Author Topic: D-Day (Deactivation Day) on Istock - Feb 2 (Read 246566 times)

lisafx · « **Reply #600 on:** January 25, 2013, 18:16 »

Quote from: jsnover on January 25, 2013, 16:37

The only emotional component of this decision for me is that for the moment I'm staying at iStock because I hate to leave the site I started with - sort of the reverse of the nonsense spouted by the OP in this thread.

Wow. That thread is truly unbelievable. I honestly cannot fathom why there would be any exclusives left who still think that Getty has any intention of protecting their interests. What does Getty have to do for these people to realize something's happening...literally F&*_k them, rather than just figuratively?

ShadySue · « **Reply #601 on:** January 25, 2013, 18:21 »

Quote from: lisafx on January 25, 2013, 18:16

Quote from: jsnover on January 25, 2013, 16:37
The only emotional component of this decision for me is that for the moment I'm staying at iStock because I hate to leave the site I started with - sort of the reverse of the nonsense spouted by the OP in this thread.

Wow. That thread is truly unbelievable. I honestly cannot fathom why there would be any exclusives left who still think that Getty has any intention of protecting their interests. What does Getty have to do for these people to realize something's happening...literally F&*_k them, rather than just figuratively?

Yeah, but look who wrote the OP.

jfairone · « **Reply #602 on:** January 25, 2013, 18:25 »

Quote from: ShadySue on January 25, 2013, 08:53

Quote from: ClaridgeJ on January 25, 2013, 08:49
Quote from: leaf on January 25, 2013, 06:14
Quote from: ClaridgeJ on January 25, 2013, 06:04
...
Besides deactivation isnt strong enough, it can be reactivated. Deletion would be much worse but ofcourse they are not prepared to go down that road. Wonder why?
Me? Im uploading as if nothing is happening.

You keep harping on this delete thing. The reason nobody is saying they are deleting their images is because iStock doesn't have a delete option. There is only a deactivate option.

Well Tyler I like harping but at IS, if you want to reactivate, they all have to pass new QC ( new rules I think) and many older files wont make it.

I've read it that files over 18 months old must be reinspected, but I don't think we've had any official confirmation of that.
So it could well be that for many older files, deactivation would be an effective deletion.

I did a test and tried to reactivate a 14 month old file. It's locked. Might need to try something newer and determine what the cutoff is, but it is NOT 18 months. I've deactivated some of my best selling older files (daily sellers). I hope I don't regret it because it's a done deal!

flotsom · « **Reply #603 on:** January 25, 2013, 18:26 »

Quote from: alexmk on January 25, 2013, 16:37

I just said something that Lobo did't like and the result is:

The administration team at iStockphoto has revoked your forum privileges. Comments from iStockphoto Administrators :
Your account is not yet eligible for forum participation, but feel free to browse our forums until your posting privileges are activated.
Good grief. Have a nice break.

Cheers,

The club's getting bigger by the minute I think, did you get a sarcastic email from him too?

JPSDK · « **Reply #604 on:** January 25, 2013, 18:27 »

There is a lot of delution on istock.
its like: "Thank you for letting us sell at 15%"
"We appreaciate that you tell us."
"Thank you for moderating me so Im not insulting anyone"

It is such a sick environment.
And all that because it actually earned us some cheap money.
That makes us still listen and wag tails.

it is sick and Im tired of it, and when this month with deactivations has passed Ill be so relieved.

lisafx · « **Reply #605 on:** January 25, 2013, 18:34 »

Quote from: ShadySue on January 25, 2013, 18:21

Quote from: lisafx on January 25, 2013, 18:16
Wow. That thread is truly unbelievable. I honestly cannot fathom why there would be any exclusives left who still think that Getty has any intention of protecting their interests. What does Getty have to do for these people to realize something's happening...literally F&*_k them, rather than just figuratively?
Yeah, but look who wrote the OP.

Oh yeah, exactly. But I knew that guy was a lackey for Getty. What surprises me is some of the others that are agreeing.

lisafx · « **Reply #606 on:** January 25, 2013, 18:36 »

Quote from: jfairone on January 25, 2013, 18:25

I did a test and tried to reactivate a 14 month old file. It's locked. Might need to try something newer and determine what the cutoff is, but it is NOT 18 months. I've deactivated some of my best selling older files (daily sellers). I hope I don't regret it because it's a done deal!

