MicrostockGroup Sponsors


Author Topic: Corbis offering 10% for non-exclusives... really???  (Read 7212 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

« on: September 03, 2013, 15:29 »
+26
I was just sent a friendly email from Veer saying they are interested in moving some (or all) of my content over to Corbis.  The eye popper however is that the rate for non-exclusive images would be a pitiful 10%.  Really?  As flattered as I am, I'm afraid that doesn't quite tempt my pocket book.  Unless they sold sell thousdands of $$ of my content per day I'd be better off keeping it on Shutterstock and the rest ... and the thought of supporting an agency paying 10% doesn't suit my fancy much either.

Does anyone here have their content on Corbis?  I just can't see how anyone would justify the 10%.  The exclusive rate was 20% which is still crazy low.

Taking my chances with fewer sales and higher commissions at Stocksy (50%) seems like a much more sane decision.

Thoughts?
« Last Edit: September 03, 2013, 15:45 by leaf »


« Reply #1 on: September 03, 2013, 15:38 »
+2
That is just insane!  Why do they have to nickel and dime their contributors like that?

I know I won't get that email but still not a wise move at all.  Now we know what the *bleep* Veer's been doing lately.

Disgusting!

« Reply #2 on: September 03, 2013, 15:44 »
+6
10%?!? I'd struggle not to swear in my reply to them...

« Reply #3 on: September 03, 2013, 15:45 »
+6

Taking my chances with fewer sales and higher commissions at Stocksy (50%) seems like a much more sane decision.

My thoughts exactly.

It's really sad when you can't trust some of the biggest and so-called best names out there to fairly compensate their contributors. Nasty!


« Reply #4 on: September 03, 2013, 16:13 »
+1
I had files on Corbis through the Getty House program. I have no idea how big my individual royalty was, I was getting 20% from whatever getty made, at least this was my understanding of the contract. But if this is what they offer externally than it must have been very low as well.

Incredible! Who would be so stupid to accept such a deal?

« Reply #5 on: September 03, 2013, 16:50 »
0
I had files on Corbis through the Getty House program. I have no idea how big my individual royalty was, I was getting 20% from whatever getty made, at least this was my understanding of the contract. But if this is what they offer externally than it must have been very low as well.

Incredible! Who would be so stupid to accept such a deal?

Not sure but if you get 20% of what Getty receives, and if they split it 50/50 with Corbis then the breakdown would be 50% Corbis, 40% Getty, and 10% You!!!
Fun and games!!!!

« Reply #6 on: September 03, 2013, 19:00 »
+3
Exactly. Which is why I hope to build a solid portfolio on stocksy.

EmberMike

« Reply #7 on: September 03, 2013, 19:14 »
+8
Shame, Corbis. Shame.


jbarber873

« Reply #8 on: September 03, 2013, 19:38 »
+15
I have a bunch of (exclusive) images on Corbis, for which I get 40%. There was a time when that meant a big payout, but the prices have been falling for years now. In essence I am getting micro stock rates with macro sales volume. In other words, it's a bad deal at 40%, so 10% is 30% worse than a bad deal.

shudderstok

« Reply #9 on: September 03, 2013, 19:45 »
-1
I had files on Corbis through the Getty House program. I have no idea how big my individual royalty was, I was getting 20% from whatever getty made, at least this was my understanding of the contract. But if this is what they offer externally than it must have been very low as well.

Incredible! Who would be so stupid to accept such a deal?

are you sure about this? i must have been sleeping when getty partnered with corbis or vice versa. to the best of my knowledge they are competitors and always have been. when did getty and corbis partner up or buy out one another? i submit frequently to GI directly through the portal and have been a house photographer for a long while, and i never see anything even remotely related to corbis on getty. even upon doing a search on house collections the getty page itself has no mention of corbis anywhere. i am really curious how you had images on corbis through the getty house collections program.

« Reply #10 on: September 03, 2013, 19:58 »
+1
No, my files were definetly on Corbis.  There is a collection called "ocean images" or oceanstock or something and it had  a lot of Getty files. I think my name was also missing, but I found them by doing specific searches (christmas,easter,jewelry)

I took screenshots at the time,they are somewhere on one of my many computers. If I can dig them up, I can post them somewhere. But you can do test searches yourself, look for images from a getty house contributor and try to find their work elsewhere. Tineye searches are also helpful.

My images were also on Masterfile, f1online and many other places.

All the macro sites seem to be licensing images to each other. Didnt look like a big competition to me.

But I didnt see my whole portfolio on Corbis, just a few files. And I couldnt click on a name and then see if they had more.

I read somewhere that this "everyone licenses to everyone" is part of the macro business culture.

I have spent a lot of time looking at the files available in my niche in the macro world, so that when I shoot something it is fresh and different. You then recognize the same files everywhere. Sometimes because they are being licensed from Blend, aurora,westend61, but there is also a lot of exclusive getty content that is being moved around.

