Quote from: pet_chia on September 11, 2010, 21:56


Oh of course but I am anonymous, a very small fish, not overly angry or stressed at these changes, and not really worth crushing or teaching a lesson.

lol.. +1

So, that was it. The thread on istock is slowing down, and we did nothing....

Quote from: Dreamframer on September 11, 2010, 22:15
So, that was it. The thread on istock is slowing down, and we did nothing....

I did...closed my account and our firm just put them on the sh%t-list for purchasing...F'em and feed 'em fish heads. Alot will stay but I mad as hell and I'm not going to take it anymore...let Mr. Getty pay for his new house with the $ from those who stay, but it won't be mine anymore...."Thank you sir, may I have another?"

Seacrest, OUT

Like a death in the family, however much emotion there may be the outcome is non-negotiable.

It's optimistic to expect more at this point.  Aside from a few independents pulling their ports immediately, most actions will take time to show a result.  A lot of contributors will wait and see; three months is a long time.  I wouldn't be surprised to learn that all this advance notice was intended to provide a cooling off period.  

In any event, it seems clear that iStock is determined to follow through.  What they'll do if they see damage to their bottom line is another question, and one we may see in the new year.

Quote from: deepbluesea on September 11, 2010, 21:14
Has everyone seen this from Dreamstime?  Apologies if this has been posted before!

Yes, it was discussed in here: http://www.microstockgroup.com/istockphoto-com/for-exclusives-at-is-here-is-info-on-alternatives/

It is unlikely that contributors could get a big company like that to close down or turn around in a few days. But I expect there will be a large impact in 6 months or a year. The goodwill is gone, there are a lot of negative blogs out there, and the rumor will spread amongst contributors and buyers.

Man's memory is normally 14 days, or at least it is said so when it comes to weather. But if you have heard or read something bad about a shop/company/agency/brand/person, it will be nagging in the back of your mind even though you can't remember the details. And when you are going shopping, you will probably choose something else, without conciencelly thinking about it. This will be what hurts Istock in the long run.

the problem is that ALMOST nobody will leave... today everybody is complaining tomorrow or the next day it will be fine.. in 2012 will be 10%.. it won't stop, thats microstock! cheap cheap cheap

While this appears to be an across the board cut in royalties, it is not. The possibility is there for creative, productive contributors to do very well with higher priced content, even if royalty percentage is down. The people who are really istock's bread and butter, the top few percent of contributors, will stay and prosper. The influx of getty content will also ensure that Istock as a company does well into the future. I'm sure their analysts have done the homework.

Quote from: FD-regular on September 07, 2010, 21:26
IS : "September, 2010: $3.05 royalties" - oh noooo! My "bizness model" is ruined.  
This is really bad news. I think I will have to order a medium instead of a large monthly Frappuchino in Starbux on their behalf.  

There is going to come a point where it all breaks down.

Don't forget to shoot that Frappuchino before you drink it. Got to get that submission volume up!

Quote from: lisafx on September 11, 2010, 18:46
Has anyone else noticed a sharp and unusual increase in their rejections at IS all of a sudden?  Like anyone who has been active on this forum?

For the past several weeks leading up to this I have had 100% approval rate.  My overall rate there is over 90%.  Just today, all of a sudden I had more than a third of images submitted in my last batch rejected.  The reasons listed were things like artifacts and/or purple fringing.  No attachments were included to show the "problem" areas, and I can't see them on my monitor.  Plus images from the same shoots were accepted 100% without exception over the last several weeks.  

Very hard not to view this as some sort of retaliation from speaking out here in the forums.  

I stopped uploading to IS a while ago, so I can't say whether you are seeing retaliation. Nothing would surprise me, but another thing to consider is that maybe it's just a bad batch of reviewers. We just had a holiday and all, maybe there were substitute reviewers?

Quote from: averil on September 12, 2010, 00:52
While this appears to be an across the board cut in royalties, it is not. The possibility is there for creative, productive contributors to do very well with higher priced content, even if royalty percentage is down. The people who are really istock's bread and butter, the top few percent of contributors, will stay and prosper. The influx of getty content will also ensure that Istock as a company does well into the future. I'm sure their analysts have done the homework.

averil,

I've argued that microstock resembles a pyramid scheme where those on top stay there and those on the bottom never get to the top. This is more likely to happen with a lower income to start. It can be argued that this can be overcome but it becomes more and more difficult when there is a distinct disadvantage especially when starting off.

