|
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
4651
« on: January 17, 2013, 11:05 »
I don't know how we can effectively track these numbers, but in the istock forum threads people are deactivating images now - here's one example
4652
« on: January 17, 2013, 01:44 »
I like the idea a lot, but not the visuals.
I think something simpler - different color shading behind the post perhaps - as the heavy box is a bit clunky and the big badge behind avatar and "dials" means there's too much going on in such a little space.
Any thoughts about the opposite for posts with lots of negatives? White background for a great post and black (with reversed type) for one people didn't like - white hat/black hat good/bad symbolism?
4653
« on: January 16, 2013, 17:07 »
Re main topic - I am working on getting most my stuff off Thinkstock right now (through one of my distributors). I've stopped all uploads to iStock, Getty and all my distributors that deal with Getty and Getty owned companies. I am NOT trying to show Getty anything, I am just making a choice not to deal with them anymore.
Elena, how can you get your images off TS if they are still on Istock? Or did you already delete your entire portfolio from Istock?
I think Elena mentioned elsewhere in one of these mammoth threads that it's one of her other agencies (Tetra, I think) who has the deal with Getty/Thinkstock so she has to withdraw them from that agency or get them to have them out of Thinkstock; no iStock connection
4654
« on: January 16, 2013, 14:00 »
I agree that you shouldn't submit any of these. You should get used to removing CA as a routine processing step (easy if you process RAW in Lightroom or Photoshop; works with JPEG too though I have no experience with tht)
Don't submit images with sample text - SS allows that but iStock will reject
The images all look a little soft to me
4655
« on: January 16, 2013, 12:46 »
iStock say they're "looking at" the site with the list of images and full sizes, so I wonder if temporarily making it go away might be expedient, legal or not?
The site uses thumbnails to link to the original full size images. I don't see the issue. I mean, that's how the internet works, right?
I'm not arguing whether they're right or not, or even how unreasonable it is that they told contributors they had to do the leg work to find misuse of images from the Microsoft promotional giveaway where here they are volunteering to look into something probably OK but which they think might cause them grief Just suggesting that getting into spats with them for the 20 seconds they're paying attention to something like this might be best avoided.
4656
« on: January 16, 2013, 12:39 »
So one of the images there is an RM image from a National Geo photographer. Here's the page on Fine Art America from the Getty Art I wonder if Getty contributors (a) have an option to avoid this sale and (b) know that this is an avenue Getty pursues? I was pretty surprised to see this (but am wondering if I should try a Fine Art America account too!)
4657
« on: January 16, 2013, 12:22 »
4658
« on: January 16, 2013, 12:19 »
...Have people forgotten about SS? Far from killing them, everything Getty or their owners has done in the past few years seems to of strengthened them. Some people say that Thinkstock was made to kill SS but SS now sell more pay per download and are overall in a much better position than a few years ago. Driving a lot of exclusives and non-exclusives away from istock with the latest fiasco is likely to strengthen SS even more. So I don't quite buy the killing microstock argument, unless they're incompetent at that as well....
I think the Google Drive deal could very well be their latest tack on beating Shutterstock - kill their opportunity to sell subscriptions by making images "free" to end users (no additional fee once you've paid for Google Docs/Drive for businesses). Google and Getty make money and cut out the contributor (beyond the one time pittance payment).
4660
« on: January 16, 2013, 11:45 »
I fussed about the fact that SS would not detail what the license details were when they started the single and "other" downloads in May 2012 Even though I think someone would have found a crazy use like Google Drive if SS had gone into Getty mode (e.g. greedy and disregarding contributor issues), we're still in a "trust me" situation with these licenses. I can probably live with not seeing the contract details, but I believe it would be entirely do-able to come up with some one sentence descriptions of these deals and share that info with contributors in their stats. Transparency is important so that we have an opportunity to speak up or ask questions if we see something amiss. Right now, I think many of us are so happy to see an agency that's bringing in the monthly returns that we're too willing to look the other way when SS fails to be suitably transparent with contributors.
