MicrostockGroup

Agency Based Discussion => Dreamstime.com => Topic started by: ichiro17 on April 03, 2009, 08:34

Title: Why is DT being stupid?
Post by: ichiro17 on April 03, 2009, 08:34
I am trying to prepare myself for exclusivity and I want to disable all my files, but they won't do that in bulk for me?  I have over 1200 files on that site and thats ridiculous.  They have a horrible interface when it comes to removing old files and no matter how much I argue with them, they don't do anything about it.  It makes no sense.

It makes me hate dealing with them after a very good experience during my uploading time there

Title: Re: Why is DT being stupid?
Post by: stockastic on April 03, 2009, 09:36
Your story is causing me to re-evaluate my use of Dreamstime.  I might want to be exclusiive, somewhere else, someday

I'm pretty sure DT has a way of taking all your files offline real quick if you do something they don't like, or if they have a legal issue with someone's images.   DT has a weird corporate personality - look at the way they obsessively censor their forum. 
Title: Re: Why is DT being stupid?
Post by: ichiro17 on April 03, 2009, 09:39
You should seriously consider.  I've been removing files and after an hour and a half, I've only got 100 off
Title: Re: Why is DT being stupid?
Post by: fotografer on April 03, 2009, 09:40
They do that because people were going in and writing insults and rude words on their images to force them to delete the images before the agreed time limit. I really don't blame them for taking this action.

And now they have locked my images so I can't edit them in any way? What a f**king sh*t corporation
Title: Re: Why is DT being stupid?
Post by: PeterChigmaroff on April 03, 2009, 09:54
Hence the necessity to do your homework and consider some planning prior to jumping in. Personally I find the traits of a lot of the micros maddening, but it is what it is.
Title: Re: Why is DT being stupid?
Post by: ichiro17 on April 03, 2009, 12:30
Well I've made my bed, I will now just sleep in it
Title: Re: Why is DT being stupid?
Post by: Achilles on April 06, 2009, 08:46
Do you  think it's stupid to lock the editing rights of a user who tried to put dirty words there and even emailed us about it?

Do you also think it's stupid not to have a bulk deactivation option so photographers disable files in revenge because they just received their first refusals? Without any concern given to other photographers who had to wait more because the pending line got bigger or that the agency reviewed their files for free?
Title: Re: Why is DT being stupid?
Post by: Sean Locke Photography on April 06, 2009, 08:57
Do you also think it's stupid not to have a bulk deactivation option so photographers disable files in revenge because they just received their first refusals? Without any concern given to other photographers who had to wait more because the pending line got bigger or that the agency reviewed their files for free?

Yes.  How is changing your mind about where you want to upload "revenge" ?  That is a cost of business you incur, that suppliers may decide they don't want to supply any more.  Making it difficult is just childish on your part.  Sorry.
Title: Re: Why is DT being stupid?
Post by: Microbius on April 06, 2009, 09:44
Do you  think it's stupid to lock the editing rights of a user who tried to put dirty words there and even emailed us about it?

Do you also think it's stupid not to have a bulk deactivation option so photographers disable files in revenge because they just received their first refusals? Without any concern given to other photographers who had to wait more because the pending line got bigger or that the agency reviewed their files for free?

Sorry yes, I also think this is stupid. If it takes longer to deactivate a file then to write dirty words and wait for admin to remove it there's something up with your processes.
The photographer owns the copyright to their images, they can deactivate them for whatever reason they like, or at least they should be able to if everyone is acting reasonably.
Title: Re: Why is DT being stupid?
Post by: madelaide on April 06, 2009, 10:17
After that time of 6 months or whatever, they also don't delete your portfolio if you ask them?

I agree businesses have to protect the investment they did (storage, reviewers), so I am ok with a minimum locked time.  I also agree that writing dirty words to make the site remove your portfolio is very unprofessional, to say the least.

But if the locked time is gone and the photographer wants to leave, it is only fair the site removes his portfolio when requested.  It's a simple end of a partnership contract.

Regards,
Adelaide
Title: Re: Why is DT being stupid?
Post by: Fred on April 06, 2009, 10:18
Do you  think it's stupid to lock the editing rights of a user who tried to put dirty words there and even emailed us about it?

Do you also think it's stupid not to have a bulk deactivation option so photographers disable files in revenge because they just received their first refusals? Without any concern given to other photographers who had to wait more because the pending line got bigger or that the agency reviewed their files for free?

Seems to me you just need to review your policies.  Other sites get along just fine without holding images for 6 months.  They also have lower payout limits.  DT should be able to make up for any losses from doing away with the 6 month hold with what they make on cash flow lag from the high payout limit.  Or even better just lower the payout limit.

Lotsa options for DT but us poor contributors are just supposed to put up high payout limits and the 6 month hold nonsense.

BTW if I check out before I reach the $100 limit does DT keep it or do you cut me a check for my earnings?

fred
Title: Re: Why is DT being stupid?
Post by: Microbius on April 06, 2009, 10:29
$100 is pretty standard for the bigger sites.
Title: Re: Why is DT being stupid?
Post by: Karimala on April 06, 2009, 10:30
Do you  think it's stupid to lock the editing rights of a user who tried to put dirty words there and even emailed us about it?

I actually did something similar with Albumo as a last resort.  Two months worth of emails asking them to remove my portfolio went unanswered, so I took drastic measures.  I put links to my portfolio at Dreamstime in the descriptions of my 200 most viewed images (a bit ironic, huh?).   Sure, it was childish and I don't recommend that folks do this to get their portfolios removed, but after two months of ignored requests what other alternatives did I have?

It's best for the agencies to simply remove a portfolio upon request and let the artists move along in the first place, so we don't have to resort to such stupid tactics when our requests go ignored.
Title: Re: Why is DT being stupid?
Post by: lisafx on April 06, 2009, 10:48
I think drawing comparisons between Dreamstime (one of the most successful agencies in microstock) and Albumo (a fly by night run out of somebody's garage) is unfair. 

Why is Dreamstime obligated to make it easy for people to remove their portfolios?  Their 6 month hold on images is clearly stated in the TOS you are supposed to read when you sign up.   

Yes, the larger the portfolio the more of a PITA of having to remove images one by one, but it is also a larger loss to Dreamstime's inventory and more likely they will have customers who lightboxed images and come back to find them unavailable.   

Also, making it too easy to remove whole portfolios leaves them at the whims of capricious contributors.   Apparently there was a problem of members removing portfolios, then changing their minds and wanting all images reinspected and reinstated.   This uses up a lot of administrative resources on a site.  Not sure why that so difficult to understand? 

To the assertion that this is a cost of doing business, lets bear in mind that  Dreamstime keeps only 50% of the money from (non-exclusive) sales, unlike another site which keeps 80%.  Personally I would rather get that extra 30% and take on the burden of removing my files myself if I want to. 

