Author Topic: Getty e-mail about iStock "Contributor Facing Changes" (Read 78342 times)

stockVid · « **Reply #125 on:** July 17, 2016, 08:54 »

It's obvious by now that they think they can change the contract any way they wish and at any time.

A contract with iStock is worthless.

PaulieWalnuts · « **Reply #126 on:** July 17, 2016, 08:57 »

Quote from: stockVid on July 17, 2016, 08:54

It's obvious by now that they think they can change the contract any way they wish and at any time.

Now? I think most agency contracts have always had language in them that says they can change the terms at any time without notification or contributor approval.

stockVid · « **Reply #127 on:** July 17, 2016, 09:08 »

Quote from: PaulieWalnuts on July 17, 2016, 08:57

Quote from: stockVid on July 17, 2016, 08:54
It's obvious by now that they think they can change the contract any way they wish and at any time.

Now? I think most agency contracts have always had language in them that says they can change the terms at any time without notification or contributor approval.

I agree. But I think that over the last few years contracts have become irrelevant other than to tell you what % you will get next month. Even that is not set in stone (Revostock for example).

Pauws99 · « **Reply #128 on:** July 17, 2016, 10:20 »

Quote from: Karen on July 17, 2016, 08:26

Quote from: StanRohrer on July 16, 2016, 15:17
So these are the wonderful advancements that Yuri eluded to 1-2 years ago?
Maybe Yuri will remove his port before August 20th and will go exclusive with another agency.

Or maybe we wont remove his port and still go "exclusive" with another agency

BlueMoonPics · « **Reply #129 on:** July 17, 2016, 11:25 »

Well, I just deleted all files in my exclusive account. After almost 10 years I'm closing it down.
I just don't want to deal with Getty/iStock's bs any longer. Locking my files up and not allowing to change keyword was what did me in. I didn't upload that much compared to most others but it got to be not worth the effort any more. I'll be looking for somewhere else to post and sell my stock pictures. Anyone have any suggestions, I'm all ears.

PaulieWalnuts · « **Reply #130 on:** July 17, 2016, 12:06 »

Quote from: BlueMoonPics on July 17, 2016, 11:25

Well, I just deleted all files in my exclusive account. After almost 10 years I'm closing it down.
I just don't want to deal with Getty/iStock's bs any longer. Locking my files up and not allowing to change keyword was what did me in. I didn't upload that much compared to most others but it got to be not worth the effort any more. I'll be looking for somewhere else to post and sell my stock pictures. Anyone have any suggestions, I'm all ears.

After 9 years I'm considering closing my account. I dropped exclusivity a year ago and deactivated over half of my images. Last month I did $50 in sales. I used to earn that on a slow day or weekend day a couple years ago.

I just went back and checked some old stats. When I was new and still independent back in 2007, I had 50 files uploaded in the first few months and had $100 in sales the fourth month. Now I still have over 10x the images and make half that amount. The images are old and outdated but the trend was still the same. Royalties weren't keeping up with upload quantity.

Besides sales, lack of control of my images was one of the main reasons I dropped exclusivity. This is a another step in the wrong direction.

I have images with SS, FT, and Alamy. I don't really think any of the rest are worth the time. SS is the only one of those three where I'm making decent sales.

Karen · « **Reply #131 on:** July 17, 2016, 13:08 »

Quote from: BlueMoonPics on July 17, 2016, 11:25

Well, I just deleted all files in my exclusive account. After almost 10 years I'm closing it down.
I just don't want to deal with Getty/iStock's bs any longer. Locking my files up and not allowing to change keyword was what did me in. I didn't upload that much compared to most others but it got to be not worth the effort any more. I'll be looking for somewhere else to post and sell my stock pictures. Anyone have any suggestions, I'm all ears.

From what I can see from the last year - video is the only fast growing area in stock industry: iStock sales disappeared 3 years ago. SS is flooded with millions of photos each week. Fotolia under Adobe is allure to attract more clients to their Creative Cloud their sales are worsening.

BlueMoonPics · « **Reply #132 on:** July 17, 2016, 13:58 »

Quote from: Karen on July 17, 2016, 13:08

Quote from: BlueMoonPics on July 17, 2016, 11:25
Well, I just deleted all files in my exclusive account. After almost 10 years I'm closing it down.
I just don't want to deal with Getty/iStock's bs any longer. Locking my files up and not allowing to change keyword was what did me in. I didn't upload that much compared to most others but it got to be not worth the effort any more. I'll be looking for somewhere else to post and sell my stock pictures. Anyone have any suggestions, I'm all ears.
From what I can see from the last year - video is the only fast growing area in stock industry: iStock sales disappeared 3 years ago. SS is flooded with millions of photos each week. Fotolia under Adobe is allure to attract more clients to their Creative Cloud their sales are worsening.

