pancakes

MicrostockGroup Sponsors


Author Topic: Contributor ranking changing  (Read 45936 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

hilary

« Reply #175 on: December 05, 2008, 09:48 »
0
We still need Fotolia to make a proper lengthy statement similar to your own. Also, I believe anything Bobby has said after his account was terminated is besides the point, his relationship with them is over, and if they want to sue him, or he wants to sue them, that's up to them to decide.

What I want to know, is if he had made the exact same statements without using language, is that acceptable? Also, what can we say in a public forum that does not involve the use of language? You, and others, keep saying, oh well, nobody ELSE got fired for speaking out of turn in a forum, the fact that even ONE person got fired worries me, and I think deserves some attention if it is going to set a precedent.

Why can't Fotolia come out and say you are all entitled to say anything you like about Fotolia policies publicly? Why don't they come out and say you are all NOT entitles to speak out about Fotolia policies publicly.. if they are going to be the first to use public content in order to terminate someone's contract, then they should be the first to define how much control they have over content on public forums/blogs/web sites, and the repercussions based on the language used in that content.

If anyone uses language while publicly criticising a change of policy in an open forum they risk termination? Does it have to happen once, twice, three times? Will there be an official warning after the first offence? There are so many questions around this precedent, and they need to be answered.. it's only a matter of time now that this has happened, that the other 'agencies' start looking through the content on web sites such as this as seeing who they feel is damaging them, and then terminating their contract.

Oh and about libel based on the words: "greed driven tyrants" , they would have to prove that they are NOT greed driven tyrants in order to make that libel, and good luck to anybody in the world that can prove that :) In order for libel to be proven it would have to be based on fact, not a derogatory term, such as, they said they would pay me 'x' amount, but they only paid me 'y', that would be a libellous statement as long as they could prove that they did pay amount 'x', therefore the statement was untrue. No-one can ever prove beyond doubt that they are not a greed driven tyrant!!
« Last Edit: December 05, 2008, 09:58 by hilary »


« Reply #176 on: December 05, 2008, 10:05 »
0
I think you missed the point of the post. They stopped working with him after a history of him protesting by publicly refusing to upload images 4 times,  several "earfuls" about his opinions and personal attacks. I do not believe that they read one post and said that's it let's get rid of him. I believe that FT looked at his post on page 3 where he openly states that he will not honor his contract and supply images and they decided that they would honor his decision and terminated his contract.

I don't see this as setting a precedent because his contract was not terminated over a single post. It was terminated after several incidents of him refusing to honor the contract and threatening to do so again.


hilary

« Reply #177 on: December 05, 2008, 10:10 »
0
So publicly refusing to upload is an offence that will result in termination? Or publicly refusing to upload combined with public discussion on bad policies?

Also, they used public content from forums such as this to terminate his contract, and we all need to know if it is safe to express an opinion here, and in other public places, or not, fair enough, he posted things in their forum, but they banned him from their forum, without terminating his contract, therefore the entire decision to terminate his contract was based on what he said publicly, in forums that were absolutely nothing to do with them, regardless of what had happened leading up to that.

WarrenPrice

« Reply #178 on: December 05, 2008, 10:17 »
0
Hi,
I'm new to microstock.  Fred needs to revise his demographic stats, however.  I'm new, but I am far from being a young contributor.  I've been selling pictures since 1980.

Bobby is not the subject of this thread.  He bacame the focal point but the thread is about the latest "unannounced" change at FT.  I have my opinion about Bobby's misfortune just as anyone else should have.  But, I am not unduly influenced by his "star power."  

I am a fan of the organised approach to "resistance."  Divided we Fall.  Certainly FT will not sit idly by while a small group of contributors organize.  You can bet there will be attempts to silence the squeaky wheel.  Bobby is their example.  Signing that petition could be your last squeak but if you don't squeak now ... and as a group, what next?  

I guess it's the nature of the business.  Take what's offered and shut up!