Lastly, if someone has to put in the effort to remove all their images they will have time to be certain that is what they want. 
Title: Re: Why is DT being stupid?
Post by: alias on April 06, 2009, 11:00
Dreamstime's 6 month lock in is a good reason for people to be very cautious about uploading there. People should be free to come and go and to manage their portfolios as they choose.

The reason for staying should be because a place feels right. It never did for me. The 6 month lock in was part of what made me decide I did not like them. It was a feeling like being trapped.

On the other hand (even if you hate them) it is worth not falling out with them because one day you might want to go back.
Title: Re: Why is DT being stupid?
Post by: ichiro17 on April 06, 2009, 11:02
I think its silly to say that one contributor pulling their images won't make a difference to an agency but then say that making it harder for them to do so is in the best interests of the agency.

Oh well, whatever, I knew the policy, so I guess its my fault for uploading to them in the first place
Title: Re: Why is DT being stupid?
Post by: Sean Locke Photography on April 06, 2009, 11:05
Why is Dreamstime obligated to make it easy for people to remove their portfolios?  Their 6 month hold on images is clearly stated in the TOS you are supposed to read when you sign up.   


Because it is the artists' work.  The bank doesn't make it hard for you to remove money from your account at an ATM.  Just because they have it, doesn't mean they should get to keep it.

Quote
Yes, the larger the portfolio the more of a PITA of having to remove images one by one, but it is also a larger loss to Dreamstime's inventory and more likely they will have customers who lightboxed images and come back to find them unavailable.   

I imagine the amount of customers who may lightbox something and then come back in a week to find it missing is near nothing.

Quote
Also, making it too easy to remove whole portfolios leaves them at the whims of capricious contributors.   Apparently there was a problem of members removing portfolios, then changing their minds and wanting all images reinspected and reinstated.   This uses up a lot of administrative resources on a site.  Not sure why that so difficult to understand? 

Different issue.  If the decision is made to remove, and then mind changed, again, then there is the need to asses charges for time spent.
Title: Re: Why is DT being stupid?
Post by: alias on April 06, 2009, 11:11
It's strange that they keep your images even a few years after they were disabled.
Title: Re: Why is DT being stupid?
Post by: gaja on April 06, 2009, 12:52
Why is Dreamstime obligated to make it easy for people to remove their portfolios?  Their 6 month hold on images is clearly stated in the TOS you are supposed to read when you sign up.   


Because it is the artists' work.  The bank doesn't make it hard for you to remove money from your account at an ATM.  Just because they have it, doesn't mean they should get to keep it.

How easy it is to withdraw money from a bank depends on what kind of account you have chosen. If you choose the accounts with the best interests, you normally have to tie up your money for a year or more. So it is a choise you make when you upload a picture; do you want to earn 50% and thereby not be able to remove the picture for the next 6 months, or do you want to choose other accounts where you get less interest, but it is easier to back out.
Title: Re: Why is DT being stupid?
Post by: Freedom on April 06, 2009, 12:58
I think DT should help the contributors who decide to leave. Goodwill and grace will go a long way beyond the gain and loss of a few dollars. Maybe they will come back one day and recommend their friends to join if the experience is good enough.
Title: Re: Why is DT being stupid?
Post by: NancyCWalker on April 06, 2009, 13:03
All of the site have their own quirks. DT has always been the 6 month lock in. Another site has a 3 month lock in. A third site will only pay 20% regardless of your status as a contributor. One site I just found out about requires that you upload your initial 10 review images to their Flickr style site where they can be downloaded for free until they are approved.

You have to read the TOS and figure out what you want. If you want to be exclusive with IS then your easiest option is to suffer through the 20% only income for the first 6 months to a year until you qualify for exclusive. If you sign up with anyone else in the hopes of making more before you hit exclusive you will run into issues.

Every site TOS states that if you leave before the payout amount is reached then you forfeit that money.
Title: Re: Why is DT being stupid?
Post by: alias on April 06, 2009, 13:14
So it is a choise you make when you upload a picture; do you want to earn 50% and thereby not be able to remove the picture for the next 6 months

It is not 6 months. AFAIK you can never actually remove a picture from DT. They stay at the site despite being deactivated.
Title: Re: Why is DT being stupid?
Post by: cdwheatley on April 06, 2009, 14:11
Its hard to knock dreamstime as most would probably agree its one of the top 4 micros. I try to look 6 month hold kind of like the gun law in the USA, you can buy the gun but there is a waiting period to actually get your hands on it. Keeps people from doing drastic things on a whim they might regret later. besides, its actually more like 4.5 months because of the option to delete a certain percentage of your port at any time.
Title: Re: Why is DT being stupid?
Post by: null on April 06, 2009, 14:21
It is not 6 months. AFAIK you can never actually remove a picture from DT. They stay at the site despite being deactivated.

Well that's exactly the same case at Istock; it only allows deactivation too.
What happens is they keep it backed up in the database in case you might change your mind later, but it's not for sale any more.
Title: Re: Why is DT being stupid?
Post by: null on April 06, 2009, 14:24
One site I just found out about requires that you upload your initial 10 review images to their Flickr style site where they can be downloaded for free until they are approved.

Ridiculous. What site is that?
Title: Re: Why is DT being stupid?
Post by: lisafx on April 06, 2009, 14:36

Oh well, whatever, I knew the policy, so I guess its my fault for uploading to them in the first place

This about sums it up :)

I can relate to wanting to go exclusive somewhere else. I thought about it many times myself.   I can also relate to wanting to remove your images and being frustrated at the time and effort it takes to do that.  I might feel the same in your shoes.

What I don't understand is if you knew all this going in, why are you blaming the agency now?   How does this make DT "stupid"?
Title: Re: Why is DT being stupid?
Post by: ichiro17 on April 06, 2009, 15:21
It makes DT stupid for cornering its contributors by not allowing a mass de-activate button where they can de-activate all photos eligible.  Its not fair to the contributors in that regard.  I have a huge problem with that.
Title: Re: Why is DT being stupid?
Post by: sharpshot on April 06, 2009, 15:54
Can't admin delete them?  It would drive me crazy deleting them one by one.  I can understand that some people abuse the system but those that go by the rules should be able to have their images deleted with the minimum of fuss.
Title: Re: Why is DT being stupid?
Post by: null on April 06, 2009, 15:55
It makes DT stupid for cornering its contributors by not allowing a mass de-activate button where they can de-activate all photos eligible.

What other site has such a button? At least DT answers. Crestock hasn't any deactivate button and they even ignore mails.
Title: Re: Why is DT being stupid?
Post by: gaja on April 06, 2009, 16:25
It makes DT stupid for cornering its contributors by not allowing a mass de-activate button where they can de-activate all photos eligible.

