MicrostockGroup Sponsors


Author Topic: Stocksy - Are You Curious? Response?  (Read 57592 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

« Reply #100 on: February 21, 2013, 12:06 »
-1
...If you aren't asked to join, are you going to whine about it here?
Well, if they are my competitor, I just might... and not just here.

Wow. That's really petty.

I always was impressed by the fact that we're all competitors and yet we all still choose to share information and help each other in this forum. Thanks for the reminder that some folks around here are still always looking to stick a knife in someone's back just because someone might have success where they can't.

At different levels, we all do.

Just like you and me ...
« Last Edit: February 21, 2013, 12:10 by Buzbuzzer »


« Reply #101 on: February 21, 2013, 12:14 »
0
I don't think anyone should take a non-acceptance as an indication you didn't have enough nights out with someone.

   It would be nice to believe this, but I know how cliquish istock was at its founding.  What is the reason for not accepting a world class stock photographer at this stage.
« Last Edit: February 21, 2013, 17:12 by pro@stockphotos »

« Reply #102 on: February 21, 2013, 12:23 »
0
I don't think anyone should take a non-acceptance as an indication you didn't have enough nights out with someone.

   It would be nice to believe this, but I know how cliquish istock was at its fouding.  What is the reason for not accepting a world class stock photographer at this stage.

If I was at their place I would accept every conttributors without any test. It would raise quickly the site access rating on Alexa and Google. They can always be picky on images....

Just like Facebook did..
« Last Edit: February 21, 2013, 12:26 by Buzbuzzer »

Poncke

« Reply #103 on: February 21, 2013, 12:26 »
0
I don't think anyone should take a non-acceptance as an indication you didn't have enough nights out with someone.

   It would be nice to believe this, but I know how cliquish istock was at its fouding.  What is the reason for not accepting a world class stock photographer at this stage.
who?

aspp

« Reply #104 on: February 21, 2013, 12:30 »
0
If I was at their place I would accept every conttributors without any test. It would raise quickly the site access rating on Alexa and Google. They can always be picky on images....

Just like Facebook did..

Facebook only opened up gradually to the public. At first it was a clique.

« Reply #105 on: February 21, 2013, 12:37 »
0
If I was at their place I would accept every conttributors without any test. It would raise quickly the site access rating on Alexa and Google. They can always be picky on images....

Just like Facebook did..

Facebook only opened up gradually to the public. At first it was a clique.

Maybe not like Facebook then... like Istock....lol

« Reply #106 on: February 21, 2013, 13:09 »
0
I don't think anyone should take a non-acceptance as an indication you didn't have enough nights out with someone.

   It would be nice to believe this, but I know how cliquish istock was at its fouding.  What is the reason for not accepting a world class stock photographer at this stage.

If I was at their place I would accept every conttributors without any test. It would raise quickly the site access rating on Alexa and Google. They can always be picky on images....

Just like Facebook did..

With a smaller team, it may be easier to use the contributor level as a gatekeeper, then trying to pick through images to find what fits, if you know what I mean.

« Reply #107 on: February 21, 2013, 13:13 »
0
I don't think anyone should take a non-acceptance as an indication you didn't have enough nights out with someone.

   It would be nice to believe this, but I know how cliquish istock was at its fouding.  What is the reason for not accepting a world class stock photographer at this stage.

If I was at their place I would accept every conttributors without any test. It would raise quickly the site access rating on Alexa and Google. They can always be picky on images....

Just like Facebook did..

With a smaller team, it may be easier to use the contributor level as a gatekeeper, then trying to pick through images to find what fits, if you know what I mean.

I know what you mean, but easier doesn't always mean better... sometime that hard way is the right one.
« Last Edit: February 21, 2013, 13:19 by Buzbuzzer »

« Reply #108 on: February 21, 2013, 13:33 »
+2
I know what you mean, but easier doesn't always mean better... sometime that hard way is the right one.

True, not always, but easier is very often better.

Not that I'd be expecting an invite from these guys now or ever, but we have to consider that they have credentials in the business and are not stupid.  In order to succeed they are going to have to come up with an approach that is very different to what is there already (or it will be just another low earning startup) and that difference can't really depend solely on the content.  It will be interesting to see what happens.

w7lwi

  • Those that don't stand up to evil enable evil.
« Reply #109 on: February 21, 2013, 14:17 »
+1
I'm just curious how they would be able to identify various photographers from their e-mail address alone?  Purely speculation, but I'd think they would send a questionnaire to everyone who expressed an interest and sent in their e-mail address.  Carefully crafted questions could easily and quickly identify those individuals whom they would be interested in looking at further.  Perhaps request a link to their portfolios on other sites to get a flavor of their technical and artistic abilities as well as their breadth of experience.  Only after this "pre-screening" would an invitation be sent to those whom they wished to include on the site.

