MicrostockGroup Sponsors


Author Topic: Has anyone seen this? Google is curating their own stock photo library  (Read 10309 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

« on: August 10, 2012, 16:01 »
+1
From the article...

We know how it goes. Youre working on that killer presentation or document and want to add images to go with your workbut lo and behold you cant seem to find the right stock photo, or any picture thats suitable. Oh, for the love of god, why would anyone use these images for anything?

On that note, Google is extending its stock image library for Google Drive which includes its Docs products as well as cloud storage and the search giant wants you to help pick the contents.

The company has a deal in place with Getty Images-owned Thinkstocks.com and is crowdsourcing the content, giving users the chance to nominate ten photos from the archive site that theyd like to see added to Googles collection.

Google says it will use the ideas to create and curate the next generation of our stock image library.

Sources:
http://thenextweb.com/google/2012/08/09/google-wants-you-to-help-stock-its-google-drive-stock-images-library/
https://plus.google.com/112893701314508522131/posts/6p2e3FTeKL4


« Reply #1 on: August 10, 2012, 16:42 »
0
I hadn't seen that. And how are contributors to Thinkstock to be compensated for the images that end up being picked in this collection?

« Reply #2 on: August 10, 2012, 16:43 »
0
I hadn't seen that. And how are contributors to Thinkstock to be compensated for the images that end up being picked in this collection?

I was kind of curious about that too. Most of the info on it seemed a little light on details.

« Reply #3 on: August 10, 2012, 16:45 »
0
I hadn't seen that. And how are contributors to Thinkstock to be compensated for the images that end up being picked in this collection?

I was kind of curious about that too. Most of the info on it seemed a little light on details.

No idea...But it seems like Google wants to enter the stock photo industry.

« Reply #4 on: August 10, 2012, 16:57 »
0
deal with thinkstock? no please no

« Reply #5 on: August 10, 2012, 17:08 »
0
It's been fascinating to watch Google slowly but steadily transforming itself from a small, progressive and highly ethical technology company into a gigantic profit-hungry menace.  

« Reply #6 on: August 10, 2012, 17:34 »
0
It's been fascinating to watch Google slowly but steadily transforming itself from a small, progressive and highly ethical technology company into a gigantic profit-hungry menace.  

Totally.  Thinkstock - the cheapest stuff we can get.

rubyroo

« Reply #7 on: August 10, 2012, 17:35 »
0
No idea...But it seems like Google wants to enter the stock photo industry.

Do you think?  It didn't sound like that to me.  It sounds more like they are creating a collection of images for users to choose from for use in their Google docs.  

« Reply #8 on: August 10, 2012, 18:24 »
0
And how are contributors to Thinkstock to be compensated for the images that end up being picked in this collection?
I guess there will be no compensation.  Users will get them for free. 

OM

« Reply #9 on: August 10, 2012, 18:40 »
0
I thought the last/first comment at the link said a lot:

"That's awesome, there's so many stock sites out there, and half of them are absolute junk and the "good" stock images listed are royalty-pay only."

 ;D

Letter from Gurgle to photographer: Dear Sir/Madam, Your blindingly superb photo of ....... has been chosen by hundreds of our customers to go into the recently set up Gurglebank. As our customers expect to pay for nothing, would you mind terribly, donating it to us free of charge......we'll send you some AddSenz vouchers you can dish out to friends and so become the most loved photographer in your area. Thanks awfully.

« Reply #10 on: August 10, 2012, 20:20 »
0
I think it's pretty simple though. If they would pick an image of mine for this collection and wouldn't be paying me (or just paying me 28 cents to license once), I'd deactivate it from iStock just to keep it from them. At most it'd be one or two of my images and even if it were a best seller I would be willing to forego the revenue from IS/Thinkstock to avoid it being given away under this "deal".

I can't see how under any reading of the ASA they could legitimately use an image if I deactivate it.

« Reply #11 on: August 10, 2012, 20:27 »
0
It's been fascinating to watch Google slowly but steadily transforming itself from a small, progressive and highly ethical technology company into a gigantic profit-hungry menace.  

