101
iStockPhoto.com / Re: sjlocke was just booted from iStock
« on: February 11, 2013, 21:42 »
The reason for this is simple. Getty couldn't allow Sean to interfere with their plans to destroy microstock.
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. 101
iStockPhoto.com / Re: sjlocke was just booted from iStock« on: February 11, 2013, 21:42 »
The reason for this is simple. Getty couldn't allow Sean to interfere with their plans to destroy microstock.
102
iStockPhoto.com / Re: sjlocke was just booted from iStock« on: February 11, 2013, 18:30 »OMG. Agree. I think that many exclusives will leave now. There will be some that will take a wait and see approach, monitor Sean's success on the outside. The fact that Istock feels threatened by Stocksy is an encouraging sign. 103
iStockPhoto.com / Re: sjlocke was just booted from iStock« on: February 11, 2013, 18:10 »Apparently some sort of statement is going to be released later today. No idea from who exactly. Lobo just says on the forum that something will be posted later. There will be a statement after which Lobo will do the only thing he knows how to do.....lock it. No questions, comments. 104
Stocksy / Re: Bruce, Our Knight in Shining Armor? Stocksy Co-op« on: February 10, 2013, 13:20 »
Almost wish Lobo was here to lock this thread.
105
Bigstock.com / Re: BigStock e-mail about subscriptions and an RC-like payment system« on: February 09, 2013, 08:55 »I think you did miss something, I remember it quite clearly. Did a quick search, this is one quote from Justin, I'm sure there's more....My guess is that the cost at launch will remain the same. Wouldn't make sense to increase the cost on an unproven site...The sales pitch in previous threads was that the price was going up as soon as the search went live. I think the "beta discount" refers to the locked in price. Should the price go up in the future, the discount would then apply to the beta testers. This doesn't mean that the price would automatically go up at launch. 106
Bigstock.com / Re: BigStock e-mail about subscriptions and an RC-like payment system« on: February 09, 2013, 06:34 »...My guess is that the cost at launch will remain the same. Wouldn't make sense to increase the cost on an unproven site...The sales pitch in previous threads was that the price was going up as soon as the search went live. Was not able to find that in previous threads. As far as I know, the sales pitch was that anyone who signed up during beta would be locked in at $40 a month. I haven't seen anything about the price going up at launch. Maybe I missed something. 107
Stocksy / Re: Bruce, Our Knight in Shining Armor? Stocksy Co-op« on: February 09, 2013, 06:01 »I thought Stockfresh might get a lot of the old Stockxpert buyers but that hasn't happened. Having exclusive images only might be more attractive to buyers. I don't think it's a good idea to only have high quality from the start. It would take a long time to get enough exclusive images to attract buyers. Who's going to upload high quality exclusive content to a site that doesn't have many buyers? So I think they will need all of us from the start and they will have to keep their acceptance rates similar to the big sites. They can always start their version of Vetta when they have enough images. I agree, to a certain point. I agree with the all exclusive library. They have to distinguish themselves from the other agencies. But, I believe they need to keep the quality high, but draw from a large pool of contributors, not just the top earners. You're right, in that they won't get enough images from the top earners alone to attract buyers. They need all of us, just not all of our images. 108
Bigstock.com / Re: BigStock e-mail about subscriptions and an RC-like payment system« on: February 09, 2013, 05:45 »I believe, as a lot of you do, that this is just a prelude to Shutterstock adopting the same payment structure. Otherwise, why even bother with Bigstock? It's a low earner site, pretty much irrelevant. It's just a testing ground for Shutterstock. If they do go that route, the psychological impact alone will have a huge impact on contributors. Shutterstock has been the only reliable, fair, and top earning site we have. If they go down that dark hole, then so does the industry as we know it. In a strange way, all of the negativity surrounding the industry today might be a good thing for contributors. The possibility that soon every agency may be screwing us over, combined with the positive developmental projects by Bruce, KonaHawaii, and Justin Brinson at Picturengine may actually be the turning point that we need. "It's always darkest before the dawn."I have serious doubts about Picturengine. I signed up for the free trail, as the site was supposed to be launched very soon. I changed my mind, as I didn't like the thought of that automatic PayPal fee going through. Almost 3 months later, has anything happened? Looks like the free trial was a complete waste of time. Justin should of offered it after the search was fully functional, so we could get some idea if it was worth paying for. I'm also concerned that if Picturengine was a success, how much is it going to cost us? The pre-launch fees seem too high when the search isn't functional, what will they be when it's finally launched? Then