Quote from: luissantos84 on March 03, 2013, 01:16

Quote from: Zeus on March 03, 2013, 00:27
Wasn't it Pink Shirt Day a couple of days ago? No pink shirts in that place.

I have no pink shirt at iStock

I hadn't heard of Pink Shirt Day... too effing funny!!

Quote from: Sadstock on March 01, 2013, 18:45

Quote from: Chico on March 01, 2013, 18:31
Wow, Pieman is furious.

Link?

http://www.istockphoto.com/forum_messages.php?threadid=351835&page=5

Quote from: Chico on March 01, 2013, 18:31
Wow, Pieman is furious.

And screw him.

Quote from: Risamay on February 12, 2013, 04:28

Quote from: SNP on January 14, 2013, 22:15
I'll speak for myself thanks.

Say something new then. Please, and thanks.

ETA: P.S. I hate to say I told you so. I told you so. That is all.

Jeezus H. I check back in here  1 1/2 year later, and I still see Stacey on the fence!

The hand-wringing *is* silly. Because any reasonable person knew, deep-down, in her heart-of-hearts, that this day was coming, the day Bruce said goodbye. I was honestly shocked that day and felt as though I had lost a trusted and inspiring leader, as well as probably witnessing the end of iStock.

In spite of the many assurances to the contrary, I had not just fallen off the turnip truck and I knew how these acquisitions go. Maybe those who are so effusively wailing about the movings on of JJRD and Kelly are just much better at convincing themselves of what they *want* to happen (versus what they *know* will happen) than I am. I mourned iStock years ago. This news, though titillating, scarcely matters.

Quote from: SNP on January 19, 2012, 20:46
I'd like to say that having met them both last year, JJ and Kelly are two of the nicest people I have met in my life. very sincere, to the point that it sometimes came across poorly when communicating to contributors. on a business note, this is a frightening day for exclusives in particular. on a personal note, I will miss them both and their involvement. even when I didn't agree with it, I knew they meant what they said.

I haven't met them, and nice or not, I don't think it would take more than a couple of fingers to count the times Kelly meant what he communicated to me via the forums.

As for JJRD, who . even knew *what* he was trying to say, let alone whether or not he meant it?

I haven't seen any refunds yet (fingers crossed -- not many sales lately, so hopefully no refunds either).  I agree, this is a really worrisome coincidence . . . if it is one.  But then again, I don't think there's any chance that we'll ever know what is really happening. There was such a stink about the fraud last year that I don't think they'd EVER admit it if it happened again.

1. Price increase (natch)

2. I too thinkstock is going to need propping up -- but to appease Sean and other big contributors, I suspect that they'll somehow manage to keep diamond level or a certain RC-credit level opt-out in place.

3. Stacey mentioned "thin ice" coming to mind, but the phrase that keeps recurring to me is "Get big or get out."

Someone on facebook just posted:
Dear iStock: "Should you find yourself in a chronically leaking boat, energy devoted to changing vessels is likely to be more productive than energy devoted to patching leaks." -- Warren Buffett, Berkshire Hathaway, CEO

I'm not sure whether it's directed at iStock tech folks (just scrap the site and start over), or toward the contributors

1. Quit.
2. Start over with new site.
3. Give a fair cut, build community & allow discussion, rethink this whole mid-stock & tiered pricing b.s.

And . . . the next time the opportunity arises to sell out to the competitors, think a little harder.

I agree; it's a very unlikely scenario. But you know, I think some of my old point and shoot stuff will look great on ThinkStock.  Harshly lit, white balance not quite right, bad edge masking... it's worth 0.28 by my estimate

I immediately said I would leave completely. Now I am toying with the idea of leaving only the old dregs of my point and shoot days and removing all else. As other have noted, after making considerable stink on their forums over the years, if I close my account completely, I'll likely never get in again, if things ever turn around.

I haven't uploaded in more than a year at this point, and don't miss it. I went independent in January over the previous arguments -- I can't even remember what the straw was that broke my back -- and sales are so pitiful that now I can't be bothered to give a *. I'm trying out some other sites, slowly, as I have time, but mostly I'm just enjoying photography and not shooting anything that looks like good stock to me. And it's making me happier.

What I won't miss, regardless of if my portfolio stays or goes, is the constant turmoil that iStock consistently brings to my life every September and January. The love affair is over. And like any good breakup, I hope only painful things for them in future.

