MicrostockGroup
Microstock Photography Forum - General => General Stock Discussion => Topic started by: lroberg on November 04, 2010, 10:43
-
I recently discovered that Michelin has used a picture of mine in 10 different travel books. (Chicago, NY, etc). The picture is being used as an icon, on each of the pages where they list places to stay. In some books, the picture has been used as many as 15 times, and as little as 9.
I have no EL sales from this picture.
When I contacted Istock to look into this, they wrote me a generic reply that they had been in contact with their "RESPECTED" client, and that no EL was necessary.
I've written back trying to find out at least how many times they downloaded the picture, and have yet to hear back.
Istock's agreement says the "content" can't be reproduced more than 500K times without an EL. It doesn't specifically say the book has to published that many times. If the book that has my picture in it 15 times is published just 33,334 times, that passes the 500K mark of reproducing the content.
Istock is clearly backing their RESPECTED client, and the compliance inspector says the matter is closed.
I have no idea how many times my picture was bought, (Istock hasn't responded) so who knows if they bought one copy and keep using the same download in all their books, which is obviously using it more than 500K times.
Any suggestions on where to go from here? Or am I just tilting at windmills because I'm not a RESPECTED photographer?
-
^^^This is one of the things I find frustrating with microstock. Why don't the sites make sure buyers pay more if they are using images like this? Istock sell less EL's than SS and FT for me but I think all the sites could do better. At least SS has taken action against buyers that haven't bought an EL when they required one.
-
This is a very interesting case. But since respected customers can buy credits at no minimum price, I guess they can reproduce them no maximum of times.
To be honest, all credit to those buying ELs.
If you went to buy credits at iStock, and went to the "how to buy stock" page, you get this message:
Use iStock files in all kinds of creative materials like brochures, websites, presentations and more. Your license is for one computer/one user. We also offer Extended Licenses for even more usage options.
* Read the Content License Agreement
* Compare Standard and Extended Licenses
Why would you even think you had to buy an EL (hence look at the page) for 500,000 impressions of a book?
-
I see 3 ways in which they might have to download an EL. If their print run exceeded 500,000, or if that icon can be called a logo (seems like it is, since it is used in so many places), in which case they can't use it for that, with any kind of license. Or if they have more than one designer working on the project and more than one designer was using the image, they would need a multi-seat license.
go here for a review of IS licenses:
http://www.istockphoto.com/license_comparison.php (http://www.istockphoto.com/license_comparison.php)
You basically have to take their word for it on whether or not an EL was required. Whether it's the truth or not is a whole nuther story.
-
I've been a graphic designer for 24 years. When buying print (these days it's increasingly common for clients to buy their own print) I've never had a print run exceed 50,000, yet alone 500,000.
Think about the terms for the requirement of iStock's extended licenses (they clearly didn't):
A start-up cottage industry printing 200 greetings cards requires an 'items for resale' license while the world's largest firm of accountants can print 499,999 (they're more likely to print 2,000-10,000) annual reports using an image that costs a few dollars.
I've bought extended licenses though I very much doubt that I've ever actually needed to. (The clients buy the print and we don't know the print runs. We know they're likely to be high but doubt they'd ever stretch to 500,000.)
If we didn't buy those licenses, you'd spot your work in print and contact iStock who would then contact us. All we'd have to say is the print run is below 500,000. What are they going to do? Count them? We're giving them several thousand pounds worth of business every year (at least we were until they started playing silly buggers with the royalties). Are they going to call us liars? No.
Extended license = 500,000 impressions = the biggest oversight in the history of microstock. Knock a zero (or two) off that one, Kelly, and you can have your Christmas bonus and pay everyone 45% royalties.
Okay, I'll just add a bit more. (We all want Mr. T to read this and get his bonus, don't we. ;).) As you know a lot of print work has now moved to the web, so to make sure all those who can afford it pay for it, the extended license also needs to cover 'for use on web sites with more than XXX,000 visitors per month'. That'd make a difference in the right direction to everyone's bottom line, wouldn't it?
