Author Topic: D-Day (Deactivation Day) on Istock - Feb 2 (Read 246577 times)

Jo Ann Snover · « **Reply #450 on:** January 24, 2013, 00:53 »

Quote from: HughStoneIan on January 24, 2013, 00:22

When you deactivate a file, and it's already been sold to Google, will Getty deactivate it from Goog, or does it stay in the realm of worldwide free forever without hope of reclamation?

Anyone who has purchased an RF license before you deactivate gets to keep what they purchased.

HughStoneIan · « **Reply #451 on:** January 24, 2013, 01:38 »

Quote from: elvinstar on January 23, 2013, 22:34

Quote from: JPSDK on January 23, 2013, 21:36
I sometimes like to turn things upside down.

Now what if, we instead of clinging to our files, gave them away for free.
Since they are being given away anyway.
That would take the breath out of those pirating agencies.

Like shooting back with their own ammunition.

So I hereby declare, that if I ever find one of my files in these giveaway shows. Ill give it away from my homepage, in the original size and resolution.

What about that?

As misguided as it may seem to some, I like your line of thinking!

Or just offer your entire port to Google for $60 per picture.

MichaelJayFoto · « **Reply #452 on:** January 24, 2013, 01:49 »

Quote from: Jonathan Ross on January 23, 2013, 21:20

I was also speaking to another person that said " to survive today you must deversify outside of your own business " and I completely agree with his statement.

Interestingly enough this is exactly what I think made iStock successful: Yes, it certainly did take away some business from traditional image buyers but it was mainly growing because it found a way to make imagery available to millions of people who could or would not afford three digits for an image they wanted to use in a local brochure or on their website. They brought image licensing outside of the traditional business into an SMB or even consumer market. Just like Apple is making a fortune by selling 99 cent songs. The potential consumer market for imagery certainly isn't as big as the market for music but it definitely adds up to a huge amount.

The reason I am disappointed with iStock - or actually Getty because things went down only since they decided to become more involved in decisions made at iStock after letting it successfully run almost independent for four or five years - is that Getty still does not understand this part of the market. It knows the customers it used to deal with for a decade or two with personal relationships between a sales person and an image editor or an art buyer.

When giving out images for almost free to Google Drive, it did not just make a big single sale for themselves which I believe was celebrated internally, it also gave away images for free to the people iStock had proved are willing to pay a dollar or two for each of these uses. It did not understand that 400 million users of which maybe 10% would be willing to buy a few images per year spending $10 or $20 would add up to a market that is actually bigger than all ad agencies combined.

I think this is one of the biggest frustrations for people coming from microstock that none of the macro people will ever understand because their lack of vision that there could be a huge market out there if they for once were able to think outside their tiny box.

Anyka · « **Reply #453 on:** January 24, 2013, 02:21 »

Quote from: JPSDK on January 23, 2013, 22:59

Google Drive want those files inside of Google Drive, but what if we threatened to publish them outside of Google Drive unless they made a deal with the content owners.
Same with istock, they have played fancy games with our content, the market value of their trades could easily be hollowed out.

Copyright means the right to copy and distribute. When we have produced an image it is only us and those we allow, who can distribute our files.

There is already a list of the involved files, it would be easy enough to upload them to a base somewhere.

Not a bad idea at all. Of course we would NOT download them from Google Drive and upload them elsewhere, as that would mean :
- that we used Google Drive stuff outside Google Drive, which is against the invisible Google license.
- that we are uploading limited size stuff (1900x1200?), while we have bigger once on our hard drives.

If we launched a website where we could upload ONLY the Google Drive images, in an even higher resolution, we would make Getty/Google look like fools ...

ClaridgeJ · « **Reply #454 on:** January 24, 2013, 03:19 »

Quote from: cclapper on January 23, 2013, 17:26

And again with the attitude that "microstockers took away trad photographers' livelihood when istock came about, it's only right that getty now takes your images from you." Forget that the market demanded the Micro model. It wasnt a spite-against-getty thing...it was to fulfill a big gap, and that market still remains.

And i am convinced that this attitude is exactly the party line being passed along to getty club members (on top of gettys need to steal images to make a fast buck). You bet i would love to see istockgetty go down. But even more important, i want to see every contributor protecting their ability to put food on the table for their families in the near future.

Oh come on. Now I think youre being a bit unfair. How many times havent we all, at least the old hands here agreed on that, yes, ofcourse micro did kill off much of the trads, etc. I think you have to be completely blind NOT to understand that.

