Quote from: luissantos84 on July 25, 2013, 21:00

Quote from: Yuri_Arcurs on July 25, 2013, 20:56
You are really angry! Why? I made your day didn't I?

yes I expected that from you, running away from replying properly and yes you have made my day, still laughing!

you are so full of yourself and full of crap too

Arghh. That was low. I'm here. I listen and write back and this is what you want to say. Not worth my time.

Quote from: EmberMike on July 25, 2013, 20:53
Yuri, I used to respect you and what you've been able to accomplish in microstock. But the way you've handled this is really disgusting.

Microstock companies gave you the opportunity to become what you are today. Maybe you've outgrown them, but it's really disrespectful to mock these companies on your way out the door, saying things like "professionals work with professionals" and calling your departure "the first substantial setback in microstock history."

You aren't microstock. We all are, and some of us real professionals in microstock wouldn't act like children on our way out the door if we ever opted to move on.

I completely agree. So why do you think I am saying what I do? Think deeper my friend.

Quote from: picture5469 on July 25, 2013, 20:57
Could u be kind enough to answer my question please Yuri as to why you still have images on DT?
Thanks

I actually don't know. I will have to reference my distribution team tomorrow. I presume most will be removed quite soon.

Quote from: Xanox on July 25, 2013, 20:52
excellent Yuri !

this press release will be the nail in the coffin for the few microstockers left who still dream about the downfall of Getty, RM, and the so called "macrosaurs".

and yeah, if the top micro agencies can't keep their top sellers investors have definitely a hot potato in their hands or at least some will read it that way.

True.

Quote from: RoosterHD on July 25, 2013, 20:51
Hi Yuri,

How are model releases handled on scoopshot?

Good luck,

Mark

Scoopshot is editorial. Only when customers wants to use the images as a commercial product a model release is required.

Quote from: luissantos84 on July 25, 2013, 20:48
You might have noticed huge amounts of images being removed from micro subscription sites such as Shutterstock.com, Fotolia.com, Dreamstime.com etc.

because we (contributors) looked for it, bet buyers haven't felt a thing

You might also have noticed that Shutterstock's stock have dropped more than 12% over the past week.

yeah because of you


Perhaps you have also seen the public statement that GettyImages made about Yuri Arcurs and PeopleImages.com going exclusive with Getty/Istock and removing close to 100'000 images from competitors (Shutterstock, Fotolia, Dreamstime, etc)

we (contributors) have seen it and actually we are talking about 60k files, guess you are learning maths with professionals back at GI

And if you keep a really close eye on this industry, you might have noticed that on the same day as the Getty announcement (July 16th), I also revealed my involvement in Scoopshot.com through a 1.4mil USD angle investment at a press conference in London. You can read more about it on techcrunch.

indeed, a genius move, we talking about a wow collection

To sum up: In one day, microstock saw a public release confirming that Yuri Arcurs (me) and all our 20 photographers (70% of which are on the top 10 in the world) and our entire peopleimages.com production house, would leave and move all images to Istock/Getty. They witnessed an otherwise underestimated industry (mobile photography, scoopshot.com) being granted a seal of trust in a 1.2mil USD investment.

21 x 0.7 = 14 ... 14 photographers on the top 10 OK

Furthermore, and perhaps the most interesting part: most of us would have been in the belief that sites like Shutterstock, Fotolia and others where the disruptive industry, now have to consider if they are in fact being disrupted themselves, by mobile photography.

again brilliant collection at scoopshot

Holy cow, what a week.

believe you are talking about the 2 months you took to leave microstock for good while feeding your pockets at contributors/buyers expense

Thinking back I must admit, that my chances where low: when 20% of the CEO's where sleeping in the sun, 20% had no clue what the industry was actually about, 15% thought that the only food customers needed was burgers and if they did not eat it for breakfast we just needed to convince them. The 35% rest where paralyzed by the initial success and for all means did not want the change anything.

again you are having maths problem (by 10%) but lets say those 10% mean you don't know have a clue about this industry as well, believe if you can blame other sure they can blame you

just to finish you have spoken about mobile photography like 10 times, maybe try one more because we aren't still convinced

You are really angry! Why? I made your day didn't I?

For the last two years there has been an opt in/opt out of partner programs. We are one of those programs

Quote from: Sean Locke Photography on July 25, 2013, 20:39
So, iStock is lying when they say they are the only site hosting your images

No. They are not. Exclusive does not mean Istock only. It means partner sites as well. This can't be news.

Hi Guys. Im here. I have the next 1-2h. Send me some proper questions

Microstock sees it's first major setback in 6 years and here is why:

http://arcurs.com/2013/07/microstock-sees-its-first-major-setback-in-6-years-and-here-is-why/

Press release is just around the corner. Professionals deal with Professionals. Getty is the right partner for us!

Hi Guys.
We have found a good distribution partner (Getty Images) for the kind of content we produce. We will be removing all images from microstock doing the next few weeks. Microstock, especially subscription sites, are not suited for the kind of high production cost images we produce.
Best Yuri

Too much trafic. Had to shift to another server. The hosting company actually banned us. Unbelievable. It took us 24h to move name servers. Not something we can control.
Good news. It's up and running again and will be both faster and more stabile.

I love the idea and It is strikingly similar to something I discussed with IS management back 4 years ago and strikingly similar to a business model we have been developing for www.peopleimages.com. hmmm...
Our only problem and something that have caused almost a full-stop actually and that we have been trying to solve for the interim is: how do you market, promote and service a platform for which you are not making any money? With a Co-Op owned site you can't even get VC investment.
This site will portray Bruce as a gregarious individual and a community supporter, but that might just be the primary outcome. Sales don't just "appear".
It was Getty's team that drove Istock to the success it is today. Istock had a revenue of 10mil USD when sold to Getty despite being a first mover in microstock and having been around for 5 years.

