MicrostockGroup Sponsors


Author Topic: Istock extended license issue  (Read 21135 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

« Reply #25 on: November 04, 2010, 20:33 »
0

Their intent is to leave it as vague as possible. They have a hoard of lawyers that can make sure it says what they want it to say.  If they wanted it to say 500K books, they would have.

A smaller client who doesn't spend much money gets the interpretation that it's 500k images.  A larger client who spends more money gets the 500K books interpretation.

Exactly. All the big corporate clients are the "respected" clients, while all the small buyers can go to hell. It's an old boys corporate club.

I'm beginning to think that's the trend in business theses days. My husband worked in field service until he lost his job in March; he told me he was disgusted at the way management no longer cared about the small clients, neglecting them in favor of the big accounts. He cared about his customers, both small and large. In fact, he lost his job because he refused to lie to a customer to help the sales department secure a sale. Seems to me that business is becoming steadily more ruthless and cut-throat in the 21st century.


donding

  • Think before you speak
« Reply #26 on: November 04, 2010, 20:46 »
0

Their intent is to leave it as vague as possible. They have a hoard of lawyers that can make sure it says what they want it to say.  If they wanted it to say 500K books, they would have.

A smaller client who doesn't spend much money gets the interpretation that it's 500k images.  A larger client who spends more money gets the 500K books interpretation.

Exactly. All the big corporate clients are the "respected" clients, while all the small buyers can go to hell. It's an old boys corporate club.

I'm beginning to think that's the trend in business theses days. My husband worked in field service until he lost his job in March; he told me he was disgusted at the way management no longer cared about the small clients, neglecting them in favor of the big accounts. He cared about his customers, both small and large. In fact, he lost his job because he refused to lie to a customer to help the sales department secure a sale. Seems to me that business is becoming steadily more ruthless and cut-throat in the 21st century.

It would be nice if every one treated everybody equally, but they don't. Once big money is involved....greed sets in. You see it everywhere....even on here at times.

lisafx

« Reply #27 on: November 04, 2010, 21:08 »
0

I'm beginning to think that's the trend in business theses days. My husband worked in field service until he lost his job in March; he told me he was disgusted at the way management no longer cared about the small clients, neglecting them in favor of the big accounts. He cared about his customers, both small and large. In fact, he lost his job because he refused to lie to a customer to help the sales department secure a sale. Seems to me that business is becoming steadily more ruthless and cut-throat in the 21st century.

What a terrible shame.  Congrats to you on being married to an honest, ethical guy. He will be better off working for a company that values him.

« Reply #28 on: November 04, 2010, 21:42 »
0

I'm beginning to think that's the trend in business theses days. My husband worked in field service until he lost his job in March; he told me he was disgusted at the way management no longer cared about the small clients, neglecting them in favor of the big accounts. He cared about his customers, both small and large. In fact, he lost his job because he refused to lie to a customer to help the sales department secure a sale. Seems to me that business is becoming steadily more ruthless and cut-throat in the 21st century.

That is absolutely what is happening and it disgusts me. Profits before people, greed above all else. Such a shame to see it happening on iStock, especially since it was all  small buyers who were instrumental in making it the entity it is today. What I seriously hope is that all those people who iStock is now stepping over in their quest for ever increasing profits abandon them. I already have. See you on the way down, iStock. Greedy effers.

« Reply #29 on: November 04, 2010, 22:22 »
0
From the thread on iStock:

I called CR at the beginning of the week to ask them about these huge discounts and they said they don't have to tell us how big of discounts they give to certain buyers. They did let me know though that for big buyers they offer much bigger discounts than are listed on the buy credits page.

I had a couple ELs recently sell that were 70/credit. I thought that was really low at the time but 47 a PAYG credit? That's absurd. If istock is giving that big of discounts there really does need to be a PAYG minimum. At the very least they need to let us know how low they are selling credits for. Otherwise we have no idea if the amount we're making per download is actually correct.


Man, this is such crap, total corporate favoritism/welfare and absolutely infuriates me. They give giant discounts to big companies who spend loads on credits and CAN afford to pay more with their big budgets, whereas the poor sods who have measly little budgets are expected to pay the maximum. Why are small businesses ALWAYS the ones getting f*cked over anymore?

