|
MicrostockGroup Sponsors
This section allows you to view all posts made by this member. Note that you can only see posts made in areas you currently have access to.
Messages - SNP
Pages: 1 ... 28 29 30 31 32 [33] 34 35 36 37 38 ... 54
801
« on: March 14, 2011, 22:20 »
I agree with your analogy. and I don't see a reason to exclude anyone willing to sign the NDA. I guess my point is simply that I don't feel there's anything underhanded behind it. as contributors, we can maintain as much solidarity as we choose despite any lines that might be drawn between exclusives/non-exclusives/photographer/vector artist... whatever. we don't have to draw those lines. personally I don't.
802
« on: March 14, 2011, 21:31 »
There are some pretty disgusting comments over there regarding independents and the suggestion that independents can't be trusted to sign an NDA and stick to the contract, as if any independent who would be theoretically asked to be on the panel would immediately turn around and sell trade secrets to competitors.
Occasionally you can pick up on some "us vs. them" sentiment at istock, but man this is just unreal. Truly surprising.
I agree. I don't understand the logic of alienating independents. The exclusives vs. independents mentality is precisely what the agencies want. If the top 20% of contributors started making decisions together we would all make a lot more money in the long run.
if I put myself in the shoes of independents, I would feel alienated by this too. but I think it's been misinterpreted as something ugly when it's simply a legal necessity. independents equally deserve representation. but, independents also contribute images to competitor sites. it's not personal, I don't see any company allowing potential competitors access to sensitive information. but those who are attending the conference call will certainly be sharing what they cna share with everyone, so it's not like non-exclusives won't benefit from that information too. I think fighting over the inclusion of independents and using it as a platform means independents aren't seeing the forest for the trees.
803
« on: March 14, 2011, 18:50 »
if i could have nominated an independent, Lisa was my choice. as an independent and longtime contributor, she's simply someone i feel confidently that i can trust. i think Andrew (richvintage's) posts are worth reading in the IS thread too for anyone who hasn't popped back over there in a bit.
804
« on: March 14, 2011, 00:46 »
During an e.coli breakout involving bagged spinach a few years ago, some farm workers "busted" me for photographing their spinach field. Scared me half to death. They were NOT happy to see me and straight up asked me if I was with the media. I just told them I was a tourist and thought the area was beautiful (which was true), and fortunately they left me alone.
Something weird is definitely going on in this country. Just this week, I, along with Stephen Colbert, caught Bill O'Reilly and Fox News passing off footage of union supporters and Tea Partiers getting into fights as happening in Wisconsin. The three incidents actually happened at other support rallies around the country, including one right in front of my very own camera here in Sacramento! The rally ended, and the union supporters were crossing the street to go back to their cars...and across the street at the end of the crosswalk was a large group of Tea Party supporters waiting for them. A clash was inevitable, so I started shooting. The union guy started it, no question there, and was immediately arrested. But O'Reilly passed the footage off as having occurred in Wisconsin during a live segment with a "victimized" reporter. It was so obvious they were trying to set up the Wisconsin protesters as violent thugs in order to turn public opinion against them...and they did it using footage from an entirely different state under circumstances where some sort of clash was bound to happen. I couldn't believe it.
Here's my photo...
great shot...well done
805
« on: March 13, 2011, 20:45 »
No disrespect meant but the people that keep pushing to nominate stacey_newman or even pink_cotton_candy need to get their heads checked... this will turn this pointless conference call into something even more counter productive.
I've already said flat out I'm not the right choice. though I've never had a conversation with you so I'm sorry you've made up your mind about who I am. in any case, it's not about me and I hope that the people chosen on the panel represent a wide group of contributors' interests in regards to the fraud.
806
« on: March 13, 2011, 19:52 »
I think the group chosen should include contributors that represent all types of interests including vector. vector artists are certainly marginalized these days.