Oh and the multi-seat license that CC mentioned. I've always thought that one was an impossible thing to police. We'd just say yes we do have XX workstations but we all use the same chair! Seriously, I doubt that one gets sold very often. Perhaps, a multi-use license would work better?
-
I see 3 ways in which they might have to download an EL. If their print run exceeded 500,000, or if that icon can be called a logo (seems like it is, since it is used in so many places), in which case they can't use it for that, with any kind of license. Or if they have more than one designer working on the project and more than one designer was using the image, they would need a multi-seat license.
go here for a review of IS licenses:
[url]http://www.istockphoto.com/license_comparison.php[/url] ([url]http://www.istockphoto.com/license_comparison.php[/url])
You basically have to take their word for it on whether or not an EL was required. Whether it's the truth or not is a whole nuther story.
My most obvious argument is that in one book alone, the picture is used 15 times in the upper corner of the pages showing hotel listings. There is nothing in the license agreement that says the BOOK has to be reproduced 500K times. It says the CONTENT (i.e. picuture) can't be reproduced more than that.
If they BOOK has a run of 33,334 copies, they have reproduced the CONTENT 500k + times.
There are ten books in which they use the picture multiple times. The average is 11 times per book. If they only bought the picture once, and put in all their books, the image has been reproduced 110 times. Divide 500K by 110, and that means between all 10 books they would only need to publish a total of 4546 copies.
This, of course, is all pointed out in the email I sent to them. Ignored, of course, but they have the information. Clearly, their RESPECTED client is more important than actually sticking to facts.
-
Hi Iroberg.
iStock now uses the phrase 500,000 impressions. My interpretation of that is: image is featured on XX pages x XX copies = XX impressions.
Even so, very few books are going to reach 500,000 impressions (even if an image is used multiple times in the same book).
-
Sorry. I'm going to go with the intent of the EL is to cover 500,000 individual books, not individual representations within those books. So, they gave you a curt reply, but are correct that no EL is needed.
-
I've been a graphic designer for 24 years. When buying print (these days it's increasingly common for clients to buy their own print) I've never had a print run exceed 50,000, yet alone 500,000.
Think about the terms for the requirement of iStock's extended licenses (they clearly didn't):
A start-up cottage industry printing 200 greetings cards requires an 'items for resale' license while the world's largest firm of accountants can print 499,999 (they're more likely to print 2,000-10,000) annual reports using an image that costs a few dollars.
I've bought extended licenses though I very much doubt that I've ever actually needed to. (The clients buy the print and we don't know the print runs. We know they're likely to be high but doubt they'd ever stretch to 500,000.)
If we didn't buy those licenses, you'd spot your work in print and contact iStock who would then contact us. All we'd have to say is the print run is below 500,000. What are they going to do? Count them? We're giving them several thousand pounds worth of business every year (at least we were until they started playing silly buggers with the royalties). Are they going to call us liars? No.
Extended license = 500,000 impressions = the biggest oversight in the history of microstock. Knock a zero (or two) off that one, Kelly, and you can have your Christmas bonus and pay everyone 45% royalties.
Okay, I'll just add a bit more. (We all want Mr. T to read this and get his bonus, don't we. ;).) As you know a lot of print work has now moved to the web, so to make sure all those who can afford it pay for it, the extended license also needs to cover 'for use on web sites with more than XXX,000 visitors per month'. That'd make a difference in the right direction to everyone's bottom line, wouldn't it?
Oh and the multi-seat license that CC mentioned. I've always thought that one was an impossible thing to police. We'd just say yes we do have XX workstations but we all use the same chair! Seriously, I doubt that one gets sold very often. Perhaps, a multi-use license would work better?
All very valid points about how they check on my claim. But it's the number of impressions that's at question. Nowhere in any agreement does it say they have to have a run of 500K books. If they would bother to read my emails, they should check on two things:
1) how many times did they buy my image?
2) how many times was each book reproduced?
I see your point about a muti-use license....perhaps I'll write another ticket and ask about THAT
-
Sorry. I'm going to go with the intent of the EL is to cover 500,000 individual books, not individual representations within those books. So, they gave you a curt reply, but are correct that no EL is needed.
