MicrostockGroup Sponsors


Author Topic: iStock changing royalty structure  (Read 348561 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

« Reply #725 on: September 11, 2010, 10:27 »
0
Of course there's the other ridiculous theory going around that they came up with this evil plan in order to drive out non-exclusives.  If that was their intention they wouldn't have shafted exclusives as well.  They would have thrown in a sweetener instead and enticed non-exclusives to join the other side.

Actually I think independents are collateral damage, since the beef seems to be the growing number of folks to reach the 35-40% mark, or expected to in the near future, which is certainly not the independents. But had they messed only with their exclusive structure, the headlines would have been "Istock screws their exclusives" which would have been incredibly worse. With the damage done to our wallet, they're appeasing a few of their exclusives who would have gone even more berserk trashing IS reputation, but more importantly killing the awful headline. Of course making more money during a PR operation certainly made that decision more obvious. Being on the receiving end of this PR op, though, plainly sucks.

Exactly. Since the day Getty bought IS, their path has been to transform IS to Getty, and that path NEVER included non-exclusives.

I get what you're both saying but if that was the case, woudn't they have reduced the commission of independents and left exclusives as is?  That way independents would have either jumped ship or become exclusive and exclusives would have been happy.  Their current structure now will force quite a few exclusives to leave as well, maybe not in a hurry, but they'll definitely consider alternatives in the next couple of months.

Just to temper a bit, I don't think IS doesn't want non exclusives, in fact if you read between the lines KK hints that making an exclusive plan the way they did was kind of a mistake. Besides if you only have exclusives, then they're nothing special. I mean to a lot of buyers, the fact is you'll find most of the better photos from the top agencies at IS plus exclusive content, which is a big draw. They don't have to go to three or four places. Plus the independent work is cheaper so that's another tier in pricing. Cut it off and all of a sudden they're really not competitive anymore and become a luxury item, which would be attractive to many but would certainly cost them their leadership position.

So I think IS do want independents, but do care more about the reactions of their exclusives. We are at the bottom of the pecking order, but it doesn't mean that they don't want our business.


« Reply #726 on: September 11, 2010, 11:10 »
0
Back to what Kelly Thompson wrote:
Quote
But money isnt going to be what makes you all happy. You want to know that this is still the best place to be, to hang out, and sell your work. You may not be convinced today like you were last week, but its our job to make sure you feel that way again soon.

It seems that to some IS is a cult, you have to be there no matter what, your life isn't complete unless you are there.  ::)

« Reply #727 on: September 11, 2010, 11:25 »
0
I think I'm caught up on the latest on the threads about the latest changes - to sum it up, IS haven't changed their position, and the vast majority are still unhappy. Both exclusives and non-exclusives.

At the moment we have:
- an Avitar campaign going
- a petition thread: http://www.istockphoto.com/forum_messages.php?threadid=252382&page=1
- people contacting buyers
- people twittering / blogging
- individuals cancelling exclusivity
- individuals deleting portfolios
etc. etc.

KK's last thread is titled: "Where we go from here". To me the line that stands out is: "Tuesday was iStocks "bridge" day, and we crossed it full on." It sounds like they not only crossed it, but burned it down behind them.

To make any change this time we're going to need more than a pettition or new avitars. Rather than everyone running in different directions we really need to come up with a co-ordinated and professional response to this from both exclusives and non-exclusives.

« Reply #728 on: September 11, 2010, 11:34 »
0
I feel like the discussion's over.  All that matters are suppliers canceling exclusivity, which won't take effect for a month; suppliers stopping uploading, which will take weeks to register with anybody; buyers shifting to other agencies, which will take months to affect revenues, and which will likely be blamed on Seasonal Affect Disorder or sunspot activities or something other than rejection of the new plan; and suppliers removing content, which I expect to be insignificant.  And that ignores everyone who'll delay any action at all until January 1st, and then probably delay even longer to see just how much they lose, at which point they're blame SAD and sunspots, etc.

« Reply #729 on: September 11, 2010, 11:36 »
0
I think I'm caught up on the latest on the threads about the latest changes - to sum it up, IS haven't changed their position, and the vast majority are still unhappy. Both exclusives and non-exclusives.

