MicrostockGroup
Agency Based Discussion => iStockPhoto.com => Topic started by: ShadySue on October 31, 2010, 06:52
-
It seems that some iStock contributers aren't being compensated enough for extended licence sales.
http://www.istockphoto.com/forum_messages.php?threadid=269152&page=1 (http://www.istockphoto.com/forum_messages.php?threadid=269152&page=1)
Better check your recent ELs.
I've sent a Support Ticket.
-
Unfortunately, there's no way to find 'em.
-
Unfortunately, there's no way to find 'em.
Any scope for another of your fancy Greasemonkey scripts perhaps?
;)
-
Unfortunately, there's no way to find 'em.
The consipiracy theorists would say that's the whole point
It's easier when you've got very few ELs, but still time-consuming (I was only checking two ELs and it still took ages): certainly not 'easy'.
-
Unfortunately, there's no way to find 'em.
The consipiracy theorists would say that's the whole point
It's easier when you've got very few ELs, but still time-consuming (I was only checking two ELs and it still took ages): certainly not 'easy'.
Yep, that's exactly what I was going to say! Can you give me any reasonable explanation why a multi-million dollar company can't hire a company to build a website that works correctly? Why it takes months to fix something?
Those istockalypses need to be sustainable somehow! ;)
-
Unfortunately, there's no way to find 'em.
Any scope for another of your fancy Greasemonkey scripts perhaps?
;)
This week I'll add a button to show last EL downloads next to the other columns I added before. It will at least help spot if one sold if you check at the right time.
-
Can you give me any reasonable explanation why a multi-million dollar company can't hire a company to build a website that works correctly? Why it takes months to fix something?
The conspiracy theorists would say if they can't get enough profit by reneging on their promises to contributors, they need to make up the shortfall by stealing. Why fix what works in their favour?
-
Unfortunately, there's no way to find 'em.
Any scope for another of your fancy Greasemonkey scripts perhaps?
;)
This week I'll add a button to show last EL downloads next to the other columns I added before. It will at least help spot if one sold if you check at the right time.
What a guy! Thanks Sean! :)
-
Unfortunately, there's no way to find 'em.
Any scope for another of your fancy Greasemonkey scripts perhaps?
;)
This week I'll add a button to show last EL downloads next to the other columns I added before. It will at least help spot if one sold if you check at the right time.
---------------------------------------
Much appreciated, but its such a shame that it takes contributors building stuff like this on their own to get the data.
Back in the day, Istock's ongoing technical issues were annoying but (maybe just a little) charming. Today, given the lack of trust, it is frightening to me. We depend on them to honestly report our sales data to us and pay us accurately. I don't believe the accounting folks at Istock would seek to screw us, but do we know how the back end works? Can we request an audit? Probably tin foil hat talk.
-
You can get an audit at Getty.
"4.7 Audit Rights. You may employ a certified accountant or licensed financial advisor to audit payments made to you during the previous 36 months, at your expense unless the audit reveals that Getty Images has underpaid you by more than 7.5%, in which case Getty Images will reimburse you for the actual and reasonable auditor’s fees. Getty Images will honor one audit request per calendar year, upon 60 days notice. If an underpayment is discovered in an audit, Getty Images will pay Contributor interest based on the average one month LIBOR rate for the period under audit on the amount due from the date payment was due, correct the books and records, and will pay any amounts due (subject to any applicable Royalty Deductions) within 30 days after the amount due is finally determined. In the event that an audit reveals any overpayment to Contributor, Contributor agrees that Getty Images may deduct the overpayment from Contributor’s earnings."
-
Just checked some of mine. A few seem alright like a 70 credit EL and I got $38.
But quite a few seem a little off to way off.
•Unlimited Reproduction / Print Runs (100.00 credits) and I got a $15 and change. That's way off even at XS size.
One from this past week
•Multi-Seat (unlimited) (75.00 credits) / •Unlimited Reproduction / Print Runs (125.00 credits) and I got a little over $70. Shouldn't that be around $100?
Plus, isn't it supposed to be based on the credit value which is around $1 to $1.50 per credit? Most of these seem to be at $1 or way less.
-
Help me out here. I got a couple of EL's a couple of weeks ago. Both were 125 credits. One payed 31.51 and one payed 32.40. Are independents earnings amounts different than exclusives on EL licenses? I assume they are but do those amounts sound right? Also how can you find out the date the EL license was sold?
-
Help me out here. I got a couple of EL's a couple of weeks ago. Both were 125 credits. One payed 31.51 and one payed 32.40. Are independents earnings amounts different than exclusives on EL licenses? I assume they are but do those amounts sound right? Also how can you find out the date the EL license was sold?
Good question. I thought it was 50% for everybody but I'm not seeing the details anywhere on IS. Anybody have a link to this?
Only way I know to find the date is on the "downloads" area for the individual image.
-
I was also looking at another I had back in September of 09 that sold for 200 credits and I only got $44.52 for it. I have no idea if that is the correct amount. Any help would be appreciated.
I've always assumed iStock knew what they were doing so why check??
-
Help me out here. I got a couple of EL's a couple of weeks ago. Both were 125 credits. One payed 31.51 and one payed 32.40. Are independents earnings amounts different than exclusives on EL licenses? I assume they are but do those amounts sound right? Also how can you find out the date the EL license was sold?
Independents earn 20%
$1.26 per credit x 125 credits= $157.5 Your royalties 20% = $31.50
-
Help me out here. I got a couple of EL's a couple of weeks ago. Both were 125 credits. One payed 31.51 and one payed 32.40. Are independents earnings amounts different than exclusives on EL licenses? I assume they are but do those amounts sound right? Also how can you find out the date the EL license was sold?
Independents earn 20%
Thanks...the numbers sound right for me then.
-
There's a recent reply to the Help forum thread (http://www.istockphoto.com/forum_messages.php?threadid=269152) on IS about this, and the person who called to speak to IS support was told that the 10% bonus exclusives have typically received on EL sales went away last month - we knew it was going in January, but apparently it got taken away sooner.
There clearly is no end to the lengths IS will go to to vacuum up income from what was once the contributor portion. I guess they must be desperate to make their year end numbers to collect their bonuses or keep their jobs.
