MicrostockGroup Sponsors


Author Topic: iStock petition: Please sign and share  (Read 20699 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

« Reply #50 on: November 21, 2016, 12:17 »
+2
The petition doesn't say that the cuts apply to all photographers and illustrators, so I don't see a problem with it.  The bit about the industry standard 40% is annoying but its a bit late to change that now.

Even though I think this is a waste of time, I signed it anyway.

The petition implies "all". Unless I am reading this wrong, I don't see anything that even remotely hints otherwise.

Getty Images/iStock have announced that as of November 25, 2016, they will be cutting photographers' and illustrators' subscription royalties to as low as 2 per license, 93% lower than their current royalties. This will greatly reduce creative people's income and devalue their work virtually overnight. We want Getty/iStock to retain their current subscription royalty structure and increase their credit royalties to the industry standard of 40%.
"...as low as..." you're a big boy, you can read and understand what you quoted right?


Rose Tinted Glasses

« Reply #51 on: November 21, 2016, 12:23 »
0
Sign the petition that's up and write a comment with more details. Or write a petition of your own. Or offer more concrete information. For example, the percentage of exclusive contributors who (might) keep making the same amount vs. the percentage who'll have their royalties slashed. Got stats?

Here is a stat for you, this is not what IS/GI is offering all "photographers' and illustrators'". It's pretty clear to me that they have chosen to create a divide in royalties for those who choose to remain exclusive versus those who choose to remain non-exclusive and the petition should reflect as such. As much as I don't like  the offering, the petition is full of holes. And that is not good if you are trying to make a point especially if you insist on getting major media involved. It comes across as a childish rant based on??? You are a big girl, surely you can see this.

Actually, I'm a fairly small "girl," little "boy."

I just read the petition again and I don't see the word "all" anywhere. Maybe you had your bifocals off when you looked at it?

I'd be happy to suggest they add this: "Getty divides contributors into two classes: Exclusive and Non-exclusive. Exclusive artists give up the right to license their images anywhere else, even directly to clients themselves. In return, Getty charges higher amounts for their images, even though there is no guarantee of exclusivity to buyers...in fact, there is no limit on how often an 'exclusive' image can be licensed to multiple end users, despite the higher price tag."

Sound accurate?

If you took out the drama queen and emotion of which you seem to have a flair for, yes, that is much more accurate than the petition which is totally misleading.

And as "Getty divides contributors into two classes: Exclusive and Non-exclusive. Exclusive artists give up the right to license their images anywhere else, even directly to clients themselves. In return, Getty charges higher amounts for their images, even though there is no guarantee of exclusivity to buyers...in fact, there is no limit on how often an 'exclusive' image can be licensed to multiple end users, despite the higher price tag."

You have a choice to agree to this or not. Judging by your anger, you accepted these terms. But to agree to it and consistently moan about it and be the drama queen you are is rather... dramatic. Do us all a favor and leave IS/GI and try and write a positive post for once without being angry. You have choices buttercup, so be and adult and leave IS/GI and place your work where it's all unicorns and you will find both internal and eternal happiness.

I personally think you are a live under the flight path of an airport and complain about it kind of person. You make a choice then need to go on and  on and on about it and blame the airlines, the airport, the NTSB, and even the President when you could simply move to another more peaceful place and be happy, and heaven forbid anyone tells you this as you will have the desire to be defensive, scratch their eyes out and be mad at the whole world because you and only you chose to live under the flight path.





Rose Tinted Glasses

« Reply #52 on: November 21, 2016, 12:26 »
0
Sign the petition that's up and write a comment with more details. Or write a petition of your own. Or offer more concrete information. For example, the percentage of exclusive contributors who (might) keep making the same amount vs. the percentage who'll have their royalties slashed. Got stats?

Here is a stat for you, this is not what IS/GI is offering all "photographers' and illustrators'". It's pretty clear to me that they have chosen to create a divide in royalties for those who choose to remain exclusive versus those who choose to remain non-exclusive and the petition should reflect as such. As much as I don't like  the offering, the petition is full of holes. And that is not good if you are trying to make a point especially if you insist on getting major media involved. It comes across as a childish rant based on??? You are a big girl, surely you can see this.

