This isn't about Istock or Getty taking notice. This is about taking a stand and saving the industry. If my images stay at IS and they wind up for free on Google or elsewhere not only do I lose but so does every other contributor who is trying to sell a similar image. Even if your image is better and perhaps more appropriate why would they pay for your image when mine is available for free. 6000 free images may kill the value of 60K images still for sale. I have only 20% of my port on IS and none in the Google deal but this move scares the h*ll out of me. I already have enough issues with legitimate theft. I don't need the agencies speeding the process along.

Furthermore this needs to stop with this one deal. Right now there are other ways to sell your images and still make money. If this precedence isn't squashed right now- soon there won't be any other outlets. At least not any that work well enough to justify the work involved.

Exactly!  Every agency should be concerned about Istock's actions.  This affects every contributor and every agency, regardless of their inclusion in this initial deal. 

Quote from: Beach Bum on January 14, 2013, 08:04

Quote from: lisafx on January 14, 2013, 07:59

Could anyone who's going the route of sending a DMCA notice to Google report back here what the response was when you get one? 

Also if anyone hears back from any media outlets, lawyers, or others they have contacted please post. 

I am going to be joining the deactivation crowd on Feb 2, if not sooner, but would like to hear if there's any progress on other fronts as well.

If Feb. 2nd is going to be the agreed upon date for deactivation, I'll try to wait until then.

It was too much for me, LOL.  Wanted to test out Sean's script, and it was so easy I got carried away and deleted 203 images . 

I will try and old off until Feb 2 to do the rest, or at least my best sellers...

They really had better watch out though.  Deleting them starts to get sort of addictive...

Wow!  Sounds like fun.  Looking forward to Feb. 2nd now.  A deactivating orgy. 

Another thought, is Getty just devaluing their competitors collections so strengthening their grip on the market?
First non exclusives are forced to give their work to TS if they want to stay on IS, then they give away everything on TS and all of a sudden all that content, that is also on their competitors' sites, is worthless. Other sites go out of business, Getty back on top with their wholly owned and exclusive stuff intact.

Very plausible theory.  Also very worrisome.  I don't want to do anything rash and I want to give Istock a chance to make things right.  If there's no improvement in the situation by this weekend, I'll start the process of deactivating.  Really sad what Istock has become.

Thanks a lot Sean.  That helps in finding the images.  One of mine and I'm not impressed. 

I was thinking of trying to fill up all my upload slots to iStock this year, not sure I want any more of this.

I have uploaded exactly 0 images to Istock in the last 13 months.  I'm concentrating my efforts elsewhere.

Quote from: cobalt on January 07, 2013, 06:46

But court cases and lawyers are so expensive, it also takes up a great amount of your time.

The beauty of microstock is many of us (not me) are lawyers... eliminating one of the expenses.  The microsotck companies just need to rub the right person the wrong way.

Exactly!  Most of them do whatever they can get away with, and they've been allowed to get away with a lot of garbage lately.  It will only continue and worsen until, as you said, Leaf, they hit the "right person the wrong way".

Agencies are no longer agents, they are service providers and contributors are just users of the service that happen to upload things to the service, buyers are users that download from the service.
Both users pay for the service.

Most service providers charge a fee, not a percentage (and a huge one) of your earnings.

When this year started, I vowed not to upload any more images to Istock unless there was a considerable improvement in commission rates.  So, in sticking with the promise, I haven't uploaded anything the whole year.  I'm concentrating on more productive and fair opportunities.  Haven't gotten the courage yet to pull my port completely, but that might come at a later date.

I don't understand the obsession with Paypal fees.  The buyer should know that there are fees associated with a Paypal transaction, as there are with credit card transactions.  He should also know that he's paying those fees, one way or another.  Simply a business expense passed on to the customer.  No big deal.

Quote from: cthoman on November 24, 2012, 11:16

Quote from: Poncke on November 24, 2012, 04:46

Isnt paying 500 dollar for a service to get 100% of the sales price, the same as submitting to an agency and get a % commission?

Not really. The hope would be to convert them to return or regular customers for your site. It's really not much different than running an advertisement.

Well it is, up to some level.

If I make 750 dollars and pay 500 dollars, I only get 33.3%

That's a least twice what you would make at Istock.

Happy Thanksgiving to everyone.  I have many things for which to be thankful.  But, regarding stock photography, I'm thankful for the glimmer of hope that Picturengine brings to an industry with increasingly downward commission rates.

And no explanation from Veer on this site.

They should change their scheduled payout for the 1st of the month.  Maybe then will it be actually paid on the 15th.

Same story every month.