It's not news that Jonathan Klein is a miserable [delete lots of bad words & thoughts], but this tweet about the Corbis acquisition is just hateful:

https://twitter.com/JonathanDKlein/status/690559911252471808

"Almost 21 years but got it. Lovely to get the milk, the cream, cheese, yoghurt and the meat without buying the cow."
.....

What a fantasist. Has he looked at his books lately? Getty doesn't  even own Getty anymore.

I'm struggling to see what the downside could be

VCG is Visual China Group  and my experience with  copyright enforcement in china is negative. I am also not very optimistic regarding business transparency

I'm eager to find out what they're going to do with Veer.  Hopefully they will be proactive and improve the sites functionality for customers and contributors.  Hopefully they will add other improvements like a partner program opt out and upload self delete function. 

I've decided to stop uploading until I learn what their plans are.  No sense investing additional time until I have the information needed to decide if my portfolio is staying or leaving.   

Trouble for SS's corporate accounts, now way can they offer the same breadth of images as Getty now.

Can't see how Offset will survive this in the next few years.

It's a myth that the Getty and Corbis collections are stagnating, plenty pro shooters providing lots of contemporary content. The micro libraries are more at risk of stagnation with no editorial control and endless carbon copies of the same themes.

That didn't take long. Everyone got the "Corbis, VCG, Getty Images & You!" email?

Fun

The FAQ link doesn't work, so good start

it works for me
http://www.corbisimages.com/content/corbisfaq/

but they didn't cite Veer contributors clearly.

It's a myth that the Getty and Corbis collections are stagnating, plenty pro shooters providing lots of contemporary content. The micro libraries are more at risk of stagnation with no editorial control and endless carbon copies of the same themes.

I is not about comparing getty macro and the micros, but Offset and Getty or if Offset can offer their customers a valuable, hand picked collection.

The macros always have better quality content because they also select by style. On Getty especially they have many differently themed and very well put together collections that save the customer a lot of time.

However the pro shooters for macro don�t provide the fresh volume and choice you can finde on the micros. That is why the istock exclusive collection like vetta were so successful. Very high quality, very fresh, lots of providers from around the world, much more modern than the regular collection on getty.

It is also the reason Getty works with so many partners, takes content from blendimages, tetra etc...because their own shooters don�t provide enough volume and variety of content.

I don�t know the percentages, but I wouldn�t be surprised if the majority of content you see on getty comes from outside sources, they are more like a marketplace than just an agency.

Nothing wrong with that and if it was run in a different way, i would be applauding them and hoping they become the next ebay or amazon. Actually I did believe they would at one time...but then...anyway...

The successful content on the micros is being produced by the exact same studios that provide the macros, there is no big difference. You just have to look much harder on the mciros because their collections are not filtered.

But Getty also provides their customers with options, where they can have all content from both micro and macro included. So even as an indie I can (rarely) have gettyimages sales.

Offset and Adobe have the same artists like Getty and Corbis. But with more money for development and marketing, I wouldn�t be surprised if they build something really interesting.

But for Getty this deal is very helpful for negotiating fresh money and give themselves maybe another year of survival. Because with those horrible debts, they are still severely restricted in what they can do.

Personally I wouldn�t mind if all three - Adobe, getty, SS all survive as marketplaces and develop their own unique advantages. I think the world is big enough and as an artist I appreciate choice to stay independent.

I aree and i don�t understand why they are not working on crowd based collection building. I would then just subscribe to my favorite collector the way i subscribe to someones feed on pininterest. Saves me a lot of time and some people just love going through all the new stuff.

Actually I am surprised Adobe hasn�t bought pininterest yet. Getty would need a partner to do it for them like with corbis, they wouldn�t have the funds to do it themselves.

Quote from: cobalt on January 25, 2016, 05:58

i don�t understand why they are not working on crowd based collection building.

The era when this might have had investor potential has long since passed.

But the need for it is greater than ever....I mean with 1 billion images all stock agencies will collapse by themselves. The need to crowdsource the editing is the next logical challenge ad whoever comes up with the best concept will be the leading agency in the future.

And yes, obviously pininterest in its current form is not an image marketplace, but it can utilised in an intelligent way if someone tries to think creatively. There are sometimes businesspeople who can think beyond what is already there...people with vision...

The whole point of crowd sourcing is to allow the talent to rise to the top. It is not about everybody doing the same amount of work or spreading everything evenly over 100 million people.

That is how microstock works, everyone can join, everyone can learn how to contribute but only a few people have the necessary skills and talent to become great stock artists. many professional photographers fail, because they don�t have all the necessary skills.

A crowd based curation model will only work if there is also a payment system connected to sales. Because people need to create useful galleries of content that is commercially attractive.

But the crowd has all kinds of people - doctors, engineers,scientists, gardeners, fashion designers,restaurant owners. People who make a living from subjects other than photography and thus have great expertise in their given field.

The typical editor is not an expert on the modern oil drilling industry or the latest trends in local folk dance. There are too many professions, languages and cultures in the world. Even the largest agencies don�t have editors for every subject.

And of course the subscribers to the galleries play an important role. The professional oil drilling engineer will immediatly recognize that a gallery of boring looking images is actually really useful and has authentic content, while the artistic editor will maybe collect drilling plattforms with sunsets...

After all this was one of the reasons microstock was so successful, not just because it is cheaper, but because it has a lot more niche and localized content, shot by real people who work in these industries.

You remove the middle man/woman and let the market interact with itself.

But you need a very and intelligent software infrastructure and also a forum or area where buyers and collectors can interact.

The money made all the difference in stock. We learnt what is actually USEFUL for the customer, as opposed to shooting what we believe is fun.

It will also be the money that makes the difference in curation.

Anyway, it is an exciting challenge and we can just sit back and watch to see what they come up with.

I sent a request to Veer at the end of last year to delete my account and remove all images.  I received a boiler plate message back that my request had been received.  To date, nothing seems to have changed.  My account is still open and all images still up.  Is there something else I should do?

Under article X. of the Contributor Agreement you have the right to terminate the contract with 30 days' notice, so if you wrote at the  year end your portfolio should disappear any time now.

This deal is too shady for me, with the portfolios being shunted out to God knows how at an unknown commission rate or sale price, so I've just told them to drop me. I sent them this message which might be a handy template if others want to follow suit (not that I have taken any legal guidance on the wording):

Dear Sir or Madam,
In accordance with article X. of the Contributor Agreement I hereby notify you that I am terminating the contract between us with effect from 30 days after the date of this e-mail (Jan 25, 2016).  Please ensure that my portfolio is removed from your site and any associated sites on or before the due date.

I would be grateful if the balance of my earning could be sent to my Payoneer address.


The relevant part of the contract says:
X. Term and Termination
A. Contributor may terminate this Agreement at any time by providing Veer with thirty (30) days notice by using the Contact Us page to provide notice to Veer or byfollowing the written notice provision below.
.........

D. Upon termination of this Agreement:
(i) Veer will remove your Content from the Site within a thirty (30) day period, and
will use reasonable efforts to cause Content to be removed from the Sites of any affiliates and partners within sixty (60) days from the removal from the Site, provided, however, that Veer may retain a copy of your Content for archival and record-keeping purposes

There may be other relevant stuff in the agreement, I haven't ploughed through it all, just found the escape clause and wrote to them.

Looks like the chinese will eventually buy getty too.