JMO, but I don't plan on reactivating anything I delete. If you don't want a file deleted, you might think twice about deactivating it. It seems Lobo has already made clear that people deactivating as part of D-Day may not have an easy time reactivating the files.

ShadySue · « **Reply #607 on:** January 25, 2013, 18:41 »

I didn't know it was possible for 'us' to reactivate an image. I thought we had to contact CR.

Jonathan Ross · « **Reply #608 on:** January 25, 2013, 18:48 »

Hi CC,

Thanks for the feedback my biggest issue here is the Trolling. If you don't have to share who you are then you can say or make up stories about your work all day long and non of us are the wiser, it could all be B.S. for all we know. Someone else posted here that one of their images was taken from Blend without their approval I offered to help and try and solve the issue but this person was also a Troll and did not reply. I cannot take their word they are telling the truth because once again they are hiding off line.
I agree CC this deal is a concern for people in the Micro market I have completely agreed with that position in my earlier postings. It is a bad deal if your number 1 images are being put into this collection without your notice. Many Micro sales are for " in house use " if the buyer doesn't have to buy your images from Istock for in house use then you are definitly losing money.
I have never said this was good for Micro but please understand the dealings with image placement, acceptance rates, options for future development are all part of doing business with Getty for Blend and soon for Spaces as well. If Blend gave up 62 images and by doing so moved their position up the ranks on the pages at Getty then it is a big win for Blend and their photographers as we will see much higher returns with better image placement.
This is just a scenario but to say that negotiating with the biggest reseller to gain more ground for Blend is a bad move then I am sorry you have not played this game from the other side of the net. I feel your pain please everyone realize this that is why I have been looking into it and posting what I can find out just trying to help with the information I can share but some people still like to shoot the messenger

Cheers,
Jonathan

cathyslife · « **Reply #609 on:** January 25, 2013, 18:56 »

Quote from: lisafx on January 25, 2013, 18:34

Quote from: ShadySue on January 25, 2013, 18:21
Quote from: lisafx on January 25, 2013, 18:16
Wow. That thread is truly unbelievable. I honestly cannot fathom why there would be any exclusives left who still think that Getty has any intention of protecting their interests. What does Getty have to do for these people to realize something's happening...literally F&*_k them, rather than just figuratively?
Yeah, but look who wrote the OP.

Oh yeah, exactly. But I knew that guy was a lackey for Getty. What surprises me is some of the others that are agreeing.

It cracks me up at the number of people who keep saying these decisions are all based on emotions, as though none of you (us) can possibly make rational business decisions and we're all just a bunch of nancy girls crying hysterically and running around like the sky is falling. Personally, I think those people are the ones who are most nervous or have the most to lose. Or maybe to admit there is really a problem means they will have to admit they themselves have been blind all this time.

JPSDK · « **Reply #610 on:** January 25, 2013, 18:59 »

Quote from: Jonathan Ross on January 25, 2013, 18:48

Hi CC,

Thanks for the feedback my biggest issue here is the Trolling. If you don't have to share who you are then you can say or make up stories about your work all day long and non of us are the wiser, it could all be B.S. for all we know. Someone else posted here that one of their images was taken from Blend without their approval I offered to help and try and solve the issue but this person was also a Troll and did not reply. I cannot take their word they are telling the truth because once again they are hiding off line.
I agree CC this deal is a concern for people in the Micro market I have completely agreed with that position in my earlier postings. It is a bad deal if your number 1 images are being put into this collection without your notice. Many Micro sales are for " in house use " if the buyer doesn't have to buy your images from Istock for in house use then you are definitly losing money.
I have never said this was good for Micro but please understand the dealings with image placement, acceptance rates, options for future development are all part of doing business with Getty for Blend and soon for Spaces as well. If Blend gave up 62 images and by doing so moved their position up the ranks on the pages at Getty then it is a big win for Blend and their photographers as we will see much higher returns with better image placement.
This is just a scenario but to say that negotiating with the biggest reseller to gain more ground for Blend is a bad move then I am sorry you have not played this game from the other side of the net. I feel your pain please everyone realize this that is why I have been looking into it and posting what I can find out just trying to help with the information I can share but some people still like to shoot the messenger

Cheers,
Jonathan

I do not care if its good for Blend or not. You are not allowed to redistribute peoples pictures without asking them.

