Quote from: tickstock on February 22, 2013, 00:56

Quote from: SunnyMarsDesigns on February 22, 2013, 00:46
I just wish I could go back in time and slap some sense into some of you for agreeing to the new ASA. 

Really?  Some people rely on the money they make from stock, they have children in college, they have mortgages, they need insurance, they have medical problems and cutting out tens of thousands of dollars a year could jeopardize any number of very important things.  You think the possibility of a few images on Google Drive years in the future is worth giving up your house?  Maybe you can make your stand against a bad ASA that may or may not come back to bite you one day by taking your child out of college?   Someone needs some sense...

lol you just don't get it do you?  I'm not talking about risking 'some' files in Google Drive.  You could potentially lose EVERY file to Google Drive. It's possible that you already have... you don't even know what's in there or what's about to go in there... or anywhere else for that matter. 

If you rely on the income from iStock THAT much, wouldn't it make sense to stop risking losing that amount of income, plus all future income by staying there? 

Seriously, if you stay there now, after all this and knowing what they can do to you... and your family, well... I'm not even going to say it...

Good luck to you Pal

Quote from: ShadySue on February 22, 2013, 00:50

Quote from: SunnyMarsDesigns on February 22, 2013, 00:48
Anyway, just read and make sure you understand the friggen contracts before signing anything... cause if you don't, your families might end up starving one day... that's all

I repeat:
Which companies have the contracts that can't be interpreted to suit their evil ends, should they wish to do so?
The ones which are in plain, unambiguous language?

True Sue, a lot of them are ambiguous but they pointed out the difference between an agent and a distributor.  They pointed out to you guys that when an image is licenced the contract is between the buyer and iStock.  As an agent they had fiduciary duties to you and so legally had to look after your best interests.  As your agent, it didn't matter how ambiguous their contract was... they still had to abide by the law.  But now, geez, I don't even want to think about what they can do now. 

Like I said, I'm still on your side.  If they were your agent, I'd still be here everyday tweeting, raising awareness on Facebook like I was before.  I was under the impression they were your agent and broke the law... but now I'm not so sure.  All I can do now is hope that a small meteor slams into iStock's servers or wherever they store your files.

All I'm saying is just be careful what you sign up for... wait to see the contract terms from Stocksy before agreeing to anything or uploading files.  Like most people, I have a gut feeling they're going to be great, but I wouldn't act on a gut feeling... now when it comes to business.

Quote from: meldayus on February 22, 2013, 00:46

Quote from: SunnyMarsDesigns on February 22, 2013, 00:37

I do, I get it... this is about contributors' greed.

No, for some it was about being able to continue feeding their family and putting a roof over their heads.

Yeah, sorry, I don't buy that.  There are lots of ways to feed families and put a roof over their heads.

Anyway, just read and make sure you understand the friggen contracts before signing anything... cause if you don't, your families might end up starving one day... that's all

Quote from: meldayus on February 21, 2013, 23:55

Quote from: Poncke on February 21, 2013, 23:47

Those are the magic words, they took the gamble. And they lost. You cant blame ANYONE but yourself.

What makes you think that I've lost anything?  I've lost nothing at all.  None of my images were used in the Google deal and, so far, I haven't been chucked off the site. 

However, I do have sympathy for those that have had this happen to them and, from my point of view, it is now a gamble that is no longer worth taking.  The odds have changed, that's all.

How do you know that you haven't lost anything?  This is the thing, meldayus, no one knows what's in there and what's terrible is that they can continue to add files for 12 months after you leave.  You're not even in a legal position to demand to know what's in there because the legal agreement of the files on GD is between Google and iStock.  How do you know that some other deal like Google Drive doesn't exist?  As your distributor, they don't legally even have to tell you... basically, from a legal standpoint, it's none of your business anymore.  You all agreed to this. 

Honestly, I feel sick to my stomach knowing the power that you've given them.  It makes me feel sick knowing how badly this will effect people's livelihoods.  I just wish I could go back in time and slap some sense into some of you for agreeing to the new ASA. 

Really, I'm on your side.  I just want people to acknowledge that they were responsible for signing the new ASA so that they don't make the same mistake with Stocksy or any other 'agent'.  I'm  just begging people to read any contract carefully before agreeing to anything.  That's all. 

Quote from: meldayus on February 21, 2013, 23:44

Quote from: SunnyMarsDesigns on February 21, 2013, 23:15

Contributors are generally too trusting and loyal.  Even now with Stocksy... why are people wanting to get in the door without knowing what they're about, without seeing their legal terms?  So far they sound great but how do we know if they're worth joining?  Are people just trusting Livingstone because he's the founder of iStock?  Hasn't any learnt anything after iStock?  Don't trust anyone.   It's business... look after your side of it and read and understand the contracts before agreeing to anything.

