Author Topic: iStock changing royalty structure (Read 350431 times)

caspixel · « **Reply #950 on:** September 27, 2010, 12:56 »

Quote from: zzz on September 27, 2010, 11:33

Here's one of your posts end of 2007 where you said you will start looking elsewhere. See the third post from the top. You may not have said you'll stop buying at iStock, but you sure have made it clear that you were planning to look elsewhere.

I think some of us are just tired of your posts over time how much you dislike where iStock is going (away from "the designer's dirty little secret") and that there are so many other places where you can buy good photos. Just do what you feel is right for you and be done with it.

ONE post in four years (and ONLY stating that I'd be looking for high res elsewhere) certainly is a lot different than claiming it's been an endless litany of threats to leave.

It's certainly not much different than views many other people have expressed, but apparently I get to be the whipping boy for everybody.

What I find interesting is how buyers were just supposed to take the price increases, shut up and sit down. But I knew there would (inevitably) be a huge uproar when Getty finally started reducing the contributors cut. It was bound to happen. What can I say...first they came for the buyers...

caspixel · « **Reply #951 on:** September 27, 2010, 13:20 »

Actually kind of interesting to go back and read that old thread and see that some of the predictions have come true. And also depressing. The economy has been in the sh*tter for a long time.

Danicek · « **Reply #952 on:** September 27, 2010, 15:09 »

Does anyone know if the Vetta taking so many spots in the searches is recent adjustment or if it was always this way? I know there were always quite a few Vetta files in the top results, but recently it looks like 90%+ spots on the first and second page are occupied by Vetta images. I wonder if this is part of a greater scheme of things. Or just thing I did not notice before.

Also, unless I'm missing something, it now appears to be more complicated to exclude Vetta files. One has to first do the search and then access the advanced tab and limit the results.

Try New York City or Fashion (Phoho only) searches.

jamirae · « **Reply #953 on:** September 27, 2010, 15:21 »

Quote from: Danicek on September 27, 2010, 15:09

Does anyone know if the Vetta taking so many spots in searches is recent adjustment or it was always this way? I know there were always quite a few Vetta files, but recently it looks like 90%+ spots on first and second page are really occupied by Vetta images. I wonder if this is part of some greater scheme of things. Or just thing I did not notice before.

Also, unless I'm missing something, it now appears to be more complicated to exclude Vetta files. One has to first do the search and then access the advanced tab and limit the results.

Try New Your City or Fashion (Phoho only) searches.

that is all part of the new scheme. Wait until the Agency collection starts showing up.

SNP · « **Reply #954 on:** September 27, 2010, 15:27 »

Danicek · « **Reply #955 on:** September 27, 2010, 16:02 »

Quote from: Hawk_Eye on September 27, 2010, 15:27

Good

Great

Jo Ann Snover · « **Reply #956 on:** September 27, 2010, 16:22 »

Quote from: Danicek on September 27, 2010, 15:09

Also, unless I'm missing something, it now appears to be more complicated to exclude Vetta files. One has to first do the search and then access the advanced tab and limit the results.

That's just the new site redesign. I think it's insane to require you to do a search to get to the advanced search dialog. Sort of thing designed by people who don't actually use the site to search for and purchase images...

See Lobo's comment here about (a) splitting Vetta and Agency preferences in advanced search and (b) when they're planning to launch the new search. I sincerely hope they think about this a minute or two and wait until January to ~~break search~~ implement the new features.

ShadySue · « **Reply #957 on:** September 27, 2010, 16:36 »

Quote from: Danicek on September 27, 2010, 15:09

Does anyone know if the Vetta taking so many spots in the searches is recent adjustment or if it was always this way? I know there were always quite a few Vetta files in the top results, but recently it looks like 90%+ spots on the first and second page are occupied by Vetta images. I wonder if this is part of a greater scheme of things. Or just thing I did not notice before.

Try New York City or Fashion (Phoho only) searches.

It seems to depend on the search. Try 'men'.

Jo Ann Snover · « **Reply #958 on:** September 27, 2010, 19:16 »

So Lobo deleted all the posts that had a link to this wonderful YouTube video of an Air Tran commercial. But I think it's funny (in a sick way) given our current situation with iStock.
[youtube]w6Xe_tquHgQ[/youtube]

cathyslife · « **Reply #959 on:** September 27, 2010, 19:31 »

Quote from: jsnover on September 27, 2010, 19:16

So Lobo deleted all the posts that had a link to this wonderful YouTube video of an Air Tran commercial. But I think it's funny (in a sick way) given our current situation with iStock.

