MicrostockGroup Sponsors


Author Topic: D-Day (Deactivation Day) on Istock - Feb 2  (Read 128885 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

« Reply #425 on: January 23, 2013, 10:13 »
0
I'm tired of Istock..... They've rejected so many of my pictures that are actually selling ok on SS and other sites...... Just got 85 pictures rejected some minutes ago.... And they've already been selling a fair bit on SS for some time now...... Count me in for a very small portfolio of only 33 pictures.

So far the Feb 2nd projected total of files being deactivated or deleted is 36,391+


« Reply #426 on: January 23, 2013, 10:21 »
0
Just got 85 pictures rejected some minutes ago....
That was one h*lluva backup they cleared.

Yeah....... Looks like IS is digging their own grave. Well, I can't be bothered with them anymore. Next question is just where to move to and support? I've just been accepted on Graphicleftovers, and also started uploading to MostPhotos..... Any other sites recommended? I'm already on SS, FT, DT, Deposit, 123, CS, BS, Veer, Cre, Feature, Stockfresh, Clipdealer, Sign, scanstock and stockami.

« Reply #427 on: January 23, 2013, 15:37 »
+3
Hi All,

 Thank you Sean for sharing where you got the post it was a big help when I spoke with Rick at Blend. I see so many different reasons on this post for why people are pulling their images from Istock but the one I see the most is " they aren't making me the money I used to " That unfortunately is what happens when there are more photographers then their are buyers, it is sad but true. I can all appreciate your concern for the loss of income, I lost 90% of my Macro income when Istock was 2 years into sales so I understand what it feels like to lose a great deal of your income from something you believe is a bad idea ( the reduction of average sales from $138 per image sold at Getty each to a dollar back when Istock started sales ) that was what took place when Micro hit the market but we had to evolve to survive and keep our families with food on the table.
 I would suggest that for the few that will pull their entire content and I say few because of the millions of images Istock has in it's collection, I admire anyone that stands by their beliefs enough to stop their families income and stop being exclusive that takes real strength to stick to your principles no matter what the cost. I know I would never pull my content from a company that can replace me overnight and put my family in financially jeopardy but that is me once again my hat is off to those that want to stand behind a belief and try to make a change.
 Unfortunately I don't think you pulling your content from Istock is going to hurt anyone but yourselves but once again I respect everyone's right to do as they choose and those that do pull their entire collection I applaud.
 I have spoken directly with Blend about our images that were used. They were from our Legacy collection images that have been with us from the start and are no longer making sales. For our company to sell 62 images that were no longer selling from our 100,000+ collection is a good gesture and a strong building block in our future relations with the biggest reseller of imagery in the world. Do I like the situation No, I would prefer it didn't happen this industry is under enough pressure already. I think it is business that needs to take place for Blend especially during such turbulent times in our industry to strengthen our relations with such a giant in the business for a small offering of 62 images sold for $12 each. If this was to continue further I would have great concern especially if it were images of mine that were making solid sales but for Blend this was not the case.
 I have no problem with the deal Blend made but that does not mean I agree with what took place elsewhere. If Istock pulled your top sellers for this deal then I can understand the issue but I cannot speak from the Micro side especially Istock. Please I am only the messenger here so keep that in mind. I like to share information at MSG but if I am attacked for my position I hope you understand why I will not reply, it just takes to long and doesn't resolve anything. Open questions and responses I would love feedback from all that have their finger on the true pulse of this matter. I have seen a lot of emotions get in the way of smart business decisions and I hope you are all thinking this through in great detail for what works best for you at this time for your own business.
 I wish you all the best on your decision and support everyone that chooses to do whatever they want I understand it is your income we are speaking of and that can be devastating so please think this through in great detail. As for people pulling a few hundred of your images from Istock I say either go for it and make your stand and leave Istock or just leave your images up. Taking a few hundred of your non sellers is not really supporting what is being asked of in this group support concept " to pull your entire collection from Istock".

