MicrostockGroup
Agency Based Discussion => iStockPhoto.com => Topic started by: jsmithzz on February 11, 2013, 11:13
-
Read about it here... Unbelievable.
http://seanlockephotography.com/2013/02/11/a-change-in-things/ (http://seanlockephotography.com/2013/02/11/a-change-in-things/)
-
Wow. Welcome to the free world. Good luck to you!
-
OMG.
They have lost their mind.
We will be handing in our 30 day notice and giving up the crown ASAP.
-
OMG.
They have lost their mind.
We will be handing in our 30 day notice and giving up the crown ASAP.
You have to wonder if for some bizarre reason that was part of what iStock wanted - to get more exclusives to jump ship. So many have been on the fence for a while and uncertain about the right thing to do. This insanity on iStock's part will help make up more minds than yours, I'm guessing.
-
OMG.
They have lost their mind.
We will be handing in our 30 day notice and giving up the crown ASAP.
You have to wonder if for some bizarre reason that was part of what iStock wanted - to get more exclusives to jump ship. So many have been on the fence for a while and uncertain about the right thing to do. This insanity on iStock's part will help make up more minds than yours, I'm guessing.
And your theory is that deleting one of the best selling portfolios anywhere will benefit them how? Bizarre is right.
-
Thanks for starting a separate thread about this. Definitely warrants it, although I hope Sean doesn't mind the extra attention. :)
Truly an unbelievable development, given who this happened to. Everything Sean has done has been with the intention of improving the company and trying to maintain the ability to make a living as an istock exclusive artist. To respond in this way just highlights the true colors of the company that we've seen devolve over the last couple of years.
Best of luck to you, Sean.
-
Wow, with all respect, iStock: if you read this: what business sense does this make from your point of view? What do you expect to happen?
My feelings are with you, Sean. I hope that track is the right one for you, even though you didnīt choose it yourself. Thanks for all the help and gadgets youīve given to me and the community.
-
Sorry to hear all of this Sean.
I am impressed at how quickly you have wrapped your mind around this ugly development and I am happy to see that you have quickly shifted gears to develop a positive course for the future. Good luck in your ventures and thank you for all you have done to help the broader community at IS.
-
Pride comes before desaster, and arrogance before a fall.
Proverbs 15,16
-
Thanks for starting a separate thread about this. Definitely warrants it, although I hope Sean doesn't mind the extra attention. :)
Truly an unbelievable development, given who this happened to. Everything Sean has done has been with the intention of improving the company and trying to maintain the ability to make a living as an istock exclusive artist. To respond in this way just highlights the true colors of the company that we've seen devolve over the last couple of years.
Best of luck to you, Sean.
Sean was such a huge part of the iStock community. His presence will definitely be missed. As much as a kick in the teeth this was from the iStock management, I doubt Sean will go and pout in the corner. I'm sure his work will do well on other sites and be more fairly represented. iStock just lost one of the microstock greats. Shame on them.
-
Oh-oh.... here comes the competition! :-)
On a serious note this is absolutely in line with other Getty's policies. They are still under illusion they can control the market and flex their power, and it is so ridiculous and obsolete one can only laugh.
Sean will restore most of his income within a month or two and eventually will be making more money with independent agencies, I know that for sure; and Getty not only lost his highly salable images, but also created more bad publicity for themselves... so who's in a better position now? It's just mind-boggling how determined Getty is to dig their own grave.
I better up my game now with such IS exclusives entering independent market:)
-
What Getty/iStock continues to fail to understand is that all this ruckus in the forums, and polite crowd sourcing help (as Sean did) is fundamentally based on wanting iStock to succeed. Yes there are many pushing away as a protest but still an attempt for Getty/iStock to wake up and fix things that are thought to need fixing.
People who are truly expecting Getty/iStock to find its demise have already made a statement by abandoning the ship and leaving. Getty/iStock shoots themselves in the foot again by making an example by one of their best supporters. Somewhere in the Getty/iStock management is a very emotional manager looking to place blame that is squarely of their own making.
This is not your problem Sean (although you reap the painful results). You have been the iStock contributors advocate where Getty/iStock continues to fail miserably. As I have stated in numerous threads at iStock the management does not understand the iStock culture of old. The latest events are just another example of crowd sourcing that can be used for Getty/iStock benefit or demise.
-
OMG.
They have lost their mind.
We will be handing in our 30 day notice and giving up the crown ASAP.
You have to wonder if for some bizarre reason that was part of what iStock wanted - to get more exclusives to jump ship. So many have been on the fence for a while and uncertain about the right thing to do. This insanity on iStock's part will help make up more minds than yours, I'm guessing.
Agreed.
I think if they are trying to clear our the heavy hitters, they may have found a way to do it. My guess is that there will be a wake of diamonds following Sean. I can see where this will make Getty more profit in the short run- non exclusives (bigger cut), lower canisters (cheaper) and images that are wholly owned by Getty (total profit).
-
First the pope now the king of iStock!?!?
-
I believe they are removing the images as well? Yes truly arrogant and nuts. I have fewer and fewer reasons to go to the iStock forums anymore.
-
First the pope now the king of iStock!?!?
I understand Sean's in the running to replace him.
-
Unbelievable. I sympathize with Sean and I am positive that in the long run he will do great without iStock. But istock without sjlocke? Insanity. It's like FC Barcelona without L. Messi...
Maybe they are panicking and have gone completely irrational or want to show how tough they can be. They are sinking anyway.
-
Maybe Sean will be involved Stocksy.
-
Sorry to hear that Sean! They have lost their mind!
-
Wow!!!!
Sean appeared very impartial in his posts. Big Brother, 1984.
-
OMG.
They have lost their mind.
We will be handing in our 30 day notice and giving up the crown ASAP.
You have to wonder if for some bizarre reason that was part of what iStock wanted - to get more exclusives to jump ship. So many have been on the fence for a while and uncertain about the right thing to do. This insanity on iStock's part will help make up more minds than yours, I'm guessing.
And your theory is that deleting one of the best selling portfolios anywhere will benefit them how? Bizarre is right.
It's either heads on pikes (scare off the others who might be thinking of leaving so they get compliant and "behave), drive them all out (cull the exclusives to save money on royalty payments) or they're not very bright and haven't a clue what they've just done.
-
.... or they're not very bright and haven't a clue what they've just done.
That one:)
-
Good luck to you Sean.
As for me, another sign that the ship is sinking and is not the agency that it used to be . . .
-
OMG.
They have lost their mind.
We will be handing in our 30 day notice and giving up the crown ASAP.
You have to wonder if for some bizarre reason that was part of what iStock wanted - to get more exclusives to jump ship. So many have been on the fence for a while and uncertain about the right thing to do. This insanity on iStock's part will help make up more minds than yours, I'm guessing.
I've assumed they wanted to stop having to pay people more than the bare minimum for a long time.
Nevertheless, shocked by this latest insanity.
Sean, I'm sure you'll do great and don't need 'good luck' from me, but best wishes.
-
Not a surprise. Just when you think they can't do anything more stupid, they always do. Just confirms to me that they either want to kill istock or they're completely incompetent. Either way, I'm pleased I don't rely on my earnings with them anymore.
-
Wowww... I am speechless.
Seems like the demise of iStock continues.
-
It's either heads on pikes (scare off the others who might be thinking of leaving so they get compliant and "behave), drive them all out (cull the exclusives to save money on royalty payments) or they're not very bright and haven't a clue what they've just done.
I think it's this. I bet it really annoys Getty that one of their companies pays anyone more than 20%. I think that's why the independents get less than 20%. It allowed istock to lower the average rate and get it closer to 20%.
-
Madness.
The timing of Stocksy is perfect.
-
I am speechless too. :o
Scary move by Getty/Istock. This is NOT a way to treat one of the most succesful stock photographers of Istock.
He will be succesful in any new endeavour he starts.
-
It's either heads on pikes (scare off the others who might be thinking of leaving so they get compliant and "behave), drive them all out (cull the exclusives to save money on royalty payments) or they're not very bright and haven't a clue what they've just done.
I think it's this. I bet it really annoys Getty that one of their companies pays anyone more than 20%. I think that's why the independents get less than 20%. It allowed istock to lower the average rate and get it closer to 20%.
They are going to delete all his files if they wanted to pay him 20% or less they would have ended his exclusivity. Istock also didn't make this public (heads on pikes). Always with the conspiracy theories, I think reading Sean's blog post gives the most rational and clear headed explanation of why this happened.
-
Hey Sean - you'll be back on your feet in no time. Work hard, remember to stay balanced with your family life as well. It's easy to think you have to work 80+ hours a week, but that's not going to be any good. Pace yourself. I've been through this with loss of a job in 2008, and hustling to get things moving. Learned the hard way, and got back on track with keeping work in its place.
Talk to the right people at whichever new agencies you choose, and try to make special arrangements if you can. They will jump through a few hoops, perhaps assisting you with uploads, pushing images live, in order to help out a contributor with a portfolio of images as strong as yours is. Don't tell me there isn't favoritism in this business. I've seen it firsthand. Most intelligently-run agencies will reach out to help you if they realize they're going to help themselves in turn. And don't forget what you bring to the table.
You'll do fine, and a year or two later you'll look back and realize that it was a blessing in disguise. Best wishes, man.
-
...Always with the conspiracy theories..
Conspiracy? Who said anything about a conspiracy?
To quote from A Princess Bride "I don't think it (that word )means what you think it means" Just because people have a badly thought out or mistaken or even unethical plan doesn't mean it's a conspiracy.
-
...Always with the conspiracy theories..
Conspiracy? Who said anything about a conspiracy?
To quote from A Princess Bride "I don't think it (that word )means what you think it means" Just because people have a badly thought out or mistaken or even unethical plan doesn't mean it's a conspiracy.
The conspiracy that every action taken is because of the grand plan to lower royalty rates or get people to quit exclusivity when there are much more plausible reasons for terminating Sean's account, like the ones he sets out in his own blog.
-
Un-be-effin-lievable... >:(
You were part of the very soul of the istock as we knew it (although being the businessman you are you might not care about that sort of sentimental cr*p)
Kudos for what you've done for the community overthere. Chin up and forward to greener pastures, i'll join the choir singing you'll be better off in the long run and its their loss, with your skills there's no doubts about it!
-
Wow, this move makes me distrust that company even more than all the recent crap they've pulled. I don't know why, maybe it just seems so vindictive. Sean will do fine, I have no doubt. istock on the other hand...
-
OMG, they have lost their minds...so incredibly stupid!!
-
In a certain way, he is lucky to quit Istock before the deep end, he has time to build another business with other agencies. Other big contributors might think to quit by themselves before the big crash.
-
Apparently some sort of statement is going to be released later today. No idea from who exactly. Lobo just says on the forum that something will be posted later.
Can't wait to see what that's all about.
-
Apparently some sort of statement is going to be released later today. No idea from who exactly. Lobo just says on the forum that something will be posted later.
Can't wait to see what that's all about.
"Listen you plebs: sook it up or ship out"
-
You've got to wonder exactly what business motive they had for dropping Sean. Surely this wasn't an emotional decision on their part! :) Considering how many salaries Sean's portfolio has covered at Getty/iStock, you'd think that some heads would have to roll immediately to make up for the abrupt loss in revenue. It's not as if his body of work can be easily replaced by newcomers or established stockers.
As for Sean, I know he'll come out of this on top. Thanks for sharing your many talents, knowledge and inspiration with us over the years. You're a leader in this industry. I wish you and your family the best and even greater success than you had with iStock.
-
Apparently some sort of statement is going to be released later today....
Polish that turd...
-
You covered it perfectly.
I always liked and respected Sean for his straight shooting posts and helpful, no nonsense factual information.
I don't know how my opinion can go up from, he's the tops, but it just doubled.
Sean didn't lead anything, (as they accuse him) he followed the general consensus and reacted to the popular opinion. In fact he was pretty quiet about the whole thing on the forums, except pointing out the detailed information.
Strange times indeed. Welcome to the club Sean, can I be your referral to SS. (that's a joke...) :D
Something tells me,they're not very bright and haven't a clue what they've just done.
or it's a suicide mission? Drive off all the exclusives, and kill IS.
OMG, they have lost their minds...so incredibly stupid!!
-
Apparently some sort of statement is going to be released later today. No idea from who exactly. Lobo just says on the forum that something will be posted later.
Can't wait to see what that's all about.
"Listen you plebs: sook it up or ship out"
The spin on this should be interesting. :o
-
The beatings will continue until moral improves
-
Between this and Lobo's admission that he (and others) closely follow the posts on MSG, is it any wonder that many of us use anonymous names? Notice it wasn't iStock that contacted Sean. It was Getty. Like the Google Drive deal, did iStock have any input on this or were they directed to proceed by their clueless overseers? Getty has always despised microstock so it's no real surprise that their attitude reflects this corporate culture. The old saying "To cut off your nose to spite your face" seems to apply quite nicely to Getty in this instance. And iStock as well if they did, indeed, have any hand in it.
-
Anyone know what the new stock site is?
-
Apparently some sort of statement is going to be released later today. No idea from who exactly. Lobo just says on the forum that something will be posted later.
Can't wait to see what that's all about.
I'm thinking in a Darth Vader voice, it will go like this...
You are part of the Rebel Alliance and a traitor! Take her away!
;D
-
Anyone know what the new stock site is?
http://www.microstockgroup.com/stocksy/bruce-our-night-in-shining-armor-stocksy-co-op/msg297869/?topicseen#new (http://www.microstockgroup.com/stocksy/bruce-our-night-in-shining-armor-stocksy-co-op/msg297869/?topicseen#new)
-
Apparently some sort of statement is going to be released later today. No idea from who exactly. Lobo just says on the forum that something will be posted later.
Can't wait to see what that's all about.
"Listen you plebs: sook it up or ship out"
;D Give the girl some hearts!
-
Apparently some sort of statement is going to be released later today. No idea from who exactly. Lobo just says on the forum that something will be posted later.
Can't wait to see what that's all about.
I'm thinking in a Darth Vader voice, it will go like this...
You are part of the Rebel Alliance and a traitor! Take her away!
;D
Wait... I'm changing my answer. Istock will claim that he weighed as much as a duck, so he was clearly a witch!
-
Wow. What a shock that must have been for you Sean. I'm so sorry to hear of it, but glad that you're adjusting so well and looking at things positively.
No doubt your terrific port will be welcomed with open arms elsewhere and I'm sure you'll do brilliantly well out in Indie-world. Wishing you so well in the fresh air of a new landscape.
-
What a travesty.
I can't think of anyone in stock that I respect more than Sean Locke. We don't always agree, but his opinion is one I value to the nth-degree. He was one of the animation artists for major Disney films like Mulan. Why would you ever part ways with an artist that valuable? This is so short sighted.
Good for Sean long term, I have no doubt. Hopefully he not only lands in Stocksy, but does so as a major part of the company. Whatever he does I'm certain he will profit from it immensely.
-
I guess this is their way of stopping Sean pursuing legal action over the Google Drive deal.
Gobsmackingly Machiavellian move by Getty.
-
I suspect the Feb 2 deactivation protest hurt them more than we knew.
What fools these mortals be.
Bruce and his new venture will crush iStock. I predict a great number of exclusives will jump ship now.
-
I really am shocked. Whoever made the decision needs to lose their job. What an absolutely stupid thing to do. They really are slowly digging their own graves!!!
-
Crikey. I can't think of anything to say that hasn't been said, but yes, everything that everyone else is saying, just wanted to add my two cents.
-
after this one, do we still have HAPPY exclusives? ::)
2 happy so far
-
I really am shocked. Whoever made the decision needs to lose their job. What an absolutely stupid thing to do. They really are slowly digging their own graves!!!
I'm actually not surprised - for corporates loyalty is a one way street. I think the graves are now dug and burying has commenced - it's not just the loss of the portfolio but the complete and utter loss of credibility - I can't imagine that any exclusive is not thinking about an exit strategy and, without them, all IS can offer is high, convoluted prices.
-
Sean, I think this very unprofessional kick-out is a blessing in disguise.
IS should have valued your support and efforts a lot more, actually you should have been on their employee payroll IMO for your tremendous amount of help you provided all around IS related questions in your blog and here.
I truly hope you have prepared yourself for such a short term disaster to provide for your family.
We all know that your skills will ensure further safety and security of your loved ones by selling at (many) other places.
Best of luck. Stay strong and keep posting here about your new ventures.
-
You don't think they did it when they did, with the deadline and all, just to get him out pre-Google statement; knowing how on the ball he is in terms of analyzing the ramifications of their decisions and ins and out of their dealings (read seeing through the bullsh*t)
Perhaps that statement wont make any reference to Sean at all
-
Really shocked and sorry to hear this news Sean.
I note from your blog that the original email, threatening such action, appears to have been dated 5th Feb which was actually 2 days before the Stocksy site announcement. Therefore they can't be directly related.
It looks to me that Getty have, in a bid to stem the revolution, chosen to go for the revolution's 'leader', at least in their own minds. I'm sorry that you've had to pay the price for standing up for fair treatment and helping your fellow contributors.
Good luck with expanding into new areas for licensing your content although I doubt that you'll need it.
The decisions being made by Getty recently are becoming more bizarre by the day. They appear to be committing suicide by a thousand cuts.
-
iStock/Getty's lack of professionally in dealing with contributors is appalling to say the least.
Sean, i very sincerely wish you best of luck in your next choices, and I'm also sure this is going to be nothing more than a good thing for you.
-
One door closes, another (or several others) opens.
-
On Sean's blog in the comments, Rob Sylvan reports his contract was also terminated with 30 days notice. Are there any more, anyone else getting booted?
-
This should have been filed under "it was coming". Sean asked questions that they were either afraid to answer or just plain out did not want to. This is a sign of worse things to come for the crowns. My opinion, no sympathy for those who stay there exclusively. Plenty of other places to go that do not operate that way. It would just take some time to move images over.
-
On Sean's blog in the comments, Rob Sylvan reports his contract was also terminated with 30 days notice. Are there any more, anyone else getting booted?
So this was because of their relationship with Stocksy, right? Seems like that has to be the issue there. I can't see why else Rob would get the same termination notice at around the same time.
-
On Sean's blog in the comments, Rob Sylvan reports his contract was also terminated with 30 days notice. Are there any more, anyone else getting booted?
So this was because of their relationship with Stocksy, right? Seems like that has to be the issue there.
There is no mention of Stocksy in Sean's blog post
-
I am just stunned. Sean is one of the most respected members of the stock community and we all admire his brainpower.
And his portfolio has incredible commercial value, whatever agency can sign him up, exclusive or not will be lucky to have him.
The only people benefitting from this strange decision is the competition. It is a direct gift for them.
Like Joe says, if the threats started before the stocksy announcement then it has nothing to do with it. stocksy is anyway a non existent entity without customers.
Shutterstock, Fotolia, Dreamstime - that is the real competition, especially Shutterstock.
But the biggest enemy of business success for Getty are their own decisions. First they create a terrible situation with the Getty/Google Deal and now they crash their reputation even more by kicking out Rob and Sean with 30 days notice.
They seem to spend a lot of energy into looking for "enemies" outside that they can blame.
Why donīt they just focus on their company instead and grow the business?
Sean didnīt send over files for 12 dollars to 425 Million people on Google without Metadata. This was the decision made by Gettyimages.
I am really sorry Sean. Even with your resources, 30 days notice must be difficult to manage and your family depends on your full time stock income.
-
On Sean's blog in the comments, Rob Sylvan reports his contract was also terminated with 30 days notice. Are there any more, anyone else getting booted?
So this was because of their relationship with Stocksy, right? Seems like that has to be the issue there.
There is no mention of Stocksy in Sean's blog post
Sure there is just not by name.
"A week or so ago, I became aware of a new entrant to the stock agency world, still in Beta testing (not available to the public). As I have done at other times, at other sites, I took the opportunity to join the membership when it arose, to investigate the site, the workflow, the pay schedule, etc. For while I have been successful as an exclusive iStockphoto contributor, I am not blind to the opportunities that can be provided by others. Since I joined, I uploaded files to test and experiment with the system. Keep in mind, at this stage in the game, the other site is not licensing content and does not violate any exclusivity agreement."
-
Was Sean's name on the previously public facebook list of Stocksy members? I thought it was, could be wrong, though.
Sounds like this may have been the result of several things, but his Stocksy involvement and the fact that Bruce is at the helm of Stocksy probably rubbed a few Getty folks the wrong way.
Not that it should have mattered. Sean violated no part of his ASA with istock.
I'd be surprised if this is limited to just Rob and Sean. I suspect there are others involved, maybe folks who aren't forum regulars or people who just haven't let us in on the news yet.
-
I just want to add my voice to those thanking Sean for his leadership and wishing him the best. With the quality of his work, I'm sure he'll land on his feet -- and deservedly so.
He's handled this situation (and the events leading up to it) with a lot more class than Getty/iStock did.
-
Crikey. I can't think of anything to say that hasn't been said, but yes, everything that everyone else is saying, just wanted to add my two cents.
Go on, say it - +1
-
As crappy as this was handled, I believe it will end up a true "blessing in disguise" for you, Sean. You will definitely be back up and running with other agencies in no time!
It is a shame they stooped to such lows but Getty seems to think they are "too big to fail." I believe they will find they are sorely mistaken.
-
I don't contribute to istock, but maybe it is time to crush the istock empire! Literally put them out of business and end their madness. Stop contributing and pull your photos off their site, see how fast they do a 180!
-
Maybe it is time to crush the istock empire! Literally put them out of business and end their madness. Stop contributing and pull your photos off their site, see how fast they do a 180!
If you know of a remedy to cure the Stockholm Syndrome it might work. Otherwise, it will be an impossible project.
-
As crappy as this was handled, I believe it will end up a true "blessing in disguise" for you, Sean. You will definitely be back up and running with other agencies in no time!
It is a shame they stooped to such lows but Getty seems to think they are "too big to fail." I believe they will find they are sorely mistaken.
You are absolutely right! However, istock is not too big to fail.
-
Sean, thanks for all your help at IS and good luck. I truly hope you engineer something spectacular!
-
Maybe it is time to crush the istock empire! Literally put them out of business and end their madness. Stop contributing and pull your photos off their site, see how fast they do a 180!
If you know of a remedy to cure the Stockholm Syndrome it might work. Otherwise, it will be an impossible project.
Difficult, yes! Impossible, No. I don't have remedy unfortunately :(
-
I've admired Sean's courage in standing up for the truth instead of being a "yes man" for a long time, I'm really not surprised to see this but I'm still shocked by it.
I'm sure that we all understand the message: that Getty/istock is the boss and we had all better shut up if we don't want to be booted.
I wait with bated breath for the annnouncement promised by Lobo. If it is anything other than "I, Lobo, resign" it will not be of much moral standing.
-
I note from your blog that the original email, threatening such action, appears to have been dated 5th Feb which was actually 2 days before the Stocksy site announcement. Therefore they can't be directly related.
The Feb 7th "announcement" was more of a "the public discovered it" thing, as I saw it. From what I've heard, Getty knew about it far before I ever did.
-
I've admired Sean's courage in standing up for the truth instead of being a "yes man" for a long time, I'm really not surprised to see this but I'm still shocked by it.
I'm sure that we all understand the message: that Getty/istock is the boss and we had all better shut up if we don't want to be booted.
Yes, it was probably my fault - obviously too vocal on the issues. I don't think there's anything secret that can be brought up - it's all out there, afaik.
-
It may well be the "easy deletion" script that really got up their noses.
-
Wow, what a terrible couple months for microstock in general. You can tell it's all going under pretty quickly.
iStock has always been the rudest and most difficult agency for me to deal with, this just confirms their true colors for me.
Look at how they treat their exclusive artists, I don't even want to know what they think about non-exclusives.
Out of human decency I'm pulling my port from IS when I reach my payout. I won't earn a cent more for them.
-
It may well be the "easy deletion" script that really got up their noses.
Very possible. There probably was a reason why IS made it such a pain to deactivate files.
Now Sean is coming a long with a nice handy script so they feel like losing control over their territory.
-
I know a lot of people are wondering what direction you'll go in now? Your own site, a Beta testing co-op, Shutterstock, something else entirely? I would not be surprised to see more than a few people follow your lead.
-
I am absolutely stunned. This news is more surprising to me than the abdication of the Pope!
I shouldn't be surprised that Getty are this short-sighted, but I still am. They are losing so much more by losing Sean's talent, integrity, and portfolio than he is losing by being free to pursue his independence.
They must be scared sh*tless to make such a foolish move.
-
Out of human decency I'm pulling my port from IS when I reach my payout. I won't earn a cent more for them.
Yep, me too. I trashed my port on D-Day, but I will get the rest out once the PP pays out in a week or so.
What a bunch of nutters! If it wasn't horribly serious in the short-term for Sean, Rob and their families it would be laughable. I know I would rather get canned than be a 'yes man' though.
I suspect they probably thought they would make an example of Sean to keep everyone else in line, but to me this just makes it more likely that people will give up on them and go elsewhere.
-
It may well be the "easy deletion" script that really got up their noses.
It seems so, but you would think that script would have been "handled" = deleted and Sean reprimanded as soon as it was released into the forums. Who knows, IS might have saved a lot of deactivations right then and there. They are very good at removing posts, that displease the management. There is much more to this!
-
Sean, thanks for helping show us Getty's true colors. Apparently you revealed a WHOLE LOT MORE than they wanted anyone to see. I sincerely say "Congratulations!" You will be much better off without the chains of GI. And they're worse off for their stupid decision (waah).
-
It may well be the "easy deletion" script that really got up their noses.
It seems so, but you would think that script would have been "handled" = deleted and Sean reprimanded as soon as it was released into the forums. Who knows, IS might have saved a lot of deactivations right then and there. They are very good at removing posts, that displease the management. There is much more to this!
Corporate intertia? The real big boys hadn't heard of what happened until today? That's my best reading of it.
-
Sean,
I haven't had the pleasure yet of meeting you but for sure you are a great guy and you were one of the big assets iStock had. The fact that they kicked you out was the proverbial last straw and I will leave iStock asap. Maybe the new agency will be the place to go for me as well. It would be great to meet there again.
Cheers
-
Sean, I salute your courage and your principles. I wish you a soft landing and I hope the success you see in the future is in inverse proportion to that of Getty and iStock.
-
Changed my mind - realised there was no point waiting. My port has now gone. What a relief!
-
Was Sean's name on the previously public facebook list of Stocksy members?
There is no Stocksy member list. There is a Facebook group of people interested in Stocksy. There were more than 100 people on that list but almost none of them have actually been involved in Stocksy in any ways. It can't be a reason for someone to be in a Facebook list to terminate his account.
-
I am truly shocked by this. Good luck to Sean, I'm sure you'll do very well whatever your next steps may be. This makes no sense to me. Not even a forum ban first if iStock felt he was saying things they didn't want to hear in the forums? Again, shocked and dismayed be this move.
-
Was Sean's name on the previously public facebook list of Stocksy members?
There is no Stocksy member list. There is a Facebook group of people interested in Stocksy. There were more than 100 people on that list but almost none of them have actually been involved in Stocksy in any ways. It can't be a reason for someone to be in a Facebook list to terminate his account.
Yes, I saw Sean's name on the facebook list before it went secret, but I agree that I don't believe this to be the (only) reason for kicking him out.
I think the deactivation script might be a more important reason, and I must say I feel a bit guilty. I have, like many others, praised Sean (well deserved!) for making the script. All the praise may have given Istock the impression that Sean was the Leader of the 2nd February "movement". 2nd Feb. was not his idea, nor did he lead us, but we did praise him A LOT for making the script.
-
I'm shocked speechless. They've lynched the voice of reason, the elder of the tribe. An astounding decision.
My thoughts and best wishes go out to you and your family, Sean. I hope your comeback will be swift and sure.
-
Whoever finalized that decision should be demoted to scrubbing toilets! Good luck Sean.
-
I'm shocked speechless. They've lynched the voice of reason, the elder of the tribe. An astounding decision.
My thoughts and best wishes go out to you and your family, Sean. I hope your comeback will be swift and sure.
I think your avatar now needs to be an animated gif Don, circling a bit :) Gallows humor I know...
-
Just when they were hoping that their lack of action might settle the discontent, they go and do this, reigniting the fire! What an odd move. I'm only a small part-time contributor but I have always been in awe of Sean (the Other Stock God). It's a risky move on IS' part. (Has anyone started a thread on iS about it?)
-
Was Sean's name on the previously public facebook list of Stocksy members?
There is no Stocksy member list. There is a Facebook group of people interested in Stocksy. There were more than 100 people on that list but almost none of them have actually been involved in Stocksy in any ways. It can't be a reason for someone to be in a Facebook list to terminate his account.
Hey Michael. Read his blog post again, it sounds like he was helping them beta test their system.
-
Was Sean's name on the previously public facebook list of Stocksy members?
There is no Stocksy member list. There is a Facebook group of people interested in Stocksy. There were more than 100 people on that list but almost none of them have actually been involved in Stocksy in any ways. It can't be a reason for someone to be in a Facebook list to terminate his account.
Hey Michael. Read his blog post again, it sounds like he was helping them beta test their system.
Well, as MJ said, that was just a group of people interested in the topic, not a member list of any sort. Besides, being a member of any site, new or not, is not a crime.
-
Just when they were hoping that their lack of action might settle the discontent...
Did anyone really believe that they wished to settle any discontent?
I think we've long since passed the point where Getty felt the need to give a %#!- about the contentment of contributors. They've perfected the art of doing whatever pleases them with total disregard for how we might react.
-
Yes, it was probably my fault - obviously too vocal on the issues.
It's true, Sean. You are a pesky guy, always wanting to be paid the correct amount, making sure your intellectual property is being protected by your agent, and informing your colleagues about important issues. The nerve of you!
-
well there's been some mention of it in the google thread (the one where nothing was said at all, but the ms news was tacked in as a "positive") and Lobo has threatened all to shut up about it.
-
Still can't get over the fact that Rob was booted as well. His port is small, he's not an active contributor, wasn't involved in any revolution as far as I could see. His only "crime" is his rather prominent involvement with Stocksy, via the Facebook group.
The message is, anyone seen to be associated with Stocksy (even privately, as Sean was) will be risking their iStock account. Getty must feel seriously threatened by Stocksy, and that's probably good news for us contributors. Getty usually have their finger on the pulse of the industry, their behaviour in this matter is a vote of confidence in Stocksy as a viable future competitor.
So ironically, Getty have just done Stocksy a big favour!
-
I think IS loses not only a quality contributor but also a good critique, a consultant on everything related with microstock, a software developer, etc. etc. I wish you good luck Sean. I am sure this will bring you a bright future.
Getty Management is giving clear message here. They want to show us 'look, we can dismiss even Sean, so beware and shut up'. They are shooting themselves in the foot.
Any idea how things will turn out? Any other big contributor leaving?
-
Just when they were hoping that their lack of action might settle the discontent...
Did anyone really believe that they wished to settle any discontent?
I think we've long since passed the point where Getty felt the need to give a %#!- about the contentment of contributors. They've perfected the art of doing whatever pleases them with total disregard for how we might react.
It seems on the iS forums that many truly believe there'll be some announcement that explains and/or makes it better? Certainly there are hints that such an announcement is coming, but the longer it drags on, despite this one from Lobo We aren't ignoring it or putting off anything in order to see how long it will take before we have fatigued the entire community on discussing it.
it truly feels like they hope we all just forget.
If that was their game plan, then this move is so very odd. I don't think they're stupid, they must be playing 2 moves ahead, so I'm wondering what's coming next.
-
Apparently some sort of statement is going to be released later today. No idea from who exactly. Lobo just says on the forum that something will be posted later.
Can't wait to see what that's all about.
There will be a statement after which Lobo will do the only thing he knows how to do.....lock it. No questions, comments.
-
Wow. This is really shocking. I really can't believe iStock would close Sean's account. He has loads of great images, is active on their forums, helps people out and gives good critique of the site. And by critique I mean helps them spot things that need to be fixed or things that are unclear. If anyone has held a professional attitude in this whole ordeal it would be him. That is the type of member a site should be eager to have.
I am really blind to what iStock (or Getty rather) feel they are gaining by removing Sean's port. If they say it is 'purely business' they must feel they are better off without his images or his presence on iStock. I just don't see it that way... quite the opposite actually.
-
I am really blind to what iStock (or Getty rather) feel they are gaining by removing Sean's port. If they say it is 'purely business' they must feel they are better off without his images or his presence on iStock. I just don't see it that way... quite the opposite actually.
Tyler, they are just acting like we're their employees - "you make trouble we'll fire you" or "you try to work somewhere else we'll fire you". I wish their bosses understood we're not on their payroll - they are simply our agent. So what, this particular agent dropped Sean - well I am sure there is line up of others waiting to pick up and represent his work.
-
OMG.
They have lost their mind.
We will be handing in our 30 day notice and giving up the crown ASAP.
You have to wonder if for some bizarre reason that was part of what iStock wanted - to get more exclusives to jump ship. So many have been on the fence for a while and uncertain about the right thing to do. This insanity on iStock's part will help make up more minds than yours, I'm guessing.
Agree. I think that many exclusives will leave now. There will be some that will take a wait and see approach, monitor Sean's success on the outside. The fact that Istock feels threatened by Stocksy is an encouraging sign.
-
Soooooo, being a member of the wrong facebook group and expressing a critical yet balanced opinion in public forums gets you thrown out of a company you stayed faithful with for many years and makes you lose your source of income? Yes, very trustworthy. Makes me wanna be a exclusive again hahahahaa ;D ::) 8) :o
My best wishes to you Sean! News like that leave a terribly bad feeling in the guts and I feel so much respect for you that you are able to maintain a balanced opinion (as I see in your Blog post) and that you had been able to set a new constructive course so fast.
-
Perhaps they (Getty/Istock) were seeing the writing on the wall that he was on his was out the door and felt that it would be better for them to control the timing. If he chose to leave on his own it might almost be worse for them.
Having said that, I have always used Sean as a gauge to just how bad things might get. It always seemed to me that despite all apparent signs, as long as he was still there things might not be as bad as they appear. He always is a voice of reason for both sides and I trust his viewpoint. I assume I am not the only one who felt he had more insight into the situations than I did and I always waited for his response to a situation before I finally made up my own mind. Hopefully, he will weigh in on the other sites he chooses to upload to. I will be interested to hear his feedback on independence.
Thank you Sean for your efforts. Good luck - not that you'll need it.
-
I've admired Sean's courage in standing up for the truth instead of being a "yes man" for a long time, I'm really not surprised to see this but I'm still shocked by it.
I'm sure that we all understand the message: that Getty/istock is the boss and we had all better shut up if we don't want to be booted.
Yes, it was probably my fault - obviously too vocal on the issues. I don't think there's anything secret that can be brought up - it's all out there, afaik.
Nothing in this is your fault. They are plain unprofessional. Nobody that cannot take constructive criticism or respects freedom of speech deserves you as a Contributor. Probably it is a very good thing for you beeing able to build up your Port on other sites before they seriously tank.
-
Sean - Sorry to hear this news. I'm sure you will land on your feet. I've always greatly appreciated your willingness to speak up regarding problems at Istock in a constructive way which has benefited all Istock contributors.
I have to say that I really don't understand their thinking on this. Given how well known you are in the micro world, treating you like this and freeing up your portfolio to buyers who don't shop at Istock does not make any sense to me. This is going to affect some buyers decision making in a bad way for Istock.
I have to figure it is the Stocksy connection, given it happened to Rob as well. Is there a Getty mole in Stocksy? ;D Sounds like they are hopping mad about what Bruce is doing and want to make an example of you. I think it will go the other way with lots of people who have never heard of Stocksy now wanting to find out more about it.
-
I think IS loses not only a quality contributor but also a good critique, a consultant on everything related with microstock, a software developer, etc. etc. I wish you good luck Sean. I am sure this will bring you a bright future.
Getty Management is giving clear message here. They want to show us 'look, we can dismiss even Sean, so beware and shut up'. They are shooting themselves in the foot.
Any idea how things will turn out? Any other big contributor leaving?
I really do hope that if our friends have confided in us that we keep it only to ourselves. Sharing it with anyone else could have disastrous consequences for people who have worked hard to build sustainable incomes.
-
I have to figure it is the Stocksy connection, given it happened to Rob as well. Is there a Getty mole in Stocksy? ;D Sounds like they are hopping mad about what Bruce is doing and want to make an example of you. I think it will go the other way with lots of people who have never heard of Stocksy now wanting to find out more about it.
It's more than Stocksy - it's personal and spiteful.
Yu-know-who has his very own site up and running and he hasn't been booted off iS.
-
I have to figure it is the Stocksy connection, given it happened to Rob as well. Is there a Getty mole in Stocksy? ;D Sounds like they are hopping mad about what Bruce is doing and want to make an example of you. I think it will go the other way with lots of people who have never heard of Stocksy now wanting to find out more about it.
It's more than Stocksy - it's personal and spiteful.
Yu-know-who has his very own site up and running and he hasn't been booted off iS.
exactly! Sean did ZERO or close to zero damage to iStock (actually gave them a few millions), Yuri OTOH...
-
I really don't think iStock realise the amount of damage they have inflicted upon themselves by doing this...hard to see what they are trying to achieve. Sean, I think you will find this event liberating for you...this will be evident quite quickly.
-
I have to figure it is the Stocksy connection, given it happened to Rob as well. Is there a Getty mole in Stocksy? ;D Sounds like they are hopping mad about what Bruce is doing and want to make an example of you. I think it will go the other way with lots of people who have never heard of Stocksy now wanting to find out more about it.
It's more than Stocksy - it's personal and spiteful.
Yu-know-who has his very own site up and running and he hasn't been booted off iS.
exactly! Sean did ZERO or close to zero damage to iStock (actually gave them a few millions), Yuri OTOH...
Yeah, but Yuri gets private meetings with TPTB at Getty...seems like he is playing their game, that's why he doesn't get the boot (IMHO, of course).
-
Sean blew the whistle and they didn't like it, it is a huge risk to do that and I respect him for it, he has more guts then me! He paid a big price for giving us the info he did. They are making this a pissing match and are willing to bet the farm they will win.
-
I have to figure it is the Stocksy connection, given it happened to Rob as well. Is there a Getty mole in Stocksy? ;D Sounds like they are hopping mad about what Bruce is doing and want to make an example of you. I think it will go the other way with lots of people who have never heard of Stocksy now wanting to find out more about it.
It's more than Stocksy - it's personal and spiteful.
Yu-know-who has his very own site up and running and he hasn't been booted off iS.
exactly! Sean did ZERO or close to zero damage to iStock (actually gave them a few millions), Yuri OTOH...
Yeah, but Yuri gets private meetings with TPTB at Getty...seems like he is playing their game, that's why he doesn't get the boot (IMHO, of course).
Yuri loves to talk around and distract us (what a community guy!), that is what he does the best, not sure if he ever gets any meeting, if he does we see zero from that, there is nothing to thank him, actually I don't understand why we talk about him, he has already 24 "photographers" working for him (sorry guys, back on topic!)
-
Sean, iStock is the biggest loser, not just because they will be missing your images as they certainly will, but, as well, by kicking you out without a valid reason they are making very bad publicity for themselve by spreading a cloud of doubt over all members, would-be members, buyers and would-be buyers. Your images and spirit will survive as no one can take that away from you.
-
Would be great if former Istock staff members come here and put some inside information for our amusement.
-
PetaPixel have the story.
http://www.petapixel.com/2013/02/11/istockphoto-booting-top-photographer-in-wake-of-gettygoogle-hoopla/ (http://www.petapixel.com/2013/02/11/istockphoto-booting-top-photographer-in-wake-of-gettygoogle-hoopla/)
-
Gotta be honest, I think it's for the best. Sean has the talent and the know-how on how to succeed going forward. It's better to get this out of the way in one big swoop than being tortured with nonsense by iStock going forward in various forms including image refusals.
I say cheers as this can only be positive for Sean.
-
I am really blind to what iStock (or Getty rather) feel they are gaining by removing Sean's port. If they say it is 'purely business' they must feel they are better off without his images or his presence on iStock. I just don't see it that way... quite the opposite actually.
Tyler, they are just acting like we're their employees - "you make trouble we'll fire you" or "you try to work somewhere else we'll fire you". I wish their bosses understood we're not on their payroll - they are simply our agent. So what, this particular agent dropped Sean - well I am sure there is line up of others waiting to pick up and represent his work.
Yes, and furthermore they just do not understand running a crowdsourced buisiness: A big part of the crowd follows Sean and now Sean is going somewhere else. Any risk his followers will go with him? Yes!
-
pieman has just asserted that Rob's going is unrelated to Sean's going. He's a good friend of Rob so this is probably not spin. Maybe the Stocksy issue is not that relevant in Sean's case.
-
I have not one second's doubt that Sean will come out of this doing very well. But I do think it's deeply chilling that an organization would remove someone's livelihood with a piddling 30 days notice - and whatever Getty's reason, they don't have to have one according to the ASA.
All the iStock boosters who see a future there assume that the other party (Getty) will act reasonably and ethically. One might reasonably assume that being as successful as Sean has been would increase the likelihood that Getty would act reasonably and ethically - given that they both stand to benefit so much from a solid working partnership.
iStock's action has clearly demonstrated that no one should feel safe - not because of how much time and effort they put in to building or boosting or promoting iStock or their portfolio, or how long they'd been a member, or whatever their sales.
I read a story about Blackbeard (the pirate) shooting some random crew member and explaining that if you didn't act unpredictably and harshly on a regular basis people might take advantage of you, thinking you were going soft.
Thinking about Fair Trade terms with respect to Rob's and Sean's termination notices it had me considering what one would want in the ASA in place of the current 30 day notice (which I think is at all the agencies in similar form). How about that a 30-day notice from the agency would only be for violating the agreement. Terminations for no reason would require a longer notice period - 3 months perhaps - so that people wouldn't be cut off at the knees. It takes time to upload your portfolio (even if it isn't 12K images) to other agencies. The termination period should take account of that reality.
-
With so many big (and small) names getting pushed out of stock it seems to be obvious that those parties will reform with even more motivation (and probably even desperation) to form a site like stocksy. Congrats getty. Again you shoot yourself into the foot. I would be glad if I could be another bullet in there and join stocksy asap :D
-
Perhaps they (Getty/Istock) were seeing the writing on the wall that he was on his was out the door and felt that it would be better for them to control the timing. If he chose to leave on his own it might almost be worse for them.
Having said that, I have always used Sean as a gauge to just how bad things might get. It always seemed to me that despite all apparent signs, as long as he was still there things might not be as bad as they appear. He always is a voice of reason for both sides and I trust his viewpoint. I assume I am not the only one who felt he had more insight into the situations than I did and I always waited for his response to a situation before I finally made up my own mind. Hopefully, he will weigh in on the other sites he chooses to upload to. I will be interested to hear his feedback on independence.
Thank you Sean for your efforts. Good luck - not that you'll need it.
Insightful post.
I see this as Getty management becoming impatient with Istock and the traditional relationship that they have had with their contributors __ in stark contrast to the way Getty has historically dealt with dissenters. Be under no illusion that Getty are now quite prepared to over-rule historical sensitivities in the management of Istock and deal directly with problems as they see them.
This particular issue, the Getty/Google-Drive deal, was very much a Getty rather than an Istock initiative and, as far as I'm aware, it has only been Istock contributors that have kicked up a fuss. With Sean having made us aware of it, researched it and provided some clever tools for us to identify our images and express our distaste ... it's pretty obvious why he would be Getty's target. It's just a shame he wasn't backed up by any others of his status (who chose to remain remarkably silent).
I'm still stunned. I would have said, before today, that Sean was actually Istock's greatest asset. As well as being a genius content provider, massive team-player and top contributor to Istock's bottom-line ... he kept it real. Someone we all looked up to (including the management of Istock).
