pancakes

MicrostockGroup Sponsors


Author Topic: D-Day (Deactivation Day) on Istock - Feb 2  (Read 221592 times)

0 Members and 7 Guests are viewing this topic.

« Reply #375 on: January 22, 2013, 11:12 »
0
Looks like there are some buyer concerns about D-Day popping up in forums.  Could someone who works with RM files address the question at the Graphic Design Forum:  http://www.graphicdesignforum.com/forum/showthread.php?t=82573
« Last Edit: January 22, 2013, 12:15 by cypher »


lisafx

« Reply #376 on: January 22, 2013, 12:04 »
-1
Looks like there are some buyer concerns about D-Day popping up in forums.  Could someone who works with RM files address the question at the Graphics Design Forum:  http://www.graphicdesignforum.com/forum/showthread.php?t=82573


Good to see this is on the designers' radar, and that it is creating questions about the legality of using these images. 

I am not in RM on Getty, so I can't help the questioner out, but I certainly don't think any images licensed RM (or even RF through proper channels) would be affected. 

« Reply #377 on: January 22, 2013, 12:53 »
+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.

Sorry I won't be part for this for two reasons:

1) A "page" is not the right thing for something like this, a group would be better. Pages are One-To-Many communication, if I post on your wall it gets lost in a small box. In groups all members' posts are equal.

2) There are a couple of groups going on already. Some invite-only to control they are out of access for officials, some are public... contact your fellow iStocker's on Facebook to see who is a member and can invite you.


« Reply #378 on: January 22, 2013, 13:00 »
0
I put a comment on their FB page about D-day and it lasted few hours, now it is gone as expected....

m@m

« Reply #379 on: January 22, 2013, 13:01 »
+5
Finally we've united for the good of all!...just got back into town and find that hell (Getty) has broken loose...I will definitely support this action, I'm only $30 shy of payout this month but once I reach my payout all of my 300+ images will be deactivated, hopefully this will happen by Feb 2...I refuse to leave my money there for Greedy-Getty to enjoy...count me in!!!

« Reply #380 on: January 22, 2013, 13:31 »
+1
M@M don't forget January's sub sales don't come till Feb.  Deactivate but don't delete so you can collect what is due.

« Reply #381 on: January 22, 2013, 14:29 »
+2
Feb 2nd projected total 32,668+

This is including a projection from the iStock forum.
« Last Edit: January 22, 2013, 14:59 by cybernesco »

« Reply #382 on: January 22, 2013, 14:48 »
+6
Hi All,

  I have mentioned this here for years about the stock industry " Do not sign an exclusive contract ". Now you see why you must diversify, those that chose the carrot at the beginning are now getting the stick for being Exclusive. Best of luck I hope you can pull out of this with little to no damage and please stay away from exclusive contracts in the future. It is like working for the man instead of being your own boss.

Best,
Jonathan

« Reply #383 on: January 22, 2013, 14:59 »
+10
Hi All,
  I have mentioned this here for years about the stock industry " Do not sign an exclusive contract ". Now you see why you must diversify, those that chose the carrot at the beginning are now getting the stick for being Exclusive. Best of luck I hope you can pull out of this with little to no damage and please stay away from exclusive contracts in the future. It is like working for the man instead of being your own boss.
Best,
Jonathan

Jon, you realize Blend has several dozen images in this, right?  This isn't an iStock Exclusive thing.

« Reply #384 on: January 22, 2013, 15:25 »
0
Hi All,
  I have mentioned this here for years about the stock industry " Do not sign an exclusive contract ". Now you see why you must diversify, those that chose the carrot at the beginning are now getting the stick for being Exclusive. Best of luck I hope you can pull out of this with little to no damage and please stay away from exclusive contracts in the future. It is like working for the man instead of being your own boss.
Best,
Jonathan

Jon, you realize Blend has several dozen images in this, right?  This isn't an iStock Exclusive thing.