Now, the shoe is on the other foot and its retaliation time, taking it all back time, etc and now most here are peeing themselves.

Its called " reap what you sow" the law of justice and fairness. Besides, isnt it obvious?

sharpshot · « **Reply #455 on:** January 24, 2013, 03:24 »

Quote from: PaulieWalnuts on January 23, 2013, 23:28

I can't read this entire thread but has anyone considered the fact that now the Feb 2 deletion extravaganza has been announced that they have plenty of time to change their policy on deletions and also work on disabling deletion functionality? Keep in mind that GI.com doesn't allow deletions. It's likely only a matter for time before this trickles down to IS especially with the recent events.

That's why I removed all my highest earning images. I'll remove another 500 on D-Day and leave them the low selling stuff that isn't making me any money. Don't think I'll close my account, as there's always the slim chance that they might change strategy one day or be bought by SS

ffNixx · « **Reply #456 on:** January 24, 2013, 04:47 »

Quote from: Jonathan Ross on January 23, 2013, 15:37

I have spoken directly with Blend about our images that were used. They were from our Legacy collection images that have been with us from the start and are no longer making sales. For our company to sell 62 images that were no longer selling from our 100,000+ collection is a good gesture and a strong building block in our future relations with the biggest reseller of imagery in the world.

Are you saying that Blend agreed to the placement of the 62 images in the Google deal? Are the terms of the agreement known to you?

Microbius · « **Reply #457 on:** January 24, 2013, 05:41 »

Quote from: Jonathan Ross on January 23, 2013, 15:37

.....I see so many different reasons on this post for why people are pulling their images from Istock but the one I see the most is " they aren't making me the money I used to " That unfortunately is what happens when there are more photographers then their are buyers, it is sad but true......

Hi Jonathan, I have to reply to this part of your post, because that is most certainly NOT the main concern for most independent contributors to IStock with the current Google fiasco, and I'd hate for you to come away with that idea.

Even with IStock's declining market share, they are still among the top earning micro sites for most people that contribute there, all things being equal no one is going to stop contributing to them because of the fall in income.

The issues are to do with their treatment of their contributors. Most especially in the case of the Google deal, their willingness to wipe out the value of their contributor's work, thus jeopardizing their income across all sites. The nature of the deal clearly goes outside of the reasonable expectations of anyone agreeing to their terms, and shows at least a disregard for our work and I would also say contempt for us.

These are the issues, I am not sure where you came away with the idea that this is was simply griping about an income drop, I for one am continuing to see an increase in income across all the major sites including IStock (though their percentage of my total is sliding), and am nonetheless in the position where I need to consider dropping them to preserve my livelihood.

Microbius · « **Reply #458 on:** January 24, 2013, 07:19 »

Quote from: ClaridgeJ on January 24, 2013, 03:19

....Now, the shoe is on the other foot and its retaliation time, taking it all back time, etc and now most here are peeing themselves.

Its called " reap what you sow" the law of justice and fairness. Besides, isnt it obvious?

Actually this more to do with agencies populated largely by the dinosaurs from the old era trying to make the same old deals without understanding the new issues involved.

Take a look at some of the statements we have received from agencies involved.

To paraphrase "There is nothing unusual about the deal, same as lots of other (historic) deals where someone wants a few photos to show off their software, the price is pretty standard for that"

Without any understanding that actually, giving the images to Google means they are then distributed to millions of users who don't have a clue about licence terms. Which in turn makes the images worthless and unsaleable.

It is pretty much the opposite of what happened when micro came about. Micro was a new model the trad agencies struggled (and still struggle) to understand.

This is a deal made under the old model by the people who still haven't grasped the last innovation (Micro), let alone come up with a new retaliatory model.

cathyslife · « **Reply #459 on:** January 24, 2013, 07:40 »

Quote from: ClaridgeJ on January 24, 2013, 03:19

Quote from: cclapper on January 23, 2013, 17:26
And again with the attitude that "microstockers took away trad photographers' livelihood when istock came about, it's only right that getty now takes your images from you." Forget that the market demanded the Micro model. It wasnt a spite-against-getty thing...it was to fulfill a big gap, and that market still remains.

And i am convinced that this attitude is exactly the party line being passed along to getty club members (on top of gettys need to steal images to make a fast buck). You bet i would love to see istockgetty go down. But even more important, i want to see every contributor protecting their ability to put food on the table for their families in the near future.

