I wonder how the Getty People are taking it?

April Fool, eh?!

Why do I keep getting suckered by these? 

No, it's definitely in the contract.  They have the right to move whatever they want to either sub site.  They are offering $.40 per download at the sub sites.

No, it's definitely in the contract.  They have the right to move whatever they want to either sub site.  They are offering $.40 per download at the sub sites.

So more than IS exclusives get?  It's still low, especially for people used to trad pricing, but why less than IS diamond exclusive?  

Wonder how long before Istock members are forced to participate in PP?  Maybe that $.03 bump was the spoon full of sugar to help the medicine go down (to paraphrase Mary Poppins)?  

Anybody exclusive Gold and above gets more than the Getty photographers.

I do wonder if they will continue to allow us to opt in our files manually or opt out completely.

Thinkstock seems to be a very important project.

I posted a you tube video with Mr. Klein advising the music industry to embrace cannibalism like he had with his agencies on other thread here a couple weeks ago.

Here's a thought:
If  Thinkstock cannibalizes sales at Istock to the extent that it eventually forces Black Diamonds and Diamonds to drop exclusivity, will it tilt the seesaw of power into the contributor's favor? 

Also, just to be clear, I think that different market talk is pure BS. They sure don't view Shutterstock as a different market.

I realize this isn't yet a move to change things for IS exclusives, but if they're doing this for Getty photographers, why wouldn't they to IS exclusives?

And to IS non-exclusives.  Looks like the writing is on the wall for the opt-out of the PP. 

Could this signal they are gradually fazing Istock out altogether, by making all the content redundant?

With the new raise, IS exclusives get $.38-$.46.

Let me just review my notes and someone can correct me if I'm wrong. ThinkStock pays this for RF sub downloads...

StockXpert people get 25c
IS people get 28c
Getty people will get 40c
IS Exclusive will get 38-46 cents.

I know some people don't like the StockXpert deal, but considering what they accepted on StockXpert, (in my case the only agency of the top eight that took many of the small first year images from me) the age of materials (nothing new in a year from StockXpert) and the sizes, I suppose it was a fair start. But if they are going to pay 28c an image for IS and 40c for Getty, why not just pay everyone the same and make it something reasonable like 35c a download and average it out based on what the buyers buy, not the original source of the collection? Getty owns about 80% of the ThinkStock collection, outright!

All these different levels and prices and many times, the same people from different sources, is just a mess.

It does seem sort of like a grand evil scheme to get everyone and everything to 20% or less.
I don't trust them at all, and I hope their Getty providers take them to task for this.

Images that have higher perceived value will get moved to RM.

You might be right, I have no idea. But RM would be more costly to operate wouldn't it - since it more often requires staff involvement ? Isn't the trend towards self service ?

With the new raise, IS exclusives get $.38-$.46.

I am a little confused.  the getty pricing relates to CANISTERS?  I keep seeing postings here refering to diamond and gold level commissions, but I thought that the RC level was what counts now not the color of your canister? 

sorry.. I feel like a total nooob.

And definately we are all watching how the subscription sites do. But isn�t subscription now being offered on many stock sites? How does this affect downloads? As a buyer I would never go to a subscription site, unless I really needed at least 100-200 images a month.

Please excuse my ignorance, I am just a simple istock exclusive...

No problem.  Happy to shine some light

There really aren't any sites (that I know of and I'm on 12) that are only subscription sites.  The PPD sites sell subscriptions now, and the subscription sites sell PPD.  So buyers can go to pretty much any microstock site (except arguably Istock) and get either a subscription or pay-per-download images.  That includes Thinkstock, if you count the image packs.  

So with Istock content either being duplicated on Getty or Thinkstock, Istock begins to seem redundant.  

ETA:  The sites that used to be PPD and now offer subs have seen a steady growth in number of subs sales and a steady decline in the number of PPD.  So not all buyers want subs, but a lot will take it if offered.  And unfortunately those are the high volume buyers with the deep pockets. 

Well, if subscriptions are what all buyers want, why is istock still around??

Why didn�t all the buyers go to shutterstock? A long time ago?

Because there was a set of images exclusive to IS that many buyers valued. That and the patina of goodness attached to being the first and the market leader.

A lot of SS vectors are total schlock (there's some great stuff there too, granted); at one time IS was the premiere place for a great collection of higher end (more elaborate) vectors.

