Originally posted 2/8/2014
A year ago today, my contributor “agreement” with iStockphoto was terminated. It has certainly been an interesting 365 days since then, with lots of time spent trying to take my content from the last 9 years and make it work for me, as well as creating new content for my portfolio at Stocksy United. I gave an overview of what led up to that Friday in my post “A Change In Things“, but I feel, at this point, like detailing just a bit more.
In the months prior to the Google/Getty fiasco (detailed in the above post), I had been in contact with some of the iStockphoto management, casual phone calls and emails, discussing issues that the site was dealing with at the time. It was not just one-way – I was also solicited for some comments as well.
On Tuesday the 5th, I received an email from an as-yet-unknown-to-me Getty Images executive, Andy Saunders, Creative SVP. I’d never heard of this fellow – in fact, I think he was based in Ireland or somewhere across the ocean. This email was out of the blue, and was just written in a way where I couldn’t tell what the intent was. He questioned my business objectives and intent and said that if we weren’t “aligned”, we should terminate our relationship. I should contact him if I wanted to discuss.
I was completely surprised at receiving this mail, so I didn’t want to respond quickly, and it didn’t seem like there was a sense of urgency to the mail, so I sat on it for a while to think of how to respond. On Thursday the 7th, I found another mail from him in my inbox, noting that I hadn’t responded, and that if I didn’t respond by Monday the 11th, he would assume I wasn’t interested in “constructive discourse” and he would start the termination. Soon after, I got emails from iStockphoto that I was banned from the forums and sitemail. Now, I sensed some urgency to the situation. On the surface, it sounded like he was actually interested in working together. Here is what I penned, and after several re-reads, sent in reply:
I don’t like to respond to things instantly, without having time to think them over and formulate an appropriate response. I’m sorry if your need for a reply was immediate – that was not communicated.
Frankly, I’m not sure where this is coming from and it actually comes across as somewhat rude and threatening, which I don’t really appreciate. I also don’t appreciate having my site mail and forum privileges blocked just now for not responding quick enough.
I have been one of the biggest cheerleaders of iStockphoto ever since I joined (witness my offsite blog). I have paid XXXXXX to iStockphoto for acting as my agent. My goals have always been to create salable content, work towards creating the best environment to sell that content, and to help my fellow community of contributors stay informed on industry issues. I spend many hours developing tools and finding answers to assist the community. Towards those goals, I have given many suggestions via phone and email to XXXXXX, XXXXXX and XXXXXX, and, as recent as last week, offered a phone call to see if we could discuss some of the actions that I think would help the community and the site move through and past the problems we are encountering, as well as grow the business.
So, I’m not sure how someone has formulated your first set of statements below. As far as I know, I am still allowed to blog and forum post on industry issues as I see appropriate. If questioning policy and searching for facts is causing some behind-the-scenes consternation, my previous suggestions on how to communicate with the community might be revisited. As well, I don’t believe I have ever discussed licensing from iStockphoto aside from addressing buyer and contributor questions. In fact, I have licensed only through iStockphoto because I felt the licensing agreement was fairly strong and protective for both the buyer and contributor – which, unfortunately, is not evident in the Google library initiative and which is part of the issue with that.
My response to how to “improve approaches to library deals” would be to make them all opt-in, and as well, stick to the spirit of the iStockphoto agreement. I’m sure you knew that already though, from the many statements about that on the forum. Contributors want to control where their content is licensed/sold from. We hold the copyright. To utilize our content in the Google deal in such a way that deviates so far from the intent of the iStockphoto ASA without asking contributors if they want to participate, should have been known would cause concern. We are not Getty contributors – we are a large crowd of people all without our own business concerns, and sooner than later, the crowd will find things that are done without our knowledge.
To “reduce unauthorized-use or redistribution of content” – well, don’t put it out there for free and without protection of any sort, like in the Google deal. One of the reasons I don’t tend to find my work on sites that steal and distribute content, is because that work was exclusively licensed from iStockphoto (and Getty to a lesser extent). When people have to trade something of value (money) for something else, they tend to hold that something else more securely. If you are the type to pirate Photoshop from somewhere, you are more likely to pass it along yourself. However, if you spend a thousand dollars on it, you tend to feel a sense of ownership. Which is why, when you make something free to grab on Google, it loses all value and ends up being re-distributed. I’m not sure if you’re looking for a bigger picture answer, but that is what is currently on my mind. This is also why I have questioned what Getty and iStockphoto are going to do in response to the Google Image Search, which puts our work at high resolution, easy to grab, on the Google search results page. If I post a link to a statement on Dreamstime, it is because I am pointing out that other industry leaders are making a statement, not because I am trying to drive buyers away.
I’m not sure what other suggestions you’re looking for, but an easy answer to how to work better with the community would be to treat contributors, their opinions, and their creative works with respect, and appreciation that the content holds value. Also, the company needs to work harder at regaining the trust of the contributor base in regards to transparency of sales and reporting. When that happens, and the community feels it can fully trust the company again, it won’t question every action.
I’ve given many suggestions and don’t want to retread everything I’ve already discussed with the other guys. If you have specific questions, we can address those if you wish. However, if someone just wants to tell me “Don’t do X or Y” or “We don’t like Z”, then that should just be said – I’m not that great at reading between the lines.
I’d appreciate my site mail and forum posting turned back on, although I doubt I’ll be posting much there anyways. A lot of people have become disillusioned lately, and I think the company needs to work really hard to fix that. However, I do hope that we can all work together to push our sales and rewards higher.
I think it’s obvious what my “objectives” were. In response to that, we set up a call, via email, for Friday. I thought we were going to discuss the current issues – I even asked in the email what specifically was going to be addressed, so I could be prepared for the discussion. Instead, I was blindsided in the call with his decision to terminate my contributor agreement. So much for “constructive discourse”.