Oh come on. Now I think youre being a bit unfair. How many times havent we all, at least the old hands here agreed on that, yes, ofcourse micro did kill off much of the trads, etc. I think you have to be completely blind NOT to understand that.

Now, the shoe is on the other foot and its retaliation time, taking it all back time, etc and now most here are peeing themselves.

Its called " reap what you sow" the law of justice and fairness. Besides, isnt it obvious?

Thank you for proving my point about the attitude.

rene · « **Reply #460 on:** January 24, 2013, 07:42 »

Quote from: Jonathan Ross on January 23, 2013, 15:37

Unfortunately I don't think you pulling your content from Istock is going to hurt anyone but yourselves but once again I respect everyone's right to do as they choose and those that do pull their entire collection I applaud.

Jonathan, my relation with my models, professionals and "free" (family, neighbors, friends...) is based on trust. It is very important for me. This was one of the reason to become exclusive at iStock - control of images with people. I knew that there was a risk and I clearly explained this to my models before signing releases. But this risk was limited. Now the risk is huge. I don't what to see people who trusted my suffering because two morons signed a contract they shouldn't. No choice, these images have to be removed before it is too late.

cobalt · « **Reply #461 on:** January 24, 2013, 08:10 »

I´ll second that. Jonathan, I don´t know how the models you work with think about the internet but here in Germany people are extremly concerned with internet abuse. So the models that work with me, do this, because I explained to them that the images would be sold via the best known agency on the globe to registered commercial buyers. This severley limits the risk of abuse (in the minds of the models´and their families), because your favorite "paedophile next door" will probably prefer the free images they have access to on flickr or open facebook profiles.

But putting the images into the hands of 425 MILLION people or at least 1/4 of the worlds internet population strongly increases the risk of having the images used in sensitive use, abusive etc...context.

Once the file has been "set free on the internet" the genie is out of the bottle. You can´t get the file back. Ever.

I have already deactivated images with two teenagers. I want to work with them and their families again in the future and I have to show that I am proactively doing what I can when i see a problem coming.

A deal like this has never been done before. It doesn´t make economic sense, like Michael said, if even 5% of those 425 Million could have been convinced to buy stock images it would have been a lot of money and also I cannot allow this deal to taint my reputation.

I am also researching the alternatives, especially for all model released work. I am ready to send still life to istock, but I also deactived some shots were I know I am the only one who had them or that I cannot repeat them because i no longer have access to the location/objects situation whatever.

I will leave everything that is truly generic to limit my risk.

The biggest problem of course, like others have said, is that getty did not give us a choice what to send into this deal. You and all those at Blend obviously had the choice and it wasn´t your bestselling files that were taken.

luissantos84 · « **Reply #462 on:** January 24, 2013, 08:47 »

everybody is working on deactivating and or deleting pictures while some are still uploading, one of them is Yuri, he is meeting with GI next Monday right, what will he say? Hi guys, I am still uploading so go ahead with more google stuff, how about yahoo?

ShadySue · « **Reply #463 on:** January 24, 2013, 08:59 »

Quote from: luissantos84 on January 24, 2013, 08:47

everybody is working on deactivating and or deleting pictures while some are still uploading, one of them is Yuri, he is meeting with GI next Monday right, what will he say? Hi guys, I am still uploading so go ahead with more google stuff, how about yahoo?

Several of the BDs are still uploading, including some whose images were put into the Google deal.

BaldricksTrousers · « **Reply #464 on:** January 24, 2013, 09:44 »

Quote from: ShadySue on January 24, 2013, 08:59

Quote from: luissantos84 on January 24, 2013, 08:47
everybody is working on deactivating and or deleting pictures while some are still uploading, one of them is Yuri, he is meeting with GI next Monday right, what will he say? Hi guys, I am still uploading so go ahead with more google stuff, how about yahoo?
I've noticed that several of the BDs are still uploading.

Hardly surprising. They're mostly wearing solid-gold handcuffs that prevent them doing anything without suffering a catastrophic fall in their income.

Sean Locke Photography · « **Reply #465 on:** January 24, 2013, 09:49 »

Quote from: ShadySue on January 24, 2013, 08:59

Quote from: luissantos84 on January 24, 2013, 08:47
everybody is working on deactivating and or deleting pictures while some are still uploading, one of them is Yuri, he is meeting with GI next Monday right, what will he say? Hi guys, I am still uploading so go ahead with more google stuff, how about yahoo?
Several of the BDs are still uploading, including some whose images were put into the Google deal.

