Quote from: grassr00tpower on September 08, 2010, 16:07

Today I opened an company account for our ad agency on dreamstime and advised the employees not to use istock anymore. Beyond that I changed the PW of istock to prevent that some of the guys are just following an routine and accidentially buy there.

Well done!  Applause from me.  Hope others follow suit

Yes, very nicely done, I hope many will follow!

Quote from: Habman on September 08, 2010, 17:12

Check this out . .

http://www.istockphoto.com/forum_messages.php?threadid=252382&page=1

Sorry but this is just a waste of time and effort.  Starting petitions, changing your avatar to a red ribbon, it's all pointless and Getty doesn't care.  If the people who started these "movements" spent the same amount of time contacting buyers to educate them on what is happening, we could solve this problem inside of a month.

It's like taking part in a community walk to fight a disease.  The disease doesn't care about your solidarity and your commitment to go for a walk.  You want to make a difference?  Put down your hard earned cash to give it to researchers who are capable of finding a cure.  It's the same with this situation.  Those of you with connections to buyers need to get on the horn if you want real changes.  That takes real work and commitment.  Signing a petition just points out to Getty exactly who needs to be eliminated first.

100% correct.

I doubt the majority of buyers care how much we earn. They just want the right image and at bargain price.

Do you stop buying cheap things because they are made by cheap labor?

Quote from: Habman on September 08, 2010, 17:12

Check this out . .

http://www.istockphoto.com/forum_messages.php?threadid=252382&page=1

Sorry but this is just a waste of time and effort.  Starting petitions, changing your avatar to a red ribbon, it's all pointless and Getty doesn't care.  If the people who started these "movements" spent the same amount of time contacting buyers to educate them on what is happening, we could solve this problem inside of a month.

It's like taking part in a community walk to fight a disease.  The disease doesn't care about your solidarity and your commitment to go for a walk.  You want to make a difference?  Put down your hard earned cash to give it to researchers who are capable of finding a cure.  It's the same with this situation.  Those of you with connections to buyers need to get on the horn if you want real changes.  That takes real work and commitment.  Signing a petition just points out to Getty exactly who needs to be eliminated first.

I doubt the majority of buyers care how much we earn. They just want the right image and at bargain price.

As was pointed out earlier in this thread, many designers are artists too and all too are familiar with the plights we face trying to get agencies to treat us fairly.  Therefor it is possible some amount of empathy can be expected.

However the best argument to make to any designer is that -

1) The same images are available at a cheaper price at other sites
2) Despite the cheaper price, the artist will receive a larger commission due to a more fair profit sharing between the agency and artist

That's all that needs to be said.  Include a direct link to the same image selling cheaper (but not ridiculously cheap) at a reputable agency.  I also think it goes without saying that most artists are slightly anti-authoritarian and probably would view Getty in a much more negative light than say, Bigstock or Stockfresh.  

I really don't think it is a difficult sell at all.

Let's be constructive! There are some points in the new concept I do like. Measuring the seriousness of contributors according their current annual performance is not such a bad idea. What I dislike are the actual numbers. They took what Yuri can produce (and he alone) and made it as a starting point, I mean as the highest limit. I do not mind if they give him extra, no doubt he is the most serious player in the league, so give him more. But please open the 20% (independents) club for some mortals as well. Place this limit to somewhere around 60-100k, then most serious players can jump it and secure their current income. I suggest that IS should shift this whole limit-structure with one or two steps backwards compared to the annoucment - then I could take side with them.

As an example: I am on the brink of being qualified for that 150k limit club. Last year I passed it, this year I have a chance but it's not sure yet - I'll be close that's for sure. And who am I? I am a bit late starter compared to the real IS veterans but I am already somewere around the 80th position in overall number of downloads. That's cool, we can say I am doing well and I feel myself pretty serious. It seems I am in their first 10 most successful indenpendents (if not then definitely within the first 15) but still I have no chance to keep my income and have a chance to miss even the second group? I think this is disproportionate.

Quote from: BaldricksTrousers on September 08, 2010, 17:22

Do you really think anything as feeble as an upload boycott is going to work, when 90% of submitters are probably still in blissful ignorance about this?

Yes, given enough months, I think it has a very good chance. It's not as feeble an idea as doing nothing at all which seems to be your main suggestion. All submitters should be aware of the situation as they have had the email.

Upload boycotts have worked to improve things with other sites that lowered royalties.  I don't know if one will work at IS.   I don't even know if doing what we can to drive buyers to the more reasonable sites will work.  But I do know that doing nothing will guarantee we all go down the tubes.  There is no doubt about that.  

At some point it isn't just about how much you think you can change.  I am not certain we can get them to change anything.  For me it is an issue of deciding whether I want to to stand up for myself or just accept whatever crumbs Istock wants to toss my way without protest.  