4661
« on: January 15, 2013, 20:45 »
The new statement doesn't really help much.
The mantra - "we've heard you" now sounds very much like "...your business is very important to us. Please hold for the next available operator..." to me. I don't give a sh*t if you've heard me if you go on acting the way you acted before you heard me.
So the deal was done over the fall and summer. They didn't think it was worth sharing with iStock contributors as "good news". A month after it goes live, Sean starts a thread to ask and they scurry around trying to find details they can share with us.
Now, with a deal long-since inked and images long-since released, they are going to do something about contributor concerns?
How about replace all the content for iStock contributors with wholly owned Getty content in the Google stock library? How about give Google a couple of thousand extra Getty wholly owned images for their troubles?
How about an opt in for any future deals. All off by default, but anyone who wants to opt in can choose to do so. And if they find no one wants to opt in for a $12 royalty, then perhaps they can improved the terms.
They just tried to stick a pacifier in contributors' collective mouths IMO
4662
« on: January 15, 2013, 20:39 »
Sorry if this is already discussed here and I missed it, but does anyone know if there is any way to know which images are included in this program?
This is a searchable text file Sean put together - not all of the files have info in them, but it's much faster to work with searching text than visually scanning thumbnails.
4663
« on: January 15, 2013, 18:52 »
I received mine on Monday (14th)
4664
« on: January 15, 2013, 16:37 »
From KingCash's post: what in the world does he mean they released code by accident? After all the development cock-ups over the last few years are they really not able to control when code goes live on the site:
"First, I want to apologize. We released some partially-finished changes yesterday by accident. It was always my intent to communicate changes with you before they launched, in a spirit of open communication, pre-release feature announcements, and idea sharing."
And to SNP, the essence of what people are objecting to - exclusive content can be filtered out - is how it will be when it goes live; it just won't have exactly the current interface. They seem to think that's a good feature to have and are just quibbling about the interface.
I think Liz had asked ages ago about having Exclusive- to go with Exclusive+. This would go beyond being able to add items to the Value collection (forever the Dollar Bin to me!), but to allow exclusives to have ordinary files - isolated peppers and such - that sell at Main Collection prices. I think that would make plenty of sense and if it were voluntary (as is participating in the PP for exclusives, at least for now) I can't see any harm in it.
4665
« on: January 15, 2013, 16:35 »
(Can someone please tell me how to link to a single post? Tx)
Use the permalink button - that gives you a post-specific URL
4666
« on: January 15, 2013, 16:26 »
For anyone who feels this initiative 'won't make a difference anyhow', here's why I don't agree.
It will make a BIG difference to me and my images. My images will no longer be licensed through an agency who is willing to let my images be given away from free. That is the big difference I'm trying to make. Anything more is bonus. Having everyone remove their images on the same day may or may not raise iStock's proverbial eyebrows but no matter what, it will save my portfolio from being given away for free as part of an exciting 'deal'
In addition to the above (which I gave a heart to as I agree with it) I think it may make a difference to other agencies that are wondering if they can get in on Getty's act. It is in our best interests to have them be aware that they'll lose images if they pull this sh*t.
4667
« on: January 15, 2013, 16:22 »
It almost always runs over the weekend. It has often been very late in the month. They made a "rule" for the PP forum that no one was to ask when they'd start posting the earnings - they have no schedule and they don't want to be asked about it 
4668
« on: January 15, 2013, 11:35 »
...Monday I had $4 in sales. Not sure I was ever near that low on a week day. So that could be the factor that puts me over the edge. Leaves the door open for all those who did not take a stand.
Jan, I thought I was having a bad Monday when it was $15.xx!! Difficult times...
4669
« on: January 15, 2013, 11:13 »
Sirimo said that most buyers don't use the refinement terms but that this change in the "price" slider is helpful for those who do.
I still think that the dot slider is a bad UI - they need to deal with $$ or credits so a buyer has a way to say that I need a medium size costing less than $50 and they can see all the files that match that.
