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. 

Yesterday I deactivated around 20 images. I will continue to do so because the risk is too high.
I don't want to wake up one day and find out that my complete portfolio is suddenly worthless.
I don't think they can be trusted anymore.

The earnings at iStock are shrinking fast anyway. The potential of future earnings doesn't outweigh the risk of losing everything.

Recently I was invited to contribute to the Getty-Flickr collection, they were interested to have more than 10% of the images in my photostream. I didn't sign the Getty contract yet, but now I know that they are fishing for idiots.

Quote from: Pixart on January 13, 2013, 17:04

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.

I tried to leave a reply to the first comment and it said it was posted but it's not appearing.  Perhaps someone else could try adding a reply to that first post expressing the outrage.  Many may not bother to read down too far to find all the angry comments and the initial few posts make it sound like a good thing.

I tried to leave a reply to the first comment and it said it was posted but it's not appearing.  Perhaps someone else could try adding a reply to that first post expressing the outrage.  Many may not bother to read down too far to find all the angry comments and the initial few posts make it sound like a good thing.

I've tried two times 20 minutes ago, the comment never shown too.

Quote from: Elenathewise on January 13, 2013, 12:46

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.

Couple of points - first, as far as know MS was a "promo" deal which we agreed to in our contributor agreement. I don't know exact details, but I assume images were available only to MS users. Last time I checked MS didn't give away their software for free. Second is the fact that it's Google Drive, just think about the scale of this: anyone, anywhere, in time it takes to create a Google account, which is seconds, can have access to premium stock images absolutely for free. When my images are used in some templates or within some software or product that is for sale, that's one thing. When they are available for free to general public, is absolutely another.

Quote from: KB on January 13, 2013, 17:31

Quote from: Elenathewise on January 13, 2013, 12:46

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.

Couple of points - first, as far as know MS was a "promo" deal which we agreed to in our contributor agreement. I don't know exact details, but I assume images were available only to MS users. Last time I checked MS didn't give away their software for free. Second is the fact that it's Google Drive, just think about the scale of this: anyone, anywhere, in time it takes to create a Google account, which is seconds, can have access to premium stock images absolutely for free. When my images are used in some templates or within some software or product that is for sale, that's one thing. When they are available for free to general public, is absolutely another.

I assume the Google deal wouldn't be any more palatable if it were referred to as a "promo" deal and contributors weren't paid anything?

Anyone can go to the MS link and DL as they like. It doesn't even require registration, let alone owning Office. But you're quite right, it doesn't have the visibility of Google Drive.

When they are available for free to general public, is absolutely another.

So I'd guess you'd agree with me that the MS deal isn't actually fundamentally different. And who knows how many other, similar deals have already been made?

the problem is not promotional or even 12 dollar deals themselves, the problem is nobody asked us and that they choose whatever files they want including my bestsellers.

even if they just do 3 "deals/promotions" a year, very soon your portfolio could be all over the internet. in the MS deal they took 25 of my files, in the google doc deal they also chose several files from contributors.

we have no control over what they take, nobody has to ask us first.tehy treat our ip as if they own it.

and if they allow "the public" to nominate files or just allow the editor to choose different content every time, you might be losing control over a huge amount of your best content.

I know I can�t afford that.

Quote from: cobalt on January 13, 2013, 19:05

the problem is not promotional or even 12 dollar deals themselves, the problem is nobody asked us and that they choose whatever files they want including my bestsellers.

even if they just do 3 "deals/promotions" a year, very soon your portfolio could be all over the internet. in the MS deal they took 25 of my files, in the google doc deal they also chose several files from contributors.

we have no control over what they take, nobody has to ask us first.tehy treat our ip as if they own it.

and if they allow "the public" to nominate files or just allow the editor to choose different content every time, you might be losing control over a huge amount of your best content.

I know I can�t afford that.

I am extremely sympathetic to your concerns Jasmin ... but isn't 'exclusivity', which you defend strongly in another thread, a major part of the problem? It's only agencies with large numbers of exclusive contributors (which they know they have by the bollocks) that would even dream of pulling stunts like this and the MS deal.

