Author Topic: Photos from Gettyimages direct to Thinkstock - ouch (Read 30565 times)

grp_photo · « **on:** April 01, 2011, 15:31 »

Gettyimages forces their contributors to sign a new creative contributor agreement that allows them to move your RF-Content from Gettyimages direct to Thinkstock. Moving files from Stockxpert to Thinkstock was already not acceptable - but this one!!!

Best one the new contract also allows Getty to move RM-Content to RF. So first they move your RM to RF and the to Thinksuck wow can't get worse than this. Certainly Thinkstock is the worst site I can think of.

LSD72 · « **Reply #1 on:** April 01, 2011, 15:33 »

I wonder how the Getty People are taking it?

jamirae · « **Reply #2 on:** April 01, 2011, 15:38 »

April Fool, eh?!

lisafx · « **Reply #3 on:** April 01, 2011, 15:42 »

Quote from: jamirae on April 01, 2011, 15:38

April Fool, eh?!

Why do I keep getting suckered by these?

grp_photo · « **Reply #4 on:** April 01, 2011, 15:48 »

Actually it is not :-( I wish it was received it today but again it is certainly genuine: "We are excited to invite you to be one of the first to sign our new Getty Images Contributor Agreement." well I'm not that excited :-(

Sean Locke Photography · « **Reply #5 on:** April 01, 2011, 15:50 »

No, it's definitely in the contract. They have the right to move whatever they want to either sub site. They are offering $.40 per download at the sub sites.

cobalt · « **Reply #6 on:** April 01, 2011, 16:01 »

The Getty Photographers are not happy.

What surprised me that they are not sharing any content with istock. I mean, they already put the agency collection on istock, I would have thought if they are moving "downstream" that istock would be the next stop.

But from what I read from the non exclusives the duality of shutterstock and non subsctription sites works as long as it is not done on the same site.

I signed the contract, but I don´t have many images on Getty anyway.

I have most of my istock images in the PP program and I am not seeing a drop in downloads that I can in any way relate to the programm. In the beginning I only opted non sellers in, then gradually added most files. The images sell, but the sales pattern is not the same as on istock. I have some images that sell really well there that are not moving on istock at all.

As long as Thinkstock is kept on a different site, I feel fine with it. I hope they don´t merge it with istock.

lisafx · « **Reply #7 on:** April 01, 2011, 16:04 »

Quote from: sjlocke on April 01, 2011, 15:50

No, it's definitely in the contract. They have the right to move whatever they want to either sub site. They are offering $.40 per download at the sub sites.

So more than IS exclusives get? It's still low, especially for people used to trad pricing, but why less than IS diamond exclusive?

Wonder how long before Istock members are forced to participate in PP? Maybe that $.03 bump was the spoon full of sugar to help the medicine go down (to paraphrase Mary Poppins)?

Sean Locke Photography · « **Reply #8 on:** April 01, 2011, 16:11 »

With the new raise, IS exclusives get $.38-$.46.

cobalt · « **Reply #9 on:** April 01, 2011, 16:15 »

Anybody exclusive Gold and above gets more than the Getty photographers.

I do wonder if they will continue to allow us to opt in our files manually or opt out completely.

Thinkstock seems to be a very important project.

Jo Ann Snover · « **Reply #10 on:** April 01, 2011, 16:45 »

I don't see this as good news at all.

I've been expecting IS to force all exclusives into the PP at some point, and as I've said many times I think the partner program is part of the program to drive our royalties to a maximum of 20%. We get no RC for sales at sites other than IS and although Getty was marketing Thinkstock as if all the IS content was there already (which it wasn't), once all the IS exclusive content is available at Thinkstock, why would anyone buy at IS any more?

You can buy credit packs at Thinkstock. If you buy a subscription there you get 25% off at Getty (I think that offer's still good). IS exclusives get a pittance (compared to what we'd get for a sale at IS).

The fact that different images sell has to do with differences in default sort order and such, much more so than this myth of a different market or different buyers.

