Google-bound for sure.

What a statement for them to make!

"We believe whilst acting in good faith that the Registrant's use of the Copyrights in the Domain is not permitted as the iStock Parties have not given the Registrant any permission or authorization to use the Copyrights nor are the Copyrights in the public domain."


Change Registrant to Getty and Domain to Google-Drive.

Thanks Leaf!!

Anybody care to venture a guess on how much all this file deletion has cost Getty so far? With a very conservative estimate of 40,000 files by 02/02, my guess would be at the very least $1-million (including their 85% cut). And it will grow as the momentum continues. Many of these files are highly profitable bestsellers from experienced artists, and it's taken time for those images to reach their peak. So even if people are "waiting in line" to join IS, these file deletions have already taken a considerable toll on GI's bottom line for a long time to come. Wish there was a way to get the actual figures and send them to the investors.

Quote from: elvinstar on January 24, 2013, 03:34

Quote from: JPSDK on January 24, 2013, 02:36
I sometimes like to turn things upside down.

Now what if, we instead of clinging to our files, gave them away for free.
Since they are being given away anyway.
That would take the breath out of those pirating agencies.

Like shooting back with their own ammunition.

So I hereby declare, that if I ever find one of my files in these giveaway shows. Ill give it away from my homepage, in the original size and resolution.

What about that?

As misguided as it may seem to some, I like your line of thinking!

Or just offer your entire port to Google for $60 per picture.

Looks like Istock has set a new Guinness World Record:

"Most stock images deleted by contributors in a single month."

When you deactivate a file, and it's already been sold to Google, will Getty deactivate it from Goog, or does it stay in the realm of worldwide free forever without hope of reclamation?

Quote from: CJ6 on January 23, 2013, 16:46

...Are the people in charge under such an enormous pressure from stock owners that they're really doing everything they can for short term gains?

Yes. The owners care not a whit about you or me or what happens to us now or ever. You are a non-entity to them. They give not a thought about you. Their only concern is what happens on their balance sheets. Their only demand is more profit$, no matter how it gets done. That is all. Good day.

Hmm. Photos.com has been down for a while. Perhaps getting things ready for 02/02?

Maybe someone linked this on another thread, but I don't remember seeing it. Interesting blog from a great artist who wisely divorced Getty a while back.

http://sheilasmartphotography.blogspot.com/2013/01/gettygoogle-deal.html

Quote from: jsnover on January 21, 2013, 04:43
Was sorry not to see Blend Images' name in there after the snotty response that their CEO had to Sean trying to get them involved in fighting Getty on this

What snotty response? Is it posted somewhere? It's utterly amazing to think any stock agency (besides GI) would see this as a good thing.

Quote from: alids on January 20, 2013, 02:36

Will miss the money, but cant sit there and do nothing, and unless a significant amount of contributors take action, it will only get worse with more images being added to Googledrive.

This is the truth. The only way Getty will cease and desist is when they have no images to make use of. The future rolls on for them, no matter whom it rolls over.

If there is a massive inflood of former exclusives, many SS customers who don't shop around much will become very happy campers indeed. And then they will tell their friends/colleagues, who will tell theirs, etc.....
Brighter days look to be ahead, as long as Getty keep their stinkin' slimy hands off of Shutterstock.

Surprised IS even have submission standards anymore. Are they afraid Google's leeches are going to be displeased with rough edges or imperfect isolations in their totally free images? It's silly to even try to submit there now. Just my 2-cents.

Quote from: flotsom on January 17, 2013, 18:33
I'm not exclusive so I can't read the original thread but it looks like they might be being a bit difficult about people deactivating?

QuoteOldladybird just stated in a thread in the 'Exclusivity Program' section that Getty cannot process changes in collections and Agency/Vetta/E+ images that had been mirrored over there will probably remain there even though you/we are now removing them from the Vetta ,etc. collections here on iStock. She does go on to say that they are looking for solutions but it will probably remain this way for at least several months.  http://www.istockphoto.com/forum_messages.php?threadid=350613&messageid=6823417

That's why I'm not waiting until D-Day. I'm trying to get rid of everything before they run into mysterious "technical problems" and no files whatsoever are allowed to be deactivated.

