Author Topic: Input for a Getty petition (Read 17763 times)

Shelma1 · « **on:** November 03, 2016, 06:08 »

Ok folks, we've seen that a petition can be effective. It's time for a petition to Getty. But we need everyone's input (anyone can write a petition, of course).

It's important that we keep the "ask" simple and send it to the right person. IMO we should simply request that Getty keep its current royalty structure and not reduce our subs royalties by 93% beginning November 25th, at the height of the holiday season.

What do you think?

Who should we address the petition to? Someone high up at Getty.

r2d2 · « **Reply #1 on:** November 03, 2016, 06:42 »

I think we should adress that to the whole Getty group or the CEO.
And we need time to make this petition successful.
The petition should run long enough.

r2d2 · « **Reply #2 on:** November 03, 2016, 06:48 »

I think we should organize that the petition is translated in the most native languages around the planet.
I can help to translate the german version.

Sebastian Radu · « **Reply #3 on:** November 03, 2016, 06:56 »

Quote from: r2d2 on November 03, 2016, 06:48

I think we should organize that the petition is translated in the most native languages around the planet.
I can help to translate the german version.

I in romanian..

sharpshot · « **Reply #4 on:** November 03, 2016, 06:59 »

Seems like a total waste of time for non-exclusives. I think deactivating images or closing accounts is more likely to make buyers look at other sites. If istock can get away with 15% for so many years, they will always find enough mugs to supply them but hopefully they wont supply what buyers want and they will go elsewhere.

Shelma1 · « **Reply #5 on:** November 03, 2016, 07:12 »

We should have a separate thread for naysayers.

Shelma1 · « **Reply #6 on:** November 03, 2016, 07:22 »

The petition: Addressed to Jonathan Klein? The milk, cream, cheese, yoghurt and meat without-the-cow guy?

r2d2 · « **Reply #7 on:** November 03, 2016, 07:25 »

We can make these versions now:

US / English supported by Shelma1
Romanian supported by Sebalos
German supported by r2d2
Russian supported by Ilyas
French supported by Thomas from France

Recards · « **Reply #8 on:** November 03, 2016, 07:32 »

Russian on me

H2O · « **Reply #9 on:** November 03, 2016, 07:36 »

Personally I think that though a Petition is a good idea, the reality of the situation is that Getty is over indebted, it can never pay the money it owes back to the banks and hedgefunds and they will know this, they will continue to run commission rates down to virtually nothing, (this is human nature for the thick people in Banks and Hedgefunds) in what is a desperate attempt to wring every last cent out of the company.

The mentality of the company shows this in taking away there forum, banning the + in it, stopping the deactivation and the list goes on, non of the other sites have done any of this.

The site is underinvested in and has a terrible search facility apart from the fact that it is badly designed.

But in the mean time the market will change, lets face it the three biggest sites are Shutterstock, Fotolia/Adobe and iStock/Getty, all SS and FA have to do is raise commission rates and it is the end for Getty, SS and FA are just biding their time.

I expect Getty to collapse at some time in the future owing all the contributors and there clients money and there will be no comeback with a Chapter 11 filing, once they have lost total trust the others will pick over the remains.

It is a great shame really.

Shelma1 · « **Reply #10 on:** November 03, 2016, 07:49 »

Getty may not want—or be able—to play ball. That's fine. If they collapse buyers will have to go elsewhere. But in the meantime they're still the #3 earner for many people (#2 for me) and the ONLY earner for others. The point is getting the word out that we will not accept 2¢ royalties. And letting buyers know the type of things Getty will do to the creative people that supply their product. Remember that their buyers are creative people too.

Please don't derail the thread. A petition will be written, and everyone has the choice to sign it or not. It doesn't stop you from deleting images or pulling your port, which are also perfectly great things to do. It's just another, public way to protest.

H2O · « **Reply #11 on:** November 03, 2016, 08:03 »

Quote from: Shelma1 on November 03, 2016, 07:49

Please don't derail the thread. A petition will be written, and everyone has the choice to sign it or not. It doesn't stop you from deleting images or pulling your port, which are also perfectly great things to do. It's just another, public way to protest.

I agree with you whole wholeheartedly, the more publicity you can get the better, especially to inform the buyers.

Probably a good way to do this would be to send a Press Release to the top Advertising and Design Agencies in America and Europe.

The buyers would be very interested to know what is going on at Getty.

Justanotherphotographer · « **Reply #12 on:** November 03, 2016, 08:13 »

Yes I agree a petition can't hurt if only to publicise the way they treat their contributors.

The ask needs to either be to reverse the change to sub payment structure entirely or put in place a reasonable guaranteed minimum. For example same as SS's guaranteed minimum of 25c

r2d2 · « **Reply #13 on:** November 03, 2016, 08:15 »

Getty's overall tactical behavior should be made clear in the petition.

Remove the delete option and than months later reduce commissions.
There ironic emails.
The prohibition to quote from there forums.
Gettys payment intransparency.
And so on and on....

ShadySue · « **Reply #14 on:** November 03, 2016, 08:16 »

Getty had a dreadful reputation here in the UK for the way they treated photographers well before I signed up with IS at the end of 2006. If even I knew about it, I'm pretty sure most agencies and buyers know.

