Author Topic: Yuri Arcurs First Public Statement (Read 133938 times)

donding · « **Reply #325 on:** July 26, 2013, 12:11 »

Yuri
How does scoopshot work? After the request is closed what happens to all those pictures, are they deleted or kept on the site?

Just wondering....I can't do it because I still have one of those dinosaur phones from 10 years ago and can't bring myself to replace something that isn't broken when they cost so much.

gostwyck · « **Reply #326 on:** July 26, 2013, 12:42 »

Quote from: Pickerell on July 26, 2013, 11:56

Does Getty now own Peopleimages.com or is it still a separate site that you (Yuri) own and Getty has no interest in the revenue?

I don’t understand how the “partner program” works. Getty owns Thinkstock and Photos.com 100% . They pay a royalty to the contributors. They don’t own Flickr, but certain photographers are allowed to become Getty contributors just like all other photographers that are directly contracted to Getty.

Does Getty get the gross revenue of Peopleimages.com and pay you a royalty as is the case with Thinkstock?

What I don’t understand is the big price discounts customers can get on most of your images (roughly 80%) by Peopleimages.com instead of iStock. Granted that your Pure+ and Premium images are priced at about the same level as Exclusive and Vetta it seems to me that there is a huge advantage for customers to go to Peopleimages instead of iStock and I can’t understand why Getty allows this if you still own, and get 100% of Peopleimages. What am I missing?

On the other hand I suspect Getty is also selling your images through Thinkstock (part of the partner program), in an effort to compete with Shutterstock. This would mean that your images are also available at much lower prices than at either Peopleimages or iStock, if customers are smart enough to go to Thinkstock to purchase the images they need. Are some, or all, of your images available on Thinkstock?

Yuri still has at least 24k images on Thinkstock, etc;

http://www.thinkstockphotos.co.uk/search/#"Yuri%20Arcurs"/s=DynamicRank/f=PIHVX

Xanox · « **Reply #327 on:** July 26, 2013, 13:04 »

Quote from: Yuri_Arcurs on July 26, 2013, 12:04

First. Thank you for a honest question and not just "angry noise" Scoopshot is by no means a place for professionals as it is now. As microstock was not 7 years ago. For now you should just get to learn mobile shooting and then when it matures, there will be a market share for sure.

you mean like a sort of CNN's iReport ? sounds much more juicy, sort of an assignment billboard.

Xanox · « **Reply #328 on:** July 26, 2013, 13:07 »

Quote from: ShadySue on July 26, 2013, 12:00

Except when they're investing in weird stuff of doubtful use connected to mobile phones:
http://www.alamy.com/Blog/contributor/archive/2013/07/04/5411.aspx
being discussed here:
http://discussion.alamy.com/index.php?/topic/629-manything-blog

it just shows they've no idea how to further expand their core business (editorial) and on top of this now they claim to become soon a "creative" agency without even clearly stating what they define for creative, many contributors have just got their whole portfolios labelled as creative including images of their dogs taking a poo .. talk about strict selection !

Xanox · « **Reply #329 on:** July 26, 2013, 13:10 »

Quote from: donding on July 26, 2013, 11:45

I could care less what Yuri does. He is just busy promoting his own business.

What keeps nagging at me is this mobile phone thing. So if someone requests a shot and all the members upload what they think the buyer wants and end up with 30 thou pictures, like Yuri described, why would that work? A buyer would have to dig through 30 thou pics to find what he wants. That would take a lot of time. Probably 3/4 are crap shots that couldn't even be used taken by someone who doesn't even know how to photograph. If you as a contributor didn't upload soon enough, then your picture would be buried in the heap. No way a buyer would dig through 30 thou photos looking for the right one. Yes it would be profitable to the site owner, but I don't see how to the contributor who gets buried in the heap, even if he had the best shot. Am I understanding this right? Seriously explain to me how this would work?

what about this scenario instead :

sellers do a quick search on google images, steal the images, do some quick resize and a couple automated filters, upload the whole cr-ap on ScoopShot and get the money.

who's gonna double check about this ? nobody, and nobody will ever sue for 5$ or iphone quality snaps !

the whole idea is ripe to become a hotbed for spam and scams of any sort.