At the moment we have:
- an Avitar campaign going
- a petition thread: http://www.istockphoto.com/forum_messages.php?threadid=252382&page=1
- people contacting buyers
- people twittering / blogging
- individuals cancelling exclusivity
- individuals deleting portfolios
etc. etc.

KK's last thread is titled: "Where we go from here". To me the line that stands out is: "Tuesday was iStocks "bridge" day, and we crossed it full on." It sounds like they not only crossed it, but burned it down behind them.

To make any change this time we're going to need more than a pettition or new avitars. Rather than everyone running in different directions we really need to come up with a co-ordinated and professional response to this from both exclusives and non-exclusives.


People are doing what they think that they can afford to do in regards to this. If we really all wanted to destroy IS, well then we would have to do all of the above at a precise moment, plus a lawsuit. But for most, the right moment is not now,  but more like February or March after we see the real results of this.

Thing is, I don't want to destroy Istock... and I don't think I'm alone in not wanting this major player to go down the tubes overnight. Isn't something like this exactly why we're not exclusives? We should just pat each other on the back and congratulate ourselves for making the choice we did and openly encourage better managed companies to help them take the lead. Istock has already lost the trust of their "cult" as someone else put it. That's a lot of word of mouth that will in the long term make sure that karma does its thing.

« Reply #730 on: September 11, 2010, 11:37 »
0
I think I'm caught up on the latest on the threads about the latest changes - to sum it up, IS haven't changed their position, and the vast majority are still unhappy. Both exclusives and non-exclusives.

At the moment we have:
- an Avitar campaign going
- a petition thread: http://www.istockphoto.com/forum_messages.php?threadid=252382&page=1
- people contacting buyers
- people twittering / blogging
- individuals cancelling exclusivity
- individuals deleting portfolios
etc. etc.

KK's last thread is titled: "Where we go from here". To me the line that stands out is: "Tuesday was iStocks "bridge" day, and we crossed it full on." It sounds like they not only crossed it, but burned it down behind them.

To make any change this time we're going to need more than a pettition or new avitars. Rather than everyone running in different directions we really need to come up with a co-ordinated and professional response to this from both exclusives and non-exclusives.


Simple create a "RM" site that allows previous licensing as RF.  Exclusives would be able to move content there to send IS a message without burning their bridge.

« Reply #731 on: September 11, 2010, 11:51 »
0

People are doing what they think that they can afford to do in regards to this. If we really all wanted to destroy IS, well then we would have to do all of the above at a precise moment, plus a lawsuit. But for most, the right moment is not now,  but more like February or March after we see the real results of this.

Thing is, I don't want to destroy Istock... and I don't think I'm alone in not wanting this major player to go down the tubes overnight. Isn't something like this exactly why we're not exclusives? We should just pat each other on the back and congratulate ourselves for making the choice we did and openly encourage better managed companies to help them take the lead. Istock has already lost the trust of their "cult" as someone else put it. That's a lot of word of mouth that will in the long term make sure that karma does its thing.

I'm presently exclusive, so I definitely don't want IS to go down the tubes overnight. But if I'm going to go back to being independent, I want an arangement that's more beneficial over the long term than what's there now. If anything worthwhile is going to come out of this, its going to have to develop over more than a few months. 

I went exclusive recently, partly because I was sick of being slowly screwed by 10 different agencies - and went to the one that didn't seem to have screwed exclusives quite so much in the past. Uploading to 10 different agencies does involve a lot more work, and you simply can't say to buyers "go here" because all of the options have major drawbacks from a contributor point of view.

A large number of unsustainable agencies doesn't really help us as contributors. If there were some way of creating another big agency that had much more favourable terms, and could be set up so as not to screw us, it would be far more beneficial for us than simply increasing the number of non-exclusive images on a wide range of agencies.

« Reply #732 on: September 11, 2010, 12:01 »
0
I'm presently exclusive, so I definitely don't want IS to go down the tubes overnight. But if I'm going to go back to being independent, I want an arangement that's more beneficial over the long term than what's there now. If anything worthwhile is going to come out of this, its going to have to develop over more than a few months. 

