Well I did not look at the date when answering that thread. Resurrecting the thread? No. Not looking at the date. I guess that is a crime here???

Over $4000 on Shutterstock. I haven't checked the other sites. It was rejected the first try at submitting it. It has been in since 2012

I had a 500d canon and never use it. Better to get a macro lens. The tamron 90mm is good value

Yay micro was worse but Veer is very slow. 

One of mine is stolen and I have just reported it. Thanks guys for being vigillent

I did not see an opt out clause. So I just deleted the identified files from their database. I have these files on other sites why do I want a trial of giving them away for free on DT??? Let them do it with exclusive files? Future royalties? I see the future as free version of your images floating around when you still try to sell them at other sites. Confidential?? Really?? Words put together by lawyers do not win me over.

As said I deleted the images of mine they targeted. If they want to market their site then fine, do it. But not by giving away my images for free (especially when they are on other sites at the same time)

After deleting the images they identified I sent them an email "Thank you for telling me which of my images you intended to give away for free. It was tedious but I have now deleted them from the database. Other images you intend to give away for free could you please delete them from your database for me?"

What a great idea. No one can steal your images if you give them away for free. Brilliant! What substance abuse was occurring at that executive meeting?

great idea

IPS panel have so much better color accuracy. Second monitor and have dual monitor setup?

If google bought an agency could it just set it own price and use all photos? Pay out one royalty and "own" heaps of images? If it did would it be better to use exclusive images other agencies don't have. Google could kill the market quicker than all the agency managers combined. No that won't happen, they have not bought an agency!?? The big thing is we should be able to opt out but it may be a one off sale of images looks good to IS and buying an agency (or all its images) may look good to google. Even though they do not own the images the way it is going they treat it as such. Not many in IS forums speaking loudly any more. Guess getting rid of Sean worked. We have to trust agencies but that trust is often misplaced. Stolen images, refunds, selling at a price with conditions we never agreed to. What next?

Good luck Sean you deserve better and I do hope you images are not buried when uploaded to other agencies. It will I am sure be for the best for you but it is harsh at the moment.

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?

Quote from: leaf on February 13, 2013, 08:38
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.

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.

In Australia you have to have an ABN (Australian Business Number) and charge 10% GST on sales (in Australia) if over $50,000 income. Less than that you do not have to charge GST but you still have to pay tax. The hobby thing is anything you have not made money on. As a book author I know you can not claim expenses on writing a book until you prove you will make revenue . Lots of stock photographers could claim a loss but as a hobby tough luck. Images of world travels would be extremely problematic to tax (consider the expenses inherent in taking them if it not a hobby).

I am also in Australia. SS tax is 5% on sales from the US. All other sales o%.

Personally I feel empathy and sympathy for what is happening to contributors on IS. I stopped (for quite a while ago ) uploading there but I think it would be better if all exclusives stayed there. Do not go to SS.  I think the exclusive contract should take at least two years to terminate. Maybe I can suggest it on IS forums (I haven't been banned) lol.

it used to be that raw conversion took effort. It is now easy and often quicker. Raw captures all your sensor can give and is the perfect negative to keep. Computing power and storage is cheap and easy. RAW gives max quality potential. So why not?

http://farrellbrian.com/2013/01/16/why-you-shouldnt-use-google-drive-stock-images/#comment-273

Stock images are bought by a single user through the stock agency. Each new user new royalty paid. Google is not a single user. It is distributor and allows the use of these images on all its software. Many users do not understand this is the limit of what it can be used for and that they can be sued if they use the image in other ways.

The deal with google is of questionable legality. It is like the agent of a composer agreeing to download of all music to users of say itunes for both commercial and private purposes (without the composers consent).. Owners of the copyright have not agreed for the images to be used in this manner. The agreed and contracted model has each new user paying royalty. It also has the image watermarked until purchased. Using the image in ways that are show the models in a negative manner could also see the user sued. The model releases terms have not been shown to google users. They could be sued by the models and photographers for inappropriate usage.

as an example of relevance of images and quality I searched "koala". 3 of the first six were Kuala Lumpa and nothing to do with koalas. Often they also push images for their needs not the customers. Keep the exclusives happy, keep Getty happy, higher prices first, agency first, try to compete with SS by dumping on TS and PP.  In the end all the company has is a dwindling customer base whereas it once had extremely loyal customers and contributors. Yes it has exclusive content but at a price premium and is it better? Can t match the diversity elsewhere.

"crowd sourcing"?? That is how the company gets images. How else?? All exclusives??? Where do that get the exclusives from?? Lack of image diversity and quality will surely be a major problem for them. Other agencies have increased standards. Istock seems to be falling big time.

"we do not need it at this time" - (it competes with the images i have in there), (and may be better than them) lol

Quote from: Phil on January 05, 2013, 13:44

Quote from: qwerty on January 05, 2013, 08:17

Quote from: lisafx on December 30, 2012, 16:52
Am I understanding correctly?  Are you guys saying that pizza workers make $18.23/hour in Denmark and $17/hour in Australia?? 

Here they make minimum wage, which is $7.25/hour.  Something is wrong with the US if we are paying this much behind the rest of the developed world. 

Maybe I misunderstood?

Minium adult wage in Australia is AUD$15.96 per hour
There are lower wages for juniors which are the majority of workers in Pizza shop chains and Mcdonalds etc.

    Under 16 years of age  $5.87
    At 16 years of age   $7.55
    At 17 years of age   $9.22
    At 18 years of age   $10.90
    At 19 years of age   $13.17
    At 20 years of age   $15.59.

Doesn't taken an einstein to work out why mcdonalds employees as many juniors as they can.

Taxes are higher in Australia although if your earn less than $18200 no income tax.

my local pizza place employs only 18+ and they are employed as casuals so no holidays etc but get 20% extra on top of minimum wage. But as you say McDonalds likes their juniors and as well as high taxes, Australia isnt a tipping culture so you dont earn any tips, but everyone has medical etc. Like leaf says, just hourly rates alone aren't a good indicator.

In Australia a loaf of bread costs $1 for the supermarket brand $3.50 normal. No tax under $18,200 and it is welfare state here. Sales tax is 10%but not applied on basic food or medical. The employees get a compulsory 9% additional to their wage put into a superannuation account by the employer (separate to the employer's company). This reduces need for pensions at 65 years old paid for by government in future years.. My superannuation account had 21% put in by my employer and more separate to that by me. Companies "think" (not really because they are not people) very short term because companies are run by managers with very short term goals. This is the problem. Government needs to think long term as do individuals looking to their future.

The minimum wage in the US is embarrassing and the companies attitude to employees bewildering. Those of us from Australia also find the tipping ridiculous. It is like like a sympathy payment because the companies do not pay them a living wage. A "tip us or we starve"payment. Pay them a decent wage and add it to the price and cut the confusion. At a restaurant if the bill is $49.60 and you hand over $50 the waiter will happily dive into the till for change. Top class restaurants are more prone to tipping because it is more about image (of the tipper and the establishment).

"If this company is so bad than how does it hold 2nd place?"

IS got to second place by being firmly in first place and then applying all its management skills.

Surely this should be "SHOW and tell" not just "TELL".