there's the problem when we were being told that Picturengine wasn't going to send buyers to the cheapest site but buyers were being told something different. I would suggest that anyone who wants to use Picturengine should read through the threads about it here first. Well, it hasn't fully launched yet, but that doesn't mean that nothing's happening. They continue to add new features and work out any bugs in the system. Sure, I would like for it to have launched sooner, but I would rather they launched a good product later than a flawed one sooner. My guess is that the cost at launch will remain the same. Wouldn't make sense to increase the cost on an unproven site. I'm glad I signed up, glad to have gotten the locked in price. If it works out, great! If not, then I'll move on. I'll have a year after launch to make that determination. I think it's worth the gamble, especially considering recent developments in the industry. 109
Bigstock.com / Re: BigStock e-mail about subscriptions and an RC-like payment system« on: February 08, 2013, 23:22 »
I believe, as a lot of you do, that this is just a prelude to Shutterstock adopting the same payment structure. Otherwise, why even bother with Bigstock? It's a low earner site, pretty much irrelevant. It's just a testing ground for Shutterstock. If they do go that route, the psychological impact alone will have a huge impact on contributors. Shutterstock has been the only reliable, fair, and top earning site we have. If they go down that dark hole, then so does the industry as we know it. In a strange way, all of the negativity surrounding the industry today might be a good thing for contributors. The possibility that soon every agency may be screwing us over, combined with the positive developmental projects by Bruce, KonaHawaii, and Justin Brinson at Picturengine may actually be the turning point that we need. "It's always darkest before the dawn."
110
Bigstock.com / Re: BigStock e-mail about subscriptions and an RC-like payment system« on: February 08, 2013, 17:40 »this tells me I need to work harder to make my own site my best earner.. It is the only place I am sure I won't get screwed.. You would think that the agencies would make a collective effort to stop Google's actions. I guess it's easier just to make additional cuts to contributors. Guess I'm having a negative day, too. 111
Bigstock.com / Re: BigStock e-mail about subscriptions and an RC-like payment system« on: February 08, 2013, 07:56 »
I'm guessing there won't be any more threads complaining about no raise at SS for the past 5 years.
112
Bigstock.com / Re: BigStock e-mail about subscriptions and an RC-like payment system« on: February 07, 2013, 18:16 »So what it amounts to is a pay cut for any subscription sales that migrate from SS to BS. Agree totally! If that happens, I will stop producing any micro images. Any new images will be RM and will be sold direct. That seems to be what the agencies are daring us to do, anyway. 113
iStockPhoto.com / Re: Image Deactivation Tally for iStockPhoto« on: February 03, 2013, 07:25 »http://www.istockphoto.com/forum_messages.php?threadid=350913&page=20 Could be worse. Remember Peebert? 114
iStockPhoto.com / Re: Image Deactivation Tally for iStockPhoto« on: February 02, 2013, 23:18 »
Did 50 today. Would've done more, but for some reason the script isn't working for me. Will do more tomorrow.
115
iStockPhoto.com / Re: D-Day (Deactivation Day) on Istock - Feb 2« on: February 02, 2013, 11:04 »Just checkin' :Also for me, it worked almost instantly without any problems.I'm having a little problem with the deactivation process. I used the traditional method at first and everything worked fine. I then installed Sean's Grease Monkey Script and used that. It seemed to work, but my total file count did not change and the images are still there. Does this method take longer to process?That's weird. I did a little test, but my total count goes down within seconds after deactivating a file, and I receive the deactivation e-mail within a minute. Yes, Anyka. Did all of that. After clicking "deactivate", it said "working", and then "executed". Thanks for trying to help. 116
iStockPhoto.com / Re: D-Day (Deactivation Day) on Istock - Feb 2« on: February 02, 2013, 07:20 »Also for me, it worked almost instantly without any problems.I'm having a little problem with the deactivation process. I used the traditional method at first and everything worked fine. I then installed Sean's Grease Monkey Script and used that. It seemed to work, but my total file count did not change and the images are still there. Does this method take longer to process?That's weird. I did a little test, but my total count goes down within seconds after deactivating a file, and I receive the deactivation e-mail within a minute. Tried again, but same problem. Don't know what I'm doing wrong. Guess I'll just do them one at a time. 117
iStockPhoto.com / Re: D-Day (Deactivation Day) on Istock - Feb 2« on: February 02, 2013, 05:58 »
I'm having a little problem with the deactivation process. I used the traditional method at first and everything worked fine. I then installed Sean's Grease Monkey Script and used that. It seemed to work, but my total file count did not change and the images are still there. Does this method take longer to process?
