There have never been darker days for contributors in microstock. With the recent Google-Getty fiasco, and 123RF slashing commissions, it seems we are at an important juncture. Either we stand up for the value of our artistry now, or we let microstock agencies ruin this industry for us.

I posted in the iStock D-Day thread, and also in the Link Exchange thread, that I wrote an article on this topic for Warmpicture. At the end of the article, I included a Call-To-Action for image purchasers who want to see agencies taken to task for how artists have been treated, while their own prices kept going higher. It includes a list to all of our websites.

This is a good first step. I can promote this article to our Facebook following (600+ and growing fast) and Twitter (2000+). Many of our connections are our direct audience - graphic designers and bloggers. They need to know what is happening, and that there is an opportunity to purchase images direct from us, the same way that they can buy produce from the local farmer's market and tell Wal-Mart to shove it.

But it won't make a big difference.

What is required is a continual effort. Since many of you have websites, I assume you have blogs too. You certainly should. This is the perfect opportunity to talk about artist exploitation.

In my view, each article should lay out the facts as we know them, and inspire our buyers (many are  fellow artists) to change allegiance. It should have a clear Call-To-Action, and a link list (or at least a link to a link list).

Eventually when someone searches Google for a source of stock images, they start to see a few articles talking about the treatment of artists, and alternative websites. One article doesn't make a difference. But many will. Word spreads. Buyers realize they can get the same images less expensively elsewhere, and directly support their fellow artists. All the while they get to tell "Wal-Mart" to shove it.

Let's use this thread to list articles which promote our efforts, and why we choose to sell direct rather than through an agency. List them as you write them. Push it through social media. In time, we can get this ball rolling.

Any loss of agency sales as a result of publication of their abuse of artists, will discourage further abuses. So I believe anything we can do to get this story into the mainstream will be to your benefit. Regardless of whether or not you choose to sell stock from your own site.

Doesnt make sense. You need masses to get the ball rolling, yet the masses do not sell direct. Why would they promote selling direct when only a few photographers do that?

I think that more and more of the masses have been putting up their own site. Some just point their images to their agency (like Sean points to istock right now) but others sell direct too, like lisafx. It's the Plan Bs that many have been doing over the past year.

Quote from: Poncke on January 21, 2013, 17:45

Doesnt make sense. You need masses to get the ball rolling, yet the masses do not sell direct. Why would they promote selling direct when only a few photographers do that?

I think that more and more of the masses have been putting up their own site. Some just point their images to their agency (like Sean points to istock right now) but others sell direct too, like lisafx. It's the Plan Bs that many have been doing over the past year.

I really think not. 50 or 100 people is not masses. I think if this is a movement, you cant single out a group of photographers to benefit from this. Its about all of us, not the ones selling direct.

I am all for action, but action that benefits all.

I am not knocking the promotion of links on Warm Picture blog, I am talking about making this whole IS debacle about selling direct.

Quote from: Poncke on January 21, 2013, 18:05

Quote from: cclapper on January 21, 2013, 17:50

Quote from: Poncke on January 21, 2013, 17:45

Doesnt make sense. You need masses to get the ball rolling, yet the masses do not sell direct. Why would they promote selling direct when only a few photographers do that?

I think that more and more of the masses have been putting up their own site. Some just point their images to their agency (like Sean points to istock right now) but others sell direct too, like lisafx. It's the Plan Bs that many have been doing over the past year.

I really think not. 50 or 100 people is not masses. I think if this is a movement, you cant single out a group of photographers to benefit from this. Its about all of us, not the ones selling direct.

I am all for action, but action that benefits all.

I am not knocking the promotion of links on Warm Picture blog, I am talking about making this whole IS debacle about selling direct.

I don't really understand your point. I think Dan is just saying do whatever to get the word out. He has an "agency" site, so he is using that. Some people have their own sites. If they do, use that. If you don't have your own site and aren't selling direct, get the word out any way you can.

As far as the masses getting the ball rolling, the first and foremost reason ANYONE should be removing their images from istockgetty is to stop them from being given away in the getty/google deal, as well as any other deals coming down the pike. The rest of it...getting buyers and anyone else in the industry (the masses?), is going to help prevent other agencies from thinking they can get away with this too.

Read the OP again, its about promoting selling images direct. I did all the stuff already, posting on facebook and blogging about it and deleted my port from IS. I am not against Dan, WP or promoting direct links. All I am saying is that this should not be about promoting one small group of photographers who sell direct.

I am sorry for taking this thread OT, I will leave it for what it is.

Sure,  I shouldnt have said benefits all, it thought it was about IS stopping giving away images. Not about a call to sell only images direct and pull buyers away from all agencies.

Never mind, I wont bring it up again.

I think if this is a movement, you cant single out a group of photographers to benefit from this. Its about all of us, not the ones selling direct.

I am all for action, but action that benefits all.

I am not knocking the promotion of links on Warm Picture blog, I am talking about making this whole IS debacle about selling direct.

Poncke, I think you have made an excellent point.  Dan's idea about spreading the word and directing buyers to fair trade sites is what's important, whether they are artist owned or not, IMO. 

Perhaps those who want to blog, tweet, facebook, etc. about this could make a list of the (few) fair trade micro agencies out there that pay artists 50%, such as GLimages, and StockFresh.   That way any readers of their blog would know where to find their images at a site that supports the artists. 

deleted