MicrostockGroup Sponsors


Author Topic: D-Day (Deactivation Day) on Istock - Feb 2  (Read 221671 times)

0 Members and 2 Guests are viewing this topic.

ShadySue

  • There is a crack in everything
« Reply #200 on: January 16, 2013, 10:32 »
0
If the total payment to the photographer is the $12, as a one time thing, then that is totally unacceptable. 

Indeed.
SuperSean worked out that according to Getty's own calculator, it should be $3390 full cost, which would be $678 to the contributor, which considering the high saleability of many of the files concerned is very cheap at the price.
http://www.istockphoto.com/forum_messages.php?threadid=350491&messageid=6818045


« Reply #201 on: January 16, 2013, 10:35 »
+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.


I suspect they are NOT shooting themselves in the foot in any way. They may have taken a hit financially short term, but in their long term plans they will a. (Try to) kill microstock and b. eliminate all the "riff-raff" (contributors not part of their elite group). Sounds like getty is right on target.

« Reply #202 on: January 16, 2013, 10:38 »
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!

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.


I suspect they are NOT shooting themselves in the foot in any way. They may have taken a hit financially short term, but in their long term plans they will a. (Try to) kill microstock and b. eliminate all the "riff-raff" (contributors not part of their elite group). Sounds like getty is right on target.

If that's what their intention is then I fully agree with you. If its otherwise, they have some pretty stupid decision makers in their ranks.

ShadySue

  • There is a crack in everything
« Reply #203 on: January 16, 2013, 10:50 »
+3
Back to the malice or incompetence question.

« Reply #204 on: January 16, 2013, 11:44 »
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!

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.


I suspect they are NOT shooting themselves in the foot in any way. They may have taken a hit financially short term, but in their long term plans they will a. (Try to) kill microstock and b. eliminate all the "riff-raff" (contributors not part of their elite group). Sounds like getty is right on target.
Have people forgotten about SS?  Far from killing them, everything Getty or their owners has done in the past few years seems to of strengthened them.  Some people say that Thinkstock was made to kill SS but SS now sell more pay per download and are overall in a much better position than a few years ago.  Driving a lot of exclusives and non-exclusives away from istock with the latest fiasco is likely to strengthen SS even more.  So I don't quite buy the killing microstock argument, unless they're incompetent at that as well.

They could of killed off microstock years ago by making it much easier for most of us to become Getty contributors.  Or they could of made istock exclusivity more lucrative years ago, getting us all to sign up and killing off all the other microstock sites.  What they have done is probably one of the worst ways to try and kill microstock.

« Reply #205 on: January 16, 2013, 12:04 »
+4
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.


I suspect they are NOT shooting themselves in the foot in any way. They may have taken a hit financially short term, but in their long term plans they will a. (Try to) kill microstock and b. eliminate all the "riff-raff" (contributors not part of their elite group). Sounds like getty is right on target.

Nobody can "kill" microstock:) Microstock is a new and very viable business model and it's not going away. Any "elite" group will always lose to inclusive business model (=microstock). Open and evolving system always beats closed and inflexible one. High volume of legit sales always beats occasional big one. Getty doesn't understand the value of selling images to general public the same way IBM in it's time didn't understand the value of OS for personal computers, and this is how Microsoft came to life. We all know that story. So really, Getty is just old inflexible dinosaur trying it's best to adapt to fast-changing world, but doing really bad at it since they keep using their old business methods. They see the changing conditions, and they think they are adapting to them, but in reality they are stumbling about with a blindfold on their eyes.

Re main topic - I am working on getting most my stuff off Thinkstock right now (through one of my distributors). I've stopped all uploads to iStock, Getty and all my distributors that deal with Getty and Getty owned companies. I am NOT trying to show Getty anything, I am just making a choice not to deal with them anymore.
« Last Edit: January 16, 2013, 12:12 by Elenathewise »

« Reply #206 on: January 16, 2013, 12:19 »
+2
...Have people forgotten about SS?  Far from killing them, everything Getty or their owners has done in the past few years seems to of strengthened them.  Some people say that Thinkstock was made to kill SS but SS now sell more pay per download and are overall in a much better position than a few years ago.  Driving a lot of exclusives and non-exclusives away from istock with the latest fiasco is likely to strengthen SS even more.  So I don't quite buy the killing microstock argument, unless they're incompetent at that as well....

