Author Topic: Getty and Corbis Monopoly by Piclet (Read 8624 times)

Chico · « **on:** March 30, 2011, 14:28 »

Very good way to understand image market since early years.

http://www.mystockphoto.org/getty-and-corbis-monopoly-by-piclet/?utm_source=microstock.info&utm_medium=microstock%2C+photos%2C+stock%2C+photography&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+mystockphotoorg+%28My+Stock+Photography%29

ap · « **Reply #1 on:** March 30, 2011, 14:38 »

excellent!

PeterChigmaroff · « **Reply #2 on:** March 30, 2011, 14:42 »

There is a lot missing from the timeline.

lagereek · « **Reply #3 on:** March 30, 2011, 15:16 »

I personally know dozens of buyers at Getty, I dont know anybody or even heard of anybody buying from Corbis, maybe Bill is doing most of the buying himself, he can afford it.

wiser · « **Reply #4 on:** March 30, 2011, 19:48 »

Nice timeline, very easy to follow.

We use to buy RF regularly from Corbis, Alamy, AGE and Getty until IS got as good as it is around 2008-2009 or so (image-quality wise that is). My shop now mostly buys from Shutterstock and IS. We only go to Getty for the occasional RM stunner for a cover or full page glamour shot.

luissantos84 · « **Reply #5 on:** March 30, 2011, 20:41 »

Via: Free Stock Photography

OhGoAway! · « **Reply #6 on:** March 30, 2011, 21:06 »

Well, I need a drink now. That was about as cheery as I expected it to be

Sean Locke Photography · « **Reply #7 on:** March 30, 2011, 21:12 »

That bottom right box about the iStock royalty changes makes no sense at all.

SNP · « **Reply #8 on:** March 30, 2011, 21:46 »

look here ;-)

http://www.microstockgroup.com/istockphoto-com/getty-and-corbis-monopoly-by-piclet/msg0/?topicseen#new

BaldricksTrousers · « **Reply #9 on:** March 31, 2011, 00:57 »

Quote from: sjlocke on March 30, 2011, 21:12

That bottom right box about the iStock royalty changes makes no sense at all.

+ 1

It's propaganda, but not very good propaganda because I still don't know what it wants me to think.

RacePhoto · « **Reply #10 on:** March 31, 2011, 01:33 »

Quote from: BaldricksTrousers on March 31, 2011, 00:57

Quote from: sjlocke on March 30, 2011, 21:12
That bottom right box about the iStock royalty changes makes no sense at all.

+ 1

It's propaganda, but not very good propaganda because I still don't know what it wants me to think.

The red camera gun winds backwards.

(it's a lefty?)

Interesting collection and timeline.

sharpshot · « **Reply #11 on:** March 31, 2011, 02:40 »

Quote from: sjlocke on March 30, 2011, 21:12

That bottom right box about the iStock royalty changes makes no sense at all.

It makes about as much sense as the management spin we get from istock. They try and polish the turd, this is making it smell worse

leaf · « **Reply #12 on:** March 31, 2011, 02:59 »

I just merged the two similar topics

Sean Locke Photography · « **Reply #13 on:** March 31, 2011, 03:03 »

Quote from: sharpshot on March 31, 2011, 02:40

Quote from: sjlocke on March 30, 2011, 21:12
That bottom right box about the iStock royalty changes makes no sense at all.
It makes about as much sense as the management spin we get from istock. They try and polish the turd, this is making it smell worse

No, I mean they are randomly pasting things together:
"In 2010, iStockphoto announced a big change in royalty rates: photographers need to sell more than 150,000 credits a year to receive 40% in royalties, otherwise they'd see a pay cut. This means iStockphoto receives 85% while photographers receive a payout of 15%."

To start, it makes no sense, because it mixes exclusive with non-exclusive terms. Then it compares almost the highest of one to the lowest of the other. It also seems to assume that all exclusives were making 40% prior to the new paradigm. Then it erroneously assumes everyone who doesn't make 150,000 credits falls to the lowest level of independent. And photographers don't sell credits.

