Author Topic: Time for action! (Read 16336 times)

cobalt · « **Reply #25 on:** November 16, 2011, 16:02 »

I have never heard that edstock consisted of rm files that have been dropped from getty?

lagereek · « **Reply #26 on:** November 16, 2011, 16:16 »

Quote from: cobalt on November 16, 2011, 16:02

I have never heard that edstock consisted of rm files that have been dropped from getty?

Quite right, neither have I.

ShadySue · « **Reply #27 on:** November 16, 2011, 17:05 »

Quote from: cobalt on November 16, 2011, 16:02

I have never heard that edstock consisted of rm files that have been dropped from getty?

Sorry if I'm wrong. I guess it was implied here:
http://www.istockphoto.com/forum_messages.php?threadid=330294&page=1
If not from Getty, whence?

BaldricksTrousers · « **Reply #28 on:** November 16, 2011, 17:14 »

This is from the "linkedin" profile of a tog who has been poaching on my patch with inferior "edstock" content: "Photographer at GettyImages"

Maybe edstock is rejects from GI (since this stuff was only a year old and much of it would flunk Canstock inspection), maybe it is culled from their RM collection. I don't know. But I do know that people describing themselves as GettyImages photographers are seeing their stuff in "edstock".

cobalt · « **Reply #29 on:** November 16, 2011, 17:26 »

edstock is from getty, like the hulton archive or many agency images, but it is all rf.

what christian was talking about that getty house or photographer´s choice contributors might have their rm content moved into rf. and so far i haven´t heard that they had gone ahead with that.

istock is getting a lot of getty content.

edstock is the editorial collection that supposedly adds celebrities, sports events etc...that they don´t want /cannot accept from the istock contributors. i don´t know if the content in edstock is wholly owned by getty or just older content from the getty newsarchive (and various getty news photographers). but I have never heard that it was rm before coming to istock.

what seems to sell best in editorial are logos, cars and product shots, so personally I don´t care if they add older news images for the blogger market.

ShadySue · « **Reply #30 on:** November 16, 2011, 17:34 »

Well 'Ed' is all but hogging the best match for Glasgow, editorial, for example; so I care.
And the three 'Ed's who are hogging the top 50 editorial Glasgows are all Getty togs.

BaldricksTrousers · « **Reply #31 on:** November 16, 2011, 17:48 »

I was talking about year-old general views of a place with unreleased faces and copyrighted material produced by a self-proclaimed "Gettyimages photographer". It has to be RM so it's either Getty RM rejects that don't belong in any collection, or it is a photographer seeing his RM Getty material pushed into Edstock less than a year after he shot it.
The guy did an impressive job of machine-gun shooting everything in sight over the course of a couple of days but not such a good job with overall quality.

cobalt · « **Reply #32 on:** November 16, 2011, 18:02 »

Maybe the contract for getty editorial is different than getty creative? It sounds reasonable that editorial images that obviously were approved without the tight editing of getty creative, would get weeded out a lot faster.

But christian spoke of his rm images at getty and I thought he was talking about the creative contract that now allows his rm files to be moved downstream if it doesn´t sell.

getty has many different contracts, i just know the creative one, which is the one I have. And there they introduced a lot of changes in the summer that got a lot of protest, but to me personally made a lot of sense. if you look through the creative rm library you see a lot of files where you wonder who would license this as rm - I am talking about flowers, leaves, outdated lifestyle etc...

But the rm crowd defend rm with passion, many opposing rf completely. since i come from a rf background, it was difficult for me to understand why they hated rf so much. and my rm files on getty all sold within the first year, so my files won´t be moved. And if my files don´t sell within three years I would be glad if they got moved somewhere they will sell.

anyway, I don´t think the problems of the rm world don´t affect us a lot here.

BaldricksTrousers · « **Reply #33 on:** November 16, 2011, 18:09 »

Well, they affect anyone who is doing RF city views and finding scenes from the same place being pumped into the collection at an astonishing rate.

lagereek · « **Reply #34 on:** November 17, 2011, 01:10 »

Quote from: cobalt on November 16, 2011, 18:02

Maybe the contract for getty editorial is different than getty creative? It sounds reasonable that editorial images that obviously were approved without the tight editing of getty creative, would get weeded out a lot faster.

