MicrostockGroup Sponsors


Author Topic: iStock Royalty Change  (Read 66683 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

PaulieWalnuts

  • On the Wrong Side of the Business
« Reply #275 on: October 27, 2016, 21:40 »
+4
... I called legal and asked if I could upload elsewhere and they answered yes under a different username, and not the same files.

Does that apply to all iS exclusives, or was it a special deal they were prepared to offer you?

I too would like to know this! Very curious.

Their policy for exclusives has always been they own your soul for RF. You can have a different RM portfolio elsewhere. But who knows maybe things have changed.


« Reply #276 on: October 27, 2016, 21:51 »
+9
Whoa! People still do cheerleading for agencies? I thought that died out. I feel like I just saw a unicorn.  ;)

« Reply #277 on: October 27, 2016, 22:03 »
+1
... I called legal and asked if I could upload elsewhere and they answered yes under a different username, and not the same files.

Does that apply to all iS exclusives, or was it a special deal they were prepared to offer you?

I too would like to know this! Very curious.

Their policy for exclusives has always been they own your soul for RF. You can have a different RM portfolio elsewhere. But who knows maybe things have changed.
I believe it has something to do with the way the corporation is set up. Not a single exclusive contributor. It is easy to find out. Just call or write to legal and get an answer in writing. I don't have a problem with it because I am totally exclusive. I do have a problem with you Shelma being "irritated" when I clearly stated I never uploaded anywhere else. Evidently you have a reading problem mistaking my hard work for special treatment.

« Reply #278 on: October 27, 2016, 22:45 »
+1
If a contributer isn't a main part of the corporation they can sell their work elsewhere. I could have misunderstood what I heard so don't quote me, call and ask for yourself.


I don't bite the hand that feeds me, so I'm not incline to ask iStock myself. Though I do hope someone else here who have less at stake would be willing to ask iStock.

Though my guess from reading what you wrote, the logic might be something like this... the exclusive contract is between iStock and whomever the copyright holder is. The copyright holder can be an individual person, or it can be a corporation. So your statement reads like if there were a corporation with several shooters, then under that scenario, none of them are a main part of the corporation. Or it could actually be spelt out in the ownership structure of the corporation, say one of those people own 80%, then the rest of them would own little or none. Then those who own little to none, maybe able to profit from the exclusive contract from the corporation and be able to sell as independent person on all other stock sties, provided the content don't appear to be the same. Anyway that's my wild uneducated guess.

Which leads me back to memory of the account named 'globalstock' (http://www.istockphoto.com/portfolio/globalstock) on iStock. My vague memory was that this account was created some years ago to house 2 or more existing exclusive stock photographer's work. All of whom had AMAZING photography skills. My vague memory is that at the same time, they still kept their original individual accounts at iStock and also kept files there too. I never did understand why they created a new account to merge some of their own content. Maybe to meet the RC target? OR maybe everything I wrote in this paragraph is complete nonsense, and I don't actually know what I'm talking about, which is possible. *confused face*

Doesn't Yuri have 2 (or more) accounts at iStock? I don't understand why he has more than 1. Other than to get around upload limits maybe? Just guessing.
« Last Edit: October 27, 2016, 23:49 by charged »

« Reply #279 on: October 28, 2016, 00:53 »
+14
Jodie, your loyalty is admirable, especially after all that Getty did to istock and us. istock changed my life and I have lots of good memories.

But after the getty/microsoft and getty/google deal and the way they treated Sean and others, there really wasnt much I could have done.

I simply had to accept that the company I loved and felt at home with no longer existed.

In your situation, with all the serious health issues, staying exclusive might indeed be the best solution.

But the fact remains that Getty is a struggling company, with very bad top level management, they are horribly in debt and their IT skills are lousy. There is a reason SS has over 300 people just working on the tech side of their company.

Since the Getty market share has been falling for years, and with the visible success of Adobe and SS, I really dont see how istock can ever grow again.

As an exclusive your files are favored, so you are not as affected by their fall.

But those that supply all sites, we all know how istock is falling behind. And the overall earnings from both macro, micro and exclusive content are much higher than being istock exclusive.

However it is very hard work and does take time to regain your income. Some people can do it in 6 months, some, in video, like jeff immediately make more money. For others it will be 2 years.

But overall being indie is an excellent experience, all your files can be used and find a home.

You can also more easily get files onto Getty if that is important to you, just supply one of their distribution partners, or several and suddenly, you have easy access to macrostock. All macrostock, not just Getty. Macro is a huge world.

