MicrostockGroup
Agency Based Discussion => iStockPhoto.com => Topic started by: brm1949 on March 21, 2013, 17:31
-
Royalty rates for exclusive content will not change and will be paid at the standard 20% rate. We have set a new non-exclusive rate of 15% for all non-exclusive iStockphoto content licensed through all Getty Images properties (outside of iStockphoto), including single image sales in the Partner Program. The rates for content licensed from iStockphoto will remain as they are currently listed on the Rate Schedule. The new rate will come in to effect on or after April 20, 2013.
-
Screw these greedy creeps.
Just when you thought it couldn't get worse, there's another paycut around the corner.
-
Where do they license non-exclusive work on Getty anyways?
-
here is the whole message with discussion links
http://www.istockphoto.com/forum_messages.php?threadid=352443&page=1 (http://www.istockphoto.com/forum_messages.php?threadid=352443&page=1)
http://www.istockphoto.com/forum_messages.php?threadid=352445&page=1 (http://www.istockphoto.com/forum_messages.php?threadid=352445&page=1)
Contributor News: March 21, 2013
Exclusive Survey
One of our highest priorities for 2013 is making improvements for iStock Exclusives.
Some of you may remember a survey from last year–the feedback from that survey enabled us to make a number of general improvements. It is time now to ask you directly as an exclusive contributor, what you think we should do to improve your iStockphoto experience. We’ve got some ideas of our own and we are eager to set them in motion but we want to hear from you first.
This is not a random questionnaire. It is a survey aimed at building an action plan dedicated to improving things for iStock Exclusives. We’re really happy with the number of responses so far but would love to hear from all of you! Please take a few minutes and weigh in with your thoughts before the March 27th deadline.
Come join the discussion.
Getty Images 360
We have an amazing collection of Royalty-Free content across our brands and increasingly, certain larger customers are looking for a way to access all of this content on one site. We’ve created a feature that will allow specific high-value customers access to the full breadth of our RF content in a single search on gettyimages.com, including all Getty Images, and all iStock and Thinkstock RF content. ‘Getty Images 360’, will give unique access to these customers via a special log-in.
Exclusive iStock content that is not opted-in to the partner program will be made available through Getty Images 360 on the same terms as Getty Images royalty-bearing RF content. Standard Getty Images price-points reflect the added value of iStock content being paired with dedicated sales and service and increased legal protections.
To be clear, the additional content from iStockphoto will not be visible to all Getty Images customers in the way some E+ and TAC or Vetta content is. Getty Images 360 is not designed to reach our entire customer base; it is targeted to our most valuable agency, corporate and media customers. We plan to make this feature available starting in May or June, stay tuned.
Official Notice: New Royalty Rate for iStock Non-Exclusive content on Getty Images
Royalty rates for exclusive content will not change and will be paid at the standard 20% rate. We have set a new non-exclusive rate of 15% for all non-exclusive iStockphoto content licensed through all Getty Images properties (outside of iStockphoto), including single image sales in the Partner Program. The rates for content licensed from iStockphoto will remain as they are currently listed on the Rate Schedule. The new rate will come in to effect on or after April 20, 2013.
Royalties from Getty Images 360 will be reported monthly under the Getty Images category in your stats. Since the customer access is so focused we expect the returns to be proportionate to the limited audience but we are pleased to be able to begin to expose our best Getty Images customers to the full breadth of RF content we represent for the first time. Join the discussion here.
Google Drive Update
Copyright protection is absolutely central to our business and we remain committed to doing all we can to support and maintain your intellectual property rights. We've been working closely with Google to improve the way in which the images are presented in Google Drive. Our agreement with Google allows for the images to be made available to Google users for personal or commercial use. However, the individual user's rights are restricted, and clarifications addressing use are now live in the Google Drive’s interface.
Google Drive Copy Changes
•Now when you search for an image to insert into a document in Google Drive, the following language appears directly under the search field for visibility:
"Results shown are available for personal or commercial use only in Google Drive, and may not be independently redistributed or sold. Learn more."
•You will see the revised language (below) when you click on Learn More"
"Stock images available in Google Drive are available for personal or commercial use only in Google Drive and must be used in accordance with our program policies. Images may not be offered for sale or used within templates provided to third parties. If you use stock images depicting a person in connection with a sensitive or unflattering subject, you must include this or a similar statement: "for illustrative purposes only; individual is a model."
The Program Policies link takes you to a page restricting pornographic or otherwise unlawful uses, etc., describing these restrictions in detail.
Still Pending: image metadata is in the process of being included.
We truly appreciate your patience in waiting for these changes to be implemented. We will post another update when all is complete. Join the discussion here.
iStockalypse 2013 Program
You may have noticed that we’ve taken an exceptionally long break between iStockalypse events. Well, it’s because we’ve been busy, heads down, and doing our homework. We’re always listening to what you say and we’ve been working out how to make the iStockalypse events better.
We've heard you say that while the iStockalypse events are an excellent opportunity to work with models, locations, Art & Technical Directors, etc…. the shooting isn’t necessarily the favorite part of the event. In fact, the part that draws the community from far and wide is the opportunity to meet, mingle, connect and mind meld with other artists and importantly, to get more connected with the teams at iStock and Getty Images.
With that in mind, we’re approaching the iStockalypse events, and 2013, with a plan to reach and inspire more photographers.
Read more about the iStockalypse events here
Upload limits for illustrators
Vector illustration inspections have historically had a much faster turnaround than the other file types on iStock. We've looked at how many contributors are using all of their existing upload slots and to our surprise, the number is low. This got us thinking: What's the point in having a weekly upload limit anyways?
On Monday, March 18th we increased our upload limits to 999 submissions per week (the maximum we can assign with our current upload system).
Our inspectors are ready, so bring on the submissions! Join the discussion here.
-
So single image sales in the partner program is being cut from what rate to 15%? I don't recall? Was something a little less than 85% unsustainable? ::) >:(
-
.
