|
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 - KarenH
51
« on: March 24, 2013, 07:35 »
Oh I've definitely requested that. Being the weekend, I don't expect any response til Monday.
52
« on: March 23, 2013, 16:58 »
My portfolio is gone from iStock as it should be (account cancelled January 23) -- but I just learned today that (1) five of my images are still up at getty images site and (2) there has been at least one purchase (one that I have proof of, and another that I suspect but have no proof of), and who knows how many that I don't know of that don't show up in a google image search.  I'm not upset with iStock, as they weren't purchased from them, but I'm livid with Getty.
53
« on: February 07, 2013, 20:19 »
They are looking on craigslist for quality people? Hmmm....
Surprisingly, a lot of companies are doing that lately. For about the last three years, all my recruiters would post on Craigslist first -- quicker response. And the last two major corps I worked for did that too -- I suspect it is sort of pre-screening before it gets to HR.
54
« on: February 05, 2013, 22:10 »
Lack of integrity on the part of Getty; No longer able to trust iStock/Getty.
55
« on: February 01, 2013, 00:25 »
I opened a new thread at iStock concerning image searches. Let's see if it stays open....
Looks like it's gone.
56
« on: January 31, 2013, 22:22 »
Vannphoto I'm laughing so hard at that - you probably made someone's day there, probably the nicest one they got! 
57
« on: January 31, 2013, 19:40 »
I think this is pretty underwhelming.
Jo Ann, I couldn't agree more. I may well be wrong, but I suspect this was an attempt to hold off D-Day, people figuring they'll wait for something more substantive before they take action. And I suspect it will probably work. I don't expect the big picture to change though. Too much water under the bridge by now, and too much delay in even addressing this. Plus their attitude towards contributors doesn't seem to be improving any, given the forums over the last couple of days.
58
« on: January 31, 2013, 16:03 »
I wonder if they believe this will delay people's D-Day actions.
59
« on: January 30, 2013, 19:24 »
I'm a she :-). Called this number 44 (0) 203 227 2713, was a bit surprised to talk to someone, and yes I was a bit upset, it was obvious someone was stealing my work, and rather than solutions , or apologies, I was receiving patronising platitudes from the people I pay to protect/market my work. Sorry cant really talk right now I am so angry.
Oops, apologies for the wrong pronoun! That would have made me angry too -- they used to say call right away if there is any indication of a fraud, but they seem to not really mean that.
60
« on: January 30, 2013, 19:02 »
To just say that's the risk he takes when he sells online -- what an incredibly insensitive cavalier attitude, and certainly not appropriate when they're taking the lion's share of the royalties! I wonder though if he didn't get an actual contributor support person (do they have those there anymore?), and maybe got someone who just happened to answer the phone and didn't know what to do.
61
« on: January 30, 2013, 18:59 »
Yup.
I doubt if anyone ever reads them, and I've just put 'Google'.
I think someone is reading them. In the CBarnes thread, Logo is pondering on what to do with people who deactivate their images, who want to come back, should they be allowed in the forums etc . . . and his last comment is "well you should see some of the super comments left behind on these deactivated files. I guess that might inform some of our decisions on a case by case basis. Again, spit balls." I guess at least he is reading them.
62
« on: January 30, 2013, 17:45 »
Oh yeah, they don't need a review of their accounting systems.  BTW this is the second one in recent weeks with the same number of DLs. Bummed that didn't happen to one of mine before I closed the account. 
63
« on: January 25, 2013, 11:54 »
I just read Lobo's post, thanks for showing that. I get so annoyed when he (or others there) attribute people's actions to what they choose to believe -- that anyone that closes an account or deactivates files does it without forethought, purely on emotion, without thought, or just to make a statement. And that we'll come running back full of regret. In my case, my income dropped to less in a month than I spend on coffee in a week. I had a small portfolio, and a non-related full-time job. They can throw all the hearts hearts unicorn rainbows around that they want, but it remains that THAT iStock no longer exists, and Getty is running the show. I wholly was against what they did, and do not trust them, and they were no longer worth stressing about or worrying about what they were going to do next. They are not an organization I want to be any part of. It made sense FOR ME to close my account. I didn't do it to make a point, as I know it wouldn't mean a hill of beans to them. I can only laugh at the idea that in a month I'll want to reopen. It was not a snap decision at all. Rant over.
