pancakes

MicrostockGroup Sponsors


Author Topic: Who dun it?  (Read 3662 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

« on: January 18, 2013, 13:23 »
+1
Who dun it?

It behoves me little to preach on this forum being, as I am, just a stray entrant into this unfortunate business.  Into the business of microstock, I mean. However one cant help but notice, if one takes a step back, that theres some strange going ons - right here, in the microstock industry.

Firstly one cant help noticing that agency after agency has dropped royalties at their sole discretion. 

Agency costs are going up but so are the artists costs of production.  In every business that I know, increase in costs are normally passed on to the consumer (read Buyer) in almost full part.  That is how businesses survive and thrive in an inflationary world.  In any other business if supplier payments are to be reduced it would generally mean protracted negotiations and mutual agreement.   Not so in this business, as facts on the ground have repeatedly shown.

Then there is the business of treatment of copyright works. 

Copyright vests with the artist.  Obviously that appears to mean little if any representing agent has the contractual ability to give it away or sell it off without consulting the artist, for a small one-time return to the artist on a product that was designed for longevity based returns. 

Or to strip off artist identification data from any artwork.  (Lets erase the painters signature off the canvas, shall we).


So then .. who dun it?  What conditions could make anything like this possible?

To put things in perspective we have one group, the contributors.  These are many individuals who form a loose pool of people wielding cameras and suchlike.  While many are skilled in the craft, however our group would not appear to be anywhere as versed in ways of business.  To that end we may actually be a Low Occupational Understanding Team (lets just abbreviate that to LOUT sorry if the abbreviation sounds crass).   We have then on the one hand, us, the Lout.

And on the other part there is the agency or agencies that represent us. 

If youre a painter you might expect your agency to charge a commission of (estimations) 10 or 20 or 25 percent.  In our business it starts at 50% and rapidly escalates to 85%.  Eighty-five percent!  Commission! What kind of idiots are we?

And then, on top of that, we sign up agreements of agencies that allows the agency to operate (seemingly, looking at facts on the ground), fairly at will.  Their will.

So then, who dun it?

The correct answer to that question is us, the Lout.  We did it, to ourselves and to this industry, that today might be standing on the brink of collapse.

Cardinal rule no. 1 -  Business needs checks and balances.

Cardinal rule no. 2 Business needs checks and balances.

Cardinal rule no. 3 Business needs checks and balances.

We forgot all these three rules.

If there are inadequate checks and balances in a business, then one party or the other is relatively free to do as they please, even to take disproportionate advantage if it helps to further their specific business goals.

By not imposing checks and balances from our side, it is us, the lout, who dun it!  We are ultimately responsible if this business will run to ground.  Or at least as responsible as we think any agency might be. 

* We have simply not enforced adequate checks and balances into the business from our side.

* Nothing can meaningfully change till that is done.

The role of the agency cannot be stressed enough.  The agency is our reach to the marketplace.  Without the agency there is no business.  Lets respect that.  But we need a format to ensure that the artist agent relationship is grounded in good and fair principals for all concerned.   Like any other business, we need checks and balances in place.

Practical situation on the ground makes it difficult for us, as an individual contributor, to enforce check or balance.  That is the truth of it.  But we are not alone.  We are a multitude of people who have however, refused to come together for common cause. Up to now that is.  Perhaps its time to change that.  Perhaps its time to do what should have been done a long time ago.  All it might need is a simple association a worldwide association that represents microstock artists.  An association that is funded by annual fee paid by artists; perhaps 50 $ or so per year per artist may do it looking at the thousands that we are.  An elected board could even come from some of the smart, savvy people we see on these forums; some of the people who understand this business and who have the capability to be watchdog on all our behalf.  And a hired lawyer as needed.  Checks and balances could quickly get instituted.  And the business may thrive in a free and fair manner for all parties concerned.

Am I way off track?  Have I missed critical issues that make all this unviable?  As I said Im a stray entrant into this very likeable industry: microstock.  But there are many smart and industry-knowledgeable people on these forums, as one can clearly see when scanning through the posts.  Isnt it time for some of them to come forward on all our behalf and assume a leadership stance for a common platform.   Isnt it also time for the heavy-hitters, the ones with 20000 and 50000 etc images in their portfolios and top-end presence in the business, to come out and join hands with us lesser mortals.  If an industry as a whole becomes unhealthy, the individual businesses will eventually not be healthy either, right!

Proactivity is the call of the hour.  What are you waiting for?


(Opinions expressed are my own and the content is neither intended to be malicious nor to malign anyone). 

www.sdeva.com


« Reply #1 on: January 18, 2013, 19:04 »
0
You are quite right.
We should form a union and eventually a cooperative, but thats another story.
When this is done well, and I have seen many examples that unions do a good job, ultimately the union makes an agreement with the employer, In this case the agency, to ONLY hire members of the unions.

