If I was running an Agency, we'd have none of this nonsense.  People destroying my USP would be out on the sidewalk.

Sean is starting an agency? 

... if I'm not completely wrong against the "spirit" of exclusivity at iStock.

... Is the road really wide open to interpret iStock's rules like this, is this something we all should and could do?

Haven't Istock, in their greed for ever higher profitability, permanently destroyed any "spirit" they might once have had? Istock write their own rules (and unilaterally change them at will) so any latitude or 'interpretion' within those rules is by their own design. Istock seem happy enough to break promises and move goalposts if they think it will make them more money. Where's the "spirit" in that? Do you think it's 'unfair' because Istock will only be getting 60% of the sale price of Laflor's port? If Laflor owns the copyright to his images then surely he is entitled to sell them as he sees fit.

If my speculations/suspicions are correct, regardless if it is against the "letter" of iStock's exclusivity agreement or not, it leaves a sour taste in my mouth. A clarification from the powers of iStock wouldn't go amiss, at least then we know if this and/or similar examples are allowed. As I read it (the agreement and other relevant webpages at iStock), it isn't. Sure, could be a special agreement, which would severly anger me. Exclusivity is both rewarding, but requires sacrifice, if there is a possibility to in essence be both independent and exclusive, then the very least we should know about it.

Yuri has done well for himself, as well as becoming a poster boy for "microstock", a lot of people active/interested in this industry admire him and it would be a shame if this has been achieved with what I would call under-hand shady dealings. Isn't there any morals around anywhere anymore.
The spirit of iStock has certainly taken a dent in the last year or two, so now even more important to protect it. The spirit was created by us contributors and will only vanish if we let it.

What exotic substances are you on?

What about Istock introducing the 'Agency' images a few months ago? Not only are those images available elsewhere (as indeed are the artists who created them) but exclusivity was granted without the normal qualifying sales, etc. Where are 'the rules' when it comes to that?

What about Istock encouraging contributors to become exclusive by promising to grandfather their canister levels __ only to pull the rug from beneath them a few months later? Where's the "spirit" in that?

Quote from: CarlssonInc. Stock Imagery Production on January 16, 2011, 08:19

... if I'm not completely wrong against the "spirit" of exclusivity at iStock.

... Is the road really wide open to interpret iStock's rules like this, is this something we all should and could do?

Haven't Istock, in their greed for ever higher profitability, permanently destroyed any "spirit" they might once have had? Istock write their own rules (and unilaterally change them at will) so any latitude or 'interpretion' within those rules is by their own design. Istock seem happy enough to break promises and move goalposts if they think it will make them more money. Where's the "spirit" in that? Do you think it's 'unfair' because Istock will only be getting 60% of the sale price of Laflor's port? If Laflor owns the copyright to his images then surely he is entitled to sell them as he sees fit.

If someone were using this as a loophole, the 2nd (assistant) photographer wouldn't keep the royalties, but most likely be on a wage (be an employee). His/her name would be used as the copyright name in a way to circumvent the rules of exclusivity, but the royalties would still go to the main photographer (the employer).

Anyway, I KNOW NOTHING about this, but when reading the recent article (blog post) which led me to do a bit of digging it all just looks wrong to me. Usually when something looks wrong, it is, but I could be the one being in the wrong. In that case I apologize.

As I said before, my wife (who is my employee) shoots as well, we share models, equipment, style, office, expenses and the money go to the same pot, but would I ever think of using her name or details to circumvent the exclusivity at iStock? No. Neither would I train someone to essentially be a replica of myself, let them set up a business for themselves under my roof, sharing equipment, staff, expenses and continue shooting in a style or subject matter that was in direct competition with myself - that just DOESN'T MAKE ANY BUSINESS SENSE (unless I financially benefited by for example in essence being both independent and exclusive at the same time), and we all know Yuri is about business.

Other issue is Jim trying to come up with material for his paying audience, trying to convince even more competition to step into the ring.  Thanks for that too.

I thought that too. I thought it particularly interesting in the light of this recent post from Jim on another forum __ it does appear somewhat contradictory, especially the final conclusion;

"John, thanks for sharing. Your situation is not unique. Many of the RM
photographers I talk to are experiencing similar declines �" or worse. It is a
natural human tendency to want to continue doing what has worked well in the
past. But, times change, new business models are developed and old businesses
that used to be lucrative fade away.

In many businesses it is easy to spot when a new technology or technique begins
to take over. Unfortunately, for stock photographers, given the typical long
lead time between production and sale it often takes a long time to recognize
that dramatic changes have occurred.

Microstock is taking over. The quality has improved dramatically. The volume is
growing at an unbelievable pace. The number of image suppliers is growing
astronomically, resulting in greatly reduced odds that the images of any seller
will be chosen for use. Search on microstock sites is more efficient than on
traditional sites. More customers are able to find more of what they need, more
quickly at much lower prices.

