I'm sorry that I've lost the plot about where to post the numbers - so I put this information in both the "tally" thread and this one.

Here's a post from absolutely_frenchy saying his 662 images and illustrations will be gone on D-Day

Quote from: ShadySue on January 24, 2013, 08:59

Quote from: luissantos84 on January 24, 2013, 08:47

everybody is working on deactivating and or deleting pictures while some are still uploading, one of them is Yuri, he is meeting with GI next Monday right, what will he say? Hi guys, I am still uploading so go ahead with more google stuff, how about yahoo?

Several of the BDs are still uploading, including some whose images were put into the Google deal.

I've stop uploading, fyi.  Lol at Luis.

Yep - BD here not uploading there anymore.  In fact I deleted my pending files I had uploaded before I found out about this. 

Once again the "all or nothing" argument rears its ugly head.  Are we on a middle school playground?    What adult is going to allow themselves to be goaded into deleting images they otherwise wouldn't by a forum post anyway?

We are each curators of our own collections and as such, are the only ones in the position of choosing what we delete or don't.

Hundreds of people deleting all or part of their portfolios will send a much louder message, and more negatively affect the overall collection and its diversity, than if a couple dozen delete ALL of their portfolio.  That already happened when the RC credit scheme was introduced and we all saw how NOT effective that was.   

Any and all images deleted on or before Feb 2 add to the value of this protest. 

Interestingly enough this is exactly what I think made iStock successful: Yes, it certainly did take away some business from traditional image buyers but it was mainly growing because it found a way to make imagery available to millions of people who could or would not afford three digits for an image they wanted to use in a local brochure or on their website. They brought image licensing outside of the traditional business into an SMB or even consumer market. Just like Apple is making a fortune by selling 99 cent songs. The potential consumer market for imagery certainly isn't as big as the market for music but it definitely adds up to a huge amount.

The reason I am disappointed with iStock - or actually Getty because things went down only since they decided to become more involved in decisions made at iStock after letting it successfully run almost independent for four or five years - is that Getty still does not understand this part of the market. It knows the customers it used to deal with for a decade or two with personal relationships between a sales person and an image editor or an art buyer.

When giving out images for almost free to Google Drive, it did not just make a big single sale for themselves which I believe was celebrated internally, it also gave away images for free to the people iStock had proved are willing to pay a dollar or two for each of these uses. It did not understand that 400 million users of which maybe 10% would be willing to buy a few images per year spending $10 or $20 would add up to a market that is actually bigger than all ad agencies combined.

I think this is one of the biggest frustrations for people coming from microstock that none of the macro people will ever understand because their lack of vision that there could be a huge market out there if they for once were able to think outside their tiny box.

What a nice write up. Thank you for stating clearly everything I was thinking but was too lazy/tired to post. Great post indeed:)

Once again the "all or nothing" argument rears its ugly head.  Are we on a middle school playground?    What adult is going to allow themselves to be goaded into deleting images they otherwise wouldn't by a forum post anyway?

We are each curators of our own collections and as such, are the only ones in the position of choosing what we delete or don't.

Hundreds of people deleting all or part of their portfolios will send a much louder message, and more negatively affect the overall collection and its diversity, than if a couple dozen delete ALL of their portfolio.  That already happened when the RC credit scheme was introduced and we all saw how NOT effective that was.   

Any and all images deleted on or before Feb 2 add to the value of this protest. 

Exactly! So why on earth do you keep on trying so hard to convince us otherwise all the time? Or better said, why are you dictating to us what, why and when we should and should not do?

To everyone his own, opinion, posts and actions . It's a free forum, innit?

Quote from: CJ6 on January 24, 2013, 12:29

Which Yuri isn't. I couldn't understand his logic in continuing to UL images to other agencies, after starting his own, but continuing to do so even now, makes me wonder if he's gone completely mental.

He has a sizeable staff to keep paying.

But OTOH so much more to loose

Rather than try to deactivate everything randomly, I plan on doing this in three phases. 

