pancakes

MicrostockGroup Sponsors


Author Topic: iStock changing royalty structure  (Read 229307 times)

0 Members and 2 Guests are viewing this topic.

PaulieWalnuts

  • On the Wrong Side of the Business
« Reply #1275 on: October 25, 2010, 19:25 »
0

And yes, it is the start of a new corporate IS where "it's just business" and they clearly don't give a flying fig what contributors think.

They projected $200M in revenue for 2010. It's no longer what it was. It has turned into a corporate goldmine and is now being treated like what it has become.


« Reply #1276 on: October 25, 2010, 19:37 »
0
...and all along he deleted posts, diverted public discourse with snide remarks, banned members he couldn't intimidate with sitemails and at the end locked the threads with a little stab of a statement to finish it off (see "we are undersigned" thread lock).

From where I am standing - he is a total Di...

« Reply #1277 on: October 25, 2010, 19:49 »
0
In case anyone was still holding out hope for a change, it seems Lobo is feeling lock happy today.  


[url=http://www.istockphoto.com/forum_messages.php?threadid=253522&page=346#post5067981]http://www.istockphoto.com/forum_messages.php?threadid=253522&page=346#post5067981
[/url]


OMG, feels like the end of an era.... ;)

------------------------
Sadly I think you are right.  It seems there just about no reason to go to the Istock forums now, which is sad given just how entertaining they used to be.

Though I guess we'll all be back there to check out the next shoe dropping thread when it comes...

« Reply #1278 on: October 25, 2010, 19:54 »
0
...and all along he deleted posts, diverted public discourse with snide remarks, banned members he couldn't intimidate with sitemails and at the end locked the threads with a little stab of a statement to finish it off (see "we are undersigned" thread lock).

From where I am standing - he is a total Di...

Wow, that is an awesome thread, I wish I had known about it (I don't go to the IS forums much at all, unless someone links to it from here, and if they did, I guess I missed it). does anyone know what the final tally of signers was? dgilder was keeping track. I went through about half the threads and read the last one, but don't see a final tally.

« Reply #1279 on: October 25, 2010, 19:57 »
0
... with a little stab of a statement to finish it off (see "we are undersigned" thread lock)


Yes, I saw that little flourish and thought that was totally uncalled for - sort of kicking someone when they're already on the ground just 'cause you can.

You should call it as you see it. I wasn't trying to talk you out of it, just put another point of view.

Especially in the "what have you done for me lately" culture that Getty/IS is morphing into, anything nice or helpful someone did a while back isn't worth anything anyway. Or at least it's worth the same as the promise that Vetta prices wouldn't go up this year, or canisters would be grandfathered, or...

« Reply #1280 on: October 25, 2010, 20:34 »
0
^^ I totally hear you. Please excuse my candor - sometimes I get a little ahead of myself.

« Reply #1281 on: October 25, 2010, 21:13 »
0
...and all along he deleted posts, diverted public discourse with snide remarks, banned members he couldn't intimidate with sitemails and at the end locked the threads with a little stab of a statement to finish it off (see "we are undersigned" thread lock).


Spot on.

« Reply #1282 on: October 25, 2010, 22:14 »
0
...and all along he deleted posts, diverted public discourse with snide remarks, banned members he couldn't intimidate with sitemails and at the end locked the threads with a little stab of a statement to finish it off (see "we are undersigned" thread lock).

From where I am standing - he is a total Di...

... Is the right answer!

Good summary of events.

alias

« Reply #1283 on: October 26, 2010, 03:02 »
0
...and all along he deleted posts, diverted public discourse with snide remarks, banned members he couldn't intimidate with sitemails and at the end locked the threads with a little stab of a statement to finish it off (see "we are undersigned" thread lock)

Thread ended because someone posted that agency collection pictures are upscaled ?

« Reply #1284 on: October 26, 2010, 06:23 »
0
...and all along he deleted posts, diverted public discourse with snide remarks, banned members he couldn't intimidate with sitemails and at the end locked the threads with a little stab of a statement to finish it off (see "we are undersigned" thread lock).

From where I am standing - he is a total Dick...


+1, I tried to ask him a question through sitemail about the changes (since I am not really involved in stock photography) and he was an complete tool and an ass to me.  Then, he baited me (and I bit) resulting in my ban. 

