pancakes

MicrostockGroup Sponsors


Author Topic: Google giving photos away free for commercial use and iStock agrees  (Read 256469 times)

0 Members and 3 Guests are viewing this topic.

« Reply #250 on: January 11, 2013, 21:38 »
+4
So they post an update and say we didn't do anything wrong and we'll do more of it.
I am afraid if they don't provide an opt-out of deals like that I will have to leave. It'll hurt me financially but they are putting me out of business anyway. I'd still give them some time to come with something better, but if they don't I think there is no choice - all  7909 painfully uploaded files will have to be taken down and account closed.


« Reply #251 on: January 11, 2013, 21:52 »
+1
I doubt if they will provide an opt out -- we asked for one FOR YEARS for that Microsoft deal, and they just ignored the question after awhile and locked the thread.  Even if they did -- I would never trust them again.  If everyone who wanted to opted out of these things, they'd have no content to deal with. 

« Reply #252 on: January 11, 2013, 21:58 »
+6
At this point, knowing all their bad deeds, anyone who doesn't delete their account or continues to upload is only enabling them. And letting the rest of the agencies know they can do whatever they want with your content and they don't have to pay you for it. That is the bottom line.

tee

« Reply #253 on: January 11, 2013, 22:14 »
+1
Hha, thought this was kind of funny. I was just reading the iS forum on this and getting pissed, so decided to Google about starting a class action lawsuit, clicked the "Ehow" link like a dork, and saw this, right on that page:

http://img546.imageshack.us/img546/6616/istocksucksass.jpg

The ad is right on as well, since as an exclusive I'm a little scared. Pissed mostly, truth be told. Anyway ;D ;D

ShadySue

  • There is a crack in everything
« Reply #254 on: January 11, 2013, 22:17 »
0
Hha, thought this was kind of funny. I was just reading the iS forum on this and getting pissed, so decided to Google about starting a class action lawsuit, clicked the "Ehow" link like a dork, and saw this, right on that page:

http://img546.imageshack.us/img546/6616/istocksucksass.jpg

The ad is right on as well, since as an exclusive I'm a little scared. Pissed mostly, truth be told. Anyway ;D ;D


Funny with a sharp edge.

« Reply #255 on: January 11, 2013, 22:23 »
+1
....anyone who doesn't delete their account or continues to upload is only enabling them. And letting the rest of the agencies know they can do whatever they want with your content...
1000% true! Like some other people, I stopped submitting to iStock long ago. Sure it cost me money, but at some point you have to recognize who the enemy is and stop helping them kill you.

It may look like iStock exclusives are the victims in this latest IS outrage - or even are somehow opposing iStock - but aren't they the ones who are enabling iStockGetty to do what it does? iStock exclusives enjoyed all the benefits - higher commissions, favored acceptance in reviews, and so on - now they are paying the price. Locked in and afraid to leave. But they are also forcing us independents to pay. If Getty floods the market with high quality 'free' images - and on the IS forum they have said that they will continue the deal with Google and even add more images and hinted at making other such deals with other corporations - then what will happen to all of us?

How long before 123RF and DP start making such 'free image' deals with other corporations? And who could really blame them, they have to compete with iStock.

« Reply #256 on: January 11, 2013, 22:30 »
+8
Loved this post on Istock forum:

bmcent1

Posted 13 mins ago
Quote

$10,000.

Ten thousand dollars, USD, is what I expect to be compensated per image. That is a number I have quoted out before to inquiries to purchase the copyright to an image of mine. Transferring the copyright is what you needed to do before making representations to Google about usage of my image beyond the bounds of the RF license. You did not and do not have the right to license my image to a 3rd party to sub license (aka give away for free) to an unlimited number of users.

I'll accept a deposit to my Istock account or to my checking account (which you also have for direct Getty Images royalty payments.) If you have any questions or would like to discuss it, you have my phone number.

« Reply #257 on: January 11, 2013, 22:36 »
0
100k would be cool 8)

ShadySue

  • There is a crack in everything
« Reply #258 on: January 11, 2013, 22:39 »
0
Just deactivated two images. Don't know what I'll do next, and I'm too small a fry to make them wouldn't cry into their soup if I pulled my entire port, but enough is enough.
Although, thank goodness, none of my photos were chosen for this opportunity, who knows what they're next dodgy deal will be.
Well, it was good for a while.

