|
MicrostockGroup Sponsors
This section allows you to view all posts made by this member. Note that you can only see posts made in areas you currently have access to.
Messages - ClaridgeJ
Pages: [1] 2 3 4 5 6 ... 23
1
« on: January 26, 2013, 14:41 »
I just came across this article from May 2011 about the Getty issue with forcing photographers into the subscription program against their will and preventing them from blocking their RM work going into an RF collection. The APA commented on the issue like this:
As the creator and owner of the intellectual property, the photographer has the inherent right to determine how an image is to be licensed, including whether an image should be maintained as an RM or RF image. Getty Images effort to leverage its position in the industry to undermine that fundamental right and force its contributors to relinquish control over the manner in which their creative works are licensed is completely improper.
I feel like we're coming back around to the same old issues with Getty, over and over again. For the independents it was the forced inclusion in ThinkStock. Now we've got across the board forced inclusion in these redistribution deals. This is the new normal for Getty. Or it has been the new normal for a while now. The deal these days is that if you want to sign on with any Getty-owned company, you have to waive your rights to any say in where your images end up.
In retro its been like that for years, long before micro, just that we notice it more nowdays, ppl are a bit more on the ball. The very second you sign a contract, youre in their hands. Dont you think Getty long ago confirmed all this with their incredible battery of lawyers. Ofcourse they did.
2
« on: January 26, 2013, 14:15 »
I have not had any of those. Maybe it helps that I withdrew from zonar.
Dont know, perhaps it also depends on your subject matter. My images tend to be a bit sensitive at times. Industry, corporate, etc. However I would definetely tell them not to sell identical stuff, palming them off as RM and RF.
3
« on: January 26, 2013, 14:03 »
1. The value of an argument does not depend on the identity of the poster. 2 + 2 equals 4, whether it is written by a 5-year old, a science professor or a complete moron. The whole discussion about anonymous/nonanonymous users is a waste of time, it is a logical fallacy. The identity of the poster may only change your personal, subjective perception but not the value of the argument.
2. There is a huge difference between calling rude names and the use of satire as a rhetorical device.
Pretence and slander is much easier executed by a pseudonym. i.e. a nobody. Oscar Wilde.
4
« on: January 26, 2013, 13:58 »
Come on. If you can prove it was spread by an agency, it would hold in court.
Try it out and see what happens. I was there in, 2002 and finished up with a fine of 11K and that was in Sweden, imagine if it had been in the US or UK. Not the slightest fault of my own, in fact it was even a rectified mistake.
5
« on: January 26, 2013, 13:48 »
At a certaing time i had a couple of hundred picures uploaded to Zoonar.
After a while and no sales i sent them an email and asked to have my images deleted.
They responded that i should release the pictures via zonar to other agencies.
One was alamy.
Being already there (With 2 images, holding an account open) I replied...That there could be a RF vs RM conflict.
Zoonar replied that that didnt matter.
So..In my opinion it looks like everybody ( all kinds of 2nd order agencies) make their profit by selling content back and forth, and they do not care much about copyright.
It it beyond my comprehension, how a company that bases its living on copyright, does not value copyright.
The best comparison is hyperparasites. Like little wasps that prey on larger wasps that lay eggs in butterfly caterpillars.
Zoonar are terrible at this. You can actually delete your pics yourself there. I did, waste of time. Ofcourse they dont care, really. Why? because in case of any comebacks, trouble, the photographer carries the ultimate responsibillity. For the photographer to supply the same images as RM/RF, could end up being extremely expensive, crushing in fact.
6
« on: January 26, 2013, 13:38 »
....
I had no option but to change. Turned out that some private buyers of mine noticed the old member-name and that was no good. Gives a bad rep.
You give yourself a bad rep.
Do you really think I care about my rep HERE? talking about pseudos. I know who you are and at this moment you are getting a very, very, very bad rep at Alamy, one of the countless arguments you have involved yourself in, yet again. Oh well, the glib. 
7
« on: January 26, 2013, 12:37 »
Yes yes, those of us who KNOW do know who you are, but it remains that the name ClaridgeJ is a pseudo.
