Six trade associations respond to Getty

[David Sanger-2]

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]

[Mary C. Legg]

". Reduced return for photographers.
Lower per-image returns for photographers make it more difficult
to produce the highly creative images that form the core of
creative RM stock collections."

What is meant is "No Return" to photographers as equipment,
software and time are all very expensive to produce an
outstanding image that sells.


good article and should be posted about...


--- David Sanger <davidsangermail@...> 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]
>
>



       
____________________________________________________________________________________
Got a little couch potato?
Check out fun summer activities for kids.
http://search.yahoo.com/search?fr=oni_on_mail&p=summer+activities+for+kids&cs=bz 

[Stockphoto Seller]

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@...> 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-2]

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]

[Stockphoto Seller]

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]

[Scott MacQuarrie]

Carl 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.
>  
The issue is not that they are pricing the Getty RF photos, but that
they are extending this pricing structure to all contributors, including
RM shooters.

It;s one thing to reprice your RF submissions, it's another to find your
RM work suddenly changed to a variation of RF.

- Scott -

--
Scott MacQuarrie
ZWCX Media     www.zwcx.com
416-818-4449   scott@...

[David Sanger-2]

What is it with you Carl? You seem to see wickedness and disaster everywhere
you look

Photographers are "ignorant"  "gullible" "blind"  "stupid"  "dragging
everyone down"

Getty, Corbis, Jupiter, all of them are "the devil" that "devours their
prey"

Everything is "scam" "disease" "domination"  "sheningans"

Only the righteous few, among whom you number yourself, are enlightened
enough to have nothing to do with any of the evil distributors.

Yours is not a business strategy. It is a litany of blame and doom.

There are, however, others who see things differently.

david sanger



On 9/11/07, Stockphoto Seller <bpslistmail@...> wrote:

>
>   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@... <davidsangermail%40gmail.com>>
> 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@...<bpslistmail%40pacbell.net>>
> 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><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@... <david%40davidsanger.com>
> www.davidsanger.com
>
> [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]

[Peter Dean]

In message
<139e5ad90709111732u1199ed1eiffc5aa0bfda900cd@...>, David
Sanger <davidsangermail@...> writes
>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.
>
Dear David
No they don't. My dogma is in widescreen 3D colour with stereo sound :-)

Clearly and understandably trade associations have to be seen to be
trying to do something for their members but so much ground has been
given away already this is a bit like collectively thumping the table
with large soft sponges.

Is this about price? Surely logic dictates that rights managed images
used once  non exclusively should be cheaper than micro RF that can be
used almost in any way for ever non exclusively.

If trade associations feel so strongly about price why don't they
complain and get all huffy to Getty about istockphoto ? And why don't
they kick them out of their associations ( the ones they have joined )
for selling images so cheaply via that micro route ?

If GI keeps proper records of all these $49 sales then they are all
"rights managed" are they not? Surely that's better than selling for $4
with no management at istockphoto. The price is in the region of ten
times more. I am not saying this is a good thing but the whole argument
about price does not make sense in a market flooded with cheap and
increasingly good quality micro RF borne out of the higher priced model
so many have supported. Those chickens are simply coming home to roost.

It seems to me that in a free market something has to give for
everything to find its own level. There will be plenty of people here
who have taken part in the wholesale RF giveaway for years including in
their own way the trade associations. Carl is simply pointing that out.
He has good reason to be cynical about these trade associations with
their tardy ineffective sponges.

Instead of having a discussion about price or what Getty Images should
or should not do why don't we discuss how we can manage and sell
licenses in a market hungry to use a lot of images but without throwing
the baby out with the bath water.

Let's make the assumption that clients don't have extra budgets than ten
years ago and that  there are ten times more images used these days
compared to pre-digital. Lets say that  ten years ago you could license
an image for web use for $490. Then surely the problem from the Getty
POV is one of policing what sales have been made at $49 in the current
market to maintain volume? Perhaps Getty Images are so pleased with
their web use  policing policy via Picscout they feel confident that
with the $49 dollar price tag and ten times the potential usage at this
price they think everyone will be happy ? By using resources to collect
on infringements everyone is happy except the infringers who will learn
to pay the smaller fee rather than steal.

If photographers are unhappy about the price Getty are licensing images
they should simply pull them or at the very least stop submitting.
While the trade associations can't picket or go on strike they could
collectively recommend to their members to cut off the supply of new
imagery for a period of time. Lets say a month or three. It might gain
momentum attract good press for the photographers and thereby embarrass
Getty in the eyes of the shareholders. Such a move will hardly dent the
incomes of photographers but will send a clearer message to Getty than a
few  sponges.

