|
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
4676
« on: January 14, 2013, 18:51 »
...and it bears representing that many of us are awaiting an answer before making concrete decisions. ...
No one here has claimed to speak for all stock photographers, or all Getty submitters or all iStock submitters. Sorry if you don't like action that people are considering, but other than waiting, do you have any proposals? This stock library went live in December 2012. Getty took 2 days to put together the rather uninformative forum post that went up on iStock late Friday and then has ignored the feedback completely. They didn't promise any more information when they posted on Friday so what exactly is it you're waiting for? No one will be foolish enough to libel or slander Getty or Google, but making the knowledge of what they're doing as broad as possible is neither.
4677
« on: January 14, 2013, 16:45 »
Has anyone thought of setting up a tumblr site to catalog some of the best deactivated files? That would give everyone a decent visual representation of what's going on, and could be really powerful.
I like this idea a lot. I wouldn't want to run afoul of copyright/IP considerations though so I had a look at tumbler's about and FAQ. Here's the policy which includes the following: "You also agree that you will respect the intellectual property rights of others, and represent that you have all of the necessary rights to grant us this license for all Subscriber Content you submit to the Services."
If one person opened an account and posted other people's images with their permission (would need a watermark?) would we be OK? And should we also make one for all the images in the Google Drive deal where the copyright owner isn't happy about them being their - sort of a "use this at your peril" gallery?
4678
« on: January 14, 2013, 16:21 »
...That's what I don't understand about the Getty/Google Drive 'deal'. As I said before, if the deal is bad for us then, being as Getty keeps 80% of the sale price, it must be just as bad or worse for them. With the information we have now it doesn't make sense unless Getty derives some huge benefit in terms of advertising or data. Of course Google's data is it's main asset so maybe they are sharing some of it with Getty?
I think this is a move to corner a market, not about the money made on a particular deal. As such they want to be in the driver's seat of the next big shift in how images are sold and I think they think that doing deals with Google is the way forward. If I thought they'd share a reasonable amount of what's made with those who created the images, I wouldn't mind so much. I think that Google should somehow be a target of D-Day - here are images you'll never get for free giveaway in Google Drive. Or perhaps just kicking up a stink - but they're used to that. They had all the publishing houses them after they began scanning books and they've had the European Union breathing down their necks about anti-competitive behavior. Finding ways to get those who are concerned that they only use legitimately licensed images (some of those early blog replies on Google's blog asked about that) seems to me to be the important step that we can accomplish. If users were worried about it not being safe to use Google Drive images commercially, it would effectively remove their commercial value to Google and thus in the end Getty. So if users don't like this then Getty and Google don't have more future deals.
4679
« on: January 14, 2013, 15:58 »
Sean, so do we or did we have to ave a portfolio at istock or can it be from other sites? I am happy to participate. My istock account has remained open though i pulled my images with the RC debacle.
I used my SS portfolio - I have one at IS but who knows for how much longer - and it worked fine
4680
« on: January 14, 2013, 15:36 »
I don't want to sound negative, but this is doomed to failure.
Try to see a larger picture. This issue is much bigger than IS. It involves Google, and potentially every other player in the image market. We probably can't inflict serious damage on IS, or cause their current management to change direction, but our actions will surely influence any other agencies who'd been considering such deals, and they might decide not to pursue them. And eventutally IS may very well go away, completely, for other reasons.
I think the notion of this effort being doomed to failure rather depends upon how you define success  If you define success as having Getty stay "I'm so sorry. What a terrible and disrespectful idea it was to sell off such massive rights for so little money. We'll tell Google it was all a mistake and the deal's off right away.", then you're probably right. However, at a minimum I can keep my images out of Getty's hands - at least until they buy all the agencies out there. I stand a non-zero chance of getting something better than that. Lying down and playing dead just because Getty is a big ugly bully isn't an appealing option.
