Author Topic: Has Getty Invented a New Kind of Stupid? (Read 13255 times)

iStop · « **Reply #25 on:** May 12, 2014, 04:49 »

I know lots of larger commercial blogs do pay for images. They always have. And then you have the blogs of news sites and other media outlets that do pay for content too. If you have a blog that creates a revenue stream or supports a revenue stream then you have a budget for stock pictures.

But so far the claims by Getty and Shutterstock that the free images won't effect sales may not be proven wrong yet with supporting lost sales data because the information about the free images will take time to trickle down to all the web sites that are now buying their web use images. So give it a year and lots of web sites should start taking advantage of this free content. How can they not?

Also, to say that it is just blog sites that will stop buying pictures from this is not the entire picture. There are lots of images bought for all kinds of web use that will start using the free content instead. Why not? I would if I had a site that wouldn't be harmed by the added text from Getty. Money saved is money saved.

Sean Locke Photography · « **Reply #26 on:** May 12, 2014, 05:23 »

Quote from: Ron on May 12, 2014, 03:03

What happened to Tickstock (Audi 5000)? Did he get a conscious?

Check their past posts - hundreds all deleted ?!?

luissantos84 · « **Reply #27 on:** May 12, 2014, 05:25 »

Quote from: Sean Locke Photography on May 12, 2014, 05:23

Quote from: Ron on May 12, 2014, 03:03
What happened to Tickstock (Audi 5000)? Did he get a conscious?

Check their past posts - hundreds all deleted ?!?

he must have asked Tyler to do so

Sean Locke Photography · « **Reply #28 on:** May 12, 2014, 05:29 »

Some of them are still there...

luissantos84 · « **Reply #29 on:** May 12, 2014, 05:37 »

Quote from: Sean Locke Photography on May 12, 2014, 05:29

Some of them are still there...

oh I see, only saw a few pages...

Ron · « **Reply #30 on:** May 12, 2014, 06:15 »

Quote from: Sean Locke Photography on May 12, 2014, 05:23

Quote from: Ron on May 12, 2014, 03:03
What happened to Tickstock (Audi 5000)? Did he get a conscious?

Check their past posts - hundreds all deleted ?!?

Maybe Getty told him to cool it?

farbled · « **Reply #31 on:** May 12, 2014, 09:36 »

Quote from: BaldricksTrousers on May 12, 2014, 01:14

Quote from: farbled on May 11, 2014, 19:54
I sell a tonne to bloggers and this hasn't had any effect on my sales at all. Tempest in a teapot.
So you are directly contradicting the "fact" proclaimed by Oringer (and iStock) that microstock images are only sold for advertising and not for blogging, but you're not worried? Maybe your customers haven't cottoned on to the fact they're paying for free content yet.

Yes, I am. Because what affects me positively or negatively may be very different from what affects Jon. I also kind of resent that many seem to lump all bloggers (I am a blogger as well and I pay for the images that I very occasionally use that I can't do myself) into the "thieves" pile. There are many, many legitimate blogs out there that follow the rules and pay for licenses. Also, the same issues arise that would for any business that doesn't want to lose control of the content that they place on their site.

No, I am not worried yet. My sales are not impacted yet or impacted in a way directly attributable to the viewer. And I have my plan B if that happens, which I have stated in the long thread about this. I just happen to think that I won't need it.

Shelma1 · « **Reply #32 on:** May 12, 2014, 09:39 »

Quote from: Ron on May 12, 2014, 06:15

Quote from: Sean Locke Photography on May 12, 2014, 05:23
Quote from: Ron on May 12, 2014, 03:03
What happened to Tickstock (Audi 5000)? Did he get a conscious?

Check their past posts - hundreds all deleted ?!?

Maybe Getty told him to cool it?

Maybe Shutterstock threatened to sue?

Ron · « **Reply #33 on:** May 12, 2014, 09:57 »

Quote from: Shelma1 on May 12, 2014, 09:39

Quote from: Ron on May 12, 2014, 06:15
Quote from: Sean Locke Photography on May 12, 2014, 05:23
Quote from: Ron on May 12, 2014, 03:03
What happened to Tickstock (Audi 5000)? Did he get a conscious?

Check their past posts - hundreds all deleted ?!?

Maybe Getty told him to cool it?

Maybe Shutterstock threatened to sue?

For what?

cthoman · « **Reply #34 on:** May 12, 2014, 10:38 »

Quote from: Ron on May 12, 2014, 03:03

What happened to Tickstock (Audi 5000)? Did he get a conscious?

I guess Audi 5000 does mean you're out of here. I'm going to credit Vanilla Ice for coming up with that, but I'm not sure.

Sean Locke Photography · « **Reply #35 on:** May 12, 2014, 10:42 »

Quote from: cthoman on May 12, 2014, 10:38

Quote from: Ron on May 12, 2014, 03:03
What happened to Tickstock (Audi 5000)? Did he get a conscious?

