(In case you're curious, I'm two months away from gold and don't expect to reach it before the rule change.
It's also good for people with around 300-500 images. Istock is quite the only agency where you can prospect to get a lot more downloads than images. You get that at SS also, but with a very low per image earning. IS is the only place I have files with more than 100 downloads, while those files were having approximatively 10 at DT.
i think being exclusive is only good for photogs like lisa who has a large and profitable portfolio to oversee. it makes no difference to newbies, yet. (fingers crossed)
It's also good for people with around 300-500 images. Istock is quite the only agency where you can prospect to get a lot more downloads than images. You get that at SS also, but with a very low per image earning. IS is the only place I have files with more than 100 downloads, while those files were having approximatively 10 at DT.
A week ago I would have been firmly in the "will stay independent" camp.
Now I am sorry to say I am edging closer to being on the fence again.
The last option (Other) is made for those possiblities. It would be nice to hear those "other" paths that some contributors would follow.
The DT lock in works against DT in this respect since it stops people from being free to come and go. As does the whole confusing business of images having different levels.
@Lisa, you've been on and off that fence so many times now there's probably a big dent in it :)
@Lisa, you've been on and off that fence so many times now there's probably a big dent in it :)
she's not that heavy! ;D judging from her photo, she's positively svelte.
@Lisa, you've been on and off that fence so many times now there's probably a big dent in it :)
she's not that heavy! ;D judging from her photo, she's positively svelte.
That's why it's only a dent....I crushed my fence after the first few attempts to sit on it a while :)
(BTW, my avatar picture on this forum is of my daughter. I'm the one on my Istock profile page)I always thought that was a photo of Audrey Tautou as Amelie. ;D
Ap, you're not alone :)
I'm making no money but there's freedom into 'newbiness' and there's also a lot of fun. No financial worries, no strings attached, the game has yet to be played.
I love every moment of it and I hope money will never take that away from me.
yeah, gotta play the field. you never know when another handsome microstock site comes around the corner. ;)
A few reasons I can think of to stay independent.
- Only being able to sell RF via Getty owned sites. There are lots of buyers out there, some willing to pay higher than microstock prices, I don't want to cut myself off from them.
- best match changes, what do exclusives do when their earnings are cut in half? It has happened in the past and will probably happen again.
- They reject images that sell well on other sites, they don't accept many non-vector illustrations.
- I don't know if they are going to be sold off soon, who will buy them? Wont they want to make even more profit by squeezing us? Will istock still be part of Getty?
- They took my portfolio off photos.com and I still think that was a bad decision, are they going to come up with more ideas as bad as that?
- Working for one company doesn't appeal to me, it is too much like being an employee, whatever they say goes and while you can leave, it would be a difficult and time consuming task rebuilding portfolios on the other sites again.
- Their upload limits keep millions of the best microstock images off their site, counteracting the appeal of their exclusive collection. I have never understood the reason for that and I still think it will stop them dominating the market.
I will stay independent because I am sure other sites will have something to say about this.
Also istock is not going to win me over by burrying my files further down everytime they give exclusives better exposure.
Had they not changed their search behaviour last year to boost exclusives, I would have been exclusive long ago. But they showed me they can not be trusted.
Hi All,
WOW, I would have thought the jump would have been bigger much faster out of fear. I am totally impressed with the fact that people are thinking this through rather than taking a knee jerk reaction. I also stopped uploading to Dreamstime a long time ago to avoid there 6 month pull out. Smart people on this site, always thinking ahead that's good for all of us.
Best,
Jonathan
I have been pushing hard, only uploading at iStock and planned on going exclusive when I hit 250 DLs, but now I am not sure. I used to upload to a couple other agencies, but deactivated everything there long ago to concentrate on iStock.I'm not advocating one route or the other, but you could consider uploading to everywhere that doesn't have a time hold (i.e. avoid DT and BigStock). That way you keep your options open while you explore.