Warren Price

hilary

« Reply #179 on: December 05, 2008, 10:22 »
0
Quote
Signing that petition could be your last squeak but if you don't squeak now ... and as a group, what next? 

Lol!!! Thanks Warren, I love that line, and it's true, all we are is a tiny squeak :) And even at that people think a squeak is too disobedient!

« Reply #180 on: December 05, 2008, 10:23 »
0
I should be obvious that anytime you do or say anything anywhere that might negatively impact the bottom liine of your employer (agent, whatever) you are risking the continuation of your relationship with them.  

fred

« Reply #181 on: December 05, 2008, 10:31 »
0
Refusing to honor your contract 4 times and openly stating that you intended to never honor that contract? Yes that is grounds to stop doing business with someone.

You will need to check to your facts about Bobby's termination. I have not seen anything from FT stating that his contract was terminated solely because of a post made here. There was mention by FT that Bobby had been name calling for some time, and that is evidenced in this forum. Bobby has posted that he was never banned from the FT forums (yahoo group) so I'm not sure where you are getting that info from.  Chad has posted that Bobby was warned about the name calling.

Unless you have seen the written contract termination notice from FT to Bobby you have no real knowledge of why they choose to terminate the contract.

« Reply #182 on: December 05, 2008, 10:31 »
0
No nothing like that. I sent an email last night directly to Oleg telling him that even though I had recently resumed uploading there after evaluating the effect their sub sales where having on my bottom line that I was going to once again cease adding new content because of the current bait and switch tacttics they were subjecting us to. I like a great many other contributors who have been there a long time was on the threshold of evelvatring to Emerald and based on current sales level the new allocation needed to reach that level would push that goal 3 years down the road for me. I told Oleg that I felt this move on their part was purly motivated by greed.

Chad called me this morning and with no discussion informed me that Fotolia had choosen to cease doing business with me as it was obvious that they did not operate their business in a way that I could favorably agree too.

BTW even after all the brewhaha's I have had with Oleg, Chad and Matt I was Never banned from their forums.

well i would have to say i agree with azurelaroux and say that fotolia banning photoshow was hardly on a single post, but rather on a long standing attitude and after direct emails.

It seems as though you are merely trying to stir up trouble hilary, everything in your last post is untrue, it seems you are twist the facts and create a culture of fear. Seeing how you seem to be quite active in the yahoo group discussion in direct conversation with matt and chad, I would expect you to have more of the facts straight.  Photoshow was never banned from the fotolia forum (he said so himself in the quoted thread) additionally, it appears that Photoshow said he was removed from fotolia after his DIRECT email to fotolia, not forum posts.

And yes, I agree Photoshow is not the subject of this thread..., it is the change in ranks at fotolia and our thoughts about it, i am not sure how much longer this thread should be let to run wildly... It seems we are just going in circles, people are claiming untrue statments and we are getting no where in any sort of discussion.

WarrenPrice

« Reply #183 on: December 05, 2008, 10:39 »
0
I should be obvious that anytime you do or say anything anywhere that might negatively impact the bottom liine of your employer (agent, whatever) you are risking the continuation of your relationship with them.  

fred

Good point Fred.  I guess it is up to each of us to determine just what that relationship is?  Individually we are simply bugs and they are the windshield.  It's embarrassing.  How many of your friends know that you sell pictures for thirty cents?  It certainly doesn't make one proud to be a "professional," does it?

I know.  I joined them.  We ALL did.  And it will take ALL of us to make a difference.

Sign the petition. 


« Reply #184 on: December 05, 2008, 11:08 »
0
Hi
I found this part of movie "Any given sunday" connected with all things around FT (and all microstock agencies)
newbielink:http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WO4tIrjBDkk [nonactive]

hilary

« Reply #185 on: December 05, 2008, 11:17 »
0
No nothing like that. I sent an email last night directly to Oleg telling him that even though I had recently resumed uploading there after evaluating the effect their sub sales where having on my bottom line that I was going to once again cease adding new content because of the current bait and switch tacttics they were subjecting us to. I like a great many other contributors who have been there a long time was on the threshold of evelvatring to Emerald and based on current sales level the new allocation needed to reach that level would push that goal 3 years down the road for me. I told Oleg that I felt this move on their part was purly motivated by greed.

