The suits making the decisions will happily cash out when Getty is sold and use what they done here on their resume. I watched private equity firms purchase every company I have worked for. It always starts with the promise of business as usual. Then benefits start to slim. Then staff. Then when the company is lean enough they sell. The remaining employees will have to fend for themselves as they have to conform to new ownership. The smart ones will jump ship. The others will hang in there until they eventually get the boot. We don't come into the equation anymore. We don't come into play any more. We were dismissed long ago. A lot of the moves with Getty and IStock could not be more clear.

* IS updated their front page...now what are we going to joke about 

I have to think iStock seems to be running on empty as far as staff goes...I doubt enforcement is a priority at all. Stock agencies just don't live up to their end of the deal. Hell they own the right to change the deal at any given time. They are a bunch of bullies constantly beating us up and taking our lunch money. 

I wouldn't be surprised if/when Thinkstock gets merged into iStock. I'm not happy with the idea of getting paid less per image, but I am hoping in the least they will merge them all to one site and integrate real-time reporting...that may be too much for them to handle. It makes sense to me that Getty would want iStock to be a typical subscription site. From Getty's viewpoint they offer the high quality and iStock offers the cheaper content for subscriptions...covering their bases and making it much more simple sustainable model. With that said...sucks for us contributors. The returns vs the time and effort put in is becoming too even to make it worthwhile.

Why is everyone down on IS they are thinking ahead, hell they are thinking so far ahead they have a valentines collection up and ready for next year...innovators

February was my BME at SS. My downloads were almost twice my average. While at IS my stuff sits. Does SS have more buyers of just a better search...maybe both

I can agree, I no longer do any work for friends. I'll refer them to folks, but will not do the work myself. They can be the worst clients and tend to expect the extras for free if not the whole thing. It just strains relationships. For businesses that I can benefit from I still tend to charge...sometimes a reduced rate, but I charge none the less. For some reason a client appreciates the work more when they pay for it...it isn't always about the quality of the work.

I think there isn't much we can do as legal fees to require them to provide the transaction data would be too high regarding the amount they are recouping. They know this, which is why they probably aren't going to use the overhead to prepare individual transaction data.

I have to say my downloads at SS this month are almost double previous months and this is a short month...could be related? When was this implemented?

Wow...search really is messed up...I typed in arcade...and selected "amusement arcade" from the drop-down and got result of an egg, egg crates, and wrapped presents...nothing related to the search. And I though IS couldn't surprise me anymore...

I like it!

Quote from: dingles on February 26, 2014, 20:24

Got a few PP sales so far...did GI sales happen for Jan?

'Soon' according to Lobo (see my post above)

Thanks

Quote from: dingles on February 25, 2014, 19:24

Quote from: BaldricksTrousers on February 25, 2014, 19:14

Dingles, I'm not sure anyone is missing the point. If the demand had come with a detailed transaction list (and an apology), and if the sum demanded seemed to make sense when compared with average earnings over the period then I suspect the anger would be much diminished.
The lack of detailed information and the fact that people say the amount being deducted appears to exceed the probable error make it unacceptable.
Like you, I've argued that if it was a mistake then they should have the money back. But this looks, from what is being reported, as if they are just piling another mistake on top of the first one - only this time the mistake appears designed to fill their pockets at the expense of the contributor. And, unlike the initial mistake, this one looks as if it is deliberate and calculated.
If it does turn out to be a deliberate and systematic attempt to secure monies in excess of those that are owed from thousands of people, then I feel sure that the lawyers have a word to describe it.

I get that, but that isn't real until IS provided the data. I was also referring to folks still jumping on the argument that IS should've recoup. It's all a poor argument until we have proof

On the contrary, it IS real until iStock provide proof. It is the ones helping themselves to money who have to demonstrate that it is justified, not the ones having money taken off them who need to show that it isn't.

All the accounts are in iStock's hands, not in ours. If there is a case for recouping money (and there probably is) then they should provide evidence of it, not just say "it's ours, we're helping ourselves".

I think you misunderstood, I meant the accusations are not real until we have proof. So for now our focus should be obtaining our sales records for those months