|
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 - Anyka
Pages: 1 ... 16 17 18 19 20 [21] 22 23 24 25 26 ... 38
501
« on: January 20, 2013, 13:39 »
Perhaps we could frame the buyer protest a little differently? Some buyers will have credits to use up and if they can't get refunds, there's no reason for them to just give that money to iStock
How about setting the last weekday before D-Day as one to use up all your credits and close your account? Make February 1st Buy-and-Bye Day (or something catchier)?
It'll be harder for corporate accounts to do something like this as decisions get made by people other than the art buyer (and often made slowly).
What does a buyer lose if they close their account? A history of what they've bought - do they have any rights to re-download something previously purchased and lost (I seem to remember that being added sometime in the last year or two)?
The lower the pain for the buyer to join in the protest, the more buyers will likely be willing to participate.
Good idea, but may-be not on Feb.1st. If this get much reponse, it will look like a sales boost. So why not ask buyers to use up their credits "before then end of January", and close their accounts on Feb.1st ?
502
« on: January 20, 2013, 03:33 »
You can count me in for dropping my Exclusive Crown and for deleting all my people pictures on Istock. That is over 1,000 images from my portfolio. I can't afford to be making $7- $45 a day with them anymore or for them to give away my files that I spent so much money on with wardrobe, props, renting studio space, and paying models.
Congrats on dropping your crown! You have a great portfolio with even greater models. It's Istock's loss.
503
« on: January 19, 2013, 16:33 »
A homeless, dirty, raggedly dressed person wearing a gold crown sitting on the sidewalk and begging with a tin cup.
Yes! And a big fat guy with Google suit and expensive cigar giving $12 alms ...
504
« on: January 19, 2013, 16:16 »
The total might be higher. We should combine the totals from the Deactivation Tally thread where people have already deactivated with this total.
Also, I think there are people deactivating or planning to deactivate who aren't posting. We should all keep an eye on the library total on Feb 2 and 3rd to see how it changes.
Better keep an eye on it starting from Feb 1 late evening ... my Feb 2 starts a LOT earlier than yours 
505
« on: January 19, 2013, 03:51 »
Good point.... I presume you mean in case anyone ever wanted proof of financial loss arising out of the Getty-Google deal?
Yes, just in case one of the deactivated files is part of the next Google Drive collection : Nice to have proof an image was deactivated BEFORE it went on Google Drive. We do not have an "opt out" button, but this is our way of opting out.
506
« on: January 19, 2013, 01:37 »
That script is the bomb.
Don't delete those deactivation messages in your e-mail. Save them as proof for the date of deactivation.
507
« on: January 18, 2013, 16:01 »
Sorry, already sent a message around my CN yesterday. Should've waited for Sean's text ...
I think mailing the message to one's CN is an excellent way to reach out to people who are not on MSG or don't visit any forums (probably the majority of Istock contributors).
508
« on: January 18, 2013, 10:43 »
I'm ready to start deactivating, but I have a couple of questions first. If you deactivate images from IS, are they deactivated on Thinkstock as well, or will it take IS/Getty forever to get around to deactivating them on TS? I mean if the images remain available on TS for a long time after deactivation, then what will we have accomplished by mass deactivation? Also, I seem to remember someone on this forum saying that if you deactivate images older than 1 1/2 years then they must be reinspected before being reactivated, is that true?
Allsa, bad new I'm afraid : Deactivated images will probably/hopefully/eventually be deleted on Thinkstock (estimated 2 months later). There are known cases where TS did not delete the files until after an e-mail request by the contributor. If you deactivate old images (we think older than 18 months), yes they have to be reinspected. Younger files can be reactivated without reinspection. Most of us have 2 reasons to deativate : (1) make a point, let Istock/Getty/Google/theWorld know and (2) protect our files the only way we can, even if it's with 2 months delay. Are you joining us?
509
« on: January 17, 2013, 17:04 »
I wrote to my CN or whatever they call it now - friends? - on IS and most of them didn't know about this. Some that aren't active anymore but still get a pay out sometimes were interested in deleting files to show support. They don't need the extra couple hundred bucks a year and want to protect their pictures from abuse. If anybody didn't write their CN yet, might be a good idea.
Good idea! Just did the same thing : a short message to the members of my creative network with a link to Sean's initial post on the Istock forum, asking them to join us on D-Day, even if they are not active on Istock anymore, but still have images there.
510
« on: January 17, 2013, 16:44 »
1642 + 20 = 1662
Sorry, the rest will be done on 2nd February, but I wanted to see how fast Sean's script worked : Wow! Deactivating 20 files is done faster than just going to the next page ...
511
« on: January 17, 2013, 08:00 »
If we had enough people doing this, we could all "vote" for the same BAD photos. If we would all suggest our worst photo, then define about 50 (or more) of them of different MSG'ers, then each of us would vote on 10 of them. I bet Google automates part of this and will add the top 1000 to their collection ...?
512
« on: January 17, 2013, 07:48 »
Microstock Flames? And then have an Emerald, Diamond, Gold Flame etc. so that certain agencies feel the hint?
513
« on: January 14, 2013, 12:45 »
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.