I've nothing against that, but in the context of the fraud, which I believe is all the conference call is about, I don't think it's vitally important. I'm not even sure whether the (top) Vector/Video/Audio/Flash contributors were affected proportionately to the (top) photographers by the fraud (?)
this may be true. I don't know what the numbers are for types of affected contributors. I was just using vector artists as an example because in many other respects right now, they really seem to have lost so much ground on iStock. vectors are fresh in my mind because of a shoot I did recently with two vector artists who have stopped producing vectors altogether for iStock. anyways, not related.
807
« on: March 13, 2011, 18:45 »
I think the group chosen should include contributors that represent all types of interests including vector. vector artists are certainly marginalized these days. yes, I've been nominated, and I'm glad there are contributors who trust me. I truly appreciate it. I don't feel I have the expertise to participate regarding this specific issue. I wouldn't accept the role because I don't believe I'm a good choice in this instance. it's moot anyways. there are five people who've been nominated more than any other five and I think they're all good choices.
I understand the reasoning behind not allowing non-exclusives, but I would have liked a non-exclusive on the panel. Jo Ann, FWIW, I think it's a mistake that you not accept the role as given to you by your peers. IMO and with respect, I think you're focusing on the NDA instead of the opportunity to truly advocate regarding an important issue. in any case, I guess we'll see how it goes.
808
« on: March 13, 2011, 08:50 »
I think it's a good move and seeks to create a bridge of communication between HQ and contributors in a language that won't further alienate the community. I don't think the NDA will prevent truthful reactions to information, even if details can't be disclosed. in any case, it's a good step. very simple and smart. could backfire I suppose if everyone chosen then comes back with negative feedback.
809
« on: March 12, 2011, 17:55 »
interesting read, thanks....
810
« on: March 11, 2011, 15:25 »
Brent was gone a long, long time ago. And yeah. I thought ...
I didn't know that one either.
let's take it easy on the rumors. Brent doesn't work there anymore = fact (if that is true.. i guess that could technically be a rumor too but at least more public general istock news..), why or how he left is certainly dancing in rumor land and i think unfair to Brent.
wow, moderating rumour-based comments. that's a first here. what's up with that?
No, I haven't moderated anything is this thread (unless you call truncating a quote moderating) - just trying to help steer it away from discussing rumors about people's job with a simple comment.
but people are constantly speculating about other people here. not sure what was special about this discussion. anyways. whatever.
811
« on: March 11, 2011, 15:16 »
^ yes, but a large migration would surely influence the future attitude toward contributors. in the short-term they might be treated like heroes. but then they're at the mercy of the other agencies who want to make a buck as much as the last guy. if anything is to actually affect positive change for artists, it has to be bigger than simply dropping exclusivity and going to another agency.
In Fotolia's case that would definitely be a concern. Much less so with Shutterstock/BigStock especially and not so much with Dreamstime either (IMHO).
Agencies that have a track record of systematically squeezing contributors are those that are not looking long-term and have their exit strategies clearly in mind. H&F's ownership of Istock is an obvious and extreme demonstration. I reckon Fotolia are now operating mainly for profit rather than growth too.
In sharp contrast Shutterstock have actually invested further into the industry in buying BigStock. My income from Shutterstock+BigStock together is now about 37% of my total (against 30% for IS) which makes them for me the biggest player in microstock by some margin. I can only see them growing further but that does not worry me. Oringer has been playing the tortoise to IS's hare but, by not attempting to screw his customers or his contributors, he is slowly, slowly winning the race.
interesting numbers. yeah, it's hard not to look at Oringer as the pioneer these days. he's stuck it out and continues to nurture his baby. instead of giving it up for adoption to abusive parents.
812
« on: March 11, 2011, 13:14 »
I just hope whoever is doing this is caught and we do find out what they were doing with our images. I really can't understand why a thief that had access to so many stolen credit card details would use them to buy images from istock. There must be lots of better ways to make money from credit card fraud?