I think that you're simplifying things a little.  It's all very well to tell people to stop dealing with a company if you don't like their terms and conditions, and in an ideal world we all would.  But this is reality, and the reality was that many contributors there had thousands of images exclusively with iStock, and relied on them as their sole source of income.  It would have been a huge financial burden for them to pull those images and start all over again with other agencies (who probably also have some dubious term and conditions of their own).  So many made the choice to stay and see what happened.  OK, they may have been caught out this time, but from my point of view, my iStock earnings are so much more than I'd get at the other agencies, that it was certainly a gamble worth taking.

I didn't say it was an easy decision to make but if you sign on company as your agent to handle your income producing asset and they then turn around and say 'hey, I will no longer be your agent, I will now be your distributor and the contract of your images will be between iStock and the buyer',  shouldn't that ring alarm bells to at least protest about it? 

I do, I get it... this is about contributors' greed.  They decided to stay on and take the risk hoping they'll continue to get a higher return.  What I'm saying is... don't complain when iStock make business decisions based on greed when you yourself base your business decisions on greed.  Don't complain if the investment flops and you luck out (I don't mean you personally, I'm talking about the ones complaining).  If you invest your entire [financial] stock portfolio into one single company that offered the highest return and then one day their stocks plummeted, from the investor's point of view, who's fault would that be, the company's alone?

I'm not saying that the decision to stay was necessarily a bad one because for the large exclusive contributors, they made a killing.  What I'm saying is, you have to accept some responsibility for taking the risk with iStock.  Like you said (and what I'm saying) it was a gamble and you all thought it was worth it.  Do you still think it was worth it, knowing they can now add your files in Google Drive (possibly legally) for up to a year after you leave them... that you could lose your entire portfolio?  Was it really worth making all that money just to possibly end up losing everything?   I'll say yes, it was worth it, right until they changed the ASA and stopped being your agent... the risk to stay on after that was far too great.  But you know how it goes... people ignore the disaster waiting in the distance when they have dollar signs flashing before their eyes. 

I still feel for all iStock contributors but if they don't realise that they F'ed up, they'll likely make the same mistake with the next 'agent'. 

Quote from: tickstock on February 21, 2013, 23:29

Quote from: SunnyMarsDesigns on February 21, 2013, 23:15
Perhaps however you're out of luck there too since they noted the difference in the same Q&A forum.  Still think they're incompetent?  I reckon they knew exactly what they were doing.  They relied on your (not yours personally) loyalty.  They knew contributors would be relaxed about the new ASA.  I'm baffled as to why they were, though.  I doubt any of them would be that lax about signing any agreement which involved any other large asset they own... like their house. 

Contributors are generally too trusting and loyal.  Even now with Stocksy... why are people wanting to get in the door without knowing what they're about, without seeing their legal terms?  So far they sound great but how do we know if they're worth joining?  Are people just trusting Livingstone because he's the founder of iStock?  Hasn't any learnt anything after iStock?  Don't trust anyone.   It's business... look after your side of it and read and understand the contracts before agreeing to anything.

You realize that the choice was take it or leave it, just like it says in Shutterstock's terms.  " IF YOU DO NOT AGREE WITH ANY OF THE CHANGES PLEASE REMOVE ALL OR THAT PORTION OF YOUR SUBMITTED CONTENT TO WHICH YOU DO NOT WISH THE CHANGES TO APPLY FROM THE SHUTTERSTOCK WEBSITE."  People "agreed" to the terms because they wanted to keep licensing their content on Istock, simple as that.  Like you said this is about business, not loyalty, trust or agreeing with everything in the contract.

Of course I realise it.  They chose to stay, they agreed to everything in the contract.  They took the risk and got shafted.  That's exactly my point... they have to accept some responsibility for staying on.   

Quote from: sjlocke on February 21, 2013, 22:24

Quote from: SunnyMarsDesigns on February 21, 2013, 21:51
But they're not your agent, are they?  They're your distributor and you agreed to that.  From a relationship and legal point of view, it changed everything. 

Sorry, I meant the capital "A" as a bit of sarcasm.  If pushed, I doubt a legal entity would find that we common folk would know any difference between the terms.

Perhaps however you're out of luck there too since they noted the difference in the same Q&A forum.  Still think they're incompetent?  I reckon they knew exactly what they were doing.  They relied on your (not yours personally) loyalty.  They knew contributors would be relaxed about the new ASA.  I'm baffled as to why they were, though.  I doubt any of them would be that lax about signing any agreement which involved any other large asset they own... like their house. 

