MicrostockGroup
Agency Based Discussion => iStockPhoto.com => Topic started by: cathyslife on August 29, 2011, 15:05
-
Here we go, ladies and gents...just received in my inbox.
First few paragraphs...
The Revised Artist’s Supply Agreement and You
After consulting with contributor representatives globally and conducting extensive research into industry trends, we recently made some changes to our Artist’s Supply Agreements (ASAs) to improve our offering in a competitive marketplace. We truly appreciate the valuable feedback that contributors across every file type gave us while we were making these important changes.
As our collection approaches 10 million images, we know that many great files are not being seen. We want to resurface those images to get them sold—and the best way to do this is to place them on our partner sites where they’re more likely to sell.
Our first step towards achieving this goal is sharing all non-exclusive photos and illustrations with photos.com and Thinkstock.com, as well as all exclusive video content with gettyimages.com. By bolstering the collections of our partner sites, we’ll also ensure we are able to serve customers in every market at every budget level. This is an important business decision that we believe is necessary in order to continue competing in a diversified environment. We understand that your own objectives in licensing your content may be different and hope that these changes strike the right balance for you. If not, we hope this at least helps you make informed decisions about what content you choose to place with iStockphoto.
In addition to strengthening ties to our partner sites, we have a massive project that started over a year ago to improve the infrastructure we use to ingest and inspect files, and to replace the connector we use to move files to other Getty Images sites. We know that the existing Partner Program has not been as responsive as it needs to be when it comes to moving your files to and from partner sites and are working to address that.
The whole thing:
http://www.istockphoto.com/article_view.php?ID=1165 (http://www.istockphoto.com/article_view.php?ID=1165)
-
All of a sudden I feel sick.
-
The Revised Artist’s Supply Agreement and You
After consulting with contributor representatives globally and conducting extensive research into industry trends, we recently made some changes to our Artist’s Supply Agreements (ASAs) to improve our offering in a competitive marketplace. We truly appreciate the valuable feedback that contributors across every file type gave us while we were making these important changes.
As our collection approaches 10 million images, we know that many great files are not being seen. We want to resurface those images to get them sold—and the best way to do this is to place them on our partner sites where they’re more likely to sell.
Our first step towards achieving this goal is sharing all non-exclusive photos and illustrations with photos.com and Thinkstock.com, as well as all exclusive video content with gettyimages.com. By bolstering the collections of our partner sites, we’ll also ensure we are able to serve customers in every market at every budget level. This is an important business decision that we believe is necessary in order to continue competing in a diversified environment. We understand that your own objectives in licensing your content may be different and hope that these changes strike the right balance for you. If not, we hope this at least helps you make informed decisions about what content you choose to place with iStockphoto.
In addition to strengthening ties to our partner sites, we have a massive project that started over a year ago to improve the infrastructure we use to ingest and inspect files, and to replace the connector we use to move files to other Getty Images sites. We know that the existing Partner Program has not been as responsive as it needs to be when it comes to moving your files to and from partner sites and are working to address that.
Many of the changes to the ASAs are related to the issue of file movement and will have a larger impact on you as a contributor, while others are relatively minor.
We’ve put together this overview to address the most significant changes and what they mean for exclusive and non-exclusive contributors.
For more detailed information regarding the changes to your Artist’s Supply Agreement, please refer to the redlined versions below. If, after reading them, you have any further questions or concerns, please contact [email protected].
* Non-Exclusive Artist's Supply Agreement
* Exclusive Artist's Supply Agreement
* Non-Exclusive Sound Artist's Supply Agreement
* Exclusive Sound Artist's Supply Agreement
I’m an Exclusive Contributor
File Movement and Mirroring
Perhaps the most significant changes to the ASAs involve the movement and mirroring of files onto other sites that are part of the Getty Images family or its Master Delegates. This is in line with our goal to put the right imagery, at the right price, in front of the right customers.
As an exclusive contributor, your content can be moved into higher-tier or similarly priced collections on notice to you by iStockphoto, but not into lower-tier collections without your consent. Audio content, regardless of exclusivity can be moved to lower and higher price tier collections on notice to you.
Partner Program
As an exclusive contributor, you reserve the right to make your files available to certain Getty Images partner sites, such as Thinkstock and Photos.com by opting-in to the Partner Program. Your files can be opted-in or opted-out of the Partner Program at any time.
Premium Distribution Channels
Unless there is some other indication on the site or upload process (like in the case of Vetta and Agency, where we will continue to allow you to opt your files in and out of those collections), iStockphoto reserves the right to make your content available on similar or higher-priced distribution channels, such as gettyimages.com, Punchstock and Jupiter Images. You will not be able to opt your files out from these partner sites but we will notify you prior to moving your content. All exclusive iStockphoto video files will be made available on gettyimages.com under the terms of the revised ASA.
Master Delegates
The revised ASAs allow for content to be licensed through an existing Getty Images collection via Master Delegates (partners that license Getty Images content in specific geographical areas). For instance, Gallo Images (galloimages.com) licenses certain Getty Images collections in Sub-Saharan Africa, Middle East and Brazil. You will be notified before your files are made available through these channels.
Extended Licenses
As our file collection has grown, it’s become difficult for our customers to understand which files are available for purchase under what licenses. In order to simplify our process, under the revised ASAs, all files will now be available for purchase under our Extended Licenses.
Promotional Use
You will no longer be able to opt-out of the Promotional Use provision of the ASAs, which allows us to use our contributors’ content for marketing and promotional purposes without compensation. We use your images, video, flash, audio and illustrations to promote the site, bring in traffic, drive people to portfolios, and ultimately sell more content. Wherever possible, iStock will provide attribution for all files used. We want to be able to showcase the best of iStockphoto, including your files.
Notice of Changes to Royalty Rate
We’ve put into writing what we’ve already been putting into practice, committing to give you at least 30 days notice before making any changes to the Rate Schedule.
Fraud, Returns and Overpayment
As you know, under the prior ASAs, iStockphoto was able to remove royalties in your account that were attributed as a result of fraudulent purchases. We have cleaned up the language a bit to make it really clear that royalties will be removed from your account if a purchase is deemed to be fraudulent, is returned for any reason, or if an overpayment of royalties has been made. We’re constantly improving our fraud prevention to ensure the best possible protection against fraudulent purchases.
Application Program Interface (API)
As you may know, we currently have an Application Program Interface (API) that we use with certain partners to allow those companies to deliver iStockphoto content to their customers in a way that is integrated into their sites. Moving forward, content available through APIs or other means that are not currently contemplated may be at an additional royalty structure different from what is currently in the rate schedule.
The reference to the additional royalty structure is a forward-looking provision designed to anticipate our customer’s future needs and potential business opportunities that arise with the introduction of new technologies. As with any royalty change, we will always give you 30 days notice.
I’m a Non-Exclusive Contributor
File Movement and Mirroring
Perhaps the most significant changes to the ASAs involve the movement and mirroring of files onto other sites that are part of the Getty Images family or its Master Delegates. Your files may move to similar, higher or lower-tier priced collections on notice to you. This is in line with our goal to put the right imagery, at the right price, in front of the right customers.
Partner Program
Your files will continue to be sold on iStockphoto, and will also be made available on Getty Images partner sites, such as Thinkstock and Photos.com. As a non-exclusive contributor, all of your files will now automatically be included in the Partner Program.
Premium Distribution Channels
Unless there is some other indication on the site or upload process, iStockphoto reserves the right to make your content available on similar or higher-priced distribution channels owned by Getty Images, such as gettyimages.com, Punchstock and Jupiter Images. You will not be able to opt your files out from these partner sites but we will notify you prior to moving your content.
Master Delegates
The revised ASAs allow for content to be licensed through an existing Getty Images collection via Master Delegates (partners that license Getty Images content in specific geographical areas). For instance, Gallo Images (galloimages.com) licenses certain Getty Images collections in Sub-Saharan Africa, Middle East and Brazil. You will be notified before your files are made available through these channels.
Extended Licenses
As our file collection has grown, it’s become difficult for our customers to understand which files are available for purchase under what licenses. In order to simplify our process, under the revised ASAs, all files will now be available for purchase under our Extended Licenses.
Promotional Use
You will no longer be able to opt-out of the Promotional Use provision of the ASAs, which allows us to use our contributor’s content for marketing and promotional purposes without compensation. We use your images, video, flash, audio and illustrations to promote the site, bring in traffic, drive people to portfolios, and ultimately sell more content. Wherever possible, iStock will provide attribution for all files used. We want to be able to showcase the best of iStockphoto, including your files.
Notice of Changes to Royalty Rate
We’ve put into writing what we’ve already been putting into practice, committing to give you at least 30 days notice before making any changes to the Rate Schedule.
Fraud, Returns and Overpayment
As you know, under the prior ASAs, iStockphoto was able to remove royalties in your account that were attributed as a result of fraudulent purchases. We have cleaned up the language a bit to make it really clear that royalties will be removed from your account if a purchase is deemed to be fraudulent, is returned for any reason, or if an overpayment of royalties has been made. We’re constantly improving our fraud prevention to ensure the best possible protection against fraudulent purchases.
Application Program Interface (API)
As you may know, we currently have an Application Program Interface (API) that we use with certain partners to allow those companies to deliver iStockphoto content to their customers in a way that is integrated into their sites. Moving forward, content available through APIs or other means that are not currently contemplated may be at an additional royalty structure different from what is currently in the rate schedule.
The reference to the additional royalty structure is a forward-looking provision designed to anticipate our customer’s future needs and potential business opportunities that arise with the introduction of new technologies. As with any royalty change, we will always give you 30 days notice.
-
All of a sudden I feel sick.
I KNEW this was coming, and still i do too. Grrrrrr....
-
I knew this was coming, but it doesn't mean I like it. However, until sales tank, my portfolio will stay at iStock.
Gotta love that little note at the bottom that says any content made available via the API may be at some new royalty rate. IOW they'll funnel the content wherever they please at whatever royalty they please.
OTOH, if they got the site working properly and consistently at got the sales volume up, I could be mollified somewhat.
-
OTOH, if they got the site working properly and consistently at got the sales volume up, I could be mollified somewhat.
Don't hold your breath __ this strikes me as an act of utter desperation. They are cutting their own throat in pursuit of short-term gains. It won't work.
-
so will they give us notice when stuff will get moved to another site with an option to delete, or will they just move it?
-
Glad that I removed my portfolio.
-
This doesn't really come as a surprise, but it certainly marks the end of an era. Or the end of the tattered remains of an era, anyway.
-
so will they give us notice when stuff will get moved to another site with an option to delete, or will they just move it?
Given they can't even send out e-mail to contributors about a survey I wouldn't be holding my breath. Google searches of the forum or a OUIJA board are our best bet.
-
This doesn't really come as a surprise, but it certainly marks the end of an era. Or the end of the tattered remains of an era, anyway.
Like those seaside towns where everything's peeling paint and faded colors...
-
If we don't agree we can't upload. But I don't see anyplace for a check mark, or digital signature or anything else indicating agreement. Are we all assumed to have agreed if we don't write and object?
-
This doesn't really come as a surprise, but it certainly marks the end of an era. Or the end of the tattered remains of an era, anyway.
We're in the 'Rebecca Era' now. It didn't her take long to make an impact. Looks like she's ordered the PP 'conveyor belt' to be fixed ASAP too.
-
*Dislike* After having thought about restarting to upload there (after 1.5 years of not doing that) I feel I should pull my port completely now.
-
If I read this correctly non exclusives have no ability to opt out of anything. IS will use your images on partner sites, for promotional use and in APIs regardless of your opinions.
-
If I read this correctly non exclusives have no ability to opt out of anything. IS will use your images on partner sites, for promotional use and in APIs regardless of your opinions.
That is what I am reading. >:(
-
They might have waited to see what their survey said about communication. As always, some amibiguous clauses, which will always be interpreted in their favour. Why not just write clearly and unambiguously. Ditch the obfuscation.
-
They also added that if images are returned for any reason then they will clawback royalties.
-
Did anyone catch this post by Spazerd (admin)?
Posted By spazerd:
The first iteration involves MIRRORING the non-ex files (photos + ills) to Thinkstock and photos.com. .
"The first iteration" involves mirroring the content? What about future iterations? Does this mean that once non-exclusive content is "mirrored" then it will eventually be removed from Istockphoto altogether? That will be several thousand a month out of my pocket if it happens >:(
-
They also added that if images are returned for any reason then they will clawback royalties.
Haven't they always done that for refunds?
-
At least JJ has been clear, for once, that these changes are to benefit The Company, not the contributors, as if we'd imagine anything other:
I believe in these changes. They will allow us, iStockphoto’s Administration & iStockphoto Contributors alike, to become an extremely important hub of Creative digital media for other Getty Images properties.
Whoop de doop.
They're also upfront that they can move our images hither, thither and yonder, without let or hindrance, but we'll get a lower %age rate and no RCs.
-
They also added that if images are returned for any reason then they will clawback royalties.
That was bound to happen. It was discussed in the conference call and everyone seemed happy to hear that clawbacks were not going to happen while the new security measures were put in place. The key words there being "while the new security measures were put in place." After that was done, I think it was clear that clawbacks would be reinstated as istock saw fit.
-
Selective Deleting is the name of the Game and from what I can gather that is the only option open to Independents, there is no way I am undercutting or supporting PP and goodness knows who else to undercut Shutterstock.
Think my best sellers will have wave goodbye at IS alas esp as their are hints in there that they can do whatever they like with the Royalty % which incidentally I would be very interested to hear more about?
-
Glad that I removed my portfolio.
My last four are coming down. One I designated for Photos+ so I think that one is stuck.
-
Finally registered today after 12 months of following the iStock forum here. The last 12 months (and then some) have simply been a shame. I think this new agreement is my last straw, I'm finally ready to unload my 200+ images from iStock, and my account from early 2003. Any suggestions where I can take them next—any miscrostock sites possessing an ounce of honesty or loyalty to contributors these days?
-
Glad that I removed my portfolio.
My last four are coming down. One I designated for Photos+ so I think that one is stuck.
When does this kick in? The end of September? I was curious when my lease was up, so, I guess, I'll be joining both of you soon.
-
This all puts me in a really difficult position. Inclusion in ThinkStock is no longer optional. So my work has to be included, as do all non-exclusive artists' work, bolstering the TS collection and thus making TS a potentially stronger competitor to Shutterstock. Of course SS is my top earner, and so I'm not in the terrible position of having to decide if I want to possibly cannibalize sales at my top agency for the sake of my steadily decreasing istock sales, or pull the plug on istock for the sake of better supporting SS.
Not sure what to do with this news just yet...
-
Glad that I removed my portfolio.
My last four are coming down. One I designated for Photos+ so I think that one is stuck.
I think if you don't agree with the updated ASA you might solve that problem...
-
Glad that I removed my portfolio.
My last four are coming down. One I designated for Photos+ so I think that one is stuck.
You can still remove P+ files from the site. You just can't leave them on the site and take them out of P+ before 6 months.
-
Someone caught the fact that the new ASA doesn't include iStock as a contributor's agent, (http://[url=http://www.istockphoto.com/forum_messages.php?threadid=333754&messageid=6468308) just distributor. Here is a brief blurb (http://www.rpemery.com/articles/usingagencyagreements.html) on the difference (in the US at least) between the two.
From that page "both the agent and the principal will have a legal duty. In particular, the agent is placed in a position where a high-level of responsibility and trust is imposed. This is known as a “fiduciary relationship” and certain obligations are placed on the agent regardless of any contractual responsibilities. The primary responsibility of the agent is to act honestly and in the best interest of the principal."
-
This was no surprise...they made it clear months ago that non-exclusives were nobodies, they are just following through with what a lot of us thought was going to happen. They made it clear I meant nothing to them, and I am happy to oblige getting out of the way of their big plans.
I have a feeling this isn't over...they just allowed non-exclusives to tag images for the Photos+ program, thereby making more commissions from those photos. So those are all now going to go to Thinkstock, where they can be purchased for pennies? Am I missing something?
-
I read that if we don't agree (respond by checking the agree box) they will "deem" that we agree after a stated time limit and the new agreement will go into effect.
Excuse me while I bend over.
-
As non-exclusives, we're being forced to sell our images through the PP-program.
So there are two options: either delete your port, or become exclusive. >:(
-
Glad that I removed my portfolio.
My last four are coming down. One I designated for Photos+ so I think that one is stuck.
You can still remove P+ files from the site. You just can't leave them on the site and take them out of P+ before 6 months.
Thanks for clarifying that, Lisa. That's what I will be doing.
-
This all puts me in a really difficult position. Inclusion in ThinkStock is no longer optional. So my work has to be included, as do all non-exclusive artists' work, bolstering the TS collection and thus making TS a potentially stronger competitor to Shutterstock. Of course SS is my top earner, and so I'm not in the terrible position of having to decide if I want to possibly cannibalize sales at my top agency for the sake of my steadily decreasing istock sales, or pull the plug on istock for the sake of better supporting SS.
I really wouldn't worry too much about the 'threat' to SS any time soon. They seem to have coped admirably so far and if anything SS have been aided by the Getty sales rep's (with unintended collateral damage IS resulting). I suspect that the PP's biggest problem in the inadequacy of the search more than lack of content.
-
Glad that I removed my portfolio.
My last four are coming down. One I designated for Photos+ so I think that one is stuck.
When does this kick in? The end of September? I was curious when my lease was up, so, I guess, I'll be joining both of you soon.
No you should be OK. I deleted a bunch of Photos + as they weren't selling. Just remove them as usual in the administration/Edit page. They'll go.
