pancakes

MicrostockGroup Sponsors


Author Topic: Google trends on Istock, ShutterStock, Fotolia, Alamy, Getty  (Read 11209 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

« Reply #25 on: March 31, 2016, 12:35 »
0
on Getty, didn't check iStock for a long time.
Some months ago i sent email to support, and it was not answered, as well as one email for previous issue, year ago
OK, here is the explanation.
All iStock images are available to a subset of Getty buyers through a scheme called Getty Plus.
A side effect of that is that by Googling, the photos 'seem' to be available on Getty, but are unavailable, and there isn't a link to where the file CAN  be bought on iStock.

So, you might ask, why are they Googlable if they're not buyable via Google?
Shouldn't they only be findable inside Getty, and then only to the Chosen Sample of buyers?
Ha: as Cobalt said on another issue, don't expect logic from iS/Getty.

Thanks for the explanation.  An even better question would be, if the images are viewable on Getty, why don't they just SELL them on Getty?  The days when iStock exclusivity meant anything are long gone.  Why not just fully integrate the Getty and Istock content?


ShadySue

« Reply #26 on: March 31, 2016, 12:51 »
0
on Getty, didn't check iStock for a long time.
Some months ago i sent email to support, and it was not answered, as well as one email for previous issue, year ago
OK, here is the explanation.
All iStock images are available to a subset of Getty buyers through a scheme called Getty Plus.
A side effect of that is that by Googling, the photos 'seem' to be available on Getty, but are unavailable, and there isn't a link to where the file CAN  be bought on iStock.

So, you might ask, why are they Googlable if they're not buyable via Google?
Shouldn't they only be findable inside Getty, and then only to the Chosen Sample of buyers?
Ha: as Cobalt said on another issue, don't expect logic from iS/Getty.

Thanks for the explanation.  An even better question would be, if the images are viewable on Getty, why don't they just SELL them on Getty?  The days when iStock exclusivity meant anything are long gone.  Why not just fully integrate the Getty and Istock content?
It so happened I discovered this week a whole lot of pics on a Getty search which I was pretty shocked by. Turns out they were snapshots from Eyeem. Unbelievable, and a real slap on the face, given that for many months they have reneged and postponed their promise to mirror exclusive Editorial files on Getty.
Still, be careful what we wish for, as my Getty sales are often for less $$ than my few remaining credit sales on iStock.

« Reply #27 on: March 31, 2016, 12:52 »
+4
In the boom years people were making $20-25,000 a month on average travel pics, more on lifestyle pics.

Then came micro which devalued the whole industry, and Shutterstock was the King at that. People think Shutterstock is some great agency but they have done more damage than anyone else.

Just imagine you were earning $250,000 a year, living a great life, nice house, nice lifestyle then Micro comes along and you find yourself earning $10,000 a year!


Pity!

I become a Getty contributor a year ago. Ten years late!
2006 was an exciting year for Getty contributors i think.

Someone from the golden years here in the group?

Best regards,

Martin

« Reply #28 on: March 31, 2016, 12:57 »
+1

Just imagine you were earning $250,000 a year, living a great life, nice house, nice lifestyle then Micro comes along and you find yourself earning $10,000

I don't have to imagine.  People that used to earn solid 6 figures in micro are in a similar boat.  And the newbs wonder why some of us complain so much...

« Reply #29 on: March 31, 2016, 16:22 »
+3
In the boom years people were making $20-25,000 a month on average travel pics, more on lifestyle pics.

Then came micro which devalued the whole industry, and Shutterstock was the King at that. People think Shutterstock is some great agency but they have done more damage than anyone else.

Just imagine you were earning $250,000 a year, living a great life, nice house, nice lifestyle then Micro comes along and you find yourself earning $10,000 a year!


Pity!

I become a Getty contributor a year ago. Ten years late!
2006 was an exciting year for Getty contributors i think.

Someone from the golden years here in the group?

Best regards,

Martin

Do you blame Amazon for ruining electronic store business, Toyota for ruining the American auto industry, eBay for ruining the auction market, or maybe cell phones for ruining long distance companies business. Times change, we don't shoot film and mail slides to agencies. I can take a photo of rain in NY and send it to Tokyo before the sidewalk dries.

Not only does averybody own a good digital camera or could, they now own 4K video phone that take 8MP photos with acceptable quality.

Without Shutterstock your whipping boy for the industry, nothing would be different. This is technology, communications and the world market. iStock started this, the rest did a better job of marketing to the masses. You can't have a false value when the production of photos has become accessable to anybody who wants it.

Blame technology and competition, not Shutterstock.

Tror

« Reply #30 on: March 31, 2016, 16:29 »
0
Dreamstime and DP are horrid agencies too....so I would not brag so much about going to fair agencies......


I`m talking about history. Back in those days DT paid 50% flat and had fair prices. No subs yet if I remember correctly. DP hasn`t shown its nasty face yet. They even paid for uploads.

« Reply #31 on: March 31, 2016, 17:59 »
+7
...DP hasn`t shown its nasty face yet. They even paid for uploads.


Are you referring to Deposit Photos or was that a typo? Deposit Photos has an abysmal track record of saying one thing and doing another. The Shotshop mess being a prime example, but the various schemes that offer people preferential search placement if they upload their portfolio (which is inherently a scam as they keep offering it and you can't have a preference for all the contributors you sell that line to) and cutting royalty rates while they raised prices.

That face looks pretty nasty to me

« Reply #32 on: April 01, 2016, 01:45 »
+2
"In the boom years people were making $20-25,000 a month on average travel pics, more on lifestyle pics." That was never going to be sustainable was it? Celebrate the good times now get real

Tror

« Reply #33 on: April 01, 2016, 02:44 »
+1
...DP hasn`t shown its nasty face yet. They even paid for uploads.


