MicrostockGroup Sponsors


Author Topic: Your Getty/iStock images available FREE thru Slidely!  (Read 34425 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Shelma1

« on: July 06, 2015, 09:36 »
+4
Getty/iStock have teamed up with Slidely (slide.ly) to offer our images FREE so people can create slideshows (also featuring FREE copyrighted music) to share on Facebook. I just joined quickly to test it out and in a few seconds created a slideshow with images I recognize from my fellow microstockers, including really popular photos and vectors (just jpgs of the vectors), then added FREE copyrighted music and shared it (only to myself) on Facebook...just to see if I was hallucinating or what....though you have the option to share it with friends or make it public for everyone to see. Within a couple of minutes I had a lovely FREE slideshow to watch. Yay! No attributions, no copyrights, no watermarks, nothin'.

The slideshow can be blown up to full screen. Images are a bit low res, but certainly good enough to take a screenshot and steal.

http://www.businesswire.com/news/home/20150617006284/en/Slidely-Collaborates-Getty-Images-Provide-Professional-Imagery#.VZqRv6bndiU


Semmick Photo

« Reply #1 on: July 06, 2015, 10:05 »
+8
But asking as low as $10 for an image is shameful according to that same Getty.  :o

Getty is the market leader of giving away images for free. Time to get their big wig heads out of their arses

« Reply #2 on: July 06, 2015, 10:08 »
0
Seems a lot like pinterest or the embed program with lower res files that you can't take off there and with no license to use them anywhere else.  There is copyright information and a link to the site licensing the work for commercial use.  If people want to steal images there are much better ways than taking images from there.

Semmick Photo

« Reply #3 on: July 06, 2015, 10:13 »
+10
Seems a lot like pinterest or the embed program with lower res files that you can't take off there and with no license to use them anywhere else.  There is copyright information and a link to the site licensing the work for commercial use.  If people want to steal images there are much better ways than taking images from there.
I dont understand why you keep defending the free giveaway deals by Getty, but question any other deal / agency which actually ask money for the use of images?

« Reply #4 on: July 06, 2015, 10:16 »
+1
Seems a lot like pinterest or the embed program with lower res files that you can't take off there and with no license to use them anywhere else.  There is copyright information and a link to the site licensing the work for commercial use.  If people want to steal images there are much better ways than taking images from there.
I dont understand why you keep defending the free giveaway deals by Getty, but question any other deal / agency which actually ask money for the use of images?
This isn't a free giveaway, what rights are given?  You can create a noncommercial slideshow that links back to the site where people can purchase rights to use the images.  I don't see this hurting sales but it will probably get more eyes on the sites licensing the work if anything.  It's all about rights.  That's what we are licensing.  This doesn't give any rights that will compete with sales, it doesn't make unwatermarked images at high res (even medium res) available.
« Last Edit: July 06, 2015, 10:22 by tickstock »

Shelma1

« Reply #5 on: July 06, 2015, 10:34 »
+8
I just did a search, found two of my most popular images, created a slideshow featuring "Uptown Funk" as my background music, and within seconds played it full screen. There were my images, larger than life, no watermarks, no attribution, no links back to anything.  >:(

« Reply #6 on: July 06, 2015, 10:58 »
0
Seems like much more work to take a screen shot of a low res image, crop it, downsize it, etc.. than to go to google and get a 4000x4000 size copy.  The link is located in the camera with the in the center.

ShadySue

  • There is a crack in everything
« Reply #7 on: July 06, 2015, 11:14 »
+1
Why would anyone want to make a slideshow of someone else's images with rf music except as an advert for iS?

« Reply #8 on: July 06, 2015, 11:23 »
0
Why would anyone want to make a slideshow of someone else's images with rf music except as an advert for iS?
How else would an advertising agency find low res images that require screen shots, cropping, and downsizing to steal?

« Reply #9 on: July 06, 2015, 11:32 »
+13
Seems a lot like pinterest or the embed program with lower res files that you can't take off there and with no license to use them anywhere else.  There is copyright information and a link to the site licensing the work for commercial use.  If people want to steal images there are much better ways than taking images from there.

If this is a way to market traffic back to IS/Getty, then we should get paid as part of a marketing budget. I don't upload my work so they can build a free, enjoyable slideshow tool that doesn't make me any money. iS doesnt do this for the fun of it. There is a reason and in all liklihood its marketing related and thus i should be paid each and every time my image is used.

« Reply #10 on: July 06, 2015, 11:39 »
+4
I just did a search, found two of my most popular images, created a slideshow featuring "Uptown Funk" as my background music,

Should really be "Getty funk you up..."

Shelma1

« Reply #11 on: July 06, 2015, 12:32 »
0
Why would anyone want to make a slideshow of someone else's images with rf music except as an advert for iS?


Well, Slidely used Getty/iStock images to create this little plug for themselves and their app:

http://slide.ly/view/11e953057fe7fa82f400d35a97e8c51c?utm_source=facebook.com&utm_medium=page-post&utm_campaign=CELEBRATE-INDEPENDENCE&utm_content=show

« Reply #12 on: July 06, 2015, 12:42 »
0
Seems a lot like pinterest or the embed program with lower res files that you can't take off there and with no license to use them anywhere else.  There is copyright information and a link to the site licensing the work for commercial use.  If people want to steal images there are much better ways than taking images from there.