Aligned with Getty, to boot.

I can get free istock images from the Microsoft site. This sounds like the same kind of "deal".

PaulieWalnuts

  • On the Wrong Side of the Business
« Reply #12 on: August 10, 2012, 21:07 »
0
So where is the benefit for the photo owner?

Google gets value out of this. Getty must be getting something out of this otherwise they wouldn't be doing it. And the photo owner gets... what?


« Reply #14 on: August 10, 2012, 21:47 »
0
"However, to play devil's advocate...  assuming that an extended license royalty is paid out, how is this technically different than other online usages?"

Because they are redistributing for people to use ( use, as in 'derive value from' )..  There is no value in a game icon.

StockBottom

    This user is banned.
« Reply #15 on: August 10, 2012, 22:33 »
0
yet another proof the microstock model is flawed.

getty and google probably signed a very cheap deal for unlimited use of the whole thinkstock RF portfolio.
how much money will go back to photographers is hard to imagine, certainly a lot less than the peanuts they already
receive by thinkstock.

now what about SS or Fotolia doing similar deals with microsoft, facebook, whatever other big company offering online services and needing photos and vectors ?

sounds like we reached the rock bottom and started digging.
imagine getting royalties of 0.05$ from Google Docs .. with some luck you will one day get the money for a beer
while dozens of people is using your images to make business presentations or even pirating the whole stuff around
with their friends.

first google fonts, now google images/docs, next ?

StockBottom

    This user is banned.
« Reply #16 on: August 10, 2012, 22:37 »
0
"However, to play devil's advocate...  assuming that an extended license royalty is paid out, how is this technically different than other online usages?"

Because they are redistributing for people to use ( use, as in 'derive value from' )..  There is no value in a game icon.

all these images will quickly spread everywhere, they will be used for free on POD sites, downloaded in zip files for free, and finally becoming so popular to be considered public domain, the photographers will never see a dime from all this and considering the zero value of a single image nobody could possibly justify the cost  of a lawyer to sue the infringers, just as it is already with micros by the way and with cheap RM images,minimum price needed is for the photo to be sold for 250$ as far as i've read.


« Reply #17 on: August 10, 2012, 23:17 »
0
"However, to play devil's advocate...  assuming that an extended license royalty is paid out, how is this technically different than other online usages?"

Because they are redistributing for people to use ( use, as in 'derive value from' )..  There is no value in a game icon.

all these images will quickly spread everywhere, they will be used for free on POD sites, downloaded in zip files for free, and finally becoming so popular to be considered public domain, the photographers will never see a dime from all this and considering the zero value of a single image nobody could possibly justify the cost  of a lawyer to sue the infringers, just as it is already with micros by the way and with cheap RM images,minimum price needed is for the photo to be sold for 250$ as far as i've read.

being the pessimist today :) I'd expect them to be under 'promotional use' like the facebook app etc so nothing for the artist

Lagereek

« Reply #18 on: August 10, 2012, 23:36 »
0
yet another proof the microstock model is flawed.

getty and google probably signed a very cheap deal for unlimited use of the whole thinkstock RF portfolio.
how much money will go back to photographers is hard to imagine, certainly a lot less than the peanuts they already
receive by thinkstock.

now what about SS or Fotolia doing similar deals with microsoft, facebook, whatever other big company offering online services and needing photos and vectors ?

sounds like we reached the rock bottom and started digging.
imagine getting royalties of 0.05$ from Google Docs .. with some luck you will one day get the money for a beer
while dozens of people is using your images to make business presentations or even pirating the whole stuff around
with their friends.

first google fonts, now google images/docs, next ?

Ofcourse the micro stock model is flawed!  we all knew this. The bosses however has already made their fortunes, quick, speedy and easy. Now, its just a matter of bailing out in the nicest and most legitimate way, saving face, etc.

« Reply #19 on: August 11, 2012, 00:53 »
0
I'm not making much from micro these days anyway. So this really is the straw that breaks the camel's back.
As soon as I hit my next payout, I'm outta here.