The decline is sales has very little to do with the problems in the economy.
Sales are unlikely to improve significantly when the economy improves.

Let me share a little of my personal experience in producing and selling stock.
Back in the early 90s I was approaching age 60, and had built a significant
collection of RM stock images that at their peak were generating $170,000 a year
in royalties. I expected my stock images to provide revenue for me in my
retirement. I plowed every extra dollar I had into producing more and better
images to build that collection.

Then Royalty Free was invented. I didn’t like it. I didn’t participate in
that market, but some of the early RF adopters have done very well over the
years. After a few years of competing with RF I did have the sense to recognize
that the long range value of my image collection was declining, and that I
needed to invest my time and extra dollars in a totally different line of
business. Today, at age 74, when I could use a little extra money for
retirement, my RM stock photo collection is essentially worthless. Some will say
that if I had worked harder at what had brought me success initially I could
have triumphed despite the odds. I don’t think so.

The changes are also coming more rapidly. It took traditional RF almost a
decade-and-a-half to take over 50% of the market that had existed for RM images
at the beginning of the 90s. In less than 5 years microstock has come from
virtually nothing to having a market share that today is probably greater than
either the RM or traditional RF share of the market. And microstock’s share
continues to grow while the share the others are able to command continues to
decline. But before you decide that microstock is the answer, recognize that the
gross revenue generated by microstock is being divided among a much larger group
of suppliers than ever participated in licensing images at RM or traditional RF
price levels.

If stock photography is more than a hobby, it may be time for a totally new line
of business.

Jim Pickerell"
 

As I said before, my wife (who is my employee) shoots as well, we share models, equipment, style, office, expenses and the money go to the same pot, but would I ever think of using her name or details to circumvent the exclusivity at iStock? No. Neither would I train someone to essentially be a replica of myself, let them set up a business for themselves under my roof, sharing equipment, staff, expenses and continue shooting in a style or subject matter that was in direct competition with myself - that just DOESN'T MAKE ANY BUSINESS SENSE (unless I financially benefited by for example in essence being both independent and exclusive at the same time), and we all know Yuri is about business.

That is, of course, your choice.

Quote from: CarlssonInc. Stock Imagery Production on January 16, 2011, 09:35

that just DOESN'T MAKE ANY BUSINESS SENSE (unless I financially benefited by for example in essence being both independent and exclusive at the same time)

Well sure, that's the point.  Being both at the same time.

That is the POINT! Which I thought wouldn't be ok/allowed and frowned upon by fellow contributors.

Quote from: CarlssonInc. Stock Imagery Production on January 16, 2011, 09:35

... but would I ever think of using her name or details to circumvent the exclusivity at iStock? No. Neither would I train someone to essentially be a replica of myself, let them set up a business for themselves under my roof, sharing equipment, staff, expenses and continue shooting in a style or subject matter that was in direct competition with myself - that just DOESN'T MAKE ANY BUSINESS SENSE (unless I financially benefited by for example in essence being both independent and exclusive at the same time), and we all know Yuri is about business.

But Istock/Getty WOULD do all of that and more, or at least the equivalent, to YOU at the drop of a hat __ if they thought it might make themselves more short-term profit.

What about undermining IS exclusives by introducing TS subs ... promising it was for a different set of customers ... then advertising TS on IS ... then having their sales reps phone big IS customers ... then introducing 'Image Packs' (PPD) on TS ... now heavily promoting Photos.com ... etc, etc, etc.

You need to wake up. You need to realise that your painful loyalty and "spirit" to Getty is strictly one-way. It will not be returned in any way, shape or form. They will already be plotting how to pay you even less and keep more of the pie for themselves.

I play by the rules, and I despise those who don't (except Michael Schumacher). If everyone was doing what was best for their short-term gain, both in business and in life, it would be awful. I treat people and business in the same way I WANT to be treated, honest and with respect. Sure, iStock's dealings in recent times can be debated, but it doesn't give me a free card to do whatever I please, there is such things as self-respect, as well as contracts, rules and spirit. That's how I I am at least.

And I'm not asking for anything in return from iStock besides selling as many of my images as possible, paying me my royalties earned, and not see through the fingers if someone is breaking the exclusivity agreement. I will always have the choice of staying or going, you choose who you do business with.

I don't have a problem with special arrangements either, just wish it didn't have to be done under-handedly. Could be as easy as say "In rare exceptions we will offer/negotiate special terms with certain contributors". But by the looks of it this is not such a case - IT DOES LOOK like someone has written their own rules and that I think is utter crap.