Sean Locke Photography · « **Reply #14 on:** March 31, 2011, 03:04 »

Quote from: leaf on March 31, 2011, 02:59

I just merged the two similar topics

Ha, you did that right as I was posting in the other one. I was WTH, where'd it go?

ProArtwork · « **Reply #15 on:** March 31, 2011, 05:09 »

Quote from: sjlocke on March 31, 2011, 03:03

Quote from: sharpshot on March 31, 2011, 02:40
Quote from: sjlocke on March 30, 2011, 21:12
That bottom right box about the iStock royalty changes makes no sense at all.
It makes about as much sense as the management spin we get from istock. They try and polish the turd, this is making it smell worse

No, I mean they are randomly pasting things together:
"In 2010, iStockphoto announced a big change in royalty rates: photographers need to sell more than 150,000 credits a year to receive 40% in royalties, otherwise they'd see a pay cut. This means iStockphoto receives 85% while photographers receive a payout of 15%."

To start, it makes no sense, because it mixes exclusive with non-exclusive terms. Then it compares almost the highest of one to the lowest of the other. It also seems to assume that all exclusives were making 40% prior to the new paradigm. Then it erroneously assumes everyone who doesn't make 150,000 credits falls to the lowest level of independent. And photographers don't sell credits.

Where is the outrage from those that like to point out misleading information?

Microbius · « **Reply #16 on:** March 31, 2011, 05:42 »

I guess people are less bothered by nonsense spouted by random bloke on the internet then they are by the COO of an agency that is meant to be representing their interests (?)

Piclet · « **Reply #17 on:** April 19, 2011, 09:34 »

Quote from: sjlocke on March 31, 2011, 03:03

Quote from: sharpshot on March 31, 2011, 02:40
Quote from: sjlocke on March 30, 2011, 21:12
That bottom right box about the iStock royalty changes makes no sense at all.
It makes about as much sense as the management spin we get from istock. They try and polish the turd, this is making it smell worse

No, I mean they are randomly pasting things together:
"In 2010, iStockphoto announced a big change in royalty rates: photographers need to sell more than 150,000 credits a year to receive 40% in royalties, otherwise they'd see a pay cut. This means iStockphoto receives 85% while photographers receive a payout of 15%."

To start, it makes no sense, because it mixes exclusive with non-exclusive terms. Then it compares almost the highest of one to the lowest of the other. It also seems to assume that all exclusives were making 40% prior to the new paradigm. Then it erroneously assumes everyone who doesn't make 150,000 credits falls to the lowest level of independent. And photographers don't sell credits.

Guys, sincere thanks for ripping apart the wording in the ‘royalty changes’ section! It made perfect sense at the time of publishing but with hindsight, it was rather confusing

The info has been updated in the graphic...

lagereek · « **Reply #18 on:** April 19, 2011, 12:02 »

To be quite honest, I think their monopoly is grossly overrated.

cathyslife · « **Reply #19 on:** April 19, 2011, 17:03 »

Quote from: sharpshot on March 31, 2011, 02:40

Quote from: sjlocke on March 30, 2011, 21:12
That bottom right box about the iStock royalty changes makes no sense at all.
It makes about as much sense as the management spin we get from istock. They try and polish the turd, this is making it smell worse

LOL!

MicrostockGroup Sponsors

Author Topic: Getty and Corbis Monopoly by Piclet (Read 8624 times)

Chico

ap

PeterChigmaroff

lagereek

wiser

luissantos84

OhGoAway!

Sean Locke Photography

SNP

BaldricksTrousers

RacePhoto

sharpshot

leaf

Sean Locke Photography

Sean Locke Photography

ProArtwork

Microbius

Piclet

lagereek

cathyslife

Related Topics

Sponsors

Microstock Poll Results

Sponsors