pancakes

MicrostockGroup Sponsors


Show Posts

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 - Elenathewise

Pages: 1 ... 6 7 8 9 10 [11] 12 13 14 15 16 ... 35
251
iStockPhoto.com / Re: D-Day (Deactivation Day) on Istock - Feb 2
« on: January 17, 2013, 10:54 »

In the early days there's no doubt that some microstockers would peruse macro sites for 'inspiration'. Nowadays I'm certain that the flow of inspiration is mainly in the other direction. A couple of years ago the macros virtually ignored my niche subjects and had very few such images. Now they have lots of them __ looking remarkably similar to the best-selling images of mine and others on the micros.

This is actually quite wide-spread. I've seen a lot of "macro" images that are plain copies of micro ones, including mine. 

252
iStockPhoto.com / Re: D-Day (Deactivation Day) on Istock - Feb 2
« on: January 17, 2013, 10:49 »

Re main topic - I am working on getting most my stuff off Thinkstock right now (through one of my distributors). I've stopped all uploads to iStock, Getty and all my distributors that deal with Getty and Getty owned companies. I am NOT trying to show Getty anything, I am just making a choice not to deal with them anymore.

Elena, how can you get your images off TS if they are still on Istock?  Or did you already delete your entire portfolio from Istock?

I have stuff on TS through Ingram Publishing - they already courteously agreed to remove my images. They have way more of my images than Istock does.
Sent a request to Getty to remove all my PC RF files.
Tetra is a different story, needs different approach... working on it.

253
Yes it did appear to me too that Getty might be after higher search placements with Google.
Why don't they do it by regular SEO techniques like the rest of us?

Because everyone uses regular SEO techniques these days. How do you elevate yourself above competition? You can pay Google $$$ to appear at the top of the search, but apart from that - how do you stand out?

254
Hmmm...Maybe this is why Getty did what they did.

"Feds Closer To Filing A Google Antitrust Lawsuit"

This is from Oct 2012

http://www.usatoday.com/story/money/business/2012/10/13/google-antitrust-lawsuit/1631447/


Interesting! Yes it did appear to me too that Getty might be after higher search placements with Google. I really want to see the license terms for the Getty-Google deal - there could be some really interesting information there.

Not all that interesting. The FTC officially dropped its anti-trust suit against Google over a week ago.


Really? that's even more interesting:) However that doesn't mean Google can't and doesn't give preferential placements to some... but it is of course a speculation at this point.

255
Hmmm...Maybe this is why Getty did what they did.

"Feds Closer To Filing A Google Antitrust Lawsuit"

This is from Oct 2012

http://www.usatoday.com/story/money/business/2012/10/13/google-antitrust-lawsuit/1631447/


Interesting! Yes it did appear to me too that Getty might be after higher search placements with Google. I really want to see the license terms for the Getty-Google deal - there could be some really interesting information there.

256
How come noone wrote up some basic facts of this deal in wikipedia? : http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Getty_Images
I would but my English is not quite perfect... any takers?

257
Getty wants to control the stock photo business. Shock? Virtually every corporation which sees an opportunity to control distribution to a large market wants has the same ambition. Why wouldn't they? Getty's ineptitude at running IS so far really doesn't matter. Its strategy can succeed whether IS is the best microstock site or not.

How can Getty/iStock get rid of microstock competitors? The strategy has been discussed in other threads since the Google-Drive controversy began. It is simply deep-pockets + 'dumping'. Getty lowers the price for micrsostock images to near zero (by means of deals like the Google one and in other ways), driving out of business those companies which do not have the financial resources to take losses for a long time (Getty does have the deep pockets to take those losses).

When SS, DT, FT, etc are out of the picture, Getty has a strangle hold on distribution. It jacks prices back up, and it kicks out the photographers and illustrators it doesn't like and promotes the work of its pets. That will be a good day for some of the IS exclusives who post here, but for independents it means: get very good at * up (see iStock forums for valuable examples of how to perfect this skill), or go looking for work in some other industry.