And Thinkstock isn't just subscriptions. IS said that's all it would be when they first talked it up, but they had the "coming soon" for image packs almost from the very beginning.

The issue is what is your competitive advantage. IS has in the past not competed on price, but used the exclusive collection as a reason to get buyers to the site. They obviously need to have a good chunk of the images that are at other sites as well so they can be a one-stop-shop for many.

All this movement of exclusive IS content elsewhere is slowly eroding the primary reason people went to IS. Perhaps in the future the only exclusive (sort of) content will be Vetta & Agency (but those can be had at Getty, photos.com, etc. etc. as well).

I understand the notion of "to each his own" but exclusives who are selling their work at places other than IS are having an impact on all exclusives, not just on themselves. It's killing the goose that laid the golden egg, but people get blinded by the shine off the gold...

I see that failure to sign terminates the relationship.  Hasn't done anything for me.  Seems like a great time to get out of Getty.

Does this mean that IS Vetta images are now available on the partner program as well?

Does this mean that IS Vetta images are now available on the partner program as well?

No, it had better not, since the Agency and Vetta collections on Getty do not require a contract with Getty.

I've been reading the Getty contributor forum discussions about this contract change and there are a lot of unhappy folks. Couple of things I noted

1) The rate schedule for Getty contributors strong-armed into Thinkstock sales pays less than gold and up exclusives at IS make (40 cents for subscriptions which is what the 30%/silver royalty rate pays for IS)

2) Unsold RM images can be sold at RF at Getty's discretion after 3 years without a sale. Contributors may not remove their images if they don't like it and they can't opt out. The moderator is trying to make the argument that very few people want to opt out but also that it would be an untenable situation for Getty to have to remove images if contributors requested it.

3) The forced move to RF applies even to Photographer's Choice images - ones that contributors paid to place

4) Getty's trying to be all encouraging and understanding in their moderator's attitude, but they aren't interested in changing anything based on contributor feedback. I can't imagine why they started forums at all (they said it was because of the positive experiences with Flickr, whatever that means). Moderator: "...it is each contributors choice to accept or decline the business terms." Unhappy contributor: "...Yes, of course. I don't think anyone is unclear on that point. But please forgive us for noticing the slap in the face with Getty's "all or nothing" approach. Many of us are uncomfortable with a few points in the new contract and for good reason. Rather than give contributors some simple options on how and where their work is sold, Getty prefers to lose a certain percentage of contributors and their images. ..."

5) Sean got his whatsit whapped (gently) by the moderator who initially said how great it was to have someone from microstock participating in the discussions and then told him to stop talking about all the gnarly issues raised by this new agreement as he wasn't sticking to the topic at hand. Moderator: "Sean, I am asking again that you please stay on the topic of contributor topics only. The IP team, workflow and agreements are not part of this section of the site or forum, or a vast majority of our forum members' business. On top of that, the information you are posting about this initiative is inaccurate and speculative so it is really just confusing things and drawing attention away from the issues at hand." Wouldn't want to inform the masses - they might get restless.

Really feels like velvet glove/iron fist.

I�ve been following the getty forum as well and concur that I am a little suprised why they have a forum if they are not intending to have a real dialogue with the contributors. Dialogue, in the sense that the contract then gets amended or a solution that works is found. To just tell people: this is the contract take it or leave...

And those comments directed at Sean...I don�t know I am sometimes puzzled at the attitude towards us "microstockers". I am sure Sean makes a lot more money than most people on the Gettyforum and thus has an enormous amount of experience. He also has a brilliant business mind, that is why we all voted for him to represent us in the conference call.  

The moderator herself is really doing the very best she can and has been helpful in clarifying many things. It is an ungrateful position to be in, obviously she didn�t draw up the contract.

The request to withdraw the files if they don�t sell as RM is a very reasonable one. I don�t think members should be forced into a licensing model they are not interested in. If an image doesn�t sell within three years and then an editor decides the image would do better as RF, I do�t understand why they can�t send their members an email with a link for the images that are going to be moved. Then let the member click on each image to decide if they approve or if they want the image taken down. This is the year 2011, for modern software it can�t be difficult to set up a system for that.

Right now the only solution is to not sign the contract and leave Getty. I fully understand that many photographers are beginning to think that this is the real intention. Too many files, too many photographers. But from a business perspective it doesn�t make sense.