As someone once said of a troublesome colleague, "I'd rather have him inside the tent and p1ssing outside ... than outside the tent and p1ssing inside.". Getty have made a huge mistake.
-
Sean is like his avatar--Superman of stock. Although this probably stings a bit now, his creative business mind can now go ape sh_t.
All the remaining exclusives now know what a sh_t storm they're facing in terms of how Getty "really" supports them. This decision should be a brutal warning to their remaining exclusives (or non-exclusives for that matter) that Getty clearly defines their contributors as commodities, therefore making all of them easily expendable.
Hang tough, Sean, as we all know you will.
-
Sean is like his avatar--Superman of stock. Although this probably stings a bit now, his creative business mind can now go ape sh_t.
Well said. And I'll be here waiting for him to start iLockephoto. :)
-
Gotta be honest, I think it's for the best. Sean has the talent and the know-how on how to succeed going forward. It's better to get this out of the way in one big swoop than being tortured with nonsense by iStock going forward in various forms including image refusals.
I say cheers as this can only be positive for Sean.
Long-term, it's probably for the best. I believe Sean will do better financially as an independent. Maybe not right away, but eventually.
But I don't think he's better off leaving istock in this way. He's at a disadvantage, with just 30 days to get things in order with other companies and maybe being at a disadvantage coming from a very public termination. I think his position would have been more advantageous if he were still fully on-board with istock and went to other companies expressing a possible interest in breaking exclusivity.
Instead, the companies he's approaching very likely already know that he has no where else to turn. He needs them more than they need him now. Whereas before he might have negotiated a better pay rate, an all-in no-review portfolio acceptance, etc.
Not saying he still can't do those things, just that he might have been in a better position to negotiate such things if he weren't being kicked out and were expressing an interest in leaving on his own instead.
-
I am totally gobsmacked by this. What a mindless, petty, idiotic thing for istock/getty to do. Ive always argued that their policies were a sign of incompetence rather than malice. Now in one fell swoop they have demonstrated that its quite possible to be both malicious and incompetent at one and the same time.
I cant think of anything else they could have done that would have demonstrated their complete and utter contempt for their contributor base so thoroughly.
-
It's either heads on pikes (scare off the others who might be thinking of leaving so they get compliant and "behave), drive them all out (cull the exclusives to save money on royalty payments) or they're not very bright and haven't a clue what they've just done.
I reckon it's all three.
- They get flush out those who've been wavering
- They get to pay less to all the exclusives dropping their crowns AND distribute their images into darker corners of their network.
- If the above two are true, they might be 'clever', but they're stupid.
-
Sean is like his avatar--Superman of stock. Although this probably stings a bit now, his creative business mind can now go ape sh_t.
Well said. And I'll be here waiting for him to start iLockephoto. :)
I LOVE IT: ILOCKEPHOTO
-
Hey Michael. Read his blog post again, it sounds like he was helping them beta test their system.
So what? First of all, I was responding to someone mentioning an FB group could have been the reason. If that was a case, they must have sent termination to >100 other people just showing interest in the topic "Stocksy". I am in that FB group, I didn't receive a letter.
Secondly, Sean is one of the big guys in stock. Why wouldn't he look around in the market, why wouldn't he test things out, why wouldn't he talk to people? Are you just sitting tight and let things happen, trusting that the environment around you is never going to change? I wouldn't consider that smart business approach.
Any distributor terminating his relationship with a supplier just on the basis that the supplier has investigated other players in the market just shows that the distributor has lost all respect for the business of any of its suppliers. To me it says that the distributor trusts in the fact that there will always be enough suppliers and they prefer to deal with smaller ones because it will give them even more power. I would consider what this means to your future as well.
-
pieman has just asserted that Rob's going is unrelated to Sean's going. He's a good friend of Rob so this is probably not spin. Maybe the Stocksy issue is not that relevant in Sean's case.
Well, it was one of the two things I got out of them, the other being Google and related, so if they had feelings about something else, I sure don't know. And Rob couldn't get any reason, so, who knows.
By the way, thanks again for the support. It's very much appreciated.
-
This clearly tells me Getty has more unpleasant things in store for the contributors in the near future. For all the exclusives still hoping... this is an ominous sign. I fear it will only get worse.
They would not kick Sean out if they were willing to concede to any of our concerns or make it better for the contributor. It is business as usual to maximize profits.
I fully agree with Chromaco's post "Perhaps they (Getty/Istock) were seeing the writing on the wall that he was on his was out the door and felt that it would be better for them to control the timing. If he chose to leave on his own it might almost be worse for them."
They were fully aware of him starting his own discussion group to talk freely without the need for censorship. The script he wrote that quickly deactivates files with ease is a godsend for most contributors. I wonder how many thousands of files were deactivated this way. They have the data to prove it. And last but not least, Stocksy which he is a member of. This looks like some sort of plan B or exit strategy in their eyes.
Still, they can change all this around by making things better and getting on his and the contributors good side. But they wont. Because it really seems to me that the company motto is profit first, by all means necessary.
What happened to Sean is messed up, but i feel the most sorry for is for the people that have to work in that environment that is Getty. Im sure some really hate their jobs or really have to detach themselves from work. And I wonder about the people stuck on istock knowing they work in this corporate environment when just a few years ago, it was a different vibe all together. ok Im going off topic now.
-
I rarely come in here but because the whole subject is censored at iStock I just wanted to say I am sorry to hear of this news. I wish Sean all the best and am sure his portfolio will be immensely successful.
-
I am totally gobsmacked by this. What a mindless, petty, idiotic thing for istock/getty to do. Ive always argued that their policies were a sign of incompetence rather than malice. Now in one fell swoop they have demonstrated that its quite possible to be both malicious and incompetent at one and the same time.
I cant think of anything else they could have done that would have demonstrated their complete and utter contempt for their contributor base so thoroughly.
I couldn't agree more. I really couldn't think of anythink more Getty could have done to damage their sales, un-nerve and undermine their existing remaining exclusives and boost their competition. Oringer must be running around giving high-fives to anyone he meets right now. Those financial projections will be so much easier to reach with Mr Locke's portfolio on SS ... and not on IS. What a gift!
-
Oringer must be running around giving high-fives to anyone he meets right now. Those financial projections will be so much easier to reach with Mr Locke's portfolio on SS ... and not on IS. What a gift!
So he is submitting to the sub sites, I always thought he opposed putting his images there. That is big news.
-
I fully agree with Chromaco's post "Perhaps they (Getty/Istock) were seeing the writing on the wall that he was on his was out the door and felt that it would be better for them to control the timing. If he chose to leave on his own it might almost be worse for them."
hmm, worse than pushing Sean into martrydom? Terminating Sean keeps them as the evil overlords and keeps us peasants on the path to revolt. Is that really how they want to play this?
-
Oringer must be running around giving high-fives to anyone he meets right now. Those financial projections will be so much easier to reach with Mr Locke's portfolio on SS ... and not on IS. What a gift!
So he is submitting to the sub sites, always thought he opposed putting his images there. That is big news.
--------------------
Unless I missed it, he did not say where he would be submitting, only that his stuff would be on a few sites shortly.
-
Sean, first, Im sorry you have now lost an income.
You have also gotten new oppertunities, I hope it will work out for the better for you.
Next, I saw it coming. Companies do not like activities like scripts that facilitates destructive actions. They have designed the site so its exactly as difficult to deactivate as they want, so we do not deactivate too quickly.
Then there are a few interesting things in how the case developed.
1.. You were informed in a telephone call (means you dont have any proof of what they said, and they are afraid of that proof, again means that their reasons might not hold water)
2.. They mentioned "the exclusive spirit". Means they are VERY afraid of upcoming alternatives.
3.. They mentioned that you have taken part in an undermining protest. Means that the protest hurt them, and since they kick you out, they are afraid of future protests.
4.. They have done the calculations and figured out that you and the protest has cost them more than you earn for them. Which is interesting, because then you know something about the financial impact of the protest.
5.. Timing. They kicked you AFTER the protest and not before. Means they waited to see how big the impact was, so it was bigger than they expected.
Best wishes...
-
Oringer must be running around giving high-fives to anyone he meets right now. Those financial projections will be so much easier to reach with Mr Locke's portfolio on SS ... and not on IS. What a gift!
So he is submitting to the sub sites, I always thought he opposed putting his images there. That is big news.
He has not said that he is. Some people are assuming that he will. I suspect and hope he will not be forced to.
-
And yes, SS is fishing, we can see that in their press releases.
Smart guys.
-
The reason for this is simple. Getty couldn't allow Sean to interfere with their plans to destroy microstock.
-
This clearly tells me Getty has more unpleasant things in store for the contributors in the near future. For all the exclusives still hoping... this is an ominous sign. I fear it will only get worse...
I think we're on our third or fourth ominous sign at this point, and it's been getting worse.
-
I am in that FB group, I didn't receive a letter.
Yet... ;)
-
I am in that FB group, I didn't receive a letter.
Yet... ;)
They have my phone number.
-
Sean, you've been an inspiration and my barometer for measuring the ups and downs at iStock. I'm still stunned but agree with others that it was a shot across the bow intended to quiet the masses. Wishing you all the best.
By the way - has anyone told Rebecca yet? Sean's not around to tell her now that his forum privileges were revoked and it seems from the Google Drive incident that they needed him to find out what Getty was up to.
-
What happened to Sean is messed up, but i feel the most sorry for is for the people that have to work in that environment that is Getty. Im sure some really hate their jobs or really have to detach themselves from work. And I wonder about the people stuck on istock knowing they work in this corporate environment when just a few years ago, it was a different vibe all together. ok Im going off topic now.
This is a quote about the Getty/Google deal on the photocamel forum. Reinforces my instincts about them.
Re: Getty selling your iStock image, for $12
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Getty is the scum bag of all scum bags. I should know, i worked for them for 2 years.
____________________
Chuck Dee - AKA Chris
-
This little quote just popped into my head. Could not resist ;D
Movie Quotes: "If You strike me down"(Star Wars IV) (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=t8RCQDDsMpU#)
-
This clearly tells me Getty has more unpleasant things in store for the contributors in the near future. For all the exclusives still hoping... this is an ominous sign. I fear it will only get worse...
I think we're on our third or fourth ominous sign at this point, and it's been getting worse.
Yup. But how much worse can it get? For those that are still hoping and pleading for management to be play nice, its not gonna happen.
-
Well, I sure didn't see THIS coming.... Guess this is why you see so few Black Diamonds contributing to the forums at iStock and elsewhere. What a loss for iStock, but a huge gain for pretty much anywhere Sean decides to put his work.
-
Sean has always stood up for what is right and he has always done so in a professional manner. What Getty has done is not at all professional. To me they are acting like high school bullies.
If this doesn't make the few exclusives waiting to see the sun on the horizon realize it's always gonna be a cloudy day then I don't know what would.
Good luck to you Sean. It'll be rough but hang in there you can overcome this.
-
Absolutely shocked! Can't stop thinking about it all day. It is obvious that scrutinizing Google deal is what caused it. I see it as personal vendetta of some hot headed Getty manager. Sean was invaluable asset for iStock and its community but that obviously ment very little for Getty at large. There is a huge void left in iStock community. I bookmarked Sean's personal page hoping to see some good news real quick.
-
Sean was invaluable asset for iStock and its community but that obviously ment very little for Getty at large. There is a huge void left in iStock community.
I think they haven't considered how many people would LOVE to have him on board - as a contributor or administrator. And as easily as he made some things easy (those scripts) I'm sure he could make life hellish for iStock if he wanted to be vengeful. It'll be interesting to see where this all leads.
-
If this doesn't make the few exclusives waiting to see the sun on the horizon realize it's always gonna be a cloudy day then I don't know what would.
I can't believe that this would make a difference to those still there. If they've been beaten over the head with what Getty/iStock thinks of them for this long, why change now?
P.S. Good luck Sean!
-
The more I think about it, the more bizarre this move is. What did they really think? Did they expect this to be kept a secret? Didn't they think for a minute that this will give the new site (+the sites that will publicly promote that Sean is now with them) a lot of interest?
What more free publicity for contributors and buyers alike can a new competitor site ask for?
I bet they once again thought they were clever, but time will repeatedly tell they weren't.
They'd better start caring for sales again instead - it might be too late though.
-
Pity you didn't reach the million dls Sean. Not that it would have meant much in the circumstances.
-
Pity you didn't reach the million dls Sean. Not that it would have meant much in the circumstances.
He'll still cross that milestone, and it will be extra sweet knowing that there's no way that millionth sale will put a dime in Getty's pockets.
-
Why does it always seem like I get an email about a credit sale at iStock immediately after news of a fiasco?
-
It's always useful to try to think through why things happen. In this case, I cannot believe that Sean could be sacked without the personal approval of Klein. Anyone lower down the food chain would be inviting disaster to sack someone who may well be the second or third biggest money-spinner not just for iStock but for the whole Getty empire.
So what will Klein have taken into consideration? Obviously Sean has been pesky, highlighted the Google deal needlessly (and therefore is a loose cannon, and "not a team player"), encouraged damaging behaviour against the company by releasing the deactivation script, takes it on himself to criticise senior management decisions and acts as a lightning rod for those malcontents. His record shows that he has no intention of amending his behaviour, in fact the Greasemonkey script shows he is getting ever more out of control. Sacking their leader would be the biggest signal iStock could give to other troublemakers that bad behaviour will no longer be tolerated. So he should go.
But what will the cost to the company be? He brings in hundreds of thousands of dollars a year, but that could just be redistributed among other submitters. His portfolio had a considerable following, so if he goes some major clients might transfer their accounts to wherever he goes next. He's in touch with the Stocksy operation, so getting rid of him will dump one of iStock's biggest assets straight into Bruce Livingstone's lap, making that danger far worse than it is already. Or he might go to SS and the others, who are stripping away iStock clients already, causing additional erosion of the bottom line. Once he's gone, he'll be able to snipe from outside and there's nothing that can be done about it, but since iStock's managers have completely failed to keep him in line, that probably doesn't matter much. Getting rid of such a major industry figure cannot pass without comment in the trade press, which could be damaging (memo to self, book major advertising campaign in trade magazines and tell them we don't want a big fuss over this) and it might spill over into the newspaper business pages, which would be a nuisance. The internet will just be a mess, so all in all the company's image will take another hit.
Cost of sacking Locke? Probably several million dollars a year in lost sales, bad publicity and transfer of business to rivals. Cost of keeping him? Continued meddling in the company's business, attacks on our policies and general troublemaking.
He can go, it's worth a few million dollars or even a few tens of millions to get rid of him and give ourselves the freedom to do deals without being embarrassed in front of important partners. (Sheesh! The way that guy from Google spoke to me last week!) There are a lot more deals we can do that we don't need him to be highlighting and criticising.
.....
That's how I see the thought processes working, anyway
-
Read about it here... Unbelievable.
[url]http://seanlockephotography.com/2013/02/11/a-change-in-things/[/url] ([url]http://seanlockephotography.com/2013/02/11/a-change-in-things/[/url])
Self-destruction due to stupidity. This Getty move will trigger a chain reaction way over what IS/Getty anticipated. I believe this is the final drop.
R.I.P. IS ;D ;D ;D
-
Guess who said, "Things will settle down and we can get back to the business at hand."
http://www.istockphoto.com/forum_messages.php?threadid=65435&page=3719#post6841955 (http://www.istockphoto.com/forum_messages.php?threadid=65435&page=3719#post6841955)
-
I can't help thinking that in the long run they have done Sean a favour. The thought of going independent for any successful Exclusive must be frightening and this has just given him the push to do what was starting to seem to be inevitable. If I was running a company I would certainly want to keep Sean on my side not totally working against me as he will be now and am amazed that they have made such a stupid move.
-
Will be interesting to see if Sean does use the subs sites. It must be strange going from Vetta commissions to $0.38 or worse. If I was in his position, I might try something different, like put all the stuff that sold for higher prices on the higher priced sites and only give the lower quality images to the subs sites.
He's now free to sell RF with alamy, Corbis and all the other higher priced RF sites. That might be more lucrative than sticking with the micros, as it looks like all the big sites are still in a commission cutting phase. What's the point in jumping out of the frying pan, into the fire?
-
Sean will most probably make more money than on iS in few months. Images are not save on iS anymore thanks to their deals - so biggest advantage of exclusivity is gone.
Buyers that love his images will buy them elsewhere and probably for lower price.
Buyers that want Sean's images will probably buy images of other contributors on other sites as well.
Sean, buyers, contributors and iS's competitors will profit from this.
So what's wrong? Who's gonna suffer a loss? Oh - I forgot about iS.
-
I am so shocked to hear this. Good Luck Sean, (not that you need it). I am speechless.
-
Anyone thinking they cannot leave istock because it is their main source of income, certainly needs to think twice again. Sometimes, folks, you won't be even given the choice, whether you stay there or not, sometimes you just get the boot. So - create a plan B.
Secondly, the more I read about how some micros treat their photogs, the more interested I become in Stocksy. Thanks. :)
BTW - thanks Sean for all your work for the community!
-
Hard to hear this!
So, old merits are worthless.
Shame.
As the old saying goes: "You can not pee against the wind."
No worries, we will hear about him soon !
Respect.
-
It's always useful to try to think through why things happen. In this case, I cannot believe that Sean could be sacked without the personal approval of Klein. Anyone lower down the food chain would be inviting disaster to sack someone who may well be the second or third biggest money-spinner not just for iStock but for the whole Getty empire.
So what will Klein have taken into consideration? Obviously Sean has been pesky, highlighted the Google deal needlessly (and therefore is a loose cannon, and "not a team player"), encouraged damaging behaviour against the company by releasing the deactivation script, takes it on himself to criticise senior management decisions and acts as a lightning rod for those malcontents. His record shows that he has no intention of amending his behaviour, in fact the Greasemonkey script shows he is getting ever more out of control. Sacking their leader would be the biggest signal iStock could give to other troublemakers that bad behaviour will no longer be tolerated. So he should go.
But what will the cost to the company be? He brings in hundreds of thousands of dollars a year, but that could just be redistributed among other submitters. His portfolio had a considerable following, so if he goes some major clients might transfer their accounts to wherever he goes next. He's in touch with the Stocksy operation, so getting rid of him will dump one of iStock's biggest assets straight into Bruce Livingstone's lap, making that danger far worse than it is already. Or he might go to SS and the others, who are stripping away iStock clients already, causing additional erosion of the bottom line. Once he's gone, he'll be able to snipe from outside and there's nothing that can be done about it, but since iStock's managers have completely failed to keep him in line, that probably doesn't matter much. Getting rid of such a major industry figure cannot pass without comment in the trade press, which could be damaging (memo to self, book major advertising campaign in trade magazines and tell them we don't want a big fuss over this) and it might spill over into the newspaper business pages, which would be a nuisance. The internet will just be a mess, so all in all the company's image will take another hit.
Cost of sacking Locke? Probably several million dollars a year in lost sales, bad publicity and transfer of business to rivals. Cost of keeping him? Continued meddling in the company's business, attacks on our policies and general troublemaking.
He can go, it's worth a few million dollars or even a few tens of millions to get rid of him and give ourselves the freedom to do deals without being embarrassed in front of important partners. (Sheesh! The way that guy from Google spoke to me last week!) There are a lot more deals we can do that we don't need him to be highlighting and criticising.
.....
That's how I see the thought processes working, anyway
+1
-
That's how I see the thought processes working, anyway
Thanks. It helps me to have an outside view of things.
-
wow just saw this..
very happy for you btw Sean! just make sure you are on at least 15 to 20 agencies starting from top tier of course and I am sure you will earn more than you did at IS..
in a few months time, you will realize they actually did you a GREAT FAVOR!
-
Not that Sean needs one ounce of my advice, but if I were he, I wouldn't even consider any of the other micros.
Stick to your own site and Stocksy.
-
It must be strange going from Vetta commissions to $0.38 or worse.
Yeah, I can tell you from my own recent experiences - I didn't have many Vetty/TAC images but I miss the days when I had two large E+ sales, it completely changed a day from bad to brillant for me. Those days are gone and won't come back easily. However, today I enjoy days with five times more downloads than last month, and I only have one third of my small portfolio at other sites.
And I will also follow the same approach to split up my imagery into "microstock = goes everywhere" and a "premium = goes to one place only at higher prices" category. The cool things about being non-exclusive is that you can actually have multiple higher-priced agencies, delivering each of them with different series' to split the risks. I like those prospects.
-
It must be strange going from Vetta commissions to $0.38 or worse.
Yeah, I can tell you from my own recent experiences - I didn't have many Vetty/TAC images but I miss the days when I had two large E+ sales, it completely changed a day from bad to brillant for me. Those days are gone and won't come back easily. However, today I enjoy days with five times more downloads than last month, and I only have one third of my small portfolio at other sites.
And I will also follow the same approach to split up my imagery into "microstock = goes everywhere" and a "premium = goes to one place only at higher prices" category. The cool things about being non-exclusive is that you can actually have multiple higher-priced agencies, delivering each of them with different series' to split the risks. I like those prospects.
Agree.
This is my politics as well.
-
Confirms what I have long suspected...that the over supply of art and artists means that they don't value us as much as we value them. Even the best are not safe.
-
Not that Sean needs one ounce of my advice, but if I were he, I wouldn't even consider any of the other micros.
Stick to your own site and Stocksy.
That's great advice, if you don't want to make a living at this. Realistically, not even Sean can still earn a living while waiting the considerable amount of time it will require to get his own site to the point of being highly visible and profitable enough, as well as however long it will take for Stocksy to build up some momentum.
-
At least Istock is impressivley consequent at destroying themselves.
I hope it will be perhaps one of the best things that could happen to you, who knows?
My best wishes to you Sean.
-
Not that Sean needs one ounce of my advice, but if I were he, I wouldn't even consider any of the other micros.
Stick to your own site and Stocksy.
That's great advice, if you don't want to make a living at this. Realistically, not even Sean can still earn a living while waiting the considerable amount of time it will require to get his own site to the point of being highly visible and profitable enough, as well as however long it will take for Stocksy to build up some momentum.
Probably true, and Sean does have a family to feed.
OTOH, it will be difficult to get buyers to pay a fair price if you're selling the same images for a pittance on the sub sites. I guess splitting the images could make some sense, maybe putting the more generic shots onto some other sites.
But I have every confidence that Sean has more business sense in his pinky toe than I have in what passes for a brain.
-
It's always useful to try to think through why things happen. In this case, I cannot believe that Sean could be sacked without the personal approval of Klein. Anyone lower down the food chain would be inviting disaster to sack someone who may well be the second or third biggest money-spinner not just for iStock but for the whole Getty empire.
So what will Klein have taken into consideration? Obviously Sean has been pesky, highlighted the Google deal needlessly (and therefore is a loose cannon, and "not a team player"), encouraged damaging behaviour against the company by releasing the deactivation script, takes it on himself to criticise senior management decisions and acts as a lightning rod for those malcontents. His record shows that he has no intention of amending his behaviour, in fact the Greasemonkey script shows he is getting ever more out of control. Sacking their leader would be the biggest signal iStock could give to other troublemakers that bad behaviour will no longer be tolerated. So he should go.
But what will the cost to the company be? He brings in hundreds of thousands of dollars a year, but that could just be redistributed among other submitters. His portfolio had a considerable following, so if he goes some major clients might transfer their accounts to wherever he goes next. He's in touch with the Stocksy operation, so getting rid of him will dump one of iStock's biggest assets straight into Bruce Livingstone's lap, making that danger far worse than it is already. Or he might go to SS and the others, who are stripping away iStock clients already, causing additional erosion of the bottom line. Once he's gone, he'll be able to snipe from outside and there's nothing that can be done about it, but since iStock's managers have completely failed to keep him in line, that probably doesn't matter much. Getting rid of such a major industry figure cannot pass without comment in the trade press, which could be damaging (memo to self, book major advertising campaign in trade magazines and tell them we don't want a big fuss over this) and it might spill over into the newspaper business pages, which would be a nuisance. The internet will just be a mess, so all in all the company's image will take another hit.
Cost of sacking Locke? Probably several million dollars a year in lost sales, bad publicity and transfer of business to rivals. Cost of keeping him? Continued meddling in the company's business, attacks on our policies and general troublemaking.
He can go, it's worth a few million dollars or even a few tens of millions to get rid of him and give ourselves the freedom to do deals without being embarrassed in front of important partners. (Sheesh! The way that guy from Google spoke to me last week!) There are a lot more deals we can do that we don't need him to be highlighting and criticising.
.....
That's how I see the thought processes working, anyway
Very good perspectives. But in addition to the reasons you gave I think iStock perhaps saw another opportunity for some added knock-on benefit in the timing of getting rid of Sean.
This benefit being the fact that Sean had helped the Ground Hog day crowd in deactivating their images with an automated script which was perhaps even pivotal in the success of some of the file exodus taking place to begin with.
So Getty wanted to show everyone that removed, or is thinking of removing files, that nobody is going to threaten them with this tactic now or ever again. And to prove it they set an example by terminating 12,000 files themselves and pushing out one of their most successful contributors. This in their mind shows everyone that they are in control and they don't care if people pull a few hundred or even thousand of their own files or not. Thus they figure removing the head from the chicken, in this case Sean, that they will prevent any future attempts contributors might plan to threaten them with on file removal.
Personally I think the repercussions of what they did to Sean is going to blow up in their face 10 fold in the long run. But hell, they saved their egos, proved that no one contributor is too important to lose, and in the process showed everyone who is boss. Or so they think.
Meanwhile I wish Sean all the very best and have no doubt he will land on his feet 110%.
-
Confirms what I have long suspected...that the over supply of art and artists means that they don't value us as much as we value them. Even the best are not safe.
I think it shows that they are rattled. Good. They created this latest impasse by deciding to allow a third party to give away people's work.
As soon as someone does work out a viable co-op model for the internet, they are finished. Bruce and the massed ranks of ex loyal Istockers are way better at using social media to drive traffic too. It would be a model which they could not buy, and which would likely replicate.
-
That's how I see the thought processes working, anyway
Thanks. It helps me to have an outside view of things.
An idealistic view of things doesn't fit too well in the corporate world. They expect money to be the lever that will move anything, so anybody who refuses to be manipulated by it is a destabilising influence. Playing strictly by the rules isn't enough, you have to do what you think they would like you to do. too. out of fear of the power their control over your earning-potential gives them.
I've been in a similar situation and it's going to take you a long time to come to terms with it. The important thing right now is to plot a sensible course for the future not to obsess about the past. Hopefully you were wise enough to set aside a lot of what you earned and so can readjust gradually to new circumstances. Unlike others here, I'm afraid I doubt if you will quickly return to your current earnings level and I think it would be foolish to plan on that assumption. Better to plan for a much lower income in the near to middle-term and perhaps be pleasantly surprised than to do it the other way round.
What's happened to you is, of course, exactly the risk that kept some of us out of the exclusivity program all along. Hopefully those who are exclusive have taken steps to cushion themselves against something like this, particularly those who rely on the income to live.
-
Personally I think the repercussions of what they did to Sean is going to blow up in their face
Definitely. They don't get it.
Meanwhile I wish Sean all the very best and have no doubt he will land on his feet 110%.
Definitely.
-
.
-
Probably true, and Sean does have a family to feed.
OTOH, it will be difficult to get buyers to pay a fair price if you're selling the same images for a pittance on the sub sites. I guess splitting the images could make some sense, maybe putting the more generic shots onto some other sites.
But I have every confidence that Sean has more business sense in his pinky toe than I have in what passes for a brain.
You still don't understand the concept of 'microstock'? It's a low-price/highvolume thing. That's how it works.
As an independent contributor, SS generates about 50% of my monthly microstock income (with BigStock adding another 3-4%). Without the 30% or so that IS and the PP (combined) currently generates, presumeably the situation that Sean will find himself in, then SS's contribution would actually be 75%. That's how important SS will probably be to Sean's income until another player like Stocksy makes an impact. That's also why Yuri, Andres, MB, etc are all 'selling their images for a pittance on the sub sites'. Because it works.
I'm hoping that someone at Getty will have enough sense to get around the table with Sean over the remaining 25 days, discuss it properly, and resolve the issue to the benefit of both parties. What has happened is madness.
-
...it will be difficult to get buyers to pay a fair price if you're selling the same images for a pittance on the sub sites...
And yet many people make their living on that "pittance" while still seeing good single-image sales at SS and elsewhere.
Is it still a pittance when it adds up to thousands of dollars every month?
-
I am afraid it may not be that straight forward for Sean to get the same levels of income, even if it has declined recently... Look at the number of Agency and Vetta files he has on both Getty and iStock. How many several hundreds sales you need at SS for a single Agency sale? :P
Probably true, and Sean does have a family to feed.
OTOH, it will be difficult to get buyers to pay a fair price if you're selling the same images for a pittance on the sub sites. I guess splitting the images could make some sense, maybe putting the more generic shots onto some other sites.
But I have every confidence that Sean has more business sense in his pinky toe than I have in what passes for a brain.
You still don't understand the concept of 'microstock'? It's a low-price/highvolume thing. That's how it works.
As an independent contributor, SS generates about 50% of my monthly microstock income (with BigStock adding another 3-4%). Without the 30% or so that IS and the PP (combined) currently generates, presumeably the situation that Sean will find himself in, then SS's contribution would actually be 75%. That's how important SS will probably be to Sean's income until another player like Stocksy makes an impact. That's also why Yuri, Andres, MB, etc are all 'selling their images for a pittance on the sub sites'. Because it works.
I'm hoping that someone at Getty will have enough sense to get around the table with Sean over the remaining 25 days, discuss it properly, and resolve the issue to the benefit of both parties. What has happened is madness.
-
...it will be difficult to get buyers to pay a fair price if you're selling the same images for a pittance on the sub sites...
And yet many people make their living on that "pittance" while still seeing good single-image sales at SS and elsewhere.
Is it still a pittance when it adds up to thousands of dollars every month?
I have no doubt some do, think Yuri. But just look at what the average contributor that fills out the poll here makes. Last I checked it was around $1300 a month and some have speculated that microstock group IS the top of the microstock community. At Istock it would not surprise me if Sean still has days that get close to that or beat it. The other main issue, maybe even more important, is that when submitting to the top 20 agencies there is no way to have your work policed. In effect you have to give up on protecting your IP. We've seen the issues Istock has had, many of those issues are present at the other stock sites but no one has taken the time and effort to examine them like Sean has at Istock. Look at the thread about partner programs, how many of you have gone through to read the license for every partner program you have images selling at?
-
And the iS sales pitch goes on and on and on..........
...it will be difficult to get buyers to pay a fair price if you're selling the same images for a pittance on the sub sites...
And yet many people make their living on that "pittance" while still seeing good single-image sales at SS and elsewhere.
Is it still a pittance when it adds up to thousands of dollars every month?
I have no doubt some do, think Yuri. But just look at what the average contributor that fills out the poll here makes. Last I checked it was around $1300 a month and some have speculated that microstock group IS the top of the microstock community. At Istock it would not surprise me if Sean still has days that get close to that or beat it. The other main issue, maybe even more important, is that when submitting to the top 20 agencies there is no way to have your work policed. In effect you have to give up on protecting your IP. We've seen the issues Istock has had, many of those issues are present at the other stock sites but no one has taken the time and effort to examine them like Sean has at Istock. Look at the thread about partner programs, how many of you have gone through to read the license for every partner program you have images selling at?
-
Probably true, and Sean does have a family to feed.
OTOH, it will be difficult to get buyers to pay a fair price if you're selling the same images for a pittance on the sub sites. I guess splitting the images could make some sense, maybe putting the more generic shots onto some other sites.
But I have every confidence that Sean has more business sense in his pinky toe than I have in what passes for a brain.
You still don't understand the concept of 'microstock'? It's a low-price/highvolume thing. That's how it works.
As an independent contributor, SS generates about 50% of my monthly microstock income (with BigStock adding another 3-4%). Without the 30% or so that IS and the PP (combined) currently generates, presumeably the situation that Sean will find himself in, then SS's contribution would actually be 75%. That's how important SS will probably be to Sean's income until another player like Stocksy makes an impact. That's also why Yuri, Andres, MB, etc are all 'selling their images for a pittance on the sub sites'. Because it works.
I'm hoping that someone at Getty will have enough sense to get around the table with Sean over the remaining 25 days, discuss it properly, and resolve the issue to the benefit of both parties. What has happened is madness.
Gostwyck, what you are missing is that not all files are equal.
Yes, some files will sell many times over and make more money as microstock/subs. Others will sell much less often but can command a higher price. The trick is to work out which is which.
I know IS didn't always get it right with Vetta/Agency, but they had the right idea. It was very worthwhile to have those V/A files, especially in the early days when they seemed to have the pricing right.
As I seem to keep on saying, it's a pity they wrecked it.
-
...The other main issue, maybe even more important, is that when submitting to the top 20 agencies there is no way to have your work policed. In effect you have to give up on protecting your IP. We've seen the issues Istock has had, many of those issues are present at the other stock sites but no one has taken the time and effort to examine them like Sean has at Istock. Look at the thread about partner programs, how many of you have gone through to read the license for every partner program you have images selling at?
The IP protection issue is moot. There was a discussion here just a couple of weeks ago about an istock exclusive having problems with protecting their work and istock wouldn't help them. It's an empty promise that istock doesn't back up.
As for partner programs and spreading my work out, frankly, I'm not concerned about it. I'll gladly trade the warm and fuzzy feelings of having all of my work under one roof for the increased earnings. And I have zero doubt that I earn far more by spreading my work around than I would if I were exclusive.
That's how this business works. You can have your IP "protection" (or whatever you want to call the empty promise istock provides) and greater control over licensing, or you can have more money. At least that's how it works out for me, and I suspect for a lot of people.
As for the money, well, it's not just Yuri making thousands per month on subscription sales.
-
...The other main issue, maybe even more important, is that when submitting to the top 20 agencies there is no way to have your work policed. In effect you have to give up on protecting your IP. We've seen the issues Istock has had, many of those issues are present at the other stock sites but no one has taken the time and effort to examine them like Sean has at Istock. Look at the thread about partner programs, how many of you have gone through to read the license for every partner program you have images selling at?
The IP protection issue is moot. There was a discussion here just a couple of weeks ago about an istock exclusive having problems with protecting their work and istock wouldn't help them. It's an empty promise that istock doesn't back up.
As for partner programs and spreading my work out, frankly, I'm not concerned about it. I'll gladly trade the warm and fuzzy feelings of having all of my work under one roof for the increased earnings. And I have zero doubt that I earn far more by spreading my work around than I would if I were exclusive.
That's how this business works. You can have your IP "protection" (or whatever you want to call the empty promise istock provides) and greater control over licensing, or you can have more money. At least that's how it works out for me, and I suspect for a lot of people.
As for the money, well, it's not just Yuri making thousands per month on subscription sales.
The IP issue is not moot. I don't know the problem you are talking about with that one contributor but my point was that when you have images being licensed on 20 different sites and 100 partner sites all with different terms there is basically no way to even know that your images are being used incorrectly. At least having an image sold exclusively (don't just think Istock, think stocksy, Alamy, Pond5 even) at least you can send a DMCA notice when an image is used incorrectly if the agent won't do anything. I have had no problems with Compliance Enforcement though.
-
1. You can still DMCA as an indie.
2. Lots of IStock exclusives have complained about zero action being taken following a reported violation over the years.
3. The only advantage as far as policing goes is Getty's, they can send threatening letters and get out of court settlements if they know they have the work exclusively, I don't think the contributor sees any of that cash (AFAIK)
-
The IP issue is not moot. I don't know the problem you are talking about with that one contributor but my point was that when you have images being licensed on 20 different sites and 100 partner sites all with different terms there is basically no way to even know that your images are being used incorrectly. At least having an image sold exclusively (don't just think Istock, think stocksy, Alamy, Pond5 even) at least you can send a DMCA notice when an image is used incorrectly if the agent won't do anything. I have had no problems with Compliance Enforcement though.
Good to hear it's worked well for you.
I just prefer more money over having a better means of tracking image misuse. I send out a few DMCAs every month, and I'm sure other misuses slip through the cracks, but I'm fine with that. I won't sacrifice earnings for better compliance enforcement.
-
er more money over having a better means of tracking image misuse. I send out a few DMCAs every month, and I'm sure other misuses slip through the cracks, but I'm fine with that. I won't sacrifice earnings for better compliance enforcement.
Protecting our work and making money go hand in hand I think.
1. You can still DMCA as an indie.
2. Lots of IStock exclusives have complained about zero action being taken following a reported violation over the years.
3. The only advantage as far as policing goes is Getty's, they can send threatening letters and get out of court settlements if they know they have the work exclusively, I don't think the contributor sees any of that cash (AFAIK)
I guess anyone can send a letter. What I'm saying is, for example, if you found an unwatermarked image on a website at 3000x2000 pixels do you know that it is not allowed? It is not ok at Shutterstock or Dreamstime but is it ok at one of the 100 partner sites? Sure you can send a DMCA letter to someone but what if they bought that image and used it within the terms? What about finding images used in print runs of millions, you have to assume that you don't get an EL because maybe Fotolia or a partner site sold it. I don't think lots of exclusives have complained about zero action being taken, it hasn't been my experience and I write to them all the time. I don't know about whether or not Getty gives the contributor anything for those letters, maybe they get their image licensed? At Istock I think it says that after lawyer bills are payed any damages are split or something to that effect.
-
Gostwyck, what you are missing is that not all files are equal.
Yes, some files will sell many times over and make more money as microstock/subs. Others will sell much less often but can command a higher price. The trick is to work out which is which.
I know IS didn't always get it right with Vetta/Agency, but they had the right idea. It was very worthwhile to have those V/A files, especially in the early days when they seemed to have the pricing right.
As I seem to keep on saying, it's a pity they wrecked it.
We are not selling art (when it's sold, it's sold), we're are selling the right to use a copy for a specified purpose and can do it over and over again - like cd's / music downloads, cinema tickets, books, videos etc and, like these other commodities, there may be inate difference in quality (whatever that means subjectively) but that is NOT reflected in the unit price.
-
Protecting our work and making money go hand in hand I think.
Sure, but not at the expense of significantly greater earnings. I'm not talking about sacrificing a few bucks for better image protection and license enforcement. I'm talking about thousands of dollars.
Frankly, for me it's either I accept lesser control over protecting my work or I go out of business. It's the nature of the beast. I can't make a living selling exclusively anywhere. I can make a living spreading my work around.
-
I have conditioned myself not to be surprise what iStockphoto does but i'm shocked to learned Sean is being terminated. It's really sad to see this crap happen to you. :(
-
Gostwyck, what you are missing is that not all files are equal.
Yes, some files will sell many times over and make more money as microstock/subs. Others will sell much less often but can command a higher price. The trick is to work out which is which.
I know IS didn't always get it right with Vetta/Agency, but they had the right idea. It was very worthwhile to have those V/A files, especially in the early days when they seemed to have the pricing right.
As I seem to keep on saying, it's a pity they wrecked it.
No, I'm not missing that. I just don't think that it really applies to Sean's port. In your case yes, in that you have wonderful landscapes that can take a ridiculous amount of patience and time to capture (not to mention the travel costs) and cannot be easily copied. Those sort of images, especially if they are likely to be low in demand, do deserve a premium. When you were exclusive it was perfectly obvious why certain of your images had been selected for Vetta.
Sean doesn't do that sort of stuff at all. When I look at his port, without the Vetta or Agency indicators, I wouldn't be able to guess which images were priced 5-6x more than others or why. That's one of the cock-ups that IS made. If you're going to charge 5-6x more for one product over another then it should be obvious why that differential exists.
Not that this has anything to do with 'microstock' anyway. We've always had the option of selling images at other higher-priced outlets, including RM even if you were exclusive. It's never been mandatory to determine all images 'equal' and send your entire port to microstock. Sean has been selling RM at Alamy for years for example.
-
[snip]
I'm hoping that someone at Getty will have enough sense to get around the table with Sean over the remaining 25 days, discuss it properly, and resolve the issue to the benefit of both parties. What has happened is madness.
I'd be very surprised if this actually happened. I'm becoming more and more convinced this is just another step in the assimilation of iStock into Getty. Removing Opt-Out choices, forced participation in partner programs, firing employees at iStock and integrating resources, Google deals made by Getty without iStock management buy-in (apparently), and now taking out the strong voices of iStock apologists. Just another step.
I have continued to hope that iStock crowd sourcing of old would be able to make a comeback. I'd hoped the recent visit from Rebecca was really the start of better communication and a new turn of the ship. True, a few good discussions have taken hold at low levels in the forums but I figure Rebecca no longer has any credibility to face the contributors after the Google deal, even if she wanted, due to decisions made above her. She and iStock are just another cog in the gears of the Getty operation. I've held to my hope for as long as I can (longer than many, as I certainly observe) and my hope continues the downward slope.
Just my honest opinion.
-
I just can't believe it.
-
Was Sean's name on the previously public facebook list of Stocksy members?
There is no Stocksy member list. There is a Facebook group of people interested in Stocksy. There were more than 100 people on that list but almost none of them have actually been involved in Stocksy in any ways. It can't be a reason for someone to be in a Facebook list to terminate his account.
Hey Michael. Read his blog post again, it sounds like he was helping them beta test their system.
Do you really believe that there are no istock's admins involved in stocksy ?
how can istock know something without any spies there
be smart...if stocksy was been the really cause of sean's termination many people will be cutted in a near future.
-
[snip]
I'm hoping that someone at Getty will have enough sense to get around the table with Sean over the remaining 25 days, discuss it properly, and resolve the issue to the benefit of both parties. What has happened is madness.
I'd be very surprised if this actually happened. I'm becoming more and more convinced this is just another step in the assimilation of iStock into Getty. Removing Opt-Out choices, forced participation in partner programs, firing employees at iStock and integrating resources, Google deals made by Getty without iStock management buy-in (apparently), and now taking out the strong voices of iStock apologists. Just another step.
I have continued to hope that iStock crowd sourcing of old would be able to make a comeback. I'd hoped the recent visit from Rebecca was really the start of better communication and a new turn of the ship. True, a few good discussions have taken hold at low levels in the forums but I figure Rebecca no longer has any credibility to face the contributors after the Google deal, even if she wanted, due to decisions made above her. She and iStock are just another cog in the gears of the Getty operation. I've held to my hope for as long as I can (longer than many, as I certainly observe) and my hope continues the downward slope.
Just my honest opinion.
I don't know if I admire your courage or feel bad for you as you don't want to understand what is happening with iStock and even worst with you in particular, how can you still have hope on an agency that has gone totally downhill for you, what is your reward of being exclusive? less than 500$? sorry but it is surreal how much strength you still have instead of quitting them once for all, my honest opinion too
-
Gostwyck, what you are missing is that not all files are equal.
Yes, some files will sell many times over and make more money as microstock/subs. Others will sell much less often but can command a higher price. The trick is to work out which is which.
I know IS didn't always get it right with Vetta/Agency, but they had the right idea. It was very worthwhile to have those V/A files, especially in the early days when they seemed to have the pricing right.
As I seem to keep on saying, it's a pity they wrecked it.
No, I'm not missing that. I just don't think that it really applies to Sean's port. In your case yes, in that you have wonderful landscapes that can take a ridiculous amount of patience and time to capture (not to mention the travel costs) and cannot be easily copied. Those sort of images, especially if they are likely to be low in demand, do deserve a premium. When you were exclusive it was perfectly obvious why certain of your images had been selected for Vetta.
Sean doesn't do that sort of stuff at all. When I look at his port, without the Vetta or Agency indicators, I wouldn't be able to guess which images were priced 5-6x more than others or why. That's one of the cock-ups that IS made. If you're going to charge 5-6x more for one product over another then it should be obvious why that differential exists.
