pancakes

MicrostockGroup Sponsors


Author Topic: Time for action!  (Read 16195 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

lagereek

« on: November 15, 2011, 10:03 »
0
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.

This is a joke! I have now told 15, regular buyers at IS, from which I personally told 7, to buy from IS, about 3 years back,  to go to either, SS, DT or FT, because they will never, ever find anything at IS.

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.


helix7

« Reply #1 on: November 15, 2011, 10:08 »
0
Apparently istock thought that today was a good day to take some action as well. E+ files are seeing a price increase.

Call me crazy, but this seems counter-productive when buyers are already showing frustration with the company and taking their business elsewhere. And after that customer satisfaction poll that pretty clearly showed that istock has concerns about buyer satisfaction, buyers leaving, etc., how on earth is a price increase supposed to help that?

« Reply #2 on: November 15, 2011, 14:01 »
0
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.

Sorry to disappoint you, but the "noobs and rookies" were a lot faster than you. I left them beginning of the year.
And if at least some of you bigger sellers would have done the same, maybe (big maybe) there might have been a reaction.

« Reply #3 on: November 15, 2011, 14:25 »
0
The noobs most likely jumped ship a while ago already since they didn't have much to lose compared to long standing contributors.

I can't drop IS if I made a grand or two a month...

And despite IS going down the toilet, SS is making up for it - so buyers do go elsewhere and we profit from that one way or another.

« Reply #4 on: November 15, 2011, 15:26 »
0
Why dont we all just quit this joke place

Well, it's a personal decision, isn't it? Are you leaving?

« Reply #5 on: November 15, 2011, 15:37 »
0
I find it amusing that they have the hubris to raise already inflated prices during a recession.

« Reply #6 on: November 15, 2011, 16:36 »
0
I find it amusing that they have the hubris to raise already inflated prices during a recession.

They are the top site measured in hubris.

lisafx

« Reply #7 on: November 15, 2011, 16:57 »
0
I find it amusing that they have the hubris to raise already inflated prices during a recession.

They are the top site measured in hubris.

;D

« Reply #8 on: November 15, 2011, 17:06 »
0
The most exciting thing happening at IS right now is all this moustache thing. I can't understand it.

Looks a place totally abandoned by God.

digitalexpressionimages

« Reply #9 on: November 15, 2011, 17:58 »
0
The most exciting thing happening at IS right now is all this moustache thing. I can't understand it.

Looks a place totally abandoned by God.

You don't understand the moustache thing? Istock is Canadian and in Canada (and other places I'm sure) November is Movember. You grow a moustache during the month to raise money for prostate cancer research. It's like wearing a pink ribbon for breast cancer.

« Reply #10 on: November 15, 2011, 18:14 »
0
The most exciting thing happening at IS right now is all this moustache thing. I can't understand it.

Looks a place totally abandoned by God.

You don't understand the moustache thing? Istock is Canadian and in Canada (and other places I'm sure) November is Movember. You grow a moustache during the month to raise money for prostate cancer research. It's like wearing a pink ribbon for breast cancer.

Well, so it's a nice initiative, but i love if IS use the same energy to promote our work or or value ourselves as artists.

« Reply #11 on: November 15, 2011, 18:23 »
0
Looks a place totally abandoned by God.

In what way? Has he removed his portfolio or something? I didn't even know he was a contributor.

« Reply #12 on: November 15, 2011, 19:36 »
0
Looks a place totally abandoned by God.

In what way? Has he removed his portfolio or something? I didn't even know he was a contributor.

Haven't you seen all the tree pictures?  Surely you've heard the famous saying, "Only God can shoot a tree."

« Reply #13 on: November 15, 2011, 19:54 »
0
Time will solve the IS problem...

« Reply #14 on: November 16, 2011, 01:19 »
0
I am not in the hurry to join IS.... maybe when i finish to upload all my pics on SS, FT,123,CAN,DP,VEER...etc... i will (maybe) consider joining IS... ::)

« Reply #15 on: November 16, 2011, 09:01 »
0
Redirecting customers to SS or DT, fine, but FT...?

« Reply #16 on: November 16, 2011, 09:14 »
0
Redirecting customers to SS or DT, fine, but FT...?

Good Point! What is that about suggesting FT as an alternative.. It is almost as awful as IS...

wut

« Reply #17 on: November 16, 2011, 10:20 »
0
Redirecting customers to SS or DT, fine, but FT...?