Lagereek

« Reply #20 on: August 11, 2012, 01:26 »
0
I am surprised actually!  some ppl, are acting as if they thought this was going to last forever? some 5 years back, in this forum, I said this was nothing but a "flash in the pan", a five minute wonder, thats all.
Any business that is relying on constantly undercutting others in order to gain, is doomed!  yes they will have a few good years but the end result is always the same,  the lifeblood is drained.
I wouldnt say this is more of a surprise then GMs, business model buying up every brand there was and then comes the Japs, Chinese, Koreans, undercutting all of it.
Its like the, Undertaker, business, its a dying business.
In a few years, dont matter if youre a trebble black-diamond, its a gonner.

« Reply #21 on: August 11, 2012, 02:56 »
0
Funny how a persons leaves, saying they're never going to post here again.  Then a few weeks later, they start with a different name and think people wont notice.  I'm sure I know who StockBottom is :)

Microbius

« Reply #22 on: August 11, 2012, 03:36 »
0
Funny how a persons leaves, saying they're never going to post here again.  Then a few weeks later, they start with a different name and think people wont notice.  I'm sure I know who StockBottom is :)
well duh  ;)

StockBottom

    This user is banned.
« Reply #23 on: August 11, 2012, 05:54 »
0
I am surprised actually!  some ppl, are acting as if they thought this was going to last forever? some 5 years back, in this forum, I said this was nothing but a "flash in the pan", a five minute wonder, thats all.
Any business that is relying on constantly undercutting others in order to gain, is doomed!  yes they will have a few good years but the end result is always the same,  the lifeblood is drained.
I wouldnt say this is more of a surprise then GMs, business model buying up every brand there was and then comes the Japs, Chinese, Koreans, undercutting all of it.
Its like the, Undertaker, business, its a dying business.
In a few years, dont matter if youre a trebble black-diamond, its a gonner.

i think anyone doing RM agree wholeheartly on this.
we all "told you so", and now step by step the sh-it is hitting the fan.

even Yuri in other thread is scared about flat earnings and agencies squeezing contributors like a lemon
including himself who is the self appointed top micro seller ever.

if they can scre-w Yuri, imagine how they can scr-ew the rest of us.

next they will tell us that due to economic crisis prices must go down furthermore, along with yet another small
cut on photographers' fees.

so you will get 10% of a sale, next year maybe 5%, they don't care, plenty of new and fresh contirbutors joining in droves
happy to get 0.10$ per download.

and i can tell you, of course they're happy, they have it better than on Flickr where they get zero !

i don't think it's a dead business, not at all, it's a great biz for the agencies and they're here to stay,
there will be always a huge demand for rock bottom cheap images suitable for design and web.

if prices are too cheap they will just blame us for having a small portfolio .. work harder nor smarter ! :)

again, we all told you so, and we laugh.

« Reply #24 on: August 11, 2012, 06:05 »
+1
I don't think the microstock model is flawed, I think the greedy, rat ba$tard agencies are flawed. They are making deals with other people's property and not telling them. They are bargaining with images as though they have no value. That's not how the microstock model started out. Even the first images I ever submitted as a noob had value and sold. And as my photography improved, they sold better and better. It's some of the agencies that are supposed to be representing us that are changing the model to suit their own greedy pockets.  >:(

« Reply #25 on: August 11, 2012, 06:28 »
0
While it's true that nothing lasts forever, it's true as well that I have been reading in forums the voices of self appointed prophets announcing the inmmiment end of microstock since 2004 (I wasn't aware of microstock before 2004). Every little change has been seen as the herald of The End is Near. Had I listened to these inspirational voices now I would be significantly less rich.
I can understand that some people like our poster-of-a-thousand-names, who probably is making his profecies in different forums since the year 2000-- would love seiing microstock crashing, but wishes and reality are often different things. Sometimes is good to be able to look ahead instead of consuming time looking back while swallowing sulphur. Remember that to have your wishes made real instantly, you need a magic wand.

