pancakes

MicrostockGroup Sponsors


Poll

Which deal is better?

Shutterstock + Facebook
Getty + Google Drive
Both deals are not good
Both deals are fine

Author Topic: Shutterstock - Facebook vs Getty - Google Drive  (Read 11969 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

w7lwi

  • Those that don't stand up to evil enable evil.
« Reply #25 on: December 04, 2013, 21:25 »
0
YOur example is stupid. Its nonsense. Choosing between death or death.

By the way, I'd rather be shot dead and then drained then drained and then shot dead.

Ever watch Family Guy?

Actually not so stupid.  In the State of Utah (US) a condemned killer is given the option of being executed by firing squad or being hung.  Macabre choice, but that's the law.


« Reply #26 on: December 04, 2013, 21:28 »
0
These two things aren't the same type of transaction, so it seems pointless asking which is worse.

I don't like the fact that we can't get details on the types of deals SS is now doing, even though they're proving very lucrative - and I'm talking about the SOD licenses - but there's nothing comparable to Getty/Google there either.

Giving people a way to do things legally - as long as we get compensated - is in general a good thing IMO. I just can't imagine there will be too many takers for purchases of FB-only licenses, but possibly SS can create a market there - which would also be a good thing
According to Jon Oringer "It's just one deal" and "there are other deals like it." One that is mentioned is with Constant Contact, I wonder what the other ones are?

At least we know about it and Jon is making it public.  We had to find out about the Google deal through Sean.  And you and I both know that Istock/Getty KNEW there would be a SH*T storm over it if contributors found out....and we did. Whether or not D-day had any negative affect on them is irrelevant.  What is relevant is that they tried to hide it.  And they tried to hide it because they knew it was wrong to do in the first place; money grabs are a powerful influencer indeed.

Edit: Just to be clear, I was affected by it.  They gave away my single best selling image of my 3000 image port.
Again there is no reason to compare the two deals.  The Getty Google deal was bad but what does that have to do with the Shutterstock Facebook deal?

I was responding to your comment bolded above. My comment is relative to communication. Oringer communicates his major deals whereas gi/is does not. And there is a reason why, and I merely emphasized why.

« Reply #27 on: December 04, 2013, 21:33 »
-1
.
« Last Edit: May 12, 2014, 00:23 by Audi 5000 »

« Reply #28 on: December 04, 2013, 21:49 »
+2
These two things aren't the same type of transaction, so it seems pointless asking which is worse.

I don't like the fact that we can't get details on the types of deals SS is now doing, even though they're proving very lucrative - and I'm talking about the SOD licenses - but there's nothing comparable to Getty/Google there either.

Giving people a way to do things legally - as long as we get compensated - is in general a good thing IMO. I just can't imagine there will be too many takers for purchases of FB-only licenses, but possibly SS can create a market there - which would also be a good thing
According to Jon Oringer "It's just one deal" and "there are other deals like it." One that is mentioned is with Constant Contact, I wonder what the other ones are?

At least we know about it and Jon is making it public.  We had to find out about the Google deal through Sean.  And you and I both know that Istock/Getty KNEW there would be a SH*T storm over it if contributors found out....and we did. Whether or not D-day had any negative affect on them is irrelevant.  What is relevant is that they tried to hide it.  And they tried to hide it because they knew it was wrong to do in the first place; money grabs are a powerful influencer indeed.

Edit: Just to be clear, I was affected by it.  They gave away my single best selling image of my 3000 image port.
Again there is no reason to compare the two deals.  The Getty Google deal was bad but what does that have to do with the Shutterstock Facebook deal?

I was responding to your comment bolded above. My comment is relative to communication. Oringer communicates his major deals whereas gi/is does not. And there is a reason why, and I merely emphasized why.
That's strange because my point was that there is not good communication.  "there are other deals like it." we know one deal but I know of no other "deals".  If you know what those are please do share.

Keep spinning, blocking and tackling. Doesn't work with me.

« Reply #29 on: December 04, 2013, 21:56 »
0
.
« Last Edit: May 12, 2014, 00:23 by Audi 5000 »

Ron

« Reply #30 on: December 05, 2013, 03:27 »
-2
YOur example is stupid. Its nonsense. Choosing between death or death.

