|
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 - cybernesco
Pages: 1 2 [3] 4 5 6 7 8 ... 21
51
« on: January 24, 2013, 13:20 »
Feb 2nd projected total is now 39,328+ deactivated or deleted files
Some more from the iStock forum
52
« on: January 24, 2013, 12:25 »
Feb 2nd projected total is now 38,993+ deactivated or deleted files
including projection from the iStock forum
53
« on: January 24, 2013, 10:59 »
oops
55
« on: January 23, 2013, 16:28 »
Jonathan Ross: "I see so many different reasons on this post for why people are pulling their images from Istock but the one I see the most is " they aren't making me the money I used to " Cybernesco: This is not the most popular reason anymore, did you not read about the latest Google Getty deal? The Getty/Google deal controversy has become sufficiently notorious to merit an entry in Wikipedia: " Controversy Over New Feature
Google Docs has partnered with Getty Images to release 6000 high quality, high resolution stock images for use in Google Doc products.[42] The images have been stripped of all meta-data and copyright information and clients may use them for any commercial purpose they see fit. This feature has been met with significant praise by those that use Google Docs. However, this move has proven controversial with the photographers who own the copyright to the images.[43] The complaints centre on two areas. The first is the fact that the for all intents and purposes the free re-distribution by Google has placed the images in the public domain and significantly if not totally devalued the copyright. The artists involved were compensated based on the lowest valuation for image use instead of the effective buy out of the rights this represented. The second issue involves images that required model releases. In this case the models, via the release, were assured that images would not be used in a defamatory way. However, Google has placed no such restriction on the re-use of the images in their Google Doc library."http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Google_Drive
56
« on: January 23, 2013, 13:26 »
Yes but does it really matter how it came about, secondary isnt it? The trad agencies knew all about electronically, digitally transmitted pics, photo-journalists worked like that long before we started it.
I remember a big meeting in London, Stones office at Worldwide house and where Mark-Getty explained the future of digitals, etc, some 150 photographers were invited, etc. That was in 1993 but they put it at rest simply because they knew it was a risk of destroying. So you see its nothing new at all.
Im afriad whats happening now goes with the territory, we have had our 10 years and more and sooner or later things will change, the pitty is that in our business it always seem to change for the worse. We are but pawns in a corporate world.
The shoe is now on the other foot, we are threatend and we dont like it. Simple as that really.
Do you remember? few years back we were all talking about planB or a way out. well looks like its here. 
Yes but does it really matter how it came about, secondary isnt it? Yes it does one is evolution and the other one is illegal That was in 1993 but they put it at rest simply because they knew it was a risk of destroying. So you see its nothing new at all.I am 56 years old and I always have been an avid computer and internet user since its beginning and I am absolutly certain there is no way in 1993 anybody could have predicted the last 8 years . It would have been impossible to predict the convergence of two industries which are the internet and digital cameras to give opportunities to such a wide audience. Furthermore, the speed of the internet in this is very important. In 1993, most of us had dialed-up from 16 to 56kbs (kilo byte per second) . Have you ever tried to upload just a 1MB file at between 16 and 56kbs.... Do you think in 1993 we knew how fast internet would be now?
57
« on: January 23, 2013, 12:34 »
So what? let them give em away free, Google, IS, Getty, anybody else? who cares? My RMs are still intact. Cant be touched.
tisk, tisk, tisk. What a shame, so sad.
but wasn't RM down and micro UP?
Och, don't worry about him.
Over on the Alamy forum, someone posted:
You should probably be thankful to the microstockers then. Thanks to their vigilance in protecting IP they uncovered this and are taking action to rectify it. They are protecting your future licensing opportunities.
And Christian58 alias Claridge alias lagereek replied:
Taking action?? dont be silly, its as usual, all mouth, some 90%, cherping in dont even know whats its all about. The rest takes pictures at weekends.
http://www.alamy.com/forums/Default.aspx?g=posts&t=13554&p=7
As usual, he's just overcome with the exuberance of his own verbosity.
RM up or down, it doesnt matter, they are protected, cant be given away free via Google but Micro can! thats the point.
Anyway whats the big deal with this. Its a natural progression thats all. If Getty/IS didnt do it somebody else would and when they finally will do it, most of the other agencies will follow.