Thanks for taking the time to read,
Jonathan

Poncke

« Reply #428 on: January 23, 2013, 15:47 »
+2
.
« Last Edit: March 22, 2013, 13:58 by Poncke »

« Reply #429 on: January 23, 2013, 15:51 »
+30
"All that is necessary for evil to triumph is for good men to do nothing"  - Edmund Burke

No one thinks we're going to bring down IS, or even affect its behavior in the short run.  The point of the actions being discussed is to protect one's work for the future, to prevent its misuse,  to create some bad publicity for IS, and perhaps discourage them, and other agencies, from making similar deals in the near future.


« Last Edit: January 23, 2013, 15:54 by stockastic »

« Reply #430 on: January 23, 2013, 16:13 »
+2
Great post Stockastic,

 I agree that every movement is started by one individual and then waits for others to make it grow the more that join the cause the bigger the difference would be to Istock. If you guys got them to pull half of their exclusives images from Istock I think they would have to listen. Best to you on your decision.

Cheers,
Jonathan

« Reply #431 on: January 23, 2013, 16:28 »
0
Jonathan Ross:

 "I see so many different reasons on this post for why people are pulling their images from Istock but the one I see the most is " they aren't making me the money I used to "

Cybernesco:

This is not the most popular reason anymore, did you not read about the latest Google Getty deal?

The Getty/Google deal controversy has become sufficiently notorious to merit an entry in Wikipedia:

"Controversy Over New Feature

Google Docs has partnered with Getty Images to release 6000 high quality, high resolution stock images for use in Google Doc products.[42] The images have been stripped of all meta-data and copyright information and clients may use them for any commercial purpose they see fit. This feature has been met with significant praise by those that use Google Docs. However, this move has proven controversial with the photographers who own the copyright to the images.[43] The complaints centre on two areas. The first is the fact that the for all intents and purposes the free re-distribution by Google has placed the images in the public domain and significantly if not totally devalued the copyright. The artists involved were compensated based on the lowest valuation for image use instead of the effective buy out of the rights this represented. The second issue involves images that required model releases. In this case the models, via the release, were assured that images would not be used in a defamatory way. However, Google has placed no such restriction on the re-use of the images in their Google Doc library."


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Google_Drive

« Reply #432 on: January 23, 2013, 16:28 »
+15
@Jonathan If Blend had a choice in which images it placed in this Getty/Google deal, then it had something the iStock contributors did not - an opt in/out.

If you had no choice about which images were picked and it wasn't an old non-seller, would that change your mind about what it means to have no control over how your agent/distributors handles your work?

In Sean's case, some relatively recent tailgate images from a collection on iStock that was mirrored on Getty were picked. He didn't have a choice about that.

Perhaps everyone thinks that as long as Getty's abusing some other group, it's OK. I get the economic imperative and how well Klein's strategy to acquire all the outlets has worked to let him control so much of the market. I can get the "it sucks but I need the money". What I don't get  is the "it's OK as long as it's you lot that they mess with"

RacePhoto

« Reply #433 on: January 23, 2013, 16:34 »
0
Before this gets lost in some long reply. (which I am notoriously guilty of providing...)

It has also come to light that the $12 dollars paid to contributes was only for the initial images in the package. Images have later been added with a $6 payment to the photographer.

Really? Ouch!

« Reply #434 on: January 23, 2013, 16:43 »
+3
Great analysis  .. and the keeping the food on the family table is so relevant.  No argument whatsoever.  Only thing that bothers (me, at least) is that more activities to move legit, copyright works into the, shall we say, free zone of things, would perhaps take the family table away too, over time.  If today its a few thousand images what can tomorrow bring?  Could our little effort potentially make a statement, and deter other similar actions, by anyone, to remove copyright info from images (if that was done), and place them into free zone of things?  Seems unfortunate if something like this happened without prior knowledge/ consent of copyright owners, and got discovered almost post facto.