Justanotherphotographer · « **Reply #15 on:** November 03, 2016, 08:18 »

Quote from: Shelma1 on November 03, 2016, 07:22

The petition: Addressed to Jonathan Klein? The milk, cream, cheese, yoghurt and meat without-the-cow guy?

If you do decide to send it to Mr Potato Head then it will need to be publicised on Facebook, Twitter and the like as he will just ignore it. As far as I can tell he is "businessman" of the old school. A deal is not a deal unless you get one over on someone else, hearing any change has hurt the other party in a contract may only give him more pleasure.

Stern · « **Reply #16 on:** November 03, 2016, 08:24 »

When the petition is ready? Itching to sign it

Shelma1 · « **Reply #17 on:** November 03, 2016, 08:30 »

Quote from: ShadySue on November 03, 2016, 08:16

Getty had a dreadful reputation here in the UK for the way they treated photographers well before I signed up with IS at the end of 2006. If even I knew about it, I'm pretty sure most agencies and buyers know.

It has a bad rep in the U.S. too. Art directors consider them a bully. But now they have real competition in Adobe and SS, so this may just push buyers over the edge.

gyllens · « **Reply #18 on:** November 03, 2016, 08:52 »

For non exclusives its waste of time, they spit on it and the Lobo moron would probably eat it!

cathyslife · « **Reply #19 on:** November 03, 2016, 09:04 »

Should people who don't do business with istock/Getty sign the petition? Personally, I think that whatever they do directly affects ALL microstockers, but if it creates a hassle, I will pass. Would be happy to sign otherwise.

Mantis · « **Reply #20 on:** November 03, 2016, 09:10 »

I would sign the petition no problem. I am a believer in hitting from all sides, pulling ports and petition, targeting their buyers, etc. But Getty is a beast, always has been. The thing we don't know is how far gone they are. That breadth would determine what, if any, wiggle room we have as contributors to affect change on them. I mean, what if they lose that billion $ lawsuit? Even a chunk of that, say $200M settlement, would in effect ruin them. A company will do a lot of disparate things, and cutting our commissions is at the top of the list. A rabid dog kind of thing....... MUST HIT THEM FROM MULTIPLE ANGLES!!

I will also say this and maybe I'll get flamed. I don't want to see Getty/Istock fail if we're able to get them to at least maintain their current rates. I say that video has to go up more than we get now, though. Too many people are reliant on the income and, to those who do this full time as their main income, I don't want to see them lose that. This is a hard business, a lot of work from all of us goes into shooting, production, editing, key wording, uploading, file management, etc.....it's an exhaustive process. To have people lose an income over night is horrible. I look at this as helping fellow artists survive rather than my own wish to see them fail....a part of me wants to be able to say, you reap what you sow. But it's bigger than me.

Shelma1 · « **Reply #21 on:** November 03, 2016, 09:12 »

Very well stated.

Recards · « **Reply #22 on:** November 03, 2016, 09:44 »

We - designers, photographers, video and sound editors - invested our education, skills, experience to Getty.
We spend money for computers, cameras and other necessary hardware.
We pay lot of money for licensed design software such as Adobe CC, Illustrator plug-ins, Photoshop, AfterEffect etc.
Many are drawing every day and spend a lot for brushes, paints, paper also.
All this brings to Getty great income, but after all Getty values all our expences and labour only in #2cents and in some cases they dared even not to pay it.
It's completely despicable from Getty side.
Getty does not create any products to devalue my labour, my work so low.

Shelma1 · « **Reply #23 on:** November 03, 2016, 10:13 »

Is Dawn Airey the current CEO?
Claudia Micare...Director of Contributor Relations?

Rose Tinted Glasses · « **Reply #24 on:** November 03, 2016, 10:19 »

Keep a few things in mind...

Firstly, nobody but you is responsible for where you market your imagery and GI knows this.
Secondly, I am pretty sure they read this forum and see all the slander from a select few and would not doubt be just as glad to rid of you.
Thirdly, they are in total selling very close to a billion dollars, yes that is with a B, worth of imagery per year and they really don't need you.

For those of you who have been around long enough nobody or organization has been able to make Getty a happy place to be. And buyers have other concerns to worry about than our royalty rates, that is why SS is so successful, buyers don't care if you make 0.25c or 0.02c for the use of an image.

At the end of the day it is all about who you choose to market your images as we all have options and are not forced into any one agency. I stood my ground years ago and did not accept the terms of SS as I always thought 0.25c was a shame.

There is no right or wrong in this game, rather it's really more about what will you as an individual tolerate? And we will all tolerate different levels that is why microstock became so successful, supply and demand, images makers were more than happy to sell their work for pennies, albeit multiple times as the justification and buyers were more than happy to pay pennies. Buyers have never cared if you make 0.25c or 0.02c for a download, and I really don't see them caring any time soon. All buyers work within budgets that they generally try to keep to a minimum, and microstock has fed into this successfully.

Hate to say it and burst your bubble, but it's a love it or leave it situation and always has been.

Food for thought.