Quote from: cclapper on September 12, 2010, 02:15

Quote from: lisafx on September 11, 2010, 18:46
Has anyone else noticed a sharp and unusual increase in their rejections at IS all of a sudden?  Like anyone who has been active on this forum?

For the past several weeks leading up to this I have had 100% approval rate.  My overall rate there is over 90%.  Just today, all of a sudden I had more than a third of images submitted in my last batch rejected.  The reasons listed were things like artifacts and/or purple fringing.  No attachments were included to show the "problem" areas, and I can't see them on my monitor.  Plus images from the same shoots were accepted 100% without exception over the last several weeks.  

Very hard not to view this as some sort of retaliation from speaking out here in the forums.  

I stopped uploading to IS a while ago, so I can't say whether you are seeing retaliation. Nothing would surprise me, but another thing to consider is that maybe it's just a bad batch of reviewers. We just had a holiday and all, maybe there were substitute reviewers?

I sure hope this is more just a new inspector or some else.  I find it hard to believe that any inspector or company would retaliate like this.  to retaliate by rejecting images would be unprofessional and childish, and as pissed off as I am about the changes, I would find it hard to believe that some inspector at istock would drop to that level.    I've had that kind of crazy batch of rejections happen after new inspectors came on board.  Although, to be honest, I've not uploaded anything in some time due to personal issues and a general lack of time to do it.   

If I rent apartments  through the touristic agency ? Will I be satisfied if the agency retain 85% profit!?Definitely not!
Here is the same situation...  We do not sell images , we rent them ...
So, if you want a good availability of apartments , work with that touristic agency ...  But, they will earn 85% on your property...
If you can live with the fact that someone earns almost everything on your property, continue...
The difference in property is only in 15 % , what means their ownership of 85% over YOUR pictures....
15% separates us from giving our hard work for free to them...

Quote from: jamirae on September 12, 2010, 03:05

Quote from: cclapper on September 12, 2010, 02:15

Quote from: lisafx on September 11, 2010, 18:46
Has anyone else noticed a sharp and unusual increase in their rejections at IS all of a sudden?  Like anyone who has been active on this forum?

For the past several weeks leading up to this I have had 100% approval rate.  My overall rate there is over 90%.  Just today, all of a sudden I had more than a third of images submitted in my last batch rejected.  The reasons listed were things like artifacts and/or purple fringing.  No attachments were included to show the "problem" areas, and I can't see them on my monitor.  Plus images from the same shoots were accepted 100% without exception over the last several weeks.  

Very hard not to view this as some sort of retaliation from speaking out here in the forums.  

I stopped uploading to IS a while ago, so I can't say whether you are seeing retaliation. Nothing would surprise me, but another thing to consider is that maybe it's just a bad batch of reviewers. We just had a holiday and all, maybe there were substitute reviewers?

I sure hope this is more just a new inspector or some else.  I find it hard to believe that any inspector or company would retaliate like this.  to retaliate by rejecting images would be unprofessional and childish, and as pissed off as I am about the changes, I would find it hard to believe that some inspector at istock would drop to that level.    I've had that kind of crazy batch of rejections happen after new inspectors came on board.  Although, to be honest, I've not uploaded anything in some time due to personal issues and a general lack of time to do it.   

Lisa, I agree with Jamirae that it may be because of some new inspectors. The pics I uploaded before the recent announcements have been approved so far and I'm sure that you care about artifacts much more than I do 
Anyway, my pending queue is close to 0 since I stopped uploading there and soon I will not have much experience to share on this.
I DO HOPE THAT MOST OF US WILL KEEP NOT UPLOADING TO ISTOCK, if not with the aim of affecting their business decisions, at least for some very basic ethical principles.

Quote from: luissantos84 on September 12, 2010, 00:35
the problem is that ALMOST nobody will leave... today everybody is complaining tomorrow or the next day it will be fine.. in 2012 will be 10%.. it won't stop, thats microstock! cheap cheap cheap

I don't care what other people do but I wont be uploading any more to istock and will be leaving if the commission cuts go through.  I haven't left other sites when they have cut commissions because they have never gone below istock's 20% but this is too much for me, I would rather do another job than accept this.;

Quote from: sharpshot on September 12, 2010, 11:00
I don't care what other people do but I wont be uploading any more to istock and will be leaving if the commission cuts go through.  I haven't left other sites when they have cut commissions because they have never gone below istock's 20% but this is too much for me, I would rather do another job than accept this.;

Well said Sharpshot.  That describes my position exactly also. 

