pancakes

MicrostockGroup Sponsors


Author Topic: D-Day (Deactivation Day) on Istock - Feb 2  (Read 221656 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

ShadySue

  • There is a crack in everything
« Reply #325 on: January 20, 2013, 20:26 »
0
Is Bill Brooks some big name, or someone that's supposed to know something? 
Just a different take on it. I have no idea who he is, but thought that was an interesting opinion.


« Reply #326 on: January 20, 2013, 20:30 »
0
Today is the first I have heard of this, I'm not in any of the forums much.  It would seem to be a way of sending a message that perhaps won't be commented on much, but will alert them to the level of discontent (surely they already know, but this is a bold statement).
I do have to ask a sincere question, especially of those who are exclusive with very large portfolios.  Since you are exclusive, all your eggs are in one basket at this time.  Is it really worth dumping all the thousands of hours spent building your portfolio, not to mention the significant monthly income to make such a point?  Not arguing, but I have no time or energy to reload my 7000 photos anywhere else (especially when I would be worried that most companies will have similar issues in the future it they don't yet).  I read a great deal of dissatisfaction in other microstock company forums.  The grass is perhaps greener, but will it remain? I think not.  I fear microstock has irreversibly entered the  world of big business, maximum profits with minimal cost to suppliers (us).   I am sure many of you will follow through and deactivate real sellers, not just 2005 images that clearly do not reflect your current standard of excellence, but don't sell anyway.  But the thought runs through my head that I could jump in and deactivate a few hundred that have never sold, make myself feel better, but iStock will recognize exactly what I am doing and not feel at all bad about it.  I respect your decision, but it seems a little like shooting yourself in the foot unless you have little or nothing to lose.  Multiply your anticipated total de-activations by 5 and iStock will fill those slots in very short order with new uploads, ti won't even be a blip on their graph.  Not defending iStock/Getty or disagreeing with your cause and passion.  Just asking if you really think it will change the way things work there, and is it worth it to you personally?

It must be very anguishing, being an exclusive right now - I feel for you.  I just have a couple comments.   If you are curious about your options, contact the other agencies and from what I understand, the most important ones will accept a drive and help you with getting your photos online.

On another note, if you have people photos in these programs now or in the future, how will you feel if a photo of your child has been downloaded by a pedophile or a dating site and they claim "it's public domain - I can do what I want" because that is what your exif will say.  Also, you may be subject to lawsuits by your models - you may feel you are not in the wrong - but they will sue you and Getty and Google and you will still have to lawyer up.

Thanks for the information about contacting other agencies, perhaps it will come to that in the future.  Actually I have no anguish since unlike many people that depend on it, it is simply a well paying hobby for me.

PaulieWalnuts

  • We Have Exciting News For You
« Reply #327 on: January 20, 2013, 20:40 »
0
Interesting post by Bill Brooks over on Alamy's forum:

This is interesting and it does seem Getty is headed down this path. Problem is that app makers seem to be reasonably compensated. If this Google deal is any indication of the future of royalty compensation I can't see who they would expect to be producing content at a loss.

« Reply #328 on: January 20, 2013, 21:14 »
+1
Interesting post by Bill Brooks over on Alamy's forum:

This is interesting and it does seem Getty is headed down this path. Problem is that app makers seem to be reasonably compensated. If this Google deal is any indication of the future of royalty compensation I can't see who they would expect to be producing content at a loss.

It is true that in some cases more money can be made from selling the data of your own buyers than from the products you actually sell them, allowing other business to accurately target them. However this normally relates to very low-value products (such as balloons and stuff for kids' parties) and the information is valuable to those to wish to sell much higher value goods to the same buyers.

Even so I don't understand how Getty can monetize the giving away of quality content that should cost $hundreds to license. If reports are to be believed they currently have annual sales close to $1B. If they are going to wilfully destroy a good chunk of that market, along with the livelihoods of their content providers, what are they going to replace the revenue with?

