Author Topic: sjlocke was just booted from iStock (Read 128153 times)

markrhiggins · « **Reply #300 on:** February 13, 2013, 05:11 »

Quote from: leaf 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.

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.

cidepix · « **Reply #301 on:** February 13, 2013, 05:18 »

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..

sharpshot · « **Reply #302 on:** February 13, 2013, 05:35 »

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.

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

ShadySue · « **Reply #303 on:** February 13, 2013, 05:39 »

Quote from: caspixel 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.

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.

sharpshot · « **Reply #304 on:** February 13, 2013, 05:40 »

Quote from: cidepix on February 13, 2013, 05:18

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?

fotografer · « **Reply #305 on:** February 13, 2013, 05:43 »

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.

mattdixon · « **Reply #306 on:** February 13, 2013, 06:34 »

Quote from: Stocktard on February 13, 2013, 02:34

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.

Sean Locke Photography · « **Reply #307 on:** February 13, 2013, 06:48 »

Quote from: ouchie on February 13, 2013, 00:32

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

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.

Stocktard · « **Reply #308 on:** February 13, 2013, 06:51 »

Quote from: fotografer on February 13, 2013, 05:43

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.

Stocktard · « **Reply #309 on:** February 13, 2013, 06:57 »

Quote from: mattdixon on February 13, 2013, 06:34

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.

ShadySue · « **Reply #310 on:** February 13, 2013, 07:11 »

Quote from: Stocktard on February 13, 2013, 06:57

as usual i'll be the ones having the last laugh.

That'll be you and all your alter-egos.

BaldricksTrousers · « **Reply #311 on:** February 13, 2013, 07:15 »

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.

mattdixon · « **Reply #312 on:** February 13, 2013, 07:16 »

Quote from: Stocktard on February 13, 2013, 06:57

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.

ShadySue · « **Reply #313 on:** February 13, 2013, 07:21 »

Quote from: Stocktard on February 13, 2013, 06:57

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'.

BaldricksTrousers · « **Reply #314 on:** February 13, 2013, 07:33 »

Quote from: mattdixon on February 13, 2013, 07:16

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.

ShadySue · « **Reply #315 on:** February 13, 2013, 07:34 »

Quote from: BaldricksTrousers on February 13, 2013, 07:33

Quote from: mattdixon on February 13, 2013, 07:16

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!

rubyroo · « **Reply #316 on:** February 13, 2013, 07:46 »

Hahaaaaaaa! That's brilliant BT. Just brilliant.

gostwyck · « **Reply #317 on:** February 13, 2013, 07:46 »

Quote from: Stocktard on February 13, 2013, 06:57

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?

Batman · « **Reply #318 on:** February 13, 2013, 08:12 »

Quote from: ouchie on February 13, 2013, 00:55

Quote from: Mars on February 13, 2013, 00:45
Quote from: ouchie on February 13, 2013, 00:32

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.

madelaide · « **Reply #319 on:** February 13, 2013, 09:56 »

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.

ouchie · « **Reply #320 on:** February 13, 2013, 10:32 »

Quote from: Batman on February 13, 2013, 08:12

Quote from: ouchie on February 13, 2013, 00:55
Quote from: Mars on February 13, 2013, 00:45
Quote from: ouchie on February 13, 2013, 00:32

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

Stocktard · « **Reply #321 on:** February 13, 2013, 10:39 »

Quote from: madelaide on February 13, 2013, 09:56

Gladly, though, he will find many doors open to him.

Alternatively he will make a pilgrimage to getty HQ crying and begging for mercy.

fotografer · « **Reply #322 on:** February 13, 2013, 10:43 »

Quote from: Stocktard on February 13, 2013, 10:39

Quote from: madelaide on February 13, 2013, 09:56
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.

caspixel · « **Reply #323 on:** February 13, 2013, 10:46 »

Quote from: ShadySue on February 13, 2013, 05:39

Quote from: caspixel 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.

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.

luissantos84 · « **Reply #324 on:** February 13, 2013, 10:48 »

Quote from: Stocktard on February 13, 2013, 10:39

Quote from: madelaide on February 13, 2013, 09:56
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

MicrostockGroup Sponsors

Author Topic: sjlocke was just booted from iStock (Read 128153 times)

markrhiggins

cidepix

sharpshot

ShadySue

sharpshot

fotografer

mattdixon

Sean Locke Photography

Stocktard

Stocktard

ShadySue

BaldricksTrousers

mattdixon

ShadySue

BaldricksTrousers

ShadySue

rubyroo

gostwyck

Batman

madelaide

ouchie

Stocktard

fotografer

caspixel

luissantos84

Related Topics

Sponsors

Microstock Poll Results

Sponsors