Of course they want to control stock business.... but somehow everyone (including them) forgets a simple facts that they don't own the rights to most images they sell. How can you control anything when you don't have a product? Seriously. They are just an agent, salespeople, and if they lower prices to near zero they won't have anything to sell. Ok maybe they can try selling Flickr images. Good luck to them. Can everyone pelase wake up and see that photographers control the industry. If we all decide this is not profitable anymore and go somewhere else there will be NO industry. And no, Getty doesn't have deep pockets. Not at this time.

258
Their Macro side is dying on its arse as well, they're just running around with fire extinguishers wondering what to do next.
Getty remind me of Marlon Brando in Apocalypse Now, a mad shaved headed old veteran chopping everything up and spouting nonsense.

There is no plan.

http://www.youtube.com/embed/WdNsltQXTVU


Matt!  that is such a naive and dangerous thinking, wishful thinking its truly unbelievable. I could show you my and some friends sales-reports from the RM collections and you would not believe your eyes and then ask if its dying.


ClaridgeJ, I can show you my and some friends sales-reports from micros and you wouldn't believe your eyes:) RM is still bringing some income, but if you notice what's going on around you wouldn't be so sure about the future. I have seen major movie posters done with micro RF images, big advertising campaigns, let alone magazine and even book covers. There are so many images available people are just not concerned with securing the rights anymore.

259
Aren't you supposed to be a copyright OWNER to sell prints on FAA??

260
iStockPhoto.com / Re: D-Day (Deactivation Day) on Istock - Feb 2
« on: January 16, 2013, 12:35 »
...Have people forgotten about SS?  Far from killing them, everything Getty or their owners has done in the past few years seems to of strengthened them.  Some people say that Thinkstock was made to kill SS but SS now sell more pay per download and are overall in a much better position than a few years ago.  Driving a lot of exclusives and non-exclusives away from istock with the latest fiasco is likely to strengthen SS even more.  So I don't quite buy the killing microstock argument, unless they're incompetent at that as well....

I think the Google Drive deal could very well be their latest tack on beating Shutterstock - kill their opportunity to sell subscriptions by making images "free" to end users (no additional fee once you've paid for Google Docs/Drive for businesses). Google and Getty make money and cut out the contributor (beyond the one time pittance payment).

To beat Shutterstock this way they'd have to put their entire collection on Google and go out of business (which kind of defeats the point of "beating").  7000 images or whatever they are willing to give away is not going to change the game. Plus their actions caused many people to delete their images or even take down entire portfolios.... so the only thing they achieved here is more damage to their already bad reputation... they are just clueless.

261
iStockPhoto.com / Re: D-Day (Deactivation Day) on Istock - Feb 2
« on: January 16, 2013, 12:04 »
I am not supporting the Getty deal but let face it: today a "thief" can find almost any best seller with the google image search function at a reasonable size.

Here's the problem.  These images aren't just being marketed to "thieves".  They are being marketed to design pros as acceptable content they can legally license for FREE to use in commercial applications.  These aren't thieves, they are our legitimate customers!

Exactly.  Well stated Lisa. And I wonder if Getty even considered that they are shooting themselves in the foot by driving buyers away from them to google.


I suspect they are NOT shooting themselves in the foot in any way. They may have taken a hit financially short term, but in their long term plans they will a. (Try to) kill microstock and b. eliminate all the "riff-raff" (contributors not part of their elite group). Sounds like getty is right on target.

Nobody can "kill" microstock:) Microstock is a new and very viable business model and it's not going away. Any "elite" group will always lose to inclusive business model (=microstock). Open and evolving system always beats closed and inflexible one. High volume of legit sales always beats occasional big one. Getty doesn't understand the value of selling images to general public the same way IBM in it's time didn't understand the value of OS for personal computers, and this is how Microsoft came to life. We all know that story. So really, Getty is just old inflexible dinosaur trying it's best to adapt to fast-changing world, but doing really bad at it since they keep using their old business methods. They see the changing conditions, and they think they are adapting to them, but in reality they are stumbling about with a blindfold on their eyes.