Ok, it is clear to you, as you said. But did iStock tell that to us? No, they did not. It is just your guess. And if it is just a guess (not confirmed by iStock) then why should we write it in the petition?!

It would give you a lot of credibility.

Filling the petition with guesses does not make it better. This way we will lose the credibility. Is this what you want?

did you read the original email from IS? They made it very clear that non-exclusives got a bad deal.

Rose Tinted Glasses

« Reply #53 on: November 21, 2016, 12:28 »
0
The petition doesn't say that the cuts apply to all photographers and illustrators, so I don't see a problem with it.  The bit about the industry standard 40% is annoying but its a bit late to change that now.

Even though I think this is a waste of time, I signed it anyway.

The petition implies "all". Unless I am reading this wrong, I don't see anything that even remotely hints otherwise.

Getty Images/iStock have announced that as of November 25, 2016, they will be cutting photographers' and illustrators' subscription royalties to as low as 2 per license, 93% lower than their current royalties. This will greatly reduce creative people's income and devalue their work virtually overnight. We want Getty/iStock to retain their current subscription royalty structure and increase their credit royalties to the industry standard of 40%.
"...as low as..." you're a big boy, you can read and understand what you quoted right?

and big boy also understood that crappy deal is for non-exclusives only. the petition does not reflect this at all. it presumes it applies to all.

Shelma1

« Reply #54 on: November 21, 2016, 12:32 »
+2
Sign the petition that's up and write a comment with more details. Or write a petition of your own. Or offer more concrete information. For example, the percentage of exclusive contributors who (might) keep making the same amount vs. the percentage who'll have their royalties slashed. Got stats?

Here is a stat for you, this is not what IS/GI is offering all "photographers' and illustrators'". It's pretty clear to me that they have chosen to create a divide in royalties for those who choose to remain exclusive versus those who choose to remain non-exclusive and the petition should reflect as such. As much as I don't like  the offering, the petition is full of holes. And that is not good if you are trying to make a point especially if you insist on getting major media involved. It comes across as a childish rant based on??? You are a big girl, surely you can see this.

Actually, I'm a fairly small "girl," little "boy."

I just read the petition again and I don't see the word "all" anywhere. Maybe you had your bifocals off when you looked at it?

I'd be happy to suggest they add this: "Getty divides contributors into two classes: Exclusive and Non-exclusive. Exclusive artists give up the right to license their images anywhere else, even directly to clients themselves. In return, Getty charges higher amounts for their images, even though there is no guarantee of exclusivity to buyers...in fact, there is no limit on how often an 'exclusive' image can be licensed to multiple end users, despite the higher price tag."

Sound accurate?

If you took out the drama queen and emotion of which you seem to have a flair for, yes, that is much more accurate than the petition which is totally misleading.

And as "Getty divides contributors into two classes: Exclusive and Non-exclusive. Exclusive artists give up the right to license their images anywhere else, even directly to clients themselves. In return, Getty charges higher amounts for their images, even though there is no guarantee of exclusivity to buyers...in fact, there is no limit on how often an 'exclusive' image can be licensed to multiple end users, despite the higher price tag."

You have a choice to agree to this or not. Judging by your anger, you accepted these terms. But to agree to it and consistently moan about it and be the drama queen you are is rather... dramatic. Do us all a favor and leave IS/GI and try and write a positive post for once without being angry. You have choices buttercup, so be and adult and leave IS/GI and place your work where it's all unicorns and you will find both internal and eternal happiness.

I personally think you are a live under the flight path of an airport and complain about it kind of person. You make a choice then need to go on and  on and on about it and blame the airlines, the airport, the NTSB, and even the President when you could simply move to another more peaceful place and be happy, and heaven forbid anyone tells you this as you will have the desire to be defensive, scratch their eyes out and be mad at the whole world because you and only you chose to live under the flight path.

The petition is about thousands of contributors, not just me, though of course you'd like to make the thread about me. And airports, which is really on topic  ::)

We did not agree to 2 royalties; they're trying to force it on us.

