It is my suspicion that the Alexa ranking is very pertinent to dropping sales site wide at IS. I do not believe for one nano second that sales and revenue "are exactly as they predicted". Case in point is their sudden faux interest last month in improving communication with contributors, their long overdue lifting of the curtain to introduce key administrative players, their unabashedly shameful promotion to give to charity for increased sales, and their recent resurrection of "contributor trusted" JJRD. IMO, they are scared sh*tless and are obviously in panic mode.

Quote from: click_click on July 06, 2012, 16:10

Quote from: jbryson on July 06, 2012, 16:03
All policies, rules and compensation methods will change at least daily, based on the previous night's weed smoking, acid dropping, alcohol saturated, mind blowing binges attended by administrators and groupies who support each other's hallucinogenic, brainstorming gushes of hysterical brilliance. Such gatherings to be hosted by the employee of the month.

... at the expense of the photographer of the day 

lol. Without doubt. Expenses to be padded, over exaggerated and completely undocumented. Any receipts reluctantly provided will be missing important details, and perhaps modified months after the fact. Photographer shall bear the burden of all errors in their entirety. Under no circumstances will grievances be accepted or acknowledged. Administrators will be fitted with cloaks of invisibility. Filters will be placed over photographers' mouths and they will be held creative and financial hostage. Chains and restraints to be tightened regularly. Photographers will tricked into handing over their souls, and cleverly distracted so that hope and passion can be drained, via slow drip, and immediately disposed of as infectious medical waste.

All policies, rules and compensation methods will change at least daily, based on the previous night's weed smoking, acid dropping, alcohol saturated, mind blowing binges attended by administrators and groupies who support each other's hallucinogenic, brainstorming gushes of hysterical brilliance. Such gatherings to be hosted by the employee of the month.

I just had to comment....I am still in Kansas 

Quote from: Noodles on May 23, 2012, 01:00

Quote from: jbryson on May 22, 2012, 22:51
If you replace the word "Pin" with "Grab" when speaking of the site features (because that is in effect what it does) you may see it from another perspective. To grab, with permission, a watermarked image image that links back to a microstock site is very different than to grab a licensed image from a blog -- even with the blogger's blessing. Perhaps the blogger holds a proper license, but the pinner/grabber does not.

If you are a photographer, and own a website, or have produced slideshows for customers, would you consider grabbing copyrighted music without proper license to use in the background? If your answer is "yes", you will likely never understand what we are concerned about here.

Yes, the pinner/blogger example is a good one. But I just don't see the harm in allowing pinning. For example, my youngest daughter had to prepare a project for school, in the form of a small A3 poster, about dolphins. We used google to source some images (no doubt all copyrighted) and printed and glued them on to the poster. I highly doubt this is an uncommon practise. I guess its not legal to do so but if common sense prevails there is little harm done by it. This "politically correct" world we now seem to live in is awful sometimes.

You are correct, it is not an uncommon practice. And, there in lies one of the problems. Just because lots and lots of people steal hotel towels, doesn't mean it's okay for me to do it.

I think the true harm in your particular example is that your youngest daughter may not recognize in the future that it is not okay source and download just any image from Google. Many are copyrighted. Just like many articles and text also found by Google. If she doesn't know already, she will learn in school that it is not okay to copy and use those. Do you believe that a copyright held by a photographer is not equally valuable, or equally enforceable, to one held by an author?

If you make your living as a photographer, and as I'm relatively new here I don't know whether or not you do, I am worried that you do not understand the significance of the issue.

I admit I could be wrong about this, but it was my impression that legitimate radio stations, on line or not, still had to pay royalties each time a song is played.