First, because I feel I have a moral obligation to my models, yesterday I deactivated all my MR images.  I did this before deactivating any of my high selling images as I promised my models to protect their likeness from untoward use to the best of my ability and that has to take first priority.

Phase two will be all images that are selling well on other sites.  They may be selling well on IS, but if they are selling well elsewhere they are at most danger of being made worthless by being moved at some future point to Google.

Phase three will be a review of all remaining images.  However they are selling on IS, if remaining on IS appears to endanger sales on other sites they will be deactivated.  Anything with sales only on IS or with little to no activity elsewhere will not be deactivated.  This will be an on-going activity in future months in the event anything changes and additional images need to be deactivated.

Quote from: CJ6 on January 24, 2013, 12:32

Quote from: lisafx on January 24, 2013, 12:14

Once again the "all or nothing" argument rears its ugly head. Are we on a middle school playground? What adult is going to allow themselves to be goaded into deleting images they otherwise wouldn't by a forum post anyway?

We are each curators of our own collections and as such, are the only ones in the position of choosing what we delete or don't.

Hundreds of people deleting all or part of their portfolios will send a much louder message, and more negatively affect the overall collection and its diversity, than if a couple dozen delete ALL of their portfolio.  That already happened when the RC credit scheme was introduced and we all saw how NOT effective that was.   

Any and all images deleted on or before Feb 2 add to the value of this protest. 

Exactly! So why on earth do you keep on trying so hard to convince us otherwise all the time? Or better said, why are you dictating to us what, why and when we should and should not do?

To everyone his own, opinion, posts and actions . It's a free forum, innit?

Huh??  Can you please point to any post of mine where I am dictating that anybody has to do anything?  I've certainly attempted to spread awareness that this was happening, but if you reread my posts, you will see I have gone out of my way to say each person can decide at what, if any level, they participate.   

You seem to either be misunderstanding every post I've made (if you've even read them) or else are confused about what the term "dictating" means. 

It's in bold. Good enough?

I don't want to fight, I really don't, I strongly support this initiative and us (contributors) staying divided rather than united only make it less likely for this initiative to succeed. Kudos to you for starting this, but please, let free opinions flow, don't object or try to convince people that are thinking differently otherwise or what's better for them.

I don't want to fight, I really don't, I strongly support this initiative and us (contributors) staying divided rather than united only make it less likely for this initiative to succeed. Kudos to you for starting this, but please, let free opinions flow, don't object or try to convince people that are thinking differently otherwise or what's better for them.

Okay, I am going to say this again because you still aren't getting it.  I HAVEN'T TOLD ANYONE ELSE WHAT THEY HAVE TO DO or "what's better for them"!!!!!  Nowhere can you point to anyplace that I have.  It didn't happen.  It is a fiction you have created. 

How about you don't keep posting lies about what my words and motivations are and I won't have to keep correcting them?  Sound fair? 

On one thing we agree.  This bickering isn't helping anything. 

Quote from: CJ6 on January 24, 2013, 12:51

I don't want to fight, I really don't, I strongly support this initiative and us (contributors) staying divided rather than united only make it less likely for this initiative to succeed. Kudos to you for starting this, but please, let free opinions flow, don't object or try to convince people that are thinking differently otherwise or what's better for them.

Okay, I am going to say this again because you still aren't getting it.  I HAVEN'T TOLD ANYONE ELSE WHAT THEY HAVE TO DO or "what's better for them"!!!!!  Nowhere can you point to anyplace that I have.  It didn't happen.  It is a fiction you have created. 

How about you don't keep posting lies about what my words and motivations are and I won't have to keep correcting them?  Sound fair? 

On one thing we agree.  This bickering isn't helping anything.

I guess you can't read bold. You're like politicians, both in implying and not admitting anything even if the proof is right in front of them. Of course, they're lies.

Indeed, I'm out of this, just so you know, I'm on to you

Quote from: lisafx on January 24, 2013, 13:00

Quote from: CJ6 on January 24, 2013, 12:51

I don't want to fight, I really don't, I strongly support this initiative and us (contributors) staying divided rather than united only make it less likely for this initiative to succeed. Kudos to you for starting this, but please, let free opinions flow, don't object or try to convince people that are thinking differently otherwise or what's better for them.