-
Where do they license non-exclusive work on Getty anyways?
Outside of the partner program, I'm not sure. I find all the layers, collections and other bits and pieces to be hard to keep track of.
-
.
-
One of our highest priorities for 2013 is making improvements for iStock Exclusives.
Funny how they openly admit to focus on Exclusives only, and then screw non-exclusives even more. They really want to get rid of us.
-
ooops
-
So single image sales in the partner program is being cut from what rate to 15%? I don't recall? Was something a little less than 85% unsustainable? ::) >:(
It looks like it was just under 24% for non-exclusives according to this schedule;
http://www.istockphoto.com/help/sell-stock/rate-schedule (http://www.istockphoto.com/help/sell-stock/rate-schedule)
So that's a 38% cut for us then.
-
Let me guess - that high value customer they want to please - Number one is GOOGLE....
I see a lot of easter eggs and holiday candles coming your way istock. many seashells and backgrounds too. objects on white en masse.
everything else...probably not...
-
.
-
No surprise that the "contributor news" is full of bad news for indies. Lovely that they are offering convenience to their Getty360 top customers, but I see no reason whatsoever that they can't pay indies their contract rate (15% to 20%) on any sales made through that program - or a straight 20% like everyone else.
As far as the supposed improvements in the Google deal, the missing images from a few days ago (see here (http://www.microstockgroup.com/istockphoto-com/google-giving-photos-away-free-for-commercial-use-and-istock-agrees/msg304357/#msg304357)) are back (including Sean's tailgate images), so any thought that they'd removed content to placate iStock contributors is out the window.
Also, I do not see any license information displayed in search results as the Google text says I will - see here (http://support.google.com/drive/bin/answer.py?hl=en&p=docs_image_search&answer=179622) for the Google "Learn More" page. So there's no way to know what license goes with what.
The note that you have to say "posed by model" for sensitive uses doesn't in any way address the concerns of iStock contributors - if you license through iStock, sensitive uses are prohibited (although they never seem to want to enforce those), aren't they?
On the iStockalypses, the feedback I have seen via Facebook groups is that the new format is totally lame and not what you pay them money for, so I'm not sure where they got the idea they're giving contributors what they wanted. I think it's a training exercise so they can bring on new contributors to replace some of the disaffected exclusives they're losing as a result of their greedy and dishonest policies over the last few years.
Edited to add that the kicker for IS exclusives is that they now get 20% for their iStock content instead of their 25% to 45% when purchased by one of the Getty360 customers.
I'm sure they'll go on and on about how it's OK 'cause it's a higher price (but if you look at the complaints about the large number of low value sales from Getty mixed in with some at much higher prices, it's not clear how much more than will be) but the bottom line is that they have figured out a way to get everyone to 20% and do away with the higher royalty rates for exclusives.
Now it's just the biggest customers (and I don't suppose they'll share the percentage of total sales those big customers represent; I'm guessing it's high as lots of the smaller ones have left by now) but it's just one more small change to make that apply across the board and you've effectively done away with exclusive royalty rates while keeping exclusive contributors from selling elsewhere.
Geniuses!!
-
I am sooooo done with these jerks.
I have one remaining active image, which brings in a few dollars. I'll leave it there to keep the account active in case IS is sold, or reorganized, and becomes something that makes sense.
Otherwise, I'll stop thinking about them.
-
.
-
I am sooooo done with these jerks.
I have one remaining active image, which brings in a few dollars. I'll leave it there to keep the account active in case IS is sold, or reorganized, and becomes something that makes sense.
Otherwise, I'll stop thinking about them.
Unless they have some real changes someday, I'm done with them too. I have disabled anything that had even a hint of a person in it. I'll leave a few there since I've already gone through that excruciating upload process, but they will never get another new file from me.
-
I am so glad I went indie. I just don´t have to worry about all of this anymore.
I just need to decide carefully if I supply them, is it content that can be "lost" to google drive forever.
But all the interesting content, especially anything model released, will go elsewhere.
It looks like they just want to combine all their content in one large mass and try to do extra large deals with extreme discounts. And probably move away or reduce dealing with single image sales. Either subscriptions or large bulk sales.
And move around the istock exclusive content and the 25-45% royalty.
Of course since we cannot see getty360, we don´t know what the best match looks like. So the exclusives don´t even know if they will be favored in this search. And all the getty photographers must now compete with all the indie content in getty360.
Another invisible, mysterious deal. Like Getty connect.
-
Edited to add that the kicker for IS exclusives is that they now get 20% for their iStock content instead of their 25% to 45% when purchased by one of the Getty360 customers.
These are sales from Getty so we would get nothing if the buyer didn't find our file and for our files that are already there we get 20%. The only way this might be a loss is if a non vetta, agency, or E+ file is bought on Getty when the buyer would have left Getty to search on Istock instead. I think that is pretty unlikely in most cases so I don't think it will be bad for us.
In terms of money my Istock sales are around $9 RPD while Getty sales are $20 RPD.
have they ever disappoint you? is it even possible? you are a perfect fit really ;D (but yep we have heard many exclusives here talking this and that and now? yep!)
-
.
-
If I'm remember right ok if not correct me. In the Google deal the value per image payed was approximately 60$. Because the 20% is 12$. Next deal now you know what you get if exclusive, while if not... ;D ;D
-
Edited to add that the kicker for IS exclusives is that they now get 20% for their iStock content instead of their 25% to 45% when purchased by one of the Getty360 customers.
These are sales from Getty so we would get nothing if the buyer didn't find our file and for our files that are already there we get 20%. The only way this might be a loss is if a non vetta, agency, or E+ file is bought on Getty when the buyer would have left Getty to search on Istock instead. I think that is pretty unlikely in most cases so I don't think it will be bad for us.
In terms of money my Istock sales are around $9 RPD while Getty sales are $20 RPD.
have they ever disappoint you? is it even possible? you are a perfect fit really ;D (but yep we have heard many exclusives here talking this and that and now? yep!)
