Author Topic: Photos from Gettyimages direct to Thinkstock - ouch (Read 30571 times)

Jo Ann Snover · « **Reply #25 on:** April 01, 2011, 19:35 »

Quote from: cobalt on April 01, 2011, 17:53

Well, if subscriptions are what all buyers want, why is istock still around??

Why didn´t all the buyers go to shutterstock? A long time ago?

Because there was a set of images exclusive to IS that many buyers valued. That and the patina of goodness attached to being the first and the market leader.

A lot of SS vectors are total schlock (there's some great stuff there too, granted); at one time IS was the premiere place for a great collection of higher end (more elaborate) vectors.

And Thinkstock isn't just subscriptions. IS said that's all it would be when they first talked it up, but they had the "coming soon" for image packs almost from the very beginning.

The issue is what is your competitive advantage. IS has in the past not competed on price, but used the exclusive collection as a reason to get buyers to the site. They obviously need to have a good chunk of the images that are at other sites as well so they can be a one-stop-shop for many.

All this movement of exclusive IS content elsewhere is slowly eroding the primary reason people went to IS. Perhaps in the future the only exclusive (sort of) content will be Vetta & Agency (but those can be had at Getty, photos.com, etc. etc. as well).

I understand the notion of "to each his own" but exclusives who are selling their work at places other than IS are having an impact on all exclusives, not just on themselves. It's killing the goose that laid the golden egg, but people get blinded by the shine off the gold...

cobalt · « **Reply #26 on:** April 01, 2011, 19:49 »

..or they simply don´t see the grave danger as others.

I do think that istock has extremely high quality content, but I attribute that to the very diligent inspection process.

There are many extremely talented non exclusives and also high quality "stock factories". With all stock sites now having millions of images, I am afraid there is so much duplication of images that our exclusive content is being devalued. There simply is a complete oversupply of images on all the sites.

I know people who unfortunately buy elsewhere, not because they don´t like our exclusive images on istock, but because they feel the other sites are cheaper and have similar images on offer. They do like Vetta and occasionaly come back to us for that, but otherwise...and they didn´t go to a subscription site either.

So personally I think it is an oversimplification to say it is because the exclusive content is on thinkstock, that some exclusives are losing sales.

In the end everyone has to make his own decisions and follow his own business plan.

Personally, i see the real challenge in carving out a very unique style and maybe diversifying images to an additional site like Getty where downloads are invisible. I might also explore a little the shrinking world of RM.

All stock sites will soon have 20 million images or more. That is a much bigger problem then having exclusive content on Thinkstock IMO.

danhowl · « **Reply #27 on:** April 01, 2011, 19:53 »

I see that failure to sign terminates the relationship. Hasn't done anything for me. Seems like a great time to get out of Getty.

djpadavona · « **Reply #28 on:** April 01, 2011, 20:07 »

Pretty soon the geniuses at Getty will run out of photographers to con.

traveler1116 · « **Reply #29 on:** April 01, 2011, 22:20 »

Does this mean that IS Vetta images are now available on the partner program as well?

microstockphoto.co.uk · « **Reply #30 on:** April 02, 2011, 05:57 »

Quote from: cobalt on April 01, 2011, 19:09

I sincerly doubt there are any plans to close it, seriously. It just wouldn´t make sense.

Do you believe things don't happen just because they don't make sense? C'mon, this is microstock

Sean Locke Photography · « **Reply #31 on:** April 02, 2011, 06:31 »

Quote from: traveler1116 on April 01, 2011, 22:20

Does this mean that IS Vetta images are now available on the partner program as well?

No, it had better not, since the Agency and Vetta collections on Getty do not require a contract with Getty.

ShadySue · « **Reply #32 on:** April 02, 2011, 06:45 »

Quote from: sjlocke on April 02, 2011, 06:31

Quote from: traveler1116 on April 01, 2011, 22:20
Does this mean that IS Vetta images are now available on the partner program as well?

No, it had better not, since the Agency and Vetta collections on Getty do not require a contract with Getty.

Does that then mean they could do what they liked without even making us 'agree' or pull the files?

Jo Ann Snover · « **Reply #33 on:** April 05, 2011, 12:21 »

I've been reading the Getty contributor forum discussions about this contract change and there are a lot of unhappy folks. Couple of things I noted

1) The rate schedule for Getty contributors strong-armed into Thinkstock sales pays less than gold and up exclusives at IS make (40 cents for subscriptions which is what the 30%/silver royalty rate pays for IS)

2) Unsold RM images can be sold at RF at Getty's discretion after 3 years without a sale. Contributors may not remove their images if they don't like it and they can't opt out. The moderator is trying to make the argument that very few people want to opt out but also that it would be an untenable situation for Getty to have to remove images if contributors requested it.