Recards · « **Reply #25 on:** November 03, 2016, 10:23 »

Jonathan Klein
Co-Founder and Chairman

Jonathan D. Klein was the CEO of the global digital media company Getty Images, Inc., the premier creator and distributor of visual communications worldwide since he co-founded the Company in March 1995. At the end of 2015, Jonathan stepped up to the role of Co-Founder and Chairman.

http://press.gettyimages.com/executives/jonathan-klein/

His name I found in another useful case Highsmith vs Getty:
https://consumermediallc.files.wordpress.com/2016/08/highsmith-v-getty-images.pdf

panicAttack · « **Reply #26 on:** November 03, 2016, 10:28 »

I will be first to sign that petition as well as I was for the SS one

We have to try something, agree on that, but unfortunately as Rose Tinted Glasses sad, don't expect anything from them.

alno · « **Reply #27 on:** November 03, 2016, 10:33 »

Istock is a unique company. They are surely not caring about their or stock market future, they act as a too tired old owner of some crowded touristic place cafe which would collect some revenue almost in any case.
Their percentage is the highest and their contributor site is complete mess.

They are NOT partners and I'm quite sure they wouldn't care about any petition, it's almost like signing petition against North Korean authorities. But together we can attract a lot of buyers attention. Probably they would simply pick another agency with about the same prices next time. Modern socially responsible
business is not very fond of slavery and its similars. Me and my husband will sign that. Thank you for your effort, Shelma1.

Shelma1 · « **Reply #28 on:** November 03, 2016, 10:38 »

Quote from: Ilyas on November 03, 2016, 10:23

Jonathan Klein
Co-Founder and Chairman

Jonathan D. Klein was the CEO of the global digital media company Getty Images, Inc., the premier creator and distributor of visual communications worldwide since he co-founded the Company in March 1995. At the end of 2015, Jonathan stepped up to the role of Co-Founder and Chairman.

http://press.gettyimages.com/executives/jonathan-klein/

His name I found in another useful case Highsmith vs Getty:
https://consumermediallc.files.wordpress.com/2016/08/highsmith-v-getty-images.pdf

Yes, it looks like he stepped up to Chairman when Airey was named CEO.

Shelma1 · « **Reply #29 on:** November 03, 2016, 10:47 »

Quote from: Rose Tinted Glasses on November 03, 2016, 10:19

slander

Slander: "...making false and damaging statements about (someone)."

False is the operative word there.

Who's said anything false?

Buyers do care...I'm one of them and have been for more than three decades, since the days of Tony Stone. Many others here are buyers too, are friends and colleagues of buyers, know buyers who are photographers, videographers and illustrators on the side (like me).

Your name is a misnomer...there's nothing rose colored about the glasses you see the world through.

Rose Tinted Glasses · « **Reply #30 on:** November 03, 2016, 10:49 »

Quote from: panicAttack on November 03, 2016, 10:28

I will be first to sign that petition as well as I was for the SS one

We have to try something, agree on that, but unfortunately as Rose Tinted Glasses sad, don't expect anything from them.

No I don't expect anything from them. I have been with them since day one when images were actually worth something and an agency represented the artist, then it slowly became representing the image and now the F*Kcwads call them assets as if they own them outright. Why do you think I use RTG as a name on this site, I am under no illusions of what this industry will do next either from GI or any other agency. Being a stock artist was once upon a time a great place to be, but my gut tells me it's not the place to be in the very near future. The writing was on the wall with the proliferation of microstock and the ease in which one could suddenly become a "professional".

You can call it what you want, sad, negative, sarcastic, buzzkill, but it's the reality, either you swallow that bitter pill and accept it or you don't.

I stood my ground years ago with one agency because I did not think 0.25c was fair.

For me it's simple stand your ground for what you believe to be right, but signing a petition it not going to even make them flinch.

Rose Tinted Glasses · « **Reply #31 on:** November 03, 2016, 10:56 »

Quote from: Shelma1 on November 03, 2016, 10:47

Quote from: Rose Tinted Glasses on November 03, 2016, 10:19
slander

Slander: "...making false and damaging statements about (someone)."

False is the operative word there.

Who's said anything false?

Buyers do care...I'm one of them and have been for more than three decades, since the days of Tony Stone. Many others here are buyers too, are friends and colleagues of buyers, know buyers who are photographers, videographers and illustrators on the side (like me).

Your name is a misnomer...there's nothing rose colored about the glasses you see the world through.

So you are basically saying that as a buyer you buy images from micros that you know pay a rate of 0.25c to 0.38c to the talent yet you don't purchase from the likes of the agencies that sell imagery for a higher price and pay the talent a higher royalty rate? << because you care. I know if I was a buyer and wanted RF I would only go to micros, and if I needed RM I would then have a budget and go to the appropriate agencies. Why would you pay full retail if you did not have to? Oh right because you care. Give us a break.

If buyers cared micros would not have flourished and macros been in decline.

FWIW there are many false statements on here about IS/GI.

I am only suggesting that GI does not care about photographers, their track record speaks for itself.

And my name is not a misnomer, it's an antonym. But I do see you have rtg if you think you can change GI. Good luck with that.

You obviously did not learn anything from the misfortune of a well know photographer on this forum who decided to challenge and poke the bear. He is just one of many that they dispose of.

