Marisa I know your story and we actually talked in a few emails, maybe you have forgotten, anyway that wasn't the point here

it was about you telling that we haven't give a ___ back in 2011 but still leaving your portfolio online, sure you have all the reasons in the world and I respect that, next time just don't say we don't give a ___ because we actually did and do everyday, I have stopped uploading back in March 2012

I didn't say that you (or anyone still active on iStock, in any capacity, or on this thread) don't give a *. What I said was, "It's good to see more iStock contributors get angry and come together around the way iStock/Getty does business. Shockingly late, but better that than never! Wish folks would have been this angry to mobilize when I still gave a _______ . Good luck you guys. Really hope you can effect positive change, or at least score some well-deserved damages from those corporate _______ ."

Translated (didn't realize it needed translating): it's good to see people angry enough to band together and take action in a bigger way (which may actually make a difference) than in earlier years over kerfuffles past. It seems in the past, while people cared and were angry (to varying degrees), there wasn't a willingness to really do something big and meaningful in protest, en masse.

Further, look at how quickly Instagram retreated from its proposed TOS changes when users took to the web and started voicing their displeasure, deleting images, or whole accounts. Imagine that every single exclusive photog on iStock/Getty would commit to and actually drop exclusivity on a particular day, unless the changes they wanted to see from corporate were enacted? Wow. That would get press and probably get results. Or what if all iStock/Getty photogs committed to deleting 5 of their top-selling images each day, every day, until the changes desired by the community were heard and instituted. Stuff like that. So that if you want to continue on with the company, which I'm sure most do, you don't create a mountain of reloading work for yourself. You make a big difference, but hopefully one that you can easily manage the consequences of if/when you get what you want from corporate.

Anyway. That's my two cents.

I don't think this deal is a mistake, or a ploy, or anything except exactly what it appears to be: Getty trying to make some quick cash from IS's content, from a company with very deep pockets who's ready to pay right now.   They're doing it because they think they can, and that any contributor kick-back won't be damaging enough in the long run to care about.   They'll do more of this sort of thing in the future, not less.

The growing wave of bad press and contributor takedowns will, however, be a cautionary tale to other agencies who might be tempted to do something similar.

Eventually IS will go away, or at least cease to exist as a quasi-independent agency, and its market share will continue to decline, for reasons not directly related to this issue.   But nothing is going to change with regard to whatever deal they're currently making with Google. 

I can't find it at it seems to have been deleted from the thread on Istock.  If anyone has it can you post it?  I have also contacted Sean for a direct link...

Here's the post where Leaf posted a link in case iStock deleted it. Thanks Leaf

Quote from: gostwyck on January 17, 2013, 14:03

The Getty/Google deal is probably a massive mistake.

So at first glance it looks like 1-0 to Google. But you have to wonder... Isn't Getty playing a pusher to a potential junkie? The deal is so clearly underpriced. Getty would have known the reaction of iStockers would be severe, a negotiating tactic they can plausibly deny, but that can only drive prices higher in the future. Getty took an "own goal" in the first round for a bigger prize later on.

Wait, were we told how much getty made from this deal???  I know the $12 to contributors

something I just posted on IS

admin oldladybird said
"With Google Drive, they licensed the file so neither collection or the files status really matter. "


I am sure you must realise that your statement is showing an action which is totally and unbelievably wrong...What you are spinning and saying by "neither collection or the files status really matter" is in fact that contributors don't really matter.


Furthermore, as you say "they licensed the file".   In this case "they" means Getty acting on their own "licensed" the file.  That license is INVALID BECAUSE WE WERE NEVER MADE AWARE OF IT.....THIS IS ILLEGAL

Has this been mentioned on each of the stock site forums?  I didn't know about this until I stopped by here today and saw this thread.  I know that bringing up things happening at other stock sites is difficult to do on some forums, but we should be able to mention the Google "deal".

I'd be interested in reading the threads (even on sites I'm not a member).  If you have seen this mentioned on other stock forums, could you post the links?

Sorry.  I just found the thread for this.

If you want honnest information from all micro sites you come here at microstockgroup.com. Individual stock forums understandably will not entertain their competitor's problems or successes as this could affect their own business.

Yes, but there are many photographers and illustrators who know nothing of MSG. Posting about this having happened at those sites may help as well.  Perhaps those posts should link back to some of the threads on this site, and more people will learn that MSG exists.

...you type in the words in google (gee for some reason I don't like that word as much anymore)...

