pancakes

MicrostockGroup Sponsors


Author Topic: Fiverr/Getty ...  (Read 22606 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

« Reply #25 on: July 01, 2015, 13:34 »
0
This is where it gets scary.  Desperate, failing companies will throw contributors and our work under the bus for whatever pennies they can scrounge for themselves.

What frightens me more is that even the so called successful publicly traded companies are doing this as well and this all seems to be the norm these days. Sadly they all seem to be throwing our work under the bus for those pennies. It's almost as if they are all playing a game of chicken to see who can get the closest to the bottom without actually crashing.
Yep lots of competition for these deals, at least it's for a one time use and maybe it will give fiverr the incentive to protect photos a bit more.
is the end product one time use as well then?

Fiverr's support page said it was not usable by the seller for any other gig, but the buyer of the gig can, I assume, use it like any RF image, but I haven't seen any license terms to verify that.

As far as how anyone would track that, who can tell? The setup is for the seller to pick the image and thus Getty would have no idea who the buyer was (and thus who was legit and who not).
Yeah, I don't have all the details so I don't know what the license is.  People do misuse or steal images all the time, I'm not sure what can be done about that.


Semmick Photo

« Reply #26 on: July 01, 2015, 14:05 »
+2
This is where it gets scary.  Desperate, failing companies will throw contributors and our work under the bus for whatever pennies they can scrounge for themselves.

What frightens me more is that even the so called successful publicly traded companies are doing this as well and this all seems to be the norm these days. Sadly they all seem to be throwing our work under the bus for those pennies. It's almost as if they are all playing a game of chicken to see who can get the closest to the bottom without actually crashing.
Yep lots of competition for these deals, at least it's for a one time use and maybe it will give fiverr the incentive to protect photos a bit more.
is the end product one time use as well then?

Fiverr's support page said it was not usable by the seller for any other gig, but the buyer of the gig can, I assume, use it like any RF image, but I haven't seen any license terms to verify that.

As far as how anyone would track that, who can tell? The setup is for the seller to pick the image and thus Getty would have no idea who the buyer was (and thus who was legit and who not).
That part in bold is what  I mean.

So why is not ok for Adobe to price an image at $10 and for Getty it is, after they just whined about Adobe destroying the market! Getty are a bunch of gormless wazzocks.

« Reply #27 on: July 01, 2015, 15:28 »
+4
Getty are a bunch of gormless wazzocks.

I have absolutely no idea what this means, but I totally agree with ya mate!

« Reply #28 on: July 01, 2015, 15:56 »
0
It's trollspeak. 

Semmick Photo

« Reply #29 on: July 01, 2015, 16:37 »
+2
Ad hominem




« Reply #30 on: July 01, 2015, 19:47 »
+6
I swear I was reading for a punch line - I figured this had to be a joke.

Fiverr has been totally out to lunch in dealing with gigs that offer to resell stock images (the give me the number and I'll download it for you type). Then there's the huge packs of pretty lame stock images that are legit (these packages come with reseller rights so it's legit in a low-rent-district sort of way). And into this steps Getty???

I guess they really are desperate and don't care much about long term consequences as this cannot be a good thing for contributors - this is a marketplace that has no discernible respect for IP rights.
iStock/Getty still has the ghosts in the distant closets of the Google Drive and Microsoft deals. I wonder how soon they will unveil what is happening to contributors with this deal. Or, do we have to scout it out ourselves - like in those past deals.

Well they booted Sean Locke for exposing and fighting some of their shady deals, and they have taken punitive measures against other contribs for publicly speaking out about bad deals before.  If you still rely on IS or Getty for significant income you better keep your sleuthing results to MSG and be under a pseudonym.

Rose Tinted Glasses

« Reply #31 on: July 01, 2015, 22:57 »
0
I swear I was reading for a punch line - I figured this had to be a joke.

Fiverr has been totally out to lunch in dealing with gigs that offer to resell stock images (the give me the number and I'll download it for you type). Then there's the huge packs of pretty lame stock images that are legit (these packages come with reseller rights so it's legit in a low-rent-district sort of way). And into this steps Getty???

