|
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 - michaeldb
Pages: 1 ... 6 7 8 9 10 [11] 12 13 14 15 16 ... 37
251
« on: February 04, 2013, 19:24 »
Oh this part inspired confidence.... the numbers will be so small they have decided to hide them in a one off monthly aggregate.
"We are at a point now where we are going to begin reporting royalties as the various deals mature. From now on you will see an additional category on the royalty schedule labeled, Connect. Since Connect sales are small, they are aggregated and reported on a monthly basis."
Yes, by '...Connect sales are small' do they mean the number of such sales or the amount of each sale? An API such as this is a way for Getty/iStock to do business development deals, such as the Google-Drive deal, with a great many corporations, including small ones. Apparently these companies will be able to sell our images:
GetImageDownloadAuthorizations
Endpoint: http://connect.gettyimages.com/v1/download/GetImageDownloadAuthorizations
This operation returns download authorizations for the specified image size(s), for each applicable product offering owned by the customer. Authorization to download images is controlled by the product offerings associated with a customer. Product offerings control two aspects of download: whether the customer can download the image, and what sizes of the image can be downloaded. https://api.gettyimages.com/apis
252
« on: February 02, 2013, 20:36 »
Does the Istock/Google deal also affect vector contributors, i.e. are vector contributors at risk too?
One of my IS vectors is in the Google-Drive thing, but as a JPG. I don't think native eps files are available, just raster exports of the vectors.
253
« on: February 02, 2013, 20:33 »
Deleted 72 more vectors so far today. Only about 100 left, will do some more before midnight. Kind of sad to see those go which I submitted back in 2005 when I first applied to iStockphoto. But what you gonna do? 
254
« on: February 01, 2013, 23:45 »
Istock will go down until it's a compete mess and then Bruce (who invested his millions) will fly back in and buy it up again at pennies on the dollar and lead it to supremacy again!
It's quite possible. I think Ross Perot did that twice with his company. It's beginning to look like Bruce was maybe the only actually smart person ever associated with managing or working at iStock.
255
« on: February 01, 2013, 21:00 »
Let's do it.
Quoting the Generals in "The Longest Day" 24h before D-Day : Gentlemen, it's on. Next stop Normandy.
Good Luck. Pity we don't have 4000 ships and 11000 planes ...
 But we probably have 4000 pictures of ships and 11000 pictures of planes. And I hope we deactivate them all. As the owner of one of the images on the infamous Google-Drive deal, I wish everyone in the East a happy D-Day, and everyone in the West a happy D-Day Eve.
256
« on: January 30, 2013, 13:50 »
...I am kicking myself that I didn't leave my shot of the snake pit live for a bit of symbolism...
You could reactivate it. Having seen the post complaining that reactivation takes up admins time, I think it would be another good way to protest.
Clever idea. I never thought of that. And speaking of another way to protest, you know those emails IS sends you to notify you of deactivation? If everyone marked them as spam, would a wave of tens of thousands of IS emails tagged as spam maybe cause spam filters to raise IS's spammer score?
257
« on: January 26, 2013, 11:55 »
"Vendetta images library"
Very clever idea IMO. It would be a lot of work, but I would contribute $, as Poncke suggests doing.
258
« on: January 25, 2013, 18:12 »
I deactivated 9 more today, when I had a couple spare minutes, including a flame or two.
Then later I got to thinking. When iStock sends those Deactivation Notice emails, does anyone stamp them as spam? I mean, I would never do such a thing because it might cause spam filters to raise the spam score of emails from iStock, and start putting all those emails in people's spam folders instead of delivering them to inboxes. I just wondered if anyone else was doing that.
Maybe be good to get an answer to this before Feb 2? Just so people would know not to do anything which might hurt Getty and iStock by accident.
259
« on: January 22, 2013, 12:07 »
Michael Utech posted some interesting stats in iStock's Discussion forum - http://www.istockphoto.com/forum_messages.php?threadid=350403&page=2#post6825629
...About 140 members deleted 7300 files the last week (week before was 4600, already much more than usual). In addition upload numbers are about 30% lower than between summer and Christmas. These 7300 are more than what gets uploaded on a regular day...
How can iS/Getty ignore these numbers? More than one whole day's submissions have been negated by deactivations. Maybe iStock thinks it is ebb and flow. 
260
« on: January 21, 2013, 22:17 »
So why is everyone waiting for another two weeks to go by?
The longer you leave your images there the more the chance of them being sold off as well as the others that were sold I would think you would want to remove them pronto.
