pancakes

MicrostockGroup Sponsors


Author Topic: Fiverr/Getty ...  (Read 22610 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

« on: June 30, 2015, 19:55 »
0
Fiverr is thrilled to announce the integration of Getty Images, one of the worlds leading creators and distributors of award-winning imagery. Through this partnership, Fiverr sellers will be able to offer buyers an incredible array of licensed, high-quality stock images! Protect yourself and your buyers by using only original content that has been fully licensed.

Youll be able to offer high-quality work with no risk. Take your pick from millions of images to offer your buyers, and earn a commission of 25% on every image sold. Its a win-win for everybody!

Using licensed images is as simple as 1-2-3:

1. Buyer orders your Gig, and adds a Stock Image extra for only $10.
2. Select an image and download it to use in the order.
3. Deliver the order to the buyer.

To enable the Stock Image extra, go to My Sales> My Gigs and check the Stock extra under Add Gig Extras



« Reply #2 on: June 30, 2015, 19:58 »
+7
What could possibly go wrong with that? ;)

Shelma1

« Reply #3 on: June 30, 2015, 20:11 »
+5
I don't get it. What does this mean for existing contributors? Who gets 25%, exactly? The Fiverr person? While the indie photographer who created the image still gets only 15%? If they license the image for $10, does that mean the Getty library is now available to license for $10?

ShadySue

« Reply #4 on: June 30, 2015, 20:26 »
+9
Wasnt it only last week they were complaining about Adobe pricing at $10?

I'm not at all sure what it means for the contributor.  Hopefully more than subs. Hope buyers there are educated in terms of use, particularly editorial.

Shelma1

« Reply #5 on: June 30, 2015, 20:59 »
+5
Quote
Selling on Fiverr Seller Features Offering Premium Quality Licensed Stock Images
OFFERING PREMIUM QUALITY LICENSED STOCK IMAGES

You can offer premium quality licensed stock image as an extra when setting up your Gig. If the buyer purchases the stock image Gig extra, you just select an image from the gallery and download it for use in your delivery.

To enable and select a stock image:

When defining extras in your Gig, mark the checkbox next to 'Stock Image' extra.
If the buyer purchases this Gig extra, you will see it in the order page.
Within the Order page in the STOCK IMAGES section, click Select Image.

Note: If the buyer purchased multiple images, you will have the option to select more than one.

After you select the image and finish your work, click Deliver Your Order.
Notes:

Once you deliver, the buyer will be able to see the image you selected.
The image may only be used for the purpose of the specific order.
You cannot share the original stock image file with anyone else.
Stock Images Category Availability

Subcategories followed by a * indicate that this extra was automatically enabled.

Graphics & Design: Cartoons & Caricatures, Logo Design, Illustration, Book Covers & Packaging *, Photoshop Editing, Flyers & Posters *, Business Cards & Stationery, Banner Ads *, Social Media Design *, 3D & 2D Models, Web & Mobile Design *, Presentations & Infographics *, Invitations *, T-Shirts *, Vector Tracing, Other

Online Marketing: Article & PR Submission *, Blog Mentions *, Fan Pages *, Social Marketing, Video Marketing, Other

Writing & Translation: Articles & Blog Posts *, Business Copywriting *, Research & Summaries *, Press Releases *

Video & Animation: Commercials, Editing & Post Production, Animation & 3D, Testimonials & Reviews by Actors, Puppets, Stop Motion, Intros, Other

Programming & Tech: WordPress *, Web Programming, Mobile Apps & Web *, Website Builders & CMS *, Ecommerce, Desktop applications, Other

Advertising: Hold Your Sign, Flyers & Handouts *, Outdoor Advertising *, Music Promotion, Banner Advertising, Other *

Business: Presentations *, Branding Services *, Other

Gifts: Greeting Cards *, Video Greetings, Unusual Gift, Arts & Crafts, Gifts for Geeks, Postcards From..., Recycled Crafts, Other

Fun & Bizarre: Your Message On..., Extremely Bizarre, Celebrity Impersonators, Daredevils & Stunts, Pranks, Dancers, Just for Fun, Other

The Fiverr person gets 25%, or $2.50. The indie photographer gets 15%, or $1.50, unless we're informed otherwise. I especially love the VECTOR TRACING gig I bolded, that's now available through iStock/Getty. So although the Fiverr person is not supposed to share the original with the buyer, what exactly would they share with a gig called vector tracing???

iStock pays the lowest royalties around, but is clearly able to afford to pay a lot more to a third party. I find this disturbing, to put it mildly.

