Author Topic: Is FT giving us a very poor deal? (Read 21008 times)

Artemis · « **Reply #25 on:** April 07, 2010, 08:55 »

Quote from: NitorPhoto on April 07, 2010, 08:30

This is a severe accusation, do not judge them before you hear them. Ah , I forgot they don't talk. Anyway I am sure they don't cheat but it would be nice to hear their voice.

They don't cheat; just hide or twist the truth.
Good riddance for me still.

No Longer Cares · « **Reply #26 on:** April 07, 2010, 10:57 »

What is funny to me is how they SELL our ( I mean your because I don't ) FREE images; BUT I do not hear anyone talking about that.

How do you SELL FREE images?

borg · « **Reply #27 on:** April 07, 2010, 14:10 »

Quote from: NitorPhoto on April 07, 2010, 08:30

This is a severe accusation, do not judge them before you hear them. Ah , I forgot they don't talk. Anyway I am sure they don't cheat but it would be nice to hear their voice.

Are you talking to me...?

I do not condemn anyone, just wondering is it possible something like that, only because discussions like this...

RacePhoto · « **Reply #28 on:** April 07, 2010, 16:08 »

My reply is directed towards Randy's messages.

I disagree with the Subject. It should be Is FT ramming us from Behind AGAIN ? ? ? ? ?

To answer your question about loss or gain, I either lost everything or nothing when I pulled out of FT and left one photo behind as a place holder. I have piece of mind and I don't think they really miss me. Mutual separation, everyone is happy.

As for the Who's on First routine, it's only a follow-up to the Three Stooges act, when they were flossing people with the tax withholding, which cost some folks money, which they aren't returning, asked for forms that cost money, sent out forms that the IRS wouldn't accept and in all, screwed the pooch.

Then they came around and "fixed" it and some people wrote thank you notes! Thank you for stopping, screwing with us?

Please sir, can I have some more?

Dreamframer · « **Reply #29 on:** April 07, 2010, 17:00 »

Quote from: borg on April 07, 2010, 06:32

I've always wondered whether there is a possibility that the agencies do not show all the sales of our pictures?

It seems that we will in future need to have some "framework" for legal representation...

Until then, we need to know that We are guilty, because we do not have the courage to migrate out portfolios at fair Agencies...

I started similar thread long ago and everyone attacked me because I even thought that agencies can hide sales from us. Of course it's possible and it's very easy to do. I live in a country where almost every company has double books in the end of a month. One book for them selves and another one for the tax service. But lets hope agencies don't do this....

FD · « **Reply #30 on:** April 07, 2010, 17:10 »

Quote from: Brandon Seidel on April 07, 2010, 10:57

How do you SELL FREE images?

It's called subscription.

Pixart · « **Reply #31 on:** April 07, 2010, 17:51 »

Half of my photos appear on this site with a premium banner. What makes them premium and not the rest (or have they not migrated everything yet?).

They are selling a subscription package for $10 per month and buyers can download one full size photo per day. There is a 3 month commitment required, so for $30, customers can download 90 photos that would cost around $900 on Istock. And then turn around and sell them on a disk, of course.

It is just not right to support a site that would do anything this naive. I've never been happy with FT in the first place, but the hypocrite in me is saying "What?

Quit and lose 12% of my earnings?

"

Are we going to collectively do anything about this?

loop · « **Reply #32 on:** April 07, 2010, 18:12 »

Think global, act local, it's the only way.

Norebbo · « **Reply #33 on:** April 07, 2010, 21:51 »

Quote from: Pixart on April 07, 2010, 17:51

Are we going to collectively do anything about this?

Actions speak louder than words. The only way they are going to take notice is if the majority of contributors stop uploading (or remove their portfolios) in protest.

jvoetsch · « **Reply #35 on:** April 07, 2010, 23:21 »

accidentally hit the quote button for the comment above instead of modify... sorry.

Randy McKown · « **Reply #36 on:** April 08, 2010, 00:39 »

Quote from: RacePhoto on April 07, 2010, 16:08

As for the Who's on First routine, it's only a follow-up to the Three Stooges act, when they were flossing people with the tax withholding, which cost some folks money, which they aren't returning, asked for forms that cost money, sent out forms that the IRS wouldn't accept and in all, screwed the pooch.