Tough! but as I see it. Its time to kiss the ass goodbyeeeee.
What about, if you entrusted your car to me to maintain it every once in while, but somehow, each time it is under my care, I secretly rent it out to tourists for a few hours making $100.00 a shot.
What about, if you entrusted your money to me, as I am a certified broker, to invest it wisely on your behalf, but somehow I secretly invest part of it into a scheme that I think will bring more money that I can keep secretly.
What about, if I am Getty, and you entrusted your images to me....
Do you get it...Yes it is a big deal
Ofcourse its a big deal the way you explain it. In reallity its no worse then when micro came along and tresspassed on the trad-agencies domains, is it? heck! all of a sudden pics wore selling for cents instead of dollars. Whats the differance? none really.
I mean what do you think? that 50 trad-agencies were jumping for joy when micro came along? hardly. Now..... well, the boat have turned around and we are in sheit street.
The problem is that Google and Getty are such power-houses that we are losers even before we start, no matter what.
best.
The microstock industry came about mainly because of technological advancement in the internet speed combined with higher quality digital cameras and the fact that you no longer needed to spend hours in a room full of chemicals to develop films. The opportunity to provide more economical images grew exponentially and took the world of commercial photography by surprise. The fact that commercial imagery became cheaper was not caused by a malevolent entity. It was mainly caused by sudden massive production of images. Anybody that has studied economics will understand that the price of anything is always subjective of its supply and demand. The recent Getty Google deal to give our images for free was not caused by technological advancement, evolution or economics, this was done secretly, without permission from their owners and certainly was not done in good faith. Getty simply did not act on our behalf and probably broke our agreement. That is the big difference.
58
« on: January 23, 2013, 12:06 »
So what? let them give em away free, Google, IS, Getty, anybody else? who cares? My RMs are still intact. Cant be touched.
tisk, tisk, tisk. What a shame, so sad.
but wasn't RM down and micro UP?
Och, don't worry about him.
Over on the Alamy forum, someone posted:
You should probably be thankful to the microstockers then. Thanks to their vigilance in protecting IP they uncovered this and are taking action to rectify it. They are protecting your future licensing opportunities.
And Christian58 alias Claridge alias lagereek replied:
Taking action?? dont be silly, its as usual, all mouth, some 90%, cherping in dont even know whats its all about. The rest takes pictures at weekends.
http://www.alamy.com/forums/Default.aspx?g=posts&t=13554&p=7
As usual, he's just overcome with the exuberance of his own verbosity.
RM up or down, it doesnt matter, they are protected, cant be given away free via Google but Micro can! thats the point.
Anyway whats the big deal with this. Its a natural progression thats all. If Getty/IS didnt do it somebody else would and when they finally will do it, most of the other agencies will follow.
Tough! but as I see it. Its time to kiss the ass goodbyeeeee.
What about, if you entrusted your car to me to maintain it every once in while, but somehow, each time it is under my care, I secretly rent it out to tourists for a few hours making $100.00 a shot. What about, if you entrusted your money to me, as I am a certified broker, to invest it wisely on your behalf, but somehow I secretly invest part of it into a scheme that I think will bring more money that I can keep secretly. What about, if I am Getty, and you entrusted your images to me.... Do you get it...Yes it is a big deal
60
« on: January 23, 2013, 10:13 »
I'm tired of Istock..... They've rejected so many of my pictures that are actually selling ok on SS and other sites...... Just got 85 pictures rejected some minutes ago.... And they've already been selling a fair bit on SS for some time now...... Count me in for a very small portfolio of only 33 pictures.
So far the Feb 2nd projected total of files being deactivated or deleted is 36,391+
61
« on: January 23, 2013, 09:50 »
Please add my 300 that will definately come down 02 Feb - if I take down any more I'll update here, thanks
Therefore, So far the Feb 2nd projected total of files being deactivated or deleted is 36,358+
62
« on: January 23, 2013, 09:14 »
So far the Feb 2nd projected total of files being deactivated or deleted is 36,058+
This is including projection from the iStock forum
63
« on: January 22, 2013, 18:55 »
Great article Denis! That's awesome, well done.
Thank you Dan, so is yours!!
