Just astounding.  How on earth did we end up here, when they're there?

I can't offer legal advice, but if any of my images were involved, this is what I would do. Ask a lawyer to write a letter to iStock, demanding the images be taken down from the offending "deal" immediately, and no further such deals be entered in to with my content. The letter would point out how the deal contravenes or might contravene iStock's contractual obligations and reasonable business practice, the implication being that those would be the lines of complaint if we should go to court. For various good reasons, iStock is unlikely to want to go on record resisting the legal request, it isn't worth it to them. Chances are 99% they would remove the images. The whole thing would not cost me more than one or two hundred dollars.

Interesting piece on JK on this page (scroll down a bit to fifth article):

http://www.pacaoffice.org/whatsnewnow.shtml

From the article:

"Because Getty Images' business is based both on copyright and collaboration, the company believes strongly that its relationships with contributors depend upon the ability to protect intellectual property and the livelihood of the contributors. Protecting photographer's and contributing artist's work is of the utmost importance to Getty Images. Contributing photographers look to Getty Images to ensure that they are paid whenever their work is used for a commercial purpose and the company actively tracks where their work has been used without a license."

Quote from: lisafx on January 12, 2013, 23:50

Quote from: MichaelJayFoto on January 12, 2013, 21:08
I have removed 100 of my image tonight (and will remove more) which I plan to upload to some mid stock agencies soon. I spent more time on that than pointing out what I considered a factually wrong statement.

Good for you for removing images.  I hope that turns out to be more effective than it was when others did it in the past.  I don't see that and getting media attention as mutually exclusive. 

It wasn't meant to be mutually exclusive, it was a response that people are taking more time to pick apart your planned statement - I did spend time to make a remark but I did spend more time on other stuff. ;-)

I have no hopes that this will be "more effective" with regards to iStock/Getty regretting their decisions. As I stated in a post above, I believe that more people will keep uploading at iStock than people removing stuff as there are still enough reasons to do so.

And even if all falls apart, Getty still has about 20 million images they can move to iStock to replace the missing content...

Just looking through their member list, the only purely microstock agency I can see on the list is Shutterstock.  I wonder why the others haven't signed up?

ETA:  Oops!  Just noticed DT and DP are on the list too.  (I'm not completely awake yet).

Oh, and I forgot - If any of you do send the letter, please ask the lawyer if it could be made an open letter, and post it here. The lawyer might advise against it, but if not, it would help the community to see it.

I haven't read all this thread so apologies if this has been said before, 
A solution to this problem is for artists to get together and form some sort of co-op, starting a new library run fairly and for everyones benefit,  once people saw this working, content would migrate across because of the better royalty split, and we could get these vultures off our backs, I would get on board such a venture, there is still a great living to be made from stock, its getting the money flowing to the creators of the content thats the problem.

Quote from: stockphotog on January 13, 2013, 12:09
I haven't read all this thread so apologies if this has been said before, 
A solution to this problem is for artists to get together and form some sort of co-op, starting a new library run fairly and for everyones benefit,  once people saw this working, content would migrate across because of the better royalty split, and we could get these vultures off our backs, I would get on board such a venture, there is still a great living to be made from stock, its getting the money flowing to the creators of the content thats the problem.

People have been talking about that for years.  I don't think we will ever have a site run by us that could rival the big 4.  I think what we should do now is leave istock and use sites that pay 50% commission or more like GLStockImages and Pond5.  But that's been suggested before and also falls on deaf ears. 

Unfortunately people prefer to complain about istock and do little or nothing about it.  I hope this time its different but I don't understand the point in taking expensive drawn out time consuming legal action that might fail when we could sink istock in a month by leaving and promoting a much better site.

Quote from: suemack on January 13, 2013, 10:53
Very interesting looking at the Officers and Staff of PACA. Getty are not just members. Vice President and the Education & Communications Officer are both from Getty

So you already know how they will react to your complaint 

Quote from: ffNixx on January 13, 2013, 11:00
I can't offer legal advice, but if any of my images were involved, this is what I would do. Ask a lawyer to write a letter to iStock, demanding the images be taken down from the offending "deal" immediately, and no further such deals be entered in to with my content. The letter would point out how the deal contravenes or might contravene iStock's contractual obligations and reasonable business practice, the implication being that those would be the lines of complaint if we should go to court. For various good reasons, iStock is unlikely to want to go on record resisting the legal request, it isn't worth it to them. Chances are 99% they would remove the images. The whole thing would not cost me more than one or two hundred dollars.

How can Istock (or getty) take down images that are on Google Drive?  I don't think Istock would be writing a letter to Google saying "sorry, but could you remove one or two photos from the Deal?  We'll return the 60$ of course".

QuoteUnfortunately people prefer to complain about istock and do little or nothing about it.  I hope this time its different but I don't understand the point in taking expensive drawn out time consuming legal action that might fail when we could sink istock in a month by leaving and promoting a much better site.