Xanox · « **Reply #330 on:** July 26, 2013, 13:25 »

Quote from: Yuri_Arcurs on July 26, 2013, 10:03

I completely agree. If app store has 70% (because they want good content, Steve Jobs), then something is out of balance in our industry. Will it stay that way? Let's get a proper discussion going.

because Apple and Google are two of the biggest brands in the world, their costs to acquire a customer are minimal because of their brand power and identity and moreover their stores are an integral part of their own products, that's the lock-in and therefore they have no direct competition apart a few dodgy stores for hacked android apps or jailbroken iphones.

they don't need to invest 30-40% of their earnings in advertising as SS or iStock, it's like comparing apples and oranges, even if they spend billions to advertise their products and their brands of course but that's another story ... selling apps and games and ebooks is relatively easy, selling stock images is hard and that's exactly why nobody can afford to give us 70-80% of a sale, even Tony Stone couldn't do it during the golden age of stock.

i mean if selling stock was so easy you wouldn't even need Getty and you could get rich just with PeopleImages alone.

Getty is the only one who really knows the score, all the ones bashing Getty here are just foaming from their mouthes because Getty relegates them to istock or thinkstock.

all i can say is ... Getty is not a closed fortress like Corbis, study carefully the Getty site, make a new portfolio and apply to Getty, if they like your stuff they will take you in.

sharpshot · « **Reply #331 on:** July 26, 2013, 13:51 »

Quote from: Yuri_Arcurs on July 26, 2013, 10:03

Quote from: fotoVoyager on July 26, 2013, 02:19
Unfortunately it was overnight for me so missed the chance to join this conversation - an opportunity to question Yuri about his predictions for the future is not to be missed whether you agree with him or not!

I too strongly dislike the subs model at such low royalty rates, nothing has done more to commodify photography. I know some of you do well at SS, but I imagine diminishing returns are just round the corner.

Unfortunately I cannot place the trust in Getty that Yuri has done, even though they are my agent. Their actions towards their exclusive photographers have never been positive since they bought iStock, from the Vetta royalty rate cut, the RC system that's designed to limit the number of artists receiving semi-reasonable royalties, destruction of the referral system, flooding the library with wholly owned content and making new uploads worthless by skewing best match.

I guess Yuri may have negotiated a deal that overcomes some of these obstacles to success there, so good luck to him.

The real problem in this industry is low royalty percentages, they should be up at the 70-80% mark as they are in the Apple App Store to make a sustainable, healthy business and profits for everyone, agencies and copyright owners alike.

I'm not as sceptical as some of you about phone cameras. If tech-change over the past decade has shown us anything it's that disruption and amazing advances can and do happen. Who'd of thought I'd be shooting with a 36mp D800 a few years ago?

Seeing a great image, controlling light and being in position are pro photographer skills that are never going to go away, irrespective of the camera used and I for one would be grateful if I didn't have to carry 7kg of kit up Himalayan peaks any more!

I completely agree. If app store has 70% (because they want good content, Steve Jobs), then something is out of balance in our industry. Will it stay that way? Let's get a proper discussion going.

Why weren't you interested in getting a proper discussion going 5 years ago? You've started several threads here or dropped in and made one or two posts but you never seem to hang around. Over the years, it feels like you're only here when you're trying to get something from the forum and the rest of the time you ignore it. I'm sure you must of noticed the bad feeling a lot of us have towards Getty/istock. Then you do that quip about professionals dealing with professionals, so now is probably the worst time for you to expect to have a proper discussion here. Such a shame you didn't take much of an interest in a proper discussion in this forum before going exclusive when I'm sure you would have had a much more positive response.

I'm sure Sean is a nice person, so am I

Microstock Posts · « **Reply #332 on:** July 26, 2013, 14:22 »

If you've just tuned in folks here's a summary of Yuri's first public statement.

Quote from: Yuri_Arcurs on July 25, 2013, 17:46

Officially. I would like to state that Sean L, is in fact a nice guy!

DF_Studios · « **Reply #333 on:** July 26, 2013, 15:04 »

I find it all fascinating. Its great that someone has the power to perhaps change the direction of MS for good. Hopefully the non-Yuri shops will start competing for other superstars and we can get back to the competing on quality and content instead of "who has the lowest price". Maybe then the "agencies" can actually act like agencies and promote the photographers instead of price point.

I did find the typos and strange wording off putting. Yuri, you can afford a proofreader! Especially when dealing with publicly held companies, any public statement should go through filters.

ShadySue · « **Reply #334 on:** July 26, 2013, 15:30 »

Quote from: sharpshot on July 26, 2013, 13:51

You've started several threads here or dropped in and made one or two posts but you never seem to hang around. Over the years, it feels like you're only here when you're trying to get something from the forum and the rest of the time you ignore it.

And you didn't even bother to feed back from the specs issue you had last year, though as your models still wear specs, I suppose the company saw sense.

ShadySue · « **Reply #335 on:** July 26, 2013, 15:42 »

Quote from: gostwyck on July 25, 2013, 18:59

Quote from: loop on July 25, 2013, 18:27
Two good things Yuri has done: 1. Not supporting anymore the disastrous (in my humble opinion) cheap subscription model, true origin of many of our troubles. For me, subs it's not micro, but "nano-stock".
What do you mean Yuri is "not supporting anymore the disastrous (in my humble opinion) cheap subscription model"?
In case you're not aware, right now he has over 35K images available to subscribers at DT __ that's 10x more than I do!