-
There clearly is no end to the lengths IS will go to to vacuum up income from what was once the contributor portion. I guess they must be desperate to make their year end numbers to collect their bonuses or keep their jobs.
Even when that includes lying, cheating and stealing. This is just ridiculous. And my October sales were dire, when previous Octobers have been good for me.
-
Wow, this is really incredible.
-
Every time I think I can't get any more disgusted with that place.
-
"So, after some digging, we realized that this code was pushed early. We are going to roll the code back but I need to work with the dev team to determine when this will happen. To fix the error of our ways, we will be adding the 10% royalties on these Extended Licensing purchases into your account from the date the code went live until the date we get it fixed. This is for exclusive contributors only as they are only eligible for the additional 10% royalties on Extended licensing. We apologize for the inconvenience and if you have any further questions, please let us know."
-
Whew.
-
Hmmm. The old "We Realized That This Code Was Pushed Early" ploy. A classic manoeuvre by an insatiably greedy business.
Funny how these 'errors' always seem to be in Istockphoto's favour and they only own up to them after they've been caught with their hand in the till.
Strange coincidence too that they managed to push the commission-grab code early but haven't actually gotten around to the fix that enables contributors to actually see which EL's have sold and when. Who'd have thought such a thing could happen?
-
.... Who'd have thought such a thing could happen?
Um... me (http://www.istockphoto.com/forum_permalink_popup.php?threadid=248072&messageid=5103132) :)
Sort of makes a nice pair with the "technical glitch" that got us the toilet stall door in the initial group of Agency images.
I posted earlier about the problem of not knowing about the full details of credits for each sale (for an EL, we don't know size of image purchased, for example) here (http://www.istockphoto.com/forum_messages.php?threadid=203321&page=1).
Lots of people have posted about the problems. But contributor tools are a cost and they just won't spend the money.
-
It'll be interesting to see how long it takes for them to fix it. Maybe they think everyone will forget or they will come out with some other lame statement. That excuse is unbelievable. They gotta hold on to the money as long as they can before this "fix" will become reality. Something is up.
-
So I was posting a reply when Lobo locked the thread about this.
My post was saying that it's beyond belief that a large site has so few checks on code that handles money that a royalty rate change could just get onto the site by "accident".
I think iStock needs to stay what they're doing to improve the review process of code changes like this - it could very easily have gone undetected given the pathetic state of the contributor reporting tools on our sales.
This a big site doing a lot of business. I want to have confidence that my money is being handled securely and calculations of royalties are made at the stated rates.
I think IS owes an explanation of what they're doing to change the procedures they currently use so this never happens again. It's disgraceful that they just say "oops - sorry!" and lock the thread.
-
Actually I'm surprised they're recognizing this and offering to correct it. I was expecting an "oh well, it got rolled out early and we're not changing anything" type of response.
-
I'm putting my money on they won't fix it and hope no one else notices. Because HEY! Pink_cotton_candy is now a forum moderator and the iStocky nominations start today. Woo-yay!
Man, they suck so bad.
-
...
My post was saying that it's beyond belief that a large site has so few checks on code that handles money that a royalty rate change could just get onto the site by "accident".
...
You are absolutely right, it is beyond belief.
Only two possible explanations occur to me right now - either they're the most incompetent people ever to run a multi-million dollar e-commerce site, or else they are absolutely desperate to make some kind of number for end-of-quarter or end-of-fiscal-year.
I've seen and heard of lots of corporate skullduggery when the management knobs are desperate to make their numbers. For example in manufacturing it is (or was) some kind of rule that you don't declare revenue until the product has been delivered to the customer's door. Two scams I heard of were, (a) when you can't ship the product fast enough to the customers, make a rectangle of tape around a corner of your warehouse and declare it to be "customer property" and pile up all the crap there which the management weasels are desperate to declare as "revenue" for the current quarter; and (b) ship stuff to customers that they never ordered, just drive up to their shop, unload and take off. The inevitable product returns can be kept off the books for many quarters if necessary.
But I suppose it's more difficult to scam when you're doing e-commerce - either the credit card/paypal transactions happened, or they didn't. If (hypothetically) a bunch of management weasels were desperate to put lipstick on an e-commerce pig then I suppose that making "mistakes" with the software would be about the only way, either overcharging customers or underpaying suppliers.
I don't have to tell you, when these scams occur they do not end well for the company management or shareholders. When the chickens come home to roost a wrecked share price is the least of their problems ... civil lawsuits are very common and criminal investigations are not unknown.
-
I seriously have no respect for any of the old timers that work there anymore. They have lost their ethics and their way, so much so that it's bordering on criminal. Surely at least Lobo could find another job in customer service somewhere. He's so good at it. :D
-
Okay, I just had to laugh about this one. Can those retards* do nothing right?
From the iStocky's thread:
Just a quick question...when I went to the Stockys page, I noticed that the categories given on the homepage differ from those given on the "Enter Now" page. Just curious if this is a misprint. Or it could be that there is a slight name variation and I'm not getting it.
*no disrepect to the mentally disabled, but I have to call a spade a spade here
-
Unfortunately, there's no way to find 'em.
Any scope for another of your fancy Greasemonkey scripts perhaps?
;)
This week I'll add a button to show last EL downloads next to the other columns I added before. It will at least help spot if one sold if you check at the right time.
The new script for the EL button is now available:
http://bit.ly/auEdDb (http://bit.ly/auEdDb)
-
The new script for the EL button is now available:
[url]http://bit.ly/auEdDb[/url] ([url]http://bit.ly/auEdDb[/url])
This is awesome, Sean. Let's see, you created that script in what, a day or two? Yet IS cannot? Enough said.
I missed the greasemonkey thing the first time around. Will go download and install it all now.
-
Or not getting paid AT ALL!
From here: http://www.istockphoto.com/forum_messages.php?threadid=270252&page=1#post5124232 (http://www.istockphoto.com/forum_messages.php?threadid=270252&page=1#post5124232)
I happened across one of my images being used in a major magazine and it was credited to istockphoto, so I know the image came from here. But when I checked my stats (this happened a few months ago) I had not been paid for an EL for that photo. I contacted CR, and IS made it right...the payment was credited to my account. But the fact remains, if I had not seen my image being used and checked, I would never have gotten paid for that EL. How many more are there like this?