Not that this has anything to do with 'microstock' anyway. We've always had the option of selling images at other higher-priced outlets, including RM even if you were exclusive. It's never been mandatory to determine all images 'equal' and send your entire port to microstock. Sean has been selling RM at Alamy for years for example.
And yet I feel certain that Sean has made a lot more money from his V/A files, than we have from our landscapes.
And yes, you can put your files on other agencies, and we do, but the micros have the traffic.
IS almost had it right, but they wrecked it.
-
Amazing how a once thriving business continues to shoot itself in the foot.
Sean was once of their greatest assets, not just as a contributor but as someone who nursed along new contributors, contributed a voice of calm reason in the forums, and made the often wonky website usable via his GM scripts.
He certainly will be missed. :'(
-
Gostwyck, what you are missing is that not all files are equal.
Yes, some files will sell many times over and make more money as microstock/subs. Others will sell much less often but can command a higher price. The trick is to work out which is which.
I know IS didn't always get it right with Vetta/Agency, but they had the right idea. It was very worthwhile to have those V/A files, especially in the early days when they seemed to have the pricing right.
As I seem to keep on saying, it's a pity they wrecked it.
We are not selling art (when it's sold, it's sold), we're are selling the right to use a copy for a specified purpose and can do it over and over again - like cd's / music downloads, cinema tickets, books, videos etc and, like these other commodities, there may be inate difference in quality (whatever that means subjectively) but that is NOT reflected in the unit price.
You've completely missed my point.
-
Cost of sacking Locke? Probably several million dollars a year in lost sales, bad publicity and transfer of business to rivals. Cost of keeping him? Continued meddling in the company's business, attacks on our policies and general troublemaking.
Great analysis as usual, Trousers.
My hope for Stocksy is that it's something truly different: a game-changer in the way that iStock once was. Bruce shook the industry up once. If anyone can do it again, it's him. #hopespringseternal
-
You've completely missed my point.
Is your point not that some files should attract a higher price because they are somehow better or because they would generally not be mainstream MS subjects and, thus, sell less often?
-
After the Google deal, it seems laughable that anyone could still be claiming Getty will protect their IP. Wake up! Getty and their partner Google have just surpassed sites like Heroturko, and even Pinterest as the biggest threat to our IP.
-
Just came across this thread after being busy lately. It's shocking ,I guess, to the microstock community, but it's really just business as usual. The photographer in question has done very well for himself at Istock, and he should have been more in sensitive to the reaction his actions would elicit from Istock.
A big mistake that the entire microstock community makes is the assumption that the world began with Bruce, and if things could just go back there everything would be okay. But the fact is that the crowdsourcing genie is out of the bottle, and now you can only deal with the world as it is, not as you wish it would be, or what your idea of a perfect world entails.
A second mistake that any photographer can make, and i don't exclude myself from this, is the idea that you are so unique that no one can do what you do. That is simply not true, and this photographer's files will be, and are already, replicated many times over. Nothing is unique in stock, or any other form of communication, and no one is irreplaceable.
So what's my point? SImply that you should never have only one client. And yes, Istock is a client. If you don't like that client, then don't work with them. But don't kid yourselves that you have any ownership in that company, or any control over what they do. The people who paid the money for Istock own it. They can do what they want with it. End of story. So, tying yourself to one client is just a bad business decision. I could give you endless examples over my time as a photographer of why this always ends badly, but the biggest reason it happens is that the world changes, and if you don't change with it, then you will end up with a bad situation.
He should have thought it through a bit more, but i suspect the deference he was accorded in the forums and here by other photographers was intoxicating, and hard to walk away from. But if you only have one client, and that client tells you in no uncertain terms to shut up, then you shut up.
And look for other clients.
-
I think Baldrick is spot on with his analysis. I was thinking along the same lines, but I cannot type it up so perfectly as Baldrick can.
It reminds me of this clip, it must have gone similar to this. A furious Klein shouting at his IS staff after Lobo tells him that Sean wrote a script and that D-Day is going to happen.
Hitler loses it about the balance in CoH (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eFjbGi0x3kg#)
-
Thats what I said all the time:
Istock is the pyramid game and getty is the nigerian scam.
The istock rc sceme suggests they had come to the end of the pyramid, the google deal is a simple scam and theft.
More subtle analogies could be found in the animal kingdom among Trematoda and Hirudinea.
-
You've completely missed my point.
Is your point not that some files should attract a higher price because they are somehow better or because they would generally not be mainstream MS subjects and, thus, sell less often?
Maybe both? or either? As I said, the trick is to work out which is which.
I know when Vetta was first introduced I didn't choose any myself because I didn't think I had any good enough. IS made the choices to get the system started, and it seemed to work. I was surprised how much money they made, but that reduced significantly when they raised prices and reduced commissions.
Apparently less people were willing to pay the higher prices for my files, so that told me what was the best price for those files, unfortunately we weren't given a choice in how much to charge.
I've got a few ex Vettas on SS now and I can tell you for sure they don't make as much money.
I've also got files on SS which were zero sellers on IS and yet have sold quite well on SS.
It's just working out which is which :)
-
You've completely missed my point.
Is your point not that some files should attract a higher price because they are somehow better or because they would generally not be mainstream MS subjects and, thus, sell less often?
Maybe both? or either? As I said, the trick is to work out which is which.
I know when Vetta was first introduced I didn't choose any myself because I didn't think I had any good enough. IS made the choices to get the system started, and it seemed to work. I was surprised how much money they made, but that reduced significantly when they raised prices and reduced commissions.
Apparently less people were willing to pay the higher prices for my files, so that told me what was the best price for those files, unfortunately we weren't given a choice in how much to charge.
I've got a few ex Vettas on SS now and I can tell you for sure they don't make as much money.
I've also got files on SS which were zero sellers on IS and yet have sold quite well on SS.
It's just working out which is which :)
Have you posted your conclusions or thoughts about dropping exclusivity anywhere?
-
It appears Sean wrote a script to help a lot of his competition remove themselves from his game.
Sadly for him that act of trying to be clever backfired and blew up in his face and then ended up earning him a microstock Darwin Award instead.
I guess he is a bit shocked by it all because he was just trying to help, right?
There is something to be said for keeping your head down, not stoking the fire, nor pissing off your boss if you still want to keep your job.
-
It appears Sean wrote a script to help a lot of his competition remove themselves from his game.
Sadly for him that act of trying to be clever backfired and blew up in his face and then ended up earning him a microstock Darwin Award instead.
I guess he is a bit shocked by it all because he was just trying to help, right?
There is something to be said for keeping your head down, not stoking the fire, nor pissing off your boss if you still want to keep your job.
That is an interesting pont of view. To really give your opinion weight it would be nice if we could see who you were, or not were.
-
It appears Sean wrote a script to help a lot of his competition remove themselves from his game.
Sadly for him that act of trying to be clever backfired and blew up in his face and then ended up earning him a microstock Darwin Award instead.
I guess he is a bit shocked by it all because he was just trying to help, right?
Seems like a very cynical interpretation of the facts.
-
There is something to be said for keeping your head down, not stoking the fire, nor pissing off your boss if you still want to keep your job.
In this case it's not an employee-employer relationship, but the agency is representing the artist's work, is not employing him.
-
There is something to be said for keeping your head down, not stoking the fire, nor pissing off your boss if you still want to keep your job.
In this case it's not an employee-employer relationship, but the agency is representing the artist's work, is not employing him.
See, that's where I have to respectfully disagree. If you are getting 100% of your revenue from one source, you can call yourself an artist or whatever you want, but they are the boss. And he's fired.
-
Don't shoot the messenger who perhaps shows you the other side of the coin.
Meanwhile, a company like Getty, which is only about the money, is not about to kiss off one of their strongest revenue streams unless there is seriously strong provocation.
Writing software to get rid of your competitors to the detriment of your main and only client, while putting a spin on it that you were in fact trying to help your competitors, appears that it was enough provocation.
Maybe if he wasn't being so "helpful" he would be able to keep his client and still have his job.
-
Don't shoot the messenger who perhaps shows you the other side of the coin.
Meanwhile, a company like Getty, which is only about the money, is not about to kiss off one of their strongest revenue streams unless there is seriously strong provocation.
Writing software to get rid of your competitors to the detriment of your main and only client, while putting a spin on it that you were in fact trying to help your competitors, appears that it was enough provocation.
Maybe if he wasn't being so "helpful" he would be able to keep his client and still have his job.
Sounds like you have a serious case of 'portfolio envy'.
-
Don't shoot the messenger who perhaps shows you the other side of the coin.
Meanwhile, a company like Getty, which is only about the money, is not about to kiss off one of their strongest revenue streams unless there is seriously strong provocation.
Writing software to get rid of your competitors to the detriment of your main and only client, while putting a spin on it that you were in fact trying to help your competitors, appears that it was enough provocation.
Maybe if he wasn't being so "helpful" he would be able to keep his client and still have his job.
It makes me mad to hear somebody defending the actions of this A-hole company!!
-
You've completely missed my point.
Is your point not that some files should attract a higher price because they are somehow better or because they would generally not be mainstream MS subjects and, thus, sell less often?
Maybe both? or either? As I said, the trick is to work out which is which.
I know when Vetta was first introduced I didn't choose any myself because I didn't think I had any good enough. IS made the choices to get the system started, and it seemed to work. I was surprised how much money they made, but that reduced significantly when they raised prices and reduced commissions.
Apparently less people were willing to pay the higher prices for my files, so that told me what was the best price for those files, unfortunately we weren't given a choice in how much to charge.
I've got a few ex Vettas on SS now and I can tell you for sure they don't make as much money.
I've also got files on SS which were zero sellers on IS and yet have sold quite well on SS.
It's just working out which is which :)
Have you posted your conclusions or thoughts about dropping exclusivity anywhere?
No, just as I didn't when I went exclusive in 2008. I prefer to keep most of my thoughts to myself :)
-
Don't shoot the messenger who perhaps shows you the other side of the coin.
Meanwhile, a company like Getty, which is only about the money, is not about to kiss off one of their strongest revenue streams unless there is seriously strong provocation.
Writing software to get rid of your competitors to the detriment of your main and only client, while putting a spin on it that you were in fact trying to help your competitors, appears that it was enough provocation.
Maybe if he wasn't being so "helpful" he would be able to keep his client and still have his job.
Whoa! You win. That is the most outrageous conspiracy theory by far! If you knew Sean at all, and I barely know him from the forums, he is too interested in things working well, in being right and being smart about the business. He would never throw other contributors under the bus like IS is doing now. - Go read the info on his site and blog...
-
It appears Sean wrote a script to help a lot of his competition remove themselves from his game.
Sadly for him that act of trying to be clever backfired and blew up in his face and then ended up earning him a microstock Darwin Award instead.
I guess he is a bit shocked by it all because he was just trying to help, right?
Seems like a very cynical interpretation of the facts.
It's utter rubbish!
If Sean wanted to get rid of his competition (which I do not think is the case) he'd never have written all the other greasemonkey scripts whose only purpose was to make the total disaster interface that the iStock engineers produced usable by humans.
What's with all the "he was asking for it, dressed the way he was" stuff? Talk about blaming the victim - isn't there some political squabble to go join (elsewhere)?
-
It makes me mad to hear somebody defending the actions of this A-hole company!!
I think bokehgal must be cbarnesphotography in drag :)
-
So there you have it, we are being watched in this forum. But we kind of knew that anyway.
-
Don't shoot the messenger who perhaps shows you the other side of the coin.
Meanwhile, a company like Getty, which is only about the money, is not about to kiss off one of their strongest revenue streams unless there is seriously strong provocation.
Writing software to get rid of your competitors to the detriment of your main and only client, while putting a spin on it that you were in fact trying to help your competitors, appears that it was enough provocation.
Maybe if he wasn't being so "helpful" he would be able to keep his client and still have his job.
I'm sure Getty doesn't see it as him trying to get rid of his competitors. Even if they did, as long as it didn't affect the overall customer spend, why should they care? I feel sure that the loss of 15,000 - 30,000 images didn't bother them too much, either. I think it was his willingness to confront them and act as a focal point for member dissent, giving it strength, support and credibility - not to mention greasemonkey - that was too much for them.
jbarber is right that exclusives are effectively locked in an employer-worker relationship .... all their "artistic independence" adds up to in the end is that it deprives them of any rights they might have under employment laws.
-
Don't shoot the messenger who perhaps shows you the other side of the coin...
But that's not the other side of the coin. Sean was fighting this Google Drive deal more than anyone. He set up a special forum to discuss it privately. He was looking into legal action. There's no reason to believe he was doing this to secretly attack his competition.
-
He was looking into legal action.
I forgot that. It must have been another big feather in his cap with Getty.
-
I dont think Sean needed to kill competition by getting them to deactivate images. Sean killed his competition by creating the better images. The real competition he has is the people in the top 10 around him anyways.
To think or say that is just utter rubbish and is spawned from either envy, spitefulness, trolling or gloating.
-
Don't shoot the messenger who perhaps shows you the other side of the coin.
Meanwhile, a company like Getty, which is only about the money, is not about to kiss off one of their strongest revenue streams unless there is seriously strong provocation.
Writing software to get rid of your competitors to the detriment of your main and only client, while putting a spin on it that you were in fact trying to help your competitors, appears that it was enough provocation.
Maybe if he wasn't being so "helpful" he would be able to keep his client and still have his job.
that is how you payback the person who replied you to all the topics and comments you have been involved here, amazing Cheryl Kreis
-
He was looking into legal action.
I forgot that. It must have been another big feather in his cap with Getty.
To be honest, that was more about getting some legal opinion on the ASA we could use after initiating a discussion on the Google thing. At least, that was my intent. If Getty has a lawyer for everything, I don't see why we can't have one to look at things.
-
See, that's where I have to respectfully disagree. If you are getting 100% of your revenue from one source, you can call yourself an artist or whatever you want, but they are the boss. And he's fired.
I disagree. There's no employee contract here, he was exclusively represented by an agency, which, very unprofessionally, decided to unilaterally close the relationship. Legal, perhaps, ethically and professionally highly questionable.
-
The guy that posted the "summary" on this subject on the Alamy forums is a first rate a$$6ole. I admire Sean's reserve, I would be liable to bite the bait on such slanderous trolling.
BTW, I felt physically sick for a whole day after the news of what happened with Sean and Rob. Feeling a good deal more positive today. No-one has died, both affected individuals will be fine, and so will the rest of us. The landscape is definitely changing - for the better in the long run.
Really looking forward to the launch of Stocksy now, it's going to be big I reckon.
-
here's the Alamy thread for those who don't want to dig for it
http://www.alamy.com/forums/default.aspx?g=posts&t=15111 (http://www.alamy.com/forums/default.aspx?g=posts&t=15111)
-
.
-
Are you guys talking abt the same sean that discovered the getty/google deal (or brought it to everyones attention) and then instigated the whole Feb 2 thing and then he wrote the script to make it easy for us all to deactivate out picures from istock?
is that the sean you are all talking about?
(I only read the first6pages of this thread)
-
Are you guys talking abt the same sean that discovered the getty/google deal (or brought it to everyones attention) and then instigated the whole Feb 2 thing and then he wrote the script to make it easy for us all to deactivate out picures from istock?
is that the sean you are all talking about?
(I only read the first6pages of this thread)
Yes it is the same Sean, but he did not instigate the Feb 2nd thing.
-
here's the Alamy thread for those who don't want to dig for it
[url]http://www.alamy.com/forums/default.aspx?g=posts&t=15111[/url] ([url]http://www.alamy.com/forums/default.aspx?g=posts&t=15111[/url])
Thanks Leaf for providing that link.
EDIT: NOW THAT PISSES ME OFF!!!!
-
The one with 12,778 images, one of which has over 10,000 downloads, 120 with over 1000 downloads, about 1700 or so with over 100 downloads. Yeah, that one.
-
The one with 12,778 images, one of which has over 10,000 downloads, 120 with over 1000 downloads, about 1700 or so with over 100 downloads. Yeah, that one.
Would that be the same bloke that has been single-handedly generating about $1M per year in sales for Istock/Getty, constantly helping other contributors on forums and writing work-around codes (for free) to address the numerous Istock site issues?
-
Just thought I'd add that there's also a discussion going over here as well. Perhaps a few of you might want to offer your opinions... http://www.petapixel.com/2013/02/11/istockphoto-booting-top-photographer-in-wake-of-gettygoogle-hoopla/ (http://www.petapixel.com/2013/02/11/istockphoto-booting-top-photographer-in-wake-of-gettygoogle-hoopla/)
-
Just thought I'd add that there's also a discussion going over here as well. Perhaps a few of you might want to offer your opinions... [url]http://www.petapixel.com/2013/02/11/istockphoto-booting-top-photographer-in-wake-of-gettygoogle-hoopla/[/url] ([url]http://www.petapixel.com/2013/02/11/istockphoto-booting-top-photographer-in-wake-of-gettygoogle-hoopla/[/url])
Seems like people are missing the point over there. They're all hung up on the old microstock debate and are ignoring the bigger issue of Getty getting rid of people who they deem to be troublemakers.
-
Just thought I'd add that there's also a discussion going over here as well. Perhaps a few of you might want to offer your opinions... [url]http://www.petapixel.com/2013/02/11/istockphoto-booting-top-photographer-in-wake-of-gettygoogle-hoopla/[/url] ([url]http://www.petapixel.com/2013/02/11/istockphoto-booting-top-photographer-in-wake-of-gettygoogle-hoopla/[/url])
Seems like people are missing the point over there. They're all hung up on the old microstock debate and are ignoring the bigger issue of Getty getting rid of people who they deem to be troublemakers.
Did Getty allow "troublemakers", especially such public ones, before they acquired Istock?
-
Did Getty allow "troublemakers", especially such public ones, before they acquired Istock?
I don't know. Does it matter? Either way, it's disturbing that simply protesting a bad deal can get you canned.
-
The one with 12,778 images, one of which has over 10,000 downloads, 120 with over 1000 downloads, about 1700 or so with over 100 downloads. Yeah, that one.
Would that be the same bloke that has been single-handedly generating about $1M per year in sales for Istock/Getty, constantly helping other contributors on forums and writing work-around codes (for free) to address the numerous Istock site issues?
Yep. That sounds like the guy. :)
-
Did Getty allow "troublemakers", especially such public ones, before they acquired Istock?
I don't know. Does it matter? Either way, it's disturbing that simply protesting a bad deal can get you canned.
Even more disturbing that the people who were canned, Sean and Rob, weren't the ones doing the actual protesting. Has anyone who actually removed files been dumped yet?
-
Did Getty allow "troublemakers", especially such public ones, before they acquired Istock?
Getty didn't have any sort of forums until well after Bruce sold to them. I think that whatever badmouthing of Getty that happened prior to those forums (not that anything happens there NOW anyway) took place in the various forums that were in place at the time and in personal blogs, which I'm sure they viewed as inconsequential.
-
Has anyone who actually removed files been dumped yet?
Not me. Still waiting for PP earnings to post so I can collect my last payout, remove my last image and terminate my account.
-
Are you guys talking abt the same sean that discovered the getty/google deal (or brought it to everyones attention) and then instigated the whole Feb 2 thing and then he wrote the script to make it easy for us all to deactivate out picures from istock?
is that the sean you are all talking about?
(I only read the first6pages of this thread)
The same one that did NOT deactivate a single one of his own files.
The same one that manipulated/used you and me to send a message to istock/getty.
The same one that made it as easy as possible to deactivate our files.
BUT DID NOT DEACTIVATE A SIGLE ONE OF HIS OWN.......is that the one!
Is that the one you are now elevationg to god like status, and feeling sorry for?
Dont you see how you/we were used and manipulated by him???
sean my hats off to you!
If getty and istock are evil then what are you?
what did yo expect getty to do, realy? he caused this whole uproar and then as he said himself sat on the sidelines and watch it go down.
Guys please open your eyes and consider what i say, dont just get defenssive abt it. think about it.
and, if i were sutterstock or any other microstock site id thik twice about taking him onboard. what if he does the same things to your company??
what getty/istock did is wrong but they are justified in getting rid of him.
I wonder how many ppl will get the chance to see this cause whats his name (leek?)keeps on deleting my posts and banning me when i speek my mind and defend myself from rude posts, yet he does not ban the person that started all the name calling.
I know what il do il post this around, he dont control the entire interned. just this place.
-
Did Getty allow "troublemakers", especially such public ones, before they acquired Istock?
I don't know. Does it matter? Either way, it's disturbing that simply protesting a bad deal can get you canned.
Even more disturbing that the people who were canned, Sean and Rob, weren't the ones doing the actual protesting. Has anyone who actually removed files been dumped yet?
think abt what you are saying!
wernt the ones doing the actual protesting (kept making his money) did not delet any files.
but sure did make it easy as pie for yo to do it!?
-
It shouldn't matter at all to any of us who deleted files and who did not. That is a personal business choice that each person must make for themselves. However, for those who seem concerned about this, please check your information. Sean mentioned that he did in fact delete some of his files. http://www.microstockgroup.com/istockphoto-com/image-deactivation-tally-for-istockphoto/msg296135/#msg296135 (http://www.microstockgroup.com/istockphoto-com/image-deactivation-tally-for-istockphoto/msg296135/#msg296135)
-
It shouldn't matter at all to any of us who deleted files and who did not. That is a personal business choice that each person must make for themselves. However, for those who seem concerned about his, please check your information. Sean mentioned that he did in fact delete some of his files. [url]http://www.microstockgroup.com/istockphoto-com/image-deactivation-tally-for-istockphoto/msg296135/#msg296135[/url] ([url]http://www.microstockgroup.com/istockphoto-com/image-deactivation-tally-for-istockphoto/msg296135/#msg296135[/url])
OMG----he said he took down 30. thats a three and a zero--30!
and i will bet you its 30 of his underpreforming files.
and he only did it to test his program.
and even said it was fun. trying to get yo to do it too.
look at the things said by yo ppl on the thread you just linked to.
under---------------------------------------------
Quote from: lisafx on February 03, 2013, 09:58
Quote from: Poncke on February 02, 2013, 19:14
Quote from: lisafx on February 02, 2013, 15:33
Quote from: Anyka on February 02, 2013, 15:17
I did 552 more than listed (got carried away).
It's easy to get carried away, right? Good old Sean made it a breeze.
He wrote it, but is he using it himself. I remember him saying he wouldnt delete any images?
Sean is in a different position to most of us here. I suspect he is going another (but possibly even more effective) route. I do not for a minute think he's sitting back and doing nothing.
I did take down about 30. It was fun to use!
-
I'm not trying to argue with you guys.
i don't want to fight.
that is just the way i see it. its just my personal OPINION.
all i ask is that you just consider it.
elevating a co. and ppl is how we got into this mess in the first place.
they will use you and take advantage of you every single time. its a biz and we need to treat it as such.
istock was the best thing since sliced bread--things change my friend.
shutterstock was the same--you see where they are headed now, i hope you see!
USE all these company's!
DONT be used by them!
-
.
-
It appears Sean wrote a script to help a lot of his competition remove themselves from his game.
Sadly for him that act of trying to be clever backfired and blew up in his face and then ended up earning him a microstock Darwin Award instead.
I guess he is a bit shocked by it all because he was just trying to help, right?
There is something to be said for keeping your head down, not stoking the fire, nor pissing off your boss if you still want to keep your job.
WoW its not just me...yay!
-
Sean DID NOT discover the getty/google deal.
Sean DID NOT instigate Feb 2 D-Day.
Sean DID delete some of his own images.
Sean DID NOT manipulate anyone into closing their accounts. He hardly participated in the discussion about D-Day.
If you're suggesting that you have deleted some files and now regret it, why are you blaming Sean? Are you a child and can't think for yourself? Can't you make your own decisions?
Maybe your posts wouldn't be deleted if you stopped telling fibs.
Are you guys talking abt the same sean that discovered the getty/google deal (or brought it to everyones attention) and then instigated the whole Feb 2 thing and then he wrote the script to make it easy for us all to deactivate out picures from istock?
is that the sean you are all talking about?
(I only read the first6pages of this thread)
The same one that did NOT deactivate a single one of his own files.
The same one that manipulated/used you and me to send a message to istock/getty.
The same one that made it as easy as possible to deactivate our files.
BUT DID NOT DEACTIVATE A SIGLE ONE OF HIS OWN.......is that the one!
Is that the one you are now elevationg to god like status, and feeling sorry for?
Dont you see how you/we were used and manipulated by him???
sean my hats off to you!
If getty and istock are evil then what are you?
what did yo expect getty to do, realy? he caused this whole uproar and then as he said himself sat on the sidelines and watch it go down.
Guys please open your eyes and consider what i say, dont just get defenssive abt it. think about it.
and, if i were sutterstock or any other microstock site id thik twice about taking him onboard. what if he does the same things to your company??
what getty/istock did is wrong but they are justified in getting rid of him.
I wonder how many ppl will get the chance to see this cause whats his name (leek?)keeps on deleting my posts and banning me when i speek my mind and defend myself from rude posts, yet he does not ban the person that started all the name calling.
I know what il do il post this around, he dont control the entire interned. just this place.
he broughtit to everyones attention. i belive he even said this.
he sure as heck was the worlds biggest chearleade---see his monky script or whatever he calls it.
he deleted 30 of his pics to test his script.
he did manipulate everyone. open yor eyes for you own sake.
its not abt me and what i deleted or did not delete. its about you not noticing what is going on befor your very eyes!
again what i delete on not has nothing to do with what i say. i act on my own accord not what the general public opinion is. so i do not regret nor do i blame anyone for my actions.
my friend im not a child and do think for myself and make my own decisions. and i am not afraid to think for myself and look into things and evaluate what just happend. im not "fibbing" as you say i clearly stated this is my opinion and ask you all loke and consider it.
evidently im notthe only one who thinks like this....see my last post where i quote:bokehgal.
its just so very sad that you guys have this heard mentality and follow eachother, like 8 yrolds.
you kow what they say about the view of the followers right, it never changes, your always looking at, you know what.
think think brotha think!
-
.
-
this is what im saying, he she said it better then me:
--------
Quote from: bokehgal on Yesterday at 14:48
It appears Sean wrote a script to help a lot of his competition remove themselves from his game.
Sadly for him that act of trying to be clever backfired and blew up in his face and then ended up earning him a microstock Darwin Award instead.
I guess he is a bit shocked by it all because he was just trying to help, right?
There is something to be said for keeping your head down, not stoking the fire, nor pissing off your boss if you still want to keep your job.
-
he broughtit to everyones attention. i belive he even said this.
he sure as heck was the worlds biggest chearleade---see his monky script or whatever he calls it.
he deleted 30 of his pics to test his script.
he did manipulate everyone. open yor eyes for you own sake.
its not abt me and what i deleted or did not delete. its about you not noticing what is going on befor your very eyes!
again what i delete on not has nothing to do with what i say. i act on my own accord not what the general public opinion is. so i do not regret nor do i blame anyone for my actions.
my friend im not a child and do think for myself and make my own decisions. and i am not afraid to think for myself and look into things and evaluate what just happend. im not "fibbing" as you say i clearly stated this is my opinion and ask you all loke and consider it.
evidently im notthe only one who thinks like this....see my last post where i quote:bokehgal.
its just so very sad that you guys have this heard mentality and follow eachother, like 8 yrolds.
you kow what they say about the view of the followers right, it never changes, your always looking at, you know what.
think think brotha think!
Lol So let me get this straight. Although you state you act on your own accord, you're assuming everyone else that deleted their account only did so because Sean brought this issue to everyone's attention? Because he wrote a script that makes deleting files a bit easier? So if he hadn't brought it to everyone's attention and someone else did, and hadn't wrote that script, everyone would sit there and do nothing? They would just accept iStock/Getty handing over their images to Google to distribute for free? Are you saying this has nothing to do with them actually wanting to protect their intellectual property, their livelihood... their current and future income, including the income generated from the same images licenced on other sites?
Is that what you're saying? lol.
ETA
i dont know, i think you are just being defensive trying to uphold your point. thats the nicest way i can respond? i dont want to get censored again.
-
i gota ask, you realy dont see what im saying? realy?
Nothing i have said is at all possible?
your saying, what im saying, is like saying the sun rises on the north and sets on the south?
-
.
-
The same one that manipulated/used you and me to send a message to istock/getty.
Can you please post a link to a statement from him to support your view?
-
Hmmmmmm nope nothing ;)
-
Sorry ouchie but that sounds a bit tin-foil hat to me, and it's insulting not only to Sean but to the intelligence of everyone who participated. The once thing that causes people to love/hate Sean Locke is his brutal honesty. He's been telling like it is, everyone's feelings be damned, since the early 2000's. If he had manipulative/politically minded motives he wouldn't have gotten involved at all, seeing as his iStock income supported his family. All I see is someone who stood up to a nasty corporation that is past it's prime, and got punished for it. He's being made an example of. Bullies will always try to silence those that scare them. That's all this is.
What I find really interesting, is that the people who were most vocal in that February 2nd thread (to the point of being fanatical and quite frankly abrasive to those on fence or who disagreed,) remain in the Getty family. As several other people have pointed out, there is a nicely organized list on Google docs that any iStock/Getty admin can access, with the usernames of everyone who stated they were participating, so if that was the only motivation I'd expect quite a few other would be gone by now.
On a personal note, Sean, I remember getting a good chuckle out of all the ruffled feather the first few months you were on the iStock forums, back when things were turning from hobby to real potential. Watching you prosper and push limits was inspiring. You'll obviously be more than fine wherever you go with your talent and business sense. Good luck, and a sincere thanks for always being real.
-
I posted a comment there - it was just an ugly slug-fest of "I hate microstock" and "burn the witch".
"Talk about people unclear on the concept!
Most of these comments are tired old rants about something completely unrelated to Getty's 30-day notice of a contract termination. Any Getty photographer could have been the lucky recipient of this scummy move on Getty's part.
Sean Locke didn't invent microstock and it makes no sense to kitchen sink all your issues with it into comments on this article. Can you not see that it could also be Getty photographers you "approve" who could be next?
The enemy here is Getty Images - direct your ire at them. Don't be so lost in your delight that someone from microstock is getting a raw deal that you lose sight of the bigger picture."
-
this is what im saying, he she said it better then me:
--------
Quote from: bokehgal on Yesterday at 14:48
It appears Sean wrote a script to help a lot of his competition remove themselves from his game.
Sadly for him that act of trying to be clever backfired and blew up in his face and then ended up earning him a microstock Darwin Award instead.
I guess he is a bit shocked by it all because he was just trying to help, right?
There is something to be said for keeping your head down, not stoking the fire, nor pissing off your boss if you still want to keep your job.
Sean wrote a script because that's what he does. He's written many scripts, many in iStock's favour. He wrote that script because there was a demand for deleting files in a hurry rather than one by one. How do you know somebody didn't ask him to write that script? Or maybe he got frustrated watching people struggle to delete their files so he helped them out. Deleting files one at a time is a joke, particularly in this instance where leaving files at iStock is a huge risk.
'Pissing off his boss'? lol Sean is Sean's boss. iStock was never Sean's boss and I don't believe Sean has sacked himself from his own company. What's this ridiculous notion that Sean is out of a job? His contract with his AGENT who sold HIS files that he produced is terminated. He's not going to fall apart. His files will be sold elsewhere and he'll probably make more money than before.
Seriously, go have a lie down and come back when you've thought about what you've just written. If you really believe that this script had that much of an impact on people's decisions to delete files or to leave iStock, then you might need to lie down and think some more.
People's reaction had nothing to do with a stupid script... it had everything to do with the Google/Getty deal that has the potential to ends people's careers.
YOu do know the above is a quote from someone else?
-
The same one that manipulated/used you and me to send a message to istock/getty.
Can you please post a link to a statement from him to support your view?
dont understand?
-
.
-
The same one that manipulated/used you and me to send a message to istock/getty.
Can you please post a link to a statement from him to support your view?
dont understand?
are you asking how he manipulated you/me?
or do yo misunderstand me and think the above is a quote?
-
this is what im saying, he she said it better then me:
--------
Quote from: bokehgal on Yesterday at 14:48
It appears Sean wrote a script to help a lot of his competition remove themselves from his game.
Sadly for him that act of trying to be clever backfired and blew up in his face and then ended up earning him a microstock Darwin Award instead.
I guess he is a bit shocked by it all because he was just trying to help, right?
There is something to be said for keeping your head down, not stoking the fire, nor pissing off your boss if you still want to keep your job.
Sean wrote a script because that's what he does. He's written many scripts, many in iStock's favour. He wrote that script because there was a demand for deleting files in a hurry rather than one by one. How do you know somebody didn't ask him to write that script? Or maybe he got frustrated watching people struggle to delete their files so he helped them out. Deleting files one at a time is a joke, particularly in this instance where leaving files at iStock is a huge risk.
'Pissing off his boss'? lol Sean is Sean's boss. iStock was never Sean's boss and I don't believe Sean has sacked himself from his own company. What's this ridiculous notion that Sean is out of a job? His contract with his AGENT who sold HIS files that he produced is terminated. He's not going to fall apart. His files will be sold elsewhere and he'll probably make more money than before.
Seriously, go have a lie down and come back when you've thought about what you've just written. If you really believe that this script had that much of an impact on people's decisions to delete files or to leave iStock, then you might need to lie down and think some more.
People's reaction had nothing to do with a stupid script... it had everything to do with the Google/Getty deal that has the potential to ends people's careers.
well you responded like i was the one writing it! i just agree with it 100%
-
I think the problem is you are making claims you aren't really backing up with anything. Personal attacks actually, that you have no real evidence for, just a conspiracy theory.
You have every right to have an opinion and I'm not trying to pick on you, but when you accuse someone of something like that you should probably take into account the level of respect other people here have for the one you are attacking, based on years of Sean participating in this community and being nothing but helpful and honest whether we like it or not. ;)
-
The same one that manipulated/used you and me to send a message to istock/getty.
Can you please post a link to a statement from him to support your view?
dont understand?
I would kindly ask you to point me to a link in the forum or somewhere else where he encourages his competition to take down images. Thanks.
-
I posted a comment there - it was just an ugly slug-fest of "I hate microstock" and "burn the witch".
"Talk about people unclear on the concept!
Most of these comments are tired old rants about something completely unrelated to Getty's 30-day notice of a contract termination. Any Getty photographer could have been the lucky recipient of this scummy move on Getty's part.
Sean Locke didn't invent microstock and it makes no sense to kitchen sink all your issues with it into comments on this article. Can you not see that it could also be Getty photographers you "approve" who could be next?
The enemy here is Getty Images - direct your ire at them. Don't be so lost in your delight that someone from microstock is getting a raw deal that you lose sight of the bigger picture."
Oh lord!
there is no enemy, lets be real!
getty and istock are a biz and they use you as much a they possibly can-----just like i think sean did!
the thing is yo uneed to use them more then they use you, if u can.
im not happy abt what happened to him and definitly dont delight as you say in his raw deal. i did not realy know sean existed befor this. i might have heard of him here and there?
anyway, im no ones fan boy, be it a company or a person.
and i wish you ppl could do the same.
cause
howd that istock fan boy mentality go for everyone?
then it was the sutterstock fan boy mentality (ooh SS if u alow exclusives id join in a heart beat). hows that going for you all. bigstock canisters anyone.
-
The same one that manipulated/used you and me to send a message to istock/getty.
Can you please post a link to a statement from him to support your view?
dont understand?
I would kindly ask you to point me to a link in the forum or somewhere else where he encourages his competition to take down images. Thanks.
I think he/she is saying that by creating the script to take down images quickly and then not using it himself he was encouraging competitors to take down their images for his benefit. It seems a bit of a stretch as far as conspiracy theories go since there are other reasons to create the script that are much more likely.
-
Ouchie, what you and bokehgal are saying is purely based on your interpretation of what is going on in his mind. You interpret his actions as being those of a narrow-minded, greedy self-serving person. In order to think that, you have to ignore his long history of helping people, regardless of the fact that they were his competition.
Sean's behavour is entirely consistent with that of someone who believes that the truth matters more than self-interest and who genuinely wants to help others and is willing to go out of his way to do so. I've known a handful of journalists like that. It's a somewhat self-destructive character trait but it's the one that people who break the important stories have, while the self-serving lot are busy rewriting press releases or accepting "hospitality" from corporations they then praise to the heavens.
I'm afraid your assumptions probably say more about your own personality than about Sean's.
PS: I actually agree with your line about "there is no enemy, it's just business".
-
I think the problem is you are making claims you aren't really backing up with anything. Personal attacks actually, that you have no real evidence for, just a conspiracy theory.
You have every right to have an opinion and I'm not trying to pick on you, but when you accuse someone of something like that you should probably take into account the level of respect other people here have for the one you are attacking, based on years of Sean participating in this community and being nothing but helpful and honest whether we like it or not. ;)
ok, and definitly yes...i think i said it quite a bit that this is my OPINION! and ask it to be considered, and you guys and girls make you own decisions?!
-
The same one that manipulated/used you and me to send a message to istock/getty.
Can you please post a link to a statement from him to support your view?
dont understand?
I would kindly ask you to point me to a link in the forum or somewhere else where he encourages his competition to take down images. Thanks.
I think he/she is saying that by creating the script to take down images quickly and then not using it himself he was encouraging competitors to take down their images for his benefit. It seems a bit of a stretch as far as conspiracy theories go since there are other reasons to create the script that are much more likely.
yes that is what i was saying. thank you. and i guess you can call it a conspiracy theorie! i call it an opinion.
-
clearly writing a script to take down images is provocative. Do what you want to do but assist others in "hurting" IS will get their ire. Sean says what he says with honesty and experience. That doesn't help.
It will be interesting to see how Sean goes. Clearly he has great images. I had never looked at his port before but it is great stuff. Better than non-Sean photos? Not really, just very good stock. Will Istock suffer at his leaving? I doubt it. If you started searching 10 pages , 20 pages in to most searches the photos are mostly just as good but cheaper. Istock also pays less commission on non exclusive stuff. There lies the problem for all generic stock shooters with huge sales. They have been copied to death and most of the copies are fine. Being ahead in the searches and their port size are their main advantages not the unique quality. Building a port , getting sales up over time and being exclusive all helped to have and continue success at IS. Even that is now failing and I am not sure it helps going across fresh to other sites. There maybe where your images could be buried as deep as an independent newbie's generic shots at IS.
Good luck to Sean and hope his other sites work. He is a hard worker, professional and very good at what he does.
-
The same one that manipulated/used you and me to send a message to istock/getty.
Can you please post a link to a statement from him to support your view?
dont understand?
I would kindly ask you to point me to a link in the forum or somewhere else where he encourages his competition to take down images. Thanks.
I think he/she is saying that by creating the script to take down images quickly and then not using it himself he was encouraging competitors to take down their images for his benefit. It seems a bit of a stretch as far as conspiracy theories go since there are other reasons to create the script that are much more likely.
yes that is what i was saying. thank you. and i guess you can call it a conspiracy theorie! i call it an opinion.
As a conspiracy theory it was good enough for Getty to buy into it too, Sean did say that Getty thought he was behind the whole D-Day thing.
-
Ouchie, what you and bokehgal are saying is purely based on your interpretation of what is going on in his mind. You interpret his actions as being those of a narrow-minded, greedy self-serving person. In order to think that, you have to ignore his long history of helping people, regardless of the fact that they were his competition.
Sean's behavour is entirely consistent with that of someone who believes that the truth matters more than self-interest and who genuinely wants to help others and is willing to go out of his way to do so. I've known a handful of journalists like that. It's a somewhat self-destructive character trait but it's the one that people who break the important stories have, while the self-serving lot are busy rewriting press releases or accepting "hospitality" from corporations they then praise to the heavens.
I'm afraid your assumptions probably say more about your own personality than about Sean's.
PS: I actually agree with your line about "there is no enemy, it's just business".
yes again my opinion.
but i will admit i dont know sean! im generating my opinion by what i see. if he is the type of person you say and he has been like that consistently...well then, i dont know?
so you can see it from my eyes, and so we keep it civil, all i know is this:
1, he made the script to make deleting easy.
2, he was a big impetus in moving this forward. then he sat on the sidelines (he actualy said that in an artical i read) and watch it go down.
3, he did not delete any images. Ok he dileted 30, he said.
thats basically what i base my opinion on.
maybe this wil make it clear,
1, he put the gun in our hands.
2, he istigated the fight, and then ducked out of the fray.
3, the 3d speeks for itself. if he was all for it he should have joind the protest.
-
Yes again your opinion, we get it, now take a break.
-
...PS: I actually agree with your line about "there is no enemy, it's just business".
I think that if two businesses cease to be partners when one takes something from the other you can quibble about whether you call the taker an enemy or the competition or something else, but Getty images sure as heck isn't a partner or on the side of its contributors. I picked the word enemy to describe what they became after the reneged on a number of terms in iStock the ASA - using the 30 day notice and ability to change the contract in any way they felt like - stopped being an agent and became a distributor, and so on.
"It's just business" seems to suggest that there is no place for ethics, honesty or long term partnerships in business. I don't buy that argument even if there's a huge pool of businesses that operate on the moral code of "if it's not illegal it's OK". Perhaps if you start out on the footing that "I'm bigger than you and will try to take the most from you and pay you the smallest amount I can get away with" you'd know what you were dealing with. Getty said one thing and later did something entirely different. They are certainly an obstacle to my success and a force that has done harm to many of their acquisitions and contributors. I think enemy fits reasonably well even if there's nothing personal about it at all.
My point was that Sean Locke was not the appropriate target of the posters' ire - that they should direct it at Getty Images where it properly belonged.
-
ok will do its 2a.m.
but just so we are clear.....its just my O P I N I O N .
-
...PS: I actually agree with your line about "there is no enemy, it's just business".
I think that if two businesses cease to be partners when one takes something from the other you can quibble about whether you call the taker an enemy or the competition or something else, but Getty images sure as heck isn't a partner or on the side of its contributors. I picked the word enemy to describe what they became after the reneged on a number of terms in iStock the ASA - using the 30 day notice and ability to change the contract in any way they felt like - stopped being an agent and became a distributor, and so on.
"It's just business" seems to suggest that there is no place for ethics, honesty or long term partnerships in business. I don't buy that argument even if there's a huge pool of businesses that operate on the moral code of "if it's not illegal it's OK". Perhaps if you start out on the footing that "I'm bigger than you and will try to take the most from you and pay you the smallest amount I can get away with" you'd know what you were dealing with. Getty said one thing and later did something entirely different. They are certainly an obstacle to my success and a force that has done harm to many of their acquisitions and contributors. I think enemy fits reasonably well even if there's nothing personal about it at all.
My point was that Sean Locke was not the appropriate target of the posters' ire - that they should direct it at Getty Images where it properly belonged.
i agree with most everything.
everyone seams to operate with what u say ""if it's not illegal it's OK" nowadays.
its a sad world we live in where everytime i turn around someone wants more money from me and do not care how they get it from me.
re your last paragraph: from what im told abt sean, im kinda like him, in the sence that, i say it like i see it. could be im wrong, but thats the way i see it.
we need to stop thinking these companys are on our side....we NOW (i hope) can agree they are not. we need to play the game and use them.
if sean did what he did and said what he said with no malice i applaud him if not then he is just as bad as getty.
-
I believe Sean stopped uploading quite a while ago. As an IS exclusive with nowhere else to put his mounting pile of new work I guess that amounts to a significant protest, or at least a show of concern. Deactivating images is not the only way to show the agent that you don't trust them with your work anymore.
-
Sean's behavour is entirely consistent with that of someone who believes that the truth matters more than self-interest and who genuinely wants to help others and is willing to go out of his way to do so.