RacePhoto

« Reply #30 on: November 05, 2010, 00:15 »
0

I'm beginning to think that's the trend in business theses days. My husband worked in field service until he lost his job in March; he told me he was disgusted at the way management no longer cared about the small clients, neglecting them in favor of the big accounts. He cared about his customers, both small and large. In fact, he lost his job because he refused to lie to a customer to help the sales department secure a sale. Seems to me that business is becoming steadily more ruthless and cut-throat in the 21st century.

What a terrible shame.  Congrats to you on being married to an honest, ethical guy. He will be better off working for a company that values him.

Ditto...  except this isn't new. But my compliments to honesty and ethics!

ShadySue

  • There is a crack in everything
« Reply #31 on: November 05, 2010, 03:47 »
0
Man, this is such crap, total corporate favoritism/welfare and absolutely infuriates me. They give giant discounts to big companies who spend loads on credits and CAN afford to pay more with their big budgets, whereas the poor sods who have measly little budgets are expected to pay the maximum. Why are small businesses ALWAYS the ones getting f*cked over anymore?
'twere ever thus.
"It's the same the whole world over,
It's the poor that get the blame,
It's the rich that get the pleasure,
Ain't it all a bloody shame."

Loads of versions of this song, several over a hundred years old.

« Reply #32 on: November 05, 2010, 06:16 »
0
From the thread on iStock:

I called CR at the beginning of the week to ask them about these huge discounts and they said they don't have to tell us how big of discounts they give to certain buyers. They did let me know though that for big buyers they offer much bigger discounts than are listed on the buy credits page.

I had a couple ELs recently sell that were 70/credit. I thought that was really low at the time but 47 a PAYG credit? That's absurd. If istock is giving that big of discounts there really does need to be a PAYG minimum. At the very least they need to let us know how low they are selling credits for. Otherwise we have no idea if the amount we're making per download is actually correct.


Man, this is such crap, total corporate favoritism/welfare and absolutely infuriates me. They give giant discounts to big companies who spend loads on credits and CAN afford to pay more with their big budgets, whereas the poor sods who have measly little budgets are expected to pay the maximum. Why are small businesses ALWAYS the ones getting f*cked over anymore?

It's funny you brought that up...I started to type a post yesterday that said the exact same thing. I can't figure out why big corporations get such hefty discounts...they are the ones that can afford to pay more! It was a rhetorical question...I know the answer. The more I typed, the more p-ssed off I got and I just deleted it. That happens a lot when posting about istock these days.

But again, there is such a small number of us that want to do the right thing and leave. Of course big corporations will continue to take advantage...the more the majority needs them, the more they can take advantage.

ShadySue

  • There is a crack in everything
« Reply #33 on: November 05, 2010, 06:31 »
0
But again, there is such a small number of us that want to do the right thing and leave.

Fair enough, but following this forum for a couple of years doesn't make me think that moving elsewhere would be morally any better. There are regular complaints about the other micros, though the current iStock shenanigans trump everything that's gone before.
A lot of the agencies which start up promising a fairer deal for the photographer either don't deliver with sales (60% of nothing is less than 10% of something) or fold very quickly.
Aren't bulk discounts the norm in business?  Even before the revelation of these 70c/credit sales on iStock, deep bulk discounts were in force.
Rightly or wrongly, that's how business works. Seems the other micros work the same way.
« Last Edit: November 05, 2010, 07:52 by ShadySue »

« Reply #34 on: November 05, 2010, 07:50 »
0
But again, there is such a small number of us that want to do the right thing and leave.

Fair enough, but following this forum for a couple of years doesn't make me think that moving elsewhere would be morally any better. There are regular complaints about the other micros, though the current iStock shenanigans trump everything that's gone before.
A lot of the agencies which start up promising a fairer deal for the photographer either don't deliver with sales (60% of nothing is more than 10% of something) or fold very quickly.
Aren't bulk discounts the norm in business?  Even before the revelation of these 70c/credit sales on iStock, deep bulk discounts were in force.
Rightly or wrongly, that's how business works. Seems the other micros work the same way.

Ditto

« Reply #35 on: November 05, 2010, 08:18 »
0
But again, there is such a small number of us that want to do the right thing and leave.