-
This all puts me in a really difficult position. Inclusion in ThinkStock is no longer optional. So my work has to be included, as do all non-exclusive artists' work, bolstering the TS collection and thus making TS a potentially stronger competitor to Shutterstock. Of course SS is my top earner, and so I'm not in the terrible position of having to decide if I want to possibly cannibalize sales at my top agency for the sake of my steadily decreasing istock sales, or pull the plug on istock for the sake of better supporting SS.
Not sure what to do with this news just yet...
This is why I may have to delete my better performing files and leave the dross okay it will hurt but long term not as much as doing nothing
as already said this smacks of desperation ..... and IS can HUFFF.... AND PUFF... all they like, all they are doing is Blowing their own House down as TS will never get anywhere close to competing with Shutterstock!
-
No you should be OK. I deleted a bunch of Photos + as they weren't selling. Just remove them as usual in the administration/Edit page. They'll go.
Thanks for the heads up. I'm going over to do that now. I forget where the admin/edit page is. ::)
-
As non-exclusives, we're being forced to sell our images through the PP-program.
So there are two options: either delete your port, or become exclusive. >:(
I know which option I'm picking. ;D
-
Although it won't affect me, I can't help but notice that they're going to move the best selling photos over to Jupiter etc from where they won't earn RCs on iStock. Sneaky, or what?
(Oh, the first iteration will be mirroring, which is a strong hint that later they weill be moved.)
-
Oh boy. It's all that Kelly's parting message suggested it might be.
I always feel that I have solid ground under my feet with Shutterstock. With iStock, it's all shifting sands.
-
I think this new agreement is my last straw, I'm finally ready to unload my 200+ images from iStock, and my account from early 2003. Any suggestions where I can take them next—any miscrostock sites possessing an ounce of honesty or loyalty to contributors these days?
-
In short, does that mean subscriptions in those sites? The traditional subs, not IS-style?
-
Question: "Will more content be flowing into iStock from the Getty family? Will we see contente from outside contributors and partner sites included in the "regular" (non-agency/vetta/editorial) collection at iStock photo?"
JJRD: "In answering the question : at times, some content will be coming in via Getty Images... and some will go to GI via iStock."
I wonder how much "some content" will be?
-
I think this new agreement is my last straw, I'm finally ready to unload my 200+ images from iStock, and my account from early 2003. Any suggestions where I can take them next—any miscrostock sites possessing an ounce of honesty or loyalty to contributors these days?
I can't work with this either. I'll be unloading too.
-
Mmmm,
So, as non-exclusive, if we don't agree with the new agreement, what happen??? We can not upload new files? We can not sell? We can not receive money from sale anymore??? In one word, if we not accept, our portfolio is automatically deleted from istock?
Where is the option to be agree or disagree?
-
... if we not accept, our portfolio is automatically deleted from istock?
Where is the option to be agree or disagree?
Taking no action means you are in agreement with the new terms. To delete your portfolio, I think you'd need to contact them.
-
All of a sudden I feel sick.
I agreed to it, but to quote a friend who's similarly livid - "Seriously guys, I'm almost done."
-
If you delete your portfolio and still have outstanding earnings, you lose that, right? So I'm better off leaving it there until I earn my next payout and then deleting my portfolio, right?
-
Mmmm,
So, as non-exclusive, if we don't agree with the new agreement, what happen??? We can not upload new files? We can not sell? We can not receive money from sale anymore??? In one word, if we not accept, our portfolio is automatically deleted from istock?
Where is the option to be agree or disagree?
As I understand it we cannot upload new files until signing the agreement but that is all....sales, payments, etc. will continue. We have a month to sign and if notice of intent to terminate your iStock contract is not given within that time frame the new ASA will automatically apply on Sept 28.
-
I love the clause where it says that they can use your work for promotion with no royalities.
Geeze can't you even come up with $2 super tight arses
-
I'm assuming this is coming from Getty. As a former Photolibrary contributor having to now decide whether to sign on with Getty this whole issue is making that decision alot easier for me. Any other ex-PL contributors still on the fence as to what to do??
-
If you delete your portfolio and still have outstanding earnings, you lose that, right? So I'm better off leaving it there until I earn my next payout and then deleting my portfolio, right?
lobo said you would get any money owed you.
-
If you delete your portfolio and still have outstanding earnings, you lose that, right? So I'm better off leaving it there until I earn my next payout and then deleting my portfolio, right?
No, Lobo assures us you'll get your royalties.
-
So, if we disagree, our istock account is closed and the portfolio deleted?
-
I love the clause where it says that they can use your work for promotion with no royalities.
Geeze can't you even come up with $2 super tight arses
Yeah, it's a real cheek. Not that they'd want mine, but I opted out of the promotion deal with the RC bombshell in September. I guess a lot of other people must have done likewise.
-
So, if we disagree, our istock account is closed and the portfolio deleted?
Not sure when, but for the present, once they log you out and you log in again, if you don't sign right away, you can't upload.
-
I just submitted cancellation for exclusivity. It is done. Then by 30 days I'll dismantle my portfolio . Getty, you really soured something good into a complete pisser.
-
If you delete your portfolio and still have outstanding earnings, you lose that, right? So I'm better off leaving it there until I earn my next payout and then deleting my portfolio, right?
No, if you delete your account, you'll get paid whatever you have earned.
-
Istock just for exclusives? All others stuff buyers go to Thinkstock and get it cheaper??
-
on first very quick reading
- it seems that non-exclusives are being presented with another bitter pill to swallow... images will be dumped on to Partner Program sites for a royalty pittance, without any option. It is clear that they didnt dare (in this "first iteration" of changes, as mentioned in an istock forum post) to try and foist this on to exclusives, as they know that this is a deal breaker for many exclusives.
who knows what the "second iteration" may bring...
(what was/is the point of the online contributor survey? SFA it seems).
Wish that this negative stuff wasnt my first forum post, but it is difficult to stay silent...
Regards
-
who knows what the "second iteration" may bring...
Scary all the iterations. Sounds like it will be death by a thousand cuts, with no single cut, like JJ's "no single intention" on its own being fatal.
-
I just submitted cancellation for exclusivity. It is done. Then by 30 days I'll dismantle my portfolio . Getty, you really soured something good into a complete pisser.
Not sure what your plans are, but as an independent, iStock can be a significant part of your monthly microstock earnings. I completely get your anger with Getty (although I'd also add H&F to that) but there is life post-exclusivity. There are a number of us who have left since last September's bombshell - in my case my 30 day wait was up at the beginning of June - but most haven't left iStock completely, just left exclusivity.
-
Now I'm faced with a very difficult decision - should I leave iStock altogether? I'm seriously considering leaving, but it will cost me a significant drop in income. I wish I knew what to do. I'm wondering how many of us independents will leave altogether - if most of us leave, will this harm iStock? Would they even care?
-
I just submitted cancellation for exclusivity. It is done. Then by 30 days I'll dismantle my portfolio . Getty, you really soured something good into a complete pisser.
Not sure what your plans are, but as an independent, iStock can be a significant part of your monthly microstock earnings. I completely get your anger with Getty (although I'd also add H&F to that) but there is life post-exclusivity. There are a number of us who have left since last September's bombshell - in my case my 30 day wait was up at the beginning of June - but most haven't left iStock completely, just left exclusivity.
I'm fed up with it all, I don't want my stuff distributed on any of their sites. I don't want to feed them anymore. I may explore other micro sites in the future, but for now I'm done with iStock altogether.
-
For ages independent contributors having been coming to this forum and stating how their sales on Shutterstock have been growing and that they are their biggest earning site - well guess what, iStock read it and now they're taking action.
-
So...
If you say "no" to the new agreement:
-your files actually on istock are always selling
-istock can not mirroring the files to cheaper partner sites
-you can not upload new files anymore
If you say "yes"
- Your files are mirrored to other sites for cheapest price
- You are killing SS and other good earners
- You can upload new files
Is it right or not?
-
Just sent support ticket to close my account, I'm done there. It's quite clear non-ex are not wanted.
-
So...
If you say "no" to the new agreement:
-your files actually on istock are always selling
-istock can not mirroring the files to cheaper partner sites
-you can not upload new files anymore
If you say "yes"
- Your files are mirrored to other sites for cheapest price
- You are killing SS and other good earners
- You can upload new files
Is it right or not?
If that was all I'd be ok with it. I haven't uploaded since the last time they screwed us, but if we don't agree before Sept 28th, they will consider that agreeing - nice huh?
-
All this confirms is that iStockphoto is the grubby little company that ssssoooo many contributors (mainly non-exclusives) have been saying for ages on these forums. Their a bunch of cowboys out to make as much money as they can from all contributors with little or scant regard for the consequences. That's their raison d'être. Why is anyone really surprised, this has been coming down the tracks for quite a while.
Grubby, grubby little outfit. Yuk. :D
-
All this confirms is that iStockphoto is the grubby little company that ssssoooo many contributors (mainly non-exclusives) have been saying for ages on these forums. Their a bunch of cowboys out to make as much money as they can from all contributors with little or scant regard for the consequences. That's their raison d'être. Why is anyone really surprised, this has been coming down the tracks for quite a while.
Grubby, grubby little outfit. Yuk. :D
Completely agree. Except the part about anyone being surprised. I don't hear anyone who's surprised.
-
I really wouldn't worry too much about the 'threat' to SS any time soon. They seem to have coped admirably so far and if anything SS have been aided by the Getty sales rep's (with unintended collateral damage IS resulting). I suspect that the PP's biggest problem in the inadequacy of the search more than lack of content.
I'd suggest that this move by istock is more evidence to the contrary, that a lack of content is a serious problem at ThinkStock and they needed to do something drastic to change that.
Hypothetically, if I opt to remain with istock, I'm contributing to the growth of ThinkStock and potentially helping ThinkStock evolve from the non-threat that it is now to a possibly real threat to SS in the future. Not sure I'm comfortable with that.
-
Would be fun to what would happen if SS gave gave a small raise at this point,could that motivate the people seriously fed up with Istock to drop them all together ..... sorry I´m tired neeeed sleep
-
Would be fun to what would happen if SS gave gave a small raise at this point,could that motivate the people seriously fed up with Istock to drop them all together ..... sorry I´m tired neeeed sleep
I don't need a raise to be motivated, and I'm guessing neither do many people.
I'm not rushing to any decisions today, but I feel like my hand is being forced here.
-
I wonder how long till FT does something else to us. They normally go blow for blow with Istock. (unfortunately we're the punching bag)
If you got RC's for sales on partner programs etc and the royalities were the same as SS then I think they would get more support for this. I can understand Illustrators being very annoyed. 28c or $$ for a vector which one would you want.
-
I guess if nothing changes I'll delete my images from IS on the 28th, or maybe the 29th to make more work for them. I am not going to help them destroy SS. Hopefully they give us the option to opt out before then, but I don't expect so.
In fact I expect them to opt in exclusives next.
Just when you think FT is the most money grubbing distributor IS does this. I can't say I'm really surprised though.
-
Now I'm faced with a very difficult decision - should I leave iStock altogether? I'm seriously considering leaving, but it will cost me a significant drop in income. I wish I knew what to do. I'm wondering how many of us independents will leave altogether - if most of us leave, will this harm iStock? Would they even care?
Try not to get too stressed :) For me it was best to get out and forget about what the company used to be. The loss of income I suffered after RC was introduced was very difficult, I took a hit when I dropped exclusivity and now I'm earning $100s instead of $1000s per year so it's not going to hurt as much when I start deactivating more of my files. Think what I'm trying to say is they'll make the financial problem go away for you over time (if that makes sense). Good luck!
-
Now I'm faced with a very difficult decision - should I leave iStock altogether? I'm seriously considering leaving, but it will cost me a significant drop in income. I wish I knew what to do. I'm wondering how many of us independents will leave altogether - if most of us leave, will this harm iStock? Would they even care?
Try not to get too stressed :) For me it was best to get out and forget about what the company used to be. The loss of income I suffered after RC was introduced was very difficult, I took a hit when I dropped exclusivity and now I'm earning $100s instead of $1000s per year so it's not going to hurt as much when I start deactivating more of my files. Think what I'm trying to say is they'll make the financial problem go away for you over time (if that makes sense). Good luck!
The answer to the bolded question is no, they won't care. In fact, their moves have all been to push non-exclusives out and continue to be. You should be making the decision for yourself, not based on what it will do to them.
-
All this confirms is that iStockphoto is the grubby little company that ssssoooo many contributors (mainly non-exclusives) have been saying for ages on these forums. Their a bunch of cowboys out to make as much money as they can from all contributors with little or scant regard for the consequences. That's their raison d'être. Why is anyone really surprised, this has been coming down the tracks for quite a while.
Grubby, grubby little outfit. Yuk. :D
Completely agree. Except the part about anyone being surprised. I don't hear anyone who's surprised.
Also not surprised. As for the rest of it, I'd just be repeating what the four pages have said in minutes after the announcement email went out. Odd how the opt in is passive, and there's no clear way to refuse and get out of IS? Very strange overall how it's handled.
Funny how a joke about becoming a SS MicrosStock exclusive is more and more likely to come true by 2012.
Had to research this before I could add it: ThinkStock license a small section. BOLD is mine!
3.4 Licensee may not, without obtaining the prior written consent of Thinkstock and the payment of additional License Fees: (i) use the Licensed Material in any posters (printed on paper, canvas or any other media) or other items for resale, license or other distribution for profit: (ii) include the Licensed Material in an electronic template intended to be Reproduced by third parties on electronic or printed products; (iii) use or display the Licensed Material on websites or in any other medium designed to induce or involving the sale, license or other distribution of "on demand" products, including, without limitation, postcards, mugs, t-shirts, calendars, posters, screensavers or wallpapers on mobile telephones, or similar items; (iv) sub-license, re-sell, rent, lend, assign, gift or otherwise transfer or distribute the Licensed Material or the rights granted under this Agreement; (v) Reproduce a single item of Licensed Material, or an element of the Licensed Material, in excess of 500,000 times per use; (vi) display the Licensed Material in any digital format or for any digital use at a resolution greater than 72 dpi, except in editorial or preliminary design work; (vii) use or display the Licensed Material in an electronic format that enables it to be downloaded or distributed via mobile devices or shared in any peer-to-peer or similar file sharing arrangement.
On the good side, it looks like they prevent the On Demand sales which we have seen from some places. On the other, don't expect an EL for a book cover or anything under 500,000 impressions! If you like getting 25-28 cents for an EL, then IS/ThinkStock is the place for us.
-
Getty is a business with a major investor, Hellman and Friedman seeking high dividends for the $2.4 billion they paid. It's NOT the feel good, photo love-in it started out to be. Sure it sucks for no-exclusives. But 80% of the stuff on iStock is crap and it buries the "cherries". With over 10 million images it creates a search nightmare to find quality files. Then buyers head to other sites to find them and Getty wants to prevent that.
iStock is their microstock golden-boy and they paid a lot for it and they want to clean out the dead wood by sending it off to their loser sites in "siberia".(which they also paid a lot for and the ROI sucks). That starts with the non-exclusives. And frankly, its a good idea and smart business decision. And totally expected.
I know you non-exclusives are pissed and you should be. You are getting F-ed again. How many ways does IS need to tell you to piss off? Their business model does not include you. They envision iStock as a premier microstock source with QUALITY exclusive files at a slightly higher price point. They don't want to be just a duplicate of all the companies they just acquired or compete with the low-ball sites.
It's all about building a better and mature product, enhancing the brand, positioning against the competition, appropriating and dispersing assets to improve sales and maximizing profit. And its ALL ABOUT MONEY. Get over it.
-
^^ That's a pretty condescending attitude. Sounds like you've been drinking the Kook-Aid and actually believe that only exclusives can produce QUALITY images. Maybe you'd better look again.
-
...In fact I expect them to opt in exclusives next...
100% agree. That will definitely happen.
-
@oxman:
If we're in the mood to call things by their true names, there's a ton of content on all the sites that's pretty average, and that includes large parts of the exclusive collection on iStock. And then there are people like me who did piss off by removing my files from the exclusive collection to the main collection & Photo+ (I had removed my Vetta files last September and opted out of Vetta/Agency at that time).
Did my files get less good when I switched from exclusive to non? Or is it that everything outside of Vetta/Agency is crap in your view?
And some of the crap is in the imported Getty Agency content, or Mr. Ed Stock's dull as ditchwater editorial content, all 17K+ files of which are exclusive plus.
I realize it's all about money, adapt or die, and on and on. That's why I dumped exclusivity as the "new and improved" iStock clearly wasn't for me.
What acts like sand in my undies is the idea that independents don't have the quality to be on the "premier" microstock site. That's just BS.
-
^^ That's a pretty condescending attitude. Sounds like you've been drinking the Kook-Aid and actually believe that only exclusives can produce QUALITY images. Maybe you'd better look again.
He's talking from istock's/getty's point of view, and I totally agree with this. Getty is making business decisions in an effort to keep their company profitable, even if this means screwing non-exclusives. They want to focus on their exclusive content, which is in general of higher quality and/or more popular.
-
They want to focus on their exclusive content, which is in general of higher quality and/or more popular.
I wonder what Yuri would say to that?
Added: not meaning to insult other excellent independents - that was the easy hit.
-
^^ That's a pretty condescending attitude. Sounds like you've been drinking the Kook-Aid and actually believe that only exclusives can produce QUALITY images. Maybe you'd better look again.