Stats are so small as to be statistically irrelevant, but Thursday AND Friday were awful. Zeroes on Thursday

Quote from: sjlocke on April 16, 2011, 22:35

Quote from: lightscribe on April 16, 2011, 20:41
Thank you for taking the time to draft this letter, despite all the negative-nancy comments which is to be expected and ignored (they are mostly exclusive contributors.) I think it is always important for the upper level folks to hear from the lower level folks. There is no harm in doing this.  I have had numerous positions in management and it is true that I never really knew what was going on down at the retail employee level.

That would speak more to your management abilities than to the effectiveness of the letter.

Sorry, that's just rude, given that we know zilch about the size or geographical locales of said pieces of the operation.

Okay, a couple points of clarification:

Of course I'm signing my name to the letter. (That's why it says, "YOUR NAME." I guess I thought that went without saying.)  There's a big difference, it seems to me, of signing my name to a letter sent to H&F and having it listed here.

Second, the fraud is one issue. It's the issue that we chose to address as only one of the major affronts to contributors, because it bespeaks a general lack of good housekeeping and bookkeeping on iStock's part. I printed out the laundry list of recent contributor complaints (compiled by another contributor) and attached that list (sans Contributor name) to my letter.  As stated, this is a FORM LETTER -- contributors should feel free to adapt it as they see fit, addressing other issues. Hell, if you really want, write your own letter and send it to the same people.

I don't disagree that there is good power shown through our portfolios. So far I hear a lot of people talking about that, talking about leaving, etc., and guess what?? A lot of you are still exclusive, so I guess that says a lot indeed.

No, the fraud money may not technically be owed us. I think you'll note that we didn't state it *was*. What we stated was that those fraud clawbacks would have reassured us that iStock recognized their responsibility in our losses and felt that they were worth something, if for no other reason that to keep contributors happy (as other companies dealing with fraud have done). Nothing more, nothing less.

This letter may not accomplish much, in fact, I would like to bet money on it going nowhere. But I've taken all the other remedies that I can at this point. When other outlets are viable, my portfolio will be taken away from iStock completely. As it is, I (me personally, I can't speak for the rest of the writers) no longer upload there, rarely go to the forums there (except to keep abreast of new problems). But as long as I've been on iStock, I do feel (as the letter states) that this is a business relationship that is worth trying to sort out.

Quote from: sjlocke on April 16, 2011, 02:31

Quote from: nruboc on April 16, 2011, 02:17
Strange that you would think he should give his name when posting a letter like this, but have nothing to say when anonymous exclusives who do nothing but defend IStock at every turn, bash on people....well ok, if you can't see the distinction

Whatever.

Look, that letter is awfully wordy, and it took me a while to find what you actually were asking for.  You want the money back that IS took back due to the fraud that occurred.  Ain't gonna happen.  Not only is it months gone by now and people have moved on, but contractually they don't owe it to us:
"In all cases, payment of fees to the Supplier will be net of: .... (ii) bad debts or other uncollectible sums; "

Not that I wouldn't like it or don't feel it would be justified - I lost over $9000 or so.  I just don't see it happening.  There won't be any audit - there's no facility in the agreement to ask for one, like there is on Getty.  No one is going to make a class action lawsuit either.  

So, you can print and mail the letter.  I just think you have better things you could be addressing, with a better chance of success.

So far, I don't see any leadership stepping up from among the ranks. Personally, I'd welcome your insight -- or the insight of any number of bigger players than myself -- but outside NicoBlue, I don't anticipate much. This was an idea that was proposed by a fellow contributor and we collectively felt we could pursue on our budget (i.e., nothing). I'm happy to support other member-driven initiatives -- if only I could find some.

Quote from: sjlocke on April 16, 2011, 01:42

QuoteFriends and fellow contributors:

I don't know that.  How about letting in on your name and all, if you're going to get all legal and business-ish like this?

How about not. Trust that I am a fellow contributor, as are the others involved in the drafting of this letter. Whether we're friends or not, depends on those of us you address individually. Regardless, I have no intention of being bated into using my contributor name, when there is absolutely no transparency evident that assures me -- without question -- that individuals cannot be penalized for outside statements. I still have posting privileges on iStock, and, despite my distrust of their policies, I do enjoy my earnings (what little there are of them these days) and intend to keep it this way.

If you feel so maligned by my address of "friends and fellow contributors," then please feel free to disregard the "friend" part.

