pancakes

MicrostockGroup Sponsors


Show Posts

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 - ouchie

Pages: 1 2 [3] 4 5 6 7
51
iStockPhoto.com / Re: sjlocke was just booted from iStock
« on: February 13, 2013, 01:09 »
The same one that manipulated/used you and me to send a message to istock/getty.

Can you please post a link to a statement from him to support your view?

dont understand?

52
iStockPhoto.com / Re: sjlocke was just booted from iStock
« on: February 13, 2013, 01:08 »
this is what im saying, he she said it better then me:

--------

Quote from: bokehgal on Yesterday at 14:48

It appears Sean wrote a script to help a lot of his competition remove themselves from his game.

Sadly for him that act of trying to be clever backfired and blew up in his face and then ended up earning him a microstock Darwin Award instead.

I guess he is a bit shocked by it all because he was just trying to help, right?

There is something to be said for keeping your head down, not stoking the fire, nor pissing off your boss if you still want to keep your job.

Sean wrote a script because that's what he does.  He's written many scripts, many in iStock's favour.  He wrote that script because there was a demand for deleting files in a hurry rather than one by one.  How do you know somebody didn't ask him to write that script?  Or maybe he got frustrated watching people struggle to delete their files so he helped them out.  Deleting files one at a time is a joke, particularly in this instance where leaving files at iStock is a huge risk.

'Pissing off his boss'?  lol Sean is Sean's boss.  iStock was never Sean's boss and I don't believe Sean has sacked himself from his own company.  What's this ridiculous notion that Sean is out of a job?  His contract with his AGENT who sold HIS files that he produced is terminated.  He's not going to fall apart.  His files will be sold elsewhere and he'll probably make more money than before. 

Seriously, go have a lie down and come back when you've thought about what you've just written.  If you really believe that this script had that much of an impact on people's decisions to delete files or to leave iStock, then you might need to lie down and think some more.

People's reaction had nothing to do with a stupid script... it had everything to do with the Google/Getty deal that has the potential to ends people's careers.

YOu do know the above is a quote from someone else?

53
iStockPhoto.com / Re: sjlocke was just booted from iStock
« on: February 13, 2013, 00:59 »
i gota ask, you realy dont see what im saying? realy?
Nothing i have said is at all possible?
your saying, what im saying, is like saying the sun rises on the north and sets on the south?

54
iStockPhoto.com / Re: sjlocke was just booted from iStock
« on: February 13, 2013, 00:55 »

he broughtit to everyones attention. i belive he even said this.
he sure as heck was the worlds biggest chearleade---see his monky script or whatever he calls it.
he deleted 30 of his pics to test his script.
he did manipulate everyone. open yor eyes for you own sake.
its not abt me and what i deleted or did not delete. its about you not noticing what is going on befor your very eyes!

again what i delete on not has nothing to do with what i say. i act on my own accord not what the general public opinion is. so i do not regret nor do i blame anyone for my actions.
my friend im not a child and do think for myself  and make my own decisions. and i am not afraid to think for myself and look into things and evaluate what just happend. im not "fibbing" as you say i clearly stated this is my opinion and ask you all loke and consider it.

evidently im notthe only one who thinks like this....see my last post where i quote:bokehgal.

its just so very sad that you guys have this heard mentality and follow eachother, like 8 yrolds.

you kow what they say about the view of the followers right, it never changes, your always looking at, you know what.

think think brotha think!

Lol So let me get this straight.  Although you state you act on your own accord, you're assuming everyone else that deleted their account only did so because Sean brought this issue to everyone's attention?  Because he wrote a script that makes deleting files a bit easier?  So if he hadn't brought it to everyone's attention and someone else did, and hadn't wrote that script, everyone would sit there and do nothing?  They would just accept iStock/Getty handing over their images to Google to distribute for free?  Are you saying this has nothing to do with them actually wanting to protect their intellectual property, their livelihood... their current and future income, including the income generated from the same images licenced on other sites? 

Is that what you're saying? lol.

ETA

i dont know, i think you are just being defensive trying to uphold your point. thats the nicest way i can respond? i dont want to get censored again.


