Quote from: hatman12 on May 30, 2008, 20:34

My main concern about iStock exclusivity is that it is too easy and allows the world to be awash with iStock exclusives.  That needs to change.

Yes. I think they may have a problem with their exclusivity deal. I have a feeling that it may not be working in quite the way they want.

As it stands, the only requirement for becoming an exclusive is to have 250+ downloads and an approval rating of 50%. Neither of those are particularly difficult to achieve. Any moderately competent photographer can do it with his/her eyes closed.

On the other hand, if you do become an exclusive you close off all other sources of revenue from your RF images ... if you abide by their rules (and I have a suspicion that some don't).

I guess that what they're trying to do is to 'corner the market' in submissions. Squeeze out the other agencies by taking over all the photogs.

In fact, what is probably happening is that they are tending to get the moderately competent hobbyists who are doing this for 'pin money' and don't want the hassle of uploading to a load of different places.

I would guess that a lot of people who are in this seriously have no desire to close off all other avenues for RF sales. Apart from anything else, they'd probably take a hit in the pocket. IS will have to significantly up the rates they pay exclusives to get many of these people interested.

(P.S. I don't mean this to be derogatory of people who are exclusives. I'm talking about tendencies here)

Quote from: RT on May 30, 2008, 15:34

Quote from: hatman12 on May 30, 2008, 13:25
Don't you think there are enough photographers already queuing up to go exclusive there?

Ummm no actually, that's why they've sent the email out.

LOL, exactly.

Quote from: Bateleur on May 30, 2008, 22:11

Quote from: hatman12 on May 30, 2008, 20:34

My main concern about iStock exclusivity is that it is too easy and allows the world to be awash with iStock exclusives.  That needs to change.

In fact, what is probably happening is that they are tending to get the moderately competent hobbyists who are doing this for 'pin money' and don't want the hassle of uploading to a load of different places.

I would guess that a lot of people who are in this seriously have no desire to close off all other avenues for RF sales. Apart from anything else, they'd probably take a hit in the pocket. IS will have to significantly up the rates they pay exclusives to get many of these people interested.

(P.S. I don't mean this to be derogatory of people who are exclusives. I'm talking about tendencies here)

For myself, I have been involved with the traditional end for a long time. Even if I wanted to become exclusive to iStock I can't because it is impossible to remove other RF images out of the market. Traditional RF involves CD distribution and as such usually carries  with it really long (often 20 year) distribution agreements for those images. I'm no big time shooter but those that are are excluded from going exclusive. Although the exclusives with iStock are great photographers, it seems a short sighted arrangement to not try and woo over  other big players if you could.

My guess is that it will be connected to upload limits, in that there will be none for a certain amount of time. This will enable mass exodus of entire portfolios in one fell swoop (with the exception of those who are locked in with we-all-know-who).

It would be nice if it was a perk for existing exclusives, but it doesn't really come across as if that is the case. They've raised credit prices again effective July 1, but that is a perk for everyone.

well considering the amount of images that istock has, as well as their customer base i think they can afford to raise the bar, and that suggestion seems quite popular.  I think this would make them even more attractive to the buyers, and the photographers for the prestige of getting pictures acepted.

that exclusive agreement though... ALL RF images everywhere... that is just one bullet i am not willing to bite, not to mention the risk of putting all eggs in one basket.

Quote from: leaf on May 30, 2008, 22:51
that exclusive agreement though... ALL RF images everywhere... that is just one bullet i am not willing to bite, not to mention the risk of putting all eggs in one basket.

ditto

It must be strange looking at sales on just one site.  They would have to offer something very special to tempt me.  I have images tied up with DT and albumo, so I probably couldn't go exclusive even if I wanted to.

Quote from: Bateleur on May 30, 2008, 22:11

Quote from: hatman12 on May 30, 2008, 20:34

My main concern about iStock exclusivity is that it is too easy and allows the world to be awash with iStock exclusives.  That needs to change.

