MicrostockGroup Sponsors


Author Topic: Input for a Getty petition  (Read 12624 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

« Reply #50 on: November 04, 2016, 10:40 »
+4
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. ;)

I do believe that you are correct. Many people will not know what is going on, exposing this is good. More buyers to sites that pay us fairer like SS and FT.


Shelma1

« Reply #51 on: November 04, 2016, 12:15 »
+2
Would anyone like to volunteer an image for the petition page? Something that captures the spirit...an artist painting? A photographer shooting? Someone grabbing money? I don't want to license something and then find out the person who shot it doesn't want the image associated with this cause.

And it can be OOF, have lighting issues or noise...rejected images are fine. ;)
« Last Edit: November 04, 2016, 13:39 by Shelma1 »

BD

« Reply #52 on: November 04, 2016, 15:05 »
+2
I dont have anything in my portfolio or hard drive that would be helpful. Another idea if someone had the individual images would be a picture of a photographer working in a photography studio (or something that would show the money and time artists put into images) and then the does not equal sign (≠) and than a picture of 2 cents. (These pictures all merged together into one).

« Reply #53 on: November 04, 2016, 16:33 »
+2
Just put white circle with red border with "Getty" caption in it and red line crossed over it....you know, like STOP Getty

« Reply #54 on: November 04, 2016, 18:28 »
+14
You can also send a petition to mosquitos asking not to bite you.
It doesn't make much sense, because biting people is simply what mosquitos do. Fleecing photographers is what Getty do, they have always done so and probably always will, it is their raison d'tre. You can't change their DNA.

Mosquitos need your blood, and so does Getty. I don't send petitions to mosquitos. I avoid their territory or use a mosquito net or a repellent.
« Last Edit: November 04, 2016, 18:34 by LDV81 »

« Reply #55 on: November 04, 2016, 19:27 »
0
Where can I find the link for the petition. Sorry, call me stupid, but I can not find it :).
In the meantime I found another one: https://www.change.org/p/photographers-more-commissions-from-microstock-agencies or is it this one?

SpaceStockFootage

  • Space, Sci-Fi and Astronomy Related Stock Footage

« Reply #56 on: November 04, 2016, 23:09 »
0
Where can I find the link for the petition. Sorry, call me stupid, but I can not find it :).
In the meantime I found another one: https://www.change.org/p/photographers-more-commissions-from-microstock-agencies or is it this one?

There isn't one. Not yet anyway.

« Reply #57 on: November 04, 2016, 23:35 »
+1
Would anyone like to volunteer an image for the petition page? Something that captures the spirit...an artist painting? A photographer shooting? Someone grabbing money? I don't want to license something and then find out the person who shot it doesn't want the image associated with this cause.

And it can be OOF, have lighting issues or noise...rejected images are fine. ;)

Let's check Highsmith collection ;D

SpaceStockFootage

  • Space, Sci-Fi and Astronomy Related Stock Footage

« Reply #58 on: November 04, 2016, 23:49 »
+2
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

I don't think that works. If they paid 1% of the purchase price, rather than 15% or whatever... but you sold ten trillion of them, then even if you're in a solid gold helicopter shooting aerials from space, then that's probably going to cover your cost of production. There's rarely a firm correlation between cost of production and total earnings. Yes, a trip to some exotic locations with models and props is going to cost more than a shot clip of a poorly framed manky cat down the road, but a well shot clip of a fancy building down the road isn't going to cost more than a poorly shot clip manky cat down the road... but the former is going to make you more money.

Don't get me wrong, I'm all for decent prices and decent commissions, but your suggested content for the petition just seems a bit 'wooly'.

« Reply #59 on: November 05, 2016, 02:36 »
+6
You can also send a petition to mosquitos asking not to bite you.
It doesn't make much sense, because biting people is simply what mosquitos do. Fleecing photographers is what Getty do, they have always done so and probably always will, it is their raison d'tre. You can't change their DNA.

Mosquitos need your blood, and so does Getty. I don't send petitions to mosquitos. I avoid their territory or use a mosquito net or a repellent.
I agree 100% that getty have shown they will not change. But a petition doesn't hurt in publicising what is going on to other contributors and members of the creative industry that use getty.

Shelma1

« Reply #60 on: November 05, 2016, 04:55 »
0
Would anyone like to volunteer an image for the petition page? Something that captures the spirit...an artist painting? A photographer shooting? Someone grabbing money? I don't want to license something and then find out the person who shot it doesn't want the image associated with this cause.

And it can be OOF, have lighting issues or noise...rejected images are fine. ;)

Let's check Highsmith collection ;D

Lol. I thought of contacting her just to get her express permission. But I don't want to confuse people.

SpaceStockFootage

  • Space, Sci-Fi and Astronomy Related Stock Footage

« Reply #61 on: November 05, 2016, 05:29 »
+2
You can also send a petition to mosquitos asking not to bite you.
It doesn't make much sense, because biting people is simply what mosquitos do. Fleecing photographers is what Getty do, they have always done so and probably always will, it is their raison d'tre. You can't change their DNA.

