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 - cybernesco

Pages: 1 2 3 [4] 5 6 7 8 9 ... 21
76
iStockPhoto.com / Re: D-Day (Deactivation Day) on Istock - Feb 2
« on: January 20, 2013, 01:21 »
Feb 2nd projected total 21,236+

77

As well as the links, including one coming back here, I just wrote a couple of paragraphs:

http://www.denispepin.com/google-and-getty-licensing-deal

78
iStockPhoto.com / Re: D-Day (Deactivation Day) on Istock - Feb 2
« on: January 19, 2013, 13:40 »


A million files is only 50 times that total...I am sure it could be done as the longer Getty stay silent the more it will outrage members, buyers and the public...obviously there is not much they can say to undo this... Ultimately this could trigger a snow ball effect....

79
iStockPhoto.com / Re: D-Day (Deactivation Day) on Istock - Feb 2
« on: January 19, 2013, 13:29 »
Ok I re-calculated the projected tally for Feb 2nd including numbers from the other tally thread without doubling poster numbers that had already been written in this one. I might figure numbers from the IS forum later on.



Feb 2nd projected total  20,159+

80
iStockPhoto.com / Re: D-Day (Deactivation Day) on Istock - Feb 2
« on: January 19, 2013, 12:23 »
Thanks jbryson!

Feb 2nd projected total 13453+

We really need a million.....it is either the microstock industry dies of a slow and painful death while the RM industry gets wounded further or we cut loose....your choice.


81
Just in case my response to a poster on IS gets deleted I am re-posting it here


"Posted By NicolasMcComber:
Google is not reselling our images... They're just making them available (distributing them) for free to their millions of users for commercial use  as long as they use their software to build their documents. That's what's different. Previously, third parties didn't have the right to duplicate and distribute the images on the web by simply buying a custom license for each image... let alone for commercial purposes, which really threatens the market.
"


In this context, although they are being distributed for free, those images are adding perpetual value to google just like if they were selling them. A Google user don't need to spend money on their stuff (such as google translate, maps, calendar ect. ) to be worthy, as advertisers will pay them so much per so many users. Therefore, just the fact that google users are coming back, because of these images, is sufficient payment for such a powerhouse as Google. Only mammoth internet companies such as google, facebook, microsoft ect.. can be huge enough with so many millions users, to afford such a scheme and still make money.


As well if these images are to be used for commercial purposes, can the Google drive document be printed-out on nice photo papers and resold?

82
We have a lawyer on the scene!? Ref:
http://www.istockphoto.com/forum_messages.php?threadid=350613&messageid=6824549

I`m a lawyer. Let`s get to basics.

Getty and contributors never signed a contract that allows buyer to resell!

We never signed (agreed) to permit reusage and resale.

Point.

Legal action:

Joint letter to google and public media and news that the agency will be sued for damage to contributors with abrief explanation that the basic problem is not that file has been legaly sold ONCE to google but that it was available for further use despite a contract with contributor that states otherwise.


Second step: Lawsuit.

It looks to me that there is a very powerful intention that something new on the market wants microstok to derive into something else, or that a new buyer actually is destroying the whole market as we know it now.....the question is why and who....


I'm glad someone here was able to capture that because the deleted it within about 30 minutes.  I'd noticed it and had to step away from my computer; when I came back it was gone.




I just reposted the following on IS forum:



A friend of mine is a lawyer and said the following:


 


"


Getty and contributors never signed a contract that allows buyer to resell!

We never signed (agreed) to permit reusage and resale.


Therefore......


"


Getty if you delete the above mentioned without giving us an explanation, this will represent a further admission of guilt...

83
iStockPhoto.com / Re: D-Day (Deactivation Day) on Istock - Feb 2
« on: January 19, 2013, 09:50 »


Feb 2nd projected total 12032+

can i add 921 to the total for 2nd feb even though my files have already gone?

If you deactivated or deleted images because of the latest Getty Google Deal, than yes it should be part of the Feb 2nd projected total.  Therefore:

Feb 2nd projected total 12,953+

85
When contributors create a Shutterstock account via submit.shutterstock.com, they are asked to submit 10 images for review. If a contributor is leaving exclusivity to submit to Shutterstock, we ask that they write a note to the reviewer mentioning their exclusive status with a link to their portfolio

Are they alluding that they may use a combination of submission and proven work - that's pretty cool of them.  Not that it wouldn't be in their best interest to have access to a huge pool of new and proven material.

Yes, i am being offered a bypass, they looked at my istock port and are happy with it, just got to show some ID now. Very nice email, and quick reply, made me feel good :)

This is fantastic Susan!! Very happy to see that you guys will be fairly treated!! One GREAT reason for the exclusives to get away from this nightmare.

86
Looks like Istock is sinking ... fast. Man the lifeboats, women and children first!

Yep..the faster it is sinking...the better it is...time is coming to abandon ship

87

I just quickly created a page with all the links on my site. Just to spread the news....nothing fancy for now...

http://www.denispepin.com/google-and-getty-licensing-deal

89
iStockPhoto.com / Re: Image Deactivation Tally for iStockPhoto
« on: January 18, 2013, 05:02 »
Listen fellas and try and understand something!  this is a formidable and courages effort to make things better but go back in history a bit, to the stoneage in fact.
This scenario has been tried before, a unanimous effort and that was back when agencies were not this powerful and STLL, it didnt have any impact at all.
Imagine then whats it like today and with powerful agencies, this and that.