...

In fact, what is probably happening is that they are tending to get the moderately competent hobbyists who are doing this for 'pin money' and don't want the hassle of uploading to a load of different places.

....

I resemble that remark!

(Istock exclusives do seem to include a lot of people like me!)
I do find it hard to imagine why they would raise the bar back up on exclusivity though. A lot of the  amateurs do find it hard to get noticed and get the downloads. When I joined istock a couple of years ago, it was very easy to get a couple of hundred images up in the space of a month or so (upload limits were 10 a day, i think when I joined) and once you had more than a hundred images online downloads pretty much automatically flowed. It isn't that simple now with the vastly huger image collection - which is why istock dropped the limits on exclusivity when they did, on the "catch them before they get too addicted to other sites income" principal (or so I assume). making it harder would just weed out pretty much all new potential exclusives, good or bad, as the upload limit fr non-exclusives makes it so hard to build up a decent size portfolio at reasonable speed.

Quote from: DanP68 on May 30, 2008, 10:27

Quote from: leaf on May 30, 2008, 10:19
I hope they introduce individual image exclusivity

Me too, though I get the impression from the email that they are trying to tempt photographers into complete exclusivity.

To do that, I assume they will be raising exclusive commissions?

I also would like exclusivity on an image-per-image basis, but I also think they will offer a higher commission or some other benefit to make their current model more appealing.

edited to add: To those who have not received the email, doesn't one need 500 dlds to be able to become exclusive? Maybe you are below this?

Regards,
Adelaide

I also would like exclusivity on an image-per-image basis, but I also think they will offer a higher commission or some other benefit to make their current model more appealing.

edited to add: To those who have not received the email, doesn't one need 500 dlds to be able to become exclusive? Maybe you are below this?

Regards,
Adelaide



Nope, I received the 'invitation' as well and I only have a little over 300 downloads.
I think the lower limit is 250 with at least a 50% acceptance rating or thereabouts.

Quote from: sjlocke on May 30, 2008, 19:17
Maybe it's referring to the new pricing structure?

So are you saying they're not going to change anything but just tell us we'll make even more money being exclusive just because of the recent price increase and subscriptions? Or is there another new pricing structure I missed?

Just commenting on previous post
...is the inspection /quality requirement raised for exclusives
I think is the opposite...

Quote from: w7lwi on May 30, 2008, 22:04

Quote from: hatman12 on May 30, 2008, 20:34
Just to be clear:  if becoming exclusive at iStock is made more difficult and the quality requirement raised, that would make it MORE APPEALING for me to be exclusive there, and IMO would also cause many more customers to buy exclusive only.

Are you saying the quality requirements would be higher for exclusives than for non-exclusives?  If not and if the quality requirements were raised across the board, for both exclusive and non-exclusive alike, why would the customers want to buy exclusive only when they could get the same quality level from a non-exclusive?

I don't think there's any reasoning behind why some people got the email and some didn't. Some exclusives got it so maybe there's a glitch with their email marketing system.

Orrrrr, maybe they're using some sort of contributor performance measurement to determine who gets one. 

EDIT: Man, what's up with my grammar and spelling today...

Quote from: littlerobin71 on May 31, 2008, 04:46
Just commenting on previous post
...is the inspection /quality requirement raised for exclusives
I think is the opposite...

Ay, some of the stuff in 'latest exclusive images' on the home page I wouldn't even upload...

Although, having said that, IS seems to accept some stuff of mine that is a little marginal as well, so I should probably shut my trap! :-).

Quote from: chellyar on May 31, 2008, 05:40

Quote from: littlerobin71 on May 31, 2008, 04:46
Just commenting on previous post
...is the inspection /quality requirement raised for exclusives
I think is the opposite...

Ay, some of the stuff in 'latest exclusive images' on the home page I wouldn't even upload...