What other site has such a button? At least DT answers. Crestock hasn't any deactivate button and they even ignore mails.

Crestock deleted my account without any problems and replied very politely to my email where I asked them to delete it. But then I'm a small fish, and nothing they would regret tossing back into the sea. Also, I think it helps asking them in Norwegian. ;)
Title: Re: Why is DT being stupid?
Post by: null on April 06, 2009, 16:31
Also, I think it helps asking them in Norwegian. ;)

Ah, they were probably afraid they would run into you in the street attempting to behead them. Well that's a great advice for those that want to get out of Pixmac: learn Czech!  ;D
Title: Re: Why is DT being stupid?
Post by: RGebbiePhoto on April 06, 2009, 16:38
Also, I think it helps asking them in Norwegian. ;)

Ah, they were probably afraid they would run into you in the street attempting to behead them. Well that's a great advice for those that want to get out of Pixmac: learn Czech!  ;D

Or drop Fotolia.  That works, too :)
Title: Re: Why is DT being stupid?
Post by: ichiro17 on April 06, 2009, 17:19
SS says you can opt out of everything and your portfolio is unavailable for download.  Files are still there, but not available for sale.  So there's at least one site.

Title: Re: Why is DT being stupid?
Post by: loop on April 06, 2009, 17:27
What I don't understand is if you knew all this going in, why are you blaming the agency now?   How does this make DT "stupid"?


One thing are the 6 months compromise, known in advance. Another different matter is that after the 6 Mont's are due, DT could ease the process of deactivating files. After all, if the contributor should be thankful to DT for selling his photos, DT coiuld be thankful as well because for a period of time they have been having benefits from these photos. I don't thing anybody decided to leave will stay just because deactivating is slow and painful; all what happens is that they finally leave disappointed. It seems that nobody wins. 
Title: Re: Why is DT being stupid?
Post by: Freedom on April 06, 2009, 17:32
To Fotolia's credit, you could withdraw any amount below $50, if you pay $1 or one credit fee.

However I am not sure if it is still the case.
Title: Re: Why is DT being stupid?
Post by: tan510jomast on April 06, 2009, 17:37
It makes DT stupid for cornering its contributors by not allowing a mass de-activate button where they can de-activate all photos eligible.

What other site has such a button? At least DT answers. Crestock hasn't any deactivate button and they even ignore mails.

c'mon ichiro17 ole fella .. be reasonable !!!
like FlemishDreams say, AT LEAST DT ANSWERS . Also DT allows you to deactivate your images. Crestock? ...  pfft... hello, anybody home???  ::)
Title: Re: Why is DT being stupid?
Post by: NancyCWalker on April 06, 2009, 17:54
One site I just found out about requires that you upload your initial 10 review images to their Flickr style site where they can be downloaded for free until they are approved.

Ridiculous. What site is that?

The site that was announced on Linkedin. They are trying to make a merge of Flickr and the micros. They asked me to participate in the Beta. I did until I discovered that interesting issue. I can't remember the name of it right now.
Title: Re: Why is DT being stupid?
Post by: null on April 06, 2009, 19:48
The site that was announced on Linkedin. They are trying to make a merge of Flickr and the micros.

Everything Flickr touches becomes dirt. They have this "free" and "sharing" obsession. I didn't notice on Linkedin but my network is not into photography.
Title: Re: Why is DT being stupid?
Post by: rene on April 06, 2009, 22:09
Do you  think it's stupid to lock the editing rights of a user who tried to put dirty words there and even emailed us about it?

Do you also think it's stupid not to have a bulk deactivation option so photographers disable files in revenge because they just received their first refusals? Without any concern given to other photographers who had to wait more because the pending line got bigger or that the agency reviewed their files for free?
Yes, it's stupid. If we really want to leave we have the right to. The way to make it as difficult as possible is not professional.
And when you change rules, for example when you introduce subscriptions, you should provide the easy way to leave, like one click button. We are not hostages.
Title: Re: Why is DT being stupid?
Post by: Freezingpictures on April 07, 2009, 02:45
Do you also think it's stupid not to have a bulk deactivation option so photographers disable files in revenge because they just received their first refusals? Without any concern given to other photographers who had to wait more because the pending line got bigger or that the agency reviewed their files for free?
I would not say stupid, but in this case you are not very contributor friendly Achilles. Why do contributors have to disable tedious every single file, because there are some "black sheeps" who want to delete their files for "revenge"?  I would not want to do business which such a person who is so hateful to my agency anyway, why force him to stay a little longer?
See my case, I do not want to leave DT, I think its a great agency, but I have some very old files which are now far below my and DT's current standard. I want to delete them, but it takes just so long navigate to them and then disable them. When you then want to disable the next file, you start from the beginning and have to navigate again back to the old files which are way back in your portfolio.

Title: Re: Why is DT being stupid?
Post by: Achilles on April 07, 2009, 04:07
It's not making life difficult. The process is simple and was this way from a long time ago.

This was about us not having a batch option and us being stupid because of that.
We don't plan to do a batch disable tool anytime soon and I already mentioned why.

Others may do it, it's up to them. I wouldn't call it stupid that we don't have a batch disable tool, that's all. We respond as helpful as we can and give all necesary details. It's true, a departure is sad, no matter the reasons. We realize there is more involved into that experience, but in the same time, we can't allocate admin time to this operation, considering the member is leaving. The option is there, just use it if you want.
Title: Re: Why is DT being stupid?
Post by: rene on April 07, 2009, 05:03
It's not making life difficult. The process is simple and was this way from a long time ago.
Like removing file exclusivity. Easy to check in impossible to check out.
Title: Re: Why is DT being stupid?
Post by: alias on April 07, 2009, 06:09
It's not making life difficult. The process is simple and was this way from a long time ago.

This was about us not having a batch option and us being stupid because of that.
We don't plan to do a batch disable tool anytime soon and I already mentioned why.

Others may do it, it's up to them. I wouldn't call it stupid that we don't have a batch disable tool, that's all. We respond as helpful as we can and give all necesary details. It's true, a departure is sad, no matter the reasons. We realize there is more involved into that experience, but in the same time, we can't allocate admin time to this operation, considering the member is leaving. The option is there, just use it if you want.


This is not just about a policy or a set of policies. It is also about your attitude.

So there are 3 reasons why people should be cautious of involvement with Dreamstime. And this applies more to people with established portfolios who are perhaps coming over to microstock. People with small or new portfolios would be less affected.

The other 2 reasons would be the 6 month lock in and the complicated and difficult business of deactivating files 1 at a time. This means that Dreamstime is not a place to try, to see how it fits.
Title: Re: Why is DT being stupid?
Post by: null on April 07, 2009, 06:28
So there are 3 reasons why people should be cautious of involvement with Dreamstime.