Kelly must be desperate to meet that revenue target. How disgusting.
-
To be fair, she didn't get paid for the EL, because the buyer didn't license it correctly initially or after the fact. Nothing you can do with RF until it is noticed.
-
Oh, where did she say that? I didn't see it.
-
To be fair, she didn't get paid for the EL, because the buyer didn't license it correctly initially or after the fact. Nothing you can do with RF until it is noticed.
I don't understand why, if IS was able to track down the sale and determine who bought it and that yes, it should have been purchased as an EL, why doesn't IS know before the contributor discovers the mistake? Does IS not have data of what their clients purchase? Especially LARGE clients? Just doesn't seem right.
-
What? How is IS supposed to know a contributor has used it outside the terms of the regular license until they find out about it?
-
Oh, where did she say that? I didn't see it.
That's just my reading of the post.
-
Oh, where did she say that? I didn't see it.
That's just my reading of the post.
I don't see anywhere where she says the buyer bought the EL after the fact. They may have, or not. It doesn't look like CR was forthcoming with that information either.
-
Actually I'm surprised they're recognizing this and offering to correct it. I was expecting an "oh well, it got rolled out early and we're not changing anything" type of response.
That's what I expected too. This is the first good surprise from IS since the announcement. But any word on when we can expect to get paid for the ELs or how long the "error" was going on for?
-
What? How is IS supposed to know a contributor has used it outside the terms of the regular license until they find out about it?
If a large magazine uses an agency to purchase their photos, ANY photo appearing in that magazine will need to be an EL, just because the monthly print run of that magazine is in the hundreds of thousands or even millions. Are you saying IS wouldn't keep tabs on that? They would be losing money too if they didn't! Or maybe one of those special deals was struck just so IS could keep the account? Are you saying that a magazine or agency wouldn't know that they needed to purchase an EL? I will buy that line regarding regular internet users, but come on.
caspixel,
Here is what my email from CE said:
Hi Cathleen,
I am happy to say this has been resolved quickly.
The client has repurchased the image with the Extended License Unlimited Print/Reproductions.
You should be able to see this information in your account.
-
Just because a buyer is a large magazine does not mean all their downloads will end up in the magazine. They could use it in internal communication, a tv ad for the magazine, etc. With millions of buyers, I can't imagine IS would have subscriptions to every magazine, and monthly go through to correlate images to things licensed.
-
Just because a buyer is a large magazine does not mean all their downloads will end up in the magazine. They could use it in internal communication, a tv ad for the magazine, etc. With millions of buyers, I can't imagine IS would have subscriptions to every magazine, and monthly go through to correlate images to things licensed.
You are correct, good point. BUT...I'm not talking about someone sitting down and going through every magazine and correlating images. I'm talking about data that is retrieved from the website when a sale is made. Are you saying that if I make a purchase of an image, and some huge agency makes a purchase, that IS doesn't have any way to capture data as to who made what purchase? If IS knows that xyz bought an image and it's my image and I should get the commission, I'm pretty sure they know who xyz is.
But this whole debate is moot. Neither one of us will know the whole story. I don't expect you to say too many bad things about IS...you are a huge contributor and make a ton of money from them...I don't have that much to lose by shooting off my mouth. :)
-
You are correct, good point. BUT...I'm not talking about someone sitting down and going through every magazine and correlating images. I'm talking about data that is retrieved from the website when a sale is made. Are you saying that if I make a purchase of an image, and some huge agency makes a purchase, that IS doesn't have any way to capture data as to who made what purchase? If IS knows that xyz bought an image and it's my image and I should get the commission, I'm pretty sure they know who xyz is.
I think you're missing something, or crossing wires here.
Story: Magazine licensed image with regular license. You received regular royalty. You later find in magazine. Usage requires EL. You tell IS. IS locates sale in history and notes magazine didn't purchase EL. They contact magazine to request money for EL.
I'm not getting why you think IS doesn't know who licensed what image. Of course they do. You can go to your download history and see all your downloads as proof that it is recorded. All they don't know is whether a license is used properly (ie, without an EL where one is required).
-
CClapper, these things happened with SS lots before when I was with them. Every now and again I would get a bunch of ELs from images that were used incorrectly and that SS got the responsible party to pay for, it doesn't sound like IS is trying to screw you this time.
-
Are you saying that a magazine or agency wouldn't know that they needed to purchase an EL? I will buy that line regarding regular internet users, but come on.
Twice last year when Time magazine used iStock photos on their front cover, an EL wasn't paid until all the woo-ways about the cover brought up the fact that they hadn't paid ELs either time. iStock chased them up both times.
I'll buy a possible mistake the first time, but the second time?
AND: has an iStock photo been used on the front cover since they discovered (twice) they had to buy ELs?
-
What also needs to be said here is that some bright spark set the requirement for an extended license for print at a whopping 500,000 copies. I know the population in the States is much bigger than in Great Britain so it stands to reason the print runs are going to be bigger over there too, but even so...
How many magazines, paperback covers, album covers, annual reports, cereal boxes, advertisements, etc. are being printed in runs that don't reach 500,000 and thus don't require an extended license?
If iStock wants to mess about with some numbers, it should do itself a favour -- and at the same time do us all a favour -- and knock a zero off the end of that figure. (Isn't the guy who runs the show over there supposed to have a background in marketing?)
-
What also needs to be said here is that some bright spark set the requirement for an extended license for print at a whopping 500,000 copies. I know the population in the States is much bigger than in Great Britain so it stands to reason the print runs are going to be bigger over there too, but even so...
How many magazines, paperback covers, album covers, annual reports, cereal boxes, advertisements, etc. are being printed in runs that don't reach 500,0000 and thus don't require an extended license?
If iStock wants to mess about with some numbers, it should do itself a favour -- and at the same time do us all a favour -- and knock a zero off the end of that figure. (Isn't the guy who runs the show over there supposed to have a background in marketing?)
+1
-
You can get an audit at Getty.