In another locked  thread, he claims it wasn't locked for any other reason that it was turning into a circus. 

newbielink:http://www.istockphoto.com/forum_messages.php?threadid=268031&page=1#post5071751 [nonactive]

Interestingly,  in defending the decision to close the thread (because HQ thought it was a circus)  he makes the comment that, '...many people didn't see it as a discussion...'  Well of course they didn't, because istock leadership refused to answer questions or engage in any dialogue.  Quite the straw man argument. And apparently it wasn't critiques of istock that they didn't like, they just felt people were being too emotional.

I suspect they closed it to minimize the negative contributor feedback for the loopholes that agency collection is exploiting.

 I have learned an incredible amount from here (and istock forum) in the last few months.  Back to lurker status now...

lisafx

« Reply #1285 on: October 26, 2010, 12:09 »
0

Thread ended because someone posted that agency collection pictures are upscaled ?

I had missed that.  Are Agency images upscaled?   Isn't that one of the biggest taboos on Istock? 

I don't want to believe Istock is in demise, but things like this cause me real concern.

« Reply #1286 on: October 26, 2010, 12:46 »
0

Thread ended because someone posted that agency collection pictures are upscaled ?

I had missed that.  Are Agency images upscaled?   Isn't that one of the biggest taboos on Istock?  

I don't want to believe Istock is in demise, but things like this cause me real concern.

Just have a look at the last two or three pages of the "Where we go from here"-thread. It is obvious "where we go from here": Someone at Getty/Istock management made the decision that it would be more profitable to screw their contributors every which way, than to have a happy community.

And I'm afraid that time will prove them right: the dust has settled by now, only very few contributors of importance took any consequences (my hat's off to jamirae et al.) and come January it wil be business as usual - only at a quite lower percentage to most of us.

It comes to light that agency photos are obviously not only not inspected as rigorously as yours our mine, but that some of them are also upscaled. Not to mention that nobody bothered to deny the fact that some inspectors/admins have faster reviews than your average exclusive, let alone the independents.

I never bought into the "we are one happy family" at IS, but then I never wore the crown and always was from the part of the family nobody really wanted to talk about. Right now the income from IS is between 15 and 25% of my total microstock income, in January it will be between 13% and 21%. A loss for sure, but nothing that would be "unsustainable" (sic!). Luckily I'm not doing this for a living, but I feel for everybody who does and who put all their eggs in the IS-basket...
« Last Edit: October 26, 2010, 15:00 by Ploink »

« Reply #1287 on: October 26, 2010, 12:54 »
0

Thread ended because someone posted that agency collection pictures are upscaled ?

I had missed that.  Are Agency images upscaled?   Isn't that one of the biggest taboos on Istock? 


I don't know if any of the subset of the Getty Agency collection that is now on IS is upscaled, but Getty does allow/require that, so it's certainly possible.

From the Getty contributor portal:

"Interpolating the image up to our 47.5-52MB requirement is best achieved using a Fractal algorithm like
Genuine Fractal Print Pro. However, in most circumstances simply re-sizing in recent versions of
Photoshop (Adobe Creative Suite 1 or higher) is acceptable. As such, it is important to experiment with
different techniques. Ultimately, the quality of the final 47.5-52MB file you prepare for submission is your
prime consideration; no noise, artifacts, distortion, or moir should be visible. The largest file size your
image can be sold at is 300MB, so image integrity is critical when interpolating."

It is complete bollocks that the Agency collection on IS has gone through the same inspection process that other contributors have with their work. They've pulled many images (starting with the "technical glitch" that gave us the toilet door) after the fact when problems have surfaced.

Getty's rules are different for stuff on their own site - for example, they allow multiple logos in books on a shelf or Times Square shots, even though they don't allow what they call "isolated" logos. My guess is that's why the pharmacy shot they removed from IS Agency Collection after I pointed out a pile of logos was allowed on Getty.

I don't care if they want to allow others to follow the Getty rules and allow logos (I've never understood the sense of upsizing though, it's just an outdated habit that should be dumped). What I care about a lot is (a) being told one thing when what happens clearly contradicts it and (b) one set of rules for a special group that bypasses those rules the rest of us have to abide by.

« Reply #1288 on: October 26, 2010, 13:22 »
0
What I care about a lot is (a) being told one thing when what happens clearly contradicts it and (b) one set of rules for a special group that bypasses those rules the rest of us have to abide by.

+1 And - btw - bravo what you said on that now dead thread about "the contest" ... I was in the process of quoting you and posting a reply when Lobo hammered it.

