Quote from: jsnover on January 26, 2013, 20:04
Slight tangent, but I wanted to point out that for those possibly having to delete everything (or all but a few to wait for this month's PP payout next month) February 2nd - D-Day - when you do your payout request this week, consider not clearing your balance to zero so you can be certain of being over the $100 threshold no matter how crappy sales are next week and in the January PP.

I normally pull out my entire balance each time, but this week left money so I can be certain of a cash-out if I end up leaving February 2nd. Even if I bail, I'm going to keep my account open (with an image or two) so I can keep my stats. That means, I think, that there's no chance of a payout under the limit (I think if you close your account they pay you?).

Yes, if you close your account you will be paid even if the balance is below $100.  I had an interesting experience with my account closure.  After receiving notification that my account had been closed, i noticed the word 'CLOSED' had been appended to my username.  Out of interest I tried to access that account with the password associated with the original username for the account.  Hey presto!  Access.  It was now about 5 days after I had received confirmation that the account had been closed and yes, during that period, there had been a few more of my images sold.  I guessed this was something to do with the 30 day rule, so I contacted iStock and asked if any outstanding balance would be forwarded to me at the end of that period.  The next day I received around 4 emails each separately informing me that a  privilege had been revoked on my account.  Soon after, confirmation that the account was now closed and the balance was going to be forwarded. Sure enough, the account has now gone (unless its been transferred to completely different account name! :-) ) I'll give them the benefit of the doubt that it was a genuine mistake, but for anyone closing up, its worth monitoring.

Quote from: Jonathan Ross on January 25, 2013, 22:57
Thanks Snufkin,

I find your post a bit disrespectful. I am here trying to help I do not have to make excuses for my agency or for Blend they are allowed to conduct business the way they and I see fit. I am here trying to help share some information on what I know is taking place with our agency and Getty Images to hopefully add some insight for all photographers.
If you are mad at Getty then please direct your frustration at them if you don't agree with what I said a simple " I do not agree " works better than calling a post someone spent the time to offer up as "nonsense" or making up silly names about our agency " Bend " when I am trying to share info.
Posting this information does not benefit me or my agencies in any way it is shared to try to help, I thought we were trying to help each other out here with information on the topic?

Jonathan

yeah right. the deal was good for you = you dont want to p*** off istock = insipid post.  this one would be just as bad, but it adds a bit of passive aggressiveness in trying to take the moral high ground - everyone has the right to reply, just as you exercised the right to speak out. i can see why your in bed with istock - bullies tend to find strength in numbers.

Quote from: Snufkin on January 25, 2013, 19:25

Quote from: Jonathan Ross on January 25, 2013, 05:11
This was also to strengthen Blends position and relations with the largest distributor of imagery in the world, and that it did. In the end of the day you have to ask yourself " am I happy with what my agency is doing for me and if not is there someone else that could do better ".

I am surprised that such an intelligent person as you Jonathan could write such a nonsense post.

In my day job I work as key account manager and area sales manager for a company manufacturing tangible goods. In my job I encounter several types of business partners and I always adapt my style of conducting business to their type. There are for example "pals" with which I can chat on the phone about everything and that can forgive almost any mess that we cause. There are also the "perfectionists" that require a very formal style. When we overdeliver goods, the perfectionist would send me a note "You overdelivered this item. We decided to keep the overdelivered quantity. Please invoice us". Then of course there are the "ruthless ones" who take advantage of your every weakness and the smallest mistake. Thankfully none of my current customers falls into this category but Getty Images is exactly this type of "business partner".