Fair enough, but following this forum for a couple of years doesn't make me think that moving elsewhere would be morally any better. There are regular complaints about the other micros, though the current iStock shenanigans trump everything that's gone before.
A lot of the agencies which start up promising a fairer deal for the photographer either don't deliver with sales (60% of nothing is less than 10% of something) or fold very quickly.
Aren't bulk discounts the norm in business?  Even before the revelation of these 70c/credit sales on iStock, deep bulk discounts were in force.
Rightly or wrongly, that's how business works. Seems the other micros work the same way.

You are absolutely right, they are all the same.

« Reply #36 on: November 05, 2010, 08:51 »
0
I don't see any of the other sites being as greedy as istock.  Some come close but I believe istock are already making huge profits and cutting commissions will just make this unsustainable for contributors in the long term.

And I can see the logic in 15% of something being more than 50% of nothing but we could easily only use sites that give a decent commission and the buyers would leave the greedy sites.  I know that isn't likely to happen but I'm not going to follow the heard and end up working harder just to make other people more money.  That's what will happen if we all put up with commissions below 20%.

« Reply #37 on: November 05, 2010, 08:56 »
0
I can't figure out why big corporations get such hefty discounts...they are the ones that can afford to pay more! It was a rhetorical question...I know the answer. (...) Of course big corporations will continue to take advantage...the more the majority needs them, the more they can take advantage.

This represents my feelings when I found out AOL and J.P. Morgan buying images at subs packages in FT (back when we would know who purchased each image).  They could certainly afford credit prices, but they were the ones benefiting from subs. 

« Reply #38 on: November 05, 2010, 09:52 »
0
Quote
I can't figure out why big corporations get such hefty discounts...they are the ones that can afford to pay more! It was a rhetorical question...I know the answer. (...) Of course big corporations will continue to take advantage...the more the majority needs them, the more they can take advantage.

This represents my feelings when I found out AOL and J.P. Morgan buying images at subs packages in FT (back when we would know who purchased each image).  They could certainly afford credit prices, but they were the ones benefiting from subs. 

If J.P. Morgan is buying images directly, you have to ask yourself what they're likely to be doing with them. I'll tell you. It's most likely to be for in-house Powerpoint presentations which are shown to half-a-dozen people in a meeting and then chucked in the wastepaper bin. So what if J.P. Morgan buy a subscription package and get images for 36c or whatever? That's brilliant, as far as I'm concerned, because before microstock they'd have been trawling the web for suitable images, copying and pasting them into Powerpoint and not paying a penny for them. This is one area where microstock got it right because it expands the market for licensed photography. When you see a big name buying images, it's most likely in-house admin staff doing the buying and it's probably just for internal usage. The 'real' stuff is done by design consultancies and ad agencies whose names you're unlikely to recognise.

Now the design and advertising agencies on J.P. Morgan's roster who take out a subscription package and can print 499,999 copies of an annual report before they need to buy an extended license is another matter entirely. The extended license is where microstock got it horribly wrong.
Very few print runs reach anywhere near 500,000. When you get 36c for your image and see it used on the cover of J.P. Morgan's annual report or go into Barnes & Noble and see it on a paperback cover, that's a reason to start jumping up and down. Why didn't you get royalties for an extended license in these instances? Because the terms of the extended license state that the buyer didn't need to purchase one.

ShadySue

  • There is a crack in everything
« Reply #39 on: November 05, 2010, 12:17 »
0

If J.P. Morgan is buying images directly, you have to ask yourself what they're likely to be doing with them. I'll tell you. It's most likely to be for in-house Powerpoint presentations which are shown to half-a-dozen people in a meeting and then chucked in the wastepaper bin. So what if J.P. Morgan buy a subscription package and get images for 36c or whatever? That's brilliant, as far as I'm concerned, because before microstock they'd have been trawling the web for suitable images, copying and pasting them into Powerpoint and not paying a penny for them.

On the other hand, teachers are a huge market out there (I was one until last week). Where I worked there was no way we could buy images for our powerpoints (I probably used upwards of 60 images a day) through requisition, and we'd have had to buy personally. I only did it once, then agonised whether it should be a multi-seat licence if I wanted my colleague to be able to use it, and that was just ridiculous. I don't mind buying occasional posters - they might be on the wall for a month - but paying for an image which would be seen for about ten or twenty seconds was a non-starter at the small bundle rates.