« Reply #259 on: January 11, 2013, 22:40 »
+2
How long before 123RF and DP start making such 'free image' deals with other corporations? And who could really blame them, they have to compete with iStock.

iStock continues to be the pioneer of microstock, those dudes know what they are doing LOL

Legen... wait for it... Dary!

« Reply #260 on: January 11, 2013, 22:43 »
0
Although, thank goodness, none of my photos were chosen for this opportunity, who knows what they're next dodgy deal will be.

I would love to know who picked mine because it wasn't iStock, some dude that loves me in a very bad way...

« Reply #261 on: January 11, 2013, 22:46 »
+1
iStock continues to be the pioneer of microstock, those dudes know what they are doing LOL
Legen... wait for it... Dary!
Oh yeah there is plenty of room for innovation in the ms business. Loved this idea posted on the new thread at IS:
"Maybe iStock/Getty should just offer our images to Shutterstock. They could get a nice profit for themself and we could get $12 for each image available on the worlds leading provider of subscription microstock images."
Box5

« Reply #262 on: January 11, 2013, 22:47 »
0
Maybe pulling out all of our images would be a hard pill to swallow, however, what about if we could all stop submitting instead.....while other agencies get new images..

« Reply #263 on: January 11, 2013, 22:49 »
0
Maybe pulling out all of our images would be a hard pill to swallow, however, what about if we could all stop submitting instead.....while other agencies get new images..

not that I would make any difference, actually I am losing money BUT I have stopped uploading in March 2012

« Reply #264 on: January 11, 2013, 22:53 »
0
Maybe pulling out all of our images would be a hard pill to swallow, however, what about if we could all stop submitting instead.....while other agencies get new images..

not that I would make any difference, actually I am losing money BUT I have stopped uploading in March 2012

Well...I am no longer uploading either.....anybody else....what else...can we do?

« Reply #265 on: January 11, 2013, 23:03 »
0
Maybe pulling out all of our images would be a hard pill to swallow, however, what about if we could all stop submitting instead.....while other agencies get new images..

Even though the situation is different this time, the argument that "someone else will just take my iS sales, and I will be the only looser" might still what many contributors feel.

How about a site that monitors the individual iStock contributors file count, where you can sort by, how many files they have deleted or uploaded. If people could easily monitor that others were doing the same, a momentum could maybe be build up.

I hate to think like this, but they are giving away peoples IP for crying out loud!
« Last Edit: January 11, 2013, 23:07 by somethingpretentious »

« Reply #266 on: January 11, 2013, 23:05 »
+2
I just came across this on my Twitter feed, it's one of the people I follow -- http://www.photoattorney.com

Their twitter profile says "Carolyn E. Wright is an attorney who works for photographers."  I wonder if it's worth tweeting them a link to this thread?   Or to the iStock forum thread? 

By the way, this thread was already tweeted today, I don't recall by whom, but I retweeted it. 

« Reply #267 on: January 11, 2013, 23:08 »
0
I just came across this on my Twitter feed, it's one of the people I follow -- http://www.photoattorney.com

Their twitter profile says "Carolyn E. Wright is an attorney who works for photographers."  I wonder if it's worth tweeting them a link to this thread?   Or to the iStock forum thread? 

By the way, this thread was already tweeted today, I don't recall by whom, but I retweeted it.


I am going to give the bird another go ahah ;D

« Reply #268 on: January 11, 2013, 23:23 »
0
Well...I am no longer uploading either.....anybody else....what else...can we do?
IMHO KarenH and photoattorney.com or some sort of legal action seems like a real option this time.

It has been posited on the IS forum that their agreement with us does not allow them to assign (sub-license) to another party the right to give our images away for free. If that is true, IS is in breach of contract on a massive scale, and we could conceivably be awarded damages on a per image ($10,000 per image has been mentioned) or per download basis.

For example, if my image was downloaded from Google Drive, say, 200,000 times and a judge decreed that I be paid 200,000 times my normal RPD at other sites (say $1.50), then I could be in for a nice piece of change, and so would a lot of other people, and Getty possibly bankrupted. Some of the 5000 images have been downloaded millions of times.

