Author Topic: iStock Content to Sell on Photos.com and JupiterUnlimited (Read 95218 times)

alias · « **Reply #150 on:** May 05, 2009, 09:04 »

Make sure to tell your friends, network, Twitter and all. It is important that the word gets around on this. This threatens the other sites and the business in general.

Milinz · « **Reply #151 on:** May 05, 2009, 09:44 »

LOL!

It appears I can't find checkbox to opt-out from subscriptions in my profile control panel ;-)

I bet 16 cents that it was there while ago :-)

So, people - I want to sell my images on Istock only on Pay-as-you-go...

Help please!

Does someone know how to do that?

CofkoCof · « **Reply #152 on:** May 05, 2009, 09:48 »

Quote from: kkthompson

How will it work?
1. Today, we will remove the ability for iStock photographers to opt out of the current iStock subscription offering. Why would we do that? Because you’re making about the same amount on Pay-as-you-go sales as subscription, and only a few thousand files were opted out from the entire collection. By removing the option to keep your files out, you make more money, and customers are less confused. It’s a win-win situation. Those that are affected have already been notified.

Milinz · « **Reply #153 on:** May 05, 2009, 09:50 »

Quote from: CofkoCof on May 05, 2009, 09:48

Quote from: kkthompson
How will it work?
1. Today, we will remove the ability for iStock photographers to opt out of the current iStock subscription offering. Why would we do that? Because you’re making about the same amount on Pay-as-you-go sales as subscription, and only a few thousand files were opted out from the entire collection. By removing the option to keep your files out, you make more money, and customers are less confused. It’s a win-win situation. Those that are affected have already been notified.

LOOOL - So, then disabling all files from further sales is only way?

OK - I can live with that!

;-)

[EDIT]

Hello!
Your latest policy is quite nasty. I would like all my files disabled from subscription model. If that is not possible to have decent earnings here via pay-as-you-go I'd rather have all my files disabled from such JUI sales!
Anyway all that files you have of me are already sold on JUI via other agency which represents me there!
This policy you are making is not good - and you'll see many people run away from this agency!
BTW, When I become member here there was EXCLUDE SUBSCRIPTION BUTTON - I would not like this NASTY behaviour of you with just deleting that button!
Best Regards,
milinz

Sean Locke Photography · « **Reply #154 on:** May 05, 2009, 10:04 »

No, no, no. You're missing the whole thing. Everyone is now participating in iStock subs, which are based on no less than $.96 a credit (cheapest PAYG package).

The button to opt out of JIU/Photos.com sub sales will be available later this month.

Milinz · « **Reply #155 on:** May 05, 2009, 10:11 »

Quote from: sjlocke on May 05, 2009, 10:04

No, no, no. You're missing the whole thing. Everyone is now participating in iStock subs, which are based on no less than $.96 a credit (cheapest PAYG package).

The button to opt out of JIU/Photos.com sub sales will be available later this month.

Win-win on $0.96 sales - come on dude - that story even little kids can't buy anymore!

Also, I can't find the way to disable my files at all ;-)
Fortune is that I was lazy to upload my photos there and I am now very happy due to that!
I already left Crestock, Vectorstock, and seem this will be my third ex agency ;-)
Well.... I will forget on that agency for a while ;-)

Jo Ann Snover · « **Reply #156 on:** May 05, 2009, 13:25 »

Anyone who intends to opt out of the iStock/Getty plan to put content on Jupiter Images properties at low royalties, might like to change their iStock avatar to show that. You'll see a lot of red floating around the IS forums right now...

alias · « **Reply #157 on:** May 05, 2009, 14:59 »

Fewer than 300 people had responded to the poll last time I looked. Most people will probably go along with it if IS says to. Pity.

bittersweet · « **Reply #158 on:** May 05, 2009, 15:12 »

Quote from: Milinz on May 05, 2009, 10:11

Quote from: sjlocke on May 05, 2009, 10:04
No, no, no. You're missing the whole thing. Everyone is now participating in iStock subs, which are based on no less than $.96 a credit (cheapest PAYG package).

The button to opt out of JIU/Photos.com sub sales will be available later this month.

