MicrostockGroup Sponsors


Author Topic: D-Day (Deactivation Day) on Istock - Feb 2  (Read 221662 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

ruxpriencdiam

    This user is banned.
  • Location. Third stone from the sun
« Reply #350 on: January 21, 2013, 13:07 »
-7
Well in case anyone missed it and they probably did here is a quote from someone else and it makes sense!

Quote
Just deactivated every file except one - a rubbish image with 0 views.

Only ever made about a $100 a quarter from istock anyway so no great financial loss.

I cannot believe the naivety of the istock members there waiting until the 2 Feb to remove/deactivate their images. That makes no sense to me at all, even as a marker for the press to focus on. Publishing the date was a big mistake.

Do they not think that Getty read the forums? The reason the amount of image transfers to Google Drive has gone up from 5000 to 11000 (ish) in a week is to pre-empt the 2nd of Feb action. By the 2nd, they'll have moved up to 20,000 plus images to the free site.

I wouldn't be surprised either if Getty instruct istock to do computer maintenance on the 2 Feb just to spite people trying to achieve their goals of deactivation. That is exactly the sort of thing they'll think of and it being a Saturday, no-one will be available to face the fury of the members until the following week.


« Reply #351 on: January 21, 2013, 13:21 »
0
Well in case anyone missed it and they probably did here is a quote from someone else and it makes sense!

Quote
Just deactivated every file except one - a rubbish image with 0 views.

Only ever made about a $100 a quarter from istock anyway so no great financial loss.

I cannot believe the naivety of the istock members there waiting until the 2 Feb to remove/deactivate their images. That makes no sense to me at all, even as a marker for the press to focus on. Publishing the date was a big mistake.

Do they not think that Getty read the forums? The reason the amount of image transfers to Google Drive has gone up from 5000 to 11000 (ish) in a week is to pre-empt the 2nd of Feb action. By the 2nd, they'll have moved up to 20,000 plus images to the free site.

I wouldn't be surprised either if Getty instruct istock to do computer maintenance on the 2 Feb just to spite people trying to achieve their goals of deactivation. That is exactly the sort of thing they'll think of and it being a Saturday, no-one will be available to face the fury of the members until the following week.
Doesn't really make sense.  I doubt istock will be doing computer maintenance 2 Feb as that will stop people buying as well.  If they did just stop contributors deactivating, that's only going to make them want to do it more.  I think it's great that a lot of us have got together on this.  There will always be some people saying we should do it sooner and others saying we should give them more time.  I think by holding off a few weeks, it shows that it's been planned and isn't just a knee jerk reaction.  I did deactivate all the images that have made the most money for me there but I'll save a big chunk for February 2end.

ruxpriencdiam

    This user is banned.
  • Location. Third stone from the sun
« Reply #352 on: January 21, 2013, 13:33 »
-7
And from someone else again.

Quote
It's not illegal, and in fact, every single contributor to iS agreed to it the last time they changed the ASA. (Remember, a little over a year ago, when you had to agree or your account would be deleted?) Did anybody read the changes? They were clearly stated and iS covered themselves by doing that. Don't you think they have an army of lawyers figuring this stuff out for them? The changes said they were taking away contributors rights to opt out of any partner agreements, and pretty much said the agency can negotiate any license, for whatever price they want, and you will get your 15% or 20% or whatever. And that's what you get. 20% of a "special extended license" that was negotiated with Google. If this goes to court, G will likely win since all their contributors agreed to these terms. The only thing I can see that might get them in hot water is the stripping of the exif data. In any case, lawsuits take years to settle and you can't unring the bell once your images are out there for free.

Poncke

« Reply #353 on: January 21, 2013, 13:34 »
+1
Well in case anyone missed it and they probably did here is a quote from someone else and it makes sense!

Quote
Just deactivated every file except one - a rubbish image with 0 views.

Only ever made about a $100 a quarter from istock anyway so no great financial loss.

I cannot believe the naivety of the istock members there waiting until the 2 Feb to remove/deactivate their images. That makes no sense to me at all, even as a marker for the press to focus on. Publishing the date was a big mistake.

Do they not think that Getty read the forums? The reason the amount of image transfers to Google Drive has gone up from 5000 to 11000 (ish) in a week is to pre-empt the 2nd of Feb action. By the 2nd, they'll have moved up to 20,000 plus images to the free site.

I wouldn't be surprised either if Getty instruct istock to do computer maintenance on the 2 Feb just to spite people trying to achieve their goals of deactivation. That is exactly the sort of thing they'll think of and it being a Saturday, no-one will be available to face the fury of the members until the following week.
Now I understand why the place is so buggy. iStock is run from a computer instead from a server farm. LMAO !! Computer maintenance.