I guess they really are desperate and don't care much about long term consequences as this cannot be a good thing for contributors - this is a marketplace that has no discernible respect for IP rights.
iStock/Getty still has the ghosts in the distant closets of the Google Drive and Microsoft deals. I wonder how soon they will unveil what is happening to contributors with this deal. Or, do we have to scout it out ourselves - like in those past deals.

Well they booted Sean Locke for exposing and fighting some of their shady deals, and they have taken punitive measures against other contribs for publicly speaking out about bad deals before.  If you still rely on IS or Getty for significant income you better keep your sleuthing results to MSG and be under a pseudonym.

True, Sean did stand up for us and for that I take my hat off to him, thank you Sean. But he was also being somewhat shady and being sleight of hand himself in conjunction with a few other contributors and inviting many contributors onto a private password protected site and trying to get some legal action going even getting into the discussion of raising funds for this in addition to possibly funding a new site. In effect he was a driving force in creating a mutiny of sorts. I really don't think Sean is as innocent as most believe. I know because I was one of the people invited to the secret group. There is always two sides to a coin, and Sean got busted. I truly think he did not get the boot just for standing up for what he believed in, he got booted for his extracurricular activities.

« Reply #32 on: July 01, 2015, 23:19 »
+10

True, Sean did stand up for us and for that I take my hat off to him, thank you Sean. But he was also being somewhat shady and being sleight of hand himself in conjunction with a few other contributors and inviting many contributors onto a private password protected site and trying to get some legal action going even getting into the discussion of raising funds for this in addition to possibly funding a new site. In effect he was a driving force in creating a mutiny of sorts. I really don't think Sean is as innocent as most believe. I know because I was one of the people invited to the secret group. There is always two sides to a coin, and Sean got busted. I truly think he did not get the boot just for standing up for what he believed in, he got booted for his extracurricular activities.

This is an outrageous mangling of what was going on - and I was part of that group too. The only requirement to be a member was that you have a link to a portfolio (to try and eliminate people who had no skin in the game).

Contributors discussing options isn't being shady, and Sean certainly wasn't trying to create a mutiny, but just figure out what options people had.

Even with your view of what he was doing, how would that have violated any agreement he had with Getty? If had chosen to leave of his own accord and if others did so too, that isn't shady or sneaky or any other such thing. It's just business - from the contributor side versus the agency side.

Shelma1

« Reply #33 on: July 02, 2015, 05:43 »
+10
I swear I was reading for a punch line - I figured this had to be a joke.

Fiverr has been totally out to lunch in dealing with gigs that offer to resell stock images (the give me the number and I'll download it for you type). Then there's the huge packs of pretty lame stock images that are legit (these packages come with reseller rights so it's legit in a low-rent-district sort of way). And into this steps Getty???

I guess they really are desperate and don't care much about long term consequences as this cannot be a good thing for contributors - this is a marketplace that has no discernible respect for IP rights.
iStock/Getty still has the ghosts in the distant closets of the Google Drive and Microsoft deals. I wonder how soon they will unveil what is happening to contributors with this deal. Or, do we have to scout it out ourselves - like in those past deals.

Well they booted Sean Locke for exposing and fighting some of their shady deals, and they have taken punitive measures against other contribs for publicly speaking out about bad deals before.  If you still rely on IS or Getty for significant income you better keep your sleuthing results to MSG and be under a pseudonym.

True, Sean did stand up for us and for that I take my hat off to him, thank you Sean. But he was also being somewhat shady and being sleight of hand himself in conjunction with a few other contributors and inviting many contributors onto a private password protected site and trying to get some legal action going even getting into the discussion of raising funds for this in addition to possibly funding a new site. In effect he was a driving force in creating a mutiny of sorts. I really don't think Sean is as innocent as most believe. I know because I was one of the people invited to the secret group. There is always two sides to a coin, and Sean got busted. I truly think he did not get the boot just for standing up for what he believed in, he got booted for his extracurricular activities.

