pancakes

MicrostockGroup Sponsors


Author Topic: D-Day (Deactivation Day) on Istock - Feb 2  (Read 131156 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

« Reply #625 on: January 25, 2013, 23:13 »
0
Feb 2nd projected total is now 44,016+ deactivated or deleted files.


« Last Edit: January 26, 2013, 00:56 by cybernesco »


« Reply #626 on: January 26, 2013, 00:28 »
+8

(snip) Someone else posted here that one of their images was taken from Blend without their approval I offered to help and try and solve the issue but this person was also a Troll and did not reply. I cannot take their word they are telling the truth because once again they are hiding off line.

(snip) If Blend gave up 62 images and by doing so moved their position up the ranks on the pages at Getty then it is a big win for Blend and their photographers as we will see much higher returns with better image placement. 

Jonathan - I appreciate your efforts to share your POV and information.  On the other hand it seems a bit hypocritical to object to one forum member giving Blend a new (derogatory) name and then turn around and label another forum member a Troll just because they didnt respond or take you up on your offer.  It sure doesn't help advance the discussion and if it was me and I'd been away for a few days I'd sure be hesitant to approach now after being labeled a Troll.

I also can't help but wonder if Sean and other that got shafted by iS by having what they consider premium images, not bottom feeders, added to the Google deal will also benefit from better image placement (not that their best match algorithim would even be capable of that if it was intended). 

As noted above, the information on the Blend POV is appreciated but unfortunately it's salt in the wound for many to hear of preferential treatment and cutting better deals and it's likely to lead to some frustration in responses.  I just hope they won't get so intense they chase you away.

« Reply #627 on: January 26, 2013, 02:56 »
0
I have a practical question for February 2nd :

I am not planning to reactivate anything afterwards, not even if Getty would give in and create an opt-out, but the few images I already deactivated (14th Jan) are still on Thinkstock.

I heard different experiences on that topic :  some say it takes 30 days, others (Jsnover) have the luck to see them disappear immediately, and still others talk about cases where they stay on TS "forever" and you need to contact support to have them removed.

Now suppose I am in group 3 and after 30 days, I still see my deactivated stuff on Thinkstock.  How should I inform support?  I don't mean which e-mail address to use, but what info do they need?  Should I just say "please delete all deactivated images from TS", or do they need every Istock number, or even worse : will they be asking for the TS numbers?

As I plan to deactivate 500 (or more) (already mentioned in a previous post, so don't add this up in the total amount), I would prefer to know if I should make a list.  Sean's script is absolutely great, but it does not send reports with TS numbers afterwards  ;D

Did any of you contact Support to have TS images deleted (after deactivation), and if yes, what was their reaction?  Did they ask for file numbers, and if yes, did they need the IS file numbers or the TS numbers?

« Reply #628 on: January 26, 2013, 03:01 »
0
I have a practical question for February 2nd :

I am not planning to reactivate anything afterwards, not even if Getty would give in and create an opt-out, but the few images I already deactivated (14th Jan) are still on Thinkstock.

I heard different experiences on that topic :  some say it takes 30 days, others (Jsnover) have the luck to see them disappear immediately, and still others talk about cases where they stay on TS "forever" and you need to contact support to have them removed.

Now suppose I am in group 3 and after 30 days, I still see my deactivated stuff on Thinkstock.  How should I inform support?  I don't mean which e-mail address to use, but what info do they need?  Should I just say "please delete all deactivated images from TS", or do they need every Istock number, or even worse : will they be asking for the TS numbers?

As I plan to deactivate 500 (or more) (already mentioned in a previous post, so don't add this up in the total amount), I would prefer to know if I should make a list.  Sean's script is absolutely great, but it does not send reports with TS numbers afterwards  ;D

Did any of you contact Support to have TS images deleted (after deactivation), and if yes, what was their reaction?  Did they ask for file numbers, and if yes, did they need the IS file numbers or the TS numbers?

I contacted Contributor Relations through the IS website about a week ago, gave them a list of the file numbers of my deactivated files, and asked if they would please delete those files from the IS partner-program. The files were deleted in less than a week, and I received a reply from IS confirming so.

« Reply #629 on: January 26, 2013, 03:06 »
0
Great!  I was afraid I had to look up all the Thinkstock numbers!

« Reply #630 on: January 26, 2013, 05:48 »
0
Is there any reaction or comments from iStock side?