3) The forced move to RF applies even to Photographer's Choice images - ones that contributors paid to place

4) Getty's trying to be all encouraging and understanding in their moderator's attitude, but they aren't interested in changing anything based on contributor feedback. I can't imagine why they started forums at all (they said it was because of the positive experiences with Flickr, whatever that means). Moderator: "...it is each contributors choice to accept or decline the business terms." Unhappy contributor: "...Yes, of course. I don't think anyone is unclear on that point. But please forgive us for noticing the slap in the face with Getty's "all or nothing" approach. Many of us are uncomfortable with a few points in the new contract and for good reason. Rather than give contributors some simple options on how and where their work is sold, Getty prefers to lose a certain percentage of contributors and their images. ..."

5) Sean got his whatsit whapped (gently) by the moderator who initially said how great it was to have someone from microstock participating in the discussions and then told him to stop talking about all the gnarly issues raised by this new agreement as he wasn't sticking to the topic at hand. Moderator: "Sean, I am asking again that you please stay on the topic of contributor topics only. The IP team, workflow and agreements are not part of this section of the site or forum, or a vast majority of our forum members' business. On top of that, the information you are posting about this initiative is inaccurate and speculative so it is really just confusing things and drawing attention away from the issues at hand." Wouldn't want to inform the masses - they might get restless.

Really feels like velvet glove/iron fist.

SNP · « **Reply #34 on:** April 05, 2011, 12:30 »

Quote from: sjlocke on April 02, 2011, 06:31

Quote from: traveler1116 on April 01, 2011, 22:20
Does this mean that IS Vetta images are now available on the partner program as well?

No, it had better not, since the Agency and Vetta collections on Getty do not require a contract with Getty.

I'm worried that this will in fact be happening, if it isn't already. as part of our iStock agreement. they seem absolutely determined to mirror content, everywhere. the more that happens, the more it seems like this will be the new normal. though Jasmin, I would argue that was by design and not due to buying habits. I believe if they had protected the brand from day one, we wouldn't be here now. Buyers want good images, and they want reputable image sources. I think those two factors precede price consideration--at least in the demographic(s) that typically buy at iStock/Getty.

now I think it's all about getting Getty content everywhere. so I see everything going eventually, including Vetta/Agency files. I bet they'll be on TS soon and I also bet that opting into the PP will cease to be optional for any content we have on iStock/Getty.

cobalt · « **Reply #35 on:** April 05, 2011, 13:00 »

I´ve been following the getty forum as well and concur that I am a little suprised why they have a forum if they are not intending to have a real dialogue with the contributors. Dialogue, in the sense that the contract then gets amended or a solution that works is found. To just tell people: this is the contract take it or leave...

And those comments directed at Sean...I don´t know I am sometimes puzzled at the attitude towards us "microstockers". I am sure Sean makes a lot more money than most people on the Gettyforum and thus has an enormous amount of experience. He also has a brilliant business mind, that is why we all voted for him to represent us in the conference call.

The moderator herself is really doing the very best she can and has been helpful in clarifying many things. It is an ungrateful position to be in, obviously she didn´t draw up the contract.

The request to withdraw the files if they don´t sell as RM is a very reasonable one. I don´t think members should be forced into a licensing model they are not interested in. If an image doesn´t sell within three years and then an editor decides the image would do better as RF, I do´t understand why they can´t send their members an email with a link for the images that are going to be moved. Then let the member click on each image to decide if they approve or if they want the image taken down. This is the year 2011, for modern software it can´t be difficult to set up a system for that.

Right now the only solution is to not sign the contract and leave Getty. I fully understand that many photographers are beginning to think that this is the real intention. Too many files, too many photographers. But from a business perspective it doesn´t make sense.

Why lose the photographers, if all it needs is a little software tweak?