But I'm still far more concerned about the people who really don't know they should be buying ELs, so don't.

jbarber873

« Reply #40 on: November 05, 2010, 13:55 »
0

If J.P. Morgan is buying images directly, you have to ask yourself what they're likely to be doing with them. I'll tell you. It's most likely to be for in-house Powerpoint presentations which are shown to half-a-dozen people in a meeting and then chucked in the wastepaper bin. So what if J.P. Morgan buy a subscription package and get images for 36c or whatever? That's brilliant, as far as I'm concerned, because before microstock they'd have been trawling the web for suitable images, copying and pasting them into Powerpoint and not paying a penny for them.

On the other hand, teachers are a huge market out there (I was one until last week). Where I worked there was no way we could buy images for our powerpoints (I probably used upwards of 60 images a day) through requisition, and we'd have had to buy personally. I only did it once, then agonised whether it should be a multi-seat licence if I wanted my colleague to be able to use it, and that was just ridiculous. I don't mind buying occasional posters - they might be on the wall for a month - but paying for an image which would be seen for about ten or twenty seconds was a non-starter at the small bundle rates.

But I'm still far more concerned about the people who really don't know they should be buying ELs, so don't.

    I've always thought that if there was a way to capture the education market, it could be a great market. Maybe a school would buy a subscription usable by all the students/staff for  small powerpoint sized images. Kids do a million powerpoint homework presentations now. the hard part of course is getting everyone to pay every year. Too bad we can't make images self destruct after a period of time ( I'm sure you could sell that one to getty! )
    To the original poster, my response is that this is the way it is in microstock. There may be rules in place that technically the user is in violation of, but the bottom line is that the agency will always take the side of the client. That's where the money is. If you value your images to the point that this usage bothers you so much, put them in macrostock rights managed, where they will be tracked carefully on your behalf. Of course, you wouldn't have made the sale in the first place. The bottom line is that no contributor has any way of policing the agencies in any practical way except by removing our content from sale.

« Reply #41 on: November 05, 2010, 15:42 »
0
Where I worked there was no way we could buy images for our powerpoints (I probably used upwards of 60 images a day) through requisition, and we'd have had to buy personally.
Exactly what I did for work, even if there was a way to buy images there, the time I would spend in bureaucracy would annoy me, therefore I bought the images myself.

If J.P. Morgan is buying images directly, you have to ask yourself what they're likely to be doing with them. I'll tell you. It's most likely to be for in-house Powerpoint presentations which are shown to half-a-dozen people in a meeting and then chucked in the wastepaper bin.
I would prefer that they used free images from someone else than they buy them so cheap from me. And images in PPT presentations are reused over and over, so it would still be a good investment if they buy credits (and they would likely need mere XS and S images).

I'm definitely with you about book and CD covers, it's ridiculous that they are allowed in the regular license, they are a minimal cost in a book or CD production anyway. But unfortunately this is how the microstock creators started it and this became a standard.  I must say people had no real idea of the potential they had in their hands.


lisafx

« Reply #42 on: November 05, 2010, 16:13 »
0

Fair enough, but following this forum for a couple of years doesn't make me think that moving elsewhere would be morally any better.

Absolutely right Sue.   As suppliers, we aren't really in any position to do much about the morality of the companies we deal with.  Certainly some of the sites behave more or less ethically toward us contributors, and we all have to decide how much of that we can tolerate. 

But I am certain that most of us will be making decisions which companies to do business with based more on how much income they produce than how we feel about their morals.  The degree to which their immorality affects our bottom line will determine when/if we walk. 

lisafx

« Reply #43 on: November 05, 2010, 16:23 »
0

If J.P. Morgan is buying images directly, you have to ask yourself what they're likely to be doing with them. I'll tell you. It's most likely to be for in-house Powerpoint presentations which are shown to half-a-dozen people in a meeting and then chucked in the wastepaper bin. So what if J.P. Morgan buy a subscription package and get images for 36c or whatever? That's brilliant, as far as I'm concerned, because before microstock they'd have been trawling the web for suitable images, copying and pasting them into Powerpoint and not paying a penny for them. This is one area where microstock got it right because it expands the market for licensed photography. When you see a big name buying images, it's most likely in-house admin staff doing the buying and it's probably just for internal usage. The 'real' stuff is done by design consultancies and ad agencies whose names you're unlikely to recognise.