John Lund has 17 I think... :S

« Reply #385 on: January 22, 2013, 15:38 »
+4
Hi Leaf,

 Yes of coarse I am aware. The best part of that is I have an agency that will go to bat for me and wields a great deal more power than I do as an individual. There are many third party agencies that are speaking to Getty right now and they will be heard much quicker than a handful of Istock Exclusives. One person does not get the same ear time as a leading agency does. My point from the start is  " DO NOT JOIN AN EXCLUSIVE CONTRACT " . The other end is Blend as well as Spaces is represented by 90 agencies around the world so Getty is not our only income by any measure. We could leave them in a matter of days if we wanted and still have all our content available through every other vendor without any down time.

Cheers,
Jonathan

« Reply #386 on: January 22, 2013, 15:46 »
+7
Yes of coarse I am aware. The best part of that is I have an agency that will go to bat for me and wields a great deal more power than I do as an individual.

Again, sorry, but Rick (Blend) has said he has no problem with this scheme.

Quote
There are many third party agencies that are speaking to Getty right now and they will be heard much quicker than a handful of Istock Exclusives. One person does not get the same ear time as a leading agency does.

That's wonderful.  How about we join together instead of being separated, or would it bother them to sink to our level?  Jon, can we count on you to be our liaison to this group of leading agencies in this matter?

« Reply #387 on: January 22, 2013, 16:05 »
0
...Again, sorry, but Rick (Blend) has said he has no problem with this scheme.

Do you have Rick's permission to post his response here? It doesn't seem to me he was in the least bit interested in changing anything Getty's doing - he saw it is incremental revenue (remember how some exclusives once viewed the Partner Program that way??)

« Reply #388 on: January 22, 2013, 16:17 »
0
Here's part of it (public forum):
-----
Yes, the deal is for images in "premium access" which licenses bulk content
deals largely for new-media, non traditional, usages. In this case it look like
Google licensed about 2000 images for between $60-$100 each to allow for use in
their Drive / Docs program. Images can be used to terms of Google's EULA. This
deal is exactly like any of the other deals that have been done in the past when
a software manufacturer wants to have some clip art images in the box for use in
demoing the software. I'm not a big fan of micro priced sales. But I do
understand both the client and agency perspective. Google needs imagery to show
off their software. It has to be somewhat up to date and relevant, but not
necessarily the best content available. Due to the small number of images it's
not likely the collection will be that useful for clients for actual end use,
but does show off the technology nicely. From Getty's perspective it's a
$150,000 sale where the imagery is not likely to get a lot of exposure or
end-use by potentially paying clients.

I understand the feeling that the images could be downloaded in bulk and put
into an image library and used forever. But, in general, the professional image
user - those who WILL buy imagery (even if they're a grandma working in a church
office) would like to search for and find the most relevant content for their
needs, and with microstock available, it's unlikely that the difference between
free and 5 "credits" would be a deterrent. For those hell bent on using images
outside of license agreements, sure, they'll have at it.
---------

Here's a later statement - I hadn't been back because it was kind of a hostile audience...
----------
What's MOST bizarre about the way Google has set up the image insertion system
is that they have a disclaimer "Before reusing content that you've found..." and
yet they don't clearly state how one CAN use the images in their "stock" search.
Basically it says "you better do your research" but then it doesn't tell you
what rights the images in the stock library have. So, yes, this is ambiguous.
The onus is ultimately on the user to figure out. I would think that after
reading the warning, and not finding a clear description of rights granted, any
commercial user of the imagery would be wary to use it at all. Those who
wouldn't, aren't content buyers. It's truly bizarre.

I think it's been made very clear to Getty that deals of this nature probably
need a little more disclosure to the troops. But the nature of the deal is
really not that different than those that have been done since the inception of
RF, same kind of terms, same kind of price. As for what I'm most concerned
about with regard our content - maximizing revenue across the entire licensing
space. The same image that just sold for $12.00 on Google Docs will likely sell
to a different customer multiple times for $300 or more each sale (netting say
between $60.00 - $150 "rpd") We try to harvest as much incremental income as
possible with our RF content. I was once told (by a very reliable source at
Getty) that if PA was it's own agency - only PA sales - it would be in the top 5
grossing agencies in the world. Kinda makes you think.