He's talking from istock's/getty's point of view, and I totally agree with this. Getty is making business decisions in an effort to keep their company profitable, even if this means screwing non-exclusives. They want to focus on their exclusive content, which is in general of higher quality and/or more popular.
That is exactly right. I am not saying non-exclusives work is crap. Hell, 80% of my work is crap. The point is, if you were the CEO of Getty and knew what they knew about selling images and music files online, you would be doing what they are doing. It's just business folks ;)
-
It's just business folks ;)
I hate this statement. It's used to justify the unjustifiable way too often. It justifies mistreating employees, laying them off and then rewarding the company officers who do it. It justifies polluting, and bribery, and cheating of every kind. It implies that it is either impossible or at minimum inappropriate to behave in an ethical manner. I believe and hope that's wrong.
Back in the dark ages of my first job post-college, my CEO gave a talk about the challenges of running a public company. He described all the constituencies he had to satisfy, not just the stockholders and the customers, but the employees and the suppliers and the communities in which we had our facilities. They all mattered, and they all had to be considered. Somehow in the millenia since those primitive times things have changed, and only the bottom line counts.
Color me unconvinced. Eventually even the most passive supplier will decide he or she has endured enough, and will strike back. It may not be rational, it may not be to our benefit, but boy, it'll feel good.
(And it does. Every file I delete from iStock and Fotolia feels like a tiny piece of my soul coming back to me. What's that worth in stockholder dollars?)
-
In fact, their moves have all been to push non-exclusives out and continue to be.
I can't believe that's true, but all their actions seem to be (unintentionally, maybe?) pushing us in that direction. I guess it's probably just arrogance thinking that we won't leave and that they're number one no matter what. Oh well, I guess I'm happy (in a weird way) because they are making my decision easy for me.
-
Color me unconvinced. Eventually even the most passive supplier will decide he or she has endured enough, and will strike back. It may not be rational, it may not be to our benefit, but boy, it'll feel good.
I think the same thing. How many times can you poke a bear with a stick before it tears you apart? The answer may be twice. :o
-
were we supposed to get an email about this? because I only heard about it by coming here.
pisses me off, really. I will have to think about this before I decide what to do, right now I'm just too upset to make a rational decision. I guess I sort of knew something crappy like this would happen.
-
were we supposed to get an email about this? because I only heard about it by coming here.
pisses me off, really. I will have to think about this before I decide what to do, right now I'm just too upset to make a rational decision. I guess I sort of knew something crappy like this would happen.
I did get e-mail, sent out this afternoon. Doesn't say much, but here it is:
"Revised iStock Artist's Supply Agreements
iStockphoto recently made some changes to our Artist's Supply Agreements (ASAs).
We ask that you take some time to read and respond to the revised agreements. You can read an overview of the most significant changes to the agreements and how they'll affect you here (http://links.mkt2173.com/ctt?kn=7&ms=NDA4NDEyMAS2&r=MTc4MzYxMzQ2NTcS1&b=0&j=MjQ1NDk3NDk1S0&mt=1&rt=0).
You have until 11:59 PM MDT, September 28, 2011 to agree to the revised agreements. You will be unable to upload new files until you have accepted the terms of all applicable agreements. If you have not agreed to the terms (or provided a notice of termination of the ASAs) by that date, you will be deemed to have accepted the new ASAs under the terms of the existing agreements.
Review the ASA Changes Now (http://www.istockphoto.com/article_view.php?ID=1165)
If you have any questions or concerns about the new agreements, please
contact [email protected].
You will be prompted to review and accept the revised ASAs the next time you sign in to iStockphoto."
-
If you're looking at it from a business standpoint, why alienate the people that provide the images that you pay the lowest commission to? Just curious...
-
The infamous jester has just put down an exclusive contributor and explains as clearly as you like the status of non-exclusive contributors to iStockphoto, and I quote....
"You realize you can contribute where ever you like, right? Exclusive contributors ONLY contribute to Getty Properties. That means you can decide if you want to be involved here or not. Raging in the forums over and over again isn't going to change the fact that the ASA has changed.
The fact is pretty plain. If you want to contribute to iStockphoto as a non-exclusive contributor your files will also be available on the partner sites. Period. If you decide that isn't for you we appreciate that. You can close your account and only submit your work on alternative agencies. It's entirely your choice".
Smart move as statistically 70-80% of their highest selling images come from non-exclusives? It might not represent the volume in profit terms but it might have something to do with the reason customers come to iSP in the first place, clearly the non-exclusive images are the most popular in the eyes of customers.
Every day Lobo comes to work, I fear a village might be missing their idiot.......
-
I wonder how long till FT does something else to us. They normally go blow for blow with Istock. (unfortunately we're the punching bag)
If you got RC's for sales on partner programs etc and the royalities were the same as SS then I think they would get more support for this. I can understand Illustrators being very annoyed. 28c or $$ for a vector which one would you want.
True! but unfortunately FT, in imitating IS, in everything, FT, have probably paid a much higher price in drops and everything. FT, used to be brillant, now with its imitaing best match changes and everything, its become just middle of the road. Costly! and a great pitty.
-
This is nothing! this, we predicted well over a year back, just kiddies-stuff. The BIG BLOW, will come in about a years time when they announce a contract to either become exclusive or piss-off.
-
I started uploading some images again the last couple of weeks and I want to delete those first. I forgot how to delete files. Anyone can tell me how to do this? Thanks
-
Basically to sum up the new agreement says "if you leave your work with us we will act entirely as if we own the copyright to it, only without having done any of the hard work to create it"
-
I started uploading some images again the last couple of weeks and I want to delete those first. I forgot how to delete files. Anyone can tell me how to do this? Thanks
Select Contributors tools/My uploads. Click on the image (not the edit) and scroll down to administration. Enter a reason in the Change File status box (anything you like) and click Deactivate file.
-
Thanks!
-
This is nothing! this, we predicted well over a year back, just kiddies-stuff. The BIG BLOW, will come in about a years time when they announce a contract to either become exclusive or piss-off.
I doubt this will happen unless the major non-exclusives have already left/gone their own way. It would have happened already I think but for the likes of a few massive non-exclusives. Remember that Getty are only interested in money - even they are not so stupid to give a way millions of dollars in revenue from a few non-exclusives, even more so as they cost Getty less in terms of commissions. Most of the bigger non-exclusives are already in the PP so this change makes no difference to the big turnover folks anyway.
-
Basically to sum up the new agreement says "if you leave your work with us we will act entirely as if we own the copyright to it, only without having done any of the hard work to create it"
Yes that's exactly how it feels to me too. I seem to recall that trad photographers were saying the very same thing years ago over Getty's treatment of their work, so I suppose it was inevitable that we microstockers would end up feeling the same.
-
I'm sooooooooooo surprised!
;)
-
If you're looking at it from a business standpoint, why alienate the people that provide the images that you pay the lowest commission to? Just curious...
Yeah.
I've no doubt this has been their plan all along, but boy, for the past 6 years they sure have been happy to TAKE millions from us crap-producing non-exclusives, haven't they? Just one more reason that they have proved themselves despicable...
-
The infamous jester has just put down an exclusive contributor and explains as clearly as you like the status of non-exclusive contributors to iStockphoto, and I quote....
"You realize you can contribute where ever you like, right? Exclusive contributors ONLY contribute to Getty Properties. That means you can decide if you want to be involved here or not. Raging in the forums over and over again isn't going to change the fact that the ASA has changed.
The fact is pretty plain. If you want to contribute to iStockphoto as a non-exclusive contributor your files will also be available on the partner sites. Period. If you decide that isn't for you we appreciate that. You can close your account and only submit your work on alternative agencies. It's entirely your choice".
Smart move as statistically 70-80% of their highest selling images come from non-exclusives? It might not represent the volume in profit terms but it might have something to do with the reason customers come to iSP in the first place, clearly the non-exclusive images are the most popular in the eyes of customers.
Every day Lobo comes to work, I fear a village might be missing their idiot.......
Aye, the little wolflike Napoleon feels browbeating is the best way to moderate a forum. Giving non-exclusives a choice between being bent over and shafted in the PP or not letting the door hit them in the ass on their way out is not much of a choice.
-
I said over a year ago (http://www.microstockgroup.com/general-stock-discussion/thinkstockphotos-com-getty-new-family/msg134505/#msg134505) that this was coming.
To me this just looks like another business decision about shuffling collcetions, nothing more. They have some low value stuff at Getty and some high value stuff at Istock. They just want to be able to move images where they make sense when they want to.
I'm not so much concerned about this move but the fact that they continue to regularly make changes. It's hard to commit to building a collection with them when at any moment they may introduce a change that's a deal breaker.
-
I said over a year ago ([url]http://www.microstockgroup.com/general-stock-discussion/thinkstockphotos-com-getty-new-family/msg134505/#msg134505[/url]) that this was coming.
To me this just looks like another business decision about shuffling collcetions, nothing more. They have some low value stuff at Getty and some high value stuff at Istock. They just want to be able to move images where they make sense when they want to.
I'm not so much concerned about this move but the fact that they continue to regularly make changes. It's hard to commit to building a collection with them when at any moment they may introduce a change that's a deal breaker.
Indeed. JJ said that this is only the 'first iteration'. Who knows what's down the line.
There's not one thing in that announcement which is even a 'sweetener' for contributors, apart from the 'negative positive' that in this iteration they won't compulsorily move exclusive files into the PP.
-
Would be fun to what would happen if SS gave gave a small raise at this point,could that motivate the people seriously fed up with Istock to drop them all together ..... sorry I´m tired neeeed sleep
I don't need a raise to be motivated, and I'm guessing neither do many people.
I'm not rushing to any decisions today, but I feel like my hand is being forced here.
You have to accept the fact that Istock is making a huge push to load content onto PP sites and, as a result, will be putting a lot of marketing effort into the "added content" as well. That to me simply means pulling traffic away from Istock, making it even harder to hit our RC levels. That means pay cuts for many...again. I am in the same boat. Taking a week or two to think this over but I am pretty burned out on taking pay cuts, putting content on "ghosted sites" with no little or accountability (at least from the contributor's viewpoint) and putting up twice as much content to maintain flat sales. I am certainly not motivated by Istock.....FOR SURE!
-
I've summarized a few of my preliminary thoughts on the changes in a blog entry, feel free to check it out and correct me if I am wrong in my thinking.
http://mellimage.blogspot.com/2011/08/news-2011-08-30.html (http://mellimage.blogspot.com/2011/08/news-2011-08-30.html)
-
They should just pay everyone in lube. Maybe gum as a bonus.
Nooooo we said in the survey we like it dished out raw. The lube is what got Kelly sacked!
-
They should just pay everyone in lube. Maybe gum as a bonus.
Nooooo we said in the survey we like it dished out raw. The lube is what got Kelly sacked!
LOLOLOL
-
I've summarized a few of my preliminary thoughts on the changes in a blog entry, feel free to check it out and correct me if I am wrong in my thinking.
[url]http://mellimage.blogspot.com/2011/08/news-2011-08-30.html[/url] ([url]http://mellimage.blogspot.com/2011/08/news-2011-08-30.html[/url])
Could you amend the bit "The fact is pretty plain. If you want to contribute to iStockphoto as a non-exclusive contributor your files will also be available on the partner sites. Period. If you decide that isn't for you we appreciate that. You can close your account and only submit your work on alternative agencies. It's entirely your choice." (Quoted after Cogent Marketing). and accredit the quote for Lobo at iSP? It was pasted off his response to an exclusive on the iSP forum this morning.
Thanks
-
I'll repeat what I predicted over a year ago: The end game at IS is to have all exclusives. This latest go round is just a step in that direction. There may be two or three more intermediate (and increasingly noxious) steps to drag us into the exclusive camp before IS goes 100% exclusive. They will still have an income stream from non-exclusives via their partnerships.
-
Apparently some non-exclusive images may also be sold upstream at higher priced outlets.
http://www.istockphoto.com/forum_messages.php?threadid=333754&messageid=6469594
(http://www.istockphoto.com/forum_messages.php?threadid=333754&messageid=6469594)
It has never made sense to me that non-exclusives didn't have access to the higher end Getty collections. Some of the top independents are already there through other distribution channels.
-
Sure, but the way they work they'll sell it for $600 and pay you 60 cents.
-
Getty have NO option but to sooner or later enforce a 100% exclusivity, its their ticket to survival, simply because for every exclusive gained its another agencies loss. Thats why. Make no misstake, they are not stupid, they know that among independants, there are just as good, sometimes even better artists who are supplying a whole string of competitors. Getty cant live nor in the long run survive this predicament, its an infamnia and a thorn.
So, whats the answer? well since most independants wont come over freely, they will force us, like with this new contract and the RM contract, etc and as Lisa said, how can you give up 35% of your earnings? well its impossible, isnt it? so we either put up or shutup.
I know these guys since 20 years back and believe me, pretty soon we have no option but to either go exclusive or bail out, simple as that. I wonder what Oringer of SS, thinks of all this? in many ways it will come to have an effect on his company. For every indie signing this pp business its competition to him and for every indie signing up exclusivity, its even worse. Maybe he should make a move towards something?
-
You could be right about Getty's strategy, and that's why they were failing as a business, and that's why they will end up driving IStock into the ground too.
What they need is the best of the independent content AND the exclusive content, otherwise they have no advantage over the competition. If IS was 100% eclusive there'd be just as much stuff available on SS and not IS as visa versa i.e. exclusively available everywhere but IStock
-
Getty have NO option but to sooner or later enforce a 100% exclusivity, its their ticket to survival, simply because for every exclusive gained its another agencies loss. Thats why. Make no misstake, they are not stupid, they know that among independants, there are just as good, sometimes even better artists who are supplying a whole string of competitors. Getty cant live nor in the long run survive this predicament, its an infamnia and a thorn.
So, whats the answer? well since most independants wont come over freely, they will force us, like with this new contract and the RM contract, etc and as Lisa said, how can you give up 35% of your earnings? well its impossible, isnt it? so we either put up or shutup.
I hope you're wrong Christian. But if you're right, and they do offer and "exclusive or leave" option, I will be leaving. If I have to choose between 35% of my income and 65% of my income, it's no contest.
Forcing a choice like that on independents would be suicide for Istockphoto, IMO. Most of us would leave, I am certain. Even with our stuff still there buyers seem to have left in droves over the past year. When our content disappears from Istock and its partners, buyers will have even more incentive to leave too.
-
The worst part of this bad announcement is the international distributors none of us can opt out of. They sell for a pittance and we'll likely get 10% of that. If they sell at all - they're an open invitation to theft.
The Sub-Saharan example they quoted is a red herring. Most sales will come from places like Germany, Russia, Eastern Europe. In those sorts of places the buyers are stoic enough to insist on supporting their local agencies, and careless enough to buy content coming from Spagetty Images through them.
Spagetty Images = Titanic.
-
If IS wanted all non-exclusives to leave at some point it's a death sentence to them - at least IS will be very different from what it is now.
It may become just a contributor portal for exclusives to be included into some future Getty collection but IS like we know it as a self operating agency couldn't exist anymore (just with exclusives).
Non-exclusive content was always part of their business, and the major part AFAIK. No idea if numbers have been released how much % of all profits have come from exclusives vs. non-exclusives but the non-exclusive side is something they cannot afford to drop.
They sure will put the pressure on more and more over time, no doubt, and more us will leave because of that, but there are plenty of contributors on this planet that live in places where the little money they actually pay out is a lot to survive wherever they live.
-
Getty have NO option but to sooner or later enforce a 100% exclusivity, its their ticket to survival, simply because for every exclusive gained its another agencies loss. Thats why. Make no misstake, they are not stupid, they know that among independants, there are just as good, sometimes even better artists who are supplying a whole string of competitors. Getty cant live nor in the long run survive this predicament, its an infamnia and a thorn.
So, whats the answer? well since most independants wont come over freely, they will force us, like with this new contract and the RM contract, etc and as Lisa said, how can you give up 35% of your earnings? well its impossible, isnt it? so we either put up or shutup.
I hope you're wrong Christian. But if you're right, and they do offer and "exclusive or leave" option, I will be leaving. If I have to choose between 35% of my income and 65% of my income, it's no contest.
Forcing a choice like that on independents would be suicide for Istockphoto, IMO. Most of us would leave, I am certain. Even with our stuff still there buyers seem to have left in droves over the past year. When our content disappears from Istock and its partners, buyers will have even more incentive to leave too.
Hi Lisa!
Yep! but it wont stay at 35% of your income though, would it? both me and you, Im sure, positive, would earn a hell of a lot more being exclusive at IS. My own thing about not going exclusive hasnt got anything to do with monies, my problem is: I dont trust their financiers or creditors, etc, you know like H&F, etc, thyre the kind of people who would pull the plug on you if you show a bad year and then what? you dont know where you stand with that sort of people.
Click-click, has got it wrong, financial suicide? not at all and why? simply because most independants with any sizable port and income would in fact go exclusive, if it came to that. At the same time as they benefit from indies turning exclusive, theyre stopping compeeting agencies from earning. Simple.
You see? this is why they have no option but sooner or later enforce exclusivity.
-
Ok now stone me to death and call me a troll, but I'd like to point something out about the attitude of most contribs I see around here. You ppl go all crazy about petty "theft" when you see some of your images on the displayed "illegaly", spend time and energy looking them up, bug ppl, IPs and send DMCA notices, all that for something that probably did few cents worth of damage or more likely nothing since it has very little to do with actual sales... but when the agencies keep shafting you to hell, you just sit around and take it, including insults from such worthless abominations as Lobo, just to rub some salt into the wound. Just brilliant.