Now the design and advertising agencies on J.P. Morgan's roster who take out a subscription package and can print 499,999 copies of an annual report before they need to buy an extended license is another matter entirely. The extended license is where microstock got it horribly wrong.
Very few print runs reach anywhere near 500,000. When you get 36c for your image and see it used on the cover of J.P. Morgan's annual report or go into Barnes & Noble and see it on a paperback cover, that's a reason to start jumping up and down. Why didn't you get royalties for an extended license in these instances? Because the terms of the extended license state that the buyer didn't need to purchase one.

^^ Very enlightening. 

Mark, I always get a lot out of your posts.  It's good to hear about how the large scale design industry works from someone who is on the inside.  :)

« Reply #44 on: November 05, 2010, 16:36 »
0
Quote
On the other hand, teachers are a huge market out there (I was one until last week). Where I worked there was no way we could buy images for our powerpoints (I probably used upwards of 60 images a day) through requisition, and we'd have had to buy personally. I only did it once, then agonised whether it should be a multi-seat licence if I wanted my colleague to be able to use it, and that was just ridiculous. I don't mind buying occasional posters - they might be on the wall for a month - but paying for an image which would be seen for about ten or twenty seconds was a non-starter at the small bundle rates.

But I'm still far more concerned about the people who really don't know they should be buying ELs, so don't.

The multi-seat license is a bit of a red herring, isn't it, Sue? It's applicable to software and fonts which are permanently installed as tools and in use at the same time on several computers in the same location. But images? Well I suppose I could be retouching an image, while Joe Bloggs two desks behind me is preparing the layout for it. If we were carpenters we'd need two hammers but, metaphorically speaking, we'd both be knocking nails into the same piece of wood. There's no way we'd expect to pay for an extended license in that situation.

According to iStock, the multi-seat license is for content installed in more than one location at the same time. Do you install photographs, illustrations and videos? No. You download them or copy them over from one disc to another, you print them and you publish them; you never install them.

Before Vetta and Agency, you'd need to use the same image in many locations before a multi-seat license became more cost effective than buying individual standard licenses. With Vetta and Agency files I guess there might be a place for it.

I've never purchased a multi-seat license, though I did sell one a couple of years ago on 123rf (even with my little portfolio) and that's the only one. I'd be interested to know whether Sean, Lisa and some of the other full-timers ever sell MS licenses.

And my take on you wanting to share an image with your colleague, Sue, is that a multi-seat license was definitely not required. Whether you should have purchased two standard license is a grey area. Personally, I see it as one license because you're both working for the same institution and using the image at different times.
« Last Edit: November 05, 2010, 18:47 by MarkFGD »

« Reply #45 on: November 05, 2010, 19:10 »
0
Quote

^^ Very enlightening. 

Mark, I always get a lot out of your posts.  It's good to hear about how the large scale design industry works from someone who is on the inside.  :)

Thanks, Lisa. I'm aware that there's a thin line between being perceived as preaching and someone who's willing to share information, and that always makes me slightly nervous about posting here. I feel like I've hijacked this thread already!   :-*

« Reply #46 on: November 05, 2010, 19:25 »
0
Quote
I would prefer that they used free images from someone else than they buy them so cheap from me. And images in PPT presentations are reused over and over, so it would still be a good investment if they buy credits (and they would likely need mere XS and S images).

The reason those big corporations buy subscriptions instead of credits packages is because they're so big. The bigger they are, the more time-consuming it is for one department to get money out of another. Bear in mind the people using images for Powerpoint presentations are admin staff who are unlikely to have company credit cards, and are thus unable to replenish credits when they run out. And then there's the fact that credit packages are near impossible to police. A subscription package is a fixed monthly amount and finance departments in big companies love those almost as much as not spending any money at all!

« Reply #47 on: November 05, 2010, 19:58 »
0
Quote
I would prefer that they used free images from someone else than they buy them so cheap from me. And images in PPT presentations are reused over and over, so it would still be a good investment if they buy credits (and they would likely need mere XS and S images).

