pancakes

MicrostockGroup Sponsors


Author Topic: Your Getty/iStock images available FREE thru Slidely!  (Read 53713 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Shelma1

« Reply #50 on: July 07, 2015, 06:56 »
+6
That's the way things are, it doesn't seem like a big deal to me so I'm fine accepting it for what I see it as, a marketing campaign that probably will have little to no effect one way or the other.
Wouldn't you rather they spent their marketing budget, time and effort on campaigns that would be more likely to have a positive effect?

This. Getty keeps the vast majority of our money and then spends it making deals that won't make a dime for any of us. They've spent time and money on free embedding, time and money on a Fiverr deal that pays others twice as much as us, and time and money on this deal with random Facebook users.


ShadySue

« Reply #51 on: July 07, 2015, 07:03 »
+10
That's the way things are, it doesn't seem like a big deal to me so I'm fine accepting it for what I see it as, a marketing campaign that probably will have little to no effect one way or the other.
Wouldn't you rather they spent their marketing budget, time and effort on campaigns that would be more likely to have a positive effect?
This. Getty keeps the vast majority of our money and then spends it making deals that won't make a dime for any of us. They've spent time and money on free embedding, time and money on a Fiverr deal that pays others twice as much as us, and time and money on this deal with random Facebook users.
What's really sickening is the probability that Getty pockets a fat sum for these 'deals' and shares not a dime with us.
« Last Edit: July 07, 2015, 08:00 by ShadySue »

PaulieWalnuts

  • On the Wrong Side of the Business
« Reply #52 on: July 07, 2015, 07:07 »
+11
In my experience free stuff only attracts more people looking for free stuff

« Reply #53 on: July 07, 2015, 07:52 »
+5
As already said, I just can't see someone seeing one of these free slideshows and thinking "I must buy that image"
If anything too much "free" exposure damages the perception of the value of images.
And I agree with Mantis. Someone is getting real value out of this deal if it's only encouraging people to use the service. I want paying for that.

I agree. Where is the "red line"? How much wriggle room is there in terms of how they define "for promotional use"? I think they define that and it's to the moon, Alice.

« Reply #54 on: July 07, 2015, 09:16 »
+4
As already said, I just can't see someone seeing one of these free slideshows and thinking "I must buy that image"
If anything too much "free" exposure damages the perception of the value of images.
And I agree with Mantis. Someone is getting real value out of this deal if it's only encouraging people to use the service. I want paying for that.

I agree. Where is the "red line"? How much wriggle room is there in terms of how they define "for promotional use"? I think they define that and it's to the moon, Alice.
Yes, I think what we think of as "promotional use" and what they do are somewhat different.
As I've said before, another problem I have in general is that I have uploaded my images on the premise that they will try to sell them for me. Not just to be a part of various "promotional uses" that as far as I can see are of no benefit to me. As I said earlier, sales are ever decreasing.
Why the silence about these deals if they are a good thing?

« Reply #55 on: July 07, 2015, 10:01 »
+5
I think the best point brought up is that they take a huge slice of sales...then make money off these side deals/partnerships, and we don't know if this benefits us in the slightest. They used to be able to justify their larger commission...but these days that justification is extremely blurry

Shelma1

« Reply #56 on: July 07, 2015, 10:09 »
+5
I've decided to delete one image from iS for every image I upload to DT and FT. Personal choice. I figure in a year I can (hopefully) make up the income loss from iS. They just keep quietly giving my images away in more and more venues, and I think that will hurt all my sales in the long run.

« Reply #57 on: July 07, 2015, 10:19 »
+16
I just spent a little time re-reading some of the stuff written in late 2012/early 2013 in the iStock forums about the Google Drive deal - the forums are now all an "archive", and I assume will shortly go away as they move to the Getty contributor community. It's a shame in a way, but might as well bury the dead body - it's not coming back to life.

I was re-reading to be sure I wasn't mis-remembering events. Getty was unwilling then to give an opt out to contributors from any deals they came up with and they clearly stated they planned to continue making deals. They didn't communicate the Google Drive deal up front either (not even to iStock management, apparently).

Two and a half years later, they're continuing down the path they clearly said they were going to take. It beggars belief that between Mr. Klein, Hellman & Friedman and the Carlyle Group, they've damaged iStock (and Getty Images) as badly as they have, but at what point do contributors who keep hoping something will be different or better decide that they have to write Getty off as a business partner?

