|
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 - Jo Ann Snover
4576
« on: January 24, 2013, 13:49 »
Here's a post from absolutely_frenchy saying his 662 images and illustrations will be gone on D-Day
She's female and a gifted illustrator and photog.
Sorry about the gender mixup - I looked at an image to see if the copyright had a real name, but it didn't. I know the work and the member name but haven't ever "known" the person. It's not only the talent going but the fact that she's been around for 10 years and now has to exit. As I have contemplated the possibility that I will have to do the same, the fact that iStock was my first stock site and how much history I'd leave behind bothers me a lot. Sentimentality...
4577
« on: January 24, 2013, 11:28 »
I'm sorry that I've lost the plot about where to post the numbers - so I put this information in both the "tally" thread and this one. Here's a post from absolutely_frenchy saying his 662 images and illustrations will be gone on D-Day
4579
« on: January 24, 2013, 11:20 »
Yeah, the thing is that the independent black diamonds are the exception rather than the rule. If you know that come what may you won't deactivate your portfolio or hand in your crown and your future is entirely in Getty's hands, then it's valid to ask whether you should rock the boat or do anything to depart from your usual business activities. I'm not passing any judgement, I'm just saying I can understand why they might carry on regardless.
I'm not at all surprised, but I also hope those who think things are just fine now don't wonder why no one else steps in to help them later if they find themselves ready to take some action to improve their lot. By and large I think it's better to know where people stand - even if it's to know that they won't lift a finger to help (e.g. all the exclusives who are dependent on their iStock earnings) or are standing by and gloating as they hope this move will do in their long-time enemy, microstockers (e.g. Blend). I had thought that the usage of Getty Images work (not from iStock contributors) would be a help in increasing pressure on Getty to change what they're doing, but that's clearly not going to happen.
4580
« on: January 24, 2013, 10:59 »
everybody is working on deactivating and or deleting pictures while some are still uploading, one of them is Yuri, he is meeting with GI next Monday right, what will he say? Hi guys, I am still uploading so go ahead with more google stuff, how about yahoo? 
Yuri will take care of Yuri. He's not about community or the good of the industry as far as I can tell. He's entitled to run his business as he sees fit, but IMO no one else should think of him as in any way coming to the rescue of other people whose tit is caught in the wringer
4581
« on: January 24, 2013, 10:48 »
I'm on a the Mac and can't see avatars, icons or anything else this morning either
4582
« on: January 24, 2013, 01:21 »
It's not legit. You can't buy a license that lets you redistribute (leaving Google out of it for the minute).
A takedown notice is the best bet - I don't see any contact info on the site (surprise surprise), so it's a matter of tracking down the site owner from the domain registration, or the ISP if they'll take down infringing content. I looked to see if I spotted any iStock exclusive's work (which would mean there was a small chance IS's compliance enforcement would actually take action) but all the ones I recognized were indies.
Only the copyright holder can send a DMCA takedown notice, so you can do yours but other people will have to do their own.
4583
« on: January 24, 2013, 00:53 »
When you deactivate a file, and it's already been sold to Google, will Getty deactivate it from Goog, or does it stay in the realm of worldwide free forever without hope of reclamation?
Anyone who has purchased an RF license before you deactivate gets to keep what they purchased.
4584
« on: January 23, 2013, 23:34 »
I can't read this entire thread but has anyone considered the fact that now the Feb 2 deletion extravaganza has been announced that they have plenty of time to change their policy on deletions and also work on disabling deletion functionality? Keep in mind that GI.com doesn't allow deletions. It's likely only a matter for time before this trickles down to IS especially with the recent events.
They could be total bandits, but in theory they are supposed to give us 30 days notice of a change in the ASA. That would give us time to clear out our ports if they imposed some unacceptable new terms
4585
« on: January 23, 2013, 21:53 »
Well great. Now the pathetically few sales I'd been getting will dry up completely, as all you heavyweights show up, with your thousands of images.
Welcome aboard.
It's always possible that if enough variety of images arrives, more buyers will find the site useful and everyone will do better. This idea that we do better by keeping people out comes up a lot, but I think it's not a viable long-term strategy. The big issue with the smaller sites is lack of buyers, not too many images
4586
« on: January 23, 2013, 19:59 »
I might think about signing up if they would change their name! Even GL hasn't got entirely rid of the old 'graphic leftovers' name, which just implied that they sell bits of rubbish nobody wants to me.
If microstockers survived Crap Hamlet Snap Village, possibly the worst name ever for any photo agency, I'm sure GL Stock is manageable! I only joined there last week and so am still in the process of uploading my portfolio. So far I've found the experience smooth and straightforward - this afternoon I also made my first sale. My take on a medium file is more than I get for many Large sales at IS - so the buyer pays less than 1/3 of the IS price and we both end up with a good deal. I'm not naive about the difficulties of getting an agency going - look at Stockfresh and a host of other languishing sites - but decent prices for buyers (not dirt cheap, but decent) and reasonable returns for sellers seem like such a good idea. Funny no one thought of that before....oh, wait....
4587
« on: January 23, 2013, 19:38 »
17th.
I also have nil for 1-9 December, but presuming there were nil sales for me?
I would wait a bit until they get to the end of the month before you decide. Nothing about this process is predictable or smooth running, so it is certainly possible that there is some group of contributors they skipped. The only other thing to note is that the sales in the early part of December are heavily weighted to Christmas images, so people with relatively few or no seasonal images hit a fallow patch for a while. If you still have no sales for that stretch after others report that they're done for December, and you haven't had stretches of 0 sale days in the past, open a support ticket to ask about it. May not do any good, but it can't hurt. 