Shelma1 · « **Reply #32 on:** November 03, 2016, 11:12 »

Quote from: Rose Tinted Glasses on November 03, 2016, 10:56

Quote from: Shelma1 on November 03, 2016, 10:47
Quote from: Rose Tinted Glasses on November 03, 2016, 10:19
slander

Slander: "...making false and damaging statements about (someone)."

False is the operative word there.

Who's said anything false?

Buyers do care...I'm one of them and have been for more than three decades, since the days of Tony Stone. Many others here are buyers too, are friends and colleagues of buyers, know buyers who are photographers, videographers and illustrators on the side (like me).

Your name is a misnomer...there's nothing rose colored about the glasses you see the world through.

So you are basically saying that as a buyer you buy images from micros that you know pay a rate of 0.25c to 0.38c to the talent yet you don't purchase from the likes of the agencies that sell imagery for a higher price and pay the talent a higher royalty rate? << because you care. I know if I was a buyer and wanted RF I would only go to micros, and if I needed RM I would then have a budget and go to the appropriate agencies. Why would you pay full retail if you did not have to? Oh right because you care. Give us a break.

If buyers cared micros would not have flourished and macros been in decline.

So you just make things up, since I didn't say any of that but you'll go ahead and put words in my mouth anyway. Ad agencies (I'm a Creative Director) are the ones who pay the most for images from Getty and SS. We're also the ones who still pay tens or hundreds of thousands for custom shoots. We fight every day for bigger budgets. So.

As I've said before, microstock opened up new markets for amateurs to license work to smaller buyers. Then the pros decided to jump in and undercut themselves. Somehow in your mind that's my fault. Whatevs.

It's really unfortunate what they did to Sean. Totally sucks. But I'm not in his position. I make at iStock in a year what I make in advertising in 2 weeks. Will I like losing that income? No. It's my extra Christmas bonus. But if I fight I have a chance to keep my Christmas bonus, and if I don't it will fade to nothing come November 25. What is there to lose?

LDV81 · « **Reply #33 on:** November 03, 2016, 11:38 »

Quote from: Shelma1 on November 03, 2016, 06:08

Who should we address the petition to?

To Santa Claus.
A positive outcome would be more likely in this case.

Rose Tinted Glasses · « **Reply #34 on:** November 03, 2016, 11:56 »

Quote from: LDV81 on November 03, 2016, 11:38

Quote from: Shelma1 on November 03, 2016, 06:08
Who should we address the petition to?

To Santa Claus.
A positive outcome would be more likely in this case.

My point exactly.

Shelma1 · « **Reply #35 on:** November 03, 2016, 12:00 »

Quote from: Rose Tinted Glasses on November 03, 2016, 10:56

So you are basically saying that as a buyer you buy images from micros that you know pay a rate of 0.25c to 0.38c to the talent yet you don't purchase from the likes of the agencies that sell imagery for a higher price and pay the talent a higher royalty rate? << because you care. I know if I was a buyer and wanted RF I would only go to micros, and if I needed RM I would then have a budget and go to the appropriate agencies. Why would you pay full retail if you did not have to? Oh right because you care. Give us a break.

^^^That comes a lot closer to slander than anything anyone else has said here.

Rose Tinted Glasses · « **Reply #36 on:** November 03, 2016, 12:09 »

Quote from: Shelma1 on November 03, 2016, 11:12

Quote from: Rose Tinted Glasses on November 03, 2016, 10:56
Quote from: Shelma1 on November 03, 2016, 10:47
Quote from: Rose Tinted Glasses on November 03, 2016, 10:19
slander

Slander: "...making false and damaging statements about (someone)."

False is the operative word there.

Who's said anything false?

Buyers do care...I'm one of them and have been for more than three decades, since the days of Tony Stone. Many others here are buyers too, are friends and colleagues of buyers, know buyers who are photographers, videographers and illustrators on the side (like me).

Your name is a misnomer...there's nothing rose colored about the glasses you see the world through.

So you are basically saying that as a buyer you buy images from micros that you know pay a rate of 0.25c to 0.38c to the talent yet you don't purchase from the likes of the agencies that sell imagery for a higher price and pay the talent a higher royalty rate? << because you care. I know if I was a buyer and wanted RF I would only go to micros, and if I needed RM I would then have a budget and go to the appropriate agencies. Why would you pay full retail if you did not have to? Oh right because you care. Give us a break.

If buyers cared micros would not have flourished and macros been in decline.

So you just make things up, since I didn't say any of that but you'll go ahead and put words in my mouth anyway. Ad agencies (I'm a Creative Director) are the ones who pay the most for images from Getty and SS. We're also the ones who still pay tens or hundreds of thousands for custom shoots. We fight every day for bigger budgets. So.

As I've said before, microstock opened up new markets for amateurs to license work to smaller buyers. Then the pros decided to jump in and undercut themselves. Somehow in your mind that's my fault. Whatevs.

It's really unfortunate what they did to Sean. Totally sucks. But I'm not in his position. I make at iStock in a year what I make in advertising in 2 weeks. Will I like losing that income? No. It's my extra Christmas bonus. But if I fight I have a chance to keep my Christmas bonus, and if I don't it will fade to nothing come November 25. What is there to lose?

