MicrostockGroup
Agency Based Discussion => iStockPhoto.com => Topic started by: Karimala on January 19, 2012, 22:20
-
With all the recent changes at IS, it's a scary time for exclusives. Some are scared to take the plunge into independence for good reason...an immediate loss of income. So what can exclusives do to lessen the pain of independence?
First, you can start developing a RM portfolio at Alamy or other traditional RM sites. Grow your RM portfolio instead of your IS portfolio.
Second, you can sell print-on-demand products at places like Zazzle, Red Bubble, Etsy, etc.
I'm sure others can share more ideas, but this is what's working for me as I slowly remove my portfolio from IS. Building several different revenue avenues helps weather the storms, like low December sales or agency closures. My Christmas sales at Zazzle made up for losses sustained during the holidays to my stock portfolio. In two years, I haven't seen any decreases in my RF income from focusing on other projects...earnings have been remarkably steady...and I expect the same would hold true for exclusive IS portfolios. Once those other avenues are built up, it will be much easier to walk away from exclusivity.
-
My Christmas sales at Zazzle made up for losses sustained during the holidays to my stock portfolio.
Which was how much?
-
You know we don't discuss such matters around here. ;)
-
It is scary that he is asking
-
So can I just ask - is the time spent developing Zazzle worthwhile from your point of view (time vs return)? It's been a 'to-do' thing on my list, but just wasn't sure if it would pay off.
(not asking for $$ values here!!) ;)
Thanks Karimala
-
So can I just ask - is the time spent developing Zazzle worthwhile from your point of view (time vs return)? It's been a 'to-do' thing on my list, but just wasn't sure if it would pay off.
(not asking for $$ values here!!) ;)
Thanks Karimala
Absolutely! However, there's some tricks you'll need to learn in order to maximize your time, like making your own quick create templates. It takes me only an 1 - 1 1/2 hours to create 100 products from a single image. I need to write up the instructions for a friend, so when I'm done I'll post them in the print-on-demand forum.
-
That's great, thanks again Karimala. I look forward to reading them. :)
-
I had 86 sales at Zazzle in 2011 for 240$, have around 800 products, since my start there have spent something like 5 to 10 days tops while watching TV, they were my 6th best agency in 2011 with 2.5% of my total earnings (top 5 - SS, IS, 123RF, FT, DT)
-
Thanks luissantos84, that's also very helpful.
I think you guys have clinched it for me - I need to get it going. Now even more looking forward to Karimala's write up! :)
-
I've never been overly impressed with the earnings at Zazzle. It makes money every month, but it's more of a fun thing to do/hobby than a real money earner.
-
Nice thread. How is Alamy working for you that have portfolios over there? I have a couple of friends that haven't had a single sale for years.
-
Alamy - around 6-9 sales a year with just under 1000 images.
Not setting the world on fire, but lately it does seem to have slightly increased.
-
I was on a roll with the number of sales increasing every month all last year, but this month has been dead. Averaging 4-5 sales per month with about 2,100 ordinary images.
-
Are there actually exclusives that are going to drop the crown after this? I suspect not too many as most will probably feel vested and not willing to take the risk whatever their misgivings about Getty might be - as has been the case over the last few years they will most likely continue to say "I will wait and see ...".
As more of a buyer than contributor I do wish more exclusives would leave IS because I would love to have access to the ports of many of them (I have not purchased at IS for years for a variety of reasons). But I doubt it.
-
My advice to the exclusives would be to read their contract carefully and see what it actually says.
A contract is an aggreement between two parties and BOTH should stick to it.
First thing to focus on is WHO are the legal entities involved? Have they changed, are the entities not the same anymore?
Second... There might be a breech or two from one of the entities, and if so, it makes the contract invalid, or at least negotiable.
In other words... contracts might not be so valid as you may presume...
-
It would seem to me that if anyone is going to argue that iStock has voided the contract, then they would also be arguing that they are not entitled to the higher commission rates. I don't see how you could have it both ways.
