Quote from: gostwyck on January 22, 2011, 12:27

Perfect illustration of why Thinkstock does not deserve our work.

It's on page 2, following your link. Didn't have to make a big effort to find it.

There is even another one on the same page. Uh.

Quote from: gostwyck on January 22, 2011, 12:27

Quote from: FD-regular on January 22, 2011, 12:14

I love this picture. I didn't know the right honorable gentleman from Aarhus sold model releases.   -  (Info: no model release required  )
Keywords: QC, inspectors, recursivity

Perfect illustration of why Thinkstock does not deserve our work. What an utter shambles that place is.

This is a real disgrace...must be nice having all your details online like that...

Wouldn't that qualify as a BIG invasion of privacy?

Quote from: Artemis on January 22, 2011, 16:18

Quote from: gostwyck on January 22, 2011, 12:27

Quote from: FD-regular on January 22, 2011, 12:14

I love this picture. I didn't know the right honorable gentleman from Aarhus sold model releases.   -  (Info: no model release required  )
Keywords: QC, inspectors, recursivity

Perfect illustration of why Thinkstock does not deserve our work. What an utter shambles that place is.

This is a real disgrace...must be nice having all your details online like that...

Wouldn't that qualify as a BIG invasion of privacy?

Absolutely.
I've read again and again on iStock forums that people's details can't get out of the system, because they're in a jpeg, not a database, so models should be totally reassured about giving away all that information.
I guess we'd need to know if these were transferred over from iStock before we knew that it counted as an iStock cock-up.

Has anyone alerted IS/Thinkstock/whoever? I have not.

Has anyone alerted IS/Thinkstock/whoever? I have not.

I really feel for the model, so i dropped Yuri a line.

HI all,

 Let's also remember that Yuri cannot go exclusive at Istock because he has work in RF agencies that ask for much longer contracts than Microstock sites do. If he is going to think of going exclusive at Micro level for himself why would he be producing work for Macro agencies in RF? Just a questions to throw out before to much is assumed here.

Best,
Jonathan

So you have said many times __ but that wasn't how Yuri answered the question at all, although he had the opportunity to do so. Either your 'facts' are nonsense or Yuri is being extremely 'economical with the truth' to say the least.

Quote from: FD-regular on January 22, 2011, 13:05

Quote from: gostwyck on January 22, 2011, 12:27

Perfect illustration of why Thinkstock does not deserve our work.

It's on page 2, following your link. Didn't have to make a big effort to find it.

There is even another one on the same page. Uh.

So bizarre. Is thinkstock even manned? I think it's just an automatic dumping ground. What a ridiculous error.

Hi Gostiwick,

 He has agreed to shoot with Cultura and I believe that is under way and I know he has shot for Tetra in the past and may still do. Both agencies are not owned by Getty and are Macro RF agencies. Maybe he is just following the money.
 
Best,
Jonathan

This is a quote from the article that pretty much explains what I was saying " You are known as the worlds best selling microstock photographer�and you participate in "macro" stock as well. How involved are you in macrostock?
I have about 7000 images in macrostock. And I plan to add at least 4000 images this year. So I think it�s safe to say that I�m very much involved with macrostock. "
 
I think that sums it up, did you read the article? Maybe he is planning on ditching Micro and going just Macro, only he knows for sure the rest is just assumptions.

Nonsense. The Macro stuff could all have been assigned to RM if he wanted to go exclusive at IS. The truth is Yuri is non-exclusive because that's what he wants to be. You will also find that he will supply far more images to Micro than Macro because that's actually where the money is. If you believe different, despite all the evidence to the contrary, then you are a self-delusioned idiot.

Hey Gostwyck,

Self delusioned idiot...hmmm not very nice of you to call people names and I think that delusioned is not a real word. I believe the word you were looking for was delusional, I could be wrong but anyways back to the forum. He is with Tetra I know the owner who is also an owner in Blend Images along with myself, Yuri has been with them for over a year easily, they are all RF and I have seen his work on the site under RF. He is shooting for Cultura, how do I know this because I am an owner in Cultura, almost all RF just now starting on presenting RM. Oh one more thing, pretty hard for anyone to get 7,000 images accepted as RM at any of the serious agencies in the amount of time he has been in it, even for Yuri. Now, that last line was speculation but it is an educated guess from dealing with that portion of the industry for the past thirteen years.

Cheers,
Jonathan

Interesting stuff although he did appear to contradict himself on a few issues.

He says iStock are streets ahead of the other agencies and that exclusivity is best ... but then decides it is not for him at the moment. Why then bother to support all the other agencies of which he is so dismissive?

He says "the primary CEO's of the non-exclusive agencies are amateur photographers at best and often don't know good design, good pictures from less good ones, and really don't care too much about the "whine" in the design world." Huh? Where does he place Kelly Thompson in that scenario? Is Kelly a 'pro photographer' now? I hadn't realised. Jon Oringer might not be the world's best photographer __ but he is a very good businessman and that probably counts for more when it comes to running a business. Personally I still think that Shutterstock will win out in the end, simply because they are led by a shrewd businessman who takes the long view, rather than short-term Flash Harrys who are out to make a quick buck.

He reckons he can't produce images for less than $20 a pop but also reveals that his return per image topped $9 in 2009 and is predicted to be under $6 in 2011. That suggests a 4-year payback for his current work at today's prices __ which have already tumbled more than 30% in the last couple of years. If returns continue to dwindle at that pace then his outlay for today's shoots might actually take 6-7 years to pay back. By 2012 the payback could be more like 10 years per image. I'd say that's plenty to be concerned about.

Kelly is not with the "NON-exclusive agencies". He is actually quite good a photographer.
Exclusivity for me involves a huge risk in discontinuing distribution contracts with over 200 partners.

Thanks guys for letting me know about the model release issues. My legal team is preparing a letter to them as we speak. We take this very seriously. This is absolutely not allowed for many reasons.
Best Yuri

I hope heads roll (metaphorically).