Alas, we'll never know. Because big businesses will put you through nasty depositions and drag you through a long legal battle (sometimes lasting years), delaying as long as possible, hoping you'll give up. And if you don't give up they wait until right before the trial date to make an offer, and then if you negotiate something much less than what you first sought but still substantial, they won't give you the settlement until you sign a nondisclosure agreement. That way they silence you and the bad publicity around the lawsuit magically disappears, and they go on with business as usual.

Not that this has happened to me, of course. But when you hear the terms of a settlement have not been disclosed, it pretty much means the plaintiff has won a substantial settlement.

Nearing 700 signatures, folks. Now that we know Getty does not have a large settlement to pay, we should be more angry than ever. Please sign, ask friends to sign, and remember the royalty cut comes at the end of this week.

https://www.change.org/p/jonathan-klein-getty-images-istock-don-t-slash-our-royalties

WOW!
You really believe that iStock will care about 700 people or 1000 (or even 10 000)?

Personally I have stopped to upload to them some time ago.
After the 25 I will give them another month (maybe two  ) to see what happens
After that I will decide what to do: stay or leave.

Getty/istock wont care but maybe it will get some publicity and people will find out about the pittance they want to pay us.  Buyers might realise that they wont get the standard of content they are used to if all we get is $0.02?

Do most of the buyers need high standard images or cheap average level images?

The minimum price changed from $ 0,02 to $ 0,10 per file by subscription licenses for non-exclusive contributors.

More: https://contributors.gettyimages.com/article_public.aspx?article_id=4856 [nofollow]

Really, I'm sorry

The analogy with Dickens is erroneous because hes been dead a certain number of years his work is out of copyright. Try selling the work of a living author and see how far you get.

That's not how it works, but you can believe what you want. You just shouldn't pretend it's the truth, on a forum. A living author can have public domain works. Or lose rights when she donates the rights to The L.O.C. The laws changed. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Copyright_Term_Extension_Act

Before 1978 the laws were different and 28 years was term for copyright. Works which hadn't passed into public domain before that date, were extended 47 years making the total 75 years. Yes the death of an author comes into play for some works, but it's not as simple as how many years is somebody dead.

A book, photo or anything else that passed into public domain in 1949 could very well have a living author and be public domain. All books before 1923 have already become public domain. Just to be on topic, photos also.

Would you write the same if he had used Ben-Hur as the book? It is public domain.

Books and works from 1923 will now start passing into public domain. The copyrights have expired. http://www.gutenberg.org/  Project Gutenberg offers over 53,000 free ebooks. I know it's not Getty the devils photo agency, but without bias, the laws are the same for all.

Undisclosed settlement wasn't for copyright or the DMCA violation or anything we would like to believe. It was the last of the unfair trade practices claims for the state of New York. At minimum they paid for lawyers fees, so she broke even, and may have added a small token payment, admitting no wrong, as a courtesy. These paymenst are made privte for both sides as well as to lessen the chances that people will see it as a way to make a quick buck from Getty, by filing suits.

A fair settlement would be for Getty to stop selling her work, without compensation? Or pay her for every use.

it takes like 2 seconds to sign....just trys, also if you don't expect nothing

Getty/istock wont care but maybe it will get some publicity and people will find out about the pittance they want to pay us.

Would be nice, but maybe a little bit optomistic. I mean, how many people enquire about the welfare of the workers who produced the clothes that they're buying? If it looks good and the price is right, then I'd say the majority of people don't really care. Rightly or wrongly, that's just the way it is unfortunately.

how many people enquire about the welfare of the workers who produced the clothes that they're buying? If it looks good and the price is right, then I'd say the majority of people don't really care. Rightly or wrongly, that's just the way it is unfortunately.

It's quite a thing now, and some retaillers have woken up to the fact that it's not only the right thing to do, but a fairer policy attracts a viable percentage of the market.

Signed 

Article about the petition and royalty cut on the Freelancer's Union Facebook page:

https://www.facebook.com/freelancersunion/

And on their blog:

https://blog.freelancersunion.org/2016/12/02/getty-images-istock-petition/

The more people who "like" or comment on the Freelancer's Union Facebook post, the more people Facebook will show the post to. It's free advertising to creative professionals who license images. Hint hint.

I "liked" the Facebook post.