pancakes

MicrostockGroup Sponsors


Recent Posts

Pages: [1] 2 3 4 5 6 ... 10
1

ETA: namussi if you like Getty, why not apply for a house contract? You can then work with them with the kind of content they like but also supply the smaller specialized agencies.

The micros are just one part of stock, there is a very big world to explore beyond that.

But if you prefer to be exclusive to istock, by all means go and do it.

Nobody here is standing in your way. You asked us why Getty has such an abysmally bad reputation among artist and that is simply the result of their actions.


1) No, that was someone else
2) Thank you for the further explanation about "yu-know-who"
2
You should question them on this...

"We understand you have previously been in touch with our contributor relations team regarding this issue who have confirmed to you that the contributor is the original creator of the image you are questioning and therefore would have the correct permissions to sell the image."

They did not, and have not confirmed that. They only confirmed that the individual in question says that they are the original creator of the image. That's fine for a check box when uploading the content in the first place... but if somebody raises a valid claim of ownership then that's not going to cut it.
4
They should have replaced it with a single question.

Do you want more money for the same effort?

1-Yes
2-No
3-I don't know

Money will not make you happy.

Kelly Thompson, Sept 9, 2010

AMEN to that. His comments still stick in my mind each time some agency tries to "create a new revenue stream" with some wonky scheme.  In the end the money we won't get is supposed to make us happy.
5
This is just Alamy being lazy...or perhaps greedy.  The lack of support for copyright violations, the lack of a clear process for contributors to follow shows you what they are really in the game for....money. Most agencies do not make it easy to protect copyright.  Some take action, but it takes you being a nag to get it done.  Others like Alamy don't care.  Deposit Photos is the same way. They have been caught red handed selling other people's work well after their account was closed.

Perhaps James will come into the forum and clarify.
6
Different story for me.
I was only doing video and I was doing fine with Fotolia: I had not a lot, but my regular 10-15 uploads per month, average $28 each, but sometimes the odd $70, let's say 400-600 per month.
not really increasing, in spite of constant uploading, but it was OK.
Then I had the stupid idea of starting to upload also photo (about 3 months ago)...
Guess what, I still had the same number of uploads, but they were all photos, fro ridiculous amounts, so my income went from $400-600 a month o some stupid $10-15 from one day to the next.
So this week I went like crazy deleting all my photo portfolio, one by one, and guess what?
I finally had a video sale yesterday and another one today

I readed already this topic, and I am worry about it, I am a video principally, but I also uploaded some photos, an even having more than 1k of videos I sell more photos (just 300) in AS and SS... Would I to delete them???
7
I think Alamy is completely incorrect in asserting that since they don't own the copyright to any images they don't have to do anything when displaying stolen images or vectors. None of the other agencies own the copyrights either and yet they take seriously their agency's reputation and don't want to be a disreputable place offering licenses to stolen work.

Just because the other party says they have the copyright, doesn't mean they're being truthful and this, again, is a problem other agencies have confronted. At one point (no idea what the rules are now) iStock used to require that vectors be uploaded either with a reference photo or screen shots of the work in progress so they could ensure the person uploading the vector had created it themselves (and not auto traced someone else's work.

Any agency needs to have a process in place to do more than just take the word of the uploading party. And I think any agency needs to have a process where the agency works it out or takes down content, not bailing on the issue and suggesting that the contributor has to work it out. You need to get evidence of your ownership together for them, but they need to do the leg work - that's part of what they get their 50% for.

Certainly your file being uploaded at other agencies at an earlier date is a good indicator that the other person's work is the copy. The other thing that can help call out thieves is when their portfolio has copies of multiple artists' work. Not sure if you don't some searches to see if you can find evidence of that.

Not sure about hiring a lawyer (expensive) but you should definitely push back on Alamy and explain to them how the other agencies handle this situation - even when they're slow and wait for contributor reports, it looks like everyone is better than Alamy in that they at least acknowledge it's the agency's responsibility.
8
Every agency is free to make personal deals with any partner they want.

Itś called a free market.

In the macrostockworld this is perfectly normal, not just for Getty but for many other agencies as well. I learnt a lot about the industry when I left and started to explore what is out there.

You can negotiate everything with any business partner.

Just like with licenses. Every agency has a huge variety of licenses that they dont advertise on their web page.

So this is nothing specific to Gettyimages, contributors with very high quality content can negotiate their own contract anywhere.

Yuri Arcurs was the most vocal about it, but it really isnt some kind of special industry secret and no, it is not just Getty.

But to be offered a personalized deal by any agency you have to have extremly attractive content and invest a ton of money into your productions.

If you dont want to be bothered negotiating individual contracts with different agencies, then you can become part of a small brand that handles all the licensing agreements for you. Your content is exclusive to them and they deal with rankings and royalty agreements.

There are hundreds of agencies on this planet, the stock industry is huge.

But nobody is going to advertise in public which of the many hundreds is currently the most attractive to be in.

If you have a Getty house contract, they will also distribute their content to many different partners.

But the advantage of getty house is they have no artist exclusivity, just image or series exclusivity.

So you can supply them directly but still go out and shoot other things for anyone else.

If you like Getty, go and apply to become a house artist. But they dont stop you from also supplying offset, or adobe, or stockfood with your other content.

The reason people are now often preferring to upload elsewhere because they get more money.

But nobody will tell you their personal favorite, why should they?

And who knows - maybe there is a huge group of happy Getty contributors that are cheering each other on somewhere?

But since Yuri we havent heard from a big studio going exclusive.

And his exclusivity is not artist exclusive abyway and he can even sell his files on getty also from his own website.

So good for him, he got himself a good personal deal.

ETA: namussi if you like Getty, why not apply for a house contract? You can then work with them with the kind of content they like but also supply the smaller specialized agencies.

The micros are just one part of stock, there is a very big world to explore beyond that.

But if you prefer to be exclusive to istock, by all means go and do it.

Nobody here is standing in your way. You asked us why Getty has such an abysmally bad reputation among artist and that is simply the result of their actions.

Other agencies pay attention how they work with people and have a good reputation as a result. So it is their choice. Nobody else can make their decisions for them.

ETA: Fotolia used to be on the wrong end of the contributor community, especially with their 1 dollar project. But they took responsibilty, realised it was a mistake and have taken many steps to make sure their reputation doesnt suffer again.

Itś all about the management and what is important to them. Some companies care about their repution, some dont. And they are perfectly free to make that desicion, it is their business.

I think every contributor would prefer it if they felt Getty was genuinly interested in reaching out. They could decide we want to have the best reputation in the industry.

Nobody is stopping them.
9
Adobe Stock / Re: Disastrous performance of FT/AS in November
« Last post by Pauws99 on Today at 16:48 »
I experienced some periods in the last couple of months when sales just came to a standstill for a few days this month luckily for me is more normal now it seems. I slipped down the ranking a long way.....luck or algorithm change who knows?
10
The short answer is no, I don't, but you want to compare this November with last November, not with October 2017.

If you don't have seasonal images, you might see a drop as this is the peak time of year for seasonal downloads - I just checked my last 200 sales on FT/Adobe and 39% were seasonal; SS was a bit lower this year at 33% of the total.

I have generally seen November be the peak sales month for my portfolio (started doing this in fall 2004)
Pages: [1] 2 3 4 5 6 ... 10

Sponsors

Microstock Poll Results

Sponsors