"4.7 Audit Rights. You may employ a certified accountant or licensed financial advisor to audit payments made to you during the previous 36 months, at your expense unless the audit reveals that Getty Images has underpaid you by more than 7.5%, in which case Getty Images will reimburse you for the actual and reasonable auditor’s fees. Getty Images will honor one audit request per calendar year, upon 60 days notice. If an underpayment is discovered in an audit, Getty Images will pay Contributor interest based on the average one month LIBOR rate for the period under audit on the amount due from the date payment was due, correct the books and records, and will pay any amounts due (subject to any applicable Royalty Deductions) within 30 days after the amount due is finally determined. In the event that an audit reveals any overpayment to Contributor, Contributor agrees that Getty Images may deduct the overpayment from Contributor’s earnings."
If you think a bit about this clause - and I did as I was contemplating adding a suggestion in the IS forums that we have an audit clause in our contracts - it isn't as easy or cheap as we'd like it to be to take a look at the books.
1. You only get an audit once a year and with 2 months advance notice. Lots of time for things to get tidied away.
2. I assume the audit would take place in Calgary, meaning the accountant or advisor would have to be there or we'd pay to fly them there. Imagine how expensive that could be if there were foot dragging in giving the auditor what they needed.
3. Would the person have to be licensed in Canada?
4. There appears to be nothing about how you resolve things should IS and the auditor disagree about what the correct royalties should be. I assume in such cases it ends up going to court if the contributor cares to go that route. More expense.
5. There's a pretty high threshhold of recovery amount before you get paid something for the cost of the audit if there are problems found (reasonable charges - i.e. would they quibble about travel expenses to HQ?).
All of this says that even if we asked for a Getty-style audit clause, it'd only be the highest earners who'd have a prayer of this making any financial sense.
I'd be interested in other people's opinions, but it seems to be that audits wouldn't help most of us given the costs involved. Which brings me back to pushing for getting detailed downloadable sales data so we can monitor what they're doing more closely. Given how many of us there are, odds are good - if we have the data - that we would catch a problem if one occurred.
-
You can get an audit at Getty.
"4.7 Audit Rights. You may employ a certified accountant or licensed financial advisor to audit payments made to you during the previous 36 months, at your expense unless the audit reveals that Getty Images has underpaid you by more than 7.5%, in which case Getty Images will reimburse you for the actual and reasonable auditor’s fees. Getty Images will honor one audit request per calendar year, upon 60 days notice. If an underpayment is discovered in an audit, Getty Images will pay Contributor interest based on the average one month LIBOR rate for the period under audit on the amount due from the date payment was due, correct the books and records, and will pay any amounts due (subject to any applicable Royalty Deductions) within 30 days after the amount due is finally determined. In the event that an audit reveals any overpayment to Contributor, Contributor agrees that Getty Images may deduct the overpayment from Contributor’s earnings."
If you think a bit about this clause - and I did as I was contemplating adding a suggestion in the IS forums that we have an audit clause in our contracts - it isn't as easy or cheap as we'd like it to be to take a look at the books.
1. You only get an audit once a year and with 2 months advance notice. Lots of time for things to get tidied away.
2. I assume the audit would take place in Calgary, meaning the accountant or advisor would have to be there or we'd pay to fly them there. Imagine how expensive that could be if there were foot dragging in giving the auditor what they needed.
3. Would the person have to be licensed in Canada?
4. There appears to be nothing about how you resolve things should IS and the auditor disagree about what the correct royalties should be. I assume in such cases it ends up going to court if the contributor cares to go that route. More expense.
5. There's a pretty high threshhold of recovery amount before you get paid something for the cost of the audit if there are problems found (reasonable charges - i.e. would they quibble about travel expenses to HQ?).
All of this says that even if we asked for a Getty-style audit clause, it'd only be the highest earners who'd have a prayer of this making any financial sense.
I'd be interested in other people's opinions, but it seems to be that audits wouldn't help most of us given the costs involved. Which brings me back to pushing for getting detailed downloadable sales data so we can monitor what they're doing more closely. Given how many of us there are, odds are good - if we have the data - that we would catch a problem if one occurred.
I would tend to agree. An audit requested by one person would be very costly. An audit requested by many people could carry some weight and the cost could be dispersed among those participating. Get a nice number to join in, and it becomes affordable. But a detailed downloadable sales data sheet would go a long way to helping figure this all out without the auditing business.
-
I would tend to agree. An audit requested by one person would be very costly. An audit requested by many people could carry some weight and the cost could be dispersed among those participating. Get a nice number to join in, and it becomes affordable. But a detailed downloadable sales data sheet would go a long way to helping figure this all out without the auditing business.
Can we ever really trust them again? They could so easily (if they wanted to, I'm only taking 'in theory', not making any accusations) knock a download off everyone's total per day and we'd never know unless in by chance we happened to come across an 'in use' for a file we had no downloads for. I bet they could write a code which would obviate that too.
-
^^^I think someone would catch them out if they tried that and their reputation would be shot. It just wouldn't be worth the risk.
-
Ok maybe someone could help me with this does 4.25 for a big web 25 credit video dl seem low? Base exclusive contributor.
-
^^^I think someone would catch them out if they tried that and their reputation would be shot. It just wouldn't be worth the risk.
I consider everything that has transpired since Kelly's big announcement as having ruined their reputation. Finding out that they have been knocking a DL off everyone's account per day would not surprise me in the very least, and I am not making any accusations either. I'm just saying that I consider "pushing software through too early" and trying to save themselves 10% with the exclusives is equally as bad and they have admitted to doing that!
-
Ok maybe someone could help me with this does 4.25 for a big web 25 credit video dl seem low? Base exclusive contributor.
68 cents a credit is what the buyer would have paid for this if $4.25 was the royalty at 25% on a 25 credit sale. That's within the bounds of a big credit pack purchase, I think. And they've been offering various discounts lately (which we pay for).
-
^^^I think someone would catch them out if they tried that and their reputation would be shot. It just wouldn't be worth the risk.
Not only would their reputation be shot, but this is a crime. People could do jail time for something like that if it was systemic and deliberate (not saying it is, BTW, just responding to the hypothetical scenario)
-
......and their reputation would be shot.
Depends on which reputation you're referring to.
-
caspixel,
Here is what my email from CE said:
Hi Cathleen,
I am happy to say this has been resolved quickly.
The client has repurchased the image with the Extended License Unlimited Print/Reproductions.
You should be able to see this information in your account.
You know, I wouldn't put it past them to just say that, to cover their ass. Cynical, I know. But I don't trust anything they say.
