"gosh I'm just so happy to have one of images used for a real life advertising that getting paid doesn't matter to me".

A year is a needlessly long time to lock an image especially with a tier 3 micro.

It's kinda like tying yourself up and leaving your care to the person you think you trust.

Anything that pushes stock prices upwards is a good thing. Buyers get images far too cheaply.

This has to be the most contested area of video clip production. Higher end sales outlets prefer 24fps and I here say it converts easiest to 25fps or 30fps if need be. I shoot mostly 30fps now as it does seem to have the greatest need but sell 24 fps clips as well. Toss a coin.

Sounds like another give more/get less initiative.

Quote from: Zeus on May 09, 2011, 21:50

I don't think so. The photog still has the choice and it's only for images that have not sold in a couple of years.

This might meet the slimmest and most technical definition of choice, but that's about it.

If they said that the photographer could deactivate the photos that didn't sell after 3 years as an alternative to moving to RF and Thinkstock, that might be an OK choice, but Getty refuses to offer that claiming it's too burdensome administratively. IMO that's bollocks.

If they offered an opt out for images going to Thinkstock, it might be OK, but they won't do that either.

They set limits on the number of photos that can be exempted from the RM to RF transition and the photographer has to document why.

This is a naked, greedy powerplay by a company that treats photographers very badly.  I certainly hope some of Getty's big earners tell them to stuff it, but I doubt that's going to happen.

I believe you have the option of removing the image rather than having it go to RF.  And I don't think it goes to Thinkstock but rather the traditional RF or some yet to be conceived higher end subscription model. The argument is if an image hasn't sold as an RM image in a couple of years should it go to RF in an attempt to sell?

...he should properly attribute them. I'm not too concerned because none of them had any stock value.

It's nice of you not to crap on the guy too badly but all images have stock value, perhaps not microstock value but stock value for sure.

The consensus at the time seemed to be that paid sales at Flikr were few and far between.  
For anyone who uploads to Flikr - do you have your stock portfolio there?  Are you making any sales?  If so, how do they compare percentage-wise to your microstock sales?  

The same consensus applies now. Mostly you get requests from people and companies to use your images for free. There is also a sizable theft problem from those not even polite enough to ask. I have made sales though by pointing to other sites and directly. I never point to a micro site.

Middle of the road here. The usual last minute sales at the end of the month. One reasonable RM at $450.

Does this practice actually improve the overall site and sales for the company? I doubt it.

Also the idea of "accidental" approvals is silly. How old do they think you are? If your are moving ahead with such a policy at least have the ba**s to call it what it is.

StockXpert was a pretty good site. I guess the expert programmers from the other place took over.

Hmmm, That's odd I just submitted some on single use releases and they worked fine. Although Yuri is king WRT all kinds of things I would use agency releases instead. One release should be able to do the trick. But that said, life for stock photographers never gets easier and it may be a trend.