Before we canonize Sean, I would just like to point out that there were plenty of times I saw him not want to share information or help people because he didn't want to help the competition, and he was quite honest about it too. I don't necessarily think there is anything wrong with that, it's a competitive world out there and everyone needs to keep whatever edge they can. I just think it should be acknowledged that there was some self-interest in the things that Saint Sean did. ;)
-
If you started searching 10 pages , 20 pages in to most searches the photos are mostly just as good but cheaper. Istock also pays less commission on non exclusive stuff. There lies the problem for all generic stock shooters with huge sales. They have been copied to death and most of the copies are fine. Being ahead in the searches and their port size are their main advantages not the unique quality. Building a port , getting sales up over time and being exclusive all helped to have and continue success at IS. Even that is now failing and I am not sure it helps going across fresh to other sites. There maybe where your images could be buried as deep as an independent newbie's generic shots at IS.
Welcome to the real world !
Stealing ideas and concepts from the top macro RF/RM photographers is what microstock has always been all about from day one.
Coupleds also with the "genius" idea of selling these ripoffs at 1/10th or 1/100th of the price buyers were used to pay.
Now fast forward in 2013 and you reap what you sow with the added bonus that buyers perceive stock photography in general as worthless or worth no more than 5-10$ bucks per image as that's how low you've been happy to set the bar.
Sorry but it's too late now to realize in horror you've all shot yourselves in the foot and there's no way out and no exit strategy.
Getty also launched a very clear message to the crowd of scared puppies : you plebs are irrilevant and worthless for our business, and our focus will be on the new happy snappers producing images for free and sharing them on Instamatic and other rights-grab services as that's the future of stock.
No glass ceiling in microstock, get ready for nanostock or even to pay money to join an agency.
-
I believe Sean stopped uploading quite a while ago. As an IS exclusive with nowhere else to put his mounting pile of new work I guess that amounts to a significant protest, or at least a show of concern. Deactivating images is not the only way to show the agent that you don't trust them with your work anymore.
Took the words right out of my mouth. He suspended uploads, as well as taking a token 30 images down. A serious thing to do if IStock is your only agency, with his volume that was a big signal and would have cost him as much or more than a lot of people deleting.
As far as the script goes, take a look through the IStock forum, whenever a significant group of contributors complained about IStock's website functionality Sean would try to come up with a script to help. It would have been weird if he didn't come up with the deletion script after so many were complaining about how tedious the task was.
If you didn't really know who Sean was prior to this fiasco, then you are not really in the know enough to make an informed comment. Of course you have every right to post, but you are going to sound ill-informed to those who have kept abreast of the industry.
-
...PS: I actually agree with your line about "there is no enemy, it's just business".
I think that if two businesses cease to be partners when one takes something from the other you can quibble about whether you call the taker an enemy or the competition or something else, but Getty images sure as heck isn't a partner or on the side of its contributors. I picked the word enemy to describe what they became after the reneged on a number of terms in iStock the ASA - using the 30 day notice and ability to change the contract in any way they felt like - stopped being an agent and became a distributor, and so on.
"It's just business" seems to suggest that there is no place for ethics, honesty or long term partnerships in business. I don't buy that argument even if there's a huge pool of businesses that operate on the moral code of "if it's not illegal it's OK". Perhaps if you start out on the footing that "I'm bigger than you and will try to take the most from you and pay you the smallest amount I can get away with" you'd know what you were dealing with. Getty said one thing and later did something entirely different. They are certainly an obstacle to my success and a force that has done harm to many of their acquisitions and contributors. I think enemy fits reasonably well even if there's nothing personal about it at all.
My point was that Sean Locke was not the appropriate target of the posters' ire - that they should direct it at Getty Images where it properly belonged.
Didn't we always know what Getty were? Even at the time they bought iStock I recall their trad suppliers were squealing about cuts in commission rates. I think a fair amount of the ire directed at iStock/Getty is the "lover scorned" reaction of people who were, to be honest, fooled by Bruce into believing in the whole woo-yay fantasy-land of the early iStock. If the business had been more normal the reaction to corporate nastiness would have been less visceral.
-
ouchie,
where have you ben all these years??
Gettyimages sold files for 12 dollars to 425 million people and stripped them of metadata. And apparently with a mysterious license that circumvents the standard model release with its limitations on sensitive use.
What do you think of that? It sounds like a free give away of many peoples best images. And they have the nerve to proclaim they want to continue doing this!!
So ouchie - how many files are you volunteering for the getty/google deal?
How many of your bestsellers do you want them to send over?
What about your whole portfolio? What if they handed it all over or just your top 100 bestsellers?
How does the deal make you feel?
Do you have many images with people in them? Your children perhaps?
How do you feel about the deal?
You see, that is the issue.
People didnīt need Sean to deactivate files.
It was Gettyimages that decided to give people files away in a free deal without a regular license and who made it clear they want to continue doing it.
Sean wasnīt "leading" anything. Gettyimages is the one who decided they place no value on our content.
So the people who do this for a living pulled their files. Action by Getty. Reaction by the Artists.
Sean is just being made a scapegoat, probably by the exact same manager who gave all those files to Google without metadata and is now desperatly trying to save his head by finding an outsider he can blame.
And since Jonathan Klein obviously doesnīt read msg himself or checks the facts by reading up on the situation which is easy enough to do, Sean and his portfolio got kicked out.
But the problem is - the Getty/Google deal is still in place.
And now Seanīs portfolio is on his way to the competition - Shutterstock, Fotolia, Dreamstime. You know the companies that have been taking all that market share away from istock. The companies you would expect the managers to fight against. Not encourage by sending them one of the most commercial portfolios on the planet.
As an istock contributor, I believe that to send Seanīs portfolio to competitors is actively damaging the company in a big way. Thousands of customers have these files in their lightboxes. Once the portfolio is gone they can only find these files elsewhere.
But apparently growing the business and fighting the competition is not what Gettymanagers do. It is the only conclusion I can draw from their actions.
-
I think it's quite curious that people are using this situation as proof for their 'pro macrostock' campaign and 'booo microstock'. What I find interesting is that it was the traditional stock company Getty who gave away all the images to Google to be given away for free and the traditional stock company again, who terminated a photographers contract with very little reasoning.
Personally, I think the whole argument of trad. stock vs microstock is ridiculous. There is only 'stock'. But if there has been any questionable actions as of late, they seem to be put in place by the trad. stock companies.
-
.....So what's my point? SImply that you should never have only one client. And yes, Istock is a client. If you don't like that client, then don't work with them. But don't kid yourselves that you have any ownership in that company.......
He should have thought it through a bit more.......
I can see what you are saying, but I think Sean was smart enough to think through all of the ramifications. IStock was behaving with his images in a way that was unacceptable to him so he tried to resolve the issues in any way he could (bring them to light, discussing them etc.).
This gave IStock an opportunity to rectify the situation, they didn't, instead they sacked him.
Result, he has stopped working with them, if they hadn't sacked him, but not remedied the situation either, he could still have (and would have?) walked away.
Same result. It would have been better for him to be able to do it under his own terms in his own time, but why not have a go at a solution before throwing in the towel?
-
I think it's quite curious that people are using this situation as proof for their 'pro macrostock' campaign and 'booo microstock'. What I find interesting is that it was the traditional stock company Getty who gave away all the images to Google to be given away for free and the traditional stock company again, who terminated a photographers contract with very little reasoning.
Personally, I think the whole argument of trad. stock vs microstock is ridiculous. There is only 'stock'. But if there has been any questionable actions as of late, they seem to be put in place by the trad. stock companies.
I think the take on it people are having is that Getty is trying to kill off micro. Some macro shooters seem to think without micro as competition they will thrive I agree there is only stock. People also quote that is is not worth shooting for 25 cents an image. They ignore the fact that as sales grow so do your rate and there is more than one licence type.No 25 cents is not worth it. A few 25s each day and some ELs make it very worthwhile. A good stock image can make $300 per year (sure some make near zero). I am sure some people do much better than me. All in all similar to macro in returns. Best to be in both.
Not sure Getty Getty is trying to kill off anything. The problem is they are so focused on short term returns they are killing off their future. Much the same as many companies.
-
actually there was an easier way to remove files from IS:
contacting support would have done the job much faster..
Sean's script just made it a lot more fun for people..
-
The same one that manipulated/used you and me to send a message to istock/getty.
Can you please post a link to a statement from him to support your view?
dont understand?
I would kindly ask you to point me to a link in the forum or somewhere else where he encourages his competition to take down images. Thanks.
I think he/she is saying that by creating the script to take down images quickly and then not using it himself he was encouraging competitors to take down their images for his benefit. It seems a bit of a stretch as far as conspiracy theories go since there are other reasons to create the script that are much more likely.
yes that is what i was saying. thank you. and i guess you can call it a conspiracy theorie! i call it an opinion.
You've formed an opinion based on several observations that are wrong. I was deleting images long before finding Sean's script, and I'm sure many if us were. I'm sure Sean didn't start D-Day and if you did any research by reading through the threads here, you'll see he had hardly anything to do with it. Lots of us here don't bother looking at the istock forum and only found Sean's script when the link was posted here. It saved a lot of time but I would of spent a week removing my images from istock if I had to.
Don't forget that if istock/Getty hadn't sold out to Google, D-Day wouldn't of happened. It's 100% their fault and if they want to fix that, they need to fire some of the people that made that deal without getting our consent first. Instead of doing that, it looks like they've made Sean a scapegoat. That looks like one of the biggest mistakes they've made so far.
All my opinion of course :)
-
Sean's behavour is entirely consistent with that of someone who believes that the truth matters more than self-interest and who genuinely wants to help others and is willing to go out of his way to do so.
Before we canonize Sean, I would just like to point out that there were plenty of times I saw him not want to share information or help people because he didn't want to help the competition, and he was quite honest about it too. I don't necessarily think there is anything wrong with that, it's a competitive world out there and everyone needs to keep whatever edge they can. I just think it should be acknowledged that there was some self-interest in the things that Saint Sean did. ;)
Sean often said that, but it was totally tongue in cheek, and almost always to someone who came on here asking for help and was either new here or clearly had not even started to help themselves. Also he was very brief and to the point, which may have come over as brusque. But the info was there.
-
actually there was an easier way to remove files from IS:
contacting support would have done the job much faster..
Sean's script just made it a lot more fun for people..
It could be argued that Sean's script has kept more images on istock. I would of been very tempted to leave istock if I had to deactivate every image that I wanted removed the tedious way. I wonder how many of us would have no images there now if it wasn't for that time saving script?
-
I've been reading all the gloating comments from RM sellers. What they don't realize is that the google/getty deal could be far more damaging to them than microstock ever was.
-
Welcome to the real world !
Stealing ideas and concepts from the top macro RF/RM photographers is what microstock has always been all about from day one.
This is a myth, a lot of the Macro RF work is quite frankly sub standard, if anything micro shooters have raised the bar and brought some freshness to lots of genres. There seems to be a big misconception that micro shooters just run around with point and shoot cameras, many of them have come from graphic design and advertising backgrounds running their own companies.
I've never understood the mentality of the trad shooters feeling they have some kind of exclusivity on creativity. You're either creative or not, having a $5000 dollar camera and being a member of the Macro club doesn't mean anything.
-
he broughtit to everyones attention. i belive he even said this.
he sure as heck was the worlds biggest chearleade---see his monky script or whatever he calls it.
he deleted 30 of his pics to test his script.
he did manipulate everyone. open yor eyes for you own sake.
its not abt me and what i deleted or did not delete. its about you not noticing what is going on befor your very eyes!
again what i delete on not has nothing to do with what i say. i act on my own accord not what the general public opinion is. so i do not regret nor do i blame anyone for my actions.
my friend im not a child and do think for myself and make my own decisions. and i am not afraid to think for myself and look into things and evaluate what just happend. im not "fibbing" as you say i clearly stated this is my opinion and ask you all loke and consider it.
It's kind of odd for it to be ok for you to "act on your own accord", but to demonize me or the others here for doing the same. Everyone acts on their own accord. There were other actions and discussions going on that you obviously know nothing about. You post with knowledge of one thing, the script, and not even clear knowledge on that. The script wasn't even made for this, the deactivation button was just added to another script. I find the scripting a nice distraction from photo work, and when I see a challenge that can provide something people need, I take a few (to many) hours to work on it.
Here's some more scripts you can use yourself. You might be able to find discrepancies in your net payments or something. http://www.istockphoto.com/forum_messages.php?threadid=297012&page=1 (http://www.istockphoto.com/forum_messages.php?threadid=297012&page=1)
Again, everyone else, thanks for the support. I've gotten contact from a lot of the other agencies, so I will probably have more questions in other threads, eventually.
-
I've been reading all the gloating comments from RM sellers. What they don't realize is that the google/getty deal could be far more damaging to them than microstock ever was.
Think again.
RM is about huge portfolios, even if they steal me a few hundreds images it's absolutely no big deal.
Micro images also tend to look much more "stocky", glossy and saturated, so there's no doubt the end users will stick with micro images and leave alone the "natural looking" RM ones.
-
I've never understood the mentality of the trad shooters feeling they have some kind of exclusivity on creativity. You're either creative or not, having a $5000 dollar camera and being a member of the Macro club doesn't mean anything.
If you guys are really all so good why don't leave microstock and join Getty RF/RM or Corbis in droves ?
Let me remind you even the last random newbie will ask at the very least 500$ to shoot his first wedding and you waste 1000s of $ buying the latest top of the line DSLR to sell images for 5-10 bucks.
Why not trying alternative venues like selling prints, merchandising, PoD ?
But no, for the excitement of seeing your image used in the real world you would rather earn 10$ for the cover of Time Magazine than seeing the absurdity of it all.
My best wishes, and guess what ... as usual i'll be the ones having the last laugh.
-
as usual i'll be the ones having the last laugh.
That'll be you and all your alter-egos.
-
You're missing the point, Stocktard. When nobody goes to your RM portfolio because they can get everything they need that macro shooters have shot free from Getty via Google (complete with a valid license for unlimited reproduction because it was created in a Google document) then it won't matter two hoots how many tens of thousands of images you have online.
It's ironic that it was the RM shooters who were being plundered most heavily over this, Sean gets the bullet and a number of the trad lads are gloating over how this shows that everyone has to accept anything Getty does, and, wow! they got $12 for their copyright in this perfectly normal commercial deal, so why should they complain?
And who said micro shooters don't also sell through alternative venues?
As for joining Getty RM, have you seen their contract recently? It allows them to tranfer your RM work to Thinkstock and imposes all sorts of restrictions on you for the privilege. At least I don't have to agree not to sell similars when getting my work alongside yours on TS.
-
If you guys are really all so good why don't leave microstock and join Getty RF/RM or Corbis in droves ?
I've got work on Getty and i've got RM work on Alamy, micro income has outstripped both by a wide margin. My work on Getty ended up in the Google drive deal given away for free, I got $12.
I don't get it, whats so earth shatteringly amazing about the trad agencies? You seem to think the work there is of a higher standard, better protected and more profitable. All a fallacy in my experience.
-
If you guys are really all so good why don't leave microstock and join Getty RF/RM or Corbis in droves ?
As rehearsed many times in the past, Corbis wasted my time and money back in the day.
Why would I want to go back to that?
They all can screw us, and it's probably just a matter of when, not if: just to remind us that they 'can'.
-
I don't get it, whats so earth shatteringly amazing about the trad agencies? You seem to think the work there is of a higher standard, better protected and more profitable. All a fallacy in my experience.
It's all about clubability, old boy. You've probably got to be British to understand, but old Stocktard is a member of the Reform Club and we're slumming it in Whitechapel Working Men's Club. Of course everything connected with his club is superior (even if the beer comes from the same brewery). Just tug yer forelock to him, respectful, like, and move along. 'e's gentry, 'e is.
-
I don't get it, whats so earth shatteringly amazing about the trad agencies? You seem to think the work there is of a higher standard, better protected and more profitable. All a fallacy in my experience.
It's all about clubability, old boy. You've probably got to be British to understand, but old Stocktard is a member of the Reform Club and we're slumming it in Whitechapel Working Men's Club. Of course everything connected with his club is superior (even if the beer comes from the same brewery). Just tug yer forelock to him, respectful, like, and move along. 'e's gentry, 'e is.
LOL!
-
Hahaaaaaaa! That's brilliant BT. Just brilliant. ;D
-
If you guys are really all so good why don't leave microstock and join Getty RF/RM or Corbis in droves ?
Let me remind you even the last random newbie will ask at the very least 500$ to shoot his first wedding and you waste 1000s of $ buying the latest top of the line DSLR to sell images for 5-10 bucks.
Why not trying alternative venues like selling prints, merchandising, PoD ?
But no, for the excitement of seeing your image used in the real world you would rather earn 10$ for the cover of Time Magazine than seeing the absurdity of it all.
My best wishes, and guess what ... as usual i'll be the ones having the last laugh.
Are you stuck in 2004 or something?
-
he broughtit to everyones attention. i belive he even said this.
he sure as heck was the worlds biggest chearleade---see his monky script or whatever he calls it.
he deleted 30 of his pics to test his script.
he did manipulate everyone. open yor eyes for you own sake.
its not abt me and what i deleted or did not delete. its about you not noticing what is going on befor your very eyes!
again what i delete on not has nothing to do with what i say. i act on my own accord not what the general public opinion is. so i do not regret nor do i blame anyone for my actions.
my friend im not a child and do think for myself and make my own decisions. and i am not afraid to think for myself and look into things and evaluate what just happend. im not "fibbing" as you say i clearly stated this is my opinion and ask you all loke and consider it.
evidently im notthe only one who thinks like this....see my last post where i quote:bokehgal.
its just so very sad that you guys have this heard mentality and follow eachother, like 8 yrolds.
you kow what they say about the view of the followers right, it never changes, your always looking at, you know what.
think think brotha think!
Lol So let me get this straight. Although you state you act on your own accord, you're assuming everyone else that deleted their account only did so because Sean brought this issue to everyone's attention? Because he wrote a script that makes deleting files a bit easier? So if he hadn't brought it to everyone's attention and someone else did, and hadn't wrote that script, everyone would sit there and do nothing? They would just accept iStock/Getty handing over their images to Google to distribute for free? Are you saying this has nothing to do with them actually wanting to protect their intellectual property, their livelihood... their current and future income, including the income generated from the same images licenced on other sites?
Is that what you're saying? lol.
ETA
i dont know, i think you are just being defensive trying to uphold your point. thats the nicest way i can respond? i dont want to get censored again.
Maybe there's a reason you get sensored and banned but you don't seem to understand its you that's the problem. Just go away. Go find a meat market and stand in the door shouting how we should be vegetarians. Leaf should ban you for life for being a repeat troll.
-
If this is what a long-time exclusive contributor gets from them, it is a serious sign. I'm sorry for Sean, not an easy thing to go through. Gladly, though, he will find many doors open to him.
-
he broughtit to everyones attention. i belive he even said this.
he sure as heck was the worlds biggest chearleade---see his monky script or whatever he calls it.
he deleted 30 of his pics to test his script.
he did manipulate everyone. open yor eyes for you own sake.
its not abt me and what i deleted or did not delete. its about you not noticing what is going on befor your very eyes!
again what i delete on not has nothing to do with what i say. i act on my own accord not what the general public opinion is. so i do not regret nor do i blame anyone for my actions.
my friend im not a child and do think for myself and make my own decisions. and i am not afraid to think for myself and look into things and evaluate what just happend. im not "fibbing" as you say i clearly stated this is my opinion and ask you all loke and consider it.
evidently im notthe only one who thinks like this....see my last post where i quote:bokehgal.
its just so very sad that you guys have this heard mentality and follow eachother, like 8 yrolds.
you kow what they say about the view of the followers right, it never changes, your always looking at, you know what.
think think brotha think!
Lol So let me get this straight. Although you state you act on your own accord, you're assuming everyone else that deleted their account only did so because Sean brought this issue to everyone's attention? Because he wrote a script that makes deleting files a bit easier? So if he hadn't brought it to everyone's attention and someone else did, and hadn't wrote that script, everyone would sit there and do nothing? They would just accept iStock/Getty handing over their images to Google to distribute for free? Are you saying this has nothing to do with them actually wanting to protect their intellectual property, their livelihood... their current and future income, including the income generated from the same images licenced on other sites?
Is that what you're saying? lol.
ETA
i dont know, i think you are just being defensive trying to uphold your point. thats the nicest way i can respond? i dont want to get censored again.
Maybe there's a reason you get sensored and banned but you don't seem to understand its you that's the problem. Just go away. Go find a meat market and stand in the door shouting how we should be vegetarians. Leaf should ban you for life for being a repeat troll.
I guess my problem is having an opinion that does not follow the brainless masses.
im blessed with that problem and hope it never goes away.
is that the definition of troll--someone who does not agree with you? silly.
the vast majority of ppl are so very ignorant--no wonder all these co. take advatage of you.
think for yourselves, dont go with the flow
-
Gladly, though, he will find many doors open to him.
Alternatively he will make a pilgrimage to getty HQ crying and begging for mercy.
-
Gladly, though, he will find many doors open to him.
Alternatively he will make a pilgrimage to getty HQ crying and begging for mercy.
I detect more than a little of the green eyed monster in your posts.
-
Sean's behavour is entirely consistent with that of someone who believes that the truth matters more than self-interest and who genuinely wants to help others and is willing to go out of his way to do so.
Before we canonize Sean, I would just like to point out that there were plenty of times I saw him not want to share information or help people because he didn't want to help the competition, and he was quite honest about it too. I don't necessarily think there is anything wrong with that, it's a competitive world out there and everyone needs to keep whatever edge they can. I just think it should be acknowledged that there was some self-interest in the things that Saint Sean did. ;)
Sean often said that, but it was totally tongue in cheek, and almost always to someone who came on here asking for help and was either new here or clearly had not even started to help themselves. Also he was very brief and to the point, which may have come over as brusque. But the info was there.
Yet there's always an element of truth in humor, isn't there? I don't blame him one bit for wanting to protect his bottom line. Yes, he was helpful, but there was always a line that wasn't crossed. That's smart business. Let's just not make it into something it isn't. He's not Jesus, LOL.
-
Gladly, though, he will find many doors open to him.
Alternatively he will make a pilgrimage to getty HQ crying and begging for mercy.
you had the attention you desperately wished, now go and shoot a few million $ pictures or get outside the cave you living in ;D
-
I guess my problem is having an opinion that does not follow the brainless masses.
im blessed with that problem and hope it never goes away.
is that the definition of troll--someone who does not agree with you? silly.
the vast majority of ppl are so very ignorant--no wonder all these co. take advatage of you.
think for yourselves, dont go with the flow
I'd say telling everyone who doesn't share your opinion to be part of the "brainless masses" is what qualifies you as a troll.
-
If you guys are really all so good why don't leave microstock and join Getty RF/RM or Corbis in droves ?
You might think we are talentless but I assure you we are not that stupid.
-
He's not Jesus, LOL.
He isn't? Dang.
<Removing picture of Sean from my microstock messiah shrine>
-
It is getting a bit personal and confused here with talk about sinister motives, the usual conspiracies and wishfull thinking and intrepretations based on hear say or guessing.
That not neccesary.
Its not neccesary to be pro or con. We are neither celebrating gods here nor demeaning them. We are all humans.
It is more important to look at the facts and the fact is that Sean was booted, and thats what the thread is about, not RM contra Micro and not if someone asumes he had sinister motives. Thats quite an insult, in fact.
The really interesting thing here is why they booted him, and I think that is clear now.
Then of course which future oppertunities it might lead to for both him and us.
And that we yet have to see.
-
If you guys are really all so good why don't leave microstock and join Getty RF/RM or Corbis in droves ?
I've got work on Getty and i've got RM work on Alamy, micro income has outstripped both by a wide margin. My work on Getty ended up in the Google drive deal given away for free, I got $12.
I don't get it, whats so earth shatteringly amazing about the trad agencies? You seem to think the work there is of a higher standard, better protected and more profitable. All a fallacy in my experience.
All a fallacy in my experience also. I was with Alamy for about 2 years and Getty House for about a year before leaving both and putting everything with iStock. I made more $ in the first 4 months at iStock than I did at Alamy and Getty combined. I am also seeing a higher return per sale with iStock than I did with the majority of my RM sales with Getty.....ever hear of Premium Access??
-
If you guys are really all so good why don't leave microstock and join Getty RF/RM or Corbis in droves ?
If your are so good... why don't join micro agencies? Provided you can pass the initial admission quality test, of course...
-
I guess my problem is having an opinion that does not follow the brainless masses.
im blessed with that problem and hope it never goes away.
is that the definition of troll--someone who does not agree with you? silly.
the vast majority of ppl are so very ignorant--no wonder all these co. take advatage of you.
think for yourselves, dont go with the flow
I'd say telling everyone who doesn't share your opinion to be part of the "brainless masses" is what qualifies you as a troll.
Im done whats that saying..........you cant fix stupid", sheep.
-
OK! Important and interesting matters going on at the moment dont really want another thread locked!
-
no pain no gain.
RM is a very different market, different rules, different requirements and it takes a long time to see stable results.
if you failed you simply didnt do your homework.
blaming Getty for poor sales is an oxymoron unless by mistake you specialized in a niche that sells zero on Getty, in any case you can only blame youself.
as for Alamy, their top individual sellers claim to have 50-100 sales per month and if you see their images it's stuff that i would probably be shy posting on Flickr, and yet they did their homework especially about keywording and that's the moral of the whole story.
if you guys expect to try this or to try that and seeing booming results in a few months you will fail not only at RM but also in pretty much any other business, clearly you got the foot in micros because of instant results and quick sales and the whole community/drama/soap-opera around it, but it means nothing in the long run, once micro will radically change or cease to exist you'll find yourself unemployable and your photos unsellable.
-
the vast majority of ppl are so very ignorant--no wonder all these co. take advatage of you.
think for yourselves, dont go with the flow
looking at your previous posts here at MSG I see you are in the same agencies as we all are also, can you tell us which agencies you are working with?
-
This thread has really brought some mean nasty trolls out from under their rocks.
Have to admit I am shocked at the amount of hostility directed at Sean from people who don't even know him.
-
This thread has really brought some mean nasty trolls out from under their rocks.
Have to admit I am shocked at the amount of hostility directed at Sean from people who don't even know him.
I don't think it has much to do with Sean really. It's just hostility looking for a new home.
-
Yes, there's a lot of agendas here. People that are generally anti micro lashing out and one person who has had lots of accounts here, and always ends each incarnation the same way, calling everyone sheep and idiots. Real shame it had to happen on a thread about such a serious topic.
-
the vast majority of ppl are so very ignorant--no wonder all these co. take advatage of you.
think for yourselves, dont go with the flow
looking at your previous posts here at MSG I see you are in the same agencies as we all are also, can you tell us which agencies you are working with?
most of them--im just not a fanboy of anyone of them.
well not getty or istock anymore. i deleted may accts cause u cant recover once you image is given for free!!!!!
i know they all are ripping us off, but we have created them, by accepting there tos. including me.
and i dont go around praising one over the other. i dont see this one as good and this one as bad and this one as in the middle. they are all ripping us off. some more then other.
i dotn go around sayig things like SS can i become exlusivecause i love you. they are the same the want to give less to me so they can take more.
and btw:ss is the worst-with the subs they have devalued our photos the most. but what do we do...we praise them caus the rep 40-60% of our stock incom. its our fault! dont praise them just take the $ and run cause there is no ther option.
if there is one thing i want to get across is they are all out to rip you off, so stop praising any of them.
even this new stokcsy or whatever coming out now from the creator of istock. he put us in this mess in the first place. he sold out to getty just like we sell out everyday when we upload our photos! re stoksy, i do not belive it will be for everyone. it will be for the chosen few, the big ports? and how long till he sells out again?
trust no one
-
This thread has really brought some mean nasty trolls out from under their rocks.
Have to admit I am shocked at the amount of hostility directed at Sean from people who don't even know him.
no hostility is directed a sean, i responding to the events that have transpired.
and--you know him, you hang out and have a beer after a shoot? do you?
i dont need to know someone personaly to make a judgment call on his actions. 1+1=2
we already covered that troll def. if you dont agree with the masses you are a troll.
-
most of them--im just not a fanboy of anyone of them.
well not getty or istock anymore. i deleted may accts cause u cant recover once you image is given for free!!!!!
Well, you sound as a very bitter person ready to bark or bite at anything that passes by you.
-
And someone that ignores facts if there's an opportunity to attack someone. Classic troll behaviour.
-
Yes, there's a lot of agendas here. People that are generally anti micro lashing out and one person who has had lots of accounts here, and always ends each incarnation the same way, calling everyone sheep and idiots. Real shame it had to happen on a thread about such a serious topic.
if u are reffering to me:
i have not had losts of accts here. i fairly recently changed my name to protect myself from the micros once i started critisising them.
i guess im anti micro, you could say that. but i go on using them as much as i can. you should do the same.
what else can one say...sheep dont think they follow each other in packs, to the point of falling of a cliff together!
if anything im have been the most helfull person on here trying to ope ou eyes to the posibility of alterior motives and to the fact theat the micrs ar not you friend!
-
most of them--im just not a fanboy of anyone of them.
well not getty or istock anymore. i deleted may accts cause u cant recover once you image is given for free!!!!!
Well, you sound as a very bitter person ready to bark or bite at anything that passes by you.
you are right! i am bitter and sad at the events going on in the last few years with the micros and our actions!
i just want ppl to understand they are not on you side. thats it.
-
And someone that ignores facts if there's an opportunity to attack someone. Classic troll behaviour.
ou are reffering to what?
-
So, now that your most vocal cheerleader got the boot and that istock/getty shown their real mask you're all horrified and hiding here like scared puppies.
You were led to believe you were an asset for istock, that they cared about their exclusives, they even invented a sort of aristocracy dividing you in diamonds, rubins, silver, whatever other virtual BS medal of honour.
And suddenly, reality sets in, and with the time of a quick phone calls your whole anti-istock rebellion got crushed and many of you are now losing sleep at the idea of receiving the final email from Getty and being banned as well.
Dont complain if "trolls" like us come back here for a good laugh from time to time, you guys at least are entertaining, sort of like watching a reality show or a soap opera.
-
no pain no gain.
RM is a very different market, different rules, different requirements and it takes a long time to see stable results.
if you failed you simply didnt do your homework.
blaming Getty for poor sales is an oxymoron unless by mistake you specialized in a niche that sells zero on Getty, in any case you can only blame youself.
I'm assuming this is directed, in part, to me. Something you don't know is that I was in RM for 20 years prior to joining up with iStock. In that time I paid off my mortgage and am putting my kid through college, in large part with my previous RM income.
In case you haven't done your homework, RM isn't what it used to be. Average sales of $500-$1000, which I was seeing frequently several years ago, are now a rarity. I'm not going to get into the reasons for this decline and whose to blame but part of that blame can be directed at stock agencies such as Getty.
Look at the Getty forums over the past several months; lots of contributors complaining about poor sales and lower-than-micro royalties.
You go right ahead and continue in your RM fantasy world while it lasts....my guess is that the micros will be standing long after the traditional agencies are gone.
-
Dont complain if "trolls" like us come back here for a good laugh from time to time, you guys at least are entertaining, sort of like watching a reality show or a soap opera.
Are you sure your name is not misspelled, Stockturd?
-
Dont complain if "trolls" like us come back here for a good laugh from time to time, you guys at least are entertaining, sort of like watching a reality show or a soap opera.
Are you sure your name is not misspelled, Stockturd?
and this is the brain power that got us hear in the first place. when you cant defend yourself start calling ppl names, nice.
-
For the trolls, we've told you you've got all your facts wrong. Go and spend a week reading all the threads about the istock/Getty Google deal and D-Day, come back and apologise to all of us and Sean. Then you might get some respect.
-
So, now that your most vocal cheerleader got the boot and that istock/getty shown their real mask you're all horrified and hiding here like scared puppies.
Eh?
Are we reading the same forum?
-
and this is the brain power that got us hear in the first place. when you cant defend yourself start calling ppl names, nice.
Sorry didn't you start the name calling bit by telling us we're all "brainless sheep"? Baaa.
-
and this is the brain power that got us hear in the first place. when you cant defend yourself start calling ppl names, nice.
Sorry didn't you start the name calling bit by telling us we're all "brainless sheep"? Baaa.
Ok im sorry--it just pisses me off. we talk like adults then one person comes and namecalls or makes a snide remark. and i get carried away and do the same. sorry for that, i wont name call again.
-
stocktard,
sorry, who exactly are you seeing here that is scared?
We own the content. If getty/istock donīt want to distribute it, somebody else does. We just move on, the customers are always just one click away.
Getty was never our customer. They just donīt seem to understand that themselves.
Many people here do stock fulltime. Unlike the previous generation of stock shooters who always did stock as a side job between assignment work.
Because we do it fulltime, the quality is a lot better and we can supply much higher volumes on a regular basis.
-
Time to invoke the ignore button.
-
Time to invoke the ignore button.
Done.
-
Did I miss something? Here, Lobo indicates there's going to be an announcement of sorts about what's going on, but I haven't seen it. Is it hiding somewhere I haven't looked or just forgotten about?
"I will have something prepared shortly on the developments of today. " http://www.istockphoto.com/forum_messages.php?threadid=351357&messageid=6841513 (http://www.istockphoto.com/forum_messages.php?threadid=351357&messageid=6841513)
-
Did I miss something? Here, Lobo indicates there's going to be an announcement of sorts about what's going on, but I haven't seen it. Is it hiding somewhere I haven't looked or just forgotten about?
"I will have something prepared shortly on the developments of today. " [url]http://www.istockphoto.com/forum_messages.php?threadid=351357&messageid=6841513[/url] ([url]http://www.istockphoto.com/forum_messages.php?threadid=351357&messageid=6841513[/url])
From his other posts it seems he walked away from making any comment other than they do not discuss these issues,
...We've never discussed terminations. Regardless of who the contributor is. I know there are a lot of conspiracies out there. It's much more complicated than it seems.
http://www.istockphoto.com/forum_messages.php?threadid=65435&messageid=6841819 (http://www.istockphoto.com/forum_messages.php?threadid=65435&messageid=6841819)
-
Did I miss something? Here, Lobo indicates there's going to be an announcement of sorts about what's going on, but I haven't seen it. Is it hiding somewhere I haven't looked or just forgotten about?
"I will have something prepared shortly on the developments of today. " [url]http://www.istockphoto.com/forum_messages.php?threadid=351357&messageid=6841513[/url] ([url]http://www.istockphoto.com/forum_messages.php?threadid=351357&messageid=6841513[/url])
I haven't seen anything - other that Lobo getting all chatty with the folks in the race threads and making oblique references to keeping the conversation there.
-
For the trolls, we've told you you've got all your facts wrong. Go and spend a week reading all the threads about the istock/Getty Google deal and D-Day, come back and apologise to all of us and Sean. Then you might get some respect.
i dont think i got all my facts wrong, some, like he did delete 30 pics, but still most are correct, some are subject to interpretation.
re sean, you guys say he is upright and vocal and what not. i said befor, ok could be true, i just do not know him so much. all i know is what i see recently, when he became the getty example. thats what i based my opinion on.
just want to say im not the type of person to make up stories for no reason. i am NOT a troll coming on here just to cause drama. i took what i saw and made a opinion.
btw: it would suck big time if im wrong. and this is not an ego thing for me, so i would apologise. but we/i cant know what goes on in anothers mind. all i can do is look at actions and go from there.
btw: what are we doing now?
what happend with istock feb 2 D-day. whats the offical outcume?
are you all still uploading, anywhere. i jut cant find the will anymore. i have a bunch of pics waiting to b keyworded and i cant find the heart to do it anymore. im thinking all the micros will go the getty way (free images).
so very depressing
-
Did I miss something? Here, Lobo indicates there's going to be an announcement of sorts about what's going on, but I haven't seen it. Is it hiding somewhere I haven't looked or just forgotten about?
"I will have something prepared shortly on the developments of today. " [url]http://www.istockphoto.com/forum_messages.php?threadid=351357&messageid=6841513[/url] ([url]http://www.istockphoto.com/forum_messages.php?threadid=351357&messageid=6841513[/url])
I haven't seen anything - other that Lobo getting all chatty with the folks in the race threads and making oblique references to keeping the conversation there.
I think its funny that the discussion is ok as long as its in an obscure thread but dont discuss it in a main discussion thread, otherwise people might actually find the discussion and want to contribute to the discussion. ::)
-
I hereby declare I will unsubscribe from the thread.
It has become meaningless.
-
I don't post very often but I am a bit tired of reading all the taunting from the macro duo. It's in bad taste. It looks like they are taking bets on how long they can act like a$$holes before they get banned(see quote from Zanox below from Alamy thread: http://www.alamy.com/forums/default.aspx?g=posts&t=15111 (http://www.alamy.com/forums/default.aspx?g=posts&t=15111)). Clearly, they will continue to act like a$$holes until they get banned. Leaf, maybe its time to humour them.
quote from Zanox (Stocktard?)
"i just added a comment on MSG forum, let's see how long it takes before they ban me ....
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Welcome to the real world !
Stealing ideas and concepts from the top macro RF/RM photographers is what microstock has always been all about from day one.
Coupleds also with the "genius" idea of selling these ripoffs at 1/10th or 1/100th of the price buyers were used to pay.
Now fast forward in 2013 and you reap what you sow with the added bonus that buyers perceive stock photography in general as worthless or worth no more than 5-10$ bucks per image as that's how low you've been happy to set the bar.
Sorry but it's too late now to realize in horror you've all shot yourselves in the foot and there's no way out and no exit strategy.
Getty also launched a very clear message to the crowd of scared puppies : you plebs are irrilevant and worthless for our business, and our focus will be on the new happy snappers producing images for free and sharing them on Instamatic and other rights-grab services as that's the future of stock.
No glass ceiling in microstock, get ready for nanostock or even to pay money to join an agency."
-
ok this thread is abt "sjlocke was just booted from iStock".please continue the conve according to the topic.
i will not post here anymore.
i do thank most of you for listening to my opinion/ consp therory.
im not a troll i just have a dif view from most.
sorry to derail the thread.
-
Did I miss something? Here, Lobo indicates there's going to be an announcement of sorts about what's going on, but I haven't seen it. Is it hiding somewhere I haven't looked or just forgotten about?
He already indicated something like that a few weeks ago, and what we got was the Contributor Newsletter summarizing all the facts already known... I won't hold my breath for the next set of "news".
-
Did I miss something? Here, Lobo indicates there's going to be an announcement of sorts about what's going on, but I haven't seen it. Is it hiding somewhere I haven't looked or just forgotten about?
"I will have something prepared shortly on the developments of today. " [url]http://www.istockphoto.com/forum_messages.php?threadid=351357&messageid=6841513[/url] ([url]http://www.istockphoto.com/forum_messages.php?threadid=351357&messageid=6841513[/url])
How often does he make that promise to calm the masses, then nothing of any interest is forthcoming.
-
i will not post here anymore.
Thank you.
-
Very shabby of IS to cut any contributor loose like then when they have a family to support. In my days a warning would have been in order if they were unhappy. Why would anyone go exclusive when the could have their income decimated like this?
I don't know you Sean - my best wishes for future endeavors..
-
Very shabby of IS to cut any contributor loose like then when they have a family to support. In my days a warning would have been in order if they were unhappy. Why would anyone go exclusive when the could have their income decimated like this?
I don't know you Sean - my best wishes for future endeavors..
Istock didn't cut him, Getty did.
-
Very shabby of IS to cut any contributor loose like then when they have a family to support. In my days a warning would have been in order if they were unhappy. Why would anyone go exclusive when the could have their income decimated like this?
I don't know you Sean - my best wishes for future endeavors..
Istock didn't cut him, Getty did.
Is there any difference anymore?
-
Very shabby of IS to cut any contributor loose like then when they have a family to support. In my days a warning would have been in order if they were unhappy. Why would anyone go exclusive when the could have their income decimated like this?
I don't know you Sean - my best wishes for future endeavors..
Istock didn't cut him, Getty did.
Is there any difference anymore?
Could be very significant, Sean has a significant RM/RF collection with Getty that will be lost as well. It also means that Lobo or anyone at Istock won't be making a statement unless Getty approves every word of it.
-
Either way, you get the point. It's hard enough in a recession without your "employer" acting like that. Very shabby indeed.
-
ok this thread is abt "sjlocke was just booted from iStock".please continue the conve according to the topic.
i will not post here anymore. Thank you
i do thank most of you for listening to my opinion/ consp therory. heh
im not a troll i just have a dif view from most. back to your bridge
sorry to derail the thread. no you're not
Good luck Sean. Please let us know where you land. I have several clients who have used your images and will make certain they know where to find them in the future.
-
I don't post very often but I am a bit tired of reading all the taunting from the macro duo. It's in bad taste. It looks like they are taking bets on how long they can act like a$$holes before they get banned...
I'm sympathetic to your frustration. It is pointless and mean behavior on their part.
They are attention seeking. The best way to get rid of them is just ignore them. No replies (they appear not to be interested in dialog anyway). They'll get bored and go bother someone else.
If you're concerned that other people will get distracted by their rubbish, enough minus votes and their posts will go poof for everyone...
-
It's pretty obvious as to the real reason why they decided to terminate his contract. It wasn't because of the script he made which empowered contributors to deactivates files nor was it because of his continued stance against unpopular istock/getty decisions (which he has always done since i can remember). I believe Getty wanted to fire a warning shot across our bows for the collective stance which many contributors have adopted recently. This is a very common tactic in large corporations in order to silence employees and regain a sense of dominance, in lament terms 'I'm the daddy around here'. It is basically a form of intimidation.
Getty did exactly the same with the recent cull of istock employees across all departments and management levels. I suspect that the recent cull at istock was planned from a much earlier stage as a precursor to what they wanted to achieve further down the line with istock's direction.
I wish you all the best, sean. You strike me as the kind of person to bounce back and become successful in whatever you choose to do in the future.
-
Ok, enough of that. Two members were banned, you can guess who.
-
btw. It's better to just get on with your plans rather than dwell on what happened, why did it happen, who said what, what could i have done differently etc. etc. Just get on and do it.
-
I believe Getty wanted to fire a warning shot across our bows for the collective stance which many contributors have adopted recently. This is a very common tactic in large corporations in order to silence employees and regain a sense of dominance, in lament terms 'I'm the daddy around here'. It is basically a form of intimidation.
That must be why Yuri never updated the msg after meeting with Getty Executives Jan. 28th in London (http://www.microstockgroup.com/istockphoto-com/didn%27t-get-paid-for-istock%27s-google-drive-deal-el!!!-now-what/msg291554/#msg291554). He noticed one of those shots with his name on it :o
-
I believe Getty wanted to fire a warning shot across our bows for the collective stance which many contributors have adopted recently. This is a very common tactic in large corporations in order to silence employees and regain a sense of dominance, in lament terms 'I'm the daddy around here'. It is basically a form of intimidation.
That must be why Yuri never updated the msg after meeting with Getty Executives Jan. 28th in London ([url]http://www.microstockgroup.com/istockphoto-com/didn%27t-get-paid-for-istock%27s-google-drive-deal-el[/url]!!!-now-what/msg291554/#msg291554). He noticed one of those shots with his name on it :o
Very likely. It's amazing he can launch his own agency and avoid the boot. In any case, he seems to like to strike his own deals in private and do nothing that might jeopardise his earnings anywhere.
-
Sean, you're so cute... love the photo on Facebook. Glad you are still taking photos!
New stock images series. To be found somewhere other than iStockphoto/Getty . Soon.
-
I believe Getty wanted to fire a warning shot across our bows for the collective stance which many contributors have adopted recently. This is a very common tactic in large corporations in order to silence employees and regain a sense of dominance, in lament terms 'I'm the daddy around here'. It is basically a form of intimidation.
In Chinese they call it "Kill the chicken to scare the monkey".