Comparing a custom shoot and purchasing stock is like comparing apples and oranges.

BTW, I did not make anything up, it was a question. It had an answer which I did not get. Call it semantics if you will. I certainly hope you pay more attention as a Creative Director.

Justanotherphotographer · « **Reply #37 on:** November 03, 2016, 12:10 »

Quote from: LDV81 on November 03, 2016, 11:38

Quote from: Shelma1 on November 03, 2016, 06:08
Who should we address the petition to?

To Santa Claus.
A positive outcome would be more likely in this case.

I don't expect any outcome except publicising the way Getty treats its contributors. Which is plenty.

cathyslife · « **Reply #38 on:** November 03, 2016, 12:10 »

Ug, I really miss the minus vote button.

ShadySue · « **Reply #39 on:** November 03, 2016, 12:11 »

What slander? While what is said may be 'damaging to their reputation', most, if not all, is demonstrably 'not false'.They don't care about their reputation and haven't for years.
I do agree that if someone can't stomach a company's policies, they should cancel their contract or not upload wherever in the first place.

dpimborough · « **Reply #40 on:** November 03, 2016, 12:16 »

Nothing ventured nothing gained I say.

To the naysayers I'd say how do you know it won't be worthwhile if you don't try?

Put up a petition I'd sign it!

dpimborough · « **Reply #41 on:** November 03, 2016, 12:19 »

Quote from: Shelma1 on November 03, 2016, 12:00

Quote from: Rose Tinted Glasses on November 03, 2016, 10:56
So you are basically saying that as a buyer you buy images from micros that you know pay a rate of 0.25c to 0.38c to the talent yet you don't purchase from the likes of the agencies that sell imagery for a higher price and pay the talent a higher royalty rate? << because you care. I know if I was a buyer and wanted RF I would only go to micros, and if I needed RM I would then have a budget and go to the appropriate agencies. Why would you pay full retail if you did not have to? Oh right because you care. Give us a break.

^^^That comes a lot closer to slander than anything anyone else has said here.

Technically as soon as it's in writing it's libel

Rose Tinted Glasses · « **Reply #42 on:** November 03, 2016, 12:19 »

Quote from: ShadySue on November 03, 2016, 12:11

What slander? While what is said may be 'damaging to their reputation', most, if not all, is demonstrably 'not false'.They don't care about their reputation and haven't for years.
I do agree that if someone can't stomach a company's policies, they should cancel their contract or not upload wherever in the first place.

GI is it's own worst enemy in the "damaging to their reputation" department. But yes, over time their has actually been a lot of non factual comments about GI on this forum.

One thing for sure, I think most will agree that GI is an ugly company and has a very low morale from it's "asset" suppliers. I know if I had a better alternative that produced the income it does for me, I'd be gone in a heartbeat.

mlwp · « **Reply #43 on:** November 03, 2016, 12:45 »

I left Getty and iStock awhile back, can't say I miss either one.

My only advice, for what it's worth, is that if you are going to sign a petition don't do so in anonymity....use your real name, let them know who you are.....carries more weight that way.

Of course, by doing so you may run the risk of retribution but is that the type of company you really want to work with/for if that should happen?

Stern · « **Reply #44 on:** November 03, 2016, 13:06 »

Enough to find out who is who. Write a petition. Even if it is, it will consist of only one sentence:

Please note our interest, since we believe that these royalty rates do not cover our costs of production and does not bring profit

Shelma1 · « **Reply #45 on:** November 03, 2016, 13:11 »

Just waiting for the translations.

If we're closing in on 1,000 signatures for spammers I can't imagine how many we'll get for this.

dirkr · « **Reply #46 on:** November 04, 2016, 02:16 »

I think asking them to keep their current royalty rates is by far not enough. 15%? That's why I left them years ago.

A petition asking them to pay 50%, remove all shady partner deals, pay a fair subs rate, introduce real time reporting - that's something I would sign.
But with no expectation of any result...

Thomas from France · « **Reply #47 on:** November 04, 2016, 03:18 »

Quote from: Shelma1 on November 03, 2016, 13:11

Just waiting for the translations.

If we're closing in on 1,000 signatures for spammers I can't imagine how many we'll get for this.

Ok for a french translation, but what is the exact content of the petition ?

wordplanet · « **Reply #48 on:** November 04, 2016, 10:13 »

Happy to sign the petition.

Also, Shelma, once a large group of people sign, do you have the ability to put the fact that xx thousand artists signed a petition, with a brief description of the petition, on PR newswire?

Can you set it up so people see it on Facebook and can sign there and get their friends and followers to sign? I think that it can come from a concerned group of buyers, sellers, artists, business people, etc. all concerned about not seeing artists treated like peons. IMHO, the fact that they are reducing commissions to as low as 2 cents will outrage people beyond those who supply Getty/iStock.

Great idea. Hope my input helps. Happy to brainstorm with you and all those here who believe that the only way we can take any control of how our images are sold and how we are treated is to band together. Ignore the nay-sayers. We can do this together.

The petition may not succeed, but we'll surely fail if we don't try. Excellent idea.

Shelma1 · « **Reply #49 on:** November 04, 2016, 10:34 »

There's a button on the petition page that anyone can use to share it on Facebook.