Win-win on $0.96 sales - come on dude - that story even little kids can't buy anymore!

Also, I can't find the way to disable my files at all ;-)
Fortune is that I was lazy to upload my photos there and I am now very happy due to that!
I already left Crestock, Vectorstock, and seem this will be my third ex agency ;-)
Well.... I will forget on that agency for a while ;-)

Sorry dear, you are confused. The current iStock subscription program is, at least for now, completely different than the newest scheme they are proposing. The guarantee is .96 PER CREDIT, not per sale, and it is far better than the no guarantee/good possibility of 3 cents PER SALE at photos.com and JUI.

They are removed the ability to opt images out of the ISTOCK subscription program, not the new program. The royalties being paid on the ISTOCK program have been, in my experience, averaging pretty close to normal PAYG sales.

There will be an option to opt out of the new scheme.

That being said, the only way you can disable your portfolio is to deactivate each file individually. However, you also have the option of contacting support and they can do it for you in one fell swoop.

GeoPappas · « **Reply #159 on:** May 05, 2009, 15:19 »

Quote from: whatalife on May 05, 2009, 15:12

The current iStock subscription program is, at least for now, completely different than the newest scheme they are proposing. The guarantee is .96 PER CREDIT, not per sale, and it is far better than the no guarantee/good possibility of 3 cents PER SALE at photos.com and JUI.

IS royalties on subs are much lower than 0.96 per credit. I have received a royalty on a sub for 0.34 and I'm sure it goes lower than that.

Sean Locke Photography · « **Reply #160 on:** May 05, 2009, 15:54 »

Quote from: GeoPappas on May 05, 2009, 15:19

Quote from: whatalife on May 05, 2009, 15:12
The current iStock subscription program is, at least for now, completely different than the newest scheme they are proposing. The guarantee is .96 PER CREDIT, not per sale, and it is far better than the no guarantee/good possibility of 3 cents PER SALE at photos.com and JUI.

IS royalties on subs are much lower than 0.96 per credit. I have received a royalty on a sub for 0.34 and I'm sure it goes lower than that.

Of course they are. They $.96 is the credit price. You get your cannister royalty based on that, which for $.34 means you're probably gold, right?

Milinz · « **Reply #161 on:** May 05, 2009, 16:08 »

Quote from: sjlocke on May 05, 2009, 15:54

Quote from: GeoPappas on May 05, 2009, 15:19
Quote from: whatalife on May 05, 2009, 15:12
The current iStock subscription program is, at least for now, completely different than the newest scheme they are proposing. The guarantee is .96 PER CREDIT, not per sale, and it is far better than the no guarantee/good possibility of 3 cents PER SALE at photos.com and JUI.

IS royalties on subs are much lower than 0.96 per credit. I have received a royalty on a sub for 0.34 and I'm sure it goes lower than that.

Of course they are. They $.96 is the credit price. You get your cannister royalty based on that, which for $.34 means you're probably gold, right?

And just to add: All my sales via StockXpert on JUI and Photos.com are 30 cents... So, it is stupid to have the same images selling via Istock just to give Istock more money... It is fortune also that Istock doesn't need my illustrations... I now can choose them one by one sold via Fotosearch or even Corbis ;-) Nevertheless Canstockphoto earned me 2 times more money in this 5 months than Istock in almost 2 years with less sales! That is to be considered for future uploads... I will go Canstock way more and Istock will be left to collect dust.

lisafx · « **Reply #162 on:** May 05, 2009, 16:16 »

Speaking of Corbis ^^...

As Corbis is one of the few agencies with enough reach to combat Getty, all of us who are independent should upload our content to Veer Marketplace as soon as that option becomes available. I certainly plan to.

batman · « **Reply #163 on:** May 05, 2009, 16:26 »

Quote from: lisafx on May 05, 2009, 16:16

Speaking of Corbis ^^...

As Corbis is one of the few agencies with enough reach to combat Getty, all of us who are independent should upload our content to Veer Marketplace as soon as that option becomes available. I certainly plan to.

why Veers? without any proven record. why not Cutcaster , as John has proven to take our interest in consideration. With all your support he could succeed in his vision to give all of us a fair cut.
He's always been here to dialogue with us, even taking a lot of criticisms of which he made good .