I've stop uploading, fyi. Lol at Luis.

ShadySue · « **Reply #466 on:** January 24, 2013, 09:51 »

Quote from: BaldricksTrousers on January 24, 2013, 09:44

Quote from: ShadySue on January 24, 2013, 08:59
Quote from: luissantos84 on January 24, 2013, 08:47
everybody is working on deactivating and or deleting pictures while some are still uploading, one of them is Yuri, he is meeting with GI next Monday right, what will he say? Hi guys, I am still uploading so go ahead with more google stuff, how about yahoo?
I've noticed that several of the BDs are still uploading.
Hardly surprising. They're mostly wearing solid-gold handcuffs that prevent them doing anything without suffering a catastrophic fall in their income.

You might think at least they'd be concerned enough to stop uploading model released images until there's some sort of satisfactory resolution, if one can be found.
Though I do remember reading at least one contributor (diamond) who says his models sign his own release specifying 'any use' without exception, which means, in his opinion, that there could never be any comeback, no matter how the images were used. Maybe in his country, that's true. Contracts are nothing like rock solid here.

ShadySue · « **Reply #467 on:** January 24, 2013, 09:57 »

Quote from: luissantos84 on January 24, 2013, 08:47

everybody is working on deactivating and or deleting pictures

Clearly, not 'everybody'.

sharpshot · « **Reply #468 on:** January 24, 2013, 09:58 »

Quote from: BaldricksTrousers on January 24, 2013, 09:44

Quote from: ShadySue on January 24, 2013, 08:59
Quote from: luissantos84 on January 24, 2013, 08:47
everybody is working on deactivating and or deleting pictures while some are still uploading, one of them is Yuri, he is meeting with GI next Monday right, what will he say? Hi guys, I am still uploading so go ahead with more google stuff, how about yahoo?
I've noticed that several of the BDs are still uploading.
Hardly surprising. They're mostly wearing solid-gold handcuffs that prevent them doing anything without suffering a catastrophic fall in their income.

I think I could scrape by on the money Yuri makes from the sites other than Getty/istock

I'm determined not to think everyone else is still using them, so what's the point in me deactivating images? I did that after istock cut commissions and I've been unhappy about it ever since. This time they're only going to change my mind with some big compromises and as they don't do that, I'll be taking part in D-Day.

BaldricksTrousers · « **Reply #469 on:** January 24, 2013, 10:33 »

Quote from: sharpshot on January 24, 2013, 09:58

Quote from: BaldricksTrousers on January 24, 2013, 09:44
Quote from: ShadySue on January 24, 2013, 08:59
Quote from: luissantos84 on January 24, 2013, 08:47
everybody is working on deactivating and or deleting pictures while some are still uploading, one of them is Yuri, he is meeting with GI next Monday right, what will he say? Hi guys, I am still uploading so go ahead with more google stuff, how about yahoo?
I've noticed that several of the BDs are still uploading.
Hardly surprising. They're mostly wearing solid-gold handcuffs that prevent them doing anything without suffering a catastrophic fall in their income.
I think I could scrape by on the money Yuri makes from the sites other than Getty/istock

Yeah, the thing is that the independent black diamonds are the exception rather than the rule. If you know that come what may you won't deactivate your portfolio or hand in your crown and your future is entirely in Getty's hands, then it's valid to ask whether you should rock the boat or do anything to depart from your usual business activities. I'm not passing any judgement, I'm just saying I can understand why they might carry on regardless.

Jo Ann Snover · « **Reply #470 on:** January 24, 2013, 10:59 »

Quote from: luissantos84 on January 24, 2013, 08:47

everybody is working on deactivating and or deleting pictures while some are still uploading, one of them is Yuri, he is meeting with GI next Monday right, what will he say? Hi guys, I am still uploading so go ahead with more google stuff, how about yahoo?