Re main topic - I am working on getting most my stuff off Thinkstock right now (through one of my distributors). I've stopped all uploads to iStock, Getty and all my distributors that deal with Getty and Getty owned companies. I am NOT trying to show Getty anything, I am just making a choice not to deal with them anymore.

262
Funny thing got an email today with this video - totally in sync with my feelings about Getty/Istock  ;)  It's called EXODUS  ;D
http://www.redgiantsoftware.com/news/featured/exodus/

263
I'm astounded at how long it's taking iStock to figure things out.  I guess we're either going to get enough spin to make a whirling dervish look stationary, or there's a serious problem.  The rest of the world knew Google had asked Drive users to propose ThinkStock images as long ago as August 10 last year when a discussion about it started on an Alamy thread that was updated this past weekend.  Seems to me the whole stock world is watching this drama unfold.

Regards

I believe there is a serious problem. It's kind of obvious to me, but other signs, apart from iStock taking very long time to respond is that we haven't seen any posts at all from some very serious contributors that participate both in micros and macros... which can only mean they've lawyer-ed up.

Again, to me, the delay is far more indicative of a mistake that they are trying to extract themselves from rather than a deliberate and major change in policy. If the latter had been the plan then we should have expected a carefully worded statement, issued at the time, of how beneficial to all the new policy would be. Nothing like that has happened.

gostwyck, I am totally with you here. From the very beginning it looked to me like a major f**kup by sales - I worked for a major software company for a number of years, I know how it's done. Now that doesn't mean it's not a serious problem for Getty at this point. I don't know what I would prefer - deliberate malicious intent or plain old incompetence... probably malicious intent since that at least implies some planning and logical thinking  ;). But looking back at everything that happened ever since Getty acquired Istock all I see is incompetence and failure to understand and adjust to changing times and new technology. The funny thing is, they think they do... but all they'we done so far is bought a thriving company with vibrant artist community and turned it into a nightmare.

264
I'm astounded at how long it's taking iStock to figure things out.  I guess we're either going to get enough spin to make a whirling dervish look stationary, or there's a serious problem.  The rest of the world knew Google had asked Drive users to propose ThinkStock images as long ago as August 10 last year when a discussion about it started on an Alamy thread that was updated this past weekend.  Seems to me the whole stock world is watching this drama unfold.

Regards

I believe there is a serious problem. It's kind of obvious to me, but other signs, apart from iStock taking very long time to respond is that we haven't seen any posts at all from some very serious contributors that participate both in micros and macros... which can only mean they've lawyer-ed up.

265
I've created a new discussion board with the intent of gathering stock contributors together to look into these issues further.  This is not anonymous - you will need to supply a portfolio link when registering.  It would help if people would be active on the threads where I've asked for input.

http://www.accordstock.com/stockArtistsCollective/index.php


Just registered... gave SS link to my portfolio since I don't know how long my IS one will be valid for.

266
ms makes these files freely available to anyone on the internet. you do not have to register, sign up or otherwise prove you have ms office:


http://office.microsoft.com/en-us/images/results.aspx?qu=telephone&ex=1#ai:MP900438702%7C

all you have to do is click the download button.

my files were downloaded over 1.3 million times.


Ok - didn't know about availability without registering, but it also says right next to it:

Provided by
iStockphoto
Microsoft Partner
For more variety, visit the iStockphoto site.

Hence the "promo" deal - it's in agreement, most agencies put in their agreements that they can use your images in their promotion campaigns... doesn't make this one any good, but at least they stuck to the form.
However, let's not get derailed here.

267
I would like to emphasize that this situation is fundamentally different from previous Getty deals that upset the community

I've asked this before in this thread, but didn't get an answer: How is this deal different from the Microsoft deal that has been known about for several years? Other than the fact that many or most contributors got nothing (not even a measly $12), and that AFAIK there weren't any Vetta or Agency files included in the MS deal. (Just as with the Google deal, MS files also seem to have had their EXIF data stripped.)

Note that I'm not saying this isn't a big deal, I'm just wondering why people didn't get similarly upset about the MS deal when it was revealed a few years ago.