Those reasons are true in varying degrees for all sites. A lock-in is reasonable to leverage against reviewer fees and storage/db overhead, especially when the image didn't have enough time to sell to make up for it. It would even be acceptable to charge for a parking fee in case of withdrawing an image prematurely. There might be an odd site with a bulk removal tool, but I'm aware of none.

Joining an agent is a long time commitment from both sides. The agent invests in you as you invest in the agent. If you join an agent with the intention to leave, that's what I would call "bad attitude".

Of course you can be pissed off for a while by search algorithm changes and shallow reviews, but nothing in microstock is permanent, so the next year, it might all change and you might regret to have left. Even if you hate the guts of a site, you can stop uploading and just cash in once in a while. Deleting a port is a lose-lose situation with one exception, and that is when you want to go exclusive somewhere.
Title: Re: Why is DT being stupid?
Post by: runamock on April 07, 2009, 06:33
To my mind there is much more that is good than is bad about Dreamstime, and at least those with an ‘established portfolio’ can get it online.
Title: Re: Why is DT being stupid?
Post by: ichiro17 on April 07, 2009, 07:57
It's not making life difficult. The process is simple and was this way from a long time ago.

This was about us not having a batch option and us being stupid because of that.
We don't plan to do a batch disable tool anytime soon and I already mentioned why.

Others may do it, it's up to them. I wouldn't call it stupid that we don't have a batch disable tool, that's all. We respond as helpful as we can and give all necesary details. It's true, a departure is sad, no matter the reasons. We realize there is more involved into that experience, but in the same time, we can't allocate admin time to this operation, considering the member is leaving. The option is there, just use it if you want.


Just because the process of building gas cars are simple and easy and its been the same for 100 years doesn't mean that we should still use gas cars or not improve them.

With that attitude, DT is on pace to become GM. 

Oh well...
Title: Re: Why is DT being stupid?
Post by: Sean Locke Photography on April 07, 2009, 08:50
It's not making life difficult. The process is simple and was this way from a long time ago.


It sure sounds difficult.  Deleting thousands of images one by one.  You don't think that sounds difficult?

Simple for one image does not equal simple for a larger amount.
Title: Re: Why is DT being stupid?
Post by: batman on April 07, 2009, 09:55
It's not making life difficult. The process is simple and was this way from a long time ago.


It sure sounds difficult.  Deleting thousands of images one by one.  You don't think that sounds difficult?

Simple for one image does not equal simple for a larger amount.

FUNNY YOU SHOULD BE IN HERE, mr sjl. I THOUGHT YOU WERE EXCLUSIVE WITH ISTOCK  8)
Title: Re: Why is DT being stupid?
Post by: alias on April 07, 2009, 10:21
FUNNY YOU SHOULD BE IN HERE, mr sjl. I THOUGHT YOU WERE EXCLUSIVE WITH ISTOCK  8)

I cannot speak for Locke. But how the different agencies are to be with and what they are like to deal with, affects all of us in an ever changing industry. Whether we are with them currently or not. That sharing of information is one of the good things about this forum.
Title: Re: Why is DT being stupid?
Post by: null on April 07, 2009, 10:28
FUNNY YOU SHOULD BE IN HERE, mr sjl. I THOUGHT YOU WERE EXCLUSIVE WITH ISTOCK  8)

I don't care who is xclusive where. Sjlocke is a fantastic and successful photographer not hiding behind aliases and I always value his opinion.
Title: Re: Why is DT being stupid?
Post by: batman on April 07, 2009, 10:52
FUNNY YOU SHOULD BE IN HERE, mr sjl. I THOUGHT YOU WERE EXCLUSIVE WITH ISTOCK  8)

I don't care who is xclusive where. Sjlocke is a fantastic and successful photographer not hiding behind aliases and I always value his opinion.

some of us don't need aliases, like you and sjl, because everyone knows where your goad is ;D
Title: Re: Why is DT being stupid?
Post by: alias on April 07, 2009, 10:57
hiding behind aliases

oooo you got me there
Title: Re: Why is DT being stupid?
Post by: null on April 07, 2009, 11:01
some of us don't need aliases, like you and sjl, because everyone knows where your goad is ;D

Had to look up "goad" in the dictionary but still don't grasp the point. Internet trolls are everywhere and I have no time to feed them. So, byebye, take care, god bless, be happy, fare well, plonk.  ;D
Title: Re: Why is DT being stupid?
Post by: ichiro17 on April 07, 2009, 11:02
Hopefully Leaf will close this now.  Its not going to get anywhere, DT isn't going to change their policy but at least they know that their policies aren't very good in some of the photographer's opinions.
Title: Re: Why is DT being stupid?
Post by: fullvalue on April 07, 2009, 11:46
I'm confused.  Does Istock have a disable all button?  I went and looked for it the other day.  Personally, I like both IS and DT but if having a "disable all option" is a critical issue perhaps you should rethink exclusivity.  Obviously, on this issue, IS is just as "stupid".
Title: Re: Why is DT being stupid?
Post by: sharply_done on April 07, 2009, 11:49
I like to think that if you had taken the time to build a good relationship with DT, then (regrettably) explained why you needed to delete your portfolio and politely asked how this might be done, you might not be in your current predicament. The same thought holds true for all agencies.
Title: Re: Why is DT being stupid?
Post by: null on April 07, 2009, 12:01
I'm confused.  Does Istock have a disable all button?

Yes of course, although it's not a button. It's a text link at the bottom, "administration". Click on there and you can disable the picture, after entering a reason. I do it regularly when I get notified there is an image going into the dollar bin. I don't want my images there. It's easy.
Title: Re: Why is DT being stupid?
Post by: batman on April 07, 2009, 12:13
hiding behind aliases

oooo you got me there

 ;D
some of us don't need aliases, like you and sjl, because everyone knows where your goad is ;D

Had to look up "goad" in the dictionary but still don't grasp the point. Internet trolls are everywhere and I have no time to feed them. So, byebye, take care, god bless, be happy, fare well, plonk.  ;D

fly ! bye! I am so distraught, I was expecting you to tell me to take a flying leap  instead you wish me fare thee well . how sweet ;D
Title: Re: Why is DT being stupid?
Post by: fullvalue on April 07, 2009, 12:40
I'm confused.  Does Istock have a disable all button?

Yes of course, although it's not a button. It's a text link at the bottom, "administration". Click on there and you can disable the picture, after entering a reason. I do it regularly when I get notified there is an image going into the dollar bin. I don't want my images there. It's easy.

I'm aware of the ability to disable individual files.  I've used it myself on occasion.  What I looked for, and what the OP is complaining about, is a disable all option.  To the best of my knowledge, Istock doesn't have one.  Would the admins disable an entire account on request?  Maybe, but there's no specific policy regarding it.
Title: Re: Why is DT being stupid?
Post by: alias on April 07, 2009, 13:40
I like to think that if you had taken the time to build a good relationship with DT, then (regrettably) explained why you needed to delete your portfolio and politely asked how this might be done, you might not be in your current predicament. The same thought holds true for all agencies.