How do we know that the credit card thieves aren't buying other things besides stock images? Maybe, as someone already mentioned, the credit card thief just happens to be a photographer or designer and stealing from istock is purely for fun? That they haven't stolen electronics, games, itunes, Starbucks coffee, whatever other things millions of people purchase on a daily basis?
Purely for fun - not on this scale. We're talking about hundreds of thousands dollars here in image "purchases". Which could be explained by someone breaking into or having access to the Istock customers' credit card information and then having fun with it.
It's possible this is an inside job, and they're working on a prosectuion, thus explaining KT's cryptic message
if it were an inside job, I'd have thought it would be easier the control once identified.
813
« on: March 11, 2011, 13:00 »
Brent was gone a long, long time ago. And yeah. I thought ...
I didn't know that one either.
let's take it easy on the rumors. Brent doesn't work there anymore = fact (if that is true.. i guess that could technically be a rumor too but at least more public general istock news..), why or how he left is certainly dancing in rumor land and i think unfair to Brent.
wow, moderating rumour-based comments. that's a first here. what's up with that?
814
« on: March 11, 2011, 11:15 »
what a bad PR move to pop in and say basically nothing. the unapologetic tone of his few words....uhhh. just made things worse. especially the 'promise' that we'll know more in a few months. are we supposed to f5 like Pavlovian morons waiting for simple answers regarding the security of our work?
I don't usually jump on Kelly's statements. he is what he is. I have no real idea what he does for iStock so I don't feel it's fair for me most of the time to comment on his work. but his statements today were like throwing acid in a gaping wound. bad move.
815
« on: March 11, 2011, 02:12 »
Closing down! its a classic, the Getty plan is to close it down, forget any other speculations.
I don't think this is true. but I'll certainly apologize if you're correct. they've pushed far too many growth initiatives (albeit poorly) to indicate intent to close the site.
816
« on: March 11, 2011, 02:09 »
@SNP
For an organized movement by artists to work, the top 20% which likely makes 80% of the money would need to be independent so they could protest rate changes in solidarity. I just don't see the exclusive black diamonds jumping ship until the ship has sunk. If it sinks. It's just too much work to upload thousands files to 10+ websites.
I agree. that's the problem. and that's why if/when I choose to remove exclusivity...it will not be with any idyllic notions of things being fabulous elsewhere. I think the whole industry is watching and Getty has its eye on monopolizing microstock. together we have some power, but you're right, only with the big wigs on board. that's a lot of income to risk without a strong mobilization of content and without the commitment from major contributors.
817
« on: March 11, 2011, 01:55 »
^ yes, but a large migration would surely influence the future attitude toward contributors. in the short-term they might be treated like heroes. but then they're at the mercy of the other agencies who want to make a buck as much as the last guy. if anything is to actually affect positive change for artists, it has to be bigger than simply dropping exclusivity and going to another agency.
818
« on: March 11, 2011, 01:48 »
sure, Getty is just the obvious agency in this situation. my point is also that migrating between agencies in order to force fairness in the treatment of contributors is probably too small a move. going non-exclusive isn't enough. if anything is going to change things, it will be a truly organized movement by artists to protect the value of our work. and that means consolidating efforts and sticking to it, even with temporary income losses taken out of principle. I don't see that happening. so if Getty or any other agency wants to pioneer the movement by making a public statement by fairly valuing its producers, by all means they should do it and brag about it all they want. I don't care if their principles become one of their commodities, as long as the motivation behind the principles is sound and just and our work is valued as it should be.
819
« on: March 11, 2011, 01:11 »
I just watched Klein's interview. pretty good spin suggesting that Getty allows artists to retain copyright. um, as though it's their decision.