Sure lots of things disappoint me. They aren't reducing royalty rates for exclusives and they may sell more files at a higher RPD, I don't see much risk in this deal for me, do you?
no man its a fine deal ;D
-
raising illustrator upload limit to 999/168 ;D (in their own words: lifting the limits)
HOW DESPERATE!
no more files for you istock..
-
"Standard Getty Images price-points reflect the added value of iS content being paired with dedicated sales and service and increased legal protections."
Which, as we know, doesn't preclude images being licensed for a price that nets the contributor, say, $12 or so, and even down to under $1.
This despite the clause in the ASA that says:
"3.c ... Unless otherwise provided for in the upload process or on the Site, your Exclusive Content may be made available for licensing through a similar or higher price tier Collection of a Distribution Partner as may be determined by iStockphoto from time to time upon notice to you either by posting notice on the Site or otherwise. "
Similar or higher doesn't mean much when you provide huge discounts.
-
Each file bought from, or uploaded to, IS is a vote that their prices, commissions, terms... are acceptable. Period.
-
raising illustrator upload limit to 999/168 ;D (in their own words: lifting the limits)
HOW DESPERATE!
no more files for you istock..
indeed but can you explain me why? sure they (illustrations) must sell very well but why not photos or other?
-
Glad you can post here Sean to help us sort this mess out. Now we know why they gave you the boot! they don't want people uncovering their plots. My guess is 360 will be rolled out more and more until all are at a glorious 20%. Now can I have another survey you bunch of screw balls.
-
Each file bought from, or uploaded to, IS is a vote that their prices, commissions, terms... are acceptable. Period.
That's easy for you to say if you are not reliant on the income to feed your family and pay your bills.
It's kind of ironic how people who haven't actually got the talent or skills to earn significant sums from stock photography can thus afford a high-minded and principled view on the actions of those who do.
-
Each file bought from, or uploaded to, IS is a vote that their prices, commissions, terms... are acceptable. Period.
That's easy for you to say if you are not reliant on the income to feed your family and pay your bills.
It's kind of ironic how people who haven't actually got the talent or skills to earn significant sums from stock photography can thus afford a high-minded and principled view on the actions of those who do.
Aren't you overreacting just a little? I interpreted Ann's remark to say that what we put up with is a statement of what we are willing to accept. If it were truly unacceptable, we'd stop accepting it. We vote with our submissions, and with our deletions. Sad but true, at least in my view.
-
Each file bought from, or uploaded to, IS is a vote that their prices, commissions, terms... are acceptable. Period.
Oh if only everything in life were just that darn simple.
Microstock is currently my sole source of income and my full-time job. I do what I have to do to make a living at this, and from time to time that means making choices that I'm not always proud of but are necessary. Sometimes that includes continuing to work with istock. I do so in a more limited capacity than ever before, but nevertheless I still do upload some stuff there.
And while I haven't bought anything at istock in years, I can understand the need of some folks to continue buying there. Not everyone is in the fortunate position to be able to dictate to their clients where they acquire stock images from for their projects. Some companies only work with istock, for whatever internal reasons.
Gotta love the whole "if you're not against them you're with them" mentality. As if everyone has the luxury of turning away income these days. I suppose you have never in your life had a job you didn't like or worked for someone you didn't like, but continued to do so because you needed the money.
Lucky you to have never been in that position.
-
...I interpreted Ann's remark to say that what we put up with is a statement of what we are willing to accept. If it were truly unacceptable, we'd stop accepting it. We vote with our submissions, and with our deletions. Sad but true, at least in my view.
I have the luxury of another income in the household that allowed me to refuse to put up with the lack of an opt out for dreadful deals such as the Google-Getty deal, done behind IS contributor backs and without their explicit consent. All but 140 or so of my images are gone from IS.
If I were full time and if my kids wouldn't eat if I didn't collect my weekly money from IS, I'd probably have put up with their rubbish, no matter how wrong their behavior was. I'd plot an escape route - something lots of folks have been doing - and get the heck away from these foul deals as soon as I could. I can't feel high and mighty about my choice because I'm acutely aware how easy it is for me to be able to afford my principles.
-
After all that's happened, surely most of those dependent on IS have by now started to make a few changes?
-
I love how they opened the Contributor News email:
One of our highest priorities for 2013 is making improvements for iStock Exclusives.
Translation:
Please, if anyone out there is still exclusive, stay. We'll try to stop screwing up. Or at least make it look like we're trying...
-
Each file bought from, or uploaded to, IS is a vote that their prices, commissions, terms... are acceptable. Period.
That's easy for you to say if you are not reliant on the income to feed your family and pay your bills.
It's kind of ironic how people who haven't actually got the talent or skills to earn significant sums from stock photography can thus afford a high-minded and principled view on the actions of those who do.
Aren't you overreacting just a little? I interpreted Ann's remark to say that what we put up with is a statement of what we are willing to accept. If it were truly unacceptable, we'd stop accepting it. We vote with our submissions, and with our deletions. Sad but true, at least in my view.
No, I'm not 'overreacting' at all. I'm simply making an observation. Fortunately EmberMike has clarified and expanded on my point much better than I could have done.
-
Sounds like this is in preparation to moving more content over to Getty. Independent video at a 15% royalty rate anyone?
-
why don't you IS and Getty haters, just close your accounts and be free of your perpetual whining? surely you have better things to do with your life than complain all the time, it really gets boring don't you think? CLOSE YOUR ACCOUNTS and stop complaining, PLEASE. i really don't understand how anyone can be so miserable about one company, yet stick around and gripe daily.
-
Do you see anybody celebrating the news on istock's own forums? Not even the admins and employees have anything positive to say.
If you spent any time on istock itself you would know what is actually going on there.
-
The 360 thing is a double whammy for excusives too - a lower commission and no RCs. Plus these great buyers probably have the deepest commissions.j
-
Yes, more and more sales seem to be moved to the 20% royalty with no RC´s. I don´t see anything to indicate that they want to sell more content via istock itself where the exclusives might get 35% or 40%.