« Reply #1289 on: October 26, 2010, 13:45 »
0
What I care about a lot is (a) being told one thing when what happens clearly contradicts it and (b) one set of rules for a special group that bypasses those rules the rest of us have to abide by.

+1 And - btw - bravo what you said on that now dead thread about "the contest" ... I was in the process of quoting you and posting a reply when Lobo hammered it.

The Stockys contest thread was locked? I see it still open on the site. Or are you referring to a different thread?

« Reply #1290 on: October 26, 2010, 14:16 »
0
I think Risamay is referring to a post I made in the locked oh-shut-up!-no?-ok-complain-in-here thread about why the contest wasn't a neutral thing to do, IMO.

« Reply #1291 on: October 26, 2010, 14:43 »
0
^^ I totally hear you. Please excuse my candor - sometimes I get a little ahead of myself.
Hey..if it walks like a duck...... ;)

« Reply #1292 on: October 26, 2010, 14:45 »
0
I think Risamay is referring to a post I made in the locked oh-shut-up!-no?-ok-complain-in-here thread about why the contest wasn't a neutral thing to do, IMO.


yes, that is definitely a great post.

« Reply #1293 on: October 26, 2010, 17:23 »
0
Forgive me if this has already been discussed, but I have wondering about something for as long as these new collections have been discussed.

Where did the collections originate, i.e. from what other company(ies)?

What artists produced the images, and under what commission/royalty arrangements did the artists provide the images?  Where are those artists now, have they any stake in Getty such as ownership, management or exclusive contracts?  Do they still receive commissions from their images or did they sell them lock, stock and barrel?

What was the nature of the financial deal which brought the images from (somewhere) to Getty?  Was it for all cash, was it for nothing except the promise of royalties/commissions, or was it a combination of the two?  (or something else completely, such as swapping ownership shares in Getty)

Did Istock acquire the collections directly from the original owners/artists, or did it acquite the collections from within Getty?  (either the parent company or another subsidiary)  Did Istock the subsidiary of Getty have to pay another subsidiary of Getty to acquire the right to sell the images?  Will Istock have to forward a share of the sales to another subsidiary or to the parent company?  Or to some third party?

Who owned/controlled the collections before they came into Getty's hands, and what compensation did they receive from Getty when it acquired the collection?  What future compensation might they receive from sales of the images?  Do the original owners of the collections have any ongoing stake in Getty, as owners, managers or contributors?

All of this is just an elaborate way of asking the age-old question, Cui bono?

« Reply #1294 on: October 26, 2010, 17:30 »
0
The Agency Collection is about 9,000+ images from multiple sources (most are company names but who knows who that actually is) sold on gettyimages.com. I don't know that there's any way to know the terms under which that content is licensed to Getty. IS is displaying a portion of that content . I assume IS is just a storefront in this case as the images are still shown on gettyimages.com as well.

The IS Agency collection is now at 5,000+ images but some of those are from real IS contributors - those who submitted an application and got approved the way all of us did.

donding

  • Think before you speak
« Reply #1295 on: October 26, 2010, 17:52 »
0

+1, I tried to ask him a question through sitemail about the changes (since I am not really involved in stock photography) and he was an complete tool and an ass to me.  Then, he baited me (and I bit) resulting in my ban. 

In another locked  thread, he claims it wasn't locked for any other reason that it was turning into a circus. 

http://www.istockphoto.com/forum_messages.php?threadid=268031&page=1#post5071751

Interestingly,  in defending the decision to close the thread (because HQ thought it was a circus)  he makes the comment that, '...many people didn't see it as a discussion...'  Well of course they didn't, because istock leadership refused to answer questions or engage in any dialogue.  Quite the straw man argument. And apparently it wasn't critiques of istock that they didn't like, they just felt people were being too emotional.

I suspect they closed it to minimize the negative contributor feedback for the loopholes that agency collection is exploiting.

 I have learned an incredible amount from here (and istock forum) in the last few months.  Back to lurker status now...


"There are plenty of places for people to spit fire about iStock outside of these forums. Peoole are free to participate without fear of being censored or banned on other message boards. "

If that isn't a slap in the face I don't know what is....