But christian spoke of his rm images at getty and I thought he was talking about the creative contract that now allows his rm files to be moved downstream if it doesn´t sell.

getty has many different contracts, i just know the creative one, which is the one I have. And there they introduced a lot of changes in the summer that got a lot of protest, but to me personally made a lot of sense. if you look through the creative rm library you see a lot of files where you wonder who would license this as rm - I am talking about flowers, leaves, outdated lifestyle etc...

But the rm crowd defend rm with passion, many opposing rf completely. since i come from a rf background, it was difficult for me to understand why they hated rf so much. and my rm files on getty all sold within the first year, so my files won´t be moved. And if my files don´t sell within three years I would be glad if they got moved somewhere they will sell.

anyway, I don´t think the problems of the rm world don´t affect us a lot here.

Youre right! I am talking about the Getty-RM, creative (house-collection, stones, image-bank, etc) in this new contract ( which I now understand not many here are aware of) we got the option of either get kicked out or give the permission to allow some content being shifted into their RF, micro, etc.
Might be RM content that doesnt sell? I dont know and many of my colleques inside the RM dont seem to know either. Whatever they mean, I would say, its having an effect on the entire business.
Nowdays it seems we are all in the same boat, RM, RF, Micro, it doesnt matter anymore.

best.

admin · « **Reply #35 on:** November 17, 2011, 03:00 »

a few posts were removed from this thread for back and forth bickering / insulting.

Microbius · « **Reply #36 on:** November 17, 2011, 03:23 »

Quote from: lagereek on November 15, 2011, 10:03

Why dont we all just quit this joke place and just leave it to the noobs and rookies. Thats what they want anyway. They have been spitting in our faces for the last two years, so whats the big deal anyway.

What chance do you have of convincing people to leave when they are signing up with Envanto Market Places and Vectorstock in droves.
Sites that offer terms even worse than IStock and and Fotolia and bring in a fraction of the income?
There are just far too many masochists out there.

lagereek · « **Reply #37 on:** November 17, 2011, 03:40 »

Quote from: Microbius on November 17, 2011, 03:23

Quote from: lagereek on November 15, 2011, 10:03
Why dont we all just quit this joke place and just leave it to the noobs and rookies. Thats what they want anyway. They have been spitting in our faces for the last two years, so whats the big deal anyway.

What chance do you have of convincing people to leave when they are signing up with Envanto Market Places and Vectorstock in droves.
Sites that offer terms even worse than IStock and and Fotolia and bring in a fraction of the income?
There are just far too many masochists out there.

Well, you know, I was kind of screaming out loud really. Im not encouraging anybody against their will. Frankly though they have gone over the top and it really wouldnt hurt if people started to saddle up, many have already done it.

ShadySue · « **Reply #38 on:** November 17, 2011, 04:45 »

OK, colour me confused.

Lagereek's OP:
"I have had it with this. Know what these morons have done? a German engineering corporation that have bought from IS, for years, mails me on my private mail, asking me if I can find some cogs and gears they had seen some two months back, they needed it for a corporate-profile and wanted to purchase 8 pics. Well, obviously I mailed them the pics personally and they agreed to the sum, which was far more then what IS, had sold them for. Incidentlly, all the pics were blue flamed. i.e. had sold for more then 1000 times. Finally after half hour of looking, I found them way, way down, left there to simply be forgotten. Well, so they thought."

My [new] question:
Why didn't your potential buyers just 'search within' your portfolio, since they already knew they were your images?

Lagereek:
"Why dont we all just quit this joke place [IS}?"

My [new] reply:
I can't understand why you wouldn't, since it seems your fanclub would rather buy directly from you at an inflated price than click one more link to search within your portfolio (yeah, it's an extra click, but how long did it take them to email you then negotiate back and forward and pay for the pics:?)
However, it looks like you should be delighted with iStock: they showed off your pics, enabling a buyer to contact you offsite and you got more money in the end.