(But well, as I said, nothing lasts forever. If you live long enough, maybe someday you'll see your prophecy fulfilled)

Lagereek

« Reply #26 on: August 11, 2012, 06:30 »
0
I don't think the microstock model is flawed, I think the greedy, rat ba$tard agencies are flawed. They are making deals with other people's property and not telling them. They are bargaining with images as though they have no value. That's not how the microstock model started out. Even the first images I ever submitted as a noob had value and sold. And as my photography improved, they sold better and better. It's some of the agencies that are supposed to be representing us that are changing the model to suit their own greedy pockets.  >:(

Only if the agencies are flawed, so are we!  having your own webb-site gives next to nothing.


StockBottom

    This user is banned.
« Reply #27 on: August 11, 2012, 06:40 »
0
I don't think the microstock model is flawed, I think the greedy, rat ba$tard agencies are flawed. They are making deals with other people's property and not telling them. They are bargaining with images as though they have no value. That's not how the microstock model started out. Even the first images I ever submitted as a noob had value and sold. And as my photography improved, they sold better and better. It's some of the agencies that are supposed to be representing us that are changing the model to suit their own greedy pockets.  >:(

i disagree.
if istock layoff people recently it means they're NOT making big profits, if at all !

now you can blame whoever you want for this, but despite grabbing 85% of a sale
they still don't make huge profits.

why else do you think they fired the old CEO ?

i know it may sound unbelievable to losing money while retaining 85% of the final selling price
but you guys must realize there's a huge cost in backend infrastructure, inspectors, and especially
in marketing.

buyers dont go to istock because they've been told so .. each and every client has been picked
up in many ways, each one of them costed getty maybe 20-30 or even 50$.

as company grows up the need accountants, lawyers, human resources, managers, and all
the other drones typically found in any corporation, that's a sh-itload of money per month, trust me.

microstock itself started because the istock founder, guess what ...had NO more money to pay the bills
for the server infrastructure and started asking 1$ per image !

now, we all know and they all know the issue is the very concept of microstock itself !
they cannot make decent profits while selling so cheap, they need to at least raise prices 50 or 100%.

but doing this they will kill microstock altogether as the prices will border or be in line with midstock.

it's a chicken and egg situation, and the conclusion is always the same : such a business model is NOT
sustainable when applied on a massive scale, as it simply doesn't scale linearly, the more they sell the more the costs go up until the costs are more than the earnings, same thing is happening for Facebook for instance ... growth is NOT linear ... and profits can be made when wokring in a specific "range" or users and buyers.

a 50/50 fee scenario is more than possible, but only with RM prices .. say 50 bucks per image.
it can't be done on 1$ RF, never ever.

prepare yourself for a new slash in agency fees, maybe around christmas or january.
or they could simply rationalize the whole pricing structure : 1$ per image to us, and 10$ per image for buyers, clear and simple, no matter size or whatever other BS.
« Last Edit: August 11, 2012, 06:48 by StockBottom »

StockBottom

    This user is banned.
« Reply #28 on: August 11, 2012, 06:58 »
0
Only if the agencies are flawed, so are we!  having your own webb-site gives next to nothing.

and rightly so as long as you don't invest in advertising.

then you will discover you must spend 90 to get 100 back.
welcome to reality !

all these rants about greedy agencies are completely detached from the real world.

as a photographer, even in the very best scenario that means having my own sales agent
or selling to an art gallery they still ask 50% of any sales they make.

and why, because the costs involved, the risk, and much more are HIGH.

selling on the web is not like 10 yrs ago.
it's exactly the same like having a brick and mortar shop, or even worse as
you fight directly against your direct competitors, just like if they had a shop next door to yours in the same
street !

if me as company spend 50$ to acquire a buyer, many of these buyers will probably just
buy 10$ in credits ... who's going to pay back the 40$ lost ?

the other buyers will, but it's a fine line between staying afloat and going down.
too many factors involved, including seasonal drop in sales.

we photographer make the product, but ANYTHING else is done by the agencies.
too easy to spit on agencies and call them greedy and bla bla bla.

try launching your own and you will see....