Too funny and so spot on!

caspixel · « **Reply #960 on:** September 27, 2010, 19:32 »

Haha. Maybe hitting a little too close to home. Seems iStock/Getty is a little sensitive these days.

gbalex · « **Reply #961 on:** September 27, 2010, 20:34 »

Quote from: jsnover on September 27, 2010, 19:16

So Lobo deleted all the posts that had a link to this wonderful YouTube video of an Air Tran commercial. But I think it's funny (in a sick way) given our current situation with iStock.
[youtube]w6Xe_tquHgQ[/youtube]

Could not be more appropriate.

Risamay · « **Reply #962 on:** September 27, 2010, 22:22 »

OMG - That commercial is hilarious. And spot on our present brouhaha

Danicek · « **Reply #963 on:** September 28, 2010, 02:10 »

Quote from: ShadySue on September 27, 2010, 16:36

Quote from: Danicek on September 27, 2010, 15:09
Does anyone know if the Vetta taking so many spots in the searches is recent adjustment or if it was always this way? I know there were always quite a few Vetta files in the top results, but recently it looks like 90%+ spots on the first and second page are occupied by Vetta images. I wonder if this is part of a greater scheme of things. Or just thing I did not notice before.

Try New York City or Fashion (Phoho only) searches.
It seems to depend on the search. Try 'men'.

True Sue. Actually that's pretty interesting. Could it be that the weight of the many flames on the regular collection files outweigh the Vetta preference? Do not know, but the men results are so hugely different. Actually there appear to be no Vetta file on the first page although there is plenty of them within the search.

Dreamframer · « **Reply #964 on:** September 28, 2010, 02:15 »

I think Air Tran is just bought today from SouthWest, right?

sharpshot · « **Reply #965 on:** September 28, 2010, 03:26 »

Quote from: caspixel on September 27, 2010, 12:56

Quote from: zzz on September 27, 2010, 11:33
Here's one of your posts end of 2007 where you said you will start looking elsewhere. See the third post from the top. You may not have said you'll stop buying at iStock, but you sure have made it clear that you were planning to look elsewhere.

I think some of us are just tired of your posts over time how much you dislike where iStock is going (away from "the designer's dirty little secret") and that there are so many other places where you can buy good photos. Just do what you feel is right for you and be done with it.

ONE post in four years (and ONLY stating that I'd be looking for high res elsewhere) certainly is a lot different than claiming it's been an endless litany of threats to leave. It's certainly not much different than views many other people have expressed, but apparently I get to be the whipping boy for everybody.

What I find interesting is how buyers were just supposed to take the price increases, shut up and sit down. But I knew there would (inevitably) be a huge uproar when Getty finally started reducing the contributors cut. It was bound to happen. What can I say...first they came for the buyers...

I wish more buyers would use the other sites, then perhaps istock wouldn't be able to raise prices and cut commissions? They can only get away with this because they have so much power, being the biggest site. We hold all the cards though, all we have to do is take some positive action. I have stopped uploading, started deleting, removed any links I can find to istock and replaced them with other sites. Buyers have more control, they can really make a difference by buying images elsewhere. Its a shame people are picking on you here, we should all be working hard to change things for the better. I don't really care if you have been threatening to leave istock for years or not. I've threatened to leave a few times and done nothing but this time is different, they have really messed up lately and I can see it isn't going to be beneficial for me to work with them if they keep this up.

Microbius · « **Reply #966 on:** September 28, 2010, 03:45 »

Quote from: zzz on September 27, 2010, 11:33

I think some of us are just tired of your posts over time how much you dislike where iStock is going (away from "the designer's dirty little secret") and that there are so many other places where you can buy good photos. Just do what you feel is right for you and be done with it.

Why because she was right? I mean there's certainly something of Cassandra about the situation.
It is annoying when the person you thought was a niggling repetitive doom-sayer turns out to have been spot on about the direction a company was going and the yoo yaying majority tun out to have been deceived, but this is a strange way to show gratitude for the warnings she was putting out there.

pdx · « **Reply #967 on:** September 28, 2010, 03:54 »

Quote from: zzz on September 27, 2010, 11:33

I think some of us are just tired of your posts over time how much you dislike where iStock is going (away from "the designer's dirty little secret") and that there are so many other places where you can buy good photos. Just do what you feel is right for you and be done with it.

Personally, I wish we had more vocal buyers like her voicing their discontent.

JamesGdesign · « **Reply #968 on:** September 28, 2010, 04:19 »

hahaha Political correctness means NOTHING to me (I am a student of history, after all.)

But I will take a moment to apologize to all those who weren't Hi-jacking the thread who were offended. I am truly sorry. *handshake

carry on.

rubyroo · « **Reply #969 on:** September 28, 2010, 04:54 »

I''m not a fan of political correctness either... I just felt for the kid in the picture who had done nothing to ask for such negative attention.