Contributors are generally too trusting and loyal.  Even now with Stocksy... why are people wanting to get in the door without knowing what they're about, without seeing their legal terms?  So far they sound great but how do we know if they're worth joining?  Are people just trusting Livingstone because he's the founder of iStock?  Hasn't any learnt anything after iStock?  Don't trust anyone.   It's business... look after your side of it and read and understand the contracts before agreeing to anything.

Quote from: sjlocke on February 21, 2013, 12:48

Quote from: ShadySue on February 21, 2013, 10:35
In no way was what Sean did 'blackmail'. It's called whistle-blowing. He told contributors that Getty was selling their images contrary to contract, especially as there were no restrictions on the use of model-released images, contrary to the model release and the terms and conditions of use from the agency they were first issued to.

And actually, initially, I was asking about it, because I wouldn't have thought such a dumb agreement would have been something set up by our Agent, and that Google was stealing the images or doing something illegal.

But they're not your agent, are they?  They're your distributor and you agreed to that.  From a relationship and legal point of view, it changed everything. 

I'm still quite shocked that people signed the new ASA.  I know their lawyer there convinced everyone that changing their position from 'agent' to 'distributor' was a formality by telling everyone in that Q&A forum that the relationship won't change.  Still... how did people trust them after years of them proving they're untrustworthy?  There should have been a huge backlash then with people refusing to sign it and pulling their ports.  D-Day should have happened then.

The majority of contributors are too trusting.  I remember a while ago in this forum, I had people here calling me a liar when I said that I go over each agent's legal docs with a fine tooth comb before making a decision to join them...  it was the main reason why I didn't join IS.  People were responding with comments like "come on, who really reads the terms and conditions?" lol.  I was surprised that so many people were so gullible. What iStock did with Google Drive was appalling but still... I would have expected that they would pull something like that as a distributor.

I'm not defending iStock but I do put some of the blame back onto the contributors who defended them for years despite there being loads of signs that they didn't have their best interests in mind.  So many of you (including you, Sean) believe that they're incompetent rather than malicious... even now.  How can you believe that after Google Drive and after they booted you for complaining about it?   

Quote from: Dan on February 20, 2013, 22:39
     2  more  sales  today  at  "Fotolia"  and  "123RF"  (1  each),.  For  a  small  timer  like  me  i'm  excited.  Excited  that  thses  2  small  sites  are  picking  up.  Just  29cent  to  TRIPLE  my  Jan  sales.  Hope  everyone  sales  pick  up.

What will you do with all the extra cash?

I'm a few dollars away from giving them the arse. 

If Shutterstock later follow their lead with this RC payment system, I'll tell them to stick it too.  I've had a gutful of dirty microstock agents.  Last year I gave away Dreamstime, DepositPhotos and 123rf.  This year BigStock and who else?  I'm not even bothered anymore.  The more I let go, the less stressed I am, the better I feel and funnily enough, the more income I make from my images.

I thought leaving our email addy on the site at this stage was just to receive a bit more info about them. 

If they invite you do they give you any information at all?  Do they tell you how it will all work?  Do they show you the terms of use and licencing details etc.?

So far it's all exciting and it all sounds great but there will be people like me who don't allow certain licencing terms.  For example, I don't sell on sites that offer a print licence that allows reselling on PODs like CafePress or Zazzle (because I sell there and don't want others competing against me).

Anyone know a bit more detail about them? 

I'm really excited about this site.  Even if they didn't accept me or if I couldn't join for the reason above, I will still be very supportive of them. 

Quote from: jsnover on February 19, 2013, 04:22
If you were designing this for the long haul you'd put hooks for customization into what you delivered so that you could separate the user customizations from the base functionality. Then when the base functionality was upgraded you'd have much less (ideally no) work to integrate that into the customizations.

Quote from: ppdd on February 19, 2013, 17:35
The main note for me is the flexibility of the product - ktools has had input from a million different users who all want something different and the script can work for most anything not. Lots of stock photographers who sell different ways, lots of wedding photographers, lots of event photographers, those who just sell prints, those who just display, artists who sell paintings, etc, etc, etc... these all require a different set of needs and different product presentation and sales methods.

For strictly stock photographers, some of the solutions floating around here may work, but they will get picked to death by all the "little" requests ("can it just do this, oh and this, oh, and just this?) while the product matures. Most drop out of development by the time everyone is happy.

I agree with both of you.  There's a trade off between total flexibility and simplicity.   

They could have a standard format with a separate area for customisations... kind of like Zazzle has a default store and an area to change the HTML and CSS.  This works for Zazzle because they're one brand and uniformity is a must, however for a Ktools site, this would be very limiting for those who want a completely different look and layout. 

On the other hand, Google does a great job with Blogger offering users a choice of different layouts as well as customisations.

I think achieving both flexibility and ease of use is possible.  Google could probably do it but can Ktools? It's just a matter of having the resources to do it.