-
So, the Extended License change happened September 27!!!!!!! More than a month ago. And iStock had absolutely no intention of fixing it until they got caught. You can't tell me they didn't notice. They knew EXACTLY what they were doing. Desperate. Greedy. Malicious.
-
So, the Extended License change happened September 27!!!!!!! More than a month ago. And iStock had absolutely no intention of fixing it until they got caught. You can't tell me they didn't notice. They knew EXACTLY what they were doing. Desperate. Greedy. Malicious.
I particularly enjoyed their "oops, the software accidentally got pushed early but sorry guys, we'll give it back to ya". Anyone want to bet it doesn't go back into exclusive's account until after Jan. 1? I'm thinking they need the money to contribute to that bottom line they are trying to achieve this year. We shall see. I will be surprised if it happens before.
-
I'm so confused. ???
Aren't we supposed to get paid for the download in addition to the EL?
I have an EL that does not show anything but a PAYG EL for 125 credits, paying $17.64. How is this possible, even at the lowest PAYG price?
I thought the lowest possible PAYG credit price was .95. If you subtract 25% for some generous discount that istock gave on our behalf, that still equals a low of .71 per credit. x 125 credits = 88.75 x 20% non-exclusive compensation = 17.75. That is more than the $17.64 I actually received and does NOT appear to include the cost of the actual original download.
What am I missing?
-
What am I missing?
That the PAYG credit price can be lower than 95 cents. See joyze's comment (http://www.istockphoto.com/forum_messages.php?threadid=270252&messageid=5128312) yesterday, including "There is no pay-as-you-go minimum"
-
Aren't we supposed to get paid for the download in addition to the EL?
I'm pretty sure we don't. It's just the EL, which is a 'download with special uses'.
-
So, the Extended License change happened September 27!!!!!!! More than a month ago. And iStock had absolutely no intention of fixing it until they got caught. You can't tell me they didn't notice. They knew EXACTLY what they were doing. Desperate. Greedy. Malicious.
I particularly enjoyed their "oops, the software accidentally got pushed early but sorry guys, we'll give it back to ya". Anyone want to bet it doesn't go back into exclusive's account until after Jan. 1? I'm thinking they need the money to contribute to that bottom line they are trying to achieve this year. We shall see. I will be surprised if it happens before.
That's my thinking on it all too. Those refunds probably won't come until after January 1 which won't take away from their bottom line for 2010. Then in 2011 they'll deduct it as a loss from the previous year. Maybe if they meet the projected profit point this year they will do the refund, but I doubt they will unless it is met. Really when you think about it, it wouldn't be that hard to go back on those past sales and credit those accounts within any given time period....which they have yet to say how long that will take. I just got a bad feeling about all this.
-
So, the Extended License change happened September 27!!!!!!! More than a month ago. And iStock had absolutely no intention of fixing it until they got caught. You can't tell me they didn't notice. They knew EXACTLY what they were doing. Desperate. Greedy. Malicious.
I particularly enjoyed their "oops, the software accidentally got pushed early but sorry guys, we'll give it back to ya". Anyone want to bet it doesn't go back into exclusive's account until after Jan. 1? I'm thinking they need the money to contribute to that bottom line they are trying to achieve this year. We shall see. I will be surprised if it happens before.
Add to that that Thinkstock has not honored payout requests that were submitted on October 19 and that starts to make sense.
-
What am I missing?
That the PAYG credit price can be lower than 95 cents. See joyze's comment ([url]http://www.istockphoto.com/forum_messages.php?threadid=270252&messageid=5128312[/url]) yesterday, including "There is no pay-as-you-go minimum"
No minimum. Awesome. So basically they can just pay us whatever they want to and we have no means of verifying anything, on a site where mysterious technical glitches that affect incomes happen all too frequently.
-
Aren't we supposed to get paid for the download in addition to the EL?
I'm pretty sure we don't. It's just the EL, which is a 'download with special uses'.
You do, otherwise we wouldn't see all these Legal Guarantee EL questions like "I just got $3.50 for an EL, what's up?". They got paid for the regular size DL in addition to the EL, so it works that way on the rest too. Or it should.
-
No minimum. Awesome. So basically they can just pay us whatever they want to and we have no means of verifying anything, on a site where mysterious technical glitches that affect incomes happen all too frequently.
Hence the request (http://)for detailed downloadable stats - we need to know them sale by sale. That's an extension of an earlier request (http://www.istockphoto.com/forum_messages.php?threadid=203321&page=1) I made specifically about ELs
Duckycards succinctly posted here (http://www.istockphoto.com/forum_messages.php?threadid=270252&messageid=5128532) about the need for transparency.
Shining a light on closed, hidden processes helps to keep them straight.
-
Aren't we supposed to get paid for the download in addition to the EL?
I'm pretty sure we don't. It's just the EL, which is a 'download with special uses'.
You do, otherwise we wouldn't see all these Legal Guarantee EL questions like "I just got $3.50 for an EL, what's up?". They got paid for the regular size DL in addition to the EL, so it works that way on the rest too. Or it should.
Oh, you're right. It must show up later. I got one last Friday and at the time the Royalty was showing as $0.00, but the EL amount was through. Now it's showing at a 'normal' Vetta dl price.
-
Aren't we supposed to get paid for the download in addition to the EL?
I'm pretty sure we don't. It's just the EL, which is a 'download with special uses'.
You do, otherwise we wouldn't see all these Legal Guarantee EL questions like "I just got $3.50 for an EL, what's up?". They got paid for the regular size DL in addition to the EL, so it works that way on the rest too. Or it should.
That confusion is because the download fee shows up as an orange EL bar in your stats, which it clearly shouldn't.
-
Aren't we supposed to get paid for the download in addition to the EL?
I'm pretty sure we don't. It's just the EL, which is a 'download with special uses'.
You do, otherwise we wouldn't see all these Legal Guarantee EL questions like "I just got $3.50 for an EL, what's up?". They got paid for the regular size DL in addition to the EL, so it works that way on the rest too. Or it should.
No, I'm pretty sure we get paid only for the EL. I've just had a couple of EL's go through and neither image has any regular sales recorded for weeks in one case and several months for the other.
-
Aren't we supposed to get paid for the download in addition to the EL?
I'm pretty sure we don't. It's just the EL, which is a 'download with special uses'.
