Google Drive Update + Jan 23

First pagePrevious pageof 38Next page
Displaying 21 to 40 of 748 matches.
edelmar
Member is a Gold contributor and has 10,000 - 24,999 Photo downloadsExclusive
Posted Tue Jan 15, 2013 6:43PM
Seriously? After days of us pounding away at our keyboards, citing dozens of things wrong with IS's current approach, all we're given is a regurgitating of the same vague business double-speak? Look, I get that you can't make a silk purse from a sow's ear, but whatever became of ethical obligations? I'm at the point where part of me just wants this whole business to fail.
flotsom
Member is a contributor and has less than 250 Photo downloads
Posted Tue Jan 15, 2013 6:49PM
So nothing new then just a bit more spin.
Box5
Member is a Bronze contributor and has 250 - 2,499 Photo downloadsExclusive
Posted Tue Jan 15, 2013 6:58PM
I feel like I should copy and paste my objections from the previous form below since none of them have been addressed.
PeskyMonkey
Member is a Diamond contributor and has 25,000 - 199,999 Photo downloadsExclusive
Posted Tue Jan 15, 2013 7:16PM
To ensure iStock understands that I am not happy with the prospect of my most valuable work being given away for free by Google, MS or whoever else they're cutting deals with, I am no longer shooting content for iStock, I have suspended uploading here, I will be deactivating images from my portfolio on Feb 2 and pulling back unlocked images from E+.
pancaketom
Member is a Silver contributor and has 2,500 - 9,999 Photo downloads
Posted Tue Jan 15, 2013 7:37PM

I think Getty might have realized that they can't change their deal with Google at will like they do with the ASA. Too bad it is OUR intellectual property that they have essentially given away. I would be pretty shocked at this behaviour except really it is what I have come to expect from this organization. Hopefully the blowback is enough to encourage them to not make any more deals like this in the future - somehow I doubt it though.


It is incidents like this that make me glad I removed most of my images to keep them out of the PP program.
BrendanHunter
Member is a Silver contributor and has 2,500 - 9,999 Photo downloadsExclusive
Posted Tue Jan 15, 2013 7:43PM
Will anyone be addressing the concerns raised in the previous thread? 
lucop
Member is a Silver contributor and has 2,500 - 9,999 Photo downloadsExclusive
Posted Tue Jan 15, 2013 7:57PM
Posted By lisafx:


But our concerns about copyrights aren't just about attribution.  They are about obtaining permission for each of our images that is added to these sorts of outside deals, and fair and adequate monetary compensation for those usages.  This will efectively kill future saleability of the images included, and as such, we, the copyright owners, need to expressly agree to this and be reimbursed what we think is fair (which most likely be considerably more than $12).  Nobody's pictures should be included without specific, image-by-image permission.




perfectly said



(Edited on 2013-01-15 20:25:10 by lucop)

(Edited on 2013-01-15 20:26:17 by lucop)
dcdp
Member is a Silver contributor and has 2,500 - 9,999 Photo downloads
Posted Tue Jan 15, 2013 8:12PM

Why bother even making this thread? It is a restatement of all of the problems that already exist and have been discussed. The only slight indication of any sort of movement is about possibly doing something about protecting copyright. Even without the metadata being deleted, the deal still stinks. Cancel the deal now and fire the person or people responsible. Everything you have said about valuing contributors and copyright is rubbish and the evidence is right in front of us, in fact you're completely contradicting yourself.


You also seem to fail to understand that for the people involved (contributors both on iStock, Thinkstock and Getty) the damage has already been caused and is not going away. Where is their fair compensation for the greedy incompetence of their distributor? Those images are freely available right now on the internet and I can guarantee they're not just on Google Drive. Even buying out the copyright for the images for a reasonable amount does not remove that damage. The people in those images signed Model Releases on good faith that their likeness used in them would be appropriately managed. It has always been a tricky proposition, but this stupid deal has made it impossible and Getty's incompetence has caused it.