If this is a way to market traffic back to IS/Getty, then we should get paid as part of a marketing budget. I don't upload my work so they can build a free, enjoyable slideshow tool that doesn't make me any money. iS doesnt do this for the fun of it. There is a reason and in all liklihood its marketing related and thus i should be paid each and every time my image is used.
It's marketing I think the benefit you get is from people going to Getty through the links and buying images if they need commercial uses.

« Reply #13 on: July 06, 2015, 13:09 »
+17
@tickstock It seems you, like Getty lost touch with reality.

Titus Livius

« Reply #14 on: July 06, 2015, 13:25 »
+3
well ... a web designer friend of mine recently had a law firm asking him to rebuild their old web site, they were literally shocked to discover each image was 10 bucks and they asked him to find something cheaper !

now, if even lawyers think images should be free or sold for 0.5$ what the F is going on ?


Titus Livius

« Reply #15 on: July 06, 2015, 13:26 »
+2
@tickstock It seems you, like Getty lost touch with reality.

that's no longer an issue, SS and Adobe will take care of that if Getty suddenly loses market share.

« Reply #16 on: July 06, 2015, 13:28 »
+1
@tickstock It seems you, like Getty lost touch with reality.
I'm sure you can do better than a petty insult, can't you?   These are the kinds of posts that have made this place what it is today.  What are there maybe 10 people left here who do this for a living?

ShadySue

  • There is a crack in everything
« Reply #17 on: July 06, 2015, 13:41 »
0
@Mantis - a couple of years back they forced those who chose to sell there to sign a new contract whereby we have to allow our images to be used for free for anything they deem  to be 'promotional'.

« Reply #18 on: July 06, 2015, 13:44 »
+2
Some articles about Slidely - perhaps others knew all about them, but I didn't. I'm assuming that paid services like Animoto aren't too thrilled about the growth of free services (even though freemium is apparently in the future for Slidely)

http://venturebeat.com/2014/04/10/slidelys-40m-users-and-7-3m-in-funding-shows-slideshows-may-be-sexy-after-all/

http://techcrunch.com/2014/05/27/slidely-launches-new-show-app-for-making-videos-out-of-pictures/

http://techcrunch.com/2012/05/17/slide-ly-is-bringing-back-the-mashup-with-its-social-slideshow-service/

http://startupbeat.com/2013/05/03/featured-startup-pitch-easyhis-slide-ly-app-enables-people-to-easily-create-dynamic-slideshows-with-photos-and-videos-id3234/

Oddly, although the Getty press release area had something about the Fiverr deal, I couldn't find anything about Slidely

This article says it's a selection from Getty's stuff that's available. I did a search and the results making finding anything difficult  (it appears to do an OR not an AND search, so narrowing things down is really hard)

http://thenextweb.com/creativity/2015/06/17/slidely-pact-with-getty-gives-users-access-to-professional-images-for-their-creative-work/

I also uploaded some of my own photos to create something short (a photo collage with the Ken Burns effect and some Sound Cloud music) and the results were pretty awful - very jerky, slow to load, and not something I'd consider posting for family to view. Doesn't encourage me to use it, free or not.

I tried the link in Safari and things worked fine, then went back to Chrome and Shockwave had crashed, which may explain all the bad behavior I saw. It does work better with Shockwave running :)
« Last Edit: July 06, 2015, 13:59 by Jo Ann Snover »

« Reply #19 on: July 06, 2015, 13:46 »
+12
I am pretty sure the copyright symbol and the link are going to be totally useless. The bloggers don't care if the images they use have watermarks, why should the people creating these.

"This isn't a free giveaway, what rights are given?" People looking for freebies don't give a rats a$$ about rights. They just want a free photo. Allowing the images, watermark or not, for these kinds of things just degrades the whole concept of "selling your images."

« Reply #20 on: July 06, 2015, 14:09 »
+2
I am pretty sure the copyright symbol and the link are going to be totally useless. The bloggers don't care if the images they use have watermarks, why should the people creating these.

"This isn't a free giveaway, what rights are given?" People looking for freebies don't give a rats a$$ about rights. They just want a free photo. Allowing the images, watermark or not, for these kinds of things just degrades the whole concept of "selling your images."
People looking for freebies aren't going to be buying images in the first place.  I can go to google and steal full sized unwatermarked images much easier than going on Slide.ly and doing a screen shot, crop, and then downsizing to not much bigger than a thumbnail to get a sharp images.  I don't see actual buyers deciding to go there and doing all that to steal an image.  If it brings some more eyes to Getty and iStock then I think it will probably have an overall positive effect and at the worst no effect.  I'm not really worried about this, it seems analogous to music pirates recording songs off the radio, sure you could do that but who would?

« Reply #21 on: July 06, 2015, 14:40 »
+6
I am pretty sure the copyright symbol and the link are going to be totally useless. The bloggers don't care if the images they use have watermarks, why should the people creating these.