Jonathan Ross · « **Reply #611 on:** January 25, 2013, 19:00 »

Hi JPSDK,

This is the last one for me because this is turning into just repeating what has already been gone over. We did not take images from image providers at Blend that were not aware of the issue, we did not handle it like Istock did we gave them a measly 62 images on a one time deal. I cannot share what our plans are with Getty that is confidential but we did not just take images from our photographers and add them to this group of 62 without some form of reciprocation that's business. Please do not confuse the Istock deal with what happened elsewhere without some form of information to support your statement. If you had an image taken from the Blend site without your knowledge please contact me so we can make it right for you.

Thanks,
Jonathan

Snufkin · « **Reply #612 on:** January 25, 2013, 19:01 »

Quote from: Jonathan Ross on January 25, 2013, 17:57

Thanks Snufkin,

I find your post a bit disrespectful. I am here trying to help I do not have to make excuses for my agency or for Blend they are allowed to conduct business the way they and I see fit. I am here trying to help share some information on what I know is taking place with our agency and Getty Images to hopefully add some insight for all photographers.
If you are mad at Getty then please direct your frustration at them if you don't agree with what I said a simple " I do not agree " works better than calling a post someone spent the time to offer up as "nonsense" or making up silly names about our agency " Bend " when I am trying to share info.
Posting this information does not benefit me or my agencies in any way it is shared to try to help, I thought we were trying to help each other out here with information on the topic?

Jonathan

Hello Jonathan,

I didn’t mean to be disrespectful in any way. As I said I think you are a very intelligent person and as a photographer you are obviously a true master in your niche.
I also appreciate that you take your time to share your knowledge and experience with us.
However, participation in open Internet forums means that some of the statements you make may be criticized. I explained why I thought that your statement about strengthening your position was flawed.

Was the language a bit harsh? I mean c’mon, hundreds of photographers have been simply scammed, you cannot expect the same kind of conversation as in an English gentlemen’s club at tea.
Although personally I was not affected by this, I think this deal is horrible news for all photographers and if this is allowed to continue it could be a disaster for all of us including you.
It seems to me that you are a very agreeable person who wants to get along with everybody so it must be really great to have you as a colleague. However, I think it is a great pity and very shortsighted that you chose to accept this very bad deal.

Cheers

cobalt · « **Reply #613 on:** January 25, 2013, 19:01 »

Jonathan,

we all appreciate you coming in here and that you share so many of your insights.

The way you describe it sounds liek a really good deal for Blend, I agree.

The sad thing is, that many istock contributors would have been happy to offer "free files" to getty for projects, as long as we have the choice which files we offer. I currently have the "free video of the month" - and I am thrilled!! But I suggested the file and so I could decide what I think will work for me and also work for the customers who want to download it.

I sincerly hope that getty/istock learn from the public drama they created and come with a clear opt out or "opt in " for promotional deals. because even with a 6 dollar license fee - it is just a promotional deal.

The current crisis also highlights the dangers of full artist exclusivity, especially becuase so many istockers do stock as a full time job.

You keep saying you prefer exclusive images - I think it would be the best solution. Getty offers an image exclusive contract - I hope istock will do the same. At this point in the game, istock doesn´t need us to send them every single file we produce. They just want the best ones. they could even become more picky if they wanted to.

We could then send high volume generic files to the volume agencies and the more specialized, lifestyle content (low sales volume but high price worthy) to istock and getty.

A crisis is always a fantastic opportunity!

We need a new direction.

ShadySue · « **Reply #614 on:** January 25, 2013, 19:14 »

Quote from: Jonathan Ross on January 25, 2013, 18:48

If Blend gave up 62 images and by doing so moved their position up the ranks on the pages at Getty then it is a big win for Blend and their photographers as we will see much higher returns with better image placement.

So, was it carrot or stick?
Bribery or blackmail?

Jonathan Ross · « **Reply #615 on:** January 25, 2013, 19:18 »

Thanks for the reply Snufkin,

I have no issue with you disagreeing but I do believe in being a gentleman with people that are sharing information, just common courtesy. It seems most of the people that post in this manor here are also hiding their information. I have been here helping with what information I can without calling people names and have been open with my profile from the beginning. I know a lot of you say " if I share my info then the agencies are going to get mad at me and delete my stuff ".
I believe that if you share your opinion with others in a positive orderly manor then you will not have any issue with reasonable agencies. I have shared things one on one with the top folks at Getty that they didn't necessarily want to hear but we were able to have a reasonable conversation because there was no name calling and my images have never been deleted at Getty because of our interaction.
It just lowers you to a level that changes your credibility. Just my 2 cents but those that hide themselves and their identity that make up names and call peoples information nonsense just don't carry any weight with their comments and they certainly do not help us all figure out what is best to resolve the situation.
I would be happy to share with you anything I can about any inside information but when it is received with name calling then it is no longer a gentleman's conversation. One more thing I think most will agree on ( outside of MSG ) if you are going to make such statements then back them up by sharing who you are, or else what you say holds little water.