Lagereek:
"Im much more worried about this TS migration, how the heck are we going to get our pics back, especially since many of us are under Getty-contracts."

I asked you to explain, and you didn't, but Cobalt explained:
"Getty now has the right to move content between all their partner sites, upstream and downstream as they please. for rm there is some kind of time frame, i think if it hasn´t sold even once in three years they can put it into rf and if they want to even thinkstock. "

I did actually know that, but can't see how that has any bearing on your files which are currently on iStock and Thinkstock, should you choose to close your iStock account. That seems to me to be a totally different issue, and not one which has any relevance to this iStockphoto forum.

So I'm missing ... ?

To help resolve Lagereek's angst, has anyone here closed their iStock account, and if so, how long did it take for them to take down your files on TS/PP?
(Whistling down the wind, as I guess they're not on this forum any more).

lagereek · « **Reply #39 on:** November 17, 2011, 05:05 »

Quote from: ShadySue on November 17, 2011, 04:45

OK, colour me confused.

Lagereek's OP:
"I have had it with this. Know what these morons have done? a German engineering corporation that have bought from IS, for years, mails me on my private mail, asking me if I can find some cogs and gears they had seen some two months back, they needed it for a corporate-profile and wanted to purchase 8 pics. Well, obviously I mailed them the pics personally and they agreed to the sum, which was far more then what IS, had sold them for. Incidentlly, all the pics were blue flamed. i.e. had sold for more then 1000 times. Finally after half hour of looking, I found them way, way down, left there to simply be forgotten. Well, so they thought."

My [new] question:
Why didn't your potential buyers just 'search within' your portfolio, since they already knew they were your images?

Lagereek:
"Why dont we all just quit this joke place [IS}?"

My [new] reply:
I can't understand why you wouldn't, since it seems your fanclub would rather buy directly from you at an inflated price than click one more link to search within your portfolio (yeah, it's an extra click, but how long did it take them to email you then negotiate back and forward and pay for the pics:?)
However, it looks like you should be delighted with iStock: they showed off your pics, enabling a buyer to contact you offsite and you got more money in the end.

Lagereek:
"Im much more worried about this TS migration, how the heck are we going to get our pics back, especially since many of us are under Getty-contracts."

I asked you to explain, and you didn't, but Cobalt explained:
"Getty now has the right to move content between all their partner sites, upstream and downstream as they please. for rm there is some kind of time frame, i think if it hasn´t sold even once in three years they can put it into rf and if they want to even thinkstock. "

I did actually know that, but can't see how that has any bearing on your files which are currently on iStock and Thinkstock, should you choose to close your iStock account. That seems to me to be a totally different issue, and not one which has any relevance to this iStockphoto forum.

So I'm missing ... ?

To help resolve Lagereek's angst, has anyone here closed their iStock account, and if so, how long did it take for them to take down your files on TS/PP?
(Whistling down the wind, as I guess they're not on this forum any more).

Well Sue you are a confused gal!

As I said this RM contract, is obviously not seen nor signed by many here. Its just too messy and long-winded to explain because as in all Getty contracts there are tons of clauses and other unexplaiable material.
Its got nothing to do with any IS contract. Its got to do with RM-photographers contract and Gettys own micros, ex, TS, not IS, BUT! now our IS shots are getting mirrored into TS

My hunch is that RM material that doesnt sell well, is pushed over to TS or whatever. Dont know myself and since there are so few here belonging to the actual Getty-house-collection, we are not likely to get an answer.

I have started to delete certain industrial files, blue and red flames, reason being, I dont want too much spread on them and I dont want them to end upp selling for like 0.20c, a throw, etc, its a too big commercial wheel with TS, IS and Getty, all together, a buyers nightmare.

best.

ShadySue · « **Reply #40 on:** November 17, 2011, 05:16 »

Quote from: lagereek on November 17, 2011, 05:05

My hunch is that RM material that doesnt sell well, is pushed over to TS or whatever.

Since your mega-fantastic photos are in such high demand, I can't see why you're even thinking about that possibility.

