I also just noticed that my Paypal email address has been removed from my details on Shutterstock. This getting more concerning.

I also just noticed that my Paypal email address has been removed from my details on Shutterstock. This getting more concerning.

There is actually a bigger problem. The default log in page is not encrypted, it uses http rather than https. Chrome says the identity of the web site cannot be confirmed. The http site should automatically route users to the https site to ensure encryption is used to protect the data entered during log in by the user. This is web security 101.

Additionally when you manually enter the https vs http Chrome says the site uses weak security (SHA-1). Again Web Security 101. This was not the case previously. I suggest whoever is in charge needs to take a look at what is going on very carefully and users be very cautious.

Quote from: Shutterstock on October 16, 2015, 22:37
Hi everyone,

We apologize for the confusion - we want to ensure that all users on our site are safe and secure and are taking an extra step to ensure that your data is safe. We have fixed the unsecure link now and would greatly appreciate if those that see the message can verify their email address. Thank you!

Vincent

There is actually a bigger problem. The default log in page is not encrypted, it uses http rather than https. Chrome says the identity of the web site cannot be confirmed. The http site should automatically route users to the https site to ensure encryption is used to protect the data entered during log in by the user. This is web security 101.

Additionally when you manually enter the https vs http Chrome says the site uses weak security (SHA-1). Again Web Security 101. This was not the case previously. I suggest whoever is in charge needs to take a look at what is going on very carefully and users be very cautious.

Quote from: cdwheatley on June 25, 2015, 23:24
Here is Getty's take on Adobe Stock.
 
With the launch of Adobe Stock, it is clear that Adobe believes all imagery is worth a maximum of $10.  We simply do not agree with this view.  Commercial and photographic experience and investments in pre and post-production do matter to quality and are only commercially viable through higher price points and, ultimately, returns to the photographers.  This is a core reason why Getty Images contributors can sell across our offerings versus a one-size fits all, every image is a commodity approach.

The level of hypocrisy is astounding ... actually it's not it's completely normal from Getty. I'm not saying the prices Adobe and Fotolia are okay, but Adobe and Fotolia is just taking the already established low watermark for prices set by companies like Getty and running with it. If every image on Getty was available for $10 or more they would have a leg to stand on. I get royalties from Getty for a few cents.

I have sales from 3:15pm on the 7th at the old prices so it is a very recent change.

Quote from: jsnover on May 30, 2013, 02:51
Look at the caption on this image of "Urilux"

http://www.istockphoto.com/stock-photo-1251598-happy-young-man-swimmimg-in-a-lake-outdoor-vacation.php?st=53d489f

Uploaded in 2006, claims to be shot in 2009. Hmmm ...

Quote from: Eyedesign on May 30, 2013, 02:29
Try Urilux.

Created in April 2013, 12000+ images. Shows 50 Dls, but there are numerous blue flames in his port. Something funny going on.

Nice find EyeDesign

Yuri's portfolio at iStock is down to 255 images. What is going on?

Quote from: sharpshot on May 18, 2013, 09:50
He did mention a meeting with Getty a while ago, I presume they made him an offer he couldn't refuse?

I can kind of imagine how that meeting went.
Yuri: I don't like the way you are selling my images for almost nothing on Google Images. I am going to see you in court.
Getty VP: Here is bag of cash and a very enticing "exclusivity" offer. Will that make this little lawsuit go away?
Yuri: (holding bag of cash) What lawsuit?

Quote from: Yuri_Arcurs on May 18, 2013, 07:31
Hi Guys.
We have found a good distribution partner (Getty Images) for the kind of content we produce. We will be removing all images from microstock doing the next few weeks. Microstock, especially subscription sites, are not suited for the kind of high production cost images we produce.
Best Yuri

All the best Yuri, but I can't help think this is the equivalent of boarding the Titanic as a first class passenger after it has already hit the iceberg.

Quote from: sjlocke on May 17, 2013, 23:46
Allowing a direct contributor to IS to be exclusive and to submit the same images elsewhere would be a complete destruction of exclusivity.  There's no getting around it.  I can't imagine them doing something that truly dumb.  It does, however, deserve an explanation and not a dodge.

Recently they have posted twitter links when complete nobodies become exclusive then don't say anything about this. Strange behaviour unless they have something to hide or know it is not going to be liked.

Perhaps this is the next step in the journey to remove exclusivity, it certain shits all over the concept, mind you they have been watering exclusivity down for ages. Alternatively, they have just bought Yuri's site and therefore it is just another Getty outlet and therefore aren't breaking the terms of exclusivity

According to the Wayback machine, the published ASA is exactly the same as it was in Jan 2012. Whether or not that is exactly the same as the pop up we were forced to sign is unclear.

