pancakes

MicrostockGroup Sponsors


Author Topic: Getty e-mail about iStock "Contributor Facing Changes"  (Read 42082 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

« Reply #200 on: July 22, 2016, 05:25 »
0
Ok thank you probably i read the thread very quickly


« Reply #201 on: July 22, 2016, 13:22 »
+1
...must I just wait indefinitely to hear back from them?
Yup. They're busy just now.

I just got a reply from them and it took almost a week.

I gave up on their support system years ago.   That's why I really appreciate your asking the question about whether we'll still be able to close accounts and posting the answer here.  Thanks man.  You saved alot of us from wondering.

Rose Tinted Glasses

« Reply #202 on: July 22, 2016, 14:24 »
+6
...must I just wait indefinitely to hear back from them?
Yup. They're busy just now.

I just got a reply from them and it took almost a week.

I gave up on their support system years ago.   That's why I really appreciate your asking the question about whether we'll still be able to close accounts and posting the answer here.  Thanks man.  You saved alot of us from wondering.

Lot's of drama... There was never a mention of not being able to close accounts -ever- not once- nowhere- nada- zilch-at any time. So why are you all worked up and in a tizzy about speculation and self fabricated drama?

Please, act like adults, read the email, go to their forums and you will quickly find that all this drama is just that, drama.

It's seriously overkill in the kiddy drama department.





« Last Edit: July 22, 2016, 14:32 by Rose Tinted Glasses »

dpimborough

« Reply #203 on: July 26, 2016, 02:35 »
+9
Kiddy drama dept?

No people are genuinely worried and unhappy given iStock/Getty's previous shennigans

But plus 100 points for effectively closing down the debate fanboy  ;D

« Reply #204 on: July 26, 2016, 04:05 »
+13
Why is it drama? They have said they will refuse to let us delete our own content based on rules they control and  weren't in place when the content was uploaded.

« Reply #205 on: July 26, 2016, 08:00 »
+18
...must I just wait indefinitely to hear back from them?
Yup. They're busy just now.

I just got a reply from them and it took almost a week.

I gave up on their support system years ago.   That's why I really appreciate your asking the question about whether we'll still be able to close accounts and posting the answer here.  Thanks man.  You saved alot of us from wondering.

Lot's of drama... There was never a mention of not being able to close accounts -ever- not once- nowhere- nada- zilch-at any time. So why are you all worked up and in a tizzy about speculation and self fabricated drama?

Please, act like adults, read the email, go to their forums and you will quickly find that all this drama is just that, drama.

It's seriously overkill in the kiddy drama department.

Well, let me educate you on cause and effect.  You must admit that the microstock industry as a whole throws us curve balls quite often. Leading the pack is Istock/Getty.  So lets put some facts together.

1. Istock sent us an email stating that we cannot remove any images at all unless there is a legal reason for which they agree. Then the mighty giant will grant us permission and delete our images on a case by case basis. We bow and say thank you.

2. Why do they put the screws to us with this policy? They stated in their forums that they do not want to disrupt a buyer who might have your image in a light box for consideration to purchase. So therefore, we cannot ever delete an image except for legal purposes.  Ever? Really?

3. So if one of my images is in a light box, what are the odds that other images are in aggregate light boxes? Well, depending on your port size and content blend, very possible. So, Istock sets a policy whereby they have a fear in which we lowly contributors will yank one in XXX images that will anger a buyer.  Yea, ONE IMAGE YANKED will upset a buyer. Did I say ONE, yes I said ONE. 

4. So given Istock's track record relative to the treatment of their contributor base, I CAN EASILY INFER from number three above that if they are so * worried about one image being yanked from a buyers light box, they would be petrified if one had many images in various buyers' light boxes and the contributor decided to close their account. So the natural response from a contributor's perspective would be to ask, "if Istock is so worried about one image being deactivated and no longer available to buyers, they would be crapping their pants if contributors simply closed their accounts and disrupted many buyers". 