-
I've summarized a few of my preliminary thoughts on the changes in a blog entry, feel free to check it out and correct me if I am wrong in my thinking.
[url]http://mellimage.blogspot.com/2011/08/news-2011-08-30.html[/url] ([url]http://mellimage.blogspot.com/2011/08/news-2011-08-30.html[/url])
Could you amend the bit "The fact is pretty plain. If you want to contribute to iStockphoto as a non-exclusive contributor your files will also be available on the partner sites. Period. If you decide that isn't for you we appreciate that. You can close your account and only submit your work on alternative agencies. It's entirely your choice." (Quoted after Cogent Marketing). and accredit the quote for Lobo at iSP? It was pasted off his response to an exclusive on the iSP forum this morning.
Thanks
I can and will. :)
-
This is a pretty critical move. Commissions in the "less than 10%" are probably due soon through sister agencies/partner reselling.
My team and I are researching the extend of this, but a royalty set by Istock on partner distribution is not something we favor at all.
-
...You ppl go all crazy about ...
You people? So you mean you're not a contributor? You're clearly a member here, so you can't be referring to members here as "you people".
If your point was that there are many different things that anger contributors, that's true, but it's like saying "The sun's hot" - we don't generally need to have that noted as it's taken as a given.
-
I could be wrong but I don't think IS wants to get rid of independents. I think it's much more likely that they will bring in much more content from their wholly owned content and other properties onto IStockphoto. Basically they want IStockphoto to be like Thinkstock, with the collections/content they make the most money from up front. This will be a very gradual process, slowly but surely.
-
Getty have NO option but to sooner or later enforce a 100% exclusivity, its their ticket to survival, simply because for every exclusive gained its another agencies loss. Thats why. Make no misstake, they are not stupid, they know that among independants, there are just as good, sometimes even better artists who are supplying a whole string of competitors. Getty cant live nor in the long run survive this predicament, its an infamnia and a thorn.
So, whats the answer? well since most independants wont come over freely, they will force us, like with this new contract and the RM contract, etc and as Lisa said, how can you give up 35% of your earnings? well its impossible, isnt it? so we either put up or shutup.
I hope you're wrong Christian. But if you're right, and they do offer and "exclusive or leave" option, I will be leaving. If I have to choose between 35% of my income and 65% of my income, it's no contest.
Forcing a choice like that on independents would be suicide for Istockphoto, IMO. Most of us would leave, I am certain. Even with our stuff still there buyers seem to have left in droves over the past year. When our content disappears from Istock and its partners, buyers will have even more incentive to leave too.
Hi Lisa!
Yep! but it wont stay at 35% of your income though, would it? both me and you, Im sure, positive, would earn a hell of a lot more being exclusive at IS. My own thing about not going exclusive hasnt got anything to do with monies, my problem is: I dont trust their financiers or creditors, etc, you know like H&F, etc, thyre the kind of people who would pull the plug on you if you show a bad year and then what? you dont know where you stand with that sort of people.
Click-click, has got it wrong, financial suicide? not at all and why? simply because most independants with any sizable port and income would in fact go exclusive, if it came to that. At the same time as they benefit from indies turning exclusive, theyre stopping compeeting agencies from earning. Simple.
You see? this is why they have no option but sooner or later enforce exclusivity.
Has any of you read what could be called a 'mission statement' from H&F on their site? Compared to how mildly high level bussinesses őhrase their intenions, imho they are extremely agressive, almost threatening. They basically say that they buy in, squeeze everything out the company, if the current management stands in the way of that operation they will fire them, replace them with their own. They emphaszie that they are very good at delivering this move, and have done it in the past no problemo... then they exit.
-
Getty have NO option but to sooner or later enforce a 100% exclusivity, its their ticket to survival, simply because for every exclusive gained its another agencies loss. Thats why. Make no misstake, they are not stupid, they know that among independants, there are just as good, sometimes even better artists who are supplying a whole string of competitors. Getty cant live nor in the long run survive this predicament, its an infamnia and a thorn.
So, whats the answer? well since most independants wont come over freely, they will force us, like with this new contract and the RM contract, etc and as Lisa said, how can you give up 35% of your earnings? well its impossible, isnt it? so we either put up or shutup.
I am afraid I see it like lagereek. I see IS/Getty will force the decision. They have been advertising of exclusiveness first - and most strongly - and only one model of exclusivity - that of artist exclusivity, not image exclusivity. Latest since last year I see them as driving out non-exclusives - be it through the royalities they receive, the collections they can place their images in or the placement of their images in the search. This will only get worse. And all who remain non-exclusive will see their images in the lowest priced/valued collections (with very few exceptions). I hope I am wrong on that.
-
Click-click, has got it wrong, financial suicide? not at all and why? simply because most independants with any sizable port and income would in fact go exclusive, if it came to that. At the same time as they benefit from indies turning exclusive, theyre stopping compeeting agencies from earning. Simple.
You see? this is why they have no option but sooner or later enforce exclusivity.
No, you're wrong on this one (with respect). The top selling independents would NOT go exclusive. Most of them couldn't even if they wanted to. Yuri, Andres, Monkeybusiness, etc. all have outside distribution contracts that would mean they couldn't comply with Istock's artist exclusivity even if they wanted to. And I doubt they would want to. None of them even fill their allotted upload slots. Andres hasn't uploaded anything to Istock at all the past month. Istock is making itself irrelevant to the really big independent players.
They are still relevant to me, as I've said, but I would leave rather than go exclusive with them. It isn't just about the money. I don't trust the higher ups running the show.
-
This is a pretty critical move. Commissions in the "less than 10%" are probably due soon through sister agencies/partner reselling.
My team and I are researching the extend of this, but a royalty set by Istock on partner distribution is not something we favor at all.
I totally agree. are you considering pulling out from istock altogether? for someone like you and Lisa with such huge ports it may be a difficult thing to do for sure.
-
Click-click, has got it wrong, financial suicide? not at all and why? simply because most independants with any sizable port and income would in fact go exclusive, if it came to that. At the same time as they benefit from indies turning exclusive, theyre stopping compeeting agencies from earning. Simple.
You see? this is why they have no option but sooner or later enforce exclusivity.
I think you might be wrong. I'm afraid in 6 months time that there won't be enough volume at IS for big independents to even consider going exclusive. Getty is pushing for Thinkstock to become its new star to get rid of the high payouts. Why else would there be forced participation? Istock considers Shutterstock a competitor, so Istock exclusives should realize that Thinkstock will soon be real a competitor with Istock. I remember Klein in an interview telling the music industry not to be afraid of letting one of your businesses cannibalize the others. That is essentially what Istock originally did to the stock photography side of Getty Images and now Thinkstock will have enough quality images to compete with and cannibalize Istock.
-
Has any of you read what could be called a 'mission statement' from H&F on their site? Compared to how mildly high level bussinesses őhrase their intenions, imho they are extremely agressive, almost threatening. They basically say that they buy in, squeeze everything out the company, if the current management stands in the way of that operation they will fire them, replace them with their own. They emphaszie that they are very good at delivering this move, and have done it in the past no problemo... then they exit.
Can you post a link to exactly where you're getting that? I don't doubt it, but in reading their "about" section, I don't see that anywhere. Seems pretty mild language to me...
http://www.hf.com/about/index.html (http://www.hf.com/about/index.html)
-
...You ppl go all crazy about ...
You people? So you mean you're not a contributor? You're clearly a member here, so you can't be referring to members here as "you people".
If your point was that there are many different things that anger contributors, that's true, but it's like saying "The sun's hot" - we don't generally need to have that noted as it's taken as a given.
The distinction wasn't made on being a contributor or not. It also wasn't about "being angry" or not, but the reaction to the situation. I think Machiavelli wrote about this, that ppl tend go out of their way to get revenge for uselessly small offenses, and do nothing about the great damaging ones. Crooked politicans build their carriers on that observation.
-
Click-click, has got it wrong, financial suicide? not at all and why? simply because most independants with any sizable port and income would in fact go exclusive, if it came to that. At the same time as they benefit from indies turning exclusive, theyre stopping compeeting agencies from earning. Simple.
You see? this is why they have no option but sooner or later enforce exclusivity.
No, you're wrong on this one (with respect). The top selling independents would NOT go exclusive. Most of them couldn't even if they wanted to. Yuri, Andres, Monkeybusiness, etc. all have outside distribution contracts that would mean they couldn't comply with Istock's artist exclusivity even if they wanted to. And I doubt they would want to. None of them even fill their allotted upload slots. Andres hasn't uploaded anything to Istock at all the past month. Istock is making itself irrelevant to the really big independent players.
They are still relevant to me, as I've said, but I would leave rather than go exclusive with them. It isn't just about the money. I don't trust the higher ups running the show.
Well, yes! but wait a minute, now youre refering to some of the worlds most prolific microstockers, people who in themselves are instituions and ofcourse they wouldnt go exclusive and for obvious reasons, own outlets and all. No, Im talking about all the droves of ordinary Diamonds, gold, etc, independants. Thats enough.
Even so people like Yuri, Andresr, etc, are in a position to cut deals, since Im sure Getty wouldnt like to loose their magnitude.
Well, I dont know, I think its leaning very heavily towards an all out exclusivity being pushed upon us. Like the poster above says, people like H%F, are no spring chickens, if you dont produce, its the end of line and thay for sure have got both Getty and IS, by the short and curleys.
-
Has any of you read what could be called a 'mission statement' from H&F on their site? Compared to how mildly high level bussinesses őhrase their intenions, imho they are extremely agressive, almost threatening. They basically say that they buy in, squeeze everything out the company, if the current management stands in the way of that operation they will fire them, replace them with their own. They emphaszie that they are very good at delivering this move, and have done it in the past no problemo... then they exit.
Can you post a link to exactly where you're getting that? I don't doubt it, but in reading their "about" section, I don't see that anywhere. Seems pretty mild language to me...
[url]http://www.hf.com/about/index.html[/url] ([url]http://www.hf.com/about/index.html[/url])
One menuline below
http://www.hf.com/about/philosophy.html (http://www.hf.com/about/philosophy.html)
"...predictable revenue and earnings growth and which generate high levels of free cash flow or attractive returns on the capital reinvested in the business. We generally invest in businesses with strong operating management teams already in place; however, if needed, we have experience in attracting new managers to supplement or replace existing teams..."
They write about always having a pretty quick exit strategy somewhere else, sry, I can't get myself to look around for it now.
-
...
Click-click, has got it wrong, financial suicide? not at all and why? simply because most independants with any sizable port and income would in fact go exclusive, if it came to that. At the same time as they benefit from indies turning exclusive, theyre stopping compeeting agencies from earning. Simple. ....
I don't understand your reasoning here. As far I understand what you wrote, you're saying that "most independants with any sizable port and income would in fact go exclusive, if it came to that".
How do you know that? How many of the tens of thousands of non-exclusives have you spoken to that expressed they would become exclusive?
Lisa, just as an example as she spoke out here, would leave instead of becoming exclusive. She sure does not represent all non-exclusives but it also demonstrates that not most non-exclusives would become exclusive if the choice was imminent.
Then you said: "At the same time as they benefit from indies turning exclusive, theyre stopping competing agencies from earning. Simple."
While technically true, who is still having enough trust into IS to put all their eggs into IS's basket? IS appears to me like an old demented lady that does one thing one minute and another thing the next minute.
IS does not watch out or care for its exclusives either. What are the perks? Oh I see, uploading once and then you can go back shooting. Riiiiiiight.
They grabbed the stolen commissions from the exclusives the same way they did with the non-exclusives. Sean still has to hunt down illegal uses because IS won't do it for him. Nor would IS pay him any recovered licensing fees either.
5 years ago, if I had the choice, I would have signed up exclusively with IS under the condition that they wouldn't sell out. They did, and here we are.
-
Click-click, has got it wrong, financial suicide? not at all and why? simply because most independants with any sizable port and income would in fact go exclusive, if it came to that. At the same time as they benefit from indies turning exclusive, theyre stopping compeeting agencies from earning. Simple.
You see? this is why they have no option but sooner or later enforce exclusivity.
I think you might be wrong. I'm afraid in 6 months time that there won't be enough volume at IS for big independents to even consider going exclusive. Getty is pushing for Thinkstock to become its new star to get rid of the high payouts. Why else would there be forced participation? Istock considers Shutterstock a competitor, so Istock exclusives should realize that Thinkstock will soon be real a competitor with Istock. I remember Klein in an interview telling the music industry not to be afraid of letting one of your businesses cannibalize the others. That is essentially what Istock originally did to the stock photography side of Getty Images and now Thinkstock will have enough quality images to compete with and cannibalize Istock.
Look! do yourself a favour, forget all this jazz about contributors, buyers for a moment, we are just pawns in this pharaphernalia. Think business instead. Would you like to do all these moves, this and that, TS, IS, PP, and all, and STILL, leaving your main competitors like SS, DT, etc, to freely roam around taking a big chunk of the cake.
Cant you see? this is just the tip of the iceberg, leaving much more to come.
The danger here, is that we are fooling ourselves into believing the same old codswhallop, like buyers are leaving, contributors are leaving, etc, etc. well, a fools paradise, so to speak.
-
Feels like a bad marriage lately with istock.
-
Istock is making itself irrelevant to the really big independent players.
I'm not a really big independent, but they've become less relevant for me. They used to be 30-40%. Now, they are just 10-20%. It makes it a lot easier to walk away when this month they are only 12%. I suspect this move will push them down even further as more independents transition away.
-
...
Click-click, has got it wrong, financial suicide? not at all and why? simply because most independants with any sizable port and income would in fact go exclusive, if it came to that. At the same time as they benefit from indies turning exclusive, theyre stopping compeeting agencies from earning. Simple. ....
I don't understand your reasoning here. As far I understand what you wrote, you're saying that "most independants with any sizable port and income would in fact go exclusive, if it came to that".
How do you know that? How many of the tens of thousands of non-exclusives have you spoken to that expressed they would become exclusive?
Lisa, just as an example as she spoke out here, would leave instead of becoming exclusive. She sure does not represent all non-exclusives but it also demonstrates that not most non-exclusives would become exclusive if the choice was imminent.
Then you said: "At the same time as they benefit from indies turning exclusive, theyre stopping competing agencies from earning. Simple."
While technically true, who is still having enough trust into IS to put all their eggs into IS's basket? IS appears to me like an old demented lady that does one thing one minute and another thing the next minute.
IS does not watch out or care for its exclusives either. What are the perks? Oh I see, uploading once and then you can go back shooting. Riiiiiiight.
They grabbed the stolen commissions from the exclusives the same way they did with the non-exclusives. Sean still has to hunt down illegal uses because IS won't do it for him. Nor would IS pay him any recovered licensing fees either.
5 years ago, if I had the choice, I would have signed up exclusively with IS under the condition that they wouldn't sell out. They did, and here we are.
Oh boy! I dont know tens of thousands, ofcourse not and do you really seriously believe Getty is interested in all tens of thousands? hardly. The ones that matter, yes. I personally know four "ordinary" Diamonds, who have turned during this year and there are no regrets, they are earning more then they did before.
This is what I mean with, lets not fool ourselves with what we want to believe.
-
Feels like a bad marriage lately with istock.
It's been a bad marriage for a while now . The problem is that they keep revising the prenupt agreement
-
Lisa, just as an example as she spoke out here, would leave instead of becoming exclusive. She sure does not represent all non-exclusives but it also demonstrates that not most non-exclusives would become exclusive if the choice was imminent.
Elena alluded to the same thing in the other thread - that if they go to exclusive only she won't be uploading there anymore. I read that to mean she would leave if offered that ultimatum. She can, of course, clarify here if I am misinterpreting.
I am very confident that only a tiny minority of high earning independents would go exclusive with Istock rather than leave, if those were their only two choices. And if such a minority exists, they were probably planning exclusivity anyway.
But frankly, this is all hypothetical. For right now, we have enough crappola to wade through without making stuff up...
-
Oh boy! I dont know tens of thousands, ofcourse not and do you really seriously believe Getty is interested in all tens of thousands? hardly. The ones that matter, yes. I personally know four "ordinary" Diamonds, who have turned during this year and there are no regrets, they are earning more then they did before.
This is what I mean with, lets not fool ourselves with what we want to believe.
Well, fine. I'm not a Diamond, hence I belong to the ones that have to go, I guess.
Mileage varies, it works for some but probably not for all of them becoming exclusive.
English isn't my native tongue so sometimes I don't quite understand what is serious chatter and what is sarcasm, cynicism or poor judgement.
You confuse me by saying not to get fooled but on the other hand it sounds like you're woo-yaing IS for being so awesome as an exclusive employer.
I think we're mostly on the same page but I'd rather keep reading this discussion than posting as it confuses me even more now...
-
Click-click, has got it wrong, financial suicide? not at all and why? simply because most independants with any sizable port and income would in fact go exclusive, if it came to that. At the same time as they benefit from indies turning exclusive, theyre stopping compeeting agencies from earning. Simple.
You see? this is why they have no option but sooner or later enforce exclusivity.
I think you might be wrong. I'm afraid in 6 months time that there won't be enough volume at IS for big independents to even consider going exclusive. Getty is pushing for Thinkstock to become its new star to get rid of the high payouts. Why else would there be forced participation? Istock considers Shutterstock a competitor, so Istock exclusives should realize that Thinkstock will soon be real a competitor with Istock. I remember Klein in an interview telling the music industry not to be afraid of letting one of your businesses cannibalize the others. That is essentially what Istock originally did to the stock photography side of Getty Images and now Thinkstock will have enough quality images to compete with and cannibalize Istock.
