I just spent a little time re-reading some of the stuff written in late 2012/early 2013 in the iStock forums about the Google Drive deal - the forums are now all an "archive", and I assume will shortly go away as they move to the Getty contributor community. It's a shame in a way, but might as well bury the dead body - it's not coming back to life.

I was re-reading to be sure I wasn't mis-remembering events. Getty was unwilling then to give an opt out to contributors from any deals they came up with and they clearly stated they planned to continue making deals. They didn't communicate the Google Drive deal up front either (not even to iStock management, apparently).

Two and a half years later, they're continuing down the path they clearly said they were going to take. It beggars belief that between Mr. Klein, Hellman & Friedman and the Carlyle Group, they've damaged iStock (and Getty Images) as badly as they have, but at what point do contributors who keep hoping something will be different or better decide that they have to write Getty off as a business partner?

Keep selling there if that makes sense to you, but be aware of Getty/iStock's history - none of this current idiocy on their part is surprising in light of their (many) previous idiocies. If anything, Getty seems to be doubling down on a failed strategy hoping to reverse the downturn in their fortunes.

Lots of sites have these deals.  Shutterstock allows POD where the product (the image) can sell for over $400 and the contributor gets 1-4 dollars, maybe less?  They say the minimum cost for the seller is $2.99 but there are products for sale at 99 cents, something fishy is going on there I would guess.   You'll probably have to stop contributing to all sites if you want to avoid those kinds of deals.

That number was just for bigstock.

Quote from: tickstock on July 07, 2015, 09:04

According to the poll the average would be about 3 or 4 dollars per month.

How do you arrive at that result?

@Op: I don't think there is any relevant number available simply based on the number of files. Depending on topic, style, quality, keywording and luck (or lack of) the results can vary a lot.

Average port is about 3500, average monthly income is $25.  So for 500 images the average income would be $25/7 or $3.57 per month.

Quote from: tickstock on July 06, 2015, 14:28

The shark was jumped when the + - hearts thing was put in, I think that really pushed this place into something else.  It's not about stock or photography anymore it's about making comments that will get lots of likes.  Something should be done to try to bring back the professionals but that ship may have sailed long ago.

While I generally agree with you, some of those professionals who are no longer here or have new identities were real A-holes, condescending to anyone who disagreed with them, or they were just outright rude by nature. This is to say that it goes both ways.

Edit...i do prefer good dialogue, ideas and overall opinions. You bring some good balance to these forums and i personally like that even though i dont always agree.

I'm not talking about those guys you're referring to.  There were lots of other guys that used to be on here who were helpful and very well informed that haven't been around in ages.

Quote from: tickstock on July 06, 2015, 14:42

...You don't get the images you can use them on slide.ly.  I doubt this sends the message that it's ok to use free images for advertising or commercial purposes.  As far as deals go this one seems pretty benign.

If you read the startupbeat article (link in my earlier post) Slidely plans to offer paid services at some point. What happens then to the content for which the contributor receives no payment? Shouldn't there at least be some discussions with contributors about how there's something free now but there'll be a paid offering to come (if that's the plan)?

"EasyHi�s plan to initiate monetization efforts centers around a freemium offering that will provide premium features, content and themes via subscriptions, in-app purchases, pay-on-demand, real-world photo accessories and will offer both Light and Pro versions of the platform."

Another aspect of a number of deals between agencies and platforms is whether there are any deal-related payments - money that contributors don't share in - between the two parties. When there's no transparency at all over the general terms of the deal (and this isn't just a beef with Getty; Shutterstock wouldn't disclose details on a number of their arrangements either) there's the potential for our images to the bait on the hook and other people eat the fish caught.

I guess it depends how that shakes out and if there is any monetary gain for Getty.  You are right it's a different thing if Getty is getting paid and we aren't than if it's just marketing.  Maybe Getty will start charging for some or all images too? 

Quote from: tickstock on July 06, 2015, 15:18

Quote from: Shelma1 on July 06, 2015, 15:12

(And for someone who thinks I'm a troll and supposedly has me on ignore, you, tickstock, spend a lot of time defending Getty image giveaways in a thread I started.)

I honestly do think you're a troll.  I'm not "defending" this, I'm giving my honest opinion that I don't think this is giving away images or that this is a big deal.  It's not for me.  If you think it is a big deal then that's fine you know what your options are, it's either accept it or not.  That's the way things are, it doesn't seem like a big deal to me so I'm fine accepting it for what I see it as, a marketing campaign that probably will have little to no effect one way or the other.

What? I can't hear you. I have you on ignore.

Thank god, now can you stop bringing me up too?