If this continues then surely the next step would be for Getty's content providers to exit en-masse with their portfolios. Where would that leave Getty then?

The theory that 'everything on the internet should be free' might sound good, but it's not true (at least legally) and it's never going to be because they'd be no incentive to produce stuff. Music is not free, neither are (modern) books and nor are magazines. They all cost money to produce and distribute, represent a financial investment/risk to those who do so ... and endlessly collecting data from 'clicks' is not going to pay for it all.

« Reply #329 on: January 20, 2013, 21:15 »
+4
Bill Brooks seems to be mixing up a lot of things. getty didnt lead the microstock business, that was bruce livingstone and all the other sites. actually it was the internet, web designers and affordable digital cameras.

getty bought istock but it seems since bruce and kelly have left, it is not as successful as before and in the last 5 months going down fast.

slow site, a search engine that looks sad compared to what the competitors offer, many functions not working, plus the endless months it takes to move content from one "warehouse to the next".

from a market leader you expect a different behavior.

not to mention the non- communication etc...

so, yes, the technology looks interesting, but to me it looks more like getty reacts and follows the market instead of leading.

all this talk of "user generated content" is anyway severly misleading, it is only a very small group of people that produce the interesting stuff. they need money for their productions.

no money, no interesting content.

so i really dont see how they can build the future of the agency from free content or files from flickr.

it also ignores one of the most important element of micro stock: the entrepreneur.

we run our portfolios like small businesses, defining a target group, shooting for them and hopefully building up a loyal following and network.

the community model draws on all the different talents available on the marketplace - cooks, doctors, musicians, homemakers, teachers etc...

I really dont see how you can replace that with just a mass of anonymous images.

having a product is one thing, but you have to sell it too. the agencies that treat their artists like individual webshops in a larger framework have the best chance of creating a self organizing marketplace.

eta: joe was faster...

« Reply #330 on: January 20, 2013, 21:25 »
+1

I do not feel Getty is susceptible to any kind of a message from aligned contributors. What is needed to secure the future viability of fair monetary partnership between contributors and distributors, IMO, is for concerned contributors to walk away completely from any further relationship with Getty, sending a message to the industry that we will not tolerate abuse or disrespect of our Intellectual Property.

We must join together and deactivate our entire accounts with Getty.

I believe total deactivation by most contributors is inevitable if Getty continues down the road they are on. However I think it's unrealistic to expect that a majority are going to do that all at once on Feb. 2.  For ports with many thousands of images that is going to be logistically difficult. 

Like it or not, this thing is going to play out over months, not days.  Microstockers have always been a diverse bunch, and up to now impossible to get everyone to agree on any action at all.  Each person has a different tolerance for risk and a different set of circumstances to consider. 

I think it is really awesome and amazing that so many people in this diverse group are willing to act together on one day.  It has never happened before in microstock, so it is historic. 

I don't see the "I'm deactivating more than you" debate as constructive.  Any and all images deactivated on, before, or near Feb 2 send a powerful statement to Getty

I prefer to appreciate and praise everyone's individual efforts rather than focusing on who's doing more or less.  Let's choose to see this glass as half full, shall we?  This is the time to come together and any divisiveness just undermines the whole effort.

Very well said Lisa..Thank You

« Reply #331 on: January 20, 2013, 21:37 »
+2
This time, I included approx 900 from the IS thread.

Feb 2nd projected total 25,480+

« Last Edit: January 20, 2013, 23:27 by cybernesco »

lisafx

« Reply #332 on: January 20, 2013, 23:29 »
+9
Interesting post by Bill Brooks over on Alamy's forum:
"I think this will work for Getty, if history is any indication. As the market leader, I think Getty can set the terms of business, and other stock libraries have to follow.

Around 2002 Getty reset the terms of the stock business, and most full time professional stock photographers found that they could not make a living. Professional stock photographers protested, formed the Stock Artists Alliance, and Getty responded with statements like "we are not the photographers friend". Full time professional stock photographers mainly went out of the stock business. They turned to assignments, books, blogs, teaching, to generate their main income. They made beer money from the occasional stock image produced as a byproduct of their non stock photographic activities.