It sounds to me like those extracurricular activities are part of standing up for what you believe in. I have a lot of respect for a guy who uses his own name publicly to stand up for everyone's rights. And much less respect for anonymous, unofficial Getty spokespeople who come here day after day to try to foment anger towards Getty's competitors.

Semmick Photo

« Reply #34 on: July 02, 2015, 06:46 »
+4
I am sure its Shudderstock who came back.

You have to laugh at anonymous people, trolling this site, accusing people using their real identity of being trolls  :o

Rose Tinted Glasses

« Reply #35 on: July 02, 2015, 08:44 »
0
I swear I was reading for a punch line - I figured this had to be a joke.

Fiverr has been totally out to lunch in dealing with gigs that offer to resell stock images (the give me the number and I'll download it for you type). Then there's the huge packs of pretty lame stock images that are legit (these packages come with reseller rights so it's legit in a low-rent-district sort of way). And into this steps Getty???

I guess they really are desperate and don't care much about long term consequences as this cannot be a good thing for contributors - this is a marketplace that has no discernible respect for IP rights.
iStock/Getty still has the ghosts in the distant closets of the Google Drive and Microsoft deals. I wonder how soon they will unveil what is happening to contributors with this deal. Or, do we have to scout it out ourselves - like in those past deals.

Well they booted Sean Locke for exposing and fighting some of their shady deals, and they have taken punitive measures against other contribs for publicly speaking out about bad deals before.  If you still rely on IS or Getty for significant income you better keep your sleuthing results to MSG and be under a pseudonym.

True, Sean did stand up for us and for that I take my hat off to him, thank you Sean. But he was also being somewhat shady and being sleight of hand himself in conjunction with a few other contributors and inviting many contributors onto a private password protected site and trying to get some legal action going even getting into the discussion of raising funds for this in addition to possibly funding a new site. In effect he was a driving force in creating a mutiny of sorts. I really don't think Sean is as innocent as most believe. I know because I was one of the people invited to the secret group. There is always two sides to a coin, and Sean got busted. I truly think he did not get the boot just for standing up for what he believed in, he got booted for his extracurricular activities.

It sounds to me like those extracurricular activities are part of standing up for what you believe in. I have a lot of respect for a guy who uses his own name publicly to stand up for everyone's rights. And much less respect for anonymous, unofficial Getty spokespeople who come here day after day to try to foment anger towards Getty's competitors.

As mentioned I take my hat off to him, and yes the respect is there for standing up for everyone's rights. I an only suggesting there was a a bit more than meets the eye in the situation. It was rather heated at the time and a lot of people were very openly emotional. They took out the ring leader. Sh!tty for sure, and I don't agree with it at all, but when push came to shove, Getty pushed. Let me be very clear on this, my respect totally goes out to Sean for what he did for everyone. And for that I can still be thankful, but you can't win with Getty or anyone of these agencies, they don't need us as much as we like to think.

PaulieWalnuts

  • On the Wrong Side of the Business
« Reply #36 on: July 02, 2015, 08:52 »
+7
And for that I can still be thankful, but you can't win with Getty or anyone of these agencies, they don't need us as much as we like to think.

They absolutely need us or there would be no them unless they hired people to create owned content. But they totally leverage the lack of solidarity as much as possible. Any smart business would.

Rose Tinted Glasses

« Reply #37 on: July 02, 2015, 09:27 »
+1
And for that I can still be thankful, but you can't win with Getty or anyone of these agencies, they don't need us as much as we like to think.

They absolutely need us or there would be no them unless they hired people to create owned content. But they totally leverage the lack of solidarity as much as possible. Any smart business would.

In numbers and volume yes they need us, but alas we are plentiful, but they most certainly can vaporize a few individuals and have no trickle effect whatsoever. Istock no longer have Sean as a top producer but they still motor along, Shutterstock no longer has Yuri as a top producer but they motor along. As individual content providers we are disposable, they know it, and we know it. The deck is stacked and we are all playing by house rules regardless of agency. They also understand very clearly to get photographers to agree on any one topic is similar to herding cats, so unity is doomed to failure from the get go.