If some of you seriously believe that, you should take a look at the NON-exclusive vectors coming through. Some of them are just downright embarrassing and I can't figure out what the inspector(s) must have been thinking. Surely it is a case of someone who thinks owning a copy of Illustrator suddenly makes them capable of drawing. It reflects badly on the whole collection, and yet people still whine and harp about how unfair it is and that all the crap coming through the queue is all from exclusives and how all their wonderful and perfect best sellers on all the other sites are all rejected because the inspectors are jealous or something.

puh. leeze.

I agree completely with this post. Although I think that IS have the toughest inspectors I also think that they are completely fair.   Even though most other sites have taken my IS rejections it doesn't mean theat they aren't right but just that they are pickier about small details. With a bit of playing about I can usually get a rejected image approved on the second attempt.

Quote from: bittersweet on May 31, 2008, 06:05

Quote from: chellyar on May 31, 2008, 05:40

Quote from: littlerobin71 on May 31, 2008, 04:46
Just commenting on previous post
...is the inspection /quality requirement raised for exclusives
I think is the opposite...

Ay, some of the stuff in 'latest exclusive images' on the home page I wouldn't even upload...

If some of you seriously believe that, you should take a look at the NON-exclusive vectors coming through. Some of them are just downright embarrassing and I can't figure out what the inspector(s) must have been thinking. Surely it is a case of someone who thinks owning a copy of Illustrator suddenly makes them capable of drawing. It reflects badly on the whole collection, and yet people still whine and harp about how unfair it is and that all the crap coming through the queue is all from exclusives and how all their wonderful and perfect best sellers on all the other sites are all rejected because the inspectors are jealous or something.

puh. leeze.

Ok...

so I think it boils down to who is reviewing images.....
what one inspector would reject maybe
other would accept..

Quote from: chellyar on May 31, 2008, 05:40

Quote from: littlerobin71 on May 31, 2008, 04:46
Just commenting on previous post
...is the inspection /quality requirement raised for exclusives
I think is the opposite...

Ay, some of the stuff in 'latest exclusive images' on the home page I wouldn't even upload...

Although, having said that, IS seems to accept some stuff of mine that is a little marginal as well, so I should probably shut my trap! :-).

-If they were planning to raise the commissions for exclusives, I would imagine they would have announced that to everyone.  I'm sure there would be much jumping for joy from those that are already exclusive.

-As for the acceptance standards, I don't really think that your exclusive status effects your chances of approval.

-I got the e-mail and I do have the get newsletters marketing materials option selected so probably the only criteria for getting it was to not be exclusive and have the option checked.

-My guess would be some counter to the waiting period mandated by other sites or situations such as required by a 20 year committment.  I notice a lot of peope say I would go exclusive but....   

May be that they will «officialize» the placement in searches that favour exclusive contributors...

More and more exclusives are showing in the first 2 or 3 pages, something like 9 out of 10...  which does not reflects excl./non-excl. ratio.

Now don't get me wrong, I'm not exclusive but I understand that IS makes moves to grab exclusivity.  It's their business and so far, it represents 45% of my microstock revenues.  So I recognize that they know how to handle it...

They should be honest and tell us the truth... So may be that's what they will announce (or some sort of).

And personally, it will be another step to exclusivity...

.

Quote from: chumley on June 01, 2008, 18:23
Hi all,

I think one thing to remember is that if you are exclusive with Istock you are unable to venture into the Macro RF business unless affiliated with Getty. Now Getty is 50% of the RF business out there in the Macro world but it does leave you with your hands tied in the RF market place. However, a great deal of you feel that the RF market is finished anyway so this may not seem relevant.

The positive side of this (as I see it) for Micro shooters is as revenues continue to go up in Micro all the Pros out there that have been producing in the RF market cannot go exclusive with IS without pulling all their work from the Macro RF market. Many of these markets have 5 - 7 year rights to the images that already exist there so Macro shooters do not have the opportunity to go Exclusive at IS.

