Author Topic: sjlocke was just booted from iStock (Read 128245 times)

ouchie · « **Reply #276 on:** February 13, 2013, 01:14 »

Quote from: ouchie on February 13, 2013, 01:09

Quote from: MichaelJayFoto on February 13, 2013, 01:04
Quote from: ouchie on February 12, 2013, 23:42
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?

ouchie · « **Reply #277 on:** February 13, 2013, 01:17 »

Quote from: Mars on February 13, 2013, 01:04

Quote from: ouchie on February 13, 2013, 00:48
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%

Amanda_K · « **Reply #278 on:** February 13, 2013, 01:20 »

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.

MichaelJayFoto · « **Reply #279 on:** February 13, 2013, 01:23 »

Quote from: ouchie on February 13, 2013, 01:09

Quote from: MichaelJayFoto on February 13, 2013, 01:04
Quote from: ouchie on February 12, 2013, 23:42
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.

ouchie · « **Reply #280 on:** February 13, 2013, 01:28 »

Quote from: jsnover on February 13, 2013, 01:06

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.

tickstock · « **Reply #281 on:** February 13, 2013, 01:29 »

Quote from: MichaelJayFoto on February 13, 2013, 01:23

Quote from: ouchie on February 13, 2013, 01:09
Quote from: MichaelJayFoto on February 13, 2013, 01:04
Quote from: ouchie on February 12, 2013, 23:42
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.

BaldricksTrousers · « **Reply #282 on:** February 13, 2013, 01:31 »

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".

ouchie · « **Reply #283 on:** February 13, 2013, 01:32 »

Quote from: 9lives on February 13, 2013, 01:20

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?!

ouchie · « **Reply #284 on:** February 13, 2013, 01:39 »

Quote from: tickstock on February 13, 2013, 01:29

Quote from: MichaelJayFoto on February 13, 2013, 01:23
Quote from: ouchie on February 13, 2013, 01:09
Quote from: MichaelJayFoto on February 13, 2013, 01:04
Quote from: ouchie on February 12, 2013, 23:42
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.

markrhiggins · « **Reply #285 on:** February 13, 2013, 01:40 »

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.

tickstock · « **Reply #286 on:** February 13, 2013, 01:45 »

Quote from: ouchie on February 13, 2013, 01:39

Quote from: tickstock on February 13, 2013, 01:29
Quote from: MichaelJayFoto on February 13, 2013, 01:23
Quote from: ouchie on February 13, 2013, 01:09
Quote from: MichaelJayFoto on February 13, 2013, 01:04
Quote from: ouchie on February 12, 2013, 23:42
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 · « **Reply #287 on:** February 13, 2013, 01:50 »

Quote from: BaldricksTrousers on February 13, 2013, 01:31

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.

Blammo · « **Reply #288 on:** February 13, 2013, 01:56 »

Yes again your opinion, we get it, now take a break.

Jo Ann Snover · « **Reply #289 on:** February 13, 2013, 01:57 »

Quote from: BaldricksTrousers on February 13, 2013, 01:31

...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.

ouchie · « **Reply #290 on:** February 13, 2013, 01:58 »

ok will do its 2a.m.

but just so we are clear.....its just my O P I N I O N .

ouchie · « **Reply #291 on:** February 13, 2013, 02:05 »

Quote from: jsnover on February 13, 2013, 01:57

Quote from: BaldricksTrousers on February 13, 2013, 01:31
...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.

crazychristina · « **Reply #292 on:** February 13, 2013, 02:15 »

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.

caspixel · « **Reply #293 on:** February 13, 2013, 02:22 »

Quote from: BaldricksTrousers on February 13, 2013, 01:31

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.

Stocktard · « **Reply #294 on:** February 13, 2013, 02:34 »

Quote from: markrhiggins on February 13, 2013, 01:40

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.

Microbius · « **Reply #295 on:** February 13, 2013, 02:51 »

Quote from: crazychristina on February 13, 2013, 02:15

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.

BaldricksTrousers · « **Reply #296 on:** February 13, 2013, 02:54 »

Quote from: jsnover on February 13, 2013, 01:57

Quote from: BaldricksTrousers on February 13, 2013, 01:31
...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.

cobalt · « **Reply #297 on:** February 13, 2013, 03:15 »

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 didn´t 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 wasn´t "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 doesn´t 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 Sean´s 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 Sean´s 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.

leaf · « **Reply #298 on:** February 13, 2013, 03:38 »

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.

Microbius · « **Reply #299 on:** February 13, 2013, 04:12 »

Quote from: jbarber873 on February 12, 2013, 14:30

.....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?

MicrostockGroup Sponsors

Author Topic: sjlocke was just booted from iStock (Read 128245 times)

Mars

ouchie

ouchie

Amanda_K

MichaelJayFoto

ouchie

tickstock

BaldricksTrousers

ouchie

ouchie

markrhiggins

tickstock

ouchie

Blammo

Jo Ann Snover

ouchie

ouchie

crazychristina

caspixel

Stocktard

Microbius

BaldricksTrousers

cobalt

leaf

Microbius

Related Topics

Sponsors

Microstock Poll Results

Sponsors