pancakes

MicrostockGroup Sponsors


Author Topic: Your Getty/iStock images available FREE thru Slidely!  (Read 34392 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

« Reply #75 on: July 07, 2015, 16:54 »
+4

Shutterstock lets Facebook advertisers use "free" images in their Facebook ads. The licensing cost is built in to the advertising cost. We get paid for a sub sale every time an image is used, and FB allows several images to be used in one ad, which means we can be paid multiple times each time an ad is run. The images are thumbnail sized and cannot be downloaded or used by the advertiser...it only appears in the FB ad. That's what everyone was so excited about a few days ago, when they were getting dozens of sub payments in one day as FB reported everything.

Yes.  Exactly.  WE GET PAID in the Facebook deal.  I am confused why some are unable to understand we want to be PAID for use of our images.  Why else are we in this business?


ShadySue

  • There is a crack in everything
« Reply #76 on: July 07, 2015, 17:09 »
+1

Shutterstock lets Facebook advertisers use "free" images in their Facebook ads. The licensing cost is built in to the advertising cost. We get paid for a sub sale every time an image is used, and FB allows several images to be used in one ad, which means we can be paid multiple times each time an ad is run. The images are thumbnail sized and cannot be downloaded or used by the advertiser...it only appears in the FB ad. That's what everyone was so excited about a few days ago, when they were getting dozens of sub payments in one day as FB reported everything.

Yes.  Exactly.  WE GET PAID in the Facebook deal.  I am confused why some are unable to understand we want to be PAID for use of our images.  Why else are we in this business?
Out of the goodness of our hearts to provide big companies with the resources to make even more money without giving us anything. What an honour! And you want PAID as well!

« Reply #77 on: July 07, 2015, 17:19 »
+3

Shutterstock lets Facebook advertisers use "free" images in their Facebook ads. The licensing cost is built in to the advertising cost. We get paid for a sub sale every time an image is used, and FB allows several images to be used in one ad, which means we can be paid multiple times each time an ad is run. The images are thumbnail sized and cannot be downloaded or used by the advertiser...it only appears in the FB ad. That's what everyone was so excited about a few days ago, when they were getting dozens of sub payments in one day as FB reported everything.

Yes.  Exactly.  WE GET PAID in the Facebook deal.  I am confused why some are unable to understand we want to be PAID for use of our images.  Why else are we in this business?
Out of the goodness of our hearts to provide big companies with the resources to make even more money without giving us anything. What an honour! And you want PAID as well!

LOL!  Yes, I am so greedy that way.  Like to pay my bills and feed my kids.  Shameful!  ;)

« Reply #78 on: July 07, 2015, 17:25 »
+4

Shutterstock lets Facebook advertisers use "free" images in their Facebook ads. The licensing cost is built in to the advertising cost. We get paid for a sub sale every time an image is used, and FB allows several images to be used in one ad, which means we can be paid multiple times each time an ad is run. The images are thumbnail sized and cannot be downloaded or used by the advertiser...it only appears in the FB ad. That's what everyone was so excited about a few days ago, when they were getting dozens of sub payments in one day as FB reported everything.

Yes.  Exactly.  WE GET PAID in the Facebook deal.  I am confused why some are unable to understand we want to be PAID for use of our images.  Why else are we in this business?
Out of the goodness of our hearts to provide big companies with the resources to make even more money without giving us anything. What an honour! And you want PAID as well!

LOL!  Yes, I am so greedy that way.  Like to pay my bills and feed my kids.  Shameful!  ;)

Just take comfort in that your deducted donations are helping fund needy executives' swagger, swank offices and long list of employee perks.

« Reply #79 on: July 08, 2015, 17:49 »
+1
I just spent a little time re-reading some of the stuff written in late 2012/early 2013 in the iStock forums about the Google Drive deal - the forums are now all an "archive", and I assume will shortly go away as they move to the Getty contributor community. It's a shame in a way, but might as well bury the dead body - it's not coming back to life.

I was re-reading to be sure I wasn't mis-remembering events. Getty was unwilling then to give an opt out to contributors from any deals they came up with and they clearly stated they planned to continue making deals. They didn't communicate the Google Drive deal up front either (not even to iStock management, apparently).

Two and a half years later, they're continuing down the path they clearly said they were going to take. It beggars belief that between Mr. Klein, Hellman & Friedman and the Carlyle Group, they've damaged iStock (and Getty Images) as badly as they have, but at what point do contributors who keep hoping something will be different or better decide that they have to write Getty off as a business partner?

Keep selling there if that makes sense to you, but be aware of Getty/iStock's history - none of this current idiocy on their part is surprising in light of their (many) previous idiocies. If anything, Getty seems to be doubling down on a failed strategy hoping to reverse the downturn in their fortunes.

Lots of sites have these deals.  Shutterstock allows POD where the product (the image) can sell for over $400 and the contributor gets 1-4 dollars, maybe less?  They say the minimum cost for the seller is $2.99 but there are products for sale at 99 cents, something fishy is going on there I would guess.   You'll probably have to stop contributing to all sites if you want to avoid those kinds of deals.


It is sad to see that a large number of contributors have pinned their hopes on shutterstock when SSTK is quietly going down the same path. Blinders on denial is costly.

If ever there was a time to take a stand with the scumbag deals all of the micro agencies are scheming up, the day is now.

I deleted my port at IS in support of my fellows, not sorry that I did.

That's the only way things will change.  There's a lot of talk in here about buyers being trained to think images should be free (even if they are only able to be legally used on a noncommercial site and would be a pain to steal) but only positive things to say about the Facebook deal that makes images free to actual buyers.  Yes you get paid for the use (a commercial use) but the issue that seems to be brought up here is that buyers will think they are free.  Headlines like this are seen as great news: "Facebook Partners With Shutterstock to Offer 25 Million FREE Stock Photos to Advertisers" strange times indeed.


I agree.
Removing the portfolio from IS is the only way to fight the worst deal in the industry.
I did so when they told us that keeping 80% to themselves was "unsustainable" so they had to lower our rates.


Yes I agree, we need to take a hard line with all of the sites and hold them all, individually accountable for devaluing our assets. The plundering of our assets with no accountability has to end soon or there will be nothing left for us to protect.


 

Related Topics

  Subject / Started by Replies Last post
8 Replies
4073 Views
Last post June 30, 2011, 10:17
by click_click
7 Replies
1902 Views
Last post August 14, 2013, 17:34
by KB
989 Replies
64990 Views
Last post March 18, 2014, 08:32
by KimsCreativeHub
2 Replies
1142 Views
Last post March 05, 2014, 21:08
by KarenH
4 Replies
1277 Views
Last post September 18, 2014, 11:32
by ShadySue

Sponsors

Microstock Poll Results

Sponsors