There are quite a few high end contributors that don´t put a lot of files into e+ and try to sell via istock only. This decision means all their content will be available for getty customers at a very low royalty, lower than the lowest exclusive royalty on istock.
From Getty´s perspective moving content to an arena where they have to pay less, makes sense. They don´t need to close istock, they can keep the brand running while slowly transferring the main sales volume elsewhere.
-
Confirmation of what it means for Inde's from Lobo
On iStock forum
"Posted By cobalt:
Do I understand this correctly - on istock I will receive 18%, but on all other getty sites, including Thinkstock, photos.com, gettyimages itself, I will be getting 15% only starting end of April.
Yes, that is correct."
http://www.istockphoto.com/forum_messages.php?threadid=352445&page=1 (http://www.istockphoto.com/forum_messages.php?threadid=352445&page=1)
-
I can't be bothered wasting time reading all the threads about istock any more. Will be interesting to see our 15% commissions from the nanostock scheme they implemented. Think I'll start deleting images again.
-
How long-term strategy at iStock looks like:
1) Annoy exclusives by giving out their work for free.
2) Annoy non-exclusives by publicly declaring iStock cares only about exclusives.
3) If number of contributors > 0, repeat.
:o
-
OK .... try again since this post originally had a misunderstanding in it
So the very rare one-off sales in the PP will have a price cut
But the PP stuff is being put into a high-priced "Getty 360" collection where the commission rate will be 15%
Have I got a grasp of it now?
-
I think all IS content will be available on 360 and any non exclusive sales there get 15% so it's not just PP, is that right?
-
I think all IS content will be available on 360 and any non exclusive sales there get 15% so it's not just PP, is that right?
Yes. Somehow they've managed to incorporate the entire Getty, IS and TS database into one searchable collection for a tiny group of "hand selected" customers to shop in. Any promises of higher price points will not be guaranteed, because, as we all know, no matter what the price, they discount it as they see fit. And since "you" won't be able to even see the prices, you won't know how what you get relates to the price. And your reporting will be the terribly designed GI reporting page on IS.
You've got to love the old "well, 15% of something is more than the nothing you were making before", instead of using the opportunity to improve rates.
Anyways, for that amount of work, you can bet it won't be limited to this hand-selected group for too long.
-
This could be a way of avoiding removing formerly-exclusive content from the Getty collection, couldn't it? If people have light-boxed an image and the creator dropped the crown then that image would no longer be available via Getty.... but this way, the ex-exclusive's image remains in one of the Getty collections.
So, just possibly, this is a response to a select group of buyers complaining about the disappearance of content they want.
-
I don´t know Paul. It seems pretty reasonable that customers say they want to see all available Getty content in one place instead of their 10 000 seperate outlets. If I was a getty buyer I would be fed up too trying to hunt down files via their different companies.
So getty360 in principle is not a bad thing. They probably should have done that a long time ago.
The problem is the royalty rate, especially for the istock exclusives who will obviously lose high volume buyers who will no longer buy from istock at 35 or 40% royalty rate. And if 360 is successful, then obviously more customers will be asked to join. Which means the getty "macro" photographers will be seeing more and more sales at low prices and the big customers will get used to extremly low prices, even from Getty itself. This might prevent some of them from going to Shutterstock. Especially now that Shutterstock is also opening a high end collection, so getty can point out that for a high end buyer they can offer a cheap "all you can eat" buffet.
And for the indies it is another cut down to 15%.
So all contributors lose, but the exclusives will lose more than the indies in proportion.
-
why don't you IS and Getty haters, just close your accounts and be free of your perpetual whining? surely you have better things to do with your life than complain all the time, it really gets boring don't you think? CLOSE YOUR ACCOUNTS and stop complaining, PLEASE. i really don't understand how anyone can be so miserable about one company, yet stick around and gripe daily.
Read this http://www.microstockgroup.com/18695/18695/msg305468/#msg305468 (http://www.microstockgroup.com/18695/18695/msg305468/#msg305468)
this
http://www.microstockgroup.com/18695/18695/msg305470/#msg305470 (http://www.microstockgroup.com/18695/18695/msg305470/#msg305470)
and this
http://www.microstockgroup.com/18695/18695/msg305471/#msg305471 (http://www.microstockgroup.com/18695/18695/msg305471/#msg305471)
to get an idea why it is not so easy for those of us with families to support to just delete our ports, as much as we would like to.
-
why don't you IS and Getty haters, just close your accounts and be free of your perpetual whining? surely you have better things to do with your life than complain all the time, it really gets boring don't you think? CLOSE YOUR ACCOUNTS and stop complaining, PLEASE. i really don't understand how anyone can be so miserable about one company, yet stick around and gripe daily.
Read this [url]http://www.microstockgroup.com/18695/18695/msg305468/#msg305468[/url] ([url]http://www.microstockgroup.com/18695/18695/msg305468/#msg305468[/url])
this
[url]http://www.microstockgroup.com/18695/18695/msg305470/#msg305470[/url] ([url]http://www.microstockgroup.com/18695/18695/msg305470/#msg305470[/url])
and this
[url]http://www.microstockgroup.com/18695/18695/msg305471/#msg305471[/url] ([url]http://www.microstockgroup.com/18695/18695/msg305471/#msg305471[/url])
to get an idea why it is not so easy for those of us with families to support to just delete our ports as much as we would like to.
I'm one who deleted my whole port. But I can't afford to keep it that way. I am a senior with a spouse with parkinson's and lewy body dementia. I have begun to upload select images again because I am a 24/7 caregiver and am hurting for income. In hind site, for me anyway, this was very costly. istock was my number one site until they started screwing us a couple of years ago. Shutterstock has since taken that slot and am grateful for it.
Life is not always a bed of roses for most of us.
I don't complain a whole lot, but sometimes corporate decisions have major consequences on people.
