The reason for this is simple.  Getty couldn't allow Sean to interfere with their plans to destroy microstock.

Quote from: jsnover on February 11, 2013, 16:25

Quote from: aeonf on February 11, 2013, 16:23
OMG.

They have lost their mind.
We will be handing in our 30 day notice and giving up the crown ASAP.

You have to wonder if for some bizarre reason that was part of what iStock wanted - to get more exclusives to jump ship. So many have been on the fence for a while and uncertain about the right thing to do. This insanity on iStock's part will help make up more minds than yours, I'm guessing.

Agree.  I think that many exclusives will leave now.  There will be some that will take a wait and see approach, monitor Sean's success on the outside.  The fact that Istock feels threatened by Stocksy is an encouraging sign. 

Quote from: EmberMike on February 11, 2013, 18:00
Apparently some sort of statement is going to be released later today. No idea from who exactly. Lobo just says on the forum that something will be posted later.

Can't wait to see what that's all about.

There will be a statement after which Lobo will do the only thing he knows how to do.....lock it.  No questions, comments.

Almost wish Lobo was here to lock this thread.

Quote from: sharpshot on February 09, 2013, 13:33

Quote from: Beach Bum on February 09, 2013, 11:34

Quote from: sharpshot on February 09, 2013, 11:11

Quote from: Beach Bum on February 09, 2013, 10:45
...My guess is that the cost at launch will remain the same.  Wouldn't make sense to increase the cost on an unproven site...

The sales pitch in previous threads was that the price was going up as soon as the search went live.

Was not able to find that in previous threads.  As far as I know, the sales pitch was that anyone who signed up during beta would be locked in at $40 a month.  I haven't seen anything about the price going up at launch.  Maybe I missed something.

I think you did miss something, I remember it quite clearly.  Did a quick search, this is one quote from Justin, I'm sure there's more.
"We are offering the beta discount for those helping with and participating in our beta."
So that implies that as soon as the site is launched properly, the price will go up.  I'm sure it was stated more clearly than that somewhere but I'm not wasting my time searching for it.  Already taken this off topic for too long.

I think the "beta discount" refers to the locked in price.  Should the price go up in the future, the discount would then apply to the beta testers.  This doesn't mean that the price would automatically go up at launch.

Quote from: sharpshot on February 09, 2013, 11:11

Quote from: Beach Bum on February 09, 2013, 10:45
...My guess is that the cost at launch will remain the same.  Wouldn't make sense to increase the cost on an unproven site...

The sales pitch in previous threads was that the price was going up as soon as the search went live.

Was not able to find that in previous threads.  As far as I know, the sales pitch was that anyone who signed up during beta would be locked in at $40 a month.  I haven't seen anything about the price going up at launch.  Maybe I missed something.

Quote from: sharpshot on February 09, 2013, 10:43
I thought Stockfresh might get a lot of the old Stockxpert buyers but that hasn't happened.  Having exclusive images only might be more attractive to buyers.  I don't think it's a good idea to only have high quality from the start.  It would take a long time to get enough exclusive images to attract buyers.  Who's going to upload high quality exclusive content to a site that doesn't have many buyers?  So I think they will need all of us from the start and they will have to keep their acceptance rates similar to the big sites.  They can always start their version of Vetta when they have enough images.

As istock was open to everyone that could pass their contributor test, I don't see why Stocksy wouldn't be?  I think they will need as many contributors as possible because we don't all have vast amounts of exclusive images and I doubt the big exclusives with istock could take the risk until Stocksy is established.

How many exclusive images will they need to get buyers interested?  I would think at least 500,000.  That's not going to be easy to get quickly and sites that don't get going fast seem to drift to the bottom of the earnings poll here.

I agree, to a certain point.  I agree with the all exclusive library.  They have to distinguish themselves from the other agencies.  But, I believe they need to keep the quality high, but draw from a large pool of contributors, not just the top earners.  You're right, in that they won't get enough images from the top earners alone to attract buyers.  They need all of us, just not all of our images.