So istock is working for you, fine. But there is very little chance that anyone who invests in shooting will forego Adobe or Shutterstock and all the other sites, including stocksy, to live at the mercy of their new yearly targets and unpredictable changes.


Shelma1

« Reply #280 on: October 28, 2016, 06:32 »
+5
My special treatment is a lot of hard work, a lot of hours on this computer sorting, editing, sending files to the keyworders and not having much of a life outside of stock photography. And 30 subs is my worst day, I didn't want to give my real highest figures in this forum. It really is nobody's business. This crowd is tough...What happened to the world where people were happy for other people's successes?

Once again, you were speaking for iStock and I was answering about iStock. If you're successful, great! But iStock is not. I don't conflate the two.

"Exclusives" selling work elsewhere is a real sore point here, whether you take advantage of it or not. Even your fellow exclusives sound surprised about that. Heck, I could take down my non-sellers from SS and make them exclusive on iS, as could everyone else, if we all got that deal.

« Reply #281 on: October 28, 2016, 07:17 »
+8
Guys. Those who consider reduction of royatly rates by iStock offensive and unfair, please let's combine our forces and each one will write and send the claim letter to Freelance Union  www.freelancersunion.org
Please let me know when you've done.   

« Reply #282 on: October 28, 2016, 07:24 »
0
"Exclusives" selling work elsewhere is a real sore point here, whether you take advantage of it or not. Even your fellow exclusives sound surprised about that

I doubt anyone is particularly surprised if they follow the logic of a contract. IIRC the contract is between the agency and the entity owning the copyright. For example - if you work for a business you can also potentially do separate work as an individual. Equally one could presumably buy the copyright to work from an indie and sell it exclusively. It's about who the contract is with - suppose you are the director of more than one business.

This has all been discussed many times over the past decade. The issue people get annoyed about is when the same entity is both 'exclusive' and 'non-exclusive'. Or when the same images and / or similars are sold both as exclusive and non-exclusive - apparently by different entities.
« Last Edit: October 28, 2016, 07:28 by bunhill »

« Reply #283 on: October 28, 2016, 07:28 »
+1
Guys. Those who consider reduction of royatly rates by iStock offensive and unfair, please let's combine our forces and each one will write and send the claim letter to Freelance Union  www.freelancersunion.org
Please let me know when you've done.


I don't think it can be something changed with any sort of protest. Everyone handles his own business. You can not dictated to anyone what to do and how to do his business. The only think we can do, is to pull out all our images and let them go down. So we protect out work to not be sold for almost nothing.

« Reply #284 on: October 28, 2016, 07:58 »
+8
I don't think it can be something changed with any sort of protest. Everyone handles his own business. You can not dictated to anyone what to do and how to do his business. The only think we can do, is to pull out all our images and let them go down. So we protect out work to not be sold for almost nothing.

Luka, this is misleading. Anyone can say own opinion and negotiate for better conditions. The offered rate does not cover the resources and time applied to work. If we don't make buzz now then tommorow other stocks will do the same.

At the moment in music industry the royalty rates are growing on, and there are fixed minimum rates in USD as well.

If you don't want to participate, you don't have to. I call for those who take this business seriously.

« Reply #285 on: October 28, 2016, 08:13 »
+2
I don't think it can be something changed with any sort of protest. Everyone handles his own business. You can not dictated to anyone what to do and how to do his business. The only think we can do, is to pull out all our images and let them go down. So we protect out work to not be sold for almost nothing.

Luka, this is misleading. Anyone can say own opinion and negotiate for better conditions. The offered rate does not cover the resources and time applied to work. If we don't make buzz now then tommorow other stocks will do the same.

At the moment in music industry the royalty rates are growing on, and there are fixed minimum rates in USD as well.

If you don't want to participate, you don't have to. I call for those who take this business seriously.

It is not about I want or I don't want to participate. I don't think this can change anything. And I take this seriously, but this doesn't mean we can ignore a reality. At least this is my opinion. I am extremely unhappy with what has happen also :(

Shelma1

« Reply #286 on: October 28, 2016, 09:27 »
+7
Guys. Those who consider reduction of royatly rates by iStock offensive and unfair, please let's combine our forces and each one will write and send the claim letter to Freelance Union  www.freelancersunion.org
Please let me know when you've done.


Does Freelancer's Union do this sort of thing? As far as I know, they were formed to offer health and dental insurance to American freelancers before Obamacare. Though it wouldn't hurt if someone there picked up the story and it spread among freelance designers.