If you'd like to the petition to be more specific, just give us the stats and we could change it to "the vast majority" or "almost all."

« Reply #55 on: November 21, 2016, 12:41 »
+1
It already says "as low as", it's clear that this is the worst case scenario (though from long experience I think this will actually be close to the default for most).

I think we should get back on track instead of allowing ourselves to be derailed by one person posting the same unproductive couple of points over and over again.

Shelma1

« Reply #56 on: November 21, 2016, 12:49 »
0
For whatever reason momentum seems to be picking up. I just checked and it's well over 600 now, so a whole bunch of people must have signed it this morning.

PureArt

  • UK
« Reply #57 on: November 21, 2016, 12:55 »
+4
did you read the original email from IS?

Yes, of course, I did.

They made it very clear that non-exclusives got a bad deal.

Yes, they made. And this is the reason to create the petition.

But why should the petition have any words about the "exclusives"?! This petition is going to be sent to the iStock management. They do know what they wrote in their letter. Should we copy the whole text? Should we copy all their terms and policies as well?

ShadySue

  • There is a crack in everything
« Reply #58 on: November 21, 2016, 14:01 »
0
Conversely, exclusives can sell certain images via Getty Images which can net "as low as 2c" (I had two in October of 3c, someone else reported 2c, which I guess must be 25% rounded down).

Shelma1

« Reply #59 on: November 21, 2016, 14:22 »
+3

I personally think you are a live under the flight path of an airport and complain about it kind of person. You make a choice then need to go on and  on and on about it and blame the airlines, the airport, the NTSB, and even the President blah blah blah

If you're still reading posts here, you gave yourself away with that. Go look at that Facebook page again and learn the difference between the FAA and the NTSBorganizations they don't have in Canada. ;)

« Reply #60 on: November 21, 2016, 15:06 »
+2
signed

Giveme5

« Reply #61 on: November 21, 2016, 15:42 »
0

I personally think you are a live under the flight path of an airport and complain about it kind of person. You make a choice then need to go on and  on and on about it and blame the airlines, the airport, the NTSB, and even the President blah blah blah

If you're still reading posts here, you gave yourself away with that. Go look at that Facebook page again and learn the difference between the FAA and the NTSBorganizations they don't have in Canada. ;)

Now if he had instead said the 'NHL' both Canada and USA have that agency lol! Go Leafs!

« Reply #62 on: November 21, 2016, 17:32 »
+9
For whatever reason momentum seems to be picking up. I just checked and it's well over 600 now, so a whole bunch of people must have signed it this morning.
I wasn't going to sign it, because I think its a waste of time but Rose Tinted Glasses persuaded me.  He's done a great job getting more people to sign it :)

Looks like he's gone now but no doubt he will be back with another anonymous account trying to defend the indefensible.


« Reply #64 on: November 22, 2016, 15:22 »
0
http://petapixel.com/2016/11/22/1-billion-getty-images-lawsuit-ends-not-bang-whimper/

Did anyone honestly believe there was a copyright case there?  If you give up your copyright others are allowed to monetize it just like works where the copyright has expired. 

« Reply #65 on: November 22, 2016, 15:29 »
+6
Selling images that are in public domain is disgusting. Sending extortion letters to people, who use public domain images is beyond disgusting. And the judge is and idiot, obviously, probably bribed...

Shelma1

« Reply #66 on: November 22, 2016, 15:32 »
+12
What a despicable company you work for, tickstock.

If the settlement was indeed just a slap on the wrist, which is truly outrageous, there's NO REASON TO CUT OUR ROYALTIES because, apparently, they don't need to make the payout they should have.

This sets a chilling precedent for large corporations monetizing the work of artists trying to do a good deed.

