What is the current exclusive / independant ratio? the 5 should be divided the same 3-4 independants, 1-2 exclusives LOL

Does noone else see the analogy with the ideal that the majority should be represented solely by the minority as they cannot be trusted and the minority knows whats best. The majority still havent even been told if they have a vote at all. To keep the analogy going further, while there is at least 30000 independants, how many go to istock forums and post? We just congratulate Lisa in our own part of town.

Quote from: Digital66 on March 14, 2011, 17:07

Quote from: Risamay on March 14, 2011, 15:28

C'mon folks. We're smarter than ... "Oh look - a squirrel!"

Where? Where? I can't see it!

It's over there, next to the log with a wig on!

ROFL  

This whole thing is a facade in my opinion.  They all sign NDA's.  So the inference you can get from Kelly's comments, "They can be the ears of the entire community and see if we're doing anything out of the ordinary" means that all the five will be are additional non-employee block & tacklers in the forums, helping take the brunt of the legitimate issues contributors bring up but don't get answers to.  The five wont be able to give us answers either, but they will be able to speak to us in useless code like the admins do when the bother to post anything telling us we are wrong but I can't tell you why.

You are aware of the legal concept of sub judice, I presume?
Try this for starters:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sub_judice

There are some pretty disgusting comments over there regarding independents and the suggestion that independents can't be trusted to sign an NDA and stick to the contract, as if any independent who would be theoretically asked to be on the panel would immediately turn around and sell trade secrets to competitors.

Occasionally you can pick up on some "us vs. them" sentiment at istock, but man this is just unreal. Truly surprising.

There are some pretty disgusting comments over there regarding independents and the suggestion that independents can't be trusted to sign an NDA and stick to the contract, as if any independent who would be theoretically asked to be on the panel would immediately turn around and sell trade secrets to competitors.

Occasionally you can pick up on some "us vs. them" sentiment at istock, but man this is just unreal. Truly surprising.

I agree. I don't understand the logic of alienating independents. The exclusives vs. independents mentality is precisely what the agencies want. If the top 20% of contributors started making decisions together we would all make a lot more money in the long run.

If by Agency contributor, you mean one of the Getty-ingested pseudo exclusives, I'd ignore anything they had to say as it pertained to iStockphoto.com

Quote from: helix7 on March 14, 2011, 19:20

There are some pretty disgusting comments over there regarding independents and the suggestion that independents can't be trusted to sign an NDA and stick to the contract, as if any independent who would be theoretically asked to be on the panel would immediately turn around and sell trade secrets to competitors.

Occasionally you can pick up on some "us vs. them" sentiment at istock, but man this is just unreal. Truly surprising.

I agree. I don't understand the logic of alienating independents. The exclusives vs. independents mentality is precisely what the agencies want. If the top 20% of contributors started making decisions together we would all make a lot more money in the long run.

if I put myself in the shoes of independents, I would feel alienated by this too. but I think it's been misinterpreted as something ugly when it's simply a legal necessity. independents equally deserve representation. but, independents also contribute images to competitor sites. it's not personal, I don't see any company allowing potential competitors access to sensitive information. but those who are attending the conference call will certainly be sharing what they cna share with everyone, so it's not like non-exclusives won't benefit from that information too.

I think fighting over the inclusion of independents and using it as a platform means independents aren't seeing the forest for the trees.

Quote from: retrorocket on March 14, 2011, 20:01

Quote from: helix7 on March 14, 2011, 19:20

There are some pretty disgusting comments over there regarding independents and the suggestion that independents can't be trusted to sign an NDA and stick to the contract, as if any independent who would be theoretically asked to be on the panel would immediately turn around and sell trade secrets to competitors.

Occasionally you can pick up on some "us vs. them" sentiment at istock, but man this is just unreal. Truly surprising.

I agree. I don't understand the logic of alienating independents. The exclusives vs. independents mentality is precisely what the agencies want. If the top 20% of contributors started making decisions together we would all make a lot more money in the long run.

if I put myself in the shoes of independents, I would feel alienated by this too. but I think it's been misinterpreted as something ugly when it's simply a legal necessity. independents equally deserve representation. but, independents also contribute images to competitor sites. it's not personal, I don't see any company allowing potential competitors access to sensitive information. but those who are attending the conference call will certainly be sharing what they cna share with everyone, so it's not like non-exclusives won't benefit from that information too.

I think fighting over the inclusion of independents and using it as a platform means independents aren't seeing the forest for the trees.

but just because we sell our product through other outlets does not make us competitors.  Does Walmart consider Rubbermaid a competitor because they also sell their product at KMart, Target and Home Depot?   I think that's the misconception here. As an exclusive you want to feel like you are iStock - I know I did when the only place I knew was iStock.  I really felt like I was a part of that company.  but in reality, it's not so.  It comes down to the fact that we are all contributors.  not stockholders. not company management.  not company employees. contributors.  suppliers of products that iStock sells.

if I put myself in the shoes of independents, I would feel alienated by this too. but I think it's been misinterpreted as something ugly when it's simply a legal necessity. independents equally deserve representation. but, independents also contribute images to competitor sites. it's not personal, I don't see any company allowing potential competitors access to sensitive information. but those who are attending the conference call will certainly be sharing what they cna share with everyone, so it's not like non-exclusives won't benefit from that information too.

