Author Topic: sjlocke was just booted from iStock (Read 128451 times)

leaf · « **Reply #375 on:** February 13, 2013, 14:33 »

Ok, enough of that. Two members were banned, you can guess who.

stocker2011 · « **Reply #376 on:** February 13, 2013, 14:34 »

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.

Kenny · « **Reply #377 on:** February 13, 2013, 14:50 »

Quote from: stocker2011 on February 13, 2013, 14:32

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. He noticed one of those shots with his name on it

BaldricksTrousers · « **Reply #378 on:** February 13, 2013, 15:32 »

Quote from: Kenny on February 13, 2013, 14:50

Quote from: stocker2011 on February 13, 2013, 14:32
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. He noticed one of those shots with his name on it

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.

Pixart · « **Reply #379 on:** February 13, 2013, 17:26 »

Sean, you're so cute... love the photo on Facebook. Glad you are still taking photos!

Quote

New stock images series. To be found somewhere other than iStockphoto/Getty . Soon.

shiyali · « **Reply #380 on:** February 13, 2013, 17:42 »

Quote from: Kenny on February 13, 2013, 14:50

Quote from: stocker2011 on February 13, 2013, 14:32
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. He noticed one of those shots with his name on it

Mars · « **Reply #381 on:** February 13, 2013, 17:48 »

markrhiggins · « **Reply #382 on:** February 13, 2013, 17:58 »

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?

lewis larkin · « **Reply #383 on:** February 13, 2013, 18:53 »

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

gclk · « **Reply #384 on:** February 13, 2013, 19:14 »

Quote from: markrhiggins on February 13, 2013, 17:58

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?

cobalt · « **Reply #385 on:** February 13, 2013, 19:36 »

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 hasn´t 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 don´t get it at all. Maybe it´s main function is really to divert attention away from google.

Which makes you wonder what drama is coming up next?

elvinstar · « **Reply #386 on:** February 13, 2013, 19:46 »

Quote from: cobalt on February 13, 2013, 19:36

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.

gbalex · « **Reply #387 on:** February 13, 2013, 19:47 »

Quote from: lewis larkin on February 13, 2013, 18:53

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.

Mars · « **Reply #388 on:** February 13, 2013, 19:51 »

dingles · « **Reply #389 on:** February 13, 2013, 20:03 »

Quote from: Mars on February 13, 2013, 19:51

Quote from: lewis larkin on February 13, 2013, 18:53
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:

Quote
It has recently come to our attention that the registrant (the "Registrant") for website www.kga.me/gds/ <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: http://kga.me/gds/details/getty-images. Accordingly, we would appreciate if you could cooperate with us on the resolution of this matter.

http://kga.me/email-from-softlayer-jan-24-2013.html

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".

Mars · « **Reply #390 on:** February 13, 2013, 20:18 »

jatrax · « **Reply #391 on:** February 13, 2013, 20:20 »

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.

dingles · « **Reply #392 on:** February 13, 2013, 20:45 »

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.

dingles · « **Reply #393 on:** February 13, 2013, 21:08 »

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?

BImages · « **Reply #394 on:** February 13, 2013, 21:38 »

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.

asiseeit · « **Reply #395 on:** February 13, 2013, 22:46 »

Quote from: leaf on February 13, 2013, 14:33

Ok, enough of that. Two members were banned, you can guess who.

Lobo said he needs his hammer back

jatrax · « **Reply #396 on:** February 13, 2013, 23:51 »

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.

blackwaterimages · « **Reply #397 on:** February 13, 2013, 23:56 »

Quote from: jatrax on February 13, 2013, 23:51

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.

THP Creative · « **Reply #398 on:** February 14, 2013, 00:20 »

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

hoi ha · « **Reply #399 on:** February 14, 2013, 00:35 »

Quote from: jatrax on February 13, 2013, 23:51

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.

MicrostockGroup Sponsors

Author Topic: sjlocke was just booted from iStock (Read 128451 times)

leaf

stocker2011

Kenny

BaldricksTrousers

Pixart

shiyali

Mars

markrhiggins

lewis larkin

gclk

cobalt

elvinstar

gbalex

Mars

dingles

Mars

jatrax

dingles

dingles

BImages

asiseeit

jatrax

blackwaterimages

THP Creative

hoi ha

Related Topics

Sponsors

Microstock Poll Results

Sponsors