|
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 - somethingpretentious
76
« on: February 27, 2013, 11:56 »
Have just emailed them to express my disgust and to request opt-out details.
good! let us know if you are able to opt out.
77
« on: February 27, 2013, 11:14 »
Did you let them know that it is unacceptable? For some images you can not buy EL, so opt out must be an option. At least for some.
78
« on: February 19, 2013, 13:29 »
an even bigger problem is there licence terms. Plenty of reasons not to put your images there...
79
« on: February 18, 2013, 08:46 »
Thanks for clearing that up Peter.
80
« on: February 17, 2013, 19:31 »
all this talk about Stocksy is "vaporware".
as it is now, the microstock is a mature oversaturated cut-throat industry.
there's not a single chance for a tiny startup like Stocksy to get the foot in the door without being backed by investors and VCs fueling the company with TENS of millions $.
and these guys are there to make fat profits, not to provide photographers a "fair share" environment.
they will try to grow the company as much as they can and then sell it to the highest bidding competitor, that's their business plan.
early photographers who invest in Stocksy could make some money, but all the other random contributors being merely content providers will be taken for a ride again.
would you invest in Stocksy ? NO !
A lot of people here probably hate what the post above says, but he has a point. The overwhelming business model of choice for many agencies since about the late 90's has been to start an agency, grow the collection, then sell it off to Getty or at the very least sign a distribution agreement with them. To be fair, only iStock has taken this road as far as micro agencies are concerned.
...and Stockexpert. (my bold above)
81
« on: February 11, 2013, 19:39 »
I am really blind to what iStock (or Getty rather) feel they are gaining by removing Sean's port. If they say it is 'purely business' they must feel they are better off without his images or his presence on iStock. I just don't see it that way... quite the opposite actually.
Tyler, they are just acting like we're their employees - "you make trouble we'll fire you" or "you try to work somewhere else we'll fire you". I wish their bosses understood we're not on their payroll - they are simply our agent. So what, this particular agent dropped Sean - well I am sure there is line up of others waiting to pick up and represent his work.
Yes, and furthermore they just do not understand running a crowdsourced buisiness: A big part of the crowd follows Sean and now Sean is going somewhere else. Any risk his followers will go with him? Yes!
82
« on: February 03, 2013, 20:10 »
here is something to be less excited about when it comes to Mostphotos:
"You can use the images as often as you want, however you want."
"When you have a monthly package on Mostphotos, you can download as many images as you want."
This is from the "plans and pricing" page...
83
« on: January 29, 2013, 21:15 »
not possible
84
« on: January 19, 2013, 19:55 »
Colorbox is not on my top 250 of agencies I would consider submitting to. Its pretty much giving your images away for free...They make Thinkstock look amazing!
85
« on: January 13, 2013, 11:03 »
I can't offer legal advice, but if any of my images were involved, this is what I would do. Ask a lawyer to write a letter to iStock, demanding the images be taken down from the offending "deal" immediately, and no further such deals be entered in to with my content. The letter would point out how the deal contravenes or might contravene iStock's contractual obligations and reasonable business practice, the implication being that those would be the lines of complaint if we should go to court. For various good reasons, iStock is unlikely to want to go on record resisting the legal request, it isn't worth it to them. Chances are 99% they would remove the images. The whole thing would not cost me more than one or two hundred dollars.
How can Istock (or getty) take down images that are on Google Drive? I don't think Istock would be writing a letter to Google saying "sorry, but could you remove one or two photos from the Deal? We'll return the 60$ of course".
I don't think so either. But they could do it and they should do it. And every affected photographer need to do something like this to show that they view this deal as illegal and unethical. Doing nothing and giving up in advance is what Getty is hoping for.
86
« on: January 12, 2013, 16:08 »
Anyone know if independents also got 12$?
87
« on: January 11, 2013, 23:03 »
Maybe pulling out all of our images would be a hard pill to swallow, however, what about if we could all stop submitting instead.....while other agencies get new images..
Even though the situation is different this time, the argument that "someone else will just take my iS sales, and I will be the only looser" might still what many contributors feel. How about a site that monitors the individual iStock contributors file count, where you can sort by, how many files they have deleted or uploaded. If people could easily monitor that others were doing the same, a momentum could maybe be build up. I hate to think like this, but they are giving away peoples IP for crying out loud!