Nothing wrong with it in principle, your files get more chances to be sold that way.
« Last Edit: September 03, 2013, 20:15 by cobalt »

Ed

« Reply #11 on: September 03, 2013, 21:02 »
0
I have content on Corbis.

Leaf, the deal you were offered by Veer is after their take.  Corbis is similar to Getty in commission percentages.

« Reply #12 on: September 03, 2013, 22:12 »
+8
I have content on Corbis.

Leaf, the deal you were offered by Veer is after their take.  Corbis is similar to Getty in commission percentages.

Thanks, that makes more sense if it is a third party deal but both Veer and Corbis are Corbis so there is absolutely no reason for them to third party deal to themselves... unless of course they want to hog more than their share of the money, in which case it makes perfect sense.

« Reply #13 on: September 04, 2013, 00:07 »
+1
as if 15% on istock was so much better ?

actually you could make on Corbis for some niche images.

« Reply #14 on: September 04, 2013, 06:32 »
+2
as if 15% on istock was so much better ?

that is exactly what they are thinking, that once again we will accept such pittance, how about Alamy?

« Reply #15 on: September 04, 2013, 07:03 »
+9
It's a ripe time to support friendly sites...

« Reply #16 on: September 04, 2013, 07:11 »
+2
I was just sent a friendly email from Veer saying they are interested in moving some (or all) of my content over to Corbis.  The eye popper however is that the rate for non-exclusive images would be a pitiful 10%.  Really?  As flattered as I am, I'm afraid that doesn't quite tempt my pocket book.  Unless they sold sell thousdands of $$ of my content per day I'd be better off keeping it on Shutterstock and the rest ... and the thought of supporting an agency paying 10% doesn't suit my fancy much either.

Does anyone here have their content on Corbis?  I just can't see how anyone would justify the 10%.  The exclusive rate was 20% which is still crazy low.

Taking my chances with fewer sales and higher commissions at Stocksy (50%) seems like a much more sane decision.

Thoughts?

Let them clearly know what you think! :)

« Reply #17 on: September 09, 2013, 09:30 »
+3
In my experience prices and returns generated by Corbis are surprisingly low. 10% of low doesn't sound very promising to me.

Ed

« Reply #18 on: September 09, 2013, 17:55 »
+1
I have content on Corbis.

Leaf, the deal you were offered by Veer is after their take.  Corbis is similar to Getty in commission percentages.

Thanks, that makes more sense if it is a third party deal but both Veer and Corbis are Corbis so there is absolutely no reason for them to third party deal to themselves... unless of course they want to hog more than their share of the money, in which case it makes perfect sense.

Leaf - this is exactly the case...and it's a similar case with Demotix who is owned by Corbis.  Each business unit keeps their percentage.

« Reply #19 on: September 09, 2013, 22:21 »
+2
This is why I'm not a fan of this practice, and tracking earnings is yet another matter.

« Reply #20 on: May 26, 2014, 22:03 »
+4
Quote
I read somewhere that this "everyone licenses to everyone" is part of the macro business culture.

More like, it is a "creative method" to pay less the original supplier and spread a greater portion of the profit between the agency cartel.

 

« Reply #21 on: May 27, 2014, 10:10 »
0
[deleted, since my post may have included inaccuracies]
« Last Edit: May 30, 2014, 11:32 by ann »

MxR

« Reply #22 on: May 27, 2014, 10:48 »
+2
I had files on Corbis through the Getty House program. I have no idea how big my individual royalty was, I was getting 20% from whatever getty made, at least this was my understanding of the contract. But if this is what they offer externally than it must have been very low as well.

Incredible! Who would be so stupid to accept such a deal?

We are the stupids!! of course!!

15% Istock
5-8% in some fotolia fake subscription plans
3% with deposit and shotshop deal
And your 20% income in getty is not far to the... 10%

stocked

« Reply #23 on: May 27, 2014, 11:01 »
+2
Not defending the 10% but they have the same 20% for RF as Getty if it's exclusive, but opposite to Getty they offer a non-exclusive RF -deal. Yes both deal sucks big time but it's not worse than Getty. And for my exclusive RM-stuff I have with Corbis I get 37.5% that's not great either but reasonable.

« Reply #24 on: May 27, 2014, 18:05 »
0
.
« Last Edit: May 27, 2014, 21:35 by Elenathewise »


 

Related Topics

  Subject / Started by Replies Last post
0 Replies
1717 Views
Last post January 16, 2009, 19:05
by GeoPappas
7 Replies
2586 Views
Last post May 01, 2012, 04:23
by AllYouCanStock
14 Replies
2321 Views
Last post January 08, 2013, 06:22
by Dark_Angel
16 Replies
3063 Views
Last post September 02, 2013, 22:20
by Anita Potter
4 Replies
1993 Views
Last post May 20, 2014, 14:20
by Julied83

Sponsors

Microstock Poll Results