4681
« on: January 14, 2013, 15:23 »
I like including Fail in a hashtag. I wonder if #GoogleDriveFail might be most straightforward - although it leaves out images or stock.
It's less about hating Getty or them selling us down the river than getting the word out that something's amiss with Google Drive's stock images
4682
« on: January 14, 2013, 14:17 »
I just wrote to VStock about 44 images of theirs that are listed in the Google/Getty giveaway...
I heard back this morning from Greg Vote at VStock asking for whatever information I can share. He said the subject came up on his forum and "... we are all disgusted by Getty's ridiculous actions."
I sent him e-mail with links to everything I could think would be useful.
Jo-Ann, please, may I ask you to send similar mail also to Michael from Zoonar [email protected]
Numbers of images from Zoonar Collection on Thinkstock are: 126410102, 126498001, 126808112, 126860118, 126891940, 126897562, 126915928, 126929991, 126939031, 126940621, 126952939, 126970160, 127003653, 127008971, 127030183, 127035462, 127041189, 127049718, 127057325
It would take me one hour to write something meaningful with my English...
Thank you.
I am happy to.
4683
« on: January 14, 2013, 14:08 »
I'm not really a Twitter user even though I have an account and very occasionally use it. I think it might be an idea to have a hashtag for opposition to the Getty/Google giveaway to make finding posts on the subject easier. I was trying to see what has been tweeted about the availability of stock on Google Drive - seeing places where perhaps we could post comments saying that people needed to know that the copyright holders were not consulted on this deal and were contesting its validity It's unpleasant to see many people blogging about how to get these great free photos  here, here and here, for example. It was nice to see a blog for teachers had comments where they lamented that they couldn't find a source to add as a credit to whatever document they created. The hashtag needs to be short (given the limit on tweet length) so #Getty-GoogleImageGiveaway or #GettyGoogleImageHeist probably aren't useful. Anyone else good at catchy hashtags?
4684
« on: January 14, 2013, 13:48 »
I just wrote to VStock about 44 images of theirs that are listed in the Google/Getty giveaway...
I heard back this morning from Greg Vote at VStock asking for whatever information I can share. He said the subject came up on his forum and "... we are all disgusted by Getty's ridiculous actions." I sent him e-mail with links to everything I could think would be useful.
4685
« on: January 14, 2013, 13:02 »
The last time I made comments here about this same iStock contributor, leaf removed several critical posts, including mine. I have no higher opinion of him as a result of his latest verbal barf
4686
« on: January 14, 2013, 12:46 »
I consider the likelihood that they are that on the ball in monitoring things pretty low
They do not care.
I totally understand people deactivating files in order to protect their work from deals which result in them being given away. Or if you do not trust them to act in your best interests. I believe that it would be a mistake to do it in order to send a message or as a protest. It's a one way street.
I am well aware that the only thing they care about is their own profits. What I was trying to suggest was that if they got wind of something happening and saw some spike in deactivations and drop in uploads it might be something that convinced them the February deactivations were going to happen. I think they discount contributor discontent because they don't expect any action.
4687
« on: January 14, 2013, 12:43 »
Don't like it visually at all - way too much space for the text boxes. If the images aren't self explanatory, I'm not sure that they have the right images.
Not to mention it's quite jarring to see glitzy Golden Globes attendees right next to fighting in Ivory Coast. I love images of what's up in the world, so I expected to like this, but I don't
4688
« on: January 14, 2013, 12:37 »
I may do more, but will deactivate at least 1,000 on Feb 2nd.
I have 2,638 remaining after my test deactivation of 10 today.
Couple of notes about logistics. I would recommend that people not close their accounts even if they remove all their images. One is that if you decide at some later time - under new ownership perhaps - to upload again, your canister will help with upload slots even if it means nothing for royalties. Another is that your name cannot be used by anyone else, plus you can leave a short message on the blog in case anyone comes looking for you.
