Author Topic: D-Day (Deactivation Day) on Istock - Feb 2 (Read 223081 times)

jm · « **Reply #150 on:** January 15, 2013, 09:18 »

It's still there. But just in case they delete it - this is link to script

John W. · « **Reply #151 on:** January 15, 2013, 09:22 »

I might have missed it somewhere but can anyone tell me what will happen to the images on PP-sites when I disable them on IS?

Mantis · « **Reply #152 on:** January 15, 2013, 09:44 »

Quote from: leaf on January 15, 2013, 09:17

Quote from: Mantis on January 15, 2013, 09:01
On the Istock forums they have removed all posts with Sean's Greasmonkey script.

No they haven't. It's right here
http://www.istockphoto.com/forum_messages.php?threadid=350491&messageid=6818805#post6818805

.. but here's the direct link in case they do remove it
http://digitalplanetdesign.com/scripts/IS_myUploads_fixes.user.js

Sweet. I just went through every page there and others are saying the same thing....that it is missing. Thanks. Intend on using it on my underwater work that costs me thousands in travel expenses to get.

jtyler · « **Reply #153 on:** January 15, 2013, 09:57 »

I tried that link and it appears to be dysfunctional. Tried to open twice - from the link and after saving it. Sean could you post it here?

sdeva · « **Reply #154 on:** January 15, 2013, 10:11 »

Please, could someone explain what this deactivation link does?

leaf · « **Reply #155 on:** January 15, 2013, 10:15 »

First you have to install greasemonkey as a firefox
plug in
Then you click Sean's link and it will automatically install the script within greasemonkey.

Then, when you visit the iStock portfolio page, you'll have an extra collum that gives you the option to deactivate an image. I just saves clicking into each image individually and lets you do 20 deactivations on a single page.

Jo Ann Snover · « **Reply #156 on:** January 15, 2013, 10:28 »

Quote from: jwolf on January 15, 2013, 09:22

I might have missed it somewhere but can anyone tell me what will happen to the images on PP-sites when I disable them on IS?

Eventually they will be deleted there. Sometimes it has taken a while for this to happen and people have ended up contacting contributor relations to do it manually.

In theory it should be automatic although I believe they have up to 90 days (it says somewhere in the ASA) to do it.

Jo Ann Snover · « **Reply #157 on:** January 15, 2013, 10:33 »

Quote from: Tabimura on January 15, 2013, 04:08

Quote from: jsnover on January 14, 2013, 22:44
If I had to guess, they don't want him promoting his own web site from his DT profile page so they disabled it.

Stop stirring the pot for a typo. It's yuri_arcurs, not yuri-arcurs.

I don't think there is a typo. If on DT you search for one of Yuri's images (business team was the term I used) and then click on the link shown on the DT site with his name you get the disabled page. So if there is a typo, DT made it.

And why do you think it's stirring the pot to mention that Yuri's portfolio page says his account doesn't exist?

Pixart · « **Reply #158 on:** January 15, 2013, 10:48 »

Quote from: jtyler on January 15, 2013, 08:02

Quote from: Snufkin on January 14, 2013, 16:47
Quote from: MichaelJayFoto on January 14, 2013, 15:35
The problem I have is that I mentally can't come up with a realistic response they could give that would make me feel optimistic things would change.
You are right. There is no statement that they could make that would impress me.
They would need to compensate the affected artists with thousands $ for each file, which will never happen.

Deactivating should not be about wanting to achieve something but about protecting our portfolios from becoming worthless.

After thinking about this long and hard throughout the night, if you deactivate, those images are worthless also, except if you are non-exclusive and have them at other site. How do we know that we will be able to reactivate. IS has been known to close people's accounts and take other measures, such as banning people from Forums. They would feel it is within their right to not allow deactivation. They have already taken away opt out. IS can be very vindictive behind their "we are supportive of contributors doing well" lines. I am very concerned about being able to reactivate. Going elsewhere is not an option for me.

Those of you who have other outlets, there will still be income coming in. At this moment I need every penny I can get from IS. My top sellers are no longer being downloaded in any significant numbers. I am almost only selling images before 2009, and they differ all the time.

I can certainly deactivate non-selling images, which will add to the total. I think it is irrelevant whether they are top sellers or not. Even with a lightbox showing what images, I don't think IS would care. There are thousands of top contributors, who have been vocal about issues in the past and we are not hearing from them now.. Numbers alone are more significant, but it is only a gesture.