And still is selling on iStock's cheap subs partner program, e.g. 121353352 on Photos.com.
As a pseudo-exclusive, I presume he could have opted all of his images out of the PP had he wanted to.

heywoody · « **Reply #336 on:** July 26, 2013, 16:52 »

There have been 2 occasions that I have changed job and very quickly wondering what . I was thinking when I made the decision to move - course I would never admit that.

Kone · « **Reply #337 on:** July 26, 2013, 17:38 »

Hi, I have been a photographer before Microstock, I am still a photographer, and if Microstock dies soon I will be still photographer. At the beginning I was concerned about Microstock but then later, in 2006, I joined just to try it. I did make money through Microstock, and I am still making money although I am not making as much as I used to.
Cell phone stock, I don't know, too many people have cell phones and too many will get a share. As an individual I will be making so little that I don't think it is worth joining (my personal opinion), only the agency will make money. Of course if it gets going and I see I can make money with cell phone stock, I will join.
Somebody said that a 70 % share is good, however 70% of nothing is nothing.

I like this post by:
Gunter Nezhoda
I'm not sure what to think,
There's a guy who made it all the way to the top from scratch, produces the best "Merchandise" in our industry and everybody else is jealous and does not give credit were credit is due. This man became very successful with hard work and great strategies. What are we doing? - Checking his spelling? - very childish of us in my opinion.
I for my part would like to succeed and listen to people who have done it, not judge them.
There is no fairness in business and I don't expect it. I'm not waiting for Yuri to change my diapers.
I'm not hoping that successful people hold back, turn around and offer their hand to me, so I can have a piece of the pie too. That's not how it works.

Great going Yuri, it does suck that you car is nicer than mine, but I know why, and you deserve it. Get it while you can!

All the best
Kone

travelwitness · « **Reply #338 on:** July 26, 2013, 17:44 »

And he's gone in a puff of smoke...

Reading between the lines, watched his RPI decline in a chronically oversupplied market place, realised time was running out on returns for production costs, saw Getty on the back foot with Sean ruffling a few feathers over the Google backfire and negotiated a lucrative exit strategy.

That's how I read the slightly delirious holy crap I can't believe I got away with it blog post.

luissantos84 · « **Reply #339 on:** July 26, 2013, 18:35 »

Quote from: Yuri_Arcurs on July 26, 2013, 10:22

Quote from: Sean Locke Photography on July 26, 2013, 06:37
No, I mean that the entire collection will still be posted at peopleimages (which undercuts IS). That contradicts the IS press release that IS is, and I quote:
"... now the only site where the Arcurs Collection of photo, video, audio and vector elements can be found."

Sean. You are not exclusive with IS any more. And please read the post I sent out about you actually being a good person later in this thread.
Istock has partner programs. Thinkstock, Photos.com, Flickr etc. So now www.peopleimages.com is one of those. What is the problem? Why do you have such a hard time with that?

the only thing we have a hard time is hearing your cheap talk, actually you are the one having a hard time understanding that we know who you are so please move along, I am so glad that you don't have much time for the forums, now we can see who is low here

guys please stop saying thanks to Yuri because he haven't done anything for the microstock community, unless mocking agencies and contributors count, so show respect for the ones that fought against Google deal and D-Day, not the ones that took advantage of it without doing jack (oh yes the private meeting we never knew the result but we had the announcement, also reminds me of the glasses trademark issue that again most members participated actively and helped for free but again there was no further explanation from the great Yuri)

shudderstok · « **Reply #340 on:** July 26, 2013, 20:37 »

who would have thunk...?
14 pages fueling one mans inflated ego.

WarrenPrice · « **Reply #341 on:** July 26, 2013, 20:44 »

Quote from: shudderstok on July 26, 2013, 20:37

who would have thunk...?
14 pages fueling one mans inflated ego.

Actually, it seems more like 14 pages of egotism; not limited to just one ego.

shudderstok · « **Reply #342 on:** July 26, 2013, 21:14 »

Quote from: WarrenPrice on July 26, 2013, 20:44

.

Actually, it seems more like 14 pages of egotism; not limited to just one ego.

There certainly is a hint of that...

Les · « **Reply #343 on:** July 26, 2013, 21:47 »

Quote

the innovation in lenses in the last 10-20 yrs has been minimal.

suffice to say a Leica Noctilux F1.0 from the '70s is still producing sharper images than any canon or nikon lens sold today !

