MicrostockGroup

What is funny to me is how they SELL our ( I mean your because I don't ) FREE images; BUT I do not hear anyone talking about that.

How do you SELL FREE images?

My reply is directed towards Randy's messages.

I disagree with the Subject. It should be Is FT ramming us from Behind AGAIN ? ? ? ? ?

To answer your question about loss or gain, I either lost everything or nothing when I pulled out of FT and left one photo behind as a place holder. I have piece of mind and I don't think they really miss me. Mutual separation, everyone is happy.

As for the Who's on First routine, it's only a follow-up to the Three Stooges act, when they were flossing people with the tax withholding, which cost some folks money, which they aren't returning, asked for forms that cost money, sent out forms that the IRS wouldn't accept and in all, screwed the pooch.

Then they came around and "fixed" it and some people wrote thank you notes! Thank you for stopping, screwing with us?

Please sir, can I have some more?

It's called subscription.

Think global, act local, it's the only way.

  WOW! I am always shocked and disappointed when I hear about this kind of stuff happening to artists.

As co-owner and 100% involved partner of ClipartOf.com I would never, ever, EVER treat our artists this way! If an artist asks a question, they get the honest answer from us, even if it sucks! We dont give the run around and neither should any other site.

What did your agreement say regarding distribution and commissions when you joined FT?

Frankly I feel that FT is majorly in the wrong and this is a big joke. If FT is the one paying you for your earnings they better dang well know what is going on and they better give you the information that you are requesting as it is their responsibility to do so, being as you are not a direct contributor of Photoexpress, FT is technically acting as your "agent" and needs to let you know what your earnings will be. You should also have an option to opt out of the Photoexpress site since apparently they are a whole different operation.

Its amazing what artists will put up with these days just to make money, but the truth is that you are being gypped even if you think are making the big bucks. You could be making more. You just have to grow some balls, stand up for yourself, and stop letting these greedy micros walk all over you!

Jamie
http://www.clipartof.com/
Sorry we are not accepting contributors at this time. We want to remain personable with our current artists. However feel free to keep checking back. When we are ready to take on more artists, we will have an artist application link somewhere on the site.

LMAO oh yeah their 28% tax rate was a joke.


Well put Jamie 

Any artist who is making less than 50% commissions is being ripped off. Why on earth should a library make more than the artist who created the file?! Those that choose to put up with it simply dont value their work well enough.

The thing is, there are really no alternatives. Only very few agencies give out 50% or more to the contributor, and these are often the low earner agencies (not including ClipartOf). There are no way for me to get compensated if I take down my illustrations from FT, IS, SS, DT and so on - in other words I need the money. If I were to choose ClipartOf as my exclusive agency for selling my images I would have to sign away approximately 90% of my total earnings. So I have to accept iStocks 20% and I have to believe that a huge slice of their 80% cut is spent wisely on advertising and promotional campaigns. That said, I wish more agencies would split the royalties evenly like ClipartOf, but I don't think that's ever going to happen as it would take an entire revolution among microstock contributors. Untill then, the major agencies will keep driving down commissions simply because there's nothing stopping them. Just my thoughts

Dont get me wrong. I think its very important for artists to license their images at as many places as possible. I also think exclusivity is a bad thing. Having your work at just one site really restricts your possibilities of sales.

I do think its wrong for the agencies to pay the artist less than 50%. The agency wouldn't even exist if it weren't for the artists.

In principle I'd agree with you __ but the real world just doesn't seem to work like that. We've had plenty of agencies paying 50% or more but the truth is they couldn't compete against the marketing power of the agencies that paid out less. It wouldn't surprise me if it turned out that Google makes more money from microstock images than the contributors do.

That is very true, loop, unfortunately... But if people stopped getting greedy and did the hard work themselves there is no need to decrease the earning percentage. We have better plans than that over here

haha, yeah very good point.

I think it is great and cool if sites scrape a hefty 60 or 80% of our sales and if they use that money to generate more and more sales... from NEW buyers.  Unfortunatly I really doubt that is the case.  I think a more accurate picture is that they are mostly fighting amoungst the customers that already exist.  If sites are using their exorbant % to just fight over customers amoungst themselves then it is not cool.  How can DT compete against FT, iStock and SS when the later 3 sites take ~30% more of our earnings and advertise more and potentially steal away DT's customers. 

Note to self:  work hard at promoting sites that I feel give photographers a good deal.  When you link your images, or send a link to a future buyer, link them to the site that you feel gives you the best deal.