"This isn't a free giveaway, what rights are given?" People looking for freebies don't give a rats a$$ about rights. They just want a free photo. Allowing the images, watermark or not, for these kinds of things just degrades the whole concept of "selling your images."
People looking for freebies aren't going to be buying images in the first place.  I can go to google and steal full sized unwatermarked images much easier than going on Slide.ly and doing a screen shot, crop, and then downsizing to not much bigger than a thumbnail to get a sharp images.  I don't see actual buyers deciding to go there and doing all that to steal an image.  If it brings some more eyes to Getty and iStock then I think it will probably have an overall positive effect and at the worst no effect.  I'm not really worried about this, it seems analogous to music pirates recording songs off the radio, sure you could do that but who would?
TO some extent I agree with the thing about freebies not buying images anyway. I've thought for a long time that the main selling market is business users wanting images that are safe to use.
However it's one thing seeing the odd nicked image online in some schoolkid's blog, and quite another giving the use of images away, thus reinforcing the idea that these images are "free"
They're not. They were uploaded by people expecting sales. "Promotional use" by Getty/ iStock on their websites or whatever is a very different proposition of encouraging people to think that images are free.
There's no way of knowing that it does no harm, and I really can't see that it does any good. Certainly not for the individual contributor.

« Reply #22 on: July 06, 2015, 14:42 »
0
I am pretty sure the copyright symbol and the link are going to be totally useless. The bloggers don't care if the images they use have watermarks, why should the people creating these.

"This isn't a free giveaway, what rights are given?" People looking for freebies don't give a rats a$$ about rights. They just want a free photo. Allowing the images, watermark or not, for these kinds of things just degrades the whole concept of "selling your images."
People looking for freebies aren't going to be buying images in the first place.  I can go to google and steal full sized unwatermarked images much easier than going on Slide.ly and doing a screen shot, crop, and then downsizing to not much bigger than a thumbnail to get a sharp images.  I don't see actual buyers deciding to go there and doing all that to steal an image.  If it brings some more eyes to Getty and iStock then I think it will probably have an overall positive effect and at the worst no effect.  I'm not really worried about this, it seems analogous to music pirates recording songs off the radio, sure you could do that but who would?
TO some extent I agree with the thing about freebies not buying images anyway. I've thought for a long time that the main selling market is business users wanting images that are safe to use.
However it's one thing seeing the odd nicked image online in some schoolkid's blog, and quite another giving the use of images away, thus reinforcing the idea that these images are "free"
They're not. They were uploaded by people expecting sales. "Promotional use" by Getty/ iStock on their websites or whatever is a very different proposition of encouraging people to think that images are free.
There's no way of knowing that it does no harm, and I really can't see that it does any good. Certainly not for the individual contributor.
They aren't given away, they are used within the slide.ly environment.  Giving them away means something different to me.  You don't get the images you can use them on slide.ly.  I doubt this sends the message that it's ok to use free images for advertising or commercial purposes.  As far as deals go this one seems pretty benign.

« Reply #23 on: July 06, 2015, 14:53 »
+9
Whatever you make of the the semantics of the matter. Given away for no charge is free in my book. They're being given away. Someone  benefits from this deal, otherwise why bother. So someone gets a benefit from it, where is the payment?
When you go to buy fuel for your car, they don't say, "Oh you're just using this to have a ride round for fun. No charge for that"

If it doesn't matter then just don't do it. Or ask the membership, and listen to what they say first.

« Reply #24 on: July 06, 2015, 14:55 »
0
Whatever you make of the the semantics of the matter. Given away for no charge is free in my book. They're being given away. Someone  benefits from this deal, otherwise why bother. So someone gets a benefit from it, where is the payment?
When you go to buy fuel for your car, they don't say, "Oh you're just using this to have a ride round for fun. No charge for that"

If it doesn't matter then just don't do it. Or ask the membership, and listen to what they say first.
People get to create fun slide shows to show their friends, slide.ly makes money from adverts, and Getty and us benefit from eyes on our files that are for sale.  It can be mutually beneficial to all parties.

« Reply #25 on: July 06, 2015, 15:09 »
+10
Whatever you make of the the semantics of the matter. Given away for no charge is free in my book. They're being given away. Someone  benefits from this deal, otherwise why bother. So someone gets a benefit from it, where is the payment?
When you go to buy fuel for your car, they don't say, "Oh you're just using this to have a ride round for fun. No charge for that"

If it doesn't matter then just don't do it. Or ask the membership, and listen to what they say first.
People get to create fun slide shows to show their friends, slide.ly makes money from adverts, and Getty and us benefit from eyes on our files that are for sale.  It can be mutually beneficial to all parties.
Well that's really nice for them then isn't it? Personally I haven't seen any increase in sales from these free deals.
Sales keep dropping.

Shelma1

« Reply #26 on: July 06, 2015, 15:12 »
+9
In what universe will a random Facebook friend see these free pro images in someone's slideshow and think, "gee, I'd like to spend $500 licensing one of these images my friend is using for free?" I don't think that will ever happen...and my FB friends are advertising people who actually do license images on a regular basis.

Getty is already giving our images away with embedding, but I don't see anyone reporting a torrent of image sales because someone saw one of those free images and thought they'd like to pay to use them. Just the opposite...sales continue to slide.

(And for someone who thinks I'm a troll and supposedly has me on ignore, you, tickstock, spend a lot of time defending Getty image giveaways in a thread I started.)

Semmick Photo

« Reply #27 on: July 06, 2015, 15:17 »
+5
I think I am going to Hertz and ask them for a free rental Mercedes. Great for Mercedes to get some exposure.

Seriously, defending this Getty deal is just shill-speak.