Personally, I would have handled the Google Docs sale differently on a few
levels - but I wasn't driving. I've given Getty my input on how they might
better approach future licenses of this type in the future. I'm sure they're
enjoying your posts as well. But what I'm most surprised about is the level of
anger and frustration about this deal. It's a really very typical kind of
software bundle license.
-----------

So, sounds like they did contact Getty, but not really to be opposed to this deal.

m@m

« Reply #389 on: January 22, 2013, 16:33 »
0
M@M don't forget January's sub sales don't come till Feb.  Deactivate but don't delete so you can collect what is due.

Thanks for the heads up Pixart... :)

« Reply #390 on: January 22, 2013, 16:36 »
0
Looks like there are some buyer concerns about D-Day popping up in forums.  Could someone who works with RM files address the question at the Graphic Design Forum:  http://www.graphicdesignforum.com/forum/showthread.php?t=82573


The question is still sitting there on their forum, unanswered.  Anyone want to give them a knowledgeable answer?  Thanks.

w7lwi

  • Those that don't stand up to evil enable evil.
« Reply #391 on: January 22, 2013, 16:50 »
0
OK I was getting ready to delete 168 images.  Went to my portfolio and account in IS but I couldn't locate a link that would allow me to delete anything.  Never had occasion to do that before, so don't really know where to go.  I'd really like to do these one-on-one rather than using Sean's script.  Where do I find the delete link?

Second question.  I had a number of images on StockXpert but closed that account years ago, before it was bought by IS.  Any danger of those still being around?

« Reply #392 on: January 22, 2013, 16:53 »
0
If you look under you keywords there is a link Administration click it and you can deactivate you file.

lisafx

« Reply #393 on: January 22, 2013, 16:55 »
+1
Here's part of it (public forum):
-----
Yes, the deal is for images in "premium access" which licenses bulk content
deals largely for new-media, non traditional, usages. In this case it look like
Google licensed about 2000 images for between $60-$100 each to allow for use in
their Drive / Docs program. Images can be used to terms of Google's EULA. This
deal is exactly like any of the other deals that have been done in the past when
a software manufacturer wants to have some clip art images in the box for use in
demoing the software. I'm not a big fan of micro priced sales. But I do
understand both the client and agency perspective. Google needs imagery to show
off their software. It has to be somewhat up to date and relevant, but not
necessarily the best content available. Due to the small number of images it's
not likely the collection will be that useful for clients for actual end use,
but does show off the technology nicely. From Getty's perspective it's a
$150,000 sale where the imagery is not likely to get a lot of exposure or
end-use by potentially paying clients.

I understand the feeling that the images could be downloaded in bulk and put
into an image library and used forever. But, in general, the professional image
user - those who WILL buy imagery (even if they're a grandma working in a church
office) would like to search for and find the most relevant content for their
needs, and with microstock available, it's unlikely that the difference between
free and 5 "credits" would be a deterrent. For those hell bent on using images
outside of license agreements, sure, they'll have at it.
---------

Here's a later statement - I hadn't been back because it was kind of a hostile audience...
----------
What's MOST bizarre about the way Google has set up the image insertion system
is that they have a disclaimer "Before reusing content that you've found..." and
yet they don't clearly state how one CAN use the images in their "stock" search.
Basically it says "you better do your research" but then it doesn't tell you
what rights the images in the stock library have. So, yes, this is ambiguous.
The onus is ultimately on the user to figure out. I would think that after
reading the warning, and not finding a clear description of rights granted, any
commercial user of the imagery would be wary to use it at all. Those who
wouldn't, aren't content buyers. It's truly bizarre.