The only way there will be action is if there is a law suit. Even if we don't win, they have to spend $, maybe lots of it to defend a class action suit. I absolutely do not think they will respond to anything else. The deals have been struck and they are not going to be changed. But if we can show disregard for copyright and putting models at risk, then we have a bargaining chip. If we get models saying they do not want their images handled this way (which would be done in a lawsuit as evidence), that would be pretty powerful.

I think the deactivation may get press coverage and affect sales some. Buyers may form a boycott and once they leave and find the many quality images that can be gotten elsewhere, cheaper from new agencies, they may not come back.

Anyway, these are my concerns and should be thought over very carefully before to something that only hurts the contributor in the long run.

That was my 50 cents worth. Just things to consider.

jtyler, I feel for you and other exclusives who are in this position. Do what you can. Consider what steps you will take if you need to cancel exclusivity in the future (just in case you are suddenly pushed too far). There was a charity that used to say "give until it feels good".... maybe take until it feels good. Keep an eye on what is happening and have your metadata ready to blast the other agencies.

jtyler · « **Reply #159 on:** January 15, 2013, 11:07 »

jtyler, I feel for you and other exclusives who are in this position. Do what you can. Consider what steps you will take if you need to cancel exclusivity in the future (just in case you are suddenly pushed too far). There was a charity that used to say "give until it feels good".... maybe take until it feels good. Keep an eye on what is happening and have your metadata ready to blast the other agencies.
[/quote]

I have certainly thought about it and have made some inquiries to other sites. I'm watching suggestions carefully, as many of you are more familiar with other sites than I am. We'll see where it goes. There could be retaliation by IS for those posting negatively. Believe me, I do not put it past them, and how would we know except when our sales keep going down. Monday I had $4 in sales. Not sure I was ever near that low on a week day. So that could be the factor that puts me over the edge. Leaves the door open for all those who did not take a stand.

RacePhoto · « **Reply #160 on:** January 15, 2013, 11:23 »

Looks interesting and should be fun to watch.

Good thing you started a new dedicated thread!

I might have missed it. I'm doing year end backups, taxes, and lots of paperwork, forms and ordering required inspections.

Quote from: lisafx on January 14, 2013, 09:54

Hope it's okay. I thought this deserved its own thread, apart from the tally thread and the google one. Easier to get the word out if it is prominently displayed.

With a firm date of Feb. 2 - Ground Hog Day, we can coordinate to send a powerful message message to Getty.

Some exclusives have mentioned in the Istock thread that it might be a good day to turn in the crown too.

Also, with a set date, it might make for a more compelling story for the media.

(and a note to the "I've tried nothing and I'm all out of ideas" gang, this is a thread for people who plan to participate in this initiative. Keep your wet blankets to yourself)

Jo Ann Snover · « **Reply #161 on:** January 15, 2013, 11:35 »

Quote from: jtyler on January 15, 2013, 11:07

...Monday I had $4 in sales. Not sure I was ever near that low on a week day. So that could be the factor that puts me over the edge. Leaves the door open for all those who did not take a stand.

Jan, I thought I was having a bad Monday when it was $15.xx!! Difficult times...

Batman · « **Reply #162 on:** January 15, 2013, 12:00 »

Quote from: MichaelJayFoto on January 14, 2013, 15:29

Quote from: JPSDK on January 14, 2013, 14:08
Looks like we can easily get up to 10.000 images deleted on 2. feb.
That is a message!

Sorry but 10.000 will not be a message. It will be 0.1% of the total library. And it will be 1 day worth of uploading.

Not that I have much hope anyways that things will change. But I think to make a point the minimum you'd need is a 100k.

Then take down another 10,000 and if that doesn't get their attention another 10,000. I behind this and will be removing deactivating most of my pictures.

No surprise that the biggest IS cheerleader SNP came out of hiding to tell us we're not speaking for her and a minority of people who would applaud if IS cut their commissions more and gave away more of their photos.

iZombies want to chant and cover their ears so they can't hear the truth.

cathyslife · « **Reply #163 on:** January 15, 2013, 12:08 »

Focus on this: you arent taking down to force a change AT ALL. The damage has already been done. You are taking down to save your property.

lisafx · « **Reply #164 on:** January 15, 2013, 12:55 »

Quote from: oxman on January 15, 2013, 00:23

Getty management will not care about what you do and will be glad a bunch of "squeaky wheel malcontents" are out of the system. They have plenty of images. The iStock "amateurs" are not that important to them. That is why they will cut unethical deals and cut your commissions and leave iStock staff in the dark about what shady dealings they are doing. Getty and Klien are unethical, back stabbing, ruthless, money-grubbing, narcissistic shysters. YOU don't matter. And buyers don't care as long as they find an image they want at a good price.