I loathe the RC system, but while it's our ticket to next year's royalties, we should be alert to all efforts by Getty to move sales to places that don't give us RCs for sales.

I realize this isn't yet a move to change things for IS exclusives, but if they're doing this for Getty photographers, why wouldn't they to IS exclusives?

Zephyr · « **Reply #11 on:** April 01, 2011, 16:47 »

I posted a you tube video with Mr. Klein advising the music industry to embrace cannibalism like he had with his agencies on other thread here a couple weeks ago.

Here's a thought:
If Thinkstock cannibalizes sales at Istock to the extent that it eventually forces Black Diamonds and Diamonds to drop exclusivity, will it tilt the seesaw of power into the contributor's favor?

Also, just to be clear, I think that different market talk is pure BS. They sure don't view Shutterstock as a different market.

lisafx · « **Reply #12 on:** April 01, 2011, 16:54 »

Quote from: sjlocke on April 01, 2011, 16:11

With the new raise, IS exclusives get $.38-$.46.

I missed that. Thanks.

lisafx · « **Reply #13 on:** April 01, 2011, 16:56 »

Quote from: jsnover on April 01, 2011, 16:45

I realize this isn't yet a move to change things for IS exclusives, but if they're doing this for Getty photographers, why wouldn't they to IS exclusives?

And to IS non-exclusives. Looks like the writing is on the wall for the opt-out of the PP.

Could this signal they are gradually fazing Istock out altogether, by making all the content redundant?

cobalt · « **Reply #14 on:** April 01, 2011, 17:53 »

Well, if subscriptions are what all buyers want, why is istock still around??

Why didn´t all the buyers go to shutterstock? A long time ago?

I find it hard to believe that Getty/istock are planning to direct all their buyers to Thinkstock.

Anyway, to each his own. I respect everyone who wants to opt out and hope they just keep the system that istock has just the way it is now. I also have some images that I will probably not want to opt in.

RacePhoto · « **Reply #15 on:** April 01, 2011, 18:23 »

Quote from: sjlocke on April 01, 2011, 16:11

With the new raise, IS exclusives get $.38-$.46.

Let me just review my notes and someone can correct me if I'm wrong. ThinkStock pays this for RF sub downloads...

StockXpert people get 25c
IS people get 28c
Getty people will get 40c
IS Exclusive will get 38-46 cents.

I know some people don't like the StockXpert deal, but considering what they accepted on StockXpert, (in my case the only agency of the top eight that took many of the small first year images from me) the age of materials (nothing new in a year from StockXpert) and the sizes, I suppose it was a fair start. But if they are going to pay 28c an image for IS and 40c for Getty, why not just pay everyone the same and make it something reasonable like 35c a download and average it out based on what the buyers buy, not the original source of the collection? Getty owns about 80% of the ThinkStock collection, outright!

All these different levels and prices and many times, the same people from different sources, is just a mess.

PaulieWalnuts · « **Reply #16 on:** April 01, 2011, 18:24 »

It almost seems to be more steps toward establishing clear lines on tiered pricing to eliminate the questioning "why would I pay $150 for that image on Getty if it's $10 on micro"? Well, move it to micro. Images that have higher perceived value will get moved to RM.

The problem is this forced approach is only going to give us worse terms and happen more frequently. I said a while back something like this was coming.

pancaketom · « **Reply #17 on:** April 01, 2011, 18:39 »

It does seem sort of like a grand evil scheme to get everyone and everything to 20% or less.
I don't trust them at all, and I hope their Getty providers take them to task for this.

PeterChigmaroff · « **Reply #18 on:** April 01, 2011, 18:43 »

Quote from: jamirae on April 01, 2011, 15:38

April Fool, eh?!

Nope, It's the real McCoy.

bunhill · « **Reply #19 on:** April 01, 2011, 18:45 »

Quote from: PaulieWalnuts on April 01, 2011, 18:24

Images that have higher perceived value will get moved to RM.

