Author Topic: thinkstockphotos.com - Getty New Family (Read 112858 times)

PeterChigmaroff · « **Reply #300 on:** February 09, 2010, 15:42 »

Quote from: sharply_done on February 09, 2010, 15:25

Quote from: Zeus on February 09, 2010, 15:16
...
Getty was bought for 2400 million of which 50 million was for iStock. One is a lot the other is dinky. I see some major disparity there. Either the investors got ripped off or Getty got a huge bargain on iStock. These prices are largely based on present and future earning potential.

iStock was purchased in Feb 2006 for $50M. Getty was purchased 2.1/2 years later for $2.4B, when iStock annual revenue was already eclipsing its purchase price.
Yes, there is a major disparity in the price. iStock was certainly a bargain, but I'm not so sure Getty was.

Good points for sure, but would you say that iStock increased a factor of 10 in that period of time? I doubt it, did but even if this is so that would make 500 million, still a small overall percentage of the companies value.

grp_photo · « **Reply #301 on:** February 09, 2010, 16:17 »

Quote from: sjlocke on February 09, 2010, 15:24

Quote from: grp_photo on February 09, 2010, 15:09
But most of the stuff Sean and Lisa produces doesn't fit to today's macro-market so I don't wonder that they didn't get accepted,

I'm not crying at night .

I don't think so too

.
I'm just saying you have to meet certain standards to get accepted at any agency at SS and iStock the standards are more technical at Getty and Corbis the standards are more creative you need a modern picture language and fresh ideas. And you have to do some research in advance about the standards and the market you wanna join. Just complaining you couldn't get in is stupid. The standards are different but if you are doing some work and have the talent to do so you can get accepted at any agency on this planet but sometimes you have to rethink your strategy and try it a second time if it didn't work the first time, it's the same for macro and micro, it's up to you - it's that simple!

cathyslife · « **Reply #302 on:** February 09, 2010, 16:20 »

Well, 722 of my 836 files are still showing on thinkstockphoto, even though I opted out months ago. Wonder what happened to the others? Not complaining, mind you, that they all aren't there, just sayin...

Where do you go to see which individual files are opted in for partner programs? I looked in My Uploads and don't see a column.

Anyone see an announcement yet? Oh wait, it will come 2 minutes before IS closes for the day.

Sean Locke Photography · « **Reply #303 on:** February 09, 2010, 16:24 »

Kelly Thompson just posted a statement here:
http://www.istockphoto.com/forum_messages.php?threadid=175321&page=1

Rob Sylvan · « **Reply #304 on:** February 09, 2010, 16:29 »

Quote from: dgilder on February 09, 2010, 12:18

Just FYI, the thread on iStock was just locked, pending some kind of official response sometime today.

Response is posted.

Dang, I was sjlocked.

disorderly · « **Reply #305 on:** February 09, 2010, 16:39 »

Quote from: cclapper on February 09, 2010, 16:20

Where do you go to see which individual files are opted in for partner programs? I looked in My Uploads and don't see a column.

On the My Uploads page, click on the Partner Program link. Each image has a checkbox under Available on Partner sites.

cathyslife · « **Reply #306 on:** February 09, 2010, 16:40 »

thanks disorderly.

So, any surprises on the announcement? I think not.

cathyslife · « **Reply #307 on:** February 09, 2010, 16:42 »

Quote

On the My Uploads page, click on the Partner Program link. Each image has a checkbox under Available on Partner sites.

Is it on the line with the other links directly under My Uploads? Because I don't have one. Maybe because I am/have been opted out?

lisafx · « **Reply #308 on:** February 09, 2010, 16:44 »

Macrosaur, you seem to have completely missed the point of my post and a number of others.

I don't in any way blame Getty or Corbis for rejecting my images. Particularly five years ago when I was a fledgling newbie to the idea of stock.

However, by dismissing so many photographers out of hand, they laid the foundation for the massive success that microstock has turned out to be. Ultimately that mistake has cost them an enormous part of their formerly lucrative businesses, and has left them playing catch up.

I am truly sorry that the end result has been the devaluing of imagery. Had I been offered the choice I would certainly have preferred to sell through macro prices at macro agencies.

But I didn't have that chance, and for you and Jonathan to be urging us to change course at this late date really is trying to close the barn door after the horse is gone.

disorderly · « **Reply #309 on:** February 09, 2010, 16:45 »

Quote from: cclapper on February 09, 2010, 16:42

Quote
On the My Uploads page, click on the Partner Program link. Each image has a checkbox under Available on Partner sites.

Is it on the line with the other links directly under My Uploads? Because I don't have one. Maybe because I am/have been opted out?