Don't restate the problem, we know what the problems are better than you do it seems, tell us in detail what is being done to fix the problem and when it is going to be done.
PixelEmbargo
Member is a Bronze contributor and has 250 - 2,499 Photo downloadsMember is a Diamond contributor and has 25,000 - 199,999 Illustration downloads
Posted Tue Jan 15, 2013 8:13PM
/
/Correct me if I'm wrong, guys.
Getty claims that they have a legal right to give away my works for free via third party partners. (let's leave the 6$ payment aside for a second)



So they can do it with one of my works, ten of them or even hundred. They deside.
And there is a theoretical possibility that one day they do it with all my portfolio if they want to.Which certainly immediately kills my microstock business.

And the only way to escape this scary future possibility is to remove the whole port from Getty as soon as possible.
Is that the situation we are dealing with today?

(Edited on 2013-01-15 20:17:49 by PixelEmbargo)
lucop
Member is a Silver contributor and has 2,500 - 9,999 Photo downloadsExclusive
Posted Tue Jan 15, 2013 8:26PM
Now that Getty is working with the PicScout ImageIRC platform and that they already made the deal with Google for that bunch of images ... why don't use the platform in order to pay to the correspondent contributor for the use of each image used inside Google Drive (each time a Google Drive user uses an istock image in a document or watherver Google thing)? I mean, Google already pay to Getty a very big number of $ and Getty is looking for promotion. As Getty also "realize the importance of copyright law, compliance and enforcement to our collective futures" .... then, why don't you pay to the contributors using your new technology starting NOW?! They have the technology, they can use those millions from the Google deal to implement it and they can be leal to their contributors! woow, sounds like heaven!


And of course, give the contributors the possibility to opt out/in from that.


... I'm a dreamer. I'm sarcastic too.

(Edited on 2013-01-15 20:26:54 by lucop)
tirc83
Member is a Diamond contributor and has 25,000 - 199,999 Photo downloadsExclusive
Posted Tue Jan 15, 2013 9:14PM
It's taken three days to come up with that non-response? From here it looks like a ploy to get the other thread locked and out of sight.
Lobo
This user has the power to wield the BanHammer, a weapon forged in the fires of hell for that get-off-my-planet quality you can't get anywhere else. You betta reckonize.Forum Moderator
Posted Tue Jan 15, 2013 9:20PM

Posted By tirc83:
It's taken three days to come up with that non-response? From here it looks like a ploy to get the other thread locked and out of sight.

I'm more than happy to link the original discussion to the top of this thread. Having a perpetual thread rolling is problematic.
stacey_newman
Member is a Diamond contributor and has 25,000 - 199,999 Photo downloads
Posted Tue Jan 15, 2013 9:54PM
thank you for the update. I think you have actually tried to address the concerns earnestly. I think it is also important to recognize how difficult you are making it for contributors to work with you. generally speaking Getty have impeded our individual ability to grow our business, reduced our royalties as individuals, and now Getty have removed control over our images and copyright without our knowledge or consent.


I realize TPTB probably just want us to shut up....and frankly we just want Getty to understand how much you're hurting your contributors. the only common ground is that we all need to make an living. you can't take that away from us and repeatedly ask us to believe you're actually empowering us and that somehow we just don't get it.


I respect your attempts to communicate more fairly and that Getty seem to be mandating better relations with contributors. I know good people work for you and we're good people too. but at the end of the day you're still just hurting us and asking us to accept it. I don't get it.

(Edited on 2013-01-15 22:57:00 by stacey_newman)
landbysea
Member is a Silver contributor and has 2,500 - 9,999 Photo downloadsMember is a contributor and has less than 125 Audio downloadsExclusive
Posted Tue Jan 15, 2013 10:01PM
I am bothered by the attempt to minimize the wrongdoing by pointing out the numbers. You are talking about Google cherry picking the best of the best of people's work. In some  cases these are more than high dollar files. These are the culmination of all the knowledge, creativity and hard work that could be mustered to make a personal masterpiece picked for Vetta or Agency. And the material  result  of the passion that brought us to pursue a creative career. Is there any thought to the fact that you are destroying people livelihoods. We are all now between a rock and a hard place knowing that the files that Google is likely to pick are the ones we worked the hardest for. The ones with the long tail. The ones that convinced us that this effort can pay off. It's not just about 100 contributors who had their best work given away. It about thousands of others sleepless worrying that at any given moment the photos that were going to make their careers are about to be made public domain for 12 bucks. It's not just files you are selling it's peoples lives.