I am 99.99999% certain that they will say 'no' and refer you to the terms and conditions. However sweet you are.

See I left some room for doubt.
Title: Re: Why is DT being stupid?
Post by: Pixart on April 07, 2009, 13:54
DT is ultimitely a business that services CUSTOMERS, and we are suppliers.  Dreamstime must keep the customers satisfied and I agree with that.  I think they could offer even BETTER service to the customers by changing things a little, while still shortening the notice period to 2 or 3 months.  When notice is given that a portfolio is being pulled, an automated message could go out to all the lightbox holders who this would affect.  Might even give them a bump in sales.  6 months seems to be an awful long time for lightboxes though, maybe it has something to do with the agency investing in their own ad campaigns as well.  Other than that, I could see the 6 months rule in the beginning, when DT was a young struggling agency with contributors coming and going.  They have made so much progress though since I've been with them, I can't see why anyone would leave other than IS exclusivity.  
Title: Re: Why is DT being stupid?
Post by: RT on April 07, 2009, 14:22


.
Title: Re: Why is DT being stupid?
Post by: fullvalue on April 07, 2009, 14:30
And if I were Istock, I'm not sure I'd want someone who breaks a contract as a contributor.  Honor the agreement, suffer through disabling the files individually, and move on.  Burning bridges is never a good policy.
Title: Re: Why is DT being stupid?
Post by: batman on April 07, 2009, 14:34
To the OP,

There is another option albeit a bit more drastic, whether Dreamstime have a 6, 12, 18 or 24 month policy in their terms makes no difference whatsoever, you as a contributor are the copyright owner of those images, if you choose to no longer allow Dreamstime to distribute those images then send them a notice giving them 28 days to remove your images from their site, if they fail to do so take out legal action by issuing an injunction, by continuing to distribute copyright protected material without the consent or authorisation of the copyright owner could make them liable of 'primary and secondary infringement' under copyright law.

Of course this will most probably prohibit you from ever being allowed to join again should you change your mind.




I say ole chap, there is also the agreement you made when you joined Dreamstime as a contributor.
No court in the world, if ever there is a worldwide jurisdiction, will disregard the fact you clicked AGREED to the rules and regulations.
If what you say is true, anyone could default on a car payment or a mortgage and then say, give me back my house, this is my car.  A contract was made between you and Dreamstime. You went into it knowingly. Dreamstime did not drag you into signing that agreement when you first joined to be a Contributor.
Title: Re: Why is DT being stupid?
Post by: Sean Locke Photography on April 07, 2009, 15:03
I'm confused.  Does Istock have a disable all button?  I went and looked for it the other day.  Personally, I like both IS and DT but if having a "disable all option" is a critical issue perhaps you should rethink exclusivity.  Obviously, on this issue, IS is just as "stupid".

I'm pretty sure that if you asked iStock, they would have no problem manually closing you out.

DT has always appeared to be not so nice in this regard.
Title: Re: Why is DT being stupid?
Post by: Xalanx on April 07, 2009, 15:08
I'm confused.  Does Istock have a disable all button?  I went and looked for it the other day.  Personally, I like both IS and DT but if having a "disable all option" is a critical issue perhaps you should rethink exclusivity.  Obviously, on this issue, IS is just as "stupid".

I'm pretty sure that if you asked iStock, they would have no problem manually closing you out.

DT has always appeared to be not so nice in this regard.

This is true, I closed my account once with iStock, by contacting support. They did it in a timely fashion with no problems.
Title: Re: Why is DT being stupid?
Post by: Freedom on April 07, 2009, 15:13
I can understand that DT will act to protect its own interest, and the position Serban is taking (which I disagree). However I don't understand why some contributors are acting against the fellow photogs who seek fair treatment from an agency. Just because you are making a few bucks a month there, you can take anything that is not fair?

Although Sean is exclusive to IS, he can certainly speak out to say what he think is fair or not.

The courts in many jurisdictions have never failed to surprise us how they interprete seemingly iron-cast contracts on the principle of fairness. However, most micro photogs don't have the financial resources to test the water.

Title: Re: Why is DT being stupid?
Post by: null on April 07, 2009, 15:18
This is true, I closed my account once with iStock, by contacting support. They did it in a timely fashion with no problems.

Don't you regret it now? I don't fly at the moment at iStock, but I did in 2006. Perhaps when I get a better cam and I pay more attention to the iStock culture, I will fly again in 2010. Ruining something is very fast and easy, (re)building takes a long time. I don't think ichiro17 will ever be accepted at DT again, if he changed his mind in a year from now. In Asia, making lose face is a mortal sin, but I think it's universal.
Title: Re: Why is DT being stupid?
Post by: Xalanx on April 07, 2009, 15:33
This is true, I closed my account once with iStock, by contacting support. They did it in a timely fashion with no problems.

Don't you regret it now? I don't fly at the moment at iStock, but I did in 2006. Perhaps when I get a better cam and I pay more attention to the iStock culture, I will fly again in 2010. Ruining something is very fast and easy, (re)building takes a long time. I don't think ichiro17 will ever be accepted at DT again, if he changed his mind in a year from now. In Asia, making lose face is a mortal sin, but I think it's universal.

Well I started very late with microstock, generally speaking. IS was already making my task difficult to built a port, with their upload limits. I am not the most patient person on the planet, so...
And when I quit first time I had something like 30 photos or so.

I'm back now, with 65 images at this point, reviews are good (14 out of 15 accepted last batch) but I fear that I won't have the patience to reach 1000 photos there. We'll see.
Title: Re: Why is DT being stupid?
Post by: RT on April 07, 2009, 16:17
I say ole chap, there is also the agreement you made when you joined Dreamstime as a contributor.
No court in the world, if ever there is a worldwide jurisdiction, will disregard the fact you clicked AGREED to the rules and regulations.
If what you say is true, anyone could default on a car payment or a mortgage and then say, give me back my house, this is my car.  A contract was made between you and Dreamstime. You went into it knowingly. Dreamstime did not drag you into signing that agreement when you first joined to be a Contributor.

Read the OP's first post, he has complied with the agreement he initially entered into, he's complaining that Dreamstime will not disbale the files for him and that he has to go through them manually. He does not, he just has to follow what I've advised above. Dreamstime have the ability to disable an account at a click of a button, they even make a point of telling you that in their terms and conditions.
I also suggest that you read copyright law, it has no similarity to buying a product like a car or a house and to make that comparison is ridiculous.
Title: Re: Why is DT being stupid?
Post by: sharply_done on April 07, 2009, 16:58
... I also suggest that you read copyright law, it has no similarity to buying a product like a car or a house and to make that comparison is ridiculous.