55
iStockPhoto.com / Re: sjlocke was just booted from iStock
« on: February 13, 2013, 00:48 »
this is what im saying, he she said it better then me:

--------

Quote from: bokehgal on Yesterday at 14:48

It appears Sean wrote a script to help a lot of his competition remove themselves from his game.

Sadly for him that act of trying to be clever backfired and blew up in his face and then ended up earning him a microstock Darwin Award instead.

I guess he is a bit shocked by it all because he was just trying to help, right?

There is something to be said for keeping your head down, not stoking the fire, nor pissing off your boss if you still want to keep your job.


56
iStockPhoto.com / Re: sjlocke was just booted from iStock
« on: February 13, 2013, 00:32 »
Sean DID NOT discover the getty/google deal.
Sean DID NOT instigate Feb 2 D-Day.
Sean DID delete some of his own images.
Sean DID NOT manipulate anyone into closing their accounts.  He hardly participated in the discussion about D-Day.

If you're suggesting that you have deleted some files and now regret it, why are you blaming Sean?  Are you a child and can't think for yourself? Can't you make your own decisions?

Maybe your posts wouldn't be deleted if you stopped telling fibs.


Are you guys talking abt the same sean that discovered the getty/google deal (or brought it to everyones attention) and then instigated the whole Feb 2 thing and then he wrote the script to make it easy for us all to deactivate out picures from istock?

is that the sean you are all talking about?

(I only read the first6pages of this thread)


The same one that did NOT deactivate a single one of his own files.

The same one that manipulated/used you and me to send a message to istock/getty.

The same one that made it as easy as possible to deactivate our files.

BUT DID NOT DEACTIVATE A SIGLE ONE OF HIS OWN.......is that the one!

Is that the one you are now elevationg to god like status, and feeling sorry for?

Dont you see how you/we were used and manipulated by him???

sean my hats off to you!

If getty and istock are evil then what are you?

what did yo expect getty to do, realy? he caused this whole uproar and then as he said himself sat on the sidelines and watch it go down.

Guys please open your eyes and consider what i say, dont just get defenssive abt it. think about it.

and, if i were sutterstock or any other microstock site id thik twice about taking him onboard. what if he does the same things to your company??

what getty/istock did is wrong but they are justified in getting rid of him.

I wonder how many ppl will get the chance to see this cause  whats his name (leek?)keeps on deleting my posts and banning me when i speek my mind and defend myself from rude posts, yet he does not ban the person that started all the name calling.

I know what il do il post this around, he dont control the entire interned. just this place.

he broughtit to everyones attention. i belive he even said this.
he sure as heck was the worlds biggest chearleade---see his monky script or whatever he calls it.
he deleted 30 of his pics to test his script.
he did manipulate everyone. open yor eyes for you own sake.
its not abt me and what i deleted or did not delete. its about you not noticing what is going on befor your very eyes!

again what i delete on not has nothing to do with what i say. i act on my own accord not what the general public opinion is. so i do not regret nor do i blame anyone for my actions.
my friend im not a child and do think for myself  and make my own decisions. and i am not afraid to think for myself and look into things and evaluate what just happend. im not "fibbing" as you say i clearly stated this is my opinion and ask you all loke and consider it.

evidently im notthe only one who thinks like this....see my last post where i quote:bokehgal.

its just so very sad that you guys have this heard mentality and follow eachother, like 8 yrolds.

you kow what they say about the view of the followers right, it never changes, your always looking at, you know what.

think think brotha think!

57
iStockPhoto.com / Re: sjlocke was just booted from iStock
« on: February 13, 2013, 00:20 »
It appears Sean wrote a script to help a lot of his competition remove themselves from his game.

Sadly for him that act of trying to be clever backfired and blew up in his face and then ended up earning him a microstock Darwin Award instead.

I guess he is a bit shocked by it all because he was just trying to help, right?

There is something to be said for keeping your head down, not stoking the fire, nor pissing off your boss if you still want to keep your job.

WoW its not just me...yay!

58
iStockPhoto.com / Re: sjlocke was just booted from iStock
« on: February 13, 2013, 00:03 »
I'm not trying to argue with you guys.

i don't want to fight.

that is just the way i see it. its just my personal OPINION.

all i ask is that you just consider it.


elevating a co. and ppl is how we got into this mess in the first place.

they will use you and take advantage of you every single time. its a biz and we need to treat it as such.

istock was the best thing since sliced bread--things change my friend.

shutterstock was the same--you see where they are headed now, i hope you see!