« Reply #1296 on: October 26, 2010, 18:25 »
0
The Agency Collection is about 9,000+ images from multiple sources (most are company names but who knows who that actually is) sold on gettyimages.com. I don't know that there's any way to know the terms under which that content is licensed to Getty. IS is displaying a portion of that content . I assume IS is just a storefront in this case as the images are still shown on gettyimages.com as well.

The IS Agency collection is now at 5,000+ images but some of those are from real IS contributors - those who submitted an application and got approved the way all of us did.

Thanks - just trying to find out of there is any reason such as personal pecuniary interest which might cause a lapse in standards or an undue haste to push the new content ahead of other images.

It's a private company and all of this is their own d_mn business, but a supplier is naturally curious as to who is their competition and what deals might have led to the store shelves being positioned and stocked in one way as opposed to the other.

alias

« Reply #1297 on: October 30, 2010, 07:55 »
0
"There are plenty of places for people to spit fire about iStock outside of these forums. Peoole are free to participate without fear of being censored or banned on other message boards. "

If that isn't a slap in the face I don't know what is....


It means the spread word about Agency (rezzed up, QC problems, over-priced) on your graphic design forums, Twitter, Facebook. Show users how to exclude Agency and Vetta using search options. Promote IS alternatives.

Well maybe.

« Reply #1298 on: October 30, 2010, 13:36 »
0
In answer to th question a few posts up. I know a photographer that used to shoot directly for jupiterimages. He was paid a day rate. At the time 800 a day which was ok. But for that he gave up all copyrights to the images he took and he was given a tight brief from the agency. All expenses, travel and models were paid for by the agency. He used to moan a bit about it but did it every few months when regular work was quiet.  That was for RM though so was a good bet for jupiterimages I guess to invest...

molka

    This user is banned.
« Reply #1299 on: October 31, 2010, 18:44 »
0


Just have a look at the last two or three pages of the "Where we go from here"-thread. It is obvious "where we go from here": Someone at Getty/Istock management made the decision that it would be more profitable to screw their contributors every which way, than to have a happy community.


I just can't beleive all you people talking about istock as comunity... that's beyond naivity, that's ridiculous. You guys are a community, but that has nothing to do with IS. It migth have been a community at the very start when people were exhancing files, but they have been conning you eversince. You can hiss at getty as much as you want, and they deserve it being overtly agressive business people, but the microstock bunch are a lot-lot worse, they are just frudulant bandits. I read back in in IS forums, Lobo and other admins -with some rare exceptions-, have been dictatorial hostile little pricks as long as I could read back, and they have been messing with file sizes, credits way before getty took action. They so much didn't give a crap about contributors that the best you got was single file upload buttons straight from the eighties, and upload and inspection system that creates enormous amount of eytra work without that having any pint at all (reauploading stuff because of bad keywording?? what?) and that has nothing to do with getty. I ran into some rare occasions when Yuri got involved in forums, and the admins trash talked him too, locked his threads.. doing that to the guy who single handidly made them millions! You call that a happy community site??? You are out your mind.

And then the worst part: subscritions (it's not just about istock of course) That's a huge paycut to start with, and everybody just blatantly accepts it because it was presented as s "new structure". I guess dumbos only new to be fed a buzzword, and they'll go with any crap : ((( The whole subscription thing is doorway to conning the s**t out of you. Imho it wouldn't be a huge surprsie if it turned out that you don't even get noted - and of course payed - for all the downloads you get in that system, they just hide it, and there you go. How . would you now? On SS f.e. there isn't even a download number, only a listing for 'popularity' which seems to be a combination of age and downloads, but it's obscure to say the least. Any of your files might have been downloaded more than you know, and you'll never know, bacause once a subscription has expired, they just can just erase all data of it except for it being payed for, and than reaching expiration by downloads or date. It's pretty much clear that almost none of the subscriions reach all the downloads possible, so the only way you could find out how things actually went is to cross reference clients downloads with your track record, which is practically impossible. I suspect you are F-ed BiG TimE all over the place with these sites... : (


 

Related Topics

  Subject / Started by Replies Last post
3 Replies
2853 Views
Last post February 17, 2007, 07:20
by GeoPappas
17 Replies
6892 Views
Last post September 09, 2010, 19:38
by madelaide
2 Replies
2891 Views
Last post July 15, 2010, 10:47
by HughStoneIan
2 Replies
2447 Views
Last post September 09, 2010, 17:42
by loop
22 Replies
6868 Views
Last post January 31, 2014, 09:15
by JPSDK

Sponsors

Microstock Poll Results