Quote from: jsnover on August 15, 2012, 19:13
"Jonathan Klein: No. Nothing will change for them, just like the Hellman deal didn't change anything for them."

It is a flagrant lie and he had to say this because they simply could not tell the new owners that they had to gouge contributors in order to show growth, ARTIFICIAL GROWTH, not organic.  It's just a flagrant fnk lie while he laughs in our faces and says, wait until the next cut, SUCKERS!!

I didn't know I could ever hate anybody or any company THIS MUCH..

Thanks for teaching it to me, H&F and getty!

Quote from: cidepix on August 16, 2012, 02:05
I didn't know I could ever hate anybody or any company THIS MUCH..

Thanks for teaching it to me, H&F and getty!

If you didn't know that you could hate a company this much, you never worked in corporate America. Especially a Not-for-profit.

Slightly different take on the deal in yesterday's FT;

http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/1343682c-e6d2-11e1-965b-00144feab49a.html#axzz23hh2TMfz

Notably the FT describes it thus "... this agreement represents the latest instance of financial sponsors swapping assets with one another, rather than selling to strategic buyers or listing their portfolio companies publicly."

So apparently it's actually a 'swap' rather than a sale then?

A certain Mr Klein is quoted as saying that the business is experiencing "an explosion of demand for rich media and visual content". Phew! Thanks Jonny __ if you said it then it must be true! I'm now sitting on my hands waiting for the imminent explosion of demand for my port on Istock.

Quote from: gostwyck on August 16, 2012, 11:44
Slightly different take on the deal in yesterday's FT;

http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/1343682c-e6d2-11e1-965b-00144feab49a.html#axzz23hh2TMfz

Notably the FT describes it thus "... this agreement represents the latest instance of financial sponsors swapping assets with one another, rather than selling to strategic buyers or listing their portfolio companies publicly."

So apparently it's actually a 'swap' rather than a sale then?

A certain Mr Klein is quoted as saying that the business is experiencing "an explosion of demand for rich media and visual content". Phew! Thanks Jonny __ if you said it then it must be true! I'm now sitting on my hands waiting for the imminent explosion of demand for my port on Istock.

Jeez!  IS?, we will be waiting forever and eveeeeeeeeeer!  you sure he didnt mean the real Getty?

A swap?  I wonder what they swapped....

Quote from: rubyroo on August 16, 2012, 14:24
A swap?  I wonder what they swapped....

Apparently it was Mrs Carlyle's recipe for ratatoille and a week in their Florida time-share.

Dang.  That's where I went wrong.  I only had a lasagne recipe and a Timex.

Interview with rep from Carlyle Group
http://finance.fortune.cnn.com/2012/08/15/carlyle-getty/

FORTUNE: You're paying a 37.5% premium to what Hellman paid in 2008. Why is the company worth so much more today?
Merrill: Getty was then and still is a leader in its industry with a tremendous collection of assets. But the makeup of those assets has really changed over the last several years with much more digital and other product diversification.   The client base also has diversified. It has evolved into a much different business than it was in 2008.

Really?  My digital images from 2006 weren't really digital?  Does he mean there is more web-based usage?  But how customers use the images aren't Getty assets.


You mentioned more digital assets. How does Getty survive when anyone can just use Google to search for, and steal, digital images?
We're wise enough to the fact that there is always going to be some piracy. But the company has a very sophisticated image recognition system that helps it find when images are being used without its authority. But unlike with music, Getty is not in the business of suing those who violate.  It tries to work with them to become customers.

So all those people who get the threatening letters from Getty to fork over $1,000 are not being threatened?

QuoteBut unlike with music, Getty is not in the business of suing those who violate. It tries to work with them to become customers.

Holy crap that is such a blatant lie! Or at the very least, Carlyle really doesn't know the inner working of the company they just bought. I personally know people and companies who have gotten those extortion letters from Getty.

This company just makes my skin crawl.

I'm going to wait it out with istock until the end of the year. See what happens. If another royalty cut happens, I'm gone in a heartbeat. I suspect that we'll know before the end of the year if that's going to happen or not. Either way, unless something changes for the better (which is supremely doubtful), I'll be happy to start 2013 without istock.

who am i but i am pretty sure they won´t make it any lower, its low enough, like we know its the number 1 already

yes they might pull another thing, I was thinking that by this time the indies would have new uploads redirected to thinkstock if not that worth to show up at iStock

Quote from: EmberMike on August 16, 2012, 17:04

QuoteBut unlike with music, Getty is not in the business of suing those who violate. It tries to work with them to become customers.

Holy crap that is such a blatant lie! Or at the very least, Carlyle really doesn't know the inner working of the company they just bought. I personally know people and companies who have gotten those extortion letters from Getty.

This company just makes my skin crawl.

I'm going to wait it out with istock until the end of the year. See what happens. If another royalty cut happens, I'm gone in a heartbeat. I suspect that we'll know before the end of the year if that's going to happen or not. Either way, unless something changes for the better (which is supremely doubtful), I'll be happy to start 2013 without istock.

Well Mike,  try and diversify your port a bit and you might have better luck, just a bit of an advice!  apart from that its good.

Quote from: EmberMike on August 16, 2012, 17:04

QuoteBut unlike with music, Getty is not in the business of suing those who violate. It tries to work with them to become customers.

Holy crap that is such a blatant lie! Or at the very least, Carlyle really doesn't know the inner working of the company they just bought. I personally know people and companies who have gotten those extortion letters from Getty.

Getty sued someone you know who had licensed the file legally and used it correctly?  Or did they just send a letter?