Why is 30 days to close your account any different than 30 days to deactivate an image? There is no difference and that is why we should rightfully have enquired about whether these terms apply to closing your account. To me this is a double standard. If I can close my account in 30 days, effectively deactivating many images in a buyer's light box, why isn't it okay to deactivate one or two or 10 images when the damage to closing an account could be far more painful to a buyer than deactivating an entire portfolio? I mean, their concern is for the buyer losing access to an image. Scalability is why I asked and as a businessperson like you who claims to be so mightily knowledgeable about the stock business, connecting the dots seems to be an area where you need help.
« Last Edit: July 26, 2016, 08:03 by Mantis »

ShadySue

« Reply #206 on: July 26, 2016, 08:24 »
+6
^^
But then again, when does the bigG's alleged reason for doing something bear any relationship to the truth?
They promised  exclusive editorials were going to be mirrored onto Getty, and I'll say at least 80% of mine were migrated in a timely manner. Then they unmirrored them, saying that they had to educate buyers in how they could be used.
That was over a year ago. How stupid are these buyers, considering that editorial has been sold for many years on Getty.
OTOH, they suddenly decided to introduce editorial on iS, only weeks after a moderator had said categorically that there were no plans to introduce editorial there. iStock's buyers must be more intelligent as there didn't have to be a year's education programme so that they'd know how they could use the files.
Disclaimer 1: 'editorial at Getty is a double edged sword, given that we only get 20% (which may be all anyone is going to get from Getty RSN) and royalties can be down to 18c at least).
Disclaimer 2: some iS editorial sales have been used commercially; sometimes they are removed swiftly, sometimes extremely slowly. But then, there is a small proportion of buyers who misuse commercial files also, either when they should have bought ELs or used them for 'sensitive use' without being within the criteria.

Rose Tinted Glasses

« Reply #207 on: July 26, 2016, 09:11 »
+1
Well, let me educate you on cause and effect.  You must admit that the microstock industry as a whole throws us curve balls quite often. Leading the pack is Istock/Getty.  So lets put some facts together.

Please do educate me/us...

I have been shooting stock since roughly around the time RF was the new way to destroy stock photography, before Getty was even a name in the stock industry and way before the digital world and microstock.

I think it safe to say I have seen pretty much every curve ball the industry has thrown at us and my conclusion is that not being able to change my keywords or being able to remove an image on a whim is not of too much concern as I have always since day one put my images up where I choose and simply forget them.

That all said, I am not a fan of Getty by any stretch but for me at the end of the day they provide me a living and I am not totally convinced the grass is greener on the other side - as SJL and Hatman have suggested on another post.

I remember way back I said that microstock would be a home run for a spell then it would eventually cannibalize itself... only to be chastised for such negativity, and voila here we are at check... further to this, I actually see check mate just around the corner with the industry going into deeper despair in the next few years. The current model of selling stock is not sustainable... I think I have heard that before.

« Reply #208 on: July 26, 2016, 09:25 »
+2
For images iStock is no worse then anyone else. I dropped my video exclusive and yes that has paid off to be non-exclusive in video!!! SS is the one to blame for the low photo prices! I at least get 0.75 for subs on iStock and remain image exclusive there. They all try to play games at some point. I am doing more and more custom work outside of stock. There will always be a market for good work so that is what I care about!

« Reply #209 on: July 26, 2016, 15:52 »
+2
I am considering requesting my account to be terminated or have my videos deactivated and just keep my account there. The only thing that is stopping me is that I heard I think in this forum that they are planning big things for video sometime this year, can anyone confirm this or have any details? I would just like to know if this is true though I doubt I would be a game changer unless they seriously overhauled the royalty scheme.

Thanks.

« Reply #210 on: July 26, 2016, 17:05 »
+8
I am considering requesting my account to be terminated or have my videos deactivated and just keep my account there. The only thing that is stopping me is that I heard I think in this forum that they are planning big things for video sometime this year, can anyone confirm this or have any details? I would just like to know if this is true though I doubt I would be a game changer unless they seriously overhauled the royalty scheme.

Thanks.

Whatever BIG THINGS they are planning for video, it will most likely include a cut to your royalties and a fiction that it will be made up in sales volume.

« Reply #211 on: July 26, 2016, 18:05 »
+4
istock's "big things" in the past have been poignant for our collective posteriors.  I'm abstaining from uploading until we learn the full details of the istock-getty absorption.  I don't want to invest anymore workflow in a situation that may trigger an exodus.   

« Reply #212 on: July 26, 2016, 18:10 »
+3
I am considering requesting my account to be terminated or have my videos deactivated and just keep my account there. The only thing that is stopping me is that I heard I think in this forum that they are planning big things for video sometime this year, can anyone confirm this or have any details? I would just like to know if this is true though I doubt I would be a game changer unless they seriously overhauled the royalty scheme.

Thanks.

I wouldn't hold your breath.

