Factories like mine feed the mouths of more than 100 people and have internships and educational programs with the purpose of giving back to the community (https://peopleimages.com/more).

What a fascinating read, especially:- "The �Ambition Team� program received a 100,000 USD grant from the Cape Town Film Commission (South African Government) in 2011"

I'm dismayed that the South African tax-payer is apparently subsidising the hubristic manifesto of a wealthy western european business.

And your point is ....?

I added their names intentionally so that hopefully they'll find themselves here and understand how they are infringing on our copyright.  Most of them probably believe they're doing us a favor and don't realize how 'pinning' is effecting our livelihood.

I'd be interested if you can quantify what you think what damage this example has done to the creators livelihood. I ask because I regarded my income to be coming from business to business sales. I regard my customers to be designers from sole proprietors through SME agencies to design departments in global conglomerations. The vast majority of which will be bound by professional standards of accountability to their end users, other businesses or internal departments. I'm fairly sure that in the UK at least these end users are fairly well educated in copyright issues - if only for the publicity that Getty garnered with their infamous money demanding campaigns.

I do not see each example of pinning as some sort of lost sale, I do not really see what is predominately women's idle chit chat on a social network persuading someone in the art department of the company around the corner deciding to not pay what is still really small change for a legitimate image.

This is no Napster free for all - that was going for the same end user as the record companies - the consumer, the man in the street , but even then it was certain that one downloaded track did not equal one lost sale.

I've seen plenty hyperbole on the subject, and yes I don't think its good ethics for a company to make money ( if it ever will ) by using a questionable business model, but I would like to see some reasoned persuasive arguments that quantify the damage done to the core stock business of selling images to other businesses.

WTH happened yesterday, my sales were down approx. 70% and I haven't got a single one yet today

Very similar for me too :-(

Just me then?  LOL

The rest of us are just keeping ourselves to ourselves

And the best news of all is that you get to keep ALL $20!

But what was the Cost Of Sales for that?

Quote from: nicku on February 17, 2012, 02:35

Quote from: lagereek on February 17, 2012, 02:27

Not sure but it can be very possible IS,  is in front, lets face it, every Joe Bloggs, exclusive at IS, can come and vote here, could be thousands for all we know plus all the ones casting dodgy votes.
Really these polls should be for indies or else we dont get a true picture, do we?

Agree...

Yeah, indies don't have huge biases, they are happy when they get money from any of the agencies and are likely to report accurately when this happens. Exclusives who have to defend their one and only agent by default are more likely to fiddle the truth.

Jeez

I for one have plenty other things to do with my life than fiddle the truth. I am sure the majority here have better things to do than play mind games.

can someone who is having problems tell me what their 'Time Value" and "Voter ID" are.. that should show up on the page now.

Time value: 0212
Voter: 447

Nah, hilarious and acerbic British wit.

I think this could be a case of words changing their meaning as they cross the Atlantic, but please don't mix up the British characteristics of wittyness and chippyness, they ate very different things.

As things start to go wrong, the big boss doesn't think ", I screwed that up", he thinks "I always knew it was a stupid idea that couldn't work, haven't I been warning them about the risks of grandiose plans and overspending?" And when the big-big boss asks why his investment isn't delivering the expected return, the big boss says: "The trouble is, it's a pretty amateurish management we inherited there. What we need to do is bring the managerial functions under the wing of some experienced people at head office, and just have the nuts and bolts jobs done by the technicians there. We'll soon sort things out."

I've worked under exactly that kind of regime and its a nightmare.  

Add to that a layer of 'too cool for school' self backslapping cronyism and you have the perfect storm for corporate self sabotage.

I've never met the legend that is jjrd so have failed to fall under his gallic charms but found his impenetrable ramblings and his coterie of familiar faces in all the 'lypse reports as divisive and demotivating as the getty dictated changes.

Cutting expenses?
Wonder how many "positions" that eliminated? 

Well it ought not to have taken any more than 1 man/day per month to produce it.

The Daily Mail, which I believe is the UKs busiest newspaper website, litters its 'magazine' style features with copyright/agency credits.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/health/article-2061515/Cancer-From-hot-drinks-using-mobile-phones-theory-cause-disease-But-think.html

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/health/article-2061623/Lowering-cholesterol-easing-migraines-Which-cereal-YOU-eating.html

I wonder how long it will be until another Calgary office will be closed?