Quote from: sharpshot on February 09, 2013, 10:11

Quote from: Beach Bum on February 09, 2013, 04:22
I believe, as a lot of you do, that this is just a prelude to Shutterstock adopting the same payment structure.  Otherwise, why even bother with Bigstock?  It's a low earner site, pretty much irrelevant.  It's just a testing ground for Shutterstock.  If they do go that route, the psychological impact alone will have a huge impact on contributors.  Shutterstock has been the only reliable, fair, and top earning site we have.  If they go down that dark hole, then so does the industry as we know it.  In a strange way, all of the negativity surrounding the industry today might be a good thing for contributors.  The possibility that soon every agency may be screwing us over, combined with the positive developmental  projects by Bruce, KonaHawaii, and Justin Brinson at Picturengine may actually be the turning point that we need.  "It's always darkest before the dawn."

I have serious doubts about Picturengine.  I signed up for the free trail, as the site was supposed to be launched very soon.  I changed my mind, as I didn't like the thought of that automatic PayPal fee going through.  Almost 3 months later, has anything happened?  Looks like the free trial was a complete waste of time.  Justin should of offered it after the search was fully functional, so we could get some idea if it was worth paying for.  I'm also concerned that if Picturengine was a success, how much is it going to cost us?  The pre-launch fees seem too high when the search isn't functional, what will they be when it's finally launched?  Then there's the problem when we were being told that Picturengine wasn't going to send buyers to the cheapest site but buyers were being told something different.  I would suggest that anyone who wants to use Picturengine should read through the threads about it here first.

Well, it hasn't fully launched yet, but that doesn't mean that nothing's happening.  They continue to add new features and work out any bugs in the system.  Sure, I would like for it to have launched sooner, but I would rather they launched a good product later than a flawed one sooner.  My guess is that the cost at launch will remain the same.  Wouldn't make sense to increase the cost on an unproven site.  I'm glad I signed up, glad to have gotten the locked in price.  If it works out, great!  If not, then I'll move on.  I'll have a year after launch to make that determination.  I think it's worth the gamble, especially considering recent developments in the industry.

I believe, as a lot of you do, that this is just a prelude to Shutterstock adopting the same payment structure.  Otherwise, why even bother with Bigstock?  It's a low earner site, pretty much irrelevant.  It's just a testing ground for Shutterstock.  If they do go that route, the psychological impact alone will have a huge impact on contributors.  Shutterstock has been the only reliable, fair, and top earning site we have.  If they go down that dark hole, then so does the industry as we know it.  In a strange way, all of the negativity surrounding the industry today might be a good thing for contributors.  The possibility that soon every agency may be screwing us over, combined with the positive developmental  projects by Bruce, KonaHawaii, and Justin Brinson at Picturengine may actually be the turning point that we need.  "It's always darkest before the dawn."

Quote from: jsnover on February 08, 2013, 19:11

Quote from: cidepix on February 08, 2013, 16:47
this tells me I need to work harder to make my own site my best earner.. It is the only place I am sure I won't get screwed..

I must be having a very negative day, but my first thought was "If Google derived traffic is any part of your plan to get buyers to your own site, have you read the threads about traffic falling off a cliff as a result of the image search changes?"

WarmPicture and GL Leftovers have both mentioned how traffic has dropped drastically as a result of Google's recent changes. I don't know if you're seeing it too, but that's the element of risk for collectives/own sites.

You would think that the agencies would make a collective effort to stop Google's actions.  I guess it's easier just to make additional cuts to contributors.  Guess I'm having a negative day, too. 

I'm guessing there won't be any more threads complaining about no raise at SS for the past 5 years.

Quote from: lisafx on February 07, 2013, 22:38

Quote from: jsnover on February 07, 2013, 22:28
So what it amounts to is a pay cut for any subscription sales that migrate from SS to BS.

I absolutely agree.  And if it works for them on BS, I don't see why they wouldn't implement that or something similar on SS too.  And then there's the final nail in the coffin of micro, IMO.

Agree totally!  If that happens, I will stop producing any micro images.  Any new images will be RM and will be sold direct.  That seems to be what the agencies are daring us to do, anyway.

Quote from: Microbius on February 03, 2013, 09:24
http://www.istockphoto.com/forum_messages.php?threadid=350913&page=20
Quote from Lobo
"And that's that. Feb 3."

Could he be anymore antagonistic and dismissive?

Anyway, assuming "that's" not"that" what now? Continue to deactivate or suspend further deactivation for another week with the demand of an opt out of further give away deals?

Could be worse.  Remember Peebert?

Did 50 today.  Would've done more, but for some reason the script isn't working for me.  Will do more tomorrow.

