|
MicrostockGroup Sponsors
This section allows you to view all posts made by this member. Note that you can only see posts made in areas you currently have access to.
Messages - caspixel
Pages: 1 ... 9 10 11 12 13 [14] 15 16 17 18 19 ... 41
326
« on: April 12, 2011, 15:49 »
One thing that stuck in my head that he said was that iStock *really* needs the participation of the illustrators to get this program off the ground. The thought that went through my head was that there's a lot of stuff iStock *could* do for the contributors to help the contributors get their own programs off the ground. So again, it's iStock taking taking taking and giving nothing back. I'm sure the deal will be underwhelming. Dave didn't seem resigned in his post, not excited.
I'm also really surprised at how reluctant they are to speak, the participants in the fraud conference call seemed quite comfortable sharing their thoughts, even with the NDA.
And it looks like iStock is still waiting on approval from Getty (the whole 'i's & 't's being crossed spin...)
327
« on: April 12, 2011, 09:49 »
"People aren't looking to make a whole lot of money, but they want to get that new lens cap," Thompson said.
It's unbelieveable that this dweeb ended up in control of a huge segment of the stock photography business. Now, can the business somehow find a way to route around him, or are we doomed to remain forever under the thumb of Dear Leader?
Maybe the one bright spot to the decline in sales (and eventually revenue) at iStock will be his termination?
328
« on: April 12, 2011, 09:28 »
Still, I was surprised that he removed the post. It was sincere and informative. Dave stated he removed the post because he just needed to move on.
------------------------------------
Sounds to me like either he's saying its hopeless that Istock will not change, or he's afraid of what Istock will do to him for speaking his mind. Either way its bad for all.
That seems inconsiderate to the other illustrators out there, since he was supposed to be their representative at the conference call, right?. Now he's abandoning them by removing his post and moving on? I thought this conference call was supposed to help people decide what to do. The ongoing silence is so strange. Nothing like being left in limbo. 
329
« on: April 12, 2011, 09:22 »
Why are the others that participated in this conference call so silent? And where's iStock's "big announcement"? The whole thing is so disrespectful to the illustrators.
330
« on: April 10, 2011, 16:16 »
Ours is not to reason why....
And here I thought you had the answer to everything! 
331
« on: April 10, 2011, 16:15 »
And note that at least one of them was already a hater about four or five years ago, way before thinkstock, changes in royalties and new macrostock agency contributors. That really makes me wonder.
(And the other, for not contributing nor buying at istock spents looooooots of time there, always the first to notice and report here anything, big or tiny, that happens --More food for thought)
LOL. Clearly you've spent a lot of time thinking about it and following this person around. Why does it matter to you so much?
Not a single second. Note that not everyone spends his/her whole life in the forums, here or at the "enemy" , in a watching and snitching perpetual mission. Some people has a life. And is easy to remember correctly facts that for being absurd or ludicrous remain easily in mind. I. e, when youy had the opinion that photographers defending rises in prices -to 1, 2, 3 dollars-- where greedy people.
Obviously you've spent more than a single second. You've read my posts and responded to them. That takes much more than a single second. Also, you don't remember facts correctly, and I've already proven that several times in the past. And you are also wrong about my "opinion" that photographers are greedy people. I never said that. Not once. Nor did I ever complain when prices were at 1, 2, & 3 dollars. LOL. IN FACT, not one single thing *you've* said was a "fact" was correct. You are clearly deranged, because you appear to live in some kind of fantasy world where you make things up about me. 
332
« on: April 10, 2011, 15:26 »
How can they buy "full rights" to it when it's been sold so many times before?
Buying copyright or 'full rights' does not have anything to do with a promise of exclusivity.
What does it mean then? They can already pretty much do anything they want with it with either a standard or extended license (aside from using it as a logo or a testimonial, but why would anyone want to do that with a stock photo that has already sold to others anyway?). So what would be the point of owning the copyright?
333
« on: April 10, 2011, 09:47 »
How can they buy "full rights" to it when it's been sold so many times before?
334
« on: April 09, 2011, 15:04 »
JJRD just confirmed that Vetta/Agency files are not going to Thinkstock. They are mirrored on Getty, but wont go elsewhere.
