|
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 - PixBoxx
Pages: [1]
1
« on: May 03, 2023, 06:59 »
https://www.alamy.com/blog/ai-and-your-images-protecting-rights-and-creating-opportunities Announcement from Alamy on April 25. Item #4 says: While the sources for AI image generation by many platforms are at worst scraped without permission and at best unclear, we cannot accept AI generated material on Alamy. It already breaches our standard terms and conditions because it is not necessarily free from rights. We are in the process of removing all of this content that we can identify.
2
« on: August 17, 2017, 01:00 »
My iStock income and downloads still continues to drop every month, despite uploading new files to iStock on a regular basis. I also know 3 other contributors personally who are experiencing the same at iStock. iStock is still by far my lowest earner. Not sure why I even still bother to upload there at all. It is a white elephant.
3
« on: September 26, 2016, 15:14 »
In 2013 Getty willingly gave Google at least 6,000 of the best selling iStock contributor images to freely use and distribute as high resolution 'clip art' on the Google Drive site, but without any permission first from the copyright owners of the images.
As a result of that free Getty/Google deal it cost the contributor's hundreds of thousands, maybe even millions, and reduced the future earnings potential of the free images down to $0.00.
So first Getty give Google over 6,000 iStock images for free thus, pressing the self destruct button, but now have changed their minds for some reason?
It's like when a government sells arms to a rogue dictatorship regime and then acts surprised when they fire their own weapons back at them later.
Pardon me, but I just threw up in my mouth a little bit.
5
« on: August 02, 2016, 10:07 »
I dont think anyone at getty will try to lock in independent files.
Getty itself has tons of non exclusive content from over 200 partner companies. Only the Getty house artists are exclusive, the rest is content you see everywhere in the macro industry.
If they are going to pay all iStock contributors 20% across the board, and independent files are not going to be locked in, then there will be no incentive for any of the current iStock exclusive contributors to allow their images to be locked in as exclusive content with Getty either. Meaning if independents can still earn 20% on Getty, and sell their files on other sites, then all exclusives will want to do the same. Based upon what you are suggesting, they will need to pay exclusives a higher rate to keep their images exclusive with iStock. And I don't see that happening. This is why I suggested all images will be locked in at 20% under the new structure as there isnt any other logical solution other than to lock in independent files too.
6
« on: August 01, 2016, 15:30 »
I am glad to hear you are doing well Jeff. I know it was a very difficult decision.
Didn't istock write somewhere that they want to unify royalties between istock and getty?
Well, what are the chances of Getty adding an artist exclusive royalty system...?
I think we all know if the new royalty system was going to be to our advantage, they would have announced it before locking in all our files...
The only silver lining might be that they cancel artist exclusivity and adopt the getty system of series/image exclusivity.
You'll get only 20%, but would have instant freedom to upload new files anywhere.
We will see what happens, but I wouldn't be banking on royalty rates that are higher than those for the getty house artists.
They can always give special deals to the chosen few...
Some excellent points. So come end of this month, no more contributor exclusivity, just image exclusivity as it already is on Getty for all other regular Getty contributors. Then just 20% royalties for everyone, all existing iStock images will become image exclusive with Getty and then be mirrored on the Getty site too. Then there will just be one price for all iStock imagery, no more collections, and whatever you have on the iStock site now will be locked in with Getty forever. This further means you won't be able to upload any of your existing iStock files to other sites, even though you will no longer be an exclusive iStock contributor. And the only way to remove images will be to remove all your images and close your Getty account completely. Any new work you create can of course be uploaded to other sites as royalty free if you like, but then it can't be uploaded to Getty. So Getty will then be able to say all of their iStock content is now "Only on iStock", which is the goal. Pay less to exclusives and lock in all iStock imagery as exclusive. I am not sure how they will handle the files of independents who already have their iStock files on many other sites. Guess the indies will be forced to take the files down from other sites, or close their Getty account. And even though all exclusives will be taking a 10%-20% royalty cut, they will spin it to everyone by saying in their next announcement: "but you will be making more sales now because all your images will be on the Getty site and not just your existing S+ stuff. So don't worry about the royalty rate drop because you will be making lots more sales". Then everyone can simply look forward to getting 35%-50% less in royalties than they are now, with perhaps a few more downloads on Getty in return. I guess those $0.16 GI royalties some people are earning now will drop to under $0.10 per download. Not much to be happy about. So if you think you might want to put any of your existing iStock portfolio on other sites, without having to close your iStock account, then better to deactivate those files before the middle of this month.
7
« on: August 01, 2016, 10:28 »
I think to continue to have faith in Getty at this point you really must have rose tinted glasses on. Getty is purely a money hungry behemoth. In their process of deciding how to try and squeeze another dollar out of a quarter, they never once think about what they might be doing to hurt people's livelihood or opinions of them. If a few exclusives get pissed off when they drop royalty iStock rates to a standard 20%, pull their files, or drop the crown, they don't care. They are going to make more money by paying out less and improve their Q4 earnings for the year. That is all they care about, full stop. They are a company completely ridden with debt and just trying to survive one day to the next. They are purely in it for the here and now. So then, if a few hundred, or even thousand exclusives, each pull a few thousand images off iStock, buyers won't even notice. They have more than a hundred million images under their control. In fact, it may make the searches less cumbersome with a few hundred thousand less images anyway. If you have any doubt about their integrity, or whether or not they ever consider doing the right thing, just look at the $1,000,000,000 lawsuit against them. Plus, a few more lawsuits like that, and they will be spending so much on lawyers and paying out settlements that they may not even be able to pay you your 20%.
