http://www.retireat21.com/interview/interview-with-bruce-livingstone-founder-of-istockphoto

12) What do you like least about the Internet?

Liars, crooks, thieves, dishonest people, squatters, spammers, phishers, anonymity, unintelligible arguing and copycats.

Liars, crooks, thieves, dishonest people?



Edit: Adjusted title

I am not twisting words, I am just asking a question. I literally quoted the text, and linked to the interview, not making any assumptions. Just asking a question. Could that be some of the reasons he left. I was thinking about this interview when I read that last question. http://www.tukusheying.com/info/es_t_20130506102659.html

Q: I read in forum that people missed you.  Why you leave iStock?

B: I was asked by Jonathan Klein to take a back seat, step down as CEO and become a chairman with no real control. I didn't want to sit idly by while Getty cut photographer's pay while raising the prices. As a result, I had to leave.

Those things sit close together.

Actually you made a statement "The reasons he left" and then put a questionmark after it, the absence of the interrogative "are these" made it a rhetorical question.

I assume your translation from Korean(?) is right, but those are different subjects being discussed in different interviews. The one in which he answers the question about the reasons he left says it was because he didn't want to sit back and see prices rise and commissions fall. That's a reference to ruthless exploitation, not to lies and dishonesty.

You simply cannot argue that by this he means the management are "liars, croocks, thieves and dishonest people" on the grounds that he once used those words elsewhere about something else.

You wouldn't have lasted long as one of my reporters!

That second link you gave comes up in Korean (I think), I don't know why.

I don't do Dutch, either. I didn't know (or had forgotten) that English wasn't your native tongue, you write as if it is. There are reporters on the BBC website who don't write as well as you.

But in English or Dutch, you still can't link those two separate interviews on different topics and suggest that the answer on one belongs on the question from the other.

That second link you gave comes up in Korean (I think), I don't know why.

I don't do Dutch, either. I didn't know (or had forgotten) that English wasn't your native tongue, you write as if it is. There are reporters on the BBC website who don't write as well as you.

But in English or Dutch, you still can't link those two separate interviews on different topics and suggest that the answer on one belongs on the question from the other.

The English translation is below the Korean version.

Thank you for the comment on my English.

I think we have to agree to disagree on why I posted the question. For me its not that far fetched to see why he left Istock based on his own morals.

bruce this bruce that oh please... yawn.

photographers should get at least 50%, such hypocrisy! i don't ever recall the day that bruce almighty suggested that when he had the chance to do so nor did he take any steps to do so. pure rubbish.

on another note, bruce left cause he started a company, developed it, sold out for $50 million, and moved on - end of story. apart from that who cares?

if you thought he was your buddy, or you were such an important part of a community, that is your loss. like any other business man, he worked it, molded it to his benefit, and sold it for a profit. why are you guys trying to still figure out why he left?

young guy, $50 million, i'd be gone too.

I'm pretty sure when Bruce was in charge, the best you could dream of was 40%.

I'm pretty sure when Bruce was in charge, the best you could dream of was 40%.

shady, i seem to recall that if you hit black diamond canister, mr. morals would offer you 45%, where the elite few made it to. i tapped into the diamond level and made 40% royalty after years of canister royalty increases in the overall royalty scheme, then had the demons at getty reduce that to 35% based on the pathetic RC system where i remain today.

i just don't get where he gets off pontificating on this holier than though moral ground BS and denouncing what royalties should be paid when he had the chance to do so and did not. that to me smells of BS and is nothing more than hypocrisy.

sorry, but i won't fall for the BS on offer.

i also don't fall for the BS on offer from contributors who left IS involuntarily who need to slam IS for whatever reason they deem justified.

Bruce made some things to increase the contributors income at istockphoto. For instance, 100% royalties day, or adding 10% to EL sales  (so, if you were at 40% you got 50%). All this is gone now from IS.

Bruce was also the first to reduce royalties according to the discount given to the customer. Before that royalties were at a fixed rate per credit used and any discount came out of the agency's massive cut. That had a far greater negative effect on contributors' income than 'Punctum Day' or other little crumbs he chose to sweep from his table. Of course DT and FT later followed his lead so his actions had a huge negative effect on independent contributors' incomes. Thanks Brucie.