« Reply #29 on: August 11, 2012, 06:59 »
0
IS was laying off people because H&F was siphoning money out of there with a big fat straw. They have taken over $1B out of Gettty in "dividends" for themselves.

There is a huge difference between changing the business model as microstock did - lower prices with higher volume, similarly to mass producing cars or furniture versus hand crafting it - and keeping the business model and sticking it to the contributors which is what the agencies are doing at the moment.

The first is smart business, the second is as close to larceny as you can get

StockBottom

    This user is banned.
« Reply #30 on: August 11, 2012, 07:05 »
0
While it's true that nothing lasts forever, it's true as well that I have been reading in forums the voices of self appointed prophets announcing the inmmiment end of microstock since 2004 (I wasn't aware of microstock before 2004). Every little change has been seen as the herald of The End is Near. Had I listened to these inspirational voices now I would be significantly less rich.
I can understand that some people like our poster-of-a-thousand-names, who probably is making his profecies in different forums since the year 2000-- would love seiing microstock crashing, but wishes and reality are often different things. Sometimes is good to be able to look ahead instead of consuming time looking back while swallowing sulphur. Remember that to have your wishes made real instantly, you need a magic wand.

(But well, as I said, nothing lasts forever. If you live long enough, maybe someday you'll see your prophecy fulfilled)

actually i heard rumours about the imminent death of RM since 2004 as well :)

i'm not a prophet nor (yet) a business analyst but i can tell you all the major micro agencies are here to stay.
what is going to change is about pricing and fees, will it be an abrupt 180 degree change or a step by step
change ?

however it turns out, things must change if the whole industry is going to stay afloat.
i can't see any way for photographers in this scenario to make more money, it's all going to be about quantity, not quality.

microstockers with small portfolio will just find themselves out of the game soon.
new contributors will also soon realize the entry barrier to make some many is way higher than expected.

but all this is not at all enough to kill micros, a small percentage of buyers will move to greener pastures,
but the bulk of cheap buyers have no way out, they're locked in microstock, may they like it or not.

« Reply #31 on: August 11, 2012, 07:10 »
0
So, our, microstockers,  have to be humans and clever for the future. If we want to be strong, maybe it's time to build a real community before becoming real "voluntary slaves". Microstock market is' nt dead at all, crisis is here, but customers can buy pictures for a good price, the proof is the ridiculous percentage we are earning from our selling. If the agencies was paying us only 30%, we could learn almost the double, and many more microstockers could make a living instead of feeding only powerful agencies.
If we don't find the power to say "no" to greeding agencies, I'm afraid we'll have to find another professional activity in some years.  :-\
 

StockBottom

    This user is banned.
« Reply #32 on: August 11, 2012, 07:12 »
0
IS was laying off people because H&F was siphoning money out of there with a big fat straw. They have taken over $1B out of Gettty in "dividends" for themselves.

There is a huge difference between changing the business model as microstock did - lower prices with higher volume, similarly to mass producing cars or furniture versus hand crafting it - and keeping the business model and sticking it to the contributors which is what the agencies are doing at the moment.

The first is smart business, the second is as close to larceny as you can get

there will be ALWAYS demand for stock images, both expensive and cheap.

what is to be seen is how this new mixed micro/macro market will adapt
but considering it's a getty monopoly it's maybe a question of how getty will play
its card and what sort strategy it will play or rather impose on buyers.

if the top agencies tomorrow triple their prices you think buyers will instantly
look for a new supplier ? NO, only maybe 5-10% of them.

buyers will just buy less and pay more.

rubyroo

« Reply #33 on: August 11, 2012, 07:15 »
0
They are making deals with other people's property and not telling them. They are bargaining with images as though they have no value.

Yes indeed Cathy.  This is the bit that confuses me the most.  How, when and where did agencies decide that they had the right to do anything they like with our property without any dialogue with us?  I really don't understand this.  Can anyone tell me if the trad agencies behave this way?  Is this established practice in the agency/artist relationship, or is it a recent thing?