« Reply #6 on: June 30, 2015, 22:40 »
+23
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.

« Reply #7 on: July 01, 2015, 01:30 »
0
Here are some links from the Fiverr blogs and help on this new feature:

http://forum.fiverr.com/discussion/71633/live-now-upgrade-your-gig-with-a-stock-image-extra#Item_4

http://support.fiverr.com/hc/en-us/articles/206490827-Offering-Premium-Quality-Licensed-Stock-Images

It appears that the Gig seller has to choose the image for the buyer and some of the forum posts had gig sellers upset that this new feature was automatically on (for certain categories of gigs) and you had to turn it off if you didn't want it and that they didn't want to get negative feedback from buyers if the seller had to pick the image and then the buyer didn't like it. It appears from one of the posts that the intention is eventually to let the buyer pick.

This article has some screen shots:

http://thenextweb.com/creativity/2015/07/01/fiverr-and-getty-images-team-up-to-level-the-playing-field-for-small-business-creativity/


There was also some Fiverr forum confusion about how much the seller actually received - if $2.50 went to Fiverr and $7.50 to Getty, did the seller keep $2 and hand $0.50 to Fiverr (that's the standard deal)?

It appears they've been testing this since mid June and things weren't working all that well. I don't sell via Fiverr - has anyone here actually used this on a gig who can say  anything more about how well it works?


ShadySue

« Reply #8 on: July 01, 2015, 06:21 »
+1
Has anyone seen anything about this from the iS/Getty side? I can't see anything on either forum, and I haven't had an email (though I dont get them all - the last one I got was on Monday).

Semmick Photo

« Reply #9 on: July 01, 2015, 07:10 »
+5
The feckin irony of this deal.  ;D

« Reply #10 on: July 01, 2015, 07:20 »
+3
Idiotic. This will just confuse the situation even more. Now it will give the whole thing an air of legitimacy. Buyers on fiverr will have the option of buying an image from Getty for $10 or from other buyers, 200 for $5 or whatever or free as part of a $5 gig. Of course the latter two options feature stolen images, but hey, now there's even less chance of the buyer realising this.

« Reply #11 on: July 01, 2015, 09:17 »
+1
Has anyone seen anything about this from the iS/Getty side? I can't see anything on either forum, and I haven't had an email (though I dont get them all - the last one I got was on Monday).


There's the press release on Getty's site

http://press.gettyimages.com/fiverr-teams-with-getty-images-to-bring-affordable-creative-services-alternatives-and-stunning-imagery-to-small-businesses/

In some discussions on a private Facebook group, some exclusives seem resigned to deals and some find Fiverr a big step into sleaze

Shelma1

« Reply #12 on: July 01, 2015, 09:22 »
+1
According to this, "By adding Getty Images  Extras to their Gigs, Fiverr Sellers will receive:

    Free access to the Getty Images  library of exclusive content without a subscription

    Increased efficiency by saving time searching for images

    A new revenue stream: 25% of the price of each stock image purchased for your Gigs"

They seem to be specific about exclusive content. I wonder if indies are excluded from the deal?

http://blog.fiverr.com/announcing-getty-stock-image-extras/?utm_source=fk_ct&utm_term=n912

PaulieWalnuts

  • On the Wrong Side of the Business
« Reply #13 on: July 01, 2015, 09:30 »
+2
It's the new thing. All of these companies are now in a mad rush to put images in the systems buyers use.

I get the idea but is Fiverr the right partner? $5 to design logos and websites?

