Quote from: sjlocke on January 21, 2013, 00:18
Really?  I think the look is clean and no nonsense.

I agree. And I like their design blog.

So the D-Day threats have been answered by Getty with 14 more images added to Google Drive on Thursday?

http://www.microstockgroup.com/istockphoto-com/google-giving-photos-away-free-for-commercial-use-and-istock-agrees/825/

I suspect that on February 4th (which is a Monday), Getty will respond to the mass deactivation by adding thousands more images to Google.

I do not feel Getty is susceptible to any kind of a message from aligned contributors. What is needed to secure the future viability of fair monetary partnership between contributors and distributors, IMO, is for concerned contributors to walk away completely from any further relationship with Getty, sending a message to the industry that we will not tolerate abuse or disrespect of our Intellectual Property.

We must join together and deactivate our entire accounts with Getty.

For me, I would be willing to remove my entire portfolio of 6646 images as a group initiative if there were a large enough number willing to do the same.

I'm just not certain that deleting a percentage of images on Feb. 2nd sends a strong enough message. It's kind of like a parent that threatens to discipline their children like this: "I'm going to count to three. 1.......2........2 1/2........2 3/4.........". The child continues to disobey because the parent has not committed to the discipline and the child knows it.

I will delete 500, to support the group, but I'm afraid that won't even sting Getty. If there are others willing to delete their entire portfolio, as I am, please speak up.

eta: if enough sizable, good selling, portfolios are deleted, I believe the message that we will not tolerate abuse to our IP will be heard loud and clear in the industry. And that is a good goal.

Quote from: fotografer on January 18, 2013, 10:11
GL is by far the easiest place to upload to for model released images.  No attatching model releases, no catagories.  If the Iptc data is all there then you don't have to do anything at all after ftping them unless you want to change the prices.

How do they know which model release applies to each image? Does it need to be referenced in the IPTC data?

Quote from: jsnover on January 18, 2013, 19:40

Quote from: jbryson on January 18, 2013, 19:32
I only photograph people, so it looks like I can't even complete the application as it would be impossible for me to find 20 images for application that represent my body of work. I am surprised that an agency would have such a limiting constraint.

I turned on the No People filter on your iStock port and it showed me 844 images. I think there's at least 20 keepers in that lot

Haha. I just did that too, and it hurts like hell to look at them. But, I'll probably give it a go here sometime soon.

Quote from: jsnover on January 18, 2013, 19:40

Quote from: jbryson on January 18, 2013, 19:32
I only photograph people, so it looks like I can't even complete the application as it would be impossible for me to find 20 images for application that represent my body of work. I am surprised that an agency would have such a limiting constraint.

I turned on the No People filter on your iStock port and it showed me 844 images. I think there's at least 20 keepers in that lot

Lol, that's what I was afraid of. Only 20 out of 844!!! I'll take a look, but I'm pretty sure those were from my early days.

I only photograph people, so it looks like I can't even complete the application as it would be impossible for me to find 20 images for application that represent my body of work. I am surprised that an agency would have such a limiting constraint.

Quote from: JPSDK on January 14, 2013, 19:20
when people delete their ports, it is dying for the case.

Yes, I would consider it dying in one place to continue to live in others.

Quote from: cthoman on January 14, 2013, 19:16

Quote from: jbryson on January 14, 2013, 19:12
Consider this analogy:
We are soldiers going to battle. Would our enemy be more likely to retreat if we said:
1. "We will all give our left leg and right pinky finger for this cause."
or
2. "We will all die for this cause."

I think I'd be more scared of someone that would cut off their leg and pinky. That's demented.

lol!

Consider this analogy:
We are soldiers going to battle. Would our enemy be more likely to retreat if we said:
1. "We will all give our left leg and right pinky finger for this cause."
or
2. "We will all die for this cause."

I am a little confused. When this was first discussed, I was under the impression that we would be deactivating our entire portfolios. I understand the reasons not to close our accounts entirely, but I'm not sure that deleting a percentage of our portfolios will carry the same message.

I am, therefore, on the fence. I have 6600+ images, but am not as willing to sacrifice a percentage as I am to throw in the towel as a mass exodus. The message will likely not be acknowledged by Getty, but will likely ring throughout the industry sending a message of solidarity and intolerance of disrespect for our intellectual property.

I predict the site will go down on February 2nd due to planned "upgrades". 

Quote from: lisafx on January 14, 2013, 14:26

Quote from: jbryson on January 14, 2013, 14:20
Can anyone fill me in as to why they are deactivating images before the February 2nd date? Is it those that you don't want released in similar deals before that time, or is there another reason?

I have 6600+ ready to be pulled on February 2nd as part of the group initiative. But, if there is a reason I should pull some early I'm prepared to do so.

Speaking for myself, I was just trying out Sean's script and got carried away.  I am still planning to participate in the Feb 2 mass deactivation.

Hopefully the word will spread about the group action of Feb 2 and we can get enough people on board to represent a large portion of the library.

Yes, I posted in the istock forum that I was on board with this initiative.

Can anyone fill me in as to why they are deactivating images before the February 2nd date? Is it those that you don't want released in similar deals before that time, or is there another reason?

I have 6600+ ready to be pulled on February 2nd as part of the group initiative. But, if there is a reason I should pull some early I'm prepared to do so.

Quote from: stockastic on January 13, 2013, 20:35
I've set Groundog Day (Feb 2) as my personal iQuit date. 

Is that so you can keep reliving it over and over again? Might be kind of fun.