I went exclusive recently, partly because I was sick of being slowly screwed by 10 different agencies - and went to the one that didn't seem to have screwed exclusives quite so much in the past. Uploading to 10 different agencies does involve a lot more work, and you simply can't say to buyers "go here" because all of the options have major drawbacks from a contributor point of view.

A large number of unsustainable agencies doesn't really help us as contributors. If there were some way of creating another big agency that had much more favourable terms, and could be set up so as not to screw us, it would be far more beneficial for us than simply increasing the number of non-exclusive images on a wide range of agencies.

Well stated.

« Reply #733 on: September 11, 2010, 12:04 »
0

Simple create a "RM" site that allows previous licensing as RF.  Exclusives would be able to move content there to send IS a message without burning their bridge.

Brilliant idea.  

I just re-read the exclusive agreement. This could work extremely well. We could develop a new simple Micro RM license that allowed a single image use - the buyer is automatically tracked against the image in question for each "use" so as to make the arrangement within the excusion in the IS exclusive agreement.

« Reply #734 on: September 11, 2010, 12:06 »
0

People are doing what they think that they can afford to do in regards to this. If we really all wanted to destroy IS, well then we would have to do all of the above at a precise moment, plus a lawsuit. But for most, the right moment is not now,  but more like February or March after we see the real results of this.

Thing is, I don't want to destroy Istock... and I don't think I'm alone in not wanting this major player to go down the tubes overnight. Isn't something like this exactly why we're not exclusives? We should just pat each other on the back and congratulate ourselves for making the choice we did and openly encourage better managed companies to help them take the lead. Istock has already lost the trust of their "cult" as someone else put it. That's a lot of word of mouth that will in the long term make sure that karma does its thing.

I went exclusive recently, partly because I was sick of being slowly screwed by 10 different agencies - and went to the one that didn't seem to have screwed exclusives quite so much in the past. Uploading to 10 different agencies does involve a lot more work, and you simply can't say to buyers "go here" because all of the options have major drawbacks from a contributor point of view.


Personally, I'm willing to work more to preserve a healthy competitive market. I've worked a long time for a corporation and having competitors is super important. Otherwise the companies feel, with good reason, that they can do anything. People have been looking at Freshstock or Veer to rise up to the challenge... a big 6 would be excellent in my views. With none of them really rising too far above the others, thus becoming a target for a takeover from larger corporation which would force them in turn to have a change in management philosophy the way it all happened at IS since Getty acquired them or downright shut them down, which happened to StockXpert. This is a great first move for our future: making sure that a healthy competition keeps going between the agencies.

« Reply #735 on: September 11, 2010, 12:23 »
0
As much as I hate all these changes, I have to give them credit for allowing us to really hammer them on their forums. You would never see Fotolia or Dreamstime allow that.

Yea thats about the only positive thing I can say.  ;D


Wonder for how much longer though after reading this:
http://www.istockphoto.com/forum_messages.php?threadid=253522&messageid=4673242

lisafx

« Reply #736 on: September 11, 2010, 12:46 »
0
Has anyone else noticed a sharp and unusual increase in their rejections at IS all of a sudden?  Like anyone who has been active on this forum?

For the past several weeks leading up to this I have had 100% approval rate.  My overall rate there is over 90%.  Just today, all of a sudden I had more than a third of images submitted in my last batch rejected.  The reasons listed were things like artifacts and/or purple fringing.  No attachments were included to show the "problem" areas, and I can't see them on my monitor.  Plus images from the same shoots were accepted 100% without exception over the last several weeks.  

Very hard not to view this as some sort of retaliation from speaking out here in the forums.  
« Last Edit: September 11, 2010, 12:58 by lisafx »

« Reply #737 on: September 11, 2010, 12:54 »
0
Couldn't say; my last batch (last = both most recent & last they're getting) is still waiting for review after eight days. 

« Reply #738 on: September 11, 2010, 13:06 »
0
Has anyone else noticed a sharp and unusual increase in their rejections at IS all of a sudden?  Like anyone who has been active on this forum?

