MicrostockGroup Sponsors


Author Topic: Google giving photos away free for commercial use and iStock agrees  (Read 256398 times)

0 Members and 3 Guests are viewing this topic.

« Reply #500 on: January 13, 2013, 17:06 »
0
Has something happened on the Google Drive announcement page, I see it has 138 comments but I cannot see any of them.

They are still there but I had to reload page several times in Safari. In Chrome they appeared immediately.


« Reply #501 on: January 13, 2013, 17:07 »
+1
We could then remove all images from iStock in retaliation, but the license would have already been sold to Google.  Google would still have the 'right' to give away those images.... according to iStock.

This is the biggest issue in my mind,  Those ck suckers at Google have my top selling image of my 3k port...giving it away for free.  From TS.  What if I as the copyright owner wanted to sell the rights to that image or put it in RM? I'd be fkd just due to what Leaf posted above.  It's not just about the use of our images for free, but it chokes our ability to do what I mentioned.  If MS crashes and I want to put my images in RM and my best sellers are on Google, what recourse do I have? Nada.
« Last Edit: January 13, 2013, 17:11 by Mantis »

Poncke

« Reply #502 on: January 13, 2013, 17:08 »
0
Has something happened on the Google Drive announcement page, I see it has 138 comments but I cannot see any of them.
Click on comments and they will appear. Click on comments and the list is hidden.

« Reply #503 on: January 13, 2013, 17:10 »
0
Quote
Unfortunately people prefer to complain about istock and do little or nothing about it.  I hope this time its different but I don't understand the point in taking expensive drawn out time consuming legal action that might fail when we could sink istock in a month by leaving and promoting a much better site.

Do you honestly think you could sink iStock in a month by leaving? Of course not, because 99% of people would not follow you, and that includes me. Fine words about withdrawing work and fine if you earn a coupe of hundred a month there, if you make a few thousand a month and support your family, realistically, do you think people in that position are going to pull their work? You may not like them or how they do business, but they have a lot of people by the balls.
They have got no one by the balls. Everyone can change employers. Dont say it isnt true, because it is. If you hate your day job you get out and find a better one. Same goes for photographers. Dont think for one minute IS is your only chance in life to sell photos. Not saying its easy, but IS is holding no one against their will.

Ponke,

Read my post above.  If any of what I say is true, yes, they do have our sacks in a vice to some extent. It doesn't really matter if I pull my port, I still lose.  I am not an attorney but I have to believe that Google holds the reins unless some court determines the agreement was illegal.

« Reply #504 on: January 13, 2013, 17:11 »
+3
I am seriously considering pulling out all my images  >:(   I know I am a small fish but this is driving me nuts

« Reply #505 on: January 13, 2013, 17:17 »
+3
I am seriously considering pulling out all my images  >:(   I know I am a small fish but this is driving me nuts

Me too. I'm hoping for a miracle in the next days but I'm preparing to leave. If I do this final decision I won't let my files end up on TS with the same option to be given away for free.

Poncke

« Reply #506 on: January 13, 2013, 17:19 »
0
Quote
Unfortunately people prefer to complain about istock and do little or nothing about it.  I hope this time its different but I don't understand the point in taking expensive drawn out time consuming legal action that might fail when we could sink istock in a month by leaving and promoting a much better site.

Do you honestly think you could sink iStock in a month by leaving? Of course not, because 99% of people would not follow you, and that includes me. Fine words about withdrawing work and fine if you earn a coupe of hundred a month there, if you make a few thousand a month and support your family, realistically, do you think people in that position are going to pull their work? You may not like them or how they do business, but they have a lot of people by the balls.
They have got no one by the balls. Everyone can change employers. Dont say it isnt true, because it is. If you hate your day job you get out and find a better one. Same goes for photographers. Dont think for one minute IS is your only chance in life to sell photos. Not saying its easy, but IS is holding no one against their will.