118
iStockPhoto.com / Re: We need to collectively negotiate better contract with iStock« on: February 01, 2013, 06:04 »Our situation as iStock contributors will not improve as long as the current contract remains in place. A group of major contributors needs to gather together, hire a lawyer and demand that iStock/Getty negotiate with us on a new contract. There is plenty of scope for making the contract clearer and fairer. Opt-out provisions, transparency on custom deals, better definition of sub-licensing, etc. I believe any collective efforts by contributors should be aimed at the industry as a whole, not a specific agency. Screwing over contributors is not exclusive to Istock. Many agencies participate in that. The long term solution would be direct sales, cutting out the agencies altogether. Hopefully, that's the direction we are going. 119
iStockPhoto.com / Re: D-Day (Deactivation Day) on Istock - Feb 2« on: January 26, 2013, 08:00 ».....I see so many different reasons on this post for why people are pulling their images from Istock but the one I see the most is " they aren't making me the money I used to " That unfortunately is what happens when there are more photographers then their are buyers, it is sad but true...... I don't know how anyone could read through these threads and infer that declining revenue from Istock is the main reason for the removal of images. I, also, continue to make good money from Istock, as many of you do. The thought of deleting images and losing that income because of my own actions sickens me. But, what sickens me more is the much bigger loss of income that actions like these from Istock will cause. It's kind of a "pick your poison" choice. In this case, one poison will hurt you, but the other will kill you. 120
Crestock.com / Re: Crestock commits suicide« on: January 25, 2013, 19:11 »
I dumped them long ago.
121
iStockPhoto.com / Re: D-Day (Deactivation Day) on Istock - Feb 2« on: January 20, 2013, 08:43 »Feb 2nd projected total 13453+ I'm not going to commit to deactivating at this point. I'm waiting until the 2nd to see if anything changes before then. I'm not holding my breath, though. 122
iStockPhoto.com / Re: D-Day (Deactivation Day) on Istock - Feb 2« on: January 15, 2013, 19:54 »I thankfully deleted my port there over a year ago and am so thankful I did. The morals behind this company are so questionable which was why I left. I really find it hard to believe that Getty only got $60.00 a pop for these images. This company is based on GREED. Why would they put top selling images on Goggle to be downloaded for free if they weren't making a huge profit. Some of you figured at $60.00 a pop that's about $360,000.00 based on 6000 images. Getty is a huge company and $360,000.00 isn't much money in their eyes for a long term deal like Google. Then if they paid everyone their share of $12.00, then that puts their profit at $288,000.00. I don't think they would do that for such a low amount of money. We'll probably never see the contract to know what they really were paid for these images. You're right. It's not much for Getty. I wonder if this deal is recurring. Maybe Getty provides a certain number of images every month. 123
iStockPhoto.com / Re: Time for an iStock replacement site?« on: January 15, 2013, 08:07 »I think the one person rubbing his hands right now is Jason from PicturEngine. What would stop all exclusives to move content to their server and keep it exclusive and take 100% of the sale. As soon as word got out that everyone moved to PE, buyers will flock and everybody happy. Actually, I have my whole portfolio there. I don't believe the submission process is anywhere near as bad as Alamy. My only complaint at the time was the title not being filled in by the IPTC data. Justin stated a while back that they were working on that. It's been a while since I've submitted, so I don't know if it's been fixed. As a whole, I'm very happy with Picturengine. Looking forward to their launch. 124
iStockPhoto.com / Re: Image Deactivation Tally for iStockPhoto« on: January 14, 2013, 21:21 »For me the reason is simple: there might be more scams already in the pipeline. That concerns me too. Istock may see this Feb. 2nd date and push those other deals through to beat that date. As of now, I'm still going to wait, but doing so very anxiously. 125
iStockPhoto.com / Re: Time for an iStock replacement site?« on: January 14, 2013, 20:54 »I think the one person rubbing his hands right now is Jason from PicturEngine. What would stop all exclusives to move content to their server and keep it exclusive and take 100% of the sale. As soon as word got out that everyone moved to PE, buyers will flock and everybody happy. This is perfect timing for Justin, as I believe he's very close to full launch. |
|