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.

It makes me mad to hear somebody defending the actions of this A-hole company!!

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...

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.

He was looking into legal action.

I forgot that. It must have been another big feather in his cap with Getty.

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

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.

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

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)

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

Thanks Leaf for providing that link.

EDIT: NOW THAT PISSES ME OFF!!!!

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/

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.