I am not sure how Photo+ slots work if by deleting a huge portion of your portfolio you have more Photo+ images than your "allowance". I'm guessing that they don't automatically remove them, probably 'cause they haven't written the software to make that happen. If you are deactivating and plan to leave some images there, I'd suggest using up your remaining P+ slots to lock in any images you plan to keep on site prior to starting the deactivation. No sense in leaving any money on the table for any images you leave on the site.
4689
« on: January 14, 2013, 12:18 »
Lost track of the total, but I have deactivated around 20 over the weekend, including my best sellers - red flames. I'll wait to do the rest (around 300) on the 2nd.
ETA - Couldn't get Sean's script to work for me, even though I was using it fine before. It spread the columns out noticeably, but didn't add a new one.
Did you open the options link at the top - the one where you choose the date format and which columns to display? That's where the checkbox is to select adding the deactivation box to the page
4690
« on: January 14, 2013, 12:04 »
In installed Sean's updated script and deactivated 10 just to see how it all worked. I deleted old files that haven't sold in a while - no message to send with this except that if they keep track of deactivation counts it might make them notice that something is happening (I consider the likelihood that they are that on the ball in monitoring things pretty low)
4691
« on: January 13, 2013, 19:50 »
I think the element Jon didn't get - but I hope he now does is that this isn't just about hurting exclusive photographers.
The link is broken
Should now be OK - sorry.
4692
« on: January 13, 2013, 19:41 »
I am extremely sympathetic to your concerns Jasmin ... but isn't 'exclusivity', which you defend strongly in another thread, a major part of the problem? It's only agencies with large numbers of exclusive contributors (which they know they have by the bollocks) that would even dream of pulling stunts like this and the MS deal.
When you voluntarily give that much power to an agency, especially one with a reputation like Getty, I don't understand why you are surprised that they abuse it? That's what Getty does __ thinking up new and innovative ways of abusing their content providers is pretty much their day-job. It's a much easier route to higher profits than actually selling more of our content.
If you look at the agencies that place their images with Getty and which have in some cases hundreds of images included in this abusive collection, I don't think the issue is exclusivity but Getty's gorilla status in the image licensing business. Klein and Getty started this because they wanted a business where they could control the market and they bought up whatever they could get their hands on so they were the big dog. Now they're throwing their weight around. Getty has agencies that are virtual floosies in terms of how many places their images appear and they still pulled this crap. They want to get in bed with Google and they're using their heft in the market to just grab what they want. Getty needs more competition and has very little. That's the only thing that will rein them in.
4693
« on: January 13, 2013, 17:37 »
I have contacted Image Source - they have 117 images in the Google Drive/Getty giveaway. Given the prices these images sell for on Getty, I figured they have potentially a lot to lose; if they didn't know about it now they do and can start complaining. Here are the image numbers (work on Getty and Google Drive) 102285694, 102286165, 103060007, 103060278, 105776876, 107908345, 107908365, 108349487, 109434652, 117183973, 117183975, 117184150, 121331317, 121331437, 122343441, 122343756, 122343769, 122343772, 130112180, 134574147, 134574158, 137088243, 139266642, 139266646, 139266647, 141467758, 141467772, 141467803, 141467806, 141467808, 141467811, 141467814, 141467999, 141468154, 142025611, 142025614, 142025619, 142025779, 142025825, 142025853, 142025864, 142742103, 142742210, 142742273, 145073112, 145073294, 145073356, 145073547, 145073565, 145073567, 145073568, 145073602, 145073783, 145073788, 145073991, 146271718, 146272075, 146272103, 149272149, 149272158, 149272175, 149272176, 149272178, 149272334, 149272420, 149272433, 149272441, 149272444, 149272462, 149272470, 149272498, 149272521, 149272550, 149272570, 149272657, 149272658, 149272681, 151327369, 151327376, 151327531, 151328107, 151329184, 56181219, 56294175, 57158999, 71273395, 71916966, 72421179, 73213606, 80488216, 80488244, 80488246, 84492509, 84492950, 85213588, 85257483, 85536824, 85537158, 87298015, 87306026, 87307437, 87312800, 87319271, 87329573, 87332375, 87333949, 87333953, 87333988, 88297759, 88622507, 88623908, 88624310, 88624453, 88624699, 88625028, 96161682, 96161692