Quote from: traveler1116 on August 16, 2012, 18:40
Getty sued someone you know who had licensed the file legally and used it correctly?  Or did they just send a letter?

Just sent the letter. I think he got it sorted out. But the letter was worded in a way that they were accusing him of infringement. Something to the effect of "pay x amount or we'll sue" sort of thing.

Quote from: Lagereek on August 16, 2012, 18:02
Well Mike,  try and diversify your port a bit and you might have better luck, just a bit of an advice!  apart from that its good.

I don't think my portfolio is the problem. I do fine at the 19 other agencies I sell images with. I used to pull $2k per month from istock. Now I'll be lucky if I hit $150 for the month. Meanwhile I'm having BMEs at other top agencies.

I wish it was as simple as diversification, but sadly, it's not.

Quote from: EmberMike on August 16, 2012, 18:59

Quote from: traveler1116 on August 16, 2012, 18:40
Getty sued someone you know who had licensed the file legally and used it correctly?  Or did they just send a letter?

Just sent the letter. I think he got it sorted out. But the letter was worded in a way that they were accusing him of infringement. Something to the effect of "pay x amount or we'll sue" sort of thing.

So then what you are saying is that Getty did not sue?  But at same the same time you're using that as evidence that Getty is in the business of suing and saying otherwise is "a blatant lie"?

Quote from: traveler1116 on August 16, 2012, 19:07

So then what you are saying is that Getty did not sue?  But at same the same time you're using that as evidence that Getty is in the business of suing and saying otherwise is "a blatant lie"?

From the letters I've seen posted, Getty is threatening to sue.  Either they intend to follow through and sue, or they are "blatantly lying" in their letters by threatening to do so.  Personally, if I got a letter from a company as well financed as Getty that was threatening to sue me, I would assume they mean what they say.  

ETA:  But then, perhaps their threats to sue are as empty as their assurances to contributors that "nothing will change".  If so, then maybe they shouldn't be taken seriously after all.   

Quote from: luissantos84 on August 16, 2012, 17:41
who am i but i am pretty sure they won´t make it any lower, its low enough, like we know its the number 1 already

yes they might pull another thing, I was thinking that by this time the indies would have new uploads redirected to thinkstock if not that worth to show up at iStock

It wouldn't make any sense for them to cut commissions again, lots of us are on the brink of leaving, so I'm expecting them to do it   They've made so many bad decisions in the past few years, why would they stop now?  They've said nothing is going to change, so I presume lowering the contributors commissions as much as possible is still a priority.

Quote from: EmberMike on August 16, 2012, 19:01

Quote from: Lagereek on August 16, 2012, 18:02
Well Mike,  try and diversify your port a bit and you might have better luck, just a bit of an advice!  apart from that its good.

I don't think my portfolio is the problem. I do fine at the 19 other agencies I sell images with. I used to pull $2k per month from istock. Now I'll be lucky if I hit $150 for the month. Meanwhile I'm having BMEs at other top agencies.

I wish it was as simple as diversification, but sadly, it's not.

Don't worry about the reeky one. When his sales are, going badly the sites are, STUPID. When! anyone else's sales are going, badly it's their own fault.

Quote from: ShadySue on August 16, 2012, 20:56

Quote from: EmberMike on August 16, 2012, 19:01

Quote from: Lagereek on August 16, 2012, 18:02
Well Mike,  try and diversify your port a bit and you might have better luck, just a bit of an advice!  apart from that its good.

I don't think my portfolio is the problem. I do fine at the 19 other agencies I sell images with. I used to pull $2k per month from istock. Now I'll be lucky if I hit $150 for the month. Meanwhile I'm having BMEs at other top agencies.

I wish it was as simple as diversification, but sadly, it's not.

Don't worry about the reeky one. When his sales are, going badly the sites are, STUPID. When! anyone else's sales are going, badly it's their own fault.

Quote from: EmberMike on August 16, 2012, 18:59

Quote from: traveler1116 on August 16, 2012, 18:40
Getty sued someone you know who had licensed the file legally and used it correctly?  Or did they just send a letter?

Just sent the letter. I think he got it sorted out. But the letter was worded in a way that they were accusing him of infringement. Something to the effect of "pay x amount or we'll sue" sort of thing.

If it was a mistake, it was a mistake. People do them sometimes. But the general policy of defending artist's IP is one of the best things that Getty does. I support them 100% in that aspect.

Quote from: loop on August 16, 2012, 21:36

If it was a mistake, it was a mistake. People do them sometimes. But the general policy of defending artist's IP is one of the best things that Getty does. I support them 100% in that aspect.

Are they still doing this aggressively for Istock exclusives?

Quote from: lisafx on August 16, 2012, 21:42

Quote from: loop on August 16, 2012, 21:36

If it was a mistake, it was a mistake. People do them sometimes. But the general policy of defending artist's IP is one of the best things that Getty does. I support them 100% in that aspect.

Are they still doing this aggressively for Istock exclusives?

As far as I know, for istock they send cease and desist letters. I've had several photos deleted from infringing sites after having written to c.e. at istock.

For what I read, iStock will still be run by Klein's team. The impact of Carlyle deal remains to be seen.

Quote from: ShadySue on August 16, 2012, 20:56
Don't worry about the reeky one. When his sales are, going badly the sites are, STUPID. When! anyone else's sales are going, badly it's their own fault.

LOL. I actually think both are true. The agencies are stupid because they could be earning more with better terms/prices and happier contributors. And, we are stupid for letting them get away with not doing it. I look at my numbers each month, and think that there is no real reason why I shouldn't be earning twice as much as I am. Move a few percentage points and some prices, and it wouldn't take much (even at half sales).