And I'm not seeing what images they have access to. Getty macro? Istock Exclusive? Istock Indy?

Shelma1

« Reply #14 on: July 01, 2015, 10:14 »
+10
According to someone on the iStock forums, "Remember, it will only be 15-20% of the net not the gross as per our agreement. So at 20% it would be $1.50 not the expected $2, however, it may not even be that much if there are other expenses too."

So it's even worse than at first blush...we get royalties on the $7.50 left over after the fiverr gigger is paid their 25%. If indies are included.

Where's Tickstock? He was all over the Adobe thing but is loudly absent here.

http://www.istockphoto.com/forum_messages.php?threadid=367431&page=1

« Reply #15 on: July 01, 2015, 10:33 »
+5
God forbid they give a heads up and details to contributors. If the gig owner get 25% and the contributor gets less...*, that just feels wrong. Also, we have no idea what collections are even available to them.

BTW the whole $5 thing is a gimmick...they rely on the up sell...it's rare you find a full logo design for just $5 start to finish. At least a gig of any quality.
« Last Edit: July 01, 2015, 10:38 by dingles »

« Reply #16 on: July 01, 2015, 10:33 »
+3
Not excited about the deal. Fiverr is not a reputable site. Cheap, yes, but that's all. I've tried several times their services and I've got works that weren't at all good even considering the price. Some of them were simply 100% useless.
On the oher hand, the deal isn't easy to understand by sellers there.

« Reply #17 on: July 01, 2015, 10:45 »
+7
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.

Rose Tinted Glasses

« Reply #18 on: July 01, 2015, 10:58 »
+4
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.

« Reply #19 on: July 01, 2015, 11:49 »
+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.

« Reply #20 on: July 01, 2015, 12:18 »
+8
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.

Semmick Photo

« Reply #21 on: July 01, 2015, 12:46 »
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?

« Reply #22 on: July 01, 2015, 12:49 »
+3
I guess it is asking too much for them to open about such things to contributors...now we are going to make this a bigger issue than it may be because they will not share any details to us.

I'm curious about the TOS for the use of these on Fiverr and how they plan to police anything ( of course they don't)

« Reply #23 on: July 01, 2015, 13:07 »
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).

Shelma1

« Reply #24 on: July 01, 2015, 13:19 »
+4
Quote
Once you deliver, the buyer will be able to see the image you selected.
The image may only be used for the purpose of the specific order.
You cannot share the original stock image file with anyone else.


http://support.fiverr.com/hc/en-us/articles/206490827-Offering-Premium-Quality-Licensed-Stock-Images?utm_source=bl_ct&utm_term=n912

So it sounds like a one-time use.

However, since the "seller" licenses the image, not the "buyer," I don't see how Getty could know where and by whom the image will ultimately be used. So how could they possibly police anything? And how would this give Fiverr "the incentive to protect photos a bit more"? It seems to me that it gives unscrupulous Fiverr "sellers" access to Getty images for a very low price. They get the high-res image; what's to stop them from re-using it? Or reselling it?

Plus, the uses include logo design, which I believe is forbidden by Getty, but is now allowed under these terms.



« 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.

Shelma1

« Reply #50 on: July 02, 2015, 15:36 »
+8
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.

And that's funny because I'm really miffed that iStock pays the lowest royalties around, but is able to afford to pay Fiverrs more than I get. They get $2.50, I get $1.50, and indie photographers get as little as $1.12...less than half what the Fiverr person gets. So you're better off joining Fiverr and spending two seconds sticking an existing image in a Word document than you are spending hours creating said image. Getty has managed to anger both exclusives and indies with this one.

But tickstock thinks it's not a bad deal (though 33% of $10 is an abomination at Adobe Stock, apparently), so it's all good.

« Reply #51 on: July 02, 2015, 15:50 »
+1
I have some question about Fiverr

Is that site which were selling shutterstock for example 10 images for 10 dollars then gig owner had subscriptions, download and don't use but resell them to buyer?