It's not that long ago that he confirmed that Disney would be sellable as editorial (can anyone find the thread?)
Dare I say it? It was probably deleted.
335
« on: April 09, 2011, 13:38 »
I *am* fed up with iStock and their crap, so I come here looking for discussion, commiseration and ideas from my peers and fellow contributors. Instead, all I get is the mad screechings of an obsessed ex-buyer on this and every other thread with the word iStock in the title.
IF YOU DON'T LIKE IT USE THE IGNORE BUTTON. It's quite simple, really. But see, I think you *like* to read my posts, because it makes *you* feel better to attack me.
336
« on: April 09, 2011, 13:06 »
There are TONS of other threads here on the home page having nothing to do with istock. If someone is tired of reading about it, why even click on the thread?
There are a few posters here who seem to have a tendency towards taking every thread here in the same inevitable direction whatever the thread title.
I just don't see how it is useful to hold such partisan opinions. Surely it's more useful to be more neutral and to try to take a longer view.
she's not looking for a real answer. any of us coming into this thread expecting a relevant discussion should have known better, me included.
The discussion IS relevant however. What boggles my mind is why anyone would click on this title and expect a "non-partisan" discussion. Which again begs the question, why are *you* here? Are you fed up with iStock?
337
« on: April 09, 2011, 12:52 »
And note that at least one of them was already a hater about four or five years ago, way before thinkstock, changes in royalties and new macrostock agency contributors. That really makes me wonder.
(And the other, for not contributing nor buying at istock spents looooooots of time there, always the first to notice and report here anything, big or tiny, that happens --More food for thought)
LOL. Clearly you've spent a lot of time thinking about it and following this person around. Why does it matter to you so much?
338
« on: April 09, 2011, 12:28 »
snip
Totally agree about the abusive spouse thing. I wonder if psychologists will one day coin a term for this type of Stockholm Syndrome thing where the abused party tries to protect their abuser in an effort to help themselves feel more in control of the abusive situation.
Now that's funny!
There's already a name for it - iStockholm syndrome.
339
« on: April 09, 2011, 12:27 »
My guess is that even if it were all to be sold not much would change.
Right. Because *nothing* changed after Getty bought it...
AFAIK nobody is suggesting that Getty is planning to sell iStockphoto.
Well, since they are all owned by H&F who knows. They could sell Getty and ISP as seperate entities, or as one package. Either way, iStock will have a new owner, because Getty doesn't really "own" iStock anymore, does it? H&F does.
340
« on: April 09, 2011, 12:23 »
If you don't like reading my opinions or my posts, it's been said before, but I'll say it again, USE THE IGNORE BUTTON. It's absolutely stupid and childish to call someone a "hater". So photoagogo, if you don't like what you are reading from me, you are free to agogo go away.
There wouldn't be anything left to read here if I did that.
If you ignored me there wouldn't be anything left to read? Well, that makes no sense. Um, in case you haven't noticed, I'm not the only one who posts here. And clearly, if you continue to come here, despite being bothered by all the "haters" then you want to read what they have to say. So stop complaining about it and calling people names.
341
« on: April 09, 2011, 12:18 »
My 12 year old nephew used to use 'hater' all the time. I think he's matured now, because he doesn't use it anymore. 
LOL
342
« on: April 09, 2011, 12:17 »
iHateiStock.com is available for registration if anyone wants it.
So is iHateGetty.com.
Just sayin' ....
I'm actually surprised iHateGetty.com is available.
343
« on: April 09, 2011, 12:12 »
I just don't understand why you can't let it go since you have no involvement on either side of the buying or selling fence.
Excuse me? I am a buyer, used to be a loyal iStock customer and now purchase from other agencies, agencies that give the contributor a fairer royalty percentage. And I also have friends who are contributors. If you don't like reading my opinions or my posts, it's been said before, but I'll say it again, USE THE IGNORE BUTTON. It's absolutely stupid and childish to call someone a "hater". So photoagogo, if you don't like what you are reading from me, you are free to agogo go away.
344
« on: April 09, 2011, 11:37 »
Agree, if I was a design company on the receiving end of this call, not knowing the alternatives out there and the way IStock was treating contributors, I would be thankful for the info.