But thank you for the apology.

BaldricksTrousers · « **Reply #970 on:** September 28, 2010, 05:17 »

Quote from: ShadySue on September 27, 2010, 12:16

Everyone has to make up their own mind. If I had photos of Dachau, I'd put them as RM editorial only. The legal uses for RF are too wide, far less that it's more likely that an abuser would be happier to pay less at a Macro site.

I think disabled children should be strictly RM so that the agency can control the usage. RM is not just about money, it is about the agency being able to refuse to sell if the usage is inappropriate.

Dachau shouldn't be an issue, it's a bunch of buildings with history attached to it, it's not people. By the "ban Dachau" rationale, photos of Milan Railway Station should be banned because Mussolini built it to show the glory of the fascist state. Then you could move on to athletes in heroic poses of the kind used in posters by totalitarian states, etc. etc. etc.

gostwyck · « **Reply #971 on:** September 28, 2010, 05:23 »

Can we get this thread back on topic please?

caspixel · « **Reply #972 on:** September 28, 2010, 09:24 »

Quote from: sharpshot on September 28, 2010, 03:26

I wish more buyers would use the other sites, then perhaps istock wouldn't be able to raise prices and cut commissions? They can only get away with this because they have so much power, being the biggest site. We hold all the cards though, all we have to do is take some positive action. I have stopped uploading, started deleting, removed any links I can find to istock and replaced them with other sites. Buyers have more control, they can really make a difference by buying images elsewhere. Its a shame people are picking on you here, we should all be working hard to change things for the better. I don't really care if you have been threatening to leave istock for years or not. I've threatened to leave a few times and done nothing but this time is different, they have really messed up lately and I can see it isn't going to be beneficial for me to work with them if they keep this up.

Agreed. This time it is different. The previous price increases, while annoying, didn't smack of blatant corporate greed. I can't stand how everytime a money grab happens at iStock, it's preceded by a glowing statement about how GREAT the company is doing and how much money they are making. And yet they still need more! But this time, their actions are beyond the pale. I've long thought, even while iStock was raising prices, that they should still give the photogs a bigger cut.

And I think you will start to see more buyers migrate to other sites. I'm just small fries, but I am recommending the other sites now, not just because of the lower prices, but on principle. I hate seeing corporate America stealing from the little guy. We need to hit them where it hurts, it may be the only way they find their ethics again.

Thank you sharpshot, Microbius and pdx for your support. @pdx: Once upon a time there were more vocal buyers, but they were chased away. And now, it seems, speak up too much and you will just flat out get banned.

zzz · « **Reply #973 on:** September 28, 2010, 09:36 »

Quote from: Microbius on September 28, 2010, 03:45

Quote from: zzz on September 27, 2010, 11:33
I think some of us are just tired of your posts over time how much you dislike where iStock is going (away from "the designer's dirty little secret") and that there are so many other places where you can buy good photos. Just do what you feel is right for you and be done with it.

Why because she was right? I mean there's certainly something of Cassandra about the situation.
It is annoying when the person you thought was a niggling repetitive doom-sayer turns out to have been spot on about the direction a company was going and the yoo yaying majority tun out to have been deceived, but this is a strange way to show gratitude for the warnings she was putting out there.

Let's not mix two things here. I was merely pointing out that caspixel had expressed her displeasure about rising prices and that her consequence would be to look elsewhere. Some of us had the impression caspixel has been saying this for years. Some went a bit too far and claimed caspixel said she'd leave iStock entirely, but no one could substantiate that. That lead to the mud slinging.

This, however, has nothing to do with her prediction of where iStock is going. I think the day Getty bought iStock, many people saw where this is going. Of course hindsight is always 20/20, but I vividly remember people being worried about iStock's future.

caspixel · « **Reply #974 on:** September 28, 2010, 16:17 »

So RogerMexico and JJRD have appeared to placate the masses, like the abusive husband who shows up with roses after beating the crap out of his wife. After just a few contrite phrases it appears that some of the battered contributors are ready to believe this won't happen again Mmm hmm. He said that the last time too....

MicrostockGroup Sponsors

Author Topic: iStock changing royalty structure (Read 350431 times)

caspixel

caspixel

Danicek

jamirae

SNP

Danicek

Jo Ann Snover

ShadySue

Jo Ann Snover

cathyslife

caspixel

gbalex

Risamay

Danicek

Dreamframer

sharpshot

Microbius

pdx

JamesGdesign

rubyroo

BaldricksTrousers

gostwyck

caspixel

zzz

caspixel

Related Topics

Sponsors

Microstock Poll Results

Sponsors