Im sure, many people here will not belive that, espcially the americans, who are very afraid of unions.
But it works, and it stabilizes the market, and the income for all participants, including the owners.

I think it would be possible to form a European union, but making it global would be an uphill battle.

ruxpriencdiam

    This user is banned.
  • Location. Third stone from the sun
« Reply #2 on: January 18, 2013, 19:19 »
+1
Americans aren't afraid of Unions!

Big time Business and corporate CEO's are because it hurts their wallet! :) :) :) :)

RacePhoto

« Reply #3 on: January 18, 2013, 21:39 »
+2
Unions are useful and positive when the workers are being abused or underpaid. I think that applies to Micro in some cases. Fair wage for the work, and not unfair cuts.

Unions help when they bring safety and a better product to the public. Unions, like plumbers, electricians and construction, have very positive union membership demands that are a benefit for everyone.

Unions are beneficial when they test and certify skilled trade people. Not sure it applies, but just one more positive that unions present. Artists are skilled craftsmen and have talents.

I'm sure there are more positive reasons and ways that an artists union would help the suppliers aka the artists.

Here's a big problem. What do the people who want to belong to this union have to bargain with? You can't strike, because Big Agency X doesn't care.  They believe they have a whole world of sources for materials.

If there was some control, people could strike for higher wages. With Microstock being the Race To The Bottom price cutting and commission cutting and cutting everything from the supply side, seems the direction it's been going.

Sure would be nice if that would stop? But there's a price war going on. Every agency essentially has the same images from most of the same people. Heck, Microstock is founded on that and we provide the dilution and lack of identity for all the parasitic agencies to drive prices down and commissions down.

So if you can find a barging chip for the union and a way to negotiate with the suppliers, there's some hope.

If people continue to supply anyone who comes along with a New Agency scheme, making empty promises, Microstock will continue to drowned in it's own pool of indiscriminate supply for pennies to anyone who asks. Greed and need have brought this onto people, by they own actions.

My answer would be, a union that only allows it's members to supply approved agencies that meet the standards of the group. No exceptions. You don't pay a proper commission and don't treat artists right and you don't do back door rights grabs that artists can't opt out of. Any agency that doesn't meet the union standards, gets NOTHING fro any member. (and if you don't like the name union you can call it something else like the artistic cartel or microstock artists association)

What's that?

All member artists of the coalition, will only license through authorized and approved distributors.
(or their own sites...)

Time to cut the parasites, wannabees and low commission vultures loose.

Now you have some power and some bargaining ability.
 
Or just keep uploading everything to everywhere, for cut rate commissions, and wonder why your images have no value?
« Last Edit: January 18, 2013, 21:43 by RacePhoto »

« Reply #4 on: January 18, 2013, 21:55 »
0
The union or Artists Coalition (Micro Stock Artists Coalition...MSAC) is an interesting idea, but it can't be set up just as a group who welds a stick.

There has to be some reason for agencies, contributors and buyers to want to join in.... you need a big carrot.

I can't figure out what carrot would be big enough to get enough people to want to join in.

RacePhoto

« Reply #5 on: January 18, 2013, 22:06 »
0
The union or Artists Coalition (Micro Stock Artists Coalition...MSAC) is an interesting idea, but it can't be set up just as a group who welds a stick.

There has to be some reason for agencies, contributors and buyers to want to join in.... you need a big carrot.

I can't figure out what carrot would be big enough to get enough people to want to join in.

You don't meet our standards for rights, commissions, and treatment or you don't get any photos or images. Nice big carrot.  ;D

This is pretty much what strikes do. You want to stay in business and have workers? Meet some reasonable demands.

« Reply #6 on: January 19, 2013, 12:26 »
0

<snip>

You don't meet our standards for rights, commissions, and treatment or you don't get any photos or images. Nice big carrot.  ;D
<snip>

Why would I, as a contributor, join... or more to the point why would I as Shutter Stock care....unless you have a major portion of contributors on side you are doomed to failure.

I would like to see some type of organization but it has to serve a purpose...

Glenn

RacePhoto

« Reply #7 on: January 19, 2013, 13:01 »
0
Oh I forgot it's the Just Do Nothing but complain lobby. Well fine, you  can sit and take lower and lower commissions, changes in rank or earned levels, take abusive threats from agencies. And then write messages on forums, which don't even get to the deaf ears.

As long as people continue to be silent victims, nothing will change?

Does that explain it better?

And yes, there's no problem with SS that I see. They pay, they don't cut commissions, they bring in returns and they appear to treat us like artists and humans. I can't say the same for some other sites.

The group, whatever someone wants to call it, union, association, alliance, "whatever" will protect artists and form a united front to deal with things that are wrong with microstock agencies. It's supposed to bring positive change, not just be a bunch of angry thugs, making unreasonable demands.



