Quote from: Jeffrey on January 19, 2013, 20:10

I may not activate my images, but I'm considering removing my Illustrator Exclusive status.
This gives me the freedom to sell anywhere.

... Until your files are available everywhere for free.

The only way Getty will stop its unethical practices is if contributors 1) Stop contributing and 2) Contributors pull their files.

If you have ANY files sitting at iStock or Getty you are just enabling them to continue their abusive practices and feeding the beast. There are other options out there. Getty should not get away with their greed and evil ways. They've pissed off so many photographers that I think the pendulum has begun to shift against them. But that momentum can ONLY continue if people deactivate their portfolios at all of Getty's sites, including iStock. Because as in any business, money talks. By denying them income through your images, you'll be sending them a clear message that you will no longer accept their abuse.

what!!!

http://thenextweb.com/google/2012/08/09/google-wants-you-to-help-stock-its-google-drive-stock-images-library/

The only way iStock and Getty will change is if you hit their bottom line. Period. No amount of swearing and yelling in any forum, the official one or this one, is going to change their tune.

The only way to get their attention is if people stop contributing and pulling their work and denying them the exorbitant share of income that they clearly do not deserve.

Between this, Microsoft, and all the other crap that's gone on, I've just about had enough. 

Maybe they are processing PP sales?
Maybe Not?
You know what they say about chewing gum and walking.   

Maybe they have an incompetent IT staff... 

Try doing a search on iStock. Someone just sent me an e-mail telling me that search is broken. I tried and just get a "Tell me more" message.

What buffoons are running the show at iStock? Why so many problems? Why can't they get their sh*t together?

No one at HQ gives a sh*t anymore. I can imagine morale there must be at an all time low. I blame the powers that be and Getty for taking a great company and pretty much running it into the ground. I blame Bruce for selling out. If he needed to raise cash to build more infrastructure he could've done an IPO and still maintained control of the company. 

But all that's water under the bridge. As it stands, posts go unanswered, support tickets go unanswered or get answers that aren't helpful. They ignore legitimate concerns that are raised in the forums. I stopped bother posting a while ago. The best thing they can do now to revive the brand (if they even have any interest in doing so which doesn't seem likely) is to...

1) Replace whoever is in charge of IT. I worked in project management for many years and can't believe how f'd up each new "improvement" is. 
2) Replace whoever is in charge of communications. I don't even think I need to explain this one. 
3) Put someone in charge who actually gives a crap about both customers and contributor concerns. 
4) Bring prices down. So many designers I know have gone elsewhere. With the market now flooded with tons of imagery, iStock has a harder time justifying these prices. And don't tell me that exclusivity counts for something because it really doesn't. 

The only thing that will get iStock and Getty to truly listen is if contributors take their images elsewhere. By continuing to upload and maintaining a presence at iStock, you're being complacent to iStock's treatment of its contributors. We've seen that they no longer respond to the angry posts in the forums. Imagine if contributors began pulling their portfolios en mass in addition the streams of customers fleeing to competitors. Then maybe, only maybe, they might begin to listen and put competent people in charge to turn things around.  Until then, they won't give a flying f*ck about anything that any of us say in the forums. 

Thanks for posting about that - I hadn't noticed that the amount was wrong when I got the payment, just transferrred to bank account and moved on. I guess I'm only slightly miffed that the "fix" is to pay the amount on Thursday that they should have sent on Monday.

Slightly miffed because I find it breathtaking that an organization that's been paying us for a long time could just mess it up this week, and that they could have such lax controls on their systems that they pay the wrong amounts. I suppose I should be grateful it was only a mixup with weeks, not with contributors. Although, if they wanted to send me sjlocke's weekly payout, that'd be fine with me (perhaps less so with Sean

Sorry, but at this point no screw-up by iStock is "breathtaking" to me anymore. It's just the same, inept business as usual.

Quote from: pro@stockphotos on May 22, 2012, 10:01

Look at a lot of the comments under these agency shots.  They are not kind and they say a lot about what customers think of these old  (most of these shots were taken 5 + years ago), bad quality and extremely expensive.  I do believe getty is driving customers away with this business model.

I doubt very much if 'they'ever look at feedback given on files. I hope the buyer also contacted Support.
They've probably got an auto-button saying, "This is correct. Half of the models were told to shut their eyes."