Quote from: ShadySue on January 16, 2011, 09:39

Quote from: CarlssonInc. Stock Imagery Production on January 16, 2011, 09:35

As I said before, my wife (who is my employee) shoots as well, we share models, equipment, style, office, expenses and the money go to the same pot, but would I ever think of using her name or details to circumvent the exclusivity at iStock? No. Neither would I train someone to essentially be a replica of myself, let them set up a business for themselves under my roof, sharing equipment, staff, expenses and continue shooting in a style or subject matter that was in direct competition with myself - that just DOESN'T MAKE ANY BUSINESS SENSE (unless I financially benefited by for example in essence being both independent and exclusive at the same time), and we all know Yuri is about business.

That is, of course, your choice.

I didn't know I had a choice in this matter if I were to be sticking to the rules. I'm completely taken aback that the notion of this set-up or similar would be ok by fellow contributors.

Whether I like it or not is irrelevant. I'd like to be able to make non-stockworthy but still very usable photos available for teachers for free (I used them for many years when teaching, and I'd like to pay back). I don't care what anyone else would think, but it's clearly not allowed under exclusivity rules.
There is nothing against the Yuri/Daniel arrangement in the rules, so what you or I think doesn't matter.
I really, really don't like they way they headhunted rubberball and waived the rules for them. But 'they' own the ball, 'they' can do what they want. IMO, that's totally unfair, as it's totally against the letter and spirit of exclusivity
Compared to that, I find the Yuri/Daniel thing 'less wrong'; but that's just my opinion, which no-one but me GAD about.

A mutually profitable arrangement made by two powerful parties in which both get what they've always wanted.
Rules are for the power-deficient.........."It's a big club and you and I ain't in it" (Paraphrased George Carlin).

Quote from: sjlocke on January 16, 2011, 08:30

Other issue is Jim trying to come up with material for his paying audience, trying to convince even more competition to step into the ring.  Thanks for that too.

Och well, this particular article won't convince anyone. "You can be successful on the coat-tails of someone who is already successful.
And I'm pretty sure you've said you don't take on apprentices (or any other staff).
But, hey, we could broker a deal whereby you assign copyright on your out-takes to me, I'd upload them all over the place in my own name as an independent and we could split the proceeds 40-60 in my favour. After all, after you set up the shoot, you're covering your expenses already on iStock. I'm taking the time to upload and keyword them. You're making money from your less successful shots of a series and I'm sweetly helping you.
Where "I" and "me" = 'Anyone not iStock exclusive, (so not "I" or "me" ATM'), but "you" = you.

That could be a new business idea - take on out-takes for all iStock Exclusives and sell them under a new name as independent. Is your fee negotiable?

Quote from: CarlssonInc. Stock Imagery Production on January 16, 2011, 10:11

I play by the rules, and I despise those who don't (except Michael Schumacher). If everyone was doing what was best for their short-term gain, both in business and in life, it would be awful. I treat people and business in the same way I WANT to be treated, honest and with respect. Sure, iStock's dealings in recent times can be debated, but it doesn't give me a free card to do whatever I please, there is such things as self-respect, as well as contracts, rules and spirit. That's how I I am at least.

I find it somewhat ironic that you describe yourself as some paradigm of virtue or 'ethical man' when here you are virtually convicting people you don't know of falsities and crimes (which you don't even know have been committed), without any evidence other than circumstantial, without actually communicating with any of the parties involved and without hearing their side of the issue. Is that how you would like to be treated?

I'm pretty sure the whole situation was thrashed out on an iStock forum a while back, and the bottom line was that as iStock was OK with it, why should anyone else care? Of course, as the forums are so unsearchable, I can't find it.

Quote from: gostwyck on January 16, 2011, 11:06

Quote from: CarlssonInc. Stock Imagery Production on January 16, 2011, 10:11

I play by the rules, and I despise those who don't (except Michael Schumacher). If everyone was doing what was best for their short-term gain, both in business and in life, it would be awful. I treat people and business in the same way I WANT to be treated, honest and with respect. Sure, iStock's dealings in recent times can be debated, but it doesn't give me a free card to do whatever I please, there is such things as self-respect, as well as contracts, rules and spirit. That's how I I am at least.

I find it somewhat ironic that you describe yourself as some paradigm of virtue or 'ethical man' when here you are virtually convicting people you don't know of falsities and crimes (which you don't even know have been committed), without any evidence other than circumstantial, without actually communicating with any of the parties involved and without hearing their side of the issue. Is that how you would like to be treated?

I'm pretty sure the whole situation was thrashed out on an iStock forum a while back, and the bottom line was that as iStock was OK with it, why should anyone else care? Of course, as the forums are so unsearchable, I can't find it.

There we go, I learnt something new and got my knickers in twist over nothing. Whether it is ok or not by iStock, it isn't for me - my (financial) loss I guess.