-
It is scary that he is asking
I think he was bordering on the sarcastic. My experience of Zazzle is that if it beat your iStock earnings you must be earning very little on IS.
Anyone who suggests Zazzle as a realistic alternative to exclusivity at IS is being a little less than realistic.
-
It would seem to me that if anyone is going to argue that iStock has voided the contract, then they would also be arguing that they are not entitled to the higher commission rates. I don't see how you could have it both ways.
And in any case, even if you won the argument, they'd just make you sign another contract.
-
Another option is to: exhibit your work at the Louvre in Paris or the Tate-Gallery in London, as the Guggenheim museum in NY. I mean the list of opportunities is endless.
Never despair! :)
-
Nice thread. How is Alamy working for you that have portfolios over there? I have a couple of friends that haven't had a single sale for years.
Last year my sales almost exactly doubled (from a small base!), but my earnings were down 5%.
Micro has shot down the prices there: buyers have all the negotiating power.
Also note this thread:
http://www.alamy.com/forums/default.aspx?g=posts&t=12173 (http://www.alamy.com/forums/default.aspx?g=posts&t=12173)
-
It would seem to me that if anyone is going to argue that iStock has voided the contract, then they would also be arguing that they are not entitled to the higher commission rates. I don't see how you could have it both ways.
I dont know, I dont know the contract and I dont know which legal entities signed it.
And yes, claiming that IS void the contract, also means its not valid anymore. Which is the purpose.
I dont know, But it might be worth looking into. maybe some exclusive could take their contract to a lawyer? or just read it.
If legal entities change, the contracts should be renewed with the new name on it. The old ones are not valid anymore, unless the parties agree on the changes.
Well, if I were a exclusive and felt cheated by IS, I might consider to not give a "s.." about the exclusive agreeement, and upload my pictures to other agencies.... And IS might sue me for breech of contract.
But that certainly could be argued, IS might not have a good case.
Just to consider.
-
Better just to quit exclusivity than look for a fight that could end up getting you sued for the return of commissions and thrown off the site.
-
It would seem to me that if anyone is going to argue that iStock has voided the contract, then they would also be arguing that they are not entitled to the higher commission rates. I don't see how you could have it both ways.
I dont know, I dont know the contract and I dont know which legal entities signed it.
And yes, claiming that IS void the contract, also means its not valid anymore. Which is the purpose.
I dont know, But it might be worth looking into. maybe some exclusive could take their contract to a lawyer? or just read it.
If legal entities change, the contracts should be renewed with the new name on it. The old ones are not valid anymore, unless the parties agree on the changes.
Well, if I were a exclusive and felt cheated by IS, I might consider to not give a "s.." about the exclusive agreeement, and upload my pictures to other agencies.... And IS might sue me for breech of contract.
But that certainly could be argued, IS might not have a good case.
Just to consider.
well you can sell at other sites after 30 days notice
& SS allow you to submit and hold them until you are ready to go
& why risk losing a site that even non exclusives say makes circa 15% of there income, particularly as your portfolio is already loaded there?
-
Better just to quit exclusivity than look for a fight that could end up getting you sued for the return of commissions and thrown off the site.
You cannot do both, thats not what I suggest.
I suggest you look into the contract and see if you can claim it has been breeched by IS.
In my understanding there are 3 problematic areas:
The shift of name when IS was bought, can another company inherit the contributers contracts?
Was the migration of material to thinkstock agreed by the contributor.
The cuts in commission + manipulation of search engines.
What you can do is to inform IS that you consider the contract broken by a date, and such have no obligations do remain exclusive.
But then again, Im just speculating. I would advice people to read their contracts and judge for themselves.
Law is law and luckily it begins to apply more and more to internet companies that have been used to produce their own rules.
BTW... that is also a message to other agencies who also have their own rules.