I'm not insulted btw - I think all generalisations are nonsense and forums are so filled with them that a person would be rendered permanently into a state of trauma if they took them all to heart.
I think, as others have said previously, that you can get a feel for a person's views and the value of their thought process through their words. It doesn't matter to me at all who they are. Good sense is good sense and nonsense is nonsense, regardless of a person's perceived or invented status.
Yes I can agree with that. I had no option but to change. Turned out that some private buyers of mine noticed the old member-name and that was no good. Gives a bad rep.
8
« on: January 26, 2013, 12:11 »
I don't know who I am any more.
I believe ShadySue was laughing at the fact that you are currently a pseudo, insulting pseudos. Hence my comment that some other well-known pseudos would also be laughing at this point (as well as at the idea that everything they wrote was valueless).
No, no, no Im not a pseudo, everybody knows who I am ( lagereek) its no secret. I mean I know who you REALLY are ( hush, hush) but Im talking about pseudos who never disclose themselves and yet have something like 10 posts in every single thread. Pretty hard to take them seriously isnt it. Insulting to pseudos? I dont hink so, heck if they cant take this, then what are they doing in a forum in the first place.
9
« on: January 26, 2013, 12:07 »
Almost always a mistake by the partner agency! The answer to your question is: its definetely not recommended that you yourself supply same images as RF and RM.
Personally and especially the way the stock-climate is going I would much rather supply my images as RM, rather then RF. Thats me however.
10
« on: January 26, 2013, 12:00 »
...and George Eliot, Currer, Acton and Ellis Bell laugh right along with you.
But youre a Pseudo, arent you?
11
« on: January 26, 2013, 10:17 »
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
Agree 100%. I agree with many others ( who doesnt post here anymore), unless they have the guts to reveal themselves, etc. They are not worth answering. Not that many are worth it anyway but to answer a nom de plume, whats the point? youre only going to get some garbage reply.
12
« on: January 26, 2013, 03:16 »
These days people get banned from iStock.
is that funny, meaningless or rude?
Well, I think it is significant.
So let us make a list of us who are banned.
It can always be usefull, when we try to understand what is going on.
Im one.
I was banned because I asked istocklawyer questions of the kind that would hold water in court. Like: I have asked this question and you have replied, that means that you have seen the question and it is such not unknown to you and istock.
Now who else is in the club and for what?
yeah they dont like Danes. Youre too close to Greenland you see.
13
« on: January 26, 2013, 03:14 »
Looks like Istock is sinking ... fast. Man the lifeboats, women and children first!
yes and get the boats, women and children from the Titanic over to Lucitania, much safer place. 
14
« on: January 25, 2013, 08:57 »
...
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.
If I remember correctly I think that files over a year old had to pass reviewing again. This is ofcourse a technical issue.
15
« on: January 25, 2013, 08:49 »
...
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.
16
« on: January 25, 2013, 06:04 »
Anybody care to venture a guess on how much all this file deletion has cost Getty so far? With a very conservative estimate of 40,000 files by 02/02, my guess would be at the very least $1-million (including their 85% cut). And it will grow as the momentum continues. Many of these files are highly profitable bestsellers from experienced artists, and it's taken time for those images to reach their peak. So even if people are "waiting in line" to join IS, these file deletions have already taken a considerable toll on GI's bottom line for a long time to come. Wish there was a way to get the actual figures and send them to the investors.
Whilst I have every sympathy with the action to deactivate files, I even may do some of mine, comments like this one just make me laugh. Do you honestly think that, because someone has deactivated a file, the buyer doesn't just go and buy a different one? They don't even know your files have gone. 40k files out of 12 million? A minute drop in the ocean, a pinprick on the side of an elephant. Deactivating hasn't, in anyones wildest dreams, 'taken a considerable toll on Getty's bottom line'.
I just want to inject a bit of reality here.
I dont give plus or minus hearts but I gave you one because youve just read my own thoughts! and for every file deactivated there are 50 being uploaded, so?  . 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?
17
« on: January 24, 2013, 14:37 »
Havent you asked yourself why these big-shots are not deactivating NOW? why wait? and why just deactivating? why not show them hell and DELETE?