« Reply #67 on: November 22, 2016, 15:38 »
+4
Nearing 700 signatures, folks. Now that we know Getty does not have a large settlement to pay, we should be more angry than ever. Please sign, ask friends to sign, and remember the royalty cut comes at the end of this week.

https://www.change.org/p/jonathan-klein-getty-images-istock-don-t-slash-our-royalties

« Reply #68 on: November 22, 2016, 15:42 »
0
Selling images that are in public domain is disgusting. Sending extortion letters to people, who use public domain images is beyond disgusting. And the judge is and idiot, obviously, probably bribed...
I think Getty used the argument that this is a well accepted practice and the example was Dickens novels reprinted for sale now.  I think the same principle would apply to drugs whose patent has expired.  Are those wrong as well?  By putting your images or any ip into the public domain you should know that it is a real possibility that someone will monetize them or use them in a way that you completely disagree with, if you don't agree to that you shouldn't give up your rights.
« Last Edit: November 22, 2016, 15:45 by tickstock »

ShadySue

  • There is a crack in everything
« Reply #69 on: November 22, 2016, 15:47 »
+4
Selling images that are in public domain is disgusting. Sending extortion letters to people, who use public domain images is beyond disgusting. And the judge is and idiot, obviously, probably bribed...
I think Getty used the argument that this is a well accepted practice and the example was Dickens novels reprinted for sale now.  I think the same principle would apply to drugs whose patent has expired.  Are those wrong as well?  ...
Still, it's unlikely anyone would attempt to sue someone for e.g. publishing Dickens online. Especially how ridiculous was it that they that they tried to extort the author of the images.

« Reply #70 on: November 22, 2016, 15:53 »
0
Selling images that are in public domain is disgusting. Sending extortion letters to people, who use public domain images is beyond disgusting. And the judge is and idiot, obviously, probably bribed...
I think Getty used the argument that this is a well accepted practice and the example was Dickens novels reprinted for sale now.  I think the same principle would apply to drugs whose patent has expired.  Are those wrong as well?  ...
Still, it's unlikely anyone would attempt to sue someone for e.g. publishing Dickens online. Especially how ridiculous was it that they that they tried to extort the author of the images.
I agree it's unlikely that someone would sue because no one has the copyright, which is the same as this case.  Once you've given up your copyright you've given up your copyright.

From what they said "Getty painted it as an honest mistake that they addressed as soon as they were notified of the issue by Highsmith."  I don't know anything more about that or how they generate notices but I do agree they should be more careful about it.  Overall though I do appreciate Getty going after copyright infringers even if they sometimes make a mistake.
« Last Edit: November 22, 2016, 15:55 by tickstock »

PureArt

  • UK
« Reply #71 on: November 22, 2016, 16:31 »
0
What a despicable company you work for, tickstock.

What company?

« Reply #72 on: November 22, 2016, 16:33 »
+7
For whatever reason momentum seems to be picking up. I just checked and it's well over 600 now, so a whole bunch of people must have signed it this morning.
I wasn't going to sign it, because I think its a waste of time but Rose Tinted Glasses persuaded me.  He's done a great job getting more people to sign it :)

Looks like he's gone now but no doubt he will be back with another anonymous account trying to defend the indefensible.

Or maybe go back to posting under another pro Getty account that has been dormant for a year or so...?  Seems like quite a coincidence, one leaves, the other pops up.
« Last Edit: November 22, 2016, 16:46 by PixelBytes »

« Reply #73 on: November 23, 2016, 03:14 »
+4
The analogy with Dickens is erroneous because hes been dead a certain number of years his work is out of copyright. Try selling the work of a living author and see how far you get.

« Reply #74 on: November 23, 2016, 08:21 »
0
The analogy with Dickens is erroneous because hes been dead a certain number of years his work is out of copyright. Try selling the work of a living author and see how far you get.
Her work is out of copyright as well.  She chose to give up her copyright and put the images into the public domain.


 

Related Topics

  Subject / Started by Replies Last post
5 Replies
3987 Views
Last post March 14, 2007, 22:16
by Pixart
8 Replies
3863 Views
Last post March 16, 2011, 18:27
by jsmithzz
14 Replies
4309 Views
Last post April 13, 2013, 15:11
by drial7m1
15 Replies
4174 Views
Last post November 15, 2016, 03:44
by Pauws99
8 Replies
1871 Views
Last post June 12, 2020, 05:41
by Chichikov

Sponsors

Mega Bundle of 5,900+ Professional Lightroom Presets

Microstock Poll Results

Sponsors

3100 Posing Cards Bundle