Yesterday i got all the PP files I had activated 2 years back off that list.  Looking back at it it did more damage than good to sales as it devalued the chances of iStock sales.    Sean and others did make the point back then but I didn't listen.   I was wrong and I'm sorry! The best match had buried those files and I thought it wasa way to get some life back in, not worth it!

So around 800 files less for Thinkstock and or Photos.com to give away.

I read several comments, the first of this thread, and now a bit confused...so, on Feb 2nd a lot of people is going to deactivate the entire or part of their portfolio on iStock. I have tried to de-activate a couple of files, but they ask for deactivation reason. Is there a way to bulk-deactivate the whole portfolio? I have about 300 files there, it would take an entire day doing one by one...please advise!

ciao

Why has CJ6 been banned?

He's made a valid point: deleting just the non-sellers effectively doesn't do much. I also hold the opinion that if you're deleting your images, it should include your best sellers as well. Can this "issue" be discussed in a constructive way, without anyone being banned (maybe a new topic)? It sounds reasonable and logical because of that 20/80 distribution [20% of your photos make up 80% of your income (however, some say it's more like 10/80)] - if I delete or deactivate the bottom 50% of my portfolio, it'll only affect 5% of my earnings. Sure - the total number of photos available to iStock will be smaller, but only the non-selling files will be gone. We're actually curating the collective portfolio and making it more appealing to the buyers, right?

I firmly believe that every action should carry a meaning. And we need a strong action to carry a strong meaning. Is this really a strong action?

Hey Spike, I can see your point of view, I really can. But, at the moment I personally feel like I've been such a freakin idiot to be selling photos for 16% cut. I don't have files in this deal, but tomorrow - who knows.  It's like I just woke up from a bender and said "OMG what did I do last night?  How will I show my face again?"    I just pulled all my files from 123 because they chopped royalties - that were much higher than Istocks I should point out.  How in good consience could I stay with Istock? 

I think I must have been glamoured by those blood * vampires.

Why has CJ6 been banned?

He's made a valid point: deleting just the non-sellers effectively doesn't do much. I also hold the opinion that if you're deleting your images, it should include your best sellers as well. Can this "issue" be discussed in a constructive way, without anyone being banned (maybe a new topic)? It sounds reasonable and logical because of that 20/80 distribution [20% of your photos make up 80% of your income (however, some say it's more like 10/80)] - if I delete or deactivate the bottom 50% of my portfolio, it'll only affect 5% of my earnings. Sure - the total number of photos available to iStock will be smaller, but only the non-selling files will be gone. We're actually curating the collective portfolio and making it more appealing to the buyers, right?

I firmly believe that every action should carry a meaning. And we need a strong action to carry a strong meaning. Is this really a strong action?

Hi spike, I think many people have a different reason for deactivating, not just to send a message. That is to protect your IP. If Getty makes your files available for what is effectively free distribution through Google then you'll have little prospect of selling them again anywhere. Also if you have images of models who were doing you a favor, maybe family or friends, you may not want to risk that they could be used for any purpose without redress, unlike the standard licences that give some protection. It would be nice to send Getty a message but it would seem they're not listening anyway.

Hello aremafoto,

 I think this is something you need to take up directly with the CEO or editors at Blend. If you are unhappy about an image of yours that you feel will not sell again or your sales are not good at Blend they want to know. One thing to consider, your image base price at Blend is much higher and those images will not be purchased for basic in-house use as is limited in the Google Docs agreement.
 You made a sale you did not do as much damage to your image sale on that one image being it is priced out at Macro RF prices keeping it from being chosen for in-house use generally speaking.
 This was also to strengthen Blends position and relations with the largest distributor of imagery in the world, and that it did. In the end of the day you have to ask yourself " am I happy with what my agency is doing for me and if not is there someone else that could do better ". If so then I think you should shoot the largest % of your work for that agency that makes you the most return but I would still never rely on just that one agency, things have a way of changing fast in this business. Just my 2 cents. If you would like to PM me for support on the issue I would be very happy to help in any way I can.

Thanks,
Jonathan

I deleted my flames because I was tired of being abused.
I left one up, so I can reach the next payout, then Ill delete the rest.

BUT interesting enough, I have had good sales at other agencies with those images. Much better than usual. So it looks like the buyers follow the images.

+ I have sales on strange old pictures at istock.
So it looks like the buyers are spending their savings.

I wonder if that after the exodus at the 2nd of Feb. istock will become a sinkhole?

it was not his debates and arguments, but all the aliases that always ended with the same insults.

Hi ffNixx,

 I did answer it earlier when I said it was 62 of our bottom feeders that were agreed upon by Blend and Getty from our Legacy collection. Getty did not just pull our files. If you reread what I already wrote I think you will find I clearly stated this prior.

Jonathan

Thank you for the confirmation.

To the rest of you who are affected by the deal and were not consulted, this is valuable information, it strengthens your case. Getty acted arbitrarily in how they interpreted their contractual obligations. Their prudence to seek agreement from contributors was not uniformly applied and they placed those who were not consulted at a competitive disadvantage.

Why has CJ6 been banned?

He was banned because he has been banned many times before under different accounts (wut, slovenian) for being rude, insulting to others and unprofessional. 

Anybody care to venture a guess on how much all this file deletion has cost Getty so far? With a very conservative estimate of 40,000 files by 02/02, my guess would be at the very least $1-million (including their 85% cut). And it will grow as the momentum continues. Many of these files are highly profitable bestsellers from experienced artists, and it's taken time for those images to reach their peak. So even if people are "waiting in line" to join IS, these file deletions have already taken a considerable toll on GI's bottom line for a long time to come. Wish there was a way to get the actual figures and send them to the investors.

Whilst I have every sympathy with the action to deactivate files, I even may do some of mine, comments like this one just make me laugh. Do you honestly think that, because someone has deactivated a file, the buyer doesn't just go and buy a different one? They don't even know your files have gone. 40k files out of 12 million? A minute drop in the ocean, a pinprick on the side of an elephant. Deactivating hasn't, in anyones wildest dreams, 'taken a considerable toll on Getty's bottom line'.
I just want to inject a bit of reality here.

Quote

Anybody care to venture a guess on how much all this file deletion has cost Getty so far? With a very conservative estimate of 40,000 files by 02/02, my guess would be at the very least $1-million (including their 85% cut). And it will grow as the momentum continues. Many of these files are highly profitable bestsellers from experienced artists, and it's taken time for those images to reach their peak. So even if people are "waiting in line" to join IS, these file deletions have already taken a considerable toll on GI's bottom line for a long time to come. Wish there was a way to get the actual figures and send them to the investors.

Whilst I have every sympathy with the action to deactivate files, I even may do some of mine, comments like this one just make me laugh. Do you honestly think that, because someone has deactivated a file, the buyer doesn't just go and buy a different one? They don't even know your files have gone. 40k files out of 12 million? A minute drop in the ocean, a pinprick on the side of an elephant. Deactivating hasn't, in anyones wildest dreams, 'taken a considerable toll on Getty's bottom line'.
I just want to inject a bit of reality here.

I dont give plus or minus hearts but I gave you one because youve just read my own thoughts! and for every file deactivated there are 50 being uploaded, so?.
Besides deactivation isnt strong enough, it can be reactivated. Deletion would be much worse but ofcourse they are not prepared to go down that road. Wonder why?