With the proposed changes there, some input from friends, I am starting to reconsider going the independent route and uploading to other agencies.
I'm not advocating one route or the other, but you could consider uploading to everywhere that doesn't have a time hold (i.e. avoid DT and BigStock). That way you keep your options open while you explore.
Microstock is still a developing industry and in my view should be fully explored before committing to exclusivity with one site or another. DT are an important agency and without uploading to them you will be losing a significant proportion of income as well as the experience of the agency itself.I contributed to DT and BigStock almost the whole time I was independent. I don't disagree that the experience of each agency helps to understand what's going on.
The industry now generates something like $500M per year and is still growing fast
May I ask if this number is just a wild guess or if you have a foundation to base this on? Just curiosity.
...And because of the Dreamstime 6 month clause they need to do something really really soon, you don't need to be a rocket scientist to work out why.
May I ask if this number is just a wild guess or if you have a foundation to base this on? Just curiosity.
...And because of the Dreamstime 6 month clause they need to do something really really soon, you don't need to be a rocket scientist to work out why.
Looks like they are already on it ([url]http://www.microstockgroup.com/dreamstime-com/new-pricing-from-dreamstime/[/url]).
Shutterstock needs to make a move now. Big time. They need to get more money to contributors and the are going to look very old-fashioned when istock rolls out this new website design they are working on. The clock is ticking...
I have no data about how much designers need images each months, but the line between buying a sub package and buying only credits is thin.
a lot of non-exclusives wont be able to leave DT for 6 months, that is enough time to see if the new istock prices work. The istock changes don't look as good for lower canister contributors, it is going to take much longer to reach the levels where going exclusive might be worth considering.
Looks like they are already on it ([url]http://www.microstockgroup.com/dreamstime-com/new-pricing-from-dreamstime/[/url]).
However, given the poster's interest in exclusivity and DT's unfortunate 6 month hold, I think he could view his choice differently -just giving him more options. While DT is an interesting agency, it never broke out of the 3rd place slot (and slipped down quite badly towards the end of my independent period). I don't see it as a must-have for independents.
Count me as another nowhere near the fence. I don't see the logic in going exclusive... I don't have a big port right now, but even if I did, I don't expect IS to ever grow to be more than 50% of my total revenue, so I would have to make double what I make as a non-exclusive to make sense to go exclusive. So a question to the IS exclusives out there... did the added exposure and/or increased upload limits get you anywhere near doubling your revenues on IS?Don't forget, one of the main reasons this is being discussed is because of the changes that are going to be occurring in a few weeks. So past IS exclusives experiences are not necessarily relevant.
Count me as another nowhere near the fence. I don't see the logic in going exclusive... I don't have a big port right now, but even if I did, I don't expect IS to ever grow to be more than 50% of my total revenue, so I would have to make double what I make as a non-exclusive to make sense to go exclusive. So a question to the IS exclusives out there... did the added exposure and/or increased upload limits get you anywhere near doubling your revenues on IS?
And obviously there's also the option to get into Getty - which you can get into without iStock as well, of course. But not having to work for the application is a nice bonus... ;)
Count me as another nowhere near the fence. I don't see the logic in going exclusive... I don't have a big port right now, but even if I did, I don't expect IS to ever grow to be more than 50% of my total revenue, so I would have to make double what I make as a non-exclusive to make sense to go exclusive. So a question to the IS exclusives out there... did the added exposure and/or increased upload limits get you anywhere near doubling your revenues on IS?
Isn't there more to this than how much money we can make in the short term? I just don't like the thought of one site dominating the market. Competition is good, it makes all the sites work harder. If we all worked for one site, they could get greedy and keep their profits growing by reducing our commission. Isn't that what has happened in some other industries? It might look like we could make more by going with one site but it could cost us in the long term.
Hi All,
Please try to weigh the extra money you MIGHT make with what you are letting go of as an individual contractor. You might make more now but what about tomorrow and future contract changes, haven't they shown in the past that they alter the best match and other portions of their collection. Do you really want to be at the mercy of someone else decision like that. That is why I quit the standard work force, I wanted to be in control of my future.