« Reply #28 on: July 06, 2015, 15:18 »
+1
(And for someone who thinks I'm a troll and supposedly has me on ignore, you, tickstock, spend a lot of time defending Getty image giveaways in a thread I started.)
I honestly do think you're a troll.  I'm not "defending" this, I'm giving my honest opinion that I don't think this is giving away images or that this is a big deal.  It's not for me.  If you think it is a big deal then that's fine you know what your options are, it's either accept it or not.  That's the way things are, it doesn't seem like a big deal to me so I'm fine accepting it for what I see it as, a marketing campaign that probably will have little to no effect one way or the other.

« Reply #29 on: July 06, 2015, 15:20 »
0
I think I am going to Hertz and ask them for a free rental Mercedes. Great for Mercedes to get some exposure.

Seriously, defending this Getty deal is just shill-speak.
That's rich coming from a self appointed Shutterstock Ambassador.   ::)

Shelma1

« Reply #30 on: July 06, 2015, 15:21 »
+1
(And for someone who thinks I'm a troll and supposedly has me on ignore, you, tickstock, spend a lot of time defending Getty image giveaways in a thread I started.)
I honestly do think you're a troll.  I'm not "defending" this, I'm giving my honest opinion that I don't think this is giving away images or that this is a big deal.  It's not for me.  If you think it is a big deal then that's fine you know what your options are, it's either accept it or not.  That's the way things are, it doesn't seem like a big deal to me so I'm fine accepting it for what I see it as, a marketing campaign that probably will have little to no effect one way or the other.

What? I can't hear you. I have you on ignore.

« Reply #31 on: July 06, 2015, 15:21 »
0
(And for someone who thinks I'm a troll and supposedly has me on ignore, you, tickstock, spend a lot of time defending Getty image giveaways in a thread I started.)
I honestly do think you're a troll.  I'm not "defending" this, I'm giving my honest opinion that I don't think this is giving away images or that this is a big deal.  It's not for me.  If you think it is a big deal then that's fine you know what your options are, it's either accept it or not.  That's the way things are, it doesn't seem like a big deal to me so I'm fine accepting it for what I see it as, a marketing campaign that probably will have little to no effect one way or the other.

What? I can't hear you. I have you on ignore.
Thank god, now can you stop bringing me up too?

Semmick Photo

« Reply #32 on: July 06, 2015, 15:28 »
+3
I think I am going to Hertz and ask them for a free rental Mercedes. Great for Mercedes to get some exposure.

Seriously, defending this Getty deal is just shill-speak.
That's rich coming from a self appointed Shutterstock Ambassador.   ::)
LOL. SS appointed me and I havent been an ambassador since Feb 2014. But you confirm then that you are a Getty shill.

Didnt you have me on ignore?

« Reply #33 on: July 06, 2015, 15:32 »
+1
I think I am going to Hertz and ask them for a free rental Mercedes. Great for Mercedes to get some exposure.

Seriously, defending this Getty deal is just shill-speak.
That's rich coming from a self appointed Shutterstock Ambassador.   ::)
LOL. SS appointed me and I havent been an ambassador since Feb 2014. But you confirm then that you are a Getty shill.

Didnt you have me on ignore?
I do have you on ignore but every now and then I check to see if you've written something relevant or interesting (LOL I know that sounds ridiculous) but as usual you've written a personal attack.  I know I shouldn't respond to it but your trolling gets me every once in a while. 

« Reply #34 on: July 06, 2015, 15:43 »
+10
...You don't get the images you can use them on slide.ly.  I doubt this sends the message that it's ok to use free images for advertising or commercial purposes.  As far as deals go this one seems pretty benign.

If you read the startupbeat article (link in my earlier post) Slidely plans to offer paid services at some point. What happens then to the content for which the contributor receives no payment? Shouldn't there at least be some discussions with contributors about how there's something free now but there'll be a paid offering to come (if that's the plan)?

"EasyHis plan to initiate monetization efforts centers around a freemium offering that will provide premium features, content and themes via subscriptions, in-app purchases, pay-on-demand, real-world photo accessories and will offer both Light and Pro versions of the platform."

Another aspect of a number of deals between agencies and platforms is whether there are any deal-related payments - money that contributors don't share in - between the two parties. When there's no transparency at all over the general terms of the deal (and this isn't just a beef with Getty; Shutterstock wouldn't disclose details on a number of their arrangements either) there's the potential for our images to the bait on the hook and other people eat the fish caught.

« Reply #35 on: July 06, 2015, 16:00 »
0
...You don't get the images you can use them on slide.ly.  I doubt this sends the message that it's ok to use free images for advertising or commercial purposes.  As far as deals go this one seems pretty benign.

If you read the startupbeat article (link in my earlier post) Slidely plans to offer paid services at some point. What happens then to the content for which the contributor receives no payment? Shouldn't there at least be some discussions with contributors about how there's something free now but there'll be a paid offering to come (if that's the plan)?

"EasyHis plan to initiate monetization efforts centers around a freemium offering that will provide premium features, content and themes via subscriptions, in-app purchases, pay-on-demand, real-world photo accessories and will offer both Light and Pro versions of the platform."

Another aspect of a number of deals between agencies and platforms is whether there are any deal-related payments - money that contributors don't share in - between the two parties. When there's no transparency at all over the general terms of the deal (and this isn't just a beef with Getty; Shutterstock wouldn't disclose details on a number of their arrangements either) there's the potential for our images to the bait on the hook and other people eat the fish caught.
I guess it depends how that shakes out and if there is any monetary gain for Getty.  You are right it's a different thing if Getty is getting paid and we aren't than if it's just marketing.  Maybe Getty will start charging for some or all images too? 