Yuri will take care of Yuri. He's not about community or the good of the industry as far as I can tell. He's entitled to run his business as he sees fit, but IMO no one else should think of him as in any way coming to the rescue of other people whose tit is caught in the wringer

luissantos84 · « **Reply #471 on:** January 24, 2013, 11:01 »

Quote from: BaldricksTrousers on January 24, 2013, 10:33

Quote from: sharpshot on January 24, 2013, 09:58
Quote from: BaldricksTrousers on January 24, 2013, 09:44
Quote from: ShadySue on January 24, 2013, 08:59
Quote from: luissantos84 on January 24, 2013, 08:47
everybody is working on deactivating and or deleting pictures while some are still uploading, one of them is Yuri, he is meeting with GI next Monday right, what will he say? Hi guys, I am still uploading so go ahead with more google stuff, how about yahoo?
I've noticed that several of the BDs are still uploading.
Hardly surprising. They're mostly wearing solid-gold handcuffs that prevent them doing anything without suffering a catastrophic fall in their income.
I think I could scrape by on the money Yuri makes from the sites other than Getty/istock

Yeah, the thing is that the independent black diamonds are the exception rather than the rule. If you know that come what may you won't deactivate your portfolio or hand in your crown and your future is entirely in Getty's hands, then it's valid to ask whether you should rock the boat or do anything to depart from your usual business activities. I'm not passing any judgement, I'm just saying I can understand why they might carry on regardless.

the minimum that every contributor should do is stop uploading (new, old, top, low, bronze, black diamond, whatever), actually I see it as a very bad taste joke not only because many of us are doing tons of efforts in this forum, writing blog posts and spreading the word while the guys with pockets full of millions are taking advantage once more, again we are talking about Yuri, the guy that only shows up here to show off and do everything to distract us and then leave, for me the all talk I am with the community is BS

Blammo · « **Reply #472 on:** January 24, 2013, 11:18 »

Apparently Yuri is moving his entire business to Cape Town in South Africa.

http://translate.googleusercontent.com/translate_c?depth=1&ei=u14BUbqUBIWHtAbanoGoBw&hl=en&prev=/search%3Fq%3Dhttp://www.pressefotografforbundet.dk/index.php%253Fid%253D15277%26hl%3Den%26tbo%3Dd%26biw%3D1084%26bih%3D647&rurl=translate.google.dk&sl=da&twu=1&u=http://www.pressefotografforbundet.dk/index.php%3Fid%3D15277&usg=ALkJrhgp4NTRTHT8XtM8brapOmU2x23zEQ

Jo Ann Snover · « **Reply #473 on:** January 24, 2013, 11:20 »

Quote from: BaldricksTrousers on January 24, 2013, 10:33

Yeah, the thing is that the independent black diamonds are the exception rather than the rule. If you know that come what may you won't deactivate your portfolio or hand in your crown and your future is entirely in Getty's hands, then it's valid to ask whether you should rock the boat or do anything to depart from your usual business activities. I'm not passing any judgement, I'm just saying I can understand why they might carry on regardless.

I'm not at all surprised, but I also hope those who think things are just fine now don't wonder why no one else steps in to help them later if they find themselves ready to take some action to improve their lot.

By and large I think it's better to know where people stand - even if it's to know that they won't lift a finger to help (e.g. all the exclusives who are dependent on their iStock earnings) or are standing by and gloating as they hope this move will do in their long-time enemy, microstockers (e.g. Blend). I had thought that the usage of Getty Images work (not from iStock contributors) would be a help in increasing pressure on Getty to change what they're doing, but that's clearly not going to happen.

lisafx · « **Reply #474 on:** January 24, 2013, 11:24 »

Quote from: ClaridgeJ on January 24, 2013, 03:19

Now, the shoe is on the other foot and its retaliation time, taking it all back time, etc and now most here are peeing themselves.

But you know, this actually isn't what's going on here at all. This is not a case of microstock images being given away for free. It is GETTY images - the expensive stuff - being given away for free. This isn't the trads getting back at the micros. This is Getty slitting its own throat for short term profit.

Your glee at others misfortune has been duly noted Christian. Why don't you give it a rest. Even I have put you on ignore now, and I am usually one of your defenders. Your gloating is both uninformed and unseemly.

MicrostockGroup Sponsors

Author Topic: D-Day (Deactivation Day) on Istock - Feb 2 (Read 246577 times)

Jo Ann Snover

HughStoneIan

MichaelJayFoto

Anyka

ClaridgeJ

sharpshot

ffNixx

Microbius

Microbius

cathyslife

rene

cobalt

luissantos84

ShadySue

BaldricksTrousers

Sean Locke Photography

ShadySue

ShadySue

sharpshot

BaldricksTrousers

Jo Ann Snover

luissantos84

Blammo

Jo Ann Snover

lisafx

Related Topics

Sponsors

Microstock Poll Results

Sponsors