Best,
Jonathan

Jonathan Ross · « **Reply #616 on:** January 25, 2013, 19:19 »

It was business ShadySue.

Jonathan

sharpshot · « **Reply #617 on:** January 25, 2013, 19:19 »

Quote from: Jonathan Ross on January 25, 2013, 17:57

Thanks Snufkin,

I find your post a bit disrespectful. I am here trying to help I do not have to make excuses for my agency or for Blend they are allowed to conduct business the way they and I see fit. I am here trying to help share some information on what I know is taking place with our agency and Getty Images to hopefully add some insight for all photographers.
If you are mad at Getty then please direct your frustration at them if you don't agree with what I said a simple " I do not agree " works better than calling a post someone spent the time to offer up as "nonsense" or making up silly names about our agency " Bend " when I am trying to share info.
Posting this information does not benefit me or my agencies in any way it is shared to try to help, I thought we were trying to help each other out here with information on the topic?

Jonathan

Personally, I like to see you posting here and it's great to know a bit about this deal from another perspective. I also respect your decisions, even though it's not always what I want to hear. It would be great if we could all just leave Getty/istock but that's not going to happen. So we all have to make the decisions that are best for us. It's a shame you're going to get a lot of flack here but that's also inevitable. Hopefully you can ignore it and keeping giving us some information that I'm sure many of us are very grateful for.

Jonathan Ross · « **Reply #618 on:** January 25, 2013, 19:22 »

Hi Cobalt,

I agree with you especially on the image exclusive issue, it keeps the agencies honest and does not allow photographers to be put into this very situation.

Cheers,
Jonathan

Jonathan Ross · « **Reply #619 on:** January 25, 2013, 19:28 »

Hi Sharpshoot,

Actually it was posting at MSG that opened my eyes to forums that do not make their posters share their information. It has helped me to try and reply in an orderly manor when in the beginning I was just blown away and took these rude posts very personally as I had never experienced such behavior before on a site where we are all trying to achieve the same goal. If the name calling really bugged me I would have been out of here ages ago on the contrary it has helped to deal with all kinds

Cheers,
Jonathan

Poncke · « **Reply #620 on:** January 25, 2013, 19:36 »

Dirima · « **Reply #621 on:** January 25, 2013, 19:42 »

I have been following all this from the begining. Because english its not my native language, its sometimes dificult for me to understand everything. But i read all with great interest.
If you allow me, i would like to copy and paste here what i wrote in istock about my point of view. I wish my level of english would be better to take part more deeply in the conversation. This is what i think:

From the very first time i knew about all this, i deactivated my portfolio. I had only 539 images, but this was the product of much work during months working hard and with enthusiasm.. I had no doubts, for me the reason its absolutly clear. I explain why;

maybe Getty, Google, and any other company has discovered that the future is attracting users to their services giving to them free images. Its logical..People love free things.

Images, vectors, books, 3d models, maybe movies in the future...everything free for getting users for, indeed, free services. What nice, what utopic. But nothing is free in the life. We all know this. The users of those services become products their self. Its a kind of circle. And at the end only the big corporations earn money. Big amounts of money using another people work. I dont know if my level of english is enough for make me understand.

I love photography, its a passion for me, but its my job too and i do this as a bussines. Emotions apart, for me it is clear that the deal between google and getty only benefits to them. They do big business with our effort, thats easy. Are we going to allow them to drive this business into that? , who, in their right mind, would give away their images for others who will make money with them? I think this its the problem of this "new form" of business. They need the images...bait to attract the public. Am i, or any of us supossed to be so unconcern about our work to give them it?

No emotions here..only think. Last answer is from us.