Best,
Jonathan
Please try to weigh the extra money you MIGHT make with what you are letting go of as an individual contractor. You might make more now but what about tomorrow and future contract changes, haven't they shown in the past that they alter the best match and other portions of their collection. Do you really want to be at the mercy of someone else decision like that. That is why I quit the standard work force, I wanted to be in control of my future.
You definitely have to look at the future. While none of us can predict it, we can look at our past stats to guess what will happen...
So my theoretical gain from istock exclusivity under the new plan could actually be even higher when compared to what my earnings would be as an independent under the new plan.
If IS decide to put independents further back in the search I think that they will have less and less people going independent as the newbies will see it as a site where sales aren't very good.
If IS decide to put independents further back in the search I think that they will have less and less people going independent as the newbies will see it as a site where sales aren't very good.
I think you meant less people going exclusive?
If IS decide to put independents further back in the search I think that they will have less and less people going independent as the newbies will see it as a site where sales aren't very good.
I think you meant less people going exclusive?
I wonder how lisegagne or hidesy would make out if they were starting in the current climate. Neither was a professional photographer, nor determined from the outset to make a success of stock photography. Each was encouraged by early successes. Their skills developed over time. Don't think it could happen today.My thought also. Being the first to shoot a red apple with green leaf on white help a lot. Still, they were at the right place at the right time
Hi Helix7,
Really enjoyed your post you bring some great thought to the table. You opened my eyes to some things I had not considered.
I have a feeling that things are going to be changing in ways we haven't even predicted, once all of these new changes are in place.Agreed and there is still probably a bomb or two that hasn't dropped yet.
I have a feeling that things are going to be changing in ways we haven't even predicted, once all of these new changes are in place.Agreed and there is still probably a bomb or two that hasn't dropped yet.
It would be interesting to know since the new year announcement. I tried to keep the poll the more simple as possible, as there is many options available.
2. Even worse, the smallest pay-as-you-go credit pack is 12 credits, meaning anyone that wants to purchase just one exclusive 'detailed' vector at 14 credits, will be forced to buy the larger 26 credit pack - personally I think this is terrible news. I wonder if a lot of buyers will simply purchase non-exclusive 'detailed' vectors at 10 credits, rather than being forced to spend all that extra money on 26 credits that they may not require?
While a customer is a customer and a dollar is a dollar, I don't think iStock worries too much about very small buyers [1]. Looking at my own sales, it seems that very, very few are in the 'small credit bundle' market. Only you can check your own dl stats to see if your buyer demographic is significantly different.
[1] e.g. it's the smaller buyer who feels it most when prices go up, and complain on the forums, to no avail. It was the smaller buyers who were complaining about iStock introducing logos and saying they would not buy from iStock any more if it happened - presumably iStock's bean counters saw that they were comparatively small fish.
There is a lot to digest in all of this, and I won't pretend to have the answers to any of the big questions. All I know is that there are a lot of factors in play here, too many to draw any real conclusions from just yet.
Most designers don't care if an image is 20$ or 25$. They want the image that fit their needs. That's worthless when on hurry, and most serious ones are
Hasn't istock moved away from microstock now? The prices for exclusives and Vetta are more like what we used to call midstock. Perhaps lots of buyers don't mind the higher prices but it does make me wonder why the microstock sites have been selling at such low prices for many years if that is true. It will be interesting to see how this works out, there must be a price level where the average microstock buyer becomes uncomfortable and switches to a lower cost site or subscription plan. Don't know if istock are there yet, most of the other midstock sites have struggled to find enough buyers but they haven't built up the way istock has, so there is no real comparison. It will be very interesting to see what happens in the coming months.
Yes and before you panic
I don't really see anyone panicking here, I just see a lot of questions being raised, a lot of speculation, and a lot of good food for thought.