By the way, I'd rather be shot dead and then drained then drained and then shot dead.

Ever watch Family Guy?

Actually not so stupid.  In the State of Utah (US) a condemned killer is given the option of being executed by firing squad or being hung.  Macabre choice, but that's the law.

Well, then there is a better option between the two bad ones, so people can vote. I dont need to put in a 3rd option. Which one is better deal, of the two deals.


Ron

« Reply #31 on: December 05, 2013, 03:29 »
-3
Keep spinning, blocking and tackling. Doesn't work with me.
Exactly. But he has to, its his job presumably.

« Reply #32 on: December 05, 2013, 03:30 »
+1
Why would you compare the two, what do you hope to accomplish by voting or proclaiming one better than the other?

I would also like to see transparency on any deal the micros make in regard to our assets.  Considering that SS can not negotiate deals without our assets, it is only fair that they should offer transparent details to contributors on any deals that they have in the works.




Ron

« Reply #33 on: December 05, 2013, 03:41 »
-4
I dont really feel compelled to explain myself to people who hide behind anonymity, demanding transparency.

« Reply #34 on: December 05, 2013, 07:24 »
0
Why would you compare the two, what do you hope to accomplish by voting or proclaiming one better than the other?

I would also like to see transparency on any deal the micros make in regard to our assets.  Considering that SS can not negotiate deals without our assets, it is only fair that they should offer transparent details to contributors on any deals that they have in the works.

Amen to that.

« Reply #35 on: December 05, 2013, 07:53 »
+1
I dont really feel compelled to explain myself to people who hide behind anonymity, demanding transparency.

The quality of the conversation here has deteriorated since anonymous posting was discouraged. The spectrum of opinion has narrowed considerably.

EmberMike

« Reply #36 on: December 05, 2013, 09:20 »
+2

The comparison makes no sense. Apple and oranges.

Ron

« Reply #37 on: December 05, 2013, 10:08 »
-3

The comparison makes no sense. Apple and oranges.
Still 92% thinks SS has the better deal

« Reply #38 on: December 05, 2013, 10:47 »
+2
Everyone likes the SS deal because it's "transparent".     

They tell you exactly how you're going to get 35 cents for a sale to an buyer who's running an ad in the world's biggest social media site, that might reach millions of users.  Wow, sounds great.  Of course if it were "print" everything would be different.  But it's the web, so we know that buyer is on a shoestring budget, and that Facebook is only charging him $5 total to run the ad, so no one in this deal is making any money.    Oh wait, just found out it's Ford Motor Co, they probably could have paid as much as 75 cents.   Not to worry, we have transparency here.
« Last Edit: December 05, 2013, 11:16 by stockastic »

EmberMike

« Reply #39 on: December 05, 2013, 11:18 »
+4

The comparison makes no sense. Apple and oranges.
Still 92% thinks SS has the better deal

Ok, then my analogy is wrong. It's more like comparing apples to dirt and asking people which one they'd rather eat.

Ron

« Reply #40 on: December 05, 2013, 11:20 »
0

The comparison makes no sense. Apple and oranges.
Still 92% thinks SS has the better deal

Ok, then my analogy is wrong. It's more like comparing apples to dirt and asking people which one they'd rather eat.

No one who says its apples and oranges has explained why. So tell me why cant you compare the two? Honest question.


« Reply #41 on: December 05, 2013, 11:35 »
+2
.
« Last Edit: May 12, 2014, 00:23 by Audi 5000 »


w7lwi

  • Those that don't stand up to evil enable evil.
« Reply #42 on: December 05, 2013, 14:28 »
0
It's comparable to voting in US elections these days.  You don't really vote for who you want.  More often than not, you vote for whomever you dislike the least.  Either way, you're screwed.

« Reply #43 on: December 05, 2013, 14:33 »
0
Everyone likes the SS deal because it's "transparent".     

They tell you exactly how you're going to get 35 cents for a sale to an buyer who's running an ad in the world's biggest social media site, that might reach millions of users.  Wow, sounds great.  Of course if it were "print" everything would be different.  But it's the web, so we know that buyer is on a shoestring budget, and that Facebook is only charging him $5 total to run the ad, so no one in this deal is making any money.    Oh wait, just found out it's Ford Motor Co, they probably could have paid as much as 75 cents.   Not to worry, we have transparency here.