Chad called me this morning and with no discussion informed me that Fotolia had choosen to cease doing business with me as it was obvious that they did not operate their business in a way that I could favorably agree too.

BTW even after all the brewhaha's I have had with Oleg, Chad and Matt I was Never banned from their forums.

well i would have to say i agree with azurelaroux and say that fotolia banning photoshow was hardly on a single post, but rather on a long standing attitude and after direct emails.

It seems as though you are merely trying to stir up trouble hilary, everything in your last post is untrue, it seems you are twist the facts and create a culture of fear. Seeing how you seem to be quite active in the yahoo group discussion in direct conversation with matt and chad, I would expect you to have more of the facts straight.  Photoshow was never banned from the fotolia forum (he said so himself in the quoted thread) additionally, it appears that Photoshow said he was removed from fotolia after his DIRECT email to fotolia, not forum posts.

And yes, I agree Photoshow is not the subject of this thread..., it is the change in ranks at fotolia and our thoughts about it, i am not sure how much longer this thread should be let to run wildly... It seems we are just going in circles, people are claiming untrue statments and we are getting no where in any sort of discussion.

We are entitled to email the 'agent' and state that due to a policy change we disagree with, we are not uploading new images as a form  of protest. Do you believe if your colleague in real life went on strike (or in this case refused to work optional Saturdays) for an improvement in wages he should be fired immediately? In any civilised country, we have a RIGHT to protest in order to get better conditions. It is not written into our contracts that we MUST upload images, therefore he was NOT threatening to dishonour his contract at all. I'm not into cultures of fear, and that is exactly why I have donated my web space to the petition, so that having gotten a full explanation from Fotolia, people do not need to be afraid to voice their opinion, to disagree with company policies that effect them, and that they can say what they like amongst their peers. Hopefully Fotolia will come out and assure people that speaking in forums like this, or even refusing to upload as a form of protest will not result in their termination. Then everyone can move on, and tackle the actual policies openly, without fear.

hilary

« Reply #186 on: December 05, 2008, 11:20 »
0
Hi
I found this part of movie "Any given sunday" connected with all things around FT (and all microstock agencies)
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WO4tIrjBDkk


lol!  ;D Love it!

Iriz

    This user is banned.
« Reply #187 on: December 05, 2008, 11:31 »
0
How many of your friends know that you sell pictures for thirty cents?  It certainly doesn't make one proud to be a "professional," does it?

I have no difficulty whatsoever selling pictures of chickens or good looking women for 30c. Multiply that by 100+ and that's when I start to smile. I sometimes can't quite believe the crap that people purchase from me and yes I'm a pro in case you're wondering.

Were I an f.m.c.g. (fast moving consumer goods) producer or organic farmer the margins are almost identical and in some cases more compared to the product I produce. What's more I only have to make it once so maybe you might rethink whether or not MS offers such a raw deal as you are suggesting.

saniphoto

« Reply #188 on: December 05, 2008, 12:00 »
0
well i would have to say i agree with azurelaroux and say that fotolia banning photoshow was hardly on a single post, but rather on a long standing attitude and after direct emails.

It seems as though you are merely trying to stir up trouble hilary, everything in your last post is untrue, it seems you are twist the facts and create a culture of fear. Seeing how you seem to be quite active in the yahoo group discussion in direct conversation with matt and chad, I would expect you to have more of the facts straight.  Photoshow was never banned from the fotolia forum (he said so himself in the quoted thread) additionally, it appears that Photoshow said he was removed from fotolia after his DIRECT email to fotolia, not forum posts.