Again, that's not what it says. It says, "500,000 impressions". What the intention might be is conjecture and irrelevant.
The more I look at these legal contracts, the more everyone else (iStock, customers) have us over a barrel.
-
Hi Iroberg.
iStock now uses the phrase 500,000 impressions. My interpretation of that is: image is featured on XX pages x XX copies = XX impressions.
Even so, very few books are going to reach 500,000 impressions (even if an image is used multiple times in the same book).
Not hard at all if they use my picture 15 times in a book -which they have. They would only need a run of 33,334 books to reach 500K impressions. And that's if they bothered to purchase my picture 10 times (once for each book). If they just downloaded one picture and put in ten different books (the average number of times the picture appears is 11/per book), they would only have to have a total of 4,546 books to reach 500K. Of course, Istock won't tell me how many times Michelin downloaded the picture.
The most frustrating thing is the lack of any answers. Just a blanket "You're wrong. Case closed"
-
The most frustrating thing is the lack of any answers. Just a blanket "You're wrong. Case closed"
That's quite standard, I'm afraid.
-
Sorry. I'm going to go with the intent of the EL is to cover 500,000 individual books, not individual representations within those books. So, they gave you a curt reply, but are correct that no EL is needed.
Sean, we can beg to differ on our interpretations of the word 'impressions', but do you agree that a print run of 500,000 is far too high a number before an extended license is required? Would you be happier to see it reduced to somewhere between 5,000 and 50,000?
-
I am so far ahead of you, I can't even see ya in my rear view:
http://www.istockphoto.com/forum_messages.php?threadid=54009&page=1 (http://www.istockphoto.com/forum_messages.php?threadid=54009&page=1)
-
Sorry. I'm going to go with the intent of the EL is to cover 500,000 individual books, not individual representations within those books. So, they gave you a curt reply, but are correct that no EL is needed.
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.
-
Books, magazines, videotapes, annual reports, promotional cards, cd covers, ...
You need a general term to cover ... everything.
I've never heard anyone state they thought it meant what you think it means, or had IS interpret it that way.
-
Not hard at all if they use my picture 15 times in a book -which they have. They would only need a run of 33,334 books to reach 500K impressions. And that's if they bothered to purchase my picture 10 times (once for each book). If they just downloaded one picture and put in ten different books (the average number of times the picture appears is 11/per book), they would only have to have a total of 4,546 books to reach 500K. Of course, Istock won't tell me how many times Michelin downloaded the picture.
The most frustrating thing is the lack of any answers. Just a blanket "You're wrong. Case closed"
You can't know for sure that the total print run has exceeded 33,334. You wouldn't be willing to bet on it and neither would iStock. That's the problem and that's why they're blanking you because there's a reasonable probability that the buyer has printed fewer than 500,000 impressions (even if the image is printed fifteen times in each book across the ten different variants in the series).
What you can't know but would be willing to bet on is that they've printed more than 5,000 or more than 10,000 copies. Reduce the requirement for an extended license to around these numbers and you can be fairly confident every time you confront a buyer that you believe should have purchased an EL, that they did actually need one.
Most times they turn around and say we haven't printed 500,000 copies, they're probably telling the truth because if it ain't something like the Dorling Kindersley encyclopaedia of Star Wars it ain't going to be anywhere near that many.
-
I am so far ahead of you, I can't even see ya in my rear view:
[url]http://www.istockphoto.com/forum_messages.php?threadid=54009&page=1[/url] ([url]http://www.istockphoto.com/forum_messages.php?threadid=54009&page=1[/url])
Since your post is dated 2007, I can see that they didn't think too much about it.
From my printing days, impressions meant how many times the plate hit the paper. So if someone said there were 1,000 impressions, that meant 1,000 pieces of paper ran through the press and an impression was printed on one side of that piece of paper. In this context, the word impressions can be interpreted in different ways. I can understand the logic iroberg is using, and it makes sense to me. If that travel book has 100 pages printed two sides, impressions could mean 200 impressions in that book. Times the number of books printed. Unfortunately, I have a feeling that the term as applied here is as Sean says...500,000 means 500,000 books, or brochures, or magazines. No matter how many pages or how many times the image is used in those pages.