It's clear that istock will do whatever it takes to feed it's bottom line.
This deal just affirms what Jesus said:
Let your yes be yes and your no be no, all else comes from evil.
It's all deception, its our work they are playing with.
-
why don't you IS and Getty haters, just close your accounts and be free of your perpetual whining? surely you have better things to do with your life than complain all the time, it really gets boring don't you think? CLOSE YOUR ACCOUNTS and stop complaining, PLEASE. i really don't understand how anyone can be so miserable about one company, yet stick around and gripe daily.
Read this [url]http://www.microstockgroup.com/18695/18695/msg305468/#msg305468[/url] ([url]http://www.microstockgroup.com/18695/18695/msg305468/#msg305468[/url])
this
[url]http://www.microstockgroup.com/18695/18695/msg305470/#msg305470[/url] ([url]http://www.microstockgroup.com/18695/18695/msg305470/#msg305470[/url])
and this
[url]http://www.microstockgroup.com/18695/18695/msg305471/#msg305471[/url] ([url]http://www.microstockgroup.com/18695/18695/msg305471/#msg305471[/url])
to get an idea why it is not so easy for those of us with families to support to just delete our ports as much as we would like to.
I'm one who deleted my whole port. But I can't afford to keep it that way. I am a senior with a spouse with parkinson's and lewy body dementia. I have begun to upload select images again because I am a 24/7 caregiver and am hurting for income. In hind site, for me anyway, this was very costly. istock was my number one site until they started screwing us a couple of years ago. Shutterstock has since taken that slot and am grateful for it.
Life is not always a bed of roses for most of us.
I don't complain a whole lot, but sometimes corporate decisions have major consequences on people.
It's clear that istock will do whatever it takes to feed it's bottom line.
This deal just affirms what Jesus said:
Let your yes be yes and your no be no, all else comes from evil.
It's all deception, its our work they are playing with.
i was referring to the few people that constantly whine just to hear their own voices. if they are so pissed off for years with IS and Getty then move on, make your life better. these same people whine over on istock too, and it's really getting boring. they must be miserable having to post almost daily about this crap. it you are not happy, then move on, make your life better. i for one am tired of your constant whining - it is not productive and is rather negative.
-
I am a senior with a spouse with parkinson's and lewy body dementia. I have begun to upload select images again because I am a 24/7 caregiver and am hurting for income.
I'm so very sorry to hear this. Do be sure to look after yourself too, if/when you can.
-
So, what is our damage in percentages?
-
i was referring to the few people that constantly whine just to hear their own voices. if they are so pissed off for years with IS and Getty then move on, make your life better. these same people whine over on istock too, and it's really getting boring. they must be miserable having to post almost daily about this crap. it you are not happy, then move on, make your life better. i for one am tired of your constant whining - it is not productive and is rather negative.
Why don´t you go over to the istock forums to spread some positivity? I am sure they can use someone who thinks this announcement is great for exclusive artists.
If so many people love what is going on, why are they not cheering it??
Why don´t they report stellar sales in the monthly threads?
ETA: I just saw a video contributor reporting a video sale for 1.50 on the Getty site. He is now trying to clarify if all videos will be part of 360 as well.
-
So, what is our damage in percentages?
pretty much indies are now going to have 15% royalties (instead of 20%) on credit sales from thinkstock, photos.com (and getty sales if we can have files there, don't know)
exclusives will go to 20% on getty sales etc (from 25 to 40%)
-
Especially now that Shutterstock is also opening a high end collection
Where's the info about that Jasmine? I've missed it.
-
"offset", see this thread
http://www.microstockgroup.com/shutterstock-com/shutterstock-'offset'-a-new-high-end-marketplace-for-stock-photos/msg305425/?topicseen#new (http://www.microstockgroup.com/shutterstock-com/shutterstock-'offset'-a-new-high-end-marketplace-for-stock-photos/msg305425/?topicseen#new)
-
My head is kind of still spinning. Let me get this straight:
Newsletter:
To our exclusives: we love you and want to know what we can do improve our relationship
In the same newsletter:
To our exclusives: We cut your commission on Partner sales to 20%
Am I missing something here? Are they dyslexic?
-
You were already making 20% on 'partner' sales.
-
You were already making 20% on 'partner' sales.
But we could opt out before.
Glad their new spin doctor has fooled no-one, though.
-
raising illustrator upload limit to 999/168 ;D (in their own words: lifting the limits)
HOW DESPERATE!
no more files for you istock..
indeed but can you explain me why? sure they (illustrations) must sell very well but why not photos or other?
because illustrations take more time to produce, it is not possible to submit 999 a week anyway.. with photos, it is possible to flood the queue..
in case some people already have 999 illustrations waiting on their hard-drives, they obviously want it now.. so, desperate.. :)
-
in case some people already have 999 illustrations waiting on their hard-drives, they obviously want it now.. so, desperate.. :)
I joked about reigning down 17 weeks of terror on the queue, but I think it would be more stressful on me than them. I'm not even sure if I could get that many files uploaded there in a week.
-
I love how they opened the Contributor News email:
One of our highest priorities for 2013 is making improvements for iStock Exclusives.
Translation:
Please, if anyone out there is still exclusive, stay. We'll try to stop screwing up. Or at least make it look like we're trying...
So true! It seems these days that "stopping screwing" exclusives really amounts to nothing more than finding ways to screw non-exclusives harder.
-
Each file bought from, or uploaded to, IS is a vote that their prices, commissions, terms... are acceptable. Period.
Yes, I wish I could afford to ditch them, but the income is still decent compared to most other stock sites. Shutterstock, however strong, won't make up for the loss of income.
-
I stopped uploading onto IS several weeks ago. I will not upload to IS any longer.
-
.