Very true. Waiting until Groundhog Day makes this all sound like a joke, or some kind of goofball protest. But this is not a joke, this is serious. We can hurt Getty and help ourselves and each other but, as the commercials say, we must act now.
While I see no problem at all with deactivating sooner than Feb 2, and would encourage anyone who wants to do do that, I disagree that anyone is going to interpret the concerted protest of hundreds of content providers as a joke. Quite the contrary.
I didn't set the date as Feb 2, but as I understand it, there were a number of good reasons to set the date a couple of weeks in the future. Among them were to give people time to make alternative plans (find other outlets, etc.); to get the word out to the media and throughout the industry; to give anyone thinking of suing time for their lawyers to make contact and offer advice; and/or to give Getty a chance to set the record straight or modify their behavior if this was some sort of mistake.
Obviously this isn't some sort of mistake, and Getty doesn't want to modify their behavior. They will have to be forced to. But the other reasons are still valid. Lots of blogs, and other media outlets are spreading the word, so this protest is likely to be BIG.
Acting precipitously is easy for an individual, but difficult to coordinate as a group, and group action is what's called for here.
But like I said, if you don't want to wait until the 2nd, by all means don't. 
You make some very compelling points. I see what you mean about the Feb 2 date making sense from a public relations point of view. Sort of focuses things. On the target date, I will probably deactivate some more of the few images I have remaining there. Bonzai!!!
261
« on: January 21, 2013, 11:56 »
So why is everyone waiting for another two weeks to go by?
The longer you leave your images there the more the chance of them being sold off as well as the others that were sold I would think you would want to remove them pronto.
Very true. Waiting until Groundhog Day makes this all sound like a joke, or some kind of goofball protest. But this is not a joke, this is serious. We can hurt Getty and help ourselves and each other but, as the commercials say, we must act now.
262
« on: January 17, 2013, 22:41 »
You could always give the classic: "It's not me....it's you."
Good one. I alternate among: "Unsuitable for stock" "Unsustainable" "Peebert made me do it"
263
« on: January 17, 2013, 00:25 »
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.
264
« on: January 16, 2013, 17:59 »
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.
265
« on: January 15, 2013, 00:42 »
Only about 300 of my portfolio of 2000 or so illustrations are still on IS. But I did deactivate 13 more today (about half of them were flames). So add that to the total. (I might add that stopping submitting to IS and deleting most of my port there has not exactly 'martyred' me -- my year-over-year sales went way up after I stopped contributing to IS - buyers found my images elsewhere.)
Should I have waited for Feb 2 to deactivate? Sorry, but I think that most of the people who are waiting are not really planning to deactivate files at all, I'm afraid they are making threats and hoping that IS will come up with some placating announcement in the meantime, and then everyone can go back to normal.
But that is a mistake. Independents are slowly committing suicide by submitting to IS. Every dollar Getty earns is going to be used against us eventually. This business is a war: Getty/iS and their Exclusives versus the other sites and us Independent Submitters.
Think twice before you put more money in Getty/iS's pockets. It may seem that you are gaining, but you are really helping them gain. In the end, they will strangle us, put us out of business, and leave themselves and their exclusives as the only microstock game in town. That is their goal; we should not help them attain it.
266
« on: January 11, 2013, 23:23 »
Well...I am no longer uploading either.....anybody else....what else...can we do?
IMHO KarenH and photoattorney.com or some sort of legal action seems like a real option this time. It has been posited on the IS forum that their agreement with us does not allow them to assign (sub-license) to another party the right to give our images away for free. If that is true, IS is in breach of contract on a massive scale, and we could conceivably be awarded damages on a per image ($10,000 per image has been mentioned) or per download basis. For example, if my image was downloaded from Google Drive, say, 200,000 times and a judge decreed that I be paid 200,000 times my normal RPD at other sites (say $1.50), then I could be in for a nice piece of change, and so would a lot of other people, and Getty possibly bankrupted. Some of the 5000 images have been downloaded millions of times. Such a scenario is not impossible. My cousin and her husband owned a gas station and won a suit against the oil company parent corp about thirty years ago and got enough money to live lives of luxury without working ever since.
267
« on: January 11, 2013, 22:51 »
Important topic. You should change the title. Its an international crowd and many will not get that reference.
Good point. And I think Erin Brockovich didn't sue anybody anyway, as I recall she just worked for an attorney. This IS an important thread. I want a lawyer!
268
« on: January 11, 2013, 22:46 »
iStock continues to be the pioneer of microstock, those dudes know what they are doing LOL
Legen... wait for it... Dary!