Why lose the photographers, if all it needs is a little software tweak?

You will always be our hero Sean ;-)

I see that failure to sign terminates the relationship.  Hasn't done anything for me.  Seems like a great time to get out of Getty.

okay.. apparently me either.  considering that I emailed istockgetty on Jan 5 with the request to terminate my istock-Getty contract and received a reply from istockgetty representative that said "consider this email confirmation of your termination."  I emailed them again to ask if there was a waiting period so that I could being uploading my content elsewhere.  No response until I asked again about 3 weeks later:

on Jan 31, my images still appeared on Getty.   so again I asked what was the hold up - is there a waiting period like the 30days on istock. I was told that getty could take up to 60 days, afterwhich I was free to do whatever I wished with my imags.

over the weekend I received the email inviting me to sign this new contract.  I thought "what the heck, I terminated with them on Jan 5."  I hadn't paid much attention, but noted on the calendar that it is now well passed the 60 day mark so looked up my port on Gettyimages.com and what do you know.. they are all still there and I have $30 in my Getty earnings account. 

Of course I have not signed the new agreement - I have no desire to get into that mess but I did email istockgetty yet AGAIN to basically ask "what?!"  of course I was nice about it but it's starting to irritate me and I feel like my small portfolio of images on Getty are being held hostage.  Although, I pretty much think my end of the contract has been met and I can do what I want with my images since their 60days is clearly up.

2) Unsold RM images can be sold at RF at Getty's discretion after 3 years without a sale. Contributors may not remove their images if they don't like it and they can't opt out. The moderator is trying to make the argument that very few people want to opt out but also that it would be an untenable situation for Getty to have to remove images if contributors requested it.

3) The forced move to RF applies even to Photographer's Choice images - ones that contributors paid to place

Unbelievable!!  Really F-king unbelievable.  How can Getty refuse to let people opt their images out or to REMOVE them?  Did all Getty photographers transfer copyright Getty all of a sudden?  So what are their options?  Decline to sign right now and pull all their images or else be enslaved at Getty for eternity?  

Do they have the option to terminate their contract at some future point, if the decide they don't like selling formerly RM images for .40?  

I knew Getty was bad.  And I knew this was going to get ugly, but Getty has exceeded my worst imaginings about how ruthless and unethical they could be.  

I await their next move at Istock, but I am pretty sure it will have the subtlety of a chainsaw.  

ETA:  I know that the popular opinion here is that SAA was completely ineffective, but I can't help wondering at the coincidence of Getty pulling this scorched earth stuff within weeks of SAA announcing their closing. 

Quote from: jsnover on April 05, 2011, 12:21

2) Unsold RM images can be sold at RF at Getty's discretion after 3 years without a sale. Contributors may not remove their images if they don't like it and they can't opt out. The moderator is trying to make the argument that very few people want to opt out but also that it would be an untenable situation for Getty to have to remove images if contributors requested it.

3) The forced move to RF applies even to Photographer's Choice images - ones that contributors paid to place

Unbelievable!!  Really F-king unbelievable.  How can Getty refuse to let people opt their images out or to REMOVE them?  Did all Getty photographers transfer copyright Getty all of a sudden?  So what are their options?  Decline to sign right now and pull all their images or else be enslaved at Getty for eternity?  

Do they have the option to terminate their contract at some future point, if the decide they don't like selling formerly RM images for .40?  

I knew Getty was bad.  And I knew this was going to get ugly, but Getty has exceeded my worst imaginings about how ruthless and unethical they could be.  

I await their next move at Istock, but I am pretty sure it will have the subtlety of a chainsaw.  

ETA:  I know that the popular opinion here is that SAA was completely ineffective, but I can't help wondering at the coincidence of Getty pulling this scorched earth stuff within weeks of SAA announcing their closing. 

If they can do that to Getty contributors, I wonder if they will make it so we can't opt out of thinkstock from istock and our images can't be removed?  And we wont even get $0.40.  Can Getty contributors usually delete their images when they want or is it like some of the microstock sites, where we are locked in for a period of time?

Unbelievable!!  Really F-king unbelievable.  How can Getty refuse to let people opt their images out or to REMOVE them?  Did all Getty photographers transfer copyright Getty all of a sudden?  So what are their options?  Decline to sign right now and pull all their images or else be enslaved at Getty for eternity?  