Ponke,

Read my post above.  If any of what I say is true, yes, they do have our sacks in a vice to some extent. It doesn't really matter if I pull my port, I still lose.  I am not an attorney but I have to believe that Google holds the reins unless some court determines the agreement was illegal.
I agree, but thats a different discussion then the one about having an income from stock imo. I am sure the next one will say its not.  ;)

« Reply #507 on: January 13, 2013, 17:21 »
+1
As a sort of middle ground aggressive retaliation we could all remove 10 images a day til our portfolio's were depleted.  That might send iStock (and other agencies) a message.  It would start a move in the right direction, show iStock we are serious while at the same time give iStock a time to come up with something better.

« Reply #508 on: January 13, 2013, 17:24 »
0
Quote
Unfortunately people prefer to complain about istock and do little or nothing about it.  I hope this time its different but I don't understand the point in taking expensive drawn out time consuming legal action that might fail when we could sink istock in a month by leaving and promoting a much better site.

Do you honestly think you could sink iStock in a month by leaving? Of course not, because 99% of people would not follow you, and that includes me. Fine words about withdrawing work and fine if you earn a coupe of hundred a month there, if you make a few thousand a month and support your family, realistically, do you think people in that position are going to pull their work? You may not like them or how they do business, but they have a lot of people by the balls.
They have got no one by the balls. Everyone can change employers. Dont say it isnt true, because it is. If you hate your day job you get out and find a better one. Same goes for photographers. Dont think for one minute IS is your only chance in life to sell photos. Not saying its easy, but IS is holding no one against their will.

Ponke,

Read my post above.  If any of what I say is true, yes, they do have our sacks in a vice to some extent. It doesn't really matter if I pull my port, I still lose.  I am not an attorney but I have to believe that Google holds the reins unless some court determines the agreement was illegal.
I agree, but thats a different discussion then the one about having an income from stock imo. I am sure the next one will say its not.  ;)

I guess it depends on what income means to us individually.  Some don't rely on stock income while others do, so you're right about the varying opinions.  But let's take Ellenthewise as a quick example.  I suspect that's what she does for a living full time.  If she chooses to shift her port all to RM, it is an issue of income if her best sellers are on Google for free. That's what I was referring to as I am sure you are aware. ::)

« Reply #509 on: January 13, 2013, 17:26 »
0
As a sort of middle ground aggressive retaliation we could all remove 10 images a day til our portfolio's were depleted.  That might send iStock (and other agencies) a message.  It would start a move in the right direction, show iStock we are serious while at the same time give iStock a time to come up with something better.

Something better in my mind is first to undo the mess they've created. I'm sure that's about as realistic as replacing the johnson rod in my car :-\

« Reply #510 on: January 13, 2013, 17:28 »
+1
Quote
Unfortunately people prefer to complain about istock and do little or nothing about it.  I hope this time its different but I don't understand the point in taking expensive drawn out time consuming legal action that might fail when we could sink istock in a month by leaving and promoting a much better site.

Do you honestly think you could sink iStock in a month by leaving? Of course not, because 99% of people would not follow you, and that includes me. Fine words about withdrawing work and fine if you earn a coupe of hundred a month there, if you make a few thousand a month and support your family, realistically, do you think people in that position are going to pull their work? You may not like them or how they do business, but they have a lot of people by the balls.

They have got no one by the balls. Everyone can change employers. Dont say it isnt true, because it is. If you hate your day job you get out and find a better one. Same goes for photographers. Dont think for one minute IS is your only chance in life to sell photos. Not saying its easy, but IS is holding no one against their will.

Vlad maybe you are happy to let them get a firm strangle hold on your balls, however I am out for good and hanging free!

« Reply #511 on: January 13, 2013, 17:31 »
+1
I didn't know until now that it is possible to reactivate images on iS again. So it's not difficult choice for me. I'll wait two or three days for new batch of spin doctors' fairytales and if nothing significant happens - then I'll deactivate images.

KB

« Reply #512 on: January 13, 2013, 17:31 »
0
I would like to emphasize that this situation is fundamentally different from previous Getty deals that upset the community

I've asked this before in this thread, but didn't get an answer: How is this deal different from the Microsoft deal that has been known about for several years? Other than the fact that many or most contributors got nothing (not even a measly $12), and that AFAIK there weren't any Vetta or Agency files included in the MS deal. (Just as with the Google deal, MS files also seem to have had their EXIF data stripped.)