As someone has already said, the ASA uses both "distributor" and "agent" as such, it contradicts itself if those two terms are contradictory.

Interestingly when you change from exclusive to non-exclusive you are not asked to sign a new ASA. This in itself would present some issues I would think. Perhaps someone who has some idea about the law can comment.

Aside from all the comments from a contributor's side, in my eyes it is dumb business deal for Getty. The images they sold for a pittance were Vetta and Agency images. Given the royalties paid to contributors, Google paid between $30 and $60 for the images. The same files Getty or iStock cost 4 or more times as much. Given the terms of the license, Google should have been paying much more than a normal Extended License. So hundreds of dollars per image. Or they could have just linked back to Getty and if 1 in 4 images was actually purchased by buyers, Getty would have made far more money. It's just dumb, dumb, dumb.

101 for me. All the photos where my kids or friends kid's faces are shown. The note was about not wanting to upload photos fo children when there is no assurance they wont be misused.

I just got booted as well.

Posted By dcdp:
- asked a few questions about the situation with Google Drive that weren't addressed in an announcement
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Posted By Lobo:
Sorry, like I said this update wasn't going to blow minds or put people at ease. It's a confirmation that we're still working on things. The other thread is still open o people can keep those particular conversations over there.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Posted By dcdp:
Then why not just say, "We have nothing further to add at this time"?
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Posted By Lobo:
Why do that when we have reliable folks like you who we know will come in and point that out for us. The post wasn't for you I guess. It was for the people who I've managed to dialogue with in here who aren't just looking to react and tell us how incompetent we are in every attempt we make.

Maybe avoid the forums for a few days to see where things land. It might do you some good.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Posted By dcdp:
I have been
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Ban email:
The administration team at iStockphoto has revoked your forum privileges.  Comments from iStockphoto Administrators (if any):

David, I'm done going back and forth like this with you. Hopefully you can now focus on why you are here in the first place.

Lobo

Quote from: Blammo on January 24, 2013, 19:53
It is legal, this is pure bully tactics from Getty.

I don't suppose you can make a Google Docs document with all the images?

That is complete BS. Google does exactly the same thing when you do a Google Images Search.

Looks like they finally have things sorted out there. Yay!

Quote from: luissantos84 on January 22, 2013, 03:38
that is a thing that I never looked up, I have files from the 16th not showing up

They frequently have problems with this sort of thing on iStock, but I didn't know if this was unusual on DP or the way the normally do it. Hopefully they get themselves sorted out soon.

Thanks. Glad I'm not the only one. Guess I'll stop uploading until they get themselves sorted out.

Can anyone tell me if there is normally a long delay at DepositPhotos for images that have been approved to when they appear in searches. If I do a search by "businessman" the most recent image was uploaded on 15/1 which is almost a week ago. Is that normal?

Unbelievable. Getty obviously doesn't believe there is going to be an issue with continuing.

The upload process may be simple at SS, but the inspections are far from it. I went indie this time last year and only managed to get about half my portfolio accepted with trademark issues and LCV being the biggest rejection issues. Anything with a mobile phone in it was rejected for trademark no matter how heavily I modified it. Given my best sellers on iStock were mobile phone images it was a real kick in the crotch. SS didn't work out for me so I returned to exclusivity later in the year. I have dropped the crown again, but in the interim took measures to get around the mobile phone issue and judging by my most recent uploads to SS they have been successful.

Basic message, you can't just dump your IS portfolio on SS and expect it to be approved. Each site has it's inspection inconsistencies (e.g. similars at Dreamstime). Even if you do get your images uploaded and accepted you can't just expect them to sell like they did on iStock either. Believe it or not your best selling images were probably lucky breaks that got a couple of early DLs and thn floated on a best match wave to success. At SS they will probably sink and be hidden.

The grass isn't greener on the other side, but if you're prepared to work at it, be flexible and adjust and leave your ego at the door, you can make it and quite frankly Getty deserves to be sunk. They have been exploiting shooters for year.

Quote from: helix7 on May 10, 2012, 17:36
It's a horrible watermark. Makes comping much more difficult for designers. It's more intrusive, includes more unnecessary coverage. I like istock's watermark far more. You can use the comp image and not have it be so obvious that it's watermarked.

See the above post. If you log on you don't get any watermarks. If you want to comp, log on and get the watermark free image. Of course having the watermark disappear just because you're logged on makes the watermark pointless. I guess the only benefit is that images sucked into google images will have the watermark (I assume) which is a good thing.