Im sitting here in my 2009 Range-Rover ...............

I had this same problem. I think for your application images (first 10 (or maybe first 5-10)) there is no bulk upload folder that I could see. I ended up zipping them and sending it that way. I didn't include any model released images in the first 10 because I didn't know how to deal w/ the MRs.

I must say that PD has one of the weirdest and most un-intuitive upload schemes. I haven't tried any MR images yet. In fact after getting in I just uploaded a few to see how it worked and I have no idea if they have been accepted or not nor do I have any idea how I would go about finding them other than eventually seeing them in the image search.

They really should take a look at any of the other sites (except IS) to see how one uploads/processes images.

Most photographers I know do a mix of assignment work and stock, i.e. they'll shoot something specific for a client but the client has to buy it via istock (because we are exclusive).

If I'm not mistaken you can stop the move from both RM to RF, as well as RF downstream to Thinkstock/Photos.com. They will then be taken out of their present collection and "handed back" to you. 99% sure this was the case, but I haven't double-checked.

So basically if I understood it correctly Getty will be able to shift your images around, if you don't like it they can be taken out and "handed back" to you, but you can't demand/choose where they should be.

never before in history creative artists were treated and paid crap like today.

There is a crazy belief, that picture buyers will sit for hours on end looking/searching suitable pictures,  nothing could be more untrue and especially among professional buyers where time is the essence. I have seen it,  many times, as soon as they get into the messy interface of IS,  they click out and move elsewhere,  dont even bother to fill in a search words. Too many collections, prices, etc,  just too messy.
They might spend some time when buying RM, where prices are a lot higher but they certainly are not doing it, buying micro. Quicker and cheaper to just move on.

Quote from: gostwyck on November 08, 2011, 15:21

Quote from: velocicarpo on November 08, 2011, 10:48

Just because others do worse, it isn`t a justification for Photodune. And yes, we ARE upset about the others too.
If all contributors would have refused to upload under those conditions, they would have been forced to change their terms. Therefore I make everyone of the early uploaders to PD responsible for the mess we have here and partially responsible for other Agencies which may reduce our cut. I really lost some respect for some individuals known here I highly valued before.

Face it. Profit at all costs is destroying our environment, ecology, financial markets etc. This type of business Model has to be abandoned. While I understand those individuals who do NOT stop to upload to established Companies like istock because they have to make a living, I do NOT understand how anybody can support such unfair conditions from a newcomer Agency.

Exactly. Well said. It never fails to amaze me how some contributors upload their portfolios to every new agency apparently irrespective of what the agency is offering or by how much they are undercutting other agencies that sell in volume.

Not that it is any of my business as an IS exclusive, but I think it is what is called "shooting yourself in the foot" .

Quote from: RT on November 05, 2011, 08:45

Oh @cclapper - As Lisa later pointed out, Ann's question was to Lisa about me not to me, but I suggest in the future you never assume, I had answered Ann's question in a PM to her, you can check if you want.

Well, first of all I didn't ASS-U-ME anything. I asked a question. To which I don't see where you have actually answered straight up. You keep talking legalese, as though you were or are an attorney. If you are, good for you. If you're not, it doesn't make a bit of difference to me. I don't really care if the question was addressed to Lisa or to you, I was asking the question TO YOU also.

Please explain how I can check a PM.   I could ask Ann, but why would I ask her when I asked you?

But no matter that you haven't answered directly because I already handled the whole issue myself by NOT contributing anymore at all to istock or stinkstock.

Quote

I think people have got too hung up over this particular issue and I imagine a lot of it is because they are being forced to have their work included in Thinkstock against their wishes, looking at the bigger picture Getty as a company is world renowned for aggressively pursuing copyright infringers, to me that's the most important factor.

For me, it doesn't have anything to do with being forced into Thinkstock, since I am not. It has to do with what's right and what's wrong. Not legally, ethically. And Getty might be world renowned for aggressively pursuing copyright infringers, but istock and thinkstock most certainly are NOT. And to me that's the most important factor.

But thank you for speaking to me like I'm a child, Mike. Let me hang my head and cower into the corner because a man has admonished me.    

 

PS Here's what I wrote the first time around, guess you didn't actually read it:

Quote

RT didn't answer Ann's question...are you a copyright attorney? If so, then I totally defer to what you say about copyrights. But just being an attorney doesn't necessarily mean you know everything about copyrights. If you are a family law attorney, for instance, you may have touched upon copyrights at some point in your studies/career. But typically if one asks a family law attorney about copyrights, the family law attorney would refer you to a copyright attorney.

Alternatively they might note that the historical origin of the practice was a statutory requirement to enforce copyright in many jurisdictions, including the US prior to those countries adopting the Berne Convention, and that this practice dictated that the � symbol be followed by the name of the copyright holder and the year the work was created. It was never just to provide a contact point - maybe you can provide some authority for that proposition?

A "competent" lawyer might also note that this is a continuing requirement in jurisdictions that haven't adopted the convention, and provides a procedural advantage even in many of those countries that have, so the name of the actual copyright holder is absolutely relevant. The adoption of a pseudonym itself is also irrelevant seeing as copyright statutes themselves envisage this and allow for a different expiration period for copyright (ie. 70 years from the date of publication rather than 70 years from the date of the death of the copyright holder).  

Sorry but there are legal, ethical and moral reasons why this should be a concern for contributors.