One more and much more important... can gig owner be anyone?





« Reply #52 on: July 02, 2015, 15:56 »
0
I do see a few people offering Shutterstock images but no one offering Getty or iStock images.

Shelma1

« Reply #53 on: July 02, 2015, 16:05 »
+2
"You can get inspired for stock photos or vectors in shutterstock, istock, getty images or any website."

https://www.fiverr.com/prince2411/provide10-stock-photos-stock-images-or-vectors-of-ur-choice?context=advanced_search&context_type=rating&pos=11&funnel=a620f54a-42bc-4573-a483-e3120808fe4c

So now this person can get paid $2.50 to buy a Getty image for a customer, then resell it! Woohooo! No more need to pay for a subscription himself. Cha-ching!

ShadySue

« Reply #54 on: July 02, 2015, 16:16 »
0
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.

And that's funny because I'm really miffed that iStock pays the lowest royalties around, but is able to afford to pay Fiverrs more than I get. They get $2.50, I get $1.50, and indie photographers get as little as $1.12...less than half what the Fiverr person gets. So you're better off joining Fiverr and spending two seconds sticking an existing image in a Word document than you are spending hours creating said image. Getty has managed to anger both exclusives and indies with this one.
Yes, that is particulurly ludicrous.

Quote
But tickstock thinks it's not a bad deal (though 33% of $10 is an abomination at Adobe Stock, apparently), so it's all good.
For sure, the Adobe deal gives the buyers a lot more rights for your $3.33. But Essential files at iStock, which might be unique subjects but LCV, can earn less than $3.33, even for exclusives far less indies (e.g. I had an Ess sale netting me 1.80 in June).
« Last Edit: July 02, 2015, 16:30 by ShadySue »

« Reply #55 on: July 02, 2015, 16:20 »
+1
But tickstock thinks it's not a bad deal (though 33% of $10 is an abomination at Adobe Stock, apparently), so it's all good.
For sure, the Adobe deal gives the buyers a lot more rights for your $3.33. But Essential files at iStock, which might be unique subjects but LCV, can earn less than $3.33, even for exclusives far less indies.
Oh lord why is that troll bringing me up?  Isn't there anything that can be done so I don't have to see posts by people that I've put on ignore?   Yes the Adobe deal gives a lot more rights and charges $10 maximum for any file, remember that's a maximum possible the other price points are $5 or $3 or subs.  It's a bit disingenuous to compare the highest priced thing Adobe offers to a small partner deal, compare the highest at Getty to the highest at Adobe if you want to make a point.  This is one partner deal that doesn't cover all images or give a RF license.  If this fiverr deal was the only thing Getty did then the point would be valid (kind of the minimum with fiverr is $10 and the max at Adobe is $10) but it's obviously not.
« Last Edit: July 02, 2015, 16:33 by tickstock »

ShadySue

« Reply #56 on: July 02, 2015, 16:32 »
+3
But tickstock thinks it's not a bad deal (though 33% of $10 is an abomination at Adobe Stock, apparently), so it's all good.
For sure, the Adobe deal gives the buyers a lot more rights for your $3.33. But Essential files at iStock, which might be unique subjects but LCV, can earn less than $3.33, even for exclusives far less indies.
Oh lord why is that troll bringing me up?  Isn't there anything that can be done so I don't have to see posts by people that I've put on ignore?   Yes the Adobe deal gives a lot more rights and charges $10 maximum for any file.  It's a bit disingenuous to compare the highest priced thing Adobe offers to a small partner deal, compare the highest at Getty to the highest at Adobe if you want to make a point.  This is one partner deal that doesn't cover all images or give a RF license.  If this fiverr deal was the only thing Getty did then the point would be valid but it's obviously not.
Still, it hardly seems fair that the gigger gets paid more than the image creator. After all, they're already getting paid for the gig and the image is 'value added'.