That must be why Yuri never updated the msg after meeting with Getty Executives Jan. 28th in London ([url]http://www.microstockgroup.com/istockphoto-com/didn%27t-get-paid-for-istock%27s-google-drive-deal-el[/url]!!!-now-what/msg291554/#msg291554). He noticed one of those shots with his name on it :o
-
.
-
never thought of it like that. Will other top exclusive pick up sales with one less big competitor? Probably.
Will Sean find it hard to reboot his income stream elsewhere? Probably
Will IS miss his image? Probably not.
Will Istock sales decline? Of course yes but probably not due to this.
All good except for Sean. Not fair at all. Warnings could have been given rather than dismissal. Really though I am not sure they care. Better for Istock if he went?
-
There is something deeply reprehensible and nauseating about the fact that some suited anonymous nonentity, whose wages are wholly paid by contributors' work, can unilaterally take a spiteful decision massively to disrupt one of these contributor's livelihood.
I wonder if iStock/getty really think that they can now put the Googlegate to bed, given that they have given minimal feedback, have side-lined/diverted any meaningful forum discussions (on iStock), and have shown that they are capable of complete ruthlessness in pursuit of their ambition to 'own' our content.
I for one, will never forget or forgive this series of actions. I see no further point (if there ever was) in contributing to any of iStock's forums. I am not in a position to vote with my feet at present, but over the next year, I will devote my energies to furthering my income from other sources, with the aim of finally cutting off this toxic relationship (I am currently exclusive with iStock BTW).
Regards
-
never thought of it like that. Will other top exclusive pick up sales with one less big competitor? Probably.
Will Sean find it hard to reboot his income stream elsewhere? Probably
Will IS miss his image? Probably not.
Will Istock sales decline? Of course yes but probably not due to this.
All good except for Sean. Not fair at all. Warnings could have been given rather than dismissal. Really though I am not sure they care. Better for Istock if he went?
(My bold above) - honestly I think it's more likely to be the other way round: All good for Sean; Better for iStock if they had properly considered their actions.
What about:
- Have iStock received a great deal of bad press and social media attention following his forced departure?
- Have details of the disastrously badly conceived and handled Google Drive deal been further spread and discussed?
- Does iStock appear to be a more well run or less well run company in light of this decision and the publicity surrounding it?
- Are remaining large contributors at iStock now likely to trust the judgement and integrity of iStock/Getty management more or less?
- Is this all likely to strengthen or weaken iStock's competitors?
-
lewis larkin,
you have summed up the feeling of nearly every exclusive contributor I know.
And I agree with others that the threat of the Getty/Google deal hasnīt diminshed at all. If they want to lessen the fear, they need to provide transparent information.
This attack on Sean is just so weird. I just donīt get it at all. Maybe itīs main function is really to divert attention away from google.
Which makes you wonder what drama is coming up next?
-
Which makes you wonder what drama is coming up next?
Whatever it is, it won't affect me as I have only one zero-sales image left. I feel bad for people that still have portfolios on iStock/Getty, but I wish iStock/Getty well with their continued destruction of their business.
-
There is something deeply reprehensible and nauseating about the fact that some suited anonymous nonentity, whose wages are wholly paid by contributors' work, can unilaterally take a spiteful decision massively to disrupt one of these contributor's livelihood.
I wonder if iStock/getty really think that they can now put the Googlegate to bed, given that they have given minimal feedback, have side-lined/diverted any meaningful forum discussions (on iStock), and have shown that they are capable of complete ruthlessness in pursuit of their ambition to 'own' our content.
I for one, will never forget or forgive this series of actions. I see no further point (if there ever was) in contributing to any of iStock's forums. I am not in a position to vote with my feet at present, but over the next year, I will devote my energies to furthering my income from other sources, with the aim of finally cutting off this toxic relationship (I am currently exclusive with iStock BTW).
Regards
I could have not said it better and I completely agree with your key points. I have no intention of ever doing business with Istock or for that matter any Getty owned co's. I would rather make less; than be forced to deal with the incredibly negative charge Getty leaves looming in their wake. Life is too short to deal with this filthy company. That also goes for any co's in the future who plan on pulling out similar machiavellian business plans.
And no they do not scare me, they disgust me.
-
.
-
There is something deeply reprehensible and nauseating about the fact that some suited anonymous nonentity, whose wages are wholly paid by contributors' work, can unilaterally take a spiteful decision massively to disrupt one of these contributor's livelihood.
I wonder if iStock/getty really think that they can now put the Googlegate to bed, given that they have given minimal feedback, have side-lined/diverted any meaningful forum discussions (on iStock), and have shown that they are capable of complete ruthlessness in pursuit of their ambition to 'own' our content.
I for one, will never forget or forgive this series of actions. I see no further point (if there ever was) in contributing to any of iStock's forums. I am not in a position to vote with my feet at present, but over the next year, I will devote my energies to furthering my income from other sources, with the aim of finally cutting off this toxic relationship (I am currently exclusive with iStock BTW).
Regards
Apparently, it seems iStock's legal team believe they already 'own' your content. The DMCA from Getty's legal team wrote this:
It has recently come to our attention that the registrant (the "Registrant") for website [url=http://www.kga.me/gds/]www.kga.me/gds/[/url] ([url]http://www.kga.me/gds/[/url]) <http://www.kga.me/gds/> (the "Domain"), to which is hosted by you, is infringing upon the copyright, trademark and other intellectual property of iStockphoto, iStockphoto's subsidiary Getty Images, and artist members affiliated with iStockphoto and its subsidiaries (collectively, the "iStock Parties"). For further evidence, please see this link: [url]http://kga.me/gds/details/getty-images.[/url] ([url]http://kga.me/gds/details/getty-images.[/url]) Accordingly, we would appreciate if you could cooperate with us on the resolution of this matter.
[url]http://kga.me/email-from-softlayer-jan-24-2013.html[/url] ([url]http://kga.me/email-from-softlayer-jan-24-2013.html[/url])
What intellectual property of iStock was infringed by kga? Shouldn't a DMCA be sent on behalf of contributors and don't individual contributors have to sign off on it? Isn't that how it works? Isn't that what DT does?
There is nothing there that indicates they are taking ownership of anyone's work. Artist's are clearly included to what they refer to as "iStock parties".
-
.
-
Sean getting the boot is classic strike breaking, directly out of the rule book used by coal companies 100 years ago.
1) Make an example of anyone perceived to be a potential leader, particularly anyone showing a level head.
2) Leave the loudest most extreme protestors alone, their extremism tends to work against them and they generally are not leaders a group would form around.
3) Divert attention from the real problem using miss-information, disinformation and simply ignoring the real issue.
4) Demonstrate clearly what happens if you don't toe the company line by hitting where it hurts, putting your family on the bread line.
5) Vigorously restrict labor's ability to assemble and discuss the issues.
6) Bring in strike breakers to handle the work until labor gets hungry.
The only thing missing is armed guards and baseball bats.
The confusing part is that they did not have to do those things, most would have been satisfied with an explanation and an opt-out button. I think issuing a simple statement that in future you could opt-out your images would have allowed this to just blow over. And it seems they have not realized that they cannot keep people from discussing things by just stationing armed company guards in all the bars. That worked 100 years ago but there is this thing called the internet now, Getty maybe you have heard of it? ;)
Sean good luck in your future ventures and I hope it all comes right for you.
-
I agree. Most would have been okay with some simple acknowledgment of the issue(s). A little transparency goes a long way. Everything there just seems very sneaky and secretive. It's odd...this should be an honest business since they need quality contributors as much as we need them...or even more so.
All in all, they have a plan...none of us have a clue what that plan is...all we have is speculations. I will say their recent actions and lack of communication have all led to a perceived disregard for their contributors and lots of speculation.
-
As far as Sean being canned goes...I know I read many posts of his over at the iStock forums over the past few months...he seemed to have a good relationship with everyone including the mods there. This is a confusing move by Getty/iStock...typically you send your best players to the competition only if you are being well compensated for it...not for free. I never understood Getty's acquisition of iStock...and this move still keeps me guessing. What are they looking to do with iStock? Did they buy it for the name just to tarnish it?
-
Getty is simply in a panic mode.
Getty was losing money before buying Istock, and istock was their milk cow for a few years.
Now Istock sales are retreating, and Thinkstock doesn't help sales on Istock and Getty main site.
Getty management must have the owners hitting on theirs fingers everyday.
Desperate situations bring desperate reactions... sacking Sean was one of them.
-
Ok, enough of that. Two members were banned, you can guess who.
Lobo said he needs his hammer back ;)
-
Despite everyone lumping Istock and Getty into the same hat I think it is important to make a distinction. When the Google Drive deal was announced the first posts in the Istock forum by admins amounted to "what deal? Umm let us get back to you on that we need to check with corporate". They could have been lying but I do believe Istock staff were not informed of this, or at least it never got down to the level of people who post on forums. The Google Drive deal was done by Getty and it seems they neglected to inform Istock about it until it came out in the wash.
And it is also important to remember that Getty in turn is owned by the Carlyle Group, a private equity group that will have it's own agenda. The contributor of content is so far down the chain of command here that they don't even register.
Istock staff may want to sell micro-stock photography but
Getty wants to maximize it's profit on selling stock photography and it's other assets but
Carlyle Group wants to maximize the return on it's investment to it's investors.
See the difference in point of view as you move up the ladder? Istock staff MAY care about their contributors but their bosses at Getty certainly do not, though they MAY care about their stable of RM photographers and wholly owned collections, but Getty's bosses at Carlyle Group care only about making Getty look good enough to justify their $3.3B purchase price. Are the people making decisions even thinking about photography? Or just about how to make the company look good enough to sell?
100 years ago corporate coal barons sat in mansions and laughed at the idea that common miners would dare to argue for better working conditions or even accurate scales so they would be paid fairly. I have this vision of some suits smoking cigars and chuckling over the idea that a few common photographers would dare to question a deal that might bring millions into the Getty coffers.
-
And it is also important to remember that Getty in turn is owned by the Carlyle Group, a private equity group that will have it's own agenda. The contributor of content is so far down the chain of command here that they don't even register.
Indeed. I think this is an often overlooked point. The anger is generally directed towards iStock and Getty, but there's another level of bureaucracy above both of those.
-
Can I just say after 16 pages of discussion on this...
Wow. I'm still stunned.
There's been some great explanations and possible underlying strategies from iStock's point of view mentioned, but still....Wow.
2013 in stock is going to be interesting to say the least
-
Despite everyone lumping Istock and Getty into the same hat I think it is important to make a distinction. When the Google Drive deal was announced the first posts in the Istock forum by admins amounted to "what deal? Umm let us get back to you on that we need to check with corporate". They could have been lying but I do believe Istock staff were not informed of this, or at least it never got down to the level of people who post on forums. The Google Drive deal was done by Getty and it seems they neglected to inform Istock about it until it came out in the wash.
Istock staff MAY care about their contributors but their bosses at Getty certainly do not...
I am afraid I disagree with this and think you are perhaps a tad naive - istock IS Getty - we are not talking about a sale that just occurred here - we are talking a sale that happened YEARS ago now - I know people are trying to find a way to justify the behaviour of istock staff because it makes you feel better and you want very much to believe that they are honest, moral people - but they ARE GETTY - istock has not existed for a long time - those who did not agree with Getty and its approach long ago left istock - the people there are not istock people they are Getty people and they do Getty's bidding - they are Getty people through and through, 100%. To believe otherwise is naive - if they were not Getty people they would have left istock a long time ago.
It is naive too to think you have a personal/emotional relationship with Getty/Istock employees - it is a business - they are running Getty's business. Nothing more, nothing less. You are not a friend to them and they are not your friend. You are a commodity only.
-
Best of luck to Sean - I am a buyer primarily - I stopped buying from istock quite a long time ago. From time to time there were exclusive istock shooters who I secretly wished would leave istock so I could purchase their work - Sean was one of them - I know I am not alone. I look forward to being able (at least I hope so anyway) to buy your work very soon.
-
Despite everyone lumping Istock and Getty into the same hat I think it is important to make a distinction. When the Google Drive deal was announced the first posts in the Istock forum by admins amounted to "what deal? Umm let us get back to you on that we need to check with corporate". They could have been lying but I do believe Istock staff were not informed of this, or at least it never got down to the level of people who post on forums. The Google Drive deal was done by Getty and it seems they neglected to inform Istock about it until it came out in the wash.
And it is also important to remember that Getty in turn is owned by the Carlyle Group, a private equity group that will have it's own agenda. The contributor of content is so far down the chain of command here that they don't even register.
Istock staff may want to sell micro-stock photography but
Getty wants to maximize it's profit on selling stock photography and it's other assets but
Carlyle Group wants to maximize the return on it's investment to it's investors.
See the difference in point of view as you move up the ladder? Istock staff MAY care about their contributors but their bosses at Getty certainly do not, though they MAY care about their stable of RM photographers and wholly owned collections, but Getty's bosses at Carlyle Group care only about making Getty look good enough to justify their $3.3B purchase price. Are the people making decisions even thinking about photography? Or just about how to make the company look good enough to sell?
100 years ago corporate coal barons sat in mansions and laughed at the idea that common miners would dare to argue for better working conditions or even accurate scales so they would be paid fairly. I have this vision of some suits smoking cigars and chuckling over the idea that a few common photographers would dare to question a deal that might bring millions into the Getty coffers.
I don't think that it really matters to most contributors exactly who is pulling the strings, as we're the ones being hung regardless of who is on the other end.
-
Despite everyone lumping Istock and Getty into the same hat I think it is important to make a distinction. When the Google Drive deal was announced the first posts in the Istock forum by admins amounted to "what deal? Umm let us get back to you on that we need to check with corporate". They could have been lying but I do believe Istock staff were not informed of this, or at least it never got down to the level of people who post on forums. The Google Drive deal was done by Getty and it seems they neglected to inform Istock about it until it came out in the wash.
Istock staff MAY care about their contributors but their bosses at Getty certainly do not...
I am afraid I disagree with this and think you are perhaps a tad naive - istock IS Getty - we are not talking about a sale that just occurred here - we are talking a sale that happened YEARS ago now - I know people are trying to find a way to justify the behaviour of istock staff because it makes you feel better and you want very much to believe that they are honest, moral people - but they ARE GETTY - istock has not existed for a long time - those who did not agree with Getty and its approach long ago left istock - the people there are not istock people they are Getty people and they do Getty's bidding - they are Getty people through and through, 100%. To believe otherwise is naive - if they were not Getty people they would have left istock a long time ago.
It is naive too to think you have a personal/emotional relationship with Getty/Istock employees - it is a business - they are running Getty's business. Nothing more, nothing less. You are not a friend to them and they are not your friend. You are a commodity only.
For any Star Trek fans, I see Getty as being like the Borg. Anyone from istock who couldn't get out of there fast enough would of heard the words "You will be assimilated". They are now the Borg as well. I suppose Bruce could be Captain Pickard, Sean is Data and the hedge funds are like Q but that's probably stretching the analogy too far :)
-
There is nothing there that indicates they are taking ownership of anyone's work. Artist's are clearly included to what they refer to as "iStock parties".
The way it is written implies that they are part owners. They are acting as agents to contributors and the DMCA should be written on their behalf and only on their behalf not for 'iStock parties' that include iStock.
Here's an example of the way an agent should write up a DMCA.
[url]http://futurequest.net/Services/TOS/DMCA/DMCANotice.php[/url] ([url]http://futurequest.net/Services/TOS/DMCA/DMCANotice.php[/url])
Maybe I am nitpicking but I don't believe it's worded correctly at all.
ETA: apologies for going off on a tangent.
Also nit=picking and off at a tangent, they aren't anybody's agent, they are merely a distributor. I would have thought you would have had to be an agent to be entitled to issue take-down notices.
-
For any Star Trek fans, I see Getty as being like the Borg. Anyone from istock who couldn't get out of there fast enough would of heard the words "You will be assimilated". They are now the Borg as well. I suppose Bruce could be Captain Pickard, Sean is Data and the hedge funds are like Q but that's probably stretching the analogy too far :)
LOL!
-
and this is the brain power that got us hear in the first place. when you cant defend yourself start calling ppl names, nice.
Sorry didn't you start the name calling bit by telling us we're all "brainless sheep"? Baaa.
Ok im sorry--it just pisses me off. we talk like adults then one person comes and namecalls or makes a snide remark. and i get carried away and do the same. sorry for that, i wont name call again.
We know you won't.
-
.
-
Look at your istock ASA, the one you were gently asked to agree last year, otherwise you would have had you account closed.
There is nothing there that indicates they are taking ownership of anyone's work. Artist's are clearly included to what they refer to as "iStock parties".
The way it is written implies that they are part owners. They are acting as agents to contributors and the DMCA should be written on their behalf and only on their behalf not for 'iStock parties' that include iStock.
Here's an example of the way an agent should write up a DMCA.
[url]http://futurequest.net/Services/TOS/DMCA/DMCANotice.php[/url] ([url]http://futurequest.net/Services/TOS/DMCA/DMCANotice.php[/url])
Maybe I am nitpicking but I don't believe it's worded correctly at all.
ETA: apologies for going off on a tangent.
Also nit=picking and off at a tangent, they aren't anybody's agent, they are merely a distributor. I would have thought you would have had to be an agent to be entitled to issue take-down notices.
Hmmm, they're not an agent? Did they say they're a distributor and not an agent and if so, is this something new? By definition they have to be an agent. To be a distributor, they would have to buy the licences from the contributors and then distribute them to third parties. They also wouldn't have any negotiating power as a distributor. I can't see how they're a distributor. Isn't the contract of a licence sold between the copyright holder and the buyer? If so, they'd have to be an agent.
-
.
-
I am confused now... have they changed the ASA again without telling us, like they did recently for the "Net revenue", or did I missed the change?
here is a related thread: http://www.istockphoto.com/forum_messages.php?threadid=333842&page=1 (http://www.istockphoto.com/forum_messages.php?threadid=333842&page=1)
Look at your istock ASA, the one you were gently asked to agree last year, otherwise you would have had you account closed.
JFP, I'm not with them. The last ASA I agreed to was back in April (I think) 2010.
I'm looking at the ASA now and it says they're an agent:
Background of Agreement
This is a legal agreement between any member intending to upload data or materials onto the Site (in this agreement referred to as you or the Supplier) and iStockphoto LP (iStockphoto). If you are a corporation or other entity or a minor you may be subject to further filing requirements. The Supplier wishes to appoint iStockphoto as its non-exclusive agent to license, sublicense and distribute Content (as defined below) produced by the Supplier on the terms and conditions set forth in this Agreement Upon accepting the terms of this Agreement, you may make Content available to iStockphoto by following the Upload procedures and policies identified on the relevant portion of the Site. Each upload of Content will be governed by the terms and conditions of this Agreement.
[url]http://www.istockphoto.com/asa_non_exclusive.php[/url] ([url]http://www.istockphoto.com/asa_non_exclusive.php[/url])
ETA added quote and link
-
In addition to all the good (mostly) reasons listed in this thread, I think this action was a direct answer to the Feb 2 deactivation revolt. You want to deactivate your images? We don't care. And to show you how little we care, we are going to throw away over 12,000 of our best sellers.
-
Fascinating, isn't it? I even pointed out in their forum that it was strange behaviour for a distributor and nobody came back and said "we're an agent". Maybe their lawyers pointed out they were doing things a distributor couldn't do so they had a little rewrite.
I am confused now... have they changed the ASA again without telling us, like they did recently for the "Net revenue", or did I missed the change?
here is a related thread: [url]http://www.istockphoto.com/forum_messages.php?threadid=333842&page=1[/url] ([url]http://www.istockphoto.com/forum_messages.php?threadid=333842&page=1[/url])
Look at your istock ASA, the one you were gently asked to agree last year, otherwise you would have had you account closed.
JFP, I'm not with them. The last ASA I agreed to was back in April (I think) 2010.
I'm looking at the ASA now and it says they're an agent:
Background of Agreement
This is a legal agreement between any member intending to upload data or materials onto the Site (in this agreement referred to as you or the Supplier) and iStockphoto LP (iStockphoto). If you are a corporation or other entity or a minor you may be subject to further filing requirements. The Supplier wishes to appoint iStockphoto as its non-exclusive agent to license, sublicense and distribute Content (as defined below) produced by the Supplier on the terms and conditions set forth in this Agreement Upon accepting the terms of this Agreement, you may make Content available to iStockphoto by following the Upload procedures and policies identified on the relevant portion of the Site. Each upload of Content will be governed by the terms and conditions of this Agreement.
[url]http://www.istockphoto.com/asa_non_exclusive.php[/url] ([url]http://www.istockphoto.com/asa_non_exclusive.php[/url])
ETA added quote and link
-
I lost productivity the last few days cus of this incident. Spending way too much time on msg!
-
.
-
Trying to sweep this under the carpet by booting Shaun, Getty admits wrongdoing and being vulnerable at the same time. That should give the rest of us hope that something CAN be done after all.
-
Trying to sweep this under the carpet by booting Shaun, Getty admits wrongdoing and being vulnerable at the same time. That should give the rest of us hope that something CAN be done after all.
Much as we might wish this were so, they should have held their hands up, admitted they were wrong, promised not to do anything so insane in future and patted Sean on the back. That would have been the Right Thing To Do.
That was not the option they chose.
-
My agreement says they are my (exclusive) agent. I am not sure if it said distributor at one point although i know I signed an agreement when they decided they were our distributor not our agent. At any rate their contract says they are our agent.
from Wikipedia. (I am lazy), one of the duties of an agent is:
"a duty to avoid conflict of interest between the interests of the principal and his own (that is, the agent cannot engage in conduct where stands to gain a benefit for himself to the detriment of the principal."
-
The "funny" thing is that Sean has been booted out under an ASA that he didn't signed as istock unilaterally changed the contract. I can't believe this could go on istock's favor in court.
Looks like iStock's lawyers have the same degree of expertise as its development team.
-
To me, this is analogous to the knock on the door late at night. It doesn't matter if the individual is well liked or not, subversive or not. The fact that it happened is very disturbing.
-
I can't speak for Sean as I don't know him but I would imagine he's hurting a little bit right now. However, I suspect that 6 months from now he'll be turning cartwheels and silently thanking Getty for putting him on the path he's now on.
-
I can't speak for Sean as I don't know him but I would imagine he's hurting a little bit right now. However, I suspect that 6 months from now he'll be turning cartwheels and silently thanking Getty for putting him on the path he's now on.
I certainly hope so.
-
.
-
I can't speak for Sean as I don't know him but I would imagine he's hurting a little bit right now. However, I suspect that 6 months from now he'll be turning cartwheels and silently thanking Getty for putting him on the path he's now on.
Sometimes the best things in life are the ones forced down your throat.
-
I lost productivity the last few days cus of this incident. Spending way too much time on msg!
:D +1
When Sean started the thread on IS, I was shocked not only because of the deal but the direct approach taken by Sean. I thought wow he's playing with fire, but he instantly got my respect. This was a deal too far (I'm sure there will be more to come) and Sean went out to defend/save his images, by exposing it. When I saw this thread on msg I was shocked, but not hugely. I think the Stocksy thing might become the excuse for their actions but the real reason I think is that they felt threatened by such a large figure (someone who has sway with the others) outright condemning their actions, and it also must have seemed to them that he was the spark that ignited the fire (the revolt, albeit mini one). I think Getty actually felt the situation was a threat and for them, in their eyes, the advantages of letting him go overtook the disadvantages. They did feel threatened though and I don't think that happens to them often.
-
Did anyone read the agreement thoroughly? Anyone keep a copy. It seems really fishy, doesn't it?
The agreements are there on their website for anyone to see:
http://www.istockphoto.com/asa_exclusive.php (http://www.istockphoto.com/asa_exclusive.php)
and
http://www.istockphoto.com/asa_non_exclusive.php (http://www.istockphoto.com/asa_non_exclusive.php)
Different asas for different media linked from the above pages.
-
but those ones are not the one we signed
Did anyone read the agreement thoroughly? Anyone keep a copy. It seems really fishy, doesn't it?
The agreements are there on their website for anyone to see:
[url]http://www.istockphoto.com/asa_exclusive.php[/url] ([url]http://www.istockphoto.com/asa_exclusive.php[/url])
and
[url]http://www.istockphoto.com/asa_non_exclusive.php[/url] ([url]http://www.istockphoto.com/asa_non_exclusive.php[/url])
Different asas for different media linked from the above pages.
-
but those ones are not the one we signed
Did anyone read the agreement thoroughly? Anyone keep a copy. It seems really fishy, doesn't it?
The agreements are there on their website for anyone to see:
[url]http://www.istockphoto.com/asa_exclusive.php[/url] ([url]http://www.istockphoto.com/asa_exclusive.php[/url])
and
[url]http://www.istockphoto.com/asa_non_exclusive.php[/url] ([url]http://www.istockphoto.com/asa_non_exclusive.php[/url])
Different asas for different media linked from the above pages.
Really?!!!
So the agreement on their site isn't the one we signed?
Have you got a copy of the one we signed?
(BTW, IIRC if you didn't click 'I agree' within the allocated time, you were opted in by default, surprisingly.)
-
Fascinating, isn't it? I even pointed out in their forum that it was strange behaviour for a distributor and nobody came back and said "we're an agent". Maybe their lawyers pointed out they were doing things a distributor couldn't do so they had a little rewrite.
Oh, this is news to me. Last I hear they had switched from being our "agent" to our "distributor". Now they have switched back again? I can't keep up.
-
Sometimes the best things in life are the ones forced down your throat.
Words to live by. In prison. LOL. ;)
-
In addition to all the good (mostly) reasons listed in this thread, I think this action was a direct answer to the Feb 2 deactivation revolt. You want to deactivate your images? We don't care. And to show you how little we care, we are going to throw away over 12,000 of our best sellers.
The reality of the situation is that they do care. They operate at slim margins and throwing away their best sellers in a very competitive market puts them at a distinct disadvantage. If we all pulled our best selling files it would not take long for the rest of our customers to follow.
In addition I think the sites forget that many of us work in companies or fields that purchase images every day and by consistently slitting our throats they slit their own. I have not bought an image from IS in over a year (bigstock is now off my list as well) and on top of that I convinced our marketing director to buy images elsewhere. In the past the company I work for (44,000 sales professionals strong) bought huge numbers of images to produce sales materials for a very large international company. With the latest developments IS has permanently lost me as a customer and I am not alone in my disgust as a customer as you can see from the top post on the previous page.
-
So now they are back to being our agent :o
-
So now they are back to being our agent :o
The ASA still says distributor at the beginning of section 3
Grant of Authority
The Supplier hereby appoints iStockphoto as Supplier's exclusive distributor to sell, license or sublicense Exclusive Content to third parties worldwide and to collect and remit funds in connection with those endeavours on the terms set forth in this Agreement. For all Exclusive Content, Supplier grants iStockphoto:
http://www.istockphoto.com/asa_exclusive.php (http://www.istockphoto.com/asa_exclusive.php)
And the same for non-exclusive
http://www.istockphoto.com/asa_non_exclusive.php (http://www.istockphoto.com/asa_non_exclusive.php)
-
For those worried about what Sean Locke will do next, it appears he (and Rob Sylvan, who was also booted from Istock on the same day) will be partnering with Bruce Livingstone, the original founder of Istockphoto, in Stocksy, which is still in beta production. I had the pleasure of meeting both men at the Utahlypse in 2011 and watching them work. I am still shocked that Getty, Istock, Carlyle Group, et al have cut off their own noses to spite their faces with this surprising move. I wish Sean and Rob the best and look forward to seeing them rebound from the pitiful treatment they received. Their generosity with time, instruction and inspiration will be missed sorely at Istock.
-
So now they are back to being our agent :o
The ASA still says distributor at the beginning of section 3
Grant of Authority
The Supplier hereby appoints iStockphoto as Supplier's exclusive distributor to sell, license or sublicense Exclusive Content to third parties worldwide and to collect and remit funds in connection with those endeavours on the terms set forth in this Agreement. For all Exclusive Content, Supplier grants iStockphoto:
[url]http://www.istockphoto.com/asa_exclusive.php[/url] ([url]http://www.istockphoto.com/asa_exclusive.php[/url])
And the same for non-exclusive
[url]http://www.istockphoto.com/asa_non_exclusive.php[/url] ([url]http://www.istockphoto.com/asa_non_exclusive.php[/url])
OK, that's clear now. They can be whichever they want to be, according to convenience.
-
.
-
If I remember correctly they changed the ASA back in August of 2011, which Sean was even questioning the "Distribution Partners" back then
I do not want my content sold on any site where I do not receive the royalty for my brand that I have established here on iStockphoto. I don't trust outside "partners" or distribution channels, and I do not wish the value (to me) of my content being diluted by having my share of my royalties split a dozen times before it gets to me.
http://www.istockphoto.com/forum_messages.php?threadid=333754 (http://www.istockphoto.com/forum_messages.php?threadid=333754)
Also, the $12 is the contributors share of the deal.
-
.
-
If I remember correctly they changed the ASA back in August of 2011, which Sean was even questioning the "Distribution Partners" back then
I do not want my content sold on any site where I do not receive the royalty for my brand that I have established here on iStockphoto. I don't trust outside "partners" or distribution channels, and I do not wish the value (to me) of my content being diluted by having my share of my royalties split a dozen times before it gets to me.
[url]http://www.istockphoto.com/forum_messages.php?threadid=333754[/url] ([url]http://www.istockphoto.com/forum_messages.php?threadid=333754[/url])
Also, the $12 is the contributors share of the deal.
Thanks for posting that.
How do we know the $12 is a 'share' and not a payment for the rights without seeing the contract or the 'special licence' or even the terms on Google Drive?
So we have the new ASA agreement that deemed iStock a distributor rather than an agent (or both) on Aug 29 and we have Google asking it's users to curate the collection for Google Drive on Aug 9.
[url]https://plus.google.com/+GoogleDrive/posts/6p2e3FTeKL4[/url] ([url]https://plus.google.com/+GoogleDrive/posts/6p2e3FTeKL4[/url])
Interesting.
First be careful of the years, the ASA change was in 2011 and the Google Drive link you posted was in 2012.
The $12 "royalty" was discussed by several people in the two threads started by "mr_erin"
http://www.istockphoto.com/forum_messages.php?threadid=350491 (http://www.istockphoto.com/forum_messages.php?threadid=350491)
http://www.istockphoto.com/forum_messages.php?threadid=350613 (http://www.istockphoto.com/forum_messages.php?threadid=350613)
ETA: from the original Google Drive thread on page 11
http://www.istockphoto.com/forum_messages.php?threadid=350439&page=11 (http://www.istockphoto.com/forum_messages.php?threadid=350439&page=11)
-
.
-
As for the thread about the new ASA, I don't have time right now to read all of the 38 pages right now but this post got my attention and is questioning the same thing I am. I'm not sure if it was addressed in a later post but I will sift through it all a bit later.
There also was a Q&A summary from that thread:
http://www.istockphoto.com/forum_messages.php?threadid=333842&page=1 (http://www.istockphoto.com/forum_messages.php?threadid=333842&page=1)
-
but those ones are not the one we signed
If you uploaded a single files after August 2011, yes you "signed" it. All ASA changes are forced upon you with 30 days notice, and they will block your account if you don't agree to them in due time.
-
According to the Wayback machine, the published ASA is exactly the same as it was in Jan 2012. Whether or not that is exactly the same as the pop up we were forced to sign is unclear.
As someone has already said, the ASA uses both "distributor" and "agent" as such, it contradicts itself if those two terms are contradictory.
Interestingly when you change from exclusive to non-exclusive you are not asked to sign a new ASA. This in itself would present some issues I would think. Perhaps someone who has some idea about the law can comment.
-
As someone has already said, the ASA uses both "distributor" and "agent" as such, it contradicts itself if those two terms are contradictory.
Actually from my reading it it uses both terms exactly once:
In article 1 it says:
The Supplier wishes to appoint iStockphoto as its exclusive agent to license,
In article 3 is says:
The Supplier hereby appoints iStockphoto as Supplier's exclusive distributor ...
So it states quite clear what we wish for and what we actually get. ;)
-
Seems like those inconsistencies in the TOS create loopholes big enough for a decent lawyer to drive a Mack truck through.
-
Seems like those inconsistencies in the TOS create loopholes big enough for a decent lawyer to drive a Mack truck through.
I'm sure that was perfectly intentional.
-
Seems like those inconsistencies in the TOS create loopholes big enough for a decent lawyer to drive a Mack truck through.
I'm sure that was perfectly intentional.
A lot of iStock's behave and a lot of their terms aren't legal, but none of us costributors can fight against this robbery alone. Also why some of us needs the income by them.
If stocksy is only nearby the idea they offer, the whole situation and market will change. I waited since more than a year for any of the marketplayers to come up with this simple idea ... but none of them moved in the right direction. There's no way to offer pictures for nearly less then nothing and gain money.
And no customer cares about prices between dollars or Cents. 5 years ago they bought them for a hundreds or thausands of Dollar.
Internet defines new ways and new possibilitis of efficencie... but nothing is not the answer or the price for creative work.
The wave that all development in society inherents stopt at 0,09 Cent per Picture, reached by Istock. This record woudn't be beaten anymore. They pay for this record by their own termination. Gratulations to IStock. Rest in peace.
-
Haven't check here in a little while. Certainly big and unexpected news.
SJ I'm sure you'll land squarely on your feet and I wish you all the best.
I'm sure you don't need any advise from me but if you need somebody to refer you to this high selling agency called shutterstock send me a message. ;)
-
Interestingly when you change from exclusive to non-exclusive you are not asked to sign a new ASA. This in itself would present some issues I would think. Perhaps someone who has some idea about the law can comment.
That's quite mind-bogglng.
-
@ ADMIN :
I'm Xanox from the Alamy forum, it seems Alamy is as ruthless as Getty as i've been banned from their forum and our thread about Sjlocke and istock has been deleted without any warning.
Considering their forum is moribund and soon to be phased out from now on i'll stick here in read-only mode.
Cheers
Xanox
-
....... They operate at slim margins ......
Context leads me to believe this is a reference to iStock's margins. How does anybody outside iStock know anything about their margins? Are they published somewhere?
Regards
-
I'm Xanox from the Alamy forum, it seems Alamy is as ruthless as Getty as i've been banned from their forum and our thread about Sjlocke and istock has been deleted without any warning.
Huh? Why would Alamy delete a thread about IS? What was said there, that caused such a negative reaction?
-
Lots of nonsense from the usual suspects that can't have a civilised debate about microstock and the traditional sites. I don't blame them for deleting it.
-
Huh? Why would Alamy delete a thread about IS? What was said there, that caused such a negative reaction?
It was deleted because I wrote to Alamy about that thread where I was falsely accused of stuff and also being threatened, again, by the same person who wrote me a PM here with a threat for me. I have screenshots and will get it on record with the local police. Alamy had to take it down, otherwise they would be liable as well.
Things are heating up, but I am going to ignore a few people and not get myself dragged into such mess again.
-
Yeah, I read where you were accused of 'reporting what everyone said back to MSG'. Uh, so what? This isn't corporate espionage, it's a freaking forum. The thread was silly and counter-productive, so I'm glad they killed it at any rate.
-
Yeah, I read where you were accused of 'reporting what everyone said back to MSG'. Uh, so what? This isn't corporate espionage, it's a freaking forum. The thread was silly and counter-productive, so I'm glad they killed it at any rate.
I thought it was funny how our 'good pal' seemed to think that was wrong, whereas they were reporting what was being said here over there, and did it first and that was OK.
I can see that Alamy wouldn't think the infighting was edifying, and irrelevant to the Google/Getty issue.
It's also undignified and unprofessional for their open forum to be childishly micro-bashing.
-
I find the micro bashing there especially silly considering the following. They can call it what they want to, it's micro-stock
B560CP Five Color Crayons Darryl Brooks 28 April 2011 Novel use Novel Use Scheme 1
$ 0.83
BTFR5G View of Tropical Resort from Above Darryl Brooks 10 June 2011 Novel use Novel Use Scheme 1
$ 0.83
C34949 Cream of Chicken Soup Darryl Brooks 10 June 2011 Novel use Novel Use Scheme 1
$ 0.83
B5EA99 Beautiful Black Model Closeup Darryl Brooks 10 June 2011 Novel use Novel Use Scheme 1
$ 0.83
C3XY3H Package of Fresh Ground Round Beef Darryl Brooks 11 July 2011 Novel use Novel Use Scheme 1
$ 0.83
C089W6 Las Vegas Sign Isolated Darryl Brooks 11 July 2011 Novel use Novel Use Scheme 1
$ 0.83
-
http://news.cnet.com/8301-1023_3-57569639-93/istockphoto-founder-re-enters-the-market-with-stocksy/ (http://news.cnet.com/8301-1023_3-57569639-93/istockphoto-founder-re-enters-the-market-with-stocksy/)
interesting reading
-
Itīs a strange article but maybe it just summaries the whole bizarre behaviour of Getty. The most unlogical accusation is that Sean was actively "recruiting" for stocksy. How could he do that if nobody knew about the project? He said himself he only signed up and looked at the place a few days before leaf announced it here on msg. It is not an active site, nobody knows when Bruce wants to take it live.
Most of us still have accounts somewhere with other agencies form pre exclusivity days. But istock never required to close the accounts, just that we donīt have images for sale anyhwere else.
Many exclusives have registered accounts with Shutterstock, Dreamstime, Fotolia. Sometimes they use them for buying as well.
Besides we all know that Sean recommended GI Images and itīs 52%. He even pointed them out in the istock FB group. And Bruce certainly doesnīt need any help "recruiting" people. He just has to announce it and he will be flodded by people wanting to get in.
The "explanation" seems unbelievably far fetched. By kicking him out, they are actively encouraging him to take his portfolio to the competition, including stocksy. And now everybody wants to know more about it.
Kicking out Sean and Rob suddenly makes stocksy like a viable alternative, just because Getty is so afraid of it.
But the place isnīt open for business and doesnīt even have any customers.
The real competition are the other live agencies with 30 000 photographers, active communities, millions of images and a growing customer base.
Why donīt they focus on building the business?? What is it about "creating enemies" that is so much fun for them that they put so much energy and effort into it?
Why not focus on the REAL competition out there?
I just donīt understand their actions at all. It makes no sense.
-
People who are giving my post a min obviously condone threats. When Tab62 posted about the threat he received, he was advised to report it. Its a fickle forum.
Better have it on record then let people get away with it. Wouldnt be first story with a bad ending.
Sorry, back on topic.
-
It also speaks to Bruce's marketing savvy. Articles like this don't just happen. I expect to see more over the coming months in larger ciruculations.
-
Its just public relations and spin doctors in full action. If getty commented on the story, then its a big issue for them. They are the market leader but Sean is definitely in their hair.
-
Of course it's public relations and spin doctors. That's what marketing is. Most people don't know that and don't have the savvy and resources to do anything about it even if they did. Do you think the editors at Forbes woke up one day and said, 'hey, let's go interview some microstock guy?'
-
[url]http://news.cnet.com/8301-1023_3-57569639-93/istockphoto-founder-re-enters-the-market-with-stocksy/[/url] ([url]http://news.cnet.com/8301-1023_3-57569639-93/istockphoto-founder-re-enters-the-market-with-stocksy/[/url])
interesting reading
I can't get the page to load from the link or from the CNET site itself. All I get is "Whoops! You broke the Internet!" Anyone else having this problem? Did it get taken down?
-
[url]http://news.cnet.com/8301-1023_3-57569639-93/istockphoto-founder-re-enters-the-market-with-stocksy/[/url] ([url]http://news.cnet.com/8301-1023_3-57569639-93/istockphoto-founder-re-enters-the-market-with-stocksy/[/url])
interesting reading
"Whoops! You broke the Internet!
No, really, it looks like you clicked on a borked link or something."
Strange - have they taken that file down?
I can't to it via the link.
I searched the CNN site on 'stocksy' and saw a link with the wording in the link above, but clicking on CNN's link brings up the same error message.
Too slow. :)
Tried the link with FF and IE; and tried CNN's internal site search.
-
[url]http://news.cnet.com/8301-1023_3-57569639-93/istockphoto-founder-re-enters-the-market-with-stocksy/[/url] ([url]http://news.cnet.com/8301-1023_3-57569639-93/istockphoto-founder-re-enters-the-market-with-stocksy/[/url])
interesting reading
I can't get the page to load from the link or from the CNET site itself. All I get is "Whoops! You broke the Internet!" Anyone else having this problem? Did it get taken down?
It was there, now its down indeed
-
[url]http://news.cnet.com/8301-1023_3-57569639-93/istockphoto-founder-re-enters-the-market-with-stocksy/[/url] ([url]http://news.cnet.com/8301-1023_3-57569639-93/istockphoto-founder-re-enters-the-market-with-stocksy/[/url])
interesting reading
I can't get the page to load from the link or from the CNET site itself. All I get is "Whoops! You broke the Internet!" Anyone else having this problem? Did it get taken down?
Same for me, maybe they pull it off after call from Getty :D
-
If you want to read it, use cached one :
http://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=cache:news.cnet.com/8301-1023_3-57569639-93/istockphoto-founder-re-enters-the-market-with-stocksy/&ion=1 (http://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=cache:news.cnet.com/8301-1023_3-57569639-93/istockphoto-founder-re-enters-the-market-with-stocksy/&ion=1)
-
[url]http://news.cnet.com/8301-1023_3-57569639-93/istockphoto-founder-re-enters-the-market-with-stocksy/[/url] ([url]http://news.cnet.com/8301-1023_3-57569639-93/istockphoto-founder-re-enters-the-market-with-stocksy/[/url])
interesting reading
I can't get the page to load from the link or from the CNET site itself. All I get is "Whoops! You broke the Internet!" Anyone else having this problem? Did it get taken down?
Same for me, maybe they pull it off after call from Getty :D
I wondered that. This acts like a link, when you hover over the title, it underlines, but clicking takes to the error message:
(http://www.lizworld.com/Stocksy.jpg)
-
If you want to read it, use cached one :
[url]http://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=cache:news.cnet.com/8301-1023_3-57569639-93/istockphoto-founder-re-enters-the-market-with-stocksy/&ion=1[/url] ([url]http://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=cache:news.cnet.com/8301-1023_3-57569639-93/istockphoto-founder-re-enters-the-market-with-stocksy/&ion=1[/url])
Thanks, that worked.
-
I wonder why "Livingstone declined to comment for this story. "? Even to just say check back in a month, why pass up free advertising? Is anyone even sure Stocksy is going to be microstock? My understanding is that it is going to be 100% image exclusive so I would guess prices would be higher.
-
That is all hi-larious. I'm not sure how I could 'comment' when they never contacted me. And, like its illegal to talk to my friends about new opportunities that come up.
-
Actually, I'd like to know where CNET got the statement attributed to Getty. Can't seem to find it with Google....
I really wonder what it is that iStock needs to negotiate with Google. The deal is supposedly done, contributors got "paid". So, what is there to negotiate?
Regards
-
Actually, I'd like to know where CNET got the statement attributed to Getty. Can't seem to find it with Google....
I really wonder what it is that iStock needs to negotiate with Google. The deal is supposedly done, contributors got "paid". So, what is there to negotiate?
Regards
No attribution for that quote stood out to me too. I think the Google Drive details they are working out have to do with Google posting what restrictions there are on use, I would be very surprised if Getty did this deal without some restrictions as it appears now because there is no information about the license.
That is all hi-larious. I'm not sure how I could 'comment' when they never contacted me. And, like its illegal to talk to my friends about new opportunities that come up.
Maybe this is why the article is down? I was pretty sure you would be available to comment here within a few minutes of this article being posted so I wondered why they couldn't find you for comment.
-
That is all hi-larious. I'm not sure how I could 'comment' when they never contacted me. And, like its illegal to talk to my friends about new opportunities that come up.