Look! do yourself a favour, forget all this jazz about contributors, buyers for a moment, we are just pawns in this pharaphernalia. Think business instead. Would you like to do all these moves, this and that, TS, IS, PP, and all, and STILL, leaving your main competitors like SS, DT, etc, to freely roam around taking a big chunk of the cake.
Cant you see? this is just the tip of the iceberg, leaving much more to come.
The danger here, is that we are fooling ourselves into believing the same old codswhallop, like buyers are leaving, contributors are leaving, etc, etc. well, a fools paradise, so to speak.
I thought I was thinking business. I'm exclusive and sales have been falling steadily in an unprecedented way and forced participation in Thinkstock will only further hurt sales at Istock. I dropped photo exclusivity yesterday to get my foot in the door at other agencies. I think people are running from exclusivity and not towards it.
-
Be sure to check your settings. It appears that with the new ASA rollout they have automatically checked the "opt-in to Partner Program" button for all contributors. So while your debating your images are already being "mirrored". http://www.istockphoto.com/collections_edit.php (http://www.istockphoto.com/collections_edit.php)
-
Getty have NO option but to sooner or later enforce a 100% exclusivity, its their ticket to survival, simply because for every exclusive gained its another agencies loss. Thats why. Make no misstake, they are not stupid ...
(blah, blah, blah ...)
I know these guys since 20 years back ... (Yeah, yeah, yeah ... blah, blah, blah)
Good grief. You do write such utter rubbish sometimes, no, make that pretty much all the time. Istock are not going to enforce exclusivity because they couldn't afford to do so. Not today, not tomorrow, not in the foreseeable future (i.e. not whilst still owned by H&F).
Over the years Istock have had plenty of opportunity to ensure exclusivity, by simply increasing Diamond-level commission to 50% or even a tad higher for BD's for example. They could have wiped out the competition before it had even started because Istock were so dominant in their proportion of the total revenue generated.
Unfortunately for them, because the competition have been allowed to grow, that opportunity has slowly slipped through their fingers. Istock's reputation and trustworthiness has also slipped badly too and I am quite sure that the vast majority of independent contributors would simply walk away from Istock if such an ultimatum were put to them.
If Istock insisted on exclusivity they could lose up to 70% of their library (on which they are probably paying an average commission of about 17%) and a great deal of the revenue that those images generate. Such an act would be the greatest gift possible to their competitors, a gift that would no doubt 'keep on giving', and would relegate Istock to a second-tier agency. It ain't going to happen so stop scaremongering with such ridiculous nonsense.
-
Be sure to check your settings. It appears that with the new ASA rollout they have automatically checked the "opt-in to Partner Program" button for all contributors. So while your debating your images are already being "mirrored". [url]http://www.istockphoto.com/collections_edit.php[/url] ([url]http://www.istockphoto.com/collections_edit.php[/url])
That's broken according to Lobo. My box has been checked for a long time and I'm not in the PP. See here:
http://www.istockphoto.com/forum_messages.php?threadid=333754&page=8 (http://www.istockphoto.com/forum_messages.php?threadid=333754&page=8)
-
....
If Istock insisted on exclusivity they could lose up to 70% of their library (on which they are probably paying an average commission of about 17%) and a great deal of the revenue that those images generate. Such an act would be the greatest gift possible to their competitors, a gift that would no doubt 'keep on giving', and would relegate Istock to a second-tier agency. It ain't going to happen so stop scaremongering with such ridiculous nonsense.
That's the point I was trying to make, but failed... Thanks gostwyck!
-
Well, yes! but wait a minute, now youre refering to some of the worlds most prolific microstockers, people who in themselves are instituions and ofcourse they wouldnt go exclusive and for obvious reasons, own outlets and all. No, Im talking about all the droves of ordinary Diamonds, gold, etc, independants. Thats enough.
I consider myself one of the "ordinary golds"... perhaps soon to be "ordinary diamond"... well below Yuri level but well above the average. Probably the person you're talking about. And there's NO way I'd go exclusive with ISP, no matter how many carrots they dangle in front of my nose. I'm too worried about what they're doing to my other end.
-
Ok now stone me to death and call me a troll, but I'd like to point something out about the attitude of most contribs I see around here. You ppl go all crazy about petty "theft" when you see some of your images on the displayed "illegaly", spend time and energy looking them up, bug ppl, IPs and send DMCA notices, all that for something that probably did few cents worth of damage or more likely nothing since it has very little to do with actual sales... but when the agencies keep shafting you to hell, you just sit around and take it, including insults from such worthless abominations as Lobo, just to rub some salt into the wound. Just brilliant.
Well I, for one, am proud to say no, I didn't and no, I won't. And that's what makes ME happy (along with money). :D
-
If Istock insisted on exclusivity they could lose up to 70% of their library (on which they are probably paying an average commission of about 17%) and a great deal of the revenue that those images generate. Such an act would be the greatest gift possible to their competitors, a gift that would no doubt 'keep on giving', and would relegate Istock to a second-tier agency. It ain't going to happen so stop scaremongering with such ridiculous nonsense.
Hmm, but they sure make non-exclusivity more and more unattractive - I am afraid independents will be (with few exceptions) moved to the lowest priced tiers. Which may decrease their income, but also draw away customers from the competing agencies. Do I see this wrong?
-
Hmm, but they sure make non-exclusivity more and more unattractive - I am afraid independents will be (with few exceptions) moved to the lowest priced tiers. Which may decrease their income, but also draw away customers from the competing agencies. Do I see this wrong?
I see it as you see it. It doesn't make sense, that's for sure. I think they will milk everything they can from indies for as long as they possibly can, then will institute an "exclusive or leave" policy (once they get all their other ducks in a row, like dumping new collections and whatever they need into IS, etc.) So far, they have proceeded to do all the things that I thought, and that many others here have thought they would do. It's not mind-reading, for sure. Just the writing on the wall.
-
They will never get rid of independents; they can't. Independents make them almost all of their money. They will simply keep driving down the commissions for them to almost nothing so when they drop the exclusives down to 20% or less they will feel happy about it.
Its just a guess, but I feel they will be posting something like 10% to non-exclusives and 20-25% exclusive in the next few years. Everyone will be upset, but it will end up like it has every time they do a change like this.
I think people like Shutterstock not because they pay .38 (or less for some), but because they have been mostly honest to the people keeping them around. Out of the big 4, shutterstock is on top and has been (mostly) straight with its contributors. Dreamstime is borderline with the commissions, but iStock and Fotolia can go to ... well, you know.
That makes sense, too. I guess the ride's not over yet.
-
Hmm, but they sure make non-exclusivity more and more unattractive - I am afraid independents will be (with few exceptions) moved to the lowest priced tiers. Which may decrease their income, but also draw away customers from the competing agencies. Do I see this wrong?
I see it as you see it. It doesn't make sense, that's for sure. I think they will milk everything they can from indies for as long as they possibly can, then will institute an "exclusive or leave" policy (once they get all their other ducks in a row, like dumping new collections and whatever they need into IS, etc.) So far, they have proceeded to do all the things that I thought, and that many others here have thought they would do. It's not mind-reading, for sure. Just the writing on the wall.
If this is what they do - then answer of independents might be the half-assed one: withdraw your bestsellers (so customers find them at the agencies where they have to pay higher prices (?) and where you earn higher comissions. Leave Istock with the rest. I think this because if indy contributions end up in low priced collections, they are undercutting the prices of the competition. So you won't see your images sell there (or less and less so), and earn less comission over at Istock. At the same point Istock/Getty is increasing the uniqueness of its agency by adding more and more exclusive content customers cannot get elsewhere. And customers will maybe just buy in one place, sort by price for what they want.... . Again, correct me if my thinking is wrong.
-
IS has the most aggressive promotions for its exclusives from any agency out there, so the latest move is not surprising.. Unfortunately their dominance does not look like is going to change any time soon and plenty of "non-exclusives" (that seems to almost be a bad word over at IS :) will continue to mumble and upload up to the brimful of their limits :)
-
Getty have NO option but to sooner or later enforce a 100% exclusivity, its their ticket to survival, simply because for every exclusive gained its another agencies loss. Thats why. Make no misstake, they are not stupid ...
(blah, blah, blah ...)
I know these guys since 20 years back ... (Yeah, yeah, yeah ... blah, blah, blah)
Good grief. You do write such utter rubbish sometimes, no, make that pretty much all the time. Istock are not going to enforce exclusivity because they couldn't afford to do so. Not today, not tomorrow, not in the foreseeable future (i.e. not whilst still owned by H&F).
Over the years Istock have had plenty of opportunity to ensure exclusivity, by simply increasing Diamond-level commission to 50% or even a tad higher for BD's for example. They could have wiped out the competition before it had even started because Istock were so dominant in their proportion of the total revenue generated.
Unfortunately for them, because the competition have been allowed to grow, that opportunity has slowly slipped through their fingers. Istock's reputation and trustworthiness has also slipped badly too and I am quite sure that the vast majority of independent contributors would simply walk away from Istock if such an ultimatum were put to them.
If Istock insisted on exclusivity they could lose up to 70% of their library (on which they are probably paying an average commission of about 17%) and a great deal of the revenue that those images generate. Such an act would be the greatest gift possible to their competitors, a gift that would no doubt 'keep on giving', and would relegate Istock to a second-tier agency. It ain't going to happen so stop scaremongering with such ridiculous nonsense.
Youre full of sheit as usual, jealousy shines through in your incipit postings, a complete moron would have read my post better then you. Your type gotsy-boy is well known in all circles, to be the first one of all to sign for exclusivity if you felt your ass was getting burnt.
This so called grammer school morality cakes your dishing out, save it for the reaper.
-
I have a vision of iStockPhoto-2020...
1. You create images they sell it.
2. You pay a placement fee of 10$ for every image you submit even if it is not accepted (reviewing fee).
3. They define the price of every image or they can share it for free as a promotion anytime they want.
4. You get 1 cent of royalty per download regardless of the price the image has been sold.
5. You can request a payment when you reach 500$ per month... in every month you do not reach the limit, you lose the money.
Welcome in 2020!
-
Youre full of sheit as usual, jealousy shines through in your incipit postings, a complete moron would have read my post better then you. Your type gotsy-boy is well known in all circles, to be the first one of all to sign for exclusivity if you felt your ass was getting burnt.
This so called grammer school morality cakes your dishing out, save it for the reaper.
Spelling, grammar and language awful! 2/10 See me.
-
I have a vision of iStockPhoto-2020...
1. You create images they sell it.
2. You pay a placement fee of 10$ for every image you submit even if it is not accepted (reviewing fee).
3. They define the price of every image or they can share it for free as a promotion anytime they want.
4. You get 1 cent of royalty per download regardless of the price the image has been sold.
5. You can request a payment when you reach 500$ per month... in every month you do not reach the limit, you lose the money.
Welcome in 2020!
Ouch, make that 2015 - I don't see them being that far away from this scenario...
-
Getty have NO option but to sooner or later enforce a 100% exclusivity.....
Can't see that happening, considering iStock recently introduced 'The Agency Collection' which is non-exclusive, and a very large (if not the largest) portion of work on GettyImages is non-exclusive.
-
Now that we independent contributors have had 24 hours to consider our options I suggest we try and look at the issue slightly differently.
Imagine if Istock had instead made participation of the PP mandatory only if you wanted to maintain your images in the P+ collection. What would you have done then? Or indeed if IS had originally only offered P+ to those opted-in to the PP? Would you have accepted back then?
I'd suggest most of us have benefitted from P+, probably to the tune of 25-30% increase in our RPD, and which has almost completely offset the overall loss of sales. Now, by being forced into the PP, we'll probably get a bit more money that we weren't expecting too. In some ways that's two pay rises in the last few months from Istock.
I think independent contributors that refused for so long to accept the PP are to be congratulated. Getty have been forced to increase the commissions (signalling how badly their attempt to attack SS had gone) ... and now this. We've also bought time for SS to strengthen their own position and, which we know from our sales, they have taken full advantage of. Far from losing the battle I think this latest move actually proves that we won. It will be harder than ever now for TS, etc to make a significant impact and promoting the PP generally is more likely to damage Istock than SS.
-
We've also bought time for SS to strengthen their own position and, which we know from our sales, they have taken full advantage of. Far from losing the battle I think this latest move actually proves that we won.
Personally speaking I count it as a loss, every sale I've lost from iS to SS has seen me make less money, I sell more now on SS than I've ever done and way above my statistical growth predictions, but I'm making less money than if those sales ratios between iS and SS were as they were a year (or whenever the village idiot made his first infamous speech) ago.
Include the factor that all the big agencies have or are taking more from us or freezing the commission and IMO the microstock industry as a whole may not be something worth pursuing in the very near future.
-
Include the factor that all the big agencies have or are taking more from us or freezing the commission and IMO the microstock industry as a whole may not be something worth pursuing in the very near future.
Yeah. I'm afraid I see it the same way. This is another big blow against contributors. Although I appreciate trying to find the silver lining, I don't think there is one.
-
I have a vision of iStockPhoto-2020...
1. You create images they sell it.
2. You pay a placement fee of 10$ for every image you submit even if it is not accepted (reviewing fee).
3. They define the price of every image or they can share it for free as a promotion anytime they want.
4. You get 1 cent of royalty per download regardless of the price the image has been sold.
5. You can request a payment when you reach 500$ per month... in every month you do not reach the limit, you lose the money.
Welcome in 2020!
I don't know how many of you remember but Getty rolled out a Pay to Play program in 2006. It was $50 per image and Getty took 70% of the royalty for "advertising". http://blog.photoshelter.com/2006/11/gettys-pay-to-play.html (http://blog.photoshelter.com/2006/11/gettys-pay-to-play.html)
-
I have a vision of iStockPhoto-2020...
1. You create images they sell it.
2. You pay a placement fee of 10$ for every image you submit even if it is not accepted (reviewing fee).
3. They define the price of every image or they can share it for free as a promotion anytime they want.
4. You get 1 cent of royalty per download regardless of the price the image has been sold.
5. You can request a payment when you reach 500$ per month... in every month you do not reach the limit, you lose the money.
Welcome in 2020!
Ouch, make that 2015 - I don't see them being that far away from this scenario...
ok, so what are you going to do? heh? 8 )
-
I don't know how many of you remember but Getty rolled out a Pay to Play program in 2006. It was $50 per image and Getty took 70% of the royalty for "advertising". [url]http://blog.photoshelter.com/2006/11/gettys-pay-to-play.html[/url] ([url]http://blog.photoshelter.com/2006/11/gettys-pay-to-play.html[/url])
I love a good doomsday scenario as well as the next person, but I don't think charging contributors to place images on a site that sells at microstock prices will ever gain any traction.
-
Although I appreciate trying to find the silver lining, I don't think there is one.
Well, I'm not going to get too disheartened about the entire industry just yet (just further disheartened about iStock). Let's wait and see what Jon Oringer's big, recent brainstormy thingy brings into the ring.
-
Let's wait and see what Jon Oringer's big, recent brainstormy thingy brings into the ring.
What was that about? Have you got a link for more information?
-
Here you go Gostwyck:
http://blog.shutterstock.com/2011/08/shutterstockhackathon/?sid=AUGNLC1&utm_source=art3&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=AUGNLC1 (http://blog.shutterstock.com/2011/08/shutterstockhackathon/?sid=AUGNLC1&utm_source=art3&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=AUGNLC1)
-
From the IS Lawyer starting on page 23 of the ASA thread on IS.
Hello all. We've taken a look through the most common legal questions that have been asked and have prepared some responses which you will see below. We are going to do our best to respond to any follow up questions.
1. Mirroring/Moving Content
Non-exclusive ASA
3(c) Accepted Content may be included in one or more current or future content collections (“Collections”) made available for licensing or distribution by iStockphoto or third party distributors (each a “Distribution Partner”). iStockphoto will determine the Collection and may subsequently move and license Accepted Content through a Collection on notice to you either through the Site or otherwise. For Content that moves into another Collection, the royalties paid to you shall be as set out in the Rate Schedule (defined below).
That means that iStock can move or mirror your non-exclusive content – photo, video, illustration or flash– on other Getty Images/ Master Delegate sites. Upstream or Downstream.
Right now, as has been said here and in the article, the only plans are to mirror non-exclusive photos and illustrations at thinkstock.com and photos.com. If iStock decides to move or mirror your content in another collection on another site at anytime, we will let you know.
Exclusive ASA
3(c) Exclusive Content may be included in one or more current or future content collections (“Collections”) made available for licensing or distribution by iStockphoto or third party distributors (each a “Distribution Partner”). Your Exclusive Content may be made available for licensing through a lower price tier royalty-free Collection of a Distribution Partner only if you opt in to the “Partner Program” category or other applicable indicator under the preferences panel of your account profile on the Site. 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. The price tier of a Collection shall be determined by iStockphoto, acting reasonably, taking in to consideration the average comparable pricing on the Site. For all Exclusive Content that moves into another Collection, the royalties paid to you shall be as set out in the Rate Schedule (defined below). The price tier of a Collection shall be subject to promotions and varying discounts from time to time.
That means that:
1. You will only be in the Partner Program if you opt-in – This is the same as always. We can never move or mirror your content downstream without your opting in.
2. Unless there is some other indication in the upload process or on the iStock site, iStock can move or mirror your exclusive content – photo, video, illustration, flash – to a similar or higher priced collection.