Ironically, I usually bin editorial crowd scenes if an 'obvious' person has their eyes closed. Of course, it's difficult to avoid.
If I'd have shot something like that (non-editorial) I'd have taken several shots in rapid succession and cloned the eyes where necessary. That's just shoddy workpersonship.
[/quote]
I couldn't agree more. The market is saturated. There is TONS of competition. Buyers who come to microstock sites don't give a crap about exclusivity (at least the ones I've talked to don't). Getty is really kidding itself if it thinks it can continue to charge these amounts for Agency files and Vetta files when cheaper alternatives can be had elsewhere. No wonder sales of Vetta, GI and Agency files are slipping. It's amazing to me that Getty hasn't stuck to the original iStock model that made iStock such a success. It's clear they're just in it for a quick buck. They're gonna lose in the end if they continue down this path.

There was a store on Zazzle a few weeks ago called Vetta-Images that consisted of products created from many different istock contributor artists' vettas.  It might have been just anyone buying istock vetta images and selling products from them, which I think is legit.  But the mention in the HQ newsletter makes me wonder.  Whatever, the store is gone now. 

Legit my a**. We were not paid for the use of these images. If anything, I imagine it was pulled because what they were doing was selling our work without compensating us. What there were doing was unethical and violated our contract. Plain and simple. 

Everyone's still waiting for a lot of things that were promised and never delivered without even so much as an apology or explanation. I'm disgusted with iStock's lack of communication and lack of respect for their contributors. Monthly newsletter? What a joke. Logos? Nada.  

My expectations with iStock are to have zero to low expectations going forward. As nice as I'm sure the iStock staff are in person, when it comes to communicating with contributors and customers, their lack of communication and undelivered promises and is pathetic.   

Quote from: jamesbenet on January 19, 2012, 18:45

His beliefs and reputation will follow him, not related to iStock.  At least I think he fought for us all the way as long as he could. That is why he got the axe.

You can stick your faux sympathy where the sun doesn't shine. Thompson's 'beliefs and reputation' as well as his actions led to millions of dollars of commissions being diverted from contributors to Istock during his watch. He was in charge of Istock when they offered to 'grandfather' canister levels and then essentially went back on that a few months later. If he'd had genuinely 'fought for us' and not got his way then he should have resigned at the time. To not have done so, as the man in charge, meant he endorsed the changes (far more than his 'beliefs and reputation').

Under Thompson's watch the most damaging series of actions in Istock's history occurred and have resulted in the downfall of the immensely strong business he inherited. If he wasn't responsible for that then at very best he was a weak and ineffective COO promoted way beyond his capability and his level of courage. He's lost us all a lot of money. F*ck him.

Agreed. Kelly was one of most ineffective leaders I've ever seen. Sure, he was a nice guy, as Stacey pointed out.  But just because you're nice doesn't mean you can run a company. 

Not sweat I am on your team! All I care is my ROI which includes my TIME. Its just working for me, iStock could pull the rug out today and I would be scrambling for sure. Non-Exclusive means a massive income drop for me from 35% to 18% and a drop in search. I can't afford that so I hope iStock keeps on rolling!

Trust me, I like the perks of exclusivity as much as you do and agree that we're on the same team. Increased visibility (depending on which way the best match winds are blowing for the day), Vetta sales, etc. I'm just concerned that the pricing they have in place now is what's driving customers away. 

If the economy were back to where it was before the 2008 debacle, I think the picture would be very different. But people are watching their pennies and going to where the value is. And I'm not sure iStock provides that value any longer for many customers which is why people are seeing the steep decline in DL's. 

Not knowing the reasons or facts this is very hard to grasp! These lay-offs may have been desperately needed. Sometimes you need to clean house some to get it in order. My sales at iStock have
been extremely strong this month. I don't see this as the company is dying. I truly feel for those who have lost their jobs as I was there 2 years ago. Funny iStock saved my family and now its
hurting others. Truly a sad day for those who lost their jobs!

Great to hear your sales are doing well. However, I don't believe that iStock's pricing is sustainable with all the competition that's now out there. Case in point, I've got an upcoming project, and I'll be using Shutterstock for the first time because I'll save over 50% over what I'd pay at iStock for comparable images.  I hate not supporting my own agency, but I'm on a limited budget.