4694
« on: January 13, 2013, 16:54 »
I just wrote to VStock about 44 images of theirs that are listed in the Google/Getty giveaway. The file numbers are the Getty image numbers. I'm hoping that they won't be happy and will complain to Getty - the more unhappy entities the better as far as I can see. 102491432, 102491433, 102491439, 102756630, 103924141, 103924150, 103924196, 116363798, 116363800, 116363980, 116363981, 129309148, 129309150, 129309151, 129309153, 129309155, 129309157, 129309180, 129309181, 129309182, 129309184, 129309186, 129309188, 129309189, 129309191, 129309234, 129309238, 129309310, 129309317, 136597459, 136597461, 136597465, 140196828, 144564151, 144564255, 144564307, 144564310, 149264332, 149264366, 149264388, 95468599, 95468665, 95468672, 95468717 You can plug these in at Getty to see the images or in the Google Drive dialog to see them there
4695
« on: January 13, 2013, 12:36 »
4696
« on: January 13, 2013, 11:48 »
Hello again. Things are pretty hot and hectic in here right now courtesy of Getty's deal with Google to give away a chunk of our work - you'll have plenty of bedtime reading
4697
« on: January 13, 2013, 11:32 »
I think the element Jon didn't get - but I hope he now does is that this isn't just about hurting exclusive photographers. I see this as a shot across Jon's bow in that long term, users won't pay for content they can get for free. Up until this Google deal a lot of the free images were demonstrably bad. Google Docs/Drive are being pitched to businesses - the same place Getty is strong and where Jon in the IPO materials noted he wanted Shutterstock to penetrate better. If Getty can halt Shutterstock's erosion of Getty's stronghold by making images free to end users and businesses, they perhaps hope they can vanquish Shutterstock when they couldn't by the first idea they thought of - Thinkstock I'd like to get this threat (as I see it) on Jon's radar - I'll try commenting on his blog. The post is awating moderation, but here's what I wrote: "Im already sold on Shutterstocks long term view. Im contributor 249 and am back as an independent contributor after a stint as an exclusive.
I see the recent deal between Getty and Google to put nearly 6,000 free stock images including many on Shutterstock and other agencies as a massively damaging move, not only to contributors but also to other agencies.
The images were stripped of copyright and any future earning power virtually gutted thats the damage to the copyright holders.
I see this move as a shot across Shutterstocks bow long term, users wont pay for content they can get for free. Google Docs/Drive are being pitched to businesses, apparently successfully, not just school kids putting together a report. Theres always been free content thats not very good, but this is best selling stuff from stock agencies. Now its only 6,000 images but Getty says theyre going to do more.
I want Shutterstock to continue to grow, as do a lot of other contributors who make very good money courtesy of your business idea and how youve nurtured it. I see this Getty Google deal as bad news for much more than just their remaining exclusive contributors"
4698
« on: January 13, 2013, 11:27 »
Nice work Jo Ann. I think Oringer's blog deserves a discussion thread of it's own, if you don't mind me nicking it from your post.
I believe in the Shutterstock long term view - this is about trying to get this crap stopped if we can. No proprietary feelings about any part I can play in it - nick away!
4699
« on: January 13, 2013, 11:14 »
Jon Oringer replied to my tweet and pointed to a new blog post of his. See my reply - I picked one of Andres Rodriguez' images to make the point that I think this hurts Shutterstock, not just exclusive photographers. I'm not sure he realized that this was a shot across his bow (IMO) not just Getty exclusives getting scr3wed
4700
« on: January 12, 2013, 15:05 »
Thanks - looks much better now
|
Sponsors
Microstock Poll Results
Sponsors
|
Show Posts
