^ yup. but the power lies with contributors, don't opt in...enough of us don't and they can power thinkstock without our images....good luck with that

It is better for you to contact support. I did few days ago and my pictures  were removed  from Thinkstock yesterday.

I did contact support, almost 4 days ago, and my images are still up. Like you, others are reporting that they are coming down, but so far mine are still there.

Quote from: helix7 on February 05, 2010, 00:37

Not sure if this is covered already in this thread, but does anyone know how we are supposed to get new images into ThinkStock if we can't upload via StockXpert?

IStockPhoto and then opt in to the Partner Program

Seems ridiculous that you'd have to have one ThinkStock portfolio via StockXpert and another ThinkStock portfolio of all images going forward on istock.

I'm just going to delete my StockXpert portfolio next week and leave it at that for now. Hopefully some day istock makes it worthwhile to get involved with ThinkStock, but until then I'm just going to stay away from this one.

Quote from: alias on February 06, 2010, 17:21

But subs are inevitable.

Don't know why you'd think this.

Nor do I, there is nothing inevitable here, we are in charge.  In the highly unlikely event of the microstock industry going to cheap subs only, I would get out of it.  There is always the option for us to sell direct to the buyers.  I think it is more likely that someone will come up with a new way of selling digital files, so we wont have to rely on sites that take a large chunk of our commissions.  Perhaps the idea that we upload once to our own site and people get a small commission for selling our images will be the way forward?  It is a big market now and we are using a selling system that is looking old, I am sure someone will be working on something better.

Subscription makes sense for websites [with frequently updated content]. If the prices work then the volume can be huge. Image prices have to be low enough to make sense relative to the other costs associated with making an online page and in terms of the lower ad revenues generated vs print. Web is going to be the main place where images get used. Print being in massive decline.

No it doesn't.  Newspapers have always had frequently updated content.  Why do suddenly websites that need frequently updated content get it for nearly free?  Costs associated with making an online page are negligible.  Why should Yahoo, serving pages to millions, get their content for $.30?

Newspapers have always had frequently updated content.  Why do suddenly websites that need frequently updated content get it for nearly free?  Costs associated with making an online page are negligible.  Why should Yahoo, serving pages to millions, get their content for $.30?

Costs of producing online content are not negligible. Publishers still have to employ writers and editors. But advertising revenues are significantly less.

Photographers with large portfolios of high quality relatively generic lifestyle images have a fantastic opportunity to make money selling more images for less. If the prices are low enough volumes will be higher.

Didn't the industry more or less have this same volume vs price argument as microstock emerged ? How is this any different ?

I don't know how everyone can take it so lightly that their photos are appearing on Thinkstock when you didn't opt-in.  Why wouldn't you send a cease and desist or a take down notice?  They are in clear violation of your copyright and breaking the law.

Costs of producing online content are not negligible. Publishers still have to employ writers and editors. But advertising revenues are significantly less.

Photographers with large portfolios of high quality relatively generic lifestyle images have a fantastic opportunity to make money selling more images for less. If the prices are low enough volumes will be higher.

Didn't the industry more or less have this same volume vs price argument as microstock emerged ? How is this any different ?

Costs of producing image content are not negligable.  If they have to employ writers and editors, there's no reason images have to be essentially free.

So what, we have to cycle up and and down every couple years?  That makes no sense.  How is it different?  We were already there at cheap to free.  We've worked our way up from there.

...
I tried taking a screen cap of a DVD playing in Nero once and it always failed, I just got a blank box when pasting into Photoshop.
...

There are many freeware/shareware/software apps that can screen capture from a DVD - in Windows you can even do it without additional software by simply turning off the Hardware Acceleration on your video card.

Quote from: alias on February 07, 2010, 09:35

Subscription makes sense for websites [with frequently updated content]. If the prices work then the volume can be huge. Image prices have to be low enough to make sense relative to the other costs associated with making an online page and in terms of the lower ad revenues generated vs print. Web is going to be the main place where images get used. Print being in massive decline.

No it doesn't.  Newspapers have always had frequently updated content.  Why do suddenly websites that need frequently updated content get it for nearly free?  Costs associated with making an online page are negligible.  Why should Yahoo, serving pages to millions, get their content for $.30?

 Exactley, I had one of my images used on yahoo's homepage one time and everyone who saw it asked how much they paid for it and when I told them, they laughed.. It felt kind of degrading, because I knew it was too cheap.. But I made the choice to sell at those price points, although it doesn't have to be like that, we do have a choice but it usually means sacrificing and risking some profits temporarily, so most people are understandably reluctant..

...
In the mid-long term, suscription cheapo sites will lose a great numer of good potographers.

That may very well be, but if there are enough buyers who are content with 'good enough' images, not having the 'best' images won't stop these agencies from succeeding. Like I said earlier, boycotting agencies that don't surpass a minimum revenue-per-download is a strategy with a track record of failing - the only thing you will succeed in doing is removing yourself from a growing marketplace.

History shows that you - those vehemently opposed to subscriptions - need a better plan than the one you've got. Assuming subscription agencies are here to stay, you need to change your way of thinking. Instead of ignoring sites that (you think) don't pay enough for your imagery, wouldn't it be better to produce stuff specifically intended for them? As an iStock exclusive, I have the option of producing images that I can easily dedicate to the various collections: main, Vetta, ThinkStock, and the soon-to-be Exclusive+. And I intend to do just that. On the flip side of the coin, I also have the opportunity to make imagery for Getty - but I have chosen not to do so. Why? Because that marketplace is in (sharp) decline, and I'd rather invest my time in a growing market.

What are those evolutionary buzzwords again - adapt or perish?

So, how many times are you going to vote to reduce your royalties?  Now, it's $.30 or so flat.  Until someone offers $.10 per, because someone will fill it up with useful stuff.  The next comes in at $.02.  Because the volume is huge!  Now you've taken what we've worked hard to improve over the last 8 years and just dumped it in the trash.

Again, this is not the macro-micro discussion.  This is actually your peers trying to actively work more for less.

Quote from: sjlocke on February 07, 2010, 14:29

...
Again, this is not the macro-micro discussion.  This is actually your peers trying to actively work more for less.

Yes, but it's a similar argument that will have similar results.

If there's a marketplace for cheaper imagery - and there definitely is - you ignore it at your own financial loss. So go ahead, sjlocke, continue making fancy images for a so-so return at Getty. I'll practice techniques to whip off a lot of simple low-res stuff for the ultra-cheap subscription market - I'm already pretty good at it thanks to Shutterstock. Let's rejoin the discussion in a year to see how we fared.

Wouldn't you be better off being independent if the future is low cost subs?