« Reply #110 on: February 21, 2013, 16:51 »
+1
In no way was what Sean did 'blackmail'. It's called whistle-blowing. He told contributors that Getty was selling their images contrary to contract, especially as there were no restrictions on the use of model-released images, contrary to the model release and the terms and conditions of use from the agency they were first issued to.

And actually, initially, I was asking about it, because I wouldn't have thought such a dumb agreement would have been something set up by our Agent, and that Google was stealing the images or doing something illegal.

But they're not your agent, are they?  They're your distributor and you agreed to that.  From a relationship and legal point of view, it changed everything. 

I'm still quite shocked that people signed the new ASA.  I know their lawyer there convinced everyone that changing their position from 'agent' to 'distributor' was a formality by telling everyone in that Q&A forum that the relationship won't change.  Still... how did people trust them after years of them proving they're untrustworthy?  There should have been a huge backlash then with people refusing to sign it and pulling their ports.  D-Day should have happened then.

The majority of contributors are too trusting.  I remember a while ago in this forum, I had people here calling me a liar when I said that I go over each agent's legal docs with a fine tooth comb before making a decision to join them...  it was the main reason why I didn't join IS.  People were responding with comments like "come on, who really reads the terms and conditions?" lol.  I was surprised that so many people were so gullible. What iStock did with Google Drive was appalling but still... I would have expected that they would pull something like that as a distributor.

I'm not defending iStock but I do put some of the blame back onto the contributors who defended them for years despite there being loads of signs that they didn't have their best interests in mind.  So many of you (including you, Sean) believe that they're incompetent rather than malicious... even now.  How can you believe that after Google Drive and after they booted you for complaining about it?   

Tror

« Reply #111 on: February 21, 2013, 16:54 »
+1
I don't think anyone should take a non-acceptance as an indication you didn't have enough nights out with someone.

....I could catch up with some nights out...drinks for accounts!!!  8)

But seriously...I think we are speculating waaay too much! We have NO real information at hand. Only a bunch of Contributors that dig through the psychological process of digesting a potential rejection or non-response (me included) vs. the hope for infinite economic success on a new site. Lets give em some time to come public with some presentation.....
« Last Edit: February 21, 2013, 16:58 by Tror »

ShadySue

  • There is a crack in everything
« Reply #112 on: February 21, 2013, 17:20 »
+3
I've just read the T&C of the current favourite agency, and just like iStock, there are clauses in there which look fairly innocent, but could be interpreted just like iS chose to interpret their contract, to the surprise of those who chose it.

I'd expect that most contracts are sufficiently broad and vague on the agency side so that they can do whatever they right, while tight and rigid about what the contributors have to agree to.

« Reply #113 on: February 21, 2013, 17:24 »
-1
But they're not your agent, are they?  They're your distributor and you agreed to that.  From a relationship and legal point of view, it changed everything. 

Sorry, I meant the capital "A" as a bit of sarcasm.  If pushed, I doubt a legal entity would find that we common folk would know any difference between the terms.

« Reply #114 on: February 21, 2013, 17:30 »
+1

I don't think anyone should take a non-acceptance as an indication you didn't have enough nights out with someone.

   It would be nice to believe this, but I know how cliquish istock was at its fouding.  What is the reason for not accepting a world class stock photographer at this stage.



With a smaller team, it may be easier to use the contributor level as a gatekeeper, then trying to pick through images to find what fits, if you know what I mean.

Really, that is why I have to go with the clique on this one!!

« Reply #115 on: February 21, 2013, 18:15 »
+1
But they're not your agent, are they?  They're your distributor and you agreed to that.  From a relationship and legal point of view, it changed everything. 

Sorry, I meant the capital "A" as a bit of sarcasm.  If pushed, I doubt a legal entity would find that we common folk would know any difference between the terms.

Perhaps however you're out of luck there too since they noted the difference in the same Q&A forum.  Still think they're incompetent?  I reckon they knew exactly what they were doing.  They relied on your (not yours personally) loyalty.  They knew contributors would be relaxed about the new ASA.  I'm baffled as to why they were, though.  I doubt any of them would be that lax about signing any agreement which involved any other large asset they own... like their house. 

Contributors are generally too trusting and loyal.  Even now with Stocksy... why are people wanting to get in the door without knowing what they're about, without seeing their legal terms?  So far they sound great but how do we know if they're worth joining?  Are people just trusting Livingstone because he's the founder of iStock?  Hasn't any learnt anything after iStock?  Don't trust anyone.   It's business... look after your side of it and read and understand the contracts before agreeing to anything.