Ox, you are a great guy and I sincerely do appreciate your advice and your consideration. But I would ask you to please reread the above paragraph you've written (which is quite eloquent IMO) and ask yourself why ANY of us, exclusive or not, would want to be in business with this company.

oxman · « **Reply #165 on:** January 15, 2013, 13:33 »

Quote from: lisafx on January 15, 2013, 12:55

Quote from: oxman on January 15, 2013, 00:23

Getty management will not care about what you do and will be glad a bunch of "squeaky wheel malcontents" are out of the system. They have plenty of images. The iStock "amateurs" are not that important to them. That is why they will cut unethical deals and cut your commissions and leave iStock staff in the dark about what shady dealings they are doing. Getty and Klien are unethical, back stabbing, ruthless, money-grubbing, narcissistic shysters. YOU don't matter. And buyers don't care as long as they find an image they want at a good price.

Ox, you are a great guy and I sincerely do appreciate your advice and your consideration. But I would ask you to please reread the above paragraph you've written (which is quite eloquent IMO) and ask yourself why ANY of us, exclusive or not, would want to be in business with this company.

i still make good $$

aeonf · « **Reply #166 on:** January 15, 2013, 13:36 »

Taking down at least 22 including a few Vetta's.

donding · « **Reply #167 on:** January 15, 2013, 13:59 »

I thankfully deleted my port there over a year ago and am so thankful I did. The morals behind this company are so questionable which was why I left. I really find it hard to believe that Getty only got $60.00 a pop for these images. This company is based on GREED. Why would they put top selling images on Goggle to be downloaded for free if they weren't making a huge profit. Some of you figured at $60.00 a pop that's about $360,000.00 based on 6000 images. Getty is a huge company and $360,000.00 isn't much money in their eyes for a long term deal like Google. Then if they paid everyone their share of $12.00, then that puts their profit at $288,000.00. I don't think they would do that for such a low amount of money. We'll probably never see the contract to know what they really were paid for these images.

I really feel for you contributors that depend on this income for a living. Your really stuck between a rock and a hard place and iStock has you by the balls. I really believe this is probably why the majority of these images are exclusives. I know there is a count going on here as far as how many images will be deleted on Feb 2nd, which is really a small amount, but there are many contributors out there that don't post on forums that are or have already deleted their images to protect what is left. The number is probably higher than you think.

I feel that deactivating images is a good idea, but I see some mentioning they are deactivating the ones that are non sellers. How does that protect your images? Getty isn't going to put an image that hasn't sold on Google, only the sellers which Google would want. They are probably still supplying images as we speak, so as some have mentioned they are deactivating their best sellers and model released images.

Even for those of us that have port elsewhere are effected by this, and even those that don't plan to leave because they think it is better for them that a bunch of you are leaving. Put simply, if you were a customer, and saw an image you liked, but then saw one on the Google Drive that might be as good but is free....wouldn't you go for the free one? It effects us all. Think about it.

Starzipan · « **Reply #168 on:** January 15, 2013, 14:42 »

Quote from: donding on January 15, 2013, 13:59

Even for those of us that have port elsewhere are effected by this, and even those that don't plan to leave because they think it is better for them that a bunch of you are leaving. Put simply, if you were a customer, and saw an image you liked, but then saw one on the Google Drive that might be as good but is free....wouldn't you go for the free one? It affects us all. Think about it.

I do not have a portfolio on I-stock at all after reading up on some of their previous injustices and deciding it was not a company for me.

While I can't really do much to support this, it's fantastic contributors are banding together to fight for protecting our rights as contributors. Free images would certainly hurt the small fries like myself and others because it's so very difficult to compete with free. Why would they pay anything for my images at another place if they can find a similar image for free?

I'm rooting for all of you that are taking a stand. I do hope it sends a message not only to I-Stock but to other companies as well.

leaf · « **Reply #169 on:** January 15, 2013, 14:50 »

For anyone who feels this initiative 'won't make a difference anyhow', here's why I don't agree.

It will make a BIG difference to me and my images. My images will no longer be licensed through an agency who is willing to let my images be given away from free. That is the big difference I'm trying to make. Anything more is bonus. Having everyone remove their images on the same day may or may not raise iStock's proverbial eyebrows but no matter what, it will save my portfolio from being given away for free as part of an exciting 'deal'

HughStoneIan · « **Reply #170 on:** January 15, 2013, 15:07 »

Quote from: leaf on January 15, 2013, 14:50

For anyone who feels this initiative 'won't make a difference anyhow', here's why I don't agree.