Poncke

« Reply #354 on: January 21, 2013, 13:36 »
+5
And from someone else again.

Quote
It's not illegal, and in fact, every single contributor to iS agreed to it the last time they changed the ASA. (Remember, a little over a year ago, when you had to agree or your account would be deleted?) Did anybody read the changes? They were clearly stated and iS covered themselves by doing that. Don't you think they have an army of lawyers figuring this stuff out for them? The changes said they were taking away contributors rights to opt out of any partner agreements, and pretty much said the agency can negotiate any license, for whatever price they want, and you will get your 15% or 20% or whatever. And that's what you get. 20% of a "special extended license" that was negotiated with Google. If this goes to court, G will likely win since all their contributors agreed to these terms. The only thing I can see that might get them in hot water is the stripping of the exif data. In any case, lawsuits take years to settle and you can't unring the bell once your images are out there for free.
You are pressing Lisa to post a link to her own moved comment, yet you are plastering quoted comments here without a link to source, rendering all these comments useless as noone knows who said it, where and in what context.

lisafx

« Reply #355 on: January 21, 2013, 13:39 »
+2
Well in case anyone missed it and they probably did here is a quote from someone else and it makes sense!

Quote
Just deactivated every file except one - a rubbish image with 0 views.

Only ever made about a $100 a quarter from istock anyway so no great financial loss.

I cannot believe the naivety of the istock members there waiting until the 2 Feb to remove/deactivate their images. That makes no sense to me at all, even as a marker for the press to focus on. Publishing the date was a big mistake.


Yeah, it does make sense.  For that user.  I've highlighted the part that makes the most sense. 

BTW, not sure what you hope to accomplish by trashing other people's plans and efforts.  We can all see your little dial that shows how much skin you have in this game.  As you seem to think Getty reads these forums, they must be delighted to see you spreading dissention in the ranks.

PS - Poncke is right.  You haven't attributed any of these quotes.  Just some random postings from whomever.  ::)

ruxpriencdiam

    This user is banned.
  • Location. Third stone from the sun
« Reply #356 on: January 21, 2013, 13:44 »
-6
Yep I have absolutely nothing on IS and glad because it means I have nothing to deactivate.

I prefer to keep my stuff in one main are over on SS.

Lin to the thread with the quotes.

http://submit.shutterstock.com/forum/viewtopic.php?t=127819&start=120
« Last Edit: January 21, 2013, 13:46 by ruxpriencdiam »

lisafx

« Reply #357 on: January 21, 2013, 13:47 »
+4
Yep I have absolutely nothing on IS and glad because it means I have nothing to deactivate.



And yet you feel in a position to criticize other people's efforts.  You've already made it clear this doesn't affect you. 

May I suggest that anyone wishing to trash this effort or otherwise throw cold water please reread the OP?  It said to keep your wet blankets to yourself.  Unless you are planning to participate in D-Day, you are posting OT.

Fortunately there are at least two other threads on this Getty Google situation, either of which would be more appropriate for this sort of debate.   I'll post links so nobody has to struggle to find them on their own:

http://www.microstockgroup.com/istockphoto-com/google-giving-photos-away-free-for-commercial-use-and-istock-agrees/msg292942/?topicseen#new

http://www.microstockgroup.com/istockphoto-com/image-deactivation-tally-for-istockphoto/msg292948/?topicseen#new
« Last Edit: January 21, 2013, 13:53 by lisafx »

« Reply #358 on: January 21, 2013, 14:32 »
+2
Just a few hours ago it was around 8000 images on google drive...
now there are around 11700 images >:( >:( >:(

This time Getty is gone to make a lot of money from this deal with Google without giving us a penny. >:( >:( >:(
Count me in with all my 600 images

« Reply #359 on: January 21, 2013, 14:36 »
+2
Wow.  I just lost a lot of respect for a number of people here.

There really is no need to bash people for having an opinion outside the plan here.  How DARE he question a deleted post!! Please.  There was no crazy personal attack going on until you all jumped on him. He didn't say anything that wasn't true and I think the collective anger at Getty/iStock doesn't need to spill over into pettiness towards others here.  The thread may have a single purpose but last I checked this is still an open public forum and people are still allowed to have their opinions.

Just because someone doesn't have a large (or any) portfolio on iStock doesn't mean they don't get a voice here.  I jumped ship over there years ago and I'm still watching all of this very closely because it affects all of us when an industry leader has stooped this low.  Getting so upset over some stray comments and piling on to bully someone who dares have an opposing point is ridiculous and does nothing productive toward your goals.