I think it's been made very clear to Getty that deals of this nature probably
need a little more disclosure to the troops. But the nature of the deal is
really not that different than those that have been done since the inception of
RF, same kind of terms, same kind of price. As for what I'm most concerned
about with regard our content - maximizing revenue across the entire licensing
space. The same image that just sold for $12.00 on Google Docs will likely sell
to a different customer multiple times for $300 or more each sale (netting say
between $60.00 - $150 "rpd") We try to harvest as much incremental income as
possible with our RF content. I was once told (by a very reliable source at
Getty) that if PA was it's own agency - only PA sales - it would be in the top 5
grossing agencies in the world. Kinda makes you think.

Personally, I would have handled the Google Docs sale differently on a few
levels - but I wasn't driving. I've given Getty my input on how they might
better approach future licenses of this type in the future. I'm sure they're
enjoying your posts as well. But what I'm most surprised about is the level of
anger and frustration about this deal. It's a really very typical kind of
software bundle license
.
-----------

So, sounds like they did contact Getty, but not really to be opposed to this deal.

Wow.  What a dismissive attitude, coupled with a complete failure to understand the long term implications of this deal, and the significant ways it differs from promotional deals of the past.  The highlighted portion has me flashing on Tony Hayward after the BP Oil spill in the Gulf of Mexico. 

Jonathan, this is an example of the company you think is going to bat for you?  Really??

w7lwi

  • Those that don't stand up to evil enable evil.
« Reply #394 on: January 22, 2013, 17:16 »
0
If you look under you keywords there is a link Administration click it and you can deactivate you file.

The only option I see is to deactivate the file.  How do I delete the file or is there no link to do that?

« Reply #395 on: January 22, 2013, 17:21 »
0
If you look under you keywords there is a link Administration click it and you can deactivate you file.

The only option I see is to deactivate the file.  How do I delete the file or is there no link to do that?

There is no 'delete'.  Only 'deactivate'.  Exact same as the script.

w7lwi

  • Those that don't stand up to evil enable evil.
« Reply #396 on: January 22, 2013, 17:28 »
0
If you look under you keywords there is a link Administration click it and you can deactivate you file.

The only option I see is to deactivate the file.  How do I delete the file or is there no link to do that?

There is no 'delete'.  Only 'deactivate'.  Exact same as the script.

OK, thanks.

« Reply #397 on: January 22, 2013, 18:24 »
+2
Hi Sean,

 I cannot speak for Rick but he is very approachable if you wanted to contact him directly, he is very open to share what he can when he can. I am in no position to speak for someone else or to get involved with our boards business. I can tell you that the agency I own does not have any images in this collection. Want to talk to me about my agency I am all ears if you want to talk to Blend you will have to go through the appropriate channels. Not blowing you off I just have to follow protocol, we vote in a board and we leave all business to them. Like I said Rick is a very warm friendly and an extremely knowledgable individual about the stock industry. I will say what you read on the internet is open for all ears so you never hear what is truly taking place behind closed doors. Good Luck Sean, are you pulling your entire collection from Istock and leaving exclusivity? Kudos to you if you are I know it will cost you a great deal of money and security to your future.

Best,
Jonathan

« Reply #398 on: January 22, 2013, 18:37 »
+2
Hi Sean,

 Can you share where you found this post from Rick, what open forum was it posted on? Very important if I am to approach the board on this topic to gain more information. Happy to share what I find out.

Thanks,
Jonathan

« Reply #399 on: January 22, 2013, 18:39 »
0
Hi Sean,

 Can you share where you found this post from Rick, what open forum was it posted on? Very important if I am to approach the board on this topic to gain more information. Happy to share what I find out.

Thanks,
Jonathan

I posted this in the other thread as well.. as a general rule, please always link the original post.


 

Related Topics

  Subject / Started by Replies Last post
4 Replies
6763 Views
Last post February 28, 2011, 17:43
by click_click
17 Replies
7877 Views
Last post January 15, 2013, 08:21
by jtyler
35 Replies
22474 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