<snip>

You don't meet our standards for rights, commissions, and treatment or you don't get any photos or images. Nice big carrot.  ;D
<snip>

Why would I, as a contributor, join... or more to the point why would I as Shutter Stock care....unless you have a major portion of contributors on side you are doomed to failure.

I would like to see some type of organization but it has to serve a purpose...

Glenn

OLJensa

  • Visit me at: www.jensmolin.se

« Reply #8 on: January 19, 2013, 14:43 »
0
Oh I forgot it's the Just Do Nothing but complain lobby. Well fine, you  can sit and take lower and lower commissions, changes in rank or earned levels, take abusive threats from agencies. And then write messages on forums, which don't even get to the deaf ears.

As long as people continue to be silent victims, nothing will change?

Does that explain it better?

And yes, there's no problem with SS that I see. They pay, they don't cut commissions, they bring in returns and they appear to treat us like artists and humans. I can't say the same for some other sites.

The group, whatever someone wants to call it, union, association, alliance, "whatever" will protect artists and form a united front to deal with things that are wrong with microstock agencies. It's supposed to bring positive change, not just be a bunch of angry thugs, making unreasonable demands.



<snip>

You don't meet our standards for rights, commissions, and treatment or you don't get any photos or images. Nice big carrot.  ;D
<snip>

Why would I, as a contributor, join... or more to the point why would I as Shutter Stock care....unless you have a major portion of contributors on side you are doomed to failure.

I would like to see some type of organization but it has to serve a purpose...

Glenn

+1 This is a great idea.

To get a lot of microstock artists to join you'll need a bigshot as "president". What about Yuri, can we get him interested?


« Reply #9 on: January 21, 2013, 07:08 »
0
Its great that some of us find merit in this line of thought.  The Deactivation Day planned for 2nd February is a good example of how we can come together as a community.  Some supportive response is also coming in from Buyers on the posts, and thats a truly energizing signal. Lets hope this initiative has an impact so that, one hopes, normalcy can get restored in a fair and positive way for all concerned. 

We all have twitter, facebook, g+ etc.,  but also our own websites in many cases.

Are we mobilizing the social media well within permissible rules and norms?  Is each one of us posting a message or two everyday - so that the noise is louder and louder, and more contributors and more buyers and more everybody hears about 2nd Feb?  One cannot underestimate the power of social media in raising awareness!

Going back to this post, fully agree with many of the excellent points made. As Racephoto says it doesnt really matter what we call ourselves as a unified community.  Although, perhaps union is not an applicable word as it implies an employer- employee relationship, which is not applicable in our case.  But association is as good a word as any.  I strongly think the core idea is sound is free of geographic constraints (we live in a global economy today) and there are plenty of good examples of similar associations making very positive contributions in very many fields of business and activity.

After all the idea is not to give the agencies a hard time far from it and Lord forbid!  We share a common goal of enhancing the business.  What an association of this nature should want, in my opinion, is to ensure that we have improved participation in a business in which we are engaged.  And interests on each side are better represented and protected.

Operational modalities would work themselves out if we could get to the point of having an association.  Its really a no-brainer that an association representing even a few hundred or thousand members and perhaps a million or more (someday) images, would have more say in the business than any of us, individually, with our far smaller ports. 

ShadySue

  • There is a crack in everything
« Reply #10 on: January 21, 2013, 07:24 »
0
There is a sort-of freelance togs 'union' in the UK; and none of the micros is on their list of agencies willing to adhere to their code, for all the obvious/usual reasons, particularly following up on image misuses/abuses. (Actually Alamy is on the list, but I haven't found them to be any more helpful than iStock in that respect.)

RacePhoto

« Reply #11 on: January 21, 2013, 10:06 »
0
There is a sort-of freelance togs 'union' in the UK; and none of the micros is on their list of agencies willing to adhere to their code, for all the obvious/usual reasons, particularly following up on image misuses/abuses. (Actually Alamy is on the list, but I haven't found them to be any more helpful than iStock in that respect.)

It's all theoretical. And for people who say it won't work... I agree.

The IMAA (Independent Microstock Artists Association) would be a nice dream to have some leverage to negotiate with agencies. Getting a group of independent artists from around the world to agree or join together is impossible.

There are some freelance photographers groups and if you watch they have political squabbles, break ups, in-fighting, merging and splits. From what I saw of a couple of them, they were nothing but fronts for collecting dues and making money off membership. No effective ability to do anything positive for the members but write blog pages.

But if there was a real one, for microstock, the benefit would be the ability to stand up for artists rights and fair pay for their work.

Not going to happen, I understand, but IF was an interesting thought project.


 

Sponsors

Mega Bundle of 5,900+ Professional Lightroom Presets

Microstock Poll Results

Sponsors