For every image you deactivate there are 20 being uploaded either by new members, old members or new applicants constantly knocking at the door.
Like we have all agreed on before, its a numbers game, got nothing to do with how good you are how well known you are its just numbers. Cant beat that. Its like getting a straight-flush in stud poker. And youre loosing money at the same time.

all the best.

Like it has been said before, this is more about protecting my images than it is making a giant fall down. There are plenty of other places that Getty don't have control over.

91
...you type in the words in google (gee for some reason I don't like that word as much anymore)...


I have no ill will towards Google over this deal. They did nothing wrong. They probably didn't know that Getty was orchestrating a shady and potentially illegal arrangement in terms of how this would affect the contributors whose images were included in the deal, but Google really wouldn't have had any way of knowing that.

It's none of their concern what sort of arrangement (or lack there of) Getty had worked out with us. Google needs images, Getty has lots of them, a deal is made. And Google would have no reason to suspect that the images were acquired in any underhanded way.


I agree that even without knowing all the details, Getty is possibly mostly to blame, however, I am not sure if Google can be totally without blame.

On the blog post by Google there was no mention made as to where the majority of the images came from, who they belonged to or how they were licensed. They basically just stated that if you have a Google Drive account, you have access to these images and are free to use them in your documents however you choose. 

http://www.thephoblographer.com/2013/01/17/getty-google-struck-a-deal-people-are-not-happy/

Therefore, why there was never a mention made as to where the majority of the images came from? Why Google agreed to hide the identities of those images?  If hiding all identities was a condition of the deal by Getty, would that not ring a bell that something was not right? They mutually agreed to hide these images identities...I cannot think of one good reason to do that.

92

If you want honnest information from all micro sites you come here at microstockgroup.com. Individual stock forums understandably will not entertain their competitor's problems or successes as this could affect their own business.

Yes, but there are many photographers and illustrators who know nothing of MSG. Posting about this having happened at those sites may help as well.  Perhaps those posts should link back to some of the threads on this site, and more people will learn that MSG exists.

Well...in any industry wether it is automobiles, computers, cell phones, making something or doing someting, if you want to know about something, you type in the words in google (gee for some reason I don't like that word as much anymore) and you will get all kind of forums to suit your needs. For instance, in this particular case, google microstock, bingo you will get here.  It is not the mandate of an individual stock forum to inform their contributors about their competitors or MSG.

93
Has this been mentioned on each of the stock site forums?  I didn't know about this until I stopped by here today and saw this thread.  I know that bringing up things happening at other stock sites is difficult to do on some forums, but we should be able to mention the Google "deal".

I'd be interested in reading the threads (even on sites I'm not a member).  If you have seen this mentioned on other stock forums, could you post the links?

If you want honnest information from all micro sites you come here at microstockgroup.com. Individual stock forums understandably will not entertain their competitor's problems or successes as this could affect their own business.

94
something I just posted on IS

admin oldladybird said
"With Google Drive, they licensed the file so neither collection or the files status really matter. "


I am sure you must realise that your statement is showing an action which is totally and unbelievably wrong...What you are spinning and saying by "neither collection or the files status really matter" is in fact that contributors don't really matter.


Furthermore, as you say "they licensed the file".   In this case "they" means Getty acting on their own "licensed" the file.  That license is INVALID BECAUSE WE WERE NEVER MADE AWARE OF IT.....THIS IS ILLEGAL


95
iStockPhoto.com / Re: D-Day (Deactivation Day) on Istock - Feb 2
« on: January 17, 2013, 22:02 »


Feb 2nd projected total 12032+


97
Thanks for the list.

you're welcome

98

It is now on wikipedia:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Google_Drive

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.


100
The following post is by landbysea from the iStock forum. I think this is extraordinarily well said:


http://www.istockphoto.com/forum_messages.php?threadid=350613&page=2

"I am bothered by the attempt to minimize the wrongdoing by pointing out the numbers. You are talking about Google cherry picking the best of the best of people's work. In some  cases these are more than high dollar files. These are the culmination of all the knowledge, creativity and hard work that could be mustered to make a personal masterpiece picked for Vetta or Agency. And the material  result  of the passion that brought us to pursue a creative career. Is there any thought to the fact that you are destroying people livelihoods. We are all now between a rock and a hard place knowing that the files that Google is likely to pick are the ones we worked the hardest for. The ones with the long tail. The ones that convinced us that this effort can pay off. It's not just about 100 contributors who had their best work given away. It about thousands of others sleepless worrying that at any given moment the photos that were going to make their careers are about to be made public domain for 12 bucks. It's not just files you are selling it's peoples lives."

Pages: 1 2 3 [4] 5 6 7 8 9 ... 21

Sponsors

Mega Bundle of 5,900+ Professional Lightroom Presets

Microstock Poll Results

Sponsors

3100 Posing Cards Bundle