That's lovely and all, but it does nothing to help vector artists with the fact that our targets are double that of photographers.  Good for people with split portfolios to have more options I suppose.

I'm sure there's no squeeze-the-contributor scheme they haven't at least considered. And I wouldn't be surprised to see this (same targets as independents) touted as a "benefit" to exclusives at some point when we complain about eroding privileges!

I asked a couple of questions in the IS thread on this topic and surprisingly got a quick answer from Andrew. He thinks (but will check) that existing exclusives will get to stay that way even if they have so few illustrations they wouldn't typically qualify for illustration exclusivity. He said this will be effective in January 2011 with the royalty changes. Logos are unaffected as those are image exclusive anyway.

But who's to stop someone from rasterizing their vector files and uploading them elsewhere?

Try posting that on IS forums.

I think that's exactly what Getty would like to do, but for the moment, exclusives are the reason they can charge higher prices. Once they dump exclusives, they're just competing on price like everyone else.

Quote from: LostOne on September 29, 2010, 15:38

Try posting that on IS forums.

I already said they should dump exclusives and pay everybody over 20%, so I'm sure my ideas are real popular over there.  

Again "favoristim", when everybody can be or not be exclusive, at his own will. You make it sound as if were hand-picked. I'm sorry, what it makes me smile.

Quote from: jsnover on September 29, 2010, 16:28

I think that's exactly what Getty would like to do, but for the moment, exclusives are the reason they can charge higher prices. Once they dump exclusives, they're just competing on price like everyone else.

Oh, my solution was to price better selling content at the exclusive prices and keep image exclusivity for Vetta. It was a little rant, but I think it got buried in the monster thread.

It was suggested by a contributor in the IS thread that the word "illustrations" was used rather than the word vector intentionally.  They were suggesting that the split could be putting rastor and vector illustrations in one catagory.

http://www.istockphoto.com/forum_messages.php?threadid=252412&page=19

No one official has yet denied that conclusion (mind you that post was only a few hours ago).

What a total calamity that would be, IMO!

This is what rogermexico said,

"The plan is to make separate exclusivity options for illustration in the same way that video and audio are. So you could be an exclusive illustrator and non-exclusive photographer."

I don't read that as combining raster illos and vectors into one category. Perhaps I should get better at reading between the lines if that's what it says. Who knows these days ?

Quote from: retrorocket on September 29, 2010, 22:57

This is what rogermexico said,

"The plan is to make separate exclusivity options for illustration in the same way that video and audio are. So you could be an exclusive illustrator and non-exclusive photographer."

I don't read that as combining raster illos and vectors into one category. Perhaps I should get better at reading between the lines if that's what it says. Who knows these days ?

I was just mentioning what a contributor had said (I took it a bit more to heart than I might normally, since the person who said it used to work on the inside, so to speak - as an inspector at one time).  I'm sure HQ will clear up any speculation that wording has caused.

And welcome to 'MSG' - you'll be hungry for more of the bold flavours here, before you know it

I'm sure they'll want to avoid rasterized vectors showing up elsewhere if exclusive illustrators become independent for photographs, but they've brought this mess on themselves with this series of crazy decisions to hose contributors.  I couldn't blame any vector contributor for wanting to keep vector exclusivity and make a little extra on the side with rasters.