That coupled with the minimal upload limits should keep heavy producers from the Macro community from coming in and hitting the Micro market at IS hard with tons of images. I see this as a good thing for the micro community.

Chumley

All comments offered are strictly my opinion.

In Summary
The Contract requires full exclusivity:

    * Full artist exclusivity means no images may be sold on other Royalty-Free sites or businesses with the exception of Getty Images. Individual image exclusivity is not enough.


The Contract does not require exclusivity for:

    * Rights-Managed images with other organizations
    * Personal portfolio sites
    * Work for hire/editorial work contracts
    * Prints for sale
    * Prints, t-shirts and the like produced on art-only sites such as cafepress.com


The Contract specifically does allow:

    * Exclusivity to artists if images previously licensed to any other RF agency have been sold outright.
    * iStockphoto to use images in promotional and advertising materials.
    * Cancellation with 30 days notice.
    * Restart after cancellation with 90 days notice.


The Contract specifically does not allow:

    * Images for sale on artist's own site (including collections, CD-ROMs, etc).
    * Artist to give away images for free, either from their own, or any other site.
    * Rejected images to be sold elsewhere

Quote from: maco0708 on June 01, 2008, 19:18

The Contract specifically does not allow:

    * Images for sale on artist's own site (including collections, CD-ROMs, etc).
    * Artist to give away images for free, either from their own, or any other site.
    * Rejected images to be sold elsewhere

This is the killer for me.   I broker my own images to magazine/book publishers.  I also  donate prints to charity auctions such as RMCC and others.    That's the real kicker.  I can't even  give away a print that I own.  That's just wrong.   =tom

Quote from: a.k.a.-tom on June 01, 2008, 20:57

Quote from: maco0708 on June 01, 2008, 19:18

The Contract specifically does not allow:

    * Images for sale on artist's own site (including collections, CD-ROMs, etc).
    * Artist to give away images for free, either from their own, or any other site.
    * Rejected images to be sold elsewhere

This is the killer for me.   I broker my own images to magazine/book publishers.  I also  donate prints to charity auctions such as RMCC and others.    That's the real kicker.  I can't even  give away a print that I own.  That's just wrong.   =tom

You can sell your prints. So for the charity, just sell them for 1c each:)

Quote from: a.k.a.-tom on June 01, 2008, 20:57

Quote from: maco0708 on June 01, 2008, 19:18

The Contract specifically does not allow:

    * Images for sale on artist's own site (including collections, CD-ROMs, etc).
    * Artist to give away images for free, either from their own, or any other site.
    * Rejected images to be sold elsewhere

This is the killer for me.   I broker my own images to magazine/book publishers.  I also  donate prints to charity auctions such as RMCC and others.    That's the real kicker.  I can't even  give away a print that I own.  That's just wrong.   =tom

Do you sell your images through your web-site as Royalt free???
If you sell them as rights managed, I think it would be allowed.

Quote from: a.k.a.-tom on June 01, 2008, 20:57

Quote from: maco0708 on June 01, 2008, 19:18

The Contract specifically does not allow:

    * Images for sale on artist's own site (including collections, CD-ROMs, etc).
    * Artist to give away images for free, either from their own, or any other site.
    * Rejected images to be sold elsewhere

This is the killer for me.   I broker my own images to magazine/book publishers.  I also  donate prints to charity auctions such as RMCC and others.    That's the real kicker.  I can't even  give away a print that I own.  That's just wrong.   =tom

You can give away PRINTS. The term "image" in the context of this agreement is the digital file. You are not allowed to have "freebie" downloads of your images on your website. You can do whatever you want with your prints, including selling them or giving them away. This rule has nothing to do with prints. Any brokering you do to magazine/book publishers should be a rights-managed or work for hire arrangement anyway. I'd be surprised if you are doing single image royalty free arrangements.