-
My advice to the exclusives would be to read their contract carefully and see what it actually says.
A contract is an aggreement between two parties and BOTH should stick to it.
First thing to focus on is WHO are the legal entities involved? Have they changed, are the entities not the same anymore?
Second... There might be a breech or two from one of the entities, and if so, it makes the contract invalid, or at least negotiable.
In other words... contracts might not be so valid as you may presume...
So far, we've always had to agree to changes in the contract whenever a change has been made.
Of course the changes have always been in their favour, but we've always been made aware of it.
(Actually, I think the most recent was a default one, whereby if you didn't agree you were automatically opted in after four weeks or a month, but I can't remember what that was for)
-
Better just to quit exclusivity than look for a fight that could end up getting you sued for the return of commissions and thrown off the site.
If you're from some 3rd world country, that is not really cooperating with USA&Canada, or the western world in whole, you just couldn't care less, since no one can touch you, you can just wipe your ass with their lawsuits and enjoy the money. I'd do it in a heartbeat to such a company. I'd become exclusive at FT too ;D
-
It is scary that he is asking
I think he was bordering on the sarcastic. My experience of Zazzle is that if it beat your iStock earnings you must be earning very little on IS.
Anyone who suggests Zazzle as a realistic alternative to exclusivity at IS is being a little less than realistic.
I wasn't suggesting Zazzle or Alamy or any other site as an alternative to exclusivity. What I'm suggesting is exclusives look for other ways to build income (that don't violate their contracts) while they remain exclusive as a means of softening the blow once they decide to go independent.
-
My advice to the exclusives would be to read their contract carefully and see what it actually says.
A contract is an aggreement between two parties and BOTH should stick to it.
First thing to focus on is WHO are the legal entities involved? Have they changed, are the entities not the same anymore?
Second... There might be a breech or two from one of the entities, and if so, it makes the contract invalid, or at least negotiable.
In other words... contracts might not be so valid as you may presume...
So far, we've always had to agree to changes in the contract whenever a change has been made.
Of course the changes have always been in their favour, but we've always been made aware of it.
(Actually, I think the most recent was a default one, whereby if you didn't agree you were automatically opted in after four weeks or a month, but I can't remember what that was for)
oh yes. I forgot that. All these popups where you just click accepted without reading it. Thats a bugger.
-
My advice to the exclusives would be to read their contract carefully and see what it actually says.
A contract is an aggreement between two parties and BOTH should stick to it.
First thing to focus on is WHO are the legal entities involved? Have they changed, are the entities not the same anymore?
Second... There might be a breech or two from one of the entities, and if so, it makes the contract invalid, or at least negotiable.
In other words... contracts might not be so valid as you may presume...
So far, we've always had to agree to changes in the contract whenever a change has been made.
Of course the changes have always been in their favour, but we've always been made aware of it.
(Actually, I think the most recent was a default one, whereby if you didn't agree you were automatically opted in after four weeks or a month, but I can't remember what that was for)
Just because we have always had to agree to changes in the "as-is" contract, it doesn't mean IS doesn't breach parts of the contract from time to time, which would invalidate the contract. Contracts can be invalidated for a variety of reasons, including being overly lopsided in favor of one party over the other...and as we all know, IS's contract is very lopsided in its favor.
-
You know we don't discuss such matters around here. ;)
You brought it up. If you made $5, I don't care. If you made $500, I might care.
-
Better just to quit exclusivity than look for a fight that could end up getting you sued for the return of commissions and thrown off the site.
If you're from some 3rd world country, that is not really cooperating with USA&Canada, or the western world in whole, you just couldn't care less, since no one can touch you, you can just wipe your ass with their lawsuits and enjoy the money. I'd do it in a heartbeat to such a company. I'd become exclusive at FT too ;D
Except that once they catch you they would throw you off their site so all your future iStock earnings go down the swannee. I don't really see what the problem would be with waiting 30 days to quit exclusivity if that is what people want to do. If the suggestion is just to cheat on exclusivity then legal debate is irrelevant.
