Author Topic: Google giving photos away free for commercial use and iStock agrees (Read 298444 times)

Lizard · « **Reply #1225 on:** March 21, 2013, 13:32 »

I dont know , i live from this , i dont make much , i need all I can get but i still have some self respect and im not uploading there already long period of time... and im not planing to start.

Yesterday i took some time to start taking files down about 20 and i plan to take that much every week while growing portfolio on other sites and cut the loss somehow.

I was out form the game , but as i understand all files on istock are available at thinkstock right ?

Are there any other collections filling that site ? Any ex stockexpert portfolios or something because I think i recall something like that.

I plan take all I have from there at reasonable time slowly even if it means deleting my full istock portfolio.

I apologize to people who all ready did that , im a bit lazy and my zodiac sign is cancer so I don't like big changes by nature...

tickstock · « **Reply #1226 on:** March 21, 2013, 13:38 »

Lizard · « **Reply #1227 on:** March 21, 2013, 13:40 »

Ok if stockexpert files went there can someone give me a tip how to take them down ?

tickstock · « **Reply #1228 on:** March 21, 2013, 13:41 »

KB · « **Reply #1229 on:** March 21, 2013, 13:42 »

Quote from: lisafx on March 21, 2013, 12:58

And lets be honest, the exclusive content was one of the LAST advantages Istock had. Their customer service and site functionality have tanked at the same time their prices have skyrocketed.

I'd say it was THE LAST advantage. I can't imagine why buyers would come to iStock without enough exclusive content to be a differentiator.

dirkr · « **Reply #1230 on:** March 21, 2013, 14:45 »

Quote from: tickstock on March 21, 2013, 13:11

I'm pretty sure they still want exclusives, maybe something good will come out of the survey and from some long time exclusives leaving. They are still paying a much higher royalty rate than Shutterstock, Fotolia, Dreamstime, and 123RF among others.

Only if you compare apples to oranges (exclusive to non-exclusive).
Dreamstime pays exclusive contributors 60%, FT pays 35% - 63%. SS and 123RF don't have exclusive programs.
And all of their non-exclusive rates are much better than IS's.

tickstock · « **Reply #1231 on:** March 21, 2013, 15:03 »

StanRohrer · « **Reply #1232 on:** March 21, 2013, 16:52 »

Lobo has a new update:
http://www.istockphoto.com/forum_messages.php?threadid=352443&page=1

Copyright protection is absolutely central to our business and we remain committed to doing all we can to support and maintain your intellectual property rights. We've been working closely with Google to improve the way in which the images are presented in Google Drive. Our agreement with Google allows for the images to be made available to Google users for personal or commercial use--however, the individual user's rights are restricted, and clarifications addressing use are now live in the Google Drive’s interface.

Google Drive copy changes:

1. Now when you search for an image to insert into a document in Google Drive, the following language appears directly under the search field for visibility:

"Results shown are available for personal or commercial use only in Google Drive, and may not be independently redistributed or sold. Learn more."

2. You will see the revised language (below) when you click on "Learn More."

"Stock images available in Google Drive are available for personal or commercial use only in Google Drive and must be used in accordance with our program policies. Images may not be offered for sale or used within templates provided to third parties. If you use stock images depicting a person in connection with a sensitive or unflattering subject, you must include this or a similar statement: "for illustrative purposes only; individual is a model."

The Program Policies link takes you to a page restricting pornographic or otherwise unlawful uses, etc., describing these restrictions in detail.

Still Pending: image metadata is in the process of being included.

We truly appreciate your patience in waiting for these changes to be implemented. We will post another update when all is complete.

gillian vann · « **Reply #1233 on:** March 21, 2013, 17:39 »

well I've posted a reply at iS, but honestly I'm feeling like anyone who dares to complain will be discriminated against in terms of sales, search and file acceptance.

michaeldb · « **Reply #1234 on:** March 21, 2013, 21:02 »

Quote from: Ploink on March 21, 2013, 08:53

Quote from: gostwyck on March 21, 2013, 08:47
SS review times are 'normal' as far as I'm concerned, sometimes very quick (a few hours) and sometimes a bit slow (2-3 days). Only 88K images have been approved in the last 7 days which is on the low side, previously they were regularly approving 110K+ images per week. There's nothing whatsoever to suggest that they are 'stressed'.

I respectfully beg to differ, I have two batches (both editorials) sitting there since Feb., 25th and another since March, 8th, respectively. There is also a thread on this in their forums: http://submit.shutterstock.com/forum/viewtopic.php?t=129097

I've been with SS since 2006 and this is the first time I'm waiting longer than seven days for commercial or two days for editorial photos - something is definitely different than it was before...