Such a scenario is not impossible. My cousin and her husband owned a gas station and won a suit against the oil company parent corp about thirty years ago and got enough money to live lives of luxury without working ever since.

« Reply #269 on: January 12, 2013, 02:40 »
0
So they post an update and say we didn't do anything wrong and we'll do more of it.
I am afraid if they don't provide an opt-out of deals like that I will have to leave. It'll hurt me financially but they are putting me out of business anyway. I'd still give them some time to come with something better, but if they don't I think there is no choice - all  7909 painfully uploaded files will have to be taken down and account closed.
I thought our contributor agreement with Istock stated that images remain on site for X months after quitting.  You can of course deactivate them first, which means customers can no longer find/download them from Istock anymore, but still, Istock/Getty can still sell them to Google/MS during these 3 months (was it 3 months?  and even 6 for photo+ files?).
So quitting Istock or deactivating all images will not protect us during these months.  And worse :  if Istock/Getty get pissed because of multiple deactivations, why would they not sell your whole portfolio on IS (or "just" your bestsellers) as soon as they notice you're starting to deactivate, or right after your request for account closure?

Microbius

« Reply #270 on: January 12, 2013, 03:31 »
+2
Well...I am no longer uploading either.....anybody else....what else...can we do?
IMHO KarenH and photoattorney.com or some sort of legal action seems like a real option this time.

It has been posited on the IS forum that their agreement with us does not allow them to assign (sub-license) to another party the right to give our images away for free. If that is true, IS is in breach of contract on a massive scale, and we could conceivably be awarded damages on a per image ($10,000 per image has been mentioned) or per download basis.

For example, if my image was downloaded from Google Drive, say, 200,000 times and a judge decreed that I be paid 200,000 times my normal RPD at other sites (say $1.50), then I could be in for a nice piece of change, and so would a lot of other people, and Getty possibly bankrupted. Some of the 5000 images have been downloaded millions of times.

Such a scenario is not impossible. My cousin and her husband owned a gas station and won a suit against the oil company parent corp about thirty years ago and got enough money to live lives of luxury without working ever since.
I think you could argue that by allowing such a vast volume of free downloads they have effectively reduced the value of the specific images involved to pretty much zero. Damages should be paid to cover the earnings the photographers involved would have earned over the image's remaining lifespan.
IStock must have some duty of care to its contributors surely?

« Reply #271 on: January 12, 2013, 03:37 »
0
With most of the deserved opprobrium being directed to Getty lets not forget the involvement of Google who's potential to disrupt the marketplace must be hovering like a sword of Damocles over the existing players.

Microbius

« Reply #272 on: January 12, 2013, 03:40 »
+1
With most of the deserved opprobrium being directed to Getty lets not forget the involvement of Google who's potential to disrupt the marketplace must be hovering like a sword of Damocles over the existing players.
IMHO Google has always shown scant regard for artists in general. They never even used to pay the people who did those daily illustrations on the Google home page (don't know if this has changed now).

« Reply #273 on: January 12, 2013, 03:53 »
0
message deleted
« Last Edit: January 12, 2013, 06:51 by redzaal »

Reef

  • website ready 2026 :)
« Reply #274 on: January 12, 2013, 04:47 »
+1
I'm concerned that this move is how Getty sees the future of stock photography. The sheer volume of images out there means we have become unimportant to them. This could be our last chance to make a stand, not just for the sake of IS contributors but the whole industry.



 

Related Topics

  Subject / Started by Replies Last post
40 Replies
25082 Views
Last post February 09, 2010, 17:01
by madelaide
18 Replies
10968 Views
Last post March 15, 2010, 22:04
by RacePhoto
36 Replies
25563 Views
Last post January 10, 2013, 06:35
by xerith
9 Replies
6847 Views
Last post March 04, 2013, 23:07
by bruce_blake
5 Replies
5590 Views
Last post December 03, 2014, 02:10
by MichaelJayFoto

Sponsors

Mega Bundle of 5,900+ Professional Lightroom Presets

Microstock Poll Results

Sponsors