Quote from: Anyka on February 02, 2013, 15:15

Quote from: Beach Bum on February 02, 2013, 12:20

Quote from: Clairev on February 02, 2013, 11:31

Quote from: Anyka on February 02, 2013, 11:11

Quote from: Beach Bum on February 02, 2013, 10:58
I'm having a little problem with the deactivation process.  I used the traditional method at first and everything worked fine.  I then installed Sean's Grease Monkey Script and used that.  It seemed to work, but my total file count did not change and the images are still there.  Does this method take longer to process?

That's weird.  I did a little test, but my total count goes down within seconds after deactivating a file, and I receive the deactivation e-mail within a minute.

Also for me, it worked almost instantly without any problems.

Tried again, but same problem.  Don't know what I'm doing wrong.  Guess I'll just do them one at a time.

Just checkin' :
(1) You use firefox? (2) you installed not only Greastmonkey, but also Sean Locke's script(s)?  (3) In Firefox, you go to your portfolio details, and you have a new column on the right handside of the page, a column where you can click "deactivate" + room for a reason?  (4) You paste/type a reason + click?  (5) You can see the word "deactivate" change into "executed" ?  (6) When you refresh your page with F5, your image total does NOT go down? 
If you said yes to all 6 questions, then I really don't know why it's not working for you.

Yes, Anyka.  Did all of that.  After  clicking "deactivate", it said "working", and then "executed".  Thanks for trying to help. 

Quote from: Clairev on February 02, 2013, 11:31

Quote from: Anyka on February 02, 2013, 11:11

Quote from: Beach Bum on February 02, 2013, 10:58
I'm having a little problem with the deactivation process.  I used the traditional method at first and everything worked fine.  I then installed Sean's Grease Monkey Script and used that.  It seemed to work, but my total file count did not change and the images are still there.  Does this method take longer to process?

That's weird.  I did a little test, but my total count goes down within seconds after deactivating a file, and I receive the deactivation e-mail within a minute.

Also for me, it worked almost instantly without any problems.

Tried again, but same problem.  Don't know what I'm doing wrong.  Guess I'll just do them one at a time.

I'm having a little problem with the deactivation process.  I used the traditional method at first and everything worked fine.  I then installed Sean's Grease Monkey Script and used that.  It seemed to work, but my total file count did not change and the images are still there.  Does this method take longer to process?

Quote from: ffNixx on February 01, 2013, 09:49
Our situation as iStock contributors will not improve as long as the current contract remains in place. A group of major contributors needs to gather together, hire a lawyer and demand that iStock/Getty negotiate with us on a new contract. There is plenty of scope for making the contract clearer and fairer. Opt-out provisions, transparency on custom deals, better definition of sub-licensing, etc.

As a small contributor, I would take part by sharing the cost of the effort. But the effort should be fronted by all, or nearly all, of the black diamonds, backed by the rest of us. Any black diamonds here willing to get this process started?

I believe any collective efforts by contributors should be aimed at the industry as a whole, not a specific agency.  Screwing over contributors is not exclusive to Istock.  Many agencies participate in that.  The long term solution would be direct sales, cutting out the agencies altogether.  Hopefully, that's the direction we are going.

Quote from: Microbius on January 24, 2013, 10:41

Quote from: Jonathan Ross on January 23, 2013, 20:37
.....I see so many different reasons on this post for why people are pulling their images from Istock but the one I see the most is " they aren't making me the money I used to " That unfortunately is what happens when there are more photographers then their are buyers, it is sad but true......

Hi Jonathan, I have to reply to this part of your post, because that is most certainly NOT the main concern for most independent contributors to IStock with the current Google fiasco, and I'd hate for you to come away with that idea.

Even with IStock's declining market share, they are still among the top earning micro sites for most people that contribute there, all things being equal no one is going to stop contributing to them because of the fall in income.

The issues are to do with their treatment of their contributors. Most especially in the case of the Google deal, their willingness to wipe out the value of their contributor's work, thus jeopardizing their income across all sites. The nature of the deal clearly goes outside of the reasonable expectations of anyone agreeing to their terms, and shows at least a disregard for our work and I would also say contempt for us.

These are the issues, I am not sure where you came away with the idea that this is was simply griping about an income drop, I for one am continuing to see an increase in income across all the major sites including IStock (though their percentage of my total is sliding), and am nonetheless in the position where I need to consider dropping them to preserve my livelihood.