This strikes me an act of desperation and muddled, irrational behaviour from an organisation being pulled in different directions. The only clear business objective they appear to share is being as greedy as they think they can get away with __ with both customers and contributors. Worse, it's not even working for them.

Different components of the Getty Group are in direct commercial competition with each other, essentially selling largely the same product but at wildly different price-points. It's a total mess IMHO. It makes me wonder if revenues are falling and the fat cats at H&F are shouting nasty things down the phone to their Getty servants.

These are not the cool moves of a confident and successful business but instead appear to be knee-jerk reactions to a situation that they don't have control of.

I am math literate, but not very well schooled in the slight of hand practiced in the financial markets. I came upon this article from last November about some game Hellman & Friedman played to "pay themselves $500 million" in connection with their Getty acquisition.

Here is a definition of dividend recapitalization. And here is an explanatory article (that guy with bundles of cash has got to be a stock image!).

If I understand this right, H&F wanted some return from all the money they sank into Getty and borrowed to get it. Here is a WSJ blog about the subject (though not about H&F specifically) from September 2010, referring to this as a "partial exit" for the financial firms.

If someone out there gets all this stuff, perhaps they could shed some light for us, but it appears to me that the outright theft of cash from contributors announced by IS last September could be part of H&F squeezing Getty (and thus IS) for cash because they couldn't cash out (i.e. sell).

One of the article notes that it's good news if your company is subject to one of these dividend recaps as it's only the companies the finance folks are sure will sell for more later that these are done for.

Oh Wonderful!!

I am math literate, but not very well schooled in the slight of hand practiced in the financial markets. I came upon this article from last November about some game Hellman & Friedman played to "pay themselves $500 million" in connection with their Getty acquisition.

Here is a definition of dividend recapitalization. And here is an explanatory article (that guy with bundles of cash has got to be a stock image!).

If I understand this right, H&F wanted some return from all the money they sank into Getty and borrowed to get it. Here is a WSJ blog about the subject (though not about H&F specifically) from September 2010, referring to this as a "partial exit" for the financial firms.

If someone out there gets all this stuff, perhaps they could shed some light for us, but it appears to me that the outright theft of cash from contributors announced by IS last September could be part of H&F squeezing Getty (and thus IS) for cash because they couldn't cash out (i.e. sell).

One of the article notes that it's good news if your company is subject to one of these dividend recaps as it's only the companies the finance folks are sure will sell for more later that these are done for.

Oh Wonderful!!

Yeah, really wonderful!

This sounds an awful lot like a leveraged buyout, only one done after the fact of taking ownership.  In an LBO, you take out an enormous loan using the company to be acquired as collateral.  You get the company for virtually no cost, and the company gets to pay off the massive debt you incurred to make the purchase.  Successful, profitable companies get turned into struggling debt payment machines, and a few villains emerge with lots and lots of dollars.

Every time I see one of these, I become a little less fond of capitalism.

Thanks for the synopsis, Disorderly, and thanks JoAnn for the articles.  This sounds like exactly what is happening. 

Jami, I did read your story about being unable to get your images off Getty.  Really horrifying.  From what I can tell in your case, it sounds like it was their policy that you could leave, but in practical terms you are stuck because they won't delete your images.  I am still wondering if they are instituting an official policy that nobody can leave.  You know, kind of like the mafia. 

Quote from: disorderly on April 05, 2011, 16:51

This sounds an awful lot like a leveraged buyout, only one done after the fact of taking ownership.  In an LBO, you take out an enormous loan using the company to be acquired as collateral.  You get the company for virtually no cost, and the company gets to pay off the massive debt you incurred to make the purchase.  Successful, profitable companies get turned into struggling debt payment machines, and a few villains emerge with lots and lots of dollars.

Every time I see one of these, I become a little less fond of capitalism.

Thanks for the synopsis, Disorderly, and thanks JoAnn for the articles.  This sounds like exactly what is happening. 

Jami, I did read your story about being unable to get your images off Getty.  Really horrifying.  From what I can tell in your case, it sounds like it was their policy that you could leave, but in practical terms you are stuck because they won't delete your images.  I am still wondering if they are instituting an official policy that nobody can leave.  You know, kind of like the mafia. 

yep.. I think JoAnn hit it on the head and Disorderly translated it for us all nicely.  does sound like the current operation.


wrt Getty -- yes, I think I'm at the Hotel California there - "you can check out anytime you like, but you can never leave"

JJRD just confirmed that Vetta/Agency files are not going to Thinkstock. They are mirrored on Getty, but won�t go elsewhere.