The reason those big corporations buy subscriptions instead of credits packages is because they're so big. The bigger they are, the more time-consuming it is for one department to get money out of another. Bear in mind the people using images for Powerpoint presentations are admin staff who are unlikely to have company credit cards, and are thus unable to replenish credits when they run out. And then there's the fact that credit packages are near impossible to police. A subscription package is a fixed monthly amount and finance departments in big companies love those almost as much as not spending any money at all!

What brings us back to cclapper's statement that I commented: "I can't figure out why big corporations get such hefty discounts...they are the ones that can afford to pay more! "  Big companies have more money, can afford images without any significant impact on their budgets, and yet they are the ones who benefit more from subs or any other discount prices.  If there were no subs, I am certain they would buy images anyway.  Maybe less images, but at a higher, non-subs price.

jbarber873

« Reply #48 on: November 05, 2010, 20:49 »
0
Quote
I would prefer that they used free images from someone else than they buy them so cheap from me. And images in PPT presentations are reused over and over, so it would still be a good investment if they buy credits (and they would likely need mere XS and S images).

The reason those big corporations buy subscriptions instead of credits packages is because they're so big. The bigger they are, the more time-consuming it is for one department to get money out of another. Bear in mind the people using images for Powerpoint presentations are admin staff who are unlikely to have company credit cards, and are thus unable to replenish credits when they run out. And then there's the fact that credit packages are near impossible to police. A subscription package is a fixed monthly amount and finance departments in big companies love those almost as much as not spending any money at all!

What brings us back to cclapper's statement that I commented: "I can't figure out why big corporations get such hefty discounts...they are the ones that can afford to pay more! "  Big companies have more money, can afford images without any significant impact on their budgets, and yet they are the ones who benefit more from subs or any other discount prices.  If there were no subs, I am certain they would buy images anyway.  Maybe less images, but at a higher, non-subs price.

   Cutting costs to the bone is what passes for good management at many large corporations today. Take the annual report. It used to be a document that "told the story" of what a company did that year. It was a way to sell the shareholders, the clients and the workers on the best the company had to offer. There were lavish photo spreads with wonderful design, typography and printing. Now it's a cover with the 10-k stapled inside. The budget for the annual has been cut, and the part you can't measure- the "soft power" of the companies message - is gone. It never showed up on a balance sheet, so it didn't matter anyway. Every story that you read about some CEO who turned around a company always starts with how he came in and replaced all the fresh flowers with fake ones. And then he fired all the secretaries and receptionists and put in phonemail. Microstock is just one more piece in the puzzle. The choice is cheap or none. We're lucky that at least they still choose cheap. It could be, and often is- none. The money and profits saved from these "cost cutting" geniuses of course does not go to the shareholders- it goes right back to the CEO, who makes more than ever. Too bad for the flower shop, but the CEO has to make the big bucks.

« Reply #49 on: November 05, 2010, 20:53 »
0
Quote
What brings us back to cclapper's statement that I commented: "I can't figure out why big corporations get such hefty discounts...they are the ones that can afford to pay more! "  Big companies have more money, can afford images without any significant impact on their budgets, and yet they are the ones who benefit more from subs or any other discount prices.  If there were no subs, I am certain they would buy images anyway.  Maybe less images, but at a higher, non-subs price.

Bigger corporations get bigger discounts because they buy more credits in one go or because they commit to buying longer subscriptions. That's the way the corporate world works and always did -- long before stock libraries existed. I don't like it any more than you do but it's not going to go away.

If subscriptions didn't exist, I agree that some companies would buy credits instead but many others wouldn't. Subscriptions is the only model that's going to work for many large corporations for the reasons mentioned in my earlier post.


 

Related Topics

  Subject / Started by Replies Last post
5 Replies
6588 Views
Last post January 31, 2007, 01:18
by Egypix
13 Replies
8263 Views
Last post May 03, 2007, 08:09
by PenelopeB
2 Replies
4652 Views
Last post July 15, 2010, 10:47
by HughStoneIan
41 Replies
18134 Views
Last post April 22, 2014, 19:41
by ShadySue
12 Replies
6122 Views
Last post April 21, 2016, 12:34
by Red On

Sponsors

Mega Bundle of 5,900+ Professional Lightroom Presets

Microstock Poll Results

Sponsors