Hi Lisa,

 You are also welcome. Please do not assume things like some others do here it is pure speculation and I thought you were a bit above that. I stop by here regularly but there has not been anything that my input can help with lately. Also, how does the number of times I post have to do with anything, one post from a person that shares their identity for me out weighs 20 posts from someone we have no idea who they are or if they are even involved in stock. His post was informative to a pint but it didn't speak os business where he lost his cool and that that was a good way to communicate with his boss. Unfortunately he lowered himself to name calling in that post which did not add to his information it was just rude, those couple of comments did not inform or help anyone here on the site, they were just him poking the bear.
  If you believe having your business called names is appropriate then that is your choice, I think it is a bit childish I prefer to stick to facts when posting on a forum. I also got PM's from people here and at Facebook that wanted more information and I happily helped them all out with absolutely no personal gain. Once again trying to help out here and through PM's has appeared to be of little help and resulted in name calling. Heck, if people want I can sling crap as good as the next guy but I resolve myself to speak in a respectful manner to anyone that is a fellow stock photographer unless they show reason not to then I just avoid them in the future and do not reply to their PM's for help and guidance.

 Best of luck Lisa,
 Jonathan
 

Quote from: jfairone on January 25, 2013, 18:25

I did a test and tried to reactivate a 14 month old file. It's locked. Might need to try something newer and determine what the cutoff is, but it is NOT 18 months. I've deactivated some of my best selling older files (daily sellers). I hope I don't regret it because it's a done deal!

JMO, but I don't plan on reactivating anything I delete.  If you don't want a file deleted, you might think twice about deactivating it.  It seems Lobo has already made clear that people deactivating as part of D-Day may not have an easy time reactivating the files.

Yes, like I said, it was just a test. I was curious what the cutoff was.  My best sellers I deactivated are over 3 years old, so I knew it was a done deal - doubt they'd pass inspection again either!   

Quote from: ClaridgeJ on January 26, 2013, 12:37

....

 I had no option but to change. Turned out that some private buyers of mine noticed the old member-name and that was no good. Gives a bad rep.

You give yourself a bad rep.

Do you really think I care about my rep HERE?  talking about pseudos. I know who you are and at this moment you are getting a very, very, very bad rep at Alamy, one of the countless arguments you have involved yourself in, yet again.

Oh well, the glib.

1. The value of an argument does not depend on the identity of the poster. 2 + 2 equals 4, whether it is written by a 5-year old, a science professor or a complete moron. The whole discussion about anonymous/nonanonymous users is a waste of time, it is a logical fallacy. The identity of the poster may only change your personal, subjective perception but not the value of the argument.

2. There is a huge difference between calling rude names and the use of satire as a rhetorical device.

Pretence and slander is much easier executed by a pseudonym. i.e. a nobody.   Oscar Wilde.

 Hi all,

 I have obviously stepped a bit over the line here as some posts show so I will back off and let you all continue this topic. I will be reading but I will avoid posting on this topic as I have shared all I have to. Best of luck and I sympathize with all you Micro stockers I also have 3500 Micro images with 2100 at Istock so I am just as much a part of this issue as everyone here.

Cheers,,
Jonathan

Feb 2nd projected total is now 44,516+ deactivated or deleted files.

If I don`t see any significant increase in members coming forward to report their willingness to deactivate or delete files, this will be my last projection.  Denis

Slight tangent, but I wanted to point out that for those possibly having to delete everything (or all but a few to wait for this month's PP payout next month) February 2nd - D-Day - when you do your payout request this week, consider not clearing your balance to zero so you can be certain of being over the $100 threshold no matter how crappy sales are next week and in the January PP.

I normally pull out my entire balance each time, but this week left money so I can be certain of a cash-out if I end up leaving February 2nd. Even if I bail, I'm going to keep my account open (with an image or two) so I can keep my stats. That means, I think, that there's no chance of a payout under the limit (I think if you close your account they pay you?).

Yes, if you close your account you will be paid even if the balance is below $100.  I had an interesting experience with my account closure.  After receiving notification that my account had been closed, i noticed the word 'CLOSED' had been appended to my username.  Out of interest I tried to access that account with the password associated with the original username for the account.  Hey presto!  Access.  It was now about 5 days after I had received confirmation that the account had been closed and yes, during that period, there had been a few more of my images sold.  I guessed this was something to do with the 30 day rule, so I contacted iStock and asked if any outstanding balance would be forwarded to me at the end of that period.  The next day I received around 4 emails each separately informing me that a  privilege had been revoked on my account.  Soon after, confirmation that the account was now closed and the balance was going to be forwarded. Sure enough, the account has now gone (unless its been transferred to completely different account name! :-) ) I'll give them the benefit of the doubt that it was a genuine mistake, but for anyone closing up, its worth monitoring.

A thought I had, also someone else just brought it up on another forum is this:

What if a user/s of google drive downloads some of these "free images" of some Istock/Getty contributors and uploads them as their own to stock agencies. How in hell's name would those stock agencies have any idea that those images do not belong to the uploader, especially if whoever these images belong to don't upload to those particular agencies. This means anyone could start making money from your images 

It doesn't bear thinking about 

All meta data is gone, and agencies wont accept images where the data is stripped, no? Or I might be wrong.

But as soon as the IP owner finds out, a simple DMCA is enough to shut them down.

Even if that's the case, it's easy enough to add meta data to an image...

Quote from: Poncke on January 27, 2013, 14:17

All meta data is gone, and agencies wont accept images where the data is stripped, no? Or I might be wrong.

But as soon as the IP owner finds out, a simple DMCA is enough to shut them down.

Even if that's the case, it's easy enough to add meta data to an image...

If someone was going to go to all that trouble, then they could do it with other stuff they find floating around the net or being offered from pirated collections. I don't see why google would make any difference to that. The concern is more about honest people who take stuff because Google appears to be licensing it to them.

Without naming names here, I cannot understand why the blow hard troll thread at Istock is being allowed to happen. Normally threads which are obviously devisive and disruptive and stupid would have been quickly deleted.

I cannot understand what good that thread does or why the moderators took such an obviously misguided deliberate decision to officially sanction it. Of all the people who still post on the old forum, I cannot think of anyone worse to be leading any sort of Feb 2 counter argument.

Without naming names here, I cannot understand why the blow hard troll thread at Istock is being allowed to happen. Normally threads which are obviously devisive and disruptive and stupid would have been quickly deleted.

I cannot understand what good that thread does or why the moderators took such an obviously misguided deliberate decision to officially sanction it. Of all the people who still post on the old forum, I cannot think of anyone worse to be leading any sort of Feb 2 counter argument.

Why not? It takes the focus (and collective energies) off the real issues at hand. Better to dissipate the group and bicker rather than have them unite and take an action.

.