Keep selling there if that makes sense to you, but be aware of Getty/iStock's history - none of this current idiocy on their part is surprising in light of their (many) previous idiocies. If anything, Getty seems to be doubling down on a failed strategy hoping to reverse the downturn in their fortunes.

« Reply #58 on: July 07, 2015, 10:41 »
+1
I just spent a little time re-reading some of the stuff written in late 2012/early 2013 in the iStock forums about the Google Drive deal - the forums are now all an "archive", and I assume will shortly go away as they move to the Getty contributor community. It's a shame in a way, but might as well bury the dead body - it's not coming back to life.

I was re-reading to be sure I wasn't mis-remembering events. Getty was unwilling then to give an opt out to contributors from any deals they came up with and they clearly stated they planned to continue making deals. They didn't communicate the Google Drive deal up front either (not even to iStock management, apparently).

Two and a half years later, they're continuing down the path they clearly said they were going to take. It beggars belief that between Mr. Klein, Hellman & Friedman and the Carlyle Group, they've damaged iStock (and Getty Images) as badly as they have, but at what point do contributors who keep hoping something will be different or better decide that they have to write Getty off as a business partner?

Keep selling there if that makes sense to you, but be aware of Getty/iStock's history - none of this current idiocy on their part is surprising in light of their (many) previous idiocies. If anything, Getty seems to be doubling down on a failed strategy hoping to reverse the downturn in their fortunes.

Lots of sites have these deals.  Shutterstock allows POD where the product (the image) can sell for over $400 and the contributor gets 1-4 dollars, maybe less?  They say the minimum cost for the seller is $2.99 but there are products for sale at 99 cents, something fishy is going on there I would guess.   You'll probably have to stop contributing to all sites if you want to avoid those kinds of deals.

Shelma1

« Reply #59 on: July 07, 2015, 10:44 »
+6
In addition to the shady deals, Getty just keeps going downhill. I think eventually they'll be looking for bankruptcy protection, though of course I could be wrong. Even if they don't go that route, their business is slowly failing. And I've seen the change in ad agencies. For a long time it was nothing but Getty, but now with SS targeting large enterprises and art directors and designers having access to images through Adobe, I don't see how Getty will ever regain market share. Giving our images away just seems like a cynical way for them to make some quick cash off our work while we get nothing.

« Reply #60 on: July 07, 2015, 13:09 »
+1
I just spent a little time re-reading some of the stuff written in late 2012/early 2013 in the iStock forums about the Google Drive deal - the forums are now all an "archive", and I assume will shortly go away as they move to the Getty contributor community. It's a shame in a way, but might as well bury the dead body - it's not coming back to life.

I was re-reading to be sure I wasn't mis-remembering events. Getty was unwilling then to give an opt out to contributors from any deals they came up with and they clearly stated they planned to continue making deals. They didn't communicate the Google Drive deal up front either (not even to iStock management, apparently).

Two and a half years later, they're continuing down the path they clearly said they were going to take. It beggars belief that between Mr. Klein, Hellman & Friedman and the Carlyle Group, they've damaged iStock (and Getty Images) as badly as they have, but at what point do contributors who keep hoping something will be different or better decide that they have to write Getty off as a business partner?

Keep selling there if that makes sense to you, but be aware of Getty/iStock's history - none of this current idiocy on their part is surprising in light of their (many) previous idiocies. If anything, Getty seems to be doubling down on a failed strategy hoping to reverse the downturn in their fortunes.

Lots of sites have these deals.  Shutterstock allows POD where the product (the image) can sell for over $400 and the contributor gets 1-4 dollars, maybe less?  They say the minimum cost for the seller is $2.99 but there are products for sale at 99 cents, something fishy is going on there I would guess.   You'll probably have to stop contributing to all sites if you want to avoid those kinds of deals.


It is sad to see that a large number of contributors have pinned their hopes on shutterstock when SSTK is quietly going down the same path. Blinders on denial is costly.

If ever there was a time to take a stand with the scumbag deals all of the micro agencies are scheming up, the day is now.

I deleted my port at IS in support of my fellows, not sorry that I did.

« Reply #61 on: July 07, 2015, 13:11 »
+7
...Shutterstock allows POD where the product (the image) can sell for over $400 and the contributor gets 1-4 dollars, maybe less?  They say the minimum cost for the seller is $2.99 but there are products for sale at 99 cents, something fishy is going on there I would guess. ...

