pancakes

MicrostockGroup Sponsors


Author Topic: D-Day (Deactivation Day) on Istock - Feb 2  (Read 221600 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

ShadySue

  • There is a crack in everything
« Reply #175 on: January 15, 2013, 19:26 »
+1
The thing is, how would you word exactly what you want to opt out of?
Clearly many would want to opt out of taking part in promotions without payment.
But the Google deal wasn't a promotion, it was a special EL.
But it may be that other special ELs may not be so objectionable.
So you'd need to be incredibly prescient to clarify what you wanted to be opted out of, making sure you hadn't allowed them any space to out you into any unforeseen deal in future, but also making sure that you were 'in' anything that was reasonable.
'Future imponderables' consitute a very difficult semantic quagmire to negotiate, also perhaps different suppliers have different tolerance levels.
For example, we could all say we wanted opted out of deals like the Getty one, but they could decide to put our work onto FAA and cream off 80% plus their 'brokerage commission' or whatever they'd call it.


« Reply #176 on: January 15, 2013, 19:40 »
+3
I think when you read what they offer, it will jump right out at you where the problems are. Obviously the community will be all over it as well.

People are just so tired of being taken for a ride by them. The level of disrespect is mind staggering. It can only be done by people who dont know how to put a dollar value on a marketplace. For the right investeor a b2b plattform like istock can be worth 100s of millions of dollars because they know how to grow it and build it. Unfortunately getty has decided it is just a silly nuisance and rode it into the ground.

2 years ago we had 4 woo yay threads a year with hundreds of comments by happy contributors, last year for all of 2012 there was only one single lone thread with 69 comments.

At some point, at some business meeting, there will be an investor who looks under the hood to check if the fictional value of getty on paper has any legs. It might be someone wanting to invest in the "monetize views from donated crowd sourced images" untested technology ventures.

I know we can all not wait until somebody with a lot of money walks into their office and says "you know what - that huge user generated content creation crowd sourcing business platform" that you said you had - it is just a sad hollow empty shell. You are not getting our money, we are investing with competitor xyz who actually has a user generated...buzzword...

what I am trying to say - deleting content you cant risk to lose, absolutely, prefering to upload model released images to agencies that you trust more - I think as an independent that will be a no brainer.

but full time exclusives have to balance daily income with risk.

I am talking to a lot of people who want to pull out right now.But I see only the ones with steady day jobs actually do it immediatly.

But everyone is looking at the options, some people are doing it for the very first time. It is a big world out there with lots of opportunity. And everyone is reading agency contracts in great detail. very great detail...

A member form the German community who has just quit hois exclusivity has started a new facebook group that is highly active. he will also delete his content at the end of the 30 days. he works with TV stations and he explained to us in painful detail if he ever gave a client a project and that client then discovered teh files could have been had for free with google docs or office. he said this would impact his reputation so badly, he might lose that client. So he has also decided he will avoid both istock and getty in the future as a buyer and look for exclusive content on agencies where the content is only available from them.

On a postive note, the unexpected crisis is building new strong networking ties. It will leave the whole media producer community better connected. the old divide and rule game doesnt work anymore.

eta: excuse the spelling, i am too tired.
« Last Edit: January 15, 2013, 19:52 by cobalt »

lisafx

« Reply #177 on: January 15, 2013, 19:51 »
+1
The thing is, how would you word exactly what you want to opt out of?
Clearly many would want to opt out of taking part in promotions without payment.
But the Google deal wasn't a promotion, it was a special EL.
But it may be that other special ELs may not be so objectionable.
So you'd need to be incredibly prescient to clarify what you wanted to be opted out of, making sure you hadn't allowed them any space to out you into any unforeseen deal in future, but also making sure that you were 'in' anything that was reasonable.
'Future imponderables' consitute a very difficult semantic quagmire to negotiate, also perhaps different suppliers have different tolerance levels.
For example, we could all say we wanted opted out of deals like the Getty one, but they could decide to put our work onto FAA and cream off 80% plus their 'brokerage commission' or whatever they'd call it.

IMO it would make more sense for them to opt everyone out of all extra deals by default, and then run these deals by the contributors and ask for volunteers to select images for donation, and offer reasonable compensation.  Alternatively they could approach contributors whose files have been selected individually and negotiate terms with them.  You know, kind of like an agent would do... :)

ShadySue

  • There is a crack in everything
« Reply #178 on: January 15, 2013, 19:52 »
0
The thing is, how would you word exactly what you want to opt out of?
Clearly many would want to opt out of taking part in promotions without payment.
But the Google deal wasn't a promotion, it was a special EL.
But it may be that other special ELs may not be so objectionable.
So you'd need to be incredibly prescient to clarify what you wanted to be opted out of, making sure you hadn't allowed them any space to out you into any unforeseen deal in future, but also making sure that you were 'in' anything that was reasonable.
'Future imponderables' consitute a very difficult semantic quagmire to negotiate, also perhaps different suppliers have different tolerance levels.
For example, we could all say we wanted opted out of deals like the Getty one, but they could decide to put our work onto FAA and cream off 80% plus their 'brokerage commission' or whatever they'd call it.

