You can use your logic the other way, and UK photographers get a much higher percentage than they would from sles to USA. 

This has been discussed before, and it seems FT considers that in the end, for them, it will all be the same $$.  of course, this means that sales in UKP and EUR would be equivalent to sales in USD.  For us members it doesn't look different, but UK members get more than non-UK ones, in real money. 

I'd agree, in the UK we are currently a bit better off but it would only need another swing in exchange rates to change the picture __ but that's not the point.

The point is we are ALL supposed to earn a specified % from each sale and indisputably we are not. In most cases it would seem we are earning quite a lot less than that. Personally I very much doubt that 'it evens out in the end'.

I've just proven above that every single purchase of a USA contributor's image by a UK buyer will result in a commission lower than 34% __ in most cases massively lower. How is that going to even out?

They've just increased credit prices to UK customers by over 33% (and 20% US customers?) and yet none of that extra money is to be distributed to contributors. Unbelievable.

The point is we are ALL supposed to earn a specified % from each sale and indisputably we are not. In most cases it would seem we are earning quite a lot less than that. Personally I very much doubt that 'it evens out in the end'.

Actually I think they say a % of credits. Observe that all our accounting there is in credits, which only become $ when we ask for a payout.  Not that I agree with this, but I think they have their wording correct.

But even if that is true, a credit should be a credit.  You can't say that a credit is worth X for a buyer, and Y for a contributor.

Exactly __ that's the point madelaide is missing. The value of a credit has just increased by 33% if you're a UK buyer but apparently not for sellers.

This where I jump in and tell everyone they should delete their portfolio at Fololia. I did a while back and don't regret it at all. Sure I lose income but...

A credit is a credit. 

It was until about 24 hours ago. Now it depends if you are buying that credit or earning it.

Strange, FT is my top performer...

How about legal action? I'm willing to send few hundreds of $$$ to anyone willing to take the lead. I strongly believe we could collect enough for this to get realistical without ruining anyone's wallet.

Even if the result is just them realizing we are not nameless and clueless crowd.

Even if their papers are written so that all they mention are just credits, I doubt they could get away with this credit having different value for buyer and for seller, not in civilized country. And they are registered in civilized country.

Let's finally do something about this...

Same here.   The only way I can afford to delete my portfolio is if I went exclusive with IS.  I am going to have to sit and do the math now that things have changed at IS as it seems that exclusives get a great deal there.

Quote from: crashoran on February 01, 2010, 22:53

Strange, FT is my top performer...

Exactly my thoughts, I'm just waiting for istock to become a better earner for me - I had been concentrating on fotolia last year and have a lot of exclusive stuff there because they were so strong for me. Now I'm trying to build a stronger portfolio at istock, and off to istock I will be! I've so had enough of that place!

In istock's introduction to the information about exclusivity it says: "We don't want to share you, and we'll take very good care of you." - that sounds so soothing and tempting to me!

If you look at one of the later posts on their forum by FT UK office, it basically says that they do whatever they want and contributors can like it or lump it.

This is a no brainer.  FT, and all the other agencies, are in the position of power.  There's so few of them, and so many of us.  It's simply the law of supply and demand, and if you don't have the stomach for it, microstock is not the place for you.  We can whine all we want about not liking the terms at a certain agency, but the truth of the matter is that it is a business that is making decisions it feels is right to compete with its rivals, and as a vendor you have the power to accept their decisions or decide those moves are bad for your own business and walk away.  No one is forcing you to play by rules you don't like.  We can either choose to be victims and stay in a situation we feel isn't fair, crying the whole time, or be grown-ups and say "I don't like your rules" and stand behind our convictions and end the relationship.  

This is a no brainer.  FT, and all the other agencies, are in the position of power.  There's so few of them, and so many of us.  ... (snip) ...

We can either choose to be victims and stay in a situation we feel isn't fair, crying the whole time, or be grown-ups and say "I don't like your rules" and stand behind our convictions and end the relationship.  

We're nothing like as helpless as you seem to think __ don't be so defeatist. We have got a voice, here, which we know they read and we have also got several graduated levels of action that we can take. By acting collectively we have forced significant changes before and I'm sure we can do it again.

Actually there really aren't that many of us either __ not serious players anyway. I've no doubt that the 60/10 and the 80/20 rules apply here just as anywhere else. Most likely 60% of FT's sales and their uploads will come from just 10% of their contributors. If enough of the top echelon take action the agency will be in a difficult position.

Quite simply we want our commissions paid as per the agreement. If, according to your ranking, you are supposed to receive xx% then that's what it should be. We are meant to be paid a fixed percentage of the sale price not a percentage of some nefarious floating 'credit' system, the value of which the agency can change to suit themselves and their profit margin any time they like. What other agency operates like that and what contributor would possibly accept it? We want our percentage, no more and no less.

Firstly we stop uploading new images to them. If that doesn't work then ultimately we can choose exclusivity with Istock which is becoming ever more financially attractive __ but that's the 'nuclear option' to be avoided until the last moment.

As it stands right now FT can be paying out as little as 16% to a Silver level contributor, paid in $US, on an image bought via the minimum credit package in £ Sterling. That contributor is meant to receive 31% of their sales and this is not acceptable. Every other significant agency is able to pay us our due percentage according to the sale price of the license, fully adjusted for discounts and currency, and that's what we want at FT too. Nothing else will do.

"We don't want to share you, and we'll take very good care of you."


Fotolia's is :-

"We want to scew you, and dont give a monkeys about what you want"


Warren !!

That's it in a nutshell Warren M! 

I'm surprised our posts on the FT forum haven't been deleted already! Especially when it started becoming more and more heated and critical!

It beats me that the Fotolia directors don't read their forums more regularly. They are aware that buyers also read the forums, right?!!! It can't be good for fotolia's reputation to see their contributors getting angry with being treated like crap! Now the buyers know that 1 credit for them is worth less to the people who actually photograph/design the images!

here is a link to the fotolia thread.
http://us.fotolia.com/forum/viewtopic.php?id=25159

it doesn't look like anyone there knows anything more 

Good timing, Fotolia.  All the bad PR is getting lost in the Getty,Thinktank,StockXpert,iStock Noise.