I'll look into PR Newswire.

I do believe all kinds of creative people will be outraged.

YadaYadaYada · « **Reply #50 on:** November 04, 2016, 10:40 »

Quote from: Shelma1 on November 04, 2016, 10:34

There's a button on the petition page that anyone can use to share it on Facebook.

I'll look into PR Newswire.

I do believe all kinds of creative people will be outraged.

I do believe that you are correct. Many people will not know what is going on, exposing this is good. More buyers to sites that pay us fairer like SS and FT.

Shelma1 · « **Reply #51 on:** November 04, 2016, 12:15 »

Would anyone like to volunteer an image for the petition page? Something that captures the spirit...an artist painting? A photographer shooting? Someone grabbing money? I don't want to license something and then find out the person who shot it doesn't want the image associated with this cause.

And it can be OOF, have lighting issues or noise...rejected images are fine.

BD · « **Reply #52 on:** November 04, 2016, 15:05 »

I don’t have anything in my portfolio or hard drive that would be helpful. Another idea if someone had the individual images would be a picture of a photographer working in a photography studio (or something that would show the money and time artists put into images) and then the “does not equal sign” (≠) and than a picture of 2 cents. (These pictures all merged together into one).

Dumc · « **Reply #53 on:** November 04, 2016, 16:33 »

Just put white circle with red border with "Getty" caption in it and red line crossed over it....you know, like STOP Getty

LDV81 · « **Reply #54 on:** November 04, 2016, 18:28 »

You can also send a petition to mosquitos asking not to bite you.
It doesn't make much sense, because biting people is simply what mosquitos do. Fleecing photographers is what Getty do, they have always done so and probably always will, it is their raison d'être. You can't change their DNA.

Mosquitos need your blood, and so does Getty. I don't send petitions to mosquitos. I avoid their territory or use a mosquito net or a repellent.

zsooofija · « **Reply #55 on:** November 04, 2016, 19:27 »

Where can I find the link for the petition. Sorry, call me stupid, but I can not find it

.
In the meantime I found another one: https://www.change.org/p/photographers-more-commissions-from-microstock-agencies or is it this one?

SpaceStockFootage · « **Reply #56 on:** November 04, 2016, 23:09 »

Quote from: zsooofija on November 04, 2016, 19:27

Where can I find the link for the petition. Sorry, call me stupid, but I can not find it .
In the meantime I found another one: https://www.change.org/p/photographers-more-commissions-from-microstock-agencies or is it this one?

There isn't one. Not yet anyway.

Recards · « **Reply #57 on:** November 04, 2016, 23:35 »

Quote from: Shelma1 on November 04, 2016, 12:15

Would anyone like to volunteer an image for the petition page? Something that captures the spirit...an artist painting? A photographer shooting? Someone grabbing money? I don't want to license something and then find out the person who shot it doesn't want the image associated with this cause.

And it can be OOF, have lighting issues or noise...rejected images are fine.

Let's check Highsmith collection

SpaceStockFootage · « **Reply #58 on:** November 04, 2016, 23:49 »

Quote from: Stern on November 03, 2016, 13:06

Enough to find out who is who. Write a petition. Even if it is, it will consist of only one sentence:

Please note our interest, since we believe that these royalty rates do not cover our costs of production and does not bring profit

I don't think that works. If they paid 1% of the purchase price, rather than 15% or whatever... but you sold ten trillion of them, then even if you're in a solid gold helicopter shooting aerials from space, then that's probably going to cover your cost of production. There's rarely a firm correlation between cost of production and total earnings. Yes, a trip to some exotic locations with models and props is going to cost more than a shot clip of a poorly framed manky cat down the road, but a well shot clip of a fancy building down the road isn't going to cost more than a poorly shot clip manky cat down the road... but the former is going to make you more money.

Don't get me wrong, I'm all for decent prices and decent commissions, but your suggested content for the petition just seems a bit 'wooly'.

Justanotherphotographer · « **Reply #59 on:** November 05, 2016, 02:36 »

Quote from: LDV81 on November 04, 2016, 18:28

You can also send a petition to mosquitos asking not to bite you.
It doesn't make much sense, because biting people is simply what mosquitos do. Fleecing photographers is what Getty do, they have always done so and probably always will, it is their raison d'être. You can't change their DNA.

Mosquitos need your blood, and so does Getty. I don't send petitions to mosquitos. I avoid their territory or use a mosquito net or a repellent.

I agree 100% that getty have shown they will not change. But a petition doesn't hurt in publicising what is going on to other contributors and members of the creative industry that use getty.

Shelma1 · « **Reply #60 on:** November 05, 2016, 04:55 »

Quote from: Ilyas on November 04, 2016, 23:35

Quote from: Shelma1 on November 04, 2016, 12:15
Would anyone like to volunteer an image for the petition page? Something that captures the spirit...an artist painting? A photographer shooting? Someone grabbing money? I don't want to license something and then find out the person who shot it doesn't want the image associated with this cause.

And it can be OOF, have lighting issues or noise...rejected images are fine.

Let's check Highsmith collection

Lol. I thought of contacting her just to get her express permission. But I don't want to confuse people.