« Reply #116 on: February 21, 2013, 18:29 »
0
.
« Last Edit: May 12, 2014, 13:58 by Audi 5000 »

« Reply #117 on: February 21, 2013, 18:37 »
-2
Perhaps however you're out of luck there too since they noted the difference in the same Q&A forum.  Still think they're incompetent?  I reckon they knew exactly what they were doing.  They relied on your (not yours personally) loyalty.  They knew contributors would be relaxed about the new ASA.  I'm baffled as to why they were, though.  I doubt any of them would be that lax about signing any agreement which involved any other large asset they own... like their house. 

Contributors are generally too trusting and loyal.  Even now with Stocksy... why are people wanting to get in the door without knowing what they're about, without seeing their legal terms?  So far they sound great but how do we know if they're worth joining?  Are people just trusting Livingstone because he's the founder of iStock?  Hasn't any learnt anything after iStock?  Don't trust anyone.   It's business... look after your side of it and read and understand the contracts before agreeing to anything.
You realize that the choice was take it or leave it, just like it says in Shutterstock's terms.  " IF YOU DO NOT AGREE WITH ANY OF THE CHANGES PLEASE REMOVE ALL OR THAT PORTION OF YOUR SUBMITTED CONTENT TO WHICH YOU DO NOT WISH THE CHANGES TO APPLY FROM THE SHUTTERSTOCK WEBSITE."  People "agreed" to the terms because they wanted to keep licensing their content on Istock, simple as that.  Like you said this is about business, not loyalty, trust or agreeing with everything in the contract.

Of course I realise it.  They chose to stay, they agreed to everything in the contract.  They took the risk and got shafted.  That's exactly my point... they have to accept some responsibility for staying on.   


« Reply #118 on: February 21, 2013, 18:44 »
-2

Contributors are generally too trusting and loyal.  Even now with Stocksy... why are people wanting to get in the door without knowing what they're about, without seeing their legal terms?  So far they sound great but how do we know if they're worth joining?  Are people just trusting Livingstone because he's the founder of iStock?  Hasn't any learnt anything after iStock?  Don't trust anyone.   It's business... look after your side of it and read and understand the contracts before agreeing to anything.

I think that you're simplifying things a little.  It's all very well to tell people to stop dealing with a company if you don't like their terms and conditions, and in an ideal world we all would.  But this is reality, and the reality was that many contributors there had thousands of images exclusively with iStock, and relied on them as their sole source of income.  It would have been a huge financial burden for them to pull those images and start all over again with other agencies (who probably also have some dubious term and conditions of their own).  So many made the choice to stay and see what happened.  OK, they may have been caught out this time, but from my point of view, my iStock earnings are so much more than I'd get at the other agencies, that it was certainly a gamble worth taking.

Poncke

« Reply #119 on: February 21, 2013, 18:45 »
-4
Perhaps however you're out of luck there too since they noted the difference in the same Q&A forum.  Still think they're incompetent?  I reckon they knew exactly what they were doing.  They relied on your (not yours personally) loyalty.  They knew contributors would be relaxed about the new ASA.  I'm baffled as to why they were, though.  I doubt any of them would be that lax about signing any agreement which involved any other large asset they own... like their house. 

Contributors are generally too trusting and loyal.  Even now with Stocksy... why are people wanting to get in the door without knowing what they're about, without seeing their legal terms?  So far they sound great but how do we know if they're worth joining?  Are people just trusting Livingstone because he's the founder of iStock?  Hasn't any learnt anything after iStock?  Don't trust anyone.   It's business... look after your side of it and read and understand the contracts before agreeing to anything.
You realize that the choice was take it or leave it, just like it says in Shutterstock's terms.  " IF YOU DO NOT AGREE WITH ANY OF THE CHANGES PLEASE REMOVE ALL OR THAT PORTION OF YOUR SUBMITTED CONTENT TO WHICH YOU DO NOT WISH THE CHANGES TO APPLY FROM THE SHUTTERSTOCK WEBSITE."  People "agreed" to the terms because they wanted to keep licensing their content on Istock, simple as that.  Like you said this is about business, not loyalty, trust or agreeing with everything in the contract.
So, leave it. Dont sign it if because you dont want to lose the money, but then complain when the crap hits the fan. Sorry, but that just a lame excuse.

You signed it, you live by it. Take it or leave it.

But its money, people. Money creates greed. People dont want to give up the money and sign it, even tho it will bite them in the ass. Its the power of money.

Poncke

« Reply #120 on: February 21, 2013, 18:47 »
-5

Contributors are generally too trusting and loyal.  Even now with Stocksy... why are people wanting to get in the door without knowing what they're about, without seeing their legal terms?  So far they sound great but how do we know if they're worth joining?  Are people just trusting Livingstone because he's the founder of iStock?  Hasn't any learnt anything after iStock?  Don't trust anyone.   It's business... look after your side of it and read and understand the contracts before agreeing to anything.

