|
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 - alberto
127
« on: February 27, 2013, 15:29 »
Unfortunately brm1949 this is what Getty want. Getty has made the deal and iStock says what he wants Getty. Basically nothing, waiting for the waters to calm.
Is a matter of little importance, and Getty as Google, did not say anything, they are engaged in other business to make money, who cares about their contributors?
Eventually people get tired and think of something else.
But all is not negative, for the first time many have talked about this deal and Getty has not received good publicity. Someone left iStock, and many have deactivated their bestseller. Some, such as the exclusive, are committed to stay because their earnings depend almost entirely on iStock, but are looking for a plan B.
Now depend on us; we must sustain only agencies which undertake more fairly with us... (if there are).
128
« on: February 24, 2013, 18:11 »
At least Istock is not ignoring the Google Drive issue, and changing things between big corporations does take forever. I see this update as a more positive development (it's "we heard you and are working on it" instead of "take it or leave it"), but will need to see the actual changes before forming a final opinion. My expectations are not too high since I don't see how Getty can possibly back out or substantially change the deal, but let's hope they can make it slightly more digestible.
The Getty/Google deal is done and I don't think that will change. This is they said: "Google is an important partner for us and we have many innovative licensing arrangements in place and in negotiations."The point is (IMO), how many deal now running, that, so far, no one has discovered, and how many of this innovative dealwill came. Pinterest is only one of this arrangements, not the worst, perhaps.
129
« on: February 24, 2013, 11:02 »
Exclusive image is a trouble, but I think that this is the right way. Stocksy needs some big players with good images first of all. The big and famous microstocker ensure both number of images and quality. The portfolio will growth slowly but what care contributors are earnings. So as always the other important thing is to have customers.
With all the agencies that have over 15 milions of pictures, the exclusive images doing the difference. Next years I think that all the agencies get this path, not exclusive photographer, but exclusive images. If we thinks that even now the exclusive is reward, is easy to understand that this is only a steph forward. Photolia and Dreamstime accept exclusive images and provide them benefith in search, in istock exclusive contributor are advantaged, not exclusive files within a few years will disappear from the first ten pages of search.
130
« on: February 23, 2013, 09:43 »
Terms and conditions:
The site can change the agreement in any time without announcement and new terms are implicitly accept by a single access to the site. It's a joke. This means that if everyone access the site simply to view the earning and the terms are changed only for this access you accept the changes. I think that what this mean is easily understandable... Do you really want that everyday of my life I go to check your terms and conditions?
Part 17 of terms and conditions.
After the termination:
(b) all Products uploaded by Seller shall be removed from the Website; provided, however, that RawStockPhoto may continue to use the Product for internal archival and reference purposes;
Ypes! shall be removed from website = does mean nothing -- All products shall be removed within 10 days or 15 days i.e. And second part is the worst, the use for your internal archive? So you want keep the full resolution of the files for these pourposes. You really think that someone gift to the website a raw file under these conditions?
I'm sorry but I would never accept such conditions.
131
« on: February 21, 2013, 16:03 »
I Never, never, never, never and ever understood why give free photos should be a great self marketing. Those who download free photos even look the name of the photographer and never seek pictures to buy. Who took a photo for free yesterday, today takes a photo for free, that's all.
Free picture is popular because is free and not, for the name of the photographer that don't care to anyone.
Next email: if you give us 10$ we sell your photo for 8$, but it is a great satisfaction to know that your work is on the net and not in your HD, you'll be an artist.
132
« on: February 19, 2013, 19:48 »
133
« on: February 19, 2013, 17:32 »
With many attempts to start an agency more advantageous for us, Dan is a resource, a word from him is worth a hundred of our. I hope that in the future this effort, gain you some earning.
134
« on: February 19, 2013, 17:18 »
Just added a post in my site. To refresh memory.
Poor english, so if you want send me a message with grammatical corrections, thanks!
135
« on: February 19, 2013, 08:40 »
I'm sorry to hear this, the site is plenty of cool stuff.
136
« on: February 16, 2013, 14:07 »
I'm not so excited, it will take a lot of time before they become operative. For now I see it as an early marketing, words but no explanation.
When they will be ready to begin we know for sure, there will be an official announcement.
I hope for all (us and them); only few things, simple and clear terms and conditions, great website platform for MR, upload, category etc.
Lastly I expect that they want only exclusive pictures.
137
« on: February 11, 2013, 09:28 »
I don't enough data but I think that what said djpadavona is right. If an effective link to the source is not provided by bigG the best choice is block the google bot.
Just change strategy; best SEO for the website so who want some pictures can go to the website and buy it.
If Google truly wants to protect the copyright, can put over the images a beautiful watermak with the words: you may not use this image if you want to use it click the button: go to the page.
The link to the original image without copyright is simply, a lack of protection. It's like leaving the house, leaving the door open and then wonder if something is missing when you return. And honestly that Google kows.
138
« on: February 10, 2013, 18:37 »
If it is a recent news you can notify this to reviewers so they can approve more quickly.
139
« on: January 31, 2013, 19:46 »
I'm wait this thread ShadySue, I'm new and don't sell in iStock.
140
« on: January 31, 2013, 19:31 »
[/quote]
Maybe the arbitrary date of Feb. 2nd didn't give them enough time to figure out exactly what to do. It seems like they should have had enough time but who knows what they are trying to do. For example renegotiating a deal with Google, writing a new ASA, or maybe Getty wants to handle this on their schedule so the admins at Istock are not allowed to post anything until it has been approved?
[/quote]
In my opinion Istock, will not do anything. Time to do there was and nothing happened. And see the right sidebar, earning are stable at 40%, people will forget what happened, as in the past has forgotten the cuts or change of terms and conditions. This deal, is a little different because the echo in the web is strong, but everthing passes. The D-Day is a first step, but if something must change, is a to do list. Next step is continue talking about this deal in blog, website, forum; microstocker should not forget what happened, this can hurt IS, and most important take action coordinated, as i.e. an activation day in other agency...
141
« on: January 31, 2013, 08:31 »
142
« on: January 23, 2013, 08:59 »
 First of all excuse my bad English. I'm not selling by iStock but I'm with you this deal concern not only who is a istock contributor but all us. Sincerely I think that Getty/Istock will be on his way, but this may be a signal to other agencies and a beginning to create greater unity between microstocker.
|
Sponsors
Microstock Poll Results
Sponsors
|
Show Posts
