Just because Yuri allowed his ego and his ambition to overrule basic business sense, and his overhead has spiralled out of control, does not in any way signal the end of the greater industry.  Yuri is just one more casualty of greed and excess. Getty/Istock and Yuri should make perfect partners in that regard.

Big, big mistake by Yuri __ he's jumped onto a sinking ship. This little 'marriage' won't last 5 years. Within that time Yuri will be begging to be back on SS.

I actually think it's the other way around. Yuri's ego has finally been put aside and he has made a very good business decision. He will make way more money and help sustain an industry too boot,

I just searched for mine and thankfully found none, because I would be livid. As it sounds like you are, and should be.
I'm guessing they scraped them from somewhere. 

Am I missing something here? They are being offered at much higher selling prices and will likely sell for those prices. What is wrong with this?

Hi MSG,

We have some nice houses in our area and wanted to know how to approach them for a photo session and sign the property release? I attempted to do so with a friend of mine and they laughed at me! They told me that if I provided them with a full 4' by 6' on Metal with a UV glass and metal frame plus a few hundred dollars they might allow me to take a photo of their house.

Oh, well just trying to do some thinking...

T

I have hard time imagining these people would be your friends. I would offer others copies of some of the better shots. Make a deal to deliver 10 retouched images on a CD. You'll get a lot of nays.  Explain your a professional and that the images have lot of value.

I could easily switch to lightroom, but if everyone does that to avoid the cloud, dont you think they will end up adding it solely into the cloud?

I think the result will be similar to that of trying to quash Getty's and iStocks's antics. A few people will refuse to go along but no where enough to make a real difference to policy. I suspect there are analysts who do the math on programs such as this and give a company a good idea of what sort of resistance they will meet up against. The fact is, for most of us, Photoshop was way good enough a long time ago. I'm sure if they could crowd source their code they'd do that too.

They'll create the subscription model and then a year or two down the road, charge a new version surcharge.

I do think it gives them less incentive to be innovative. The money was in the upgrade and you upgraded for better features. Why bother with new features?

Someone always contributes.

Quote from: Zeus on April 26, 2013, 20:44

Has anyone done the time calculation given that the upload process is so tedious, can you actually upload 999 images per week?

They changed it to 999 because setting it to unlimited would require that part of the website to be recoded.  This is supposed to be the same thing as unlimited.

I see. Why do you go from dribbling out upload slots to a full scale avalanche? Insane. But I guess that what's this thread is about.

....  Why do they want to do this? 

Question - Why?   
                 

Almost always, preceding a sale of the agency, they will take on extra content. Expect a sale of Getty.

Percentage reductions are like taxes. They never go away.

This is my experience as well. I thought I would check though to see what others have experienced. I don't underplay it but at the same time I did state that I had never heard of a problem, which I hadn't.

Etymology is an interesting study. There still is some "footage" being shot out there so it's not actually history yet but I'm sure the term will survive. There must be thousands of examples similar to this. "similars" popped out of the stock photo world as a noun and I don't think is used this way elsewhere. Plus footage is much more descriptive, "video" can mean almost anything including movies we watch. So if I say I'm out shooting footage, I think it means something different than if I'm out shooting a video. No one has a footage camera. They have video cameras. Footage is what we get off those video cameras. Another definition,-- :In filmmaking and video production, footage is the raw, unedited material as it had been originally filmed by movie camera or recorded by a video camera which... "

Something you can't say on TV.

I am sorry ShadySue, I meant no offense, just being objective. The point of having a forum is to discuss whatever the creator of the forum wants to discuss. It is the forum of Istock. Their house their rules. I dont see Istock or any other agency as a democracy  but as a business. If it's a good or a bad business that is another issue but the fact is that they dont want any bad publicity on their forum. 

Lirch, there is some validity in what you say but some merit has to be given to the fact that the people on the forum are the ones that make them all the dough. Somehow things have gotten skewed. A photographer or illustrator or whatever used to be able to tell there agent they weren't happy with a particular sale, or whatever without fear of reprisal. Throwing people off the forum or worse yet, deleting their portfolios just show your strength is a very nasty way to do business. There is such a thing as moral obligations. Sure you can debate exactly what should encompasses such obligations but I think it should be well within a contributors rights to say their peace, even if in perturbed manner.