I think the Google Drive deal could very well be their latest tack on beating Shutterstock - kill their opportunity to sell subscriptions by making images "free" to end users (no additional fee once you've paid for Google Docs/Drive for businesses). Google and Getty make money and cut out the contributor (beyond the one time pittance payment).

« Reply #207 on: January 16, 2013, 12:35 »
+3
...Have people forgotten about SS?  Far from killing them, everything Getty or their owners has done in the past few years seems to of strengthened them.  Some people say that Thinkstock was made to kill SS but SS now sell more pay per download and are overall in a much better position than a few years ago.  Driving a lot of exclusives and non-exclusives away from istock with the latest fiasco is likely to strengthen SS even more.  So I don't quite buy the killing microstock argument, unless they're incompetent at that as well....

I think the Google Drive deal could very well be their latest tack on beating Shutterstock - kill their opportunity to sell subscriptions by making images "free" to end users (no additional fee once you've paid for Google Docs/Drive for businesses). Google and Getty make money and cut out the contributor (beyond the one time pittance payment).

To beat Shutterstock this way they'd have to put their entire collection on Google and go out of business (which kind of defeats the point of "beating").  7000 images or whatever they are willing to give away is not going to change the game. Plus their actions caused many people to delete their images or even take down entire portfolios.... so the only thing they achieved here is more damage to their already bad reputation... they are just clueless.

« Reply #208 on: January 16, 2013, 12:38 »
0
A member form the German community who has just quit hois exclusivity has started a new facebook group that is highly active.

Can you give us a link to that group?

« Reply #209 on: January 16, 2013, 14:27 »
0
...Have people forgotten about SS?  Far from killing them, everything Getty or their owners has done in the past few years seems to of strengthened them.  Some people say that Thinkstock was made to kill SS but SS now sell more pay per download and are overall in a much better position than a few years ago.  Driving a lot of exclusives and non-exclusives away from istock with the latest fiasco is likely to strengthen SS even more.  So I don't quite buy the killing microstock argument, unless they're incompetent at that as well....

I think the Google Drive deal could very well be their latest tack on beating Shutterstock - kill their opportunity to sell subscriptions by making images "free" to end users (no additional fee once you've paid for Google Docs/Drive for businesses). Google and Getty make money and cut out the contributor (beyond the one time pittance payment).

To beat Shutterstock this way they'd have to put their entire collection on Google and go out of business (which kind of defeats the point of "beating").  7000 images or whatever they are willing to give away is not going to change the game. Plus their actions caused many people to delete their images or even take down entire portfolios.... so the only thing they achieved here is more damage to their already bad reputation... they are just clueless.
I agree.  And isn't a lot of the content in the Google deal from exclusives?  Hard to see how that will hit SS more than Getty.  Thanks to this, SS will probably end up with lots more images that istock don't have and more of their buyers.  I can think of better ways to destroy microstock :)

« Reply #210 on: January 16, 2013, 15:10 »
0
Rome wasnt built in one day. They are still in the process of decimating istock. By making deals with YOUR images, they are, effectively, opening the door for other agencies to do the same.


By the way, i agree. Microstock was started to fulfill a need and that need hasnt gone away. I dont see it dying. I am merely trying to say what i think getty is doing...i am speculating, just like everyone else. I think its a stupid plan, too. Im just over thinking that putting istock in the toilet was due to incompetence. It seemed that way, but I  really think that money can buy a lot of things that we dont see.

« Reply #211 on: January 16, 2013, 16:18 »
0
Nobody can "kill" microstock:) Microstock is a new and very viable business model and it's not going away. Any "elite" group will always lose to inclusive business model (=microstock). Open and evolving system always beats closed and inflexible one. High volume of legit sales always beats occasional big one. Getty doesn't understand the value of selling images to general public the same way IBM in it's time didn't understand the value of OS for personal computers, and this is how Microsoft came to life. We all know that story. So really, Getty is just old inflexible dinosaur trying it's best to adapt to fast-changing world, but doing really bad at it since they keep using their old business methods. They see the changing conditions, and they think they are adapting to them, but in reality they are stumbling about with a blindfold on their eyes.