Note that I'm not saying this isn't a big deal, I'm just wondering why people didn't get similarly upset about the MS deal when it was revealed a few years ago.

« Reply #513 on: January 13, 2013, 17:34 »
0
I didn't know until now that it is possible to reactivate images on iS again. So it's not difficult choice for me. I'll wait two or three days for new batch of spin doctors' fairytales and if nothing significant happens - then I'll deactivate images.

I didn't know that either.  I think I'll be deactivating my port very very soon.  Perhaps tomorrow I create a script to automatically deactivate my port so I don't have to do it manually one image at a time.

« Reply #514 on: January 13, 2013, 17:35 »
0
I didn't know until now that it is possible to reactivate images on iS again. So it's not difficult choice for me. I'll wait two or three days for new batch of spin doctors' fairytales and if nothing significant happens - then I'll deactivate images.

That's an excellent strategy...sort of a safety net...in case they mend some broken fences.

« Reply #515 on: January 13, 2013, 17:35 »
0
As a sort of middle ground aggressive retaliation we could all remove 10 images a day til our portfolio's were depleted.  That might send iStock (and other agencies) a message.  It would start a move in the right direction, show iStock we are serious while at the same time give iStock a time to come up with something better.

I doubt they'll notice or care.  I stopped uploading and began deleting 5 a day each from iStock, StockXpert, and Fotolia after the September, 2011 royalty outrage.  If anyone at either agency was concerned, they certainly didn't say anything.  Judging by the continuing outrages at iStock, my small effort didn't have the canary in a coalmine effect I might have hoped for.  And, although it would have made it easier for me to return if they changed their tactics, that was a forlorn hope as well.

(Oh, and for what it's worth, every image I removed from iStock I tagged with "To quote Popeye, 'I've had all I can stands, and I can't stands no more.'"  Which was true but had no effect other than to make me feel better.)

If you're going to withdraw your work, just do it.  Do it a little at a time to maximize your revenues, but don't expect them to care.

« Reply #516 on: January 13, 2013, 17:36 »
0
I didn't know until now that it is possible to reactivate images on iS again. So it's not difficult choice for me. I'll wait two or three days for new batch of spin doctors' fairytales and if nothing significant happens - then I'll deactivate images.


I didn't know that either.  I think I'll be deactivating my port very very soon.  Perhaps tomorrow I create a script to automatically deactivate my port so I don't have to do it manually one image at a time.


Sean already created some script. But it seems that I can't make it work.
http://www.istockphoto.com/forum_messages.php?threadid=350491&messageid=6818805   

ShadySue

  • There is a crack in everything
« Reply #517 on: January 13, 2013, 17:36 »
0
I didn't know until now that it is possible to reactivate images on iS again. So it's not difficult choice for me. I'll wait two or three days for new batch of spin doctors' fairytales and if nothing significant happens - then I'll deactivate images.
If your deactivated files were uploaded before a certain date (someone will remember when it is), they will need to be reinspected.
That may not affect you, jm, but it might affect others, who might find that old, still-selling files may not pass current inspection. I know some/many of my old slide scans probably wouldn't, but no-one has asked for a refund, and some still sell (and some never did).

« Reply #518 on: January 13, 2013, 17:37 »
0
Should we start a separate thread with all the people that are leaving or deactivating images?  I'm tempted to deactivate all the good stuff and leave my worst images there.  They deserve all my images that haven't sold for years :)

« Reply #519 on: January 13, 2013, 17:37 »
+2
I have contacted Image Source - they have 117 images in the Google Drive/Getty giveaway. Given the prices these images sell for on Getty, I figured they have potentially a lot to lose; if they didn't know about it now they do and can start complaining.