1 - you have 16 flames active at iStock
2 - you have files uploaded on January 18th
3 - what . are you talking about?
now we have CJ6 and ClaridgeJ, isn't it boring to logout and login?
a year back my friend I deleted 7 blue flames and over 20 red flames. Not for this reason but for uploading them as macro RF. just for the info. I havent got the lightest idea of who or what this CJ6 person is, might be an extention of MI6 I suppose. Last week I deleted and closed my accounts at 3 other agencies. I go all the way and delete not JUST deactivate, anybody can do that. No not at IS and why should I? you mean to join the losers. No thanks.
18
« on: January 24, 2013, 13:33 »
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.
How can you say that Lisa? when I will get hit just as much as anybody else? when I sit in exactly the same boat as everybody else. I find that quite absurd. The differance is, I have learnt with time that nothing in this business is a lasting affair. I actually told you years back in this forum that sooner or later we will get hit. Everybody laughed then, etc, etc and so on. Now Yuri is getting blamed for uploading instead of deactivating. If it came to join forces with ppl like you and a few others, yes I would indeed BUT the rest of the screamers, no way, none can be trusted further then you could throw them. For your info. Last week I spent sometime not just deactivating but closing my entire accounts with 3 agencies. I dont deactivaste, I delete! big differance. Havent you asked yourself why these big-shots are not deactivating NOW? why wait? and why just deactivating? why not show them hell and DELETE? Or could it be that they want the best of two worlds perhaps? that will never happen Lisa. PM me not here but on my private mail. Got some extraordinary news for you........... but not here.
19
« on: January 24, 2013, 03:34 »
So what? let them give em away free, Google, IS, Getty, anybody else? who cares? My RMs are still intact. Cant be touched.
tisk, tisk, tisk. What a shame, so sad.
but wasn't RM down and micro UP?
Och, don't worry about him.
Over on the Alamy forum, someone posted:
You should probably be thankful to the microstockers then. Thanks to their vigilance in protecting IP they uncovered this and are taking action to rectify it. They are protecting your future licensing opportunities.
And Christian58 alias Claridge alias lagereek replied:
Taking action?? dont be silly, its as usual, all mouth, some 90%, cherping in dont even know whats its all about. The rest takes pictures at weekends.
http://www.alamy.com/forums/Default.aspx?g=posts&t=13554&p=7
As usual, he's just overcome with the exuberance of his own verbosity.
RM up or down, it doesnt matter, they are protected, cant be given away free via Google but Micro can! thats the point.
Anyway whats the big deal with this. Its a natural progression thats all. If Getty/IS didnt do it somebody else would and when they finally will do it, most of the other agencies will follow.
Tough! but as I see it. Its time to kiss the ass goodbyeeeee.
What about, if you entrusted your car to me to maintain it every once in while, but somehow, each time it is under my care, I secretly rent it out to tourists for a few hours making $100.00 a shot.
What about, if you entrusted your money to me, as I am a certified broker, to invest it wisely on your behalf, but somehow I secretly invest part of it into a scheme that I think will bring more money that I can keep secretly.
What about, if I am Getty, and you entrusted your images to me....
Do you get it...Yes it is a big deal
Of course its a big deal the way you explain it. In reallity its no worse then when micro came along and tresspassed on the trad-agencies domains, is it? heck! all of a sudden pics wore selling for cents instead of dollars. Whats the differance? none really.
I mean what do you think? that 50 trad-agencies were jumping for joy when micro came along? hardly. Now..... well, the boat have turned around and we are in sheit street.
The problem is that Google and Getty are such power-houses that we are losers even before we start, no matter what.
best.
No difference? When microstock came in, photographers suffered and were reduced to lower earnings. Perhaps some at pennies, but at least something. With this new scheme of images being given away, photographers get zero, nada, zip, nothing. And all the volume in the world won't help that. Admittedly some big name and up-and-coming photographers will still be able to find contract work and some of the trads may be able to hang on with specialty images. Everyone else needs to go with plan B, or C, or whatever. That's the difference.
Thanks! and youre right. This time around, its zip. However this does not affect dayrate, commissioned photography, THANK GOD! basically for all those here who thought the world revolved around micro alone. Think again and FAST.