Yep, between Extended Licenses and Prints. I guess your being opted out would explain it.

Digital66 · « **Reply #310 on:** February 09, 2010, 16:46 »

Quote from: cclapper on February 09, 2010, 16:20

Well, 722 of my 836 files are still showing on thinkstockphoto, even though I opted out months ago. Wonder what happened to the others? Not complaining, mind you, that they all aren't there, just sayin...

Where do you go to see which individual files are opted in for partner programs? I looked in My Uploads and don't see a column.

Anyone see an announcement yet? Oh wait, it will come 2 minutes before IS closes for the day.

I opted out last week.

My images are still showing but when you click on any of them, they take you to an error page: http://www.thinkstockphotos.com/pagenotfound

Hey! You were right, annoncement came just when they closed. I'll read it now.

lisafx · « **Reply #311 on:** February 09, 2010, 16:52 »

Quote from: sjlocke on February 09, 2010, 15:24

Quote from: grp_photo on February 09, 2010, 15:09
But most of the stuff Sean and Lisa produces doesn't fit to today's macro-market so I don't wonder that they didn't get accepted,

I'm not crying at night .

Heck, I'm just flattered to have my crap mentioned in the same breath as your crap

cathyslife · « **Reply #312 on:** February 09, 2010, 16:55 »

Quote

My images are still showing but when you click on any of them, they take you to an error page:

Mine don't do that, they still go to another page where you can buy a subscription. With all the screaming I did, I'm probably at the back of the line.

Kngkyle · « **Reply #313 on:** February 09, 2010, 17:49 »

So the commission from the image packs will be a flat rate of 20%.

Awful.

Artemis · « **Reply #314 on:** February 09, 2010, 18:11 »

"Getty is not the enemy" they state in the forums.

I have little doubts Getty is doing good things for istock and helps it grow but unfortunately it mostly happens behind the screens. What i get to see from Getty is this: first announce how great they are doing, throwing big numbers around about how much they grow and how much profit they make. Then next in all seriousness declare the current canister system is 'unsustainable' and double them! ==>lowering royalties

Next offer us a bad deal with TS, which is a new low for contributors (==> lowering royalties again); i'm not a sparrow happy with every little crumb thrown at me. No thank you indeed. Getty might not be the enemy, but they surely come across as greedy because the only things we see from them is them trying to get more for themselves and less for us ;(

macrosaur · « **Reply #315 on:** February 09, 2010, 19:33 »

Woah !
So many replies.

Most of you guys just can NOT join Getty, do you realize it or not ?

Nowadays even monkeys can do "good enough" images, live with it.

And you complain about Getty, try joining serious agencies like Magnum, VII, Rex, Noor, Polaris, etc

macrosaur · « **Reply #316 on:** February 09, 2010, 19:36 »

Quote from: lisafx on February 09, 2010, 16:44

Macrosaur, you seem to have completely missed the point of my post and a number of others.

I don't in any way blame Getty or Corbis for rejecting my images. Particularly five years ago when I was a fledgling newbie to the idea of stock.

However, by dismissing so many photographers out of hand, they laid the foundation for the massive success that microstock has turned out to be. Ultimately that mistake has cost them an enormous part of their formerly lucrative businesses, and has left them playing catch up.

I am truly sorry that the end result has been the devaluing of imagery. Had I been offered the choice I would certainly have preferred to sell through macro prices at macro agencies.

But I didn't have that chance, and for you and Jonathan to be urging us to change course at this late date really is trying to close the barn door after the horse is gone.

I don't blame microstockers for "doing all they can", i just blame them for "selling their best pics at 0.25$".

Hope you agree with me.

Jonathan Ross · « **Reply #317 on:** February 09, 2010, 19:48 »

Hi All,

I know lots of young photographers and new agencies ( third Party ) that are still being accepted. Why are they getting accepted. I don't think you can play the victim card on this. Maybe they felt your work needed some improving to understand the buyers needs. I know they taught me a great deal over the years. I came in there wanting to shoot still life. They said sorry we don't need any new still life shooters. I had been shooting still life for 12 years and so I took another route. I asked what do you need and can I have a shot at producing a test shoot for you. They said they needed Lifestyle, had I done any of that. I had a few small clients that I had their clothing line on body for shots in their catalog. One was Cutter and Buck a golf wear company. They liked it and signed me.
That line may not work today but great image makers are being signed by the major agencies every day with strong presentations. Many ways in a door I think learning your craft and continuing to really push your limits of creativity will always pay off in the long run. Do what you do because you love it that will inspire you to push yourself like all good artists, the term starving artist came from somewhere

.
I was a starving artist when I opened my doors and I am watching other young starving artists create imagery that just blows my mind. Pick up a copy of this months PDN and look at some of the work. And good luck to everyone I hope you all do well in your ventures and I am not trying to put any of you down or make you feel bad just sharing my opinion down. If I have please accept my apologies.