I'll probably look into SS anyway and see. Video is something I'd like to get into.
I don't know much about it yet but need to research what equipment to use and software to get myself started.

andy_arden · « **Reply #133 on:** July 17, 2016, 16:00 »

any idea how to disable my 15k photos without taking me forever?

ShadySue · « **Reply #134 on:** July 17, 2016, 16:00 »

Quote from: andy_arden on July 17, 2016, 16:00

any idea how to disable my 15k photos without taking me forever?

Contact CR and ask for your account to be closed. It may take some time, but you should be out before the key date.

StanRohrer · « **Reply #135 on:** July 17, 2016, 16:41 »

This whole thing is just one more step with the integration into Getty. This step seems to be putting iS images onto the Getty servers (for "unification" as they call it). Efficiency is the corporate buzzword when combining companies. Unification is efficiency in this case. Another step is to make it a Getty collection and remove the iS web site. With the removal of descriptions, recent locking of edits and deletions, I think they want to make this just a "clip art" collection. It will be further linked to many external web sites and photo outlets. Anything with specific details are no longer of their interest in this collection.

Tryingmybest · « **Reply #136 on:** July 17, 2016, 17:01 »

Corporate gobblygoop. NONE of it makes any sense. I had to check this forum to get the truth. A big reason I quit working for others. Yeah, self-employed can be stressful. But not as stressful as working in a culture like this. I feel some pity for Getty employees.

trek · « **Reply #137 on:** July 17, 2016, 17:03 »

Quote from: StanRohrer on July 17, 2016, 16:41

This whole thing is just one more step with the integration into Getty. This step seems to be putting iS images onto the Getty servers (for "unification" as they call it). Efficiency is the corporate buzzword when combining companies. Unification is efficiency in this case. Another step is to make it a Getty collection and remove the iS web site. With the removal of descriptions, recent locking of edits and deletions, I think they want to make this just a "clip art" collection. It will be further linked to many external web sites and photo outlets. Anything with specific details are no longer of their interest in this collection.

Are all Getty contributors unable to edit their portfolios or is this a special restriction for istock contributors?

Rose Tinted Glasses · « **Reply #138 on:** July 17, 2016, 17:17 »

Quote from: trek on July 17, 2016, 17:03

Quote from: StanRohrer on July 17, 2016, 16:41
This whole thing is just one more step with the integration into Getty. This step seems to be putting iS images onto the Getty servers (for "unification" as they call it). Efficiency is the corporate buzzword when combining companies. Unification is efficiency in this case. Another step is to make it a Getty collection and remove the iS web site. With the removal of descriptions, recent locking of edits and deletions, I think they want to make this just a "clip art" collection. It will be further linked to many external web sites and photo outlets. Anything with specific details are no longer of their interest in this collection.

Are all Getty contributors unable to edit their portfolios or is this a special restriction for istock contributors? Just curious. Either way it's a deal breaker for me.

Getty has never allowed you to remove an image unless it is for the same reasons they have posted for removal from Istock. Hmmmm, come to think of it most of the macros operate the same way ever since I can remember. At least the ones I have dealt with did not allow you to remove anything on a bipolar whim which seems to be common place in the microstock world.

Jo Ann Snover · « **Reply #139 on:** July 17, 2016, 19:56 »

Quote from: Rose Tinted Glasses on July 17, 2016, 17:17

Getty has never allowed you to remove an image unless it is for the same reasons they have posted for removal from Istock. Hmmmm, come to think of it most of the macros operate the same way ever since I can remember. At least the ones I have dealt with did not allow you to remove anything on a bipolar whim which seems to be common place in the microstock world.

Alamy may not count in your definition of macro, but their 6 month wait is a very different thing from what Getty is looking to impose. Alamy just makes you wait to delete so customers can complete their cycle of transactions, but you don't have to justify what you're doing to them.

Alamy's restrictions (given their business model) seem very reasonable and a good balance of customer and contributor interests. Getty's are one-sided and unreasonable, especially given the much lower royalty rates they offer contributors.

Gel-O Shooter · « **Reply #140 on:** July 17, 2016, 21:42 »

They are obviously trying to prevent another "D-day". The nasty surprises they have planned for contributors soon after August 20th must be disgraceful, even for them. I just hope that it won't take an act of Congress, 3 months, 25 emails, and the threat of a lawsuit to remove my account and the few old files I still have there when September rolls around.

