|
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 - picture5469
Pages: 1 ... 9 10 11 12 13 [14] 15 16
326
« on: February 08, 2013, 14:38 »
Its linked to image time online, therefore for max impact fave newest approved
327
« on: February 08, 2013, 08:14 »
This change was to test the water as to speak. They want to cut commissions and this is just the start, SS will be next!
I still have photos to process but after that I'm out. Not producing any more as too many sites are cutting commissions.
328
« on: February 07, 2013, 18:08 »
The riot MIGHT help stop this from spreading to SS...
D Day 2?
329
« on: February 05, 2013, 20:11 »
Lack of trust is mine, what is yours?
330
« on: February 05, 2013, 09:49 »
sounds like more free images are being offered on website and now yu get paid for someone viewing your image rather than buying it
331
« on: February 03, 2013, 05:15 »
I don't think we should be thinking about the numbers or what Getty think about this. What matters is that lots of buyers are made aware of how little Getty/istock respect us, how low our commissions are and that non-exclusives have much bigger portfolios on other sites. Hopefully more and more of them will at least get a second account and only use istock to buy from exclusives.
There's a lot more we can do but I think we should wait and see what effect D-Day has had before planning another group action. It was great to take part in this and see so many joining in. It's made me think that perhaps we do have some power.
I think that is about right. Wait a while but let it be known and organize for:
D-Day2
IS won't have any files left!
332
« on: February 01, 2013, 13:25 »
We are also working hard to make your content available to new customers in new uses... I think this part of their statement says it all - time to leave.
Absolutely!
333
« on: February 01, 2013, 11:29 »
By working together we can send a strong message that they need to consider us more carefully and distribute our content responsibility. Although they are a giant, we have strong support of strength in numbers.
If we let this issue slide, whats next?
334
« on: February 01, 2013, 05:40 »
Although none of my images were included in the getty/google deal as to yet, I see the potential for this to undermine the whole industry. I have deactivated all 535 of my isolated people images.
I would like to thank my fellow contributors for standing with me and supporting our combined action. I also call upon others to protect your future interests.
Threats of possible backlash from deactivating my images do not bother me as I wouldn't have deactivated them unless I knew that my work can sell equally well elsewhere.
I remember another contributor saying that Images need to be distibuted responsibly, and I don't think that is currently happening at IS.
I suspect I will get banned from IS for this post for inciting action against them. However, as they currently do not sell my images, I can lose nothing.
335
« on: January 30, 2013, 17:09 »
I think they already know the reason.
336
« on: January 29, 2013, 07:03 »
I think the hapless responses of the Istock management and the increasing irritability of the forum moderator are quite telling on just how concerned they are (mainly for their own futures).
+1
337
« on: January 26, 2013, 06:41 »
Just seen this from Lobo:
I honestly hope more people take this attitude. It could get difficult for the folks ramping up to deactivate files to take a stand only to change their minds and request reactivations. We've already seen contacts from people who have deactivated a chunk of their portfolio who want reactivations. We've closed an account too. One whole account.
I'm glad that IS have noticed our efforts, now that they are aware you would think they would act to resolve the problem. It does prove though that we are having an effect!
338
« on: January 25, 2013, 08:09 »
You should probably wait until 2nd Feb and resubmit. I hear they will need a lot more contributors after that.
You have a good sense of humour Microbius 
339
« on: January 25, 2013, 07:34 »
The objective for me isn't just about what's removed, as that will probably be replaced. It's sending a message out to buyers that istock is no longer a place many of us are willing to have our best images. They have lost any trust we once had and there are better sites for non-exclusive contributors and buyers to use.
+1
340
« on: January 25, 2013, 07:07 »
Hi,
I agree with the orevious poster, the mop is underexposed, the silver handke should sparkle. However, ask yourself is IS a site that you want to contribute to. I strongly suggest that you read sone of the posts about IS. In the last week I have taken 535 images offline there.
Mark
341
« on: January 24, 2013, 08:34 »
Hi Sue,
Within 24 hours. The comment back from them was "thank you for your comment" they then went on and answered my question
Mark
342
« on: January 24, 2013, 04:52 »
Just deactivated all 56 of my model released images. More to come tomorrow.
I think it would be interesting to see what people are putting in the reason box. I'll start off with my stated reason:
"Removed to protect IP rights from being usurped by Getty and others."
My understanding is that nobody but you sees what's in that box.
Email support directly and tell them why you have deleted them. If you are professional, polite and courteous there can't be any come backs. I emailed them and told them why. I also put a question in the email to make them respond so that I knew they got the message!
343
« on: January 23, 2013, 06:20 »
A friendof mine is an editor. He is going to pass the link for Dan's article onto some photojournalists. They are going to run some articles.
Thanks Mark
344
« on: January 22, 2013, 14:09 »
Istock told me as an independent, it will take up to 30 days to remove my content.
345
« on: January 21, 2013, 15:28 »
I deleted 15 earlier and now thanks to Sean's tool I have managed to delete the other 520 files! My portfolio is completly empty!
I will now send an message to Istock support explaining why I have deleted all the files.
I would hate to give them the opportuity to disable the website or something !
Mark
346
« on: January 21, 2013, 08:54 »
I've just deleted 15, another 520 to go!
347
« on: October 05, 2012, 18:04 »
I just dragged this out of their terms of service
"Files available at the Site may be copied and used for private use by the User solely for non-commercial or educational purposes only. "
Im going to add this to my reasons not to upload anymore!
348
« on: October 05, 2012, 01:21 »
The only reason I may resume upload to DP is to get to my payout of 50$ as i am sitting on 44. After that I will totally disable my port. If they change their rules in the future then I may change my mind.
349
« on: October 04, 2012, 18:10 »
I stopped uploading 1 month ago to DP. What is most interesting is that sales have slumped so clearly regular upload boosts search rank on DP. However, I will not upload to them anymore because if I support them at 0.3$ sales I am killing the credit sales on DT which are far more valuable. The low user sub package that DP offers its clients in my opinion is undermining the whole industry. The sites where we do earn more per file for individual sales we are going to lose because buyers who do low volume will use DP sub package and then we will get 0.3$ instead of like 1-3$ per file.
If I'm wrong tell me.
350
« on: September 20, 2012, 16:50 »
If they scrap subs on that site, it will also make it more profitable for contributors.
Pages: 1 ... 9 10 11 12 13 [14] 15 16
|
Sponsors
Microstock Poll Results
Sponsors
|
Show Posts