What are you referring to? I left Bigstock already (lack of opt out on subscriptions, but I already opted out of their scummy POD resales). Where does Shutterstock offer POD (I'm not aware of any, but perhaps I've been asleep at the wheel)?

I can live with deals I don't like as long as there is an opt out. I have made my peace with Shutterstock's complete lack of transparency on the SOD licenses - so far nothing has surfaced to suggest they're abusing that secrecy over terms. Getty on the other hand has demonstrated multiple times -when they've been caught scr*wing contributors - that they cannot be trusted to act in contributor's best interests. Even so, I'd have stayed with iStock (i'm still there, but have all but left) if they'd have offered an opt out so contributors had the choice about whether to participate

« Reply #62 on: July 07, 2015, 13:27 »
0
...Shutterstock allows POD where the product (the image) can sell for over $400 and the contributor gets 1-4 dollars, maybe less?  They say the minimum cost for the seller is $2.99 but there are products for sale at 99 cents, something fishy is going on there I would guess. ...

What are you referring to? I left Bigstock already (lack of opt out on subscriptions, but I already opted out of their scummy POD resales). Where does Shutterstock offer POD (I'm not aware of any, but perhaps I've been asleep at the wheel)?

I can live with deals I don't like as long as there is an opt out. I have made my peace with Shutterstock's complete lack of transparency on the SOD licenses - so far nothing has surfaced to suggest they're abusing that secrecy over terms. Getty on the other hand has demonstrated multiple times -when they've been caught scr*wing contributors - that they cannot be trusted to act in contributor's best interests. Even so, I'd have stayed with iStock (i'm still there, but have all but left) if they'd have offered an opt out so contributors had the choice about whether to participate
I was talking about Bigstock (owned and operated by Shutterstock).  Shutterstock.com allows print on demand with an EL.  Bigstock pays you for each sale by the POD site, SS gives you a one time EL.   No opt out on either site as far as I know.
« Last Edit: July 07, 2015, 13:31 by tickstock »

Shelma1

« Reply #63 on: July 07, 2015, 13:36 »
+5
  Shutterstock pays you, SS gives you a one time EL.

Hey, Shutterstock pays you? When someone uses an image you get paid? Pass that on to Getty.

« Reply #64 on: July 07, 2015, 13:42 »
+1
  Shutterstock pays you, SS gives you a one time EL.  (THIS IS NOT A QUOTE BY ME)

Hey, Shutterstock pays you? When someone uses an image you get paid? Pass that on to Getty.
Getty pays for each sale at Photos.com (much more than SS or BS).  And what the f is wrong with you misquoting what I wrote.  You have serious issues.  Once again you have proven yourself to be an intentionally misleading troll.
« Last Edit: July 07, 2015, 13:45 by tickstock »

Shelma1

« Reply #65 on: July 07, 2015, 13:48 »
+4
Why are you trying to derail my thread, which is about Getty giving our images away for free, with unrelated information about Shutterstock? I'm tired of your constant SS derailing, and the troll thing is getting really old. Start your own thread about your own topic and stop trying to derail mine with your obsessive SS bashing.

Semmick Photo

« Reply #66 on: July 07, 2015, 13:52 »
+3
Shelma DNFTT. Weed is hard to kill.

« Reply #67 on: July 07, 2015, 13:55 »
+1
I just spent a little time re-reading some of the stuff written in late 2012/early 2013 in the iStock forums about the Google Drive deal - the forums are now all an "archive", and I assume will shortly go away as they move to the Getty contributor community. It's a shame in a way, but might as well bury the dead body - it's not coming back to life.

I was re-reading to be sure I wasn't mis-remembering events. Getty was unwilling then to give an opt out to contributors from any deals they came up with and they clearly stated they planned to continue making deals. They didn't communicate the Google Drive deal up front either (not even to iStock management, apparently).

Two and a half years later, they're continuing down the path they clearly said they were going to take. It beggars belief that between Mr. Klein, Hellman & Friedman and the Carlyle Group, they've damaged iStock (and Getty Images) as badly as they have, but at what point do contributors who keep hoping something will be different or better decide that they have to write Getty off as a business partner?

Keep selling there if that makes sense to you, but be aware of Getty/iStock's history - none of this current idiocy on their part is surprising in light of their (many) previous idiocies. If anything, Getty seems to be doubling down on a failed strategy hoping to reverse the downturn in their fortunes.