Oh yeah there is plenty of room for innovation in the ms business. Loved this idea posted on the new thread at IS: "Maybe iStock/Getty should just offer our images to Shutterstock. They could get a nice profit for themself and we could get $12 for each image available on the worlds leading provider of subscription microstock images." Box5
269
« on: January 11, 2013, 22:23 »
....anyone who doesn't delete their account or continues to upload is only enabling them. And letting the rest of the agencies know they can do whatever they want with your content...
1000% true! Like some other people, I stopped submitting to iStock long ago. Sure it cost me money, but at some point you have to recognize who the enemy is and stop helping them kill you. It may look like iStock exclusives are the victims in this latest IS outrage - or even are somehow opposing iStock - but aren't they the ones who are enabling iStockGetty to do what it does? iStock exclusives enjoyed all the benefits - higher commissions, favored acceptance in reviews, and so on - now they are paying the price. Locked in and afraid to leave. But they are also forcing us independents to pay. If Getty floods the market with high quality 'free' images - and on the IS forum they have said that they will continue the deal with Google and even add more images and hinted at making other such deals with other corporations - then what will happen to all of us? How long before 123RF and DP start making such 'free image' deals with other corporations? And who could really blame them, they have to compete with iStock.
270
« on: January 11, 2013, 19:20 »
...On the other hand, if nothing is done, Getty will continue to find ways to give away even MORE of your images for free... Absolutely. IMO consulting a law firm which specializes in intellectual property is an excellent idea. Maybe suing Getty is a bad idea, but you will never know until you ask someone who really does know. I will be glad to be the first to contribute $100 to a fund set up for that purpose (not to an individual). Apparently only one of my images was sold to Google (I have few images on IS because I stopped submitting there long ago and removed many of my images, and IS used to reject my best sellers anyway, which I now perceive was a blessing in disguise). Now I want iStock to pay me 28 cents for every time my image was downloaded on the Google site. I will accept that as fair, although it is a much lower amount than my average RPD on other sites. And I want iStock to pay that amount or more to everyone whose images were downloaded from Google.iStock/Getty is the Evil Empire of microstock. If they get away with this, 123RF and other agencies will soon be pursuing similar deals with media corporations from Adobe to Pinterest. I usually scoff at predictions of the end of microstock, but this is a real threat to the business we are in. Flooding the market with free images while paying us virtually nothing will surely end microstock as a way of making a living.
271
« on: January 11, 2013, 16:40 »
...I don't see anyone better to run this place than Leaf!
so thanks Leaf!
@ Microbius
We are all in this together, and thanks for contributing to this and many other threads reporting violations..
I have been watching this thread, and as an illustrator I thank the posters who took the time and did the work to bring the infringer to justice. Good job. And yes, Leaf is great, what would we do without MSG?
272
« on: January 10, 2013, 17:57 »
...When I use the 3D effects, it pixelates the design and then my illustrations are rejected for "rough edges"...
I have used the Illustarator 3D effects for many images which have been accepted at all sites (except IS, where I no longer submit). But it is not as simple as just applying the effect. You have to play around with the 3D effects quite a bit to get usable results. As for doing 'real' 3D, the most widely used software is Autodesk 3DSMax + VRay rendering engine. But be prepared to pay about $4,000 US or subscribe. Many other options are available, some free, such as Blender. But be prepared for a long and steep learning curve to get the concepts of 3D modeling and rendering. Learning to use Max or Blender well will probably take at least five or ten times longer than learning Illustrator.
273
« on: January 07, 2013, 12:55 »
It's not just the model that won't work, it's the content...
Yes. That's why craftsy.com is working, they have a production team to create a useful, quality product. If Skillfeed offers only a hodgepodge of youtubey stuff, it will not have much chance of success. Something more is needed. How do you get the 'crowd' to submit the kind of thing which is needed by serious learners?
274
« on: January 05, 2013, 22:18 »
This startup sells video classes in crafts, mostly. A Wall Street Journal article said that the company is growing very fast and is already profitable and has not needed to use the $15 mil they raised in VC money. http://www.craftsy.com/
275
« on: December 27, 2012, 23:40 »
...Perhaps I'm missing something, but I think this isn't an idea with legs.
I have to agree. It looks like SS has mocked this up, lean-startup style, to see what feedback they can get. It's a 'project' (their video even uses that word) and not a real business model. I can't believe it will fly with the mix of features they have now, but maybe the feedback will help them redesign it into something that will work. SS certainly has the resources to build it. And it is always good to see new marketplaces for creatives.
Pages: 1 ... 6 7 8 9 10 [11] 12 13 14 15 16 ... 37
|
Sponsors
Microstock Poll Results
Sponsors
|
Show Posts