Veer hasn't proven to do anything, Corbis either other than being a monolith like Getty.
Why settle for a tired old dog when you have a hot young titan waiting to go the mileage?

DanP68 · « **Reply #164 on:** May 05, 2009, 16:28 »

Quote from: Milinz on May 05, 2009, 09:00

Ok... Let's find some nice independent agency which cares about authors!

There's already a few of them. But they don't sell images worth a darn, so what's the point?

batman · « **Reply #165 on:** May 05, 2009, 16:32 »

Quote from: DanP68 on May 05, 2009, 16:28

Quote from: Milinz on May 05, 2009, 09:00
Ok... Let's find some nice independent agency which cares about authors!

There's already a few of them. But they don't sell images worth a darn, so what's the point?

they don't have the clout without all your images. any one of them could, if a significant number of dissatisfied exclusives and non moved their port to them.

DanP68 · « **Reply #166 on:** May 05, 2009, 16:33 »

Quote from: whatalife on May 04, 2009, 19:21

Quote from: cali_4590 on May 04, 2009, 19:08
I think all Istock Exclusives should opt A, send everything to Photos.com, and immediately go non-exclusive.
How is putting my images up for sale for a few pennies going to hurt anyone but me?? Sorry but this makes no sense at all.

Because it devalues all of our work. I think that is the point a lot of the upper echelon exclusives are making in the istock forum thread. I'm with them all the way. Besides, I thought istock was theoretically moving toward midstock, and raising the bar on quality/price?

DanP68 · « **Reply #167 on:** May 05, 2009, 16:37 »

Quote from: sjlocke on May 05, 2009, 10:04

No, no, no. You're missing the whole thing. Everyone is now participating in iStock subs, which are based on no less than $.96 a credit (cheapest PAYG package).

The button to opt out of JIU/Photos.com sub sales will be available later this month.

Thank you Mr. Locke. I'm not sure why everyone is so confusing this point.

Jo Ann Snover · « **Reply #168 on:** May 05, 2009, 16:52 »

Quote from: batman on May 05, 2009, 16:32

Quote from: DanP68 on May 05, 2009, 16:28
Quote from: Milinz on May 05, 2009, 09:00
Ok... Let's find some nice independent agency which cares about authors!

There's already a few of them. But they don't sell images worth a darn, so what's the point?

they don't have the clout without all your images. any one of them could, if a significant number of dissatisfied exclusives and non moved their port to them.

True, but some of us tried Gimmestock and Albumo and PhotoShelter - Lucky Oliver anyone? Putting images on a site isn't enough.

You need not only a site, but some credible marketing plan to get buyers to the site. Without that, fairness to contributors isn't really more than a nice principle.

madelaide · « **Reply #169 on:** May 05, 2009, 16:53 »

Quote from: GeoPappas on May 05, 2009, 15:19

IS royalties on subs are much lower than 0.96 per credit. I have received a royalty on a sub for 0.34 and I'm sure it goes lower than that.

I don't mind 19c for a XS. I do mind about a XXL for 30c.

Gregor909 · « **Reply #170 on:** May 05, 2009, 16:55 »

Just got sitemail from StockXpert.
They're about to review the entire Stockxpert collection in order to identify and remove any images that infringe on someone's intellectual property.

Now at least we know Getty isn't getting rid of StockXpert in the near future.

lisafx · « **Reply #171 on:** May 05, 2009, 16:57 »

Quote from: batman on May 05, 2009, 16:26

why Veers? without any proven record. why not Cutcaster , as John has proven to take our interest in consideration. With all your support he could succeed in his vision to give all of us a fair cut.
He's always been here to dialogue with us, even taking a lot of criticisms of which he made good .

Veer hasn't proven to do anything, Corbis either other than being a monolith like Getty.
Why settle for a tired old dog when you have a hot young titan waiting to go the mileage?

Actually, Veer is a very well respected and proven name. I know a lot of designers who shop the micros and also shop at Veer.