64
« on: January 25, 2013, 11:26 »
I closed mine - canceled exclusivity on jan 10, and then just closed the account on Jan 23. I didn't think I was the only one.
65
« on: January 23, 2013, 10:53 »
Final image deactivated today for a total of 420. Furthermore, I just canceled my entire account with them. There's no reason not to.
66
« on: January 21, 2013, 20:00 »
Add another 9 for me, -- for a total of 419. One left, I'm not sure why I'm leaving it there really.
67
« on: January 20, 2013, 15:54 »
If it's in a topic by itself, it will get more people noticing it. My guess is that was a way of burying the question, and they don't want to call attention to it. The length of this third thread about Google Images, with little HQ or admin input, probably puts a lot of people off of reading anymore about it at this point.
I'm sure that's why it was deleted, so it could be buried.
I commented after it, hopefully more will to keep it alive.
68
« on: January 20, 2013, 15:34 »
I think Getty would take more notice if buyers were involved as well. I'd like to see them not buy from istock on February 2end or only buy from exclusives. I'd also like to see those that only use istock commit to trying another site.
Brilliant! It would be great to buyers participate. Maybe add close their accounts to the list of possible things they could do.
Let's try to get the word out to buyers to boycott on that day. Great thinking Sharpshot!
I accidentally did that. I sent an email to my CN (excluding the ones that I know for sure are aware of this), pointing to a link of Sean's blog post, and mentioning Deactivation Day, and that I would no longer be uploading to iStock and in fact deactivating my images and probably closing the account soon and going elsewhere. I left my personal email address. After I did that, I realized that a couple of regular buyers were in my CN. Oops. Oh well.
69
« on: January 20, 2013, 15:29 »
If it's in a topic by itself, it will get more people noticing it. My guess is that was a way of burying the question, and they don't want to call attention to it. The length of this third thread about Google Images, with little HQ or admin input, probably puts a lot of people off of reading anymore about it at this point.
70
« on: January 18, 2013, 19:57 »
Didn't realize what was happening over at istock, am now deactivating all my images. A little over 1600 to go.
I don't know if you saw this (and I wish I had the link handy but I don't) -- but Sean made a greasemonkey script that makes the whole deactivation process go a lot faster. It's in one of the recent Google threads here too.
71
« on: January 18, 2013, 19:55 »
Perhaps send your CN a message asking them to send you e-mail - if you have an e-mail address you're willing to share? That way if you do get shut down on iStock you'll have a distribution list you can use where the reach of Lobo isn't an issue
Oh I gave them my personal email address -- I've learned to expect the worst. I also asked them not to "reply to all" because then it just needs one person who didn't like that to report it to Lobo, and then it would for sure get shut down. At this point, I guess I don't care much anymore.
72
« on: January 18, 2013, 19:43 »
I sent a link to Sean's blog to my CN also, at least to those that I haven't seen posting about it elsewhere already - in other words, to those who might not know. I'm waiting to get my sitemail shut down now for that.
Also, I deactivated another ten, leaving only ten more -- those may or may not wait until February 2, That still gives them two weeks to screw around with things, and who knows what will happen.
73
« on: January 18, 2013, 19:41 »
They can't clean up twitter and FB and social media and private blogs. And I make sure I include #istock or #istockphoto hash tags when I tweet these articles.
74
« on: January 17, 2013, 12:41 »
I alternated between "to keep Getty from giving them away" and "because Getty cannot be trusted with the intellectual property of others." Juvenile maybe, but I felt better.
75
« on: January 14, 2013, 14:37 »
Add 16 to my tally, for a total of 400 deactivated. I'll leave the remaining 20 up there til the 2nd of Feb.
|
Sponsors
Microstock Poll Results
Sponsors
|
Show Posts