Excellent analysis and observations. The evidence that microstock has always been more flexible, technically advanced and quick to adapt is overwhelming.

The 'closed shop' of the macros required images to sent in by CD, took months to be assessed, were heavily 'curated' (i.e. most images were unnecessarily rejected), were keyworded by in-house staff ( slow & expensive as well as often inadequately done), etc, etc.

In the early days there's no doubt that some microstockers would peruse macro sites for 'inspiration'. Nowadays I'm certain that the flow of inspiration is mainly in the other direction. A couple of years ago the macros virtually ignored my niche subjects and had very few such images. Now they have lots of them __ looking remarkably similar to the best-selling images of mine and others on the micros.

lisafx

« Reply #212 on: January 16, 2013, 16:19 »
0

Re main topic - I am working on getting most my stuff off Thinkstock right now (through one of my distributors). I've stopped all uploads to iStock, Getty and all my distributors that deal with Getty and Getty owned companies. I am NOT trying to show Getty anything, I am just making a choice not to deal with them anymore.

Elena, how can you get your images off TS if they are still on Istock?  Or did you already delete your entire portfolio from Istock?

« Reply #213 on: January 16, 2013, 17:07 »
0

Re main topic - I am working on getting most my stuff off Thinkstock right now (through one of my distributors). I've stopped all uploads to iStock, Getty and all my distributors that deal with Getty and Getty owned companies. I am NOT trying to show Getty anything, I am just making a choice not to deal with them anymore.

Elena, how can you get your images off TS if they are still on Istock?  Or did you already delete your entire portfolio from Istock?

I think Elena mentioned elsewhere in one of these mammoth threads that it's one of her other agencies (Tetra, I think) who has the deal with Getty/Thinkstock so she has to withdraw them from that agency or get them to have them out of Thinkstock; no iStock connection

« Reply #214 on: January 17, 2013, 09:42 »
0
I have some files at Thinkstock coming off Istock.  When I delete on 2nd Feb and include these files, will they automatically get taken off at Thinkstock?  Anyone know how effective is that process?

« Reply #215 on: January 17, 2013, 10:00 »
+1
For all non exclusives remember.....if you had any files in stockxpert those are now in thinkstock under the hemera collection.  You need to go into your old StockXpert account and delete those files too because they were put into TS. You should be able to remove them from TS via StockXpert I suspect, but not sure.
« Last Edit: January 17, 2013, 10:03 by Mantis »

« Reply #216 on: January 17, 2013, 10:18 »
0
Almost forgot about StockXpert, the last 250 images just deleted.

« Reply #217 on: January 17, 2013, 10:49 »
0

Re main topic - I am working on getting most my stuff off Thinkstock right now (through one of my distributors). I've stopped all uploads to iStock, Getty and all my distributors that deal with Getty and Getty owned companies. I am NOT trying to show Getty anything, I am just making a choice not to deal with them anymore.

Elena, how can you get your images off TS if they are still on Istock?  Or did you already delete your entire portfolio from Istock?

I have stuff on TS through Ingram Publishing - they already courteously agreed to remove my images. They have way more of my images than Istock does.
Sent a request to Getty to remove all my PC RF files.
Tetra is a different story, needs different approach... working on it.

« Reply #218 on: January 17, 2013, 10:54 »
0

In the early days there's no doubt that some microstockers would peruse macro sites for 'inspiration'. Nowadays I'm certain that the flow of inspiration is mainly in the other direction. A couple of years ago the macros virtually ignored my niche subjects and had very few such images. Now they have lots of them __ looking remarkably similar to the best-selling images of mine and others on the micros.

This is actually quite wide-spread. I've seen a lot of "macro" images that are plain copies of micro ones, including mine. 

« Reply #219 on: January 17, 2013, 13:08 »
0
I think that Getty wants this...
They are trying from the first day to redirect iStock buyers to Getty Images...
So when some company buy a microstock site, they in fact want their customers not an infrastructure ... Material value of microstock site is practically low...
So this is a way how to repel us and customers ...
Customers probably have instructions how to buy Getty's images through the same account...
It's expensive to have double crew and to maintain two sites for unique own market...

