0 Members and 2 Guests are viewing this topic.
Quote from: cthoman on June 27, 2013, 23:57Quote from: tickstock on June 27, 2013, 22:54You weren't talking about royalties, you said the cheapest license. But if now you want to talk about the lowest paying royalties per license then look at the sub sites, some pay as low as 21 cents to license a full sized image.But, iStock has/is a sub site. If you are going to average out your RPD at iStock, you have to include Thinkstock. Just like you include Single sales and On Demand in the RPD for Shutterstock and other sites that sell subs and individual image sales.Fair enough. For independents the RPD is probably about the same across many of the sites, what it looks like to me is that Istock has been lowering prices to compete with Shutterstock for a while first as you say with Thinkstock and now on the main site. There probably isn't much difference anymore but if people will accept it at Shutterstock (even praise it) then why wouldn't they accept it at Istock?BTW whatever happened with Fotolia talking about lowering royalties for contributors that were on cheaper sites?
Quote from: tickstock on June 27, 2013, 22:54You weren't talking about royalties, you said the cheapest license. But if now you want to talk about the lowest paying royalties per license then look at the sub sites, some pay as low as 21 cents to license a full sized image.But, iStock has/is a sub site. If you are going to average out your RPD at iStock, you have to include Thinkstock. Just like you include Single sales and On Demand in the RPD for Shutterstock and other sites that sell subs and individual image sales.
You weren't talking about royalties, you said the cheapest license. But if now you want to talk about the lowest paying royalties per license then look at the sub sites, some pay as low as 21 cents to license a full sized image.
I think the royalty rate is bad for most of the main sites and not too different, I think we are professionals so putting a little work into the uploading, keywording, etc.. of our images shouldn't be too much to ask. I think the Google Deal was blown out of proportion. Personally I wouldn't contribute to most of the sites if I wasn't exclusive including Istock, but that's just me.
Quote from: Pilens on June 28, 2013, 00:33What do you think, tickstock?I think most people will probably continue to upload like before.
What do you think, tickstock?
Does it say only exclusive at istock for yuri's images as well?
Quote from: Ron on June 28, 2013, 01:35Does it say only exclusive at istock for yuri's images as well?I don't think Sean would mind me posting this.http://www.seanlockephotography.com/2013/06/27/istockphoto-drops-exclusive-label/
iStock1) now pays independents some of the lowest commissions in the industry, both in dollars and percentage.2) give contributors images away for free to the world without their consent (google drive).3) forces independents images to be sold on the lowest paying of all major subscription sites (thinkstock).4) has the the most time consuming uploading process.5) is heavily favoring exclusive contentetc..Do they really expect independents will keep uploading?
Quote from: somethingpretentious on June 27, 2013, 19:59iStock1) now pays independents some of the lowest commissions in the industry, both in dollars and percentage.2) give contributors images away for free to the world without their consent (google drive).3) forces independents images to be sold on the lowest paying of all major subscription sites (thinkstock).4) has the the most time consuming uploading process.5) is heavily favoring exclusive contentetc..Do they really expect independents will keep uploading? It hasn't stopped most of them so far. They're too frightened to lose a few $$ in the short term, not considering that tolerating all these detrimental changes is going to lose all of us lots of $$ in the long term. Istock know that and now the other big sites do too. So I expect the long period we've had of getting our commissions slashed isn't over yet. The only way to make a difference is for the vast majority of non-exclusives to do something about this and as istock has the lowest percentage commission and now has low volume as well, they're the obvious first place to start.I stopped uploading, removed 500 of my best images and left them with the LCV stuff, what is everyone else doing?
Quote from: tickstock on June 28, 2013, 01:38Quote from: Ron on June 28, 2013, 01:35Does it say only exclusive at istock for yuri's images as well?I don't think Sean would mind me posting this.http://www.seanlockephotography.com/2013/06/27/istockphoto-drops-exclusive-label/The correct answer is that Yurilux has "only from iStock" written under his images. I don't know if that means that they are not available on his site or any of the other micros or not. In any case, I understand that anything that he has on iStock is also available on other Getty sites. It's probably a violation of Canadian law http://www.ipvancouverblog.com/2010/05/canadiancompetitionlaw-misleadingadvertisingupdate/ but I suppose they will carry on until someone bothers to make a complaint to the authorities.
Quote from: Sean Locke Photography on June 27, 2013, 16:07Should be titled "iStockphoto tries to undercut all other agencies on independent content" or "iStock desperate to regain market shares, sees chance to give away independent content".Full sized images still cost more than subs at shutterstock ($10 compared to the average of around $2.50) and pay the contributor more ($1.50-$2 compared to .25-.38), so they haven't undercut shutterstock just yet.
Should be titled "iStockphoto tries to undercut all other agencies on independent content" or "iStock desperate to regain market shares, sees chance to give away independent content".
EVERY OTHER AGENCY IS A FRIENDLY AGENCY!
Quote from: Ron on June 28, 2013, 01:35Does it say only exclusive at istock for yuri's images as well?I think someone indicated that it did. In the UK that could earn you a prosecution for false advertising.
Author
Topic: [ (Read 44745 times)