Noodles · « **Reply #41 on:** November 17, 2011, 05:30 »

Quote from: lagereek on November 17, 2011, 05:05

Well Sue you are a confused gal!

What I'm confused about is the missing 8 blue flamed cog and gear images mentioned at the beginning of this thread.

lagereek · « **Reply #42 on:** November 17, 2011, 05:32 »

Quote from: ShadySue on November 17, 2011, 05:16

Quote from: lagereek on November 17, 2011, 05:05
My hunch is that RM material that doesnt sell well, is pushed over to TS or whatever.
Since your mega-fantastic photos are in such high demand, I can't see why you're even thinking about that possibility.

Why do you have to be sarcastic? I havent ( for once ) lowered myself to that. Never mind mega quality or fantastic pictures, etc. Its got NOTHING! to do with that. Blimey Sue, did you run a marathon through school?
This goes for ALL the Getty RM-photographers, not just me, but ALL, mega or not, but ALL the RM photographers............. SIGH! $:-\$

lagereek · « **Reply #43 on:** November 17, 2011, 05:36 »

Quote from: Noodles on November 17, 2011, 05:30

Quote from: lagereek on November 17, 2011, 05:05

Well Sue you are a confused gal!

What I'm confused about is the missing 8 blue flamed cog and gear images mentioned at the beginning of this thread.

Well noodles, you seem to have been confused all your life. nothing exeptional. I know it takes too much braines to understand but has it occured to you that some of these 8 could perhaps been some that I deleted? no didnt think so.zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz.

ShadySue · « **Reply #44 on:** November 17, 2011, 05:37 »

Quote from: lagereek on November 17, 2011, 05:32

Quote from: ShadySue on November 17, 2011, 05:16
Quote from: lagereek on November 17, 2011, 05:05
My hunch is that RM material that doesnt sell well, is pushed over to TS or whatever.
Since your mega-fantastic photos are in such high demand, I can't see why you're even thinking about that possibility.

Why do you have to be sarcastic? I havent ( for once ) lowered myself to that. Never mind mega quality or fantastic pictures, etc. Its got NOTHING! to do with that. Blimey Sue, did you run a marathon through school?
This goes for ALL the Getty RM-photographers, not just me, but ALL, mega or not, but ALL the RM photographers............. SIGH! $:-\$

So, apart from giving you yet another opportunity to remind us all that you're a Getty RM photographer, the point of bringing up your Getty contract on an iStock forum on a microstock group was ... ?

CarlssonInc · « **Reply #45 on:** November 17, 2011, 05:38 »

Quote from: lagereek on November 17, 2011, 05:05

Quote from: ShadySue on November 17, 2011, 04:45
OK, colour me confused.

Lagereek's OP:
"I have had it with this. Know what these morons have done? a German engineering corporation that have bought from IS, for years, mails me on my private mail, asking me if I can find some cogs and gears they had seen some two months back, they needed it for a corporate-profile and wanted to purchase 8 pics. Well, obviously I mailed them the pics personally and they agreed to the sum, which was far more then what IS, had sold them for. Incidentlly, all the pics were blue flamed. i.e. had sold for more then 1000 times. Finally after half hour of looking, I found them way, way down, left there to simply be forgotten. Well, so they thought."

My [new] question:
Why didn't your potential buyers just 'search within' your portfolio, since they already knew they were your images?

Lagereek:
"Why dont we all just quit this joke place [IS}?"

My [new] reply:
I can't understand why you wouldn't, since it seems your fanclub would rather buy directly from you at an inflated price than click one more link to search within your portfolio (yeah, it's an extra click, but how long did it take them to email you then negotiate back and forward and pay for the pics:?)
However, it looks like you should be delighted with iStock: they showed off your pics, enabling a buyer to contact you offsite and you got more money in the end.

Lagereek:
"Im much more worried about this TS migration, how the heck are we going to get our pics back, especially since many of us are under Getty-contracts."