« Reply #287 on: October 28, 2016, 10:20 »
+8
I have deactivated my best selling images at iStock now, and stop uploading new files.
It's a pity, because my october is not bad at all, but I just wont accept the risk of getting only $0.02 for them.

« Reply #288 on: October 28, 2016, 11:08 »
+5
Guys. Those who consider reduction of royatly rates by iStock offensive and unfair, please let's combine our forces and each one will write and send the claim letter to Freelance Union  www.freelancersunion.org
Please let me know when you've done.


Isn't this way beyond that now? 

Maybe several years ago with the first outrageous behaviour perpetrated by IStock on its contributors, but what do you think this will do now?

Having seen what they are prepared to do even if they backtrack on this they will only find another way or be less open about what they are doing.

IMHO it's way too late to expect any kind of fair deal from them under any circumstances. What are you waiting for? they have just told you they will pay you 2 cents for downloads!!! What would they have to do for you to stop working with them!!!!

« Reply #289 on: October 28, 2016, 11:15 »
+3
Though it wouldn't hurt if someone there picked up the story and it spread among freelance designers.

Completely agree! I have already contacted with manager and she agreed to start talking about it in two weeks by phone call.
It is good news for us but my English is not good enough to tell and understand correctly.

Would you help and talk to her about Getty, and give us feedback.
Here are her contacts: Sharon (Member Engagement Manager), 718-532-1515 x669. sbruce@freelancersunion.org
Freelancers Union. 408 Jay Street, 2nd Floor, Brooklyn, NY 11201. FreelancersUnion . org

« Reply #290 on: October 28, 2016, 11:29 »
+7
On second thoughts. Totally worth it to drive business away and expose their shenanigans. Just wouldn't recommend working with them ever again regardless.

« Reply #291 on: October 28, 2016, 12:12 »
+45
Just sent this to the greedy bass turds. I hope it doesn't take long.

Congratulations, IStock.  After putting up with your total lack of respect and rock-bottom royalties for TWELVE YEARS, you have finally found a way to get rid of me.  I tolerated your stingy 15% royalties for far longer than I should have, and now you have finally gotten my attention by informing me that my photos are worth as little as 2 CENTS to you.  I considered deactivating nearly all of my files, but after thinking about it, I hereby REFUSE to support your ill-treatment of content creators by leaving even ONE file in your untrustworthy hands.  Any agency that thinks so little of me and my hard work is not an agency that I need to have any type of relationship with, in any form or fashion.  I will now concentrate my efforts on agencies which still pay me somewhat fairly. So please delete my account as soon as possible and send me any unpaid funds which you owe me.

PS.  I will be educating my customers via my website exactly why they will no longer find my files on your site and I sincerely hope you go out of business.

« Reply #292 on: October 28, 2016, 15:39 »
+14
Just sent this to the greedy bass turds. I hope it doesn't take long.

Congratulations, IStock.  After putting up with your total lack of respect and rock-bottom royalties for TWELVE YEARS, you have finally found a way to get rid of me.  I tolerated your stingy 15% royalties for far longer than I should have, and now you have finally gotten my attention by informing me that my photos are worth as little as 2 CENTS to you.  I considered deactivating nearly all of my files, but after thinking about it, I hereby REFUSE to support your ill-treatment of content creators by leaving even ONE file in your untrustworthy hands.  Any agency that thinks so little of me and my hard work is not an agency that I need to have any type of relationship with, in any form or fashion.  I will now concentrate my efforts on agencies which still pay me somewhat fairly. So please delete my account as soon as possible and send me any unpaid funds which you owe me.

PS.  I will be educating my customers via my website exactly why they will no longer find my files on your site and I sincerely hope you go out of business.

I have reached this point too.  Will you please post what response you get.  I know there is a 30 day hold before images are deleted.  I just want to know if they make it difficult to close account and have images removed or difficult to get last payment.

For the ones that think some organized action will change their mind, WRONG.  For those that think  stopping to upload new images but leave existing portfolio there will affect them, WRONG.  This was all tried in a widespread and organized effort a couple years ago with NO IMPACT.  They are too stupid, greedy, and short sighted to consider contributor efforts or long term health of their own busines. 

Only one thing will have an impact.  Deleting ALL images and closing the account.   This will at least drive buyers to better sites and show other sites that contributors will enforce limits and aren't just all  talk and no action.

I don't say this casually.  This will hurt my income.  Istock currently pays my mortgage.  But whether I stay or go I will lose a lifestyle affecting amount of money.   I'd rather share the pain with istock than to suffer more loss of my dignity.