3. What does ‘Unless there is some other indication in the upload process or on the iStock site’ mean? You know how we have an opt-in for Vetta and Agency? That is ‘ some other indication on the site’. The default is that we can move content upstream but we can also impose some ‘rules’ on iStock that require you to opt-in.
Right now, as JJ mentioned, the ONLY exclusive files that will be moved or mirrored are the Exclusive Video files, which will be mirrored on gettyimages.com. Vetta and Agency will continue to be collections that you need to opt-in to.
There are no plans to move any content to punchstock or Jupiter Images. Those sites were given as an example of what a ‘similar or higher price tier Collection’ might be.
As JJ has said, there are no other plans to move exclusive content. If those plans ever change, we will always give you notice of the move/mirroring of content.
So, why don’t we just limit the agreement to exclusive video files?
The language in the Agreement allows for flexibility. Even though, as JJ has said, there are no plans at this time to move any other exclusive content we would like to not have to change this Agreement for a long, long time. So it was drafted to allow for flexibility as the business changes.
To balance the flexibility that iStock has, we will always let you know what we are doing so that you can make a choice at that time whether it is right for you.
2. Agent vs. Distributor
Nothing nefarious was intended by the change of language. ‘Distributor ‘ better reflects iStock’s actual role. All of our obligations to you, as always, are set out in the ASA. Nothing has changed in that regard.
3. Privacy Policy
‘What is the purpose of 16(f)? What are the possible reasons for iStock handing out privacy data of contributor and models to anyone?’
Our privacy policy is pretty clear how we use personal information. Privacy Policy. We don’t sell your information or give it to a 3rd parties except as they may need it to provide a service for us or as specifically set out in the privacy policy.
But by way of example, here are some uses of contributor personal information: preparation of tax information slips, conducting of audits, data storage, sending emails to you regarding service updates or marketing information (if you are opted in).
4. Why can’t I keep uploading while I think about the changes?
Under the former ASA (and the new one) as soon as the new ASA was posted in the upload process, and you upload a file, you will have agreed to it. Unfortunately there is no way around that. Rather than surprise you with the ‘you have agreed’, we wanted to make sure that you knew what you were signing.
Even if you agree to the new ASA, you can always decide at a later date to terminate your relationship with us on 30 days notice.
-
Here you go Gostwyck:
[url]http://blog.shutterstock.com/2011/08/shutterstockhackathon/?sid=AUGNLC1&utm_source=art3&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=AUGNLC1[/url] ([url]http://blog.shutterstock.com/2011/08/shutterstockhackathon/?sid=AUGNLC1&utm_source=art3&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=AUGNLC1[/url])
Thanks! Interesting stuff.
-
I've summarized a few of my preliminary thoughts on the changes in a blog entry, feel free to check it out and correct me if I am wrong in my thinking.
[url]http://mellimage.blogspot.com/2011/08/news-2011-08-30.html[/url] ([url]http://mellimage.blogspot.com/2011/08/news-2011-08-30.html[/url])
Could you amend the bit "The fact is pretty plain. If you want to contribute to iStockphoto as a non-exclusive contributor your files will also be available on the partner sites. Period. If you decide that isn't for you we appreciate that. You can close your account and only submit your work on alternative agencies. It's entirely your choice." (Quoted after Cogent Marketing). and accredit the quote for Lobo at iSP? It was pasted off his response to an exclusive on the iSP forum this morning.
Thanks
I can and will. :)
Many thanks..
-
For anyone who's interested, Istocklawyer just posted the differences between "agent" and "distributor" as used in the ASA.
For some reason my link didn't work. Here's the post:
In the current structure, iStock issues a license of your content (a sublicense if you will) to a customer. The agreement is between iStock and the customer. There is no legal relationship between the contributor and the customer.
In an agency structure, the agent generally enters in to the agreement on behalf of the principal. That is the license agreement would be between the contributor and the customer. iStock would only be the ‘agent’ of the contributor and not a party to that agreement in its own right.
iStock contributors and iStock customers do not have a legal relationship.
The word ‘distributor’ better reflects the realities of the relationship between the contributor, iStock and the customer.
There is no plan or intent to change our obligations to you (except as shown in the redline). The obligations to you, as they always have been, are set out in the Agreement. If there is some specific obligation that you are concerned about that you believe to be changing, please let us know.
-
For anyone who's interested, Istocklawyer just posted the differences between "agent" and "distributor" as used in the ASA.
The word ‘distributor’ better reflects the realities of the relationship between the contributor, iStock and the customer.
What they really mean is that being a 'distributor' as appose to our 'agent' lessens the blow for them when something like this happens:
http://www.pdnonline.com/pdn/news/Photographer-Settles-3142.shtml (http://www.pdnonline.com/pdn/news/Photographer-Settles-3142.shtml)
-
Lobo has posted a comprehensive Q&A here:
http://www.istockphoto.com/forum_messages.php?threadid=333842&page=1 (http://www.istockphoto.com/forum_messages.php?threadid=333842&page=1)
-
Here's the finished ASA for non-exclusives
http://www.istockphoto.com/asa_non_exclusive.php (http://www.istockphoto.com/asa_non_exclusive.php)
-
I dropped my exclusivity there two weeks ago ( i have to wait another two weeks to get crown removed)
I'm note sure that I will stay there with my files at all, since I found to difficult to accept new ASA.
-
I dropped my exclusivity there two weeks ago ( i have to wait another two weeks to get crown removed)
I'm note sure that I will stay there with my files at all, since I found to difficult to accept new ASA.
Are you planning to contribute to other sites after your 30 days are up? If so, you can be opening accounts and getting approved (at the sites that require that) now. In some cases - SS and DT at least, possibly others - you can also start the upload process so you will be ready to roll at full (ish) speed once you're free to sell elsewhere.
-
Getty have NO option but to sooner or later enforce a 100% exclusivity.....
Can't see that happening, considering iStock recently introduced 'The Agency Collection' which is non-exclusive, and a very large (if not the largest) portion of work on GettyImages is non-exclusive.
I don't see this happening either.
There is too much money to be made from independent contributors. Today, if Istock forced an exclusive-only deal a substantial percentage of indy contributors would leave and IS would watch that money walk away. A lot of exclusives may leave too if a flood of new exclusives suddenly are competing for search placement. They may have gotten away with this a few years ago when they still offered warm-and-fuzzy benefits with exclusivity but they don't have the benefits or leverage today.
Ideally, to buyers, Getty would position the Getty "family" as a one-stop-shop for all images of all licensing types. To do this they need keep independant images but offer them in a way that looks more attractive than the competition. For indy files maybe that means lower prices or more licensing options (IS micro, TS/Photos.com subscription, etc). In other words "hey buyers, look, we have exclusive images plus most of the images offered elsehwere at a lower price! Why go anywhere else?"
-
I was about ready to drop my exclusive status, so I can have my own sales outlet. This new wrinkle that non-exclusives get their files sprayed all over at low prices, where each image size costs the same, seems to make that less desireable. What do you think the impact on non-exclusives with a collection of large images, such as XL, XXL, and XXXL , and do not wish those to be sold at garage sale prices? Is that a real issue or a nit? thanks
-
Ideally, to buyers, Getty would position the Getty "family" as a one-stop-shop for all images of all licensing types. To do this they need keep independant images but offer them in a way that looks more attractive than the competition. For indy files maybe that means lower prices or more licensing options (IS micro, TS/Photos.com subscription, etc). In other words "hey buyers, look, we have exclusive images plus most of the images offered elsehwere at a lower price! Why go anywhere else?"
To me, this is exactly what new the ASA means - and it is going to hurt independent contributors the msot.
-
Jeeeeeezzz! in reading the IS, forum thread, you have to laugh ;D, the insults are flying sky high and we thought we were bad asses here? clearly very few exclusives are happy at all over this.
What strikes me is that the majority are hammering IS, still havent grasped the fact, after all these years, that its the Getty folks who are behind all this and that IS, is but another little pawn that simply has to bend over.
-
It's posts by senior people at IS like this: click (http://www.istockphoto.com/forum_messages.php?threadid=333754&messageid=6470066) that would scare me sh*tless, if I'd earn more than 50 bucks a month over there:
>>As stated earlier in this thread, our entire uploading, inspection & administration systems are being redefined as we speak. I am not talking details here : I am talking a brand new way to operate. It will take months still to see the obvious (and it will be huge). In the meantime, as also stated, we are looking at quick wins in order to make our system work better.<< (by JJRD)
Also note how the lawyer and Lobo carefully use the words mirror/move all the time. Although there are no plans to move anything "at this time", you can bet that within twelve months low-selling independent files will be "moved" downstream instead of "mirrored", thus clearing the "main collection" at IS. Voilà, Thinkstock, the new dollar bin - no make that $.28 bin ;)
-
If you watch the IS, interface of "new images coming through" you see an endless stream of generic, middle of the road stuff, accepted, only beacuse they are technically sound. IS, is the only agency right now who is accepting, pardon my expression, mediocre stuff.
Now with this new PP rubbish, etc, the very minute I see my files are pushed back in favour of that? then I will without hesitation pack up and leave.
-
One question I haven't seen asked or answered:
When the time comes and they do start to mirror/move files, will we retain the right to delete them? I imagine that the new file handling procedure JJRD talked about will bring a change in this regard, tying up our mirrored/moved files for 6-24 months before we're able to delete them.
-
I'm sure I read somewhere that if you are non-exclusive and want to remove an image from the PP, you have to delete it from iStock entirely, and it will take 30 days for it to disappear.
-
I'm exclusive and opted out of PP so I was thinking more in terms of the 'upstream' mirroring/moving.
If they move or mirror my files elsewhere I'm going to ask them not to do that, or else I delete the file. If bestsellers are involved, then we'll quickly get to a situation where it's best to close the account. I think iStock and Spagetty Images are playing with fire - their loss will be greater than mine. Let's just wait and see what the new file handling actually entails.
-
Oh sorry ffNixx - I didn't realise you were an exclusive.
I agree that they're playing with fire when they assert too much unauthorised control over our IP. I hope you get the clarification you need.
-
I'm exclusive and opted out of PP so I was thinking more in terms of the 'upstream' mirroring/moving.
If they move or mirror my files elsewhere I'm going to ask them not to do that, or else I delete the file. If bestsellers are involved, then we'll quickly get to a situation where it's best to close the account. I think iStock and Spagetty Images are playing with fire - their loss will be greater than mine. Let's just wait and see what the new file handling actually entails.
I'm guessing that it will indeed be the best sellers that get mirrored/moved upstream. Makes sense on several levels: they are already proven sellers, they'll almost certainly only be paying you 20%, they don't have to give you RCs. If they move rather than mirror, the last point could be crucial for what they'd have to pay the top sellers on iStock.
My guess, and I'm usually wrong on the optimistic side :(, is that they'll first move/mirror most of the blue flames, then the red flames which have a high dl/month ratio.
If they indeed move rather than mirror, I know of a few people who will be particularly badly hit, as they have one or a couple of very high sellers and the rest of their port doesn't sell so fast.
-
I may have missed it, and it's a relatively minor point, but did anyone notice the blatant lie:
"As our file collection has grown, it’s become difficult for our customers to understand which files are available for purchase under what licenses. In order to simplify our process, under the revised ASAs, all files will now be available for purchase under our Extended Licenses."
Puh-leeeeze. There were two buttons under the files, one 'standard', one 'extended'. If a file wasn't opted in for ELs, you couldn't click the EL button. How simple is that, compared to the price/credit schedule: http://www.istockphoto.com/prices.php (http://www.istockphoto.com/prices.php)
They should just have said, "We are cancelling your choice whether to opt files out of ELs". Which they tried to do already by forcing non-opted in files to the back of best match searches, but presumably that wasn't effective enough.
-
They should just have said, "We are cancelling your choice whether to opt files out of ELs". Which they tried to do already by forcing non-opted in files to the back of best match searches, but presumably that wasn't effective enough.
Mostly because, as usual, they didn't bother to tell everyone about it. If you missed one forum post by rogermexico, you didn't hear that news.
Must admit I'm puzzled as to why anyone would want to opt out of ELs, anyway.
-
Must admit I'm puzzled as to why anyone would want to opt out of ELs, anyway.
I like ELs, they certainly are a welcome boost to my income when I get them, though less than they were a year ago. >:(
I am still worried about ELs on editorial files. The link explaining ELs from editorial files is exactly the same as from main collection files, apparently allowing uses which I would not find acceptable for editorial files. When I brought it up with CS, they told me, "we would not allow these uses", which is disingenous - how can they 'prevent' any sort of misuse? - and it would be odd to the buyer, "but it says right here ...". Also, CS told me it was 'to allow e.g. a campaign group to use them on their posters and t-shirts'. It seems that their view of editorial is unusual, as a 'poster' is advertising, whether used by a company or an organisation.
I pointed this out, and suggested that a different, very specific page should be prepared as the link explaining ELs from editorial images, but this fell on deaf ears.
-
The way EL's are set up it's all or nothing. There is nothing to stop me from licensing your image and then selling it as a print on Zazzle or CafePress. Some photographers don't feel that the $10 to $20 that they get for the EL is enough compensation for that type of usage.
I think IS's biggest issue is that they've made everything to confusing for the customer and the contributor. IS tried to be a one stop shop and failed because they had no way to target the customers effectively. If I get a $1 an image ad - then I'm looking for $1 images - not $30 Agency or Vetta work. Now Getty is creating a system by which they can funnel the higher priced items to Getty, the mid level to IS and the lower priced items to thinkstock. The major flaw here is that they are using a completely arbitrary system to determine which images will go where.
So Yuri and Lisa's images will be listed as "low priced" and put on Thinkstock/photos.com while lower quality/less sellable images will be moved to Getty because they are owned by exclusives. (Note: Not all exclusives have low quality images the point is simply that work is not automatically better simply based on the exclusivity of the artist even though that is the defining line according to Getty/Istock.)
-
The way EL's are set up it's all or nothing. There is nothing to stop me from licensing your image and then selling it as a print on Zazzle or CafePress. Some photographers don't feel that the $10 to $20 that they get for the EL is enough compensation for that type of usage.
An extended license for items for resale still does not allow use on Zazzle or Cafepress or on demand sites.
So Yuri and Lisa's images will be listed as "low priced" and put on Thinkstock/photos.com while lower quality/less sellable images will be moved to Getty because they are owned by exclusives. (Note: Not all exclusives have low quality images the point is simply that work is not automatically better simply based on the exclusivity of the artist even though that is the defining line according to Getty/Istock.)
Yuri already has 24,000 images on Thinkstock. I doubt this will affect him.
-
Quote
So Yuri and Lisa's images will be listed as "low priced" and put on Thinkstock/photos.com while lower quality/less sellable images will be moved to Getty because they are owned by exclusives. (Note: Not all exclusives have low quality images the point is simply that work is not automatically better simply based on the exclusivity of the artist even though that is the defining line according to Getty/Istock.)
Yuri already has 24,000 images on Thinkstock. I doubt this will affect him.
It will when they decide to move instead of mirror the images later down the line. I really think that this is the end game plan. To have each site with a distinct market. It's not a bad idea until you see what they are using as the measuring stick.
-
I do notice how they carefully say "no single plan" and "at this time" a lot. My guess is within a year they will start removing stuff from IS (after all the problem is that 10 million is too many to be seen right?). First it will be the indy stuff they forced us to go to PP, then if that isn't enough they will start in with the exclusives.
Also as far as stuff moving or mirroring "upstream", that means 20% max commission and no RC with no guarantee it will actually be sold for more than it would be from IS.
As others have said, they want to cover everything from top of the line expensive RM to dirt cheap subs and picture packs. If you don't want to be supplying the bottom tier, they will figure out how to force you to if they feel they aren't getting enough. Also expect more wholly owned content and "special collections" coming into IS and taking up slots in the front of the best match.
At each step you will have the same options - bend over and take this wonderful new opportunity or leave.
-
I am not really surprised by the new ASA. It´s been obvious since the change of the Getty agreement that they want to have the flexibility to move content between their different agencies. As long as the content is mirrored and my main istock portfolio stays under my control, I have no problem with that. I am anyway opted into EL and the partner program.
The one thing I really welcome is that all video content will be mirrored on getty, even if it is just a clip of ducks in the park. I know many photographers who are exploring video and are not thinking of going exclusive, because there was no additional incentive for exclusive mixed media artists. Now at least we get two sales channels, so even if I never produce video in volume I can stay exclusive with both photo and video and hopefully generate enough income.
That so many photographers are thinking of signing up with pond5 for video, was worrying me a lot, because customers will obviously not just buy video there, but also pictures.
I hope they will mirror more content (illustrations, flash...) to encourage mixed media artists to stay fully exclusive.
Obviously I am still upset that our copyright isn´t being attributed properly in the gettyverse. my images are showing up on Corbis under strange names. They said it is on their radar and I hope it will be adressed as soon as this new upload system that JJ keeps talking about is complete.
It sounds like they want to create a huge Gettyecosystem, so that as a contributor my images will become part of an endless image machine that keeps moving content around.
Will I feel comfortable with that? Well, as an exclusive I appreciate that I only have to deal with one upload process and one payment system. I also wonder if the new gettyverse will be so different to what the independents experience who deal with many agencies,i.e. I do expect there to be problems with late payments from some agents, some image transfers getting stuck etc...if you have so many different parties involved it will not be perfect.
I think those who have a reason to be most worried are the traditional Getty photographers. Whenever Getty comes out with a creative brief, they no longer have to wait for the few photographers interested to shoot something for them - they can dive right into the pool of all 120 000 artists and come up with very specialized, regional, fresh content. That is why they also want to be able to move independet content "upstream" if necessary.