« Reply #220 on: January 17, 2013, 13:08 »
0

Re main topic - I am working on getting most my stuff off Thinkstock right now (through one of my distributors). I've stopped all uploads to iStock, Getty and all my distributors that deal with Getty and Getty owned companies. I am NOT trying to show Getty anything, I am just making a choice not to deal with them anymore.

Elena, how can you get your images off TS if they are still on Istock?  Or did you already delete your entire portfolio from Istock?

I have stuff on TS through Ingram Publishing - they already courteously agreed to remove my images. They have way more of my images than Istock does.
Sent a request to Getty to remove all my PC RF files.
Tetra is a different story, needs different approach... working on it.
I forgot about Ingram, just sent them a request.  I wish all the sites had a nice list of all the 3rd party sites they use with an opt-out option.  Some do, like YayMicro and Zoonar, it's so nice to be able to have some control over my portfolio.  I was going to stop uploading new images to alamy this year but after recent events, I'll be working on my non-microstock portfolio there again.

« Reply #221 on: January 17, 2013, 13:33 »
+1
I'm not exclusive so I can't read the original thread but it looks like they might be being a bit difficult about people deactivating?
Quote
Oldladybird just stated in a thread in the 'Exclusivity Program' section that Getty cannot process changes in collections and Agency/Vetta/E+ images that had been mirrored over there will probably remain there even though you/we are now removing them from the Vetta ,etc. collections here on iStock. She does go on to say that they are looking for solutions but it will probably remain this way for at least several months.  http://www.istockphoto.com/forum_messages.php?threadid=350613&messageid=6823417


« Reply #222 on: January 17, 2013, 14:16 »
0
I'm not exclusive so I can't read the original thread but it looks like they might be being a bit difficult about people deactivating?
Quote
Oldladybird just stated in a thread in the 'Exclusivity Program' section that Getty cannot process changes in collections and Agency/Vetta/E+ images that had been mirrored over there will probably remain there even though you/we are now removing them from the Vetta ,etc. collections here on iStock. She does go on to say that they are looking for solutions but it will probably remain this way for at least several months.  http://www.istockphoto.com/forum_messages.php?threadid=350613&messageid=6823417



That's why I'm not waiting until D-Day. I'm trying to get rid of everything before they run into mysterious "technical problems" and no files whatsoever are allowed to be deactivated.

« Reply #223 on: January 17, 2013, 14:39 »
+4
Just a note for those that are deleting...I deactivated all 428 illustration files in my portfolio and dropped the crown the month they first announced the whole RC mess, after which I couldn't see ANY of my stats so if you want access to your financials tab leave at least 1 or 2 files active.  I ended up experimenting with uploading a few files again late last year but after this new mess I realize there's no going back. I reuse to work with a company that continually spits in our faces. I'll be de-activating the very few files I put back. (25) and leaving one so I have access to my financials tab.

Oh and to those who are right on the edge of dropping the golden shackles...there is life after exclusitivity! ;)

lisafx

« Reply #224 on: January 17, 2013, 15:19 »
0

Re main topic - I am working on getting most my stuff off Thinkstock right now (through one of my distributors). I've stopped all uploads to iStock, Getty and all my distributors that deal with Getty and Getty owned companies. I am NOT trying to show Getty anything, I am just making a choice not to deal with them anymore.

Elena, how can you get your images off TS if they are still on Istock?  Or did you already delete your entire portfolio from Istock?

I have stuff on TS through Ingram Publishing - they already courteously agreed to remove my images. They have way more of my images than Istock does.
Sent a request to Getty to remove all my PC RF files.
Tetra is a different story, needs different approach... working on it.

Ah.  Thanks for clearing up the mystery. Good luck with getting Tetra to remove the rest.  :)


 

Related Topics

  Subject / Started by Replies Last post
4 Replies
6768 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
22499 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
7107 Views
Last post April 16, 2015, 12:00
by tickstock

Sponsors

Mega Bundle of 5,900+ Professional Lightroom Presets

Microstock Poll Results

Sponsors