Quote from: Chico on March 01, 2013, 13:31

Wow, Pieman is furious.

Link?

http://www.istockphoto.com/forum_messages.php?threadid=351835&page=5

Quote from: SNP on January 14, 2013, 17:15

I'll speak for myself thanks.

Say something new then. Please, and thanks.

ETA: P.S. I hate to say I told you so. I told you so. That is all.

Jeezus H. I check back in here  1 1/2 year later, and I still see Stacey on the fence!

I'd like to say that having met them both last year, JJ and Kelly are two of the nicest people I have met in my life. very sincere, to the point that it sometimes came across poorly when communicating to contributors. on a business note, this is a frightening day for exclusives in particular. on a personal note, I will miss them both and their involvement. even when I didn't agree with it, I knew they meant what they said.

I haven't met them, and nice or not, I don't think it would take more than a couple of fingers to count the times Kelly meant what he communicated to me via the forums.

As for JJRD, who . even knew *what* he was trying to say, let alone whether or not he meant it?

1. Price increase (natch)

2. I too thinkstock is going to need propping up -- but to appease Sean and other big contributors, I suspect that they'll somehow manage to keep diamond level or a certain RC-credit level opt-out in place.

3. Stacey mentioned "thin ice" coming to mind, but the phrase that keeps recurring to me is "Get big or get out."

1. Quit.
2. Start over with new site.
3. Give a fair cut, build community & allow discussion, rethink this whole mid-stock & tiered pricing b.s.

And . . . the next time the opportunity arises to sell out to the competitors, think a little harder.

I immediately said I would leave completely. Now I am toying with the idea of leaving only the old dregs of my point and shoot days and removing all else. As other have noted, after making considerable stink on their forums over the years, if I close my account completely, I'll likely never get in again, if things ever turn around.

I haven't uploaded in more than a year at this point, and don't miss it. I went independent in January over the previous arguments -- I can't even remember what the straw was that broke my back -- and sales are so pitiful that now I can't be bothered to give a *. I'm trying out some other sites, slowly, as I have time, but mostly I'm just enjoying photography and not shooting anything that looks like good stock to me. And it's making me happier.

What I won't miss, regardless of if my portfolio stays or goes, is the constant turmoil that iStock consistently brings to my life every September and January. The love affair is over. And like any good breakup, I hope only painful things for them in future.

Quote from: lightscribe on April 16, 2011, 14:41

Thank you for taking the time to draft this letter, despite all the negative-nancy comments which is to be expected and ignored (they are mostly exclusive contributors.) I think it is always important for the upper level folks to hear from the lower level folks. There is no harm in doing this.  I have had numerous positions in management and it is true that I never really knew what was going on down at the retail employee level.

That would speak more to your management abilities than to the effectiveness of the letter.

Sorry, that's just rude, given that we know zilch about the size or geographical locales of said pieces of the operation.

Quote from: nruboc on April 15, 2011, 20:17

Strange that you would think he should give his name when posting a letter like this, but have nothing to say when anonymous exclusives who do nothing but defend IStock at every turn, bash on people....well ok, if you can't see the distinction

Whatever.

Look, that letter is awfully wordy, and it took me a while to find what you actually were asking for.  You want the money back that IS took back due to the fraud that occurred.  Ain't gonna happen.  Not only is it months gone by now and people have moved on, but contractually they don't owe it to us:
"In all cases, payment of fees to the Supplier will be net of: .... (ii) bad debts or other uncollectible sums; "

Not that I wouldn't like it or don't feel it would be justified - I lost over $9000 or so.  I just don't see it happening.  There won't be any audit - there's no facility in the agreement to ask for one, like there is on Getty.  No one is going to make a class action lawsuit either.  

So, you can print and mail the letter.  I just think you have better things you could be addressing, with a better chance of success.

So far, I don't see any leadership stepping up from among the ranks. Personally, I'd welcome your insight -- or the insight of any number of bigger players than myself -- but outside NicoBlue, I don't anticipate much. This was an idea that was proposed by a fellow contributor and we collectively felt we could pursue on our budget (i.e., nothing). I'm happy to support other member-driven initiatives -- if only I could find some.

Friends and fellow contributors:

As we continue to identify and struggle with site troubles, bugs, and other legacy issues in addition to the changes from last fall, our frustrations seem to mount ever higher. Our eroding faith in and dissatisfaction with iStock has many contributors discussing the idea of a third-party audit and, potentially, a class-action lawsuit. Rather than abandon our relationship with the company completely, however, many of us have discussed other avenues toward ameliorating the problems and addressing our myriad concerns. To this end, a few of us have taken a preliminary step in this direction; we have written the following general letter, addressed to Hellman & Friedman, in hopes that they will act so that we, the contributors, do not have to take these additional and potentially irrevocable steps ourselves. It is our hope that, in its role as investors/owners, Hellman & Friedman will take our concerns to heart by reviewing and resolving said issues. However, in order to get Hellman & Friedman to do this, you must do your part by making your wishes known. That is why we are asking you to print, sign, and snail mail the following letter directly to Hellman & Friedman. Adapt it as you wish, but do send it along if, like us, you are tired of voicing your concerns to iStockphoto directly and getting unsatisfactory answers or results.