Shelma1

« Reply #57 on: July 02, 2015, 16:32 »
+12
But tickstock thinks it's not a bad deal (though 33% of $10 is an abomination at Adobe Stock, apparently), so it's all good.
For sure, the Adobe deal gives the buyers a lot more rights for your $3.33. But Essential files at iStock, which might be unique subjects but LCV, can earn less than $3.33, even for exclusives far less indies.
Oh lord why is that troll bringing me up?  Isn't there anything that can be done so I don't have to see posts by people that I've put on ignore?   Yes the Adobe deal gives a lot more rights and charges $10 maximum for any file.  It's a bit disingenuous to compare the highest priced thing Adobe offers to a small partner deal, compare the highest at Getty to the highest at Adobe if you want to make a point.  This is one partner deal that doesn't cover all images or give a RF license.  If this fiverr deal was the only thing Getty did then the point would be valid but it's obviously not.

I'm tired of you calling anyone who disagrees with you a troll.This is not a small partner deal. Fiverr is a huge marketplace filled with lots of unscrupulous people who resell images illegally. Getty decided to not only get in bed with them, but to pay them twice what it pays its own contributors. They don't even have the TOS straight, since Fiverr is allowing all sorts of usages Getty prohibits.

You can most certainly avoid seeing my posts...just stop coming here. That'll do it.

« Reply #58 on: July 02, 2015, 16:34 »
+2
But tickstock thinks it's not a bad deal (though 33% of $10 is an abomination at Adobe Stock, apparently), so it's all good.
For sure, the Adobe deal gives the buyers a lot more rights for your $3.33. But Essential files at iStock, which might be unique subjects but LCV, can earn less than $3.33, even for exclusives far less indies.
Oh lord why is that troll bringing me up?  Isn't there anything that can be done so I don't have to see posts by people that I've put on ignore?   Yes the Adobe deal gives a lot more rights and charges $10 maximum for any file.  It's a bit disingenuous to compare the highest priced thing Adobe offers to a small partner deal, compare the highest at Getty to the highest at Adobe if you want to make a point.  This is one partner deal that doesn't cover all images or give a RF license.  If this fiverr deal was the only thing Getty did then the point would be valid but it's obviously not.
Still, it hardly seems fair that the gigger gets paid more than the image creator. After all, they're already getting paid for the gig and the image is 'value added'.
I won't argue it's fair but in order to get them to push Getty images they need to pay them something.  A more equitable arrangement would clearly be better.

« Reply #59 on: July 02, 2015, 16:42 »
+3
You can most certainly avoid seeing my posts...just stop coming here. That'll do it.
I knew I'd regret looking at your post, you want to make this discussion about me instead of the topic.  That's trolling and that's why I've put you on ignore.  Harassing me isn't going to get me to leave here no matter how hard you try, this is the last time I'm going to respond to you so another thread won't be derailed.  Back to the topic...

Shelma1

« Reply #60 on: July 02, 2015, 17:42 »
+3
Now Lobo's referring me to the GI connect tab, which lists 15% royalties for indies and 20% for exclusives. So exclusives ARE included in this deal? And they get less than Fiverrs? And indies get even less?

« Reply #61 on: July 02, 2015, 17:56 »
+3
I do see a few people offering Shutterstock images but no one offering Getty or iStock images.


Not so

https://www.fiverr.com/nanico/send-you-10-high-quality-stock-photos-illustrations-or-vectors-you-want--10

http://www.microstockgroup.com/image-sleuth/fiverr/msg371928/#msg371928

And all this time later, the gig is still active...

« Reply #62 on: July 02, 2015, 18:04 »
+1
I do see a few people offering Shutterstock images but no one offering Getty or iStock images.


Not so

https://www.fiverr.com/nanico/send-you-10-high-quality-stock-photos-illustrations-or-vectors-you-want--10

http://www.microstockgroup.com/image-sleuth/fiverr/msg371928/#msg371928

And all this time later, the gig is still active...

