Author Topic: Anybody gone Exlusive on IS, then regretted it? (Read 10500 times)

Mormegil · « **on:** December 09, 2008, 18:24 »

I'm getting lazy and day-dream about uploading to just one site. Currently IS is only about 30% of my income, but I can only upload about half the images I produce there a week due to the my 20 image upload maximum.

I also understand that Silver Exclusive ISers can contribute to Getty. Does that include editorial images too?

Sean Locke Photography · « **Reply #1 on:** December 09, 2008, 18:30 »

shank-ali. He hates it.

bittersweet · « **Reply #2 on:** December 09, 2008, 18:35 »

Quote from: Mormegil on December 09, 2008, 18:24

I'm getting lazy and day-dream about uploading to just one site. Currently IS is only about 30% of my income, but I can only upload about half the images I produce there a week due to the my 20 image upload maximum.

I also understand that Silver Exclusive ISers can contribute to Getty. Does that include editorial images too?

No, it does not include editorial. It includes the RF collection Photodisc. Also, not all Silvers are allowed to contribute. All are able to apply and be considered based on your existing portfolio, but it is not a sure thing until you become Gold.

As far as regrets, some have changed their minds. Some of them have gone on to find that the grass wasn't as green as they had thought and have returned. Others have found themselves happier as an independent. There are certainly days when I have my doubts, but overall I have been very happy with my decision.

The good thing is, you are free to change your mind and can be released from the contract in 30 days. This is less commitment than some sites require for merely uploading your files to their site.
(ETA: As I'm sure someone will point out, this is a bigger decision when you already have your images spread around and will have to deactivate them at the other sites.)

jsnover · « **Reply #3 on:** December 09, 2008, 18:44 »

Quote from: whatalife on December 09, 2008, 18:35

Quote from: Mormegil on December 09, 2008, 18:24
I'm getting lazy and day-dream about uploading to just one site. ...

...The good thing is, you are free to change your mind and can be released from the contract in 30 days. This is less commitment than some sites require for merely uploading your files to their site.

While that's true, it's misleading. Anyone who has achieved any success on other sites has seen their income rise because of it. SS, DT and FT pay you more for higher sales (either per contributor at SS and FT or per image DT). When you go exclusive you're giving that all up and need to start over if you then change your mind.

I think that avoiding uploads to multiple sites is about the worst reason I can think of for considering IS exclusivity

bittersweet · « **Reply #4 on:** December 09, 2008, 18:46 »

Yes! You are right, and I went to comment on that in my post, but you beat me.

hoi ha · « **Reply #5 on:** December 09, 2008, 19:40 »

I went exclusive when exclusivity was first introduced then some time later had a file rejected because the reviewer could not read the language written on the hat of a person in the image and was too lazy to ask anyone so automatically rejected for copyright -I appealed indicating that what was on the hat was simply the name of a country - the file was eventually allowed after Scout also rejected the file saying he (she) could not read the language either and therefore it should not be allowed - Bruce interceded and allowed the file but I realised right then and there that I did not like the idea of having all my eggs in one basket .... I have never ever regretted my decision to "give up the crown" .... I used to get upset at istock all the time whether because of rejections or changes in policy I disagreed with etc .... now that I am not exclusive (and my drop in sales at IS have been more than offset by increases at the other sites) I laugh at rejections or what I view as silly policy changes because the impact on me is so minimal in the scheme of things (and as a buyer we left IS about 10 months ago) .... not beng exclusive works for me as I am not a "woo yay, part of the club" sort of person ... it goes against my rebellious grain ..... and quite frankly I also think that istock has lost its way in many respects and many of its strategic decisions are not a reflection of market reality .... but that's just my lone opinion ... I am also a hobbyist and do not in any way depend on micro financially aqs a contributor - but my company is certainly invested in micro as a buyer ...

Mormegil · « **Reply #6 on:** December 09, 2008, 19:59 »

Thanks for the input everyone.

I just wanted to test the waters. Looking at my earnings, it's actually 16% is iStock (58% SS - due to all the editorials), so exclusivity is out.

DanP68 · « **Reply #7 on:** December 10, 2008, 03:10 »

How long have you been contributing Mormegil? I recommend not making a decision until you have quite a few files online and can defiantly state which agency manages to best sell your style of imagery. It may turn out to be iStock, in which case you'll need to get out your calculator and determine if it is worthwhile.

I've had images become "success stories" at iStock. Each time it made me think I was probably best off going exclusive with them. But those images tended to suddenly die out due to a change in best match, or the current algorithm killing them off due to age, DLs, or whatever. New images took over, but the bottom line is that the short term seduction of individual image success was always misleading.

iStock is a great agency, but you should be very careful to ensure your earnings breakdown per agency is statistically valid.

Mormegil · « **Reply #8 on:** December 10, 2008, 03:54 »

Naw. I've been contributing since 2005, and have several thousand images up. It would seem like a waste to pull those all from the other sites. Just one of those wishful thinking / grass is greener on the other side.