USE all these company's!

DONT be used by them!

59
iStockPhoto.com / Re: sjlocke was just booted from iStock
« on: February 13, 2013, 00:00 »
It shouldn't matter at all to any of us who deleted files and who did not.  That is a personal business choice that each person must make for themselves.  However, for those who seem concerned about his, please check your information.  Sean mentioned that he did in fact delete some of his files.  http://www.microstockgroup.com/istockphoto-com/image-deactivation-tally-for-istockphoto/msg296135/#msg296135


OMG----he said he took down 30. thats a three and a zero--30!
and i will bet you its 30 of his underpreforming files.
and he only did it to test his program.
and even said it was fun. trying to get yo to do it too.
look at the things said by yo ppl on the thread you just linked to.

under---------------------------------------------
Quote from: lisafx on February 03, 2013, 09:58



Quote from: Poncke on February 02, 2013, 19:14



Quote from: lisafx on February 02, 2013, 15:33



Quote from: Anyka on February 02, 2013, 15:17

I did 552 more than listed (got carried away).



It's easy to get carried away, right?   Good old Sean made it a breeze. 


He wrote it, but is he using it himself. I remember him saying he wouldnt delete any images?


Sean is in a different position to most of us here.  I suspect he is going another (but possibly even more effective) route.  I do not for a minute think he's sitting back and doing nothing.



I did take down about 30.  It was fun to use!

60
iStockPhoto.com / Re: sjlocke was just booted from iStock
« on: February 12, 2013, 23:46 »
Did Getty allow "troublemakers", especially such public ones, before they acquired Istock?

I don't know. Does it matter? Either way, it's disturbing that simply protesting a bad deal can get you canned.

Even more disturbing that the people who were canned, Sean and Rob, weren't the ones doing the actual protesting.  Has anyone who actually removed files been dumped yet?

think abt what you are saying!
wernt the ones doing the actual protesting (kept making his money) did not delet any files.
but sure did make it easy as pie for yo to do it!?

61
iStockPhoto.com / Re: sjlocke was just booted from iStock
« on: February 12, 2013, 23:42 »
Are you guys talking abt the same sean that discovered the getty/google deal (or brought it to everyones attention) and then instigated the whole Feb 2 thing and then he wrote the script to make it easy for us all to deactivate out picures from istock?

is that the sean you are all talking about?

(I only read the first6pages of this thread)


The same one that did NOT deactivate a single one of his own files.

The same one that manipulated/used you and me to send a message to istock/getty.

The same one that made it as easy as possible to deactivate our files.

BUT DID NOT DEACTIVATE A SIGLE ONE OF HIS OWN.......is that the one!

Is that the one you are now elevationg to god like status, and feeling sorry for?

Dont you see how you/we were used and manipulated by him???

sean my hats off to you!

If getty and istock are evil then what are you?

what did yo expect getty to do, realy? he caused this whole uproar and then as he said himself sat on the sidelines and watch it go down.

Guys please open your eyes and consider what i say, dont just get defenssive abt it. think about it.

and, if i were sutterstock or any other microstock site id thik twice about taking him onboard. what if he does the same things to your company??

what getty/istock did is wrong but they are justified in getting rid of him.

I wonder how many ppl will get the chance to see this cause  whats his name (leek?)keeps on deleting my posts and banning me when i speek my mind and defend myself from rude posts, yet he does not ban the person that started all the name calling.

I know what il do il post this around, he dont control the entire interned. just this place.

62
iStockPhoto.com / Re: sjlocke was just booted from iStock
« on: February 12, 2013, 19:56 »
Are you guys talking abt the same sean that discovered the getty/google deal (or brought it to everyones attention) and then instigated the whole Feb 2 thing and then he wrote the script to make it easy for us all to deactivate out picures from istock?

is that the sean you are all talking about?

(I only read the first6pages of this thread)

63
Shutterstock.com / Re: Last SS Raise - May 13, 2008
« on: February 06, 2013, 22:43 »
I don't see them handing out a raise by increasing the current commission rates but I think there is room for increasing our income by adding more options like the SOD downloads that were recently added and are bringing in some big dollars for some contributors.

