Author Topic: Input for a Getty petition (Read 21058 times)

Recards · « **Reply #25 on:** November 03, 2016, 10:23 »

Jonathan Klein
Co-Founder and Chairman

Jonathan D. Klein was the CEO of the global digital media company Getty Images, Inc., the premier creator and distributor of visual communications worldwide since he co-founded the Company in March 1995. At the end of 2015, Jonathan stepped up to the role of Co-Founder and Chairman.

http://press.gettyimages.com/executives/jonathan-klein/

His name I found in another useful case Highsmith vs Getty:
https://consumermediallc.files.wordpress.com/2016/08/highsmith-v-getty-images.pdf

panicAttack · « **Reply #26 on:** November 03, 2016, 10:28 »

I will be first to sign that petition as well as I was for the SS one

We have to try something, agree on that, but unfortunately as Rose Tinted Glasses sad, don't expect anything from them.

alno · « **Reply #27 on:** November 03, 2016, 10:33 »

Istock is a unique company. They are surely not caring about their or stock market future, they act as a too tired old owner of some crowded touristic place cafe which would collect some revenue almost in any case.
Their percentage is the highest and their contributor site is complete mess.

They are NOT partners and I'm quite sure they wouldn't care about any petition, it's almost like signing petition against North Korean authorities. But together we can attract a lot of buyers attention. Probably they would simply pick another agency with about the same prices next time. Modern socially responsible
business is not very fond of slavery and its similars. Me and my husband will sign that. Thank you for your effort, Shelma1.

Shelma1 · « **Reply #28 on:** November 03, 2016, 10:38 »

Quote from: Ilyas on November 03, 2016, 10:23

Jonathan Klein
Co-Founder and Chairman

Jonathan D. Klein was the CEO of the global digital media company Getty Images, Inc., the premier creator and distributor of visual communications worldwide since he co-founded the Company in March 1995. At the end of 2015, Jonathan stepped up to the role of Co-Founder and Chairman.

http://press.gettyimages.com/executives/jonathan-klein/

His name I found in another useful case Highsmith vs Getty:
https://consumermediallc.files.wordpress.com/2016/08/highsmith-v-getty-images.pdf

Yes, it looks like he stepped up to Chairman when Airey was named CEO.

Shelma1 · « **Reply #29 on:** November 03, 2016, 10:47 »

Quote from: Rose Tinted Glasses on November 03, 2016, 10:19

slander

Slander: "...making false and damaging statements about (someone)."

False is the operative word there.

Who's said anything false?

Buyers do care...I'm one of them and have been for more than three decades, since the days of Tony Stone. Many others here are buyers too, are friends and colleagues of buyers, know buyers who are photographers, videographers and illustrators on the side (like me).

Your name is a misnomer...there's nothing rose colored about the glasses you see the world through.

Rose Tinted Glasses · « **Reply #30 on:** November 03, 2016, 10:49 »

Quote from: panicAttack on November 03, 2016, 10:28

I will be first to sign that petition as well as I was for the SS one

We have to try something, agree on that, but unfortunately as Rose Tinted Glasses sad, don't expect anything from them.

No I don't expect anything from them. I have been with them since day one when images were actually worth something and an agency represented the artist, then it slowly became representing the image and now the F*Kcwads call them assets as if they own them outright. Why do you think I use RTG as a name on this site, I am under no illusions of what this industry will do next either from GI or any other agency. Being a stock artist was once upon a time a great place to be, but my gut tells me it's not the place to be in the very near future. The writing was on the wall with the proliferation of microstock and the ease in which one could suddenly become a "professional".

You can call it what you want, sad, negative, sarcastic, buzzkill, but it's the reality, either you swallow that bitter pill and accept it or you don't.

I stood my ground years ago with one agency because I did not think 0.25c was fair.

For me it's simple stand your ground for what you believe to be right, but signing a petition it not going to even make them flinch.

Rose Tinted Glasses · « **Reply #31 on:** November 03, 2016, 10:56 »

Quote from: Shelma1 on November 03, 2016, 10:47

Quote from: Rose Tinted Glasses on November 03, 2016, 10:19
slander

Slander: "...making false and damaging statements about (someone)."

