MicrostockGroup Sponsors


Author Topic: iStock petition: Please sign and share  (Read 20631 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

« Reply #75 on: November 23, 2016, 09:21 »
+8
I wonder if the undisclosed settlement was .02 cents?


Shelma1

« Reply #76 on: November 23, 2016, 11:34 »
+4
Alas, we'll never know. Because big businesses will put you through nasty depositions and drag you through a long legal battle (sometimes lasting years), delaying as long as possible, hoping you'll give up. And if you don't give up they wait until right before the trial date to make an offer, and then if you negotiate something much less than what you first sought but still substantial, they won't give you the settlement until you sign a nondisclosure agreement. That way they silence you and the bad publicity around the lawsuit magically disappears, and they go on with business as usual.

Not that this has happened to me, of course. ;) But when you hear the terms of a settlement have not been disclosed, it pretty much means the plaintiff has won a substantial settlement.

« Reply #77 on: November 23, 2016, 11:51 »
0
I wonder if the undisclosed settlement was .02 cents?
It might have been.  It's hard to see what actual damages she was subject to.

Chichikov

« Reply #78 on: November 23, 2016, 12:13 »
+3
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

WOW!
You really believe that iStock will care about 700 people or 1000 (or even 10 000)?

Personally I have stopped to upload to them some time ago.
After the 25 I will give them another month (maybe two  :o) to see what happens
After that I will decide what to do: stay or leave.
« Last Edit: November 23, 2016, 12:16 by Chichikov »

« Reply #79 on: November 23, 2016, 12:18 »
+12
Getty/istock wont care but maybe it will get some publicity and people will find out about the pittance they want to pay us.  Buyers might realise that they wont get the standard of content they are used to if all we get is $0.02?

Chichikov

« Reply #80 on: November 23, 2016, 14:40 »
+1
Getty/istock wont care but maybe it will get some publicity and people will find out about the pittance they want to pay us.  Buyers might realise that they wont get the standard of content they are used to if all we get is $0.02?

Do most of the buyers need high standard images or cheap average level images?

« Reply #81 on: November 23, 2016, 18:46 »
0
I wonder if the undisclosed settlement was .02 cents?
It might have been.  It's hard to see what actual damages she was subject to.

Obviously I was joking....somewhat...to your point...my guess is the payout was very meager at best.

« Reply #82 on: November 24, 2016, 07:08 »
0
The minimum price changed from $ 0,02 to $ 0,10 per file by subscription licenses for non-exclusive contributors.

More: https://contributors.gettyimages.com/article_public.aspx?article_id=4856 [nofollow]

« Reply #83 on: November 24, 2016, 07:34 »
+1
The minimum price changed from $ 0,02 to $ 0,10 per file by subscription licenses for non-exclusive contributors.

More: https://contributors.gettyimages.com/article_public.aspx?article_id=4856


nothing changed unfortunately

price is $0,10 and our royalty commission is 15% so it is rounded to $0,02

« Reply #84 on: November 24, 2016, 09:46 »
0
Really, I'm sorry :(

Chichikov

« Reply #85 on: November 25, 2016, 12:03 »
0
Really, I'm sorry :(

Really, I'm sorry for iStock

« Reply #86 on: November 25, 2016, 16:22 »
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.


That's not how it works, but you can believe what you want. You just shouldn't pretend it's the truth, on a forum. A living author can have public domain works. Or lose rights when she donates the rights to The L.O.C. The laws changed. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Copyright_Term_Extension_Act

Before 1978 the laws were different and 28 years was term for copyright. Works which hadn't passed into public domain before that date, were extended 47 years making the total 75 years. Yes the death of an author comes into play for some works, but it's not as simple as how many years is somebody dead.

A book, photo or anything else that passed into public domain in 1949 could very well have a living author and be public domain. All books before 1923 have already become public domain. Just to be on topic, photos also.

Would you write the same if he had used Ben-Hur as the book? It is public domain.

Books and works from 1923 will now start passing into public domain. The copyrights have expired. http://www.gutenberg.org/  Project Gutenberg offers over 53,000 free ebooks. I know it's not Getty the devils photo agency, but without bias, the laws are the same for all.

Undisclosed settlement wasn't for copyright or the DMCA violation or anything we would like to believe. It was the last of the unfair trade practices claims for the state of New York. At minimum they paid for lawyers fees, so she broke even, and may have added a small token payment, admitting no wrong, as a courtesy. These paymenst are made privte for both sides as well as to lessen the chances that people will see it as a way to make a quick buck from Getty, by filing suits.

A fair settlement would be for Getty to stop selling her work, without compensation? Or pay her for every use.

« Reply #87 on: November 26, 2016, 06:55 »
0
I stand correctly, partly...US law differs from UK law in this respect so yes its not simple. Although the author of Ben Hur died in 1905 so maybe not the best example ;-).
« Last Edit: November 26, 2016, 07:02 by Pauws99 »

« Reply #88 on: November 26, 2016, 11:29 »
+4
it takes like 2 seconds to sign....just trys, also if you don't expect nothing

« Reply #89 on: November 26, 2016, 20:05 »
0
I stand correctly, partly...US law differs from UK law in this respect so yes its not simple. Although the author of Ben Hur died in 1905 so maybe not the best example ;-).