StockBottom

    This user is banned.
« Reply #34 on: August 11, 2012, 07:16 »
0
So, our, microstockers,  have to be humans and clever for the future. If we want to be strong, maybe it's time to build a real community before becoming real "voluntary slaves". Microstock market is' nt dead at all, crisis is here, but customers can buy pictures for a good price, the proof is the ridiculous percentage we are earning from our selling. If the agencies was paying us only 30%, we could learn almost the double, and many more microstockers could make a living instead of feeding only powerful agencies.
If we don't find the power to say "no" to greeding agencies, I'm afraid we'll have to find another professional activity in some years.  :-\
 

sorry 100% wrong.

if you want 100% more, you can only double your portfolio.
or launch your own site or small agency.

if doubling your portfolio isn't financially sustainable, well, welcome to reality as well ... the sort of images
you sell aren't sustainable on RF micro, try RM eventually, or give up, it's written nowhere that any micro
contributor can or should stay afloat, as by logic only the top ones shooting business and lifestyle could make it.

StockBottom

    This user is banned.
« Reply #35 on: August 11, 2012, 07:19 »
0
Yes indeed Cathy.  This is the bit that confuses me the most.  How, when and where did agencies decide that they had the right to do anything they like with our property without any dialogue with us?  I really don't understand this.  Can anyone tell me if the trad agencies behave this way?  Is this established practice in the agency/artist relationship, or is it a recent thing?

you signed or agreed on a contract, and it's all in the contract if you ever read it.

and yes, same happens in RM, see what getty did dumping part of its RM/RF portfolio on Thinkstock
just sending a "take it ot leave it" email.

Reef

  • astonmars.com
« Reply #36 on: August 11, 2012, 07:26 »
0
While it's true that nothing lasts forever, it's true as well that I have been reading in forums the voices of self appointed prophets announcing the inmmiment end of microstock since 2004 (I wasn't aware of microstock before 2004). Every little change has been seen as the herald of The End is Near. Had I listened to these inspirational voices now I would be significantly less rich.

As someone who also works in the design industry I can honestly say we use more stock imagery, video and templates than ever before. We would be crazy not to. I don't see that changing anytime soon.


« Reply #37 on: August 11, 2012, 07:41 »
0
I think we're all jumping the gun here before seeing any financial details.

If the terms turn out to be terrible, Google and Getty must know that every contributor with at least one brain cell would yank their images.

Maybe microstock as it stands is flawed, but people will always need good images.  The world is a visual one, and demand for images will continue to rise.  Yes, people will always look for the cheapest way to get them, but I think we've just about hit the bottom.  If payment to artists gets any lower, artists won't create, and the business would have to adjust to attract them back.  Sure, there will always be rock-bottom folks and hobbyists who get excited to see one of their pictures somewhere even if they get no money from it, but these people alone can't support the needs of the world.  No, a sustainable model would have to emerge from the ashes of microstock, and I don't see how it could look much different from microstock.  

And about Google... if they want to play in this space, they will win.  Imagine every search showing images from its own stock catalog way above all the established agencies.  It will be lights-out for many mid and lower tier agencies almost immediately.   Sure, they'll hang on to their established customer base for a while, but unable to attract new business they will begin a slide into the abyss.
« Last Edit: August 11, 2012, 07:43 by stockmarketer »

rubyroo

« Reply #38 on: August 11, 2012, 08:35 »
0
you signed or agreed on a contract, and it's all in the contract if you ever read it.

and yes, same happens in RM, see what getty did dumping part of its RM/RF portfolio on Thinkstock
just sending a "take it ot leave it" email.

Yes I read the contracts... many years ago when I first signed up.  I suppose I've forgotten the details by now.  I'll have to sit down and read them again to see what permissions I granted them.

I see your point about the RM stuff that was dumped on Getty, but I'm curious to know if this sort of thing happened with the trads way before H&F took over Getty, and also prior to the 1990's, before Internet trading started.