I wasn't saying there aren't any, just that I didn't find them by doing a search for "getty" or "istock" but I did find some looking for "shutterstock".   Not that it really matters where they come from, hopefully this deal makes fiverr more diligent about it.
« Last Edit: July 02, 2015, 18:10 by tickstock »

ShadySue

« Reply #63 on: July 02, 2015, 18:06 »
0
Now Lobo's referring me to the GI connect tab, which lists 15% royalties for indies and 20% for exclusives. So exclusives ARE included in this deal? And they get less than Fiverrs? And indies get even less?
Some exclusives historically chose to have files in the PP, so these will be included.

Shelma1

« Reply #64 on: July 04, 2015, 08:59 »
+10
So....since I registered at Fiverr to see their T&Cs, and did one search to see if people were reselling iStock images, I now get daily promotional emails from Fiverr featuring even more gigs reselling SS and iS images. Not only does Fiverr allow it, they promote it.

Great place to form a "partnership" where you pay illegal resellers more than your own contributors.

« Reply #65 on: July 04, 2015, 10:33 »
+9
Wow, I come back from two weeks off the grid and see this crazy 'deal'.  Of all the companies to bed with, ... Fiverr?  Zing!

I had forgotten about the StockArtistsCollective forum.  You guys remember more about what I do than me sometimes.  It was a contributor discussion group I set up after a ton of people emailed me looking for some way to band together to talk about the issue and maybe do something.  I don't remember doing anything on sitemail, but maybe there was some discussion.  Obviously, none of it went anywhere, but there wasn't anything 'shady' about it that I remember.

« Reply #66 on: July 04, 2015, 10:51 »
+8

I'm in the same boat as Sean. I step away from MSG for a while and come back to this. Amazing.

Well at least if Fiverr was going to partner up with a stock agency they picked the right one. Match made in heaven, really, the way these two companies operate.

« Reply #67 on: July 04, 2015, 12:21 »
+9
My one other though was, why does the Fiverr person get anything at all?  They're getting a built in deal for $10 through an easy interface of some sort, and that should be selling point enough.

« Reply #68 on: July 04, 2015, 12:57 »
+2
My one other though was, why does the Fiverr person get anything at all?  They're getting a built in deal for $10 through an easy interface of some sort, and that should be selling point enough.


Sellers can offer their own extras and if you didn't offer them a cut, they'd have no incentive to allow Getty extras on their own gigs

http://support.fiverr.com/hc/en-us/articles/205249938-Offering-Extra-Services-within-an-Active-Order

ShadySue

« Reply #69 on: July 04, 2015, 13:34 »
+1
Wow, I come back from two weeks off the grid and see this crazy 'deal'.  Of all the companies to bed with, ... Fiverr?  Zing!

I had forgotten about the StockArtistsCollective forum.  You guys remember more about what I do than me sometimes.  It was a contributor discussion group I set up after a ton of people emailed me looking for some way to band together to talk about the issue and maybe do something.  I don't remember doing anything on sitemail, but maybe there was some discussion.  Obviously, none of it went anywhere, but there wasn't anything 'shady' about it that I remember.

It couldn't have been all sitemail, as I was in it and I was banned from iS SM much before then. I think you mentioned it on msg.

Shelma1

« Reply #70 on: July 04, 2015, 16:05 »
+1
Ugh....now the Fiverr stock image reselling gigs are showing up in my Fb newsfeed as well. Here's where I was taken when I clicked on one...this guy even has a video! 20 images for $5.

https://www.fiverr.com/felmeeeh/provide-10-ultra-high-definition-images-or-vectors?utm_source=facebook-acquisition&utm_medium=display&utm_campaign=ProductFeed_RNCs_General_Adset_NewsFeed_10K

« Reply #71 on: July 04, 2015, 16:48 »
0
My one other though was, why does the Fiverr person get anything at all?  They're getting a built in deal for $10 through an easy interface of some sort, and that should be selling point enough.


Sellers can offer their own extras and if you didn't offer them a cut, they'd have no incentive to allow Getty extras on their own gigs

http://support.fiverr.com/hc/en-us/articles/205249938-Offering-Extra-Services-within-an-Active-Order


Like I said, though, I'd think the 'benefit' would be the cheap price ( that they buyer pays! ) and ease of use.  'Course I don't know the ins and outs of Fiverr, so maybe I don't get it.