Are you referring to Deposit Photos or was that a typo? Deposit Photos has an abysmal track record of saying one thing and doing another. The Shotshop mess being a prime example, but the various schemes that offer people preferential search placement if they upload their portfolio (which is inherently a scam as they keep offering it and you can't have a preference for all the contributors you sell that line to) and cutting royalty rates while they raised prices.

That face looks pretty nasty to me


jeepers creepers! Is it that english is not my native language or do you people just not read properly? I AM TALKING ABOUT HISTORY!!!!! BACK WHEN DREAMSTIME AND DEPOSITPHOTOS OPENED YEARS AGO. NOT TODAY! The shotshop debacle was years later as well as their lies.

If you read the original thread I was telling my "carreer" of switching from one agency to another as a buyer. I switched to DT as a buyer around 2007/2008. That is a year and it happened in the past . One attribute of things that happened in the past is that other things happened afterwards ;D ::) :o Not sure how I can make it more clear loool
« Last Edit: April 01, 2016, 02:50 by Tror »

« Reply #34 on: April 01, 2016, 03:54 »
+2
...DP hasn`t shown its nasty face yet. They even paid for uploads.


Are you referring to Deposit Photos or was that a typo? Deposit Photos has an abysmal track record of saying one thing and doing another. The Shotshop mess being a prime example, but the various schemes that offer people preferential search placement if they upload their portfolio (which is inherently a scam as they keep offering it and you can't have a preference for all the contributors you sell that line to) and cutting royalty rates while they raised prices.

That face looks pretty nasty to me


jeepers creepers! Is it that english is not my native language or do you people just not read properly? I AM TALKING ABOUT HISTORY!!!!! BACK WHEN DREAMSTIME AND DEPOSITPHOTOS OPENED YEARS AGO. NOT TODAY! The shotshop debacle was years later as well as their lies.

If you read the original thread I was telling my "carreer" of switching from one agency to another as a buyer. I switched to DT as a buyer around 2007/2008. That is a year and it happened in the past . One attribute of things that happened in the past is that other things happened afterwards ;D ::) :o Not sure how I can make it more clear loool

It's ok even native English speakers make mistakes. It would have been a lot less effort for you to just correct yourself instead of ranting needlessly, but some people prefer to rant at others than correct themselves. Allow me to correct you. Your sentence should have read like this. DP hadn't shown its nasty face yet.

Tror

« Reply #35 on: April 01, 2016, 05:52 »
+1
...DP hasn`t shown its nasty face yet. They even paid for uploads.


Are you referring to Deposit Photos or was that a typo? Deposit Photos has an abysmal track record of saying one thing and doing another. The Shotshop mess being a prime example, but the various schemes that offer people preferential search placement if they upload their portfolio (which is inherently a scam as they keep offering it and you can't have a preference for all the contributors you sell that line to) and cutting royalty rates while they raised prices.

That face looks pretty nasty to me


jeepers creepers! Is it that english is not my native language or do you people just not read properly? I AM TALKING ABOUT HISTORY!!!!! BACK WHEN DREAMSTIME AND DEPOSITPHOTOS OPENED YEARS AGO. NOT TODAY! The shotshop debacle was years later as well as their lies.

If you read the original thread I was telling my "carreer" of switching from one agency to another as a buyer. I switched to DT as a buyer around 2007/2008. That is a year and it happened in the past . One attribute of things that happened in the past is that other things happened afterwards ;D ::) :o Not sure how I can make it more clear loool

It's ok even native English speakers make mistakes. It would have been a lot less effort for you to just correct yourself instead of ranting needlessly, but some people prefer to rant at others than correct themselves. Allow me to correct you. Your sentence should have read like this. DP hadn't shown its nasty face yet.


Thanks for the correction. Guess I was in ranting mood :-)

« Reply #36 on: April 01, 2016, 06:01 »
0
...DP hasn`t shown its nasty face yet. They even paid for uploads.


Are you referring to Deposit Photos or was that a typo? Deposit Photos has an abysmal track record of saying one thing and doing another. The Shotshop mess being a prime example, but the various schemes that offer people preferential search placement if they upload their portfolio (which is inherently a scam as they keep offering it and you can't have a preference for all the contributors you sell that line to) and cutting royalty rates while they raised prices.

That face looks pretty nasty to me


jeepers creepers! Is it that english is not my native language or do you people just not read properly? I AM TALKING ABOUT HISTORY!!!!! BACK WHEN DREAMSTIME AND DEPOSITPHOTOS OPENED YEARS AGO. NOT TODAY! The shotshop debacle was years later as well as their lies.

If you read the original thread I was telling my "carreer" of switching from one agency to another as a buyer. I switched to DT as a buyer around 2007/2008. That is a year and it happened in the past . One attribute of things that happened in the past is that other things happened afterwards ;D ::) :o Not sure how I can make it more clear loool

It's ok even native English speakers make mistakes. It would have been a lot less effort for you to just correct yourself instead of ranting needlessly, but some people prefer to rant at others than correct themselves. Allow me to correct you. Your sentence should have read like this. DP hadn't shown its nasty face yet.


Thanks for the correction. Guess I was in ranting mood :-)

No worries. I have been in that mood on the odd occasion myself.  ::)


 

Related Topics

  Subject / Started by Replies Last post
5 Replies
4042 Views
Last post December 06, 2008, 09:16
by leaf
1 Replies
2271 Views
Last post April 30, 2010, 17:40
by oboy
0 Replies
1460 Views
Last post October 02, 2012, 03:04
by John W.
72 Replies
11759 Views
Last post December 08, 2013, 00:16
by Uncle Pete
13 Replies
3218 Views
Last post December 12, 2018, 08:34
by Brasilnut

Sponsors

Microstock Poll Results