Lagereek

« Reply #39 on: August 11, 2012, 11:43 »
0
Remember Shooterguy?   ;D ;D ;D,  so be very careful here ;D

lisafx

« Reply #40 on: August 11, 2012, 13:20 »
0
i disagree.
if istock layoff people recently it means they're NOT making big profits, if at all !


Sorry, I couldn't make it through your long, rambling, disjointed post, but had to respond to this part. 

You clearly don't follow basic economics.  It's not only unprofitable companies that lay off staff.  Vulture capitalist companies often lay off staff of very successful businesses, just to jack up the good profits into obscene profits.  That's what happened at Istock.  Try to keep up.

« Reply #41 on: August 11, 2012, 14:28 »
0
Lisa, don't you think StockBottom is antistock?  It's the same oblivious to the facts nonsense, just under a different name.  Probably best to ignore but I hate using the ignore button :)

« Reply #42 on: August 11, 2012, 15:20 »
0
I don't think the microstock model is flawed, I think the greedy, rat ba$tard agencies are flawed. They are making deals with other people's property and not telling them. They are bargaining with images as though they have no value. That's not how the microstock model started out. Even the first images I ever submitted as a noob had value and sold. And as my photography improved, they sold better and better. It's some of the agencies that are supposed to be representing us that are changing the model to suit their own greedy pockets.  >:(

I agree. I think as contributors (maybe buyers as well) demand more from their agencies, they'll get more out of them.

« Reply #43 on: August 11, 2012, 17:13 »
0
No mention of compensation is telling in itself. Coupled with no notice to image owners is frightening. Look at the comments on the link and you'll see how the free-images-all-the-time mentality is floating to the top of the excrement pile. I do Google image searches all the time and see huge numbers of images show up from all the micro-stock sites. The Google search engine seems to me to be superior that many of the sites I contribute to even though they appear, for now, alongside lots of really bad images. I can image a scenario where Google improves it's search to the point where it becomes the dominate image search engine for everybody.

It reads to me as if they've cut a deal with one or more micro-stock sites using contributor agreements in their most liberal of interpretations. If so, I can see many more struggling sites jumping on board and many more contributors getting left out. The end game, in my opinion,  is to claim "rights" to any image that can be searched for on Google.

« Reply #44 on: August 11, 2012, 18:16 »
0
^^^I think it's silly to speculate like this.  Why don't we wait and see what this deal is actually all about?  I'm not sure it's any different to the microsoft deal.  We will find out if contributors are asked for consent or if they are compensated.  I presume they will be until there's evidence otherwise.  If any of the wild speculation in this thread comes true, it wont be hard to leave istock/Thinkstock now.  Most of us have seen big declines in earnings there.  Are they really going to do something to make us all leave when they're about to sell the business?

rubyroo

« Reply #45 on: August 11, 2012, 19:38 »
0
Good points Sharpshot. It's a shame that so much has happened to lead us to fear the worst, but it's surely understandable.

As you say though, we don't have all the information on this issue just yet.

lisafx

« Reply #46 on: August 12, 2012, 15:29 »
0
Lisa, don't you think StockBottom is antistock?  It's the same oblivious to the facts nonsense, just under a different name.  Probably best to ignore but I hate using the ignore button :)

Makes sense.  The angry, long-winded, hardly punctuated style looked familiar, but I just couldn't place it.  Some of these guys keep turning up again and again like a bad penny.  Thanks for identifying this one :)


Lagereek

« Reply #47 on: August 13, 2012, 02:19 »
0
^^^I think it's silly to speculate like this.  Why don't we wait and see what this deal is actually all about?  I'm not sure it's any different to the microsoft deal.  We will find out if contributors are asked for consent or if they are compensated.  I presume they will be until there's evidence otherwise.  If any of the wild speculation in this thread comes true, it wont be hard to leave istock/Thinkstock now.  Most of us have seen big declines in earnings there.  Are they really going to do something to make us all leave when they're about to sell the business?

Well if they do. That would be the final nail in the coffin, thats for sure without doubt.

StockBottom

    This user is banned.
« Reply #48 on: August 13, 2012, 10:45 »
0
i disagree.
if istock layoff people recently it means they're NOT making big profits, if at all !