Copyright law can also vary tremendously by country, too. In Canada, for example, it's the owner of the film/CF card who owns the copyright, while in the USA it's the person who clicked the shutter.

There is another option albeit a bit more drastic, whether Dreamstime have a 6, 12, 18 or 24 month policy in their terms makes no difference whatsoever, you as a contributor are the copyright owner of those images, if you choose to no longer allow Dreamstime to distribute those images then send them a notice giving them 28 days to remove your images from their site ...

This also varies by country. I know of one photographer who signed an agreement with an agency such that the agency has the right to license his imagery for 20 years ! He's consulted with lawyers about getting out of the contract, but has been told it's a no-go.
Title: Re: Why is DT being stupid?
Post by: Pixart on April 07, 2009, 17:23
I wonder if these contracts would prove so iron clad when the agency (I'm not thinking DT here, I'm thinking specifically FT and StockXpert with some things they've slipped under the radar) goes and changes the contract without notice.  Every time my credit card changes a paragraph in their terms I get a small user manual in the mail with three months notice.
Title: Re: Why is DT being stupid?
Post by: null on April 07, 2009, 17:27
Dreamstime have the ability to disable an account at a click of a button, they even make a point of telling you that in their terms and conditions.

Where is that mentioned? I just read the T&C and I didn't find the mentioning of a delete-all button. About deactivating, they mention: "The Photographer is entitled to disable file(s) from his portfolio by using the appropriate section of Dreamstime.com (Management area/Online files)". Looking at that section, you'll notice that you have to deactivate your images one by one. That's what they are committed to, nothing more, imho.
Title: Re: Why is DT being stupid?
Post by: sharply_done on April 07, 2009, 17:34
He said "disable", not "delete".
Surely you know of at least one person whose account has been temporarily disabled as a discipline measure.
Title: Re: Why is DT being stupid?
Post by: RT on April 07, 2009, 18:14
... I also suggest that you read copyright law, it has no similarity to buying a product like a car or a house and to make that comparison is ridiculous.

Copyright law can also vary tremendously by country, too. In Canada, for example, it's the owner of the film/CF card who owns the copyright, while in the USA it's the person who clicked the shutter.

There is another option albeit a bit more drastic, whether Dreamstime have a 6, 12, 18 or 24 month policy in their terms makes no difference whatsoever, you as a contributor are the copyright owner of those images, if you choose to no longer allow Dreamstime to distribute those images then send them a notice giving them 28 days to remove your images from their site ...

This also varies by country. I know of one photographer who signed an agreement with an agency such that the agency has the right to license his imagery for 20 years ! He's consulted with lawyers about getting out of the contract, but has been told it's a no-go.

Hi Sharply,

We could discuss copyright law all day, but my reference is to the OP who is the copyright holder (or at least he should be otherwise he couldn't of uploaded them in the first place) and his individual complaint about Dreamstime, as far as I'm aware he's complied with the terms he entered into with them and it's Dreamstime own policy which is in discussion here, which as I've pointed out is not something they can legally do, if deleting images causes them admin problems that is THEIR problem it does not mean they can circumnavigate the law, he is the owner of those images, he's completed the period required under the terms he entered into and now he wants them off the site, he is 100% legally entitled to make Dreamstime remove them. Of course as I pointed out later (and you noticed) Dreamstime can disable an account immediately, and of course if they can do that we all know they can delete those images as well, it is just them being pathetic and awkward that's the reason they expect people to do it one by one.

Re your other comment, I'm pretty sure you're wrong about in the USA the person that presses the shutter being the copyright holder, can't comment on Canada we never dealt with any Canadian law cases. As for your friend, that's nothing to do with the country he's in it sounds like it's more to do with the contract he signed, what do you think would happen say if another photographer claimed copyright to those images and your friend suddenly realised they weren't his in the first place.
Title: Re: Why is DT being stupid?
Post by: daniel_mouritsen on April 07, 2009, 18:31
The 6 months are fair play, you're agreeing to it when signing up. The "you have to delete the pictures one by one" part is a bit...  "somebody needs to grow up"-ish :D

just my two pennies :)
Title: Re: Why is DT being stupid?
Post by: disorderly on April 07, 2009, 18:39
Re your other comment, I'm pretty sure you're wrong about in the USA the person that presses the shutter being the copyright holder,


Quoting from Apogee Photo Magazine (http://www.apogeephoto.com/mag1-6/mag1-6mf.shtml):

"Under the provisions of the revised copyright law, a photographer owns all rights to his pictures at the moment of creation. That means he and he alone owns the right to sell, use, distribute, copy, publish, alter or destroy his work of art. If you are a photographer, this ownership begins the moment you click the shutter."

The article then goes on to discuss the Work For Hire exception.
Title: Re: Why is DT being stupid?
Post by: null on April 07, 2009, 19:05
He said "disable", not "delete".
Correction: disable-all button. The images get erased 3 months later, but as soon as they are disabled, they are not for sale any more.
Surely you know of at least one person whose account has been temporarily disabled as a discipline measure.
To be honest, I don't. But that was not the issue. The issue was that RT stated that DT was committed to provide a disable-all button by the T&C and that's simply not true.
Title: Re: Why is DT being stupid?
Post by: ichiro17 on April 07, 2009, 20:28
... I also suggest that you read copyright law, it has no similarity to buying a product like a car or a house and to make that comparison is ridiculous.

Copyright law can also vary tremendously by country, too. In Canada, for example, it's the owner of the film/CF card who owns the copyright, while in the USA it's the person who clicked the shutter.

There is another option albeit a bit more drastic, whether Dreamstime have a 6, 12, 18 or 24 month policy in their terms makes no difference whatsoever, you as a contributor are the copyright owner of those images, if you choose to no longer allow Dreamstime to distribute those images then send them a notice giving them 28 days to remove your images from their site ...

Actually in Canada its the person who commissions the work (if its being paid work for a person, corporation, etc.) that owns the copyright to those images even though you may own the film/CF card

This also varies by country. I know of one photographer who signed an agreement with an agency such that the agency has the right to license his imagery for 20 years ! He's consulted with lawyers about getting out of the contract, but has been told it's a no-go.
Title: Re: Why is DT being stupid?
Post by: sharply_done on April 08, 2009, 00:06
To be honest, I don't. But that was not the issue. The issue was that RT stated that DT was committed to provide a disable-all button by the T&C and that's simply not true.

I think he was saying that they could disable (=suspend or terminate) an account with click of a button. Though they don't mention the possibility of this in their T&C, the fact is they have threatened people with doing it and have done it to others. The point here is that they indeed have a button to remove all images from public view, but are only willing to press it when it is to their advantage to do so. I can't really fault them for that, either.
Title: Re: Why is DT being stupid?
Post by: RT on April 08, 2009, 02:18
The issue was that RT stated that DT was committed to provide a disable-all button by the T&C and that's simply not true.