Funny about the timing and the release of the information right at the holidays. I imagine it was all just a coincidence ;D
Best,
Jonathan
Just a little side note about considering exclusivity. Istock always pays me on time according to the schedule they lay out.
Unlike Fotolia, where there have been repeated problems getting paid in a timely way. Or StockXpert, which is like pulling teeth to get paid the past couple of months.
The idea of consistent payouts without having to write Support, complain in the forums, compare notes with other contributors, etc. is appealing.
But isn't StockXpert now owned by IS???
There is also the factor of editing. If they start to tighten editing you have no where to put those rejected photos but on your walls.
It has been said that an exclusive is an employee of iStock, but it's worse. This employee can't even shoot in his free time and share his work. In fact, it's serfdom.
Actually the limitation is only for giving out royalty free licenses - either for payment or for free. There is no objection with "sharing" images, for example on Flickr, as long as you disable downloads, so nobody can use the images for free... There is also no limitation to work with other agencies for RM images. You can also still do work for hire. You can still sell prints. You can sell products (T-Shirts etc.) with your own images, as long as you don´t work with sites requiring unlimited licenses for the images you upload.
How do you stop someone takeing a screenshot and using that? I guess a big watermark would discourage any use by downloading or taking a screenshot.It has been said that an exclusive is an employee of iStock, but it's worse. This employee can't even shoot in his free time and share his work. In fact, it's serfdom.
Actually the limitation is only for giving out royalty free licenses - either for payment or for free. There is no objection with "sharing" images, for example on Flickr, as long as you disable downloads, so nobody can use the images for free...
How do you stop someone takeing a screenshot and using that?
To summarize: sharing is still possible, as long as you disable downloads.
Currently, iStock has no Editorial. Could you offer Editorial then as RF, or should it be RM?
I will stay independent because I am sure other sites will have something to say about this.
Also istock is not going to win me over by burrying my files further down everytime they give exclusives better exposure.
Had they not changed their search behaviour last year to boost exclusives, I would have been exclusive long ago. But they showed me they can not be trusted.
Currently, iStock has no Editorial. Could you offer Editorial then as RF, or should it be RM?
Currently, iStock has no Editorial. Could you offer Editorial then as RF, or should it be RM?
"Editorial" is no license type, it's just what people call images that they have no releases for.
iStock exclusivity means you can not sell RF licenses, no matter what image.
Editorial is a license type. You can sell any newsworthy photo (for instance, to your local newspaper), without releases, while being exclusive at DT. There's a second line, for books, etc.
How do you stop someone takeing a screenshot and using that?In that case it's a breach of terms if you mark your images as "totally copyrighted".
No, that's pretty much an RF license:
[url]http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/3.0/[/url] ([url]http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/3.0/[/url])
So, essentially if an exclusive were to post images on e.g. Flickr and designate them as Creative Commons for non-commercial use, that would not be RF, therefore would be OK?
No, that's pretty much an RF license: [url]http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/3.0/[/url] ([url]http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/3.0/[/url])
No, that's pretty much an RF license:
[url]http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/3.0/[/url] ([url]http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/3.0/[/url])
That's an enormous restriction, though, compared to 'normal' RF licences.
Editorial is a license type. You can sell any newsworthy photo (for instance, to your local newspaper), without releases, while being exclusive at DT. There's a second line, for books, etc.
Editorial is not a license type. Editorial is a restriction within a license type. ie., licensing an image RF for editorial use places certain restrictions on how that image may be used.
That's just semantics. Actually, it is. To begin with, you haven't tho work through an agent for sellin and publishing editorial.
That's just semantics. Actually, it is. To begin with, you haven't tho work through an agent for sellin and publishing editorial.
Well, it isn't semantics, but you lost me on whatever that second sentence is supposed to be saying.
"Editorial" is no license type, it's just what people call images that they have no releases for.
"Editorial" is no license type, it's just what people call images that they have no releases for.