Good Point! What is that about suggesting FT as an alternative.. It is almost as awful as IS...

IMO it's actually worse. They don't have the volume (IS is loosing it as well, but it's still huge compared to FT), they've cut commissions twice and they're just following the bad example, at least IS come up with it :)

lagereek

« Reply #18 on: November 16, 2011, 10:48 »
0
No way. For me FT, has almost always been a great earner. Take today as an example: FT= 24 dls, mostly Photo-sale-credits, IS= 2 dls and this is only half day yet.
My problem is NOT, the revenue from IS, I have accepted that for us Independants, IS, is history and you know, sod the money. 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.

ShadySue

  • There is a crack in everything
« Reply #19 on: November 16, 2011, 11:10 »
0
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'm sure you'll find out when you contact CR at iStock to cancel your membership there and ask them to also pull your files from TS/Photos.com.

lagereek

« Reply #20 on: November 16, 2011, 11:46 »
0
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'm sure you'll find out when you contact CR at iStock to cancel your membership there and ask them to also pull your files from TS/Photos.com.

No youre not reading my post properly. Some of us are under a Getty-contract, through their house-collection, RM !  Well I assume you know the rest, about our contracts, etc.

ShadySue

  • There is a crack in everything
« Reply #21 on: November 16, 2011, 11:52 »
0
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'm sure you'll find out when you contact CR at iStock to cancel your membership there and ask them to also pull your files from TS/Photos.com.

No youre not reading my post properly. Some of us are under a Getty-contract, through their house-collection, RM !  Well I assume you know the rest, about our contracts, etc.
I have no idea. Does your Getty contract RM tie your iStock files into TS? If not, you'll have to explain the issue to us Lesser Mortals.

helix7

« Reply #22 on: November 16, 2011, 12:29 »
0
...Well I assume you know the rest, about our contracts, etc.

I wouldn't assume that. I have no idea what you mean. Can you elaborate on this?

« Reply #23 on: November 16, 2011, 13:14 »
0
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 hasnt sold even once in three years they can put it into rf and if they want to even thinkstock.

But so far I havent heard from a single case where pictures that are on getty have been moved downstream to thinkstock or even istock.

i personally thought it was a good move, because when you look through their library there are many ordinary and old shots in the rm catalogue that are very generic or have too much modern competition from the rf collection.

and files that sell will not be moved, so this is only an issue for files without sales that might benefit from being placed into rf. there was a huge uproar about it, but to me it made sense.
« Last Edit: November 16, 2011, 13:17 by cobalt »

ShadySue

  • There is a crack in everything
« Reply #24 on: November 16, 2011, 14:09 »
0
But so far I havent heard from a single case where pictures that are on getty have been moved downstream to thinkstock or even istock.
EdStock seems to be 75618 cases. (at least, I understood they came from Getty).

« Reply #25 on: November 16, 2011, 16:02 »
0
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 »
0
I have never heard that edstock consisted of rm files that have been dropped from getty?

Quite right, neither have I. :)

ShadySue

  • There is a crack in everything
« Reply #27 on: November 16, 2011, 17:05 »
0
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?

« Reply #28 on: November 16, 2011, 17:14 »
0
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".

« Reply #29 on: November 16, 2011, 17:26 »
0
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 photographers choice contributors might have their rm content moved into rf. and so far i havent 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 dont want /cannot accept from the istock contributors. i dont 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 dont care if they add older news images for the blogger market.

ShadySue

  • There is a crack in everything
« Reply #30 on: November 16, 2011, 17:34 »
0
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.
« Last Edit: November 17, 2011, 04:30 by ShadySue »

« Reply #31 on: November 16, 2011, 17:48 »
0
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.

« Reply #32 on: November 16, 2011, 18:02 »
0
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 doesnt 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 wont be moved. And if my files dont sell within three years I would be glad if they got moved somewhere they will sell.

anyway, I dont think the problems of the rm world dont affect us a lot here.

« Reply #33 on: November 16, 2011, 18:09 »
0
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 »
0
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 doesnt 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 wont be moved. And if my files dont sell within three years I would be glad if they got moved somewhere they will sell.

anyway, I dont think the problems of the rm world dont 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.
« Last Edit: November 17, 2011, 01:15 by lagereek »

« Reply #35 on: November 17, 2011, 03:00 »
0
 a few posts were removed from this thread for back and forth bickering / insulting.