4588
« on: January 23, 2013, 16:28 »
@Jonathan If Blend had a choice in which images it placed in this Getty/Google deal, then it had something the iStock contributors did not - an opt in/out.
If you had no choice about which images were picked and it wasn't an old non-seller, would that change your mind about what it means to have no control over how your agent/distributors handles your work?
In Sean's case, some relatively recent tailgate images from a collection on iStock that was mirrored on Getty were picked. He didn't have a choice about that.
Perhaps everyone thinks that as long as Getty's abusing some other group, it's OK. I get the economic imperative and how well Klein's strategy to acquire all the outlets has worked to let him control so much of the market. I can get the "it sucks but I need the money". What I don't get is the "it's OK as long as it's you lot that they mess with"
4589
« on: January 23, 2013, 12:25 »
I have PP sales for 10, 11 and 12. Nothing in 1-9. I think they didn't add them. Anyone in this situation?
It's hard to say for sure if everyone's account is updated on the same schedule - i.e. everyone for Dec 1, everyone for Dec 2 - but I have sales every day from December 1 through 15th
4590
« on: January 23, 2013, 11:59 »
And this post says that WIX is making Google Drive available to their users - so the sub-sub licensor is now sub-licensing??
4591
« on: January 23, 2013, 11:57 »
So what? let them give em away free, Google, IS, Getty, anybody else? who cares? My RMs are still intact. Cant be touched.
tisk, tisk, tisk. What a shame, so sad.
I thought the April 2011 changes to the Getty contract allowed them to move RM content to RF over the photographer's objections (if it hadn't sold for a certain period). Getty contributors had no opt out from RF content moving to Thinkstock either as I recall. See here and here.Seems to me that as the Getty artist-trampling machine rolls on, sooner or later everyone's work gets caught in some crappy deal that leaves them with the lovely choice of either accepting the terms they don't like or leaving Getty.
4592
« on: January 23, 2013, 00:29 »
They're adding to the 12th now.
4593
« on: January 22, 2013, 22:52 »
Glad you found the problem and thanks for a prompt resolution
4594
« on: January 22, 2013, 21:28 »
Don't worry - we did not automatically opt anyone into the extended license.
So when did the PhotoDune Extended license come in to being? I found a blog post from May 2012 that gives instructions on how to opt in to Extended Licenses - no mention of PhotoDune Extended licenses there. What I want to understand is how I was (until this afternoon) opted in to Photo Dune Extended Licenses when I was opted out of Extended Licenses?
4595
« on: January 22, 2013, 20:53 »
Perhaps Tyler can merge the thread I started earlier this afternoon with yours. I'm also no change on ELs - although if you automatically opted us all in to the new PhotoDune EL (see my thread) you need to fix that pronto and only opt in only those people who were already opted in for ELs My big problem is that ELs on small sizes are ridiculously cheap. I'm not taking $8 for a bunch of extended rights. What would make a difference for me is a single EL price as an add-on to the purchase of an image license. The model's pretty widespread at other sites.
4596
« on: January 22, 2013, 20:36 »
Perhaps I'm just not attentive enough, but I went to check on prices for extended licenses on Photo Dune using one of my own photos. I was pretty surprised to see it was going to let me buy an EL and I opted out of ELs
I went and checked my settings and saw that I had opted out of ELs but further down the list were entries for PhotoDune ELs and PhotoDune regular licenses and both those were checked.
I have unchecked the PhotoDune Extended license box.
I am almost certain that the two Photo Dune license entries were not there in Nov 2011 when I set things up. If it's the case that the two new options were added at some point and people who opted out of ELs were automatically opted in for the new PhotoDune ELs, I'm not happy. I don't think I've sold any ELs so no actual harm was done, but I don't want anything to do with selling an EL for $8 - which is what it would cost if it were the smallest size item.
Worth checking if you thought you were opted out and want to stay that way.
And I don't see anything in the new terms that alters things for me. ELs are way too cheap for the smaller sizes so I'm staying opted out
4597
« on: January 22, 2013, 19:56 »
Here's the blog post on what license changes they've made and some background on why. I have to read through and see if any of this makes a difference for extended licenses for Photo Dune for me (I'm currently opted out as they gave away the store for a pittance, IMO), and whether there are any hidden gotchas. In today's climate, I am very circumspect - and worry that changes probably mean something bad
4598
« on: January 22, 2013, 17:05 »
4599
« on: January 22, 2013, 16:05 »
...Again, sorry, but Rick (Blend) has said he has no problem with this scheme.
Do you have Rick's permission to post his response here? It doesn't seem to me he was in the least bit interested in changing anything Getty's doing - he saw it is incremental revenue (remember how some exclusives once viewed the Partner Program that way??)
4600
« on: January 22, 2013, 11:59 »
I'd love to see iStock turn things around, but I'm not sure that Getty/Klein/Carlyle think that there's a problem. Given that, I don't think they're in the market for ways to "solve" the problems.
It's not as if the forums have been silent on how contributors see the recent decisions by Getty - witness the long and articulate thread following Ms. Rockafellar's short-lived attempt to communicate.
Giving them more road maps for solutions is going to fall on deaf ears while they're happy as little clams with the train wreck they created.
|
Sponsors
Microstock Poll Results
Sponsors
|
Show Posts