LMAO oh yeah their 28% tax rate was a joke.

Quote from: jvoetsch on April 07, 2010, 23:18

You just have to grow some balls, stand up for yourself, and stop letting these greedy micros walk all over you!

Well put Jamie

sharply_done · « **Reply #37 on:** April 08, 2010, 00:53 »

Quote from: jvoetsch on April 07, 2010, 23:18

...
Its amazing what artists will put up with these days just to make money, but the truth is that you are being gypped even if you think are making the big bucks. You could be making more. You just have to grow some balls, stand up for yourself, and stop letting these greedy micros walk all over you!
...

Well, and to be fair, I think it's widely viewed that FT is the only micro agency that doesn't operate completely above board. I'm very happy to be where I am, and I'm not being "gypped" (a racist slur, you should know) or "walked all over", that's for sure.

jvoetsch · « **Reply #38 on:** April 08, 2010, 10:13 »

Any artist who is making less than 50% commissions is being ripped off. Why on earth should a library make more than the artist who created the file?! Those that choose to put up with it simply dont value their work well enough.

camera shy · « **Reply #39 on:** April 08, 2010, 11:47 »

Quote from: stockastic on April 06, 2010, 21:22

I think you just helped me make up my mind to finally pull out of Fotolia.

I'd been thinking I'd wait for my next payout, which with my dinky portfolio takes a long time; now I'd like to close the account immediately. Has anyone on this forum recently closed their FT account and received payment of their current earnings, without a big hassle?

I emailed them a couple of days ago asking if they would pay my earnings if I closed my account....haven't heard back yet but will let you know

ThomasAmby · « **Reply #40 on:** April 08, 2010, 12:15 »

Quote from: jvoetsch on April 08, 2010, 10:13

Any artist who is making less than 50% commissions is being ripped off. Why on earth should a library make more than the artist who created the file?! Those that choose to put up with it simply dont value their work well enough.

The thing is, there are really no alternatives. Only very few agencies give out 50% or more to the contributor, and these are often the low earner agencies (not including ClipartOf). There are no way for me to get compensated if I take down my illustrations from FT, IS, SS, DT and so on - in other words I need the money. If I were to choose ClipartOf as my exclusive agency for selling my images I would have to sign away approximately 90% of my total earnings. So I have to accept iStocks 20% and I have to believe that a huge slice of their 80% cut is spent wisely on advertising and promotional campaigns. That said, I wish more agencies would split the royalties evenly like ClipartOf, but I don't think that's ever going to happen as it would take an entire revolution among microstock contributors. Untill then, the major agencies will keep driving down commissions simply because there's nothing stopping them. Just my thoughts

sharpshot · « **Reply #41 on:** April 08, 2010, 12:26 »

Quote from: jvoetsch on April 08, 2010, 10:13

Any artist who is making less than 50% commissions is being ripped off. Why on earth should a library make more than the artist who created the file?! Those that choose to put up with it simply dont value their work well enough.

I used to think like that but then I realized it is much better to have 20% of a large amount of sales than 50% of hardly any. I don't like sites lowering commissions unless they increase my earnings and istock only get away with low commissions because they have such high sales volume but even though I like the thought of 50% or more commission, I prefer making more money.

Perhaps those that put up with low sales volume and not being able to reach payment levels are the ones that really don't value their work?

jvoetsch · « **Reply #42 on:** April 08, 2010, 12:33 »

Dont get me wrong. I think its very important for artists to license their images at as many places as possible. I also think exclusivity is a bad thing. Having your work at just one site really restricts your possibilities of sales.

I do think its wrong for the agencies to pay the artist less than 50%. The agency wouldn't even exist if it weren't for the artists.

lisafx · « **Reply #43 on:** April 08, 2010, 15:39 »

Quote from: ThomasAmby on April 08, 2010, 12:15

Quote from: jvoetsch on April 08, 2010, 10:13
Any artist who is making less than 50% commissions is being ripped off. Why on earth should a library make more than the artist who created the file?! Those that choose to put up with it simply dont value their work well enough.

The thing is, there are really no alternatives. Only very few agencies give out 50% or more to the contributor, and these are often the low earner agencies ...

Exactly! Absolutely I would love to be paid a minimum of 50% of every sale. If I made the rules I would be. But I didn't make the rules - I joined this game with the rules already in place.