Getty were able to keep new images flowing through istockphoto and Flickr. Amateur istockphoto photographers felt good about putting professionals out of business.

I think Getty is again resetting the terms of business. This time I think it is the microstock photographers that will feel the pinch. In my opinion the move of Getty's part is entirely legal and not outrageous at all.

I think the internet end game is to have all intellectual property free of charge. Internet sites make money by offering freebies to the general public. To obtain the freebie you have to give up personal information and agree to be monitored by your devices. The information collected is used by advertisers to target individuals with custom advertising sent through their devices. This is where the money is. As an example of device monitoring, I sometimes use a free translation app on my iPhone. It is so useful that I would have paid big bucks for the app, but got it for free instead. The translation app sends advertising for products and services to my iphone every time I use the app. The advertising is so accurate, that I realized the translating computer, somewhere in cyberspace, is reading my translating requests and determining my preferences. Accurate personal information on users is where the money is. No using the translation app in foreign bordellos.

The money is in offering the public free intellectual property as an inducement for the public to give up their personal information.

Free stock photos are part of that trend. I think Getty understands the internet."


Not arguing with you Liz.  You are just the messenger, but I think the message is full of holes.  First off, a lot of it just sounds like schadenfreude from a guy who was upset when micro photographers came along and demonstrated they could make images just as good or better than what was in the trad libraries. 

Secondly, as already pointed out, Getty had nothing to do with micro until they bought out Bruce in, what , 2006 or 07.  The three years after that, when Istock still continued to grow and flourish, it was under the guidance of Bruce.  Only once Getty became solely responsible for Istock did it begin its decline. 

And lastly, if agencies distributors cheap b@$t@rds wont pay for content, then shooters will stop spending money and time to shoot high quality marketable stock.  The stock industry will go back to being pictures of somebody's cat or a flower from their garden, or a duck in the park, uploaded just for the fun of maybe getting it in print. 

The micro industry cannot survive, much less flourish, without investment from talented image creators, and that's going to require the sites to pay fairly.  They are in the process of finding that out.  This isn't some brilliant master plan by Getty.  It is simply short-sighted, short-term, mistaken thinking.  You'd think it would be obvious of course, but evidently the geniuses running Getty aren't geniuses at all. 
« Last Edit: January 20, 2013, 23:34 by lisafx »

« Reply #333 on: January 21, 2013, 03:42 »
-3
Interesting post by Bill Brooks over on Alamy's forum:
"I think this will work for Getty, if history is any indication. As the market leader, I think Getty can set the terms of business, and other stock libraries have to follow.

Around 2002 Getty reset the terms of the stock business, and most full time professional stock photographers found that they could not make a living. Professional stock photographers protested, formed the Stock Artists Alliance, and Getty responded with statements like "we are not the photographers friend". Full time professional stock photographers mainly went out of the stock business. They turned to assignments, books, blogs, teaching, to generate their main income. They made beer money from the occasional stock image produced as a byproduct of their non stock photographic activities.

Getty were able to keep new images flowing through istockphoto and Flickr. Amateur istockphoto photographers felt good about putting professionals out of business.

I think Getty is again resetting the terms of business. This time I think it is the microstock photographers that will feel the pinch. In my opinion the move of Getty's part is entirely legal and not outrageous at all.

I think the internet end game is to have all intellectual property free of charge. Internet sites make money by offering freebies to the general public. To obtain the freebie you have to give up personal information and agree to be monitored by your devices. The information collected is used by advertisers to target individuals with custom advertising sent through their devices. This is where the money is. As an example of device monitoring, I sometimes use a free translation app on my iPhone. It is so useful that I would have paid big bucks for the app, but got it for free instead. The translation app sends advertising for products and services to my iphone every time I use the app. The advertising is so accurate, that I realized the translating computer, somewhere in cyberspace, is reading my translating requests and determining my preferences. Accurate personal information on users is where the money is. No using the translation app in foreign bordellos.