Quote from: lisafx on January 13, 2013, 18:28

Quote from: Elenathewise on January 13, 2013, 17:46

I would like to emphasize that this situation is fundamentally different from previous Getty deals that upset the community - it is surprising how many people don't see the gravity of it. I think disbelief is a big part of it. Just think about it - Getty allows for free re-distribution of our images that we entrusted them to sell. This is not cutting commissions or rising prices, this is violating artist-agent agreement.  So my point is, it shouldn't be about "I'll leave if others do", it's about do you want that kind of (scummy) agent to represent your work. If you're ok with it it's your choice, but this agent will grab some quick money off your work and will take off leaving you broke. It's now about "we'll show them". It's about firing them. They are just salespeople with questionable ethics that are screwing up sales of my product.
I am giving them a couple of weeks to sort things out. The news is just spreading, I hope we'll see more statements next week. I can't see them doing absolutely nothing about it - I think they screwed up big time and are having intense meetings right now. But if worse comes to worst, and nothing is done, my choice would be to dump that agent. I don't deal with scum.

I completely agree with everything you say.  I was just agreeing with the suggestion that if a number of us make the individual decision to walk out, it might have more impact if those of us who are leaving do it together on a specific date. 

ETA:  From my perspective, I think the lawsuit route would be most effective and send the loudest message to others in the industry who may be considering the same types of deals.   Pretty sure two weeks is not enough time to put together a lawsuit.  But OTOH, some of the affected artists will have had time to consult attorneys.

Unfortunately, lawsuits take years and are emotionally and financially draining. In addition, collecting on any judgement won is the second battle. It is an inherent problem with the legal system in the United States. That being said, I do think it should be strongly considered as a small part of a larger plan.

While I submitted to drop my crown in late December, I am currently debating taking a further step and deactivating my entire portfolio. I would do so not to make a statement, but rather to protect the integrity of my copyrights and the trust of my models. I am waiting for further details and will act to do so if need be.

It is a sad and frightening time for all stock artists.

ETA: I should clarify that I would deactivate my entire portfolio as part of a group initiative.

And, just now from the forums:

""isn't it the task of iStock to monitor and police any illegal use of our images?

We do--in fact we are deveolping technology that at some point will likely make this extremely efficient.

Here's another fiesty one:
Attorney Timothy B. McCormack Settlement Demand Letter

We haven't heard much of the Getty letters lately, but doing a quick search, I see that they are still alive and kicking. Here's a copy of one dated May 2012:

Attorney Timothy B. McCormack Settlement Demand Letter (Short Version)

Here is a link to information about it, which indicates that Getty does not have an in-house attorney at all, but rather only one attorney of record and he is "of counsel" meaning "not in house". It makes me wonder if this is "istocklawyer".

You can read about this, and about the sole attorney of record here:
http://stopgettyimages.com/getty_images_extortion_attempts.htm

In addition to everything else, it is teaching the public that image grabbing is okay. We really need a highly publicized lawsuit to act as an example for all.

How did the music industry combat this years ago? We need to follow their example. AFAIK, Apple stepped in and coded downloads to allow only limited copying of downloaded material. I know there are still bootleg sites out there, but the music industry has not imploded from it. We need a smart programmer to develop a way to disable right clicking a jpg that can be embedded into all uploads.

Our agents distributors pimps won't help us, so we will likely need to band together and start this movement on our own.

Quote from: BaldricksTrousers on January 09, 2013, 15:55

Quote from: gostwyck on January 09, 2013, 15:33

Quote from: aspp on January 09, 2013, 15:18

Quote from: pro@stockphotos on January 09, 2013, 14:42
It's crazy to see the traffic rank go from 200 to 1000 in the last year.  It is over!!!!   Look at the reach dropped from .02 to .01 that is half as much buyers in that time.   Shutterstock has replaced IS in a total arse kicking.   I can't say I blame buyers.  Istock owners did get 4 billion in cash out of the place.  The carylse group must be pooping  their pants about now.  FT and DT will also pass them along with Yuris site. 
 
    RIP Istock!!!!!!!

#ripistock

We've been there before;

http://www.microstockgroup.com/istockphoto-com/istockphoto-com-2000-2011-r-i-p/

I don't want to be the last one at the party that has to pay for the headstone.

Quote from: luissantos84 on January 09, 2013, 15:05

Quote from: rimglow on January 09, 2013, 15:02

Quote from: jbryson on January 09, 2013, 14:55
It is time for those affected to band together and ACT for goodness sake. Are we all a bunch of scared, frozen in our seats, pansies. In the famous words of an American hero, "Let's roll".

Your words might have more meaning if you weren't posting anonymously.

surprised with you! http://www.istockphoto.com/user_view.php?id=314508

Can you not see who I am when I post? (serious question).

Quote from: rimglow on January 09, 2013, 15:02

Quote from: jbryson on January 09, 2013, 14:55
It is time for those affected to band together and ACT for goodness sake. Are we all a bunch of scared, frozen in our seats, pansies. In the famous words of an American hero, "Let's roll".

Your words might have more meaning if you weren't posting anonymously.

Seriously? I am not posting anonymously.

It is time for those affected to band together and ACT for goodness sake. Are we all a bunch of scared, frozen in our seats, pansies. In the famous words of an American hero, "Let's roll".

Could it be that with the introduction of Google Images, those in need of images don't need to search for stock anymore? Just a quick perusal of Google Images, grab what you need and Voila! Project complete.