It will make a BIG difference to me and my images. My images will no longer be licensed through an agency who is willing to let my images be given away from free. That is the big difference I'm trying to make. Anything more is bonus. Having everyone remove their images on the same day may or may not raise iStock's proverbial eyebrows but no matter what, it will save my portfolio from being given away for free as part of an exciting 'deal'

+100
I don't think it can be summed up any more rationally than that.

Pixart · « **Reply #171 on:** January 15, 2013, 16:12 »

Quote from: donding on January 15, 2013, 13:59

snip..... I really find it hard to believe that Getty only got $60.00 a pop for these images. This company is based on GREED. Why would they put top selling images on Goggle to be downloaded for free if they weren't making a huge profit. Some of you figured at $60.00 a pop that's about $360,000.00 based on 6000 images. Getty is a huge company and $360,000.00 isn't much money in their eyes for a long term deal like Google. Then if they paid everyone their share of $12.00, then that puts their profit at $288,000.00. I don't think they would do that for such a low amount of money. We'll probably never see the contract to know what they really were paid for these images....

Oh, don't kid yourself. I would expect that there was some sort of contra deal where Getty was issued several $K in advertising credits. Getty would argue that it's impossible to pay a commission to the artist for say.... 600,000 clicks or views.

Jo Ann Snover · « **Reply #172 on:** January 15, 2013, 16:26 »

Quote from: leaf on January 15, 2013, 14:50

For anyone who feels this initiative 'won't make a difference anyhow', here's why I don't agree.

It will make a BIG difference to me and my images. My images will no longer be licensed through an agency who is willing to let my images be given away from free. That is the big difference I'm trying to make. Anything more is bonus. Having everyone remove their images on the same day may or may not raise iStock's proverbial eyebrows but no matter what, it will save my portfolio from being given away for free as part of an exciting 'deal'

In addition to the above (which I gave a heart to as I agree with it) I think it may make a difference to other agencies that are wondering if they can get in on Getty's act. It is in our best interests to have them be aware that they'll lose images if they pull this sh*t.

cobalt · « **Reply #173 on:** January 15, 2013, 19:17 »

I sincerly hope that pressure from high ranking getty contributors will achieve an opt out. Many exclusives wgith portfolios with over 7000 files. even if they know they need to walk away they still need time to prepare.

what is happening is that many people have dropped other file exclusivity, first video then ilustrations adn are actively building portfolios elsewhere. others are just out looking for jobs, even part time.

if there is no opt out of these deals, the. I will go over my content and see what needs immediate saving and what is so old, that I can risk losing control of it.

but most important that i find time in my daily life to shoot more videos and upload to the other sites. i am quite pleased with the results even if my portfolio is tiny.

obviously if there is no opt out and the disrespect continues, then i must pull out. again, i would need to first secure another job before iwalk away.

but i won't just deactivate the whole portfolio. the connections built are my work and you cannot rule out that getty gets old again in 2 years to people who have better business instincts.

the management can come and go, the marketplace will stay.

but what getty has done is make me focus on video and exploring other sites in detail. anyway, they don't need us. istock is trly dead.

luissantos84 · « **Reply #174 on:** January 15, 2013, 19:23 »

Quote from: leaf on January 15, 2013, 05:18

Quote from: Tabimura on January 15, 2013, 04:08
Quote from: jsnover on January 14, 2013, 22:44
Quote from: Microstock Man on January 14, 2013, 21:56
Quote
(BTW his portfolio link isn't working here, http://www.dreamstime.com/yuri-arcurs_info)

wow thats strange. Yet his images are easily found...

http://www.dreamstime.com/royalty-free-stock-images-business-man-stretching-his-hand-handshake-image10130379

If I had to guess, they don't want him promoting his own web site from his DT profile page so they disabled it.

Stop stirring the pot for a typo. It's yuri_arcurs, not yuri-arcurs.

Here's the link
http://www.dreamstime.com/yuri_arcurs_info

sorry but that wasn't the problem, they have changed it, my link was correct, actually I tried a few times and in different browsers

MicrostockGroup Sponsors

Author Topic: D-Day (Deactivation Day) on Istock - Feb 2 (Read 223081 times)

jm

John W.

Mantis

jtyler

sdeva

leaf

Jo Ann Snover

Jo Ann Snover

Pixart

jtyler

RacePhoto

Jo Ann Snover

Batman

cathyslife

lisafx

oxman

aeonf

donding

Starzipan

leaf

HughStoneIan

Pixart

Jo Ann Snover

cobalt

luissantos84

Related Topics

Sponsors

Microstock Poll Results

Sponsors