When you voluntarily give that much power to an agency, especially one with a reputation like Getty, I don't understand why you are surprised that they abuse it? That's what Getty does __ thinking up new and innovative ways of abusing their content providers is pretty much their day-job. It's a much easier route to higher profits than actually selling more of our content.

It's hit plenty of non-exclusives, too. Including me.

I have begun to deactivate my files on istockphoto. Reason: Boycot
Starting with the good ones, and after next payout Im out of there.

I hope someone takes them to court.

Count me in for deactivation of files on February 2nd.

Quote

When they are available for free to general public, is absolutely another.

So I'd guess you'd agree with me that the MS deal isn't actually fundamentally different. And who knows how many other, similar deals have already been made?

1. When the MS deal was started, it was about "including images in the MS clipart gallery" which meant as part of the Office products. I wasn't aware there was a website that anyone can go to and download the images. I am not sure that this was there when the deal started.

2. The deal was promotional in that next to the image it says "iStock" with a link and - at the time back then - included a referral code and a link to the image on iStock. So in case someone wanted a larger version of the image, he could get it. And for anyone signing up at iStock from clicking on the link at one of my images I would make $10 for the referral. Nowadays it doesn't work anymore since most of the links are broken and the old referral program was discontinued anyways...

I don't say any of this would have provided more money to the contributor in general. But given the three images they have chosen from my portfolio, I would certainly agree today to a deal with those conditions.

With the Google deal there is no promotion, there is no linking back, there is no way to find the image if I want it larger. So there is not even an option that you can add some earnings in addition to the $12 you got now.

Also it only includes images that are available on Getty and this - by definition - means from the perspective of an iStock contributor we are talking about the "premium content", Vetta and Agency. So it's not just a random file that would go away for a dollar or five dollars if sold. When the MS deal was made, most downloads would only make 30 or 80 cents. Given the odds how many of my files got more than 20 downloads at that time, I would have thought a guaranteed $12 plus the option to make more would have been acceptable.

This time it's about files that make 15 or 30 dollars for each single download on iStock. In comparison $12 for unlimited redistribution appears quite few money.

I think that does make a difference in the deal.

Deal with Microsoft is another disaster. Doesn't exist something like as we call it "this agreement is against good manners?"
I must say that facing system of American law that I know only from TV series seems to be painful experience. I don't have excessive confidence in European law but I think that even if biggest local publishing house would misuse my images I would just hire average lawyer and I'd have a very good chance to win. Most probably it would end up with some out-of-court settlement. I'm so naive that I believe that truth may be twisted (that's why lawyers exist) but it can't be reversed upside down thanks to higher number of more expensive lawyers. It seems to be very unlikely that poor man can win lawsuit in US unless some famous lawyer wants to work for free because he wants to gain publicity.

Quote from: Microbius on January 14, 2013, 02:11

The more I think about it the more I think a solution will come from the Google side rather than Getty. Not being "evil" means not making deals with the devil, this is probably not a big deal for Google. The damage to their rep from negative publicity could make them rethink. I am sure as far as they were concerned this was all just Getty content, educating them to the facts could help.

I hope you're right but I think Google will be pleased with this deal and will be looking for more.  If they were trying to not be "evil", why would they do this deal in the first place?  They could of at least had a link to the original images.

I would think that Getty was selling the deal as giving them access to Getty's images, without any reference to fact that Getty isn't the copyright holder and may not have the right to sign up our work to such a sweeping deal (it is so far outside of what contributors could reasonably expect when they signed up for IStock).

In any case I'm talking about how Google would like to be perceived, not how they really are.

What should have happened is that Getty offered up a load of it's wholly owned content, and that's what they should do in future. They can do what they like with that.

Is anyone still following the comments here? Someone called Jason has failed to understand the situation (you'll have to click 'load more' twice to reach the last few comments):

http://googledrive.blogspot.dk/2012/12/5000-new-stock-images-in-google-drive.html

I added two posts to the thread, but now I can't see a link to click to see the thread.
I'll try again later.