No offence - fully confess that I havent been around in this particular business long enough but think that if so many of us feel so strongly about something perhaps we should make our viewpoint known loud as we can.  Just my 2c.

« Reply #435 on: January 23, 2013, 16:45 »
0
Latest from Oldladybird;

"As I said, no new iStock content...that includes Thinkstock and Getty. Nothing to do with luck."

So they do have some ability to control which images Getty sells to Google ... and this process is very much in the present.

I'm sure that the D-Day campaign is having an effect.

http://www.istockphoto.com/forum_messages.php?threadid=350613&page=24#post6827417

« Reply #436 on: January 23, 2013, 16:53 »
+4
This is a slap to all photographers online! We are not in one group or another here. By letting Getty give away a now 12000 image library hurts every agency out there including Blend! This is short sided and there are better ways to work with Google! This smacks of no respect for any of our work. To sit by and watch this happen is a crime. People pay for content everyday ahhhh ShutterStock...the list goes on. I stand by this action and shame on Blend for helping in this!

« Reply #437 on: January 23, 2013, 17:26 »
0
And again with the attitude that "microstockers took away trad photographers' livelihood when istock came about, it's only right that getty now takes your images from you." Forget that the market demanded the Micro model. It wasnt a spite-against-getty thing...it was to fulfill a big gap, and that market still remains.


And i am convinced that this attitude is exactly the party line being passed along to getty club members (on top of gettys need to steal images to make a fast buck). You bet i would love to see istockgetty go down. But even more important, i want to see every contributor protecting their ability to put food on the table for their families in the near future.

« Reply #438 on: January 23, 2013, 18:16 »
+1
Hi Jonathan

Wise words to ponder over. Thanks for taking the time and trouble to look into it; it is appreciated as ever. An honest position well stated and a viewpoint that everyone should consider before making a decision.

Regards...

« Reply #439 on: January 23, 2013, 18:16 »
-1
We don't know the extent of the getty-google deal.  In a year it might be 100,000 images... or maybe 1,000,000- 

We need an opt out now.

« Reply #440 on: January 23, 2013, 19:22 »
+8
...Unfortunately I don't think you pulling your content from Istock is going to hurt anyone but yourselves....
Keeping my portfolio there was hurting.  Deleting my best images felt really good.  I can't afford to do this but hopefully it will force me in to action and I'll be able to replace my lost earnings.

I'll never understand how sticking with a site that has cut commissions below 20%, has been saddled with debt, looks like it's only interested in taking more money from contributors, has broken promises and kept us in the dark about a deal that looks like it will hurt our earnings is a good business decision?  The longer I stay there, the more money I make for other people who are coming up with more ways to take even more from me.  That's not sustainable :)

« Reply #441 on: January 23, 2013, 21:20 »
+2
Hi JS,

 Thanks for the feedback. I did mention that in my post if you read it you will se that I said if it were my number one sellers and I didn't get a choice then I can understand the frustration with the deal. I get it, I am trying to live with what tomorrow will bring because If I try to fight today's battle today I am usually to late can garentee you it isn't going to be more money in the stock industry for individual photographers. The days of 7 figure returns are long gone and I think that photographers that want to stay in the business full time will have to diversify their options a great deal to pay the bills.
 Just like desk top publishers before the computer came out, those cut and paste folks were put out of business or had to adapt to survive very quickly. I am sorry to say that the best has come and gone but I do believe for those that are great at the craft of lighting, strong business skills as well as very strong people skills will be the ones with the best chance of making it.
 I have diversified a few years back seeing the writing on the wall. That was when my wife and I decided to start our own stock agency and do some investing. I was also speaking to another person that said " to survive today you must deversify outside of your own business " and I completely agree with his statement. The more you can put away for a rainy day and invest for long term while there are good investments available ( like property and several others in this down turned economy, must be long term at this point in the U.S. at least ) then I think your families security is even more assured.

Cheers,
Jonathan

« Reply #442 on: January 23, 2013, 21:27 »
+5
Although none of my images were affected by this google/getty deal I cannot believe what they are doing to the microstock industry and their contributors so you have my full support.