If anyone replies that Getty would not give a damn about that then what
is the point of these farcical "negotiations" with them ?

I stopped submitting to GI years ago.  My business is stronger and more
enjoyable as a result. Every client i take away from them is far more
effective than a letter of complaint would have been.

regards

Pete


--
Peter Dean (Photographer)
http://agripicture.com
[phone]

[Len Holsborg]

David,



If you look below the surface of Carl's posts over the years, and get by the 'cynicism', you will see some of the best arguments, discussions and educational material on the stock photography industry ever written, IMHO.

There will always be value in discoursing one's opinions on what is wrong with?any industry, beyond the "gloom and doom" factor.

Of course, not all photographers are "gullible, ignorant, blind and stupid", but some of us here feel that is an appropriate description of any business person or creative who would sell their work under such blatantly exploitive terms and contracts as RF, microstock, and $49. flat fees for certain markets.

If you wish a world where there is no dissent, no attempt to educate others about what is just and fair, and just wish succumb to the whims of others who's only interest is to maximize their profits on your creative back, that's your choice and right. But if that's where your priorities and 'reality' lie, be prepared to be 'attacked' (cordially, of course) by others who have a different? point of view, and logic.

Take a real close look at Carl's posts over they years, and get enlightened....maybe not rich, but enlightened none the less. One man's cynicism is another man's education......

regards,


Len Holsborg
lenswork1@...

agents:
http://gettyimages.com/photonica
http://cgibackgrounds.com

direct to end users


-----Original Message-----
From: David Sanger <davidsangermail@...>
To: STOCKPHOTO@...
Sent: Wed, 12 Sep 2007 10:36 am
Subject: Re: [STOCKPHOTO] Six trade associations respond to Getty






What is it with you Carl? You seem to see wickedness and disaster everywhere
you look

Photographers are "ignorant" "gullible" "blind" "stupid" "dragging
everyone down"

Getty, Corbis, Jupiter, all of them are "the devil" that "devours their
prey"

Everything is "scam" "disease" "domination" "sheningans"

Only the righteous few, among whom you number yourself, are enlightened
enough to have nothing to do with any of the evil distributors.

Yours is not a business strategy. It is a litany of blame and doom.

There are, however, others who see things differently.

david sanger

On 9/11/07, Stockphoto Seller <bpslistmail@...> wrote:

>
> 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@... <davidsangermail%40gmail.com>>
> 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@...<bpslistmail%40pacbell.net>>
> 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><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@... <david%40davidsanger.com>
> www.davidsanger.com
>
> [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]



 

________________________________________________________________________
Email and AIM finally together. You've gotta check out free AOL Mail! - http://mail.aol.com


[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

[Stockphoto Seller]

Oh, pardon me for not being a humble apologist for
those who have been wrecking our industry for the
short-term  benefit of a few. I'm not griping about
anything that is not real and happening, David. Being
a pollyanna only lets those who are riding roughshod
over you know that they can do it without any
resistance on your part. And it delays getting on to
better alternatives.

It doesn't bother me at all if you want to participate
in flushing yourself, but let's not pretend it is not
occurring and that you are not dragging others with
you. It also doesn't please me a bit that much of what
I have been warning about for the past decade has come
to pass in spades. You can't try to take control of
your own business while rolling over and letting those
who want to take advantage of you for their own
benefit have their way with you.

I'd happily leave all the sorry business wimps in
stock photography alone if we could conduct our
business freely in our own manner. But we have to work
in a way most of our industry clients want to work and
don't have a billion to sink into making everyone
dance to our tune.

Carl May/BPS

--- David Sanger <davidsangermail@...> wrote:

> What is it with you Carl? You seem to see wickedness
> and disaster everywhere
> you look
>
> Photographers are "ignorant"  "gullible" "blind"
> "stupid"  "dragging
> everyone down"
>
> Getty, Corbis, Jupiter, all of them are "the devil"
> that "devours their
> prey"
>
> Everything is "scam" "disease" "domination"
> "sheningans"
>
> Only the righteous few, among whom you number
> yourself, are enlightened
> enough to have nothing to do with any of the evil
> distributors.
>
> Yours is not a business strategy. It is a litany of
> blame and doom.
>
> There are, however, others who see things
> differently.
>
> david sanger
>
>
>
> On 9/11/07, Stockphoto Seller
> <bpslistmail@...> wrote:
> >
> >   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@...
> <davidsangermail%40gmail.com>>
> > 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@...<bpslistmail%40pacbell.net>>
> > 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><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@... <david%40davidsanger.com>
> > www.davidsanger.com
> >
> > [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]
>
>

[Dennis Hallinan]