Mosquitos need your blood, and so does Getty. I don't send petitions to mosquitos. I avoid their territory or use a mosquito net or a repellent.

I'd sign that petition... I had dengue fever a couple of months back. I wouldn't recommend it.

ShadySue

  • There is a crack in everything
« Reply #62 on: November 05, 2016, 19:59 »
+6
What do we want?
          50%

Whan do we want it?
          Now.

« Reply #63 on: November 06, 2016, 05:56 »
0
Sorry if I missed something, but  what if anything does the petition say about the rights that Getty claims to our work on the new ASA?

ShadySue

  • There is a crack in everything
« Reply #64 on: November 06, 2016, 08:02 »
0
Sorry if I missed something, but  what if anything does the petition say about the rights that Getty claims to our work on the new ASA?
Do you have a link to a new ASA?
Or say which thread it's mentioned in on their forums (don't link directly!).

« Reply #65 on: November 07, 2016, 03:29 »
+1
When you log on you Istock account, select  Contributor tools, then Upload and in red there is this notification


"On December 1, 2016 the ASA will be amended. Click here to see the form of Agreements that will be effective December 1. If you upload content prior to December 1 or fail to terminate your current ASA by sending us notice before December 1, you will be deemed to have agreed to the new ASA. Please see our October 31 email for more information."
 
The huge range of rights Getty claim to our images concern me. It seems we now grant Getty unlimited user rights if we continue uploading?


ShadySue

  • There is a crack in everything
« Reply #66 on: November 07, 2016, 04:42 »
+1
Thanks for that. Sneaky to have the pop-up on upload, instead of on log-in which I seem to have to do more than once a day.
Odd I haven't seen mention of it on their forums (moribund, and they don't answer 'awkward' questions, so pretty pointless) or Fb groups.
I'll give it the once-over.

Later: I checked over the email of 31st October, and it just says a bland "Effective December 1, we will update the ASAs to reflect these changes.  You will see the link to the new ASA when you upload through the iStock Site starting near the end of October. We are updating things like how you contact us, how we contact you and when we calculate and pay subscription royalties. You will also see changes from the iStock Site to the Getty Images contributor site and ingestion platforms. In addition, we have added some guidance and requirements on drone usage. If you upload content prior to December 1 or fail to terminate your current ASA by sending us notice before December 1, you will be deemed to have agreed to the new ASA."  I had read that and didn't see any hint of a change to their rights.

Unfortunately, as they don't believe in 'Best Practice', they haven't set out the new ASA in parallel with old one, which often happens with better companies (of different types). So I'll need to copy and paste the old and new ASAs into parallel columns myself, which will take longer than I've got this morning. They really don't make things easy for us, and I'm sure it's deliberate.

Not only that, clicking on the link from Upload, I got to the indie ASA, and had to click another link to get to the exclusive ASA. What was that all about - incompetent coding or ...?
« Last Edit: November 07, 2016, 05:51 by ShadySue »

ShadySue

  • There is a crack in everything
« Reply #67 on: November 07, 2016, 06:49 »
0

The huge range of rights Getty claim to our images concern me. It seems we now grant Getty unlimited user rights if we continue uploading?


Can you please tell me which clause/s you're referring to?
It's a long and deliberately obfuscatory document!

I certainly hate that they can enter into deals whereby they can gain loads of money by agreeing to give our content away free/bnearly free ('Connect'), which has been noted here, on their forum and Fb groups. A previous ASA change allowed that, but in legalese whereby we didn't realise they'd be able to do it.
e.g. http://steelhouse.com/creative-getty-partnership/?esource=EML_GI_BAT_RTN_PRO_2016WK41_ENLTech.ALT_E1V2_non_none_151742_enUS_SEG  (they sneakily call this 'promotion' to pull it under the ASA we agreed to)
« Last Edit: November 07, 2016, 06:55 by ShadySue »

Shelma1

« Reply #68 on: November 07, 2016, 07:29 »
+1
I'm no attorney. But...

Section 3 a i seems to give iStock the right to sell prints and other products featuring our work.

The agreement refers to a rate card, but I don't see a rate card? Am I missing something?

Section 5 c talks about refunds, including refunds for royalties overpaid in a prior royalty period. That says to me that we'll be getting refunds every month as customers roll over their unused subscriptions and our royalties go down as they use more subs. So we can never count on the money we're paid every month because it can be clawed back the next month.

section 9 a iv prohibits keyword "doping," the spam issue we're having at Shutterstock.

Section 10 b seems to give iStock the right to pursue copyright infringement claims, and we give up that right, and agree to cooperate with iStock. iStock will supposedly split any proceeds with us pursuant to the invisible rate card, but the expenses they can deduct are "without limitation," so of course those expenses can come to 100%, which would mean we get nothing.