So they made it all up? Is that site the IS of news? LOL
-
Well, everything I needed to comment in is in my blog. So ...
-
Ow yes, the parts from your blog are correct, but they made some stuff up about contacting you, so the Getty comment could be made up as well.
His editor might have seen what he wrote and told him to take it down before Getty would.
-
Maybe this is why the article is down? I was pretty sure you would be available to comment here within a few minutes of this article being posted so I wondered why they couldn't find you for comment.
Taken down for poor journalistic standards!
-
Well, everything I needed to comment in is in my blog. So ...
I thought they were quoting you from your blog (which they also linked to).
-
Ow yes, the parts from your blog are correct, but they made some stuff up about contacting you, so the Getty comment could be made up as well.
His editor might have seen what he wrote and told him to take it down before Getty would.
How did he manage to publish without approval from his editor? And he was lucky the editor was first; I suspect there are others who would have been more direct than the editor...
Regards
-
Back to the ASA and the agent/distributor issue. I read up to page 26 of the forum thread and I'm quite shocked that people signed the new terms after iStockLawyer wrote this:
In the current structure, iStock issues a license of your content (a sublicense if you will) to a customer. The agreement is between iStock and the customer. There is no legal relationship between the contributor and the customer.
http://www.istockphoto.com/forum_messages.php?threadid=333754&page=26 (http://www.istockphoto.com/forum_messages.php?threadid=333754&page=26)
There you go. It appears they now can do whatever they like with your images without having any fiduciary duties to you.
There's nothing more to say about it except. Good luck!
ETA: I've removed all my posts about the Google/Getty deal because they're all now irrelevant. I joined the fight thinking that iStock was acting as your agent. I had no idea you all signed them in as your distributor. I still can't stand iStock and think they're as sneaky as hell... but you all are responsible for yourselves and when you signed the contract allowing them to act as your distributor and not your agent, well... what did you expect?
I feel for you all, I really do... all the best.
-
Looks like the link is working again. It still says "Locke couldn't immediately be reached for comment". I'm pasting the langauge below in case it changes.
Bruce Livingstone, who founded microstock powerhouse iStockphoto more than a decade ago and left it in 2009, is trying again with a new stock-art sales venture called Stocksy.
And he's doing it at a time when iStock is, if not necessarily vulnerable, the target of criticisms that it's out of touch with the army of photographers who contribute the imagery it licenses. To succeed, a microstock needs lots of customers licensing its photos, videos, and other works, and it needs a lot of contributors supplying a steady stream of fresh material.
It's these contributors Livingstone appears to be aiming to attract. The site describes Stocksy as "a stock photography cooperative owned and operated by artists," and it says contributors will have a stake in its success:
Our purpose is to create sustainable careers, ownership, and a long-term professional and equity strategy for our members.
Stocksy pays the highest royalty in the industry as well as dividends and patronage performance returns to artists, 50 percent on regular sales and 100 percent of extended licenses. By design, Stocksy pays out all profits to artists. In addition to paying dividend and patronage fees to artists on a yearly basis, each member of the co-op owns real equity in the company.
Livingstone declined to comment for this story.
Stocksy will face plenty of competitive challenges, and not just from iStockphoto, which since 2006 has been part of old-school stock-art firm Getty Images.
The microstock industry's growth was fueled by the abundance of low-cost, high-quality digital cameras and the Web, which provided a quick way to reach a global marketplace. Now there are dozens of microstocks around, including Fololia, Dreamstime, and Shutterstock, which is confident enough of growth that it went public in 2012.
But iStockphoto evidently is a source of talent for new microstocks. A case in point is photographer Sean Locke, who with 12,781 images and more than 900,000 sales is one of its top five contributors and a person who earned nearly all his income from sales through the company.
A week ago, iStock said it is terminating its relationship with Locke. According to his blog post on the subject, iStock was displeased with Locke's actions involving a Getty Images licensing deal with Google and with the fact that Locke had begun working with another stock-art firm.
"They also knew (somehow!) that I had joined this new stock site, even though it was closed to all but a relatively small group, and declared that this was against the 'spirit of the exclusivity agreement,'" Locke said.
Contributors often sign exclusivity contracts that pay them higher royalties if they agree to sell their imagery only through one microstock. Shutterstock founder Jon Oringer thinks exclusivity is bad -- "As a microstock photographer it just doesn't make sense to be exclusive to any one agency," he said in a January blog post -- but it's common. Now, though, Locke said he's moving his portfolio to multiple iStock competitors.
In a statement, iStockphoto laid the blame on the termination on Locke's helping a competitor:
In addition to other factors, Mr. Locke was actively recruiting exclusive iStock contributors to work with a competitive venture which is directly at odds with his relationship with iStockphoto. Given these actions, we made the decision to part ways with Mr. Locke under the terms of his exclusive agreement. We are excited to continue to work with the tens of thousands of contributors committed to the continued success of iStockphoto and Getty Images -- and wish Mr. Locke the best in his future endeavors.
Locke couldn't immediately be reached for comment about the recruiting issue. In his post, though, he said the severed relationship was liberating.
And the strong relations with contributors from iStockphoto's early days have faded, said Lee Torrens, author of the Microstock Diaries blog.
"iStock's soul is long gone," Torrens said. "They wiped out the entire content team, which was what kept the community functional...With the absence of leadership, old-time exclusives [exclusive photographers] are starting to jump ship. That probably doesn't hurt customers, but it bruises their reputation inside the industry."
Another photographer given the boot is Rob Sylvan, who also is author of "Lightroom 2 for Dummies." "I am very glad that I quit when I did and am no longer reliant on them as a source of income. I would urge any other iStock contributor to make sure you have a solid backup plan in place, and any exclusive contributor to start working on an exit strategy," he said in a comment to Locke.
iStockphoto said Sylvan "is identified as an administrator of a competitive venture's social media page, which, again, is directly at odds with his relationship with iStockphoto."
Some seeds of Locke's discontent were sown by the Getty deal with Google Drive, under which photographers' works could be used on Google Apps' online services for tasks such as word processing and presentations. The deal granted Google Apps users rights to 5,000 images, but they can be downloaded to a local computer and have copyright information and other metadata stripped out.
Locke objected to the Google Drive deal on iStock's forums, and a ruckus ensued with many photographers objecting. iStock scrambled to pull together its explanation as users howled.
Yesterday, iStock told CNET News it hopes for at least some changes to the Google Drive deal: "We can confirm that contributors were paid royalties for the use of their content in the license deal with Google. We are working with Google to refine the implementation which we believe will address some of the concerns raised by contributors."
Stephen Shankland
Stephen Shankland writes about a wide range of technology and products, but has a particular focus on browsers and digital photography. He joined CNET News in 1998 and has also covered Google, Yahoo, servers, supercomputing, Linux, other open-source software, and science.
-
Back to the ASA and the agent/distributor issue. I read up to page 26 of the forum thread and I'm quite shocked that people signed the new terms after iStockLawyer wrote this:
In the current structure, iStock issues a license of your content (a sublicense if you will) to a customer. The agreement is between iStock and the customer. There is no legal relationship between the contributor and the customer.
[url]http://www.istockphoto.com/forum_messages.php?threadid=333754&page=26[/url] ([url]http://www.istockphoto.com/forum_messages.php?threadid=333754&page=26[/url])
Isn't that the same for all sites? There is a relationship betwee the supplier and the site and a relationship between the site and the end user but no legal tie-up between the supplier and the end-user.
-
In the current structure, iStock issues a license of your content (a sublicense if you will) to a customer. The agreement is between iStock and the customer. There is no legal relationship between the contributor and the customer.
That's the mechanism by which if someone uses editorial content commercially and someone/entity in the image sues, the contributor doesn't have responsibility for the buyer's use.
From CR responding to my email regarding just such a case (which hasn't been resolved yet):
" I would like to address a concern that has been brought up in the past in regards to a client using an editorial use only image for commercial purposes and the impact this may have on the contributor. We do review these cases on an individual basis, but in general assuming the contributor has absolutely no involvement with the user other than the fact that the contributor has uploaded the file to iStock and the user downloaded it from iStock and used inappropriately, the contributor is not be responsible for the users fault. You as the contributor have authorized the use of your uploaded "editorial only" files to only those uses deemed permissible by iStock. If the user is in breach of it, then that is the users fault as it is against both iStocks and the contributors wishes."
But in fact, that's just like retail goods. If your camera doesn't work or your beef lasagne has horsemeat in it, the consumer's recourse is with the retailler, and the retailler's recourse is with the wholesaler, and so on back down the chain. (Under UK consumer law, I can't speak for anywhere else.) The consumer would not expect to have direct contact with the camera factory or food processing plant.
An unhappy photo licence buyer would have to contact the agency/distributor so sort any dispute, not contact the artist directly. It's part of what we pay them a high percentage to do.
-
I there are two different things you are talking about there, Sue, one is when a fourth party complains to the second party about a third party misuse, in which case the second party (the agency) will simply dump the blame on the third party.
The other one is when the third party complains to the second party that the first party's work was wrong in some way, in whch case the second party (agency) promptly passes the blame to the first party (the photographer).
In essence, whatever happens, the agency simply declares that it isn't to blame, someone else is (possibly you). I don't see that as a benefit for us.
If the case you refer concerns someone complaining to you in the first place, then you could just as easily have told them to complain to the end user rather than getting involved yourself by going via iS, becauses the problem is betweeen the complainant and the end user, not between the complainant and anyone else.
-
If google bought an agency could it just set it own price and use all photos? Pay out one royalty and "own" heaps of images? If it did would it be better to use exclusive images other agencies don't have. Google could kill the market quicker than all the agency managers combined. No that won't happen, they have not bought an agency!?? The big thing is we should be able to opt out but it may be a one off sale of images looks good to IS and buying an agency (or all its images) may look good to google. Even though they do not own the images the way it is going they treat it as such. Not many in IS forums speaking loudly any more. Guess getting rid of Sean worked. We have to trust agencies but that trust is often misplaced. Stolen images, refunds, selling at a price with conditions we never agreed to. What next?
Good luck Sean you deserve better and I do hope you images are not buried when uploaded to other agencies. It will I am sure be for the best for you but it is harsh at the moment.
-
I'm Xanox from the Alamy forum, it seems Alamy is as ruthless as Getty as i've been banned from their forum and our thread about Sjlocke and istock has been deleted without any warning.
Huh? Why would Alamy delete a thread about IS? What was said there, that caused such a negative reaction?
It was the one that was attacking Sean and micro in general. I believe Xanox is Zanox on Alamy and was Stocktard here, before he caught a ban yesterday or the day before for repeating the same attacks.
His post admits as much, as Zanox said on Alamy what he was posting here and Xanox has said he is the same guy who started the Alamy thread (if that makes sense).
-
If google bought an agency could it just set it own price and use all photos? Pay out one royalty and "own" heaps of images? If it did would it be better to use exclusive images other agencies don't have. Google could kill the market quicker than all the agency managers combined. No that won't happen, they have not bought an agency!?? The big thing is we should be able to opt out but it may be a one off sale of images looks good to IS and buying an agency (or all its images) may look good to google. Even though they do not own the images the way it is going they treat it as such. Not many in IS forums speaking loudly any more. Guess getting rid of Sean worked. We have to trust agencies but that trust is often misplaced. Stolen images, refunds, selling at a price with conditions we never agreed to. What next?
Good luck Sean you deserve better and I do hope you images are not buried when uploaded to other agencies. It will I am sure be for the best for you but it is harsh at the moment.
Maybe it worked shutting them up, but we dont know how many will pack up and leave. Only when we know that number, we know if sacking Sean really worked.
-
@ ADMIN :
I'm Xanox from the Alamy forum, it seems Alamy is as ruthless as Getty as i've been banned from their forum and our thread about Sjlocke and istock has been deleted without any warning.
Considering their forum is moribund and soon to be phased out from now on i'll stick here in read-only mode.
Cheers
Xanox
Same as Zanox? :)
-
@ ADMIN :
I'm Xanox from the Alamy forum, it seems Alamy is as ruthless as Getty as i've been banned from their forum and our thread about Sjlocke and istock has been deleted without any warning.
Considering their forum is moribund and soon to be phased out from now on i'll stick here in read-only mode.
Cheers
Xanox
Same as Zanox? :)
As I said, pretty sure he is Zanox/ Stocktard, and is already out of read only mode and posting.
-
If google bought an agency could it just set it own price and use all photos? Pay out one royalty and "own" heaps of images? If it did would it be better to use exclusive images other agencies don't have. Google could kill the market quicker than all the agency managers combined. No that won't happen, they have not bought an agency!?? The big thing is we should be able to opt out but it may be a one off sale of images looks good to IS and buying an agency (or all its images) may look good to google. Even though they do not own the images the way it is going they treat it as such. Not many in IS forums speaking loudly any more. Guess getting rid of Sean worked. We have to trust agencies but that trust is often misplaced. Stolen images, refunds, selling at a price with conditions we never agreed to. What next?
Good luck Sean you deserve better and I do hope you images are not buried when uploaded to other agencies. It will I am sure be for the best for you but it is harsh at the moment.
Maybe it worked shutting them up, but we dont know how many will pack up and leave. Only when we know that number, we know if sacking Sean really worked.
Speaking for me - I've handed in my crown on Monday. Booting Sean was one of the reasons I've given them for this action (besides plenty of others). I know at least two other Diamdond contibutors that have done the same this week. There may be more ... I wished more people would have spoken up loudly when it was time to do so but seeing what happened to Sean you can't blame them. Some folks are still happy with their revenue and I guess they have somehow given up with the "unpleasant" issues that they cannot change.
-
If google bought an agency could it just set it own price and use all photos? Pay out one royalty and "own" heaps of images? If it did would it be better to use exclusive images other agencies don't have. Google could kill the market quicker than all the agency managers combined. No that won't happen, they have not bought an agency!?? The big thing is we should be able to opt out but it may be a one off sale of images looks good to IS and buying an agency (or all its images) may look good to google. Even though they do not own the images the way it is going they treat it as such. Not many in IS forums speaking loudly any more. Guess getting rid of Sean worked. We have to trust agencies but that trust is often misplaced. Stolen images, refunds, selling at a price with conditions we never agreed to. What next?
Good luck Sean you deserve better and I do hope you images are not buried when uploaded to other agencies. It will I am sure be for the best for you but it is harsh at the moment.
I don't HAVE to do anything. :)
-
Maybe it worked shutting them up, but we dont know how many will pack up and leave. Only when we know that number, we know if sacking Sean really worked.
Indeed. The IS forums are deathly silent at the moment. I'm not sure whether that's because people are scared to post, or have decided that enough is enough and it's time to move on. We used to say that we only complained because we were passionate about iStock - I don't see that many contributors passionate about it anymore. I, for one, will be handing in my crown within the next week or so, once I've looked at all of the alternative options. I don't have a large portfolio by any means, but it's performed well and it's sad to give it all up after 9 years with them, but I just don't want to be tied to a company that treats people like this.
Sean, I'm truly sorry that this has happened to you. You've done so much to help us, your fellow contributors, as well as iStock itself, over the years that it must feel like the biggest slap in the face. As everyone says, I'm sure that in a year or so's time you'll look back and realise that it was the best thing that ever happened to you, but in the short term it will be tough. Good luck.
-
Maybe it worked shutting them up, but we dont know how many will pack up and leave. Only when we know that number, we know if sacking Sean really worked.
Indeed. The IS forums are deathly silent at the moment. I'm not sure whether that's because people are scared to post, or have decided that enough is enough and it's time to move on. We used to say that we only complained because we were passionate about iStock - I don't see that many contributors passionate about it anymore. I, for one, will be handing in my crown within the next week or so, once I've looked at all of the alternative options. I don't have a large portfolio by any means, but it's performed well and it's sad to give it all up after 9 years with them, but I just don't want to be tied to a company that treats people like this.
Sean, I'm truly sorry that this has happened to you. You've done so much to help us, your fellow contributors, as well as iStock itself, over the years that it must feel like the biggest slap in the face. As everyone says, I'm sure that in a year or so's time you'll look back and realise that it was the best thing that ever happened to you, but in the short term it will be tough. Good luck.
Well said. I'm sure that exclusives giving up their crown is likely to be the biggest 'unintended consequence' of Getty's action against Sean. Getty makes less money on sales of independent licenses (although arguably they may be more profitable) and they will also be gifting hundreds of thousands of excellent images to their competitors.
Maybe the Getty managers have recently bought SSTK stock? Seems to me that SS shareholders will be amongst the major beneficiaries of their actions.
-
Are you sure exclusivity in microstock is such an added value considering istock is making less money than shutterstock and that many top sellers like Yuri are not exclusives ?
For Getty losing 12000 images is a drop in the ocean, they fear is dealing with an onslaught of bad press in stock blogs, forums, FB, twitter but will buyers really care in the long run ?
I can be wrong but istock is tanking because they have the highest prices in the market, not because they pay the lowest fees, in plus their bloated bug ridden site also doesn't help.
-
"Are you sure exclusivity in microstock is such an added value considering istock is making less money than shutterstock and that many top sellers like Yuri are not exclusives ?"
IS makes makes considerably more money, afaik.
-
Maybe the Getty managers have recently bought SSTK stock? Seems to me that SS shareholders will be amongst the major beneficiaries of their actions.
Only if the presumed major defection of exclusives (which has yet to be proven) leads to a similar defection by buyers. I think that istock's prices and a growing awareness of cheaper alternatives is more likely to be the factor that shifts buyers, not the movement of files out of exclusivity. Let's face it, most exclusive files already have counterpards on SS and on average exclusives are no better than independents on any site with tough inspections.
-
So, are these the lessons one can take away from this?
- Never, ever, ever (ever) sign an exclusive agreement with anyone in business. Really never, ever . . . ever. The fact that you are working for yourself is risky enough - increasing your risk by having only one income partner is just plain stupid. Somewhere in all of this is the Universe saying: "I told you so".
Request to the (old) new guys
- To those who take over from iStock after their now inevitable fall into obscurity. Stocksy or whatever - FTP and an easy upload system so we can bulk send our images straight from Photoshelter. Oh, and a flat structure - thanks. No silly canisters and pyramid contributor schemes.
-
I can be wrong ...
You certainly can. Most frequently. <Ploink>
-
Maybe the Getty managers have recently bought SSTK stock? Seems to me that SS shareholders will be amongst the major beneficiaries of their actions.
Only if the presumed major defection of exclusives (which has yet to be proven) leads to a similar defection by buyers. I think that istock's prices and a growing awareness of cheaper alternatives is more likely to be the factor that shifts buyers, not the movement of files out of exclusivity. Let's face it, most exclusive files already have counterpards on SS and on average exclusives are no better than independents on any site with tough inspections.
If there is no difference between IS exclusives and independents on other sites, then why is there a price difference? If everyone is selling Mercedes or Fords, then why would other sites leave so much money on the table?
-
increasing your risk by having only one income partner is just plain stupid
I really love it when experts tell me how to run my business. And call me stupid.
-
Maybe the Getty managers have recently bought SSTK stock? Seems to me that SS shareholders will be amongst the major beneficiaries of their actions.
Only if the presumed major defection of exclusives (which has yet to be proven) leads to a similar defection by buyers. I think that istock's prices and a growing awareness of cheaper alternatives is more likely to be the factor that shifts buyers, not the movement of files out of exclusivity. Let's face it, most exclusive files already have counterpards on SS and on average exclusives are no better than independents on any site with tough inspections.
If there is no difference between IS exclusives and independents on other sites, then why is there a price difference? If everyone is selling Mercedes or Fords, then why would other sites leave so much money on the table?
Because the sites put whatever prices they like on stuff. It doesn't say anything about the quality. There are hundreds of us who have the qualifications to be "istock exclusives" who chose not to take that route.
My portfolio wouldn't get any better if I went exclusive tomorrow (and I qualified to be exclusive eight years ago). Sean's archive won't get worse when it's not on istock, and Yuri and his factory of independents pretty much set the standard for that genre.
So I'm afraid the idea that exclusives' work has some special superiority is in the "emperor's new clothes" category.
-
<Ploink>
You rang?
-
<Ploink>
You rang?
:D
-
increasing your risk by having only one income partner is just plain stupid
I really love it when experts tell me how to run my business. And call me stupid.
I really love it when 'experts' deny the most obvious and basic business principles that even an 8-year-old should be able to comprehend!
So you'd recommend 'a business' to have only one income partner then? That truly is the definition of 'stupid', especially when there are multiple other outlets available with which to spread the risk.
It is absolutely no different to sinking your entire financial portfolio into one particular stock on the market __ which everyone would agree is madness. No matter how much you believe in that particular stock you cannot control how their business runs or how the market will perceive them in the future.
Just make sure you don't you ever dare speak ill of Istock or Getty in your own name ... because they can cut your entire income off at a stroke. Just as Sean, arguably the most positive poster in favour of Istock, has recently discovered.
Ask Sean if he'll ever, ever, ever put all his eggs in one agency's basket again. I know the answer, even if you don't.
-
Not sure if somebody already posted this short blog article from Photoshelter
http://blog.photoshelter.com/2013/02/istockphoto-terminates-top-contributor-in-aftermath-of-gettygoogle-deal/ (http://blog.photoshelter.com/2013/02/istockphoto-terminates-top-contributor-in-aftermath-of-gettygoogle-deal/)
-
So you'd recommend 'a business' to have only one income partner then?
Of course not, I wouldn't recommend it at all, I don't personally know any exclusives who rely entirely on iStock, myself included. I think everyone I know at iStock comes there with a freelance background or as an owner of a related business and continues with their freelance business alongside microstock. My comment was more to reflect that there a a number of people here who offer advice in a very definitive way, then when you look at their sales or experience, you think, hmm, their sales don't stand up very well as a example of how to do well, either as a non-exclusive or a business of any sort.
-
http://news.cnet.com/8301-1023_3-57569639-93/istockphoto-founder-re-enters-the-market-with-stocksy/ (http://news.cnet.com/8301-1023_3-57569639-93/istockphoto-founder-re-enters-the-market-with-stocksy/)
Article From CNET:
iStockphoto founder re-enters the market with Stocksy
February 15, 2013 | Stephen Shankland
Bruce Livingstone, a pioneer of Internet-based stock-art sales, is launching a new venture even as his original company struggles with some disgruntled photographers.
Bruce Livingstone, who founded microstock powerhouse iStockphoto more than a decade ago and left it in 2009, is trying again with a new stock-art sales venture called Stocksy.
And he's doing it at a time when iStock is, if not necessarily vulnerable, the target of criticisms that it's out of touch with the army of photographers who contribute the imagery it licenses. To succeed, a microstock needs lots of customers licensing its photos, videos, and other works, and it needs a lot of contributors supplying a steady stream of fresh material.
It's these contributors Livingstone appears to be aiming to attract. The site describes Stocksy as "a stock photography cooperative owned and operated by artists," and it says contributors will have a stake in its success:
Our purpose is to create sustainable careers, ownership, and a long-term professional and equity strategy for our members.
Stocksy pays the highest royalty in the industry as well as dividends and patronage performance returns to artists, 50 percent on regular sales and 100 percent of extended licenses. By design, Stocksy pays out all profits to artists. In addition to paying dividend and patronage fees to artists on a yearly basis, each member of the co-op owns real equity in the company.
Livingstone declined to comment for this story.
Stocksy will face plenty of competitive challenges, and not just from iStockphoto, which since 2006 has been part of old-school stock-art firm Getty Images.
The microstock industry's growth was fueled by the abundance of low-cost, high-quality digital cameras and the Web, which provided a quick way to reach a global marketplace. Now there are dozens of microstocks around, including Fololia, Dreamstime, and Shutterstock, which is confident enough of growth that it went public in 2012.
But iStockphoto evidently is a source of talent for new microstocks. A case in point is photographer Sean Locke, who with 12,781 images and more than 900,000 sales is one of its top five contributors and a person who earned nearly all his income from sales through the company.
A week ago, iStock said it is terminating its relationship with Locke. According to his blog post on the subject, iStock was displeased with Locke's actions involving a Getty Images licensing deal with Google and with the fact that Locke had begun working with another stock-art firm.
"They also knew (somehow!) that I had joined this new stock site, even though it was closed to all but a relatively small group, and declared that this was against the 'spirit of the exclusivity agreement,'" Locke said.
Contributors often sign exclusivity contracts that pay them higher royalties if they agree to sell their imagery only through one microstock. Shutterstock founder Jon Oringer thinks exclusivity is bad -- "As a microstock photographer it just doesn't make sense to be exclusive to any one agency," he said in a January blog post -- but it's common. Now, though, Locke said he's moving his portfolio to multiple iStock competitors.
In a statement, iStockphoto laid the blame on the termination on Locke's helping a competitor:
In addition to other factors, Mr. Locke was actively recruiting exclusive iStock contributors to work with a competitive venture which is directly at odds with his relationship with iStockphoto. Given these actions, we made the decision to part ways with Mr. Locke under the terms of his exclusive agreement. We are excited to continue to work with the tens of thousands of contributors committed to the continued success of iStockphoto and Getty Images -- and wish Mr. Locke the best in his future endeavors.
Locke couldn't immediately be reached for comment about the recruiting issue. In his post, though, he said the severed relationship was liberating.
And the strong relations with contributors from iStockphoto's early days have faded, said Lee Torrens, author of the Microstock Diaries blog.
"iStock's soul is long gone," Torrens said. "They wiped out the entire content team, which was what kept the community functional...With the absence of leadership, old-time exclusives [exclusive photographers] are starting to jump ship. That probably doesn't hurt customers, but it bruises their reputation inside the industry."
Another photographer given the boot is Rob Sylvan, who also is author of "Lightroom 2 for Dummies.""I am very glad that I quit when I did and am no longer reliant on them as a source of income. I would urge any other iStock contributor to make sure you have a solid backup plan in place, and any exclusive contributor to start working on an exit strategy," he said in a comment to Locke.
iStockphoto said Sylvan "is identified as an administrator of a competitive venture's social media page, which, again, is directly at odds with his relationship with iStockphoto."
Some seeds of Locke's discontent were sown by the Getty deal with Google Drive, under which photographers' works could be used on Google Apps' online services for tasks such as word processing and presentations. The deal granted Google Apps users rights to 5,000 images, but they can be downloaded to a local computer and have copyright information and other metadata stripped out.
Locke objected to the Google Drive deal on iStock's forums, and a ruckus ensued with many photographers objecting. iStock scrambled to pull together its explanation as users howled.
Yesterday, iStock told CNET News it hopes for at least some changes to the Google Drive deal: "We can confirm that contributors were paid royalties for the use of their content in the license deal with Google. We are working with Google to refine the implementation which we believe will address some of the concerns raised by contributors."
-
So you'd recommend 'a business' to have only one income partner then? That truly is the definition of 'stupid', especially when there are multiple other outlets available with which to spread the risk.
No, it isn't necessarily "stupid". It's highly risky yes. But over many years that risk was rewarded with about 3 to 5 times more income than independents have reported in their blogs and forum posts. That part has only changed recently for many but still many are probably making far more money than they would sharing their images across many sites.
Saying that it stupid to make more money than you could otherwise is pretty ignorant. It's a personal decision if you put the weight on "higher income" or "lower risk". Go back and figure out how much you have earned if I you had made 3 times more money in microstock for the last five years. Having given up that amount of money I wouldn't know why people wouldn't call you stupid. Or is money not so important to you?
-
+ many of us went exclusive some years ago (me:2006) when there was believe in the company IS and we were treated rather fair.
Now that so many things went wrong it has certainly felt for some time now like an abusive relationship with golden handcuffs. The decision to go independent is inevitable - i think for all.
It was a good ride for some years, also in terms of money.
-
Michael, we spent a lot of time here trying to work out whether the combined inde earnings were outweighed by the exclusivity deal. I think it's only since some images were mirrored on Getty and the inde/exc pricings were separated from each other that the divide really opened up. Around that time, a bunch of major independent decided to switch to exclusivity .... but before they completed the six-month lock-in at DT, things started to go haywire at iStock. I think that was about three years ago, maybe four.
Anyway, exclusivity was always a risk/reward gamble. Most people who signed up thought it was just a woo-yay target but I'm sure the more serious ones weighed up whether getty could be trusted to deliver the goods long enough for the benefits to outweigh the risks. It wasn't "stupid" to take that risk, but it was a gamble and it's not just for Sean that the pigeons have come home to roost, now. The reports of falling earnings and the attempts to divert sales to other content are all part of the downside risk that people took on when they decided to sign up. What WOULD have been stupid would have been to refuse to recognise that risk if your livelihood was going to depend on your relationship with iStock.
-
all this talk about Stocksy is "vaporware".
as it is now, the microstock is a mature oversaturated cut-throat industry.
there's not a single chance for a tiny startup like Stocksy to get the foot in the door without being backed by investors and VCs fueling the company with TENS of millions $.
and these guys are there to make fat profits, not to provide photographers a "fair share" environment.
they will try to grow the company as much as they can and then sell it to the highest bidding competitor, that's their business plan.
early photographers who invest in Stocksy could make some money, but all the other random contributors being merely content providers will be taken for a ride again.
would you invest in Stocksy ? NO !
-
If you dont like micros, sean and stocksy, I suggest you open a new account at Alamy, it seems you have a better audience over there.
-
Michael, we spent a lot of time here trying to work out whether the combined inde earnings were outweighed by the exclusivity deal.
I don't agree. As SS went public, you can look up their revenue history. You can also read how much they pay out to contributors if you know how to read financial statements. And if you go back a few years, you will also find public statements by iStock about revenue and royalties. Take the SS numbers and triple that to add for FT and DT, even though I doubt they are even close to SS numbers.
You will most likely find out that iStock has made more revenue and paid out more royalties than all microstock competitors combined for many years. Actually probably more than double than all the others combined. If that wasn't what independents were seeing, it is because the bigger part of those royalties ended up with the exclusive iStockers. There is a good reason why especially among the 100-200 highest earners on iStock there is only a very small amount (maybe 10?) of non-exclusives. Those are not stupid people, they shoot for the money and do what they can to optimize their income.
Not saying things might not have changed recently. Or maybe they still didn't change, maybe they will change in the future. But for the last five years - looking for the money alone - I still think being exclusive at iStock has made a much better return than being independent, unless you have significant income from macro as well. And compared to what a similar exclusive has made in the last five years at iStock, any independent will have to wait at least another five years to make up for that. That's just my personal conclusion but I base those at the huge amount of numbers available.
-
Michael, we spent a lot of time here trying to work out whether the combined inde earnings were outweighed by the exclusivity deal. I think it's only since some images were mirrored on Getty and the inde/exc pricings were separated from each other that the divide really opened up. Around that time, a bunch of major independent decided to switch to exclusivity .... but before they completed the six-month lock-in at DT, things started to go haywire at iStock. I think that was about three years ago, maybe four.
Anyway, exclusivity was always a risk/reward gamble. Most people who signed up thought it was just a woo-yay target but I'm sure the more serious ones weighed up whether getty could be trusted to deliver the goods long enough for the benefits to outweigh the risks. It wasn't "stupid" to take that risk, but it was a gamble and it's not just for Sean that the pigeons have come home to roost, now. The reports of falling earnings and the attempts to divert sales to other content are all part of the downside risk that people took on when they decided to sign up. What WOULD have been stupid would have been to refuse to recognise that risk if your livelihood was going to depend on your relationship with iStock.
Even at that point in time Getty had history of mistreating its contributor, so yes, i would say that it was stupid to consider exclusivity with anything related to Getty. Count me in for being a little stupid too though, because i was very close to going exclusive. Then they reneged on the canister deal and i decided against it. Whew, that was close!
-
If you dont like micros, sean and stocksy, I suggest you open a new account at Alamy, it seems you have a better audience over there.
oh well, i'm probably already in "ignore" by most of the readers here.
i just come here to give my 2 cents about the stock industry, my holy war against micros is concluded.
i'll be glad to see the alamy forum sink, leave the boat while you're still in time.
-
If you dont like micros, sean and stocksy, I suggest you open a new account at Alamy, it seems you have a better audience over there.
oh well, i'm probably already in "ignore" by most of the readers here.
i just come here to give my 2 cents about the stock industry, my holy war against micros is concluded.
i'll be glad to see the alamy forum sink, leave the boat while you're still in time.
Hope you get in time to learn swimming... :P
-
Michael, we spent a lot of time here trying to work out whether the combined inde earnings were outweighed by the exclusivity deal.
I don't agree. As SS went public, you can look up their revenue history. You can also read how much they pay out to contributors if you know how to read financial statements. And if you go back a few years, you will also find public statements by iStock about revenue and royalties. Take the SS numbers and triple that to add for FT and DT, even though I doubt they are even close to SS numbers.
We didn't know four or five years ago what last year's SS accounts were going to say, nor - back then - had iS made any statement about its turnover. In addition you are forgetting about DT, Fotolia and all the rest that the inde weighs into the mix. So it was NOT clear that iStock exclusivity was a better option. Having a bigger turnover doesn't necessarily mean anything if it is divided among a much bigger pool.
If you want to know how the argument went, it was this: iStock generated about 35%-40% of an independent's income. Switching to exclusivity as a diamond would immediately cause that to double, leaving the newly-crowned about 20%- 30% down. Files that had already been buried in the search by the review time trick might move up a bit but they would remain buried. Perhaps the better search position would make up for the missing 20% after a year or two, but that was uncertain.
It was only when exclusive files started being priced higher than independent ones and the Vetta and Getty options were opened up that it started to look as if exclusivity really might be paying way better than independence. But a lot of exclusives were scared by the price differential and complained that it would push all the sales into the inde's laps.
So it has never been a no-brainer that exclusivity would pay better and I still have some doubts about whether it actually did between 2005 and 2009 (and even then you would have had to be gold or diamond; bronze or silver would almost certainly have been better as independents) . After 2009 iStock quickly started running into the Getty clawback with redeemed credits, the dumping of Agency collections etc. into the site, loss of leadershim, etc, which made it's middle- to long-term prospects as a good income source questionable.
And remember the best match shifts, where, on a whim, they would slice 20 or 30% of some contributors' earnings overnight? The first of those was in 2006 or 2007, wasn't it? It's always been a risk. I said it in 2005 (until Bruce suggested I shut up) and I've thought the same ever since.
-
all this talk about Stocksy is "vaporware".
as it is now, the microstock is a mature oversaturated cut-throat industry.
there's not a single chance for a tiny startup like Stocksy to get the foot in the door without being backed by investors and VCs fueling the company with TENS of millions $.
and these guys are there to make fat profits, not to provide photographers a "fair share" environment.
they will try to grow the company as much as they can and then sell it to the highest bidding competitor, that's their business plan.
early photographers who invest in Stocksy could make some money, but all the other random contributors being merely content providers will be taken for a ride again.
would you invest in Stocksy ? NO !
A lot of people here probably hate what the post above says, but he has a point. The overwhelming business model of choice for many agencies since about the late 90's has been to start an agency, grow the collection, then sell it off to Getty or at the very least sign a distribution agreement with them. To be fair, only iStock has taken this road as far as micro agencies are concerned.
-
all this talk about Stocksy is "vaporware".
Normally "vaporware" is describing something that has been promised for a long time and never materialized. Hardly an accurate description of something we only learned about last month.
as it is now, the microstock is a mature oversaturated cut-throat industry.
there's not a single chance for a tiny startup like Stocksy to get the foot in the door without being backed by investors and VCs fueling the company with TENS of millions $.
I honestly am not aware of any industry that is not over-saturated and cut-throat at this time. Lots of types of businesses used to be fun, you could work as you wished and make lots of money. Not any longer. I am really sorry for you that the world changed but it changed for a lot of people who suddenly found themselves working twice as hard to make a living.
and these guys are there to make fat profits, not to provide photographers a "fair share" environment.
they will try to grow the company as much as they can and then sell it to the highest bidding competitor, that's their business plan.
I certainly hope they are in it for the profit, I assume you are not giving your work away for free? As to selling it off, well why worry? I thought you said it was vaporware? And they do state it will be a cooperative, not a corporation. Cooperatives are owned by all members not by stock holders. And I was not aware they had published their business plan, perhaps you could link to that so the rest of us can be informed?
early photographers who invest in Stocksy could make some money, but all the other random contributors being merely content providers will be taken for a ride again.
would you invest in Stocksy ? NO !
I thought you said they had "not a single chance"? And if this will be a cooperative then there is no opportunity to 'invest'. In a cooperative contributors become owners based on their patronage, or usage, of the cooperative.
-
If all the shares in the coop of all contributors always only add up to 49 percent they can never prevent a sale of the coop? Am I thinking that correctly?
-
If all the shares in the coop of all contributors always only add up to 49 percent they can never prevent a sale of the coop? Am I thinking that correctly?
Just depends on how they draft up the legal stuff. Could be that the guy who owns 51% can only sell his 51% under the terms of a co op.
-
If all the shares in the coop of all contributors always only add up to 49 percent they can never prevent a sale of the coop? Am I thinking that correctly?
No, a cooperative is a specific legal entity under US and Canadian law. I am not familiar with how it would work in other countries. Ownership is by the users of the cooperative, typically each member has a certain amount of stock, usually 1 share. So ownership is always dilute. Profits are distributed based on patronage, not ownership so someone with 10% of total usage (in this case sales of images) would get 10% of whatever net is achieved. Income tax (in the US) devolves onto the owners based on patronage and 1099-PATR forms are issued to indicate that.
That is not to say they could not organize it as a corporation and just call it a cooperative, but that is how a true cooperative is organized and operates.
-
all this talk about Stocksy is "vaporware".
as it is now, the microstock is a mature oversaturated cut-throat industry.
there's not a single chance for a tiny startup like Stocksy to get the foot in the door without being backed by investors and VCs fueling the company with TENS of millions $.
and these guys are there to make fat profits, not to provide photographers a "fair share" environment.
they will try to grow the company as much as they can and then sell it to the highest bidding competitor, that's their business plan.
early photographers who invest in Stocksy could make some money, but all the other random contributors being merely content providers will be taken for a ride again.
would you invest in Stocksy ? NO !
A lot of people here probably hate what the post above says, but he has a point. The overwhelming business model of choice for many agencies since about the late 90's has been to start an agency, grow the collection, then sell it off to Getty or at the very least sign a distribution agreement with them. To be fair, only iStock has taken this road as far as micro agencies are concerned.
...and Stockexpert.
(my bold above)
-
all this talk about Stocksy is "vaporware".
as it is now, the microstock is a mature oversaturated cut-throat industry.
there's not a single chance for a tiny startup like Stocksy to get the foot in the door without being backed by investors and VCs fueling the company with TENS of millions $.
and these guys are there to make fat profits, not to provide photographers a "fair share" environment.
they will try to grow the company as much as they can and then sell it to the highest bidding competitor, that's their business plan.
early photographers who invest in Stocksy could make some money, but all the other random contributors being merely content providers will be taken for a ride again.
would you invest in Stocksy ? NO !
Agree 100%. What's the big deal about Stocksy. Do you really believe that Bruce will make something "revolutionary" like IS did at the time. It worked in 2002 but for god sake it's 2013 many things has been changed. I mean look at the list on the right.He sold IS to Getty got $50 million and now what? Must be boring sitting at home doing nothing but spending $50 mil. Sorry but don't believe Stocksy will be replacement for betrayed IS contributors. Don't forget he sold IS to Getty and now we are dealing with this greedy monster because of him.
-
If you dont like micros, sean and stocksy, I suggest you open a new account at Alamy, it seems you have a better audience over there.
oh well, i'm probably already in "ignore" by most of the readers here.
i just come here to give my 2 cents about the stock industry, my holy war against micros is concluded.
i'll be glad to see the alamy forum sink, leave the boat while you're still in time.
Are you twelve? They won't let you play, so they are going to fail.
-
all this talk about Stocksy is "vaporware".
as it is now, the microstock is a mature oversaturated cut-throat industry.
there's not a single chance for a tiny startup like Stocksy to get the foot in the door without being backed by investors and VCs fueling the company with TENS of millions $.
and these guys are there to make fat profits, not to provide photographers a "fair share" environment.
they will try to grow the company as much as they can and then sell it to the highest bidding competitor, that's their business plan.
early photographers who invest in Stocksy could make some money, but all the other random contributors being merely content providers will be taken for a ride again.
would you invest in Stocksy ? NO !
A lot of people here probably hate what the post above says, but he has a point. The overwhelming business model of choice for many agencies since about the late 90's has been to start an agency, grow the collection, then sell it off to Getty or at the very least sign a distribution agreement with them. To be fair, only iStock has taken this road as far as micro agencies are concerned.
...and Stockexpert.
(my bold above)
I did not want to comment on this topic because as the owner of another agency I'm obviously biased, but there's a common misconception about Stockxpert that I'd like to address. It was only a coincidence that in the wake of the 2008 financial crisis Jupitermedia had to sell their entire images division (which we teamed up with right after the launch because they had way more experience in the industry than we did) and like all their assets, Stockxpert ended up at Getty as well. Our intention was never to grow the company in order to sell it, but to run it better. We shared the same goals with Jupiter, but Istock / Getty had different plans so we sold the remainder of our share and left, and as you are well aware they shut the site down. With Stockfresh we are totally independent and plan to keep it that way even though in some ways it makes our jobs a lot tougher.
Best of luck to Sean, I'm sure all the agencies will gladly add his portfolio.
-
Thanks for clearing that up Peter.
-
That is all hi-larious. I'm not sure how I could 'comment' when they never contacted me. And, like its illegal to talk to my friends about new opportunities that come up.
BTW, I just discovered he tweeted to me a contact request that day (?). I never really "use" twitter, so I missed it.
-
$30 until I reach payout and can deactivate all my files. But still, at 16% royalty this is going to take forever.
-
That is all hi-larious. I'm not sure how I could 'comment' when they never contacted me. And, like its illegal to talk to my friends about new opportunities that come up.
BTW, I just discovered he tweeted to me a contact request that day (?). I never really "use" twitter, so I missed it.
Good to see they were uber professional throughout. >:(
-
Did you already decided about your portfolio, where to put it?
-
Being right doesn't cut it. This may not be fair but life itself is not fair. The #1 priority of any company is to maintain control. Even if your modifications are the most totally cool things since smart phones, such independence would absolutely not be welcomed by the company unless you keep them in the loop from the very start. The required protocol would have been to present a beta version to Istock and then have them move it upstairs through channels to Getty. If you went to Getty first, Istock management would be pissed because you "went over their heads." If you were ignored or if your work was rejected you needed to keep resubmitting modified versions until they were convinced. I you were truly at the top of the contributor heap, I think that they would have eventually listened to you. If they remained unconvinced, you would have the choice of dropping the project, starting your own company, or taking your work to another company. The last two choices would probably require that you separate yourself from Istock. But you NEVER NEVER proceed independently unless your job includes independent development. Even then you would normally be expected to keep your immediate supervisor in a very tight loop. This may seem bureaucratic and inefficient but this is absolutely the way most business works.
This is a huge thread and I confess that I have not read all of it, so perhaps someone else has also mentioned these concepts. I hope so. Such concepts, right or wrong, are fundamental to modern business and I would be very surprised if there was nobody that is following this thread that realized it.
-
Ummm, ok.
-
Being right doesn't cut it. This may not be fair but life itself is not fair. The #1 priority of any company is to maintain control. Even if your modifications are the most totally cool things since smart phones, such independence would absolutely not be welcomed by the company unless you keep them in the loop from the very start. The required protocol would have been to present a beta version to Istock and then have them move it upstairs through channels to Getty. If you went to Getty first, Istock management would be pissed because you "went over their heads." If you were ignored or if your work was rejected you needed to keep resubmitting modified versions until they were convinced. I you were truly at the top of the contributor heap, I think that they would have eventually listened to you. If they remained unconvinced, you would have the choice of dropping the project, starting your own company, or taking your work to another company. The last two choices would probably require that you separate yourself from Istock. But you NEVER NEVER proceed independently unless your job includes independent development. Even then you would normally be expected to keep your immediate supervisor in a very tight loop. This may seem bureaucratic and inefficient but this is absolutely the way most business works.