Do you honestly think you could sink iStock in a month by leaving? Of course not, because 99% of people would not follow you, and that includes me. Fine words about withdrawing work and fine if you earn a coupe of hundred a month there, if you make a few thousand a month and support your family, realistically, do you think people in that position are going to pull their work? You may not like them or how they do business, but they have a lot of people by the balls.

Quote from: Anyka on January 13, 2013, 13:06

Quote from: ffNixx on January 13, 2013, 11:00
I can't offer legal advice, but if any of my images were involved, this is what I would do. Ask a lawyer to write a letter to iStock, demanding the images be taken down from the offending "deal" immediately, and no further such deals be entered in to with my content. The letter would point out how the deal contravenes or might contravene iStock's contractual obligations and reasonable business practice, the implication being that those would be the lines of complaint if we should go to court. For various good reasons, iStock is unlikely to want to go on record resisting the legal request, it isn't worth it to them. Chances are 99% they would remove the images. The whole thing would not cost me more than one or two hundred dollars.

How can Istock (or getty) take down images that are on Google Drive?  I don't think Istock would be writing a letter to Google saying "sorry, but could you remove one or two photos from the Deal?  We'll return the 60$ of course".

They would do it because the alternative would potentially cost them a lot more than a fistful of dollars. That is assuming they wouldn't scupper the deal altogether. If they receive a good number of legal demands, that is a possibility.

Quote from: suemack on January 13, 2013, 10:24
From laughingmango on the istock forum "contact PACA about this matter. from what I can see Istock is not a member, but Getty Images is.

PACA Code Of Ethics
The Picture Archive Council of America, through its worldwide membership, vigorously supports a standard of business practice that sustains the highest degree of honesty, integrity and fair play with clients, contributing artists, other stock agencies and vendors. PACA has a commitment to the protection of intellectual property and represents the highest quality of images, service and membership support.

http://www.pacaoffice.org/

http://www.istockphoto.com/forum_messages.php?threadid=350491&page=14#post6819085

Yes, if definitely looks as though contacting PACA would be the most important first move.

Has anyone else highlighted this paragraph in MrErin's post?

"Google is an important partner for us and we have many innovative licensing arrangements with them in place and in negotiations. Our goal is to continue to expand and improve this partnership over time – to the benefit of everyone involved including Google and it's customers, as well as Getty Images and our contributors. This is a long term objective that includes pricing, copyright protection, and volume."

As for the condition of use that the photos must be used within the Google products, how could they ever police that?

Wow, funny how times changes eh? a few years ago, everyone was praising istock and now everyone wants to sue them

Ive only got small port with only a few photos and mostly video, but if they were to pull the same trick with video i would be extremely mad and the worrying thing is down the line they could even be considering it.

Quote from: suemack on January 13, 2013, 10:53
Very interesting looking at the Officers and Staff of PACA. Getty are not just members. Vice President and the Education & Communications Officer are both from Getty

Thanks for that laugh! :-)

Quote from: vlad_the_imp on January 13, 2013, 13:30

QuoteUnfortunately people prefer to complain about istock and do little or nothing about it.  I hope this time its different but I don't understand the point in taking expensive drawn out time consuming legal action that might fail when we could sink istock in a month by leaving and promoting a much better site.

Do you honestly think you could sink iStock in a month by leaving? Of course not, because 99% of people would not follow you, and that includes me. Fine words about withdrawing work and fine if you earn a coupe of hundred a month there, if you make a few thousand a month and support your family, realistically, do you think people in that position are going to pull their work? You may not like them or how they do business, but they have a lot of people by the balls.

Don't be silly, did you miss the word "we"?  Of course I know that a few individuals like me leaving isn't going to make a difference.  That's why I used the word "we".  It needs to be the majority of big portfolio contributors.  I think it's the people earning a few thousand a month that need to leave the most.  If they carry on doing deals like this Google one, they're not going to be making that for long.  They only have people by the balls because they haven't got the guts to do something about it.

I can't really afford to leave but if there was enough of us, it would be worth giving it a try.  At the moment I'm starting to think it's just not worth bothering with microstock anymore or reading istock threads in this forum.  The only ideas people are coming up with are stopping uploading, that's failed before and legal action, that's failed before.  I hope attitudes change, or it looks like it's not going to be possible for anyone to make much selling microstock soon.

If there's a big group of us willing to leave istock, I'm in, otherwise I'll just concentrate on making money from photography other than microstock.