Quote from: djpadavona on February 19, 2013, 03:23
Well, the underscore vs dash SEO thing is just a part of the equation.

No, you're missing the point.  The underscore versus dash thing isn't any part of the equation... not anymore.  A few years back it was a big issue because you had to include the underscore in the search in Google.  For example if I had a page with a URL http://sunnymarsdesigns.com/red_door.html, then I would have to actually search "red_door" instead of "red door".  Google fixed that so it's no longer an issue.

Quote from: djpadavona on February 19, 2013, 02:13

There are other issues. The optimized SEO for image and gallery names isn't very optimized. They use underscores instead of dashes, and Google wants dashes. Also they put the image and gallery numbers right into the web address, so Google has to parse through data which is not relevant to a search.

That's not relevant anymore.  Zazzle uses both underscores and image IDs in the URLs of their product pages and they do just fine on Google... better than fine.  I have no problem finding my products when I google them.  I believe warmpicture struggled due to other SEO issues.

Wasn't downtime and speed a big issue with Warmpicture?   You used ktool's hosting so the site was down far too often and it was slow. 

Ktools has its limitations like everything else but it's not the software that will make or break you.  Like everything else, if you  want it to be successful, you have to put in the work, the time as well as some money.

Quote from: Mars on February 14, 2013, 14:45
What I like about GL's EL is that they don't allow people to resell on products on Print On Demand.  What I don't like about GL that I've just noticed recently is that they've added the dreaded Pin button at the bottom of our images

I left DT because of this now I'll probably leave them too.  Pfft.

I just want to highlight how great GL is.  I didn't contact them about my concerns re the Pin button but today I noticed that the button is gone from underneath our images.  That was all it took... my one post here about it.  They paid attention and acted immediately.  How cool are they?

In contrast we spent months on the DT forum trying to convince them to remove the Pin button or at least give us an opt-out.  They wouldn't budge. 

I'm so impressed, I had to come back to this thread and share the good news. 

Thanks GL, you're all class! 

Probably no more unethical than selling the same image both at iStock at high prices and at Deposit Photos for pittance.  As pointed out, it's only unethical and possibly illegal (can someone jump in and confirm this please?) if the RM sale was for exclusive usage.

Speaking of which, doesn't DT offer exclusive usage of their RF images for a certain time frame with their 'sell the rights' licence?  How can that be when there are already thousands of other buyers using the image who have already purchased it?  I pointed out how unethical this was in their forum once and all I got from Serban was a 'shut up or I'll ban you' warning. 

"I'm not a woman of many words..."  Actually, it seems as if she is.  That would be okay if she used the right words.  The point that's she's trying to put across is a good one but she's all over the shop mixing employment law, accounting, economics and tax evasion all in one hit lol.  I'm referring to this bit here:

QuoteBut unfortunately more and more photographers these day are expected to work for free. Which in this day and age is of course totally unacceptable. Why do I find this unacceptable? Well I'm glad you asked.
To start with there is the matter of legality. Did you know that by law it is forbidden for a business to sell goods or services under the norm value? Ask your accountant, if you don't believe me. As a business you shouldn't have people work for free because that could get you in a whole lot of trouble. It is considered a form of tax avoidance.

With regards to the "norm value", first off, although I'm an accountant and know what it means, you typically wouldn't ask your accountant about this, you would ask an economist, a lawyer... or refer to the World Trade Organisation.  I believe the point she was trying to highlight when she mentioned 'norm value' was 'price fixing'.  However 'normal value' relates to 'dumping'. 

If anyone want's to understand what normal value and dumping means, in laymen's terms, it's basically a predatory pricing practice that can be used to drive out the competition in foreign trade.  For example, let's say I'm a manufacturer of SD cards in China.  Let's say the cost per card is $2 and the normal value (the sale price in China) is $4 per card.  Now let's say the average cost of the cards produced in the US were $5 per card and sold for an average of $10.  If I exported the cards to the US at cost price, then this may be considered 'dumping' them in order to try to kill off the competition in the US market making me a monopoly. 

That's what 'normal value' relates to so she's a bit off there.  Where she writes "by law" she is also wrong.  Dumping is not illegal but it is discouraged using anti-dumping practices, eg. increasing import taxes to protect local markets.

What this woman wrote isn't a good letter but as others have mentioned, it is a good rant.  What she wrote is structured very poorly and is even a little ridiculous at times.  However putting my artistic hat back on, if she focused on keeping it simple and passionate, instead of trying to come off as an intellectual, she may have had a better response to it.  But you know what, she's not a writer, an accountant, an economist or a lawyer... she's a photographer so I forgive her. 

If every photographer wrote a letter like that, even if it was poorly written, maybe more people will start to pay attention with the issues we're all facing... which are horrible and real.