Best,
Jonathan

macrosaur · « **Reply #318 on:** February 09, 2010, 19:54 »

PDN.

Everybody talk about PDN.

But where's the money ?

Sean Locke Photography · « **Reply #319 on:** February 09, 2010, 20:42 »

Quote from: Jonathan Ross on February 09, 2010, 19:48

Hi All,

I know lots of young photographers and new agencies ( third Party ) that are still being accepted. Why are they getting accepted. I don't think you can play the victim card on this.
...

just sharing my opinion down. If I have please accept my apologies.

Before sharing your opinion, read Lisa's post above about missing the point. No one here is playing any "victim card".

RacePhoto · « **Reply #320 on:** February 09, 2010, 20:49 »

Quote from: cclapper on February 09, 2010, 16:20

Where do you go to see which individual files are opted in for partner programs? I looked in My Uploads and don't see a column.

Click on My Uploads (also the little briefcase up top), then Partner Program.

This is the view you get:

You can also click on the Available on Partner sites and sort by those that are in or out.

Might as well repeat this part, for everyone, before I get told about the single button...

CONTROL PANEL (it's up on top when you first go to your account) then look on the left
+CONTRIBUTOR (you have to click on the + )

Hope that helps.

gostwyck · « **Reply #321 on:** February 09, 2010, 21:07 »

Quote from: Jonathan Ross on February 09, 2010, 19:48

Hi All,

... I don't think you can play the victim card on this.

Did you actually read the posts preceding yours? You appear to have completely missed the point. If there is a 'victim' here at all then it is Getty and other macro agencies whose sales are now a fraction of what they were just 3-4 years ago. The truth is they didn't recognise until far too late the danger that their industry faced or indeed the talent available to them to combat it.

Jonathan Ross · « **Reply #322 on:** February 09, 2010, 21:57 »

Hi All,

I read all the post and I still think some people are trying to play victim to a business that they help create. No bad, I did it to but I am not blaming the agencies or the photographers it is just hearing people change direction when it suites them directly that kind of comes across as a bit ironic to me. I see a lot of that around here. No one in particular just the occasional blame game.
Getty bought Istock for 50 million it is now worth 5 times that. Who wasn't aware of what was to come, you can't say Getty didn't see it coming , wake up there Gostyk and smell the Java. Getty saw it miles off and have helped to build up Istock despite their other divisions. They also said they could not sustain Getty on Micro stock alone, they are playing their cards the way they seem them, close to their chest how can you blame them. They don't owe us anything. If you don't like what they offer then just don't accept. Once again just my opinion, don't take it to personally please.

Best,
Jonathan

Jonathan Ross · « **Reply #323 on:** February 09, 2010, 22:12 »

Hi Lisa,

That is a nice perspective but it makes it sound a bit like you guys came up with Micro because they didn't accept you to Macro. That is not how Micro was built it was a vehicle that came along with the door open to lower end shooters and designers for free swapping of images, it evolved from that but not because Getty wouldn't take you it was because it was easier and more accessible.
If that were true then you are sort of saying Getty should have taken everyone because behind you are a million more shooters who's work was and still is not of the quality that RM calls for, not your work Lisa.
Lisa your work is great and if you wanted the option to go to Macro that is totally feasible and I would be happy to introduce you to anyone you would like that might help you in that door.
To the rest of you the ride eventually slows and comes to an end, change is constant and you have to live with that part of the ride. Evolve and survive, don't try to make it out to be the agencies fault. We all face the exact same wall to climb over.
We can debate all night over this I have said my peace, anyone want to cut and paste to reply please feel welcome. Always love to read the responses. Good luck to all of us.

Best,
Jonathan

macrosaur · « **Reply #324 on:** February 09, 2010, 22:24 »

I agree with Jonathan.

If Getty doesn't like you maybe you're just unworth it.

MicrostockGroup Sponsors

Author Topic: thinkstockphotos.com - Getty New Family (Read 112858 times)

PeterChigmaroff

grp_photo

cathyslife

Sean Locke Photography

Rob Sylvan

disorderly

cathyslife

cathyslife

lisafx

disorderly

Digital66

lisafx

cathyslife

Kngkyle

Artemis

macrosaur

macrosaur

Jonathan Ross

macrosaur

Sean Locke Photography

RacePhoto

gostwyck

Jonathan Ross

Jonathan Ross

macrosaur

Related Topics

Sponsors

Microstock Poll Results

Sponsors