20
« on: January 24, 2013, 03:19 »
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?
21
« on: January 23, 2013, 16:28 »
Not sure if it matters but getty was founded in 1995.
Well the Getty-Stone deal went through around 93, we have sales-reports as proof, Image-Bank I think was in 94 or 95? BTW. I was Iris drumscanning in 89. Digital is far from something new.
22
« on: January 23, 2013, 13:00 »
So what? let them give em away free, Google, IS, Getty, anybody else? who cares? My RMs are still intact. Cant be touched.
tisk, tisk, tisk. What a shame, so sad.
but wasn't RM down and micro UP?
Och, don't worry about him.
Over on the Alamy forum, someone posted:
You should probably be thankful to the microstockers then. Thanks to their vigilance in protecting IP they uncovered this and are taking action to rectify it. They are protecting your future licensing opportunities.
And Christian58 alias Claridge alias lagereek replied:
Taking action?? dont be silly, its as usual, all mouth, some 90%, cherping in dont even know whats its all about. The rest takes pictures at weekends.
http://www.alamy.com/forums/Default.aspx?g=posts&t=13554&p=7
As usual, he's just overcome with the exuberance of his own verbosity.
RM up or down, it doesnt matter, they are protected, cant be given away free via Google but Micro can! thats the point.
Anyway whats the big deal with this. Its a natural progression thats all. If Getty/IS didnt do it somebody else would and when they finally will do it, most of the other agencies will follow.
Tough! but as I see it. Its time to kiss the ass goodbyeeeee.
What about, if you entrusted your car to me to maintain it every once in while, but somehow, each time it is under my care, I secretly rent it out to tourists for a few hours making $100.00 a shot.
What about, if you entrusted your money to me, as I am a certified broker, to invest it wisely on your behalf, but somehow I secretly invest part of it into a scheme that I think will bring more money that I can keep secretly.
What about, if I am Getty, and you entrusted your images to me....
Do you get it...Yes it is a big deal
Ofcourse its a big deal the way you explain it. In reallity its no worse then when micro came along and tresspassed on the trad-agencies domains, is it? heck! all of a sudden pics wore selling for cents instead of dollars. Whats the differance? none really.
I mean what do you think? that 50 trad-agencies were jumping for joy when micro came along? hardly. Now..... well, the boat have turned around and we are in sheit street.
The problem is that Google and Getty are such power-houses that we are losers even before we start, no matter what.
best.
The microstock industry came about mainly because of technological advancement in the internet speed combined with higher quality digital cameras and the fact that you no longer needed to spend hours in a room full of chemicals to develop films. The opportunity to provide more economical images grew exponentially and took the world of commercial photography by surprise. The fact that commercial imagery became cheaper was not caused by a malevolent entity. It was mainly caused by sudden massive production of images. Anybody that has studied economics will understand that the price of anything is always subjective of its supply and demand.
The recent Getty Google deal to give our images for free was not caused by technological advancement, evolution or economics, this was done secretly, without permission from their owners and certainly was not done in good faith. Getty simply did not act on our behalf and probably broke our agreement. That is the big difference.
Yes but does it really matter how it came about, secondary isnt it? The trad agencies knew all about electronically, digitally transmitted pics, photo-journalists worked like that long before we started it. I remember a big meeting in London, Stones office at Worldwide house and where Mark-Getty explained the future of digitals, etc, some 150 photographers were invited, etc. That was in 1993 but they put it at rest simply because they knew it was a risk of destroying. So you see its nothing new at all. Im afriad whats happening now goes with the territory, we have had our 10 years and more and sooner or later things will change, the pitty is that in our business it always seem to change for the worse. We are but pawns in a corporate world. The shoe is now on the other foot, we are threatend and we dont like it. Simple as that really. Do you remember? few years back we were all talking about planB or a way out. well looks like its here.
23
« on: January 23, 2013, 12:20 »
So what? let them give em away free, Google, IS, Getty, anybody else? who cares? My RMs are still intact. Cant be touched.
tisk, tisk, tisk. What a shame, so sad.
but wasn't RM down and micro UP?
Och, don't worry about him.