8
« on: July 29, 2016, 13:25 »
The sad thing about this case is that the net result of the law suit will only be that Getty get's smarter and more ruthless about their future acts of criminality. And the result of that is it will only become more difficult to catch the Getty thieves the next time they are stealing money or content from other picture creators. 
9
« on: July 28, 2016, 12:46 »
still sounds alot for "stock" photographs , really.
it isn't Ansel Adams custom work , if you know what i mean. it's mostly zero expense photography
Wouldn't you love to have been a fly on the wall at the Carlyle Group when they heard about this?
Absolutely! It was probably a big "Oh Sh*t" moment over at Camp Getty. Perhaps this will finally be a wake-up call for them. Of course, even a case like this where the amount of money involved in the suit is based on punitive damages, nobody will ever get a billion dollars for settlement of a copyright infringement, even if malicious intent can be proven. But it is good to start high and negotiate from there. I can imagine if this case gains some traction in the courts that the payout could be in the 2-3 million range perhaps. And by putting such a large figure on it helps it to become political, which is all part of the strategy. The lawyers know what they are doing on this one it seems. I bet Getty has a lot of Starbucks latte-swilling hipsters working at the Getty Farm, thinking they're true masters of the universe and probably take turns giving each other latte enemas in the office. But let's see if those smug, little butt-dart cadets are still giving each other wooyay high-fives when they all get handed a brown box to pack up their sh*t because the numpties at the top can't make payroll anymore.
10
« on: July 25, 2016, 13:20 »
Getty is paying even lower than $0.10 on downloads of exclusive content? Why not just give people's images away for free. Oh wait, they already do that too. Never mind. Well, looks like Getty contributors aren't in it for the money either. Guess lens cap lovers can be found everywhere.
11
« on: July 20, 2016, 00:17 »
Wooohoooo, with everyone pulling their portfolios on iStock, pretty soon I will have all those $0.10 royalties all to myself. I'll just be rolling in dough and buy a round of lens-caps for everyone!
12
« on: July 19, 2016, 02:33 »
Right, you cut all Exclusives from 35%-40% down to 20% and you can easily afford to bump Indies from 15% up to 20%.
This way they streamline everyone to 20% and then it is just like on Getty where everyone is already locked in at 20%.
Then they can tell the bankers they still might have a chance to survive and "Woo-Yays" all around.
So, one, single, shi**y rate for everyone, except Yuri of course.
13
« on: July 18, 2016, 10:09 »
This definitely seems like the lead-up to a iStock September Self-Destruct v3.0 as they drop everybody's royalty rates to the flat Getty 20%.
Agreed, but the part I can't work out though is how they are going to justify only paying people 20% when all the other micros are paying much higher.
Also, there will be this mass exodus of Exclusives when that happens, as there will be no economic benefit to being exclusive anymore. But maybe that is no longer a relevant concern to them either.
I can see paying Getty content creators 20% when the average download price is over $50 a pop. But when people are now paying mostly subs rates for a download on iStock, and you cut the royalty rate in half for exclusives, it leaves you with a royalty of only a few cents on a download.
Then again, Shutterstock only pays you on average $0.33 on a download too. So I guess it wouldn't be much different. But at least the volume of downloads on a file on Shutterstock is many multiples of what it is on iStock.
I don't think they have the critical thinking skills to foresee the cause and effect of anything they do to screw themselves. History has already proven that. They have already dropped self destruct bombs twice during the month of September in the past, which resulted in massive losses of revenue, etc. So this is going to be no different come September when they drop another self destruct bomb and end up screwing everyone and themselves yet again. I also think Getty is at a point where they don't care as much about what actually happens to iStock sales. They seem more focused on wanting to simply absorb it into the Getty system and standardize all their sites under one brand/business model. So I think when they do drop everyone to 20%, you get this mass exodus of Exclusives, and they are only left with perhaps 1/3 of their contributors who are even willing to continue to upload to the site for such low payouts, they just wont care. As long as the buyers keep buying that is all they are focused on. They have enough content now under the Getty umbrella that they probably feel they can just sail this ship with its slow, rotting leak until it just finally sinks completely and they have to file for bankruptcy reorganization. I think we as contributors, who are emotionally attached to the health of a site where we upload our content to like iStock, focus too much on trying to see the logic in all the mistakes they make. Maybe they don't even see these loses of revenue and good will as being mistakes, but the path of consolidating and absorbing their smaller brands into a bigger, and more significant machine. But if you said "Hey Getty, How's That Business Approach Been Workin' For Ya So Far?" I think the answer lies clearly in all the red on their balance sheets.
14
« on: July 18, 2016, 09:42 »
This definitely seems like the lead-up to the release of iStock September Self-Destruct v3.0, as they drop everybody's royalty rates to the flat Getty 20%.
15
« on: July 07, 2016, 14:15 »
I have been having trouble logging into my account with Firefox today, but Chrome is OK. Has anyone else had any problems with Firefox recently?
Pages: [1]
|
Sponsors
Microstock Poll Results
Sponsors
|
Show Posts