« Reply #293 on: October 28, 2016, 15:45 »
0
I am not leaving the rest of my port up for the money, I think it is less than 100 dollars a month now.

For me istock and my time there is part of my identity as a stock artist. Removing my port completly would feel like I am trying to erase myself.

istock and getty dont care either way and since my stuff hardly sells, there are no buyers to affect.

But it is still (the rest) of my portfolio, even if the good files are long gone.

For a while I was hoping the company might be sold one day and then an old port could be reactivated. But now I guess istock will die when Getty goes bankrupt. I dont think anybody will buy them, Adobe and SS have their own content, they dont need anything from Getty.

So for good or bad, the rest of my portfolio will stay until istock goes up in flames.
« Last Edit: October 28, 2016, 15:49 by cobalt »

« Reply #294 on: October 28, 2016, 16:23 »
+2
I am not leaving the rest of my port up for the money, I think it is less than 100 dollars a month now.

For me istock and my time there is part of my identity as a stock artist. Removing my port completly would feel like I am trying to erase myself.

istock and getty dont care either way and since my stuff hardly sells, there are no buyers to affect.

But it is still (the rest) of my portfolio, even if the good files are long gone.

For a while I was hoping the company might be sold one day and then an old port could be reactivated. But now I guess istock will die when Getty goes bankrupt. I dont think anybody will buy them, Adobe and SS have their own content, they dont need anything from Getty.

So for good or bad, the rest of my portfolio will stay until istock goes up in flames.

Visual China Group might buy them... 

« Reply #295 on: October 28, 2016, 20:28 »
+2
I understand Independents being upset because their royalty went from 15-20% to flat 15%
But paying the exact percentage of royalties for any single sale (credits and subs) looks to me like a fair move.
We still don't know their criteria about how many credits will be necessary to be in each category, thats something that will have to be judge the day they publish it.

My condolences and solidarity to independent fellows, but for exclusives, I still don't see the reasons to panic and close accounts


« Reply #296 on: October 28, 2016, 21:50 »
+16
But paying the exact percentage of royalties for any single sale (credits and subs) looks to me like a fair move.

Sounds ridiculous to me.  They are not known for their accounting acuity.

ShadySue

« Reply #297 on: October 28, 2016, 22:00 »
+7
But paying the exact percentage of royalties for any single sale (credits and subs) looks to me like a fair move.

Sounds ridiculous to me.  They are not known for their accounting acuity.

I can't understand why they insist on making things so complicated when their coders are so code-challenged, even so far as introducing bugs where none existed before, and 'disappearing' files from search.
But I don't pretend to be able to understand many of their decisions and apparent policies.

« Reply #298 on: October 28, 2016, 23:20 »
+2
But paying the exact percentage of royalties for any single sale (credits and subs) looks to me like a fair move.

Sounds ridiculous to me.  They are not known for their accounting acuity.

I am not talking here about their accounting acuity, Im just saying that from now on, we will get the exact percentage of royalties for any single sale (credits and subs). It does not mean either that we are going to make more money, this is something only time will tell. So far I don't see a reason to panic about the latest news (if you are exclusive)

Tay

« Reply #299 on: October 29, 2016, 01:50 »
+4
But paying the exact percentage of royalties for any single sale (credits and subs) looks to me like a fair move.

Sounds ridiculous to me.  They are not known for their accounting acuity.

I am not talking here about their accounting acuity, Im just saying that from now on, we will get the exact percentage of royalties for any single sale (credits and subs). It does not mean either that we are going to make more money, this is something only time will tell. So far I don't see a reason to panic about the latest news (if you are exclusive)

Yeah it looks like a small raise but once again they introduce stupid targets. Since four years I triple my portfolio and my income fell by 80%. Now they easly can reduce my 40% to 30% and I'm pretty sure that they do it.
« Last Edit: October 29, 2016, 03:17 by Tay »


 

Related Topics

  Subject / Started by Replies Last post
17 Replies
6721 Views
Last post September 09, 2010, 19:38
by madelaide
iStock royalty cut goes live

Started by helix7 « 1 2 3 4  All » iStockPhoto.com

85 Replies
21547 Views
Last post January 24, 2011, 12:54
by ShadySue
6 Replies
2841 Views
Last post July 25, 2014, 08:32
by KimsCreativeHub
3 Replies
3005 Views
Last post October 30, 2015, 13:47
by Microstock Posts
6 Replies
2092 Views
Last post February 27, 2017, 00:56
by stockmn

Sponsors

Microstock Poll Results