I just looked at the SS forum "General Shutterstock Submit Discussion" and the top 3 threads are ALL about long review times at SS. One has 81 posts. In the Illustrators Forum, a thread on the subject of long review times has 61 posts, three times as many posts as any other thread on the first page.

Personally, I have 4 vectors waiting for review at SS since February 25. I have been at SS since 2005 and nothing remotely like this has happened there as far as I can recall. If this isn't a sign of stress on the SS reviewing system, what would be?

stockastic · « **Reply #1235 on:** March 21, 2013, 21:12 »

Things have definitely changed. A few days ago I emailed support, and haven't received an answer, and something tells me I won't get one.

Bad signs.

sharpshot · « **Reply #1236 on:** March 22, 2013, 03:26 »

The long review times on SS are probably because so many exclusives have left istock exclusivity recently. Hopefully it will be temporary but I'm not that bothered about review times.

tickstock · « **Reply #1237 on:** March 22, 2013, 09:25 »

luissantos84 · « **Reply #1238 on:** March 22, 2013, 09:29 »

the reviews are huge for over 1 year, maybe more, not because of exclusives, its a decision from SS, there is no other explanation

p.s. please go and minus my post because I have said something that is not happening for months or you guys can get a life

jjneff · « **Reply #1239 on:** March 22, 2013, 09:42 »

I laid out my concern on "commercial use" after Lobo asked me to explain. Go ahead and read it on the thread, we will see what happens to me :-)

cobalt · « **Reply #1240 on:** March 22, 2013, 10:45 »

You explained it very well. Nothing bad will happen to you

It is strange though that the obvious needs to be explained at all. 12 dollars for potentailly millions of small to medium business users is just an unacceptable deal. It is a free promotion deal, even bigger than with Microsoft.

I would gladly volunteer files if they would let me, but it does look like they want to continue doing deals like this in the future.

Poncke · « **Reply #1241 on:** March 22, 2013, 12:56 »

Quote from: gostwyck on March 21, 2013, 08:47

Quote from: michaeldb on March 19, 2013, 13:44
A few other signs of success:
-lots of MSG posters are suddenly asking questions about submitting to sites other than iS, some have said that they are newly independent escapees from iS
-at SS, review times are longer than they have ever been, and the whole submission/review process seems to show signs of being stressed (I have been there since 2005 and I have never seen anything like it), could be caused by a flood images as ex-iS exclusives submit their whole ports to SS? DT review times are also very long.
-iS has hired a consulting group apparently to try to find out what is wrong (they might not have done that if nothing is wrong)
-some MSG posts have said that forum participation at iS has fallen dramatically. I wouldn't know, I started at iS in 2005 and am a gold illustrator, but I don't submit there any more or go to the site very often.

SS review times are 'normal' as far as I'm concerned, sometimes very quick (a few hours) and sometimes a bit slow (2-3 days). Only 88K images have been approved in the last 7 days which is on the low side, previously they were regularly approving 110K+ images per week. There's nothing whatsoever to suggest that they are 'stressed'.

Editorial taking 21 days, I am at two weeks for normal images. The forum is full of people reporting insane long review times. SS has said the queues are longer due to unforeseen issues.

michaeldb · « **Reply #1242 on:** March 22, 2013, 18:00 »

Quote from: Poncke on March 22, 2013, 12:56

Quote from: gostwyck on March 21, 2013, 08:47
Quote from: michaeldb on March 19, 2013, 13:44
A few other signs of success:
-lots of MSG posters are suddenly asking questions about submitting to sites other than iS, some have said that they are newly independent escapees from iS
-at SS, review times are longer than they have ever been, and the whole submission/review process seems to show signs of being stressed (I have been there since 2005 and I have never seen anything like it), could be caused by a flood images as ex-iS exclusives submit their whole ports to SS? DT review times are also very long.
-iS has hired a consulting group apparently to try to find out what is wrong (they might not have done that if nothing is wrong)
-some MSG posts have said that forum participation at iS has fallen dramatically. I wouldn't know, I started at iS in 2005 and am a gold illustrator, but I don't submit there any more or go to the site very often.

SS review times are 'normal' as far as I'm concerned, sometimes very quick (a few hours) and sometimes a bit slow (2-3 days). Only 88K images have been approved in the last 7 days which is on the low side, previously they were regularly approving 110K+ images per week. There's nothing whatsoever to suggest that they are 'stressed'.
Editorial taking 21 days, I am at two weeks for normal images. The forum is full of people reporting insane long review times. SS has said the queues are longer due to unforeseen issues.