I deactivated my files for protecting my work and my way of life. I would like to see a solution to the problem and reactivate my files again. Hope all this count for something in the future. For the moment this agency is quarantined for me.

greetings to all, from Spain.

noodle · « **Reply #622 on:** January 25, 2013, 19:51 »

Quote from: Dirima on January 25, 2013, 19:42

I have been following all this from the begining. Because english its not my native language, its sometimes dificult for me to understand everything. But i read all with great interest.
If you allow me, i would like to copy and paste here what i wrote in istock about my point of view. I wish my level of english would be better to take part more deeply in the conversation. This is what i think:

From the very first time i knew about all this, i deactivated my portfolio. I had only 539 images, but this was the product of much work during months working hard and with enthusiasm.. I had no doubts, for me the reason its absolutly clear. I explain why;

maybe Getty, Google, and any other company has discovered that the future is attracting users to their services giving to them free images. Its logical..People love free things.

Images, vectors, books, 3d models, maybe movies in the future...everything free for getting users for, indeed, free services. What nice, what utopic. But nothing is free in the life. We all know this. The users of those services become products their self. Its a kind of circle. And at the end only the big corporations earn money. Big amounts of money using another people work. I dont know if my level of english is enough for make me understand.

I love photography, its a passion for me, but its my job too and i do this as a bussines. Emotions apart, for me it is clear that the deal between google and getty only benefits to them. They do big business with our effort, thats easy. Are we going to allow them to drive this business into that? , who, in their right mind, would give away their images for others who will make money with them? I think this its the problem of this "new form" of business. They need the images...bait to attract the public. Am i, of any of us supossed to be so unconcern about our work to give them it?

No emotions here..only think. Last answer is from us.

I deactivated my files for protecting my work and my way of life. I would like to see a solution to the problem and reactivate my files again. Hope all this count for something in the future. For the moment this agency its in is quarantined for me.

greetings to all, from Spain.

I think you have made your point here very clearly my friend, and your reason for deactivating your files is getting to the heart and soul of this matter with G/GI.

I applaud you, and those who have/will join you.

Bravo

Mantis · « **Reply #623 on:** January 25, 2013, 19:52 »

Perhaps LOBO simply enjoys swinging his hammer.

lisafx · « **Reply #624 on:** January 25, 2013, 22:47 »

Quote from: Jonathan Ross on January 25, 2013, 19:18

Thanks for the reply Snufkin,

I have no issue with you disagreeing but I do believe in being a gentleman with people that are sharing information, just common courtesy. It seems most of the people that post in this manor here are also hiding their information. I have been here helping with what information I can without calling people names and have been open with my profile from the beginning. I know a lot of you say " if I share my info then the agencies are going to get mad at me and delete my stuff ".
I believe that if you share your opinion with others in a positive orderly manor then you will not have any issue with reasonable agencies. I have shared things one on one with the top folks at Getty that they didn't necessarily want to hear but we were able to have a reasonable conversation because there was no name calling and my images have never been deleted at Getty because of our interaction.
It just lowers you to a level that changes your credibility. Just my 2 cents but those that hide themselves and their identity that make up names and call peoples information nonsense just don't carry any weight with their comments and they certainly do not help us all figure out what is best to resolve the situation.
I would be happy to share with you anything I can about any inside information but when it is received with name calling then it is no longer a gentleman's conversation. One more thing I think most will agree on ( outside of MSG ) if you are going to make such statements then back them up by sharing who you are, or else what you say holds little water.

Best,
Jonathan

Jonathan, while I can certainly agree that you make some excellent points and have presented them like a gentleman, I think it is out of line to call people out simply for being anonymous. You haven't been around much the last couple of years here, but the issue of people's reasons for anonymity have been exhaustively explored, and there are very legitimate reasons for people to want to protect their identities from some vindictive agencies.

Personally, I found Snufkin's post very useful and informative. Evidently 32 other people agreed. AFAIK that must be some sort of record for +1's.

I also find your perspective helpful and informative. Nice to have both positions expressed so eloquently.

MicrostockGroup Sponsors

Author Topic: D-Day (Deactivation Day) on Istock - Feb 2 (Read 246566 times)

lisafx

ShadySue

jfairone

flotsom

JPSDK

lisafx

lisafx

ShadySue

Jonathan Ross

cathyslife

JPSDK

Jonathan Ross

Snufkin

cobalt

ShadySue

Jonathan Ross

Jonathan Ross

sharpshot

Jonathan Ross

Jonathan Ross

Poncke

Dirima

noodle

Mantis

lisafx

Related Topics

Sponsors

Microstock Poll Results

Sponsors