I'd like to see:

An Opt-Out option for individual images in the SOD (sensitive use) program.  I think a lot of people are holding off from the Opt-In option because they don't want to include images of certain family members, children, etc.  Let us choose to Opt-In to the program but Opt-Out on select images.

Exclusive Image collection with a higher DL payout, exclusive for one year, then it goes back to the regular collection and you can upload to other sites.  This gives SS the benefit of exclusive images without having exclusive contributors.  Limit it to a percentage of one's portfolio to avoid someone opting in all their images which in effect would make them an exclusive contributor.

An "upload bonus" in the form of higher commission on new images for the first year, then drop back to the regular schedule. This would encourage new content but only reward if it's on-target and sells.

From a business viewpoint it's not good to increase the current commission levels.  What's needed is more creative thinking like the SOD sensitive use program that brings in more money for everyone.

Why. do you think they are going to go bancrupt if they pay out 2-3cents more a dl?

64
Shutterstock.com / Re: Last SS Raise - May 13, 2008
« on: February 06, 2013, 22:41 »
Following the IPO they will be talking about increasing profits, not rewarding contributors.   They are probably currently discussing reductions, not raises.

Which is exactly why I let Jon know what I expect in lew of the unacceptable alternative.

It's 'in lieu' btw.

I'm getting annoyed about the level of ignorance and plain stupidity being expressed on this forum. Not to mention the pathetic, hand-wringing pessimism about the IPO. There is, as yet, absolutely no justification to such concerns. It's actually far more likely that SS will use the money raised to grow the business and with it, hopefully, our incomes.

If you really think the share holders will be taking too much of the profit ... then buy some shares and join them. Easy really. Stop whinging about it and put your money where your mouth is. If you'd have bought some stock when they first became available (in October 2012) you'd already be up 50% __ and that's without any dividends or increases in prices.

I've been discussing the issue of image pricing and sales volume with the great and the good of this forum privately for several years. For most of us, on most agencies, volume actually peaked around 2006 whilst income peaked around 2009. We all knew that the growth in income was being fuelled entirely by increases in prices because volume was steadily falling as more and more images came on-line. It was inevitable that at some point in the future it couldn't be maintained. The only question was 'when?'. Welcome to that point. This is how things are now. Deal with it.

Do you belive everything you are told or read?

65
Shutterstock.com / Re: Changes to the Referral program
« on: February 05, 2013, 11:50 »
for what its worth-- I posted this on the iStock / Getty / Google D-Day (Deactivation Day) page

http://www.facebook.com/events/157094501107518/permalink/160265830790385/?notif_t=like

BUT my opinions here seam to fall on def ears, for some reason?

Just delet yout istock/getty/google acct. Put them down as a loss and move on. untill the next co. tries something similar. then we do the same to them.
 Thats the only way you can protect your IP and send a strong message, this diactivating crap is doing nothing. eventually, they all want to take our work and give it away for free. its obvious with the constant diminishing % we are given. and dont praise any microstock co. as being good and fair. shutterstock just changed the way we make $$ from refferals. in a bad way for us. i have been waiting for them to show there true colors. what do yo think they are going to do when say istock gos away. i will tell you they will be worse then istock. they are worse selling our stuff for a quarter--wake up ppl!!! we need to use these co. for ourselves. NOT them to use us for themselves! when a co. starts pushing us we move on. One thing you do not understand is that WE hold the power over them. WE are stronger and can push them around. but it has to be "WE" together that make the move/change.

66
Shutterstock.com / Re: Changes to the Referral program
« on: February 05, 2013, 10:58 »
OOooh, everyones fav microstock co. finaly took the first step showing what they too are about.

67
iStockPhoto.com / Re: D-Day (Deactivation Day) on Istock - Feb 2
« on: February 02, 2013, 13:05 »
true- yea its something (deactivation), better then nothing. but when you delete the act with the intent or preceived intent of not returnig, thenistock will be asking you back not you asking istock for something. at the very least whe nu go they cant use you anymore.

but just for the recort i HOPE this worked out and im compleatl wrong and istock says yes we are wrong yo are right and wi will fix it.

Do you honestly believe that iStock will come crawling back and ask you to return because you deleted your account?  Good luck with that....