Klein nonchalantly threw in the cannibalization of images with the descriptor, "and that's okay" by comparing image theft to music piracy. comparisons to the music industry are so opportunistic. on paper you could compare almost any two web-based industries to some extent. but the music and image content industries are fundamentally different, with entirely different types of customers and entirely different modes of end usage. there are a lot of major musicians in the world today who understand that their greatest asset is the exclusive nature of their product, even if only for a short period of time after a new release. it truly is up to us as artists to advocate for ourselves and our work. but that means doing so professionally and in an organized fashion. not reactively and in a way that makes us look ridiculous. we're business people as much as we're artists. you want a porsche with all its quality, bragging rights and bells and whistles. well, you don't get porsches out of sweatshops.
it's very frustrating to see executives telling me that they value my work so much that they want it for less, AND they think I shouldn't value my work enough to get upset over it.
I'm an admitted idealist. I can't help but think that it doesn't have to be this way. I know there are a lot of amazing artists in administrative positions within agencies. I hope they understand that as an artist, I'm going to protect my nest egg, not Getty's. artists are a necessary evil in business. we're a thorn in the side of CEOs everywhere and one in particular it seems. if they could get monkeys to take good pictures, we'd probably be out of work altogether. and it doesn't have to be that way. Getty needs to take a stand and attach value to our work by protecting it. make customers proud of buying our product over a lesser-quality product. create demand for a better product. market us as a better product. prove we're a better product and ensure the production of a better product by keeping their producers happy. that's where the sustainability is for all of us.
820
« on: March 11, 2011, 00:39 »
that sucks Sean. brutal. $5K....holy sh*t.
821
« on: March 11, 2011, 00:34 »
my husband has just dropped his exclusivity. he doesn't have a big portfolio, so to iStock it won't make any difference. but it was a decision we made together and if/when it's appropriate we'll decide what's best for my work. for now that's exclusivity still, as unpopular as that is it's an equal part of the discussion here. but to be honest, I wouldn't talk anyone into becoming exclusive today.
the website issues are such a harbinger of bad things to come, especially sales numbers. but, for the purpose of discussion, what happens when (if!) the site is fixed and sales improve, perhaps by a lot? it's a possibility, albeit very remote from how things look now. if that were to happen it is only 90 days to reinstate the crown + 3 additional months if we contribute to one of the 6 mth contract agencies like Dreamstime.
I question the wisdom of dumping exclusivity when many others are doing the same. seems like a panicked sell off on the stock market. most of you indies commenting here don't seem concerned about the influx of competitors' images. I'd be worried about that.
Doesn't change the fact that they have shown their ugly greedy side uncaringly upon everyone who made them what they are today.. If the exclusives leave and images are elsewehere, people will buy elsewhere. I'd love to see buyers move to Shutterstock and Dreamstime, exclusive's will bring buyers with them I imagine..
and if that were to happen, what would stop SS and DT from becoming greedy? they're not in business to be altruistic. they want to make money too and leaving one agency angrily leaves you somewhat vulnerable in your relationship--if we can even call it that--with the agencies you go to.
822
« on: March 11, 2011, 00:23 »
my husband has just dropped his exclusivity. he doesn't have a big portfolio, so to iStock it won't make any difference. but it was a decision we made together and if/when it's appropriate we'll decide what's best for my work. for now that's exclusivity still, as unpopular as that is it's an equal part of the discussion here. but to be honest, I wouldn't talk anyone into becoming exclusive today.
the website issues are such a harbinger of bad things to come, especially sales numbers. but, for the purpose of discussion, what happens when (if!) the site is fixed and sales improve, perhaps by a lot? it's a possibility, albeit very remote from how things look now. if that were to happen it is only 90 days to reinstate the crown + 3 additional months if we contribute to one of the 6 mth contract agencies like DT.
I question the wisdom of dumping exclusivity when many others are doing the same. seems like a panicked sell off on the stock market. most of you indies commenting here don't seem concerned about the influx of competitors' images. I'd be worried about that.
823
« on: March 10, 2011, 22:47 »
Hi Lisa,
thank you for the flowers!
I resigned because I have ongoing issues in my life that have kept me away from istock. I have uploaded only 200 images in 2010, mostly the leftovers from old shootings. Need to sort out some other stuff, before I focus back on stock.
