« Return to Thread: Six trade associations respond to Getty
Re: Six trade associations respond to Getty
by Stockphoto Seller
::
Rate this Message:
I agree, David, photographers do not need to do their business in the same ways. Goodness knows, few have, and that disorganization is one of the features that made the likes of Klein and Getty spot the industry as a relatively easy takeover target. But when people, either blindly or purposely, wreck themselves and drag everyone else down with them, they have only themselves to thank for the criticism.
Except for those toward the top of the short-term scam pyramid, RF, in general and in all its forms, has been an incurable disease, and, for many, a mortal disaster for professionals in the stock photography industry. It is not the only problem the industry has, by any means, but it is associated in one way or another with most of them. It's not a matter of agreement--it's a matter of shafting yourself and others to the long-term benefit of very few professionals.
We are where we are. There is no undoing most of the damage that has been done, and only that minority that has not listened to the siren song luring the inexperienced and gullible is free of the virus. If those on the slide to the bottom want to get together to bake cakes and commisserate with one another as they are run and flung out of their livelihoods, that's none of my business. But if they raise a ruckus about conditions they have brought on themselves, that needs to be pointed out, both as a reminder to them and a caution to others. Every RF photographer, in one way or another, is a part of that $49 price, and so are their associations.
Carl May/BPS
David Sanger <davidsangermail@...> wrote:
Carl - Photographers do not need to agree on every single issue in order to
come together on issues of common interest.
This is not religion, but business. Not everyone sees the world from such a
black-and-white dogmatic position as yours.
david sanger
On 9/11/07, Stockphoto Seller <bpslistmail@...> wrote:
>
> Why are these trade associations getting all whiny about the $49 Getty
> giveaways? At least the ones that have embraced RF pricing approaches? Like
> microstock and subscription stock, the $49 one-price-fits-all is simply
> another kind of RF. If you have already sold your soul, you do not get to
> tell the devil what to do with it at some later date.
>
> Is anyone paying attention to how the big RF floggers--the biggest
> conglomerate image aggregators like Getty, Corbis, Jupiter, et al.--are
> conducting their businesses? Are those who continue to deal with them under
> some kind of illusion the image creator's welfare is their primary concern?
> Professionals are, by definition, people who are getting their income
> through their efforts in some area of expertise--so these experts who have
> chosen to deal with and get their income from those who are openly shafting
> their profession have made conscious decisions about how to conduct
> themselves and have no cause for complaint.
>
> Carl May/BPS
>
> David Sanger <davidsangermail@... <davidsangermail%40gmail.com>>
> wrote:
> This evening's press release
>
> http://www.stockartistsalliance.org/info/news/news.htm#Getty49License
>
> Here's Ron Rovtar's writeup
>
> http://www.stockasylum.com/text-pages/articles/a5fa092007-saa.htm
>
> david sanger
>
> [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
>
> [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
>
>
>
--
david sanger
travel stock and assignments worldwide
david@...
www.davidsanger.com
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
Except for those toward the top of the short-term scam pyramid, RF, in general and in all its forms, has been an incurable disease, and, for many, a mortal disaster for professionals in the stock photography industry. It is not the only problem the industry has, by any means, but it is associated in one way or another with most of them. It's not a matter of agreement--it's a matter of shafting yourself and others to the long-term benefit of very few professionals.
We are where we are. There is no undoing most of the damage that has been done, and only that minority that has not listened to the siren song luring the inexperienced and gullible is free of the virus. If those on the slide to the bottom want to get together to bake cakes and commisserate with one another as they are run and flung out of their livelihoods, that's none of my business. But if they raise a ruckus about conditions they have brought on themselves, that needs to be pointed out, both as a reminder to them and a caution to others. Every RF photographer, in one way or another, is a part of that $49 price, and so are their associations.
Carl May/BPS
David Sanger <davidsangermail@...> wrote:
Carl - Photographers do not need to agree on every single issue in order to
come together on issues of common interest.
This is not religion, but business. Not everyone sees the world from such a
black-and-white dogmatic position as yours.
david sanger
On 9/11/07, Stockphoto Seller <bpslistmail@...> wrote:
>
> Why are these trade associations getting all whiny about the $49 Getty
> giveaways? At least the ones that have embraced RF pricing approaches? Like
> microstock and subscription stock, the $49 one-price-fits-all is simply
> another kind of RF. If you have already sold your soul, you do not get to
> tell the devil what to do with it at some later date.
>
> Is anyone paying attention to how the big RF floggers--the biggest
> conglomerate image aggregators like Getty, Corbis, Jupiter, et al.--are
> conducting their businesses? Are those who continue to deal with them under
> some kind of illusion the image creator's welfare is their primary concern?
> Professionals are, by definition, people who are getting their income
> through their efforts in some area of expertise--so these experts who have
> chosen to deal with and get their income from those who are openly shafting
> their profession have made conscious decisions about how to conduct
> themselves and have no cause for complaint.
>
> Carl May/BPS
>
> David Sanger <davidsangermail@... <davidsangermail%40gmail.com>>
> wrote:
> This evening's press release
>
> http://www.stockartistsalliance.org/info/news/news.htm#Getty49License
>
> Here's Ron Rovtar's writeup
>
> http://www.stockasylum.com/text-pages/articles/a5fa092007-saa.htm
>
> david sanger
>
> [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
>
> [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
>
>
>
--
david sanger
travel stock and assignments worldwide
david@...
www.davidsanger.com
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
« Return to Thread: Six trade associations respond to Getty
| Free embeddable forum powered by Nabble | Forum Help |