I asked you to explain, and you didn't, but Cobalt explained:
"Getty now has the right to move content between all their partner sites, upstream and downstream as they please. for rm there is some kind of time frame, i think if it hasn´t sold even once in three years they can put it into rf and if they want to even thinkstock. "

I did actually know that, but can't see how that has any bearing on your files which are currently on iStock and Thinkstock, should you choose to close your iStock account. That seems to me to be a totally different issue, and not one which has any relevance to this iStockphoto forum.

So I'm missing ... ?

To help resolve Lagereek's angst, has anyone here closed their iStock account, and if so, how long did it take for them to take down your files on TS/PP?
(Whistling down the wind, as I guess they're not on this forum any more).

Well Sue you are a confused gal!

As I said this RM contract, is obviously not seen nor signed by many here. Its just too messy and long-winded to explain because as in all Getty contracts there are tons of clauses and other unexplaiable material.
Its got nothing to do with any IS contract. Its got to do with RM-photographers contract and Gettys own micros, ex, TS, not IS, BUT! now our IS shots are getting mirrored into TS

My hunch is that RM material that doesnt sell well, is pushed over to TS or whatever. Dont know myself and since there are so few here belonging to the actual Getty-house-collection, we are not likely to get an answer.

I have started to delete certain industrial files, blue and red flames, reason being, I dont want too much spread on them and I dont want them to end upp selling for like 0.20c, a throw, etc, its a too big commercial wheel with TS, IS and Getty, all together, a buyers nightmare.

best.

I got a Getty house collection contract and if you visit the Getty contributor forum you will see quite clear statements (especially Andy Saunder's open letter) that starting with the new contract images will be able to be moved from RM to RF and within RF also "down" to Thinkstock and Photos.com. I don't take it as Getty wanting to push everything downstream, but for especially RM to be "leaner" - they specifically state that RM has a strong future. They seem to be wanting more control over which material is placed where, in their view to maximise revenue for them (and us).

Noodles · « **Reply #46 on:** November 17, 2011, 05:46 »

Quote from: lagereek on November 17, 2011, 05:36

Quote from: Noodles on November 17, 2011, 05:30
Quote from: lagereek on November 17, 2011, 05:05

Well Sue you are a confused gal!

What I'm confused about is the missing 8 blue flamed cog and gear images mentioned at the beginning of this thread.

Well noodles, you seem to have been confused all your life. nothing exeptional. I know it takes too much braines to understand but has it occured to you that some of these 8 could perhaps been some that I deleted? no didnt think so.zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz.

oh that's right, you are going to delete your portfolio . Well good luck then.

lagereek · « **Reply #47 on:** November 17, 2011, 05:57 »

Quote from: CarlssonInc. Stock Imagery Production on November 17, 2011, 05:38

Quote from: lagereek on November 17, 2011, 05:05
Quote from: ShadySue on November 17, 2011, 04:45
OK, colour me confused.

Lagereek's OP:
"I have had it with this. Know what these morons have done? a German engineering corporation that have bought from IS, for years, mails me on my private mail, asking me if I can find some cogs and gears they had seen some two months back, they needed it for a corporate-profile and wanted to purchase 8 pics. Well, obviously I mailed them the pics personally and they agreed to the sum, which was far more then what IS, had sold them for. Incidentlly, all the pics were blue flamed. i.e. had sold for more then 1000 times. Finally after half hour of looking, I found them way, way down, left there to simply be forgotten. Well, so they thought."

My [new] question:
Why didn't your potential buyers just 'search within' your portfolio, since they already knew they were your images?

Lagereek:
"Why dont we all just quit this joke place [IS}?"

My [new] reply:
I can't understand why you wouldn't, since it seems your fanclub would rather buy directly from you at an inflated price than click one more link to search within your portfolio (yeah, it's an extra click, but how long did it take them to email you then negotiate back and forward and pay for the pics:?)
However, it looks like you should be delighted with iStock: they showed off your pics, enabling a buyer to contact you offsite and you got more money in the end.

Lagereek:
"Im much more worried about this TS migration, how the heck are we going to get our pics back, especially since many of us are under Getty-contracts."