I really enjoyed being a part of the team, some very dedicated people there. And together with my collegue MichaelJay I loved moderating the German forum. Its a lot of work though, what you see in the forum is just a part of it. There is a whole world of sitemails, emails, phonecalls, meet ups to organize and all that balancing of different characters to keep communication flowing.
The advantage of not having a badge is that people again accept that what I am saying is what I want to say, without suspecting that I am somehow towing the "party line". I think you will see that I am saying the same things now as before.
I am very sad with what has been happening in the last six months and I know there are many people working very, very hard to get istock back on track. Like many contributors, I wish there was better communication, although I am seeing that they are trying to improve this.
But the site has to get back on track and there is a lot of work to do, to regain the confidence and trust of the contributors. The members have the right to expect their agent to do the best possible to represent their interests.
Oh, and I think the new moderators are very passionate about their work, they really just want to serve the community. But it takes time to learn when to open and close threads. What you dont see is the amazing amount of sitemails they get from members and when emotions run to high it is often best to close a thread, even if it is just for a day. Again, it all depends on the context. And sometimes what you write as a moderator doesnt really communicate what you were trying to say. Also for so many members English is not a first language.
So as a former istock moderator: please have a little patience with the moderators. They really work hard.
thank you for the post and for being candid. same goes to all iStock admin ex-pats...there's nothing better than to get some real information about what's happening. when you develop a contributor culture that is fueled by emotion, passion and community---there's a flip side that includes deep disappointment, frustration and vehement dispassion when the party line starts to strangle the suppliers. attempts to further control contributors are going to be perceived as hostile. how could they not be in the current climate? I think iStock's greatest liability right now is the crumbling of its back end. my fear is the issues run deep enough to really destroy all the business iStock has built up over the years. talk about undoing years of marketing and hard work to secure one of the lead spots in the industry. I can't understand why they aren't strapping down and hiring in as much outside IT help to get that place running as they can. aren't there a bazillion IT companies out there who handle precisely this type of site breakdown?
824
« on: March 10, 2011, 11:34 »
closing that thread was ridiculous. I felt like I got put in the hall out of kindergarten class. I gotta say that I loved seeing Sean's effort at getting it reopened this morning.
I think it's generally in poor taste to discuss specific people, even here. but I have to disagree with Kelvin's name getting thrown around too. of course you're all entitled to your opinions, but I think he's the same old Kelvin. funny, irreverent and succinct. he just has a new badge. I don't think it's accurate to include him in this context. I just wanted to throw that in the mix.
While I agree with you about feeling like being in kindergarten again, I think discussing specific people is entirely warranted. Dawn made a very poor judgement call by closing the thread. Between that and her new PTOTW form that you have to fill out, which was also not well received and for good reason, I think she's still learning the ropes and getting a feeling for what it means to appease the masses in the forums while still towing the company line. No easy job IMHO. With the way things have been going on iStock, niceties have gone out the window, and I think in some cases that's been necessary to get things done. This is an open forum, free from the ban hammer, and I think it's a much needed place for people to vent and take people to task in a safe environment where people don't have to always be looking over their shoulders. And if that means names get mentioned in this forum, then so much the better.
sure. in that context I agree. in any case, I think their goal was to make the forums less of a draw for contributors. mission accomplished.
825
« on: March 10, 2011, 11:13 »
unfortunately this is the type of response I too have gotten from contributor relations. I've contacted them three times with concerns about download patterns with my files. I've received nothing but packaged responses, the crux of which was basically they could not provide me with information about general downloads.
I'd think that contributors on the front lines reporting issues would be taken more seriously, especially since we're essentially doing a lot of their leg work for them. IMO the response I've received was wholly inadequate. It seems that's the case in these two situations also.
good luck. hope the views were legitimate.
Pages: 1 ... 28 29 30 31 32 [33] 34 35 36 37 38 ... 54
|
Sponsors
Microstock Poll Results
Sponsors
|
Show Posts