(Edited on 2013-01-15 22:04:26 by landbysea)
Cybernesco
Member is a Gold contributor and has 10,000 - 24,999 Photo downloadsMember is a Bronze contributor and has 250 - 2,499 Illustration downloads
Posted Tue Jan 15, 2013 10:30PM
Posted By landbysea:
I am bothered by the attempt to minimize the wrongdoing by pointing out the numbers. You are talking about Google cherry picking the best of the best of people's work. In some  cases these are more than high dollar files. These are the culmination of all the knowledge, creativity and hard work that could be mustered to make a personal masterpiece picked for Vetta or Agency. And the material  result  of the passion that brought us to pursue a creative career. Is there any thought to the fact that you are destroying people livelihoods. We are all now between a rock and a hard place knowing that the files that Google is likely to pick are the ones we worked the hardest for. The ones with the long tail. The ones that convinced us that this effort can pay off. It's not just about 100 contributors who had their best work given away. It about thousands of others sleepless worrying that at any given moment the photos that were going to make their careers are about to be made public domain for 12 bucks. It's not just files you are selling it's peoples lives.


(Edited on 2013-01-15 22:04:26 by landbysea)

This is extraordinarily well said!! This is the best post I have read so far regarding this situation! I had to put this in bold. Thank you landbysea
EricFerguson
Member is a Silver contributor and has 2,500 - 9,999 Photo downloadsMember is a Bronze contributor and has 250 - 1,249 Video downloadsExclusiveExclusive iStockphoto Videographer
Posted Tue Jan 15, 2013 11:06PM
I'm glad that there's more work happening on this. The situation isn't good, but it's definitely fixable. Will be glad to hear from you when there's an update.
simonbradfield
Member is a Silver contributor and has 2,500 - 9,999 Photo downloadsExclusive
Posted Tue Jan 15, 2013 11:14PM
Thanks for the update, clearly shows how much GI/iStock values it's contributors.
LuminaStock
Member is a Gold contributor and has 10,000 - 24,999 Photo downloadsMember is a Bronze contributor and has 250 - 1,249 Video downloads
Posted Tue Jan 15, 2013 11:28PM

@ landbysea


Well said. That about sums it up.
grebcha
Member is a Bronze contributor and has 250 - 2,499 Photo downloads
Posted Tue Jan 15, 2013 11:48PM
... when I say to my clients "wa are working on it" it usualy means that we have not done crap about it sad I am really dissapointed about this statement, nothing new was said and no concerns of contributors were adressed. I guess getty either can not do anything about it or simply does not want to do anything about it. Instead it looks like the HQ is going to allow us shout around the forums and vent ourselves a bit in hope that we eventualy will get bored and shut up sad The last time (the whole RC thing) it worked perfectly...

(Edited on 2013-01-15 23:49:58 by grebcha)
Imgorthand
Member is a Gold contributor and has 10,000 - 24,999 Photo downloadsExclusive
Posted Tue Jan 15, 2013 11:53PM

I stiil don't agree!


There has to be AT LEAST:


1) CLEAR info on google side about restictions of commerial uses to google apps


2) CLEAR info about model rights and disallowed usages


3) OPT OUT button for future deals like this


And please stop repeating that this is for our own good. I don't want my images distributed in this or similar way no matter how innovative and great thay seem to you.


I suggest you shoot your kid, do it so good it's accepted to Vetta then send it to Google for free redistribution to all it's users. Only then you can understand how we feel now. Betrayed and stabbed in the back.


Only a naive person would believe that this pics will stay in google drive docs only.


I'm so mad at you istock/getty!
This thread has been locked.
First pagePrevious pageof 38Next page
Displaying 21 to 40 of 748 matches.
Not a member?Join