Why terminate your account? Why not just leave what you have there and not upload any more. I'm a diamond level footage contributor and I just dropped iStock video exclusivity after being exclusive for 9 years. I'm going to leave my footage on iStock, but I'm not planning on uploading any more. If iStock does make some changes that are good for the contributors, then I might start uploading again.


« Reply #213 on: July 26, 2016, 18:38 »
0
I am considering requesting my account to be terminated or have my videos deactivated and just keep my account there. The only thing that is stopping me is that I heard I think in this forum that they are planning big things for video sometime this year, can anyone confirm this or have any details? I would just like to know if this is true though I doubt I would be a game changer unless they seriously overhauled the royalty scheme.

Thanks.

I wouldn't hold your breath.

Why terminate your account? Why not just leave what you have there and not upload any more. I'm a diamond level footage contributor and I just dropped iStock video exclusivity after being exclusive for 9 years. I'm going to leave my footage on iStock, but I'm not planning on uploading any more. If iStock does make some changes that are good for the contributors, then I might start uploading again.

Hi Forrest, I too am a long time contributor and stopped uploading about 2 years ago after the last set of contributor unfriendly changes as a 1st step to see how things would pan out at istock, and it looks like things are continuing down the path. If they are indeed going to make it difficult to remove videos then I may consider pulling the port altogether but keep my account there as my port is small and 15% isnt cutting it anymore. The difference in royalty really becomes evident once you are non-exclusive for a long time, although in your case with a large port an dmuch invested effort over th eyears I can see why you have decided to stop uploading for the time being.

Good luck.

 

« Reply #214 on: July 26, 2016, 19:04 »
+3
Well, let me educate you on cause and effect.  You must admit that the microstock industry as a whole throws us curve balls quite often. Leading the pack is Istock/Getty.  So lets put some facts together.

Please do educate me/us...

I have been shooting stock since roughly around the time RF was the new way to destroy stock photography, before Getty was even a name in the stock industry and way before the digital world and microstock.

I think it safe to say I have seen pretty much every curve ball the industry has thrown at us and my conclusion is that not being able to change my keywords or being able to remove an image on a whim is not of too much concern as I have always since day one put my images up where I choose and simply forget them.

That all said, I am not a fan of Getty by any stretch but for me at the end of the day they provide me a living and I am not totally convinced the grass is greener on the other side - as SJL and Hatman have suggested on another post.

I remember way back I said that microstock would be a home run for a spell then it would eventually cannibalize itself... only to be chastised for such negativity, and voila here we are at check... further to this, I actually see check mate just around the corner with the industry going into deeper despair in the next few years. The current model of selling stock is not sustainable... I think I have heard that before.

I'm referring specifically how to link cause and effect and why asking about closure of accounts as a spinoff from not being allowed to deactivate images at will. I never said you were not experienced at the other stuff.
« Last Edit: July 26, 2016, 19:09 by Mantis »

« Reply #215 on: July 27, 2016, 07:00 »
+7

I remember way back I said that microstock would be a home run for a spell then it would eventually cannibalize itself... only to be chastised for such negativity, and voila here we are at check... further to this, I actually see check mate just around the corner with the industry going into deeper despair in the next few years. The current model of selling stock is not sustainable... I think I have heard that before.

When did you say this? Your profile says you've only been a member here for one year. Did you have another member name before Rose Tinted Glasses?
« Last Edit: July 27, 2016, 07:04 by goober »

Rose Tinted Glasses

« Reply #216 on: July 29, 2016, 09:36 »
0

I remember way back I said that microstock would be a home run for a spell then it would eventually cannibalize itself... only to be chastised for such negativity, and voila here we are at check... further to this, I actually see check mate just around the corner with the industry going into deeper despair in the next few years. The current model of selling stock is not sustainable... I think I have heard that before.

When did you say this? Your profile says you've only been a member here for one year. Did you have another member name before Rose Tinted Glasses?

Yes, I was on here for a spell, then left this forum for a long time as it was and still is quite conspiracy and speculatively driven. Also note this is not the only forum on the stock industry. 

« Reply #217 on: July 29, 2016, 11:39 »
+1
Hello all! What about thinkstock?
Just discovered that they started to sell for 0.02$ - probably because it is less than 1$ to payout now.
Will they take our images for themselves too?

