I remain opted out also, but I get the feeling if there aren't enough people opting in for their customers on photo.com and jupitar - opting out wont be an option for long.

Your rude comments would be better directed to the person who actually sent you the message on a different site, rather than as a general rant at people who have no idea who the heck you are.

whatalife, point taken, apologies. I don't usually post anything here. the sitemails should stop. why not just let people make up their own minds. and I modified my comment above.

.

Quote from: lisafx on June 18, 2009, 15:24

If you mean me, I am not happy about that and already made the same point up a bit further up in this thread.  And in addition to the diamond there is a high level, prolific gold independent who also said she's opting in.  Personally I think they are nuts.  

I wouldn't worry too much about it. Once they actually get to see the pathetic dribbles of income they get from JIU/PC it will temper their enthusiasm somewhat.

You did well stirring the pot over there too __ it brought out quite a few more heartfelt comments regarding the situation.

Getty have sacrificed a staggering amount of contributor goodwill in this exercise which will probably end up generating very little money for either themselves or contributors.

I really can't imagine how JIU/PC subscribers are going to feel when 90% (literally!) of the entire library disappears overnight in 3 months time. Yes, they'll get a few more from IS, but even if 10% of IS images are transferred over (which I doubt) then the 3M images they've lost will be replaced by 500K older stock images that have been largely ignored by buyers up to now. I can see litigation being threatened if customers had subscribed specifically to access the 3M images that appeared to be on offer. It's going to look like a 'bait and switch' job to them.

Unfortunately it seems like 900 000 images are already opt in. Can't understand why so many contributors would opt in..

Well, I opted in, but just to delete from istock and send there some (not many) old, non-selling and boring files I was beggining to feel ashamed of. Those are files that can be sold at these prices; you get what you pay for. Not knowing what other people has done... but if many have deleted from IS to send to photos.com maybe we'll need to have another 5 milion image.

I also opted in and my philosophy is not to throw away 5 cents just because its not 50

Unfortunately it seems like 900 000 images are already opt in. Can't understand why so many contributors would opt in..

Same here. According to 'The Wayback Machine' IS only had about 2.5M files in Jan 2008 (the earliest date that exclusive images can be included) so that means that nearly half of all qualifying images must have been opted-in already. Surprising.

I've noticed that both JIU & PC have made some subtle changes to their advertising blurb recently. Instead of shouting about the 'over 3M images' available a few months ago it now just says 'millions'.

Considering that the entire point of this exercise was to give a major boost to JIU/PC then removing 3M images overnight (even if they are replaced by 1M others) is really going to annoy their existing customer base! They say it takes 10x more work to obtain a new customer than to keep an existing customer happy too. It's certainly going to be interesting to see how things pan out.

Quote from: michealo on June 19, 2009, 05:15

I also opted in and my philosophy is not to throw away 5 cents just because its not 50

Interesting philosophy but you could be throwing away 50 just to get 5. For yourself and others.

I am not sure why I should be concerned for others? I would rather make a sale at 5c than someone else at 50c

Quote from: michealo on June 19, 2009, 05:47

I am not sure why I should be concerned for others? I would rather make a sale at 5c than someone else at 50c

Would you also rather that someone else makes 5c at the loss to yourself of 50c? If so you should be concerned for others.

If JIU/PC were to become successful then potentially it could devalue the entire market for all of us. In my view we should not be supporting them with our content.

Based on the experience of those that have been selling there for several months you'll probably only make about $20 per month per 1000 images you send them. Is that worth the potential loss of sales from IS that could result?

a) No, that wouldn't be in my self interest and lets not kid ourselves that we are doing this for the common good.
b) If the market is to be devalued then if its not JIU/PC then it will be someone else, Flickr or Wikimedia Mayflower or another site
c) I will wait and see, here on MSG you will find different opinions on all the sites some IS is 10th place for some first

And alot of the arguments you make were probably leveled by macro photographers at microstock in the past ....

According to my crystal balls:

$1 / picture PAYG or a sub is going to be the norm for most microstock. 25% will be the typical royalty. Back to microstock. Most pictures will be used online.

$1 and subs will be for the sort of pictures which are of the stuff we find out for a walk or around the house. And pictures of smiling family members and friends being models. And for yet another business group shot. Those markets are flooded. $1 was always about right. Some photographers will still do well off it on volume.

Higher prices will be for much more individual and difficult to achieve. Perfectly executed. Very stylish. One big $ growth area will be stuff which perfectly combines photography and CG rendering.

+++ I thunk this talk of devaluing the market .. misses the point. It's about anticipating where the market will go and preparing for it. The agencies are probably all pretty much trying to predict what is inevitable. Not what is maybe. The biggest change they look out for is that something comes along which means no more agencies. Some other model.

b) If the market is to be devalued then if its not JIU/PC then it will be someone else, Flickr or Wikimedia Mayflower or another site

No one is making you devalue your work, you are choosing to do so.

Quote from: michealo on June 19, 2009, 06:20

And alot of the arguments you make were probably leveled by macro photographers at microstock in the past ....

Yes __ I was actually concious of that as I was writing them! Having said that it is not mandatory for turkeys to vote for Christmas.

Just out of interest what would you consider to be a success or failure (from your own point of view) regarding the JIU/PC venture? If the the images you sent there turned out to earn the anticipated $20 per month per 1000 images would that be worth it? What if your IS income dropped by 10% at the same time?

And I admire you for admitting it!

I would be disappointed with $20 per 1000 images but its likely that my IS income will drop whether I participate or not, so if its even one sub dl I'd rather have it.

So this acquisition was basically eliminating a competition. They just took only distributing channels while they were not interested in another microsite.

Exactly and further consolidation is likely