So they post an update and say we didn't do anything wrong and we'll do more of it.
I am afraid if they don't provide an opt-out of deals like that I will have to leave. It'll hurt me financially but they are putting me out of business anyway. I'd still give them some time to come with something better, but if they don't I think there is no choice - all  7909 painfully uploaded files will have to be taken down and account closed.

At this point, knowing all their bad deeds, anyone who doesn't delete their account or continues to upload is only enabling them. And letting the rest of the agencies know they can do whatever they want with your content and they don't have to pay you for it. That is the bottom line.

Hha, thought this was kind of funny. I was just reading the iS forum on this and getting pissed, so decided to Google about starting a class action lawsuit, clicked the "Ehow" link like a dork, and saw this, right on that page:

http://img546.imageshack.us/img546/6616/istocksucksass.jpg

The ad is right on as well, since as an exclusive I'm a little scared. Pissed mostly, truth be told. Anyway

Funny with a sharp edge.

Loved this post on Istock forum:

bmcent1

Posted 13 mins ago
Quote

$10,000.

Ten thousand dollars, USD, is what I expect to be compensated per image. That is a number I have quoted out before to inquiries to purchase the copyright to an image of mine. Transferring the copyright is what you needed to do before making representations to Google about usage of my image beyond the bounds of the RF license. You did not and do not have the right to license my image to a 3rd party to sub license (aka give away for free) to an unlimited number of users.

I'll accept a deposit to my Istock account or to my checking account (which you also have for direct Getty Images royalty payments.) If you have any questions or would like to discuss it, you have my phone number.

Just deactivated two images. Don't know what I'll do next, and I'm too small a fry to make them wouldn't cry into their soup if I pulled my entire port, but enough is enough.
Although, thank goodness, none of my photos were chosen for this opportunity, who knows what they're next dodgy deal will be.
Well, it was good for a while.

Although, thank goodness, none of my photos were chosen for this opportunity, who knows what they're next dodgy deal will be.

I would love to know who picked mine because it wasn't iStock, some dude that loves me in a very bad way...

Maybe pulling out all of our images would be a hard pill to swallow, however, what about if we could all stop submitting instead.....while other agencies get new images..

Quote from: cybernesco on January 11, 2013, 22:47

Maybe pulling out all of our images would be a hard pill to swallow, however, what about if we could all stop submitting instead.....while other agencies get new images..

not that I would make any difference, actually I am losing money BUT I have stopped uploading in March 2012

Well...I am no longer uploading either.....anybody else....what else...can we do?

I just came across this on my Twitter feed, it's one of the people I follow -- http://www.photoattorney.com

Their twitter profile says "Carolyn E. Wright is an attorney who works for photographers."  I wonder if it's worth tweeting them a link to this thread?   Or to the iStock forum thread? 

By the way, this thread was already tweeted today, I don't recall by whom, but I retweeted it. 

Well...I am no longer uploading either.....anybody else....what else...can we do?

IMHO KarenH and photoattorney.com or some sort of legal action seems like a real option this time.

It has been posited on the IS forum that their agreement with us does not allow them to assign (sub-license) to another party the right to give our images away for free. If that is true, IS is in breach of contract on a massive scale, and we could conceivably be awarded damages on a per image ($10,000 per image has been mentioned) or per download basis.

For example, if my image was downloaded from Google Drive, say, 200,000 times and a judge decreed that I be paid 200,000 times my normal RPD at other sites (say $1.50), then I could be in for a nice piece of change, and so would a lot of other people, and Getty possibly bankrupted. Some of the 5000 images have been downloaded millions of times.

Such a scenario is not impossible. My cousin and her husband owned a gas station and won a suit against the oil company parent corp about thirty years ago and got enough money to live lives of luxury without working ever since.

Quote from: cybernesco on January 11, 2013, 22:53

Well...I am no longer uploading either.....anybody else....what else...can we do?

IMHO KarenH and photoattorney.com or some sort of legal action seems like a real option this time.

It has been posited on the IS forum that their agreement with us does not allow them to assign (sub-license) to another party the right to give our images away for free. If that is true, IS is in breach of contract on a massive scale, and we could conceivably be awarded damages on a per image ($10,000 per image has been mentioned) or per download basis.

For example, if my image was downloaded from Google Drive, say, 200,000 times and a judge decreed that I be paid 200,000 times my normal RPD at other sites (say $1.50), then I could be in for a nice piece of change, and so would a lot of other people, and Getty possibly bankrupted. Some of the 5000 images have been downloaded millions of times.

Such a scenario is not impossible. My cousin and her husband owned a gas station and won a suit against the oil company parent corp about thirty years ago and got enough money to live lives of luxury without working ever since.

I think you could argue that by allowing such a vast volume of free downloads they have effectively reduced the value of the specific images involved to pretty much zero. Damages should be paid to cover the earnings the photographers involved would have earned over the image's remaining lifespan.
IStock must have some duty of care to its contributors surely?

With most of the deserved opprobrium being directed to Getty lets not forget the involvement of Google who's potential to disrupt the marketplace must be hovering like a sword of Damocles over the existing players.

IMHO Google has always shown scant regard for artists in general. They never even used to pay the people who did those daily illustrations on the Google home page (don't know if this has changed now).

I'm concerned that this move is how Getty sees the future of stock photography. The sheer volume of images out there means we have become unimportant to them. This could be our last chance to make a stand, not just for the sake of IS contributors but the whole industry.