IMO it would make more sense for them to opt everyone out of all extra deals by default, and then run these deals by the contributors and ask for volunteers to select images for donation, and offer reasonable compensation.  Alternatively they could approach contributors whose files have been selected individually and negotiate terms with them.  You know, kind of like an agent would do... :)

That would be great  ;D

« Reply #179 on: January 15, 2013, 19:54 »
+1
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.

You're right.  It's not much for Getty.  I wonder if this deal is recurring.  Maybe Getty provides a certain number of images every month. 

lisafx

« Reply #180 on: January 15, 2013, 20:00 »
0

A member form the German community who has just quit hois exclusivity has started a new facebook group that is highly active. he will also delete his content at the end of the 30 days. he works with TV stations and he explained to us in painful detail if he ever gave a client a project and that client then discovered teh files could have been had for free with google docs or office. he said this would impact his reputation so badly, he might lose that client. So he has also decided he will avoid both istock and getty in the future as a buyer and look for exclusive content on agencies where the content is only available from them.

Thanks for sharing this Jasmin.  I believe your friend will be in good company.  If this and other deals continue, more and more buyers will stop having any faith in micro images, and perhaps RF images in general.  This will effectively devalue all our microstock images - guilt by association. 

Maybe some new image exclusive agencies will form and we can contribute to those.  Might take awhile for all this to shake out.  I sure wish I had a day job, but not qualified to do anything else that will make me any decent money. 

Microbius

« Reply #181 on: January 16, 2013, 03:36 »
0
To those who are complaining that this is not going to do anything. Of course Getty isn't going to care about this action in isolation all that much.

I see it in the context of the continuing decline of IStock, another reaction to yet another betrayal by Getty. One more (bigger) step towards the now inevitable demise of Getty's venture into the crowd sourcing model. Results of contributor action can be seen by looking at the graph for traffic to IStock over the last couple of years.

They bought IStock as ether a way of entering into new markets (fail-- IStock's traffic is going through the floor and exclusives are leaving in droves) or to destroy the micro model (fail--- buyers are fleeing to the sites that actually work and offer content at a reasonable price, not sticking around to pay more for content)

Don't doubt that contributor dissatisfaction and action is having an effect, it's just that these things don't happen overnight.

« Reply #182 on: January 16, 2013, 05:54 »
0
I don't know if this has been brought up or not but what if when we deactivate our images they then in retaliation decide to move them over to google from the partner programme in the 90 days that they still have the images there. Would they be able to do that legally?

PaulieWalnuts

  • We Have Exciting News For You
« Reply #183 on: January 16, 2013, 06:19 »
0
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.

Yeech, $4 with over 5,000 files? Very sorry to hear it has gotten that bad. From a financial standpoint could going independent be any worse?

« Reply #184 on: January 16, 2013, 07:07 »
0
I don't know if this has been brought up or not but what if when we deactivate our images they then in retaliation decide to move them over to google from the partner programme in the 90 days that they still have the images there. Would they be able to do that legally?

This is what I've been thinking about. Just depends on if Google would be willing to cough up another chunk of change.  Of course, Getty could sweeten the deal and we get a penny for our image. :o

« Reply #185 on: January 16, 2013, 07:12 »
+1
Hopefully they will take more than 90 days to do another deal with Google and my images will be out of there.  I didn't wait for February 2end to deactivate my best images, don't want to give them any more time and I think if we all deactivate on the same day, they will probably take longer to get them off of Thinkstock and Photos.com.

JFP

« Reply #186 on: January 16, 2013, 07:33 »
0
Guys, I am not sure if this has been mentioned in the 10 previous pages, but deleted x0,000 images from istock is completely useless if you only delete them. The news will not get to the decision makers at Getty or Carlyle.

This need to be followed by a PRESS RELEASE in newspapers if you want it to get noticed....


« Reply #187 on: January 16, 2013, 08:08 »
0
Guys, I am not sure if this has been mentioned in the 10 previous pages, but deleted x0,000 images from istock is completely useless if you only delete them. The news will not get to the decision makers at Getty or Carlyle.

This need to be followed by a PRESS RELEASE in newspapers if you want it to get noticed....




Did you see this post
http://www.microstockgroup.com/17961/17961/msg291246/#msg291246

« Reply #188 on: January 16, 2013, 08:48 »
-1
I am not supporting the Getty deal but let face it: today a "thief" can find almost any best seller with the google image search function at a reasonable size.
Getty has a huge number of files, so deleting/deactivating a few files is not more than a drop in the ocean.
After seeing what Craig Peters told people at Luminance 2012 I understand that today we are facing some changes.
I believe that by deactivating my own files I will only harm my personal economy and no one others.

rubyroo

« Reply #189 on: January 16, 2013, 09:12 »
0
Quote from: Michael Lancaster link=topic=17961.msg291460#msg291460
After seeing what Craig Peters told people at Luminance 2012 I understand that today we are facing some changes.

What did he tell people?