Lots of sites have these deals.  Shutterstock allows POD where the product (the image) can sell for over $400 and the contributor gets 1-4 dollars, maybe less?  They say the minimum cost for the seller is $2.99 but there are products for sale at 99 cents, something fishy is going on there I would guess.   You'll probably have to stop contributing to all sites if you want to avoid those kinds of deals.


It is sad to see that a large number of contributors have pinned their hopes on shutterstock when SSTK is quietly going down the same path. Blinders on denial is costly.

If ever there was a time to take a stand with the scumbag deals all of the micro agencies are scheming up, the day is now.

I deleted my port at IS in support of my fellows, not sorry that I did.

That's the only way things will change.  There's a lot of talk in here about buyers being trained to think images should be free (even if they are only able to be legally used on a noncommercial site and would be a pain to steal) but only positive things to say about the Facebook deal that makes images free to actual buyers.  Yes you get paid for the use (a commercial use) but the issue that seems to be brought up here is that buyers will think they are free.  Headlines like this are seen as great news: "Facebook Partners With Shutterstock to Offer 25 Million FREE Stock Photos to Advertisers" strange times indeed.
« Last Edit: July 07, 2015, 13:57 by tickstock »

Shelma1

« Reply #68 on: July 07, 2015, 14:08 »
+2
Shelma DNFTT. Weed is hard to kill.

True. I'll have to try harder.  :)

« Reply #69 on: July 07, 2015, 14:22 »
+4
I just spent a little time re-reading some of the stuff written in late 2012/early 2013 in the iStock forums about the Google Drive deal - the forums are now all an "archive", and I assume will shortly go away as they move to the Getty contributor community. It's a shame in a way, but might as well bury the dead body - it's not coming back to life.

I was re-reading to be sure I wasn't mis-remembering events. Getty was unwilling then to give an opt out to contributors from any deals they came up with and they clearly stated they planned to continue making deals. They didn't communicate the Google Drive deal up front either (not even to iStock management, apparently).

Two and a half years later, they're continuing down the path they clearly said they were going to take. It beggars belief that between Mr. Klein, Hellman & Friedman and the Carlyle Group, they've damaged iStock (and Getty Images) as badly as they have, but at what point do contributors who keep hoping something will be different or better decide that they have to write Getty off as a business partner?

Keep selling there if that makes sense to you, but be aware of Getty/iStock's history - none of this current idiocy on their part is surprising in light of their (many) previous idiocies. If anything, Getty seems to be doubling down on a failed strategy hoping to reverse the downturn in their fortunes.

Lots of sites have these deals.  Shutterstock allows POD where the product (the image) can sell for over $400 and the contributor gets 1-4 dollars, maybe less?  They say the minimum cost for the seller is $2.99 but there are products for sale at 99 cents, something fishy is going on there I would guess.   You'll probably have to stop contributing to all sites if you want to avoid those kinds of deals.


It is sad to see that a large number of contributors have pinned their hopes on shutterstock when SSTK is quietly going down the same path. Blinders on denial is costly.

If ever there was a time to take a stand with the scumbag deals all of the micro agencies are scheming up, the day is now.

I deleted my port at IS in support of my fellows, not sorry that I did.

That's the only way things will change.  There's a lot of talk in here about buyers being trained to think images should be free (even if they are only able to be legally used on a noncommercial site and would be a pain to steal) but only positive things to say about the Facebook deal that makes images free to actual buyers.  Yes you get paid for the use (a commercial use) but the issue that seems to be brought up here is that buyers will think they are free.  Headlines like this are seen as great news: "Facebook Partners With Shutterstock to Offer 25 Million FREE Stock Photos to Advertisers" strange times indeed.


I agree.
Removing the portfolio from IS is the only way to fight the worst deal in the industry.
I did so when they told us that keeping 80% to themselves was "unsustainable" so they had to lower our rates.

« Reply #70 on: July 07, 2015, 14:50 »
+5
...Shutterstock.com allows print on demand with an EL.  Bigstock pays you for each sale by the POD site, SS gives you a one time EL.   No opt out on either site as far as I know.

Bigstock used to have an opt out for POD - but I can't check as I'm no longer a contributor.

Shutterstock does let you opt out of ELs if you want (not specifically for PODs, and not image by image, but it is an opt out).