But what's the difference to the standard Shutterstock licence? That already allows to use the images in almost every conceivable way in advertising, if a multi-billion dollar company would use a Shutterstock image on huge billboards across the world for many years, it would still be within the limits of the licence. And it would not pay more than 25 to 38 cents.

What's so much worse with the FB deal?

« Reply #44 on: December 05, 2013, 15:17 »
+1
A few posts of jabs back and forth were removed.  Please keep the conversation civil

EmberMike

« Reply #45 on: December 05, 2013, 15:35 »
+5
No one who says its apples and oranges has explained why. So tell me why cant you compare the two? Honest question.

One is a deal that sells perpetual redistribution rights to a 3rd party for a few bucks, the other is just another licensing deal that allows the artist to earn on every sale. They're completely different.

« Reply #46 on: December 05, 2013, 15:37 »
+1
No one who says its apples and oranges has explained why. So tell me why cant you compare the two? Honest question.

One is a deal that sells perpetual redistribution rights to a 3rd party for a few bucks, the other is just another licensing deal that allows the artist to earn on every sale. They're completely different.


which is why there is no question on which one is better.

« Reply #47 on: December 05, 2013, 16:08 »
0
I have the impression that the Google thing turned out to be of almost no practical or significant consequence.

Unless you happen to be one whose image they stole.

I know that it is a fact that the Google thing really upset a lot of people. But I don't think anyone else (users) has really noticed / remembered that Google Docs offers people free to use stock images within their Google Docs. That is what I mean about it having "no practical or significant consequence" - that really nobody cares (apart from the miffed).

It just is not something which people talk or blog about today or which is considered a great feature of Google Docs. Actually the only thing I ever hear people say about Google Docs is that iWork is a less horrible experience for document sharing in the cloud. I really do not think that many people are actually using the pictures for anything that could be even vaguely considered commercial.

Therefore I really do not think that it likely represents any significant loss of sales. I think it turned out to be more or less benign. And I certainly do not believe it likely that any significant number of people are using it as a source of free images to use outside of the terms and conditions. The people who steal images would not buy them anyhow remember.

Ron

« Reply #48 on: December 05, 2013, 16:54 »
0
No one who says its apples and oranges has explained why. So tell me why cant you compare the two? Honest question.

One is a deal that sells perpetual redistribution rights to a 3rd party for a few bucks, the other is just another licensing deal that allows the artist to earn on every sale. They're completely different.


which is why there is no question on which one is better.
Of course there is one better then.

I am completely lost here; two agencies made a deal, which one is better. I think SS has the better deal for us. Its not a bad deal at all in my opinion and the getty deal is.

Its funny though, because the thread opened when the deal was announced a while back before the SS deal started, everyone applauded it. Now the deal is live and everyone is upset. What happened in the mean time? What did I miss.

« Reply #49 on: December 05, 2013, 17:01 »
+4
No one who says its apples and oranges has explained why. So tell me why cant you compare the two? Honest question.

One is a deal that sells perpetual redistribution rights to a 3rd party for a few bucks, the other is just another licensing deal that allows the artist to earn on every sale. They're completely different.


which is why there is no question on which one is better.
Of course there is one better then.

I am completely lost here; two agencies made a deal, which one is better. I think SS has the better deal for us. Its not a bad deal at all in my opinion and the getty deal is.

Its funny though, because the thread opened when the deal was announced a while back before the SS deal started, everyone applauded it. Now the deal is live and everyone is upset. What happened in the mean time? What did I miss.

Everyone who?  I still think it is a good deal.  Maybe a better poll would have been.. do you like the shutterstock facebook deal.. yes, no?


 

Related Topics

  Subject / Started by Replies Last post
6 Replies
2325 Views
Last post January 17, 2013, 10:42
by Elenathewise
34 Replies
6624 Views
Last post January 30, 2013, 02:21
by skubai
28 Replies
6928 Views
Last post February 01, 2013, 14:32
by polar
9 Replies
2459 Views
Last post May 11, 2013, 21:11
by w7lwi
36 Replies
11478 Views
Last post April 01, 2016, 06:01
by Microstock Posts

Sponsors

Microstock Poll Results