False is the operative word there.

Who's said anything false?

Buyers do care...I'm one of them and have been for more than three decades, since the days of Tony Stone. Many others here are buyers too, are friends and colleagues of buyers, know buyers who are photographers, videographers and illustrators on the side (like me).

Your name is a misnomer...there's nothing rose colored about the glasses you see the world through.

So you are basically saying that as a buyer you buy images from micros that you know pay a rate of 0.25c to 0.38c to the talent yet you don't purchase from the likes of the agencies that sell imagery for a higher price and pay the talent a higher royalty rate? << because you care. I know if I was a buyer and wanted RF I would only go to micros, and if I needed RM I would then have a budget and go to the appropriate agencies. Why would you pay full retail if you did not have to? Oh right because you care. Give us a break.

If buyers cared micros would not have flourished and macros been in decline.

FWIW there are many false statements on here about IS/GI.

I am only suggesting that GI does not care about photographers, their track record speaks for itself.

And my name is not a misnomer, it's an antonym. But I do see you have rtg if you think you can change GI. Good luck with that.

You obviously did not learn anything from the misfortune of a well know photographer on this forum who decided to challenge and poke the bear. He is just one of many that they dispose of.

Shelma1 · « **Reply #32 on:** November 03, 2016, 11:12 »

Quote from: Rose Tinted Glasses on November 03, 2016, 10:56

Quote from: Shelma1 on November 03, 2016, 10:47
Quote from: Rose Tinted Glasses on November 03, 2016, 10:19
slander

Slander: "...making false and damaging statements about (someone)."

False is the operative word there.

Who's said anything false?

Buyers do care...I'm one of them and have been for more than three decades, since the days of Tony Stone. Many others here are buyers too, are friends and colleagues of buyers, know buyers who are photographers, videographers and illustrators on the side (like me).

Your name is a misnomer...there's nothing rose colored about the glasses you see the world through.

So you are basically saying that as a buyer you buy images from micros that you know pay a rate of 0.25c to 0.38c to the talent yet you don't purchase from the likes of the agencies that sell imagery for a higher price and pay the talent a higher royalty rate? << because you care. I know if I was a buyer and wanted RF I would only go to micros, and if I needed RM I would then have a budget and go to the appropriate agencies. Why would you pay full retail if you did not have to? Oh right because you care. Give us a break.

If buyers cared micros would not have flourished and macros been in decline.

So you just make things up, since I didn't say any of that but you'll go ahead and put words in my mouth anyway. Ad agencies (I'm a Creative Director) are the ones who pay the most for images from Getty and SS. We're also the ones who still pay tens or hundreds of thousands for custom shoots. We fight every day for bigger budgets. So.

As I've said before, microstock opened up new markets for amateurs to license work to smaller buyers. Then the pros decided to jump in and undercut themselves. Somehow in your mind that's my fault. Whatevs.

It's really unfortunate what they did to Sean. Totally sucks. But I'm not in his position. I make at iStock in a year what I make in advertising in 2 weeks. Will I like losing that income? No. It's my extra Christmas bonus. But if I fight I have a chance to keep my Christmas bonus, and if I don't it will fade to nothing come November 25. What is there to lose?

LDV81 · « **Reply #33 on:** November 03, 2016, 11:38 »

Quote from: Shelma1 on November 03, 2016, 06:08

Who should we address the petition to?

To Santa Claus.
A positive outcome would be more likely in this case.

Rose Tinted Glasses · « **Reply #34 on:** November 03, 2016, 11:56 »

Quote from: LDV81 on November 03, 2016, 11:38

Quote from: Shelma1 on November 03, 2016, 06:08
Who should we address the petition to?

To Santa Claus.
A positive outcome would be more likely in this case.

My point exactly.

Shelma1 · « **Reply #35 on:** November 03, 2016, 12:00 »

Quote from: Rose Tinted Glasses on November 03, 2016, 10:56

So you are basically saying that as a buyer you buy images from micros that you know pay a rate of 0.25c to 0.38c to the talent yet you don't purchase from the likes of the agencies that sell imagery for a higher price and pay the talent a higher royalty rate? << because you care. I know if I was a buyer and wanted RF I would only go to micros, and if I needed RM I would then have a budget and go to the appropriate agencies. Why would you pay full retail if you did not have to? Oh right because you care. Give us a break.

