I hope this isn't too off-topic, but I've just had another negative IPTC surprise that I'd like to mention, given the concern we have about the stripping of IPTC data in the Google case.

I submit images to a print magazine that has a website and a Facebook page. They sometimes post low-res images to promote the magazine. With all this Google stuff going on, I decided to download one of my images from their Facebook page to check the IPTC info. Yep, it's gone. Totally blank IPTC form. Does Facebook strip ITPC too?

The pic is low-res but plenty good enough to be used online.

You're right - I didn't know about it. I just tried to upload image to FB and download it and IPCT data disappeared.

Quote from: tab62 on January 22, 2013, 17:43

"There is one thing I don't understand. I am new at istock and just sold my 1st file. Maybe my question is not related with the topic but I wanted to ask. The file cost was 25$ (XXL size) but they just gave me 0,66$ . Normally they were talking about 16% but what does this 0,66 $ goes for?
Thanks in advance,
Alp"


I will pretend that I didn't see this post  Honest I didn't see this post...

T

I shall delete if u want

It's OK, Tab probably wanted to say that he sees no evil, hears no evil. :-)
0.66 USD - it's most probably because of huge discount for big buyers. Nice discount - isn't it?

http://www.photoguild.co.uk/9394/gettys-controversial-deal-with-google-drive
http://www.ai-ap.com/publications/article/5275/getty-images-strikes-controversial-licensing-deal.html
http://www.1001noisycameras.com/2013/01/controversy-google-signs-deal-with-getty-images-for-google-drives-but-photographers-get-micropennies.html

After reading everything out there on this and talking to old friends that were exclusive for years. I think it's a non Issue.Like I've said for years. 10,000 submitters could leave tomorrow.and ya know what? 10,000 new ones will replace them and Us in 3/6 months with the same Images give or take. The sites know this guys. Wondering why some of you don't.Thats why they call this crowd sourcing.

I don't like this argument. Number of iStock contributors is not limited - so all good Microstock artist who wanted to jump in bed with iStock - they already are or were their contributors. Number of good photographers on this planet who are interested in microstock business is not unlimited. I'm sure that there are thousands of "artists" who would like to replace leaving contributors but millions of images from children running around with iPhones or hobbyists with D3200 and tungsten lamp (no offense) cannot replace images from contributors like Sean or Lisa. They can keep or increase number of images but not their quality. The only possibility how to replace this quality is to convince good photographers that didn't want to become iS contributors but this is probably impossible these days.

Mine stopped on 5th as well.
But after reading all recent stuff about Getty(IS and Thinkstockphoto)+Google Drive. I could guess that they might be in a hurry trying to add some more images from Thinkstockphoto to the Google Drive deal (backdated).

Maybe I'm paranoid but I'm afraid that you might be right. Another 3000 images added to Google Drive and PP stopped. I think that many of us will find 12 USD sales even for images that were already deactivated.

We didn't hear a word from them since monday but they delete posts with word "lawsuit".
It seems that they are not that sure about themselves anymore. Good.

Deactived 50 more. I started with images that sell best on SS and FT.

total  20,209

80 today. I wonder how long does it take them to disappear from ThinkStock.

Sean's article:
http://seanlockephotography.com/2013/01/18/the-getty-google-drive-situation/

Listen fellas and try and understand something!  this is a formidable and courages effort to make things better but go back in history a bit, to the stoneage in fact.
This scenario has been tried before, a unanimous effort and that was back when agencies were not this powerful and STLL, it didnt have any impact at all.
Imagine then whats it like today and with powerful agencies, this and that.

For every image you deactivate there are 20 being uploaded either by new members, old members or new applicants constantly knocking at the door.
Like we have all agreed on before, its a numbers game, got nothing to do with how good you are how well known you are its just numbers. Cant beat that. Its like getting a straight-flush in stud poker. And youre loosing money at the same time.

all the best.

I agree. Personally I don't believe that iS will change themselves. And I know that deactivation of few thousands of images won't hurt them. If they decide that their policy of arrogance and their way of communication with contributors is right - then nothing will change.
But "And youre loosing money at the same time." doesn't have to me true. I will lose money by deactivating images, but I could lose much more if I keep them on iS - if they appear on Google Drive and their sales on other sites will drop.

"We are aware of this site and are looking at it now. No need to post links to it."

Has anybody told them these images are on Google Drive? They will look at it. Now. :-)

Nothing's impossible. But Getty shares change hands so frequently that I doubt that there can be any long-term strategic plan. Their only plan is to make money as quickly as possible no matter what their steps mean for the future of business.

Quote from: jm on January 15, 2013, 08:24

It's good idea. It may not be insignificant for agencies - if I remember well - last year Shutterstock announced on their blog (or Twitter?? - don't remember exactly) that they are proud that they are best selling agency according to Tyler's MS Survey.

So.... MSG has a word to say... not bad.... not bad at all 

http://www.shutterstock.com/buzz/microstock-survey