JJRD just confirmed that Vetta/Agency files are not going to Thinkstock. They are mirrored on Getty, but won�t go elsewhere.

That sounds like good news, assuming you are one of the people who still believes everything you are told by the admins.

Quote from: cobalt on April 05, 2011, 18:23

JJRD just confirmed that Vetta/Agency files are not going to Thinkstock. They are mirrored on Getty, but won�t go elsewhere.

That sounds like good news, assuming you are one of the people who still believes everything you are told by the admins.

Well, not so long ago I used to be an admin...so, let�s say I believe this statement. ;-)

Anyone heard of evostock before?  Sounds like the collective is already underway.

http://www.aphotoeditor.com/2011/04/05/new-getty-contract-met-with-apathy/#comments

Anyone heard of evostock before?  Sounds like the collective is already underway.

http://www.aphotoeditor.com/2011/04/05/new-getty-contract-met-with-apathy/#comments

Just for yucks I did a search for tropical beach. There were 150 or so very underwhelming images. I did a search on IS for the same phrase and there were over 56K photos, many of which were stunners. I did the same search on SS and there were over 116K photos, again with many stunners.

A search for woman office produced just 47 results, many of which were of someone SCUBA diving - spam is everywhere! At IS there were over 48K photos, the whole first page (200) of which were actually women in offices. At SS over 136K photos with all of the first page (100) non-spammed results.

If these folks are going to make a go of a site like this, they need some great content, not a lot of blather about how professional they are.

I�ve been following the getty forum as well and concur that I am a little suprised why they have a forum if they are not intending to have a real dialogue with the contributors.

In general terms perhaps they prefer any debate to be taking place on a private moderated forum (which could even ultimately be deleted) instead of somewhere out there.

Yes, they seem to view it as some sort of one person moderated support system instead of a discussion forum.  Everything I post isn't necessarily directed at her.

Quote from: cobalt on April 05, 2011, 18:23

JJRD just confirmed that Vetta/Agency files are not going to Thinkstock. They are mirrored on Getty, but won�t go elsewhere.

It's not that long ago that he confirmed that Disney would be sellable as editorial (can anyone find the thread?)

Dare I say it? It was probably deleted.

Quote from: cobalt on April 05, 2011, 18:23

JJRD just confirmed that Vetta/Agency files are not going to Thinkstock.

I think that sentence is missing something. It should probably read:

JJRD just confirmed that Vetta/Agency files are not going to Thinkstock today

Wasn't it JJRD who affirmed that the Exc+ files would get a best match boost. That never happened, even for one day.   

Quote from: ShadySue on April 09, 2011, 14:59

Quote from: cobalt on April 05, 2011, 18:23

JJRD just confirmed that Vetta/Agency files are not going to Thinkstock. They are mirrored on Getty, but won�t go elsewhere.

It's not that long ago that he confirmed that Disney would be sellable as editorial (can anyone find the thread?)

True.  That was a fail.  I'd say that was more a result of poor planning due to rushing the thing out than something insidious.

You could be write, but 'poor planning' doesn't inspire confidence in the leadership, and even if not quiet as 'morally reprehensible' has the same net outcome.

Well well well!

From everything I've heard I didn't think they'd give an inch on anything.  That is good to hear!

I think Getty's top photographers are in a far stronger position to resist than microstockers are. It's utterly absurd to try to tell some of the world's most famous photographers that they have to sell their work for 40c a shot.  
I bet they were ready to pull out by the hundred and would have sued if Getty tried to hang on to any control over their work.

Coinicidentally, I noticed that two big Getty names pulled out of Getty and started marketing their own images (separately) some time last year. I guess that's easily viable if you are a 'big name' that people actively seek out.

The new Getty agreement has been changed to allow for an opt-out, so certain RM images can NOT be moved to RF (or Thinkstok) if the photographer so wishes. Getty Contributors should log onto the Contributors page & read the latest announcement.
This (positive) change of agreement also applies to photographers who've already signed the new contract in the past few weeks.

This doesn't really affect me.  I have maybe 10 RM images in my whole Getty port.  I don't want them sending my RF work there either.  Regardless of if I get $5 a month from it or not.  They don't seem to understand that.