And yes, I agree Photoshow is not the subject of this thread..., it is the change in ranks at fotolia and our thoughts about it, i am not sure how much longer this thread should be let to run wildly... It seems we are just going in circles, people are claiming untrue statments and we are getting no where in any sort of discussion.

Perfectly pointed Leaf. You couldn't have written a better post!
 

« Reply #189 on: December 05, 2008, 12:00 »
0
Oh, just got home and got caught up on all the FT news.... ah, so sorry, Bobby, to hear what happened.

+1 for the petition.

Agency-contributor relations should evolve symbiotically, and here's an example of an agency that doesn't quite get it....aaah!

« Reply #190 on: December 05, 2008, 13:02 »
0
Quote from: kgtoh
...
Where Bobby says this:
"Yes Chad it is true I called you Greedy *insult removed* and that was / is
the truth. I did not call you fuckers and rapists even though the
truth is you are raping your contributors. And Chad you NEVER GAVE ME...

I thought that english was your native language perhaps I was mistaken.  The quote you site is what I meant and it seems perfectly clear to me.

He says he did not call them "...rapists" and then does exactly that in the rest of the sentence.  - i.e. "the truth is you are raping your contributors..." that is unambiguously calling them rapists.

The degree of offense taken by someone due to being called a "greedy *insult removed*" is not up to you or me or bobby to determine it is up to the person offended as with any other epithet.

And as far as my providing evidence I make no claims that require any more than what is in the threads (but you do have to read them - sometimes carefully.)  You all seem to accept whatever bobby says as gospel but in fact we have only his word as to how offensive he was or what else transpired in the telephone conversations mentioned.

This seems to me to be somewhat analagoous to a business manager/owner stopping into a bar where one of his employees is mouthing off about how his greedy so-and-so boss(es) are cheating him.  How that would be handled is completly up to the manager and has nothing to do with free speech.

fred


Regarding "Rapists":

Let me break down my argument into bite-sized numbered chunks:
in chronological order:
1. Chad / Fotolia claims Bobby called him/Fotolia a) F*kers b) *insult removed* c) Rapists publicly
2. This is an accusation of Libel
3. Based on this alleged Libel, Fotolia terminates its relationship with Bobby
4. Therefore, in my mind, as the termination is based on an alleged act of libel, Fotolia should satisfactorily prove this act of Libel before the action they took
5. As a reaction to Fotolia's accusation, and under provocation, Bobby then called them rapists. This was not a smart thing to do (please refer to my previous post re: children's tactics)
6. This does not, in my mind, remove the need to see evidence of Bobby calling them F*kers and Rapists before the accusation was made (you cannot make an accusation of misdeed, then provoke said misdeed)

All I am asking is for you to show evidence of Bobby's statements from before the accusation.

You say I am taking what Bobby says as gospel. I could accuse you of the same. What I'm looking for is logical evidence, based on what is publicly available.
You could say that this is unnecessary, but I like to think "Innocent until proven guilty".

Regarding offensiveness of "Greedy *insult removed*"

Yes, Fotolia took offense to Bobby, and they reacted in a certain manner. Does this reaction improve their standing in my eyes, or does it reinforce any negative perceptions that I had?

I could, as a terrorist, blow up a car bomb and kill people because a particular author spoke badly about my religion.
I am severely offended. Nobody can argue against that ("no, you are not offended"). It's perfectly in my right to be offended, and many like-minded people will feel similarly offended and that I am fully justified in any actions I do.  There will be others who feel my actions were not fully justified.

Also, extending your boss - employee anology. If an employee mouthed off about me, and I fired him, it's within my rights. (let's just ignore any existing discrimination / employee rights issues for the moment).  The issue here is how do the other employees feel. In this situation, some of the "employees" side with the guy who got fired. Some of the employees are siding with the employer, quite vocally so.

By the way, No, English is not my native language.. so you are correct on that point.