^^^That comes a lot closer to slander than anything anyone else has said here.

Rose Tinted Glasses · « **Reply #36 on:** November 03, 2016, 12:09 »

Quote from: Shelma1 on November 03, 2016, 11:12

Quote from: Rose Tinted Glasses on November 03, 2016, 10:56
Quote from: Shelma1 on November 03, 2016, 10:47
Quote from: Rose Tinted Glasses on November 03, 2016, 10:19
slander

Slander: "...making false and damaging statements about (someone)."

False is the operative word there.

Who's said anything false?

Buyers do care...I'm one of them and have been for more than three decades, since the days of Tony Stone. Many others here are buyers too, are friends and colleagues of buyers, know buyers who are photographers, videographers and illustrators on the side (like me).

Your name is a misnomer...there's nothing rose colored about the glasses you see the world through.

So you are basically saying that as a buyer you buy images from micros that you know pay a rate of 0.25c to 0.38c to the talent yet you don't purchase from the likes of the agencies that sell imagery for a higher price and pay the talent a higher royalty rate? << because you care. I know if I was a buyer and wanted RF I would only go to micros, and if I needed RM I would then have a budget and go to the appropriate agencies. Why would you pay full retail if you did not have to? Oh right because you care. Give us a break.

If buyers cared micros would not have flourished and macros been in decline.

So you just make things up, since I didn't say any of that but you'll go ahead and put words in my mouth anyway. Ad agencies (I'm a Creative Director) are the ones who pay the most for images from Getty and SS. We're also the ones who still pay tens or hundreds of thousands for custom shoots. We fight every day for bigger budgets. So.

As I've said before, microstock opened up new markets for amateurs to license work to smaller buyers. Then the pros decided to jump in and undercut themselves. Somehow in your mind that's my fault. Whatevs.

It's really unfortunate what they did to Sean. Totally sucks. But I'm not in his position. I make at iStock in a year what I make in advertising in 2 weeks. Will I like losing that income? No. It's my extra Christmas bonus. But if I fight I have a chance to keep my Christmas bonus, and if I don't it will fade to nothing come November 25. What is there to lose?

Comparing a custom shoot and purchasing stock is like comparing apples and oranges.

BTW, I did not make anything up, it was a question. It had an answer which I did not get. Call it semantics if you will. I certainly hope you pay more attention as a Creative Director.

Justanotherphotographer · « **Reply #37 on:** November 03, 2016, 12:10 »

Quote from: LDV81 on November 03, 2016, 11:38

Quote from: Shelma1 on November 03, 2016, 06:08
Who should we address the petition to?

To Santa Claus.
A positive outcome would be more likely in this case.

I don't expect any outcome except publicising the way Getty treats its contributors. Which is plenty.

cathyslife · « **Reply #38 on:** November 03, 2016, 12:10 »

Ug, I really miss the minus vote button.

ShadySue · « **Reply #39 on:** November 03, 2016, 12:11 »

What slander? While what is said may be 'damaging to their reputation', most, if not all, is demonstrably 'not false'.They don't care about their reputation and haven't for years.
I do agree that if someone can't stomach a company's policies, they should cancel their contract or not upload wherever in the first place.

dpimborough · « **Reply #40 on:** November 03, 2016, 12:16 »

Nothing ventured nothing gained I say.

To the naysayers I'd say how do you know it won't be worthwhile if you don't try?

Put up a petition I'd sign it!

dpimborough · « **Reply #41 on:** November 03, 2016, 12:19 »

Quote from: Shelma1 on November 03, 2016, 12:00

Quote from: Rose Tinted Glasses on November 03, 2016, 10:56
So you are basically saying that as a buyer you buy images from micros that you know pay a rate of 0.25c to 0.38c to the talent yet you don't purchase from the likes of the agencies that sell imagery for a higher price and pay the talent a higher royalty rate? << because you care. I know if I was a buyer and wanted RF I would only go to micros, and if I needed RM I would then have a budget and go to the appropriate agencies. Why would you pay full retail if you did not have to? Oh right because you care. Give us a break.