The money is in offering the public free intellectual property as an inducement for the public to give up their personal information.

Free stock photos are part of that trend. I think Getty understands the internet."


Not arguing with you Liz.  You are just the messenger, but I think the message is full of holes.  First off, a lot of it just sounds like schadenfreude from a guy who was upset when micro photographers came along and demonstrated they could make images just as good or better than what was in the trad libraries. 

Secondly, as already pointed out, Getty had nothing to do with micro until they bought out Bruce in, what , 2006 or 07.  The three years after that, when Istock still continued to grow and flourish, it was under the guidance of Bruce.  Only once Getty became solely responsible for Istock did it begin its decline. 

And lastly, if agencies distributors cheap b@$t@rds wont pay for content, then shooters will stop spending money and time to shoot high quality marketable stock.  The stock industry will go back to being pictures of somebody's cat or a flower from their garden, or a duck in the park, uploaded just for the fun of maybe getting it in print. 

The micro industry cannot survive, much less flourish, without investment from talented image creators, and that's going to require the sites to pay fairly.  They are in the process of finding that out.  This isn't some brilliant master plan by Getty.  It is simply short-sighted, short-term, mistaken thinking.  You'd think it would be obvious of course, but evidently the geniuses running Getty aren't geniuses at all.

Hi Lisa! how goes?

No its not some brillant master plan of Getty but look at this this way. Just the fact they have managed to stir up the whole industry, ppl, deactivating, this and that, speaks for itself, doesnt it? they have created mayhem and with a purpose.
Ultimately the success or failure in this industry lies with the buyers not us. So what do they think of all this? a big nothing!
The ones I know are not even aware, dont even care but carries on buying regardless.

Forget this Alexa ranking and all this rubbish. The end product is. If you cant get to the buyers, if you cant somehow influence their set-in-stone buying habits, its a no go.

10K  members here can sit and come up with the most brilliant scheming and conniving plans and unless its transmitted outside a small forum to the general buying industry. It means nothing.

I mean lets be frank, you know as well as I do, all stock-agencies, all of them are generating 80% of its life blood from the fulltime photographer, this is a fact and not just my words, he/she, is the one that is going to persever and try to endure during troubles, simply because he/she has to put food on the table. Simple as that.
Well, look around you. How many fulltime stock-photographers do you see here? or at IS or at SS, etc, etc? maybe what?  10%? all the rest as far as Getty or anybody else is concerned, is chicken-feed.

This is a plan it itself. :)
« Last Edit: January 21, 2013, 03:44 by ClaridgeJ »

« Reply #334 on: January 21, 2013, 04:04 »
0
Quote
...The money is in offering the public free intellectual property as an inducement for the public to give up their personal information.

Free stock photos are part of that trend. I think Getty understands the internet."[/i]
Not applicable to stock images, as we're not selling to the public.  And the public seem quite happy to buy eBooks, music, art etc.  Getty could get away with things in 2002 but the internet was young then.  They have serious competition in the microstock business and so far, they don't give the impression that they understand it at all.

Perhaps their plan is to sell out to Google?  That's the only reason I can think for giving Google so many top quality images at such a low price.

« Reply #335 on: January 21, 2013, 04:37 »
0
.
« Last Edit: January 22, 2013, 11:59 by Microstock Posts »

« Reply #336 on: January 21, 2013, 06:22 »
+1
Not arguing with you Liz.  You are just the messenger, but I think the message is full of holes.  First off, a lot of it just sounds like schadenfreude from a guy who was upset when micro photographers came along and demonstrated they could make images just as good or better than what was in the trad libraries. 

Secondly, as already pointed out, Getty had nothing to do with micro until they bought out Bruce in, what , 2006 or 07.  The three years after that, when Istock still continued to grow and flourish, it was under the guidance of Bruce.  Only once Getty became solely responsible for Istock did it begin its decline. 