64
« on: January 22, 2013, 15:55 »
Many years ago, I either read or heard in a presentation, that Getty made as much money with their payment demand letters (Google "Getty extortion letter") as they did licensing imagery. I cannot find this information anywhere now, so cannot verify it's accuracy. However, if it is true, it seems they are setting the stage quite nicely to increase revenue substantially. I'm pretty sure, however, that contributors are not compensated from these post-use collected revenues.
Sorry but that has to be one of those 'internet myths' that go on forever. If there were any truth to it then you'd find plenty of 'evidence' as there are folk out there apparently devoting their lives to the 'Getty Extortion Letter' issue;
http://www.extortionletterinfo.com/
The hypothesis that Getty is now deliberately flooding the market with 'free' but traceable images for the sole purpose of seeking damages from infringements, as their primary source of revenue, is utterly bizarre.
Well it is bizarre, but not that unbelievable. Copyright trolling is a popular business these days, and Getty has been involved in it for a number of years - see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Getty_images, "Controversial practices to enforce copyright". The idea is to bully people into paying up, they almost never go to court. I heard it's quite lucrative, since many people prefer to pay them some money rather than going to a lawyer and incur legal expenses.
It's hard to say if Getty is planning to that with Google images, we still know pretty much nothing about the deal. But it's one or part of the possibilities.
Interesting, I just found an old 2006 thread about similar practices from Getty.....someone complaining of receiving a letter from Getty demanding $1000. http://www.sitepoint.com/forums/showthread.php?425391-Getty-Images-is-after-me
65
« on: January 22, 2013, 15:24 »
66
« on: January 22, 2013, 14:29 »
Feb 2nd projected total 32,668+
This is including a projection from the iStock forum.
68
« on: January 21, 2013, 18:13 »
oops
70
« on: January 21, 2013, 10:03 »
71
« on: January 21, 2013, 02:40 »
Is possible to open a special poll for that and ask how many pictures people will deactivate on Feb2 then no need to do the total all the time?
I am not sure if that would work as anybody could open an account and put in some wild numbers.
72
« on: January 20, 2013, 23:44 »
73
« on: January 20, 2013, 22:07 »
For the sake of accuracy in keeping the tally total, may I suggest that from now on anybody deactivating or deleting files from IS, report their numbers to the D-Day thread. I have been keeping tab in that thread. This number being reported should be from files that you are deactivating or deleting because of the recent Getty / Google deal or because it is one of many reasons. The reported number should be, from now on, one that has not been reported yet in any MSG thread and one that would totaled actual deleted or deactivated files plus the ones that you are committed to delete or deactivate on or around Feb 2nd. Thanks
74
« on: January 20, 2013, 21:37 »
This time, I included approx 900 from the IS thread.
Feb 2nd projected total 25,480+
75
« on: January 20, 2013, 21:25 »
I do not feel Getty is susceptible to any kind of a message from aligned contributors. What is needed to secure the future viability of fair monetary partnership between contributors and distributors, IMO, is for concerned contributors to walk away completely from any further relationship with Getty, sending a message to the industry that we will not tolerate abuse or disrespect of our Intellectual Property.
We must join together and deactivate our entire accounts with Getty.
I believe total deactivation by most contributors is inevitable if Getty continues down the road they are on. However I think it's unrealistic to expect that a majority are going to do that all at once on Feb. 2. For ports with many thousands of images that is going to be logistically difficult.
Like it or not, this thing is going to play out over months, not days. Microstockers have always been a diverse bunch, and up to now impossible to get everyone to agree on any action at all. Each person has a different tolerance for risk and a different set of circumstances to consider.
I think it is really awesome and amazing that so many people in this diverse group are willing to act together on one day. It has never happened before in microstock, so it is historic.
I don't see the "I'm deactivating more than you" debate as constructive. Any and all images deactivated on, before, or near Feb 2 send a powerful statement to Getty.
I prefer to appreciate and praise everyone's individual efforts rather than focusing on who's doing more or less. Let's choose to see this glass as half full, shall we? This is the time to come together and any divisiveness just undermines the whole effort.
Very well said Lisa..Thank You
Pages: 1 2 [3] 4 5 6 7 8 ... 21
|
Sponsors
Microstock Poll Results
Sponsors
|
Show Posts