Shelma1

« Reply #38 on: July 02, 2015, 09:34 »
+3
And for that I can still be thankful, but you can't win with Getty or anyone of these agencies, they don't need us as much as we like to think.

They absolutely need us or there would be no them unless they hired people to create owned content. But they totally leverage the lack of solidarity as much as possible. Any smart business would.

In numbers and volume yes they need us, but alas we are plentiful, but they most certainly can vaporize a few individuals and have no trickle effect whatsoever. Istock no longer have Sean as a top producer but they still motor along, Shutterstock no longer has Yuri as a top producer but they motor along. As individual content providers we are disposable, they know it, and we know it. The deck is stacked and we are all playing by house rules regardless of agency. They also understand very clearly to get photographers to agree on any one topic is similar to herding cats, so unity is doomed to failure from the get go.

iStock "motoring?" More like "sputtering," really. They've created a lot of ill will on both sides. Buyers (I've heard a lot of grumbling in my day job) see them as bullies, and contributors see they pay low royalties and play games with people's incomes. So when there are alternatives, everyone flocks to them. That's one reason why so may contribute to Shutterstock and why SS has become the market leader and is successfully wooing large enterprises away from Getty. Yuri left SS of his own free will, correct? Totally different story.

« Reply #39 on: July 02, 2015, 09:52 »
+1
Ok after all the nonsense back to the topic:
"We will have some information in a newsletter we will be sending out next week. I think I can provide some pre-newsletter information though.

The partnership is leveraged through the Getty Connect API.
Only RF stills content (no video, audio, or Editorial).
Only RF stills content on Thinkstock and Moment RF is included.
These are not true RF uses in that use is restricted to a particular gig and may not be reused.
No template, stand-alone, printed products, file-sharing or trademark/logo use.
Users and end-users are bound to proper use of content through Fivver TOS.
Uses are reported to GI/iStock monthly.
Revenue will be reported here.
"

Rose Tinted Glasses

« Reply #40 on: July 02, 2015, 09:52 »
0

True, Sean did stand up for us and for that I take my hat off to him, thank you Sean. But he was also being somewhat shady and being sleight of hand himself in conjunction with a few other contributors and inviting many contributors onto a private password protected site and trying to get some legal action going even getting into the discussion of raising funds for this in addition to possibly funding a new site. In effect he was a driving force in creating a mutiny of sorts. I really don't think Sean is as innocent as most believe. I know because I was one of the people invited to the secret group. There is always two sides to a coin, and Sean got busted. I truly think he did not get the boot just for standing up for what he believed in, he got booted for his extracurricular activities.

This is an outrageous mangling of what was going on - and I was part of that group too. The only requirement to be a member was that you have a link to a portfolio (to try and eliminate people who had no skin in the game).

Contributors discussing options isn't being shady, and Sean certainly wasn't trying to create a mutiny, but just figure out what options people had.

Even with your view of what he was doing, how would that have violated any agreement he had with Getty? If had chosen to leave of his own accord and if others did so too, that isn't shady or sneaky or any other such thing. It's just business - from the contributor side versus the agency side.

Let's just leave it at invitation to collusion by site mail was not the smartest move

« Reply #41 on: July 02, 2015, 11:26 »
0
Press release coming soon. Here some details on his deal http://www.istockphoto.com/forum_messages.php?threadid=367443&page=1

Doesn't sound bad, except it Seems like fiver states logo usage is permitted but Getty states otherwise...so...confidence dipping :)

« Last Edit: July 02, 2015, 11:28 by dingles »

« Reply #42 on: July 02, 2015, 11:26 »
+1
Still curious if gig owner gets a higher cut than contributor

« Reply #43 on: July 02, 2015, 12:20 »
+1
Press release coming soon. Here some details on his deal http://www.istockphoto.com/forum_messages.php?threadid=367443&page=1

Doesn't sound bad, except it Seems like fiver states logo usage is permitted but Getty states otherwise...so...confidence dipping :)

Fiverr will have to change that, they can't offer logos with RF stock photos.