Sean Locke Photography · « **Reply #36 on:** April 05, 2011, 13:18 »

Quote from: jsnover on April 05, 2011, 12:21

5) Sean got his whatsit whapped (gently) by the moderator who initially said how great it was to have someone from microstock participating in the discussions and then told him to stop talking about all the gnarly issues raised by this new agreement as he wasn't sticking to the topic at hand. Moderator: "Sean, I am asking again that you please stay on the topic of contributor topics only. The IP team, workflow and agreements are not part of this section of the site or forum, or a vast majority of our forum members' business. On top of that, the information you are posting about this initiative is inaccurate and speculative so it is really just confusing things and drawing attention away from the issues at hand." Wouldn't want to inform the masses - they might get restless.

Really feels like velvet glove/iron fist.

Yeah, I don't think she lik-ee me mucho. At least we got some insight into Agency-behind-the-scenes.

cobalt · « **Reply #37 on:** April 05, 2011, 13:25 »

You will always be our hero Sean ;-)

SNP · « **Reply #38 on:** April 05, 2011, 13:31 »

Quote from: cobalt on April 05, 2011, 13:00

I´ve been following the getty forum as well and concur that I am a little suprised why they have a forum if they are not intending to have a real dialogue with the contributors. Dialogue, in the sense that the contract then gets amended or a solution that works is found. To just tell people: this is the contract take it or leave...

And those comments directed at Sean...I don´t know I am sometimes puzzled at the attitude towards us "microstockers". I am sure Sean makes a lot more money than most people on the Gettyforum and thus has an enormous amount of experience. He also has a brilliant business mind, that is why we all voted for him to represent us in the conference call.

The moderator herself is really doing the very best she can and has been helpful in clarifying many things. It is an ungrateful position to be in, obviously she didn´t draw up the contract.

The request to withdraw the files if they don´t sell as RM is a very reasonable one. I don´t think members should be forced into a licensing model they are not interested in. If an image doesn´t sell within three years and then an editor decides the image would do better as RF, I do´t understand why they can´t send their members an email with a link for the images that are going to be moved. Then let the member click on each image to decide if they approve or if they want the image taken down. This is the year 2011, for modern software it can´t be difficult to set up a system for that.

Right now the only solution is to not sign the contract and leave Getty. I fully understand that many photographers are beginning to think that this is the real intention. Too many files, too many photographers. But from a business perspective it doesn´t make sense.

Why lose the photographers, if all it needs is a little software tweak?

so true...totally agree. and Sean is a hero. seriously Sean. you've done a lot to help lead us through changes over the years. hope you know how much we appreciate it. I'm an artist first, the business end isn't always a clear path so your input has almost always helped me to understand the issues and the industry.

jamirae · « **Reply #39 on:** April 05, 2011, 13:45 »

Quote from: danhowl on April 01, 2011, 19:53

I see that failure to sign terminates the relationship. Hasn't done anything for me. Seems like a great time to get out of Getty.

okay.. apparently me either. considering that I emailed istockgetty on Jan 5 with the request to terminate my istock-Getty contract and received a reply from istockgetty representative that said "consider this email confirmation of your termination." I emailed them again to ask if there was a waiting period so that I could being uploading my content elsewhere. No response until I asked again about 3 weeks later:

on Jan 31, my images still appeared on Getty. so again I asked what was the hold up - is there a waiting period like the 30days on istock. I was told that getty could take up to 60 days, afterwhich I was free to do whatever I wished with my imags.

over the weekend I received the email inviting me to sign this new contract. I thought "what the heck, I terminated with them on Jan 5." I hadn't paid much attention, but noted on the calendar that it is now well passed the 60 day mark so looked up my port on Gettyimages.com and what do you know.. they are all still there and I have $30 in my Getty earnings account.

Of course I have not signed the new agreement - I have no desire to get into that mess but I did email istockgetty yet AGAIN to basically ask "what?!" of course I was nice about it but it's starting to irritate me and I feel like my small portfolio of images on Getty are being held hostage. Although, I pretty much think my end of the contract has been met and I can do what I want with my images since their 60days is clearly up.

lagereek · « **Reply #40 on:** April 05, 2011, 14:09 »

Quote from: lisafx on April 01, 2011, 16:56

Quote from: jsnover on April 01, 2011, 16:45

I realize this isn't yet a move to change things for IS exclusives, but if they're doing this for Getty photographers, why wouldn't they to IS exclusives?

And to IS non-exclusives. Looks like the writing is on the wall for the opt-out of the PP.

Could this signal they are gradually fazing Istock out altogether, by making all the content redundant?