Before I started selling at Istock in 2005 I kept 100% from every sale of my images. All 3 or 4 a year. But it's too late to go back to that. My family likes to eat, use electricity, and have a roof over our heads...

gostwyck · « **Reply #44 on:** April 08, 2010, 15:41 »

Quote from: jvoetsch on April 08, 2010, 12:33

I do think its wrong for the agencies to pay the artist less than 50%. The agency wouldn't even exist if it weren't for the artists.

In principle I'd agree with you __ but the real world just doesn't seem to work like that. We've had plenty of agencies paying 50% or more but the truth is they couldn't compete against the marketing power of the agencies that paid out less. It wouldn't surprise me if it turned out that Google makes more money from microstock images than the contributors do.

loop · « **Reply #45 on:** April 08, 2010, 16:38 »

To me, even if I can't contribute there, an agency that pays 50% and plays fair, deserves respect, no matter the volume of sales.
But what happens some times if that this behaviour is used to attract contributors. When a great numbers of contributors have been attracted and they have a great number of costumers, things can change.

jvoetsch · « **Reply #46 on:** April 08, 2010, 16:56 »

That is very true, loop, unfortunately... But if people stopped getting greedy and did the hard work themselves there is no need to decrease the earning percentage. We have better plans than that over here

lisafx · « **Reply #47 on:** April 08, 2010, 17:04 »

Quote from: jvoetsch on April 08, 2010, 16:56

That is very true, loop, unfortunately... But if people stopped getting greedy and did the hard work themselves there is no need to decrease the earning percentage. We have better plans than that over here

Jamie, I have always respected and appreciated your great attitude toward contributors back when you were on Acclaim. In fact I quit that site when you left, partly as a result of a post you made on another forum.

If clipartof.com handled stock photos, and if you were accepting new contributors, then it would certainly be a good alternative. Unfortunately, though, for photographers it just isn't an option.

Please be sure to let us know if/when that changes. Meanwhile, we will have to live with what's available to us...

leaf · « **Reply #48 on:** April 08, 2010, 17:23 »

Quote from: gostwyck on April 08, 2010, 15:41

Quote from: jvoetsch on April 08, 2010, 12:33
I do think its wrong for the agencies to pay the artist less than 50%. The agency wouldn't even exist if it weren't for the artists.

In principle I'd agree with you __ but the real world just doesn't seem to work like that. We've had plenty of agencies paying 50% or more but the truth is they couldn't compete against the marketing power of the agencies that paid out less. It wouldn't surprise me if it turned out that Google makes more money from microstock images than the contributors do.

haha, yeah very good point.

I think it is great and cool if sites scrape a hefty 60 or 80% of our sales and if they use that money to generate more and more sales... from NEW buyers. Unfortunatly I really doubt that is the case. I think a more accurate picture is that they are mostly fighting amoungst the customers that already exist. If sites are using their exorbant % to just fight over customers amoungst themselves then it is not cool. How can DT compete against FT, iStock and SS when the later 3 sites take ~30% more of our earnings and advertise more and potentially steal away DT's customers.

Note to self: work hard at promoting sites that I feel give photographers a good deal. When you link your images, or send a link to a future buyer, link them to the site that you feel gives you the best deal.

sharpshot · « **Reply #49 on:** April 08, 2010, 17:43 »

The site that gave me the best deal was Zymmetrical

Its too late for them but I would like to see more done to support sites that treat us well. Perhaps having an annual contributors Gold, Silver and Bronze award would be a good idea? It could be used to bring some free publicity to the sites and perhaps make the buyers aware that some sites are much better to work with than others.

Instead of all these threads complaining about the way we are being treated, I would like to see more ideas about making the sites we like more successful.

MicrostockGroup Sponsors

Author Topic: Is FT giving us a very poor deal? (Read 21008 times)

Artemis

No Longer Cares

borg

RacePhoto

Dreamframer

FD

Pixart

loop

Norebbo

jvoetsch

jvoetsch

Randy McKown

sharply_done

jvoetsch

camera shy

ThomasAmby

sharpshot

jvoetsch

lisafx

gostwyck

loop

jvoetsch

lisafx

leaf

sharpshot

Related Topics

Sponsors

Microstock Poll Results

Sponsors