-
Just thought this was interesting:
many people seem to think that their files will now be mirrored to gettyimages and will be offered for hundreds of dollars per file. Lobo just clarified that getty360 is not the gettyimages collection:
"No, we will not be providing access to Non-exclusives into the regular Getty Images collection. Non-exclusive content that is provided via iStockphoto will ONLY be available via the Getty 360 program. There are no avenues into the regular Getty Images site via iStock unless you are Exclusive."
I´ve been reading many posts today where people think their files are going to getty itself and looking forward to huge payouts.
-
.
-
.
-
A 20% sale for exclusives and 15% for independents. BUT AT WHAT PRICE? The prices on the getty website are list prices. Many, many customers pay fees that are lower than what I was getting as an exclusive on istock.
Today my report had sales that gave showed my royalty from a sale was 39 cents and 2.65 USD for example. But also one for 60 dollars. So there is a huge variation.
On istock my files are now being offered for 1-10 credits, so maybe around 1-10 dollars or a lot less, if the customer buys credits for 50 cents.
It is not very likely that getty360 will be offering my indie files for hundreds of dollars to these supercustomers who have probably been buying at huge discounts anyway.
It is perhaps similar to gettyconnect. they say we will receive our usual percentage, but we don´t know from what price.
Maybe they will give us examples later.
But since getty360 is for high volume buyers, i would expect the prices to be comparable to Thinkstock or even lower. I mean all Thinkstock content is included anyway.
I think offering the customers an overview over everything that getty offers is a good idea for the customer IMO. I just don´t think I will be making a lot of money from it.
And unlike the PP program, if you are exclusive, you cannot opt out from getty360.
Anyway, Lobo said the program is for a very small group of customers. But personally I would have preferred if these customers were buying from istock.
But since I am indie, getty360 doesn´t worry me more than Thinkstock.
-
.
-
As far as I can tell and from what has been said (read what I quoted above, standard Getty pricing) this is just offering all Istock content to a small amount of buyers at the normal prices. Big buyers might get a discount but I don't know how much, I've said what my average RPD is at Getty so I would expect about the same from this. Getty Connect is a totally different model and I don't think it has any similarity to this deal at all.
To come into this without the ability to comment on the actual pricing details is just asking for trouble. Look, it's hidden behind a log in. You'll never know what the prices are, how big the discounts are, or anything. All you'll know is you got $2 for a sale.
-
.
-
Do Getty contracts still say that contributors are entitled to one audit a year of all their transactions at Getty? (Of course at the contributor's expense). If so, this might be one way for somebody to find out the pricing once it is up and running.
-
As far as I can tell and from what has been said (read what I quoted above, standard Getty pricing) this is just offering all Istock content to a small amount of buyers at the normal prices. Big buyers might get a discount but I don't know how much, I've said what my average RPD is at Getty so I would expect about the same from this. Getty Connect is a totally different model and I don't think it has any similarity to this deal at all.
To come into this without the ability to comment on the actual pricing details is just asking for trouble. Look, it's hidden behind a log in. You'll never know what the prices are, how big the discounts are, or anything. All you'll know is you got $2 for a sale.
That's how the mirroring of Vetta, Agency and E+ already is, isn't it? I don't see any additional problems coming from this, please correct me if I'm wrong. I have some $1 Getty sales and some $80 sales but the average is higher than Istock.
Well, you're wrong because we can go look at the pricing of those. You can't see the pricing of 360.
-
.
-
Im standing in "only income" shoes, didnt like my normal job and im really on the edge with incomes...
And i rethinked it many times, Ill risk and cut them loose slowly building income to replace their share elsewhere...even if i have to add some extra time. Ill organize something and produce more.
while building that way up ill be reducing istocks share...
The day that extra share matches my current istock income they will already be deleted...and replaced like they would replace me. Its business.
Im getting that share from places that i was never earning too much , filling portfolios on smaller sites, joining new with better deals i never contributed, throwing few products on sites I have heavily neglected.
I worked some overtime on that last days and see some small cash raise so i started deleting 1 or 2 files daily starting from the bottom , but houses are build from bottom up right?
if my new income stops ill stop deleting until im able to rise it again.
For starters everyone can afford to delete few years old files that never sold...because who of us seriously believe will build their way up...
-
My head is kind of still spinning. Let me get this straight:
Newsletter:
To our exclusives: we love you and want to know what we can do improve our relationship
In the same newsletter:
To our exclusives: We cut your commission on Partner sales to 20%
Am I missing something here? Are they dyslexic?
Exclusives were already making 20% on Partner Sales. Sad to see so many +'s for faulty information but hearing what you want is better than facts I guess?
Here is a link to the thread: [url]http://www.istockphoto.com/forum_messages.php?threadid=352445&page=1[/url] ([url]http://www.istockphoto.com/forum_messages.php?threadid=352445&page=1[/url])
Here is the line in bold, like it is in the thread: NOTE: Royalty rates for exclusive content will not change and will be paid at the standard 20% rate.
It was more of a question....than a fact. Glad the 20% was clarified. Feel free to give me a minus if you fee so compelled.
-
We can't actually look at the pricing (what the buyer pays) of course, $1 sales are impossible for me since the lowest price is $10 when I go to the website but some buyers get discounts. Lobo has said: " the fact that they will be licensing content at the Getty Images Standard RF pricing ". I think the pricing(what is written on the website) will be the same but the discount unknown as is the case now.
Ok, you tell me what the "standard rf pricing" is.
-
.
-
Again. what is 'standard rf pricing'? You don't know. Could start at $20, could start at $50. You don't know and you don't get to know.
-
As far as I can tell and from what has been said (read what I quoted above, standard Getty pricing) this is just offering all Istock content to a small amount of buyers at the normal prices. Big buyers might get a discount but I don't know how much, I've said what my average RPD is at Getty so I would expect about the same from this. Getty Connect is a totally different model and I don't think it has any similarity to this deal at all.
To come into this without the ability to comment on the actual pricing details is just asking for trouble. Look, it's hidden behind a log in. You'll never know what the prices are, how big the discounts are, or anything. All you'll know is you got $2 for a sale.