I think that you're simplifying things a little.  It's all very well to tell people to stop dealing with a company if you don't like their terms and conditions, and in an ideal world we all would.  But this is reality, and the reality was that many contributors there had thousands of images exclusively with iStock, and relied on them as their sole source of income.  It would have been a huge financial burden for them to pull those images and start all over again with other agencies (who probably also have some dubious term and conditions of their own).  So many made the choice to stay and see what happened.  OK, they may have been caught out this time, but from my point of view, my iStock earnings are so much more than I'd get at the other agencies, that it was certainly a gamble worth taking.
Those are the magic words, they took the gamble. And they lost. You cant blame ANYONE but yourself.

« Reply #121 on: February 21, 2013, 18:51 »
0
.
« Last Edit: May 12, 2014, 13:59 by Audi 5000 »

ShadySue

  • There is a crack in everything
« Reply #122 on: February 21, 2013, 18:52 »
+4
And when one of your agencies chooses to use some clause in their contract in a way you never foresaw, will you be so happy?

Bear in mind, Getty undeniably broke their side of the agreement by selling released photos from iStock contributors using iStock releases, on Google without any protection for the models. They broke the terms and conditions.

Poncke

« Reply #123 on: February 21, 2013, 18:55 »
-2
Perhaps however you're out of luck there too since they noted the difference in the same Q&A forum.  Still think they're incompetent?  I reckon they knew exactly what they were doing.  They relied on your (not yours personally) loyalty.  They knew contributors would be relaxed about the new ASA.  I'm baffled as to why they were, though.  I doubt any of them would be that lax about signing any agreement which involved any other large asset they own... like their house. 

Contributors are generally too trusting and loyal.  Even now with Stocksy... why are people wanting to get in the door without knowing what they're about, without seeing their legal terms?  So far they sound great but how do we know if they're worth joining?  Are people just trusting Livingstone because he's the founder of iStock?  Hasn't any learnt anything after iStock?  Don't trust anyone.   It's business... look after your side of it and read and understand the contracts before agreeing to anything.
You realize that the choice was take it or leave it, just like it says in Shutterstock's terms.  " IF YOU DO NOT AGREE WITH ANY OF THE CHANGES PLEASE REMOVE ALL OR THAT PORTION OF YOUR SUBMITTED CONTENT TO WHICH YOU DO NOT WISH THE CHANGES TO APPLY FROM THE SHUTTERSTOCK WEBSITE."  People "agreed" to the terms because they wanted to keep licensing their content on Istock, simple as that.  Like you said this is about business, not loyalty, trust or agreeing with everything in the contract.
So, leave it. Dont sign it if because you dont want to lose the money, but then complain when the crap hits the fan. Sorry, but that just a lame excuse.

You signed it, you live by it. Take it or leave it.

But its money, people. Money creates greed. People dont want to give up the money and sign it, even tho it will bite them in the ass. Its the power of money.
There is a big difference between someone with a couple hundred images making 50 bucks a month choosing to delete their portfolio and someone making 300,000 dollars with 10,000 images choosing to delete 95% of their income.  It's very easy to choose for some people and nearly impossible for others.  I guess money isn't very important to you so whenever you disagree with something at work you can quit and when you don't like the terms of a stock site you can just quit that too without giving it a second thought, you are in a different position than many of us.
It is important to me, money, and I would sign the thing as well. But I am greedy. And I am complaining as well, but I know I can only blame me. Thats the point.

By  the way, if I dont like my job, I leave, have done it twice and only worked in my advantage. I wont do anything I dont like. But I am sure people stick a few minuses on this post. People are afraid of people who take their fate in their own hands. I do what I like, I work to live. Scary, isnt it.
« Last Edit: February 21, 2013, 18:58 by Poncke »

« Reply #124 on: February 21, 2013, 18:55 »
+1

 Those are the magic words, they took the gamble. And they lost. You cant blame ANYONE but yourself.

What makes you think that I've lost anything?  I've lost nothing at all.  None of my images were used in the Google deal and, so far, I haven't been chucked off the site. 

However, I do have sympathy for those that have had this happen to them and, from my point of view, it is now a gamble that is no longer worth taking.  The odds have changed, that's all.


 

Related Topics

  Subject / Started by Replies Last post
269 Replies
37456 Views
Last post February 10, 2013, 15:09
by leaf
192 Replies
33678 Views
Last post April 22, 2013, 17:30
by leaf
Stocksy is Alive

Started by Artist « 1 2 ... 5 6 » Stocksy

141 Replies
25374 Views
Last post December 30, 2013, 04:38
by topol
76 Replies
17942 Views
Last post September 25, 2014, 10:32
by Ubermansch
7 Replies
1181 Views
Last post January 28, 2017, 01:16
by Clippn

Sponsors

Microstock Poll Results

Sponsors