88
« on: January 11, 2013, 22:48 »
Important topic. You should change the title. Its an international crowd and many will not get that reference.
89
« on: January 11, 2013, 20:05 »
"Our goal is to continue to expand and improve this partnership over time to the benefit of everyone involved including Google and it's customers, as well as Getty Images and our contributors"
- Auch, take your files and run, while they are still worth something!
90
« on: January 11, 2013, 18:54 »
What is really scary is that they might overnight decide to do this with my entire portfolio and thus destroy many years of work.
This might be my paranoia, but imagine Getty putting all non exclusive images on google for free overnight. Imagine the blow this would give the whole industry. It is pretty clear now, that they feel they have the right to do it. And that they will if they think they can monetize enough on it and maybe kill competition at the same time. In that scenario iStock will stand stronger most agencies as they have exclusive content.
There are probably big holes in that theory, but it is more clear than ever that "Getty is evil". Needless to say, I will stop my uploads to iStock right now, and probably start deleting soon unless the well awaited explanation surprises me. I will loose a lot of money, but the risk of loosing everything seems closer than ever with Getty infringing my copyrights.
This is truly the time to let them know the hard way that we are the IP owners.
But ... if they damage us and/or our IP ... aren't they also damaging themselves and their business equally, if not far more?
Yes, I would assume that, but they just did it with 5000 images (and many in very high quality)...
91
« on: January 11, 2013, 18:34 »
What is really scary is that they might overnight decide to do this with my entire portfolio and thus destroy many years of work.
This might be my paranoia, but imagine Getty putting all non exclusive images on google for free overnight. Imagine the blow this would give the whole industry. It is pretty clear now, that they feel they have the right to do it. And that they will if they think they can monetize enough on it and maybe kill competition at the same time. In that scenario iStock will stand stronger most agencies as they have exclusive content.
There are probably big holes in that theory, but it is more clear than ever that "Getty is evil". Needless to say, I will stop my uploads to iStock right now, and probably start deleting soon unless the well awaited explanation surprises me. I will loose a lot of money, but the risk of loosing everything seems closer than ever with Getty infringing my copyrights.
This is truly the time to let them know the hard way that we are the IP owners.
92
« on: January 11, 2013, 18:05 »
Sorry but rush to the my last post and you will see they are trying a pay per click option on your images. This is pure trash for the artist!! I mean real trash.
and 1600 x 1600 is also good for most prints - and that money is completely gone...
93
« on: January 10, 2013, 12:15 »
Even if extended licenses have been purchased, it would be crazy to give google free distribution rights.
furthermore images are as big as 2.56 MP! (1600 x 1600). Beyond normal accepted web usage.
I am waiting for the official response to loose my mind, but this really makes me sick.
Is there any point for the copyright holder to contact google directly and ask them to remove the images? I am thinking they will not do it, but if not copyright holders does contact them, they might be a little less eager to push more projects like that in the future.
94
« on: January 10, 2013, 11:04 »
I think it is most likely that many issues in the contract will be considered illegal by a court. Just because you sign something does not make it legal.
Are overseas NDAs unconstitutional ? Do they violate free speech ?
Just curious.
I am not a lawyer, so I am not the right one to go in to details, but hiding behind vague terms such as "for promotional use" surely does not give them right to do whatever they want with our images.
95
« on: January 10, 2013, 10:48 »
I think it is most likely that many issues in the contract will be considered illegal by a court. Just because you sign something does not make it legal.
96
« on: January 10, 2013, 10:08 »
t Shocking. Still no official reply. I do hope that right now, Exclusives will stand up to this abuse.
there are non exclusive images as well
97
« on: January 06, 2013, 22:53 »
Review times are irrelevant when they have some of the lowest subscription and pay per download commissions in the industry.
98
« on: December 18, 2012, 10:05 »
account deleted! At least here we can afford to send a signal.
99
« on: December 07, 2012, 18:44 »
She is completely out of touch. She talks as if their lack of communication skills are my main concern. Seriously? No my main concern is my bottom line. And iStock is hurting my bottom line the way they are treating us contributors. No, Rebecca, paying contributors 15-19% on iStock, moving and promoting content on thinkstock for less than 30 cent pr download are my two main concerns when it comes to iStock.
100
« on: November 17, 2012, 11:27 »
independents and exclusives should be separated
|
Sponsors
Microstock Poll Results
Sponsors
|
Show Posts