« Reply #631 on: January 26, 2013, 06:26 »
+1
Thanks Snufkin,

 I find your post a bit disrespectful. I am here trying to help I do not have to make excuses for my agency or for Blend they are allowed to conduct business the way they and I see fit. I am here trying to help share some information on what I know is taking place with our agency and Getty Images to hopefully add some insight for all photographers.
 If you are mad at Getty then please direct your frustration at them if you don't agree with what I said a simple " I do not agree " works better than calling a post someone spent the time to offer up as "nonsense" or making up silly names about our agency " Bend " when I am trying to share info.
 Posting this information does not benefit me or my agencies in any way it is shared to try to help, I thought we were trying to help each other out here with information on the topic?

Jonathan

yeah right. the deal was good for you = you dont want to p*** off istock = insipid post.  this one would be just as bad, but it adds a bit of passive aggressiveness in trying to take the moral high ground - everyone has the right to reply, just as you exercised the right to speak out. i can see why your in bed with istock - bullies tend to find strength in numbers.

Microbius

« Reply #632 on: January 26, 2013, 06:30 »
+1
I'm a bit confused about some of the stuff posted on the IStock forum threads.

Will the protest and deactivations on Feb 2nd:

1. Have absolutely no effect on IStock?
2. Place a massive burden on the admin and running of the site?

The same people seem to be arguing both things.

And just a side note for Jonathan, professional photographers don't usually like having their agency call their images "bottom feeders" even if they are not their best sellers. Just while we're on the topic of politeness.

ShadySue

« Reply #633 on: January 26, 2013, 06:36 »
+4
I also can't help but wonder if Sean and other that got shafted by iS by having what they consider premium images, not bottom feeders, added to the Google deal will also benefit from better image placement (not that their best match algorithim would even be capable of that if it was intended). 
I wondered the same, but it seems unlikely.
Getty clearly approached Blend and made a deal: give us 12 pics and we'll raise visibility for all of your images in our search. Blend gave them some old files, currently not selling very well. Many of us would probably have done the same, given the choice. There was a bit of give and take, and the option was apparently given, though with a bit of armtwisting.

However Sean et al had their files pressganged into the scam 'program'. Getty didn't even bother to sweeten the 'deal' for them, so I guess they're not going to give them a 'secret' reward.

« Reply #634 on: January 26, 2013, 06:41 »
+2
Just seen this from Lobo:

Quote
I honestly hope more people take this attitude. It could get difficult for the folks ramping up to deactivate files to take a stand only to change their minds and request reactivations. We've already seen contacts from people who have deactivated a chunk of their portfolio who want reactivations. We've closed an account too. One whole account.


I'm glad that IS have noticed our efforts, now that they are aware you would think they would act to resolve the problem. It does prove though that we are having an effect!
« Last Edit: January 26, 2013, 06:43 by picture5469 »

ShadySue

« Reply #635 on: January 26, 2013, 06:53 »
+1
Just seen this from Lobo:

Quote
I honestly hope more people take this attitude. It could get difficult for the folks ramping up to deactivate files to take a stand only to change their minds and request reactivations. We've already seen contacts from people who have deactivated a chunk of their portfolio who want reactivations. We've closed an account too. One whole account.


I'm glad that IS have noticed our efforts, now that they are aware you would think they would act to resolve the problem. It does prove though that we are having an effect!

I guess it's difficult to go back on the deal they brokered with Google. Even if somehow a loophole was found making the deal invalid/illegal, the files are already out there for eternity.
All they can do now is stop it from going on and adequately compensate those whose images were taken without permission. I have no idea what proportion of the thousands of images were taken with permission (e.g. Blend) [or indeed whether they were offered more than the $12 that others got] and which were simply appropriated.
I'm also interested to know how much Getty made 'over and above' the price per image just for brokering the deal.

« Reply #636 on: January 26, 2013, 08:00 »
+11
.....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......

Hi Jonathan, I have to reply to this part of your post, because that is most certainly NOT the main concern for most independent contributors to IStock with the current Google fiasco, and I'd hate for you to come away with that idea.

Even with IStock's declining market share, they are still among the top earning micro sites for most people that contribute there, all things being equal no one is going to stop contributing to them because of the fall in income.

The issues are to do with their treatment of their contributors. Most especially in the case of the Google deal, their willingness to wipe out the value of their contributor's work, thus jeopardizing their income across all sites. The nature of the deal clearly goes outside of the reasonable expectations of anyone agreeing to their terms, and shows at least a disregard for our work and I would also say contempt for us.