How to deal with such people? In my first job many years ago, we had a toxic boss who was a real pain for the employees. I was quite new there and one morning he started to make stupid remarks at me. I am a quiet person but by 11 my anger accumulated, I lost my temper and shouted at him in front of the whole sales team to p*ss off and leave me in peace. My shout was extremely loud and even our colleagues in the warehouse could hear it. They were sure I was a goner. I also thought that he would kick me out but I simply could not stand it anymore. Apparently I was too valuable to him and he just called me to his private room, told me I shouldn't have embarrassed him in front of the team, that he was just "TESTING" me and bla bla. I said that I could not tolerate this kind of treatment. He did not fire me. For 2 weeks he didn't say a single word to me. After 2 weeks he invited me to a restaurant for a Sunday dinner. Afterwards I became his most respected advisor.
On the other hand, a female co-worker who cried after he mobbed her, was fired.

Why am I telling this? In this whole Getty-Google mess there is only one person who "strengthened their position" with that distributor of imagery, as you say. But that person is Sean, not Blend. Sean did the same thing that I did many years ago. By publishing the list he adapted to the type of his "business partner" and hit the bully between the eyes - the only way to gain respect from the bully.
And Blend? Well, Blend should change their name to BEND IMAGES, because that must be their new nickname at Getty. Just like my former boss "tested" me, Getty "tested" Blend and Blend failed the ,,test". Probably Getty categorizes their business partners into groups, like I do with mine. Sean would fall there into the category of ,,clever and tough players". And Blend? I guess that could be the category of ,,not-so-clever wussies". They gave up territory and received peanuts in return. I can imagine a dialogue at Getty: ,,Hey, these guys at BEND think they strengthened their position when we made them donate a few dozen images", ,,Yeah, they should be made to donate like 50 thousand images so that they think they are the emperors of the f*****g stock universe".

I repeat Jonathan, the only person who ,,strengthened their position" is Sean.
Of course I sympathize with him because he was scammed and his sales my suffer as even more buyers leave iStock. But if you are talking about "positions" he is the winner.

one of the best posts i've ever read in a forum.

Quote from: cybernesco on January 18, 2013, 03:02


Feb 2nd projected total 12032+

can i add 921 to the total for 2nd feb even though my files have already gone?

i closed my account not simply because of the google thing, but it was the final straw. i used to be proud to be an istock contributor. the simple truth is i stopped being so. the google thing had little impact on me, and i very much doubt it or any other similar deals would ever have done. i have no axe to grind either. i understand how business works and sometimes how that includes making painful and unpopular decisions. i may not agree with it, but i can't deny the pursuit of profit is the holy grail for some folks.  however, there is an element of my (scottish) upbringing which is staunchly socialist (with a small 's').  the thought of sitting back doing nothing simply because there's a belief that any positive action would seem futile makes me want to cry. the truth of the matter is sitting back watching istock being run like a private club by some people, with total disregard and contempt for others has been making my skin crawl for sometime. like i say, i was a small player who's actions - as has been pointed out - will probably have little or no impact on the current situation.  i've lost an income (admittedly a small one) and i'm now searching for work outside of photography (to be fair, that was always on the agenda anyway), but i've felt nothing but liberation from the moment i received the email stating my account had been closed - and i was no longer part of the stench which had started to overpower me. to me that's worth an awful lot more than allowing myself to get shafted for the lame reason that in not doing so, i'd simply allow someone else to assume the position in my place.

my account closed completely.  so i guess that means 921 images 'deactivated'.

i dont know if its related, but i had problems with creating new lightboxes.  i was told it was because i was using safari public beta 4.

Thanks for the advice folks.  Very useful indeed.  Seems Alamy might be worth a try.

For almost two years now I have been contributing to iStock.  I signed up to exclusivity, but I am finding that after a promising start with week on week growth my sales fell off the edge of a cliff and have been struggling.  Fair enough.  My portfolio is largely beaches and travel based, and I generally dont take photos with people in them.  That obviously isn't a fit with iStock - and without people, probably not with stock generally.  However, before I stop contributing altogether, I thought I might give it a try elsewhere.  Can anyone recommend which of the other sites a portfolio like mine might fair better?  Here's a link to my portfolio....

http://www.istockphoto.com/user_view.php?id=2128170