I asked you to explain, and you didn't, but Cobalt explained:
"Getty now has the right to move content between all their partner sites, upstream and downstream as they please. for rm there is some kind of time frame, i think if it hasn´t sold even once in three years they can put it into rf and if they want to even thinkstock. "

I did actually know that, but can't see how that has any bearing on your files which are currently on iStock and Thinkstock, should you choose to close your iStock account. That seems to me to be a totally different issue, and not one which has any relevance to this iStockphoto forum.

So I'm missing ... ?

To help resolve Lagereek's angst, has anyone here closed their iStock account, and if so, how long did it take for them to take down your files on TS/PP?
(Whistling down the wind, as I guess they're not on this forum any more).

Well Sue you are a confused gal!

As I said this RM contract, is obviously not seen nor signed by many here. Its just too messy and long-winded to explain because as in all Getty contracts there are tons of clauses and other unexplaiable material.
Its got nothing to do with any IS contract. Its got to do with RM-photographers contract and Gettys own micros, ex, TS, not IS, BUT! now our IS shots are getting mirrored into TS

My hunch is that RM material that doesnt sell well, is pushed over to TS or whatever. Dont know myself and since there are so few here belonging to the actual Getty-house-collection, we are not likely to get an answer.

I have started to delete certain industrial files, blue and red flames, reason being, I dont want too much spread on them and I dont want them to end upp selling for like 0.20c, a throw, etc, its a too big commercial wheel with TS, IS and Getty, all together, a buyers nightmare.

best.

I got a Getty house collection contract and if you visit the Getty contributor forum you will see quite clear statements (especially Andy Saunder's open letter) that starting with the new contract images will be able to be moved from RM to RF and within RF also "down" to Thinkstock and Photos.com. I don't take it as Getty wanting to push everything downstream, but for especially RM to be "leaner" - they specifically state that RM has a strong future. They seem to be wanting more control over which material is placed where, in their view to maximise revenue for them (and us).

Yes ofcourse I know Andys letter. I do agree actually, judging by the present micro climate I think RM has a strong future. So thats what I was after, see if I got this right, you mean pushing RM to RF, well I can live with that but pushing RM to micro, well that seems a pretty drastic step.

I guess its a bit late in the day anyway, you must have signed the same contract as me then.

thanks for explaining, best.

lagereek · « **Reply #48 on:** November 17, 2011, 06:01 »

Quote from: ShadySue on November 17, 2011, 05:37

Quote from: lagereek on November 17, 2011, 05:32
Quote from: ShadySue on November 17, 2011, 05:16
Quote from: lagereek on November 17, 2011, 05:05
My hunch is that RM material that doesnt sell well, is pushed over to TS or whatever.
Since your mega-fantastic photos are in such high demand, I can't see why you're even thinking about that possibility.

Why do you have to be sarcastic? I havent ( for once ) lowered myself to that. Never mind mega quality or fantastic pictures, etc. Its got NOTHING! to do with that. Blimey Sue, did you run a marathon through school?
This goes for ALL the Getty RM-photographers, not just me, but ALL, mega or not, but ALL the RM photographers............. SIGH! $:-\$

So, apart from giving you yet another opportunity to remind us all that you're a Getty RM photographer, the point of bringing up your Getty contract on an iStock forum on a microstock group was ... ?

People here have known this for years, exept you. You are really childish here, you know, do you really think its a big deal shooting RM for Getty nowdays? them days are long gone, maybe 10 years ago, today its just another menagerie of money greedy folks, thats all.

CarlssonInc · « **Reply #49 on:** November 17, 2011, 06:02 »

Quote from: lagereek on November 17, 2011, 05:57

Quote from: CarlssonInc. Stock Imagery Production on November 17, 2011, 05:38
Quote from: lagereek on November 17, 2011, 05:05
Quote from: ShadySue on November 17, 2011, 04:45
OK, colour me confused.

Lagereek's OP:
"I have had it with this. Know what these morons have done? a German engineering corporation that have bought from IS, for years, mails me on my private mail, asking me if I can find some cogs and gears they had seen some two months back, they needed it for a corporate-profile and wanted to purchase 8 pics. Well, obviously I mailed them the pics personally and they agreed to the sum, which was far more then what IS, had sold them for. Incidentlly, all the pics were blue flamed. i.e. had sold for more then 1000 times. Finally after half hour of looking, I found them way, way down, left there to simply be forgotten. Well, so they thought."