I don't know how anyone could read through these threads and infer that declining revenue from Istock is the main reason for the removal of images.  I, also, continue to make good money from Istock, as many of you do.  The thought of deleting images and losing that income because of my own actions sickens me.  But, what sickens me more is the much bigger loss of income that actions like these from Istock will cause.  It's kind of a "pick your poison" choice.  In this case, one poison will hurt you, but the other will kill you.

I dumped them long ago.

Quote from: lisafx on January 19, 2013, 17:26

Quote from: cybernesco on January 19, 2013, 17:23
Feb 2nd projected total 13453+

We really need a million.....it is either the microstock industry dies of a slow and painful death while the RM industry gets wounded further or you cut loose....your choice.

The total might be higher.  We should combine the totals from the Deactivation Tally thread where people have already deactivated with this total. 

Also, I think there are people deactivating or planning to deactivate who aren't posting.  We should all keep an eye on the library total on Feb 2 and 3rd to see how it changes.

I'm not going to commit to deactivating at this point.  I'm waiting until the 2nd to see if anything changes before then.  I'm not holding my breath, though.

Quote from: donding on January 15, 2013, 18:59
I thankfully deleted my port there over a year ago and am so thankful I did. The morals behind this company are so questionable which was why I left. I really find it hard to believe that Getty only got $60.00 a pop for these images. This company is based on GREED. Why would they put top selling images on Goggle to be downloaded for free if they weren't making a huge profit. Some of you figured at $60.00 a pop that's about $360,000.00 based on 6000 images. Getty is a huge company and $360,000.00 isn't much money in their eyes for a long term deal like Google. Then if they paid everyone their share of $12.00, then that puts their profit at $288,000.00. I don't think they would do that for such a low amount of money. We'll probably never see the contract to know what they really were paid for these images.

I really feel for you contributors that depend on this income for a living. Your really stuck between a rock and a hard place and iStock has you by the balls. I really believe this is probably why the majority of these images are exclusives. I know there is a count going on here as far as how many images will be deleted on Feb 2nd, which is really a small amount, but there are many contributors out there that don't post on forums that are or have already deleted their images to protect what is left. The number is probably higher than you think.

I feel that deactivating images is a good idea, but I see some mentioning they are deactivating the ones that are non sellers. How does that protect your images? Getty isn't going to put an image that hasn't sold on Google, only the sellers which Google would want. They are probably still supplying images as we speak, so as some have mentioned they are deactivating their best sellers and model released images.

Even for those of us that have port elsewhere are effected by this, and even those that don't plan to leave because they think it is better for them that a bunch of you are leaving. Put simply, if you were a customer, and saw an image you liked, but then saw one on the Google Drive that might be as good but is free....wouldn't you go for the free one? It effects us all. Think about it.

You're right.  It's not much for Getty.  I wonder if this deal is recurring.  Maybe Getty provides a certain number of images every month. 

Quote from: luissantos84 on January 15, 2013, 02:01

Quote from: Beach Bum on January 15, 2013, 01:54

Quote from: Poncke on January 14, 2013, 22:47
I think the one person rubbing his hands right now is Jason from PicturEngine. What would stop all exclusives to move content to their server and keep it exclusive and take 100% of the sale. As soon as word got out that everyone moved to PE, buyers will flock and everybody happy.

This is perfect timing for Justin, as I believe he's very close to full launch.

have you tried to submit? its a mix of iStock/Alamy, actually way worst!

Actually, I have my whole portfolio there.  I don't believe the submission process is anywhere near as bad as Alamy.  My only complaint at the time was the title not being filled in by the IPTC data.  Justin stated a while back that they were working on that.  It's been a while since I've submitted, so I don't know if it's been fixed.  As a whole, I'm very happy with Picturengine.  Looking forward to their launch. 

Quote from: Snufkin on January 14, 2013, 14:25
For me the reason is simple: there might be more scams already in the pipeline.
Feb 2nd gives them too much time. They should have reacted on Friday. Well, they reacted, but that was the wrong kind of reaction.

That concerns me too.  Istock may see this Feb. 2nd date and push those other deals through to beat that date.  As of now, I'm still going to wait, but doing so very anxiously.

Quote from: Poncke on January 14, 2013, 22:47
I think the one person rubbing his hands right now is Jason from PicturEngine. What would stop all exclusives to move content to their server and keep it exclusive and take 100% of the sale. As soon as word got out that everyone moved to PE, buyers will flock and everybody happy.

This is perfect timing for Justin, as I believe he's very close to full launch.