MicrostockGroup Sponsors


Author Topic: Input for a Getty petition  (Read 12627 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Shelma1

« on: November 03, 2016, 06:08 »
+11
Ok folks, we've seen that a petition can be effective. It's time for a petition to Getty. But we need everyone's input (anyone can write a petition, of course).

It's important that we keep the "ask" simple and send it to the right person. IMO we should simply request that Getty keep its current royalty structure and not reduce our subs royalties by 93% beginning November 25th, at the height of the holiday season.

What do you think?

Who should we address the petition to? Someone high up at Getty.


« Reply #1 on: November 03, 2016, 06:42 »
+3
I think we should adress that to the whole Getty group or the CEO.
And we need time to make this petition successful.
The petition should run long enough.



« Reply #2 on: November 03, 2016, 06:48 »
+8
I think we should organize that the petition is translated in the most native languages around the planet.
I can help to translate the german version.



« Reply #3 on: November 03, 2016, 06:56 »
+5
I think we should organize that the petition is translated in the most native languages around the planet.
I can help to translate the german version.
I in romanian..

« Reply #4 on: November 03, 2016, 06:59 »
+25
Seems like a total waste of time for non-exclusives.  I think deactivating images or closing accounts is more likely to make buyers look at other sites.  If istock can get away with 15% for so many years, they will always find enough mugs to supply them but hopefully they wont supply what buyers want and they will go elsewhere.

Shelma1

« Reply #5 on: November 03, 2016, 07:12 »
+6
We should have a separate thread for naysayers. ;)

Shelma1

« Reply #6 on: November 03, 2016, 07:22 »
+3
The petition: Addressed to Jonathan Klein? The milk, cream, cheese, yoghurt and meat without-the-cow guy?

« Reply #7 on: November 03, 2016, 07:25 »
+3
We can make these versions now: :o

US / English supported by Shelma1
Romanian supported by Sebalos
German supported by r2d2
Russian supported by Ilyas
French supported by Thomas from France


« Last Edit: November 04, 2016, 03:27 by r2d2 »

« Reply #8 on: November 03, 2016, 07:32 »
+6
Russian on me

H2O

« Reply #9 on: November 03, 2016, 07:36 »
+10
Personally I think that though a Petition is a good idea, the reality of the situation is that Getty is over indebted, it can never pay the money it owes back to the banks and hedgefunds and they will know this, they will continue to run commission rates down to virtually nothing, (this is human nature for the thick people in Banks and Hedgefunds) in what is a desperate attempt to wring every last cent out of the company.

The mentality of the company shows this in taking away there forum, banning the + in it, stopping the deactivation and the list goes on, non of the other sites have done any of this.

The site is underinvested in and has a terrible search facility apart from the fact that it is badly designed.

But in the mean time the market will change, lets face it the three biggest sites are Shutterstock, Fotolia/Adobe and iStock/Getty, all SS and FA have to do is raise commission rates and it is the end for Getty, SS and FA are just biding their time.

I expect Getty to collapse at some time in the future owing all the contributors and there clients money and there will be no comeback with a Chapter 11 filing, once they have lost total trust the others will pick over the remains.

It is a great shame really.

Shelma1

« Reply #10 on: November 03, 2016, 07:49 »
+13
Getty may not wantor be ableto play ball. That's fine. If they collapse buyers will have to go elsewhere. But in the meantime they're still the #3 earner for many people (#2 for me) and the ONLY earner for others. The point is getting the word out that we will not accept 2 royalties. And letting buyers know the type of things Getty will do to the creative people that supply their product. Remember that their buyers are creative people too.

Please don't derail the thread. A petition will be written, and everyone has the choice to sign it or not. It doesn't stop you from deleting images or pulling your port, which are also perfectly great things to do. It's just another, public way to protest.

H2O

« Reply #11 on: November 03, 2016, 08:03 »
+3
Please don't derail the thread. A petition will be written, and everyone has the choice to sign it or not. It doesn't stop you from deleting images or pulling your port, which are also perfectly great things to do. It's just another, public way to protest.

I agree with you whole wholeheartedly, the more publicity you can get the better, especially to inform the buyers.

Probably a good way to do this would be to send a Press Release to the top Advertising and Design Agencies in America and Europe.

The buyers would be very interested to know what is going on at Getty.

« Reply #12 on: November 03, 2016, 08:13 »
+5
Yes I agree a petition can't hurt if only to publicise the way they treat their contributors.

The ask needs to either be to reverse the change to sub payment structure entirely or put in place a reasonable guaranteed minimum. For example same as SS's guaranteed minimum of 25c
« Last Edit: November 03, 2016, 08:18 by Justanotherphotographer »

« Reply #13 on: November 03, 2016, 08:15 »
+4
Getty's overall tactical behavior should be made clear in the petition.

Remove the delete option and than months later reduce commissions.
There ironic emails.
The prohibition to quote from there forums.
Gettys payment intransparency.
And so on and on....


ShadySue

  • There is a crack in everything
« Reply #14 on: November 03, 2016, 08:16 »
+4
Getty had a dreadful reputation here in the UK for the way they treated photographers  well before I signed up with IS at the end of 2006. If even I knew about it, I'm pretty sure most agencies and buyers know.

« Reply #15 on: November 03, 2016, 08:18 »
+2
The petition: Addressed to Jonathan Klein? The milk, cream, cheese, yoghurt and meat without-the-cow guy?