Over on the Alamy forum, someone posted:
You should probably be thankful to the microstockers then. Thanks to their vigilance in protecting IP they uncovered this and are taking action to rectify it. They are protecting your future licensing opportunities.
And Christian58 alias Claridge alias lagereek replied:
Taking action?? dont be silly, its as usual, all mouth, some 90%, cherping in dont even know whats its all about. The rest takes pictures at weekends.
http://www.alamy.com/forums/Default.aspx?g=posts&t=13554&p=7
As usual, he's just overcome with the exuberance of his own verbosity.
RM up or down, it doesnt matter, they are protected, cant be given away free via Google but Micro can! thats the point.
Anyway whats the big deal with this. Its a natural progression thats all. If Getty/IS didnt do it somebody else would and when they finally will do it, most of the other agencies will follow.
Tough! but as I see it. Its time to kiss the ass goodbyeeeee.
What about, if you entrusted your car to me to maintain it every once in while, but somehow, each time it is under my care, I secretly rent it out to tourists for a few hours making $100.00 a shot.
What about, if you entrusted your money to me, as I am a certified broker, to invest it wisely on your behalf, but somehow I secretly invest part of it into a scheme that I think will bring more money that I can keep secretly.
What about, if I am Getty, and you entrusted your images to me....
Do you get it...Yes it is a big deal
Ofcourse its a big deal the way you explain it. In reallity its no worse then when micro came along and tresspassed on the trad-agencies domains, is it? heck! all of a sudden pics wore selling for cents instead of dollars. Whats the differance? none really. I mean what do you think? that 50 trad-agencies were jumping for joy when micro came along? hardly. Now..... well, the boat have turned around and we are in sheit street. The problem is that Google and Getty are such power-houses that we are losers even before we start, no matter what. best.
24
« on: January 23, 2013, 12:04 »
So what? let them give em away free, Google, IS, Getty, anybody else? who cares? My RMs are still intact. Cant be touched.
tisk, tisk, tisk. What a shame, so sad.
I thought the April 2011 changes to the Getty contract allowed them to move RM content to RF over the photographer's objections (if it hadn't sold for a certain period). Getty contributors had no opt out from RF content moving to Thinkstock either as I recall. See here and here.
Seems to me that as the Getty artist-trampling machine rolls on, sooner or later everyone's work gets caught in some crappy deal that leaves them with the lovely choice of either accepting the terms they don't like or leaving Getty.
Yes and yet it wont effect me in a sense that is. However you have to agree though, its lots of noise for nothing really, it was obvious that sooner or later it would come to this. I mean the trad agencies could they foretell the arrival of micro? yes in fact they did but they were just too late in reacting. Could micro see this Google business coming? NO. In a years time they will all be doing it, this is just the beginning, tip of the iceberg. Hence: Getty are clearly succeeding in killing off micro.
25
« on: January 23, 2013, 11:47 »
So what? let them give em away free, Google, IS, Getty, anybody else? who cares? My RMs are still intact. Cant be touched.
tisk, tisk, tisk. What a shame, so sad.
but wasn't RM down and micro UP?
Och, don't worry about him.
Over on the Alamy forum, someone posted:
You should probably be thankful to the microstockers then. Thanks to their vigilance in protecting IP they uncovered this and are taking action to rectify it. They are protecting your future licensing opportunities.
And Christian58 alias Claridge alias lagereek replied:
Taking action?? dont be silly, its as usual, all mouth, some 90%, cherping in dont even know whats its all about. The rest takes pictures at weekends.
http://www.alamy.com/forums/Default.aspx?g=posts&t=13554&p=7
As usual, he's just overcome with the exuberance of his own verbosity.
RM up or down, it doesnt matter, they are protected, cant be given away free via Google but Micro can! thats the point. Anyway whats the big deal with this. Its a natural progression thats all. If Getty/IS didnt do it somebody else would and when they finally will do it, most of the other agencies will follow. Tough! but as I see it. Its time to kiss the ass goodbyeeeee.
Pages: [1] 2 3 4 5 6 ... 23
|
Sponsors
Microstock Poll Results
Sponsors
|
Show Posts