« Reply #36 on: July 06, 2015, 16:17 »
+6
Another aspect of a number of deals between agencies and platforms is whether there are any deal-related payments - money that contributors don't share in - between the two parties. When there's no transparency at all over the general terms of the deal (and this isn't just a beef with Getty; Shutterstock wouldn't disclose details on a number of their arrangements either) there's the potential for our images to the bait on the hook and other people eat the fish caught.

This is where the real rub is with deals like this. I don't mind them using my images for what is effectively advertising (though in a different form than we're used to), but there's often too little information about how any money that is involved is going to make it's way back to the content provider (me) in any significant amount.

The pennies that some schemes produce are just not worth the use the image gets for the photographer even if collectively they make considerable sums for the agent. There needs to be more accountability, communication and sharing of the dividends of these new projects if this is the way image distribution is going.

The App store model of 70/30 in favour of the producer is a more realistic model nowadays if they want stuff to sell / share / use to collect data with that they haven't produced themselves.

« Reply #37 on: July 06, 2015, 16:21 »
0


In what universe will a random Facebook friend see these free pro images in someone's slideshow and think, "gee, I'd like to spend $500 licensing one of these images my friend is using for free?" I don't think that will ever happen...and my FB friends are advertising people who actually do license images on a regular basis.

I found some of my images mirrored from Thinkstock, not from Getty.



Sent from my SM-N910T using Tapatalk


« Reply #38 on: July 06, 2015, 16:26 »
0
Seems a lot like pinterest or the embed program with lower res files that you can't take off there and with no license to use them anywhere else.  There is copyright information and a link to the site licensing the work for commercial use.  If people want to steal images there are much better ways than taking images from there.

If this is a way to market traffic back to IS/Getty, then we should get paid as part of a marketing budget. I don't upload my work so they can build a free, enjoyable slideshow tool that doesn't make me any money. iS doesnt do this for the fun of it. There is a reason and in all liklihood its marketing related and thus i should be paid each and every time my image is used.
We can all hope this is as you say it might be, but really, do you honestly believe it would help create a larger market for your images? or just maybe more site clicks for a company thinking of moving on?

« Reply #39 on: July 06, 2015, 16:40 »
+3
Seems a lot like pinterest or the embed program with lower res files that you can't take off there and with no license to use them anywhere else.  There is copyright information and a link to the site licensing the work for commercial use.  If people want to steal images there are much better ways than taking images from there.

If this is a way to market traffic back to IS/Getty, then we should get paid as part of a marketing budget. I don't upload my work so they can build a free, enjoyable slideshow tool that doesn't make me any money. iS doesnt do this for the fun of it. There is a reason and in all liklihood its marketing related and thus i should be paid each and every time my image is used.
We can all hope this is as you say it might be, but really, do you honestly believe it would help create a larger market for your images? or just maybe more site clicks for a company thinking of moving on?

Not saying that it would at all. I am saying that I want to be paid if they are using my images in this manner, whether marketing or not.

« Reply #40 on: July 06, 2015, 19:31 »
+4
If I'm someone who purchases stock images for client work or for my company, would I be inclined to purchase an image people are using free in their slide shows? marketing to social users using the images for free isn't much of marketing, at least not to the right audience. I can't figure out the value of this to the contributors. Exposure doesn't pay the bills.

« Reply #41 on: July 06, 2015, 19:51 »
+1
If I'm someone who purchases stock images for client work or for my company, would I be inclined to purchase an image people are using free in their slide shows? marketing to social users using the images for free isn't much of marketing, at least not to the right audience. I can't figure out the value of this to the contributors. Exposure doesn't pay the bills.
I can only think there may be some sort of SEO click-o-mania advantage.

ShadySue

  • There is a crack in everything
« Reply #42 on: July 06, 2015, 20:37 »
0
... I am saying that I want to be paid if they are using my images in this manner, whether marketing or not.
Back in the day, members could opt in to some free marketing. It was spelled out to us what that could involve. IIRC, that was all in or all out. (Plus you could opt images into Free File of the Week/Month (?), on an image by image basis.) As the uses were very specific, I was opted into that for a while, but opted out after they reneged on their promise to grandfather us in at our next level when they introduced RCs. Quite possibly a lot of people did the same, so they made a much wider, compulsory unspecified promotion scheme.

Clause 3b of the current ASA (indie) says:
"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 Site, the Content and their distribution programs, and promote the licensing of Accepted Content (including, without limitation, the use of the Accepted Content and the Suppliers registered and unregistered trademarks for marketing, sales and promotional efforts whether on the Site or through third parties). No compensation shall be due to the Supplier for use of Accepted Content for such business purposes. "
The exclusive wording is almost identical.

(Wonder what they mean by 'the Supplier's registered and unregistered trademarks'? Where would they get these from?)

« Reply #43 on: July 06, 2015, 21:25 »
+2
... I am saying that I want to be paid if they are using my images in this manner, whether marketing or not.
Back in the day, members could opt in to some free marketing. It was spelled out to us what that could involve. IIRC, that was all in or all out. (Plus you could opt images into Free File of the Week/Month (?), on an image by image basis.) As the uses were very specific, I was opted into that for a while, but opted out after they reneged on their promise to grandfather us in at our next level when they introduced RCs. Quite possibly a lot of people did the same, so they made a much wider, compulsory unspecified promotion scheme.