Either way, my income is going to be affected.  Not only will I lose probably 10% of my IS income (which is 4-5% of my overall income), but I expect I will also lose income on the other sites when brilliant photographers who have been exclusive begin competing with me on the other sites.  We are all in for some pain.  The question is should we try to salvage the industry or just let it go down.  I'm gonna try and salvage what I can because that's what I believe in.  

For the moment, I am going to contact every buyer I know, let them know what's happening to image producers at Istock, and offer them better choices of where to shop.  I have also suspended uploading for the time being.  I am leaving it open when I will resume uploading - don't want to box myself into a corner.  Others are free to do what their consciences dictate.  

BTW, Balderick, my initial comment about defeatism was not directed at you, and I don't think you fit that description.

Do you stop buying cheap things because they are made by cheap labor?

Actually, Yes.  

For example, my husband and I stopped shopping at WalMart a few years ago when I found out they were squeezing their suppliers to shut down US and other Western factories that paid a living wage and instead open sweatshops in third world countries.  I have persuaded others to do the same.  

Just today I drove 5 miles out of my way to buy a bouquet of flowers for a friend from a local Florist who supports my church, rather than just picking them up at the supermarket by my house.

Are WalMart or the supermarket going to go out of business?  No.  But I feel better about my choices, and if enough people did the same then the economy would not be in the toilet as it is.    

It may be the case for the non-exclusives.

However, do you get paid more at other sites? From my recollections, even though IS only gave me 20%, I still got higher dollar amount, than, SS and FT, 123, Veer, etc. With DT, my Level 4 images were doing comparably ok but their sub sales sucked.  

Quote from: Freedom on September 08, 2010, 17:40

I doubt the majority of buyers care how much we earn. They just want the right image and at bargain price.

As was pointed out earlier in this thread, many designers are artists too and all too are familiar with the plights we face trying to get agencies to treat us fairly.  Therefor it is possible some amount of empathy can be expected.

However the best argument to make to any designer is that -

1) The same images are available at a cheaper price at other sites
2) Despite the cheaper price, the artist will receive a larger commission due to a more fair profit sharing between the agency and artist

That's all that needs to be said.  Include a direct link to the same image selling cheaper (but not ridiculously cheap) at a reputable agency.  I also think it goes without saying that most artists are slightly anti-authoritarian and probably would view Getty in a much more negative light than say, Bigstock or Stockfresh.  

I really don't think it is a difficult sell at all.

It's bad enough, but the introduction of other collections will make it even harder to get those credits.  You think non-exclusive search placement is bad now, wait until this mystery fully owned content is added.  It will take the first 10  search pages, then 15 pages of exclusives then us - the excluded.  Unless they see the 85% potential of pushing the excludeds to the top.

Lisa, your reply makes sense because you have a lot of higher level images at DT and your canister level is high at FT. While at IS, your BD status does not generate more money for you because you are an independent.

As to the Walmart comment, I meant that if other alternative stores do not carry what you want or carry what you can afford, you will have no choice but to buy from Walmart. But I worded it wrongly so I understand why you didn't get my point.

Quote from: Freedom on September 08, 2010, 18:03

It may be the case for the non-exclusives.

However, do you get paid more at other sites? From my recollections, even though IS only gave me 20%, I still got higher dollar amount, than, SS and FT, 123, Veer, etc. With DT, my Level 4 images were doing comparably ok but their sub sales sucked.  

Just for informational purposes - this past August my $/DL numbers at the top three PPD sites were:  Istock $1.07, Fotolia $ 1.44, and Dreamstime $1.83.  This is including sub sales.  The very high rates for PPD still mean that I score considerably higher on a per sale basis at FT and DT than IS.  And that is as it currently stands.  Only gonna get worse when the new rates kick in.  So yeah, it only makes sense to direct buyers to those sites.  

Don't understand your WalMart question?  What does it matter to me whether or not WalMart carries the 5DII if I don't shop there?  

For the moment, I am going to contact every buyer I know, let them know what's happening to image producers at Istock, and offer them better choices of where to shop.  I have also suspended uploading for the time being.  I am leaving it open when I will resume uploading - don't want to box myself into a corner.  Others are free to do what their consciences dictate.  

BTW, Balderick, my initial comment about defeatism was not directed at you, and I don't think you fit that description.

Lol Gostwyck does

Contacting buyers is a practical step. It amounts to going nuclear. It may be the only answer. I'll suspend uploading for a short while in case there is a widespread move in that direction.

Quote from: Vonkara on September 08, 2010, 13:48

From Sylvanworks (copy paste)...

OK, the folks at HQ have been reading the responses and have been putting together a reply. I'm going to lock this so everyone can catch their breath for a few minutes. I've been told the response will be posted within the next hour

This has become their modus operandi and I am SOOOO tired of it. I will be happy to make things easier for them. I have ZERO trust in the cr*p that comes out of their mouths anymore.

You're now in the clear majority with that thinking, Cathy.

I just wonder in what drugs are iStock and Greedy???