MicrostockGroup Sponsors

Envato Elements

Author Topic: Getty e-mail about iStock "Contributor Facing Changes"  (Read 40093 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

« Reply #250 on: August 02, 2016, 14:00 »
+2
How many istock exclusives are left? Why should Getty care about them?

Also the difference is not 5%, the exclusive content, which is simply a higher price band with lots of non exclusive content from Getty and partners, gives much higher returns than content in the indie price band.

I think if they offer to mirror all exclusive content to getty, that could give good balance, at least I keep reading that returns from getty seem to be good.

The number of people with good portfolios going exclusive - where are they? I only hear about good people leaving. Closing the istock forums shows again that they are not planning to grow the istock community.

All the focus is on Getty, so why should they keep a seperate system for a shrinking group alive.

Makes more sense to make Getty itself more attractive.
« Last Edit: August 02, 2016, 14:49 by cobalt »


« Reply #251 on: August 04, 2016, 01:08 »
+2
As was said before, cutting exclusives down to 20%, and raising independents up to 20%, will still be a huge net gain for them, especially if they lock in all the independent content as exclusive content in the process. But it seems what they also may want is a uniform system of everyone earning 20%, which is another valid reason for the change.

I don't see how they can lock in indie content as exclusive. Well, at least not without the contracted 30 days notice. They may well put exclusives down to 20%, and hold indies down at 15%.

They could give all indies 30 days to remove their content from other sites, and then raise them from 15% to 20% when they do, or then force them to close their iStock accounts after 30 days if they aren't willing to comply.

But simply putting exclusives at 20% and indies at 15% wouldn't work. I think any exclusive would give up the extra 5% at that point to have the option to put their files onto as many sites as they want. They would need to offer a bigger reward to keep your files exclusive.

The only other incentive they could offer to exclusives to keep them file exclusive, versus going indy, would be to put all exclusive content onto Getty in exchange for the exclusive royalty cut to 20%, while keeping indies at 15%, but without mirroring any of their files on Getty.

Even so, I'm not sure exclusives would want to stay exclusive for only 5% more, with or without the Getty mirror. Not enough of an incentive.
I would be dumbstruck if more than a tiny percentage of Indies stayed with Istock. Its all speculation with the various bizarre self destructive activities over the years who knows what might happen (probably not even Istock  :o)

« Reply #252 on: August 04, 2016, 07:27 »
+13
I closed my account today. I have a small portfolio, but I don't really want to continue dealing with this agency.

gillian vann

  • *Gillian*
« Reply #253 on: August 04, 2016, 18:19 »
+15
I've also sent an email requesting to close my account. It's too time consuming to remove certain files, and my royalties are only buying me one nice bottle of wine per month. 

« Reply #254 on: August 08, 2016, 03:20 »
+3
Probably they will come with a new price list in a few days so they take precaution.

Credit sale .... $0.56
Sub sale ....   - $0.18 (yes we pay to the customer)
Partner pr sale...$0.09


« Reply #255 on: August 09, 2016, 14:07 »
+4
I deactivated some of my images, have a small port and am keeping most there, mainly because I've already deleted a lot of them. It's just so discouraging.

The irony is that I actually tried uploading editorial images there lately, and I captioned them exactly as they request (I shoot newspaper and magazine assignments, I'm not new to this) but they kept getting rejected as not being properly captioned and I was at a loss as to figure out their objection. Meanwhile, a handful have done really well on shutterstock and one in particular is selling multiple times daily since I uploaded it a couple of weeks ago. iStock's loss.

It's too bad they just can't get their act together. When I started with them back around 2012, they earned me more per image than any other site.

The problem with many of these sites is that they are run by people who are motivated solely by profit and really don't care about offering a good product - sites like Stocksy and 500px which are about the photography as well as about making a living for everyone involved nd not just churning out profits with a dollar store mentality, are the way of the future.  (I know 500px dropped their royalties/photographer share)

I hate removing images that are selling, but I just don't want to be stuck if shutterstock, for example, somehow decides to go the exclusive route or if iStock drops their extended license terms even more. If I'm making ~$700 on shutterstock and ~$30 on iStock, removing the image is really not going to hurt my bottom line. The ones that have earned me over $100 on iStock and that are still selling - that's a tougher decision. I'll probably leave them, as well as those with comparable earnings elsewhere, online. Ironically, I'd like to upload more editorial work there, but I'll have to find a different reviewer.

I'm close to a payout - a wait that seems to get longer each time, and now the wait will be longer.
« Last Edit: August 09, 2016, 14:10 by wordplanet »

« Reply #256 on: August 09, 2016, 23:31 »
+2
I find editorial rejections on there completely baffling......