Clause 3b of the current ASA (indie) says:
"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 Site, the Content and their distribution programs, and promote the licensing of Accepted Content (including, without limitation, the use of the Accepted Content and the Suppliers registered and unregistered trademarks for marketing, sales and promotional efforts whether on the Site or through third parties). No compensation shall be due to the Supplier for use of Accepted Content for such business purposes. "
The exclusive wording is almost identical.

(Wonder what they mean by 'the Supplier's registered and unregistered trademarks'? Where would they get these from?)

Yes i recall these terms. Doesnt mean i would rather be paid. Its my responsibility, i accepted the terms, i get that. I just think some of these agencies go too far.....especially with the uptick in free images lately, as an example. That is tantamount to conditioning pavlovs dogs, which will assure the coriolis effect on our revenue. :D

ShadySue

  • There is a crack in everything
« Reply #44 on: July 06, 2015, 21:28 »
+2
... I am saying that I want to be paid if they are using my images in this manner, whether marketing or not.
Back in the day, members could opt in to some free marketing. It was spelled out to us what that could involve. IIRC, that was all in or all out. (Plus you could opt images into Free File of the Week/Month (?), on an image by image basis.) As the uses were very specific, I was opted into that for a while, but opted out after they reneged on their promise to grandfather us in at our next level when they introduced RCs. Quite possibly a lot of people did the same, so they made a much wider, compulsory unspecified promotion scheme.

Clause 3b of the current ASA (indie) says:
"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 Site, the Content and their distribution programs, and promote the licensing of Accepted Content (including, without limitation, the use of the Accepted Content and the Suppliers registered and unregistered trademarks for marketing, sales and promotional efforts whether on the Site or through third parties). No compensation shall be due to the Supplier for use of Accepted Content for such business purposes. "
The exclusive wording is almost identical.

(Wonder what they mean by 'the Supplier's registered and unregistered trademarks'? Where would they get these from?)

Yes i recall these terms. Doesnt mean i would rather be paid. Its my responsibility, i accepted the terms, i get that. I just think some of these agencies go too far.....especially with the uptick in free images lately, as an example. That is tantamount to conditioning pavlovs dogs, which will assure the coriolis effect on our revenue. :D
I do agree with you! They are so cent-pinching that they can't give us our percentage of even a basic nominal price, e.g. $1.

ShadySue

  • There is a crack in everything
« Reply #45 on: July 06, 2015, 21:31 »
+9
That's the way things are, it doesn't seem like a big deal to me so I'm fine accepting it for what I see it as, a marketing campaign that probably will have little to no effect one way or the other.
Wouldn't you rather they spent their marketing budget, time and effort on campaigns that would be more likely to have a positive effect?
« Last Edit: July 06, 2015, 22:06 by ShadySue »

« Reply #46 on: July 06, 2015, 22:26 »
0
That's the way things are, it doesn't seem like a big deal to me so I'm fine accepting it for what I see it as, a marketing campaign that probably will have little to no effect one way or the other.
Wouldn't you rather they spent their marketing budget, time and effort on campaigns that would be more likely to have a positive effect?
Do you know how much money, time, or effort was spent on this?  I don't have a clue but it probably wasn't too much they already the infrastructure in place to make this work.  Slide.ly could have put most of the capital in as well, who knows?  They could also be planning to license images there in the future. 

« Reply #47 on: July 06, 2015, 23:18 »
+12
As always, I believe we should be allowed to opt out of these kind of schemes. 

« Reply #48 on: July 07, 2015, 00:27 »
+7
Yet another giveaway of our images on a mass scale from Getty.  Why am I not surprised? 

As for the cutesy slideshows being promotional - BS!  If these people want my images for slideshows then I should be effing PAID!  By giving our images away once more, Getty are undercutting the market. 

I begin to think that if Getty can't beat SS or Adobe, they are prepared to destroy the whole market to bring them down. 

In the near future we who are still there will likely have to pull out of Getty or risk completely devaluing our images. 

« Reply #49 on: July 07, 2015, 06:39 »
+7
As already said, I just can't see someone seeing one of these free slideshows and thinking "I must buy that image"
If anything too much "free" exposure damages the perception of the value of images.
And I agree with Mantis. Someone is getting real value out of this deal if it's only encouraging people to use the service. I want paying for that.

Shelma1

« Reply #50 on: July 07, 2015, 06:56 »
+6
That's the way things are, it doesn't seem like a big deal to me so I'm fine accepting it for what I see it as, a marketing campaign that probably will have little to no effect one way or the other.
Wouldn't you rather they spent their marketing budget, time and effort on campaigns that would be more likely to have a positive effect?

This. Getty keeps the vast majority of our money and then spends it making deals that won't make a dime for any of us. They've spent time and money on free embedding, time and money on a Fiverr deal that pays others twice as much as us, and time and money on this deal with random Facebook users.