This is a huge thread and I confess that I have not read all of it, so perhaps someone else has also mentioned these concepts. I hope so. Such concepts, right or wrong, are fundamental to modern business and I would be very surprised if there was nobody that is following this thread that realized it.
too bad you don't come here that often, sure we could have saved microstock, call Bruce ;D
-
BTW, Please do not assume that my attitude is in any way hostile. Rather, I think that sjlocke deserves a lot of credit for his initiative and obvious talents for coding-- and I probably deserve some unkind words for the patronizing tone of the first part of this sentence. Mea culpa, really. :-[. I received the one and only written reprimand of my long career for taking the initiative and putting in place some tools that very much remind me of Sjlocke situation. This is istock-Getty's loss. I'm thinking that there are a number of stock photo managers around the planet who are even now salivating at the possibility of adding this photographer and his impressive portfolio to their library.
-
Looks like it's been 30 days now? Any news, hopefully good?
-
I make it 31 days, and the portfolio still seems to be there.
-
I thought it was just because no-one works at iS on a Sunday to switch it off, but according to Sean's blog:
To anyone concerned, or interested, my portfolio will continue to be licensed on iStockphoto for a couple more weeks, due to a technical issue. Thats fine, because the extra income will help in the upcoming dry spell when it is no longer there. Thanks.
Great for Sean - as the technical issue isn't his fault, he is no doubt free to sell anywhere else he chooses from today.
-
I thought it was just because no-one works at iS on a Sunday to switch it off, but according to Sean's blog:
To anyone concerned, or interested, my portfolio will continue to be licensed on iStockphoto for a couple more weeks, due to a technical issue. Thats fine, because the extra income will help in the upcoming dry spell when it is no longer there. Thanks.
Great for Sean - as the technical issue isn't his fault, he is no doubt free to sell anywhere else he chooses from today.
That does give him a buffer until stocksy opens and other sites get his work.
-
I thought it was just because no-one works at iS on a Sunday to switch it off, but according to Sean's blog:
To anyone concerned, or interested, my portfolio will continue to be licensed on iStockphoto for a couple more weeks, due to a technical issue. Thats fine, because the extra income will help in the upcoming dry spell when it is no longer there. Thanks.
Great for Sean - as the technical issue isn't his fault, he is no doubt free to sell anywhere else he chooses from today.
That does give him a buffer until stocksy opens and other sites get his work.
Other sites? I doubt it. Sean has never exactly embraced the microstock subscription model and somehow I don't see that changing. I think he may choose to place his entire portfolio exclusively at Stocksy instead, at least for as long as he can afford to do so, depending on how it takes off. Good luck to him whatever he chooses anyway.
-
I thought it was just because no-one works at iS on a Sunday to switch it off, but according to Sean's blog:
To anyone concerned, or interested, my portfolio will continue to be licensed on iStockphoto for a couple more weeks, due to a technical issue. Thats fine, because the extra income will help in the upcoming dry spell when it is no longer there. Thanks.
Great for Sean - as the technical issue isn't his fault, he is no doubt free to sell anywhere else he chooses from today.
That does give him a buffer until stocksy opens and other sites get his work.
Other sites? I doubt it. Sean has never exactly embraced the microstock subscription model and somehow I don't see that changing. I think he may choose to place his entire portfolio exclusively at Stocksy instead, at least for as long as he can afford to do so, depending on how it takes off. Good luck to him whatever he chooses anyway.
In his intial blog post he did say over the next several weeks he would be moving part of his portfolo to several other sites, but he did not say if they were micros or not.
-
They can't even kick somebody out without screwing it up. No wonder iStock is tanking.
-
He's still there because of a "technical issue"? Interesting. Wonder if that "technical issue" has anything to do with their realizing how badly they f*cked up in setting him free and losing his amazing body of work...
-
:), no, nothing like that...
-
:), no, nothing like that...
Sounds like you reached a settlement with iStock? ;D
-
He's still there because of a "technical issue"? Interesting. Wonder if that "technical issue" has anything to do with their realizing how badly they f*cked up in setting him free and losing his amazing body of work...
They don't seem to of realized all the many other ways they've f*cked up and they're renowned for having "technical issues" and have managed to f*ck up removing many other people images, so I don't think this is unusual. It would of been more of a shock if they had done this efficiently.
-
This is good for Sean, at least he gets some room to breathe. Since they seem to have no problem closing other accounts (Ivar) I would take this as an indication that after the adrenaline power kick they are waking up to the mess they created. Although I really donīt see how they can go back and recover but maybe if they talk to Sean they could find another solution that makes more sense from a business perspective.
Anyway, my exclusivity is ending in 2 days and I look forward to some peace of mind. I am already enjoying my work a lot more than before. All the drama of istock was so demoralising and frustrating. And just today I read their latest marketing gaffe about "online dating with istockphoto". The place must be run by teenagers or people who deep down really hate the company and just love to embarrass istock internationally. They would never do anything like this to gettyimages. They know instinctively that to embarrass Getty means they lose their jobs.
So glad I can move on and work with companies that are maybe a lot smaller but genuinely trying to build a longterm business. It will be more work but I already feel safer knowing I will never again be dependent on one companies managers (that I have no influence in choosing).
-
Anyway, my exclusivity is ending in 2 days and I look forward to some peace of mind. I am already enjoying my work a lot more than before.
Good luck!
-
So glad I can move on and work with companies that are maybe a lot smaller but genuinely trying to build a longterm business. It will be more work but I already feel safer knowing I will never again be dependent on one companies managers (that I have no influence in choosing).
Good luck, which companies are you going to contribute to?
-
if I may add Tyler too (http://www.istockphoto.com/Stalman (http://www.istockphoto.com/Stalman))
-
The usual - Shutterstock, Fotolia, dreamstime, pond5 and maybe later some of the smaller ones. I am also on clipdealer and clipcanvas with my videos, so Iīll probably upload photos there as well (if they take photos).
I am not in a hurry. I know it will take two years to recover my income and my main focus for the year will be video, the way I planned it at the beginning of the year.
I would also like to try selling from my own site, but that is probably a project for 2014.
You can follow my journey to independence on my facebook page, if you are interested: https://www.facebook.com/pages/Cobaltstockcom/169793413171571 (https://www.facebook.com/pages/Cobaltstockcom/169793413171571)
-
The usual - Shutterstock, Fotolia, dreamstime, pond5 and maybe later some of the smaller ones. I am also on clipdealer and clipcanvas with my videos, so Iīll probably upload photos there as well (if they take photos).
I am not in a hurry. I know it will take two years to recover my income and my main focus for the year will be video, the way I planned it at the beginning of the year.
I would also like to try selling from my own site, but that is probably a project for 2014.
You can follow my journey to independence on my facebook page, if you are interested: https://www.facebook.com/pages/Cobaltstockcom/169793413171571 (https://www.facebook.com/pages/Cobaltstockcom/169793413171571)
You see those companies as "genuinely trying to build a longterm business."? I wouldn't categorize Fotolia that way at all or Dreamstime, they both have done similar things to what Istock has done. Dreamstime with their levels and lowering royalty rates and Fotolia changing the goal posts and some people here claim they punish higher royalty earners in the search. I'd like to see Pond5 do well but without rejecting anything or fixing their terrible keyword spam problem I don't have much confidence in them in the long term.
-
@Cobalt:
I had no idea you had handed in your crown. Good luck in all your future efforts: one more faithful servant they let slip through their fingers.
I haven't heard about the online dating thing, though. Got a link?
-
@ticketstock
the other sites are not cozying up to Google and handing over files for 12 dollars to 425 million people.
The Getty/Google deal changed things quite dramatically and not just for me. I know the other stock agencies are no angels, but here in Germany Fotolia is the biggest and best known site by far and I know a lot of people who sell really well there. Since I live here, I can shoot local content and Fotolia allows me to keyword in German, I hope to take advantage of that. Shutterstock also seems to be interested in expanding their presence here and Pond5 just bought a European agency. On the other hand the istock office in Berlin was closed...so as a European contributor...which agencies should I be interested in? The ones that invest in Germany/Europe, or the ones that move away?
And all the other agencies are TALKING to me. I have now been trying for over a month to communicate directly with gettyimages about my house contract and I simply cannot get a reply even to easy questions. And what Getty does, soon will be done on istock. They have already killed the telephone support and many contributors report being stuck in an endless loop between forums and the ticket system. Again, I know this can happen on other sites as well, but if you are exclusive, communication problems are just beyond frustrating.
I had no intention of going independent when the year started, I could have easily been happy between video independence and photo exclusivity.
But with all that happened...I might as well be independent and have more control over my work. All the drama on istock is so distracting, I really want to focus on production.
@Sue just a silly marketing thing about how the bad best match match was like a bad experience with an online dating site and then they sent out a bonus code...forget it, it was silly. But we have seen things like these several times.
Anyway, thanks for the kind wishes, also on my website. It will be a long journey, but so many people are going independent, I wonīt be climbing up that mountain alone.
-
@Sue just a silly marketing thing about how the bad best match match was like a bad experience with an online dating site and then they sent out a bonus code...forget it, it was silly. But we have seen things like these several times.
Oh, I did see that - silly and unprofessional.
-
@ticketstock
the other sites are not cozying up to Google and handing over files for 12 dollars to 425 million people.
The Getty/Google deal changed things quite dramatically and not just for me. I know the other stock agencies are no angels, but here in Germany Fotolia is the biggest and best known site by far and I know a lot of people who sell really well there. Since I live here, can shoot local content and Fotolia allows me to keyword in german, i hope to take advantage of that.
And all the other agencies are TALKING to me. I have now been trying for over a month to communicate directly with gettyimages about my house contract and I simply cannot get a reply even to easy questions. And what Getty does, soon will be done on istock. They have already killed the telephone support and many contributors report being stuck in an endless loop between forums and the ticket system. Again, I know this can happen on other sites as well, but if you are exclusive, communication problems are just beyond frustrating.
I had no intention of going independent when the year started, I could have easily been happy between video independence and photo exclusivity.
But with all that happened...I might as well be independent and have more control over my work. All the drama on istock is so distracting, I really want to focus on production.
@Sue just a silly marketing thing about how the bad best match match was like a bad experience with an online dating site and then they sent out a bonus code...forget it, it was silly. But we have seen things like these several times.
Anyway, thanks for the kind wishes, also on my website. It will be a long journey, but so many people are going independent, I wonīt be climbing up that mountain alone.
As long as you are going into it with eyes open then you're probably making the right decision. From what I hear Fotolia is pretty good for German contributors, as long as you have local content. Dreamstime and Fotolia should also be good about keeping all the distractions to a minimum since nothing negative can be posted on their forums. Again good luck, I'll be following how it's going for you.
-
Good luck Cobalt!
We have 3 more weeks to go.
Very excited as well!
-
Good luck Cobalt!
We have 3 more weeks to go.
Very excited as well!
You too? Could have sworn you were always telling us how fantastic exclusivity with Istock was.
Looks to me that the predicted mass-exodus from exclusivity is now well underway. I wonder if Istock will try and sweeten the terms or take any other action in an attempt to stem the flow?
-
if I may add Tyler too ([url]http://www.istockphoto.com/Stalman[/url] ([url]http://www.istockphoto.com/Stalman[/url]))
I wonder what the facts behind this one are?
-
if I may add Tyler too ([url]http://www.istockphoto.com/Stalman[/url] ([url]http://www.istockphoto.com/Stalman[/url]))
I wonder what the facts behind this one are?
Looks like exactly the photo type stocksy seeks. It's funny there is no delay in closing "this" account by IS.
-
if I may add Tyler too ([url]http://www.istockphoto.com/Stalman[/url] ([url]http://www.istockphoto.com/Stalman[/url]))
I wonder what the facts behind this one are?
I thinks he's an administrator at Stocksy, as well as Ivar. Not sure they have been boted, maybe they just resigned.
-
Looks to me that the predicted mass-exodus from exclusivity is now well underway.
Yes, right.
-
Good luck Cobalt!
We have 3 more weeks to go.
Very excited as well!
You too? Could have sworn you were always telling us how fantastic exclusivity with Istock was.
Times change.
Looks to me that the predicted mass-exodus from exclusivity is now well underway. I wonder if Istock will try and sweeten the terms or take any other action in an attempt to stem the flow?
Seems highly unlikely. They've already said they're going out to tryto recurit newbies, so 15%; and a long standing question in the exclusive forum, "Dear iStock, what do you think about exclusivity", with an OP on Jan 17th specifically asking what iStock sees as reasons why people should become/remain exclusive has not been answered.
-
if I may add Tyler too ([url]http://www.istockphoto.com/Stalman[/url] ([url]http://www.istockphoto.com/Stalman[/url]))
I wonder what the facts behind this one are?
I thinks he's an administrator at Stocksy, as well as Ivar. Not sure they have been boted, maybe they just resigned.
Based on personal experience, they both have strong relationships with Bruce and reasonably similar photographic styles, so it is no surprise to me that they would be involved in Stocksy as more than contributors
-
Good luck Cobalt!
We have 3 more weeks to go.
Very excited as well!
You too? Could have sworn you were always telling us how fantastic exclusivity with Istock was.
Looks to me that the predicted mass-exodus from exclusivity is now well underway. I wonder if Istock will try and sweeten the terms or take any other action in an attempt to stem the flow?
The magic word here is "was".
I was exclusive as long as it made financial sense and always thought it's a good idea choosing to be exclusive or not based on numbers and not emotions. The people running IS don't have much common sense IMO so numbers are going down.
I still think that for people that are making over 35% of their income from IS, exclusivity makes sense.
I personally think (or hope) I can make more as an indy. Time will tell.
I can also tell you that I met with one of the big 4 agencies and they claimed that in recent weeks they have been contacted with dozens of exclusives looking to become indy.
-
Good luck Cobalt!
We have 3 more weeks to go.
Very excited as well!
You too? Could have sworn you were always telling us how fantastic exclusivity with Istock was.
Looks to me that the predicted mass-exodus from exclusivity is now well underway. I wonder if Istock will try and sweeten the terms or take any other action in an attempt to stem the flow?
The magic word here is "was".
I was exclusive as long as it made financial sense and always thought it's a good idea choosing to be exclusive or not based on numbers and not emotions. The people running IS don't have much common sense IMO so numbers are going down.
I still think that for people that are making over 35% of their income from IS, exclusivity makes sense.
I personally think (or hope) I can make more as an indy. Time will tell.
I can also tell you that I met with one of the big 4 agencies and they claimed that in recent weeks they have been contacted with dozens of exclusives looking to become indy.
Will you be posting your results?
-
^^^ sure will.
Will open a thread once it is relevant, I am sure many others considering this move will find the information useful.
-
Just to play devil's advocate here...
Sean would have never left IS on his own accord, and Sean is not IS. The industry does not care about Saint Sean. Getty/IS (love them or hate them) knows the game well and we are all expendable. The market is way over saturated with really great and amazing images and it's truly a buyer's market. Very few of us (including myself) are bringing anything new to the table of the stock industry, and Getty knows this, and for that matter so does every other agency out there. Stock photography has always been a numbers game with total ebb and flow. With the advent of digital photography, the internet, and microstock - which were total game changers in the industry, the game is now totally beneficial to all the successful agency owners and becoming less so to the demise of the photographers who produce the work and carry the burden of expense to do so. I am saying this from having 25+ years experience as a successful full time stock photographer. that's my two cents.
-
Just to play devil's advocate here...
Sean would have never left IS on his own accord, and Sean is not IS. The industry does not care about Saint Sean. Getty/IS (love them or hate them) knows the game well and we are all expendable. The market is way over saturated with really great and amazing images and it's truly a buyer's market. Very few of us (including myself) are bringing anything new to the table of the stock industry, and Getty knows this, and for that matter so does every other agency out there. Stock photography has always been a numbers game with total ebb and flow. With the advent of digital photography, the internet, and microstock - which were total game changers in the industry, the game is now totally beneficial to all the successful agency owners and becoming less so to the demise of the photographers who produce the work and carry the burden of expense to do so. I am saying this from having 25+ years experience as a successful full time stock photographer. that's my two cents.
Contributors are buyers and designers as well, and these things can and do upset them.
-
Just to play devil's advocate here...
Sean would have never left IS on his own accord, and Sean is not IS. The industry does not care about Saint Sean. Getty/IS (love them or hate them) knows the game well and we are all expendable. The market is way over saturated with really great and amazing images and it's truly a buyer's market. Very few of us (including myself) are bringing anything new to the table of the stock industry, and Getty knows this, and for that matter so does every other agency out there. Stock photography has always been a numbers game with total ebb and flow. With the advent of digital photography, the internet, and microstock - which were total game changers in the industry, the game is now totally beneficial to all the successful agency owners and becoming less so to the demise of the photographers who produce the work and carry the burden of expense to do so. I am saying this from having 25+ years experience as a successful full time stock photographer. that's my two cents.
All makes sense, but you could have said the same thing two years ago and it would have made as much sense then also. However, for a bunch of exclusives at iStock, there is a world of difference between 2 years ago and now.
-
Just to play devil's advocate here...
Sean would have never left IS on his own accord, and Sean is not IS. The industry does not care about Saint Sean. Getty/IS (love them or hate them) knows the game well and we are all expendable. The market is way over saturated with really great and amazing images and it's truly a buyer's market. Very few of us (including myself) are bringing anything new to the table of the stock industry, and Getty knows this, and for that matter so does every other agency out there. Stock photography has always been a numbers game with total ebb and flow. With the advent of digital photography, the internet, and microstock - which were total game changers in the industry, the game is now totally beneficial to all the successful agency owners and becoming less so to the demise of the photographers who produce the work and carry the burden of expense to do so. I am saying this from having 25+ years experience as a successful full time stock photographer. that's my two cents.
All makes sense, but you could have said the same thing two years ago and it would have made as much sense then also. However, for a bunch of exclusives at iStock, there is a world of difference between 2 years ago and now.
I have been saying this, or most of this for more than two years (delete the Sean part), just not here on this forum.
-
Just to play devil's advocate here...
Sean would have never left IS on his own accord, and Sean is not IS. The industry does not care about Saint Sean. Getty/IS (love them or hate them) knows the game well and we are all expendable. The market is way over saturated with really great and amazing images and it's truly a buyer's market. Very few of us (including myself) are bringing anything new to the table of the stock industry, and Getty knows this, and for that matter so does every other agency out there. Stock photography has always been a numbers game with total ebb and flow. With the advent of digital photography, the internet, and microstock - which were total game changers in the industry, the game is now totally beneficial to all the successful agency owners and becoming less so to the demise of the photographers who produce the work and carry the burden of expense to do so. I am saying this from having 25+ years experience as a successful full time stock photographer. that's my two cents.
You talk of Getty as if it were a living, breathing entity with it's own vast and superior brain. It isn't. Getty is just another business staffed by normal people who come and go all the time. Decisions are made by individuals within the business (often for political or self-interest reasons) and sometimes those individuals make good decisions and sometimes they make bad decisions. Occasionally they make very bad decisions. IMHO terminating Sean's membership of Istock is a prime example of the latter.
Getty will lose Sean's 13,000 images and the significant revenue that they generate. Much worse than that one or possibly several of their competitors will gain them instead. That might be all it needs for major accounts to explore new outlets for their requirements. I wonder how many of Sean's images are currently within lightboxes awaiting purchase when a planned project goes ahead?
As well as the loss of goodwill from contributors (many of whom are also buyers) how many more exclusives will choose to give up their crowns now? It makes folks nervous when they know that their entire income can be wiped out with 30 days notice on trumped-up charges and with no possibility of appeal and little or no protection from the law. Much safer being independent and having several sources of income. So that's another gain to Istock's competitors.
The Istock forums have gone quiet too. Very quiet. That's another loss to IS/Getty of valuable feedback, their finger on the pulse of their contributors' mood as well as a big help in the 'crowd-sourcing' initiative. It will never be the same again.
Then there's Stocksy. Previously Sean might have only have had a luke-warm and slightly sceptical interest in it, especially with the restrictions imposed by his exclusive status. Now Getty have freed him from such constraints he will be able to give Stocksy his 100% effort. Getty will find out that they were far better having Sean as their friend (and a handy revenue and ideas generator) than their competitor or as their competitors' asset.
You'll see. It might take a couple of years or more to play out but I can assure you that it is now 'game-on'.
-
Then there's Stocksy. Previously Sean might have only have had a luke-warm and slightly sceptical interest in it, especially with the restrictions imposed by his exclusive status. Now Getty have freed him from such constraints he will be able to give Stocksy his 100% effort. Getty will find out that they were far better having Sean as their friend (and a handy revenue and ideas generator) than their competitor or as their competitors' asset.
I doubt Sean will have very many images at Stocksy unless they make an exception for him, they seem to be looking for artistic images not traditional stock images which Sean does so well. Maybe he'll change it up a little now but my guess is he will continue to put most of efforts into creating the type of work that has made him so successful already.
-
With Sean's talents and abilities, I have no doubt he is going to do very well regardless if his status is exclusive or indie. With his sense and sensibility, lol, you never know what comes the next. Maybe after all, he will still be an exclusive?
By the way, I am never clear whether or not he was going to be terminated as an exclusive or as a contributor. At first, I thought, from the title of the thread, he was "booted", which means his account is going to be deleted. It does not look like to be the case now.
-
With Sean's talents and abilities, I have no doubt he is going to do very well regardless if his status is exclusive or indie. With his sense and sensibility, lol, you never know what comes the next. Maybe after all, he will still be an exclusive?
By the way, I am never clear whether or not he was going to be terminated as an exclusive or as a contributor. At first, I thought, from the title of the thread, he was "booted", which means his account is going to be deleted. It does not look like to be the case now.
As of now, they are going to close my portfolio, just a few weeks later than originally stated, due to a technical issue.
-
With Sean's talents and abilities, I have no doubt he is going to do very well regardless if his status is exclusive or indie. With his sense and sensibility, lol, you never know what comes the next. Maybe after all, he will still be an exclusive?
By the way, I am never clear whether or not he was going to be terminated as an exclusive or as a contributor. At first, I thought, from the title of the thread, he was "booted", which means his account is going to be deleted. It does not look like to be the case now.
As of now, they are going to close my portfolio, just a few weeks later than originally stated, due to a technical issue.
Sean, I am really sorry to hear that. Hopefully a middle ground can be reached through your on-going communication with them. I wish you all the best!
-
...
Sean, I am really sorry to hear that. Hopefully a middle ground can be reached through your on-going communication with them. I wish you all the best!
If you think about it, who in their right mind would place any trust in an organization that had pulled the sleezeball tactics Getty has pulled with Sean over the last month?
It might be in Sean's best interests to stay at iStock as an indie if Klein, Carlyle & Co are willing, but as far as going back as an exclusive if they said "oops! We didnt' really mean it. Please stay", I think Sean's way too smart to do that. Possibly he might say "yes" for a few months more breathing room to plan a transition, but that'd be about it, IMO.
-
...
Sean, I am really sorry to hear that. Hopefully a middle ground can be reached through your on-going communication with them. I wish you all the best!
If you think about it, who in their right mind would place any trust in an organization that had pulled the sleezeball tactics Getty has pulled with Sean over the last month?
It might be in Sean's best interests to stay at iStock as an indie if Klein, Carlyle & Co are willing, but as far as going back as an exclusive if they said "oops! We didnt' really mean it. Please stay", I think Sean's way too smart to do that. Possibly he might say "yes" for a few months more breathing room to plan a transition, but that'd be about it, IMO.
I agree that Sean's best bet is to stay on as an indie. Because of his involvement with Stocksy, it does not look like he can remain as as exclusive for now.
Sean, have you thought about writing to Klein directly?
-
Just to play devil's advocate here...
Sean would have never left IS on his own accord, and Sean is not IS. The industry does not care about Saint Sean. Getty/IS (love them or hate them) knows the game well and we are all expendable. The market is way over saturated with really great and amazing images and it's truly a buyer's market. Very few of us (including myself) are bringing anything new to the table of the stock industry, and Getty knows this, and for that matter so does every other agency out there. Stock photography has always been a numbers game with total ebb and flow. With the advent of digital photography, the internet, and microstock - which were total game changers in the industry, the game is now totally beneficial to all the successful agency owners and becoming less so to the demise of the photographers who produce the work and carry the burden of expense to do so. I am saying this from having 25+ years experience as a successful full time stock photographer. that's my two cents.
All makes sense, but you could have said the same thing two years ago and it would have made as much sense then also. However, for a bunch of exclusives at iStock, there is a world of difference between 2 years ago and now.
I have been saying this, or most of this for more than two years (delete the Sean part), just not here on this forum.
My point was there is something going on in a negative way beyond the general industry trend at iStock.
-
Just to play devil's advocate here...
Sean would have never left IS on his own accord, and Sean is not IS. The industry does not care about Saint Sean. Getty/IS (love them or hate them) knows the game well and we are all expendable. The market is way over saturated with really great and amazing images and it's truly a buyer's market. Very few of us (including myself) are bringing anything new to the table of the stock industry, and Getty knows this, and for that matter so does every other agency out there. Stock photography has always been a numbers game with total ebb and flow. With the advent of digital photography, the internet, and microstock - which were total game changers in the industry, the game is now totally beneficial to all the successful agency owners and becoming less so to the demise of the photographers who produce the work and carry the burden of expense to do so. I am saying this from having 25+ years experience as a successful full time stock photographer. that's my two cents.
All makes sense, but you could have said the same thing two years ago and it would have made as much sense then also. However, for a bunch of exclusives at iStock, there is a world of difference between 2 years ago and now.
I have been saying this, or most of this for more than two years (delete the Sean part), just not here on this forum.
My point was there is something going on in a negative way beyond the general industry trend at iStock.
That was also my point too "there is something going on in a negative way beyond the general industry trend at iStock". But a few of the replies did not note this judging by their comments as they tend to get overwhelmed in their emotions. The whole industry is in turmoil and we are all expendable regardless if we are exclusive or this newbie term of "indie". If you have been around long enough you will soon start to realize we are all "indie" regardless if you are with one agency or ten. And Shlocksy won't save us. Hell the fella who is the brainchild behind it could have done this "co-op" concept with his old agency, but chose not too and sold out for a bunch of millions knowing who it was being sold to and the way they operate. Now it's time to get all "grassroots" and moral with Shlocksy? Give me a break man.
-
...Hell the fella who is the brainchild behind it could have done this "co-op" concept with his old agency, but chose not too and sold out for a bunch of millions knowing who it was being sold to and the way they operate. Now it's time to get all "grassroots" and moral with Shlocksy? Give me a break man.
To be fair, you know that you, me, and everyone else in here would have done the same thing as Bruce if we were in that position.
Anyone really think they'd turn down $50 million? Anyone?
-
...Hell the fella who is the brainchild behind it could have done this "co-op" concept with his old agency, but chose not too and sold out for a bunch of millions knowing who it was being sold to and the way they operate. Now it's time to get all "grassroots" and moral with Shlocksy? Give me a break man.
To be fair, you know that you, me, and everyone else in here would have done the same thing as Bruce if we were in that position.
Anyone really think they'd turn down $50 million? Anyone?
I would have sold out too. It's only business, and my "community" was expendable. Smart fella in my opinion.
-
That was also my point too "there is something going on in a negative way beyond the general industry trend at iStock". But a few of the replies did not note this judging by their comments as they tend to get overwhelmed in their emotions. The whole industry is in turmoil and we are all expendable regardless if we are exclusive or this newbie term of "indie". If you have been around long enough you will soon start to realize we are all "indie" regardless if you are with one agency or ten. And Shlocksy won't save us. Hell the fella who is the brainchild behind it could have done this "co-op" concept with his old agency, but chose not too and sold out for a bunch of millions knowing who it was being sold to and the way they operate. Now it's time to get all "grassroots" and moral with Shlocksy? Give me a break man.
I guess I don't see it as a big deal. I find most of these agencies just as expendable as they find me. When you find a good one though, it's nice. So, I don't see anything wrong with getting excited about a new project. I don't know if Stocksy is that or not. Frankly, I really don't know anything about Stocksy.
-
...Hell the fella who is the brainchild behind it could have done this "co-op" concept with his old agency, but chose not too and sold out for a bunch of millions knowing who it was being sold to and the way they operate. Now it's time to get all "grassroots" and moral with Shlocksy? Give me a break man.
To be fair, you know that you, me, and everyone else in here would have done the same thing as Bruce if we were in that position.
Anyone really think they'd turn down $50 million? Anyone?
Are you serious? Anyone with any judgement, access to the numbers and knowledge of the greater market wouldn't even have considered selling out at that time or at that price. I said so many times at the time. Oringer didn't sell SS and Enache didn't sell DT when each business way exceeded $50M. Zuckerberg didn't sell FB when he was literally offered millions, then hundreds of millions, then eventually billions to do so.
I think it is most likely that IS was effectively owned by investors at the time and it was they who chose to sell. That is so often the case when you allow investors (VC's) to own the majority of the business. It was a long time ago, and my memory might be confusing this story with another similar one, but I think I heard that BL only actually made about $17M from the deal __ the rest was owned by the investors.
-
How much money do you really need? I'd take that 50 million and live a nice comfy life with very little responsibility.
-
...Hell the fella who is the brainchild behind it could have done this "co-op" concept with his old agency, but chose not too and sold out for a bunch of millions knowing who it was being sold to and the way they operate. Now it's time to get all "grassroots" and moral with Shlocksy? Give me a break man.
To be fair, you know that you, me, and everyone else in here would have done the same thing as Bruce if we were in that position.
Anyone really think they'd turn down $50 million? Anyone?
Sad part (relativity speaking) is that he stayed there and saw IS was worth at least 1 Billion dollars before he left.
How many people create and sell a company worth 1 billion us dollars. Especially from nothing!!
-
SS (net income) ($ M)
- 2009 (18,842)
- 2010 (18,938)
- 2011 (21,864)
- 2012 (47,500)
(http://www.sec.gov/Archives/edgar/data/1549346/000104746912005905/a2209364zs-1.htm (http://www.sec.gov/Archives/edgar/data/1549346/000104746912005905/a2209364zs-1.htm))
(http://finance.yahoo.com/news/shutterstock-reports-fourth-quarter-full-210500878.html (http://finance.yahoo.com/news/shutterstock-reports-fourth-quarter-full-210500878.html))
-
SS (net income) ($ M)
- 2009 (18,842)
- 2010 (18,938)
- 2011 (21,864)
- 2012 (47,500)
([url]http://www.sec.gov/Archives/edgar/data/1549346/000104746912005905/a2209364zs-1.htm[/url] ([url]http://www.sec.gov/Archives/edgar/data/1549346/000104746912005905/a2209364zs-1.htm[/url]))
([url]http://finance.yahoo.com/news/shutterstock-reports-fourth-quarter-full-210500878.html[/url] ([url]http://finance.yahoo.com/news/shutterstock-reports-fourth-quarter-full-210500878.html[/url]))
Man I didn't realize Shutterstock's net income was 47 BILLLION dollars last year. High fives all around!
-
SS (net income) ($ M)
- 2009 (18,842)
- 2010 (18,938)
- 2011 (21,864)
- 2012 (47,500)
([url]http://www.sec.gov/Archives/edgar/data/1549346/000104746912005905/a2209364zs-1.htm[/url] ([url]http://www.sec.gov/Archives/edgar/data/1549346/000104746912005905/a2209364zs-1.htm[/url]))
([url]http://finance.yahoo.com/news/shutterstock-reports-fourth-quarter-full-210500878.html[/url] ([url]http://finance.yahoo.com/news/shutterstock-reports-fourth-quarter-full-210500878.html[/url]))
Man I didn't realize Shutterstock's net income was 47 BILLLION dollars last year. High fives all around!
those are commas my friend
-
SS (net income) ($ M)
- 2009 (18,842)
- 2010 (18,938)
- 2011 (21,864)
- 2012 (47,500)
([url]http://www.sec.gov/Archives/edgar/data/1549346/000104746912005905/a2209364zs-1.htm[/url] ([url]http://www.sec.gov/Archives/edgar/data/1549346/000104746912005905/a2209364zs-1.htm[/url]))
([url]http://finance.yahoo.com/news/shutterstock-reports-fourth-quarter-full-210500878.html[/url] ([url]http://finance.yahoo.com/news/shutterstock-reports-fourth-quarter-full-210500878.html[/url]))
Man I didn't realize Shutterstock's net income was 47 BILLLION dollars last year. High fives all around!
those are commas my friend
($ M) means millions right?
-
SS (net income) ($ M)
- 2009 (18,842)
- 2010 (18,938)
- 2011 (21,864)
- 2012 (47,500)
([url]http://www.sec.gov/Archives/edgar/data/1549346/000104746912005905/a2209364zs-1.htm[/url] ([url]http://www.sec.gov/Archives/edgar/data/1549346/000104746912005905/a2209364zs-1.htm[/url]))
([url]http://finance.yahoo.com/news/shutterstock-reports-fourth-quarter-full-210500878.html[/url] ([url]http://finance.yahoo.com/news/shutterstock-reports-fourth-quarter-full-210500878.html[/url]))
Man I didn't realize Shutterstock's net income was 47 BILLLION dollars last year. High fives all around!
those are commas my friend
($ M) means millions right?
not BI
-
And someone said only yesterday that SS couldn't afford to give it's contributors a raise!
-
SS (net income) ($ M)
- 2009 (18,842)
- 2010 (18,938)
- 2011 (21,864)
- 2012 (47,500)
([url]http://www.sec.gov/Archives/edgar/data/1549346/000104746912005905/a2209364zs-1.htm[/url] ([url]http://www.sec.gov/Archives/edgar/data/1549346/000104746912005905/a2209364zs-1.htm[/url]))
([url]http://finance.yahoo.com/news/shutterstock-reports-fourth-quarter-full-210500878.html[/url] ([url]http://finance.yahoo.com/news/shutterstock-reports-fourth-quarter-full-210500878.html[/url]))
Man I didn't realize Shutterstock's net income was 47 BILLLION dollars last year. High fives all around!
those are commas my friend
($ M) means millions right?
not BI
Yeah 47,500 million. Like you wrote. That's the same as 47.5 BILLION.
-
SS (net income) ($ M)
- 2009 (18,842)
- 2010 (18,938)
- 2011 (21,864)
- 2012 (47,500)
([url]http://www.sec.gov/Archives/edgar/data/1549346/000104746912005905/a2209364zs-1.htm[/url] ([url]http://www.sec.gov/Archives/edgar/data/1549346/000104746912005905/a2209364zs-1.htm[/url]))
([url]http://finance.yahoo.com/news/shutterstock-reports-fourth-quarter-full-210500878.html[/url] ([url]http://finance.yahoo.com/news/shutterstock-reports-fourth-quarter-full-210500878.html[/url]))
Man I didn't realize Shutterstock's net income was 47 BILLLION dollars last year. High fives all around!
those are commas my friend
($ M) means millions right?
not BI
Depends where you live.
In some countries, a Billion is a thousand million and in others it is a million billion.
The UK and US are on either side of that divide, IIRC
-
Depends where you live.
In some countries, a Billion is a thousand million and in others it is a billion billion.
The UK and US are on either side of that divide, IIRC
Apparently it could mean a million million or a thousand million. Either way if Shutterstock is making $47,500 million, $47.5 thousand million or $47,500,000,000 they are better off than I knew.
-
Depends where you live.
In some countries, a Billion is a thousand million and in others it is a billion billion.
The UK and US are on either side of that divide, IIRC
Apparently it could mean a million million or a thousand million. Either way if Shutterstock is making $47,500 million or $47,500,000,000 they are better off than I knew.
Yeah, sorry, typo.
Amazing what you can accumulate by piling 'em high and selling 'em cheap.
-
Depends where you live.
In some countries, a Billion is a thousand million and in others it is a billion billion.
The UK and US are on either side of that divide, IIRC
Apparently it could mean a million million or a thousand million. Either way if Shutterstock is making $47,500 million or $47,500,000,000 they are better off than I knew.
Yeah, sorry, typo.
Amazing what you can accumulate by piling 'em high and selling 'em cheap.
over 269 M downloads (since the start)
2007 - 22.6 (2.6 M collection) (rpd 1.33$)
2008 - 34.0 (5.1 M collection) (rpd 1.55$)
2009 - 34.0 (8.9 M collection) (rpd 1.80$)
2010 - 44.1 (13.3 M collection) (rpd 1.88$)
2011 - 58.6 (17.4 M collection) (rpd 2.05$)
2012 - 76 (23.3 M collection) (rpd 2.23$)
-
.
-
.
Good work Luis.
-
.
Good work Luis.
its just a . ahah ;D (leaf can delete that .)
-
Depends where you live.
In some countries, a Billion is a thousand million and in others it is a billion billion.
The UK and US are on either side of that divide, IIRC
Apparently it could mean a million million or a thousand million. Either way if Shutterstock is making $47,500 million or $47,500,000,000 they are better off than I knew.
Yeah, sorry, typo.
Amazing what you can accumulate by piling 'em high and selling 'em cheap.
and paying your contributors a pittance. i would never put one image there based on royalties alone.
-
SS (net income) ($ M)
- 2009 (18,842)
- 2010 (18,938)
- 2011 (21,864)
- 2012 (47,500)
([url]http://www.sec.gov/Archives/edgar/data/1549346/000104746912005905/a2209364zs-1.htm[/url] ([url]http://www.sec.gov/Archives/edgar/data/1549346/000104746912005905/a2209364zs-1.htm[/url]))
([url]http://finance.yahoo.com/news/shutterstock-reports-fourth-quarter-full-210500878.html[/url] ([url]http://finance.yahoo.com/news/shutterstock-reports-fourth-quarter-full-210500878.html[/url]))
Man I didn't realize Shutterstock's net income was 47 BILLLION dollars last year. High fives all around!
those are commas my friend
($ M) means millions right?
not BI
Yeah 47,500 million. Like you wrote. That's the same as 47.5 BILLION.
Not sure how we all got confused.. check out the link that Luis posted.
Shutterstock's net income is not in the billions. It is in the millions.
http://www.sec.gov/Archives/edgar/data/1549346/000104746912005905/a2209364zs-1.htm (http://www.sec.gov/Archives/edgar/data/1549346/000104746912005905/a2209364zs-1.htm)
The full amounts without any abbreviation are...
2009: $18,842,000
2010: $18,938,000
2011: $21,864,000
Perhaps it's also confusing that some countries use commas, where others use a decimal.
-
Yeah, and it`s also confusing that the topic title is "sjlocke was booted from istock", and you people here are discussing the shutterstocks profit. ;D ;D ;D
-
...Hell the fella who is the brainchild behind it could have done this "co-op" concept with his old agency, but chose not too and sold out for a bunch of millions knowing who it was being sold to and the way they operate. Now it's time to get all "grassroots" and moral with Shlocksy? Give me a break man.
To be fair, you know that you, me, and everyone else in here would have done the same thing as Bruce if we were in that position.
Anyone really think they'd turn down $50 million? Anyone?
Are you serious? Anyone with any judgement, access to the numbers and knowledge of the greater market wouldn't even have considered selling out at that time or at that price. I said so many times at the time. Oringer didn't sell SS and Enache didn't sell DT when each business way exceeded $50M. Zuckerberg didn't sell FB when he was literally offered millions, then hundreds of millions, then eventually billions to do so.
I think it is most likely that IS was effectively owned by investors at the time and it was they who chose to sell. That is so often the case when you allow investors (VC's) to own the majority of the business. It was a long time ago, and my memory might be confusing this story with another similar one, but I think I heard that BL only actually made about $17M from the deal __ the rest was owned by the investors.
He only made $17M :) I'd of probably sold out for $2M and I bet 99.9% of people would take the $17M. We don't know if he was also offered bonuses for hitting targets do we? I got the impression that the Getty deal seemed quite good for istock at the time and it all started going wrong when the hedge fund bought Getty and started squeezing it dry. They seemed to change policy from keeping istock as a separate entity to effectively destroying it. It's easy to see where it all went wrong with hindsight but for every business that makes it big like Facebook, there must be hundreds that don't sell and wish they had later. People don't seem to mention that the owners of Myspace did well cashing in for $580 million before Facebook ruined their business. It was sold again for $35 million two years ago. If Bruce had refused to sell, Getty could of set up their own microstock sites and crushed istock or perhaps they would of bought another microstock site that would of been a big problem for istock?
-
Getty could of set up their own microstock sites and crushed istock or perhaps they would of bought another microstock site that would of been a big problem for istock?
Really!! I haven't noticed them crushing any of the other stock sites since they bought Istock
-
I think they came quite close at one time. Don't people remember when istock was making them so much money that it wasn't such an easy decision to remain non-exclusive? If they had raised commissions a little bit at one point, around 2008, I would of probably gone exclusive. Some people I really respect, like Stephen Strahdee went exclusive but luckily form me istock rejected some of my best selling images and it wasn't such a tough decision.
-
I think they came quite close at one time. Don't people remember when istock was making them so much money that it wasn't such an easy decision to remain non-exclusive? If they had raised commissions a little bit at one point, around 2008, I would of probably gone exclusive. Some people I really respect, like Stephen Strahdee went exclusive but luckily form me istock rejected some of my best selling images and it wasn't such a tough decision.
My comment was meant a bit tongue in cheek. I did slightly toy with the idea at one point years ago but don't remember if getty had bought it then or not. I remember that Lisa was seriously considering going exclusive when it all kicked off and she changed her mind just in time.
-
Getty bought istock way back on February 9, 2006. I think they did a good job with istock for a couple of years, except for not enticing more of us to go exclusive. That was a huge mistake, as it would of been quite easy for them to dominate microstock if they had the majority of contributors as exclusives. Then when Hellman & Friedman bought Getty in mid 2008, it all started to go badly wrong.
-
With Sean's talents and abilities, I have no doubt he is going to do very well regardless if his status is exclusive or indie. With his sense and sensibility, lol, you never know what comes the next. Maybe after all, he will still be an exclusive?
By the way, I am never clear whether or not he was going to be terminated as an exclusive or as a contributor. At first, I thought, from the title of the thread, he was "booted", which means his account is going to be deleted. It does not look like to be the case now.
As of now, they are going to close my portfolio, just a few weeks later than originally stated, due to a technical issue.
I wonder is there technical issue that they won't hit their Q1 numbers without your port?
-
Getty bought istock way back on February 9, 2006. I think they did a good job with istock for a couple of years, except for not enticing more of us to go exclusive. That was a huge mistake, as it would of been quite easy for them to dominate microstock if they had the majority of contributors as exclusives. Then when Hellman & Friedman bought Getty in mid 2008, it all started to go badly wrong.
Wow was it that long ago??? Then for sure I had my best years while Getty owned it.
-
Not sure how we all got confused.. check out the link that Luis posted.
Shutterstock's net income is not in the billions. It is in the millions.
[url]http://www.sec.gov/Archives/edgar/data/1549346/000104746912005905/a2209364zs-1.htm[/url] ([url]http://www.sec.gov/Archives/edgar/data/1549346/000104746912005905/a2209364zs-1.htm[/url])
The full amounts without any abbreviation are...
2009: $18,842,000
2010: $18,938,000
2011: $21,864,000
Perhaps it's also confusing that some countries use commas, where others use a decimal.
Not confused, just giving Luis a bit of a hard time. He took the numbers from the Shutterstock report where it said (in thousands) and changed it to ($ M). I guess he also changed the meaning of the comma from the report he cited, maybe?
-
Not sure how we all got confused.. check out the link that Luis posted.
Shutterstock's net income is not in the billions. It is in the millions.