"It also seem perverse that the lower rankings are being riled up against a policy that mostly effects the upper rankings that can't be bothered to do it for themselves."

I am in complete agreement with you on this one. As I mentioned before, I think fulltimers who are in the upper rankings actually have the most to lose in the longterm by not acting.

Oh, I agree the quote does not provide any direct evidence of bobby having called FT management  rapists before they removed his account.  The whole thing is just a matter of his word against theirs - I know of no other direct evidence.  However, the careless (devious?) way in which bobby used the language in his reply to call them rapists, indirectly indicates to me that he may have done so in the past.

The matter of Libel is clearly up to some court somewhere to decide - do not think it would work in the U.S. - not really my concern.

FT certainly needs to be concerned about how this affects their relationship with contributors but I really think that only a small percentage of their contributors are even aware of this case.  My understanding is - I am possibly mistaken - that a very small percentage participate in this or any other forum.  So I would hope they would concentrate their energies on improving the business, especially given current world economic conditions.

FT's reaction to the offense was up to FT and I don't think any of us really know the nature or frequency of the offense or if a warning was given - just their word vice bobby's word.  It would have been much better if this were all in writing that FT could produce - and should have been ( a big strike against FT management if there is no written record.)  But telephone conversations can get heated and perhaps this is the reason for their action.   

I don't think FT is too worried about the reaction of the contributors to bobby's removal - most won't even be aware as I stated above - but they probably do have legal concerns and probably have everything documented.  However, they are unlikely to publish it unless it is beneficial to any legal action that may result.

I must say your english seems as good as mine (not necessarily a compliment I guess) and certainly much better than I would do in any other language.

fred




Fred, you really should not waste your time trying to Speulate. The phone conversations about this between myself and Chad were polite and professional. There was no name calling. I have been a passionet defender of the rights of microstock contributors with all the agencies for years now. Fotolia knows this and felt they needed to try to remove me from the equation and spread a little intimidation in the process. At this they have been partially successful in that they have created intimidation among the lower ranks in the masses. However they have failed at silencing me.

For what it is worth the greatest defense against lible and slander are the truth. I can call some one a greedy *insult removed* and if it is the truth then there is no wrong. They may feel personally affronted by that truth but it does not change the fact.

Now we are talking about a company led by a man who

1. Instituted subscription sales and tried to pay us 22 cents per download when the current market rate was 30 cents (I am not calling them rapists but this could be seen as a figurative rape)

2 . recently made unannounced attempts to take away referral earnings

3. Changed the ranking levels with no discussion and no annuncment just as a significant number of long time contributors where on the threshold of reaching their goals.

4. Refused to give subscription sales the same weight in the ranking scale as a standard sale. Instead forcing us to give away 4 sub sales to equal one sale for the purpose of rank increase even though their is no difference in the license terms  for either sale.


So I don't see that I spoke out of turn or in any sort of devious manner. The facts speak for them selves and this is only the recent past with Fotolia.

Now for Editorial, oh excuse me I mean Iriz.......... yea what ever you are still the same trol you have always been and I see no further need to even communicate with you.

« Reply #191 on: December 05, 2008, 13:22 »
0
Well i think we have pretty much all said what we need to say, so I will let photoshow have the last word and lock this topic.  If someone has something more to say (that is new), or want to discuss the new fotolia rankings or other things, feel free to start a new topic.

If you think I am locking this prematurely feel free to let me know.


 

Related Topics

  Subject / Started by Replies Last post
42 Replies
12377 Views
Last post February 05, 2009, 11:37
by null
3 Replies
2753 Views
Last post June 21, 2010, 16:05
by luissantos84
3 Replies
3669 Views
Last post April 11, 2011, 06:32
by Lizard
5 Replies
3562 Views
Last post November 26, 2011, 01:36
by FD
0 Replies
1529 Views
Last post October 13, 2017, 18:43
by StockStudio

Sponsors

Microstock Poll Results