The existing "More Attributues" "Collections" "Photo & Illustration Filters" and the dot slider are just horrible UI and that's why they don't get used.
I have to hope that they don't get used as the bulk of my $$ comes from my Photo+ files which are excluded from the one dot price point. Given iStock's lack of traffic these days, I'm not expecting much even if the Dollar Bin files get more of an airing than before
4670
« on: January 15, 2013, 10:33 »
If I had to guess, they don't want him promoting his own web site from his DT profile page so they disabled it.
Stop stirring the pot for a typo. It's yuri_arcurs, not yuri-arcurs.
I don't think there is a typo. If on DT you search for one of Yuri's images (business team was the term I used) and then click on the link shown on the DT site with his name you get the disabled page. So if there is a typo, DT made it. And why do you think it's stirring the pot to mention that Yuri's portfolio page says his account doesn't exist?
4671
« on: January 15, 2013, 10:28 »
I might have missed it somewhere but can anyone tell me what will happen to the images on PP-sites when I disable them on IS?
Eventually they will be deleted there. Sometimes it has taken a while for this to happen and people have ended up contacting contributor relations to do it manually. In theory it should be automatic although I believe they have up to 90 days (it says somewhere in the ASA) to do it.
4672
« on: January 15, 2013, 01:57 »
...As an IS exclusive, it possibly benefits me when you nice folks delete your files. But the majority of you are friends and really wonderful people and I do not wish to benefit from my friend's actions when I feel they are involved in a martyrdom activity that will have little affect or significance to Getty management. The files you are deleting can make money for you. You worked hard creating them. They should stay and work for you....
If you feel strongly about trying to make a statement; do it. But I feel the only one you will be hurting will be yourself.
I think the element you might be missing is that the big concern is what happens to our ability to earn money from our images if we leave them in Getty's hands. They have demonstrated (although thankfully not yet with my images) that they are willing to let them be redistributed for free with the payment of an absolute pittance. Once that happens (and the Friday statement said it was a deal that would probably be expanded), our images in such a deal have no more commercial value. It's a very, very hard thing to consider leaving iStock - I've been there since 2004 - but the consequences of staying have become beyond unreasonable. It's like a forced buyout of your portfolio at a few dollars per image - I am not interested in doing that but Getty has said they will not permit an opt out. So the only opt out I have is to remove my images now, before they give them away. All very sad. And possibly I am hurting myself, but I feel it's better that I do it a little bit than Getty does it a whole lot.
4674
« on: January 14, 2013, 20:52 »
I guess I'm of the opinion that if you have a network of buyers, are a top contributor, and have the knowledge and skill to run a successful site, why would you want to share that with everyone in the microstock world? Keep it for yourself, earn all the money and save yourself some headaches.
Because even if you're great - Sean, Lise, Yuri, Elena, etc. - you don't cover everything buyers are looking for. So you broaden the pool a bit to try and keep more buyers coming back to you more of the time. Wouldn't do it solo, but would pick and choose a small group. On the topic of Blend, I had written to John Lund a day or two ago - and he's part of Blend's images that got caught in Getty's net. He said they were asking on the Getty forums, so I assume Blend as a group knows about the Google Drive deal?
4675
« on: January 14, 2013, 19:30 »
I don't use Twitter, so I may be off the mark here - but what about Hashtag: don't be evil?
No one's using #dontbeevil as far as I can tell, but I think it'd be best to have something that shows up in the dropdown list if people are starting a search for something else. So there are #googlefail #googledrive already, but no #getty. If we had #googledrivefail or #googleimagefail the drop down list would show those below the #google entries as people type. In addition to getting some specific posts organized, it might bring attention from a broader audience. Any great headline writers with a suggestion along the above lines? On a slightly different topic, I sent a tweet to Dad Havlik who writes the PDNpulse blog to be sure he knows about it. He's written about photographer-Getty clashes in the past.
|
Sponsors
Microstock Poll Results
Sponsors
|
Show Posts