Also, I sold an editorial image on Getty via Scoopt and netted a few hundred bucks. Since half my SS images are editorial, and IS/Getty won't let you contribute editorial afterall. Exclusivity is out.

DanP68 · « **Reply #9 on:** December 10, 2008, 04:09 »

Forgive me Mormegil. I am terrible with matching forum names to contributors, and yes you have obviously been around the block quite a few times already. And here I am lending advice!

Mormegil · « **Reply #10 on:** December 10, 2008, 12:05 »

No apologies needed. I asked for advice, and got it.

Thanks again everyone.

louoates · « **Reply #11 on:** December 10, 2008, 19:28 »

I can't imagine exclusivity anywhere. Especially not at IS. My sales there are a small fraction of what they once were. SS and DT are doing much better for me now. Anyway, I have a sneaky suspicion that non-exclusives are getting frozen out via search engine changes. I don't blame IS, but it'd be nice if they just came out and admitted it.

hofhoek · « **Reply #12 on:** December 11, 2008, 06:24 »

Alike Louates I couldn't imagine going exclusive at Istock or anywhere. I want my photos to be mine so I can decide what to do with them and I also would never put all my eggs in one basket. Businesswise this is alway a very bad idea. If you are just making photographs for fun and you like the extra money than I can imagine you might like the idea of going exclusive but if you want it to be more of a business I would strongly vote against it.

iclick · « **Reply #13 on:** December 11, 2008, 07:12 »

Quote from: jsnover on December 09, 2008, 18:44

Quote from: whatalife on December 09, 2008, 18:35
Quote from: Mormegil on December 09, 2008, 18:24
I'm getting lazy and day-dream about uploading to just one site. ...

...The good thing is, you are free to change your mind and can be released from the contract in 30 days. This is less commitment than some sites require for merely uploading your files to their site.

While that's true, it's misleading. Anyone who has achieved any success on other sites has seen their income rise because of it. SS, DT and FT pay you more for higher sales (either per contributor at SS and FT or per image DT). When you go exclusive you're giving that all up and need to start over if you then change your mind.

I think that avoiding uploads to multiple sites is about the worst reason I can think of for considering IS exclusivity

Spot on! ..... I so agree, the often used sweeping comment of 'Oh well if going Exclusive does not work out you have lost nothing' is anything but true and this is what concerns me about taking the plunge at IS amongst may other factors I have to say lol. I have worked hard over 3 years to build a Portfolio at my chosen Agencies and the thought of having to re-upload or I should say start again from scratch ( as that is what it would be with the ever changing demands and trends of micro stock with no doubt many Files not being excepted ) is something I would not want to do so think hard if you have an established Portfolio elsewhere indeed there IS an awful lot to loose.

Good Luck

e-person · « **Reply #14 on:** December 11, 2008, 08:13 »

IS and SS make 90% of my microstock income (which is a pittance anyway), with a 40/60% split. Frequently what one rejects, the other takes so, being on both, seems better to me. But of course some days I get upset with one more than the other and in those days I would gladly remove my photos from the offending site.

maco0708 · « **Reply #15 on:** December 11, 2008, 08:58 »

I have never seen this mentioned here so:

Yuri Arcurses girlfriend is exclusive on istock:
http://www.istockphoto.com/user_view.php?id=2459931

Look at her profile. Few months back she has written there that she went exclusive based on Yuris advice. It doesn't say it anymore.

She is little above my league in downloads and success but it tells me something. Note: I am a hobbyist who is not dependent on the income from microstock.

bittersweet · « **Reply #16 on:** December 11, 2008, 12:15 »

Quote from: maco0708 on December 11, 2008, 08:58

I have never seen this mentioned here so:

Yuri Arcurses girlfriend is exclusive on istock:
http://www.istockphoto.com/user_view.php?id=2459931

Look at her profile. Few months back she has written there that she went exclusive based on Yuris advice. It doesn't say it anymore.

I remember seeing it say that also. I downloaded one of her images for an ad I was working on and went to her profile page. At the time I remember thinking that it made sense he would want to have a set of real reliable data from a real exclusive portfolio to compare with trends he sees in his own.

sharply_done · « **Reply #17 on:** December 11, 2008, 12:35 »

Quote from: jsnover on December 09, 2008, 18:44

While that's true, it's misleading. Anyone who has achieved any success on other sites has seen their income rise because of it. SS, DT and FT pay you more for higher sales (either per contributor at SS and FT or per image DT). When you go exclusive you're giving that all up and need to start over if you then change your mind.

I think that avoiding uploads to multiple sites is about the worst reason I can think of for considering IS exclusivity

From what I've read, closing your acount at rival agencies is not a requirement for IS exclusivity - removing your images is enough. So it is possible to retain your higher income status if IS exclusivity doesn't work out. Given that images are only disabled on DT (instead of erased), you'd only have to enable them and not reupload them there.

As far as uploading to only one sites goes, I personally find that to be one of the most attractive things about IS exclusivity - If I could maintain my income and manage only 1 portfolio instead of 9 I'd be all over IS exclusivity.