Okay, I am going to say this again because you still aren't getting it.  I HAVEN'T TOLD ANYONE ELSE WHAT THEY HAVE TO DO or "what's better for them"!!!!!  Nowhere can you point to anyplace that I have.  It didn't happen.  It is a fiction you have created. 

How about you don't keep posting lies about what my words and motivations are and I won't have to keep correcting them?  Sound fair? 

On one thing we agree.  This bickering isn't helping anything.

I guess you can't read bold. You're like politicians, both in implying and not admitting anything even if the proof is right in front of them. Of course, they're lies.

Indeed, I'm out of this, just so you know, I'm on to you

1st bang your head against the wall like 100 times then come back, your opinion and experience in RM/RF/penny stock is very important to us, you really contribute a lot to this forum

Hi Lisa,

 I think you were probably misunderstood. That happens a lot on forums sometimes it is a language barrier sometimes it is because they didn't read the entire post and sometimes it is because they have their own position and when they read your words they are misinterpreted because of what they already believe. I can see from reading a lot of the posts here that this is a very emotionally charged conversation for some. My only advice when making business decisions is to remove yourself emotionally as much as you can from your decision making. I know that is easier said than done but I would be out looking for as much solid information as possible rather than speculating.
 Here are replies to three posts that I feel are speculation and not based on fact. Getty did not make a huge sale here if you knew the sale price it would blow your mind, very small. Getty did not make a deal to continue to feed Google anymore content and last Hughstoneian Getty makes $1 million dollars a year off of just my sales, they actually make more and if I deleted my account they would not bat an eye.
 So my concern on this deal is that if you want to really make a stand and have people take notice you have to pull your entire collection especially the best sellers or don't bother. To remove your bottom feeder images is only helping Istock and Getty out by clearing out the trash to add new stronger content, this has to hurt Istock in order to work.
 Once again this is only my opinion but it is based on some facts like the price they made for this sale. It was peanuts to Getty so I do not think Getty wants Google to take over their business these are very savvy business people that want to and hopefully will make Getty stronger I guarantee that is what Getty wants in the long run. Keep up the info sharing I think that is always a good idea but be carful not to believe all you read without first doing some investigating.

Best,
Jonathan

Hi Lisa,

 I think you were probably misunderstood. That happens a lot on forums sometimes it is a language barrier sometimes it is because they didn't read the entire post and sometimes it is because they have their own position and when they read your words they are misinterpreted because of what they already believe. I can see from reading a lot of the posts here that this is a very emotionally charged conversation for some. My only advice when making business decisions is to remove yourself emotionally as much as you can from your decision making. I know that is easier said than done but I would be out looking for as much solid information as possible rather than speculating.
 Here are replies to three posts that I feel are speculation and not based on fact. Getty did not make a huge sale here if you knew the sale price it would blow your mind, very small. Getty did not make a deal to continue to feed Google anymore content and last Hughstoneian Getty makes $1 million dollars a year off of just my sales, they actually make more and if I deleted my account they would not bat an eye.
So my concern on this deal is that if you want to really make a stand and have people take notice you have to pull your entire collection especially the best sellers or don't bother. To remove your bottom feeder images is only helping Istock and Getty out by clearing out the trash to add new stronger content, this has to hurt Istock in order to work.
 Once again this is only my opinion but it is based on some facts like the price they made for this sale. It was peanuts to Getty so I do not think Getty wants Google to take over their business these are very savvy business people that want to and hopefully will make Getty stronger I guarantee that is what Getty wants in the long run. Keep up the info sharing I think that is always a good idea but be carful not to believe all you read without first doing some investigating.

Best,
Jonathan

I'm not going to say, finally, a voice of reason, but I will say I agree with it completely.

 Thinking otherwise is illogical and naive. And then there's the "deactivation to protect my IP" argument. What are you going to protect, your worst, or your best images? Please use your brain people, make logical decisions