(And for someone who thinks I'm a troll and supposedly has me on ignore, you, tickstock, spend a lot of time defending Getty image giveaways in a thread I started.)

I honestly do think you're a troll.  I'm not "defending" this, I'm giving my honest opinion that I don't think this is giving away images or that this is a big deal.  It's not for me.  If you think it is a big deal then that's fine you know what your options are, it's either accept it or not.  That's the way things are, it doesn't seem like a big deal to me so I'm fine accepting it for what I see it as, a marketing campaign that probably will have little to no effect one way or the other.

Quote from: tickstock on July 06, 2015, 14:09

Quote from: cathyslife on July 06, 2015, 13:46

I am pretty sure the copyright symbol and the link are going to be totally useless. The bloggers don't care if the images they use have watermarks, why should the people creating these.

"This isn't a free giveaway, what rights are given?" People looking for freebies don't give a rats a$$ about rights. They just want a free photo. Allowing the images, watermark or not, for these kinds of things just degrades the whole concept of "selling your images."

People looking for freebies aren't going to be buying images in the first place.  I can go to google and steal full sized unwatermarked images much easier than going on Slide.ly and doing a screen shot, crop, and then downsizing to not much bigger than a thumbnail to get a sharp images.  I don't see actual buyers deciding to go there and doing all that to steal an image.  If it brings some more eyes to Getty and iStock then I think it will probably have an overall positive effect and at the worst no effect.  I'm not really worried about this, it seems analogous to music pirates recording songs off the radio, sure you could do that but who would?

TO some extent I agree with the thing about freebies not buying images anyway. I've thought for a long time that the main selling market is business users wanting images that are safe to use.
However it's one thing seeing the odd nicked image online in some schoolkid's blog, and quite another giving the use of images away, thus reinforcing the idea that these images are "free"
They're not. They were uploaded by people expecting sales. "Promotional use" by Getty/ iStock on their websites or whatever is a very different proposition of encouraging people to think that images are free.
There's no way of knowing that it does no harm, and I really can't see that it does any good. Certainly not for the individual contributor.

They aren't given away, they are used within the slide.ly environment.  Giving them away means something different to me.  You don't get the images you can use them on slide.ly.  I doubt this sends the message that it's ok to use free images for advertising or commercial purposes.  As far as deals go this one seems pretty benign.

I am pretty sure the copyright symbol and the link are going to be totally useless. The bloggers don't care if the images they use have watermarks, why should the people creating these.

"This isn't a free giveaway, what rights are given?" People looking for freebies don't give a rats a$$ about rights. They just want a free photo. Allowing the images, watermark or not, for these kinds of things just degrades the whole concept of "selling your images."

People looking for freebies aren't going to be buying images in the first place.  I can go to google and steal full sized unwatermarked images much easier than going on Slide.ly and doing a screen shot, crop, and then downsizing to not much bigger than a thumbnail to get a sharp images.  I don't see actual buyers deciding to go there and doing all that to steal an image.  If it brings some more eyes to Getty and iStock then I think it will probably have an overall positive effect and at the worst no effect.  I'm not really worried about this, it seems analogous to music pirates recording songs off the radio, sure you could do that but who would?

Quote from: tickstock on July 06, 2015, 10:08

Seems a lot like pinterest or the embed program with lower res files that you can't take off there and with no license to use them anywhere else.  There is copyright information and a link to the site licensing the work for commercial use.  If people want to steal images there are much better ways than taking images from there.

If this is a way to market traffic back to IS/Getty, then we should get paid as part of a marketing budget. I don't upload my work so they can build a free, enjoyable slideshow tool that doesn't make me any money. iS doesnt do this for the fun of it. There is a reason and in all liklihood its marketing related and thus i should be paid each and every time my image is used.

It's marketing I think the benefit you get is from people going to Getty through the links and buying images if they need commercial uses.

Seems like much more work to take a screen shot of a low res image, crop it, downsize it, etc.. than to go to google and get a 4000x4000 size copy.  The link is located in the camera with the � in the center.

Seems a lot like pinterest or the embed program with lower res files that you can't take off there and with no license to use them anywhere else.  There is copyright information and a link to the site licensing the work for commercial use.  If people want to steal images there are much better ways than taking images from there.

You can most certainly avoid seeing my posts...just stop coming here. That'll do it.

I knew I'd regret looking at your post, you want to make this discussion about me instead of the topic.  That's trolling and that's why I've put you on ignore.  Harassing me isn't going to get me to leave here no matter how hard you try, this is the last time I'm going to respond to you so another thread won't be derailed.  Back to the topic...