I guess Audi 5000 does mean you're out of here. I'm going to credit Vanilla Ice for coming up with that, but I'm not sure.

I learned something new today!
"An adjective desribing one or more people who intend on leaving a particular place. Audi's model 5000 sedan was plagued with a problem charcterized by unintended acceleration, in which drivers' complained that the vehicle lurched forward when their foot was on the brake pedal. In reality, it turned out that the acclerator and brake pedals were unusually close together. This is why Audi 5000 is associated with leaving quickly, because that is what this vehicle did when some old fartknocker hit the gas instead of the brakes. "

cobalt · « **Reply #36 on:** May 12, 2014, 11:04 »

tickstock is gone???

What happened?

Ron · « **Reply #37 on:** May 12, 2014, 11:09 »

Quote from: Sean Locke Photography on May 12, 2014, 10:42

Quote from: cthoman on May 12, 2014, 10:38
Quote from: Ron on May 12, 2014, 03:03
What happened to Tickstock (Audi 5000)? Did he get a conscious?

I guess Audi 5000 does mean you're out of here. I'm going to credit Vanilla Ice for coming up with that, but I'm not sure.

I learned something new today!
"An adjective desribing one or more people who intend on leaving a particular place. Audi's model 5000 sedan was plagued with a problem charcterized by unintended acceleration, in which drivers' complained that the vehicle lurched forward when their foot was on the brake pedal. In reality, it turned out that the acclerator and brake pedals were unusually close together. This is why Audi 5000 is associated with leaving quickly, because that is what this vehicle did when some old fartknocker hit the gas instead of the brakes. "

Yeah, same here. Just googled it.

http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=Audi%205000

stockastic · « **Reply #38 on:** May 12, 2014, 11:16 »

The Audi 5000 is also a metaphor for dishonest, cheap-shot journalism:

http://jalopnik.com/5942929/60-minutes-wasnt-above-taking-audis-money-before-destroying-them

Goofy · « **Reply #39 on:** May 12, 2014, 14:20 »

Quote from: Sean Locke Photography on May 12, 2014, 10:42

Quote from: cthoman on May 12, 2014, 10:38
Quote from: Ron on May 12, 2014, 03:03
What happened to Tickstock (Audi 5000)? Did he get a conscious?

I guess Audi 5000 does mean you're out of here. I'm going to credit Vanilla Ice for coming up with that, but I'm not sure.

I learned something new today!
"An adjective desribing one or more people who intend on leaving a particular place. Audi's model 5000 sedan was plagued with a problem charcterized by unintended acceleration, in which drivers' complained that the vehicle lurched forward when their foot was on the brake pedal. In reality, it turned out that the acclerator and brake pedals were unusually close together. This is why Audi 5000 is associated with leaving quickly, because that is what this vehicle did when some old fartknocker hit the gas instead of the brakes. "

And here I thought only General Motors built cars like this

Will · « **Reply #40 on:** May 12, 2014, 17:05 »

Quote from: Mantis on May 11, 2014, 18:31

Quote from: Will on May 11, 2014, 16:21
They are counting on stupid (or desperate) contributors not to bow out of these ridiculous schemes. The argument that they are targeting jerks who would steal it anyway is just more self serving pap aimed to confuse the ignorant.

I don't know how long you have been in this game but we contributors aren't given the opportunity to bow out -at least at Istock - without closing our accounts altogether. Many of us rely on that income to make a living. So I'd appreciate if you didn't call me and other stupid or desperate.

Sorry if I've offended. I was simply using the language in the OPs heading and reflecting that sadly some version of that language also applies to contributors vainly hoping that a company with Getty's track record is somehow going to change their stripes.

Briefly, since you brought it up. I'm primarily a video producer but involved as a part time photographer in the stock industry since the late 1970's. Was with an agency that staved off a nasty corporate take over bid and subsequently became a shareholder (privy to inside information) with the management team that built a great RM agency. In the late 90's I sold my shares and then with the advent of the micros dropped stock altogether for a few of years. Now and since 2006, have been contributing video clips and a smaller number of photos only to agencies that I consider to be reasonable. I think I have a fairly informed perspective of the industry.

Why are people still actively submitting to an agency like istock/Getty? For a nonexclusive, there are better choices than IS, FT, DP. Whatever material I still have on those sites I’ll just leave for the time being in interest of some transition income but I no longer upload fresh material to them. I did opt out of the DPC though.