I have no ill will towards Google over this deal. They did nothing wrong. They probably didn't know that Getty was orchestrating a shady and potentially illegal arrangement in terms of how this would affect the contributors whose images were included in the deal, but Google really wouldn't have had any way of knowing that.

It's none of their concern what sort of arrangement (or lack there of) Getty had worked out with us. Google needs images, Getty has lots of them, a deal is made. And Google would have no reason to suspect that the images were acquired in any underhanded way.

I believe that I read somewhere that someone at Google posted on a blog saying something to the effect of, "I hope you are getting permission from the photographers before going ahead with this deal."

I'm firmly in the "Getty is evil" camp.

I understand your point, but I think you're letting Google off the hook way too easily. If you tell me you have a great deal on a 60" flat screen LED TV for $25, I have to know that there's something amiss.

Google knows what they paid per image - $60 for the first round and with the $6 royalties showing up, I guess some cost them $30 each. Given they get the right to offer these images for free to millions of Google Drive users, they have to know that $60 is dirt cheap even if Getty gave us all the money - and they have to know Getty won't give us all the money.

You don't buy those kinds of rights for that amount of cash - not legitimately anyway.

Well, then again have a look where Google is coming from. Usually they get all content for their sites for free by grabbing them from the internet. Actually they have gone to court several times, sometimes successful, sometimes not. So for them it's probably a big thing they have to pay anything at all. 

Or to use your analogy: Google is used to get the LCD TV for free because the manufacturer hopes that Google's clients will see the TV and buy one from them. Meanwhile, Google is selling ads running on the TV. 

Quote from: EmberMike on January 18, 2013, 00:04

I have no ill will towards Google over this deal. They did nothing wrong. They probably didn't know that Getty was orchestrating a shady and potentially illegal arrangement in terms of how this would affect the contributors whose images were included in the deal, but Google really wouldn't have had any way of knowing that.

It's none of their concern what sort of arrangement (or lack there of) Getty had worked out with us. Google needs images, Getty has lots of them, a deal is made. And Google would have no reason to suspect that the images were acquired in any underhanded way.

I understand your point, but I think you're letting Google off the hook way too easily. If you tell me you have a great deal on a 60" flat screen LED TV for $25, I have to know that there's something amiss.

Google knows what they paid per image - $60 for the first round and with the $6 royalties showing up, I guess some cost them $30 each. Given they get the right to offer these images for free to millions of Google Drive users, they have to know that $60 is dirt cheap even if Getty gave us all the money - and they have to know Getty won't give us all the money.

You don't buy those kinds of rights for that amount of cash - not legitimately anyway.

except we have no idea what Google paid.  Maybe we got 20%, or maybe there is a few million in advertising credits or some other bonus type thing Google had to swap for the images... or a deal where Getty is the exclusive contributor for stock photos for google drive.  This could just be a little sampling to see if customers really want the images and the value of Google Drive is raised.  Once Google sees that customers are interested in using the photos they will be willing to pay 4x the price.  Now we can give away our images for $48....

... where was I now..

... oh yeah, deactivating files.

I'm sure if Google could get all our images for $1 each legally, they wouldn't hesitate.  I don't know why people are so nice about Google.  It would be easy for them to start their own stock images site and pay a reasonable commission or use a new AdSense model to make sure we get some compensation for our work.  Instead they do a deal with Getty, knowing they only pay 20% commission and they pay a ridiculously low fee for top quality stock images.  People that do deals like that are the opposite of kind.

Quote from: EmberMike on January 18, 2013, 00:04

I have no ill will towards Google over this deal. They did nothing wrong. They probably didn't know that Getty was orchestrating a shady and potentially illegal arrangement in terms of how this would affect the contributors whose images were included in the deal, but Google really wouldn't have had any way of knowing that.

It's none of their concern what sort of arrangement (or lack there of) Getty had worked out with us. Google needs images, Getty has lots of them, a deal is made. And Google would have no reason to suspect that the images were acquired in any underhanded way.

Google knows what they paid per image - $60 for the first round and with the $6 royalties showing up, I guess some cost them $30 each. Given they get the right to offer these images for free to millions of Google Drive users, they have to know that $60 is dirt cheap even if Getty gave us all the money - and they have to know Getty won't give us all the money.

You don't buy those kinds of rights for that amount of cash - not legitimately anyway.

So google paid $60 per image?? Is that listed somewhere on istock forums?