Spectre · « **Reply #18 on:** December 11, 2008, 12:55 »

Quote from: maco0708 on December 11, 2008, 08:58

I have never seen this mentioned here so:

Yuri Arcurses girlfriend is exclusive on istock:
http://www.istockphoto.com/user_view.php?id=2459931

That's one way to get exclusive images on IS without being an exclusive member!

(not that I mean to imply that seriously)

AVAVA · « **Reply #19 on:** December 11, 2008, 13:35 »

Hi All,

Legally can Yuri transfer his copyright to her and then have her be exclusive with images he shot. Is there anything that is in writing to stop this from taking place or can he run his work through her name as long as legally she is the owner of the image. Does someone know where Istock stands on this and if they have a link to a post or part of their contract that points this out. Not saying this is happening at all I am sure they are her images. I just thought after seeing the post if others might work this way with Istock or if it is an option that is sort of unspoken. Any advice would be appreciated.

Thanks,
AVAVA

jsnover · « **Reply #20 on:** December 11, 2008, 14:06 »

Quote from: sharply_done on December 11, 2008, 12:35

From what I've read, closing your acount at rival agencies is not a requirement for IS exclusivity - removing your images is enough. So it is possible to retain your higher income status if IS exclusivity doesn't work out. Given that images are only disabled on DT (instead of erased), you'd only have to enable them and not reupload them there.

It's true that you can leave your accounts open - and where I can, I have done that. FT closed my account without me asking them to do that when I commented negatively on their behavior in closing Bobby Deal's account (on these forums - I don't post in their own).

With DT, however, while they may say the images are disabled, I have no way that I can see of reactivating my portfolio. There's no list of disabled images visible through the contributor interface. They may have a way centrally to enable my portfolio again, but I don't know that. They don't cooperate with photographers who want to leave by helping them disable images - you have to do it one at a time on your own. Not sure if they'd be any friendlier if someone wanted to come back.

The other thing to consider is your search engine placement. I was a victim of some type of change in DT's default search placement (my sales tanked) before I stopped uploading prior to going exclusive. I can't imagine that one's placement would improve after a prolonged absence!

With SS, I also have my account open and some images up but disabled (I actually deleted a lot before another photographer mentioned how you could opt out and have your portfolio vanish). I would still want to re-upload images if I ever went back though as the search engine placement would otherwise be awful. At least, AFAIK, I would keep my lifetime sales figure and thus the higher commissions. Somewhere I think I read that they have the right to purge inactive accounts after a certain period.

My point is that it is not a trivial decision to go exclusive and then just switch back if you later change your mind.

shank_ali · « **Reply #21 on:** December 11, 2008, 14:23 »

Quote from: sjlocke on December 09, 2008, 18:30

shank-ali. He hates it.

Don't know what Mr Locke is typing rubbish for but swiftly moving on to the Topic.I am exclusive to istockphoto and if you read my profile on istockphoto i am happy and content to have only my images available courtesy of istockphoto.
It is quite easy for exclusive contributors to revert to none-exclusive and start uploading there work to several sites.
A PERSONNEL CHOICE IS ALWAYS YOURS TO CHOOSE PERSONALLY.

AVAVA · « **Reply #22 on:** December 11, 2008, 14:26 »

Hi JS or Shank,

You guys are both exclusive. Do you know the answer to my question above your last statement. If you want you can always PM me. That goes for anyone that knows the correct answer for certain.

Thx,
AVAVA

thesentinel · « **Reply #23 on:** December 11, 2008, 15:00 »

Quote from: AVAVA on December 11, 2008, 14:26

Hi JS or Shank,

You guys are both exclusive. Do you know the answer to my question above your last statement. If you want you can always PM me. That goes for anyone that knows the correct answer for certain.

Thx,
AVAVA

Surely the best way to get a definitive answer to your question is to contact istock directly yourself.

Sean Locke Photography · « **Reply #24 on:** December 11, 2008, 15:12 »

Quote from: AVAVA on December 11, 2008, 13:35

Hi All,

Legally can Yuri transfer his copyright to her and then have her be exclusive with images he shot. Is there anything that is in writing to stop this from taking place or can he run his work through her name as long as legally she is the owner of the image. Does someone know where Istock stands on this and if they have a link to a post or part of their contract that points this out. Not saying this is happening at all I am sure they are her images. I just thought after seeing the post if others might work this way with Istock or if it is an option that is sort of unspoken. Any advice would be appreciated.

Thanks,
AVAVA

I imagine this would violate the spirit of what iStock is trying to accomplish.

MicrostockGroup Sponsors

Author Topic: Anybody gone Exlusive on IS, then regretted it? (Read 10500 times)

Mormegil

Sean Locke Photography

bittersweet

jsnover

bittersweet

hoi ha

Mormegil

DanP68

Mormegil

DanP68

Mormegil

louoates

hofhoek

iclick

e-person

maco0708

bittersweet

sharply_done

Spectre

AVAVA

jsnover

shank_ali

AVAVA

thesentinel

Sean Locke Photography

Related Topics

Sponsors

Microstock Poll Results

Sponsors