Quote from: Xanox on March 07, 2013, 12:58

Quote from: Chico on March 07, 2013, 12:12

Lobo

Posted 5 mins ago
Quote

I'll run this up the chain to see if we can make this a priority! Thanks for the great idea! I will make sure we get people on this immediately. It's comments like this that help us continue to make sure our contributors are heard!

Thank you for taking time out of your busy schedule. I know you didn't have to do us this great favor but because you have I will name my new bamboo plant after you. I hope you don't mind if I shorten it's name, as it's name tag will only allow for 5 characters due to the fact that I use bubble letters for all my name tags.

is Lobo aware that such a comment to a customer would make him fired on the spot in any other normal company ?

why nobody writes to istock's CEO ? i can't believe Getty is employing such an unprofessional employee.

They're not. He's a contractor, not an employee.

Lobo is a strange creature -  very needy - definitely gets a buzz from putting people down who can only respond at risk of further insults (or expulsion from forums - Putin style lol) -  kinda like a boxing match with only one boxer wearing gloves. - could it be his job at istock is the only place he feels adequate? Obviously management supports his routine and - and he hasn't concerns about karma. 

I can't for the life of me find it.  Do they purposely bury it so deep so you (or your attorney) can't refer to it?

AND - today is 30 days for me and 70 photos still on Thinkstock and Photos.com.   Do I send take-down notices to them, or Istock?  Do I send 70 notices or do I send all of the numbers in one.  Hopefully when I wake up tomorrow they are gone and I won't have to worry about it. I just want them off those sites before the next PP cycle.

John Lund:http://blog.johnlund.com/2013/02/getty-sales-and-numbers-for-thought.html

Quote

There is a price point at which the volume just does not make up for the low prices. That concerns me since there seems to be a movement of clients away from the higher priced sites, including microstock sites such as iStockphoto, and towards the less expensive agencies such as Shutterstock.

Quote from: BaldricksTrousers on February 14, 2013, 04:58

Quote from: Mars on February 13, 2013, 20:18

Quote from: dingles on February 13, 2013, 20:03

There is nothing there that indicates they are taking ownership of anyone's work. Artist's are clearly included to what they refer to as "iStock parties".

The way it is written implies that they are part owners.  They are acting as agents to contributors and the DMCA should be written on their behalf and only on their behalf not for 'iStock parties' that include iStock.

Here's an example of the way an agent should write up a DMCA.

http://futurequest.net/Services/TOS/DMCA/DMCANotice.php

Maybe I am nitpicking but I don't believe it's worded correctly at all. 


ETA:  apologies for going off on a tangent.

Also nit=picking and off at a tangent, they aren't anybody's agent, they are merely a distributor. I would have thought you would have had to be an agent to be entitled to issue take-down notices.

Hmmm, they're not an agent?  Did they say they're a distributor and not an agent and if so, is this something new?  By definition they have to be an agent.  To be a distributor, they would have to buy the licences from the contributors and then distribute them to third parties.  They also wouldn't have any negotiating power as a distributor.  I can't see how they're a distributor.  Isn't the contract of a licence sold between the copyright holder and the buyer?  If so, they'd have to be an agent.

Quote

Other exclusives will follow Sean's lead and their buyers will go too.

I think this is an unlikely scenario. Most exclusives I know have been keen to keep their heads down and not cause trouble, most are realistic in feeling that buyers are loyal or otherwise to iStock, not to individual sellers. Most exclusives are not going to give up their steady, albeit reduced, incomes unless something cataclysmic happens at IS.

Quote from: ShadySue on February 12, 2013, 08:59

Probably true, and Sean does have a family to feed.
OTOH, it will be difficult to get buyers to pay a fair price if you're selling the same images for a pittance on the sub sites. I guess splitting the images could make some sense, maybe putting the more generic shots onto some other sites.

But I have every confidence that Sean has more business sense in his pinky toe than I have in what passes for a brain.

You still don't understand the concept of 'microstock'? It's a low-price/highvolume thing. That's how it works.

As an independent contributor, SS generates about 50% of my monthly microstock income (with BigStock adding another 3-4%). Without the 30% or so that IS and the PP (combined) currently generates, presumeably the situation that Sean will find himself in, then SS's contribution would actually be 75%. That's how important SS will probably be to Sean's income until another player like Stocksy makes an impact. That's also why Yuri, Andres, MB, etc are all 'selling their images for a pittance on the sub sites'. Because it works.

I'm hoping that someone at Getty will have enough sense to get around the table with Sean over the remaining 25 days, discuss it properly, and resolve the issue to the benefit of both parties. What has happened is madness.

Yup and from SS too (there was a spate of bannings following the thread about the last change in commission structure there too)

I think we all have to accept that the IStock forums are dead as far as communicating with management goes. They are a publicity tool for the company and are kept pristine for that reason. Anyone making a mess is quickly swept away.

Anything productive, such as organized responses to policy changes will have to get discussed on MSG.