SpaceStockFootage · « **Reply #61 on:** November 05, 2016, 05:29 »

Quote from: LDV81 on November 04, 2016, 18:28

You can also send a petition to mosquitos asking not to bite you.
It doesn't make much sense, because biting people is simply what mosquitos do. Fleecing photographers is what Getty do, they have always done so and probably always will, it is their raison d'être. You can't change their DNA.

Mosquitos need your blood, and so does Getty. I don't send petitions to mosquitos. I avoid their territory or use a mosquito net or a repellent.

I'd sign that petition... I had dengue fever a couple of months back. I wouldn't recommend it.

ShadySue · « **Reply #62 on:** November 05, 2016, 19:59 »

What do we want?
50%

Whan do we want it?
Now.

ravens · « **Reply #63 on:** November 06, 2016, 05:56 »

Sorry if I missed something, but what if anything does the petition say about the rights that Getty claims to our work on the new ASA?

ShadySue · « **Reply #64 on:** November 06, 2016, 08:02 »

Quote from: ravens on November 06, 2016, 05:56

Sorry if I missed something, but what if anything does the petition say about the rights that Getty claims to our work on the new ASA?

Do you have a link to a new ASA?
Or say which thread it's mentioned in on their forums (don't link directly!).

ravens · « **Reply #65 on:** November 07, 2016, 03:29 »

When you log on you Istock account, select Contributor tools, then Upload and in red there is this notification

"On December 1, 2016 the ASA will be amended. Click here to see the form of Agreements that will be effective December 1. If you upload content prior to December 1 or fail to terminate your current ASA by sending us notice before December 1, you will be deemed to have agreed to the new ASA. Please see our October 31 email for more information."

The huge range of rights Getty claim to our images concern me. It seems we now grant Getty unlimited user rights if we continue uploading?

ShadySue · « **Reply #66 on:** November 07, 2016, 04:42 »

Thanks for that. Sneaky to have the pop-up on upload, instead of on log-in which I seem to have to do more than once a day.
Odd I haven't seen mention of it on their forums (moribund, and they don't answer 'awkward' questions, so pretty pointless) or Fb groups.
I'll give it the once-over.

Later: I checked over the email of 31st October, and it just says a bland "Effective December 1, we will update the ASAs to reflect these changes. You will see the link to the new ASA when you upload through the iStock Site starting near the end of October. We are updating things like how you contact us, how we contact you and when we calculate and pay subscription royalties. You will also see changes from the ‘iStock Site’ to the Getty Images contributor site and ingestion platforms. In addition, we have added some guidance and requirements on drone usage. If you upload content prior to December 1 or fail to terminate your current ASA by sending us notice before December 1, you will be deemed to have agreed to the new ASA." I had read that and didn't see any hint of a change to their rights.

Unfortunately, as they don't believe in 'Best Practice', they haven't set out the new ASA in parallel with old one, which often happens with better companies (of different types). So I'll need to copy and paste the old and new ASAs into parallel columns myself, which will take longer than I've got this morning. They really don't make things easy for us, and I'm sure it's deliberate.

Not only that, clicking on the link from Upload, I got to the indie ASA, and had to click another link to get to the exclusive ASA. What was that all about - incompetent coding or ...?

ShadySue · « **Reply #67 on:** November 07, 2016, 06:49 »

Quote from: ravens on November 07, 2016, 03:29

The huge range of rights Getty claim to our images concern me. It seems we now grant Getty unlimited user rights if we continue uploading?

Can you please tell me which clause/s you're referring to?
It's a long and deliberately obfuscatory document!

I certainly hate that they can enter into deals whereby they can gain loads of money by agreeing to give our content away free/bnearly free ('Connect'), which has been noted here, on their forum and Fb groups. A previous ASA change allowed that, but in legalese whereby we didn't realise they'd be able to do it.
e.g. http://steelhouse.com/creative-getty-partnership/?esource=EML_GI_BAT_RTN_PRO_2016WK41_ENLTech.ALT_E1V2_non_none_151742_enUS_SEG (they sneakily call this 'promotion' to pull it under the ASA we agreed to)

Shelma1 · « **Reply #68 on:** November 07, 2016, 07:29 »

I'm no attorney. But...

• Section 3 a i seems to give iStock the right to sell prints and other products featuring our work.

• The agreement refers to a rate card, but I don't see a rate card? Am I missing something?

• Section 5 c talks about refunds, including refunds for royalties overpaid in a prior royalty period. That says to me that we'll be getting refunds every month as customers roll over their unused subscriptions and our royalties go down as they use more subs. So we can never count on the money we're paid every month because it can be clawed back the next month.

• section 9 a iv prohibits keyword "doping," the spam issue we're having at Shutterstock.

• Section 10 b seems to give iStock the right to pursue copyright infringement claims, and we give up that right, and agree to cooperate with iStock. iStock will supposedly split any proceeds with us pursuant to the invisible rate card, but the expenses they can deduct are "without limitation," so of course those expenses can come to 100%, which would mean we get nothing.

• Section 10c seems to say that if iStock decides not to go after someone for infringement you can then go after them, but you have to split the money you win (after expenses) with iStock pursuant to the invisible rate card, which means for indie photographers you give iStock 85% of the money you're awarded after you pay your legal expenses.