And lastly, if agencies distributors cheap b@$t@rds wont pay for content, then shooters will stop spending money and time to shoot high quality marketable stock.  The stock industry will go back to being pictures of somebody's cat or a flower from their garden, or a duck in the park, uploaded just for the fun of maybe getting it in print. 

The micro industry cannot survive, much less flourish, without investment from talented image creators, and that's going to require the sites to pay fairly.  They are in the process of finding that out.  This isn't some brilliant master plan by Getty.  It is simply short-sighted, short-term, mistaken thinking.  You'd think it would be obvious of course, but evidently the geniuses running Getty aren't geniuses at all.

You're on a roll right now Lisa! Excellent analysis and comment.

Compare and contrast the relative fortunes of Istock/Getty and Shutterstock and the very different ways that they treat their content providers and customers. Could they be in some way related?

« Reply #337 on: January 21, 2013, 06:40 »
+9
This business dose not work for me so its easy for me to say bye, bye Getty! So you think it should be a free world?  Getty is USING us go make MONEY its our choice if we choose to let them use OUR content to make $$$. I just say NO. Make your own content and give it away Getty! I will help agencies who care about their artist! trust me there is a huge market for good content. We have to pull our content from Getty to survive people. They are trying to kill us by scale so lets fight fight fight!!!

ruxpriencdiam

    This user is banned.
  • Location. Third stone from the sun
« Reply #338 on: January 21, 2013, 08:20 »
0
So why is everyone waiting for another two weeks to go by?

The longer you leave your images there the more the chance of them being sold off as well as the others that were sold I would think you would want to remove them pronto.

« Reply #339 on: January 21, 2013, 11:56 »
+2
So why is everyone waiting for another two weeks to go by?

The longer you leave your images there the more the chance of them being sold off as well as the others that were sold I would think you would want to remove them pronto.
Very true. Waiting until Groundhog Day makes this all sound like a joke, or some kind of goofball protest. But this is not a joke, this is serious. We can hurt Getty and help ourselves and each other but, as the commercials say, we must act now.

« Reply #340 on: January 21, 2013, 11:58 »
0
If I drop istock exclusive, how long before I can hookup with other sites (30 days?)

thanks

ShadySue

  • There is a crack in everything
« Reply #341 on: January 21, 2013, 12:02 »
0
If I drop istock exclusive, how long before I can hookup with other sites (30 days?)

thanks
30 days until your files can go live on other sites.

« Reply #342 on: January 21, 2013, 12:12 »
0
What is the current tally for Feb 2?

« Reply #343 on: January 21, 2013, 12:14 »
+1
So why is everyone waiting for another two weeks to go by?

The longer you leave your images there the more the chance of them being sold off as well as the others that were sold I would think you would want to remove them pronto.
I think you may be right, by the looks of it getty are not going to bother even issuing another statement and the longer are files are there the more risk of them being abused. I seem to remember seeing something on here about Yuri Arcurs and a lawyer meeting with getty, does anyone know what happened?

ShadySue

  • There is a crack in everything
« Reply #344 on: January 21, 2013, 12:19 »
0
So why is everyone waiting for another two weeks to go by?

The longer you leave your images there the more the chance of them being sold off as well as the others that were sold I would think you would want to remove them pronto.
I think you may be right, by the looks of it getty are not going to bother even issuing another statement and the longer are files are there the more risk of them being abused. I seem to remember seeing something on here about Yuri Arcurs and a lawyer meeting with getty, does anyone know what happened?
It was today, and I'm sure he'll post the results if and when he chooses to do so.
If anything is ongoing, he'll no doubt be advised to keep stumm.
« Last Edit: January 21, 2013, 12:36 by ShadySue »

lisafx

« Reply #345 on: January 21, 2013, 12:21 »
+3
So why is everyone waiting for another two weeks to go by?