[url]http://www.sec.gov/Archives/edgar/data/1549346/000104746912005905/a2209364zs-1.htm[/url] ([url]http://www.sec.gov/Archives/edgar/data/1549346/000104746912005905/a2209364zs-1.htm[/url])
The full amounts without any abbreviation are...
2009: $18,842,000
2010: $18,938,000
2011: $21,864,000
Perhaps it's also confusing that some countries use commas, where others use a decimal.
Not confused, just giving Luis a bit of a hard time. He took the numbers from the Shutterstock report where it said (in thousands) and changed it to ($ M). I guess he also changed the meaning of the comma from the report he cited, maybe?
I haven't changed anything, check the report and my numbers, I actually copy/past them
sorry for taking this discussion into SS but we were talking if Bruce did the right thing on selling, so I believed it was important to see SS doing close to 50 M in a year
-
Judging by the last three series on your blog, Stocksy is going to be a hit. They are very well done. No wonder IS/getty was afraid of the competition. It will be interesting if the download numbers are going to be displayed like in the beggining on IS.
-
It was a long time ago, and my memory might be confusing this story with another similar one, but I think I heard that BL only actually made about $17M from the deal __ the rest was owned by the investors.
Not that long ago , even as recently as last autumn, you said that Bruce trousered the $50M himself. So since then you have new gossip ?
Funnily enough I don't recall getting an email from Brucie when he trousered $50M of Getty's money.
Livingstone bottled it and sold out way, way too early ... Brucie-babe sold out for just $50M.
-
Getty bought istock way back on February 9, 2006. I think they did a good job with istock for a couple of years, except for not enticing more of us to go exclusive. That was a huge mistake, as it would of been quite easy for them to dominate microstock if they had the majority of contributors as exclusives. Then when Hellman & Friedman bought Getty in mid 2008, it all started to go badly wrong.
If H&F bought Getty, how does Getty still own part of their own company with the latest "sale"? Possibly H&F never bought all of Getty? Maybe someone can explain how Getty can ratain shares in the latest sale, if they were sold in the past. ???
Let me get back on track a slight bit. SJLocke didn't deserve what he got for his dedication and efforts for IS, but I'm sure he'll hit the ground running and find something equally as productive. I'm just watching for that announcement.
-
If H&F bought Getty, how does Getty still own part of their own company with the latest "sale"? Possibly H&F never bought all of Getty? Maybe someone can explain how Getty can ratain shares in the latest sale, if they were sold in the past. ???
H&F sold the company - part to Carlyle Group and part to Jonathan Klein and members of the Getty family. They effectively bought part of it back versus "still" owned it.
-
If H&F bought Getty, how does Getty still own part of their own company with the latest "sale"? Possibly H&F never bought all of Getty? Maybe someone can explain how Getty can ratain shares in the latest sale, if they were sold in the past. ???
H&F sold the company - part to Carlyle Group and part to Jonathan Klein and members of the Getty family. They effectively bought part of it back versus "still" owned it.
Yes. Just over 50% of the business was bought by Carlyle with the rest now owned by the Getty family and management (i.e. Klein). My impression was that Carlyle only bought into it on condition that the Getty big boys put their money where their mouth was. I think that they'll live to regret it too. Carlyle should have done some of their 'due diligence' here, on MSG, to get a more comprehensive picture of what is happening within the industry.
-
Yes. Just over 50% of the business was bought by Carlyle with the rest now owned by the Getty family and management (i.e. Klein). My impression was that Carlyle only bought into it on condition that the Getty big boys put their money where their mouth was. I think that they'll live to regret it too. Carlyle should have done some of their 'due diligence' here, on MSG, to get a more comprehensive picture of what is happening within the industry.
It really amazes me how many of you don't get the whole industry in general. Monsters like Carlyle and Getty know exactly what is happening in the industry and don't really need to come into a forum for peon photographers to do due diligence on the industry. These guys know exactly what is going on in this ever growing industry. They dominate global sales, they make billions, and we make pennies. The last thing on their mind is to come into a forum such as this and see the same people complaining over and over again. They know they have you, and they don't care if you come or go, you are completely expendable and replaceable. That goes for all of us. That my friends is the ugly truth of it - industry wide. Sure some of them can spin it like you are a "community" or you can deify certain people, but in the end, it's all the same regardless of agency, persona, or concept. and we are the peon's.
-
It really amazes me how many of you don't get the whole industry in general. Monsters like Carlyle and Getty know exactly what is happening in the industry and don't really need to come into a forum for peon photographers to do due diligence on the industry. These guys know exactly what is going on in this ever growing industry. They dominate global sales, they make billions, and we make pennies. The last thing on their mind is to come into a forum such as this and see the same people complaining over and over again. They know they have you, and they don't care if you come or go, you are completely expendable and replaceable. That goes for all of us. That my friends is the ugly truth of it - industry wide. Sure some of them can spin it like you are a "community" or you can deify certain people, but in the end, it's all the same regardless of agency, persona, or concept. and we are the peon's.
You don't understand business mate. It never stands still. It is always subject to change, massive change, and never more so than nowadays in the internet age.
The Harvard Business School, when I was doing my MBA course (in the 1990's), reckoned that the average life of a business was about 40 years. That was usually about how long it took for a business to start small, grow big, become the market leader ... and then become complacent ... and allow faster, better, keener competition to overcome it. In the internet age it likely to be the case that the 'natural' life-cycle is going to be compressed.
There is absolutely no doubt in my mind that SS will eventually become bigger than Getty __ almost certainly within the next 5 years, quite possibly sooner. Getty is dying and is being usurped by faster, better, stronger competition and, it has to be said, they have few friends that will mourn their passing.
-
It really amazes me how many of you don't get the whole industry in general. Monsters like Carlyle and Getty know exactly what is happening in the industry and don't really need to come into a forum for peon photographers to do due diligence on the industry. These guys know exactly what is going on in this ever growing industry. They dominate global sales, they make billions, and we make pennies. The last thing on their mind is to come into a forum such as this and see the same people complaining over and over again. They know they have you, and they don't care if you come or go, you are completely expendable and replaceable. That goes for all of us. That my friends is the ugly truth of it - industry wide. Sure some of them can spin it like you are a "community" or you can deify certain people, but in the end, it's all the same regardless of agency, persona, or concept. and we are the peon's.
You don't understand business mate. It never stands still. It is always subject to change, massive change, and never more so than nowadays in the internet age.
The Harvard Business School, when I was doing my MBA course (in the 1990's), reckoned that the average life of a business was about 40 years. That was usually about how long it took for a business to start small, grow big, become the market leader ... and then become complacent ... and allow faster, better, keener competition to overcome it. In the internet age it likely to be the case that the 'natural' life-cycle is going to be compressed.
There is absolutely no doubt in my mind that SS will eventually become bigger than Getty __ almost certainly within the next 5 years, quite possibly sooner. Getty is dying and is being usurped by faster, better, stronger competition and, it has to be said, they have few friends that will mourn their passing.
OK I don't know squat about business. What I do know is that this business is ever growing year by year, the agencies are making more and more, and paying less and less. And with my complete lack of understanding about business, we are the ones being shafted and working for pennies on the dollar. Not being an MBA holder I'd say we are all getting shafted by all of the agencies. Who in their right mind would put any images up onto SS for 0.25c per download - that and that alone was the deal breaker for me 6-7 years ago when I started uploading to microstock agencies. it's a buyers market, the industry is way over saturated with great images, the prices are falling, and so are the royalty amounts, the only ones getting rich on this game are the agencies. but what would i know, i don't understand business. SS won't be bigger than Getty in the next five years for sure (Getty holds too many brands under their belt and has the editorial thing wrapped up), and mark my words from a person who does not know business, your royalties will be sacrificed for shareholder dividends in the near future, it is a private company now, and you are nothing but a "liability" at this point. the industry as it once was is now over for sure, it is now all about maximizing profits for the owners/shareholders and having the peons supply the product. the overall market will grow worldwide and so will the profits to the comanies that sell the images, but the overall profit to the supplier will go down due to an over saturated market. surely with an MBA you would have figured that one out by now, it's been the trend for the last 15 years or more in the stock industry.
-
I started with SS selling $0.25 subs. My average commission this month is $1.02. Heading for a big BME. So my average commission has virtually quadrupled. This month might be unusual but the trend in earnings and average commissions is going up over the last year.
We all have a choice if we want to be screwed by Getty/istock. I deactivated all my best images and just left them with the low selling stuff. Seems to of paid off so far.
Unlike some industries, I do think the sites are going to damage themselves if they keep cutting commissions. Looks like we might soon have good ways to sell direct from our own sites. Buyers should like that, because we'll be able to keep prices competitive and also make enough money to carry on supplying them new images. However saturated the collections are, I think buyers always want something new to look at. My istock portfolio is a stagnant pool of my low selling images. They don't have some of the portfolios of the best microstock contributors now. Judging by my earnings, it looks like buyers do look elsewhere and it is going to hit istock. They might carry on growing overall but that's not good if they're growing at a fraction of the pace of SS.
-
The average lifespan of a company listed in the S&P 500 index of leading US companies has decreased by more than 50 years in the last century, from 67 years in the 1920s to just 15 years today, according to Professor Richard Foster from Yale University.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-16611040 (http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-16611040)
-
The Harvard Business School, when I was doing my MBA course
You did an MBA from Harvard Business School and you're scrabbling around for microstock pennies?
-
There are many people here with solid business management backgrounds or entrepreneurs. We just decided we want a less stressful life and fun way to earn money.
In what other business can you deduct all trips, easter eggs, any food you eat (if you shoot it) as a business expense?
-
We just decided we want a less stressful life and fun way to earn money.
And after all these years of shenanigans do you still feel it's less stressful?
-
We just decided we want a less stressful life and fun way to earn money.
And after all these years of shenanigans do you still feel it's less stressful?
I'll let you know when I get back from the golf course! For me it's not a big deal. Yes, Istock is dying and SS is growing ... but my income is about the same. I know, if I could be arsed to work a bit harder/smarter, my income would probably grow. But for me, enough is enough. I only work as much as I need to do to cover my requirements.
Speaking personally, it's about as stress-free a lifestyle as I could imagine, short of winning the lottery. I very much enjoy what I do and the ability to work when I want to, or not as the case may be.
Now ... did I mention that I've just bought the Nike Method 001 putter, as used by a Mr Woods of Jupiter, Florida? Seriously excellent piece of kit.
-
LOL! I know, but for all the drama on istock it is still a lot easier than dealing with a team of employees ( even if they are all nice as individuals), customers, bills, people who donīt pay, people who lie and insult you and then donīt pay, trade shows, sneaky salespeople, slow suppliers, logistics problems (why are my products in the wrong country??), paperwork, more paperwork, court cases...etc...
The stress with istock was of course of a more personal nature, because for many of us istock was a lot more than just a webstore. Iīve never been part of any kind of "movement" before, but that is how it came across in the beginning. Everyone was so focussed on pushing the site forward, it was amazing. And then things changed...
But at least I can deal with it while sitting in my pyjamas at home in front of the computer. No traffic jams, no need to dress up and entertain people I really donīt like...etc...
So now I am indie and can focus better on my work and my friends.
And who knows, maybe there is a site out there that lives and breathes a similar community spirit like the old istock. ;)
-
It really amazes me how many of you don't get the whole industry in general. Monsters like Carlyle and Getty know exactly what is happening in the industry and don't really need to come into a forum for peon photographers to do due diligence on the industry. These guys know exactly what is going on in this ever growing industry. They dominate global sales, they make billions, and we make pennies. The last thing on their mind is to come into a forum such as this and see the same people complaining over and over again. They know they have you, and they don't care if you come or go, you are completely expendable and replaceable. That goes for all of us. That my friends is the ugly truth of it - industry wide. Sure some of them can spin it like you are a "community" or you can deify certain people, but in the end, it's all the same regardless of agency, persona, or concept. and we are the peon's.
Agree with you totally. The Feb. 2 taking down of images proved that. While some people were willing to deactivate all of their images, most people did not. While I certainly agree that some things they do make it seem like they don't know what the h$ll is going on, their accountants and attorneys most certainly do. They know that people are desperate for money and will take whatever is dished out.
It only made sense. Contributors were on top of the getty/google deal and are screaming about copyright and cheating. So of course getty will come up with 360...no one gets to know anything except them. You might get paid something, but be assured it is NOT going to be in your best interest.
Just as an aside, I have noticed more and more that the credit lines in top magazines are not even posting photographer's names anymore...all you see is getty images, istockphoto or corbis, or the agencies name. We have all just become a bottom-line number for these guys. >:(
-
It only made sense. Contributors were on top of the getty/google deal and are screaming about copyright and cheating. So of course getty will come up with 360...no one gets to know anything except them. You might get paid something, but be assured it is NOT going to be in your best interest.
Yep, and it is hidden behind locked doors, which are through a curtain, and guarded by a rabid dachshund.
-
It only made sense. Contributors were on top of the getty/google deal and are screaming about copyright and cheating. So of course getty will come up with 360...no one gets to know anything except them. You might get paid something, but be assured it is NOT going to be in your best interest.
Yep, and it is hidden behind locked doors, which are through a curtain, and guarded by a rabid dachshund.
Speaking of behind locked doors and curtains... Is stocksy opening tomorrow??
-
Watch my blog on Monday...
-
Dont forget to erase you footer here on MSG forum
My iStockphoto Buyer's Tips Blog
-
Dont forget to erase you footer here on MSG forum
My iStockphoto Buyer's Tips Blog
Or he can change the blog to say
Tip no 1. Don't buy at Istock.
-
Dont forget to erase you footer here on MSG forum
My iStockphoto Buyer's Tips Blog
Or he can change the blog to say
Tip no 1. Don't buy at Istock.
;D
-
Dont forget to erase you footer here on MSG forum
My iStockphoto Buyer's Tips Blog
Or he can change the blog to say
Tip no 1. Don't buy at Istock.
;D
Everything Just anything about. Just OFF. Every bad advertisement on gogle serach is "good in terms of view"
So just exclude word iSock, getty and other thinky/stinky stuff in you mind.
-
It only made sense. Contributors were on top of the getty/google deal and are screaming about copyright and cheating. So of course getty will come up with 360...no one gets to know anything except them. You might get paid something, but be assured it is NOT going to be in your best interest.
Yep, and it is hidden behind locked doors, which are through a curtain, and guarded by a rabid dachshund.
Speaking of behind locked doors and curtains... Is stocksy opening tomorrow??
who cares??? a new agency brought to you by the same guy who sold you out once. he is a smart business man and has way too many of you suckered.
-
And you believe we should trust Jonathan Klein more?
When Bruce was there, istock was thriving, I was paid 40%, traffic to the site was going up, sales were growing.
After he left, the royalties were slashed, the referral bonus was eliminated, the bonus on extended licenses was taken away, the RC system was introduced with "yearly targets" that were announced retro actively in September or October of a year, 100% royalty day was cancelled, the community was killed off, the communication is either inexistant or incompetent with managers who are always hiding and refuse to take personal responsibility when they make mistakes. Instead they blame people like Sean, that they just ripped off with the getty google deal and throw out the man who knew more about the business than Boston Consulting.
But sure, getty is the company we should trust.
Why don't you just go back to istock or getty and rally the troops there? The place could use someone who tries to lift the morale and makes the place look attractive to artists. Or at least support the hard working admins and staff of istock.
But then of course, you would have to be a force for success and growth and couldn't hide behind an anonymus alias. You would need to achieve visible results and obviously it is a lot more fun to attack the contributors, Bruce or microstock instead of doing the hard work of growing the business.
-
It only made sense. Contributors were on top of the getty/google deal and are screaming about copyright and cheating. So of course getty will come up with 360...no one gets to know anything except them. You might get paid something, but be assured it is NOT going to be in your best interest.
Yep, and it is hidden behind locked doors, which are through a curtain, and guarded by a rabid dachshund.
Speaking of behind locked doors and curtains... Is stocksy opening tomorrow??
who cares??? a new agency brought to you by the same guy who sold you out once. he is a smart business man and has way too many of you suckered.
Yes, maybe Bruce "sold us once", but sometimes I get the feeling that Getty sell us daily.
-
who cares??? a new agency brought to you by the same guy who sold you out once. he is a smart business man and has way too many of you suckered.
Yes, maybe Bruce "sold us once", but sometimes I get the feeling that Getty sell us daily.
only sometimes you get the feeling?
Had to give a heart to Cobalt's great reply above.
-
Watch my blog on Monday...
Monday.. Your blog..? Can't I just pull up Stocksy.com and check it out for myself by then?
-
Well, if you knew, why'd you ask? ;)
-
Cobalt, great reply :)
-
Well, if you knew, why'd you ask? ;)
I will say your blog shows off some really good shoots the airport, new parents, and graduation are great even for your standards.
-
Well, if you knew, why'd you ask? ;)
I will say your blog shows off some really good shoots the airport, new parents, and graduation are great even for your standards.
I think that's a compliment, so thanks!
-
Well it seems his port is no longer on IS. Good luck Sean
-
Well it seems his port is no longer on IS. Good luck Sean
Yep, bit by bit, they disabled everything this morning. I no longer have a stats page, which will make it difficult to check when the Getty sales from last month come in.
-
Well it seems his port is no longer on IS. Good luck Sean
Yep, bit by bit, they disabled everything this morning. I no longer have a stats page, which will make it difficult to check when the Getty sales from last month come in.
Wow! Good luck! I noticed Stocky went into some sort of restricted access mode too. ;D
-
Probably getting switched on.
-
At the moment I can still see and access the portfolio over here in Germany.
I'll keep an eye on it.
-
Agree with you totally. The Feb. 2 taking down of images proved that. While some people were willing to deactivate all of their images, most people did not. While I certainly agree that some things they do make it seem like they don't know what the h$ll is going on, their accountants and attorneys most certainly do. They know that people are desperate for money and will take whatever is dished out.
It only made sense. Contributors were on top of the getty/google deal and are screaming about copyright and cheating. So of course getty will come up with 360...no one gets to know anything except them. You might get paid something, but be assured it is NOT going to be in your best interest.
Just as an aside, I have noticed more and more that the credit lines in top magazines are not even posting photographer's names anymore...all you see is getty images, istockphoto or corbis, or the agencies name. We have all just become a bottom-line number for these guys. >:(
(http://www.cartoonstock.com/newscartoons/cartoonists/apr/lowres/aprn88l.jpg)
:)
-
Well it seems his port is no longer on IS. Good luck Sean
Yep, bit by bit, they disabled everything this morning. I no longer have a stats page, which will make it difficult to check when the Getty sales from last month come in.
At $5 to $50 paid directly to plus whatever your founding photographer includes plus a split in the profits you might doing really well before to long.
-
Best of luck Sean!
-
Yes, good luck Sean! Big day!!!
Wishing you even greater success in your new markets.
-
Good Luck! Wish you all the best! :)
-
At $5 to $50 paid directly to plus whatever your founding photographer includes plus a split in the profits you might doing really well before to long.
Let's hope :) Although, "founding photographer" doesn't get you anything extra.
-
At $5 to $50 paid directly to plus whatever your founding photographer includes plus a split in the profits you might doing really well before to long.
Let's hope :) Although, "founding photographer" doesn't get you anything extra.
Well, you do have a very strong presence at launch... So you might be underselling the benefit!! I am rooting for this fair pay getty slayer site, even though I am not a part of it yet!
-
So I'm just curious. Why haven't nuno and stalman been booted? Or at least had their crowns revoked? I'm not rooting for that to happen, just wondering.
-
So I'm just curious. Why haven't nuno and stalman been booted? Or at least had their crowns revoked? I'm not rooting for that to happen, just wondering.
All their images have been removed and their names don't show up when doing a search, so they are effectively gone.
-
So I'm just curious. Why haven't nuno and stalman been booted? Or at least had their crowns revoked? I'm not rooting for that to happen, just wondering.
All their images have been removed and their names don't show up when doing a search, so they are effectively gone.
Oh, I see. I was just looking at the main profile page. I didn't notice that there is no link to portfolios.
-
So I'm just curious. Why haven't nuno and stalman been booted? Or at least had their crowns revoked? I'm not rooting for that to happen, just wondering.
All their images have been removed and their names don't show up when doing a search, so they are effectively gone.
Oh, I see. I was just looking at the main profile page. I didn't notice that there is no link to portfolios.
It's the same as with sjlocke, you can find their profile page with a google search but not through the Istock search.
-
...
...this is a very long thread...
-
Well it seems his port is no longer on IS. Good luck Sean
Yep, bit by bit, they disabled everything this morning. I no longer have a stats page, which will make it difficult to check when the Getty sales from last month come in.
Good luck to you Sean. Don't be too honest in the future ;). I am not saying that it is not true on what you did/say about iStock and Getty, but I understand their reason for letting you go.
-
...
...this is a very long thread...
I think istock booting Sean is the single most significant event in the six years that I've been associated with microstock. So symbolic of where things have come to.
And good luck Sean, not that you'll need it.
-
I think istock booting Sean is the single most significant event in the six years that I've been associated with microstock. So symbolic of where things have come to.
And good luck Sean, not that you'll need it.
Truly a shocking event. I completely agree on both counts.
Success is the best revenge and I am certain Sean will have it :)
-
In all fairness, it seems fairly obvious at this point that Sean has been involved with the development of Stocksy for a few months already and had already made the decision to leave iStock prior to being pushed out by Getty. So the outcome would have been the same either way and Sean would have eventually left on his own volition when he was ready if he hadn't been asked to leave first. So as everyone's looks down upon Getty for throwing him out and feels so bad for Sean, I think it's fair to say this is what he wanted anyway. Had Sean not been planning to leave in the first place then he might not have been pushed out by Getty and may still be there today. So isn't this the outcome Sean was planning and wanted anyway but perhaps was only forced to speed up his already intended departure plan?
-
^ Assumption is the mother of all f*ck ups
-
This is not true. Sean heard about stocksy, the same day I heard about stocksy, which was end of January, beginning of February. It was somebody from the local community here in Germany who inquired first with me if I knew anything about it, but I didnīt. I suggested to write to Sean because he is usually better informed. But he hadnīt heard about stocksy either, but promised to contact them and inquire what it was about.
It is obvious from the pininterest moodboards that Sean doesnīt shoot the artistic style that they were looking for. If he hadnīt been kicked out by Getty, I doubt they would have let him in. But then apparently stocksy was "discovered" a lot earlier than they had planned and when the news broke they were overwhelmed by people who wanted to join. Like everyone else I put my email into that white box and was really surprised when a good friend send me an invite.
It is Getty that did the Microsoft and the Google deal. As much as they liked to deflect the blame it is entirely their own fault for angering the community and kicking out Sean.
Getty sells high quality images for 12 dollars to 425 million people with a license they are not disclosing to the artist. Never forget that.
-
In all fairness, it seems fairly obvious at this point that Sean has been involved with the development of Stocksy for a few months already and had already made the decision to leave iStock prior to being pushed out by Getty. So the outcome would have been the same either way and Sean would have eventually left on his own volition when he was ready if he hadn't been asked to leave first. So as everyone's looks down upon Getty for throwing him out and feels so bad for Sean, I think it's fair to say this is what he wanted anyway. Had Sean not been planning to leave in the first place then he might not have been pushed out by Getty and may still be there today. So isn't this the outcome Sean was planning and wanted anyway but perhaps was only forced to speed up his already intended departure plan?
Huh? It's not 'obvious' at all and I'm quite sure it couldn't be further from the truth. About 90% of Sean's work, as excellent and popular amongst buyers as it is, would not be deemed over-filtered enough to appease Stocksy's amazing 'curators'.
-
In all fairness, it seems fairly obvious at this point that Sean has been involved with the development of Stocksy for a few months already and had already made the decision to leave iStock prior to being pushed out by Getty. So the outcome would have been the same either way and Sean would have eventually left on his own volition when he was ready if he hadn't been asked to leave first. So as everyone's looks down upon Getty for throwing him out and feels so bad for Sean, I think it's fair to say this is what he wanted anyway. Had Sean not been planning to leave in the first place then he might not have been pushed out by Getty and may still be there today. So isn't this the outcome Sean was planning and wanted anyway but perhaps was only forced to speed up his already intended departure plan?
I don't think there is any evidence to support the idea that Sean wanted to leave Istock/Getty. I'm sure he wondered about dropping exclusivity, but I can't imagine he would ever think it was in his interests to take all his images off.
-
I don't think there is any evidence to support the idea that Sean wanted to leave Istock/Getty. I'm sure he wondered about dropping exclusivity, but I can't imagine he would ever think it was in his interests to take all his images off.
Yes, as I said in my blog post (and what Cobalt said), I only heard about Stocksy at the end of January, although Getty management seemed to think otherwise. Of course, I'm going to investigate any opportunities that arise, so I did, which was also taken as some sort of sign, as far as I can tell.
Unfortunately, or fortunately, they put me in the position of having to "go for it". :)
-
Sean, you've really excelled yourself with this one:
http://www.stocksy.com/asset/25124 (http://www.stocksy.com/asset/25124)
Jus' pulling your leg, it all looks great!
-
I don't think there is any evidence to support the idea that Sean wanted to leave Istock/Getty. I'm sure he wondered about dropping exclusivity, but I can't imagine he would ever think it was in his interests to take all his images off.
Yes, as I said in my blog post (and what Cobalt said), I only heard about Stocksy at the end of January, although Getty management seemed to think otherwise. Of course, I'm going to investigate any opportunities that arise, so I did, which was also taken as some sort of sign, as far as I can tell.
Unfortunately, or fortunately, they put me in the position of having to "go for it". :)
In all fairness, Sean got booted for reasons that have never been fully disclosed by either Sean or Getty. The rest of this forum is nothing but pure speculation. If I was a company and had a supplier that spewed at the mouth like Sean tends to do (for better or worse) I too would have removed him, or at the very least given him a stern warning shot across the bow. As much as Sean has been helpful and was trying to be helpful of which I am certain was his intent, he was also creating directly or indirectly a lot of dissent, albeit this may have not been his intention, but it certainly appeared to be so from a companies perspective. Whether I agree or disagree with the actions of both parties does not matter as it is none of my business and nobody should spread gossip or speculation etc. until they are clear of the facts of which neither party has fully disclosed. Especially when it does not involve you directly.
-
Um, you've been fully disclosed of what I know about anything. If you believe or not, I don't really care.
-
I cannot fathom why there is a small clique of Getty apologists who refuse to believe that what Sean has said is what happened. Even further, I can't understand why they'd waste their time on MSG to set us poor country bumpkins straight - those of us who take Sean at his word.
And as for Getty's side of things, their track record speaks for itself - it'd be easier to defend Attila the Hun and Vlad the Impaler as social workers at heart than to pitch Getty as the hardly done by agency scr*wed over by the evil SuperLocke.
Go and complain about us and Sean someplace else.
-
I cannot fathom why there is a small clique of Getty apologists who refuse to believe that what Sean has said is what happened. Even further, I can't understand why they'd waste their time on MSG to set us poor country bumpkins straight - those of us who take Sean at his word.
And as for Getty's side of things, their track record speaks for itself - it'd be easier to defend Attila the Hun and Vlad the Impaler as social workers at heart than to pitch Getty as the hardly done by agency scr*wed over by the evil SuperLocke.
Go and complain about us and Sean someplace else.
Wow, way to be inclusive. Who needs any other perspective...let all us little Lemmings get back to our smug...errr...snug little bubbles :)
-
I cannot fathom why there is a small clique of Getty apologists who refuse to believe that what Sean has said is what happened. Even further, I can't understand why they'd waste their time on MSG to set us poor country bumpkins straight - those of us who take Sean at his word.
And as for Getty's side of things, their track record speaks for itself - it'd be easier to defend Attila the Hun and Vlad the Impaler as social workers at heart than to pitch Getty as the hardly done by agency scr*wed over by the evil SuperLocke.
Go and complain about us and Sean someplace else.
Wow, way to be inclusive. Who needs any other perspective...let all us little Lemmings get back to our smug...errr...snug little bubbles :)
There's a whole lot of things I can be inclusive about - but not the flat earth society, those who support having imprisoned Galileo for saying the earth revolves around the sun - I could make a list, but I'm sure you get the point.
There's a saying someone else came up with that we are entitled to our own opinions, but not our own facts. Sean has given us the tale of what happened and when. Having people come in here and say that - in essence - Sean is lying, is a complete waste of their time and ours. Let them send rude site mail to Sean calling him out if they really feel the need to set the world straight.
-
I cannot fathom why there is a small clique of Getty apologists who refuse to believe that what Sean has said is what happened. Even further, I can't understand why they'd waste their time on MSG to set us poor country bumpkins straight - those of us who take Sean at his word.
And as for Getty's side of things, their track record speaks for itself - it'd be easier to defend Attila the Hun and Vlad the Impaler as social workers at heart than to pitch Getty as the hardly done by agency scr*wed over by the evil SuperLocke.
Go and complain about us and Sean someplace else.
Wow, way to be inclusive. Who needs any other perspective...let all us little Lemmings get back to our smug...errr...snug little bubbles :)
There's a whole lot of things I can be inclusive about - but not the flat earth society, those who support having imprisoned Galileo for saying the earth revolves around the sun - I could make a list, but I'm sure you get the point.
There's a saying someone else came up with that we are entitled to our own opinions, but not our own facts. Sean has given us the tale of what happened and when. Having people come in here and say that - in essence - Sean is lying, is a complete waste of their time and ours. Let them send rude site mail to Sean calling him out if they really feel the need to set the world straight.
The guy mad an assumption...who is going to take it as fact...I guess those flat earth folks, but we don't care about them anyway.
-
I cannot fathom why there is a small clique of Getty apologists who refuse to believe that what Sean has said is what happened. Even further, I can't understand why they'd waste their time on MSG to set us poor country bumpkins straight - those of us who take Sean at his word.
And as for Getty's side of things, their track record speaks for itself - it'd be easier to defend Attila the Hun and Vlad the Impaler as social workers at heart than to pitch Getty as the hardly done by agency scr*wed over by the evil SuperLocke.
Go and complain about us and Sean someplace else.
I couldn't agree more. If there is one person that I trust to tell the truth it is Sean. Let's face it, telling it like it is, is what got him into this trouble.
-
Let the speculation resume ;D
-
I cannot fathom why there is a small clique of Getty apologists who refuse to believe that what Sean has said is what happened. Even further, I can't understand why they'd waste their time on MSG to set us poor country bumpkins straight - those of us who take Sean at his word.
And as for Getty's side of things, their track record speaks for itself - it'd be easier to defend Attila the Hun and Vlad the Impaler as social workers at heart than to pitch Getty as the hardly done by agency scr*wed over by the evil SuperLocke.
Go and complain about us and Sean someplace else.
Wow, way to be inclusive. Who needs any other perspective...let all us little Lemmings get back to our smug...errr...snug little bubbles :)
Are you talking to getty or jsnover here??
-
Are you talking to getty or jsnover here??
To jsnover,
I felt the post came over harsh and over-reactive. I didn't see anything wrong with the post that was being referred to. They guy was not calling anyone a liar nor did he come across as a "Getty apologists". The post was actually quite diplomatic. The guy made an assumption and Sean confirmed that he disclosed everything he knew, but the guy did not call Sean a liar nor was that the point of his post. jsnover's post just seemed like a lot of misguided hate fueled towards someone with a different view.
-
Are you talking to getty or jsnover here??
To jsnover,
I felt the post came over harsh and over-reactive. I didn't see anything wrong with the post that was being referred to. They guy was not calling anyone a liar nor did he come across as a "Getty apologists". The post was actually quite diplomatic. The guy made an assumption and Sean confirmed that he disclosed everything he knew, but the guy did not call Sean a liar nor was that the point of his post. jsnover's post just seemed like a lot of misguided hate fueled towards someone with a different view.
thanks dingles, glad there is at least one of you who comprehends the english language. i would never imply sean is a liar as i don't have one reason to do so, i am also not a getty apologist, i think it's safe to say i have similar feelings towards getty as most of you do. my point being (which you understood) was that it is a business decision by getty to do what they did and in all honesty only those two parties know the inner workings of why. the rest of it is pure speculation and rallying on seans behalf with a lot of emotion attached to it. nothing against sean, seems a nice guy, good shooter, and tries to be helpful more so than most, however it appears he simply overstepped the boundaries that getty felt comfortable with. i too am quite surprised at the emotion, anger, and name calling that comes from people towards others who simply have a different view. this whole pissing contest is between sean and getty - nobody else.
sean, a door closes and a window opens, run with it man and good luck.
-
Are you talking to getty or jsnover here??
To jsnover,
I felt the post came over harsh and over-reactive. I didn't see anything wrong with the post that was being referred to. They guy was not calling anyone a liar nor did he come across as a "Getty apologists". The post was actually quite diplomatic. The guy made an assumption and Sean confirmed that he disclosed everything he knew, but the guy did not call Sean a liar nor was that the point of his post. jsnover's post just seemed like a lot of misguided hate fueled towards someone with a different view.
thanks dingles, glad there is at least one of you who comprehends the english language. i would never imply sean is a liar as i don't have one reason to do so, i am also not a getty apologist, i think it's safe to say i have similar feelings towards getty as most of you do. my point being (which you understood) was that it is a business decision by getty to do what they did and in all honesty only those two parties know the inner workings of why. the rest of it is pure speculation and rallying on seans behalf with a lot of emotion attached to it. nothing against sean, seems a nice guy, good shooter, and tries to be helpful more so than most, however it appears he simply overstepped the boundaries that getty felt comfortable with. i too am quite surprised at the emotion, anger, and name calling that comes from people towards others who simply have a different view. this whole pissing contest is between sean and getty - nobody else.
sean, a door closes and a window opens, run with it man and good luck.
I personally believe it was more than a pissing contest. The move by Getty to unseat Sean (in my humble opinion, of course) was to send a message to the masses. Keep F_K_N with us and we will squash you like the peasants you are.
-
They probably were trying to send a message but it looks like all it's done is persuade more people to leave or drop exclusivity. Never understood how crowd sourcing is expected to work when they turn the crowd in to an angry mob. There's still enough passive people for them to keep going but I'm sure they would make more money if they kept all their best contributors motivated by paying them well. By getting rid of so many, they will lose in the long term.
-
Are you talking to getty or jsnover here??
To jsnover,
I felt the post came over harsh and over-reactive. I didn't see anything wrong with the post that was being referred to. They guy was not calling anyone a liar nor did he come across as a "Getty apologists". The post was actually quite diplomatic. The guy made an assumption and Sean confirmed that he disclosed everything he knew, but the guy did not call Sean a liar nor was that the point of his post. jsnover's post just seemed like a lot of misguided hate fueled towards someone with a different view.
thanks dingles, glad there is at least one of you who comprehends the english language. i would never imply sean is a liar as i don't have one reason to do so
Why not go back and read your own post? You stated that the only known fact was that Sean and Getty were both hiding facts from us. The clear implication was that he was engaging in deliberate deceit for some reason or other. That's effectively an accusation of lying by omission.
Now it turns out that by "known fact" you mean "my uninformed speculation". I suggest you go back to your English comprehension class and try again, it might help you to get fewer negative votes.
-
They probably were trying to send a message but it looks like all it's done is persuade more people to leave or drop exclusivity. Never understood how crowd sourcing is expected to work when they turn the crowd in to an angry mob. There's still enough passive people for them to keep going but I'm sure they would make more money if they kept all their best contributors motivated by paying them well. By getting rid of so many, they will lose in the long term.
Hmm. Perfect example of the 'law of unintended consequences' in action.
-
Are you talking to getty or jsnover here??
To jsnover,
I felt the post came over harsh and over-reactive. I didn't see anything wrong with the post that was being referred to. They guy was not calling anyone a liar nor did he come across as a "Getty apologists". The post was actually quite diplomatic. The guy made an assumption and Sean confirmed that he disclosed everything he knew, but the guy did not call Sean a liar nor was that the point of his post. jsnover's post just seemed like a lot of misguided hate fueled towards someone with a different view.
thanks dingles, glad there is at least one of you who comprehends the english language. i would never imply sean is a liar as i don't have one reason to do so
Why not go back and read your own post? You stated that the only known fact was that Sean and Getty were both hiding facts from us. The clear implication was that he was engaging in deliberate deceit for some reason or other. That's effectively an accusation of lying by omission.
Now it turns out that by "known fact" you mean "my uninformed speculation". I suggest you go back to your English comprehension class and try again, it might help you to get fewer negative votes.
i never once said both parties were hiding facts man, or even on party for that matter. i said neither party has fully disclosed the details of the termination. i have never seen an original copy of the termination email/letter sent to sean from either party, and neither have you, for that matter i doubt anyone on this forum has (that is speculation), thus i clearly indicated there was nothing but speculation going on from forum members as it is all gossip etc. i doubt either party would be stupid enough to make a legal termination open for all to analyse on any forum or blog. either way, it's fairly obvious that sean was in many ways a scapegoat to scare the crap out of the rest of us, but that too is only speculation.
-
Are you talking to getty or jsnover here??
To jsnover,
I felt the post came over harsh and over-reactive. I didn't see anything wrong with the post that was being referred to. They guy was not calling anyone a liar nor did he come across as a "Getty apologists". The post was actually quite diplomatic. The guy made an assumption and Sean confirmed that he disclosed everything he knew, but the guy did not call Sean a liar nor was that the point of his post. jsnover's post just seemed like a lot of misguided hate fueled towards someone with a different view.
thanks dingles, glad there is at least one of you who comprehends the english language. i would never imply sean is a liar as i don't have one reason to do so, i am also not a getty apologist, i think it's safe to say i have similar feelings towards getty as most of you do. my point being (which you understood) was that it is a business decision by getty to do what they did and in all honesty only those two parties know the inner workings of why. the rest of it is pure speculation and rallying on seans behalf with a lot of emotion attached to it. nothing against sean, seems a nice guy, good shooter, and tries to be helpful more so than most, however it appears he simply overstepped the boundaries that getty felt comfortable with. i too am quite surprised at the emotion, anger, and name calling that comes from people towards others who simply have a different view. this whole pissing contest is between sean and getty - nobody else.
sean, a door closes and a window opens, run with it man and good luck.
I personally believe it was more than a pissing contest. The move by Getty to unseat Sean (in my humble opinion, of course) was to send a message to the masses. Keep F_K_N with us and we will squash you like the peasants you are.
I agree it served that purpose. I believe they saw Sean as the instigator (not saying this is true, just how he was possibly perceived) to the deactivation day. And knowing that he is well known and respected among contributors he became an example. A crappy old school tactic on Getty's part. I think Getty would have benefited a lot more by just owning up to the deal being crappy and not as well thought out as it could have been. In the end I think attaching to a powerhouse like Google seemed so good to Getty that they gave them too much for too little.
-
Are you talking to getty or jsnover here??
To jsnover,
I felt the post came over harsh and over-reactive. I didn't see anything wrong with the post that was being referred to. They guy was not calling anyone a liar nor did he come across as a "Getty apologists". The post was actually quite diplomatic. The guy made an assumption and Sean confirmed that he disclosed everything he knew, but the guy did not call Sean a liar nor was that the point of his post. jsnover's post just seemed like a lot of misguided hate fueled towards someone with a different view.
thanks dingles, glad there is at least one of you who comprehends the english language. i would never imply sean is a liar as i don't have one reason to do so
Why not go back and read your own post? You stated that the only known fact was that Sean and Getty were both hiding facts from us. The clear implication was that he was engaging in deliberate deceit for some reason or other. That's effectively an accusation of lying by omission.
Now it turns out that by "known fact" you mean "my uninformed speculation". I suggest you go back to your English comprehension class and try again, it might help you to get fewer negative votes.
i never once said both parties were hiding facts man, or even on party for that matter. i said neither party has fully disclosed the details of the termination. i have never seen an original copy of the termination email/letter sent to sean from either party, and neither have you, for that matter i doubt anyone on this forum has (that is speculation), thus i clearly indicated there was nothing but speculation going on from forum members as it is all gossip etc. i doubt either party would be stupid enough to make a legal termination open for all to analyse on any forum or blog. either way, it's fairly obvious that sean was in many ways a scapegoat to scare the crap out of the rest of us, but that too is only speculation.
No. What you actually said way " Sean got booted for reasons that have never been fully disclosed by either Sean or Getty", you didn't say the e-mail hadn't been published you said Sean (and Getty) had not fully disclosed the reasons. You were quite clearly indicating there were reasons that Sean was aware of and not disclosing (and there's a sub-text in there that you know some secret the rest of us don't). Now you say you've never seen this supposed concealed information. I'm not even sure that anybody except you has ever announced the existence of a termination e-mail or letter. Is it real or are you making it up?
-
Are you talking to getty or jsnover here??
To jsnover,
I felt the post came over harsh and over-reactive. I didn't see anything wrong with the post that was being referred to. They guy was not calling anyone a liar nor did he come across as a "Getty apologists". The post was actually quite diplomatic. The guy made an assumption and Sean confirmed that he disclosed everything he knew, but the guy did not call Sean a liar nor was that the point of his post. jsnover's post just seemed like a lot of misguided hate fueled towards someone with a different view.
thanks dingles, glad there is at least one of you who comprehends the english language. i would never imply sean is a liar as i don't have one reason to do so, i am also not a getty apologist, i think it's safe to say i have similar feelings towards getty as most of you do. my point being (which you understood) was that it is a business decision by getty to do what they did and in all honesty only those two parties know the inner workings of why. the rest of it is pure speculation and rallying on seans behalf with a lot of emotion attached to it. nothing against sean, seems a nice guy, good shooter, and tries to be helpful more so than most, however it appears he simply overstepped the boundaries that getty felt comfortable with. i too am quite surprised at the emotion, anger, and name calling that comes from people towards others who simply have a different view. this whole pissing contest is between sean and getty - nobody else.
sean, a door closes and a window opens, run with it man and good luck.
No problem man, thank for replying. I'm getting a lot of forum hate now...I guess i called out a protected member or something
-
Are you talking to getty or jsnover here??
To jsnover,
I felt the post came over harsh and over-reactive. I didn't see anything wrong with the post that was being referred to. They guy was not calling anyone a liar nor did he come across as a "Getty apologists". The post was actually quite diplomatic. The guy made an assumption and Sean confirmed that he disclosed everything he knew, but the guy did not call Sean a liar nor was that the point of his post. jsnover's post just seemed like a lot of misguided hate fueled towards someone with a different view.
thanks dingles, glad there is at least one of you who comprehends the english language. i would never imply sean is a liar as i don't have one reason to do so
Why not go back and read your own post? You stated that the only known fact was that Sean and Getty were both hiding facts from us. The clear implication was that he was engaging in deliberate deceit for some reason or other. That's effectively an accusation of lying by omission.
Now it turns out that by "known fact" you mean "my uninformed speculation". I suggest you go back to your English comprehension class and try again, it might help you to get fewer negative votes.
How is it deceit when neither Sean nor Getty owe us any facts. I was also under the assumption there may be more to it...in the end it doesn't matter as the point of the post had nothing to do with calling anyone a liar.
-
First time I've heard that you couldn't be deceived unless someone owed you some information .... and it's fair enough if you want to interpret it as not implying that anyone was lying, but it doesn't read to me like that (and the reference later to Sean's "Spewing mouth" deserving the heave-ho adds to the impression that it is an attack on him).
-
Not sure it's actually possible to reach any kind of fruitful end to a discussion like this. How about a nice cup of tea instead? :)
-
Nice spin
-
I think perhaps this topic has been officially exhausted. We aren't discussing or learning anything new - at least in regards to what this topic was originally about and I cringe every time it is brought to the top of the forum, wondering what attacks or conflicts have just started. Thankfully the discussion has remained relatively civil (thanks everyone) but I don't feel we are going to accomplish more by rehashing things over and over.
The horse is dead - let's stop beating it.