You could always give the classic:  "It's not me....it's you."

For myself I've narrowed it down to three choices:

1) They hate microstock and are on the attack to get rid of at least Istock as the former micro leader and damage as many others as they can, because they want their high-priced macro to dominate the market.

2) They are exceedingly and unfathomably incompetent businesspeople totally out of touch with real life. So they'll throw everything against the wall and see what sticks.

3) This is just a fun interesting experiment and no one there really cares about anything or anyone else. They can survive quite comfortably on their inherited billions for the rest of their lives.

I'm really not sure which choice is closest to the truth.

Quote from: Guntars.G on January 16, 2013, 06:55
Getty feels that it is just too big to fall, so they tend to make "innovative"=stupid things. I do not think that they are trying to kill microstock, they simply want to find new ways to make money out of it. They could not care less about artists or content the only thing that maters is money... I hope that they will eventually fall

It just seems to me that if they've been trying to make IS profitable even for a quick dollar, they have done EVERYTHING wrong, everything to destroy their future.  Future=buyers+contributors.

So cool. Thanks.

A different angle in the ongoing Getty-Google giveaway scandal:

It's been speculated on this forum in the past that Getty's long-term goal is to put all microstock out of business. Those of you here at the time may remember when they bought Istock they dissolved the profitable Stockxpert agency very quickly, and discussion went around about their desire to hurt microstock as we know it. Perhaps their 5-10-year-plan includes the decimation if not total annihilation of the micro model. It may not make sense to those of us primarily involved in micro, but the giant Getty's lifeblood has always been macro. Note the secrecy of this move and how much of GI's wholly-owned content is involved in this giveaway (zero, I believe). If they perceive micro as eating away at their future, well....
Personally, I don't think they'll be able to do away with micro completely, but this sure appears to be a huge blow in that direction. Any short-term loss to their bottom line would be seen as collateral damage necessary on the way to ultimate victory. Not a conspiracy, just cutthroat business as practiced for centuries. And, after all, Getty Images is 100% a business and not a charity.

Thoughts?

What'd you expect? They're giving them away.

Quote from: leaf on January 15, 2013, 19:50
For anyone who feels this initiative 'won't make a difference anyhow', here's why I don't agree.

It will make a BIG difference to me and my images.  My images will no longer be licensed through an agency who is willing to let my images be given away from free.  That is the big difference I'm trying to make.  Anything more is bonus.  Having everyone remove their images on the same day may or may not raise iStock's proverbial eyebrows but no matter what, it will save my portfolio from being given away for free as part of an exciting 'deal'

+100
I don't think it can be summed up any more rationally than that.

To me the long official silence from Getty says, "Go away, be quiet, don't bother us, we have more important things to do right now than worry about your piddly little problems!"

(I really do believe they see this as a "piddly little problem.")

Quote from: Pinocchio on January 14, 2013, 14:16
Hope you folk don't mind, but I consider it worth repeating something I mentioned earlier, because of the length of this thread:  If you have images in the PP, it is going to take some time to get them deactivated.  If you are deactivating files, I suggest you monitor the PP sites, and e-mail contributor relations with PP image numbers to get them taken down before you close your account (if that's what you decide to do).  I deactivated an image 2012/10/28, and it was still active in the PP two months later.  To their credit, contributor relations removed the images when I contacted them.

Regards

Thanks, Pinocchio. So, it looks like double the work for non-exclusives---deactivate images on IS and then track them on Thinkstock for months to make sure they've been deleted and if not, then contact CR to ask them to delete them.
  Fun.

Quote from: ShadySue on January 15, 2013, 00:30

Quote from: HughStoneIan on January 15, 2013, 00:19
It doesn't appear that GI is deactivating our PP images, as in Thinkstock, even if the IS files are deactivated. How do we get those deactivated as well?

You might have to provide CR with the numbers.
I've heard it can take weeks or even months.
They used to say they'd do it inside two weeks, but that promise didn't hold good for long, and now they say:
"You can add or remove a file from the Partner Program at any time, though it can take up to 30 days to take effect."
(from the PP page accessed via Contributor tools, left hand column, or the SiteMap.)

Sorry I didn't specify, but I was talking about non-exclusives.