ShadySue

  • There is a crack in everything
« Reply #51 on: July 07, 2015, 07:03 »
+10
That's the way things are, it doesn't seem like a big deal to me so I'm fine accepting it for what I see it as, a marketing campaign that probably will have little to no effect one way or the other.
Wouldn't you rather they spent their marketing budget, time and effort on campaigns that would be more likely to have a positive effect?
This. Getty keeps the vast majority of our money and then spends it making deals that won't make a dime for any of us. They've spent time and money on free embedding, time and money on a Fiverr deal that pays others twice as much as us, and time and money on this deal with random Facebook users.
What's really sickening is the probability that Getty pockets a fat sum for these 'deals' and shares not a dime with us.
« Last Edit: July 07, 2015, 08:00 by ShadySue »

« Reply #52 on: July 07, 2015, 07:07 »
+11
In my experience free stuff only attracts more people looking for free stuff

« Reply #53 on: July 07, 2015, 07:52 »
+5
As already said, I just can't see someone seeing one of these free slideshows and thinking "I must buy that image"
If anything too much "free" exposure damages the perception of the value of images.
And I agree with Mantis. Someone is getting real value out of this deal if it's only encouraging people to use the service. I want paying for that.

I agree. Where is the "red line"? How much wriggle room is there in terms of how they define "for promotional use"? I think they define that and it's to the moon, Alice.

« Reply #54 on: July 07, 2015, 09:16 »
+4
As already said, I just can't see someone seeing one of these free slideshows and thinking "I must buy that image"
If anything too much "free" exposure damages the perception of the value of images.
And I agree with Mantis. Someone is getting real value out of this deal if it's only encouraging people to use the service. I want paying for that.

I agree. Where is the "red line"? How much wriggle room is there in terms of how they define "for promotional use"? I think they define that and it's to the moon, Alice.
Yes, I think what we think of as "promotional use" and what they do are somewhat different.
As I've said before, another problem I have in general is that I have uploaded my images on the premise that they will try to sell them for me. Not just to be a part of various "promotional uses" that as far as I can see are of no benefit to me. As I said earlier, sales are ever decreasing.
Why the silence about these deals if they are a good thing?

« Reply #55 on: July 07, 2015, 10:01 »
+5
I think the best point brought up is that they take a huge slice of sales...then make money off these side deals/partnerships, and we don't know if this benefits us in the slightest. They used to be able to justify their larger commission...but these days that justification is extremely blurry

Shelma1

« Reply #56 on: July 07, 2015, 10:09 »
+5
I've decided to delete one image from iS for every image I upload to DT and FT. Personal choice. I figure in a year I can (hopefully) make up the income loss from iS. They just keep quietly giving my images away in more and more venues, and I think that will hurt all my sales in the long run.

« Reply #57 on: July 07, 2015, 10:19 »
+16
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.

« Reply #58 on: July 07, 2015, 10:41 »
+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.

Shelma1

« Reply #59 on: July 07, 2015, 10:44 »
+6
In addition to the shady deals, Getty just keeps going downhill. I think eventually they'll be looking for bankruptcy protection, though of course I could be wrong. Even if they don't go that route, their business is slowly failing. And I've seen the change in ad agencies. For a long time it was nothing but Getty, but now with SS targeting large enterprises and art directors and designers having access to images through Adobe, I don't see how Getty will ever regain market share. Giving our images away just seems like a cynical way for them to make some quick cash off our work while we get nothing.

« Reply #60 on: July 07, 2015, 13:09 »
+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.

« Reply #61 on: July 07, 2015, 13:11 »
+7
...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. ...

What are you referring to? I left Bigstock already (lack of opt out on subscriptions, but I already opted out of their scummy POD resales). Where does Shutterstock offer POD (I'm not aware of any, but perhaps I've been asleep at the wheel)?

I can live with deals I don't like as long as there is an opt out. I have made my peace with Shutterstock's complete lack of transparency on the SOD licenses - so far nothing has surfaced to suggest they're abusing that secrecy over terms. Getty on the other hand has demonstrated multiple times -when they've been caught scr*wing contributors - that they cannot be trusted to act in contributor's best interests. Even so, I'd have stayed with iStock (i'm still there, but have all but left) if they'd have offered an opt out so contributors had the choice about whether to participate

« Reply #62 on: July 07, 2015, 13:27 »
0
...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. ...

What are you referring to? I left Bigstock already (lack of opt out on subscriptions, but I already opted out of their scummy POD resales). Where does Shutterstock offer POD (I'm not aware of any, but perhaps I've been asleep at the wheel)?

I can live with deals I don't like as long as there is an opt out. I have made my peace with Shutterstock's complete lack of transparency on the SOD licenses - so far nothing has surfaced to suggest they're abusing that secrecy over terms. Getty on the other hand has demonstrated multiple times -when they've been caught scr*wing contributors - that they cannot be trusted to act in contributor's best interests. Even so, I'd have stayed with iStock (i'm still there, but have all but left) if they'd have offered an opt out so contributors had the choice about whether to participate
I was talking about Bigstock (owned and operated by Shutterstock).  Shutterstock.com allows print on demand with an EL.  Bigstock pays you for each sale by the POD site, SS gives you a one time EL.   No opt out on either site as far as I know.
« Last Edit: July 07, 2015, 13:31 by tickstock »

Shelma1

« Reply #63 on: July 07, 2015, 13:36 »
+5
  Shutterstock pays you, SS gives you a one time EL.

Hey, Shutterstock pays you? When someone uses an image you get paid? Pass that on to Getty.