Quote from: Noodles on May 22, 2012, 01:11

Quote from: ShadySue on May 22, 2012, 00:45
As I and others have said, that's hardly the issue. The target market is women in the 20s and 30s. They suggest using it for "planning weddings, decorating homes and sharing recipes". How many of the target market using the site in the suggested ways are going to go to a stock site to find images? They're going to look at wedding dress sites, home decoration sites, recipe sites, or women's magazine sites, and that's where they may pick up 'your' (=someone's) unwatermarked pics, not linked back to the agency.
I don't actually use the site at all, but say 'I' was going to use it to 'pin' some hairstyles I wanted to show my stylist, so visited some magazine sites to research hairstyles, then I realise the copyright implications (most people would not give this a thought). How likely is it that 'I' (=most of the relatively few people who considered copyright) would then do a GIS to see if I could find the legitimate source of the image, then buy credits or pay money to license the image? If it was me, I'd just go earlier to the hairdresser and flick through the mags in her waiting area.

we are talking about a scrapbook on line not pirating stolen music or stock images - besides, there are a zillion blogs out there that do the exact same thing. Anyway, I think we will have to agree to disagree on this one

How is a "scrapbook on line" any different than a playlist online? Except of course, it consists of images rather than music.

If you replace the word "Pin" with "Grab" when speaking of the site features (because that is in effect what it does) you may see it from another perspective. To grab, with permission, a watermarked image image that links back to a microstock site is very different than to grab a licensed image from a blog -- even with the blogger's blessing. Perhaps the blogger holds a proper license, but the pinner/grabber does not.

If you are a photographer, and own a website, or have produced slideshows for customers, would you consider grabbing copyrighted music without proper license to use in the background? If your answer is "yes", you will likely never understand what we are concerned about here.

I would not give address or phone number, but set up a temporary gmail email account and give it to her. The wording is suggestive of a scam, but perhaps it is simply a translation issue. If the email she sends is suspicious, just ignore it, and close the email account.

Quote from: lisafx on May 16, 2012, 18:06

Quote from: cgartist on May 16, 2012, 18:00
and how are we(contributors) going to get benefited by all these stuffs going on with fotolia and shutterstock? (except of buying equity)

How will we be benefited?  Sort of the same way a new prisoner is "benefited" when he drops the soap in the prison shower. 

Hysterical. Care if I use this one in the future?

I have a gut feeling that prices had reached a happy medium at iStock in around 2007-08. They were higher than $1, but yet still manageable for most casual buyers. I have nothing to support this, other than a gut feeling from being at the party then. Does anyone have records that show pricing at that time on iStock? I'm pretty sure it was the same across for independents and exclusives at that time.

Quote from: lisafx on May 15, 2012, 15:44

...  We have all taken a beating in the self-esteem dept.  Yet we continue to contribute because we have grown accustomed to the money, and many of us rely on it to pay our bills.  

This loyalty thing, and loss of it, is not limited to Istock exclusives.  I used to love doing this.  Couldn't believe I actually got paid for doing something that was such fun!  Now, due to the the actions of a number of top agencies, it is no longer fun.  It's just a job.  Just work.  Such a shame....

Yes, I definitely rely on my royalties to pay my bills. And any dramatic change will create real difficulty. But feeling helpless to change a psuedo-abusive relationship is a real issue -- one I cannot tolerate forever. I've got to get my mind around it, and make some positive changes, whatever they may be.

Quote from: loop on May 15, 2012, 14:42

Quote from: jbryson on May 15, 2012, 00:12
I have been full time since 2007, and my revenue is 99% from istock alone. That is why I have gritted my teeth for this long.  But, there may come a time when I simply cannot do it any longer.

For me, it is not a loyalty but a financial affair. The truth must be told just by numbers. And getting away from this 99% you quote, I've opened roads to another prohotographic works. Not microstock, not RF, not even much RM. One day will arrive where the entire stock industry will feel the weight of overproduction, and its consquences won't be suffered at this or at this another one agency, but on the whole sector. If you just do RF, you have all your eggs in the same basket, no matter if your are just at one or at one hundred sites.  

I think the emotional loyalty was gone for most of us when Bruce left, or shortly thereafter. It is most definitely a financial tie now.