I guess the next thing we see now is a post by an iS cheerleader saying that the cause is 'ebb and flow'.

tickstock · « **Reply #1243 on:** March 22, 2013, 18:15 »

C0rnholio · « **Reply #1244 on:** March 22, 2013, 23:02 »

My SS wait times are as usual - around 5-6 days.

Pinocchio · « **Reply #1245 on:** March 24, 2013, 08:12 »

This saga is a long way from over; one unhappy contributor summed the situation up in a nutshell (my bold):

"Posted By gladassfanny:

Actually Lobo, Trust Is the crux of the main complaint. Contributors trusted iStock/Getty to do the right thing when representing them. The Getty/Google deal squandered that trust. Since the deal was revealed (actually unmasked), a lot of dancing has taken place on the part of the company.

The changes in the licensing agreement remind me of applying lipstick to a pig to make it look better. It is still a pig when one is finished.

The deal is the deal, and it is an extremely bad one for contributors and for the industry.

Your game, your rules, but the Google Drive deal writes a book about the practices of Getty/iStock and it is not a positive one."

Here's the permalink: http://www.istockphoto.com/forum_messages.php?threadid=352443&messageid=6864225

I'm surprised this post has survived this long. It will be interesting to see if iStock has the courage to deal with this honestly.

Regards

Sean Locke Photography · « **Reply #1246 on:** March 24, 2013, 09:08 »

Cobalt wrote: "Google bought a license. The RF license does not expire."

One point - the regular IS license does not expire. We do not know what the license to Google consists of, and they refuse to tell us.

polar · « **Reply #1247 on:** March 24, 2013, 10:11 »

Quote from: sjlocke on March 24, 2013, 09:08

Cobalt wrote: "Google bought a license. The RF license does not expire."

One point - the regular IS license does not expire. We do not know what the license to Google consists of, and they refuse to tell us.

I know I've read several times that the Google license is "time-limited" but I've never seen any information from Getty about how limited "time-limited" is.

Someone posted on iStock in January that his/her statement read:

"Posted Fri Jan 11 5:46AM
I found some of my Photograper's Choice RF images added to Google drive.
I checked the Getty statements to see any purchase and I found them:
Product Type: Premium Access Time Limited
Customer Name: Google eCommerce & Google Dri"

http://www.istockphoto.com/forum_messages.php?threadid=350439&messageid=6817023

cuppacoffee · « **Reply #1248 on:** March 24, 2013, 10:47 »

Customer Name: Google eCommerce & Google Dri...

Google eCommerce? Their Shopping portal?

Kenny · « **Reply #1249 on:** March 25, 2013, 00:18 »

Quote from: ShadySue on March 17, 2013, 09:12

Quote from: cuppacoffee on March 17, 2013, 08:52
Quote from: sjlocke on March 16, 2013, 18:47
Quote from: jsnover on March 15, 2013, 14:53
I thought Sean's images could be found via "tailgate" which produces no results now.

Yes, they are gone. I can not find any of my images - the pharmacy one, the student one, or the tailgate ones.

I wish they would keep us up to date on what the deal is.

Perhaps they must remove any images that are no longer on istock since their original agreement was with istock (or their partners)? No one has seen the actual, original agreement between google and istock that started this fiasco. Just speculating...
Allegedly the agreement was between Getty and Google - allegedly iStock admins didn't know anything about it until Sean pointed it out.
It would be a very unusual agreement that required images to be pulled if the person pulled their port. iStock's IT dept ~~could never cope~~ would be 'extremely challenged' to cope with that!

The tailgate photos are still available. Not sure about the pharmacy or student ones though. Screengrab: https://docs.google.com/file/d/0B496JyYdzyPLOW9mMFpYUUJXb0k/edit?pli=1

MicrostockGroup Sponsors

Author Topic: Google giving photos away free for commercial use and iStock agrees (Read 298444 times)

Lizard

tickstock

Lizard

tickstock

KB

dirkr

tickstock

StanRohrer

gillian vann

michaeldb

stockastic

sharpshot

tickstock

luissantos84

jjneff

cobalt

Poncke

michaeldb

tickstock

C0rnholio

Pinocchio

Sean Locke Photography

polar

cuppacoffee

Kenny

Related Topics

Sponsors

Microstock Poll Results

Sponsors