That's how the mirroring of Vetta, Agency and E+ already is, isn't it? I don't see any additional problems coming from this, please correct me if I'm wrong. I have some $1 Getty sales and some $80 sales but the average is higher than Istock.
Well, you're wrong because we can go look at the pricing of those. You can't see the pricing of 360.
We can't actually look at the pricing (what the buyer pays) of course, $1 sales are impossible for me since the lowest price is $10 when I go to the website but some buyers get discounts. Lobo has said: " the fact that they will be licensing content at the Getty Images Standard RF pricing ". I think the pricing(what is written on the website) will be the same but the discount unknown as is the case now.
I really can't believe what a total c**k you are making of yourself here in defending what is so clearly against the interests of all contributors.
The proposition, when it happens, is that Getty will be selling an unknown variety of OUR images to unknown buyers, at an unknown price, at an unknown discount with, effectively, an unknown value to the OWNER OF THE CONTENT (and you don't actually have any real choice about it) with no possibility of said owner of content being able to check that sales are being reported. Good luck with that.
At least with any other of Getty/Istock sales we have the opportunity to become 'secret shoppers' in that we could actually club together and test whether sales are being reported properly. With the 'exclusive' nature of 'Getty 360' we can't even do that.
If Getty wanted to design a system by which they could effectively pay zero royalties, because there was no possibility that the content providers could actually track any sales, then this would be it.
-
.
-
.
-
I really can't believe what a total c**k you are making of yourself here in defending what is so clearly against the interests of all contributors.
Real mature.
... and yet uncannily accurate.
-
Again. what is 'standard rf pricing'? You don't know. Could start at $20, could start at $50. You don't know and you don't get to know.
Maybe I'm missing something here, are you saying as it is now there is no standard rf pricing so 'standard rf pricing' is a meaningless term? Or are you saying you think they are lying and they'll change the pricing even though they seem to have said they won't?
"Standard RF pricing" is a vague term. if you go onto gettyimages.com there are stated price points ("list prices" if you will) for the images there and they vary by "collection" there is no absolute standard. With 360 you cannot even look at the actual "list prices" of the images because you have no access to the 360 website.
-
.
-
"Standard RF pricing" is a vague term. if you go onto gettyimages.com there are stated price points ("list prices" if you will) for the images there and they vary by "collection" there is no absolute standard. With 360 you cannot even look at the actual "list prices" of the images because you have no access to the 360 website.
Thank you. Apparently, I wasn't clear enough.
-
Yeah I'm assuming we'll get that specific info sometime soon.
I'm guessing we won't.
-
You were already making 20% on 'partner' sales.
But we could opt out before.
Glad their new spin doctor has fooled no-one, though.
Not really, all Vetta, Agency and E+ were automatically transferred and offered at 20%. You could only "opt out" if you didn't have any of those file types.
That's what I meant. It was our choice whether or not to include files in any of these.
-
.
-
Video files and illustrations are going to getty360 as well. I wonder if that 1.50 video sale jjneff mentioned was already a getty360 sale.
From Lobo:
"There are no plans to include Editorial content to Getty 360.
(Edited on 2013-03-23 06:16:51 by Lobo)
And what about our Agency/Vetta/E+ files? Will these be available under the 360 umbrella? Sorry, I know I asked this before but I haven't seen a response to this yet so I'm not sure if it got lost in all the back n forth.
ALL Content(except editorial).
That means Photo, Vector, Video, Flash, and Audio. Again, not Editorial."
-
iStock buyers do not purchase photo licenses with dollars. They purchase them with 'Credits'.
iStock trained their contributors that 1 credit = 1 dollar. Nothing could be further from the truth. But that is the pricing model everyone seems to be using in this thread.
For years, iStock has sold credits at discounted prices to buyers. Everybody should know this already. This is why you sometimes make more on a small sale than on a medium sale. This is also why you sometimes see royalty amounts less than 10¢ - I've had some of those. The buyers paid vastly different prices for their credits. I just looked at my last two large sales. The royalties were $2.88 and $2.50 respectively at 15% royalty rate. The buyers paid 10 credits for each image which means (2.88÷.15÷10=) $1.92 and (2.50÷.15÷10=) $1.6667 per credit respectively. I'm sure most of you understand the arithmetic but I included it in case any readers might not. The lowest royalty I've seen was 7¢ meaning the buyer purchased the credit for only 47¢.
With that in mind, Lobo can say with a straight face that "The price points will not be lower than what is available via iStock". That's because there is no change to the number of credits buyers will pay.
But then he adds "I can't comment on the entire pricing piece at this time". Might this mean that it is the credit pricing that iStock is diddling with? It would make sense that Getty 360 is primarily a special deal for selected buyers to purchase cheaper credits - maybe another attempt to retain those buyers in the Getty family. This is all speculation on my part but that seems to have been the intention behind the no opt-out for the PP program.
-
Getty doesn't use credits.
1 credit equals a dollar is good average look at it. While discounts can go to $.50, credits also go for $1.50 .
-
.
-
Getty doesn't use credits.
1 credit equals a dollar is good average look at it. While discounts can go to $.50, credits also go for $1.50 .
You have more info than most of us, isn't the average about $1.40?
I've been tracking that for my own sales. Over the last 14 months, the monthly average has ranged from $1.31 to $1.51, with the overall average being $1.42.
-
Getty doesn't use credits.
1 credit equals a dollar is good average look at it. While discounts can go to $.50, credits also go for $1.50 .
You have more info than most of us, isn't the average about $1.40?
I don't worry about stuff like that. I'm just saying that $1 a credit isn't too terribly far off.
-
Getty has a House collection 'Premium Access' pricing structure for their high volume customers at which images are sold at (quite) a discount. I would assume this is the same customer base that 360 is meant for and if 'Premium Access'-like discounts are applied to the 360 files then we'll be getting peanuts for our work.
Correct me if I'm wrong....