Please post your letters to Mr. Andy Ballard and Mr. Brian Powers. Both are Managing Directors of Hellman & Friedman and Directors at Getty Images, Inc. The address is:

Hellman & Friedman LLC
390 Park Avenue
21st Floor
New York, NY 10022

Thank you.

----------------------------------

Dear Hellman & Friedman,

As one of your current holdings under the Getty family of companies, the present discord at iStockphoto LP between contributors and management should be of the utmost concern to you. Perhaps you are unaware and do not follow the forums on iStockphoto or Microstock Group forum (and perhaps then, you should) but without touching on the myriad problems at present, I will simply highlight one - failure to pay contributors what they are owed.

Per the fraudulent purchases from December onward, thousands (if not millions) of dollars were clawed back from contributing artists. Our intellectual property was indisputably stolen and is now in the hands of persons or entities unknown, being sold or distributed around the world without our consent or compensation for an unknown stretch of time into the future. This represents an affront on many levels, and at the very least, it is my belief, and that of many of my fellow contributing artists, that we should be compensated for the "sale" of the files initially purchased, fraudulent sale or not. In essence, we believe it is only right and fair that the money taken from us by iStockphoto LP for these fraudulent sales should be returned to us immediately. This in no way addresses the potential losses incurred by the artist resulting from fewer sales over the life of the photo (because of its black market distribution), but this solution would go far toward reassuring contributors that iStock recognizes their culpability in not protecting our intellectual property, as an agent should do.

Beyond that, details of the fraudulent sales are difficult to determine. iStockphoto has, in many instances, simply refused to give specifics to the contributors, and, when it has, those details have often not matched up with contributor account information. It would seem, given the breadth and depth of site and policy issues currently plaguing iStockphoto LP, a third-party audit is in order. Trust in iStockphoto and its management team has largely been lost and with a single look at either of the two forums mentioned, one discovers a wealth of threads detailing contributors' anger and frustration.

So before the company loses more exclusive content and contributors as artists begin to drop their exclusive commitment to iStockphoto LP, it may be prudent to act and straighten out the mess that iStockphoto has become. The most valuable piece of the Getty family of companies, iStockphoto can still be a key investment for Hellman if in good shape. And wouldn't that be the goal if you are, ultimately, to sell the company in future?


As it seems clear that Getty itself has no interest or authority in addressing these matters, I implore you to uphold the esteemed values that you have outlined for Hellman & Friedman's investment approach in order to set right iStockphoto LP:

"... the most important assets are the intangibles: the people, their business practices and intellectual capital, and their customer relationships. H&F has developed considerable experience addressing the complex issues often presented by investments in businesses of this type, including the importance of structuring appropriate incentive compensations plans and management retention programs."

If it seems that iStockphoto LP or Getty does not value its contributors or their intellectual capital, its relationship with us, or aboveboard business practices, I have confidence that - in contrast - Hellman & Friedman does value and properly understand these points and their merits.

I thank you for your time and look forward to the swift handling of these matters in lieu of what we contributors have been talking about - seeking out legal counsel and looking into a class-action lawsuit, based on the findings of an independent third-party audit.

Sincerely,

[Sign your name here]

To answer my own question, here's the words straight from the horse's mouth (sort of - it's via that Canon article where KKT was interviewed), so we have to take it with a grain of salt, considering he thinks all the contributors only sell stock to buy a new lens cap:

"Thompson also clearly has an eye on the long-term benefits of the site's search engine � which has recently been overhauled. He describes it as �awesome� in delivering results based on a customer/client's location."

So it's supposed to be based on a client's location. So so stupid. Not all a designer's clients are local. Can they really be *that* dumb at iStock? (rhetorical question, of course)

You know, I hadn't really thought of that -- haven't bought stock for a remote client in a while -- but yeah, imagine if you worked in the travel industry or did design work for a multi-national? Pain in the ass.

Looks like there's also a heavy "new file" weight too, judging by my results, much more so than last week.

Quote from: cobalt on April 11, 2011, 17:08

They said they will take "ongoing" issues and the events in the Middle East are certainly far from over. They just cannot accept breaking news, for the simple reason that it cannot be processed in time and maybe also to avoid a direct competition with Getty.

It�s a very interesting newsletter and lightbox.

Good to see that editorial is beginning to sell.

I have to add something about the lightbox. it REALLY bothers me to see how they are populating the front page lightboxes. for months and months I have made comments in threads about the same contributors being added to all of the showcase lightboxes. I have opened support tickets and I have sitemailed the admins administering the specific lightboxes.

in the case of this EDITORIAL collection LB....there are many of us, NOT just me, who are heavy contributors to editorial who are NOT showcased at all in that LB. and some of the files in the LB do not belong in there as showcase images (one example is two nearly identical shots by an admin, both of which are in the LB).

if contributor confidence and community spirit is still of concern around iStock, one action that would help restore my confidence would be to see an even distribution of contributors represented in these showcase lightboxes.

in this particular case I have no problem admitting that I want at least some of my editorial files in that lightbox. editorial is very exciting to me. it was the photography I did well before I did stock. so far no response from admin after more than a week. sigh.

Of course contributor confidence and community spirit is not still of concern around iStock! Silly Rabbit, light boxes are for the admins & special ones.