MicrostockGroup
Agency Based Discussion => iStockPhoto.com => Topic started by: donding on May 04, 2011, 16:29
-
Risamay posted this link into another thread but I thought it needed it's own thread.
http://www.pdnonline.com/pdn/news/ASMP-to-Getty-Photog-2608.shtml (http://www.pdnonline.com/pdn/news/ASMP-to-Getty-Photog-2608.shtml)
Very interesting information in there.
[/quote]
The American Society of Media Photographers (ASMP) has released a memo that all but advises Getty contributors to quit the agency and find other ways to distribute their stock photographs if they can. American Photographic Artists (APA), meanwhile, has issued a veiled threat of legal action against the stock photo agency.
[/quote]
This was posted today on the PDN website
-
Risamay posted this link into another thread but I thought it needed it's own thread.
[url]http://www.pdnonline.com/pdn/news/ASMP-to-Getty-Photog-2608.shtml[/url] ([url]http://www.pdnonline.com/pdn/news/ASMP-to-Getty-Photog-2608.shtml[/url])
Very interesting information in there.
The American Society of Media Photographers (ASMP) has released a memo that all but advises Getty contributors to quit the agency and find other ways to distribute their stock photographs if they can. American Photographic Artists (APA), meanwhile, has issued a veiled threat of legal action against the stock photo agency.
[/quote]
This was posted today on the PDN website
[/quote]
I hope they follow through!
-
"I see this as a strategic move on Getty's part to cull out their contributors," to focus on those who actively produce and those who are willing to go along with Getty's marketing strategy, Mopsik says. But he hardly faults the agency, adding, "If images haven't sold in 36 months, what would you do?"
We all make are own choices for whatever reasons and mine is to give iStock Exclusivity another 6 months based on this quote above. The concern of course is that in their effort to cull contributors they seem to also be culling buyers!!!
-
Risamay posted this link into another thread but I thought it needed it's own thread.
[url]http://www.pdnonline.com/pdn/news/ASMP-to-Getty-Photog-2608.shtml[/url] ([url]http://www.pdnonline.com/pdn/news/ASMP-to-Getty-Photog-2608.shtml[/url])
Very interesting information in there.
The American Society of Media Photographers (ASMP) has released a memo that all but advises Getty contributors to quit the agency and find other ways to distribute their stock photographs if they can. American Photographic Artists (APA), meanwhile, has issued a veiled threat of legal action against the stock photo agency.
This was posted today on the PDN website
[/quote]
I hope they follow through!
[/quote]
I hope they do also....if they do it might make iStock take a closer look at the treatment of their contributors.
-
I find these two parts of the article a joke:
While ASMP is recommending that Getty contributors find alternate means of distribution, APA says it has hired a law firm that specializes in copyright law and litigation "to help us develop a response" to the Getty contract changes.
They've hired a copyright lawyer! Why it's nothing to do with copyright, it's a contract lawyer they want.
"I see this as a strategic move on Getty's part to cull out their contributors," to focus on hose who actively produce and those who are willing to go along with Getty's marketing strategy, Mopsik says. But he hardly faults the agency, adding, "If images haven't sold in 36 months, what would you do?"
So 'Mopsik' decides to end the article by siding with Getty, nice bit of back peddling ::) Did he use to work for the failed SAA by any chance?
-
Maybe the copyright lawyers will address Getty's purposeful mis-attribution of copyright holder name on partner sites. Like 'Ocean Images', etc.
-
"I see this as a strategic move on Getty's part to cull out their contributors," to focus on those who actively produce and those who are willing to go along with Getty's marketing strategy, Mopsik says. But he hardly faults the agency, adding, "If images haven't sold in 36 months, what would you do?"
One approach is to ask what's wrong with the images, and the other might be for Getty to wonder what was amiss with their marketing or reach that they didn't find buyers for images that they chose as stock worthy during the editing process. Seems a bit to glib to just start a fire sale on Thinkstock.
I'm sure if I drop the prices low enough I can find a buyer/two/a few for anything, but that's not what we (contributors) pay agencies their huge commissions for.
I think that Getty wants contributors on the cheap as opposed to doing their job.
-
One approach is to ask what's wrong with the images, and the other might be for Getty to wonder what was amiss with their marketing or reach that they didn't find buyers for images that they chose as stock worthy during the editing process.
It'll more than likely be 'what's wrong with their keywording' which normally sucks big time.
-
A lot of the Getty photographers are traditional macro stock photographers aren't they? Being put on a microstock site would be considered a insult to a traditional photographer. I can understand why they would be upset.