Couple of points - first, as far as know MS was a "promo" deal which we agreed to in our contributor agreement. I don't know exact details, but I assume images were available only to MS users. Last time I checked MS didn't give away their software for free. Second is the fact that it's Google Drive, just think about the scale of this: anyone, anywhere, in time it takes to create a Google account, which is seconds, can have access to premium stock images absolutely for free. When my images are used in some templates or within some software or product that is for sale, that's one thing. When they are available for free to general public, is absolutely another.

268
What is really sad is that people are discussing which files to deactivate on the istock forums and no admin gets in there to just say "please wait everyone, we have another update coming on Monday(Tuesday)".

 :(

At most, there will be a carefully weasel-worded statement that translates as "take it or leave it" plus the usual drivel about better communication in the future.   The boys in the expensive suits inked a deal with Google, and what we see so far is very possibly just the first phase.  They're not going to revisit this decision unless there's a massive exit of major contributors.  And maybe not even then.

I highly doubt it will be "take or leave it"... that would be business suicide for them, now when this is getting all the publicity - and publicity is a very powerful tool, don't under-estimate it. I never really considered leaving Istock before, but this time it's real. I'll cost me 1/4 of my income, but I refuse just sitting and watching my images being given away.
They have a few choices on the matter:
1) Buy out the rights for these images for reasonable amount
2) Try to modify the deal with Google somehow
3) Ask Google nicely to implement some restrictions on image use, like disabling right-click save or reducing the images sizes

Option #1 is the only reasonable one, so I doubt they'd go for it: even though it would save the situation it'd cost them a lot of money and they are too greedy for that. #2 is probably not a viable option since Google's lawyers have every right to say - how it is our business that you misrepresented your contributors? Most likely they'd try #3 or something along those lines.
Let see what happens.... Feb 2 sounds dandy for me for sending the request to take images down - give them just enough time to get their s**t together. And, by  the way, I won't be just leaving Istock - I will be taking down my images from Getty's PC collection and the ones that are there through other distributors.

269

With all respect I do not think that anything will change in IS unless some solid action on black diamond level happens. I am meaning people like Sean Locke, Don Bayley, Andresr, LisaFX, DKY59, mammamaart, etc. Furthermore, heavy uploaders from Denmark (not necessarily Arcurs) who contribute almost only lifestyle and business are another important group. So, let's say, if these people decide to negotiate together with another agency/agencies and pull their portfolios from IS things can change.


I was thinking something similar.  If a group of diamond and black diamond contributors, even just the non-exclusive ones, made a plan to pull out all together I would participate.  Perhaps we could agree in advance to begin deactivating images en mass on a certain day.

I think the usual arguments of "big sellers have the most to lose by pulling out" don't apply here.  If enough of us do it then we have the most to gain by protecting our livelihoods.

I would like to emphasize that this situation is fundamentally different from previous Getty deals that upset the community - it is surprising how many people don't see the gravity of it. I think disbelief is a big part of it. Just think about it - Getty allows for free re-distribution of our images that we entrusted them to sell. This is not cutting commissions or rising prices, this is violating artist-agent agreement.  So my point is, it shouldn't be about "I'll leave if others do", it's about do you want that kind of (scummy) agent to represent your work. If you're ok with it it's your choice, but this agent will grab some quick money off your work and will take off leaving you broke. It's not about "we'll show them". It's about firing them. They are just salespeople with questionable ethics that are screwing up sales of my product.
I am giving them a couple of weeks to sort things out. The news is just spreading, I hope we'll see more statements next week. I can't see them doing absolutely nothing about it - I think they screwed up big time and are having intense meetings right now. But if worse comes to worst, and nothing is done, my choice would be to dump that agent. I don't deal with scum.

270
But I'm afraid Bill Bachmann's comment about photographers not being joiners is accurate. Too bad, since as a group we have all the power, but individually or in small numbers, we're powerless.
The queue is up c2000 again since lunchtime GMT
I have no idea if that means that people are stil uploading like crazy  or if the inspectors are on a go-slow.