Flemish,

You're twisting what I've said, Sharply understood it clear enough. I haven't said anything about Dreamstime being committed to provide a disable button, if they were this thread wouldn't exist.

I'll try and explain, Dreamstime can disable an account and remove all images if they so wish, of course they can any site could do that, and they could do it immediately hence my phrase at the press of a button. Now I appreciate that might of confused you and it might take a press of two or maybe three buttons, but it still stands that they could do it, you've mentioned before that you know a bit about website design so I'm sure you'll be well aware how easy it would be to delete an account in a matter of seconds.

But just to make it ultra clear here's the extract from the Dreamstime T&C:

Dreamstime may restrict or remove your access to this site at any time, or restrict or remove the use of any Image for any reason

They can do it, everybody knows they can do it, but they make out that people have to remove images one by one for no other reason than being awkward.

Title: Re: Why is DT being stupid?
Post by: RT on April 08, 2009, 02:34
Re your other comment, I'm pretty sure you're wrong about in the USA the person that presses the shutter being the copyright holder,


Quoting from Apogee Photo Magazine ([url]http://www.apogeephoto.com/mag1-6/mag1-6mf.shtml[/url]):

"Under the provisions of the revised copyright law, a photographer owns all rights to his pictures at the moment of creation. That means he and he alone owns the right to sell, use, distribute, copy, publish, alter or destroy his work of art. If you are a photographer, this ownership begins the moment you click the shutter."

The article then goes on to discuss the Work For Hire exception.


The part I've highlighted is what I think confuses people, to physically press the shutter button does not make you the photographer and automatic copyright holder, if it did there'd be a lot of very rich photography assistants rushing to see a lawyer  :D

Have a look at this link:
http://www.bbc.co.uk/photography/genius/gallery/crewdson.shtml

The guy in question even went on to explain in the programme how he never touches the camera, isn't interested in cameras and wouldn't know how to set it up if asked to, after the shoot they showed him sitting with a woman who does all the editing in photoshop for him, so he actually has absolutely nothing whatsoever to do with the actual physical making of the photo, he is however still the legal copyright holder because he 'made' the photo.

Title: Re: Why is DT being stupid?
Post by: Caz on April 08, 2009, 05:45
The 6 months are fair play, you're agreeing to it when signing up.

When I joined DT there was no 6 month lock in period. That was introduced long after I joined. But when it was introduced it was only applied to new images, so if I didn't upload anything new I was free to leave without notice.
When I went exclusive with iStock I had to delete my portfio, image by image from DT, Shutterstock, Fotolia, BigStock and Stockexpert. None could offer a back office service to delete my portfolio for me, and nor did I expect them to. When I decided to go exclusive,  I factored in 20 hours of time to delete my images. They give you the tools to delete your images, just because you'd like the tools to be easier/faster doesn't mean they're being unreasonable. 
Title: Re: Why is DT being stupid?
Post by: Sean Locke Photography on April 08, 2009, 06:05
The 6 months are fair play, you're agreeing to it when signing up.

When I joined DT there was no 6 month lock in period. That was introduced long after I joined. But when it was introduced it was only applied to new images, so if I didn't upload anything new I was free to leave without notice.
When I went exclusive with iStock I had to delete my portfio, image by image from DT, Shutterstock, Fotolia, BigStock and Stockexpert. None could offer a back office service to delete my portfolio for me, and nor did I expect them to. When I decided to go exclusive,  I factored in 20 hours of time to delete my images. They give you the tools to delete your images, just because you'd like the tools to be easier/faster doesn't mean they're being unreasonable. 

Sure they are.

Dear DT, please disable my contributor account and images as I do not wish to sell there anymore.  Thanks!  Love A. Con. Tributor

How hard is it not to be a jerk about doing that?
Title: Re: Why is DT being stupid?
Post by: Caz on April 08, 2009, 06:17
Sure they are.

Dear DT, please disable my contributor account and images as I do not wish to sell there anymore.  Thanks!  Love A. Con. Tributor

How hard is it not to be a jerk about doing that?

I'm certainly no apologist for DT, but as I don't know their back end system I wouldn't presume it to be a quick thing for them to do. If it is a simple matter of one click and you're history then indeed it would be a friendly extra thing for them to do. But if it took more than 5 minutes of staff time per contributor request, I personally wouldn't expect them to allocate resources to it.
Title: Re: Why is DT being stupid?
Post by: patballard on April 08, 2009, 08:35
One aspect of this discussion that I hadn't considered is that we're a volatile group. How many of us get mad at different stock agencies and want to withdraw our images. Later, we get the problem worked out or learn to live with it. By making it hard for us to quit an agency, they save themselves tons of time and work in dealing with contributors who who would keep joining and quitting. Just a thought.
Title: Re: Why is DT being stupid?
Post by: Fred on April 08, 2009, 08:44
Sure they are.

Dear DT, please disable my contributor account and images as I do not wish to sell there anymore.  Thanks!  Love A. Con. Tributor

How hard is it not to be a jerk about doing that?

I'm certainly no apologist for DT, but as I don't know their back end system I wouldn't presume it to be a quick thing for them to do. If it is a simple matter of one click and you're history then indeed it would be a friendly extra thing for them to do. But if it took more than 5 minutes of staff time per contributor request, I personally wouldn't expect them to allocate resources to it.

A site would be foolish not to be able to disable an account very quickly.  Legal issues - especially copyright abuse and liability - could easily arise that would require it.  fred
Title: Re: Why is DT being stupid?
Post by: disorderly on April 08, 2009, 08:59
The guy in question even went on to explain in the programme how he never touches the camera, isn't interested in cameras and wouldn't know how to set it up if asked to, after the shoot they showed him sitting with a woman who does all the editing in photoshop for him, so he actually has absolutely nothing whatsoever to do with the actual physical making of the photo, he is however still the legal copyright holder because he 'made' the photo.

If he is indeed the copyright holder, it is only because he has Work For Hire contracts with his staff that make him so.  Absent such a contract, the person who presses the shutter is the copyright holder according to US law.
Title: Re: Why is DT being stupid?
Post by: Caz on April 08, 2009, 10:11

A site would be foolish not to be able to disable an account very quickly.  Legal issues - especially copyright abuse and liability - could easily arise that would require it.  fred

Indeed, but as we've seen on several occasions, the success of some microstock sites appears to have outpaced their infrastructure. I wouldn't fall off my chair in amazement if procedures we assume to be automated and/or easy to do on all the sites just aren't.
Title: Re: Why is DT being stupid?
Post by: RT on April 08, 2009, 14:04
The guy in question even went on to explain in the programme how he never touches the camera, isn't interested in cameras and wouldn't know how to set it up if asked to, after the shoot they showed him sitting with a woman who does all the editing in photoshop for him, so he actually has absolutely nothing whatsoever to do with the actual physical making of the photo, he is however still the legal copyright holder because he 'made' the photo.