« Reply #257 on: August 10, 2016, 00:15 »
+2
marianne, if you make 700 dollar a month with 400 images on SS you do extremely well (especially for a portfolio with mainly backgrounds and landscapes)

« Reply #258 on: August 10, 2016, 08:21 »
0
I need to delete 4 images. One of my models asked me to. He is a friend and I want to remove them but I just can't find were to remove them. Can anyone help me before it is to late?

Thanks

ShadySue

« Reply #259 on: August 10, 2016, 08:29 »
0
I need to delete 4 images. One of my models asked me to. He is a friend and I want to remove them but I just can't find were to remove them. Can anyone help me before it is to late?

Thanks

Near the top of the file page, there's a grey bar. At the right hand side of the bar, hover over maintenance and click 'deactivate'. You can give a reason or just put . in the box then confirm you want to deactivate.

« Reply #260 on: August 10, 2016, 10:44 »
+2
marianne, if you make 700 dollar a month with 400 images on SS you do extremely well (especially for a portfolio with mainly backgrounds and landscapes)

I wish, I'm talking about single images that earned me $700 in a year or so on SS vs. $30 on iStock. Wish I did that well monthly with my tiny port on just SS.

« Reply #261 on: August 10, 2016, 12:37 »
+1

Hi, Just one thing to remember when you go deactive an image.

When you type the reason be mindful of what you write, it might show in a search. I don't remember well but I think that is what happens when you search a deactivated image by its number. I know because once I searched mine and the excuse for deactivation came up on the screen.

I think about deactivating some of mine, and i wonder if maybe putting "no longer available" is the best thing to put there.


I need to delete 4 images. One of my models asked me to. He is a friend and I want to remove them but I just can't find were to remove them. Can anyone help me before it is to late?

Thanks

Near the top of the file page, there's a grey bar. At the right hand side of the bar, hover over maintenance and click 'deactivate'. You can give a reason or just put . in the box then confirm you want to deactivate.

« Reply #262 on: August 10, 2016, 16:29 »
0
Thanks!!! :)

« Reply #263 on: August 10, 2016, 18:10 »
+1
I deactivated some of my images, have a small port and am keeping most there, mainly because I've already deleted a lot of them. It's just so discouraging.

The irony is that I actually tried uploading editorial images there lately, and I captioned them exactly as they request (I shoot newspaper and magazine assignments, I'm not new to this) but they kept getting rejected as not being properly captioned and I was at a loss as to figure out their objection. Meanwhile, a handful have done really well on shutterstock and one in particular is selling multiple times daily since I uploaded it a couple of weeks ago. iStock's loss.

It's too bad they just can't get their act together. When I started with them back around 2012, they earned me more per image than any other site.

The problem with many of these sites is that they are run by people who are motivated solely by profit and really don't care about offering a good product - sites like Stocksy and 500px which are about the photography as well as about making a living for everyone involved nd not just churning out profits with a dollar store mentality, are the way of the future.  (I know 500px dropped their royalties/photographer share)

I hate removing images that are selling, but I just don't want to be stuck if shutterstock, for example, somehow decides to go the exclusive route or if iStock drops their extended license terms even more. If I'm making ~$700 on shutterstock and ~$30 on iStock, removing the image is really not going to hurt my bottom line. The ones that have earned me over $100 on iStock and that are still selling - that's a tougher decision. I'll probably leave them, as well as those with comparable earnings elsewhere, online. Ironically, I'd like to upload more editorial work there, but I'll have to find a different reviewer.

I'm close to a payout - a wait that seems to get longer each time, and now the wait will be longer.

Try installing the latest version of DeepMeta for iStock uploads. It sets up the editorial captioning format for you when click to submit an image as editorial. It takes all the guesswork out. Then all you need to do is change the names and places. Make sure you got the dates correct in the captions and that they match the date in the EXIF data of your file. This can cause rejection problems too. DeepMeta takes care of that too though by reading the file date from EXIF and inserts for you. Hope that helps.

« Reply #264 on: August 11, 2016, 01:20 »
0
I deactivated some of my images, have a small port and am keeping most there, mainly because I've already deleted a lot of them. It's just so discouraging.

The irony is that I actually tried uploading editorial images there lately, and I captioned them exactly as they request (I shoot newspaper and magazine assignments, I'm not new to this) but they kept getting rejected as not being properly captioned and I was at a loss as to figure out their objection. Meanwhile, a handful have done really well on shutterstock and one in particular is selling multiple times daily since I uploaded it a couple of weeks ago. iStock's loss.