For the past several weeks leading up to this I have had 100% approval rate.  My overall rate there is over 90%.  Just today, all of a sudden I had more than a third of images submitted in my last batch rejected.  The reasons listed were things like artifacts and/or purple fringing.  Images from the same shoots were accepted 100% without exception over the last several weeks. 

Very hard not to view this as some sort of retaliation from speaking out here in the forums. 

I also can't say - my last batch from the 8th also still hasn't cleared the batch. The exclusive que isn't exactly zipping along either at the moment.

« Reply #739 on: September 11, 2010, 13:39 »
0
I went exclusive recently, partly because I was sick of being slowly screwed by 10 different agencies - and went to the one that didn't seem to have screwed exclusives quite so much in the past. Uploading to 10 different agencies does involve a lot more work, and you simply can't say to buyers "go here" because all of the options have major drawbacks from a contributor point of view.

Unfortunately by going exclusive (not just you obviously) you give the agency the power to screw you to a far greater degree. The hassle of uploading and dealing with multiple agencies is simply the price of maintaining a competitive market for your work.

I don't know about anybody else but even now, several days after the original announcement, I still feel almost nauseous with rage and indignation __ and that's as an independent contributor. I do feel sorry for the exclusives who are losing out but in part I also blame them for helping create the monster that Istock has become. Unfortunately we independents have also been caught in the crossfire of reducing commissions. I doubt that Istock would have tried this on if all the contributors were on 20%.

« Reply #740 on: September 11, 2010, 13:48 »
0
Has anyone else noticed a sharp and unusual increase in their rejections at IS all of a sudden?  Like anyone who has been active on this forum?

For the past several weeks leading up to this I have had 100% approval rate.  My overall rate there is over 90%.  Just today, all of a sudden I had more than a third of images submitted in my last batch rejected.  The reasons listed were things like artifacts and/or purple fringing.  No attachments were included to show the "problem" areas, and I can't see them on my monitor.  Plus images from the same shoots were accepted 100% without exception over the last several weeks.  

Very hard not to view this as some sort of retaliation from speaking out here in the forums.  

Actually, I was surprised they accepted all of my last batch (no series rejections). I just assumed they sent it through because they wanted to clear off their plate, so they could watch Thursday's NFL game. Probably just random reviewer kindness though.

« Reply #741 on: September 11, 2010, 13:58 »
0

Simple create a "RM" site that allows previous licensing as RF.  Exclusives would be able to move content there to send IS a message without burning their bridge.

Brilliant idea.  

I just re-read the exclusive agreement. This could work extremely well. We could develop a new simple Micro RM license that allowed a single image use - the buyer is automatically tracked against the image in question for each "use" so as to make the arrangement within the excusion in the IS exclusive agreement.

It seems to me that this would be a very good idea - not only for IS exclusives, but generally.

Xalanx

« Reply #742 on: September 11, 2010, 14:07 »
0

Simple create a "RM" site that allows previous licensing as RF.  Exclusives would be able to move content there to send IS a message without burning their bridge.

Brilliant idea.  

I just re-read the exclusive agreement. This could work extremely well. We could develop a new simple Micro RM license that allowed a single image use - the buyer is automatically tracked against the image in question for each "use" so as to make the arrangement within the excusion in the IS exclusive agreement.

It seems to me that this would be a very good idea - not only for IS exclusives, but generally.

And what makes you think istock won't change their agreement to "you may upload to any RM site, EXCEPT for this one you created"?

« Reply #743 on: September 11, 2010, 14:17 »
0

Simple create a "RM" site that allows previous licensing as RF.  Exclusives would be able to move content there to send IS a message without burning their bridge.

Brilliant idea.  

I just re-read the exclusive agreement. This could work extremely well. We could develop a new simple Micro RM license that allowed a single image use - the buyer is automatically tracked against the image in question for each "use" so as to make the arrangement within the excusion in the IS exclusive agreement.
First, unlike changing payment terms that would require a whole new contributors agreement and who is going to sign a new contract with IStock now?.  Second, I believe singling a business out like that for exclusion would be illegal but not being a lawyer, I cant be certain.

It seems to me that this would be a very good idea - not only for IS exclusives, but generally.

