MicrostockGroup

Just checked their site, nothing about this news there.

Anyway, why not let them represent whoever they want? it's their problem.

what targets should the alliance have?
what ammount does any of you would pay for an organisation what "start" to fullfill these targets?
First of all, any money goes to fundraising (website, PR, getting Members, office, coordination, pay the people who do the job...and no one at the front has to be a micro, because she/he would be executed by al the big agencys.)

It's true, istock operates completely unfazed by any contributor backlash over any of the actions they've taken. And they aren't alone. Despite protests by contributors, many stock agencies continue to make moves in their own best interests while moving in opposition to contributor interests. They do it because they know they can get away with it.

And as much as I wish that some sort of contributor association could make a difference, I have serious doubts. If these companies won't change their ways based on the protests of individual contributors, why would they be influenced by an organized group represented by a select few? The agencies would be under no obligation to hear the representatives. They could ignore the organization just like they've ignored us.

At the end of the day, we're asking these companies to basically stop grabbing at the money, and I don't think that many of them are capable of doing that. And they'd feel no greater pressure to stop the money grab from an independent organization than they do from an individual contributor.

Yes, it seems there was some political division within SAA as well, board members quitting and leaving the group. Not a good sign. But it doesn't matter, your point takes it. They have a willing group who could be represented, looking for an alliance and SAA just couldn't understand that the times have changed?

I liked this best of all and I may laugh at it over and over:

"On what basis would the SAA face control decide the status of, for example, Lise Gagne? For those who don’t know her, Lise is “the world’s first crowdsourcing photography star”. As one of the most successful iStock photographers she’s one of their poster children. That same token makes her a figure of such extreme dislike within the SAA that it’s been claimed that she may have been secretly funded and promoted, even that she doesn’t actually exist, but is merely an iStock marketing fiction."

So what about Yuri, Nico_Blue, SJLocke, hidsey, dny59, & jhorrocks, are they just figments of the IS imagination?

What am I talking about? SAA was in denial that Micro was real or serious and choose to ignore crowdsourcing.

It's them! Thanks

so whats the difference between a guild and a union?

Stigma? 

stigmata 

And weren't they (we)?

Microstock images were offered for a very small fraction than the traditional market would require, with very broad usage. Many were low quality or low resolution, but we know this changed. We accepted to sell for very little, and it looked great. We accepted subscription packages just because they would bring many repeated sales. Most have grown into more accomplished photographers, and now demand better return for their time.

Let's face it, most people here (most is not all) started to make money from photography in microstock, very few were photographers before microstock (either stock or assignment). Why would traditional photographers' join efforts with microstockers?

Good thinking Cory.  Any collective effort should have clear goals. 

I like your three goals, but for photos I would be willing to sell for a minimum price of $2 for XS. 

I would also like to see the following:

4. Royalties tied to standard credit price, so 50% is 50% of the credit price.  If credit prices go up, so do royalties. 

5. Any discounts, over and above the standard credit packages, paid for by the agencies, and not out of our pockets.

6. Aggressive enforcement of licenses by the agencies and active pursuit of misuse. 

7. Agencies foot the bill for fraud/theft of images.   

8. Open communication with contributors before large scale site changes.

So there's a thorny topic in the making I think some talk of fairness has been bandied about, but otherwise not much in the way of specifics. Mostly the issues have been specific unfair moves on the part of agencies, for example:

Various agencies (DT, FT and IS come readily to mind) cutting contributor royalty rates
Fotolia's currency games with you getting paid in one currency even though they get paid in others. IS briefly had a fling with currency games over credit purchases but backed off after people complained.
Various subscription pricing complaints.

I'm less concerned with a specific royalty percentage than with the overall notion of contributors sharing equally in the growth with agencies. We've had agencies paying more than 50% but without sales, that's meaningless to contributors. Investing heavily in marketing, sales, site infrastructure (particularly a stellar search engine) is something that benefits me, the contributor, in the long term. Putting money into H&F's bank account has no value to me whatever and is akin to H&F stopping by my house to steal the carpet and the drapes.

I have very negative views of subscriptions unless they limit sizes, have different prices to include vectors or other higher priced items, so I'd be less interested in a minimum price than in ensuring a vector or XXXL image didn't cost the same as a blog sized image. The other thing that I don't much like about the SS model of subscription (in spite of how well it does) is that the more money contributors make, the less the agency makes. Seems to me that long run things work better when agency & contributor interests are better aligned.

I wouldn't be interested in a minimum price - seems too limiting and doesn't stop agencies from doing ridiculous things such as insisting that all icon sets will now be 64 icons instead of 16 while keeping the minimum price.

I guess for me I want an agency that wants to stay in the business for the long term (i.e. not a get rich quick scheme), has enough cash to invest to grow the business without turning to investors (who will strip the business and ruin it) and where the principals have enough business experience to be competent running the place.