These are the issues, I am not sure where you came away with the idea that this is was simply griping about an income drop, I for one am continuing to see an increase in income across all the major sites including IStock (though their percentage of my total is sliding), and am nonetheless in the position where I need to consider dropping them to preserve my livelihood.

I don't know how anyone could read through these threads and infer that declining revenue from Istock is the main reason for the removal of images.  I, also, continue to make good money from Istock, as many of you do.  The thought of deleting images and losing that income because of my own actions sickens me.  But, what sickens me more is the much bigger loss of income that actions like these from Istock will cause.  It's kind of a "pick your poison" choice.  In this case, one poison will hurt you, but the other will kill you.
« Last Edit: January 26, 2013, 09:57 by Beach Bum »

« Reply #637 on: January 26, 2013, 08:16 »
+1

« Reply #638 on: January 26, 2013, 08:39 »
+2
I don't know how anyone could read through these threads and infer that loss of income is the main reason for the removal of images.  I, also, continue to make good money from Istock, as many of you do.  The thought of deleting images and losing that income because of my own actions sickens me.  But, what sickens me more is the much bigger loss of income that actions like these from Istock will cause.  It's kind of a "pick your poison" choice.  In this case, one poison will hurt you, but the other will kill you.

I agree with you, and I think some contributors are under the mistaken impression that mass deactivations is going to change Getty's mind somehow. They are OK with losing some images and some contributors. It's called culling. The whole point of deactivating on Feb. 2 is to pull your images from an "agency" who disrespects you constantly, and is OK with giving YOUR property away. The fact that it is done on a massive scale, hopefully, will send a message to other "agencies" who think this is a good route to take.

I had the same choice to make as you did, along with many others, about a year ago, after many lies and disrespects already by Getty. You are right, either choice is not a GOOD choice, but really, for me, it has been the "one door closes and another one opens". I lost good money by leaving istock. But it wasn't too long before I made up the difference on the other sites I am on. And besides, I put in the work and invested the money in equipment to SELL those images, NOT give them away. It's not a question of whether you are going to lose money, because if you stay at istock you will, and if you go, you will. But the google deal ensures that that image will no longer make money ANYWHERE for you. That's the deal-breaker for me.

« Reply #639 on: January 26, 2013, 08:57 »
0

« Reply #640 on: January 26, 2013, 09:12 »
0
I have a practical question for February 2nd :

I am not planning to reactivate anything afterwards, not even if Getty would give in and create an opt-out, but the few images I already deactivated (14th Jan) are still on Thinkstock.

I heard different experiences on that topic :  some say it takes 30 days, others (Jsnover) have the luck to see them disappear immediately, and still others talk about cases where they stay on TS "forever" and you need to contact support to have them removed.

Now suppose I am in group 3 and after 30 days, I still see my deactivated stuff on Thinkstock.  How should I inform support?  I don't mean which e-mail address to use, but what info do they need?  Should I just say "please delete all deactivated images from TS", or do they need every Istock number, or even worse : will they be asking for the TS numbers?

As I plan to deactivate 500 (or more) (already mentioned in a previous post, so don't add this up in the total amount), I would prefer to know if I should make a list.  Sean's script is absolutely great, but it does not send reports with TS numbers afterwards  ;D

Did any of you contact Support to have TS images deleted (after deactivation), and if yes, what was their reaction?  Did they ask for file numbers, and if yes, did they need the IS file numbers or the TS numbers?


I'm sure there are others with this same question.  Let's take the conversation over here so it doesn't get lost.
http://www.microstockgroup.com/istockphoto-com/removing-photo-from-thinkstock/

« Reply #641 on: January 26, 2013, 10:17 »
-10
Hi CC,

 Thanks for the feedback my biggest issue here is the Trolling. If you don't have to share who you are then you can say or make up stories about your work all day long and non of us are the wiser, it could all be B.S. for all we know. Someone else posted here that one of their images was taken from Blend without their approval I offered to help and try and solve the issue but this person was also a Troll and did not reply. I cannot take their word they are telling the truth because once again they are hiding off line.
 I agree CC this deal is a concern for people in the Micro market I have completely agreed with that position in my earlier postings. It is a bad deal if your number 1 images are being put into this collection without your notice. Many Micro sales are for " in house use " if the buyer doesn't have to buy your images from Istock for in house use then you are definitly losing money.
 I have never said this was good for Micro but please understand the dealings with image placement, acceptance rates, options for future development are all part of doing business with Getty for Blend and soon for Spaces as well. If Blend gave up 62 images and by doing so moved their position up the ranks on the pages at Getty then it is a big win for Blend and their photographers as we will see much higher returns with better image placement. 
 This is just a scenario but to say that negotiating with the biggest reseller to gain more ground for Blend is a bad move then I am sorry you have not played this game from the other side of the net. I feel your pain please everyone realize this that is why I have been looking into it and posting what I can find out just trying to help with the information I can share but some people still like to shoot the messenger :)

Cheers,
Jonathan

Agree 100%. I agree with many others ( who doesnt post here anymore), unless they have the guts to reveal themselves, etc. They are not worth answering. Not that many are worth it anyway but to answer a nom de plume, whats the point?  youre only going to get some garbage reply.