--- In STOCKPHOTO@..., Stockphoto Seller <bpslistmail@...>
wrote:

>
> Oh, pardon me for not being a humble apologist for
> those who have been wrecking our industry for the
> short-term  benefit of a few. I'm not griping about
> anything that is not real and happening, David. Being
> a pollyanna only lets those who are riding roughshod
> over you know that they can do it without any
> resistance on your part. And it delays getting on to
> better alternatives.
>
> It doesn't bother me at all if you want to participate
> in flushing yourself, but let's not pretend it is not
> occurring and that you are not dragging others with
> you. It also doesn't please me a bit that much of what
> I have been warning about for the past decade has come
> to pass in spades. You can't try to take control of
> your own business while rolling over and letting those
> who want to take advantage of you for their own
> benefit have their way with you.
>
> I'd happily leave all the sorry business wimps in
> stock photography alone if we could conduct our
> business freely in our own manner. But we have to work
> in a way most of our industry clients want to work and
> don't have a billion to sink into making everyone
> dance to our tune.
>
> Carl May/BPS

Carl, have you any idea what you are doing to your cardiovascular system?

Dennis Hallinan

[Jorge Parra]

> Carl, have you any idea what you are doing to your cardiovascular system?
>
I don't think Carl is doing nothing to his heart.

You should be asking the REAL question:

What do think Getty will respond to all six organizations?

I have a clear idea of what they have in mind, but want to leave the question open for
"creative responses", in case it is not obvious.

Jorge Parra

[chuckgoodenough]

At 9:23 PM +0000 9/12/07, Dennis Hallinan wrote:
>Carl, have you any idea what you are doing to your cardiovascular system?
>
>Dennis Hallinan

Exactlimo.

But while concerned, it's great to get Carl's thoughtful take on things

Chuck

--
Chuck Goodenough Photo
Photography for Apparel & Accessories in Los Angeles:
http://www.chuckgoodenough.com
StockModels.com - http://www.stockmodels.com
MySpace: http://www.myspace.com/martphoto
Phone: [phone] Fax: [phone]

[David Sanger-2]

There you go again.

You seem particularly keen to blame photographers for the difficult business
circumstances in our industry and for all the changes in the market and the
economics of stock. Of course stock photography is in a crisis, That's
obvious. But railing against photographers and imagining that if only they
hadn't done this or that that all would be well is naive.

david


On 9/12/07, Stockphoto Seller <bpslistmail@...> wrote:

>
>   Oh, pardon me for not being a humble apologist for
> those who have been wrecking our industry for the
> short-term benefit of a few. I'm not griping about
> anything that is not real and happening, David. Being
> a pollyanna only lets those who are riding roughshod
> over you know that they can do it without any
> resistance on your part. And it delays getting on to
> better alternatives.
>
> It doesn't bother me at all if you want to participate
> in flushing yourself, but let's not pretend it is not
> occurring and that you are not dragging others with
> you. It also doesn't please me a bit that much of what
> I have been warning about for the past decade has come
> to pass in spades. You can't try to take control of
> your own business while rolling over and letting those
> who want to take advantage of you for their own
> benefit have their way with you.
>
> I'd happily leave all the sorry business wimps in
> stock photography alone if we could conduct our
> business freely in our own manner. But we have to work
> in a way most of our industry clients want to work and
> don't have a billion to sink into making everyone
> dance to our tune.
>
>
> Carl May/BPS
>
> --- David Sanger <davidsangermail@... <davidsangermail%40gmail.com>>
> wrote:
>
> > What is it with you Carl? You seem to see wickedness
> > and disaster everywhere
> > you look
> >
> > Photographers are "ignorant" "gullible" "blind"
> > "stupid" "dragging
> > everyone down"
> >
> > Getty, Corbis, Jupiter, all of them are "the devil"
> > that "devours their
> > prey"
> >
> > Everything is "scam" "disease" "domination"
> > "sheningans"
> >
> > Only the righteous few, among whom you number
> > yourself, are enlightened
> > enough to have nothing to do with any of the evil
> > distributors.
> >
> > Yours is not a business strategy. It is a litany of
> > blame and doom.
> >
> > There are, however, others who see things
> > differently.
> >
> > david sanger
> >
> >
> >
> > On 9/11/07, Stockphoto Seller
> > <bpslistmail@... <bpslistmail%40pacbell.net>> wrote:
> > >
> > > 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@... <davidsangermail%40gmail.com>
> > <davidsangermail%40gmail.com>>
> > > 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@... <bpslistmail%40pacbell.net>
> <bpslistmail%40pacbell.net>>
> > > 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>
> >
> <davidsangermail%40gmail.com><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@... <david%40davidsanger.com> <david%40davidsange
> r.com>
> > > www.davidsanger.com
> > >
> > > [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@... <david%40davidsanger.com>
> > www.davidsanger.com
> >
> >
> > [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]

[David Sanger-2]

Len - My issue with Carl is with his conclusion that photographers are
"responsible" for the state of the industry and his scorn for people who
don't agree with his analysis.