You do, otherwise we wouldn't see all these Legal Guarantee EL questions like "I just got $3.50 for an EL, what's up?". They got paid for the regular size DL in addition to the EL, so it works that way on the rest too. Or it should.
No, I'm pretty sure we get paid only for the EL. I've just had a couple of EL's go through and neither image has any regular sales recorded for weeks in one case and several months for the other.
You do get paid a separate license for the image itself, at whatever size, but you have no way of knowing what that is unless you contact support to ask.
I know this because I had a sale of an EL on an image that had no other downloads and contacted support to ask how you could get a multi-seat license for something you never licensed. You can read the info here (http://www.istockphoto.com/forum_messages.php?threadid=203321&page=1).
-
You do get paid a separate license for the image itself, at whatever size, but you have no way of knowing what that is unless you contact support to ask.
I know this because I had a sale of an EL on an image that had no other downloads and contacted support to ask how you could get a multi-seat license for something you never licensed. You can read the info here ([url]http://www.istockphoto.com/forum_messages.php?threadid=203321&page=1[/url]).
Ok, thanks __ I stand corrected!
-
Numerous contributors are noticing low royalties on ELs recently. This doesn't even take into consideration the 10% bonus issue. I spoke with Contributor Relations about one of mine and the explanation was that it was a large corporation who paid $.70 per credit. That makes sense if this were the case for a few contributors, but it seems this is the norm for a vast number of ELs now. The price has dropped significantly for everyone I've talked to. The low royalties on ELs is only one issue of non-payment.
Putting aside the option of an individual audit, is there not a regulatory entity that does audits in cases like this? Numerous contributors are angry, with many suspecting fraud.
-
Speculation:
Maybe iStock contacted former buyers with huge deals.
Does the USA/Canada have no notion of 'fully informed consent'? That contributers can sign up based in the information available on the site, then find that loads of credits have been sold cheaper than they were told?
-
I got the same thing, on 3 ELs for a price around $.70 a credit.
-
Putting aside the option of an individual audit, is there not a regulatory entity that does audits in cases like this? Numerous contributors are angry, with many suspecting fraud.
I don't believe it's a fraud, it's possibly a marketing campaign using low prices. They can do it. And they will say they're doing what is best for us!
-
Numerous contributors are noticing low royalties on ELs recently. This doesn't even take into consideration the 10% bonus issue. I spoke with Contributor Relations about one of mine and the explanation was that it was a large corporation who paid $.70 per credit. That makes sense if this were the case for a few contributors, but it seems this is the norm for a vast number of ELs now. The price has dropped significantly for everyone I've talked to. The low royalties on ELs is only one issue of non-payment.
Putting aside the option of an individual audit, is there not a regulatory entity that does audits in cases like this? Numerous contributors are angry, with many suspecting fraud.
Yep, I'm not totally satisfied. I've had at least five in the last month that were in the $30.00 range, normally they would be $70.00-$100.00. I've also had some that were in the $55.00-$70.00 range which sounds like 10% drop to me. I got a reply from support to "check the forum" for answers. The huge drop doesn't sound like 10% to me, it looks more like I've been paid as a non-exclusive at 20%, rather than 40%. Impossible to know whats going on though without the actual price per credit the buyer purchased. I hope this gets sorted out.
-
I got a reply from support to "check the forum" for answers.
Just brilliant. If anyone posts in the forums with concerns or complaints they are directed to "submit a support ticket", then if you do contact CR they direct you to "check the forums"!!??
-
Wow. The way things are being handled over there looks really really dishonest. And the lack of any kind of communication makes it look like they are trying to hide things.
-
I got a reply from support to "check the forum" for answers.
Just brilliant. If anyone posts in the forums with concerns or complaints they are directed to "submit a support ticket", then if you do contact CR they direct you to "check the forums"!!??
Yup. I was told (after taking out the support ticket like I was told to) that they knew I was following the forum and that the matter had been resolved.
Well, I wouldn't count it as 'resolved' until we get our 10%s, at the very least, and preferably with the issues of transparency dealt with satisfactorily.
-
Yep, I'm not totally satisfied. ... Impossible to know whats going on though without the actual price per credit the buyer purchased. I hope this gets sorted out.
Stop by this thread (http://www.istockphoto.com/forum_messages.php?threadid=270162&page=1) asking for detailed sales data image by image and downloadable. I'm sure they can ignore the thread just as easily with lots of contributors saying "+1" but it can't hurt :)
-
I got a reply from support to "check the forum" for answers.
Just brilliant. If anyone posts in the forums with concerns or complaints they are directed to "submit a support ticket", then if you do contact CR they direct you to "check the forums"!!??
Yup. I was told (after taking out the support ticket like I was told to) that they knew I was following the forum and that the matter had been resolved.
Well, I wouldn't count it as 'resolved' until we get our 10%s, at the very least, and preferably with the issues of transparency dealt with satisfactorily.
I also was told by CR that it was resolved and given a link to Joyze's post. The reason I sent them a support ticket was because the thread was locked and I want my EL's corrected too. It isn't resolved until Istock credits our accounts.
-
What dates were the ELs not being paid correctly for? I have 3 or 4 that seem low recently, one a few days ago. I would guess the issue is resolved but who knows, I haven't gotten any extra money or an email about this. Would it be sent to site mail? My one week ban has now turned into 2 months with no explanation yet and I have 3 sitemails that I can't read.
-
What dates were the ELs not being paid correctly for? I have 3 or 4 that seem low recently, one a few days ago. I would guess the issue is resolved but who knows, I haven't gotten any extra money or an email about this. Would it be sent to site mail? My one week ban has now turned into 2 months with no explanation yet and I have 3 sitemails that I can't read.
I don't think the money's been paid out yet.
I sent a ticket in and got the reply that the matter has been 'resolved', referring to Joyze's post, which said:
"So, after some digging, we realized that this code was pushed early. We are going to roll the code back but I need to work with the dev team to determine when this will happen. To fix the error of our ways, we will be adding the 10% royalties on these Extended Licensing purchases into your account from the date the code went live until the date we get it fixed. This is for exclusive contributors only as they are only eligible for the additional 10% royalties on Extended licensing. We apologize for the inconvenience and if you have any further questions, please let us know."
