MicrostockGroup

You might want to go have a look - no burning Lisa going on at all:) I saw mostly support, if from exclusives resigned to the unpleasant state of things generally with respect to the Partner program, not gathering up their pitchforks to storm the castle

I do think that when you look at what's gone on with commission reductions at FT and DT, where the sites made the argument that they were reducing the percentage but overall your income would go up (they predicted), a number of independents, including you Lisa if I remember correctly, said that as long as the overall income was going up, you would live with the decrease in percentages. I don't really see a difference between accepting that and accepting that Getty has just reduced the commissions on Photos.com+/JIU sales for StockXpert contributors. If the total monthly take went up because Getty marketed the heck out of the site, would that make you less angry with the situation?

I don't know if the fact that contributors just accepted it when FT and DT cut/announced a cut in commission percentages emboldened Getty, but I've generally thought that like kids, if they get away with it once, they'll try it again with a bit more next time.

 Or contributors are mostly decided it's better to be with the devil they know .

Good point ,gostwyck, I think whitechild pointed out the same thing too .

But oh I am sure Getty will liquidate way before there is litigation. You cannot get redress from a defunct company. Getty is not just some dumb establishment.

Both excellent points Gostwyck.  On the contributor goodwill, you really hit a bullseye.  Contributor goodwill seems completely irrelevant to Getty.  Puts istock in an awkward position because I have always felt istock and its staff valued contributors and worked hard at keeping them satisfied.  

Brave new world we are in.

@ JoAnn, on the subscription thing and the price drop, I feel this is more comparable to when Fotolia tried to give less than .30 for sub sales.  There was (thank goodness) a big outcry over that one and fortunately we got higher rates.

I know there are a couple of piddly little sites - Canstock and Crestock (both at 1% of my earnings, so next to no traffic on either) that pay .25 for subs, but there really seems no excuse for a major company like Getty to get away with it.  

I know I have said as long as my overall numbers go up I am okay. I just can't see how losing StockXpert, which is regularly 8-10% of my income and having that replaced with .25 subs of my worst selling images (if I were to opt in, which of course I won't) would not be a net loss???

Noo kidding, hqimages. Thx for the link. I was only kidding, but now I think I should spend less time here farting around and spend more time googling on Getty's hidden can of worms.
This is going to be interesting read for me. Thx again.

Update:
But this was   4 November 2008. What was the outcome? Do you know?

Ur welcome If you google it, I think there's only one other web page covering the story on the net, it stayed under the radar which is why I wanted to keep it in my blog, along with the link to the case file and stuff too..

I like to collect everything that happens, somehow with all the info I have, I see the microstock story reaching a dramatic conclusion, everything is picking up pace, the monopoly is almost complete, and the race to the bottom is almost complete too.. I think when microstock comes out the other side, it will have reverted to the kind of quality it used to be, for proper amatuers, I cannot even see people with galleries and production like Yuri's being capable of sqeezing a profit out of it, it is facinating though, this wild west lawless style of doing business!!

(That case is still pending, but Ill be posting on my blog when anything happens with it)

What's great about what those photographers are doing too, is that if they do win, it benefits us. It means there's an onus on the agency to give us what we signed up for, which is a fair price for our work. For example, they would have to leave an opt out for subscription pricing on IS and other web sites that used to be pay-as-you-go with a better return for the photographer.. I hope they suceed anyway, and it could even save 'pay-as-you-go' models, rather than the current trend of sub royalties which are just pathetic from the photographer point of view!!

In fact, I was surprised there wasn't a squeak out of IS photog's about the removal of subscription opt-out, and there was no change in the terms to reflect that all files are now in the subscription pricing format as a compulsory 'feature'.. even if you are opted-in, you should always fight for the right to CHOOSE the pricing for your images..

BTW hqimages, you got one heart for the link .  Been nice talking with you!

hope the reality is less awful than the predictions here.

This sure comes as a big surprise , although I must say it was no doubt bound to happen.
Winning this case for the photographers would set a legal precedent for all stock photographers.
It can only do good for all contributors  in general and would get all stock agencies to sit up and be a little less condescending .
Any stock photographer who does not follow this case needs to have his/her head checked as this will affect us all.
Hats off to you hqimages, and snaprender too.

Oops, sorry, I must have set the * in my email preference, which meant block all, instead of accept all. Silly me