subject / Started by Replies Last post
11 Replies
9910 Views
Last post June 19, 2008, 02:19
by Perry
13 Replies
7881 Views
Last post November 20, 2010, 09:14
by ShadySue
4 Replies
6762 Views
Last post February 28, 2011, 17:43
by click_click
4 Replies
3451 Views
Last post November 18, 2013, 08:36
by Mantis
8 Replies
4611 Views
Last post January 20, 2017, 09:34
by worriedistocker

Sponsors

Mega Bundle of 5,900+ Professional Lightroom Presets

Microstock Poll Results

Sponsors