If he is indeed the copyright holder, it is only because he has Work For Hire contracts with his staff that make him so.  Absent such a contract, the person who presses the shutter is the copyright holder according to US law.

You're nearly there but not quite.
Title: Re: Why is DT being stupid?
Post by: batman on April 08, 2009, 20:28
I think we're deviating from Ichiro's original topic here. Not sure if he enjoys having it hijacked  ;)

Anyway, I checked and found out that Dreams is not the only site that makes it difficult to delete your images. BigStock, Crestock, Moodboard,are also 3 I've found out that not only you cannot disable or delete it yourself, you have to write them.
Of the Big 6+3 ,seems like Fotolia and IS are the only two I know that actually allow you to delete by yourself.  Alamy requires an email to support.
Correct me if I am wrong.
Title: Re: Why is DT being stupid?
Post by: RacePhoto on April 09, 2009, 10:55
I think we're deviating from Ichiro's original topic here. Not sure if he enjoys having it hijacked  ;)

Anyway, I checked and found out that Dreams is not the only site that makes it difficult to delete your images. BigStock, Crestock, Moodboard,are also 3 I've found out that not only you cannot disable or delete it yourself, you have to write them.
Of the Big 6+3 ,seems like Fotolia and IS are the only two I know that actually allow you to delete by yourself.  Alamy requires an email to support.
Correct me if I am wrong.

You are wrong.  ;)

Alamy you can remove your photos from the active status / disable them, and it takes six months for them to go away. You don't need to write support. Basically you "mark for deletion" then wait six months.

"You can revisit your images to add or delete images, change keywords and pseudonyms at any time."
Title: Re: Why is DT being stupid?
Post by: batman on April 09, 2009, 13:59
Alamy you can remove your photos from the active status / disable them, and it takes six months for them to go away. You don't need to write support. Basically you "mark for deletion" then wait six months.

"You can revisit your images to add or delete images, change keywords and pseudonyms at any time."


thx for the tips Race. (sorry Ich!)
Title: Re: Why is DT being stupid?
Post by: RacePhoto on April 09, 2009, 20:04
Alamy you can remove your photos from the active status / disable them, and it takes six months for them to go away. You don't need to write support. Basically you "mark for deletion" then wait six months.

"You can revisit your images to add or delete images, change keywords and pseudonyms at any time."


thx for the tips Race. (sorry Ich!)

Good thing I've never made a mistake on a stock site or how they handle things. Well not in the last 24 hours... maybe.  ;D
Title: Re: Why is DT being stupid?
Post by: Freedom on April 10, 2009, 10:33
In Alamy, although you have to wait for 6 months for the image to disappear from the database, you can delete all the keywords and descriptions so the image will not be searchable anymore.

Bigstock will delete for you, if you email its support.
Title: Re: Why is DT being stupid?
Post by: stockastic on April 10, 2009, 12:54
This is an important issue and I hope it continues to be a hot topic on this forum. At some point better ways to sell our images are going to come along and we'll be wanting to pull our portfolios from these microstocks and escape . of 25 cent subscription sales.  I want to be sure I can do that when the time comes.  Everyone who's found it difficult to delete or disable their photos on a stock site, please post. I'm taking names.
Title: Re: Why is DT being stupid?
Post by: batman on April 12, 2009, 18:09
In Alamy, although you have to wait for 6 months for the image to disappear from the database, you can delete all the keywords and descriptions so the image will not be searchable anymore.

Bigstock will delete for you, if you email its support.

freedom, i don't think you can change the keywords, it's greyed out !
Title: Re: Why is DT being stupid?
Post by: null on April 12, 2009, 19:56
Everyone who's found it difficult to delete or disable their photos on a stock site, please post. I'm taking names.

Crestock, Albumo.
Title: Re: Why is DT being stupid?
Post by: pieman on April 13, 2009, 12:54
For the record, if you close your account with iStock your images are not held in the collection for any period of time after you close your account. If you dump exclusivity your images stay in the collection as they always have.

Note: when you dump exclusivity your status isn't changed to non-exclusive until 30 days after you initiate the process. And for clarity, you can't apply for exclusivity for 90 days after the process is complete.

Yay, I'm in a dreamstime thread kicking the knowledge in a thread that has drifted of the original topic.
Title: Re: Why is DT being stupid?
Post by: batman on April 13, 2009, 13:38
For the record, if you close your account with iStock your images are not held in the collection for any period of time after you close your account. If you dump exclusivity your images stay in the collection as they always have.

Note: when you dump exclusivity your status isn't changed to non-exclusive until 30 days after you initiate the process. And for clarity, you can't apply for exclusivity for 90 days after the process is complete.

Yay, I'm in a dreamstime thread kicking the knowledge in a thread that has drifted of the original topic.


interesting.
then what happens after the 90 days? are your once exclusive images sellable with other sites ?
Title: Re: Why is DT being stupid?
Post by: pieman on April 13, 2009, 13:58
Quote

interesting.
then what happens after the 90 days? are your once exclusive images sellable with other sites ?

The 90 days refers to your ability to apply to become exclusive with iStock again. After the 90 days you can apply again. That's all that means. If you are exclusive with iStock all of your images are exclusive. We don't allow for individual image exclusivity.

Title: Re: Why is DT being stupid?
Post by: Freedom on April 13, 2009, 14:04
Batman, you were probably right if you request the deletion from Alamy first. I deleted all the keywords, title and discriptions first and then request the deletion, that was how it should be done. The image will disappear after 6 months, but it would not be searchable within days. Alamy didn't raise any objection over that.

In Alamy, although you have to wait for 6 months for the image to disappear from the database, you can delete all the keywords and descriptions so the image will not be searchable anymore.

Bigstock will delete for you, if you email its support.

freedom, i don't think you can change the keywords, it's greyed out !
Title: Re: Why is DT being stupid?
Post by: CydM on May 19, 2009, 23:42
I apologize if this has already been mentioned, but you can speed up the deactivation process by opening multiple browser windows.  That's how I used to upload to iStock when I was too cheap to buy their upload software.  :P
Title: Re: Why is DT being stupid?
Post by: KB on May 19, 2009, 23:50
That's how I used to upload to iStock when I was too cheap to buy their upload software.  :P
Sounds like you're referring to Deep Meta, which is worth much more than Franky charges for it.

Actually, Franky doesn't charge anything for it; it's free. So you must be even cheaper than I am (and that's really cheap!).  ;D  ;D