It's too bad they just can't get their act together. When I started with them back around 2012, they earned me more per image than any other site.

The problem with many of these sites is that they are run by people who are motivated solely by profit and really don't care about offering a good product - sites like Stocksy and 500px which are about the photography as well as about making a living for everyone involved nd not just churning out profits with a dollar store mentality, are the way of the future.  (I know 500px dropped their royalties/photographer share)

I hate removing images that are selling, but I just don't want to be stuck if shutterstock, for example, somehow decides to go the exclusive route or if iStock drops their extended license terms even more. If I'm making ~$700 on shutterstock and ~$30 on iStock, removing the image is really not going to hurt my bottom line. The ones that have earned me over $100 on iStock and that are still selling - that's a tougher decision. I'll probably leave them, as well as those with comparable earnings elsewhere, online. Ironically, I'd like to upload more editorial work there, but I'll have to find a different reviewer.

I'm close to a payout - a wait that seems to get longer each time, and now the wait will be longer.

Try installing the latest version of DeepMeta for iStock uploads. It sets up the editorial captioning format for you when click to submit an image as editorial. It takes all the guesswork out. Then all you need to do is change the names and places. Make sure you got the dates correct in the captions and that they match the date in the EXIF data of your file. This can cause rejection problems too. DeepMeta takes care of that too though by reading the file date from EXIF and inserts for you. Hope that helps.

Thanks. I'll try that.

« Reply #265 on: August 11, 2016, 14:47 »
0
I gave up on uploading editorial there.  They wanted individualized credentials for political rallies and all kinds of crazy stuff.  Editorial is the best-performing portion of my port and I haven't had any trouble complying with requirements elsewhere.  It wasn't the captioning that got me at istock-it was the crazy:  Your name needs to be on the credential for this or you also need a property release for that (when you couldn't even tell what the property was the way the photo was framed)  Mind-boggling!   :o

« Reply #266 on: August 12, 2016, 12:22 »
0
can someone show me how to delete files individually on isuck? have they removed this feature?

ShadySue

« Reply #267 on: August 12, 2016, 12:24 »
+1
can someone show me how to delete files individually on isuck? have they removed this feature?

See reply #259, above.

« Reply #268 on: August 12, 2016, 12:28 »
0
nevermind... just scrolled up and saw the post... couldn't be bothered to spend more time being pissed at istock reading this entire thread. lol

« Reply #269 on: August 12, 2016, 12:41 »
0
Does deactivating your files on istock only do it for that site and leave it for its partner sites? I am wondering what is a better option...

« Reply #270 on: August 16, 2016, 21:59 »
+22
It's official ... as of today my IStock account is closed (confirmed by Getty). It was a good ride since 2006 but overshadowed with bitterness the moment Getty took over IStock. Anyway, I feel better knowing this is the end of a strange business relation in which only one party dictates rules of engagement ...

« Reply #271 on: August 18, 2016, 07:34 »
+11
Reminder:  Only two days left before image deactivation is banned. 

« Reply #272 on: August 18, 2016, 16:07 »
+15
I did it. Deactivated all files, just finished. This is very sad, each click on the deactivation button hurt.

They have put pressure on me to make a decision. So I did.

How stupid of them.

Loosing my small portfolio won't hurt them, but I simply can't stand pressure and captivity.

It was my first agency back in early 2006 ... *sigh*

« Reply #273 on: August 18, 2016, 16:16 »
0
I apparently have had a sale since I deactivated my last image.  Which doubled my all time istock income to $.56  :-\ It has not been a great market for me and I am sure that my tiny port will not be missed by them.   I never had any big beef with them; it just isn't the right market for my work. 

Noedelhap

  • www.colincramm.com

« Reply #274 on: August 19, 2016, 03:36 »
+2
I've decided to stay (for now) and wait for the big announcement in September. After that I can always close my account if need be. I might even test their image deactivation process just to see what they think they can get away with. I get a feeling that despite all the uproar, they won't object to a reason like 'just because'. How could they? The copyright is still mine and always will be.

Microstock InsiderEnvato Elements

 

Related Topics

  Subject / Started by Replies Last post
9 Replies
2265 Views
Last post February 12, 2009, 17:55
by Gannet77
90 Replies
20516 Views
Last post March 22, 2010, 11:28
by stockastic
163 Replies
20694 Views
Last post April 08, 2013, 13:13
by alberto
1 Replies
1418 Views
Last post September 25, 2015, 13:07
by Microstock Posts
0 Replies
912 Views
Last post July 02, 2017, 00:34
by Chichikov

Sponsors

Microstock Poll Results

Sponsors

Envato Elements