ShadySue

« Reply #218 on: July 29, 2016, 11:44 »
0
Hello all! What about thinkstock?
Just discovered that they started to sell for 0.02$ - probably because it is less than 1$ to payout now.
Will they take our images for themselves too?

http://www.microstockgroup.com/istockphoto-com/earning-just-usd-0-02-!!!/msg460511/#msg460511

« Reply #219 on: July 29, 2016, 13:18 »
0
Thank you.
One of "exciting opportunities" by agency

« Reply #220 on: July 29, 2016, 19:20 »
+10
Getty is planning to give everyone 10% royalty. When contributors get angry, they won't be able to delete anything so they can continue to reap the rewards. It has nothing to do with lightboxes. It has everything to do with control and specifically, pricing control.

I have a small portfolio on iStock, and I won't be uploading anymore images. I think a nice small lawsuit will force Getty to give people the delete function. What they are doing is not legal or ethical.

« Reply #221 on: July 29, 2016, 20:24 »
+5

I remember way back I said that microstock would be a home run for a spell then it would eventually cannibalize itself... only to be chastised for such negativity, and voila here we are at check... further to this, I actually see check mate just around the corner with the industry going into deeper despair in the next few years. The current model of selling stock is not sustainable... I think I have heard that before.

When did you say this? Your profile says you've only been a member here for one year. Did you have another member name before Rose Tinted Glasses?

Yes, I was on here for a spell, then left this forum for a long time as it was and still is quite conspiracy and speculatively driven. Also note this is not the only forum on the stock industry.


i wonder why you are here then. you think microstock ruined "your" industry (and yet from my point of view pros ruined it for amateurs/semi-pros). wouldnt your time be used more effectively by working on business instead of posting on this forum? Just wondering.


PS many of us here knew the good times wouldnt last forever and was not sustainable.
« Last Edit: July 29, 2016, 20:26 by cathyslife »

dpimborough

« Reply #222 on: July 31, 2016, 02:41 »
+4

I remember way back I said that microstock would be a home run for a spell then it would eventually cannibalize itself... only to be chastised for such negativity, and voila here we are at check... further to this, I actually see check mate just around the corner with the industry going into deeper despair in the next few years. The current model of selling stock is not sustainable... I think I have heard that before.

When did you say this? Your profile says you've only been a member here for one year. Did you have another member name before Rose Tinted Glasses?

Yes, I was on here for a spell, then left this forum for a long time as it was and still is quite conspiracy and speculatively driven. Also note this is not the only forum on the stock industry.

...and the reason for all the speculation and conspiracy is purely at the door of the agencies due to their lack of transparency, lack of real communication failure to rectify genuine problems and their down right shady practices where contributors are concerned.

So it's hardly a big surprize now is it.


« Reply #223 on: July 31, 2016, 10:24 »
+9
The new keyword and deactivation policy is to prevent contributors from yanking their best files after August 20th.  If I couldn't delete my best ones, then my next move would be to change 20 relevant keywords to 5 unrelated terms and effectively make it un-searchable. They have closed this avenue of escape and seem to be thinking that most people will accept reduced royalties rather than accept zero royalties by deleting their accounts.  I don't know what they have in mind for September, but this move by them is a huge red flag to me.
I have gone through my files and deactivated anything I wouldn't take 5-10% royalty on.  It will be a pain, but if they don't do something stupid after August I can always re-submit them.  I hope they don't, but with their history of screwing contributors I won't be surprised.

« Reply #224 on: July 31, 2016, 10:56 »
+1
Deleting files it is a nightmare. One by one, without reason it cannot be deactivated. I have feeling that they will continue to sell deactivated files.
Do i miss something? Deletion is possible only from Portfolio view, not from details. From Details i cannot open file, error page says "something was scrambled". First several files it was possible to find by ID, then search by ID stopped. After several minutes pause it finally showed the file, then next search again was a waste of time.
p.s. found shortcuts, but anyway their functionality is done to slowdown contributors
« Last Edit: July 31, 2016, 12:04 by skyfish »


 

Related Topics

  Subject / Started by Replies Last post
9 Replies
2377 Views
Last post February 12, 2009, 17:55
by Gannet77
90 Replies
21082 Views
Last post March 22, 2010, 11:28
by stockastic
163 Replies
22172 Views
Last post April 08, 2013, 13:13
by alberto
1 Replies
1747 Views
Last post September 25, 2015, 13:07
by Microstock Posts
0 Replies
1194 Views
Last post July 02, 2017, 00:34
by Chichikov

Sponsors

Microstock Poll Results