MicrostockGroup
Agency Based Discussion => iStockPhoto.com => Topic started by: brm1949 on February 27, 2013, 12:26
-
So I guess, since there is nothing new on the subject, that istock is just going to let this slide and expect everyone to accept it as policy. Sad, this does not bode well as it will effect all other agencies over time. That's my opinion, I have nothing to back it up except their refusal to give any hint that it's not so.
-
They DID say in the last "newsletter" that they are still working on it...
OX
...yeah right
-
They DID say in the last "newsletter" that they are still working on it...
They're working on it, but not in any meaningful way. They'll eventually come back to the table and brag about how they renegotiated a deal with Google to keep some meta data embedded in images and put some sort of license info into the Google Drive system. Maybe a checkbox you have to click when you insert an image into a doc that says you read some terms about what you can and can't do with the images, which of course no one will read.
They won't change the royalty paid out, and they won't change the license they're selling to Google, which will still include redistribution rights. But the changes to the license visibility and meta inclusion will quiet people down enough that this will eventually just blow over.
-
Thats why I started the thread, I don't want it to blow away.
-
Inside Getty/IS, this is now ancient history. They're already on to the next big deal.
-
No, they did answer and it was giving Sean a 30 removal notice. This will be the only real answer regarding this issue. And it has really quited down dissent. Worked like a charm. Along with locking down the thread and only allowing * cat questions and answers.
Google is cutthroat and doesn't care about screwing us over. And they have alot in common with getty/is
-
and no doubt in the iS forums there'll be a bunch of people saying "thank you" for whatever news comes next. I don't get those people, why are they thanking Lobo for saying NOTHING?!
-
Unfortunately brm1949 this is what Getty want. Getty has made the deal and iStock says what he wants Getty. Basically nothing, waiting for the waters to calm.
Is a matter of little importance, and Getty as Google, did not say anything, they are engaged in other business to make money, who cares about their contributors?
Eventually people get tired and think of something else.
But all is not negative, for the first time many have talked about this deal and Getty has not received good publicity. Someone left iStock, and many have deactivated their bestseller. Some, such as the exclusive, are committed to stay because their earnings depend almost entirely on iStock, but are looking for a plan B.
Now depend on us; we must sustain only agencies which undertake more fairly with us... (if there are).
-
Yes, but there are a lot of people noticeably absent from the forums now, I've never seen them so quiet - normally some of those threads would have several hundred replies by now, instead they've got a few tens.
I suspect it's not just that people have been frightened into silence by what happened to Sean. I think a lot of people have now had enough and can see that they're not going to get anywhere arguing on this issue and so are now busy working on their exit strategy.
-
Getty is going to send a news letter to IS contributors soon , basically it is just about some improvement in wording here http://support.google.com/drive/bin/answer.py?hl=en&p=docs_image_search&answer=179622 (http://support.google.com/drive/bin/answer.py?hl=en&p=docs_image_search&answer=179622)
Before going to IS the contributor response has been tested on closed Flickr / “Getty Images Contributors” forum
-
I just looked at that change based on Kenny's posting in the other thread. The problem is that the search results don't include any license information at all (I just search for a stock photo for a Google doc). So I marked the help page as not helpful as it was incomplete.
-
Getty is going to send a news letter to IS contributors soon , basically it is just about some improvement in wording here [url]http://support.google.com/drive/bin/answer.py?hl=en&p=docs_image_search&answer=179622[/url] ([url]http://support.google.com/drive/bin/answer.py?hl=en&p=docs_image_search&answer=179622[/url])
Before going to IS the contributor response has been tested on closed Flickr / “Getty Images Contributors” forum
Did they mention anything about leaving the EXIF data intact?
-
they are "working on it"
-
they are "working on it"
Lobo, 21.02:
First, we would like to thank you for your continued patience in this process. Getty Images and Google have been working very closely together over the past few weeks to resolve your concerns with the presentation of your content in Google Drive and we are in full agreement about the importance of protecting your intellectual property. We are in the process of working together to refine the messaging around end user rights and restrictions, as well as to ensure that the metadata is associated with the images in Google Drive. This work is in progress and we are looking forward to spelling out all of the changes for you as they are completed in the near future.
http://www.istockphoto.com/forum_messages.php?threadid=351629&page=1 (http://www.istockphoto.com/forum_messages.php?threadid=351629&page=1)
Where 'near future' is redefined by iS, like 'soon', 'tomorrow' or 'this week'.
-
Thanks for the updates.