Sorry, I couldn't make it through your long, rambling, disjointed post, but had to respond to this part. 

You clearly don't follow basic economics.  It's not only unprofitable companies that lay off staff.  Vulture capitalist companies often lay off staff of very successful businesses, just to jack up the good profits into obscene profits.  That's what happened at Istock.  Try to keep up.

i know and years ago it happened in the company i was working for, but in the case of iStock i disgress.
they're not doing fine, all indicators confirm istock is losing buyers and sales.

and maybe they simply overhired while they were booming and suddenly realized they've been too much
optimistic.

CEOs dont get usually fired for nothing, something smelly happened but we will never know the details.
maybe as you say they just wanted obscene profits rather than good profits but i've a sixth sense for these
things... and Getty isn't yet a public company, nobody knows their real numbers, no shareholders breathing on
their neck to score mega bucks in the next quarter, the real story here must be more dirty than what they
told us.

« Reply #49 on: August 13, 2012, 10:48 »
0
I don't think the microstock model is flawed, I think the greedy, rat ba$tard agencies are flawed. They are making deals with other people's property and not telling them. They are bargaining with images as though they have no value. That's not how the microstock model started out. Even the first images I ever submitted as a noob had value and sold. And as my photography improved, they sold better and better. It's some of the agencies that are supposed to be representing us that are changing the model to suit their own greedy pockets.  >:(

Only if the agencies are flawed, so are we!  having your own webb-site gives next to nothing.

sorry but werent you having nice 4 figures sales on your RM site?

ShadySue

« Reply #50 on: August 13, 2012, 11:02 »
0

CEOs dont get usually fired for nothing, something smelly happened but we will never know the details.
maybe as you say they just wanted obscene profits rather than good profits ....
KT told us he'd been charged with raising profits (or was it turnover?) by 50%, which was a huge target.

EmberMike

« Reply #51 on: August 13, 2012, 15:57 »
0

Pretty horrendous partner they've chosen. It's a shame that Getty still manages to keep cashing in on their brand recognition, even though properties like TS are so out of touch with what the Getty brand was known for.

« Reply #52 on: January 16, 2013, 15:12 »
0
funny that there was this topic back in August.  i guess we know how it ended.

« Reply #53 on: January 16, 2013, 15:32 »
0
funny that there was this topic back in August.  i guess we know how it ended.



And funny, this from the original post...


Quote
The company has a deal in place with Getty Images-owned Thinkstocks.com and is crowdsourcing the content, giving users the chance to nominate ten photos from the archive site that theyd like to see added to Googles collection.



They didnt give users the chance to nominate ten photos, did they?

EmberMike

« Reply #54 on: January 16, 2013, 15:35 »
0
They didnt give users the chance to nominate ten photos, did they?

They did.

They promoted this on Google+ and as of December it was still being discussed. Someone requested more vectors. Awesome.
« Last Edit: January 16, 2013, 15:40 by EmberMike »

lisafx

« Reply #55 on: January 16, 2013, 16:11 »
0
I think I saw this thread back then but didn't give it a lot of thought because I just assumed we would get our lousy .28/sub download for each usage.  Silly me.   ::)

donding

  • Think before you speak
« Reply #56 on: January 16, 2013, 16:15 »
0
History repeating itself. Kinda of a scary thought. Hopefully with the actions of the photographers this time it won't repeat itself again at Getty or any of the other agencies which I am sure are watching this situation very closely.


 

Related Topics

  Subject / Started by Replies Last post
3 Replies
3226 Views
Last post December 07, 2007, 04:05
by sharpshot
29 Replies
8268 Views
Last post January 28, 2009, 17:35
by NYTumbleweeds
0 Replies
1674 Views
Last post February 25, 2009, 04:25
by Bateleur
7 Replies
2566 Views
Last post March 16, 2016, 10:37
by wordplanet
1 Replies
1930 Views
Last post November 15, 2013, 15:23
by cascoly

Sponsors

Microstock Poll Results