Friends and fellow contributors:

As we continue to identify and struggle with site troubles, bugs, and other legacy issues in addition to the changes from last fall, our frustrations seem to mount ever higher. Our eroding faith in and dissatisfaction with iStock has many contributors discussing the idea of a third-party audit and, potentially, a class-action lawsuit. Rather than abandon our relationship with the company completely, however, many of us have discussed other avenues toward ameliorating the problems and addressing our myriad concerns. To this end, a few of us have taken a preliminary step in this direction; we have written the following general letter, addressed to Hellman & Friedman, in hopes that they will act so that we, the contributors, do not have to take these additional and potentially irrevocable steps ourselves. It is our hope that, in its role as investors/owners, Hellman & Friedman will take our concerns to heart by reviewing and resolving said issues. However, in order to get Hellman & Friedman to do this, you must do your part by making your wishes known. That is why we are asking you to print, sign, and snail mail the following letter directly to Hellman & Friedman. Adapt it as you wish, but do send it along if, like us, you are tired of voicing your concerns to iStockphoto directly and getting unsatisfactory answers or results.

Please post your letters to Mr. Andy Ballard and Mr. Brian Powers. Both are Managing Directors of Hellman & Friedman and Directors at Getty Images, Inc. The address is:

Hellman & Friedman LLC
390 Park Avenue
21st Floor
New York, NY 10022

Thank you.

----------------------------------

Dear Hellman & Friedman,

As one of your current holdings under the Getty family of companies, the present discord at iStockphoto LP between contributors and management should be of the utmost concern to you. Perhaps you are unaware and do not follow the forums on iStockphoto or Microstock Group forum (and perhaps then, you should) but without touching on the myriad problems at present, I will simply highlight one - failure to pay contributors what they are owed.

Per the fraudulent purchases from December onward, thousands (if not millions) of dollars were clawed back from contributing artists. Our intellectual property was indisputably stolen and is now in the hands of persons or entities unknown, being sold or distributed around the world without our consent or compensation for an unknown stretch of time into the future. This represents an affront on many levels, and at the very least, it is my belief, and that of many of my fellow contributing artists, that we should be compensated for the "sale" of the files initially purchased, fraudulent sale or not. In essence, we believe it is only right and fair that the money taken from us by iStockphoto LP for these fraudulent sales should be returned to us immediately. This in no way addresses the potential losses incurred by the artist resulting from fewer sales over the life of the photo (because of its black market distribution), but this solution would go far toward reassuring contributors that iStock recognizes their culpability in not protecting our intellectual property, as an agent should do.

Beyond that, details of the fraudulent sales are difficult to determine. iStockphoto has, in many instances, simply refused to give specifics to the contributors, and, when it has, those details have often not matched up with contributor account information. It would seem, given the breadth and depth of site and policy issues currently plaguing iStockphoto LP, a third-party audit is in order. Trust in iStockphoto and its management team has largely been lost and with a single look at either of the two forums mentioned, one discovers a wealth of threads detailing contributors' anger and frustration.

So before the company loses more exclusive content and contributors as artists begin to drop their exclusive commitment to iStockphoto LP, it may be prudent to act and straighten out the mess that iStockphoto has become. The most valuable piece of the Getty family of companies, iStockphoto can still be a key investment for Hellman if in good shape. And wouldn't that be the goal if you are, ultimately, to sell the company in future?


As it seems clear that Getty itself has no interest or authority in addressing these matters, I implore you to uphold the esteemed values that you have outlined for Hellman & Friedman's investment approach in order to set right iStockphoto LP:

"... the most important assets are the intangibles: the people, their business practices and intellectual capital, and their customer relationships. H&F has developed considerable experience addressing the complex issues often presented by investments in businesses of this type, including the importance of structuring appropriate incentive compensations plans and management retention programs."

If it seems that iStockphoto LP or Getty does not value its contributors or their intellectual capital, its relationship with us, or aboveboard business practices, I have confidence that - in contrast - Hellman & Friedman does value and properly understand these points and their merits.

I thank you for your time and look forward to the swift handling of these matters in lieu of what we contributors have been talking about - seeking out legal counsel and looking into a class-action lawsuit, based on the findings of an independent third-party audit.

Sincerely,

[Sign your name here]

Quote from: gostwyck on April 15, 2011, 21:09

Quote from: jsnover on April 15, 2011, 20:38
... When you consider the team size and level of expertise that the big dogs (Google and Microsoft) have working on this sort of search engine behavior, it does make me wonder why a small subsidiary of a stock photo company would take this on.