Microbius

« Reply #190 on: January 16, 2013, 09:14 »
+1
Craig Peters Speaks at Luminance 2012

rubyroo

« Reply #191 on: January 16, 2013, 09:15 »
0
Thank you Microbius  :)

Microbius

« Reply #192 on: January 16, 2013, 09:16 »
0
No problem

lisafx

« Reply #193 on: January 16, 2013, 09:31 »
0
I am not supporting the Getty deal but let face it: today a "thief" can find almost any best seller with the google image search function at a reasonable size.

Here's the problem.  These images aren't just being marketed to "thieves".  They are being marketed to design pros as acceptable content they can legally license for FREE to use in commercial applications.  These aren't thieves, they are our legitimate customers! 

Microbius

« Reply #194 on: January 16, 2013, 09:36 »
+1
Yeah, I'm not sure what Craig Peters had to say has any bearing on this deal. This just seems like a money grab on Getty's part with p*ss poor returns for the contributor. Not one of these super innovative deals Peters was on about.

lisafx

« Reply #195 on: January 16, 2013, 09:49 »
0
Yeah, I'm not sure what Craig Peters had to say has any bearing on this deal. This just seems like a money grab on Getty's part with p*ss poor returns for the contributor. Not one of these super innovative deals Peters was on about.

I tend to agree that this definitely didn't work out as he was describing, but I do think it's one of their attempts to get this ironed out. 

If the total payment to the photographer is the $12, as a one time thing, then that is totally unacceptable.  If this is part of a bigger initiative to come up with other ways to make royalties which would be shared fairly with content owners, that should have been set up before this deal was ever made, and still should be based on consultation with, and agreement from contributors. 

The example he cites of youtube content creators sharing in royalties from views on youtube is a good one.  He specifically states that people uploading content were given a choice whether or NOT to have their content used that way.

I think a lot of us would be open to experimenting with different ways of making money on images, as long as that money was shared with us equitably and as long as we could choose what, if any, content we contributed to such a scheme. 

« Reply #196 on: January 16, 2013, 09:56 »
+2
....I believe that by deactivating my own files I will only harm my personal economy and no one others.
By not taking a stand, they will just continue giving away images with virtually no compensation and cutting commissions until there's very little left.  So what would they have to do to make you deactivate images?  They've passed my tolerance limit.

I can understand exclusives and people that don't really care about the money doing nothing about this but not independents that want to make money from microstock in years to come.  Doing nothing is guaranteed to lose us lots of money, I think it's got to the stage where doing something is the best business decision for lots of us.

rubyroo

« Reply #197 on: January 16, 2013, 10:12 »
0
Thanks again Microbius - had to watch it in stages due to interruptions, but just finished it.

I said elsewhere that I was curious as to whether this Google deal was an initial attempt to test Picscout viability, and that video makes me feel more certain that it does have something to do with that, but that it's been done without sufficient forethought, consideration and (without any) discussion with the most important 'stakeholders' - i.e. us.

The way this deal was done and the lack of any opt-out seems to fly in the face of so much that he said. 

It would certainly be nice to get a pay-per-click deal on every right-clicker's usage of my images - I'd be very happy to receive remuneration in instances where I currently receive none, but I'd also want the fundamental system of licensing and payment to continue alongside it.

It's funny that any time royalty drops are raised they talk about their overall split and never seem to really acknowledge the impact on individuals at all.  We're not even important enough to be 'just a number' to them.  We seem to be just an invisible portion of the total number.
« Last Edit: January 16, 2013, 10:16 by rubyroo »

« Reply #198 on: January 16, 2013, 10:15 »
+1
I am not supporting the Getty deal but let face it: today a "thief" can find almost any best seller with the google image search function at a reasonable size.

Here's the problem.  These images aren't just being marketed to "thieves".  They are being marketed to design pros as acceptable content they can legally license for FREE to use in commercial applications.  These aren't thieves, they are our legitimate customers!

It is a form of auto-immune disease.

« Reply #199 on: January 16, 2013, 10:16 »
+1
I am not supporting the Getty deal but let face it: today a "thief" can find almost any best seller with the google image search function at a reasonable size.

Here's the problem.  These images aren't just being marketed to "thieves".  They are being marketed to design pros as acceptable content they can legally license for FREE to use in commercial applications.  These aren't thieves, they are our legitimate customers!

Exactly.  Well stated Lisa. And I wonder if Getty even considered that they are shooting themselves in the foot by driving buyers away from them to google.


 

Related Topics

  Subject / Started by Replies Last post
4 Replies
6763 Views
Last post February 28, 2011, 17:43
by click_click
17 Replies
7878 Views
Last post January 15, 2013, 08:21
by jtyler
35 Replies
22478 Views
Last post November 22, 2013, 14:24
by BaldricksTrousers
11 Replies
7111 Views
Last post October 01, 2014, 13:42
by Freedom
13 Replies
7104 Views
Last post April 16, 2015, 12:00
by tickstock

Sponsors

Mega Bundle of 5,900+ Professional Lightroom Presets

Microstock Poll Results

Sponsors