This will be great for the customers, getty really will be a one stop shop and probably can fullfill most image needs globally, including editorial.
As contributors I suppose we have to come to terms with this vision.
Either you become independent and supply only those agencies you feel you can "bond with" or fit whatever criteria you choose plus maybe have your own store, you can differentiate between Rf and RM, giving higher quality RM to your preferred agencies and RF to everyone, or you can sign up to be exclusive with the universe of Getty.
For me it will be a combination of the Gettyverse and other freelance work, maybe even something not photography related. It will still be a much better life than "traditional business".
-
JJRD
Posted 2 mins ago
Quote
There shall be NO such thing as ''remove''.
This is all about ''mirroring''.
...in reply to a post by PeskyMonkey
-
JJRD
Posted 2 mins ago
Quote
There shall be NO such thing as ''remove''.
This is all about ''mirroring''.
...in reply to a post by PeskyMonkey
Thanks Jasmin. Mirroring doesn't bother me at this point. It was bound to happen sooner or later. Removing, OTOH, would be a big problem.
-
Mirroring is good. They can mirror all they want, as long as my portfolio on istock stays the way it is.
http://www.istockphoto.com/forum_messages.php?threadid=333754&page=32#post6471028 (http://www.istockphoto.com/forum_messages.php?threadid=333754&page=32#post6471028)
-
JJRD
Posted 2 mins ago
Quote
There shall be NO such thing as ''remove''.
This is all about ''mirroring''.
...in reply to a post by PeskyMonkey
In the first iteration.
And, as far too often, JJ directly contradicts the FAQ, which Lobo has helpfully quoted:
2. Unless there is some other indication in the upload process or on the iStock site (as is currently the case with Vetta and Agency), iStock can move or mirror your exclusive content – photo, video, illustration, flash – to a similar or higher priced collection.
-
Lobo keeps inserting the word "currently", as in there are "currently" NO plans to MOVE material from Istock to other outlets.
"Currently", as I read it, somewhat negates the whole rest of the statement. They clearly aren't ruling it out for the future.
-
Lobo keeps inserting the word "currently", as in there are "currently" NO plans to MOVE material from Istock to other outlets.
"Currently", as I read it, somewhat negates the whole rest of the statement. They clearly aren't ruling it out for the future.
"Currently" means it is definitely on the agenda for the near future.
It doesn't seem that long ago that Lobo said there were no "current" plans to introduce editorial.
-
A few years ago istock deleted content that hadn´t sold even once in 3 (or was it 5?) years. As the library keeps growing, I wouldn´t be surprised if something like that happens again. You even have contributors demanding it.
What I take from Lobo and JJ´s statement that the new ASA is not designed to remove content from istock (like removing all Vetta content and putting it on getty).
Obviously they can change that with 30 days notice.
I wish they would tell us more about that new upload process that is coming. I feel we are missing part of the picture here.
-
Frances Twitty rocks.
Since I'm still banned by demand on iStock and don't care to ask Lobo to lift my self-imposed gag, I'll WooYay her page 31 post here.
For anyone who's excited about a closer association with Getty, get a clue. Read France's post and you won't be doing cartwheels about the new iStock ASA.
I've been trying to put my mind around all of this. I haven't been super involved lately here in the forums because of some personal issues (my husband was in a motorcycle accident this summer -- he's basically fine now, but recovery will take approx. a year -- that's why some of you haven't heard from me in awhile!)
Anyway, back in April 2011, I cancelled my contract with Getty and no longer upload images to them. It was for a variety of reasons -- their take it or leave it new contract, their distributional delusions indicating they had the 'right' to put my work anywhere they * well pleased, their copyright issues whereby contributors were NOT given credit for their work, their inconsistent royalties (as low as 4 cents on high quality work and my only Vetta sale through them that netted me a whopping $1), their low volumes which never made any sense when you considered how many 'partners' they distributed to which made me question whether or not all sales were accurately accounted for and whether or not we received appropriate payment (not easy to tell with the copyright issue), etc.
I opted to 'downstream' myself to only istock. Joining the PP at istock was never a good idea to me, so I was strictly in istock proper. Now, with this new ASA, I'm being upstreamed again!!! Back to all of Getty's problems. And some people think this is a good thing. How exactly is this a good thing?? Once in a blue moon you *might* get a decent sale. More often than not, revenues and volumes are disappointing. Just ask any Getty contributor.
I am not pleased about istock's new ASA. They are doing the SAME THING to contributors that Getty did -- mandating a contract that should be negotiated. Exclusives have lost control over their images (even though it is being said it is an upstreaming, I've seen the upstream and it ain't all that). Non-exclusives are REALLY being treated unfairly as well. Those of us long-termers with larger ports cannot/will not close our accounts as it is a MAJOR pain to do so and will result in at least a temporary lack of income, which most of us cannot afford. But over time, these decisions will wash through and the ramifications will be seen. This might just be the final nail in istock's coffin.
Some of you woo-yayers might want to jump back into the reality of the situation.
Source (though who knows if Lobo will leave it live on IS):
http://www.istockphoto.com/forum_messages.php?threadid=333754&page=31 (http://www.istockphoto.com/forum_messages.php?threadid=333754&page=31)
-
It's posts by senior people at IS like this: click ([url]http://www.istockphoto.com/forum_messages.php?threadid=333754&messageid=6470066[/url]) that would scare me sh*tless, if I'd earn more than 50 bucks a month over there:
>>As stated earlier in this thread, our entire uploading, inspection & administration systems are being redefined as we speak. I am not talking details here : I am talking a brand new way to operate. It will take months still to see the obvious (and it will be huge). In the meantime, as also stated, we are looking at quick wins in order to make our system work better.<< (by JJRD)
Also note how the lawyer and Lobo carefully use the words mirror/move all the time. Although there are no plans to move anything "at this time", you can bet that within twelve months low-selling independent files will be "moved" downstream instead of "mirrored", thus clearing the "main collection" at IS. Voilà, Thinkstock, the new dollar bin - no make that $.28 bin ;)
That post jumped out at me too. You just know that behind the scenes, they're looking at what some contributors are making and saying to themselves "How can we get more of that".
-
I don't even know what they pay for Thinkstock downloads. Was it .25 or is it even lower than that now?
I have no problem with subs whatsoever, but I demand that they be resonable. XXXL or Vectors paying .25 is NOT resonable. It's utterly stupid, stupid stupid. XS, S maybe M I could live with.
This is what I'm pretty sure is going to happen with our content, I'm not sure that they will "move" anything when they can simply "skim" like they do in other industries:
-Content is mirrored on another seller within the family. The other seller is effectively a totally separate entity, but still a member of the Getty family.
-Seller charges customers $10 per download (for easy math)
-Seller splits 50% or less with their supplier (Istock) = $5.
-Istock give it's Independent 15% of their $5 = $0.75.
-Getty has chopped another 7.5% from our earnings thinking we wouldn't even notice.
-To add further insult, Istock will likely use the new clause (paraphrase) to "deduct costs associated".
I don't read the design mags, but haven't I heard they are not advertising Istock? Anyone know which company they are pushing?
-
I don't read the design mags, but haven't I heard they are not advertising Istock? Anyone know which company they are pushing?
It's up to iStock to advertise in mags, otherwise the mags are going to mention whoever's advertising wih them.
For a while iStock advertised everywhere, then they seemed to stop advertising in the consumer and prosumer mags. When they were advertising, so were all the others, including several that have since folded. Over the gap, I was only seeing ads for Shutterstock (in mags on newsagents' shelves in the UK).
Recently iStock took to advertising in a magazine aimed at professional photographers. That must say something, though it seemed as though they were selling coals to Newcastle. Still haven't found any in, for example, the mags aimed at professional web designers (which I often have time to flick through at WHS at the station). Since Borders went bust, I don't see things like dgusa or Photoshop User.
-
I don't even know what they pay for Thinkstock downloads. Was it .25 or is it even lower than that now?
It went up to .28 a few months back. The tactic of starving them for content forced them to up royalties. Now that all independents are pushed into the PP that may change though.
-
Does hardly anyone read design magazines anymore Sue?
-
Does hardly anyone read design magazines anymore Sue?
I thought we were just supposed to look at the pictures? ;)
-
I do wonder, however, if there are some more buyers around. I'm selling some older, low-selling files, BUT some of them are low-demand, low-supply files, so not subject to the vagaries of the Best Match.
(Others are in larger-demand/supply areas, which just shows that low-selling files aren't necessarily uncommercial files, they just get lost.)
-
I don't read the design mags, but haven't I heard they are not advertising Istock? Anyone know which company they are pushing?
It's up to iStock to advertise in mags, otherwise the mags are going to mention whoever's advertising wih them.
For a while iStock advertised everywhere, then they seemed to stop advertising in the consumer and prosumer mags. When they were advertising, so were all the others, including several that have since folded. Over the gap, I was only seeing ads for Shutterstock (in mags on newsagents' shelves in the UK).
Recently iStock took to advertising in a magazine aimed at professional photographers. That must say something, though it seemed as though they were selling coals to Newcastle. Still haven't found any in, for example, the mags aimed at professional web designers (which I often have time to flick through at WHS at the station). Since Borders went bust, I don't see things like dgusa or Photoshop User.
the one magazine i read and subscribe to regularly, Photoshop User (comes with the NAPP membership), still seems to always a have a 2-page istock ad right inside the front cover. To that extent I do not see the istock ads lessening. NAPP also has a very close relationship with iStock and many of the tutorials you find in the magazine use istock images (properly credited with the photog's name).
-
I don't even know what they pay for Thinkstock downloads. Was it .25 or is it even lower than that now?
It went up to .28 a few months back. The tactic of starving them for content forced them to up royalties. Now that all independents are pushed into the PP that may change though.
that was my very first thought, they can now push it back down and almost nobody will withdraw their files as it'll mean taking them off IS too
-
I don't even know what they pay for Thinkstock downloads. Was it .25 or is it even lower than that now?
It went up to .28 a few months back. The tactic of starving them for content forced them to up royalties. Now that all independents are pushed into the PP that may change though.
that was my very first thought, they can now push it back down and almost nobody will withdraw their files as it'll mean taking them off IS too
I wouldn't be too sure about that last part. I'm already on the fence about leaving iStock completely and that sort of push would be likely be enough to do it. As would another cut in independent's royalty rates - all these income reducers just take away one more reason to stay.
-
I don't even know what they pay for Thinkstock downloads. Was it .25 or is it even lower than that now?
It went up to .28 a few months back. The tactic of starving them for content forced them to up royalties. Now that all independents are pushed into the PP that may change though.
that was my very first thought, they can now push it back down and almost nobody will withdraw their files as it'll mean taking them off IS too
I wouldn't be too sure about that last part. I'm already on the fence about leaving iStock completely and that sort of push would be likely be enough to do it. As would another cut in independent's royalty rates - all these income reducers just take away one more reason to stay.
I'm with Jo Ann on that part - further cuts would put me over the edge. Right now I'm going to try and work a like a madwoman to get as much of my port on DT and SS as possible. those two have been my best earners since going Independent, despite only having a few hundred files up so far. And also building up at WarmPicture and Stockfresh - though they are not big earners, they have good potential in my mind. so if I had to drop IS, I could do it easily with income I'll be making up elsewhere.
-
It went up to .28 a few months back. The tactic of starving them for content forced them to up royalties. Now that all independents are pushed into the PP that may change though.
I fully expect this to happen. istock's message with the required PP inclusion for independent artists is pretty clear. The PP was never intended to benefit us in any way, so how we feel about it is really of no concern to istock/getty. With that in mind, I fully expect to see pay cuts coming down the road.
-
A few years ago istock deleted content that hadn´t sold even once in 3 (or was it 5?) years. As the library keeps growing, I wouldn´t be surprised if something like that happens again. You even have contributors demanding it.
That's not quite accurate. Some people are demanding that they be moved to the dollar bin.
-
Remember folks! as Gotswyck says: theres always a silver lining ::)
-
Remember folks! as Gotswyck says: theres always a silver lining ::)
and every silver lining has a cloud...
-
I think Ink is right.
I don't know if this has been stated, and just don't have the time to go thru and read all the rest of the posts, but from the language being used it would appear that the future Vision/direction that they are taking steps towards is to pick and choose images (subjectively) images that belong on lower paid sites within the Getty family.
It would be quite interesting to see how they are going to hand pick (would take an army) to say one image belongs in one place and another image belongs in another with lower value. I can understand the concept of doing such to filter out some junk or old images from searches to improve a buyers experience. I'm not sure how iStock benefits from mirroring images on all sites. If I were a buyer (and I am sometimes) I would be going to the lower paying sites to get some of those mirrored images rather than using iStock. This is what leads me to believe that there will be a new process (probably announced in Dec..I'm guessing) that will change the approval process to not only determine if it is accepted, but "where it is accepted to. It would seem this is completely the setup to treat each site, low, med, or higher dollar, as "collections" similiar to Agency or Vetta.
From a business standpoint, I do not see the mirroring as a benefit to anyone, but a preliminary step. And from much of the IS feedback or lack there of with some questions, I am beginning to see the larger picture.
I might be way off base here, but I think I'm pretty close.
Source:
http://www.istockphoto.com/forum_messages.php?threadid=333754&page=39 (http://www.istockphoto.com/forum_messages.php?threadid=333754&page=39)
-
^^ Makes sense.
-
Lobo keeps inserting the word "currently", as in there are "currently" NO plans to MOVE material from Istock to other outlets.
"Currently", as I read it, somewhat negates the whole rest of the statement. They clearly aren't ruling it out for the future.
The use of the word "currently" at istock means simply "we're not going to do it now, but reserve the right to do so in the future."
As it relates to the revised ASA, you could look at the bit about fraud deductions. Back when that conference call took place, everyone seemed content with the idea that "currently" there were no plans to deduct earnings that were the result of fraudulent credit card charges. Now under the new ASA we can see that they do intend to resume fraud deductions. So "currently" is often exactly what it sounds like at istock. This is what we're doing now, but we are probably thinking about doing something completely different in the near future.
-
I don't know if anybody else noticed but Pastor Scott's questions on the istock ASA thread keep getting deleted. He's tried twice and twice I see them disappear. Does corporate not want to answer questions anymore? I have his questions here:
From Pastor Scott:
Post:So I've read, waited, re-read and have my questions. Thanks for any forthright answers. I realize these are mutli phrased questions so just do what you can. Kind regards.
Q. We were consulted before this ASA?
It was mentioned early on that this ASA policy was crafted after consulting with many of us? (“After consulting with contributor representatives globally.) We knew who the fruad clawback conference call people were, and the illustration call, can we also be told who contributed to this? Who among these global ones suggested this ‘alley-way’ as a positive? Were the persons who were consulted chosen at random or hand picked? Since much of the new ASA centers on adding content to the PP’s, were the ‘representatives’ of both sides of the issue of the PP consulted or just those who participate in the PP? In other words, how objective were the suggestions, the consulting that were/was acted upon? Also is it current iS policy to preface an administrative action by a consult of its contributors? The survey’s timing seemed oddly close. Did the timing of the survey have anything to do with the ASA? Was it what the ‘consulting’ referred to or deemed to serve a psychological purpose before a major change or just an coincidence of sorts?
Q. Is the ASA a positive thing?
If the exposure of the PP was/is seen by certain admins as a positive (“I believe in these changes….This looks like some exciting and positive changes), why is it referred to as going ‘downstream?’ Despite the lower price points, if TS and photos.com were so positive such as the low similarly priced crowdsourced microstock iStock used to be forcing the high priced trads like Getty to have to buy them so as to only be cannibalized by their own, then why are non-ex’s essentially punished by ‘having’ to do it? If the PP is effective why the need to force people to 'use it or lose it?' Why is a perk of being Excl. being able to avoid the PP if it is so positive? Perks were always advantages. Is being out of the PP a perk and an advantage to iStock as an Exclusive? It is to me. In other words how can something be both a ‘good thing’ and yet seen by so many as such a bad thing? I’ve avoided it since its inception and haven’t seen a financial reason to join it. Some of our best contributors also. Getty had to buy iStock to prevent the cannicalization, we don't have that resource as contributors. Why call it ‘downstream’ if it is good, and force non-ex’s and allow Excl’s from it, but still refer to it as good?
Q. Do we lead other sites or follow them?
To answer the question of why PP doesn’t earn RC’s, the answer was basically ‘since other sites don’t use a tiered system like iStock’ so you can't. (“Other sites have set royalty rates and don't use a tiered royalty rate system like iStock, therefore you won't be entitled to receive redeemed credits for files downloaded through Partner sites.) This all seems to make a massive disocnnect when we are told often how we are part of the Getty 'family' but why doesn't our family have consistent rules among its 'partner sites' that reflects the sentiment of the family?
Why is ‘our’ policy set by what other sites do/don’t? What does it matter what other sites do if earning RC’s is a good idea for us? Why can’t RC’s be earned on OUR PP? Do other sites determine our policy and we must follow their examples?
Thanks for any thoughful answers to these thought provoking questions. (End of his post.)
I think he raises some good points...
-
I think he raises some good points...
Indeed he does. As usual. Sorry they were deleted. Easy to see why though. Those are exactly the type of questions they don't want to answer...
-
I also noticed that someone's reply - to paraphrase as best I remember:
"you know the answers, you don't like the answers"
was deleted too.