Yes! thats the plan! the entire plan, slowly and gradually facing out IS. This is the Getty game since 1992. Photographers at the Getty RM, might not be happy but really, what option do they have?
Actually Im surprised its taken them this long to start.

lisafx · « **Reply #41 on:** April 05, 2011, 14:32 »

Quote from: jsnover on April 05, 2011, 12:21

2) Unsold RM images can be sold at RF at Getty's discretion after 3 years without a sale. Contributors may not remove their images if they don't like it and they can't opt out. The moderator is trying to make the argument that very few people want to opt out but also that it would be an untenable situation for Getty to have to remove images if contributors requested it.

3) The forced move to RF applies even to Photographer's Choice images - ones that contributors paid to place

Unbelievable!! Really F-king unbelievable. How can Getty refuse to let people opt their images out or to REMOVE them? Did all Getty photographers transfer copyright Getty all of a sudden? So what are their options? Decline to sign right now and pull all their images or else be enslaved at Getty for eternity?

Do they have the option to terminate their contract at some future point, if the decide they don't like selling formerly RM images for .40?

I knew Getty was bad. And I knew this was going to get ugly, but Getty has exceeded my worst imaginings about how ruthless and unethical they could be.

I await their next move at Istock, but I am pretty sure it will have the subtlety of a chainsaw.

ETA: I know that the popular opinion here is that SAA was completely ineffective, but I can't help wondering at the coincidence of Getty pulling this scorched earth stuff within weeks of SAA announcing their closing.

stockastic · « **Reply #42 on:** April 05, 2011, 14:52 »

Classic 'corporatization' of small acquisitions: set to work churning up their business models, re-pricing and re-bundling everything, endlessly, all the while blabbering about synergy, until nothing works anymore. Then lose interest and walk away.

The importance Getty seems to be attaching to Thinkstock is probably proportional to whatever they paid for it - i.e. the "sunk cost fallacy".

sharpshot · « **Reply #43 on:** April 05, 2011, 15:02 »

Quote from: lisafx on April 05, 2011, 14:32

Quote from: jsnover on April 05, 2011, 12:21

2) Unsold RM images can be sold at RF at Getty's discretion after 3 years without a sale. Contributors may not remove their images if they don't like it and they can't opt out. The moderator is trying to make the argument that very few people want to opt out but also that it would be an untenable situation for Getty to have to remove images if contributors requested it.

3) The forced move to RF applies even to Photographer's Choice images - ones that contributors paid to place

Unbelievable!! Really F-king unbelievable. How can Getty refuse to let people opt their images out or to REMOVE them? Did all Getty photographers transfer copyright Getty all of a sudden? So what are their options? Decline to sign right now and pull all their images or else be enslaved at Getty for eternity?

Do they have the option to terminate their contract at some future point, if the decide they don't like selling formerly RM images for .40?

I knew Getty was bad. And I knew this was going to get ugly, but Getty has exceeded my worst imaginings about how ruthless and unethical they could be.

I await their next move at Istock, but I am pretty sure it will have the subtlety of a chainsaw.

ETA: I know that the popular opinion here is that SAA was completely ineffective, but I can't help wondering at the coincidence of Getty pulling this scorched earth stuff within weeks of SAA announcing their closing.

If they can do that to Getty contributors, I wonder if they will make it so we can't opt out of thinkstock from istock and our images can't be removed? And we wont even get $0.40. Can Getty contributors usually delete their images when they want or is it like some of the microstock sites, where we are locked in for a period of time?

lagereek · « **Reply #44 on:** April 05, 2011, 15:09 »

Yup! and remember this is just digital pics we are talking about, can you imagine this mob if it was Oil or Diamonds?

gostwyck · « **Reply #45 on:** April 05, 2011, 15:58 »

Quote from: lisafx on April 05, 2011, 14:32

Unbelievable!! Really F-king unbelievable. How can Getty refuse to let people opt their images out or to REMOVE them? Did all Getty photographers transfer copyright Getty all of a sudden? So what are their options? Decline to sign right now and pull all their images or else be enslaved at Getty for eternity?

This strikes me an act of desperation and muddled, irrational behaviour from an organisation being pulled in different directions. The only clear business objective they appear to share is being as greedy as they think they can get away with __ with both customers and contributors. Worse, it's not even working for them.

Different components of the Getty Group are in direct commercial competition with each other, essentially selling largely the same product but at wildly different price-points. It's a total mess IMHO. It makes me wonder if revenues are falling and the fat cats at H&F are shouting nasty things down the phone to their Getty servants.