Besides, if you want to fight a mammoth you need another mammoth. Corbis is big enough to compete with Getty in a way that no other agencies are at the moment.

batman · « **Reply #172 on:** May 05, 2009, 16:58 »

Quote from: jsnover on May 05, 2009, 16:52

Quote from: batman on May 05, 2009, 16:32
Quote from: DanP68 on May 05, 2009, 16:28
Quote from: Milinz on May 05, 2009, 09:00
Ok... Let's find some nice independent agency which cares about authors!

There's already a few of them. But they don't sell images worth a darn, so what's the point?

they don't have the clout without all your images. any one of them could, if a significant number of dissatisfied exclusives and non moved their port to them.
True, but some of us tried Gimmestock and Albumo and PhotoShelter - Lucky Oliver anyone? Putting images on a site isn't enough.

You need not only a site, but some credible marketing plan to get buyers to the site. Without that, fairness to contributors isn't really more than a nice principle.

again, i repeat, the clout. you said some of us. the picture is different here.
we 're not talking about some of us putting some images to try for a few months. did you read Adelphis comment on the other thread? that's discussing the same thing, except here, you guys are just talking about IS.

my thoughts about Corbis Veer is repetitive. Corbis was wiped out by Getty. so you still want to play with the old dog expecting a new life from an old dog? how rational is that?
you are settling for Veer because of Corbis reputation. but what reputation is that?
that's like asking for Alta Vista to come back and kick Google's arse.

i say give one of the new titans a shot. but not just for 2 or 3 months with a bit of my images.
we're talking everything. and every one has to be counted. the game plan has changed.
it's time we think out of the box, rather than expected a resurrection of an old beaten power.

batman · « **Reply #173 on:** May 05, 2009, 17:08 »

another thing, even when the chips are down and the writing is on the wall, you exclusive still want to be separated and be elitists refusing to discuss with the non ex. this situation affects everyone, yet your mob still huddle together like little bandits thinking and excluding the masses.
how intelligent is that? be an exclusive and grovel in dust. lol...
i don't understand your mentality, that's for sure ! EXCLUSIVE IS , woo hoo !

batman · « **Reply #174 on:** May 05, 2009, 17:29 »

i'm not finished...

so, you say you prefer Corbis to Cutcaster. hokey, case in a nutshell.
Snap Village, does this ring a bell?

At the same time, John Griffin came in to the forum asking for contributors. He made one thing clear, almost repeatedly in the face of criticisms and cynicisms,
still coming out saying, "hey guys , let's work together . i can't do it without you."

i don't know how many times he said that. compared to Corbis, how many times do we see one of the CEOs from Corbis coming in here to rub shoulders?

Sure, John's new, but somehow I don't think he is as wet behind the ears as you may think. Also, isn't open communication the one thing you look for in any successful business?

I remember attending a seminar and meeting people who worked with the amazing Bill Gates. I never met the man, but I met some of his instructors, who met him . I joking said to them, "so what do you do when you meet Bill Gates, do you bow and kowtow to him, as he snubs you people?"
the answer, "no, we call him Bill like anyone else here".

Bill, or John, isn't that what you expect. Or you still prefer to be nameless, faceless, and one pip out of you and your blog is banned like Yuri's.
even Yuri, man!!!! how much clearer do you need the picture to be painted?

All we want is respect for our creative images, and a good earning, and to be treated like we are holding the ship afloat. You don't think you are the ones holding the IS ship afloat? Try deleting all your images tomorrow, en masse.

Who wants to bet IS goes under? But it won't happen because you are all too scared like a little drug addict with the spoon of opium already in your system.
You can't let go.
And Getty knows that.

harsh reality, hate to say it, and i am sure you hate to read it and accept it.

sooooo, let's all go under together with our egos still inflated.
have a good swim my exclusive friends.

MicrostockGroup Sponsors

Author Topic: iStock Content to Sell on Photos.com and JupiterUnlimited (Read 95218 times)

alias

Milinz

CofkoCof

Milinz

Sean Locke Photography

Milinz

Jo Ann Snover

alias

bittersweet

GeoPappas

Sean Locke Photography

Milinz

lisafx

batman

DanP68

batman

DanP68

DanP68

Jo Ann Snover

madelaide

Gregor909

lisafx

batman

batman

batman

Related Topics

Sponsors

Microstock Poll Results

Sponsors