Microstockphoto · « **Reply #141 on:** July 18, 2016, 05:06 »

agree

pixmicro · « **Reply #142 on:** July 18, 2016, 05:42 »

As a contributor, the only change I will be facing with Getty/Istock is that 123RF is now ahead in terms of revenue.

iStop · « **Reply #143 on:** July 18, 2016, 07:36 »

Quote from: Jo Ann Snover on July 17, 2016, 19:56

Quote from: Rose Tinted Glasses on July 17, 2016, 17:17
Getty has never allowed you to remove an image unless it is for the same reasons they have posted for removal from Istock. Hmmmm, come to think of it most of the macros operate the same way ever since I can remember. At least the ones I have dealt with did not allow you to remove anything on a bipolar whim which seems to be common place in the microstock world.

Alamy may not count in your definition of macro, but their 6 month wait is a very different thing from what Getty is looking to impose. Alamy just makes you wait to delete so customers can complete their cycle of transactions, but you don't have to justify what you're doing to them.

Alamy's restrictions (given their business model) seem very reasonable and a good balance of customer and contributor interests. Getty's are one-sided and unreasonable, especially given the much lower royalty rates they offer contributors.

The easiest thing with Alamy that you can do is just remove all your keywords from all of your images in a batch so that all the files are left with only one nondescript keyword.

After that the files wont appear in searches any longer. This way, whilst you are awaiting the 6 month period for the files to be removed, they at least no longer appear on the site.

At the moment, you may still be able to do the same thing on iStock using version older versions of Deep Meta.

skyfish · « **Reply #144 on:** July 18, 2016, 07:51 »

I have a popup demanding to install a new version. The warning is - that keywords will not be edited. Did somebody try this with old version already?

ShadySue · « **Reply #145 on:** July 18, 2016, 07:56 »

Quote from: skyfish on July 18, 2016, 07:51

I have a popup demanding to install a new version. The warning is - that keywords will not be edited. Did somebody try this with old version already?

I didn't try it, but word is that although it will look as though you have changed the keywords, they won't change on the site.

NewStocker · « **Reply #146 on:** July 18, 2016, 08:00 »

Quote from: skyfish on July 18, 2016, 07:51

I have a popup demanding to install a new version. The warning is - that keywords will not be edited. Did somebody try this with old version already?

I just opened one file in Deep Meta 2.0.22 and changed one keyword. I then hit F6 to send updates to iStock and it seems to have done so. But I then checked the file on iStock and the keyword still appears to be in the file on the site. So in theory it works, but I am afraid in practice I don't think it does.

NewStocker · « **Reply #147 on:** July 18, 2016, 08:04 »

I don't meant to hijack this post, or go off topic here, but is there any way to change keywords on files on Shutterstock in a group temporarily so that they don't appear in site searches for a period of time?

Is there perhaps a way to even select all the files within a set on Shutterstock that you have created and do a keyword edit like this to the entire set?

Lastly, I know on Shutterstock that you are able to remove your entire portfolio from the site temporarily (without deleting and of your files) by opting your portfolio out of active status. Then you can put your portfolio back online later if you like with just one click. Is there any way to do this to individual files on Shutterstock perhaps?

Microstockphoto · « **Reply #148 on:** July 18, 2016, 08:09 »

you don't meant to hijack this post, or go off topic here, but then you do.

this is an istock thread, ask your question here http://www.microstockgroup.com/shutterstock-com/

B8 · « **Reply #149 on:** July 18, 2016, 08:28 »

Quote from: Microstockphoto on July 18, 2016, 08:09

you don't meant to hijack this post, or go off topic here, but then you do.

this is an istock thread, ask your question here http://www.microstockgroup.com/shutterstock-com/

Sheesh. That's not cool. The poster just offered some useful information in his/her previous post and then was very polite about asking some questions.

I see many people hijacking posts on this forum all the time and are never polite about it at all in any way. At least this person had some polite etiquette and should be recognized for that.

In fact, within this thread there are already various mentions of other sites and their policies on removing images and portfolios, Alamy, etc. So I don't see the questions of this poster about removing images from Shutterstock to be unrelated to this thread at this point.

MicrostockGroup Sponsors

Author Topic: Getty e-mail about iStock "Contributor Facing Changes" (Read 78342 times)

stockVid

PaulieWalnuts

stockVid

Pauws99

BlueMoonPics

PaulieWalnuts

Karen

BlueMoonPics

andy_arden

ShadySue

StanRohrer

Tryingmybest

trek

Rose Tinted Glasses

Jo Ann Snover

Gel-O Shooter

Microstockphoto

pixmicro

iStop

skyfish

ShadySue

NewStocker

NewStocker

Microstockphoto

B8

Related Topics

Sponsors

Microstock Poll Results

Sponsors