You can't make Getty's terrible behavior any less terrible by pointing out flaws in other agencies, especially when the flaws either aren't comparable or (in the case of Bigstock) the agency is for all intents and purposes history.

It is true that all the agencies have made anti-contributor moves, but Getty is in a league of its own - having started shafting contributors before microstock was even a thing, and having extended their reach wider (they pulled similar crap on PumpAudio contributors after they purchased them).

It's a lawyerly game to suggest that all flaws are equivalent and thus the agencies are really no different from one another. Shutterstock has problems from a contributor point of view, but bringing them up every time there's a discussion of Getty's cr*p is just misleading.

« Reply #71 on: July 07, 2015, 14:58 »
0
...Shutterstock.com allows print on demand with an EL.  Bigstock pays you for each sale by the POD site, SS gives you a one time EL.   No opt out on either site as far as I know.

Bigstock used to have an opt out for POD - but I can't check as I'm no longer a contributor.

Shutterstock does let you opt out of ELs if you want (not specifically for PODs, and not image by image, but it is an opt out).

You can't make Getty's terrible behavior any less terrible by pointing out flaws in other agencies, especially when the flaws either aren't comparable or (in the case of Bigstock) the agency is for all intents and purposes history.

It is true that all the agencies have made anti-contributor moves, but Getty is in a league of its own - having started shafting contributors before microstock was even a thing, and having extended their reach wider (they pulled similar crap on PumpAudio contributors after they purchased them).

It's a lawyerly game to suggest that all flaws are equivalent and thus the agencies are really no different from one another. Shutterstock has problems from a contributor point of view, but bringing them up every time there's a discussion of Getty's cr*p is just misleading.
I'm not saying ALL flaws or historical events are equivalent.  I'm really talking about the partner deals you see going on now.  I do agree things are different allowing noncommercial use on slide.ly doesn't seem like that bad of thing and seems much less likely to make buyers think images should be free than a deal like the facebook one which tells buyers that images are free to use for commercial purposes.  You have to decide for yourself if these deals are ok for you for each site, if not then the choice is easy.  In this discussion it seems much more relevant to compare partner deals going on now than to ones that ended years ago, at least it is for me.
You could also choose to look at these things in a vacuum but I don't think that is very useful.
« Last Edit: July 07, 2015, 15:06 by tickstock »

« Reply #72 on: July 07, 2015, 15:09 »
0
Sorry, what Facebook deal is that?

« Reply #73 on: July 07, 2015, 15:14 »
0
Sorry, what Facebook deal is that?

"Shutterstock Deal Gives You Free Images for Facebook Ads"
http://smallbiztrends.com/2013/08/free-images-for-facebook-ads.html

Facebook Partners With Shutterstock to Offer 25 Million FREE Stock Photos to Advertisers
http://blog.hubspot.com/marketing/facebook-shutterstock-advertising-partnership-nj

Shutterstock Deal Provides Companies With Free Facebook Pictures
http://www.socialmediatoday.com/content/shutterstock-deal-provides-companies-free-facebook-pictures

The point was just a small one about how I think the slide.ly deal to use images on a noncommercial slideshow probably will not teach buyers that images should be free any more than this deal which is advertised all over about how commercial images are free.  There are a few people in this thread who are outraged that this will give buyers the wrong idea but I think they've been mostly silent or cheering the facebook deal.

Shelma1

« Reply #74 on: July 07, 2015, 15:29 »
+3
Sorry, what Facebook deal is that?

Shutterstock lets Facebook advertisers use "free" images in their Facebook ads. The licensing cost is built in to the advertising cost. We get paid for a sub sale every time an image is used, and FB allows several images to be used in one ad, which means we can be paid multiple times each time an ad is run. The images are thumbnail sized and cannot be downloaded or used by the advertiser...it only appears in the FB ad. That's what everyone was so excited about a few days ago, when they were getting dozens of sub payments in one day as FB reported everything.


 

Related Topics

  Subject / Started by Replies Last post
8 Replies
4608 Views
Last post June 30, 2011, 10:17
by click_click
7 Replies
2948 Views
Last post August 14, 2013, 17:34
by KB
989 Replies
91496 Views
Last post March 18, 2014, 08:32
by KimsCreativeHub
2 Replies
1592 Views
Last post March 05, 2014, 21:08
by KarenH
4 Replies
1753 Views
Last post September 18, 2014, 11:32
by ShadySue

Sponsors

Microstock Poll Results