Istock/Getty do have form in this regard. Uniquely they force users to seach for their products with their special Controlled Vocabulary. Google stayed well clear of that idea (as well as all the other stock agencies and every other business on the web).

I"ve never understood the impetus to invest so much time & energy in CV, when forum questions time and time again prove that its illogical -- why reinvent the wheel? It seems like a marketing tactic run amok: "Ooooh, look at our fancy CV thingamabob!! It'll get you precise results with every search! (But only if you use our special terms, don't use confusing symbols like '+',  and burn special Calgary incense in your office."

Quote from: caspixel on April 15, 2011, 19:50
To answer my own question, here's the words straight from the horse's mouth (sort of - it's via that Canon article where KKT was interviewed), so we have to take it with a grain of salt, considering he thinks all the contributors only sell stock to buy a new lens cap:

"Thompson also clearly has an eye on the long-term benefits of the site's search engine – which has recently been overhauled. He describes it as "awesome" in delivering results based on a customer/client's location."

So it's supposed to be based on a client's location. So so stupid. Not all a designer's clients are local. Can they really be *that* dumb at iStock? (rhetorical question, of course)

You know, I hadn't really thought of that -- haven't bought stock for a remote client in a while -- but yeah, imagine if you worked in the travel industry or did design work for a multi-national? Pain in the ass.

Quote from: gostwyck on April 14, 2011, 22:21

Quote from: Artemis on April 14, 2011, 21:55
I think a pretty important point is often forgotten: the vast majority of buyers does NOT read the forums or newsletters.
Awhile ago i bumped into someone who works on the design department of a rather big company here that spends over $2500/month on stock. He said they recently moved over from istock to shutterstock because istock suddenly tenfolded their prices and became very, very expensive. Don't overestimate buyers, plenty of them are clueless about the different collections and will just turn elsewhere if the expensive ones dominate the search results.

Good point. I think what you describe may well be happening in significant numbers. Comparing the first quarters of 2010 and 2011 my sales on Shutterstock were 28% up and 25% down on Istock. The growth in Shutterstock is mainly through ever-increasing PPD sales and they must be getting those new customers from somewhere. Istock do appear determined to drive their ship onto the rocks as quickly as they can.

Not (deliberately) trying to hate on istock right this second, but I think it's hysterically funny that, the minute a forum stink is raised by contributors, iStock is quick to point out that only a small portion of people use the forums. Yet when it comes to something huge for contributors, they are quick to note that all the info is in the forums for buyers to find. To quote a favorite movie, "It don't compute."

Looks like there's also a heavy "new file" weight too, judging by my results, much more so than last week.

Oh, and what still annoys me?? Seems no matter what I do, I cannot get an email or newsletter from iStock, on any topic other than payouts. The simplest things . . .

I'm always grateful when someone posts about a new Contributor newsletter; if you didn't, I'd never know there was one.

Quote from: SNP on April 12, 2011, 02:18

Quote from: cobalt on April 11, 2011, 23:08
They said they will take "ongoing" issues and the events in the Middle East are certainly far from over. They just cannot accept breaking news, for the simple reason that it cannot be processed in time and maybe also to avoid a direct competition with Getty.

It´s a very interesting newsletter and lightbox.

Good to see that editorial is beginning to sell.

I have to add something about the lightbox. it REALLY bothers me to see how they are populating the front page lightboxes. for months and months I have made comments in threads about the same contributors being added to all of the showcase lightboxes. I have opened support tickets and I have sitemailed the admins administering the specific lightboxes.

in the case of this EDITORIAL collection LB....there are many of us, NOT just me, who are heavy contributors to editorial who are NOT showcased at all in that LB. and some of the files in the LB do not belong in there as showcase images (one example is two nearly identical shots by an admin, both of which are in the LB).

if contributor confidence and community spirit is still of concern around iStock, one action that would help restore my confidence would be to see an even distribution of contributors represented in these showcase lightboxes.

in this particular case I have no problem admitting that I want at least some of my editorial files in that lightbox. editorial is very exciting to me. it was the photography I did well before I did stock. so far no response from admin after more than a week. sigh.

Of course contributor confidence and community spirit is not still of concern around iStock! Silly Rabbit, light boxes are for the admins & special ones.

I had a day that was like my old normal on Tuesday . . . and the weird part was that I had multiple sales of one image, a far out of season image, and none of the search choices made it come up in the middle of the search. I think customers are heading straight for the back.