-
I don't know if anybody else noticed but Pastor Scott's questions on the istock ASA thread keep getting deleted. He's tried twice and twice I see them disappear. Does corporate not want to answer questions anymore? I have his questions here:
<SNIP>
Thanks for posting these questions. They are very important, and I had missed his posts.
-
I did see the posts and I guess their logic for deleting them was that the thread was ostensibly for questions about the new ASA and the pastor's post was more a comment than a question - the questions were rhetorical, as I know we all know the answers.
We're effed, they rule and if we don't like it, we should just leave. Ugly stuff. Even uglier when they try to tack on a veneer of how it's all for our benefit.
And how did I end up here, fuming about iStock (again) when I really was looking for a recipe to cook golden beets!!
-
Warm Golden Beet Salad with Greens and Almonds
1 bunch beets, both tops and roots
Olive oil
Salt and freshly ground black pepper
4 cloves garlic, minced
4 ounces goat cheese, crumbled
2/3 cup toasted almond slivers
Heat the oven to 425°F. Line a 9-inch square baking pan or cake tin with a big square of foil, large enough to complete enclose the beet roots. Lightly rinse the beet roots to remove any really clumpy dirt and pat them dry. Place them in the foil square and lightly drizzle with olive oil and sprinkle generously with salt and pepper. Fold up the foil and crease to seal. Bake the beets for 60 minutes or until they can be just pierced with a fork. Set aside to cool.
Meanwhile, chop the beet greens into bite-size ribbons. Discard the stalks between the roots and where the leaves start, but chop the leaf ribs along with the leaves. Rinse thoroughly to remove all traces of dirt and grit. In a large skillet, heat a drizzle of olive oil over medium heat and add the garlic. Cook on low for about 5 minutes or until the garlic is golden and fragrant. Add the chopped leaves and stir to coat with the garlic. Cook on medium-low for about 10 minutes or until the leaves are soft and tender. Remove from the heat.
When the beets are cool, rub them with a paper towel to remove the skin. Then chop into bitesized pieces and toss with the cooked greens, goat cheese, and almonds. Taste and season with salt and pepper to taste. Serve warm or cold. (This also makes an excellent pressed sandwich filling, especially with some extra goat cheese.)
-
Warm Golden Beet Salad with Greens and Almonds
1 bunch beets, both tops and roots
Olive oil
Salt and freshly ground black pepper
4 cloves garlic, minced
4 ounces goat cheese, crumbled
2/3 cup toasted almond slivers
Heat the oven to 425°F. Line a 9-inch square baking pan or cake tin with a big square of foil, large enough to complete enclose the beet roots. Lightly rinse the beet roots to remove any really clumpy dirt and pat them dry. Place them in the foil square and lightly drizzle with olive oil and sprinkle generously with salt and pepper. Fold up the foil and crease to seal. Bake the beets for 60 minutes or until they can be just pierced with a fork. Set aside to cool.
Meanwhile, chop the beet greens into bite-size ribbons. Discard the stalks between the roots and where the leaves start, but chop the leaf ribs along with the leaves. Rinse thoroughly to remove all traces of dirt and grit. In a large skillet, heat a drizzle of olive oil over medium heat and add the garlic. Cook on low for about 5 minutes or until the garlic is golden and fragrant. Add the chopped leaves and stir to coat with the garlic. Cook on medium-low for about 10 minutes or until the leaves are soft and tender. Remove from the heat.
When the beets are cool, rub them with a paper towel to remove the skin. Then chop into bitesized pieces and toss with the cooked greens, goat cheese, and almonds. Taste and season with salt and pepper to taste. Serve warm or cold. (This also makes an excellent pressed sandwich filling, especially with some extra goat cheese.)
No link to a photo in your port. to illustrate? ;)
-
Could the new supply agreement just be the first step in devaluing the work that is housed on competitors sites?
I mean just imagine if Is could just give away all the work on IStock from independent contributors without charge.
Suddenly the majority of images on the other sites are worthless, the value of exclusive images goes through the roof.
Watch the skies.
-
I see it in a very simple way.
Independents must see agencies just like agencies see independents, they are replaceable. There are more agencies out there and more will come in the future.
If any agency does something that hurts other agencies, it must compensate the loss with an increase in revenue or otherwise it must be ditched as a bad agency.
So, if istock at any time reduces the prices so much to compete with shutterstock and this results in less sales on shutterstock with no increase in revenue on istock, istock must be replaced and all content deleted. Not doing so is just a bad business decision.
-
Could the new supply agreement just be the first step in devaluing the work that is housed on competitors sites?
I mean just imagine if Is could just give away all the work on IStock from independent contributors without charge.
Suddenly the majority of images on the other sites are worthless, the value of exclusive images goes through the roof.
Watch the skies.
There's a small problem with that. People might tolerate low commissions but they will remove their portfolios if they start giving their images away for free. It does make me wonder how low a commission some people will put up with though. Would it be 10% or even 5%? I'm sure that istock or FT will want to find out. That's why I don't see much future in microstock, unless they can guarantee that commissions wont go any lower than they are now.
I also wonder if a site will try giving away images for free, sharing advertising revenue with contributors. I'm not talking about the low commercial value stuff that the sites already give away. A few small sites have tried this but none of the big sites.
People that can't get in to shutterstock and get lots rejected by the other big sites might want other ways to make money from their images. Microstock was a new market but there could be something else coming along one day.
-
Warm Golden Beet Salad with Greens and Almonds
1 bunch beets, both tops and roots
Olive oil
Salt and freshly ground black pepper
4 cloves garlic, minced
4 ounces goat cheese, crumbled
2/3 cup toasted almond slivers
Heat the oven to 425°F. Line a 9-inch square baking pan or cake tin with a big square of foil, large enough to complete enclose the beet roots. Lightly rinse the beet roots to remove any really clumpy dirt and pat them dry. Place them in the foil square and lightly drizzle with olive oil and sprinkle generously with salt and pepper. Fold up the foil and crease to seal. Bake the beets for 60 minutes or until they can be just pierced with a fork. Set aside to cool.
Meanwhile, chop the beet greens into bite-size ribbons. Discard the stalks between the roots and where the leaves start, but chop the leaf ribs along with the leaves. Rinse thoroughly to remove all traces of dirt and grit. In a large skillet, heat a drizzle of olive oil over medium heat and add the garlic. Cook on low for about 5 minutes or until the garlic is golden and fragrant. Add the chopped leaves and stir to coat with the garlic. Cook on medium-low for about 10 minutes or until the leaves are soft and tender. Remove from the heat.
When the beets are cool, rub them with a paper towel to remove the skin. Then chop into bitesized pieces and toss with the cooked greens, goat cheese, and almonds. Taste and season with salt and pepper to taste. Serve warm or cold. (This also makes an excellent pressed sandwich filling, especially with some extra goat cheese.)
I know this was for Jsnover but thanks. I might give this a try. I bet it's good in a sandwich with Feta cheese too.
-
@ cuppacoffee
Many thanks - I didn't come back here yesterday, but had some wonderful roasted golden beets for dinner. I'll save this recipe for next time though.
-
I don't know if anybody else noticed but Pastor Scott's questions on the istock ASA thread keep getting deleted. He's tried twice and twice I see them disappear. Does corporate not want to answer questions anymore? I have his questions here:
From Pastor Scott:
Post:So I've read, waited, re-read and have my questions. Thanks for any forthright answers. I realize these are mutli phrased questions so just do what you can...
He definitely raises some good points, especially the one about how the PP is viewed as a negative since exclusives can opt-out, and yet it's being spun as a positive in relation to the new ASA and forced independent artist participation.
Unfortunately it all just speaks to the ongoing issue of istock HQ blatantly lying to their contributors. We all realized pretty quickly that the whole "unsustainable" line was B.S., they were less than forthright in the fraud debacle, and now it's no surprise that they're giving us conflicting logic behind the new ASA. They can't spin this one perfectly for everyone, so they'll just keep telling exclusives that opting out is a perk while telling independents that their forced inclusion is a benefit, all the while hoping we're too dumb to realize that the stories don't fit alongside each other.
-
They can't spin this one perfectly for everyone, so they'll just keep telling exclusives that opting out is a perk while telling independents that their forced inclusion is a benefit, all the while hoping we're too dumb to realize that the stories don't fit alongside each other.
IMO they probably won't have to dance around this contradiction for long. I am sure sometime within the next few months they will be able to tout the benefits of forced inclusion to everyone ;)
-
@ cuppacoffee
Many thanks - I didn't come back here yesterday, but had some wonderful roasted golden beets for dinner. I'll save this recipe for next time though.
And if you get any beet juice on your clothes, you can refer back to the laundry thread... ;D
-
They can't spin this one perfectly for everyone, so they'll just keep telling exclusives that opting out is a perk while telling independents that their forced inclusion is a benefit, all the while hoping we're too dumb to realize that the stories don't fit alongside each other.
IMO they probably won't have to dance around this contradiction for long. I am sure sometime within the next few months they will be able to tout the benefits of forced inclusion to everyone ;)
I'm sure you're right, Lisa. It's really just a matter of time before this "perk" of exclusivity goes away. And I'm sure they find a way to make it sound like it's still a good thing for everyone.
-
I stopped submitting to IS long ago, but my old images still make a few hundred bucks per month there (and so over $1K for IS). If iStock does put exclusive imgs into PP, and so poses more of a threat to SS, I for one pledge on my sacred honor that I will remove my port from IS, no matter how big a PITA it is to do so.
They can't spin this one perfectly for everyone, so they'll just keep telling exclusives that opting out is a perk while telling independents that their forced inclusion is a benefit, all the while hoping we're too dumb to realize that the stories don't fit alongside each other.
IMO they probably won't have to dance around this contradiction for long. I am sure sometime within the next few months they will be able to tout the benefits of forced inclusion to everyone ;)
I'm sure you're right, Lisa. It's really just a matter of time before this "perk" of exclusivity goes away. And I'm sure they find a way to make it sound like it's still a good thing for everyone.
-
Have they said when they're going to re-issue the clarified ASA?
Or, in Canadian Law, does an amibiguous ASA with various 'clarifications' on a forum count as one legal entity?
-
They can't spin this one perfectly for everyone, so they'll just keep telling exclusives that opting out is a perk while telling independents that their forced inclusion is a benefit, all the while hoping we're too dumb to realize that the stories don't fit alongside each other.
IMO they probably won't have to dance around this contradiction for long. I am sure sometime within the next few months they will be able to tout the benefits of forced inclusion to everyone ;)
They will create Vetta PP, where everyone gets pissed on!
I'm sure you're right, Lisa. It's really just a matter of time before this "perk" of exclusivity goes away. And I'm sure they find a way to make it sound like it's still a good thing for everyone.
-
Could the new supply agreement just be the first step in devaluing the work that is housed on competitors sites?
I mean just imagine if Is could just give away all the work on IStock from independent contributors without charge.
Suddenly the majority of images on the other sites are worthless, the value of exclusive images goes through the roof.
Watch the skies.
There's a small problem with that. People might tolerate low commissions but they will remove their portfolios if they start giving their images away for free. It does make me wonder how low a commission some people will put up with though. Would it be 10% or even 5%? I'm sure that istock or FT will want to find out. That's why I don't see much future in microstock, unless they can guarantee that commissions wont go any lower than they are now.
I also wonder if a site will try giving away images for free, sharing advertising revenue with contributors. I'm not talking about the low commercial value stuff that the sites already give away. A few small sites have tried this but none of the big sites.
People that can't get in to shutterstock and get lots rejected by the other big sites might want other ways to make money from their images. Microstock was a new market but there could be something else coming along one day.
I was just pointing out that it could be seen as advantageous for them to offer non exclusive images at the lowest possible price to devalue the worth of other agencies' collections. It was a bit tongue in cheek/ conspiracy theory.
-
They can't spin this one perfectly for everyone, so they'll just keep telling exclusives that opting out is a perk while telling independents that their forced inclusion is a benefit, all the while hoping we're too dumb to realize that the stories don't fit alongside each other.
IMO they probably won't have to dance around this contradiction for long. I am sure sometime within the next few months they will be able to tout the benefits of forced inclusion to everyone ;)
I'm sure you're right, Lisa. It's really just a matter of time before this "perk" of exclusivity goes away. And I'm sure they find a way to make it sound like it's still a good thing for everyone.
Whilst I do share many of the misgivings voiced here about the policy of putting all non-exclusive content into the PP, and I do have my doubts about the direction IS are taking with this, I would point out that the Exclusive perk isn't about being able to "opt out" - it's about being able to choose different price points, and pricing models, for different images.
Sean for instance won't have anything to do with the PP, some put in everything they can, while others put in poorly performing images hoping they'll pick up sales in the new platform. I guess we'll see how it pans out.
Isn't choice supposed to be a good thing?
-
I see it in a very simple way.
Independents must see agencies just like agencies see independents, they are replaceable. There are more agencies out there and more will come in the future.
If any agency does something that hurts other agencies, it must compensate the loss with an increase in revenue or otherwise it must be ditched as a bad agency.
So, if istock at any time reduces the prices so much to compete with shutterstock and this results in less sales on shutterstock with no increase in revenue on istock, istock must be replaced and all content deleted. Not doing so is just a bad business decision.
Only trouble is, there are very few agencies you can rely and depend on, apart from that you have a whole heap of sites, where about 95% are simply"trying" themselves. For an independant, SS and IS, are no substituts for each other, you have to go with both, especially since SS, dont enforce exclusivity. DT, can at times produce marvellous results and FT, is just kind of hanging in there, after their devastating best match change.
There are tons of sites but very, very few that are dependable.
-
Whilst I do share many of the misgivings voiced here about the policy of putting all non-exclusive content into the PP, and I do have my doubts about the direction IS are taking with this, I would point out that the Exclusive perk isn't about being able to "opt out" - it's about being able to choose different price points, and pricing models, for different images.
Sean for instance won't have anything to do with the PP, some put in everything they can, while others put in poorly performing images hoping they'll pick up sales in the new platform. I guess we'll see how it pans out.
Isn't choice supposed to be a good thing?
Choice is indeed a good thing provided that the options are reasonable. The huge mistake they made, when launching the PP, was not to match the 30c sub commissions independents were getting from StockXpert before they shut it down.
Of course shutting down StockXpert was another huge mistake in itself. StockXpert's website was streets ahead of TS, it already had all the independent content and even a decent customer base too. It would have been so much easier to have modified StockXpert into an exclusively subs/image-pack site. More muddled thinking from TPTB at Getty.
-
Whilst I do share many of the misgivings voiced here about the policy of putting all non-exclusive content into the PP, and I do have my doubts about the direction IS are taking with this, I would point out that the Exclusive perk isn't about being able to "opt out" - it's about being able to choose different price points, and pricing models, for different images.
Sean for instance won't have anything to do with the PP, some put in everything they can, while others put in poorly performing images hoping they'll pick up sales in the new platform. I guess we'll see how it pans out.
Isn't choice supposed to be a good thing?
Choice is indeed a good thing provided that the options are reasonable. The huge mistake they made, when launching the PP, was not to match the 30c sub commissions independents were getting from StockXpert before they shut it down.
Of course shutting down StockXpert was another huge mistake in itself. StockXpert's website was streets ahead of TS, it already had all the independent content and even a decent customer base too. It would have been so much easier to have modified StockXpert into an exclusively subs/image-pack site. More muddled thinking from TPTB at Getty.
Agree! one of the biggest mistakes was to close stockXpert, they had it already made. About the PP, just wait and see, I bet when time comes, they will all be supplying PP, even the die-hard screamers within Getty/IS, will follow and sooner or later Getty wont give them any option.
They will do anything and everything to topple SS.
-
I see it in a very simple way.
Independents must see agencies just like agencies see independents, they are replaceable. There are more agencies out there and more will come in the future.
If any agency does something that hurts other agencies, it must compensate the loss with an increase in revenue or otherwise it must be ditched as a bad agency.
So, if istock at any time reduces the prices so much to compete with shutterstock and this results in less sales on shutterstock with no increase in revenue on istock, istock must be replaced and all content deleted. Not doing so is just a bad business decision.
Only trouble is, there are very few agencies you can rely and depend on, apart from that you have a whole heap of sites, where about 95% are simply"trying" themselves. For an independant, SS and IS, are no substituts for each other, you have to go with both, especially since SS, dont enforce exclusivity. DT, can at times produce marvellous results and FT, is just kind of hanging in there, after their devastating best match change.
There are tons of sites but very, very few that are dependable.
Well, for now site changes have had only an effect on their own sales without affecting other sites.
What I mean is that if any agency "steals" costumers from another agency and the result is a loss for the contributor, it make no sense to continue working with the agency that is hurting the revenue on other agencies.
You are right in that they are not interchangeable right now and many are just disappointing.
But in the long run, one has to stick with the agencies that make the market grow, not the ones that shrink it.
-
Of course shutting down StockXpert was another huge mistake in itself. StockXpert's website was streets ahead of TS, it already had all the independent content and even a decent customer base too. It would have been so much easier to have modified StockXpert into an exclusively subs/image-pack site.
Amen to that, and to the 30c subs fee.
Well said.
-
Whilst I do share many of the misgivings voiced here about the policy of putting all non-exclusive content into the PP, and I do have my doubts about the direction IS are taking with this, I would point out that the Exclusive perk isn't about being able to "opt out" - it's about being able to choose different price points, and pricing models, for different images.
Sean for instance won't have anything to do with the PP, some put in everything they can, while others put in poorly performing images hoping they'll pick up sales in the new platform. I guess we'll see how it pans out.
Isn't choice supposed to be a good thing?
Choice is great. Enjoy it while you still have it.