I'm not deactivating because I don't hold iStock responsible for the Google Drive deal....they didn't even know about it ahead of time.  What I did do, however, is put the final touches on getting out of Getty House and also making sure they are removing files of mine (macro RM and RF) from their affiliate sites.  I'll go elsewhere with my RM stuff.

YES---that is exactly what im saying!! BUT all the big players would have to delete or deactivate TOGETHER as one!

as an example: look at the latest attempted rights grab with...from that co that facebook bought -Instagram-        ppl started complanig and deleting accts and they did a reverse on it. i still will not go back with them cause they tried that rights grab. but they dont make me $$

68
iStockPhoto.com / Re: D-Day (Deactivation Day) on Istock - Feb 2
« on: February 02, 2013, 13:03 »
I posted this last night in the Feburary 2 thread, but I'll repeat the info here. I'll send something to Tyler asking if he can pull all the posts about actual deactivations into one so we can keep track.

I deactivated 2,496 images, leaving 153 (editorial and iStockalypse) images in my portfolio. I'm leaving it open so I can collect my PP money from January in February and keep my stats.

For all intents and purposes I have left iStock.

I blogged about it, changed the timeline image on my Facebook page and sent out a tweet.

My Thinkstock image count started dropping last night while I was deactivating. Checking this morning, it's now down to 1,869 (it was 2,486 on January 28th).
reading this thread i cant stop feeling sad. you all are acting like little children pouting cause you are being made to go to bed early, cause you were bad. and you say "well il go to bed but you can make me sleep!".

If you wana make a sound that Istock can hear...delet you acct. thats the only way to get respect. your deactivating a few files is a joke. i can here istock laughing watching ppl deactivating files. they are probably having an office party placing bets as to how fast ppl reactivate them. they know you want a bite of the carrot they dangle in front of your face and they know you wont stop trying to get a bite of it.

even if istock wanted to go back and not make this deal with google. its not up to them anymore its up to google.

and where are the big hitters who were all gung ho abt feb 2nd?, and soo very loudand pushy abt making this movement happen, pushing ppl to deactivate there act. where are they today? did they just use you to send istock a message,yet they themselves did not delet a file??  i dont se any of them on here telling us how many they deactivated???

i guess im even more of a sucker then you all, cause i did not deactivat my acct i deleted it. but i would have dun it anyway cause i know the only way to be heard is to take all your marbals an walk away from the game. thats what yo need to do. cut your losses and walk away. cause its abvious istock has a pattern of trying to get as much from us as possible and so fare always getting away with it! the only way to stop them is to not play with them.

but then there is that darn carrot to think abt hugh?!


I'm keeping my account open (with 1 file in it) until PP earnings are posted so that I can request my LAST payout. I have no intention of reactivating ANYTHING! Once I get my last payout, then I'll delete my account.

I can't trust them to play by the rules and actually pay me my earnings if I delete my account now.



GOOD! thats what we all should do.

i bet you will then see a reaction from them and all this crap would stop. everytime we do/say nothing they know thats another inch they can take from us.

jsnover: you are one of the bigish accts if everyone with photos in the thousands had the balls you do that then we might get somewhere! my hat off to you both!

but we have some big accts who do things like...well i have a fam to feed and i will just delete 500pic's (temporarilly). its something but not much.

no pain no gain!

if they clean up there game-il see abt opening my acct again if allowed or il just resubmit everthig slowly.

if the big hitters would vote with there feet TOGETHER they would not be doing these things. they would try it once or twice and realise hey ho these guys/galls are not playing. we better be nice to them or they will realy take there product to sutterstock!!!

69
iStockPhoto.com / Re: D-Day (Deactivation Day) on Istock - Feb 2
« on: February 02, 2013, 12:30 »
true- yea its something (deactivation), better then nothing. but when you delete the act with the intent or preceived intent of not returnig, thenistock will be asking you back not you asking istock for something. at the very least whe nu go they cant use you anymore.

but just for the recort i HOPE this worked out and im compleatl wrong and istock says yes we are wrong yo are right and wi will fix it.