Some people might not be aware of what's going on. Istock has contributors from around the world, not everyone reads forums. If every time they try to upload an image a warning would pop up - "By uploading this image you're giving Getty rights to give your images away for free" - I bet the queue wouldn't be that long:)

271
http://www.selling-stock.com/Article/free-images-from-gettyistock-on-google

I like Todd Klassy's comments, including this one:
We need an industry wide revolution; something that is strong enough to lure all photographers away from existing stock photo companies, grab attention, and establish sound legislation and business practices that bring an end to the things that have been crippling the industry for the past 10 years; image theft, the vultures stealing profits in stock photography companies, and educating amateurs that their photos are worth money.

The first thing I would do would be to hire in-house counsel, including possible a intellectual property attorney that either works for or worked for the RIAA, and a former sales & marketing executive at Getty, Shutterstock, etc. Followed by an intensive membership drive. Tell me that wouldn't shake things up in the photo industry.


But I'm afraid Bill Bachmann's comment about photographers not being joiners is accurate. Too bad, since as a group we have all the power, but individually or in small numbers, we're powerless.


I'd join and pay union fees, or whatever organization that would be. We just need a leader.... Sean Locke? ;-)

272
Everyone is angry but I do suggest that you be careful about what you post in public forums, especially the Google forum. Allegations of illegal actions against a major company on the forums of one of its major partner companies could be very problematic indeed. I really doubt that anybody here is able to say with certainty that Getty has done anything outright illegal.

On the other hand, believing the spin put out by istocklawyer could be almost as big a mistake. His mandate is to produce opinions that shut down any legal problems for Getty/istock (or, if that isn't his brief, I would be very surprised).

Don't libel istock and don't swallow the garbage they are feeding you. That is my, unlawyerly, advice.

There is such a thing as being too careful. And I think it's time we stop doing that. After all the discussions and meaningless lawyers official talk here are just 2 solid facts: 1) My images are being given away for free to general public 2) I as a copyright holder did not consent to that, and was not even notified.
That's illegal. Let them prove it to me otherwise.

274
Something that I sent to one of my distributors... they don't think there is a copyright problem with Getty-Google deal.
Here:

" Thank you - I have seen Istock forum update. I would like to point out that this situation is fundamentally different from Getty's usual "premium access" program. The difference is in the fact that in essence, in this deal with Google Getty acted like a copyright holder of the images, which they are not. Why it is so? Consider this: anyone in the world can create a Google account absolutely for free, sign up and download stock images from Google Drive absolutely for free. Getty is well aware of these "licensing terms" since they are claiming Google is not violating the license. So, Getty in effect gave Google rights to re-distribute images in this deal FOR FREE. As far as I know, only the copyright holder can decide if they want to sell their intellectual property or give it away for free. And copyright holders were not consulted or even informed that this is happening. I do not see how this is not considered a copyright infringement.
I hope I made my point in a clear and logical way. I understand most of <agency> sales come from Getty, but I would also like you to see the events for what they are. Lawyers can cover it up in official talk but the fact remains - my (and many others') images are available for free to absolutely anyone who would want them, and this was done without my agreement.
The only way I can be happy with this arrangement is if Getty purchases the right to these images for appropriate sum. If this is not provided, I will be requesting the removal of all my images from Getty. ..."

275
Loved this post on Istock forum:

bmcent1

Posted 13 mins ago
Quote

$10,000.

Ten thousand dollars, USD, is what I expect to be compensated per image. That is a number I have quoted out before to inquiries to purchase the copyright to an image of mine. Transferring the copyright is what you needed to do before making representations to Google about usage of my image beyond the bounds of the RF license. You did not and do not have the right to license my image to a 3rd party to sub license (aka give away for free) to an unlimited number of users.

I'll accept a deposit to my Istock account or to my checking account (which you also have for direct Getty Images royalty payments.) If you have any questions or would like to discuss it, you have my phone number.

Pages: 1 ... 6 7 8 9 10 [11] 12 13 14 15 16 ... 35

Sponsors

Mega Bundle of 5,900+ Professional Lightroom Presets

Microstock Poll Results

Sponsors