|
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 - Reef
51
« on: February 09, 2013, 17:54 »
What some don't understand is that a Plan B may not involve spreading work to other micros. It might not involve micros, or indeed selling images at all.
So for some people it may be worth staying exclusive and focussing on getting their ducks in a row, or whatever that saying is, in other areas of their lives, rather than wasting time on the other micros.
You hit that one on the nail for me, Sue. Micro is so saturated its time to work smarter not harder, i.e. don't spread your work around, upload more and such.
52
« on: February 07, 2013, 20:15 »
Let's keep in mind we built iStock, we can do it again and even better this time this is not starting from scratch, yes it will take some time but we can do it!
53
« on: February 07, 2013, 19:43 »
Patience guys. This is a huge challenge for those involved. Taking on the might of Getty, and potentially Google, will not be easy. I'm sure we will hear something soon. In the mean time I'd love to be a fly on the wall at iStock HQ
54
« on: February 07, 2013, 05:29 »
Perfect timing and looking forward to learning more.
55
« on: February 04, 2013, 18:24 »
56
« on: February 04, 2013, 07:23 »
Assuming Shutterstock doesn't allow that, definitely. I'll look into it asap.
That was nearly 2 weeks ago - any reply?
57
« on: February 04, 2013, 07:09 »
Which makes me wonder: Do you really understand the problem?
Yeah, sure, Getty, and its partner in crime, Google, are killing Microstock. Feb 2nd is over, now we wait and see if the big guns in MS will sue. Personally, I'm now focusing outside the reaches of Getty and Google.
58
« on: February 02, 2013, 05:16 »
I've unchecked all my Thinkstock Files and about to start Deactivating. Was there an agreed "reason" to enter for deactivation?
Deactivated 100
Didn't leave a reason. I think they already know.
59
« on: February 01, 2013, 00:33 »
If my sales at IS over the last few days are anything to go by it might already be happening. This week my sales have fallen off a cliff, to literally about one third of what they were during the same week in January 2012. Probably just the normal ebb and flow but I wonder how others are doing?
Complete opposite for myself. Until I read this I was thinking IS had changed best match to generate more sales, and therefore more confusion for Feb 2nd.
60
« on: January 31, 2013, 07:07 »
I've removed one post (and the posts that responded to that post) that poked fun at other members. I realize it was just in jest but it was simply asking for trouble.
Oh for gawd sake.......... That was probably the funniest joke ever posted here and not even close to the "jesting" some (not all) have given others. If they can't take a little poke they shouldn't dish it out in the first place. So I'm not sure why you felt the need, Leaf? Peace 
61
« on: January 24, 2013, 19:20 »
Sorry to hear that also - can't you do an IP thingy and find out who it was. Leaf can I believe
62
« on: January 24, 2013, 14:03 »
This whole topic certainly raises some complex issues that are hard to deal with.
I dont believe this is about making a decision based on business or passion.
Its about what is right and wrong.
Its as simple as that, and yet its not.
It may seem illogical to say, but every cloud has a silver lining.
63
« on: January 24, 2013, 13:27 »
A quote from someone on iStock
"Getty and iStock must understand that they only distribute our content, they are not the owners of it."
This is why I support the Feb 2nd movement.
64
« on: January 23, 2013, 00:09 »
Re-Your Private Message. Will you be taking action then, given the links he has provided are all different Shutterstock Users.
65
« on: January 22, 2013, 23:32 »
I can. Will send a private message.
Done. The second part of the question is more of a query. I assume its ok to include your own HiRES imagery in your own theme without any hindrance?
66
« on: January 22, 2013, 23:06 »
I know that the use of photos in themes has been a hot topic over here. After weighing out the pros and cons, we finally decided to pull that out. Authors are no longer allowed to buy an item from our marketplaces and use them in another stock item for sale. We hope this protects you guys a little better and that you consider opting back into the extended licenses.
I think that is a good move. I had noticed that some purchases I have made at Envato (GR) did not contain the high resolution image, but they did contain a PDF containing the high resolution image. Will this practice also be stamped out? Given its quite easy to access the contents of a PDF. Another consideration is those Authors who include their own high resolution images. Will they be allowed to carry on as before?
67
« on: January 22, 2013, 22:23 »
......
68
« on: January 19, 2013, 06:46 »
Perhaps a gold crown being thrown off a bridge?
or maybe someone wearing a gold crown with holes in their socks.
69
« on: January 17, 2013, 17:52 »
All of this - and still no response from Getty/IS. Unbelievable.
I'm so disgusted I'm not even checking. A few months ago I started a backup plan (Niche RM not RF) and that has already started to bring in a tidy sum. This week, so far, its more than I've earned at IS. On Feb 2nd I might just delete my whole portfolio so I don't have to waste my time with them.
70
« on: January 15, 2013, 08:13 »
It must have been a bug - seems to work ok for me i.e. Exclusives files show when slider at bottom
71
« on: January 15, 2013, 01:28 »
I've always been sensitive about using my children - I have deactivated the only 2 shots I had of them in IS
Total 1107
72
« on: January 14, 2013, 15:42 »
This sends a message that could generate publicity - I'm in. Have a small port but I'll remove my top 50
Feb 2nd projected total 7084
73
« on: January 13, 2013, 14:25 »
ETA: I should clarify that I would deactivate my entire portfolio as part of a group initiative.
Lets hope the top artists can work something out. A strong worded letter would be a good start. Deactivation is an option. Sean has modified his script to make it easier to do I believe. http://www.istockphoto.com/forum_messages.php?threadid=350491&messageid=6818805
74
« on: January 13, 2013, 14:20 »
The blogg is called " why exclusivity doesnt work" my point is, it does work and would work if it wasnt for certain agencies abusing it.
I mean thanks to IS, I would think just the very word Exclusivity would make most here go to the bathroom. The concept of exclusivity, the way it should be, should be a guarantee for its members to earn money. Thats what it used to be and still is within certain agencies.
Never mind. Its a waste to try and explain it but still.
You should practice what you preach. For many of us it has been the belief that by staying exclusive we were securing our work and the industry. It has always been disheartening to see established artists, like yourself, upload to multiple subscription agencies. Now IS appears to be fighting back by offering our work for next to nothing. Its a fight to the bottom and no one knows what will be left at the end.
75
« on: January 12, 2013, 04:47 »
I'm concerned that this move is how Getty sees the future of stock photography. The sheer volume of images out there means we have become unimportant to them. This could be our last chance to make a stand, not just for the sake of IS contributors but the whole industry.
|
Sponsors
Microstock Poll Results
Sponsors
|
Show Posts