ShadySue

« Reply #642 on: January 26, 2013, 10:27 »
+3
Agree 100%. I agree with many others ( who doesnt post here anymore), unless they have the guts to reveal themselves, etc. They are not worth answering. Not that many are worth it anyway but to answer a nom de plume, whats the point?  youre only going to get some garbage reply.
Well done, that's my Good Laugh for the day.  ;D

rubyroo

« Reply #643 on: January 26, 2013, 11:39 »
+1
...and George Eliot, Currer, Acton and Ellis Bell laugh right along with you.  :)

« Reply #644 on: January 26, 2013, 12:00 »
-3
...and George Eliot, Currer, Acton and Ellis Bell laugh right along with you.  :)

But youre a Pseudo, arent you?

rubyroo

« Reply #645 on: January 26, 2013, 12:04 »
+4
I don't know who I am any more.  ;)

I believe ShadySue was laughing at the fact that you are currently a pseudo, insulting pseudos.  Hence my comment that some other well-known pseudos would also be laughing at this point (particularly at the idea that everything they wrote was valueless).
« Last Edit: January 26, 2013, 12:10 by rubyroo »

« Reply #646 on: January 26, 2013, 12:11 »
-4
I don't know who I am any more.

I believe ShadySue was laughing at the fact that you are currently a pseudo, insulting pseudos.  Hence my comment that some other well-known pseudos would also be laughing at this point (as well as at the idea that everything they wrote was valueless).

No, no, no Im not a pseudo, everybody knows who I am ( lagereek) its no secret.  I mean I know who you REALLY are ( hush, hush) but Im talking about pseudos who never disclose themselves and yet have something like 10 posts in every single thread. Pretty hard to take them seriously isnt it.
Insulting to pseudos?  I dont hink so, heck if they cant take this, then what are they doing in a forum in the first place.

rubyroo

« Reply #647 on: January 26, 2013, 12:26 »
+4
Yes yes, those of us who KNOW do know who you are, but it remains that the name ClaridgeJ is a pseudo.

I'm not insulted btw - I think all generalisations are nonsense and forums are so filled with them that a person would be rendered permanently into a state of trauma if they took them all to heart.

I think, as others have said previously, that you can get a feel for a person's views and the value of their thought process through their words.  It doesn't matter to me at all who they are.  Good sense is good sense and nonsense is nonsense, regardless of a person's perceived or invented status.

« Reply #648 on: January 26, 2013, 12:37 »
-3
Yes yes, those of us who KNOW do know who you are, but it remains that the name ClaridgeJ is a pseudo.

I'm not insulted btw - I think all generalisations are nonsense and forums are so filled with them that a person would be rendered permanently into a state of trauma if they took them all to heart.

I think, as others have said previously, that you can get a feel for a person's views and the value of their thought process through their words.  It doesn't matter to me at all who they are.  Good sense is good sense and nonsense is nonsense, regardless of a person's perceived or invented status.

Yes I can agree with that. :)  I had no option but to change. Turned out that some private buyers of mine noticed the old member-name and that was no good. Gives a bad rep.
« Last Edit: January 26, 2013, 12:40 by ClaridgeJ »

rubyroo

« Reply #649 on: January 26, 2013, 12:38 »
+2
 Ah well... there's one of those perfectly valid reasons for a pseudo. :)
« Last Edit: January 26, 2013, 12:42 by rubyroo »


 

Related Topics

  Subject / Started by Replies Last post
4 Replies
4808 Views
Last post February 28, 2011, 17:43
by click_click
17 Replies
5159 Views
Last post January 15, 2013, 08:21
by jtyler
35 Replies
6608 Views
Last post November 22, 2013, 14:24
by BaldricksTrousers
11 Replies
3516 Views
Last post October 01, 2014, 13:42
by Freedom
13 Replies
4873 Views
Last post April 16, 2015, 12:00
by tickstock

Sponsors

Microstock Poll Results