I googled for .5 seconds and found all sorts of products and enterprises named "Vetta".  It's the Italian equivalent of Acme.

I think John Griffin can call this "Betta than Vetta" if he wants, although I think just "Betta" would get the idea across and would be funnier.    "Betta" would also play nicely off the image of the beautiful tropical fish by that name.

I like BETTA

it would serve a dual purpose , albeit subtle 

or a play with another italian icon MASERATI
 
combine VETTA with GETTY
and get somethin like

BETTAYETTI  , as in better yet !

Sean's right.
Knowing John, he's probably playing . As in "better than cheddar". Of which there is also a cheese called Vetta, if I am not mistaken. Italian too. Correct me if I am mistaken.

It's funny , though ! We need funny nowadays , the way things have been going lately with all the Big 6 stealthily expanding into the "lubrication" enterprise
( m@m, so funny) 

and more,
the logo could be a giant footprint.

implying, Cut Bettayetti stomps on sub zero prices ...
 

whatver John's ulterior motive is, if it is to dig at those Big 6 who have been giving us their incredible curve balls, I wholeheartedly say, "Go for it Cutcaster!
If you truly wish contributors get better commissions, then, I hope you succeed . out of getting the buyers to think they should be paying as much on good images as they themselves expect their work to be highly valued".

i , for one, cannot believe that ALL BUYERS are scavengers, and will only pay us peanuts. 
it's the blooming greed of the Big 6 of micro stock that have made the buyers think like scavengers, and that we, the contributors do not deserve to be paid anything more than a few pennies for our work.

I think you give the buyers more credit than they deserve.

Buyers are no different from children. They will take whatever daddy and mommy allow them .  In fact, some, if not many, of these buyers were living on daddy's credit card through Art School, and are used to getting everything for nothing. They don't know what value is.

If the sites can sell for more, don't you think they would?

Quote from: obladihell on August 04, 2009, 15:08

whatver John's ulterior motive is, if it is to dig at those Big 6 who have been giving us their incredible curve balls, I wholeheartedly say, "Go for it Cutcaster!
If you truly wish contributors get better commissions, then, I hope you succeed . out of getting the buyers to think they should be paying as much on good images as they themselves expect their work to be highly valued".

i , for one, cannot believe that ALL BUYERS are scavengers, and will only pay us peanuts. 
it's the blooming greed of the Big 6 of micro stock that have made the buyers think like scavengers, and that we, the contributors do not deserve to be paid anything more than a few pennies for our work.

I think you give the buyers more credit than they deserve.

Buyers are no different from children. They will take whatever daddy and mommy allow them .  In fact, some, if not many, of these buyers were living on daddy's credit card through Art School, and are used to getting everything for nothing. They don't know what value is.

If the sites can sell for more, don't you think they would?

u mayb just be right . re. the mentality of the generation.  but, not all buyers belong of that generation of "mooches". many are of the generation that are used to traditional stock photos,
and of an era where a photographer is paid well.

the buyers have been weaned to get as much for next to nothing.
look at the ads on the main page of 4 out of 5 of every micro stock site.
what dya see as headlines?
u don't see , "we charge more because our images are the best!"
you only see, "now you can get even more for less!"

every blooming site is competing with the other to drop the sub prices to lower than the next guy.
until the agenda of the project is not "better commission for our contributors" but "we hear what our buyers are saying ".

there are enough wannabees to replace anyone who suddenly wakes up to think that getting a few pennies for their images is ridiculous . the sites know that, and the world is very full of the next horde of wannabees with cheaper DSLRs.   even if the whole of North Am quits on micro, the whole of China can replace them 10 folds, and the sites will not even blink or miss any one of you who quits
and pull out your portfolio.

Old MacDonald had a farm....

I don't know about trademark issues and lawyers.  I just see the strategy.  How could you get more attention than going right at the big guy?  Go for it, John.  Win or ... GO DOWN IN A BLAZE OF GLORY.   

eee aye ee aye oh

Amen WP !

JOHN GRIFFIN a.k.a. Terminator Bryan Zmijewski

This is a bad idea (in my opinion), but I wish John all the success if he thinks it is the right way to go.

John's a daydreamer, like John Lennon.
How can he expects to be a giant killer , lol.

But then again, if I remember my giant killer story, David used a slingshot to kill Goliath.

Here John Griffin, pick a pebble 

JOHN GRIFFIN a.k.a. Terminator Bryan Zmijewski

LOL
Lot of noise and no sales.
Immature guys. They should first try to give us 10% what we make with IS and then start joking. Do you remember the day when Crestock bought Corbis (or Getty) ?

The "Betta than Vetta" name makes the site sound unproffessional, cheap and childish. I'm embarrased for you.

The "Betta than Vetta" name makes the site sound unproffessional, cheap and childish. I'm embarrased for you.

I was embarrased for him too, but didn't want to say not to break his heart  Come on John, get rid of this. These people here; are not all wrong. Good feedback for you this is!

Personally, I am not the kind of guy who will bash you whatever you do. If this was a good move I would certainly applaud it. It really is a bad move in my opinion. You can't emulate others; find a better name, and as someone mentioned, the banner does look like a kid did it.

Has anyone acutally tried to compare the two collections? Betta? No way! The supposed betta photos are no match for Vetta.