« Reply #72 on: July 04, 2015, 17:45 »
+7
Like I said, though, I'd think the 'benefit' would be the cheap price ( that they buyer pays! ) and ease of use.  'Course I don't know the ins and outs of Fiverr, so maybe I don't get it.

I'm not really up on the ins and outs either, but based on what I know of Fiverr and its gig economy, the buyers really couldn't care less about where the photo came from and just want a picture.

Some may care that it's legal versus not (and as you've probably gathered, there's a ton of stuff that Fiverr management should have stopped ages ago; offering stock images for resale).

I think if you were to do a survey, the gig buyers would think $10 is expensive, not cheap. I think Getty's so eager to appear in the forefront of something with buzz that they've done a deal with completely the wrong outfit - a place which is more craigslist than boticca and where the Getty name isn't really worth much, even to those who know who they are.

Noedelhap

  • www.colincramm.com

« Reply #73 on: July 08, 2015, 08:35 »
+7
Since Fiverr is a cesspool of copyright infringement and a platform focused on the devaluation of images, video, animation and graphic design in general, it doesn't surprise me that Getty has decided to do business with Fiverr. Birds of a feather flock together.

The thing that worries me most is that a Fiverr seller gets a bigger commission than the contributor who created the image. What are they thinking?!
« Last Edit: July 08, 2015, 08:37 by Noedelhap »

Semmick Photo

« Reply #74 on: July 08, 2015, 08:42 »
0
Not to rain on the anti Fiverr parade ( I am against it as well), but abuse has been reported to other agencies and they did nothing. Getty takes it a step further though.

ShadySue

« Reply #75 on: July 08, 2015, 15:54 »
+4
The thing that worries me most is that a Fiverr seller gets a bigger commission than the contributor who created the image. What are they thinking?!

Posted By Maulsmasher:
Does that mean the Fiverr gig owner, who gets 25%, will get a larger commission than the Getty/iStock contributor?

Posted by Lobo:
It means we get a percentage and fiverr gets a percentage. How they choose to allocate that percentage to the gig creator is entirely their call.

So no matter what we might think about Fiverr, they are less skinflint than Getty.
No surprise there.

Shelma1

« Reply #76 on: July 08, 2015, 18:04 »
0
Also, it appears we're to be paid something from the Slidely deal? Like a fraction of a fraction of a penny now and then?

ShadySue

« Reply #77 on: July 08, 2015, 18:23 »
0
Also, it appears we're to be paid something from the Slidely deal? Like a fraction of a fraction of a penny now and then?
Oh, I missed that. It must be considered to be like the Getty Connect thing, which pays likewise, apparently.

Noedelhap

  • www.colincramm.com

« Reply #78 on: July 09, 2015, 18:53 »
+6
The thing that worries me most is that a Fiverr seller gets a bigger commission than the contributor who created the image. What are they thinking?!

Posted By Maulsmasher:
Does that mean the Fiverr gig owner, who gets 25%, will get a larger commission than the Getty/iStock contributor?

Posted by Lobo:
It means we get a percentage and fiverr gets a percentage. How they choose to allocate that percentage to the gig creator is entirely their call.

So no matter what we might think about Fiverr, they are less skinflint than Getty.
No surprise there.

Exactly. I think it's a disgrace and a big 'screw you' to all contributors. And that deranged Lobo acts as if it's totally normal.

I'm somehow glad my iStock revenue is declining so rapidly, because eventually it's going to make the decision to delete my iStock portfolio a lot easier.

« Reply #79 on: July 09, 2015, 22:33 »
+2


I'm somehow glad my iStock revenue is declining so rapidly, because eventually it's going to make the decision to delete my iStock portfolio a lot easier.

My same thoughts exactly.


 

Related Topics

  Subject / Started by Replies Last post
Fiverr

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

205 Replies
48353 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
4147 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