I think fighting over the inclusion of independents and using it as a platform means independents aren't seeing the forest for the trees.

I don't understand how it's being interpreted as a legal necessity. That's what the NDA is for. Anyone, exclusives and independents alike, could be approached by competitors and tempted to dish on sensitive information. The implication that independents would be more likely to ignore the NDA and divulge sensitive data to a competitor has nothing to do with legalities and more to do with the bizarre notion that independents lack the moral fiber to honor a contract simply because we entered into a different type contract with istock as non-exclusive contributors.

I actually have no real issue with istock making this an exclusive-only panel for the conference call. I don't necessarily agree with it, but I don't take issue with the fact that istock can do as they please when it comes to their company. It's their right to do so, much as I think it's a slap in the face to independents. The more surprising thing I'm seeing in the forums is this idea that istock is doing this for legal reasons (has this even been confirmed by anyone at HQ?) and that a legal argument is justified in this matter. There is no legal reason to exclude independents, and this B.S. legal necessity argument is just a cover for a generalized opinion that independents can't be trusted with the same information as exclusives, despite the fact that there is no logical reason to think that an exclusive contributor is any more or less capable of breaking the NDA.

Like I said in the istock forum thread, I've signed dozens of NDAs over the years. I've never breached an NDA, and the suggestion that I would be more likely to break this one simply because of my affiliation with competing companies is insulting and offensive.

if I put myself in the shoes of independents, I would feel alienated by this too. but I think it's been misinterpreted as something ugly when it's simply a legal necessity.

No it isn't

I don't see any company allowing potential competitors access to sensitive information.

Neither do I but I haven't yet seen anyone suggesting the owners or staff at Fotolia or Dreamstime get nominated for the 5.    I however have seen lots of people suggesting an independent contributor to iStock is nominated which of course for 99.999r% of the worlds population would not be classed as a competitor.

iStock made it very clear they only want exclusives, but people have aired their opinion that they would like to see an independent amongst the 5, it ain't gonna happen for obvious reasons but that's nothing to do with a legal necessity (because there isn't one) and nothing to do with allowing competitors access to sensitive information (because independent contributors are not competitors)

I understand the 5 all being exclusives and although I don't think it's the best idea I also understand why iStock only want exclusives, and I have one plea, please please please please if you get chosen turn it down.

Take this FWIW, but I just wanted to add a bit of historical context, the distrust of non-exclusive contributors is ingrained in the iStock DNA. Back in 2003-04 (pre-exclusivity) it was becoming rather common to see people who were contributors one day turn competitors the next. Serban's iStock username was Dreamstime (he even had a FIOTW way back when). Duncan, Canstock's founder, was M5laser or something like that on iStock before he started his site. Tim and Dawn at Bigstock, yep, former iStock contributors. I'm sure there were others, but the point is, this is all old stuff that is hard for them to forget. Around the same time as these contributors turned competitors appeared on the scene there was also increasing heat from the so-called "traditional" stock photographers (most notably a group of Alamy contributors), which further contributed to the siege mentality that exists today.

Of course the irony is that current exclusive contributors largely owe their exclusive benefits to these folks, as the exclusivity program was largely a circling of the wagons reaction to everything happening at the time. So, don't take it too personally, this is all old stuff.

I haven't followed all the responses here and other threads but doesn't this smell like a diversion?

Out of the sudden everyone talks about the big conference call and all the NDA stuff, getting all dizzy not knowing who to nominate for this big gig.

What about the fact, that IS has to straighten out their act nonetheless?

To me it just looks like they're trying to "buy" time and divert from the real problems. They couldn't care less if contributors are upset because we've been upset for years and they didn't care.

And what is this conference call good for anyway? No information will leak out, a few exclusive will become unpaid forum moderators to work in IS's favor and the problems with the site still persist?

Oh now I understand, the criminals will get scared, knowing there is a conference call and therefore won't download any files anymore illegally.... Smart move IS...  

Take this FWIW, but I just wanted to add a bit of historical context, the distrust of non-exclusive contributors is ingrained in the iStock DNA. Back in 2003-04 (pre-exclusivity) it was becoming rather common to see people who were contributors one day turn competitors the next. Serban's iStock username was Dreamstime (he even had a FIOTW way back when). Duncan, Canstock's founder, was M5laser or something like that on iStock before he started his site. Tim and Dawn at Bigstock, yep, former iStock contributors. I'm sure there were others, but the point is, this is all old stuff that is hard for them to forget. Around the same time as these contributors turned competitors appeared on the scene there was also increasing heat from the so-called "traditional" stock photographers (most notably a group of Alamy contributors), which further contributed to the siege mentality that exists today.

Of course the irony is that current exclusive contributors largely owe their exclusive benefits to these folks, as the exclusivity program was largely a circling of the wagons reaction to everything happening at the time. So, don't take it too personally, this is all old stuff.

isn't Patrick Lor an ex-pat too? thanks for the post Rob. a lot of that stuff is invisible to those of us who weren't here then.