It's a bit like saying that if parents hadn't allowed the networks to show
all those cartoons that their children wouldn't be subjected to the deluge
of after-school TV shows. Parents never had that power.

Photographers didn't either. We are not a cartel. We are not the twelve
members of OPEC who can sit in a room and control the worldwide supply of
photographs.

There are powerful market and technological forces at work and if course the
appearance of large corporate distributors with massive databases and a
worldwide reach have changed the stock photography landscape completely.

One strategy then is to walk away, just have nothing to do with them.
Another is to engage, which is what the trade associations have chosen to
do.

Similarly some photographers choose not to work with large distributors,
others choose to do so. That doesn't mean they agree with or like everything
the distributors do.

These are different approaches.

But the attempt to blame the ills of the industry and difficulties of
photographers on those who choose to engage, is, in my opinion, unwarranted,
and the analysis inaccurate.

david sanger



On 9/12/07, lenswork1@... <lenswork1@...> wrote:

>
>
> David,
>
> If you look below the surface of Carl's posts over the years, and get by
> the 'cynicism', you will see some of the best arguments, discussions and
> educational material on the stock photography industry ever written, IMHO.
>
> There will always be value in discoursing one's opinions on what is wrong
> with?any industry, beyond the "gloom and doom" factor.
>
> Of course, not all photographers are "gullible, ignorant, blind and
> stupid", but some of us here feel that is an appropriate description of any
> business person or creative who would sell their work under such blatantly
> exploitive terms and contracts as RF, microstock, and $49. flat fees for
> certain markets.
>
> If you wish a world where there is no dissent, no attempt to educate
> others about what is just and fair, and just wish succumb to the whims of
> others who's only interest is to maximize their profits on your creative
> back, that's your choice and right. But if that's where your priorities and
> 'reality' lie, be prepared to be 'attacked' (cordially, of course) by others
> who have a different? point of view, and logic.
>
> Take a real close look at Carl's posts over they years, and get
> enlightened....maybe not rich, but enlightened none the less. One man's
> cynicism is another man's education......
>
> regards,
>
> Len Holsborg
> lenswork1@... <lenswork1%40aol.com>
>
> agents:
> http://gettyimages.com/photonica
> http://cgibackgrounds.com
>
> direct to end users
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: David Sanger <davidsangermail@...<davidsangermail%40gmail.com>
> >
> To: STOCKPHOTO@... <STOCKPHOTO%40yahoogroups.com>
> Sent: Wed, 12 Sep 2007 10:36 am
> Subject: Re: [STOCKPHOTO] Six trade associations respond to Getty
>
> What is it with you Carl? You seem to see wickedness and disaster
> everywhere
> you look
>
> Photographers are "ignorant" "gullible" "blind" "stupid" "dragging
> everyone down"
>
> Getty, Corbis, Jupiter, all of them are "the devil" that "devours their
> prey"
>
> Everything is "scam" "disease" "domination" "sheningans"
>
> Only the righteous few, among whom you number yourself, are enlightened
> enough to have nothing to do with any of the evil distributors.
>
> Yours is not a business strategy. It is a litany of blame and doom.
>
> There are, however, others who see things differently.
>
> david sanger
>
> On 9/11/07, Stockphoto Seller <bpslistmail@...<bpslistmail%40pacbell.net>>
> wrote:
> >
> > 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@... <davidsangermail%40gmail.com><davidsangermail%
> 40gmail.com>>
> > 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@...<bpslistmail%40pacbell.net>
> <bpslistmail%40pacbell.net>>
> > 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><davidsangermail%
> 40gmail.com><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@... <david%40davidsanger.com> <david%40davidsanger.com
> >
> > www.davidsanger.com
> >
> > [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@... <david%40davidsanger.com>
> www.davidsanger.com
>
> [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
>
> __________________________________________________________
> Email and AIM finally together. You've gotta check out free AOL Mail! -
> http://mail.aol.com
>
> [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]

[Stockphoto Seller]

Thanks for your concern, Dennis. The cardiovascular system is just fine as near as the multiple different tests I have had in recent years can determine. I've had much bigger and more serious family health matters to actually worry about than negative aspects of some minor dingleberry industry that, in sum, doesn't make a good-sized wart on the butt of the misshapen U.S. economy. When strong language is used, folks often confuse objectivity with cynicism and anger.
   