These are not the cool moves of a confident and successful business but instead appear to be knee-jerk reactions to a situation that they don't have control of.

lisafx · « **Reply #46 on:** April 05, 2011, 16:10 »

Quote from: sharpshot on April 05, 2011, 15:02

Can Getty contributors usually delete their images when they want or is it like some of the microstock sites, where we are locked in for a period of time?

I'd like to know the answer to that one too.

Quote from: gostwyck on April 05, 2011, 15:58

These are not the cool moves of a confident and successful business but instead appear to be knee-jerk reactions to a situation that they don't have control of.

Yes, you are right. They resemble nothing so much as a chicken running around with its head cut off. Every day a new initiative to compensate for the last colossal screw up (which started as the last new "initiative")

Jo Ann Snover · « **Reply #47 on:** April 05, 2011, 16:38 »

I am math literate, but not very well schooled in the slight of hand practiced in the financial markets. I came upon this article from last November about some game Hellman & Friedman played to "pay themselves $500 million" in connection with their Getty acquisition.

Here is a definition of dividend recapitalization. And here is an explanatory article (that guy with bundles of cash has got to be a stock image!).

If I understand this right, H&F wanted some return from all the money they sank into Getty and borrowed to get it. Here is a WSJ blog about the subject (though not about H&F specifically) from September 2010, referring to this as a "partial exit" for the financial firms.

If someone out there gets all this stuff, perhaps they could shed some light for us, but it appears to me that the outright theft of cash from contributors announced by IS last September could be part of H&F squeezing Getty (and thus IS) for cash because they couldn't cash out (i.e. sell).

One of the article notes that it's good news if your company is subject to one of these dividend recaps as it's only the companies the finance folks are sure will sell for more later that these are done for.

Oh Wonderful!!

jamirae · « **Reply #48 on:** April 05, 2011, 16:50 »

Quote from: lisafx on April 05, 2011, 16:10

Quote from: sharpshot on April 05, 2011, 15:02
Can Getty contributors usually delete their images when they want or is it like some of the microstock sites, where we are locked in for a period of time?

I'd like to know the answer to that one too.

Quote from: gostwyck on April 05, 2011, 15:58

These are not the cool moves of a confident and successful business but instead appear to be knee-jerk reactions to a situation that they don't have control of.

Yes, you are right. They resemble nothing so much as a chicken running around with its head cut off. Every day a new initiative to compensate for the last colossal screw up (which started as the last new "initiative")

see my post above. I have not been able to get my images off of Getty, despite trying. I first thought I'd get them removed as soon as I canceled my exclusive contract with iStock because that was how I got in there in the first place (part of that "quit your day job" thing way back when). Now I am told my contract is canceled but my portfolio remains with no way that I can see to remove it, despite contacting them directly.

lagereek · « **Reply #49 on:** April 05, 2011, 16:51 »

Quote from: jsnover on April 05, 2011, 16:38

I am math literate, but not very well schooled in the slight of hand practiced in the financial markets. I came upon this article from last November about some game Hellman & Friedman played to "pay themselves $500 million" in connection with their Getty acquisition.

Here is a definition of dividend recapitalization. And here is an explanatory article (that guy with bundles of cash has got to be a stock image!).

If I understand this right, H&F wanted some return from all the money they sank into Getty and borrowed to get it. Here is a WSJ blog about the subject (though not about H&F specifically) from September 2010, referring to this as a "partial exit" for the financial firms.

If someone out there gets all this stuff, perhaps they could shed some light for us, but it appears to me that the outright theft of cash from contributors announced by IS last September could be part of H&F squeezing Getty (and thus IS) for cash because they couldn't cash out (i.e. sell).

One of the article notes that it's good news if your company is subject to one of these dividend recaps as it's only the companies the finance folks are sure will sell for more later that these are done for.

Oh Wonderful!!

Yeah, really wonderful!

MicrostockGroup Sponsors

Author Topic: Photos from Gettyimages direct to Thinkstock - ouch (Read 30571 times)

Jo Ann Snover

cobalt

danhowl

djpadavona

traveler1116

microstockphoto.co.uk

Sean Locke Photography

ShadySue

Jo Ann Snover

SNP

cobalt

Sean Locke Photography

cobalt

SNP

jamirae

lagereek

lisafx

stockastic

sharpshot

lagereek

gostwyck

lisafx

Jo Ann Snover

jamirae

lagereek

Related Topics

Sponsors

Microstock Poll Results

Sponsors