Is it the actual law that will forbid internet providers to supply internet as they did up to now or they are changing the law/regulation to let them charge extra if they please?

They have voted to change a rule (not a law) that categorized ISPs as common carriers, which are not permitted to charge differing rates based on what content or which provider you're accessing - they can charge for more speed, but not charge more for accessing Netflix (for example) than the ISPs own streaming video service. The new category of information service is very lightly regulated and will free up the larcenous scum that run the local monopolies to charge consumers more.

Like many areas in the US, there is a monopoly for my local broadband provider - it's Comcast or nothing (there's a very slow copper wire service but nothing fast). If they behave badly I can move or stop using broadband internet. Verizon's no better and is likewise a monopoly in many areas.

Comcast is a horrible company with wretched customer service but we're stuck. I don't believe for one second the rubbish about how they have no interest in making customers unhappy now the rules are gone - their whole business model is based around maximizing revenue from angry and dissatisfied customers

I'm not a fan of custom agreements that contributors aren't allowed to know the terms of, but it's not just iStock and Getty doing that - Shutterstock and Adobe Stock also do (probably others, but I don't know a full list).

For example, when we get a "Single and Other Download" license from SS with a $120/$90/$75/etc royalty we have no knowledge of what was included in that license. There was a "discussion" about that and the team licensing when these first came about and SS will only talk generally about the sorts of things that might be included. I think we can be sure that no transfer of copyright occurs because that's specifically noted in the Artist Supply Agreement (that it stays with us).

http://www.microstockgroup.com/shutterstock-com/single-image-no-longer-in-trial-mode/msg257232/#msg257232

http://www.microstockgroup.com/shutterstock-com/changes-to-the-tos-at-shutterstock/msg346281/#msg346281

Obviously no one has to contribute to any agency they don't want to support, but I'm not sure what the point would be in leaving only one of the agencies that has secret licensing deals while staying at others. If I were to find something egregious that an agency had actually done - for instance, if resale rights were granted with one of these secret licenses, I would probably leave an agency unless they offered an opt out for all such deals. Absent any evidence of scammy actual behavior (versus the worry about it because the license terms are secret), I've decided I can live with this, even though I don't like it. YMMV

There have been posts about FreePik (and associated companies) before - bad news for contributors any way you look at them

http://www.microstockgroup.com/general-stock-discussion/freepik-freeart-flaticon-photaki-all-related/

They were at one point hiring people to copy popular vectors and then offering these at rock bottom prices. 

A thread from Microsoft's support forum for Office (posts from October & Nov 2017) has users unhappy about the removal of Clipart from office. Moderator replies include mention of using PickIt, but also suggest Bing image searches as a way to get image content. It's really sad that there's so little attention paid to copyright holder's rights - grabbing images from a search seems to be given an OK by the moderator.

A user has all the right questions:

" Can you tell me if I can use the images that come up with Free version of Pick IT without any legal obligations? I only see the option to insert the image. Does this mean that nothing additional is necessary? I mean that I do not need to attribute anyone or display copyright? Is it a free image no strings attached like Clip Art used to be? I want to be sure that I am in compliance but I do not see where this information displays. "

https://support.office.com/en-us/article/Add-online-pictures-or-clip-art-to-your-file-0a01ae25-973c-4c2c-8eaf-8c8e1f9ab530

The thread does reference the PickIt terms of service, but even that is light on discussions of what you can and can't do with the images you obtain from them.

https://www.pickit.com/tos

Further down, in response to another user who was mad that clipart was removed, the moderator says (emphasis mine):

"Online Pictures: Get line drawings and photos from the web. Bing Image Search finds pictures for you and makes it easy to insert them in your Office document. To get started: On the "Insert" tab of the toolbar ribbon in Office, click "Online Pictures".

There's one more: An app named "Pickit" from another company that you can install on your computer and then open inside your Office apps. It offers clip art and photos that are licensed to be used freely."

I did a bing search that returned one of my stock images on the first line - on a site that had used the image in a blog (I assume appropriately and it's just unfortunate that what they used was 4000 pixels on the long edge). Other than a small note saying "This image may be subject to copyright" there was no indication in the search as to whether it was OK to use or not.

So bottom line is that the instructions from the moderator will lead users into a murky area where they use an image search and then are left to try and decide if it's OK to use. The fact that the moderator directed them to do the search to find content might make them think it's OK when it absolutely isn't.

W. T. F is Microsoft doing directing Office users to find images by doing a Bing image search? That's madness!

From the article in StartupBeat:

"Picket�s solution is of particular interest to Microsoft, as they have 1.2 billion people using Microsoft Office to create Word documents, PowerPoint presentations, and Excel spreadsheets. They partnered with Picket to give their users a simple and legal source for the images they need for their projects, while matching the resolution and quality of traditional stock images."

None of the free sites can make that claim - the images are fine, but clearly different. The other big issue is managing property and model releases which is unlikely to be done well unless PickIt turns into a full service agency or does a deal with an agency to get their content.

More utter bollocks in the same article:

"Pickit offers 60% of profits back to the photo providers, meaning that photographers not only enjoy recognition for their art but also have a working revenue stream that would otherwise have been lost to piracy."

What's lovingly referred to as Hollywood accounting ensures that there are never any profits to share, which is why anyone with clouts wants a percentage of the gross, not the net.

And enjoying recognition? Do we really need to eat recognition for dinner again?