-
You know we don't discuss such matters around here. ;)
You brought it up. If you made $5, I don't care. If you made $500, I might care.
Let's put it this way...I earned enough to make up for what I consider a serious drop in my income at IS. It wasn't $500, but that's only because I went through some serious life upheavals last year that prevented me from working enough in order to get to $500. But I have no doubt reaching $500 per month is only a matter of time. Just gotta get the work done.
-
Cheating is not a way to go.
And I would say, that the agencies should not do business with people in countries out of reach of the law.
That would surely benifit us contributers from the expensive western world.
But of course they do. Again they dont care as long as it pays. The rules are always to their advantage.
-
Cheating is not a way to go.
And I would say, that the agencies should not do business with people in countries out of reach of the law.
That would surely benifit us contributers from the expensive western world.
But of course they do. Again they dont care as long as it pays. The rules are always to their advantage.
So you think people might want to get out of the contract and to do so their best option is to raise a legal challenge, not just to quit exclusivity after 30 days? I think you must be a lawyer.
Why shouldn't agencies trade with people outside the reach of State of New York law, or wherever the contract says it is based? So that if the agency get sued, they can sue the artists under the indemnity clause? What other function does it server? The ability to delete an account is an effective enough way of enforcing the "law" against people who cheat.
I really don't understand the point you are making. Not dealing with people outside the US wouldn't (you don't really think they can enforce this in Italy or France, do you?) would not help artists at all. Most of the agency's sales market would disappear.
-
And I would say, that the agencies should not do business with people in countries out of reach of the law.
thats what 1800? it doesnīt make any sense at all, lets do that on FB, twitter, I really donīt see how far business can go without growing into other markets
are you from CUBA? :D
-
Better just to quit exclusivity than look for a fight that could end up getting you sued for the return of commissions and thrown off the site.
If you're from some 3rd world country, that is not really cooperating with USA&Canada, or the western world in whole, you just couldn't care less, since no one can touch you, you can just wipe your ass with their lawsuits and enjoy the money. I'd do it in a heartbeat to such a company. I'd become exclusive at FT too ;D
Except that once they catch you they would throw you off their site so all your future iStock earnings go down the swannee. I don't really see what the problem would be with waiting 30 days to quit exclusivity if that is what people want to do. If the suggestion is just to cheat on exclusivity then legal debate is irrelevant.
Indeed, the suggestion is cheating. The suggestion is getting double royalties as long as you can, because if you drop exclusivity, your income will drop below 15%. Let me explain; earnings halved because of the royalty percentage decrease, split in half again, because you're no longer favoured in search results, you're at 25% now, now you should take into account the current state of best match and you can, at best, split the percentage again and you're at 12.5%. If you have and sell a lot of V/A, your income will be 5% of the current. Now why wouldn't just everybody from the "you MOFOs from IS can't touch me" country try that?
-
Cheating is not a way to go.
And I would say, that the agencies should not do business with people in countries out of reach of the law.
That would surely benifit us contributers from the expensive western world.
But of course they do. Again they dont care as long as it pays. The rules are always to their advantage.
So you think people might want to get out of the contract and to do so their best option is to raise a legal challenge, not just to quit exclusivity after 30 days? I think you must be a lawyer.
Why shouldn't agencies trade with people outside the reach of State of New York law, or wherever the contract says it is based? So that if the agency get sued, they can sue the artists under the indemnity clause? What other function does it server? The ability to delete an account is an effective enough way of enforcing the "law" against people who cheat.
I really don't understand the point you are making. Not dealing with people outside the US wouldn't (you don't really think they can enforce this in Italy or France, do you?) would not help artists at all. Most of the agency's sales market would disappear.
First I think the exclusives should read their contract. I thought they were bound for 6 months, not 30 days. That makes a difference. 30 days is not important enough to take any specific action.