Why not upload your new work just to fair trade sites like Pond5 for example? I’ve been with them for video since their early days and they been great! Open market, set your own price and flat 50% royalty, no subscriptions and to date no shady deals. What more do you want? Stills aren’t my main focus so I haven’t tried Stocksy yet but I will. I think small fair trade sites like GL, Picfair or Macrografiks deserve more support. After all, the large corporates running the market now all started small. If most contributors would begin uploading new material only to decent agencies like these, it would eventually help starve the greedy corporates out of existence.

goober · « **Reply #41 on:** May 13, 2014, 19:31 »

The contributors to IS have continued an old kind of stupid.

cobalt · « **Reply #42 on:** May 13, 2014, 23:55 »

I love pond5 too, unfortunately they only seem to be really good at selling videos not photos.

I do support fair trade sites, but many of the smaller agencies don't seem to have the ambition of becoming a large agency where you might be able to get a full time living from as a regular stock producer.

I think it would take an experienced team like the people from stocksy or at least someone on their level of drive and talent to grow a fair trade agency to enter the ranks of the top 4.

I love stocksy, it is a great example of what can be done if someone really has a vision for a business. Unfortunately, being an edited collection only a very small part of the stock artist community can find a home there. I feel very lucky I got in.

Maybe pond5 can become a powerhouse for selling photos as well. It would be wonderful if they could rise to a similar rank with photos like their video business.

YadaYadaYada · « **Reply #43 on:** August 25, 2014, 08:37 »

Quote from: Audi 5000 on May 11, 2014, 18:57

.

Try to push this site towards professionalism and relevence instead of away from it.

Hobostocker · « **Reply #44 on:** August 25, 2014, 23:05 »

selling digital images online is getting tougher and tougher, the most agile and smart stock agency (SS) is making 20-30% net profit, all the others are probably in the 10-15% range and some are struggling to stay afloat.

we can blame agencies as long as we want but it's up to us to pack our bags and move to greener pastures when the game becomes totally rigged in favor of agencies and buyers and we're treated like dogs.

we must be realistic and accept the eventuality that the stock industry will soon be unable to provide a steady income even to the top sellers, in other words stock will become a hobby just like for ebook writers and part time indie musicians.

and agencies will not care if this happens, because they'll be still in biz and making their 20-30% net income so as long as this trend doesn't change we're the only factor in the equation that is going to pay the price for their profits and for the oversupply.

i don't think they give the slightets sh-it about us, it would be like bloggers complaining they can't make a living, and in fact nobody is helping full time journalists to survive, even the ones working for the top brands in the news medias and working in war zones for a pittance, go figure if they care about us.

do you know there are journalists earning as low as 10-20$ per article in national newspapers ? and you think we're having it bad ?

it's not just photography, ALL the creative fields are going to be destroyed by the internet and digital, we're seeing the last steps of the domino effect started in the 90s.

bunhill · « **Reply #45 on:** August 26, 2014, 03:32 »

Quote from: Hobostocker on August 25, 2014, 23:05

do you know there are journalists earning as low as 10-20$ per article in national newspapers ? and you think we're having it bad ?

Advertising funded websites, including the websites of once great newspapers, are increasingly publishing articles designed to annoy the readers - to encourage them to click and then to comment. It's the comments sections which are generating a good deal of the traffic which is being sold to advertisers. And the commenters commenting on each other's comments too.

The commenters are unpaid content producers.

It would not surprise me if the article writers are paid according to how much commentary traffic they can generate (certainly the editors will know that certain writers are particularly good at generating response and therefore traffic).

The best content IMO is going to be from sources which do not have any advertising (and advertising includes underwriting and sponsorship - which is still advertising and which inevitably affects editorial decision making).

Hobostocker · « **Reply #46 on:** August 26, 2014, 04:06 »

Quote from: bunhill on August 26, 2014, 03:32

It would not surprise me if the article writers are paid according to how much commentary traffic they can generate (certainly the editors will know that certain writers are particularly good at generating response and therefore traffic).

The best content IMO is going to be from sources which do not have any advertising (and advertising includes underwriting and sponsorship - which is still advertising and which inevitably affects editorial decision making).

in case you don't know, many of the bloggers writing for Huffington Post and AOL are NOT paid positions, they get zero apart the so called "exposure", no matter if they cr-ap receives 5000 comments.

good sources without advertising ? where ? how ?
even this forum has dozens of ads and affiliate links.

bunhill · « **Reply #47 on:** August 26, 2014, 04:44 »

Quote from: Hobostocker on August 26, 2014, 04:06

good sources without advertising ? where ? how ?

I pay for advertising free content. Subscription and donation. It exists if you want it.

MicrostockGroup Sponsors

Author Topic: Has Getty Invented a New Kind of Stupid? (Read 13255 times)

iStop

Sean Locke Photography

luissantos84

Sean Locke Photography

luissantos84

Ron

farbled

Shelma1

Ron

cthoman

Sean Locke Photography

cobalt

Ron

stockastic

Goofy

Will

goober

cobalt

YadaYadaYada

Hobostocker

bunhill

Hobostocker

bunhill

Related Topics

Sponsors

Microstock Poll Results

Sponsors