And what makes you think istock won't change their agreement to "you may upload to any RM site, EXCEPT for this one you created"?

First, unlike changing payment terms that would require a whole new contributors agreement and who is going to sign a new contract with IStock now?.  Second, I believe singling a business out like that for exclusion would be illegal but not being a lawyer, I cant be certain.
« Last Edit: September 11, 2010, 14:22 by fullvalue »

alias

« Reply #744 on: September 11, 2010, 14:17 »
0

Simple create a "RM" site that allows previous licensing as RF.  Exclusives would be able to move content there to send IS a message without burning their bridge.

Brilliant idea.  

I just re-read the exclusive agreement. This could work extremely well. We could develop a new simple Micro RM license that allowed a single image use - the buyer is automatically tracked against the image in question for each "use" so as to make the arrangement within the excusion in the IS exclusive agreement.

You need to understand that RM requires customer accounts teams, negotiators, sometime lawyers etc and is more, much more, costly to operate. The market is going in opposite direction. RM is never simple.

Even Getty RF is more expensive than IS model. This explains much of what is happening. Getty wants Getty RF prices on IS model at Getty royalty. Best of both worlds.

And it wants to compete with microstock by subscription.

« Reply #745 on: September 11, 2010, 14:55 »
0
You need to understand that RM requires customer accounts teams, negotiators, sometime lawyers etc and is more, much more, costly to operate. The market is going in opposite direction. RM is never simple.

RM and RF aren't exactly terms with precise meanings - there's so many different licenses out there that have common features, but aren't the same.

The RM license for the purposes of a new micro-style agency would only need to go so far as it is defined in the IS exclusive agreement.

As its drafted I think it would be relatively simple to come up with a license that is very similar to the micro RF license from an operational perspective, except that it would come under the terms of clause 2.1.3 of the IS Exclusive agreement that is: "(3) Content that is "Rights Managed", which is defined as Content produced by the Supplier and licensed for a fee that is based on one or more limited uses and for which usage history is tracked;"

There's nothing that says what the fee needs to be, how the use needs to be limited or how the usae history needs to be tracked.

« Reply #746 on: September 11, 2010, 15:14 »
0
Has everyone seen this from Dreamstime?  Apologies if this has been posted before!

"Spread the word! We're running a special promotion through our referral program for your photographer friends, currently exclusive elsewhere. More to be read"

looks like the opposition is trying to recruit!

Microbius

« Reply #747 on: September 11, 2010, 15:27 »
0
 .
« Last Edit: September 12, 2010, 05:48 by Microbius »

« Reply #748 on: September 11, 2010, 15:50 »
0
Lobo just said on Istock forum: "Mow your lawns, walk your dogs. This thread isn't going anywhere for now."

« Reply #749 on: September 11, 2010, 15:56 »
0
Has anyone else noticed a sharp and unusual increase in their rejections at IS all of a sudden?  Like anyone who has been active on this forum?
...

No I had only one image out of a number of indoor and outdoor shots rejected lately, better than my overall acceptance rate of around 80%.  Some of the shots involved very tricky isolations and natural light, but I did spend more time than usual on post processing.

For the rejected image I had to go back and make the photo look a bit more shabby, so it would not appear "overprocessed" LOL.

Oh of course but I am anonymous, a very small fish, not overly angry or stressed at these changes, and not really worth crushing or teaching a lesson.

If you were trod upon by a reviewer, that's another reason IMHO that they should use buyers and not (exclusive) suppliers to do reviews.


 

Related Topics

  Subject / Started by Replies Last post
3 Replies
4456 Views
Last post February 17, 2007, 07:20
by GeoPappas
17 Replies
9606 Views
Last post September 09, 2010, 19:38
by madelaide
2 Replies
4652 Views
Last post July 15, 2010, 10:47
by HughStoneIan
2 Replies
4092 Views
Last post September 09, 2010, 17:42
by loop
22 Replies
10703 Views
Last post January 31, 2014, 09:15
by JPSDK

Sponsors

Mega Bundle of 5,900+ Professional Lightroom Presets

Microstock Poll Results

Sponsors