Here are the image numbers (work on Getty and Google Drive)

102285694, 102286165, 103060007, 103060278, 105776876, 107908345, 107908365,  108349487, 109434652, 117183973, 117183975, 117184150, 121331317, 121331437, 122343441, 122343756, 122343769, 122343772, 130112180, 134574147, 134574158, 137088243, 139266642, 139266646, 139266647, 141467758, 141467772, 141467803, 141467806, 141467808, 141467811, 141467814, 141467999, 141468154, 142025611, 142025614, 142025619, 142025779, 142025825, 142025853, 142025864, 142742103, 142742210, 142742273, 145073112, 145073294, 145073356, 145073547, 145073565, 145073567, 145073568, 145073602, 145073783, 145073788, 145073991, 146271718, 146272075, 146272103, 149272149, 149272158, 149272175, 149272176, 149272178, 149272334, 149272420, 149272433, 149272441, 149272444, 149272462, 149272470, 149272498, 149272521, 149272550, 149272570, 149272657, 149272658, 149272681, 151327369, 151327376, 151327531, 151328107, 151329184, 56181219, 56294175, 57158999, 71273395, 71916966, 72421179, 73213606, 80488216, 80488244, 80488246, 84492509, 84492950, 85213588, 85257483, 85536824, 85537158, 87298015, 87306026, 87307437, 87312800, 87319271, 87329573, 87332375, 87333949, 87333953, 87333988, 88297759, 88622507, 88623908, 88624310, 88624453, 88624699, 88625028, 96161682, 96161692

« Reply #520 on: January 13, 2013, 17:41 »
+2
Based on the reply from mr_erin it looks to me like they do have prior deals in place which we do not know about and they have no qualms about making many more in the future. I for think it is important to know what these current deals entail.

http://www.istockphoto.com/forum_messages.php?threadid=350491&page=1

Lets break it down

"Google is an important partner for us and we have many innovative licensing arrangements with them in place and in negotiations.

Our goal is to continue to expand and improve this partnership over time-

to the benefit of everyone involved including Google and it's customers, as well as Getty Images and our contributors.

This is a long term objective that includes pricing, copyright protection, and volume."

« Reply #521 on: January 13, 2013, 17:42 »
+2
Quote
Dont think for one minute IS is your only chance in life to sell photos. Not saying its easy, but IS is holding no one against their will.

Nobody is saying or thinking that, everyone I know has exit plans in place. You, I believe, have been in the business for a few months and probably earn comparatively little. You don't support a family, pay a large mortgage, put your kids through university, all from your iStock earnings, so with all respect, it's pretty easy to suggest to people they leave exclusivity, take big drops in income, even bigger than they have had already, without really considering or understanding what that means in real terms.

If they've got you by the balls, you haven't got an exit strategy. You need to get yourself into a position where you can walk away, that's having an exit strategy.

« Reply #522 on: January 13, 2013, 17:48 »
0
I didn't know until now that it is possible to reactivate images on iS again. So it's not difficult choice for me. I'll wait two or three days for new batch of spin doctors' fairytales and if nothing significant happens - then I'll deactivate images.
If your deactivated files were uploaded before a certain date (someone will remember when it is), they will need to be reinspected.
That may not affect you, jm, but it might affect others, who might find that old, still-selling files may not pass current inspection. I know some/many of my old slide scans probably wouldn't, but no-one has asked for a refund, and some still sell (and some never did).

Thanks for info.
I hope that court case will be short. :-)

« Reply #523 on: January 13, 2013, 17:49 »
0
I didn't know until now that it is possible to reactivate images on iS again. So it's not difficult choice for me. I'll wait two or three days for new batch of spin doctors' fairytales and if nothing significant happens - then I'll deactivate images.


I didn't know that either.  I think I'll be deactivating my port very very soon.  Perhaps tomorrow I create a script to automatically deactivate my port so I don't have to do it manually one image at a time.


Sean already created some script. But it seems that I can't make it work.
http://www.istockphoto.com/forum_messages.php?threadid=350491&messageid=6818805   


Thanks, I hadn't seen that.  He's always one step ahead!

« Reply #524 on: January 13, 2013, 17:51 »
0
It would be interesting if any of the images involved with this had already been deactivated.  It seems to take a long time to get them off of Thinkstock, I've seen people complaining about that before.

If they have any more plans to do this, it might be worth keeping a record of the date images were deactivated.


 

Related Topics

  Subject / Started by Replies Last post
40 Replies
25075 Views
Last post February 09, 2010, 17:01
by madelaide
18 Replies
10967 Views
Last post March 15, 2010, 22:04
by RacePhoto
36 Replies
25549 Views
Last post January 10, 2013, 06:35
by xerith
9 Replies
6845 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