If I was running a design house, busy doing my work, and some random person called me to "inform me" of his opinions about how I should run my business, I'd hang up. Who asked you for your opinion?
And if I want to think you're a jerk for trying to damage my primary source of income, I think I'm allowed to feel that way.
I wouldn't even have replied, but I'm glad you did. I've already said what I think about contributors like this attempting to destroy business at iStock. it's not worth repeating in this ridiculous thread which includes serial posts from two people who have nothing to do with iStock except that they've made a career out of being haters.
Again...pot...kettle...black. Hypocrite.
When someone here states their point of view over and over, they're a hater. When you, and now, Sean, come and post your point of view, you're what... That you have narrowed down the number of posters who are adamantly speaking out about istock to just two is pretty ridiculous...that makes me think that in fact you too must be a hater against those specific two people and have mounted your own personal campaign to misalign them. Check out all of the other threads on this forum AND on the istock forum (oh, but wait, you can't...all of the threads have been deleted there). You will see WAY more than 2 people speaking out.
And that you specifically keep coming back here to repeat the same thing over and over and over makes you a hater too, no? You keep saying you don't need to repeat it, but then you do. 
I truly feel bad for you two, and other exclusives. That you have backed yourselves into a corner by being exclusive is YOUR choice, not anyone elses. Blame the abuser, Getty/istock instead of all the people choosing to take a stand. If you aren't happy with your choice, do something about. People who have chosen to make a different choice...good on them!
And another funny thing is that the sentinel jumps in too...but wait...I think I remember seeing a post from him/her complaining about the best match and/or sales being down. Why I think that constitutes a hater! 
Great post as usual cclapper! This whole thing of calling people "haters" because they are critical of a company that deserves it is beyond childish.
345
« on: April 09, 2011, 09:08 »
I have to say, the conference call worked like a charm though. Virtually no one is talking about a Vector Vetta rebellion anymore. That thread is pretty much dead over there now. And I haven't heard anything about the video rebellion since their conference call. Well done iStock! Brilliantly played.
346
« on: April 09, 2011, 09:00 »
My guess is that even if it were all to be sold not much would change.
Right. Because *nothing* changed after Getty bought it...
347
« on: April 09, 2011, 01:27 »
sjlocke and SNP... please elaborate on why you think he is a jerk... He's calling design companies about IStock's poor treatment of contributors....truth hurts???
They are scared exclusives. And they should be. The word is getting out and sales are dropping. People always lash out when they are frightened.
Agree, if I was a design company on the receiving end of this call, not knowing the alternatives out there and the way IStock was treating contributors, I would be thankful for the info.
I don't blame them for being scared, though. If I was relying on income from iStock, I'd be terrified right now.
348
« on: April 09, 2011, 00:59 »
sjlocke and SNP... please elaborate on why you think he is a jerk... He's calling design companies about IStock's poor treatment of contributors....truth hurts???
They are scared exclusives. And they should be. The word is getting out and sales are dropping. People always lash out when they are frightened.
349
« on: April 08, 2011, 22:11 »
What a stupid question form newbee OP?!
Question is in class how many times you have sex with wife eg per day week month, or for what you vote for or whats you income...
Sorry, and what's wrong with taking an unscientific poll of what people are earning on iStock? I think it's something people are curious about which is why I posted it. Interesting that 27 people on this site have chosen to ignore you. No wonder.
Just ignore the angry parrot, so much vitriol from such a beautiful bird... Or is that a parakeet??
It's a cuckoo.
350
« on: April 08, 2011, 14:44 »
This NDA "We can't say anything yet" business is just weird.
Exactly. Still no news. I guess they are hoping that just because there was a conference call, all the dissenting voices will be silent. Why can't they just make their "big announcement" and be done with all the stupid drama. Why even have the conference call when the people can't even talk about it? And if there is going to be a "big announcement" why have the conference call at all? The whole thing is so cloaked in such ridiculous drama, and it's clearly just one big diversionary tactic.
Pages: 1 ... 9 10 11 12 13 [14] 15 16 17 18 19 ... 41
|
Sponsors
Microstock Poll Results
Sponsors
|
Show Posts