70
iStockPhoto.com / Re: D-Day (Deactivation Day) on Istock - Feb 2
« on: February 02, 2013, 12:10 »
reading this thread i cant stop feeling sad. you all are acting like little children pouting cause you are being made to go to bed early, cause you were bad. and you say "well il go to bed but you can make me sleep!".

If you wana make a sound that Istock can hear...delet you acct. thats the only way to get respect. your deactivating a few files is a joke. i can here istock laughing watching ppl deactivating files. they are probably having an office party placing bets as to how fast ppl reactivate them. they know you want a bite of the carrot they dangle in front of your face and they know you wont stop trying to get a bite of it.

even if istock wanted to go back and not make this deal with google. its not up to them anymore its up to google.

and where are the big hitters who were all gung ho abt feb 2nd?, and soo very loudand pushy abt making this movement happen, pushing ppl to deactivate there act. where are they today? did they just use you to send istock a message,yet they themselves did not delet a file??  i dont se any of them on here telling us how many they deactivated???

i guess im even more of a sucker then you all, cause i did not deactivat my acct i deleted it. but i would have dun it anyway cause i know the only way to be heard is to take all your marbals an walk away from the game. thats what yo need to do. cut your losses and walk away. cause its abvious istock has a pattern of trying to get as much from us as possible and so fare always getting away with it! the only way to stop them is to not play with them.

but then there is that darn carrot to think abt hugh?!

71
iStockPhoto.com / Re: deactivation reasons? post your best ones
« on: January 30, 2013, 19:46 »
this is what i put in.
"Its so bad what you have done to all your loyal contributors. you should be ashamed of yourself. what would your mother say?!"

72
Shutterstock.com / Re: Acceptance Ratio... does SS care
« on: January 30, 2013, 13:05 »
re: rejection

i thought the lower your aceptance %, the less visible your photos are, or the further back they show up in search?

and i thought this applys to all agencies, to varing degrees?

I don't know, but I doubt that.  Most agencies want to present customers with the most relevant and best quality images; they want to make a sale.  They have other ways of dissuading/punishing submitters with low acceptance ratios, like lower upload quotas (which SS doesn't have) or slower reviews due to lower priority (which they might do).  Assuming an image passes review, why push it to the back of the queue where it won't make money for anybody?

There may be agencies who do that (I'm looking at you, DT), but SS isn't one of them.  And I doubt the majority do anything so self-destructive.  (Other agencies find so many better ways to be self-destructive.)

Hummm, thanks for responding, i always wondered abt that.
somwhere along the line i took it as the lower your % = the less visible.

and i also used the same logic as u just used and it made me contact a couple of agencys.
i asked them does a lower % mean lower in search?
no agency gave me a clear answer. i remb Istock (i think it was IS) said, we cannot discuss search algorythms with any contrib as it can give an unfair advantage to some.

so all this time i realise why i have such a small port compared to otheres who started abt the same time with me! well in all honesty, i am kinda lazy but i tried to defend my acceptance % at all costs.

but anyway, since the new year i have decided- screw % and i have been uploading like crazzy,...for a lazy person:)

BTW  "(Other agencies find so many better ways to be self-destructive.)" Nice, soo very true!

73
Shutterstock.com / Re: Acceptance Ratio... does SS care
« on: January 30, 2013, 10:22 »
re: rejection

i thought the lower your aceptance %, the less visible your photos are, or the further back they show up in search?

and i thought this applys to all agencies, to varing degrees?

74
so given this guys port, legal or not, what would your (everyone) educated guess be of the amt of money he has made with it, to date? would you say 100k more, less, over a mill???

and also, (if he has made much $$$$$) it could be that he was able to "pay off" some of the people whom he stole the backgrounds from. Kinda hush money to keep them happy and his portfolio still alive and earning.

I think like this: i made 500k with it and now im busted, darnit! but i will offer the 3-5 photogs whose work i stole 5-10k each and we will all be happy. my port will still be on line, the copy right holders got a sudden 5-10k, and the microstock agencys continue to earn from my prort.

would love to know what u think.

75
Well, i guess i will be the one who looks a gift horse in the mouth.

But how are our pass words/acct info protected. Do you get them are they encripted?

Pages: 1 2 [3] 4 5 6 7

Sponsors

Mega Bundle of 5,900+ Professional Lightroom Presets

Microstock Poll Results

Sponsors