  Just for kicks, jump into the financial section of your browser and look at what Getty Images stock (GYI) has done over the past year. They may have bought their way to domination in our mini-world of stock, but many in the investment world probably see them as flailing with the moves they have made. Share price, now roughly half of the 52-week high and close to the 52-week low point, gives some indication of that. And could Klein's move to New York be, at least in part, to position him better for working the center of the U.S. investment community? Appealing to investors is what Getty and Klein are mostly about.
And if they are positioning Getty Images for a sale of the company, they'll want to deal from the highest share price they can pump up.
   
  Carl May/BPS

Dennis Hallinan <dhallina@...> wrote:
         
Carl, have you any idea what you are doing to your cardiovascular system?


      Recent Activity
   
      15
  New Members

Visit Your Group
      Give Back
  Yahoo! for Good
  Get inspired
  by a good cause.

    Y! Toolbar
  Get it Free!
  easy 1-click access
  to your groups.

    Yahoo! Groups
  Start a group
  in 3 easy steps.
  Connect with others.



  .

 
                         


[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

[Stockphoto Seller]

Photographers are not the only ones responsible for the sorry developments in stock photography over the past decade and a half and they certainly did not initiate most of the negative developments. If one compliantly goes along with schemes that are clearly not in one's best long-term interest and if one promotes the notion that such schemes are benign and merely another neutral aspect of how one can do business, then one is partially responsible for the decline of the profession.
   
  And all of us in stock photography are responsible for not resisting more and for not mounting competitive alternatives and promotional campaigns against RF pricing and its foul issue--and against premature digital methods not yet better than what they replaced but, overall, more expensive and of a lower quality than what they replaced when they were embraced. Sorry, but those who really thought such things were good stuff were gullible and/or destructive, whether or not they wished to be--except for the relative few who cashed in on wrecking the businesses of others, of course.
   
  Carl May/BPS

David Sanger <davidsangermail@...> wrote:
          Len - My issue with Carl is with his conclusion that photographers are
"responsible" for the state of the industry and his scorn for people who
don't agree with his analysis.



      Recent Activity
   
      16
  New Members

Visit Your Group
      Give Back
  Yahoo! for Good
  Get inspired
  by a good cause.

    Y! Toolbar
  Get it Free!
  easy 1-click access
  to your groups.

    Yahoo! Groups
  Start a group
  in 3 easy steps.
  Connect with others.



  .

 
                         


[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

[jg or JG]

--- In STOCKPHOTO@..., lenswork1@... wrote:
> Take a real close look at Carl's posts over they years, and get
enlightened
=====
I did.  I am enlightened.  I read his 1999 message on this forum in
which he considered RF to be something he didn't have to worry about
because he offered microstock.

At least he is consistently anti big agency.  If one runs a small
agency competing with big agencies, one tends to be anti big agency?

My #1 $$ (small) agency competes with Getty but rarely takes actions
influenced by Getty.  Buyers need them because they offer that which
Getty does not.  They sell more & more each year.

Stock photography is not collapsing.  Many RF & RM SHOOTERS are
thriving.  Some are not.  Just like 10 years ago.  Just like 20 years
ago.  jeffgreenberg

[jg or JG]

correction:

microstock should be microphotography

jeffgreenberg

[Dan, Stock photog]

Getty, like any other business, makes its decisions based on one thing and
one thing only- profits.  

 

Some companies respond to the market and go after short term profits.  

Some companies think far ahead and go after the long term profits.

Some companies react in ways that make sure that the executives maximize
their bonuses, perks, and stock options (for these guys, short term huge
gains are more important than the company even staying in business over the
long term.)

Other companies operate in a very reactive mode and respond to shareholder
pressure and do whatever it takes to make sure that the shareholders are
happy.

 

However Getty operates, they currently plan or believe that there is going
to be more money made from this new decision (or decisions that this one
lead to) than they would earn otherwise.  Who knows, maybe they raise the
value of the company prior to being bought.  

 

There are many skilled photographers out there that are not in the business
of submitting photographs to the agencies, and the cost of very high
resolution and very high quality photography equipment is going down, down,
down.  No matter what an agency charges for the sale of images, someone will
provide quality and sellable images.  

 

If enough photographers yanked their images from the agency and their
catalog was cut in half. they would respond because that would have an
effect on profits and company value.  If their reputation from art directors
and other photo buyers was diminished and sales dropped. they would respond.
But, somehow I think that they will continue to accept plenty of images,
sell plenty of images, and make a profit until they merge with someone else.

 

 



[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]