Quote from: Anyka on January 13, 2013, 13:06

Quote from: ffNixx on January 13, 2013, 11:00
I can't offer legal advice, but if any of my images were involved, this is what I would do. Ask a lawyer to write a letter to iStock, demanding the images be taken down from the offending "deal" immediately, and no further such deals be entered in to with my content. The letter would point out how the deal contravenes or might contravene iStock's contractual obligations and reasonable business practice, the implication being that those would be the lines of complaint if we should go to court. For various good reasons, iStock is unlikely to want to go on record resisting the legal request, it isn't worth it to them. Chances are 99% they would remove the images. The whole thing would not cost me more than one or two hundred dollars.

How can Istock (or getty) take down images that are on Google Drive?  I don't think Istock would be writing a letter to Google saying "sorry, but could you remove one or two photos from the Deal?  We'll return the 60$ of course".

I don't think so either. But they could do it and they should do it. And every affected photographer need to do something like this to show that they view this deal as illegal and unethical. Doing nothing and giving up in advance is what Getty is hoping for.

Quote from: sharpshot on January 13, 2013, 15:48

Quote from: vlad_the_imp on January 13, 2013, 13:30

QuoteUnfortunately people prefer to complain about istock and do little or nothing about it.  I hope this time its different but I don't understand the point in taking expensive drawn out time consuming legal action that might fail when we could sink istock in a month by leaving and promoting a much better site.

Do you honestly think you could sink iStock in a month by leaving? Of course not, because 99% of people would not follow you, and that includes me. Fine words about withdrawing work and fine if you earn a coupe of hundred a month there, if you make a few thousand a month and support your family, realistically, do you think people in that position are going to pull their work? You may not like them or how they do business, but they have a lot of people by the balls.

Don't be silly, did you miss the word "we"?  Of course I know that a few individuals like me leaving isn't going to make a difference.  That's why I used the word "we".  It needs to be the majority of big portfolio contributors.  I think it's the people earning a few thousand a month that need to leave the most.  If they carry on doing deals like this Google one, they're not going to be making that for long.  They only have people by the balls because they haven't got the guts to do something about it.

I can't really afford to leave but if there was enough of us, it would be worth giving it a try.  At the moment I'm starting to think it's just not worth bothering with microstock anymore or reading istock threads in this forum.  The only ideas people are coming up with are stopping uploading, that's failed before and legal action, that's failed before.  I hope attitudes change, or it looks like it's not going to be possible for anyone to make much selling microstock soon.

If there's a big group of us willing to leave istock, I'm in, otherwise I'll just concentrate on making money from photography other than microstock.

I agree, I've deleted 2/3rds of my portfolio so far and maybe half a dozen others have said they are leaving but unless a large of people do it, it doesnt mean a lot. I dont think legal action or asking getty to be nice will work.

Quote
Don't be silly, did you miss the word "we"?

I didn't realise you meant 'we' as in everybody at iStock, rather than 'we', as in the 40 or 50 people who might read your post. Whichever 'we' you meant, they were both unrealistic expectations.

"I think it's the people earning a few thousand a month that need to leave the most."

They are the least likely to leave though ( and I am in that group). That is the problem. The hobbyists and amateurs may kick up a stink, shout a lot, maybe deactivate some images, no one cares, to be blunt. The ones who might, en masse, make a difference ( and there would have to be lots of them doing it, not just 10 or 20), are too reliant on the income.

Jon Oringer replied to my tweet and pointed to a new blog post of his. See my reply - I picked one of Andres Rodriguez' images to make the point that I think this hurts Shutterstock, not just exclusive photographers. I'm not sure he realized that this was a shot across his bow (IMO) not just Getty exclusives getting scr3wed

Nice work Jo Ann. I think Oringer's blog deserves a discussion thread of it's own, if you don't mind me nicking it from your post.

Yes, thank you so much for doing this Jo Ann, and thanks for perservering.  It'll be very interesting to see how he responds when the penny drops.

Valued customer, thank you for purchasing one of my photos. It is the one that is an image of-------------.  Selling images is how I feed my family and customers like you who pay to legally license my images enables me to do so. Recently it has come to my attention that this image is one that is included in a "promotional package agreement" that Getty images has made with google. The result of this "agreement" is that this image is now being given away without any sort of appropriate compensation to me the copyright holder. Up until now I have trusted the agency to protect my image rights and the integrity of the image you paid to license. Now I believe that protection falls on me alone. I am currently in the process of tracking down all legal uses of this image as well as all illegal uses of this image. I have instructed my lawyer to seek damages for every single unauthorized use we can find. You can be assured that I take my profession seriously and protecting paying customers like you is a priority. Thank you for your time. Sincerely -------


This is what I will send to everyone using any images of mine associated with this deal or any other similar deal.

Quote from: gostwyck on January 13, 2013, 16:22
Nice work Jo Ann. I think Oringer's blog deserves a discussion thread of it's own, if you don't mind me nicking it from your post.

I believe in the Shutterstock long term view - this is about trying to get this crap stopped if we can. No proprietary feelings about any part I can play in it - nick away!