Quote from: sharpshot on September 12, 2010, 11:00
I don't care what other people do but I wont be uploading any more to istock and will be leaving if the commission cuts go through.  I haven't left other sites when they have cut commissions because they have never gone below istock's 20% but this is too much for me, I would rather do another job than accept this.;

100% agree with that.

If each contributor waits for others to do something before taking his/her own decisions, nothing will ever change. Each of us has a different situation w/r to microstock. For some it's a full-time business, for others just a hobby. Some rely on the income to feed their family, others still have a main job that brings food to the table. Therefore, expecting all contributors to make decisions and act in the same way, at the same time seems illusory to me, at best.

I for one won't be deleting my images at iStock for now. I have invested too much time and energy in it to do so. I won't be uploading any new images there, but then, I already stopped uploading to most micros many months ago, since I decided to concentrate my efforts on macro instead. But building a profitable macro portfolio takes time and until it brings me enough earnings to live on, I will need my micro income.

Not that it is the best way to go for everyone. It's just my own business decision based on my own numbers, and it's a long-term move, not an emotional reaction to what just happened at IS.

Quote from: sharpshot on September 12, 2010, 11:00

Quote from: luissantos84 on September 12, 2010, 00:35
the problem is that ALMOST nobody will leave... today everybody is complaining tomorrow or the next day it will be fine.. in 2012 will be 10%.. it won't stop, thats microstock! cheap cheap cheap

I don't care what other people do but I wont be uploading any more to istock and will be leaving if the commission cuts go through.  I haven't left other sites when they have cut commissions because they have never gone below istock's 20% but this is too much for me, I would rather do another job than accept this.;

Agree total!

Quote from: disorderly on September 11, 2010, 18:54
Couldn't say; my last batch (last = both most recent & last they're getting) is still waiting for review after eight days. 

10 days for me.

Ha ha, the Istock site is down right now.  Not even an error message.
Who ever caused that ... could you PLEASE do it again, and again, and again .... 

Hmmm, not down for me. Maybe you have been banned.    Just kidding. 

Please-  (Sorry for the rant.  After 20 years in sales it's a pet peeve)

We collect royalties.  We pay IStock commissions.  IStock is commissioned to sell our work.  We are the artists/tradesmen/whatever who created the product.

And yes, this is a small but important distinction.  We are suppliers.  We are not employees or even "like employees".

Yes, IStock is making this decision based on "Greed".  Just like when I went independent several years ago and then exclusive this year, those decisions were based on "Greed".  

Their perception is that unless you have truly unique content, moving your images off IStock will problably not impact them as the buyers will operate on the "equivalent option" principle and purchase the next in line just to get the job done.

Where they fail is the targets themselves are out of line and many of the "casual contributors" are also their customer base.

Quote from: Anyka on September 12, 2010, 14:49
Ha ha, the Istock site is down right now.  Not even an error message.
Who ever caused that ... could you PLEASE do it again, and again, and again .... 

Perhaps some one finally goet pissed enough on them to launch a cyberattack, botnet etc. to down their servers?

Would really be a laugh....

Don't ever piss on your croud source!

Quote from: fullvalue on September 12, 2010, 14:55
Please-  (Sorry for the rant.  After 20 years in sales it's a pet peeve)

We collect royalties.  We pay IStock commissions.  IStock is commissioned to sell our work.  We are the artists/tradesmen/whatever who created the product.

And yes, this is a small but important distinction.  We are suppliers.  We are not employees or even "like employees".

Yes, IStock is making this decision based on "Greed".  Just like when I went independent several years ago and then exclusive this year, those decisions were based on "Greed".  

Their perception is that unless you have truly unique content, moving your images off IStock will problably not impact them as the buyers will operate on the "equivalent option" principle and purchase the next in line just to get the job done.

Where they fail is the targets themselves are out of line and many of the "casual contributors" are also their customer base.

All very well said Sharon.  I particularly agree with the statement I bolded. 

I do think, at least in my mind, there is a distinction between making a business decision for oneself like going exclusive or independent, and the kind of naked greed we are seeing at Istock.  To further one's own interests only crosses the threshold of "Greed" IMO, when it involves deliberately screwing over people who don't deserve it.