Next, I really have a problem of the agencies do business in all those out of reach countries. The number is shrinking and law begin to apply more internationally. I can understand why the agencies are happy to increase both their customer volume and their contributers volume. But I, as a contributor am only happy with increase in costumers, not competitors. And also there are certain costumers I do not like as much as the agencies. Eg the type of customer that downloads our pictures and put them up for sale or for free on a .ru site.
Then there is the unfair competition with contributers from "lawless" countries. We just heard how someone might cheat with exclusivity, and thats not the only thing. And its not fair if it cannot be persecuted. In my country, which is Denmark there is a rule of law, and lawsuits coming from abroad would certainly find the way to the offender. I find it problematic that the agencies do not do more to protect our copyright, and that they only take the benifits of the global market and leave the competition and expenses to us.
-
First I think the exclusives should read their contract. I thought they were bound for 6 months, not 30 days. That makes a difference. 30 days is not important enough to take any specific action.
The contract says 30 days.
If you leave excusivity then decide you want to be exclusive again, it's a 3-month wait then.
"How long am I committed?
If you get cold feet, you can cancel your Exclusive contract with 30 days notice, after providing us with a reason ("it's not you, it's me"). And we'll always take you back, with a 90 day reinstatement waiting period."
Of course, the reason would be, "It's not me, it's you."
-
ja, of course.
I was mistaken, thought it was 6 months and made a fuzz.
However its always a good thing to read those small letters....
Another thing, I might be wrong, I might be terribly mistaken...but I think the closed environment of the exclusives and the overly green pastures they have walked might have lulled some.... and maybe the whole agency, into a belief of excellency, that does not hold water... outside of the green pasture.
-
Idea for exclusives while you're waiting 30 days: you can subscribe to Shutterstock (http://submit.shutterstock.com/?ref=97684), pass the test and even start uploading while staying opted out from sales - There's an option for it, I think it's perfectly legal, and your port on Shutterstock is invisible until you decide to opt in.
Of course, I'd be much obliged if you could use my affiliate link (http://submit.shutterstock.com/?ref=97684) :)
-
I'm very interested in those templates for Zazzle also! I have a solid idea for a shop there. I'm also uploading photography to Fine Art America, which sounds like the best site out there to sell prints from (newly uploaded images auto-synching to Facebook wall...huge plus). I looked into Spoonflower, which sells fabric with your designs on it, but it sounds like it is extremely hard to make money there, because you have to proof each fabric swatch before it can be offered for sale, and that's not free.
My Fine Art America gallery:
http://fineartamerica.com/profiles/janeen-wassink-searles.html?tab=artworkgalleries (http://fineartamerica.com/profiles/janeen-wassink-searles.html?tab=artworkgalleries)
-
I'll work on the template instructions this weekend. I have a meeting with an attorney today about a copyright infringement case I'm pursuing, and will likely be working on that all day.
-
kari...
What did he say?
-
kari...
What did he say?
Don't know yet. Four more hours until my appointment. Check your PM. Can't go into details in public.
-
I'll work on the template instructions this weekend. I have a meeting with an attorney today about a copyright infringement case I'm pursuing, and will likely be working on that all day.
I'd be interested in these too. I have a zazzle store, but haven't done much with it because it takes a lifetime to create the products. Sounds like your method would make that process much simpler.
-
I'll work on the template instructions this weekend. I have a meeting with an attorney today about a copyright infringement case I'm pursuing, and will likely be working on that all day.
Thanks I can use them too as I want to market some basic products not a massive store. A couple of Templates would be dandy for what I want to do.
Hope the meeting worked out with the attorney.
-
My appointment was postponed until Monday, so I worked up the instructions instead.
http://www.microstockgroup.com/product-resale-forum/customized-quick-create-templates-for-zazzle/msg239628 (http://www.microstockgroup.com/product-resale-forum/customized-quick-create-templates-for-zazzle/msg239628)