To which Lobo added:
"This is the final word on this issue. Thanks for your patience, everyone. Go Giants." and locked the thread.
I haven't a clue what the Giant reference was about. Must be an injoke with Joyze or something.
-
What dates were the ELs not being paid correctly for? I have 3 or 4 that seem low recently, one a few days ago. I would guess the issue is resolved but who knows, I haven't gotten any extra money or an email about this. Would it be sent to site mail? My one week ban has now turned into 2 months with no explanation yet and I have 3 sitemails that I can't read.
From like October 1st - still going on. Or so.
-
To which Lobo added:
"This is the final word on this issue. Thanks for your patience, everyone. Go Giants." and locked the thread.
I haven't a clue what the Giant reference was about. Must be an injoke with Joyze or something.
He's probably referring to the New York Giants NFL team or the San Fransisco Giants the baseball team that just won the World Series.
-
To which Lobo added:
"This is the final word on this issue. Thanks for your patience, everyone. Go Giants." and locked the thread.
I haven't a clue what the Giant reference was about. Must be an injoke with Joyze or something.
He's probably referring to the New York Giants NFL team or the San Fransisco Giants the baseball team that just won the World Series.
And that was relevant to our concerns about ELs because ... ?
Doesn't seem like a very respectful comment while locking a thread. :-(
-
To which Lobo added:
"This is the final word on this issue. Thanks for your patience, everyone. Go Giants." and locked the thread.
I haven't a clue what the Giant reference was about. Must be an injoke with Joyze or something.
He's probably referring to the New York Giants NFL team or the San Fransisco Giants the baseball team that just won the World Series.
And that was relevant to our concerns about ELs because ... ?
Doesn't seem like a very respectful comment while locking a thread. :-(
Maybe the some of the koolaid drinkers like the Giants...who knows with these people anymore.
-
So, the Extended License change happened September 27!!!!!!! More than a month ago. And iStock had absolutely no intention of fixing it until they got caught. You can't tell me they didn't notice. They knew EXACTLY what they were doing. Desperate. Greedy. Malicious.
Here's when caspixel said the date was, when the software...oops...accidentally got pushed through too early. I thought I remembered reading that date as well in the istock forum thread about it, but I could be wrong.
-
Doesn't seem like a very respectful comment while locking a thread. :-(
And judging from their behavior (recent and not so recent) you would expect anything else?
-
So, the Extended License change happened September 27!!!!!!! More than a month ago. And iStock had absolutely no intention of fixing it until they got caught. You can't tell me they didn't notice. They knew EXACTLY what they were doing. Desperate. Greedy. Malicious.
Here's when caspixel said the date was, when the software...oops...accidentally got pushed through too early. I thought I remembered reading that date as well in the istock forum thread about it, but I could be wrong.
I'm fairly certain it was joyze who said that. And it was in the thread that Lobo locked.
Seems it still isn't fixed and no one has been offered a refund. Someone said they probably wouldn't do it before Jan. 1. I bet they are right...if they ever fix it at all. My money is on the second. And they hope, just like the commission decreases, that everyone will calm down about it and go back to bending over.
-
What dates were the ELs not being paid correctly for? I have 3 or 4 that seem low recently, one a few days ago. I would guess the issue is resolved but who knows, I haven't gotten any extra money or an email about this. Would it be sent to site mail? My one week ban has now turned into 2 months with no explanation yet and I have 3 sitemails that I can't read.
------------------------
September 27
http://www.istockphoto.com/forum_messages.php?threadid=270252&page=3 (http://www.istockphoto.com/forum_messages.php?threadid=270252&page=3)
-
Do you believe this is still going? Istock is still taking an extra 10% and has not indicated when they will fix the problem! I can't believe it could take this long to fix it, so I guess it really is about something else like perhaps padding the bottom line.
Makes me think of this quote from JJRD in late September "Let me add the following, however: if one day I do not believe in iStockphoto anymore, I will be out of here in a snap. Faster than a speeding bullet.
It is not the case at the very moment. I still believe in this place, just as on day one. I am in it for the long haul & for the well being of the entire community."
http://www.istockphoto.com/forum_messages.php?threadid=257202&page=3#post4869221 (http://www.istockphoto.com/forum_messages.php?threadid=257202&page=3#post4869221)
Are we at that point yet JJRD?
-
I broke down and just read the forum discussion on IS's boards - I didn't realise the magnitude of what was happening - or make that the magnitude of what was not happening on behalf of contributors on IS's part. I would be willing to put money down on a bet that H&F are shopping Getty - I can see no other explanation for their behaviour.
-
I'm close to certain that the missing money will eventually be paid to contributors. However, over a week after the acknowledgment of the "inadvertent" rollout of the code that took away the additional 10%, the promised rollback hasn't yet happened. Why wasn't that done in a day or two at most?
They're just closing support tickets on this saying it's resolved and pointing to the forum thread. That's pretty ballsy given that the contributors don't yet have their cash.
If the money doesn't find its way back to contributors until after December 31st, perhaps that helps their books - a no-interest no-consent loan as it were.
And if you didn't notice it there was another thread (http://www.istockphoto.com/forum_messages.php?threadid=272852&page=1)about prices on newly approved (exclusive only, according to Lobo) vectors going up and down. Supposedly no sales were made at the wrong 2 credit (instead of 14 or 20) price, but contributors were asked to watch their royalties to be sure.
Losing the plot on tracking and payment of contributor earnings is a very worrying thing.
-
...
If the money doesn't find its way back to contributors until after December 31st, perhaps that helps their books - a no-interest no-consent loan as it were.
...
Losing the plot on tracking and payment of contributor earnings is a very worrying thing.
In theory, the amount they owe to contributors is recorded as a liability and their books are no better than if they had paid up already. If they owe the money but are not counting it as a liability then this is the kind of thing that eventually trips companies up. Sooner or later they can't (legally) hide the weakness on their books and in this situation companies can have a hard, painful landing. In my experience, companies sometimes play these games and let the crap pile up off-balance sheet, and they're waiting for something big to happen in which they can finally reckon in all the junk without it being noticed by shareholders and analysts. Such as a blowout quarter, an abominably bad quarter, or a takeover.