-
Being relatively new to MSG I'm curious, do iStock staff ever come to MSG to explain/clarify certain items of interest?
Many other MS sites staff come along from time to time to explain things and answer questions. If someone from iStock would stop in to answer questions, it would go a long way with people.
Too much to ask?
-
Being relatively new to MSG I'm curious, do iStock staff ever come to MSG to explain/clarify certain items of interest?
Lobo comes across sometimes under the alias of pieman. You can see his posts from this link
http://www.microstockgroup.com/profile/?u=1063 (http://www.microstockgroup.com/profile/?u=1063)
-
Being relatively new to MSG I'm curious, do iStock staff ever come to MSG to explain/clarify certain items of interest?
Many other MS sites staff come along from time to time to explain things and answer questions. If someone from iStock would stop in to answer questions, it would go a long way with people.
Too much to ask?
I'm pretty sure at least one participant in this discussion is an Istock admin, but he/she mostly comes in to try and derail the discussions and create confusion, not answer questions or shed any real light on anything.
-
Being relatively new to MSG I'm curious, do iStock staff ever come to MSG to explain/clarify certain items of interest?
Many other MS sites staff come along from time to time to explain things and answer questions. If someone from iStock would stop in to answer questions, it would go a long way with people.
Too much to ask?
I'm pretty sure at least one participant in this discussion is an Istock admin, but he/she mostly comes in to try and derail the discussions and create confusion, not answer questions or shed any real light on anything.
Yes I have the same suspicions
-
Being relatively new to MSG I'm curious, do iStock staff ever come to MSG to explain/clarify certain items of interest?
Many other MS sites staff come along from time to time to explain things and answer questions. If someone from iStock would stop in to answer questions, it would go a long way with people.
Too much to ask?
Can you imagine how many times that messenger would get shot :) There seems to be an inverse correlation between how badly a site treats its contributors and the number of post we see here from their admins. So we see very few posts from any istock or FT admins.
-
I think that depends on the person themselves. Obviously if you hate contributors and can only think of them as a pesky nuisance, you won´t make it here.
If an admin doesn´t have a customer relations background and doesn´t understand that every word you right is public relations work as well, they are useless and will do even more damage to the reputation of the company. Nothing worse than employees who are bitter and emotional, it just makes it obvious that the company is not good at choosing the right people for a position. And it makes you wonder how the rest of company has been staffed.
But if you like to work and interact with creative people I think a good liason person on msg would be great for istock. However, that liason admin needs to have the back of istock/getty HQ. If they don´t support you, don´t give you information or even lie to you, you can´t work and just get depressed.
Many issues are rooted in genuine misunderstandings between HQ and the international user base. They would benefit greatly from excellent communication specialists.
To invest in good business relations is always cheaper than dealing with lawyers and loosing customers later on. Winning back business partners is unbelievably expensive.
And since getty is an internet company it would be great if their managers could demonstrate that they have convincing internet and social media skills, that they feel as comfortable in forums, blogs and social networks as Jon Oringer or Bruce and other CEO´s or managers who surf the internet with style and grace.
A 21 century business needs 21 century leadership.
-
But if you like to work and interact with creative people I think a good liason person on msg would be great for istock. However, that liason admin needs to have the back of istock/getty HQ. If they don´t support you, don´t give you information or even lie to you, you can´t work and just get depressed.
Many issues are rooted in genuine misunderstandings between HQ and the international user base. They would benefit greatly from excellent communication specialists.
Great post Jasmin^^! That's exactly what is needed - staff that not only communicate effectively with contributors, but genuinely care about protecting our interests.
There are a number of (former) admins I remember over the years, including yourself, Rob, JJRD, and countless others who had those skills. Unfortunate that so many good people are gone from Istock staff, whether of their own choosing or not. I don't see any sign from Getty that anything is going to change for the better.
-
"I'm still a bit confused about the pricing. Vetta has a different price than Exclusive Plus, so what does standard RF pricing mean, especially for non-exclusive files? Will Vetta files on the regular Getty website be the same price as Vetta files on the Getty 360 site? "
Again, there is no 'standard Getty RF pricing'. That's just a phrase to make people not pay attention to the pricing. Which in the end doesn't matter because discounts will bring the cost down to whatever.
-
FWIW I've asked iStock to confirm that the legality of what they're doing with Getty 360 has been properly looked at.
I'm most concerned if they push existing, major iStock clients to a site where independent and exclusive suppliers have been compelled without any option (short of ceasing all business with the site) to offer their work at a much lower royalty rate. A royalty rate of less than half in some cases.
It feels as though iStock have been doing everything possible to model themselves as the MacDonalds of photography. I'd very much like to see them working to prove otherwise, but recent moves have hardly been convincing.
-
I guess I've always thought Jennifer Borton has done a good job of relaying things both here and at IS, but none of that really changes things at iStock for me. At the end of the day, they still offer the same royalties and the same deals, so it doesn't really matter if I like the messenger or I don't. I don't really hold a grudge about any of it though. If they come to town and want to have a beer with me, I'd go. We are all in the same field/business, and it is always nice to talk shop.
-
I don't have hard feelings towards IS either. I was very happy with my earnings there when I was exclusive, and I thought it wouldn't last forever. I wished it would though :)
Now, I just look at them and shrug my shoulders. It's time to move on.
-
Jon Oringer or Bruce and other CEO´s or managers who surf the internet with style and grace.
"who surf the internet with style and grace"
I have never heard anything more ridiculous. What a meaningless comment.
-
Im happy to be out of there. I only left a picture of a cockroach.
And it costs me a couple of hundred dollars every month.
But I would rather die than let istock get away with those 85 % for pissing on me.
-
-
-
Hi. i'm trying to get in touch with @harvpino
of this profile: http://www.istockphoto.com/portfolio/harvepino (http://www.istockphoto.com/portfolio/harvepino)
I'm trying to commission a photo in line with one of the photo series you have but showing the entire middle east. Is that possible?
Thanks either way.
M