Editorial should be newsworthy and/or be interesting in a cultural, educational or scientific way. That means it should depict a real situation or event, not something set up like an image of a bunch of friends making funny faces that turned out to be good. The images should also not be altered (except some contrast or luminance tweaking and/or minor cropping), or you fall into fauxtography ([url]http://www.answers.com/topic/fauxtography[/url]).
I am confused... Can we submit editorial images elsewhere (like on Alamy) when we are exclusive at Istock ? Are we still debating this... If so, I will send a support ticket to Istock, because it's a question I need an answer on.
I am confused... Can we submit editorial images elsewhere (like on Alamy) when we are exclusive at Istock ? Are we still debating this... If so, I will send a support ticket to Istock, because it's a question I need an answer on.You can sell any Rights Managed images, editorial or commercial, anywhere. even if iStock exclusive.
I am confused... Can we submit editorial images elsewhere (like on Alamy) when we are exclusive at Istock ? Are we still debating this... If so, I will send a support ticket to Istock, because it's a question I need an answer on.
all "editorial" images without releases will require rm licencing, at alamy or elsewhere. so, yes, you're ok by is exclusivity rules.
No, Shutterstock offers editorial images under an RF license.
No, Shutterstock offers editorial images under an RF license.yes, you're right, and i've actually sold a few of those. sean, you may be an is exclusive, but you sure are keeping a tab on things elsewhere. ;) have you ever been tempted to, er, go indie?
Is there any chance that IS would add Editorial RF?They own the domain istockeditorial.com, but that only makes sense in case someone else took it over and traded on their reputation, by association.
But a recent 'lypse in Turkey was specifically to train iStockers for shooting editorial for Getty. (Sadly, I had to do my day job, APU.)Yap that caught my attention too. As or now, iStock exclusives have no outlet at all for their RF Editorial. Some people here don't think high of Editorial (thinking it's sloppiness about asking releases) but it's a fun way to shoot. I can't get most of my Editorial into microstock, but when it happens, it's amongst my best sellers.
I've just broken my Alamy/editorial duck with two sales this month (only just noticed the second!). The first one was a very specific photo that I thought might have sold once or twice at most on iStock. It had some incidental people, which would have been marginal by iStock's standard, but I could have cloned them out if I'd throught there was any point in sending it to iStock. The second one was a specific location (landscape) with absolutely no need for any PR or MRs. So the comment that editorial is just for unreleased images makes no sense whatsoever. I can and have cloned out with the best of them - one of my iStock landscapes has 13 (unrecogniseable except maybe by context) people cloned out. (However, if I were doing it now, it would go to Alamy - a very specific travel location with little iStock interest.)But a recent 'lypse in Turkey was specifically to train iStockers for shooting editorial for Getty. (Sadly, I had to do my day job, APU.)Yap that caught my attention too. As or now, iStock exclusives have no outlet at all for their RF Editorial. Some people here don't think high of Editorial (thinking it's sloppiness about asking releases) but it's a fun way to shoot. I can't get most of my Editorial into microstock, but when it happens, it's amongst my best sellers.
I've just broken my Alamy/editorial duck with two sales this month (only just noticed the second!). The first one was a very specific photo that I thought might have sold once or twice at most on iStock. It had some incidental people, which would have been marginal by iStock's standard, but I could have cloned them out if I'd throught there was any point in sending it to iStock. The second one was a specific location (landscape) with absolutely no need for any PR or MRs. So the comment that editorial is just for unreleased images makes no sense whatsoever. I can and have cloned out with the best of them - one of my iStock landscapes has 13 (unrecogniseable except maybe by context) people cloned out. (However, if I were doing it now, it would go to Alamy - a very specific travel location with little iStock interest.)But a recent 'lypse in Turkey was specifically to train iStockers for shooting editorial for Getty. (Sadly, I had to do my day job, APU.)Yap that caught my attention too. As or now, iStock exclusives have no outlet at all for their RF Editorial. Some people here don't think high of Editorial (thinking it's sloppiness about asking releases) but it's a fun way to shoot. I can't get most of my Editorial into microstock, but when it happens, it's amongst my best sellers.