If you do decide to send it to Mr Potato Head then it will need to be publicised on Facebook, Twitter and the like as he will just ignore it.  As far as I can tell he is "businessman" of the old school. A deal is not a deal unless you get one over on someone else, hearing any change has hurt the other party in a contract may only give him more pleasure.

« Reply #16 on: November 03, 2016, 08:24 »
+2
When the petition is ready? Itching to sign it

Shelma1

« Reply #17 on: November 03, 2016, 08:30 »
+2
Getty had a dreadful reputation here in the UK for the way they treated photographers  well before I signed up with IS at the end of 2006. If even I knew about it, I'm pretty sure most agencies and buyers know.

It has a bad rep in the U.S. too. Art directors consider them a bully. But now they have real competition in Adobe and SS, so this may just push buyers over the edge.

gyllens

« Reply #18 on: November 03, 2016, 08:52 »
+4
For non exclusives its waste of time, they spit on it and the  Lobo moron would probably eat it! ;D

« Reply #19 on: November 03, 2016, 09:04 »
+3
Should people who don't do business with istock/Getty sign the petition? Personally, I think that whatever they do directly affects ALL microstockers, but if it creates a hassle, I will pass. Would be happy to sign otherwise.

« Reply #20 on: November 03, 2016, 09:10 »
+20
I would sign the petition no problem. I am a believer in hitting from all sides, pulling ports and petition, targeting their buyers, etc.  But Getty is a beast, always has been. The thing we don't know is how far gone they are. That breadth would determine what, if any, wiggle room we have as contributors to affect change on them. I mean, what if they lose that billion $ lawsuit? Even a chunk of that, say $200M settlement, would in effect ruin them. A company will do a lot of disparate things, and cutting our commissions is at the top of the list.  A rabid dog kind of thing....... MUST HIT THEM FROM MULTIPLE ANGLES!!

I will also say this and maybe I'll get flamed.  I don't want to see Getty/Istock fail if we're able to get them to at least maintain their current rates. I say that video has to go up more than we get now, though.  Too many people are reliant on the income and, to those who do this full time as their main income, I don't want to see them lose that.  This is a hard business, a lot of work from all of us goes into shooting, production, editing, key wording, uploading, file management, etc.....it's an exhaustive process.  To have people lose an income over night is horrible.  I look at this as helping fellow artists survive rather than my own wish to see them fail....a part of me wants to be able to say, you reap what you sow. But it's bigger than me.

Shelma1

« Reply #21 on: November 03, 2016, 09:12 »
+3
Very well stated.

« Reply #22 on: November 03, 2016, 09:44 »
+5
We - designers, photographers, video and sound editors - invested our education, skills, experience to Getty.
We spend money for computers, cameras and other necessary hardware.
We pay lot of money for licensed design software such as Adobe CC, Illustrator plug-ins, Photoshop, AfterEffect etc.
Many are drawing every day and spend a lot for brushes, paints, paper also.
All this brings to Getty great income, but after all Getty values all our expences and labour only in #2cents and in some cases they dared even not to pay it.
It's completely despicable from Getty side.
Getty does not create any products to devalue my labour, my work so low. 


Shelma1

« Reply #23 on: November 03, 2016, 10:13 »
0
Is Dawn Airey the current CEO?
Claudia Micare...Director of Contributor Relations?
« Last Edit: November 03, 2016, 10:17 by Shelma1 »

Rose Tinted Glasses

« Reply #24 on: November 03, 2016, 10:19 »
+11
Keep a few things in mind...

Firstly, nobody but you is responsible for where you market your imagery and GI knows this.
Secondly, I am pretty sure they read this forum and see all the slander from a select few and would not doubt be just as glad to rid of you.
Thirdly, they are in total selling very close to a billion dollars, yes that is with a B, worth of imagery per year and they really don't need you.

For those of you who have been around long enough nobody or organization has been able to make Getty a happy place to be. And buyers have other concerns to worry about than our royalty rates, that is why SS is so successful, buyers don't care if you make 0.25c or 0.02c for the use of an image.

At the end of the day it is all about who you choose to market your images as we all have options and are not forced into any one agency. I stood my ground years ago and did not accept the terms of SS as I always thought 0.25c was a shame.

There is no right or wrong in this game, rather it's really more about what will you as an individual tolerate? And we will all tolerate different levels that is why microstock became so successful, supply and demand, images makers were more than happy to sell their work for pennies, albeit multiple times as the justification and buyers were more than happy to pay pennies. Buyers have never cared if you make 0.25c or 0.02c for a download, and I really don't see them caring any time soon. All buyers work within budgets that they generally try to keep to a minimum, and microstock has fed into this successfully.

Hate to say it and burst your bubble, but it's a love it or leave it situation and always has been.

Food for thought.
« Last Edit: November 03, 2016, 10:22 by Rose Tinted Glasses »


 

Related Topics

  Subject / Started by Replies Last post
2 Replies
2386 Views
Last post October 28, 2008, 04:11
by antoniodalbore
11 Replies
4206 Views
Last post November 11, 2008, 15:17
by madelaide
10 Replies
5376 Views
Last post September 02, 2009, 08:30
by Phil
1 Replies
1901 Views
Last post November 06, 2013, 05:36
by Ron
13 Replies
4008 Views
Last post November 08, 2019, 03:58
by alp1ne

Sponsors

Mega Bundle of 5,900+ Professional Lightroom Presets

Microstock Poll Results

Sponsors

3100 Posing Cards Bundle