+286

A friendof mine is an editor. He is going to pass the link for Dan's article onto some photojournalists. They are going to run some articles.

Thanks Mark

Just deactivated all 56 of my model released images.  More to come tomorrow.

I think it would be interesting to see what people are putting in the reason box.  I'll start off with my stated reason:

"Removed to protect IP rights from being usurped by Getty and others."

Deactivated my 7 people images.

Looks like Istock has set a new Guinness World Record:

"Most stock images deleted by contributors in a single month."

Quote from: w7lwi on January 23, 2013, 17:54

Just deactivated all 56 of my model released images.  More to come tomorrow.

I think it would be interesting to see what people are putting in the reason box.  I'll start off with my stated reason:

"Removed to protect IP rights from being usurped by Getty and others."

My understanding is that nobody but you sees what's in that box.

Email support directly and tell them why you have deleted them. If you are professional, polite and courteous there can't be any come backs. I emailed them and told them why. I also put a question in the email to make them respond so that I knew they got the message!

Hi Sue,

Within 24 hours. The comment back from them was "thank you for your comment" they then went on and answered my question
Mark

Here's a post from absolutely_frenchy saying her 662 images and illustrations will be gone on D-Day

Quote from: jsnover on January 24, 2013, 11:26

Here's a post from absolutely_frenchy saying his 662 images and illustrations will be gone on D-Day

She's female and a gifted illustrator and photog.

And one of the people I think of as an Istock exclusive fixture.  I can't believe that they are witnessing the loss of exclusives of this caliber and doing nothing about it.  Boggles the mind, but then, so do most other things they've done the past couple of years...

Quote from: dhanford on January 24, 2013, 11:41

Quote from: jsnover on January 24, 2013, 11:26

Here's a post from absolutely_frenchy saying his 662 images and illustrations will be gone on D-Day

She's female and a gifted illustrator and photog.

And one of the people I think of as an Istock exclusive fixture.  I can't believe that they are witnessing the loss of exclusives of this caliber and doing nothing about it.  Boggles the mind, but then, so do most other things they've done the past couple of years...

I think of her more as one of the rocks on which iStock was built. I always admired her work tremendously, from the time I joined almost nine years ago, now. It seems the foundations are crumbling.

Regarding the StockXpert/Thinstock deactivation it going to take a while....
see e-mail below:

hank you very much for your email.

Your request has been received and will be processed within 30 days. You
will receive an email notification once your royalties are deposited to
your Moneybookers account.

As per your stockxpert artist supply agreement, it may take up to 90 days
for all files to be removed. Any royalties earned during the transition
period will be paid to you promptly.

If there is anything else we can help you with, don't hesitate to contact
us.

Regards,

Darek

iStockphoto Team

Quote from: jsnover on January 24, 2013, 11:26

Here's a post from absolutely_frenchy saying his 662 images and illustrations will be gone on D-Day

She's female and a gifted illustrator and photog.

Sorry about the gender mixup - I looked at an image to see if the copyright had a real name, but it didn't. I know the work and the member name but haven't ever "known" the person. It's not only the talent going but the fact that she's been around for 10 years and now has to exit. As I have contemplated the possibility that I will have to do the same, the fact that iStock was my first stock site and how much history I'd leave behind bothers me a lot. Sentimentality...

I was all set to post a link to this article on my Facebook page, until one thing stopped me cold - I have no images on any of the linked sites, so how is this to my benefit? Or, for that matter, how does it benefit most independents and ex-exclusives? Most of the links point to private sites that individual microstockers have set up to sell their own work, and then there's the link to Warmpictures, an invitation only site that I was never invited to join. Why would I want to promote a site that I'm unable to join? If there were links to SS, DT, and Canstock, then it would make sense for me to promote this article, as I have a portfolio on those sites and they have a history of treating us fairly.

I realize all of the above sounds very self-serving, but microstock has become my livelihood, and so I need to look out for my own interests. I understand that we need to band together to work for the common good and to protect the future of microstock, and I want to do what I can to help, but from what I can see this article has the potential to benefit only a select few.

I will be deactivating a minimum of 100 images from my not-so-large port.

Also, I have posted an article about the Deactivation threat from contributors. I have over 2000 followers on Twitter and nearly 1000 on Facebook, most of whom are graphic designers, bloggers, and fellow photographers. This article will be promoted through social media to spread the word to our target audience, and hopefully get the plight of artists recognized by the mainstream media.

Furthermore, as I wrote in the Selling Stock Direct Link Exchange thread, I have included a list of websites from which artists are selling their images direct from. I will have further thoughts in that forum about how to continue revealing how agencies treat artists, and the options buyers have for avoiding the agencies altogether.

http://www.warmpicture.com/blog/2013/01/21/artists-fight-back-d-day-for-istockphoto-and-google/