Holy crap. Found at least one of mine there... search for "fruit", it's image number 3. What's the h*ll??? I can't tell where the image came from, since I am non-exclusive, but this is just unbelievable. From what people posted here  it seems to be Getty's f**kup ... Google had to get non-watermarked images from somewhere. So, they were supposed to get contributor's agreement for such use and they just ... didn't. I mean - "eh, come on, let's pocket the money, give away some images from some bozos, they are almost giving them away for free anyway... who's gonna find out". I sure hope they'll put a stop to that, and fast. I'll take part in any class action or whatever, but if nothing happens and this is not fixed and becomes business as usual, I am out of there. No question about it.
I think we should contact Google about it too - I want to see what license they have for such use and where did they get it. Nothing I ever agreed to that's for sure.

iStock staff have acknowledged that money changed hands between Getty and Google - this isn't Google acting unilaterally. And if you read above you'll see that it appears the license was for $12!! Time limited but no notion of how long. It might as well be forever given how many people and businesses are now using Google Drive

If you put your image into a document and then right click and Save Image As... you'll see the file number in the JPEG. It's probably Thinkstock and you can search there by file number to check

The Yuri images are at photos.com - in the partner program. Thinkstock was the place Google told people to go look when asking for suggestions for stock images

In the iStock thread, one contributor has a Getty license for the image of his he found there  'Premium Access Time Limited' sale to 'Google eCommerce and Google Drive'.

So there is a license where Getty allows this kind of thing? He didn't say how much, but in an earlier note on that page said the amount now seemed laughable given what they were doing, so he clearly didn't grasp what this premium access really meant.

Now makes me worry that neither SS nor 123rf will give us the details of what rights they sell with these custom licenses. I wouldn't agree to a license that permitted unlimited giveaways of an image I was selling (or trying to) but when they don't spell out what they're doing, we're supposed to just trust them.

After a debacle like this, I'm unnerved about even the other agencies I previously felt mostly OK about.

The contributor posted the amount. I almost can't believe it - $12

Getty thinks it's OK to let the world download the image for free for $12. I know I've said many times that Jonathan Klein has little respect for any photographer but absolutely none for microstock contributors - he has repeatedly dissed us in interviews. But that is truly and utterly an insane amount to pay for this giveaway of copyrighted content.

Shame on Getty.

So "mr_erin" has confirmed that Google paid iStock/Getty for these images:

"Just FYI - we do know that Google paid for these images and have a license to use them, this is not a promo deal like MS. We're gathering the details on the license, this was done via the Getty Images sales so royalties would have come through that channel. We're looking into when this would have or will be visible to you as well."

Note the caged reference to the possibility that those whose images are on there might not have been paid and also the fact that a few posts back mr_erin said:

"Unfortunately we were not up to speed on this deal which is definitely not ideal, but please give us a bit more time to gather the facts and then we can take it from there."

So the chatty Ms. Rockafellar's improved communications doesn't even extend to keeping iStock up to speed with what Getty is doing.

Some of the images are Vetta, Agency and E+, which means they can have come from Getty, not iStock. Does any iStock exclusive have images on Google that can not have come from Getty - via Thinkstock or Getty Images main site?

Do you want to grow your portfolio and/or branch out a bit with the type of content you do? If so, definitely dump the crown. Otherwise, in spite of iStock's pitiful performance and borderline larcenous behavior (the Microsoft and Google giveaways), you might be better to just ride out whatever you can squeeze out of your existing files there.

You have a small portfolio with a pretty limited range of types of images and some of them may run into trouble getting accepted at SS and DT, at a guess. The DT issue would be similars and at SS, LCV (limited commercial value).

I received e-mail from 123rf this morning about their new Corporate + program

I guess it's a sign of the times that I now read things like this looking to see how they're going to hose contributors - once I'd have been interested in a new marketing initiative that might increase our earnings.

I wasn't thrilled to see:

"Stretch your content budget by receiving exclusive corporate pricing discounts."

"Improve your workflow by sharing content and collaborating in groups."

"License and re-license content on demand for each client. Ask us about how to use Corporate+ to help you save in the long run."

So on top of the already huge discounts we see (and which affect our royalties) they want to offer more. No multi-seat licenses needed for multiple people to use the content.

Just when you think the introduction of the miserable RC system is the bottom of the barrel, the "agency" manages to outdo themselves.

And is there any communication with contributors - here's what this means for you and why it's a good thing long run? I might not believe a word that comes out of their mouths anyway (how can you tell if they're lying goes the old joke; his mouth was open) but at least they could do us the courtesy of pretending that they give a sh*t about contributors.

It isn't hard, but it's highly inconvenient. I keep my model releases in a separate folder from my images. I use several properties over and over as "props". For all the other agencies but iStock and PhotoDune, I just pick the one I need from the stored list. With DeepMeta, iStock effectively has stored releases too, which leaves PhotoDune as the only agency where I have to find the right releases and remember to change folders in FTP and upload them.

It was fine as an initial makeshift solution, but nothing has improved in contributor tools in the last year, so I'm beginning to get the impression they're not going to bother fixing it.

About vlad_the_imp... Isn't he Lobo? Is Lobo leaving iStock?

Lobo is pieman. He doesn't have any portfolio as far as I know, so Vlad is some other lovely human

Quote from: jsnover on January 09, 2013, 10:27

Do you suppose that Microsoft paid iStock money as part of this deal?  If so, and someone could get the details, that would make a good case that IS should compensate contributors

They call it "promotional" but they get paid and contributors don't?  I'd ask this in the IS forums if I could. It would be interesting to see how they answer.

Unfortunately they changed the terms of the ASA to that we were all forced to agree that they could use them in promotions withough compensating us.

However, that clause was only changed in 2011 so didn't apply back then. Payment was definitely promised for the MS deal, but it possibly didn't specify how much, so 5c might cover it.

I know about the promotional terms in the ASA, but what I was getting at is the possibility that this wasn't about promoting the IS site at all, but being paid by Microsoft to allow some content to be included in their office site. More along the lines of a bulk sale but stiffing the contributors of their share by classifying it as a promotion. The Getty goal is no more than 20% payout to rights holders, but 0% would just mean all the more profit for them.

I wonder if any ex-iStock employee who knew the terms of that deal would be prepared to share?

It's working for me - where working means that the site is up, not that there are any new sales

Welcome - your website has some nice images. Have you started submitting stock to the micros yet?

Your description on the web site - a little bit of everything - describes stock very well

The manual way to do this requires being able to make a layer and set the blend mode to color - can Paint Shop Pro do that?

You have two choices to make the layer

1. duplicate the image layer and blur it enough to soften the edges. Add a mask to hide the whole layer. Change the layer blend mode to color. On the mask, paint in white over the fringe areas

2. make a blank layer & change blend mode to color. Paint on the layer with a soft edge brush set to the color the fringe should be - probably part blue and part green in the case of branches against the sky. Another way to "paint" is to use the blur tool with its mode set to sample from all layers (apologies if this doesn't work in Paint Shop Pro as I only know Photoshop). Run the blur brush over the fringe edges on the blank layer and you'll see the fringe disappear