And where do they expect to get contributors - grabbing Facebook and Instagram photos?

There's a video about the plugin here:

https://appsource.microsoft.com/en-us/product/office/WA104178141?tab=Overview

It talks up the images as being from "...the world's leading image makers..." - who exactly? They also say that these aren't the same boring old stock images but they certainly look a lot like stock to me (from the few in the video)

I have access to a Windows machine (not mine) so I'm going to try and check this out over the weekend.

Quote from: jonbull on December 08, 2017, 08:29

is it true? always suspected something.
personally while i like talk here i don't believe anybody till i see their folio.

Anyone can post any links to any portfolio. That is no guarantee....

I use my own name on my account here and most of my sites (it's jsnover rather than joannsnover at some of the older ones). You can Google my name and see pretty much anything about me. It's a risky way to operate - sites can and have closed my account because they didn't like my organizing activities - but people know who I am.

The reasons so many people are anonymous are (a) threat of agency retaliation, (b) concern about copycats, or (c) concern about conflicts with day job/macro stock agency portfolios or other "brand" issues.

You can't really post any link to any portfolio, at least not one that's been around a while and where someone is already here on MSG - you'll be spotted as a duplicate pretty quickly. Posting a link to a small/new portfolio won't get anyone fake credibility and the moment a scam artist picked a more established portfolio to impersonate, the odds of getting found out go way up.

Meeting someone in person is no guarantee that they are who they say they are any more than "meeting" them online - you do have to have your wits about you always. Certainly watching someone who's new with caution is always a wise move until they have a track record to assess them with

I saw what happened when iStock screwed up a few years ago, and lost their contributors' confidence.  Their portfolio hemorrhaged millions of images overnight.  More millions vanished in the next 48 hours.  This wasn't just people opting out of sales, either, they were deleting.

If I recall correctly, they made a deal with Microsoft that had some similarities to Shutterstock's deal with Facebook.

There was a deal with Microsoft, but the big stink was over the deal with Google where there was no opt out and a one time minimal payment for eternal giveaways. I removed all but 100 images from iStock over that - arguably making no difference to anyone but me as Getty has lumbered on its march to mess up its business undeterred - so I know all about deleting thousands of images. That's why I'm not doing it again, at least not without a very big issue at stake

http://www.microstockgroup.com/istockphoto-com/google-giving-photos-away-free-for-commercial-use-and-istock-agrees/
http://www.microstockgroup.com/istockphoto-com/gettygoogle-news-blog-and-forum-links-here/

...Our photos are not on that site, they are downloaded on request straight from Shutterstock. That's why you have to put in the link to get the picture. That means everything on SS is available free from these crooks.

I don't know where they are, but they get a 1,000 pixel on the long edge image, which isn't the "high res" image they promise, but still is outrageous to make available.

ShutterGet downloader worked for me too (tested with a couple of my own images) - they are named foundstock_(SS image number).jpg same as those from earlier today - so the same tool/engine/hack is behind both sites

I sent a report (using four of my own images as examples) to Shutterstock's complliance enforcement via the web site report form.

Hmmm....but now it is not so easy to actually see the split for each photo sale.......

They have, by far, the worst user interface for presenting data to contributor, but if you click the Account Balance button (from the dashboard) you can see detail on each sale - gross amount and Alamy's commission. Assuming you're on a 50% royalty rate, their commission and your payment are the same dollar amount.

Alamy's license terms aren't the same as most of the micrstock sites, even for Alamy RF sales, plus you get paid waaay in the future, so to my way of thinking those generous payment terms and license options justify different pricing. So yes, I do upload pictures to both. I wouldn't include any apples isolated on white (if I had any).

Alamy has small sales as well as big ones - in November, which was very quiet there for me, I had two sales. One for (gross) $25.57 and one for $292. It'll never come close to AS/FT or SS (for me) but it's certainly worthwhile.

I think the jaded majority on here is due to years of seeing profit margins getting squeezed until there's no hope left.

I can't speak for the majority, but I doubt that's really the issue.

A reasonable-sized group here have participated in one of the prior attempts at co-op or networked individual sites (WarmPicture and Symbiostock-original version). Lots more have seen the parade of new agencies that have failed. There've been some that were "how hard can this be?"; some "if we build it, they will come'; some that were always talking about what was coming but it never really got off the ground (PicturEngine). If it was easy, more of them would have done better, I think.

If you don't have exclusive content, and you won't be trying to undercut the established agencies on price, then your whole pitch to a buyer is to appeal to supporting artists directly? Some will go for that, probably the smaller businesses where the creative makes the sourcing decisions.

I also think you are gravely underestimating the work of customer support, sales recordkeeping, content approval, licensing and site maintenance assuming it does get off the ground. I don't think of that as being jaded, just realistic.

When they cut the royalty rate I pulled my files from marketplace (left them on 500px in case things changed - they haven't). When my free awesome membership (for participating a survey on watermarking) was up I just let it be the freebie as I didn't see any value in the memberships.

I wouldn't pay them anything unless you really like having a portfolio there (unless you've had tons of contacts via their directory listing, I wouldn't value that at all).

I know some people don't think alexa rankings have any value, but those for 500px have been down this year and those for marketplace have plummeted - for example last August, marketplace global/us was 34,148 / 47,659 and this month it's 161,234 / 181,179. By comparison SS is 292 / 381