Quote from: Shelma1 on March 19, 2014, 14:53

Quote from: tickstock on March 19, 2014, 14:50

You don't think it's relevant in a discussion about raising royalty rates to put a direct quote about that very issue from the CEO of one of the largest microstock sites?

Yes or no.

I think it's relevant which is why I posted it.

Answer the question. Yes or no.

Quote from: cthoman on March 19, 2014, 14:35

Quote from: tickstock on March 19, 2014, 14:26

Besides don't you know that if any site pays you more than 30% you'll make less money overall.

I'm sorry. What do you mean by this? I don't understand or was this sarcasm?

Brian Fitzgerald - Jefferies

When you guys think of the rev share agreements with contributors, there are competitors out there that have more generous revenue shares. Can you -- would that tend to impact or take share from you guys over the course of time or can you talk about how that dynamic is panning out? And then, it seems like guys have been driving down pricing among your major competitors. They're now trying to price match. Have you seen any real impact from that thus far? Thanks.

Jon Oringer - Founder, CEO & Chairman

Yes, as far as our contributors go, we've had 30% of them and we've seen competitors come in and try to play with that number. What happens is if they payout more to contributors, they leave less room for marketing spend and that causes less sales in the long run and less payout to their contributors. So with this we really found the sweet spot over the past 10 years with the subscription plan, with the 30% payout, and competitors have come and gone and tried different things but we haven't seen much change.

http://seekingalpha.com/article/2037843-shutterstocks-ceo-discusses-q4-2013-results-earnings-call-transcript?page=6

I don't get what your point is at all. I'm beginning to doubt you're a photographer, honestly. I think you're just a troll. You'll throw anything out there to get a rise out of people.

Sociological experiment? Yes or no.

My sales at iStock have plummeted over the past week. But over on SS, today is shaping up to be my BDE, thanks to a bunch of high-paying sales I could never hope to make on iStock.

In other news, iS/Getty saw a bump in Facebook likes after their embedding announcement, but have since fallen back to getting about 1/3 the amount of new likes each week as SS.

I really do wish iStock would succeed, because that would mean more $$$ for me. I'd love to have two or three sites performing well. But it doesn't seem to be shaking out that way.

APA stands against Getty embedding:

http://www.prleap.com/pr/220442/

I could see why they'd be passive-aggressive about it...if they drop exclusivity there could be mass outrage, but if they just "nudge" people out gradually they'll make them think it was their idea. Kind of like a boyfriend who starts purposely acting like a jerk so you'll break up with him...that way he doesn't have to do it or deal with the fallout.

Not that I'm sure that's what they're doing...just a thought.

Yes, my friends were all "awwwww" about it on Facebook until I pointed out they were all actors...I recognized one soap opera actress right away.

"Getty will get its pound of flesh one way or another," photography journalist Daniela Bowker told the BBC News website. "It has not gone into this blithely. It has got a plan."

She added many of her contacts were unhappy about the move.

"My Twitter feed has exploded with very angry photographers going 'I don't want Getty giving away my images for free'," she said.

"For some of them, it might mean their images are never used commercially and they'll never make a penny.

"They feel very strongly about that because photographers don't work for free and they don't work for exposure. They say: 'Exposure won't feed my children'. So a lot of people are very, very angry, and I sympathise with them.

"But at the same time, the genie is out of the bottle. There are so many images that are being shared and liked and tweeted and clicked on."

http://www.bbc.com/news/entertainment-arts-26463886

Quote from: Shelma1 on March 14, 2014, 11:16

Quote from: tickstock on March 14, 2014, 10:25

You don't have to register with Getty.  If an honest blogger was using public domain images then I think it's better for me that they use the embed program, don't you?  Like I said though I don't see bloggers that pay for images switching because of the control over their website that they would lose.  You posted that article by the legal blogger who made the point about not having control over what ads were placed on someone's legal blog, if a competitor has ads placed on there it wouldn't be good and I'm sure that goes for a lot of 'non-commercial' blogs.  You seem to believe a lot of paying bloggers will give up control of their images, what makes you think it's worth saving a few dollars to do so?   Would you do it?  Would anyone here do it?

Yes, the article was written by a legal blogger. Obviously the first thing a lawyer will do is take a look at the fine print and legal implications. It's not the first thing an average blogger will do, unfortunately. But posting here and tweeting will help get that legal opinion out.

I work in an industry that pays for large licenses, where I'm used to dealing with image prices in the hundreds, thousands or tens of thousands of dollars. So Getty has no sticker shock for me. But, like attorneys, I'm an exception to the rule.

Sorry, I'm not sure what your point is?

But we all know what yours is.

Not necessarily.  I think this program isn't meant to replace paying bloggers at all, which seems to be the major contention here.  I think for Getty the success is getting a few people who weren't paying for images to use the program and the free advertising the announcement has given them.  I don't see many or any blogs that aim to make money, even 'non-commercially' switching over.  It would seem like a bad business decision to do it.

How could you possibly think this? I'm just curious. Why would people who were just right-clicking bother with the trouble of registering at Getty and searching there and having to find the images that have the little embed icon and pasting and copying html code, knowing they would then be tracked and advertising would appear later? The only people I foresee using this are honest bloggers who've been either paying to license images or using public domain images. They're the ones who are excited that Getty's library is now open for "free" use.

The part about the free advertising I definitely agree with. It got them a lot of press for two days and is still getting them negative press now, though things are dying down quickly.

Quote from: Red Dove on March 14, 2014, 06:51

It doesn't matter what bloggers do or anyone else for that matter now that Getty has effectively devalued not just stock photography but photography as a profession overnight.

That word "Free" is what sticks in the mind of the dunderheads out there and plays right into the hands of the cheapskates who couldn't give sweet FA about the embed service, other than seeing it as a victory - "If we just keep on stealing stuff, eventually it will all be free so who cares - awesome."

It does matter what bloggers do and it doesn't matter what thieves think about the Getty plan.  Bloggers are were paying money to license our images and thieves have already made up their minds about this, who cares what incorrect justification they use when stealing images.  It's still stealing.

Fixed it for ya.

Attorneys are not thrilled with Getty embedding:

http://www.zenlegalnetworking.com/2014/03/articles/social-media/gettys-new-embedding-feature-dont-get-excited-yet/

Paranoid aren't we?  Or maybe just ignoring the posts about how great Shutterstock is in the Getty thread?  I guess your post was aimed at advancing the discussion on the Getty embed program?

I think when one person in particular tries to switch every iS discussion to SS we're far from being paranoid.

Quote from: farbled on March 13, 2014, 11:25

I guess it would be fair to say that it is confusing if even some journalists get it wrong. I can only imagine it'll get thoroughly misunderstood by everyday users as well.

That part doesn't seem confusing at all (AFAIK that's the only person who claims the images can be full size) and even if someone was confused they can't make the images larger because of it.  A lot of the confusion is coming from people reading the headlines and not looking just a tiny bit deeper.

But that's the problem...most people do only read the headlines and don't look much deeper.