ShadySue

« Reply #44 on: July 02, 2015, 12:24 »
0
Ok after all the nonsense back to the topic:
"We will have some information in a newsletter we will be sending out next week. I think I can provide some pre-newsletter information though."
Why couldn't they have the information to go to their suppliers consecutively with the Fiverr announcment. Note, Lobo, it's Fiverr, not Fivver.

Quote
...
These are not true RF uses in that use is restricted to a particular gig and may not be reused.

So why not give the clue in the name, and call it RM?

Quote
"Uses are reported to GI/iStock monthly.
Revenue will be reported here."

And no confirmation of exactly what the revenue will be.
As it's TS/Moment, it's irrelevant to me, but it's a principle.
But there you go: take away a promised exclusive new sales avenue for exclusives, but add one for the indies.

« Reply #45 on: July 02, 2015, 12:29 »
0
And no confirmation of exactly what the revenue will be.
As it's TS/Moment, it's irrelevant to me, but it's a principle.
But there you go: take away a promised exclusive new sales avenue for exclusives, but add one for the indies.
It seems like it will be higher than the earnings at Thinkstock and for a more restrictive use.  That sounds positive to me.  If it is only TS (I guess that's what the announcement says?) then it doesn't sound so bad at all.

ShadySue

« Reply #46 on: July 02, 2015, 12:32 »
0
And no confirmation of exactly what the revenue will be.
As it's TS/Moment, it's irrelevant to me, but it's a principle.
But there you go: take away a promised exclusive new sales avenue for exclusives, but add one for the indies.
It seems like it will be higher than the earnings at Thinkstock and for a more restrictive use.  That sounds positive to me.  If it is only TS (I guess that's what the announcement says?) then it doesn't sound so bad at all.
It seems like it, but I'd like to see it in writing.
It doesn't sound any worse than some other 'partnerships' announced by other companies, but odd we can't all share in it, or at least opt some images in.

« Reply #47 on: July 02, 2015, 13:10 »
+3
The Getty press release seems pretty clear that exclusive (Signature collection) content is included:

" SMBs can now turn to Fiverr for virtually any creative service and execute stunning campaigns at an affordable price. Add in premium visual content from Getty Images and the unique, crafted imagery found exclusively in iStocks Signature collection, and SMBs can produce their own million-dollar campaigns."

I thought that Signature stuff was not on Thinkstock

Also, although the seller of the gig can't use it again in another gig, that says nothing about what terms the buyer is bound by. If they produce 10 blogs on a topic, writing the other 9 themselves, can they use the Getty image in those blogs under the terms of the license from the Fiverr gig?

If so, while it's restricted vis-a-vis the gig seller, it's pretty much RF to the gig buyer.

Shelma1

« Reply #48 on: July 02, 2015, 13:33 »
+3
Lobo and Fiverr are saying completely different things. Getty/iStock need to get their house in order.

ShadySue

« Reply #49 on: July 02, 2015, 14:31 »
+1
Lobo and Fiverr are saying completely different things. Getty/iStock need to get their house in order.
I notice you got a deflectory answer to your question as to whether you'd get a percentage of $10 or $7.50. Have to say, I'd assumed it would be a percentage of $7.50.

Actually, as an exclusive I'm pretty miffed. Even 20% of $7.50 ($1.50) is far better than  we get for Ess or exclusive files via the subs programme, and subs buyers get far wider rights for 'my' 34c or 75c.


 

Related Topics

  Subject / Started by Replies Last post
Fiverr

Started by yuliang11 « 1 2 ... 8 9 » Image Sleuth

205 Replies
48352 Views
Last post January 11, 2018, 10:31
by Microstock Posts
0 Replies
1032 Views
Last post April 15, 2014, 10:21
by gigmom
5 Replies
2058 Views
Last post June 19, 2015, 06:31
by chrisdorney
17 Replies
4146 Views
Last post March 17, 2017, 08:10
by outoftheblue
11 Replies
1963 Views
Last post January 24, 2019, 12:54
by Uncle Pete

Sponsors

Microstock Poll Results