  ;) back, some books from the 20s are public domain US, not UK. Yes, UK and most of the civilized world had easier and better copyright laws many years ago. US is catching up. That happens with young countries. I can't name one but some things never published in the US are public now but not in Europe. Without application, the rights have expired. Some expired were not renewed, like old movies you can buy DVD for $1 or download free.

My objection is, not anything is easy or simple with copyright. Age of book or death of author is over simplifying.
« Last Edit: December 09, 2016, 10:58 by YadaYadaYada »

SpaceStockFootage

  • Space, Sci-Fi and Astronomy Related Stock Footage

« Reply #90 on: November 27, 2016, 06:18 »
+2
Getty/istock wont care but maybe it will get some publicity and people will find out about the pittance they want to pay us.

Would be nice, but maybe a little bit optomistic. I mean, how many people enquire about the welfare of the workers who produced the clothes that they're buying? If it looks good and the price is right, then I'd say the majority of people don't really care. Rightly or wrongly, that's just the way it is unfortunately.

Chichikov

« Reply #91 on: November 27, 2016, 07:07 »
+1
Getty/istock wont care but maybe it will get some publicity and people will find out about the pittance they want to pay us.

Would be nice, but maybe a little bit optomistic. I mean, how many people enquire about the welfare of the workers who produced the clothes that they're buying? If it looks good and the price is right, then I'd say the majority of people don't really care. Rightly or wrongly, that's just the way it is unfortunately.

Me.
For this reason I have stopped to buy Nike products many years ago

ShadySue

  • There is a crack in everything
« Reply #92 on: November 27, 2016, 07:41 »
+1
how many people enquire about the welfare of the workers who produced the clothes that they're buying? If it looks good and the price is right, then I'd say the majority of people don't really care. Rightly or wrongly, that's just the way it is unfortunately.
It's quite a thing now, and some retaillers have woken up to the fact that it's not only the right thing to do, but a fairer policy attracts a viable percentage of the market.

« Reply #93 on: December 02, 2016, 08:10 »
+3
The petition now has more than 800 signatures.

21 days until royalty cuts take effect.

See all the current microstock petitions at our blog: https://microstockcoalition.wordpress.com

« Reply #94 on: December 02, 2016, 10:38 »
+2
Signed  >:(

« Reply #95 on: December 02, 2016, 14:18 »
+3
Article about the petition and royalty cut on the Freelancer's Union Facebook page:

https://www.facebook.com/freelancersunion/

And on their blog:

https://blog.freelancersunion.org/2016/12/02/getty-images-istock-petition/

The more people who "like" or comment on the Freelancer's Union Facebook post, the more people Facebook will show the post to. It's free advertising to creative professionals who license images. Hint hint.
« Last Edit: December 02, 2016, 14:53 by Microstock Coalition »

BD

« Reply #96 on: December 02, 2016, 16:16 »
+2
Article about the petition and royalty cut on the Freelancer's Union Facebook page:

https://www.facebook.com/freelancersunion/

And on their blog:

https://blog.freelancersunion.org/2016/12/02/getty-images-istock-petition/

The more people who "like" or comment on the Freelancer's Union Facebook post, the more people Facebook will show the post to. It's free advertising to creative professionals who license images. Hint hint.

I "liked" the Facebook post.

« Reply #97 on: December 06, 2016, 11:55 »
+7
Comment from the petition:

"As a freelance writer/editor. I am supporting freelance photographers and illustrators who are the backbone of Getty Images. I'll be cancelling my Getty images account and I hope that all freelancers do the same."

Almost 900 signatures.  :)

« Reply #98 on: December 09, 2016, 08:07 »
+13
Influx of buyers signing the petition. Some new petition comments:

"I'm sick of the little guy getting screwed."

"As a freelancer and artist, I stand firm with my fellow freelancers! Without talented freelancers, Getty Images/iStock would not be the same. Don't force artists to leave your platform because of this HUGE pay cut."

"This is an outright attack on freelancers and a reduction to slave wages."

Will most likely hit 1,000 signatures today.  :)

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

New comment:

"As a design director of a large publisher, I appreciate the work that goes into good photography and illustration. I feel that artists (photographers and illustrators) should be paid a fair price for the work. Getty's decision on subscription royalties will affect where I purchase photographs or illustrations."
« Last Edit: December 09, 2016, 10:34 by Microstock Coalition »

« Reply #99 on: December 09, 2016, 15:38 »
+11


 

Related Topics

  Subject / Started by Replies Last post
5 Replies
3980 Views
Last post March 14, 2007, 22:16
by Pixart
8 Replies
3856 Views
Last post March 16, 2011, 18:27
by jsmithzz
14 Replies
4299 Views
Last post April 13, 2013, 15:11
by drial7m1
15 Replies
4165 Views
Last post November 15, 2016, 03:44
by Pauws99
8 Replies
1861 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