• Section 11 seems to say you agree to all this automatically unless you send them notification in writing.

ShadySue · « **Reply #69 on:** November 07, 2016, 07:39 »

Sorry, I need to go out now and won't be back until night, but a lot of these clauses were already in the ASA.

ShadySue · « **Reply #70 on:** November 07, 2016, 17:16 »

Quote from: Shelma1 on November 07, 2016, 07:29

I'm no attorney. But...

• Section 3 a i seems to give iStock the right to sell prints and other products featuring our work.

Same as existing ASA

Quote

• The agreement refers to a rate card, but I don't see a rate card? Am I missing something?

https://contributors.gettyimages.com/article.aspx?article_id=4856

Quote

• Section 5 c talks about refunds, including refunds for royalties overpaid in a prior royalty period. That says to me that we'll be getting refunds every month as customers roll over their unused subscriptions and our royalties go down as they use more subs. So we can never count on the money we're paid every month because it can be clawed back the next month.

That has been explained on the iS forum.
The new 5c is the same as the existing 5c.

Quote

• section 9 a iv prohibits keyword "doping," the spam issue we're having at Shutterstock.

Same as existing ASA, and IMO a Good Thing if only it were enforced.

Quote

• Section 10 b seems to give iStock the right to pursue copyright infringement claims, and we give up that right, and agree to cooperate with iStock. iStock will supposedly split any proceeds with us pursuant to the ~~invisible~~ rate card, but the expenses they can deduct are "without limitation," so of course those expenses can come to 100%, which would mean we get nothing.

Same wording as existing ASA

Quote

• Section 10c seems to say that if iStock decides not to go after someone for infringement you can then go after them, but you have to split the money you win (after expenses) with iStock pursuant to the ~~invisible~~ rate card, which means for indie photographers you give iStock 85% of the money you're awarded after you pay your legal expenses.

Wording same as existing ASA, and IIRC this and the previous clause have been at the least 'substantively similar' since I joined in Nov 2006.

Quote

• Section 11 seems to say you agree to all this automatically unless you send them notification in writing.

Well, yes, or else how would they know? Again same as existing ASA and at least 'substatively similar' for a long time

I'm not saying I like these clauses any more than you do, but it was the question of wider rights that Getty was apparently claiming with the new ASA (compared to the existing one) that I couldn't find.

Shelma1 · « **Reply #71 on:** November 07, 2016, 18:12 »

I'm a bit concerned about section 5c in light of the new 2¢ royalties, and they should explain it to all contributors in an email that makes sense instead of hiding it in a forum they know few people visit and then prohibiting anyone from discussing it elsewhere, in their usual attempt to be as opaque and obfuscatory as humanly possible.

But it sounds like not much has changed in the agreement itself, then.

ShadySue · « **Reply #72 on:** November 07, 2016, 18:16 »

Quote from: Shelma1 on November 07, 2016, 18:12

I'm a bit concerned about section 5c in light of the new 2¢ royalties, and they should explain it to all contributors in an email that makes sense ...

Don't hope for the impossible.

ravens · « **Reply #73 on:** November 08, 2016, 03:13 »

Hi,

(3)
b. 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 iStock Site, the Content and their distribution programs, and promote the licensing of Accepted Content (including, without limitation, the use of the Accepted Content and your registered and unregistered trademarks for marketing, sales and promotional efforts whether on the iStock Site or through third parties). No compensation shall be due to you for use of Accepted Content for such business purposes.

"Without limitation"
"third parties"
These concern me.

ShadySue · « **Reply #74 on:** November 08, 2016, 04:32 »

Quote from: ravens on November 08, 2016, 03:13

Hi,

(3)
b. 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 iStock Site, the Content and their distribution programs, and promote the licensing of Accepted Content (including, without limitation, the use of the Accepted Content and your registered and unregistered trademarks for marketing, sales and promotional efforts whether on the iStock Site or through third parties). No compensation shall be due to you for use of Accepted Content for such business purposes.

"Without limitation"
"third parties"
These concern me.

Quite, but they are in the existing ASA, and as I pointed out in post #67 above, that's what lets them enter into deals like that with Steelhouse, whereby they no doubt get a huge amount of money from letting Steelhouse etc give away our images, but we get literally fractions of a cent per use.

Again, I thought some concern had been expressed about the new (upcoming) ASA.

trek · « **Reply #75 on:** November 08, 2016, 06:21 »

Artists deserve 50% or better from all sites. I wont sign a petition that asks for less.

I will add my name to the list of artists who no longer supply Getty companies.

My existing port remains for now. Though I'm likely to remove it when the return per download numbers become clear in a couple months.

Seems I'm becoming another artist exclusively supplying agencies not named Getty.

MicrostockGroup Sponsors

Author Topic: Input for a Getty petition (Read 17763 times)

Justanotherphotographer

Justanotherphotographer

gyllens

Rose Tinted Glasses

alno

Rose Tinted Glasses

Rose Tinted Glasses

Rose Tinted Glasses

Rose Tinted Glasses

Justanotherphotographer

dpimborough

dpimborough

Rose Tinted Glasses

Justanotherphotographer

Related Topics

Sponsors

Microstock Poll Results

Sponsors