You might be right, I have no idea. But RM would be more costly to operate wouldn't it - since it more often requires staff involvement ? Isn't the trend towards self service ?

lisafx · « **Reply #20 on:** April 01, 2011, 18:48 »

Quote from: cobalt on April 01, 2011, 17:53

Well, if subscriptions are what all buyers want, why is istock still around??

That's a very good question. TS offers image packs too, which are the equivalent of PPD. How long will Istock still be around?

Quote from: cobalt on April 01, 2011, 17:53

Why didn´t all the buyers go to shutterstock? A long time ago?

Istock wasn't deliberately sending them there? Unlike TS?

Also, until the last year or so, SS didn't offer PPD. Now, if the independents reporting in the March thread here are an indication, a lot of Istock buyers HAVE gone to Shutterstock.

jamirae · « **Reply #21 on:** April 01, 2011, 18:51 »

Quote from: sjlocke on April 01, 2011, 16:11

With the new raise, IS exclusives get $.38-$.46.

I am a little confused. the getty pricing relates to CANISTERS? I keep seeing postings here refering to diamond and gold level commissions, but I thought that the RC level was what counts now not the color of your canister?

sorry.. I feel like a total nooob.

cobalt · « **Reply #22 on:** April 01, 2011, 18:53 »

istock uses RC levels. We just still think in canisters. I am a diamond canister with 35% under the new system. So I feel like I dropped back down to gold :-(

And definately we are all watching how the subscription sites do. But isn´t subscription now being offered on many stock sites? How does this affect downloads? As a buyer I would never go to a subscription site, unless I really needed at least 100-200 images a month.

Please excuse my ignorance, I am just a simple istock exclusive...

lisafx · « **Reply #23 on:** April 01, 2011, 19:04 »

Quote from: cobalt on April 01, 2011, 18:53

And definately we are all watching how the subscription sites do. But isn´t subscription now being offered on many stock sites? How does this affect downloads? As a buyer I would never go to a subscription site, unless I really needed at least 100-200 images a month.

Please excuse my ignorance, I am just a simple istock exclusive...

No problem. Happy to shine some light

There really aren't any sites (that I know of and I'm on 12) that are only subscription sites. The PPD sites sell subscriptions now, and the subscription sites sell PPD. So buyers can go to pretty much any microstock site (except arguably Istock) and get either a subscription or pay-per-download images. That includes Thinkstock, if you count the image packs.

So with Istock content either being duplicated on Getty or Thinkstock, Istock begins to seem redundant.

ETA: The sites that used to be PPD and now offer subs have seen a steady growth in number of subs sales and a steady decline in the number of PPD. So not all buyers want subs, but a lot will take it if offered. And unfortunately those are the high volume buyers with the deep pockets.

cobalt · « **Reply #24 on:** April 01, 2011, 19:09 »

istock has a subscription program, but I see very few sales through it. Definetely hasn´t affected my downloads.

Istock is not a small company, it has over 400 employees, tons of traffic, active forum etc...I sincerly doubt there are any plans to close it, seriously. It just wouldn´t make sense.

getty has all kinds of different outlets - jupiterimages, punchstock, thinkstock, photos.com and also sublicenses the content all over the globe.

I don´t know where all the differences are, but it must serve some purpose.

My images in the pp program are in at least three different sites (in addition to istock).

MicrostockGroup Sponsors

Author Topic: Photos from Gettyimages direct to Thinkstock - ouch (Read 30565 times)

grp_photo

LSD72

jamirae

lisafx

grp_photo

Sean Locke Photography

cobalt

lisafx

Sean Locke Photography

cobalt

Jo Ann Snover

Zephyr

lisafx

lisafx

cobalt

RacePhoto

PaulieWalnuts

pancaketom

PeterChigmaroff

bunhill

lisafx

jamirae

cobalt

lisafx

cobalt

Related Topics

Sponsors

Microstock Poll Results

Sponsors