Microbius

« Reply #36 on: November 17, 2011, 03:23 »
0
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 »
0
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

  • There is a crack in everything
« Reply #38 on: November 17, 2011, 04:45 »
0
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 hasnt 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 »
0
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 hasnt 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.
« Last Edit: November 17, 2011, 05:11 by lagereek »

ShadySue

  • There is a crack in everything
« Reply #40 on: November 17, 2011, 05:16 »
0
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 »
0

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 »
0
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 »
0

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

  • There is a crack in everything
« Reply #44 on: November 17, 2011, 05:37 »
0
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 »
0
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 hasnt 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 »
0

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 »
0
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 hasnt 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 »
0
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 »
0
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 hasnt 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.

RT


« Reply #50 on: November 17, 2011, 06:12 »
0
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.

No you're not mistaken what you say is correct, after the initial contract came out and caused an uproar they made a statement that you would be contacted before any of your RM images were moved to RF, and then given the option to either specify why they shouldn't be moved (high production value or a promise to a model that the images won't be sold RF) or remove the images from Getty yourself.

For new RM images (post signing the contract) submitted to the house collection you have to specify either of those two reasons at the time of submission.

To further clarify things, RM images placed under the Photographers Choice (pay to play) scheme don't get moved to RF without your permission.

Though I am also wondering why this is being discussed on a microstock forum.
« Last Edit: November 17, 2011, 06:30 by RT »

CarlssonInc

« Reply #51 on: November 17, 2011, 06:30 »
0
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.

No you're not mistaken what you say is correct, after the initial contract came out and caused an uproar they made a statement that you would be contacted before any of your RM images were moved to RF, and then given the option to either specify why they shouldn't be moved (high production value or a promise to a model that the images won't be sold RF) or remove the images from Getty yourself.

For new RM images (post signing the contract) submitted to the house collection you have to specify either of those two reasons at the time of submission.

That sounds just like I remembered it! Nothing new really, Getty choose what they want to represent and where they like it to be, only real change is an additional layer of fluidity. (Hopefully) they should know more about maximising revenue than us.

RT


« Reply #52 on: November 17, 2011, 06:32 »
0
(Hopefully) they should know more about maximising revenue than us.

I agree, but in who's favour  ;)

CarlssonInc

« Reply #53 on: November 17, 2011, 06:33 »
0
(Hopefully) they should know more about maximising revenue than us.

I agree, but in who's favour  ;)

It is not only RM they want to keep lean...

lagereek

« Reply #54 on: November 17, 2011, 11:08 »
0
Well thanks guys, now we know that. Funny, not a word from Shadysue about this, is she gobstruck?

ShadySue

  • There is a crack in everything
« Reply #55 on: November 17, 2011, 11:36 »
0
Well thanks guys, now we know that. Funny, not a word from Shadysue about this, is she gobstruck?
I have nothing to add, I made my point above. This isn't a Getty forum, and you haven't explained the relevance of 'thinking of closing your iStock account, but worrying how long it would take to get  your pics taken out of TX' with your Getty contract.
There seems to be no direct correlation between the two.
As you were.

lagereek

« Reply #56 on: November 17, 2011, 12:37 »
0
Well thanks guys, now we know that. Funny, not a word from Shadysue about this, is she gobstruck?
I have nothing to add, I made my point above. This isn't a Getty forum, and you haven't explained the relevance of 'thinking of closing your iStock account, but worrying how long it would take to get  your pics taken out of TX' with your Getty contract.
There seems to be no direct correlation between the two.
As you were.

never mind,  no hard feelings here. :)


 

Related Topics

  Subject / Started by Replies Last post
18 Replies
8600 Views
Last post October 26, 2006, 18:03
by madelaide
8 Replies
6312 Views
Last post October 09, 2006, 18:04
by berryspun
13 Replies
9442 Views
Last post May 11, 2011, 12:19
by louoates
3 Replies
7384 Views
Last post September 27, 2011, 10:06
by Pond5 Crew
Alamy is seeing some action!

Started by lagereek « 1 2  All » Alamy.com

29 Replies
19203 Views
Last post May 17, 2011, 12:14
by lagereek

Sponsors

Mega Bundle of 5,900+ Professional Lightroom Presets

Microstock Poll Results

Sponsors