I'm still learning where to make the split between what goes where.
If you clone things out of Editorial, you MUST mark it altered. You seem to be missing the second part about news/editorial photos. They cannot be photoshopped, heavily altered or have things pasted or removed.Did you read what I wrote? I said I had cloned people out of photos I sent to iStock. I am perfectly aware of the need for editorial to be unaltered.
If you clone things out of Editorial, you MUST mark it altered. You seem to be missing the second part about news/editorial photos. They cannot be photoshopped, heavily altered or have things pasted or removed.Did you read what I wrote? I said I had cloned people out of photos I sent to iStock. I am perfectly aware of the need for editorial to be unaltered.
If you clone things out of Editorial, you MUST mark it altered. You seem to be missing the second part about news/editorial photos. They cannot be photoshopped, heavily altered or have things pasted or removed. This would include taking out people, changing the color of the sky, adding a Moon and all kinds of creative modifications. There is a certain level of accuracy and integrity that's necessary.
If you clone things out of Editorial, you MUST mark it altered. You seem to be missing the second part about news/editorial photos. They cannot be photoshopped, heavily altered or have things pasted or removed. This would include taking out people, changing the color of the sky, adding a Moon and all kinds of creative modifications. There is a certain level of accuracy and integrity that's necessary.
Yap that caught my attention too. As or now, iStock exclusives have no outlet at all for their RF Editorial. Some people here don't think high of Editorial (thinking it's sloppiness about asking releases) but it's a fun way to shoot. I can't get most of my Editorial into microstock, but when it happens, it's amongst my best sellers.
I answered... I am exclusive to IS.
I am new to the microstockgroup forms. Hello!
If they can't sustain their business with a fair number of people reaching the level where IS only gets 60% of each sale, then I doubt they would ever let me get to that level (by lowering top % by the time I get there or continuous moving goalposts every few years as I approach). I might make sense for diamonds, but not for me. I have the feeling that these large price raises will have to be carried on the back of exclusive content getting buried in the best match though if they want to increase income enough to make up for the canister moves.
In summary, I doubt it would be worth it for me now, and now I doubt it ever will be.
I am a little frightened of what they will do with the huge increases they are expecting to make though, after seeing what is happening to StockXpert/JIU/Photos.com
I did became exclusive after this poll... Now I don't know what to do. All I know it's it will take me a couple of hours to reactivate my portfolio at Dreamstime, and one check (click) at ShutterstockI know DT support won't help deactivate your port, but I assumed they would be willing to reactivate it. Are you sure you have to do it yourself?
I did became exclusive after this poll... Now I don't know what to do. All I know it's it will take me a couple of hours to reactivate my portfolio at Dreamstime, and one check (click) at Shutterstock
I know DT support won't help deactivate your port, but I assumed they would be willing to reactivate it. Are you sure you have to do it yourself?
Like you, I became exclusive after this poll -- but I was one of those who answered "I am not sure yet". Too bad I went the way I did. >:(
I did became exclusive after this poll... Now I don't know what to do. All I know it's it will take me a couple of hours to reactivate my portfolio at Dreamstime, and one check (click) at Shutterstock
Maybe both of you need to wait and see. The claim now is 74% of the exclusives will see no change, which I find absurd and contradictory. How can the bottom be unaffected because they are at the minimum already and the top contributors be unaffected because they will make the levels? 74% unaffected?
What did you figure when you viewed the projected exclusive earnings for 2011 for yourselves?
Is this saying that the whole discussion here and uproar about losing commissions and limited to only 26% of the exclusives which are in some limbo between top contributors and the "already at minimum" exclusive? That and the non-exclusives who just got the crap kicked out of their earnings. Sounds like some company spin on the situation.