Here is a link to the circulations of 100 of the top magazines:
http://nyjobsource.com/magazines.html (http://nyjobsource.com/magazines.html)
Any image found in any of these magazines would need an EL. OT: I am quite surprised that AARP so far surpasses any magazine in terms of circulation. Wow. Power to the people.
-
Books, magazines, videotapes, annual reports, promotional cards, cd covers, ...
You need a general term to cover ... everything.
I've never heard anyone state they thought it meant what you think it means, or had IS interpret it that way.
As I mentioned in a previous post, they have tons of lawyers on hand who can make sure it says exactly what they want it to say. It's intentionally left vague.
It takes no more effort to say 500K books must be printed to qualify for an EL. What it DOES say is that you can't print more than 500K impressions.
-
I am so far ahead of you, I can't even see ya in my rear view:
[url]http://www.istockphoto.com/forum_messages.php?threadid=54009&page=1[/url] ([url]http://www.istockphoto.com/forum_messages.php?threadid=54009&page=1[/url])
That's because I'm about a dozen posts down the page now I'm finally replying.
I'm glad you did that, Sean. Cheers.
For what it's worth -- and I can only speak for myself here -- I'm a designer and I want to see that requirement for the print EL reduced to a much lower number across the board in microstock. Why? Because I have clients I can charge it onto.
On the other hand, publishers probably love the fact they don't have to purchase it because they make their own products -- and perhaps they're the biggest purchasers of stock images and the sector iStock will not want to frighten away and why the change needs to be implemented simultaneously across all microstock agencies.
-
Books, magazines, videotapes, annual reports, promotional cards, cd covers, ...
You need a general term to cover ... everything.
I've never heard anyone state they thought it meant what you think it means, or had IS interpret it that way.
As I mentioned in a previous post, they have tons of lawyers on hand who can make sure it says exactly what they want it to say. It's intentionally left vague.
It takes no more effort to say 500K books must be printed to qualify for an EL. What it DOES say is that you can't print more than 500K impressions.
You are correct. Smoke and mirrors comes to mind. Look how they've diluted the whole credits/royalties scheme so that it's near impossible for contributors (or buyers for that matter) to figure out exactly what they should be getting.
-
I am so far ahead of you, I can't even see ya in my rear view:
[url]http://www.istockphoto.com/forum_messages.php?threadid=54009&page=1[/url] ([url]http://www.istockphoto.com/forum_messages.php?threadid=54009&page=1[/url])
Since your post is dated 2007, I can see that they didn't think too much about it.
Actually, they did remove the exemption for advertising since then.
-
Would a second purchase of a regular license cover extra 500k prints?
-
I am so far ahead of you, I can't even see ya in my rear view:
[url]http://www.istockphoto.com/forum_messages.php?threadid=54009&page=1[/url] ([url]http://www.istockphoto.com/forum_messages.php?threadid=54009&page=1[/url])
Interesting that the wording there is:
" ... either individually or in combination with others, reproduce the Content, or an element of the Content, in excess of 500,000 times without obtaining an Extended License, in which event you shall be required to pay an additional royalty fee equal to US $0.01 for each reproduction which is in excess of 500,000 reproductions."
That makes very clear that it is 500,000 reproductions of the image.
-
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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
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?
-
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!
-
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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
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
-
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.
-
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%.
-
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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
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. :)
-
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.
-
^^ 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! :-*
-
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!
-
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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
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.
I agree and the company making the money is iStock...it's not passed on down to the contributor. They are selling in bulk and more than likely this buyer doesn't even use all the credits they buy.
-
I agree and the company making the money is iStock...it's not passed on down to the contributor. They are selling in bulk and more than likely this buyer doesn't even use all the credits they buy.
If they don't, the money is shared with the contributors. That's what made the $.95 minimum so attractive for a subs program.