Section 10c seems to say that if iStock decides not to go after someone for infringement you can then go after them, but you have to split the money you win (after expenses) with iStock pursuant to the invisible rate card, which means for indie photographers you give iStock 85% of the money you're awarded after you pay your legal expenses.

Section 11 seems to say you agree to all this automatically unless you send them notification in writing.

ShadySue

  • There is a crack in everything
« Reply #69 on: November 07, 2016, 07:39 »
0
Sorry, I need to go out now and won't be back until night, but a lot of these clauses were already in the ASA.

ShadySue

  • There is a crack in everything
« Reply #70 on: November 07, 2016, 17:16 »
0
I'm no attorney. But...

Section 3 a i seems to give iStock the right to sell prints and other products featuring our work.
Same as existing ASA
Quote
The agreement refers to a rate card, but I don't see a rate card? Am I missing something?
https://contributors.gettyimages.com/article.aspx?article_id=4856
Quote
Section 5 c talks about refunds, including refunds for royalties overpaid in a prior royalty period. That says to me that we'll be getting refunds every month as customers roll over their unused subscriptions and our royalties go down as they use more subs. So we can never count on the money we're paid every month because it can be clawed back the next month.
That has been explained on the iS forum.
The new 5c is the same as the existing 5c.

Quote
section 9 a iv prohibits keyword "doping," the spam issue we're having at Shutterstock.
Same as existing ASA, and IMO a Good Thing if only it were enforced.


Quote
Section 10 b seems to give iStock the right to pursue copyright infringement claims, and we give up that right, and agree to cooperate with iStock. iStock will supposedly split any proceeds with us pursuant to the invisible rate card, but the expenses they can deduct are "without limitation," so of course those expenses can come to 100%, which would mean we get nothing.
Same wording as existing ASA
Quote
Section 10c seems to say that if iStock decides not to go after someone for infringement you can then go after them, but you have to split the money you win (after expenses) with iStock pursuant to the invisible rate card, which means for indie photographers you give iStock 85% of the money you're awarded after you pay your legal expenses.
Wording same as existing ASA, and IIRC this and the previous clause have been at the least 'substantively similar' since I joined in Nov 2006.
Quote
Section 11 seems to say you agree to all this automatically unless you send them notification in writing.
Well, yes, or else how would they know? Again same as existing ASA and at least 'substatively similar' for a long time

I'm not saying I like these clauses any more than you do, but it was the question of wider rights that Getty was apparently claiming with the new ASA (compared to the existing one) that I couldn't find.
« Last Edit: November 07, 2016, 18:47 by ShadySue »

Shelma1

« Reply #71 on: November 07, 2016, 18:12 »
0
I'm a bit concerned about section 5c in light of the new 2 royalties, and they should explain it to all contributors in an email that makes sense instead of hiding it in a forum they know few people visit and then prohibiting anyone from discussing it elsewhere, in their usual attempt to be as opaque and obfuscatory as humanly possible.

But it sounds like not much has changed in the agreement itself, then.

ShadySue

  • There is a crack in everything
« Reply #72 on: November 07, 2016, 18:16 »
+1
I'm a bit concerned about section 5c in light of the new 2 royalties, and they should explain it to all contributors in an email that makes sense ...
Don't hope for the impossible.

« Reply #73 on: November 08, 2016, 03:13 »
+1
Hi,

(3)
b. In addition to the foregoing grant iStock and its Distribution Partners may post, reproduce, modify, display, make derivative works or otherwise use any Accepted Content for their own business purposes relating to the promotion of the iStock Site, the Content and their distribution programs, and promote the licensing of Accepted Content (including, without limitation, the use of the Accepted Content and your registered and unregistered trademarks for marketing, sales and promotional efforts whether on the iStock Site or through third parties). No compensation shall be due to you for use of Accepted Content for such business purposes.

"Without limitation"
"third parties"
These concern me.




ShadySue

  • There is a crack in everything
« Reply #74 on: November 08, 2016, 04:32 »
0
Hi,

(3)
b. In addition to the foregoing grant iStock and its Distribution Partners may post, reproduce, modify, display, make derivative works or otherwise use any Accepted Content for their own business purposes relating to the promotion of the iStock Site, the Content and their distribution programs, and promote the licensing of Accepted Content (including, without limitation, the use of the Accepted Content and your registered and unregistered trademarks for marketing, sales and promotional efforts whether on the iStock Site or through third parties). No compensation shall be due to you for use of Accepted Content for such business purposes.

"Without limitation"
"third parties"
These concern me.

Quite, but they are in the existing ASA, and as I pointed out in post #67 above, that's what lets them enter into deals like that with Steelhouse, whereby they no doubt get a huge amount of money from letting Steelhouse etc give away our images, but we get literally fractions of a cent per use.

Again, I thought some concern had been expressed about the new (upcoming) ASA.


 

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