Snobs indeed. "Get back to SS forum where you can act like you know something"  What a bunch of bullies you sound like.

Poncke

« Reply #360 on: January 21, 2013, 16:11 »
-1
Has anyone thought of starting up  Facebook invitation about this date? It would be hard to get it out there, as non photographers will not join and pass it on but If it gets momentum it might help.

« Reply #361 on: January 21, 2013, 17:50 »
+1
Has anyone thought of starting up  Facebook invitation about this date? It would be hard to get it out there, as non photographers will not join and pass it on but If it gets momentum it might help.

Interesting idea.  If someone gets this up and going, be sure to share the link here. Anyone have a nice stock image of a groundhog deactivating files to use as the timeline cover?  :-)

« Reply #362 on: January 21, 2013, 17:54 »
+6
Simmer down everyone. People are losing their livelihoods, tempers are bound to be short. It's been coming for a long time and happens every time there is an uproar regarding istockgetty. Stick together and remember what the objective is.

« Reply #363 on: January 21, 2013, 18:21 »
0
One contributor on the IS forums wrote that on Facebook, a disclosed group is created where some high-level contributors are discussing about a possible painless transition of their files to other agencies. Anybody has any idea what this is? I may be interested. I am more a mid-tier fish but this looks interesting.

I tried to find this group but I couldn't. Anybody knows?

« Reply #364 on: January 21, 2013, 22:17 »
+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.
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.   :)
You make some very compelling points. I see what you mean about the Feb 2 date making sense from a public relations point of view. Sort of focuses things. On the target date, I will probably deactivate some more of the few images I have remaining there. Bonzai!!!

« Reply #365 on: January 22, 2013, 00:55 »
0
Has anyone thought of starting up  Facebook invitation about this date? It would be hard to get it out there, as non photographers will not join and pass it on but If it gets momentum it might help.

Can we get this invite up?

It would be a great way of keeping track of participants, because right now I have no clue how many we are

« Reply #366 on: January 22, 2013, 04:35 »
+3
A number of back and forth bickering posts were removed from this thread.

Ok.  let's try again.

« Reply #367 on: January 22, 2013, 05:42 »
0
That is nice, it needed some clean up.
I was thinking if us who are going to remove the images on D-day can write that in the image description? It might get the message through to the buyer and we could warn buyers that the image they might choose could net be there by the time they would want to buy it. Just a thought...

« Reply #368 on: January 22, 2013, 05:48 »
0
A nice web page briefly explaining to buyers what's happening with a link to a few contributor friendly sites would be a good idea.  Then we could all post the link everywhere we can.

« Reply #369 on: January 22, 2013, 05:49 »
0
Istock has a rule - no links in image description :(

« Reply #370 on: January 22, 2013, 07:33 »
0
Count me in. Very small port but will deactivate as many as I can on the 2nd

« Reply #371 on: January 22, 2013, 09:24 »
0
Anyone interested can catch the post here (click link and scroll just the tiniest bit  :D)

https://www.facebook.com/sdevaphotography

Do Like it if you do and feel free to share if you wish..

lisafx

« Reply #372 on: January 22, 2013, 09:55 »
-2

Snobs indeed. "Get back to SS forum where you can act like you know something"  What a bunch of bullies you sound like.

Sorry, but whatever your point was, you've contradicted it with childish name calling.  Characterizing people you disagree with as "snobs" and "bullies" has no place in a constructive dialogue. 

A number of back and forth bickering posts were removed from this thread.


A number of posts with personal flames back and forth were removed.  Evidently there were some I missed, but still not sure why this one calling people "snobs" and "bullies" is still here?
« Last Edit: January 22, 2013, 10:03 by lisafx »

« Reply #373 on: January 22, 2013, 10:07 »
+4
I'm going to drop my crown. That's about all I can do. I've started an Angry Istockers Facebook page if anyone wants to join.
https://www.facebook.com/AngryIstockers?

I'd be more than happy to add some admin.

lisafx

« Reply #374 on: January 22, 2013, 10:35 »
-1
I'm going to drop my crown. That's about all I can do. I've started an Angry Istockers Facebook page if anyone wants to join.
https://www.facebook.com/AngryIstockers?

I'd be more than happy to add some admin.

I think this is a great idea Chris!  Hopefully one of the many on this forum who are active on Facebook will step up and help you administer it :)

Congrats on your upcoming independent status too!  I know you will not be sorry about dropping the crown.
« Last Edit: January 22, 2013, 10:37 by lisafx »


 

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
22490 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
7106 Views
Last post April 16, 2015, 12:00
by tickstock

Sponsors

Mega Bundle of 5,900+ Professional Lightroom Presets

Microstock Poll Results

Sponsors