But, now there is an issue of respect for those who produce the sellable product. There are many professions where people sacrifice respect for money, namely the oldest one. With each rule change, or administrative change at istock, I assess how much respect remains.

Self-esteem has taken a beating over the last 2 years. At this critical point, I see potential for respect to be completely diminished, or for a small turn around. But either way, I am on high alert, and will remove my crown if all respect for me and what I contribute is gone.

Quote from: gostwyck on May 15, 2012, 02:03

Quote from: jbryson on May 15, 2012, 00:12
I have been full time since 2007, and my revenue is 99% from istock alone. That is why I have gritted my teeth for this long.  But, there may come a time when I simply cannot do it any longer.

I never quite know how to feel about such cases. I want to feel sympathetic but at the same time I blame exclusives for their ridiculous and undeserved loyalty by which they essentially engineered Istock to feel empowered enough to screw us all.

The sooner they take their medicine, accept the short-term hit to their earnings and move on to become independent contributors the better for all of us.

That's a humorous outlook...    I'm not sure I disagree today. Although back when I first became exclusive in 2004 or 2005, they did deserve my loyalty. It was a mutually beneficial partnership.

I have been full time since 2007, and my revenue is 99% from istock alone. That is why I have gritted my teeth for this long.  But, there may come a time when I simply cannot do it any longer.

For me personally, I am fairly certain that to drop the crown will mean a long term revenue decrease. However, I like to be in control of my own destiny, and feel there is huge value in that alone. There may come a point in time, where I can no longer withstand the emotional brutality. Regardless of revenue to be lost, that will be the day I remove my crown.

Quote from: JPSDK on May 14, 2012, 14:33
Where they will get the photos, when they dont want to pay?
There are several ways.
Russian copy sites.
Download them from facebook.
Begging.
I have quite many people begging for photos.
always the same... "Since I dont have a budget". Even government institutions and the military.

Yes, I've had site mails on istock in the past from people describing a "no budget" situation, and asking for photos for free. It's not unusual.

Quote from: Karimala on May 13, 2012, 16:32

One of the main problems for web designers buying images at Getty was Getty coming after their clients for copyright infringement.  Getty would send a letter demanding $1000-$2000 and if the designer's client didn't pay up, Getty threatened to sue them.  Countless confused clients paid Getty instead of being sued, even though they purchased licenses through their web site designers.    


In the case of this person, a large webdesign firm, they licensed the images used them on customers' sites, and the customers received the letters. I don't know all details, and admit there are always two sides to every story. From what I understand, it didn't go away easily, and the webdesign firm just ended up replacing all Getty images with images licensed from other sites and vowing never to use Getty again. They used Shutterstock for a time but currently use 123RF and are very pleased.

From the questions in the survey referring to "Professional Photographers" and "Curated Collections", I get the uncomfortable, sneaking suspicion that in their hearts they still believe in the original Getty model and are trying to manipulate false support of them slowly morphing istock's model into the old Getty model.

It's the classic marketing mistake of not first finding out what buyers want and strategizing a profitable way to provide it, but rather coming up with an idea that you like on your own and trying to convince buyers it's the best way. It usually never works. But those who do it this way usually fight their way to the death.

On another note, if the site becomes more and more like Getty, and if they start to include Getty more and more in their branding, I am afraid they will hit the old Getty extortion letter stumbling block. We don't hear much about it today, but evidently it is still fresh in the minds of large, longtime stock buyers. I was talking to one the other day, casually, mentioning recent changes at istock. They told me in no uncertain terms that they would NEVER buy from Getty again because many of their clients continue to fight those letters. In fact, in their circles it is still a very fresh wound. If this is any reflection of the industry as a whole, it would seem that keeping istock as far away from the Getty brand as possible would be the best path to take. (Google "Getty Letter" if unfamiliar with the issue).

eta: the Getty extortion letter was not COOL