My [new] question:
Why didn't your potential buyers just 'search within' your portfolio, since they already knew they were your images?

Lagereek:
"Why dont we all just quit this joke place [IS}?"

My [new] reply:
I can't understand why you wouldn't, since it seems your fanclub would rather buy directly from you at an inflated price than click one more link to search within your portfolio (yeah, it's an extra click, but how long did it take them to email you then negotiate back and forward and pay for the pics:?)
However, it looks like you should be delighted with iStock: they showed off your pics, enabling a buyer to contact you offsite and you got more money in the end.

Lagereek:
"Im much more worried about this TS migration, how the heck are we going to get our pics back, especially since many of us are under Getty-contracts."

I asked you to explain, and you didn't, but Cobalt explained:
"Getty now has the right to move content between all their partner sites, upstream and downstream as they please. for rm there is some kind of time frame, i think if it hasn´t sold even once in three years they can put it into rf and if they want to even thinkstock. "

I did actually know that, but can't see how that has any bearing on your files which are currently on iStock and Thinkstock, should you choose to close your iStock account. That seems to me to be a totally different issue, and not one which has any relevance to this iStockphoto forum.

So I'm missing ... ?

To help resolve Lagereek's angst, has anyone here closed their iStock account, and if so, how long did it take for them to take down your files on TS/PP?
(Whistling down the wind, as I guess they're not on this forum any more).

Well Sue you are a confused gal!

As I said this RM contract, is obviously not seen nor signed by many here. Its just too messy and long-winded to explain because as in all Getty contracts there are tons of clauses and other unexplaiable material.
Its got nothing to do with any IS contract. Its got to do with RM-photographers contract and Gettys own micros, ex, TS, not IS, BUT! now our IS shots are getting mirrored into TS

My hunch is that RM material that doesnt sell well, is pushed over to TS or whatever. Dont know myself and since there are so few here belonging to the actual Getty-house-collection, we are not likely to get an answer.

I have started to delete certain industrial files, blue and red flames, reason being, I dont want too much spread on them and I dont want them to end upp selling for like 0.20c, a throw, etc, its a too big commercial wheel with TS, IS and Getty, all together, a buyers nightmare.

best.

I got a Getty house collection contract and if you visit the Getty contributor forum you will see quite clear statements (especially Andy Saunder's open letter) that starting with the new contract images will be able to be moved from RM to RF and within RF also "down" to Thinkstock and Photos.com. I don't take it as Getty wanting to push everything downstream, but for especially RM to be "leaner" - they specifically state that RM has a strong future. They seem to be wanting more control over which material is placed where, in their view to maximise revenue for them (and us).

Yes ofcourse I know Andys letter. I do agree actually, judging by the present micro climate I think RM has a strong future. So thats what I was after, see if I got this right, you mean pushing RM to RF, well I can live with that but pushing RM to micro, well that seems a pretty drastic step.

I guess its a bit late in the day anyway, you must have signed the same contract as me then.

thanks for explaining, best.

If I'm not mistaken you can stop the move from both RM to RF, as well as RF downstream to Thinkstock/Photos.com. They will then be taken out of their present collection and "handed back" to you. 99% sure this was the case, but I haven't double-checked.

So basically if I understood it correctly Getty will be able to shift your images around, if you don't like it they can be taken out and "handed back" to you, but you can't demand/choose where they should be.

MicrostockGroup Sponsors

Author Topic: Time for action! (Read 16336 times)

cobalt

lagereek

ShadySue

BaldricksTrousers

cobalt

ShadySue

BaldricksTrousers

cobalt

BaldricksTrousers

lagereek

admin

Microbius

lagereek

ShadySue

lagereek

ShadySue

Noodles

lagereek

lagereek

ShadySue

CarlssonInc

Noodles

lagereek

lagereek

CarlssonInc

Related Topics

Sponsors

Microstock Poll Results

Sponsors