Maybe, because there is not too much else left in lens innovation. I use several 30 year old primes and am perfectly happy with them.
However, most of the disk drives they sell today are slower then some drives I used 15 years ago.

Les · « **Reply #344 on:** July 26, 2013, 22:33 »

Well, as they say:
there are some doers, many whiners and naysayers, and the rest of the crowd doesn't have a clue what's going on.

Yuri has accomplished a lot, made a few mistakes, and now with his latest adventure and investment, he must have more fun than most of the the people on this forum can dream or be envious of. Enjoy the journey, Yuri!

However, the assumption that SSTK stock dropped because of Yuri's departure from Shutterstock or corresponding press release, is a little bit naive. What's happening is simply a correction. The stock dropped, because it was ridiculously overvalued, and a sobering article named "Shutterstock Valuation Makes Me Shudder" was published on July 12th. SSTK has been steadily dropping since, but it still has a way to go before it stabilizes around $40 (coming down from lofty $60 peak). If the stock had more liquidity (actually, very thin trading volume since its IPO) and allowed short-selling, it would have never reached those heights.

BaldricksTrousers · « **Reply #345 on:** July 27, 2013, 00:58 »

Quote from: jjneff on July 26, 2013, 06:50

Still can't figure out why Stocksy dose not get more hype here.

That's simple: They want a small crowd of elite photographers to work for them. Why should we want to hype up an outfit that just wants to freeze us out of the business?If you exclude 99.9% of the population from your club don't expect to be a hit with the masses.
It's rather like asking why microstockers didn't hype up Getty ten years ago when it paid "fair commissions".

Mellimage · « **Reply #346 on:** July 27, 2013, 01:45 »

Quote from: BaldricksTrousers on July 27, 2013, 00:58

Quote from: jjneff on July 26, 2013, 06:50
Still can't figure out why Stocksy dose not get more hype here.

That's simple: They want a small crowd of elite photographers to work for them. Why should we want to hype up an outfit that just wants to freeze us out of the business?If you exclude 99.9% of the population from your club don't expect to be a hit with the masses.
It's rather like asking why microstockers didn't hype up Getty ten years ago when it paid "fair commissions".

The question is - do you need to hype up Stocksy itself - or maybe a business model like stocksy's. Sure, Stocksy is rather restrictive in the number (and type) of photographers it represents - it is designed for slow growth. On the other hand - why not hype the model - found another stock-coop that has another unique selling point, communicate fair pricing and fair commissions to contributors.

Donvanstaden · « **Reply #347 on:** July 27, 2013, 01:59 »

Yuri,

I looks like you are paying close attention to this thread and you are hoping to gain some insight through the discussions you have triggered. I cannot figure out what you are trying to learn from all this but if you have really have invested 1.4 million dollars in phone photography then good luck to you, if not and you are testing the market... don't do it!

Ron · « **Reply #348 on:** July 27, 2013, 03:18 »

Tons of good questions have been asked, but only a few easy ones were answered. And the majority of his comments were quotes of people that defended him.

If he wants a proper discussion he needs to at least answer the tough questions. But he wont and cant, because the answer will be that he cut a deal with Getty and has his own private TOS and RC schedule. And as soon as that is confirmed all hell will break loose.

DT is not playing ball, he could only delete 30% of his portfolio and has to wait 6 months before his staff can remove the other images. But IS/Getty didnt want to wait 6 months for him to join them, so they cut him some slack.

Playing a very dirty game, yet expects a nice dialogue. One place you WONT get that after pulling these stunts is MSG. LOL

luissantos84 · « **Reply #349 on:** July 27, 2013, 03:56 »

Quote from: Ron on July 27, 2013, 03:18

DT is not playing ball, he could only delete 30% of his portfolio and has to wait 6 months before his staff can remove the other images. But IS/Getty didnt want to wait 6 months for him to join them, so they cut him some slack.

perhaps they are, looking at his account only about 1k files were uploaded close to 6 months ago, so we are talking about 34k files that should have been removed, again the distribution team has guilt not Yuri

You can disable all files approved more than six months ago at any time. You are allowed to disable 30% of files uploaded in the recent six months however 70% must be kept online for six months from their approval date.

MicrostockGroup Sponsors

Author Topic: Yuri Arcurs First Public Statement (Read 133938 times)

donding

gostwyck

Xanox

Xanox

Xanox

Xanox

sharpshot

Microstock Posts

DF_Studios

ShadySue

ShadySue

heywoody

Kone

travelwitness

luissantos84

shudderstok

WarrenPrice

shudderstok

Les

Les

BaldricksTrousers

Mellimage

Donvanstaden

Ron

luissantos84

Related Topics

Sponsors

Microstock Poll Results

Sponsors