« Reply #64 on: July 07, 2015, 13:42 »
+1
  Shutterstock pays you, SS gives you a one time EL.  (THIS IS NOT A QUOTE BY ME)

Hey, Shutterstock pays you? When someone uses an image you get paid? Pass that on to Getty.
Getty pays for each sale at Photos.com (much more than SS or BS).  And what the f is wrong with you misquoting what I wrote.  You have serious issues.  Once again you have proven yourself to be an intentionally misleading troll.
« Last Edit: July 07, 2015, 13:45 by tickstock »

Shelma1

« Reply #65 on: July 07, 2015, 13:48 »
+4
Why are you trying to derail my thread, which is about Getty giving our images away for free, with unrelated information about Shutterstock? I'm tired of your constant SS derailing, and the troll thing is getting really old. Start your own thread about your own topic and stop trying to derail mine with your obsessive SS bashing.

Semmick Photo

« Reply #66 on: July 07, 2015, 13:52 »
+3
Shelma DNFTT. Weed is hard to kill.

« Reply #67 on: July 07, 2015, 13:55 »
+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.
« Last Edit: July 07, 2015, 13:57 by tickstock »

Shelma1

« Reply #68 on: July 07, 2015, 14:08 »
+2
Shelma DNFTT. Weed is hard to kill.

True. I'll have to try harder.  :)

« Reply #69 on: July 07, 2015, 14:22 »
+4
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.

« Reply #70 on: July 07, 2015, 14:50 »
+5
...Shutterstock.com allows print on demand with an EL.  Bigstock pays you for each sale by the POD site, SS gives you a one time EL.   No opt out on either site as far as I know.

Bigstock used to have an opt out for POD - but I can't check as I'm no longer a contributor.

Shutterstock does let you opt out of ELs if you want (not specifically for PODs, and not image by image, but it is an opt out).

You can't make Getty's terrible behavior any less terrible by pointing out flaws in other agencies, especially when the flaws either aren't comparable or (in the case of Bigstock) the agency is for all intents and purposes history.

It is true that all the agencies have made anti-contributor moves, but Getty is in a league of its own - having started shafting contributors before microstock was even a thing, and having extended their reach wider (they pulled similar crap on PumpAudio contributors after they purchased them).

It's a lawyerly game to suggest that all flaws are equivalent and thus the agencies are really no different from one another. Shutterstock has problems from a contributor point of view, but bringing them up every time there's a discussion of Getty's cr*p is just misleading.

« Reply #71 on: July 07, 2015, 14:58 »
0
...Shutterstock.com allows print on demand with an EL.  Bigstock pays you for each sale by the POD site, SS gives you a one time EL.   No opt out on either site as far as I know.

Bigstock used to have an opt out for POD - but I can't check as I'm no longer a contributor.

Shutterstock does let you opt out of ELs if you want (not specifically for PODs, and not image by image, but it is an opt out).

You can't make Getty's terrible behavior any less terrible by pointing out flaws in other agencies, especially when the flaws either aren't comparable or (in the case of Bigstock) the agency is for all intents and purposes history.

It is true that all the agencies have made anti-contributor moves, but Getty is in a league of its own - having started shafting contributors before microstock was even a thing, and having extended their reach wider (they pulled similar crap on PumpAudio contributors after they purchased them).

It's a lawyerly game to suggest that all flaws are equivalent and thus the agencies are really no different from one another. Shutterstock has problems from a contributor point of view, but bringing them up every time there's a discussion of Getty's cr*p is just misleading.
I'm not saying ALL flaws or historical events are equivalent.  I'm really talking about the partner deals you see going on now.  I do agree things are different allowing noncommercial use on slide.ly doesn't seem like that bad of thing and seems much less likely to make buyers think images should be free than a deal like the facebook one which tells buyers that images are free to use for commercial purposes.  You have to decide for yourself if these deals are ok for you for each site, if not then the choice is easy.  In this discussion it seems much more relevant to compare partner deals going on now than to ones that ended years ago, at least it is for me.
You could also choose to look at these things in a vacuum but I don't think that is very useful.
« Last Edit: July 07, 2015, 15:06 by tickstock »

« Reply #72 on: July 07, 2015, 15:09 »
0
Sorry, what Facebook deal is that?

« Reply #73 on: July 07, 2015, 15:14 »
0
Sorry, what Facebook deal is that?

"Shutterstock Deal Gives You Free Images for Facebook Ads"
http://smallbiztrends.com/2013/08/free-images-for-facebook-ads.html

Facebook Partners With Shutterstock to Offer 25 Million FREE Stock Photos to Advertisers
http://blog.hubspot.com/marketing/facebook-shutterstock-advertising-partnership-nj

Shutterstock Deal Provides Companies With Free Facebook Pictures
http://www.socialmediatoday.com/content/shutterstock-deal-provides-companies-free-facebook-pictures

The point was just a small one about how I think the slide.ly deal to use images on a noncommercial slideshow probably will not teach buyers that images should be free any more than this deal which is advertised all over about how commercial images are free.  There are a few people in this thread who are outraged that this will give buyers the wrong idea but I think they've been mostly silent or cheering the facebook deal.

Shelma1

« Reply #74 on: July 07, 2015, 15:29 »
+3
Sorry, what Facebook deal is that?

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.

« 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
4074 Views
Last post June 30, 2011, 10:17
by click_click
7 Replies
1904 Views
Last post August 14, 2013, 17:34
by KB
989 Replies
65035 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