Only started uploading to IS a couple of months ago so my portfolio is very small, however I have just deactivated 45 images (leaving only 1 image active). You can add these to your total.


« Reply #443 on: January 23, 2013, 21:36 »
-1
I sometimes like to turn things upside down.

Now what if, we instead of clinging to our files, gave them away for free.
Since they are being given away anyway.
That would take the breath out of those pirating agencies.

Like shooting back with their own ammunition.

So I hereby declare, that if I ever find one of my files in these giveaway shows. Ill give it away from my homepage, in the original size and resolution.

What about that?

« Reply #444 on: January 23, 2013, 22:34 »
0
I sometimes like to turn things upside down.

Now what if, we instead of clinging to our files, gave them away for free.
Since they are being given away anyway.
That would take the breath out of those pirating agencies.

Like shooting back with their own ammunition.

So I hereby declare, that if I ever find one of my files in these giveaway shows. Ill give it away from my homepage, in the original size and resolution.

What about that?

As misguided as it may seem to some, I like your line of thinking!

« Reply #445 on: January 23, 2013, 22:59 »
+2
Google Drive want those files inside of Google Drive, but what if we threatened to publish them outside of Google Drive unless they made a deal with the content owners.
Same with istock, they have played fancy games with our content, the market value of their trades could easily be hollowed out.

Copyright means the right to copy and distribute. When we have produced an image it is only us and those we allow, who can distribute our files.

There is already a list of the involved files, it would be easy enough to upload them to a base somewhere.

PaulieWalnuts

  • On the Wrong Side of the Business
« Reply #446 on: January 23, 2013, 23:28 »
0
I can't read this entire thread but has anyone considered the fact that now the Feb 2 deletion extravaganza has been announced that they have plenty of time to change their policy on deletions and also work on disabling deletion functionality? Keep in mind that GI.com doesn't allow deletions. It's likely only a matter for time before this trickles down to IS especially with the recent events.

« Reply #447 on: January 23, 2013, 23:34 »
+1
I can't read this entire thread but has anyone considered the fact that now the Feb 2 deletion extravaganza has been announced that they have plenty of time to change their policy on deletions and also work on disabling deletion functionality? Keep in mind that GI.com doesn't allow deletions. It's likely only a matter for time before this trickles down to IS especially with the recent events.

They could be total bandits, but in theory they are supposed to give us 30 days notice of a change in the ASA. That would give us time to clear out our ports if they imposed some unacceptable new terms

PaulieWalnuts

  • On the Wrong Side of the Business
« Reply #448 on: January 23, 2013, 23:42 »
0
I can't read this entire thread but has anyone considered the fact that now the Feb 2 deletion extravaganza has been announced that they have plenty of time to change their policy on deletions and also work on disabling deletion functionality? Keep in mind that GI.com doesn't allow deletions. It's likely only a matter for time before this trickles down to IS especially with the recent events.

They could be total bandits, but in theory they are supposed to give us 30 days notice of a change in the ASA. That would give us time to clear out our ports if they imposed some unacceptable new terms

Which then leads to the point of account deletion being the only option. 

And do you really expect them to stick to the ASA after this mess?

« Reply #449 on: January 24, 2013, 00:22 »
0
When you deactivate a file, and it's already been sold to Google, will Getty deactivate it from Goog, or does it stay in the realm of worldwide free forever without hope of reclamation?


 

Related Topics

  Subject / Started by Replies Last post
4 Replies
4738 Views
Last post February 28, 2011, 17:43
by click_click
17 Replies
5069 Views
Last post January 15, 2013, 08:21
by jtyler
35 Replies
6313 Views
Last post November 22, 2013, 14:24
by BaldricksTrousers
11 Replies
3410 Views
Last post October 01, 2014, 13:42
by Freedom
13 Replies
4749 Views
Last post April 16, 2015, 12:00
by tickstock

Sponsors

Microstock Poll Results