The longer you leave your images there the more the chance of them being sold off as well as the others that were sold I would think you would want to remove them pronto.
Very true. Waiting until Groundhog Day makes this all sound like a joke, or some kind of goofball protest. But this is not a joke, this is serious. We can hurt Getty and help ourselves and each other but, as the commercials say, we must act now.

While I see no problem at all with deactivating sooner than Feb 2, and would encourage anyone who wants to do do that, I disagree that anyone is going to interpret the concerted protest of hundreds of content providers as a joke.  Quite the contrary. 

I didn't set the date as Feb 2, but as I understand it, there were a number of good reasons to set the date a couple of weeks in the future.  Among them were to give people time to make alternative plans (find other outlets, etc.); to get the word out to the media and throughout the industry; to give anyone thinking of suing time for their lawyers to make contact and offer advice; and/or to give Getty a chance to set the record straight or modify their behavior if this was some sort of mistake.

Obviously this isn't some sort of mistake, and Getty doesn't want to modify their behavior.  They will have to be forced to.  But the other reasons are still valid.  Lots of blogs, and other media outlets are spreading the word, so this protest is likely to be BIG.   

Acting precipitously is easy for an individual, but difficult to coordinate as a group, and group action is what's called for here. 

But like I said, if you don't want to wait until the 2nd, by all means don't.   :)

« Reply #346 on: January 21, 2013, 12:23 »
0
I seem to remember seeing something on here about Yuri Arcurs and a lawyer meeting with getty, does anyone know what happened?

I think Yuri said the meeting was this week.

I wouldn't mind being a fly on the wall when he asks the Getty executives directly about Google Drive. <awkward!>

lisafx

« Reply #347 on: January 21, 2013, 12:26 »
0
comment moved to a more appropriate thread.   

lisafx

« Reply #348 on: January 21, 2013, 12:39 »
+5
comment moved to a more appropriate thread.   
And the purpose of this is?

Huh?  Are you serious?  This site doesn't allow you to delete a comment entirely.  You have to write something.  You've been around awhile, surely you know this?
Sure so where is the link to the thread?

I don't know what your problem is, but I don't owe you any explanations when I delete a post of MINE.  If you want to read the other threads, you can access them from the homepage just like the rest of us. 

My response to YOU was still here in this thread.   ::)

PS:  I'll give you a hint.  If you are so keen to know what I had to say, you can look for my name.  It's lisafx, in case you were wondering, LOL. 
« Last Edit: January 21, 2013, 12:42 by lisafx »

Poncke

« Reply #349 on: January 21, 2013, 13:03 »
0
Interesting post by Bill Brooks over on Alamy's forum:

This is interesting and it does seem Getty is headed down this path. Problem is that app makers seem to be reasonably compensated. If this Google deal is any indication of the future of royalty compensation I can't see who they would expect to be producing content at a loss.

It is true that in some cases more money can be made from selling the data of your own buyers than from the products you actually sell them, allowing other business to accurately target them. However this normally relates to very low-value products (such as balloons and stuff for kids' parties) and the information is valuable to those to wish to sell much higher value goods to the same buyers.

Even so I don't understand how Getty can monetize the giving away of quality content that should cost $hundreds to license. If reports are to be believed they currently have annual sales close to $1B. If they are going to wilfully destroy a good chunk of that market, along with the livelihoods of their content providers, what are they going to replace the revenue with?

If this continues then surely the next step would be for Getty's content providers to exit en-masse with their portfolios. Where would that leave Getty then?

The theory that 'everything on the internet should be free' might sound good, but it's not true (at least legally) and it's never going to be because they'd be no incentive to produce stuff. Music is not free, neither are (modern) books and nor are magazines. They all cost money to produce and distribute, represent a financial investment/risk to those who do so ... and endlessly collecting data from 'clicks' is not going to pay for it all.
+1


 

Related Topics

  Subject / Started by Replies Last post
4 Replies
6767 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
22489 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
7105 Views
Last post April 16, 2015, 12:00
by tickstock

Sponsors

Mega Bundle of 5,900+ Professional Lightroom Presets

Microstock Poll Results

Sponsors