Had the same problem, until I found out there's another script : IS_myUploads_fixes.user.jsWith both running, the deactivation column is added.
514
« on: January 14, 2013, 11:39 »
I have a photo session that day but will try to deactivate at least 500 (+ 4364 = 4864). Just out of principle I will NOT delete the 10 worst selling images of my port (oldest + zero sales). You never know if Istock will (next time) ask us to donate free images for the next batch, do we?
515
« on: January 14, 2013, 09:09 »
I am saving the confirmation e-mails for every deactivation in a separate folder. It's proof of the date of deactivation. Might come in handy if they throw another bunch of files on the market for free and one of the deactivated files is on the list.
516
« on: January 14, 2013, 08:58 »
+1 = 492
Just trying out deactivation, as I was not sure I could deactivate Photo+ files (it worked).
Does Sean's script work in IE9 ? if yes, how?
517
« on: January 13, 2013, 08:06 »
I can't offer legal advice, but if any of my images were involved, this is what I would do. Ask a lawyer to write a letter to iStock, demanding the images be taken down from the offending "deal" immediately, and no further such deals be entered in to with my content. The letter would point out how the deal contravenes or might contravene iStock's contractual obligations and reasonable business practice, the implication being that those would be the lines of complaint if we should go to court. For various good reasons, iStock is unlikely to want to go on record resisting the legal request, it isn't worth it to them. Chances are 99% they would remove the images. The whole thing would not cost me more than one or two hundred dollars.
How can Istock (or getty) take down images that are on Google Drive? I don't think Istock would be writing a letter to Google saying "sorry, but could you remove one or two photos from the Deal? We'll return the 60$ of course".
518
« on: January 12, 2013, 14:23 »
This would work brilliantly if we all uploaded the same image, over and over again - one that depicts how we feel, any photoshoppers out there?
Great idea. No need for photoshop. Just go outside and photograph the first pile of dog doo you come across from every possible angle and upload. Simple 
Don't do that Lisa : I just checked Istock, and the best dog poop pile image has more than 10 downloads, so they might accept your photo! May-be if you shot it out of focus, with dark shadows and a logo on it?
519
« on: January 12, 2013, 13:57 »
People are talking about stopping uploading as way of punishing Istock but what would be far more effective would if everyone used their full upload allocation to submit images that would get rejected (for one flaw or another). Istock would still have to pay their inspectors for the work but would gain no benefit whatsoever. In fact it would cost them quite a bit if it was done on a large enough scale.
LOL!
Love it! Not only would we give Istock useless work, but for the first time in years uploading to istock would be easy and painless : no disambiguation needed! Forget about MR's! We wouldn't even have to read the rejection reasons!
520
« on: January 12, 2013, 08:48 »
Good points but I don't think this is 'out there' just yet. Personally I don't do Twitter (and FB as little as possible), so I can't claim any expertise on social media, however I suspect that this issue is way too complex and technical to be encapsulated in 140 characters.
It certainly is not "out there" yet, at least not on forums, blogs etc. Can't find anything about it anywhere, except big praise (from users' point of view) about the quality of the donated stock photos on Google drive. Yes : "donated". I found several sites announcing that the stock photos were donated, not bought. Donated by kind Google-drive-users.
521
« on: January 12, 2013, 07:21 »
Google may-be is in the clear for the redistribution of the images, but were they allowed to strip all copyright info/metadata, so that the images' artists cannot be traced anymore?
522
« on: January 12, 2013, 02:40 »
So they post an update and say we didn't do anything wrong and we'll do more of it.
I am afraid if they don't provide an opt-out of deals like that I will have to leave. It'll hurt me financially but they are putting me out of business anyway. I'd still give them some time to come with something better, but if they don't I think there is no choice - all 7909 painfully uploaded files will have to be taken down and account closed.
I thought our contributor agreement with Istock stated that images remain on site for X months after quitting. You can of course deactivate them first, which means customers can no longer find/download them from Istock anymore, but still, Istock/Getty can still sell them to Google/MS during these 3 months (was it 3 months? and even 6 for photo+ files?). So quitting Istock or deactivating all images will not protect us during these months. And worse : if Istock/Getty get pissed because of multiple deactivations, why would they not sell your whole portfolio on IS (or "just" your bestsellers) as soon as they notice you're starting to deactivate, or right after your request for account closure?
523
« on: January 11, 2013, 16:37 »
No idea how you did it Sean, but thank you for that list! I'm not on it, but feel as angry as if I was.
It's bedtime now (in Belgium), and I'm wondering how many pages filled with posts I will find when I get up in the morning.
524
« on: January 11, 2013, 06:13 »
The mysteriously disappeared 30 dollars are back again now ...
525
« on: January 11, 2013, 02:00 »
123RF is having again a BUG in reporting the sales, my balance just dropped and there were no refunds, how can we trust an agency this way?
I just had exactly the same experience. My earnings balance dropped with about 30 dollars, and the refunds column says "zero". No e-mail explaining this, just minus 30 without any explanation.
Pages: 1 ... 16 17 18 19 20 [21] 22 23 24 25 26 ... 38
|
Sponsors
Microstock Poll Results
Sponsors
|
Show Posts