Any deal that Getty is getting money in their pocket for, made possible by my (and your images), but that we do not collect a royalty on, is a scandal and deserves attention.
My legal team and I do not quite know what to do here. Is the current situation as follows: The photographers will not get any royalty from the Google deal, images are licensed for free? Are there any news out there that we have not heard off? Is this license not basically a very liberal "extended" license for which we should receive normal pay? How is it possible for Getty to avoid this?
I am meeting with Getty Executives Monday the 28 in London to discus this among other things. Are there updates on the matter of significant character.

16% is pretty bad. I think I will start to upload only Low res from now on. For 38 cents per download - that's the price of a a low res

Does anybody know if Getty/Istock and others are building mobile stock selling and submission apps? In other words, should we prepare ourselves for this?

Can't post brand name at this point. That would conflict with the case.

Something that strikes me is "why me". Should they not be suing the agencies that have actually sold these images? If the case is to stop the sales of their brand on stock sites, then why are they targeting me? In case they win all I can really do is make sure not to use their Glasses in any images in the future, but I can't demand a take-down on jurisdictions where this brand might not even have a design trademark filling? Makes sense?
Is the right procedure not to contact each of the agencies and demand that images showing their design be taken down?

The case will be on Danish Jurisdiction at first trying to hit us in our own country. Then it will obviously expand to other countries to make sure we are forced to remove the images from all countries at which point all major stock sites will be forced to do the same. It will be a game changer yes and unfortunately limit the types of images we can produce quite a lot because if a generic everyday item such as a pair of glasses can be the subject of an infringement, then everything can. All recognisable car brands, all furniture, household items, computers, electronics... you name it.

Hi Guys.
Recently my legal team has been working overtime battling a case against us made by a company manufacturing glasses. I can't mention their name here until the case opens to the public. The problem is that quite a few of the models that we have shot over the years have used their own glasses on shoots, which then turn out to of this particular brand and are "design trademarked". (There are no trademarks or logos on these glasses, just a shape of that particular design series from that year for that brand). These models have paid prices in the range of 800 USD for just one pair of glasses so they are quite expensive.

The problem is, that if this case goes into court and I lose, it will have a huge effect on the rest of the industry and we estimate that about 100000 images (at least) needs to be removed from all the online stock libraries, because as you know stock agencies don't want content online where their customers risk a lawsuit if using the images. Istock has done several of these "mass take downs" in the last few years. So if you shoot people like I do, and you have 10000 images in your portfolio, you should expect to have to remove 50-200 images.
Another effect we might expect, is that other brands of glasses will follow suit or that the agencies themselves will request you to remove all images with XXX brands, at which point we are looking at having to remove about 30-50% of all images on all stock sites with glasses. For me personally about 1500-3500 images. Potentially the biggest take down in stock history.

However. Is this fair?
1. Glasses are by the very nature something you wear on your face in all circumstances and thus are almost imposible not to take pictures off. Brands making glasses are aware of this and make them for this very purpose. Cars, computers and other everyday items are similarly recognisable, but are part of every day life. We can remove the logo, but can't remove the car.
2. Is it fair that a photographer that removes all trademarks, now have to risk being sued because of "design"in something as generic as glasses?
3. Is it fair that a photographer has to research into patent registrations prior to a stock shoot or a portrait series of a client? And in fact remove the model's/clients own glasses if they are of a particular brand? Even when this client has paid top dollar for them?

I think this case is ridiculous as you can probably hear, but it could become quite a big problem for us and all other photographers especially portrait photographers or other commercial photographers doing client work.

Any advice that we can use in our case preparations are very welcome. Good arguments, links to similar cases, reflections, law experience. Whatever you think is relevant is very welcome. If this case becomes a reality (which it looks like it will, because they are now already expanding their demands to more images) we want to take it to supreme court. Our lawyers are however not positive about our chances.

Best Yuri Arcurs

Quote from: cidepix on October 19, 2012, 12:46

Quote from: sjlocke on October 19, 2012, 12:39

Quote from: sharpshot on October 19, 2012, 08:06
Would be great if Yuri could open up Peopleimages for other contributors.  I would need a non-people section though and so would all the vector contributors.  Making it a one stop shop for buyers would be a good idea, if they can find what they need on one site, they wont have to look elsewhere.

We have that.  It's called iStock.  Or Shutterstock.  Or Dreamstime.  I don't know why you think his agency would be any different.

+1 to that..

Do some people really think yuri will pay them more than %25-30 

I do

If peopleimages.com one day becomes enough of a success to open up for contributors it would be great. I just don't want to go that way with nothing to pay out to photographers. We will see. In the future it might a be posible.

It's a Sean trap... Shhhyyy. Don't say anything. Let's see if he jumps in.

Here are some statistics from our backend at PeopleImages.com from today :. Just wanted to celebrate a bit, since my sales are down on almost all other sites.
Peopleimages.com: 5 months in, $0 spent on marketing (to come later) and increases in sales by almost 100% per month. (Still low actual monthly sales, but with days like today, getting much closer to something that might actually go into profit one day)

Clients report two things they like:
The site is super fast and userfriendly. They are tired of waiting for pages to load on fotolia, dreamstime, istock, shutterstock, etc.
Customer support is extremely helpful and friendly.

Anyway. A little celebration. Y