^^^That comes a lot closer to slander than anything anyone else has said here.

Technically as soon as it's in writing it's libel

Rose Tinted Glasses · « **Reply #42 on:** November 03, 2016, 12:19 »

Quote from: ShadySue on November 03, 2016, 12:11

What slander? While what is said may be 'damaging to their reputation', most, if not all, is demonstrably 'not false'.They don't care about their reputation and haven't for years.
I do agree that if someone can't stomach a company's policies, they should cancel their contract or not upload wherever in the first place.

GI is it's own worst enemy in the "damaging to their reputation" department. But yes, over time their has actually been a lot of non factual comments about GI on this forum.

One thing for sure, I think most will agree that GI is an ugly company and has a very low morale from it's "asset" suppliers. I know if I had a better alternative that produced the income it does for me, I'd be gone in a heartbeat.

mlwp · « **Reply #43 on:** November 03, 2016, 12:45 »

I left Getty and iStock awhile back, can't say I miss either one.

My only advice, for what it's worth, is that if you are going to sign a petition don't do so in anonymity....use your real name, let them know who you are.....carries more weight that way.

Of course, by doing so you may run the risk of retribution but is that the type of company you really want to work with/for if that should happen?

Stern · « **Reply #44 on:** November 03, 2016, 13:06 »

Enough to find out who is who. Write a petition. Even if it is, it will consist of only one sentence:

Please note our interest, since we believe that these royalty rates do not cover our costs of production and does not bring profit

Shelma1 · « **Reply #45 on:** November 03, 2016, 13:11 »

Just waiting for the translations.

If we're closing in on 1,000 signatures for spammers I can't imagine how many we'll get for this.

dirkr · « **Reply #46 on:** November 04, 2016, 02:16 »

I think asking them to keep their current royalty rates is by far not enough. 15%? That's why I left them years ago.

A petition asking them to pay 50%, remove all shady partner deals, pay a fair subs rate, introduce real time reporting - that's something I would sign.
But with no expectation of any result...

Thomas from France · « **Reply #47 on:** November 04, 2016, 03:18 »

Quote from: Shelma1 on November 03, 2016, 13:11

Just waiting for the translations.

If we're closing in on 1,000 signatures for spammers I can't imagine how many we'll get for this.

Ok for a french translation, but what is the exact content of the petition ?

wordplanet · « **Reply #48 on:** November 04, 2016, 10:13 »

Happy to sign the petition.

Also, Shelma, once a large group of people sign, do you have the ability to put the fact that xx thousand artists signed a petition, with a brief description of the petition, on PR newswire?

Can you set it up so people see it on Facebook and can sign there and get their friends and followers to sign? I think that it can come from a concerned group of buyers, sellers, artists, business people, etc. all concerned about not seeing artists treated like peons. IMHO, the fact that they are reducing commissions to as low as 2 cents will outrage people beyond those who supply Getty/iStock.

Great idea. Hope my input helps. Happy to brainstorm with you and all those here who believe that the only way we can take any control of how our images are sold and how we are treated is to band together. Ignore the nay-sayers. We can do this together.

The petition may not succeed, but we'll surely fail if we don't try. Excellent idea.

Shelma1 · « **Reply #49 on:** November 04, 2016, 10:34 »

There's a button on the petition page that anyone can use to share it on Facebook.

I'll look into PR Newswire.

I do believe all kinds of creative people will be outraged.

MicrostockGroup Sponsors

Author Topic: Input for a Getty petition (Read 21058 times)

Recards

panicAttack

alno

Shelma1

Shelma1

Rose Tinted Glasses

Rose Tinted Glasses

Shelma1

LDV81

Rose Tinted Glasses

Shelma1

Rose Tinted Glasses

Justanotherphotographer

cathyslife

ShadySue

dpimborough

dpimborough

Rose Tinted Glasses

mlwp

Stern

Shelma1

dirkr

Thomas from France

wordplanet

Shelma1

Related Topics

Sponsors

Microstock Poll Results

Sponsors