-
I broke down and just read the forum discussion on IS's boards - I didn't realise the magnitude of what was happening - or make that the magnitude of what was not happening on behalf of contributors on IS's part. I would be willing to put money down on a bet that H&F are shopping Getty - I can see no other explanation for their behaviour.
I doubt you'll find many here that would take that bet. Events just keep piling up that point in the direction of a sale.
-
Today in the IS forum I suggested that contributors get together and contract some kind of ombudsman....or advocate. It was deleted by the moderator....which sucks big time. Do any of you photogs with IS know of any conversations or efforts to hire an advocate....someone to watch over our interests? It wouldn't cost much per contributor. Am I crazy or is this a good idea?
-
I read your post - didn't realize it had been deleted. I don't think it was rude or way out of line - but then a post of mine got deleted a week or so ago that seemed relatively mild and polite. I don't honestly know if there's any guideline beyond the moderator felt that it should go as to what gets zapped.
I don't think it's a bad idea, but I think it's unworkable to get such a large, multi-national group of independent contributors to act in unison.
It's especially hard when the big earners aren't part of it (and they've never been behind any of the grass roots campaigns that have occurred in the past). I think (but don't have any knowledge of what actually goes on) that they may feel they're big enough that they're better off negotiating for themselves.
If you think about how many big newspapers work, they hire an ombudsman to look out for reader interests and concerns. My guess is that they do this as a way to stave off more regulation - they can point to this as evidence that they aren't biased and one sided. Not much chance of IS doing that unless they were faced with some sort of scrutiny they didn't want from Canadian regulators of some type.
I don't think it's the cost per contributor but coming to a decision on what to advocate for. I have said before it would be like trying to herd cats - I wouldn't want to do it.
I think we need to push IS for transparency (http://www.istockphoto.com/forum_messages.php?threadid=270162&page=1) - they need to give us more data on what they do. There are so many of us it is really hard to sneak things by us - given we have a forum here to compare notes where IS management can't delete posts. If we have downloadable data we can use code or spreadsheets to track things so that changes or anomalies get caught more readily.
-
What incentive or reason would IS have for having any such position?
-
What incentive or reason would IS have for having any such position?
Indeed - why would they - nor why should they. They are running a business with their ultimate obligations being to the owners - taking care of contributors is only a good strategy but nothing more - it is not required (assuming fo course their conduct is legal) and it makes zero business sense.
-
I'm not suggesting that IS create this position. I'm saying that we contributors demand this advocate. It may be difficult, if not impossible, to have a consensus of international scope but it's not such a novel idea. Maybe you haven't been reading the IS forums or you might be concerned...or are you a contributor? An advocate is an ideal way of keeping IS legal....and they wouldn't pay this person, we would. We would need to be unionized....wow.
-
I'm not suggesting that IS create this position. I'm saying that we contributors demand this advocate. It may be difficult, if not impossible, to have a consensus of international scope but it's not such a novel idea. Maybe you haven't been reading the IS forums or you might be concerned...or are you a contributor? An advocate is an ideal way of keeping IS legal....and they wouldn't pay this person, we would. We would need to be unionized....wow.
I think it would be nice - sure - but so many of the contributors on IS are so woo yay they still believe that IS takes care of them for purely altruistic reasons - in those nuts' minds - and there seems to many of them - IS is their ombudsmen ...
-
Having some sort of advocate a nice idea, but it wouldn't work for a multitude of reasons. Apart from those given already, who is to say that iStock would even talk to such an advocate? At best you would probably end up paying to receive the same information that you get now.
"Unions" ( to use the term loosely) only really work when the vast majority of people are involved. Otherwise you end up with no negotiating power.
Strange that post was deleted though. Was some nerve struck there , or was it just because it was running a bit OT.
-
I'm not suggesting that IS create this position. I'm saying that we contributors demand this advocate. It may be difficult, if not impossible, to have a consensus of international scope but it's not such a novel idea. Maybe you haven't been reading the IS forums or you might be concerned...or are you a contributor? An advocate is an ideal way of keeping IS legal....and they wouldn't pay this person, we would. We would need to be unionized....wow.
You're right. I haven't been reading the IS forums. Maybe I should start.
As I said, why would IS even consider interacting with such a person? You can demand all you want.
-
The only reason IS would consider talking or working with an advocate is because they can't live without us contributors. This used to be a piddling industry, 20 years ago there was no "microstock." Now it's become a multi-million dollar (billions?) corporate operation. Is this a case of the fox watching the henhouse? It's just an idea....I found Lobo offensive.
-
It would be wonderful if there was a union or advocate for our interest but the people on this forum are a very small fraction of the total of contributors on iStock. With the large amount on there, if all the "union" members would leave because their demands weren't met, it wouldn't be any skin off their backs. There are plenty more to replace them.
-
You're right. I haven't been reading the IS forums. Maybe I should start....
Very droll - if your sense of humor gets any drier it will morph into a sense of humour :)
@keithpix: As far as the microstock sites being unable to exist without contributors, that's absolutely the case. The vast majority of the content is contributor owned and can walk at any time. Some sites don't let you delete your own files, some make you wait and some just make it really hard to do.
There are a couple of things that get the attention of microstock sites, and unless a union (or ombudsman or whatever) can control those, they're powerless. For subscription sites, cutting the flow of new uploads matters a lot as existing subscribers want to see new stuff each month. For all sites, removing large numbers of files matters - empty shelves are as bad for the sites as no buyers.
For those of us making regular income each month - and especially for those supporting themselves and/or their families on this income (and that's not me; I just know of some) - removing portfolios is not a trivial thing and the sites know it. It's easier to go back to work after a strike than upload a portfolio of multiple thousands of images after you deleted it (upload limits as well as the work involved). The sites know this too.
The problem that a union can't solve is how to wield the power we have without shooting ourselves in the head in the process.
It's easy to rein in a smaller, newer badly-behaved micro site (assuming you're independent and submit to multiple sites) because pulling all your files is a pretty real threat and they know it. When one of the big sites pulls anti-contributor moves - and FT, DT and IS have all changed royalty rates in their own favor; SS has done that with less fuss as the rate was never publicized so when they increase the prices of some ELs and didn't change contributor compensation it wasn't seen as a cash grab - it's much harder. People don't want to lose 25%+ of their monthly income.
Also, it's not the number of contributors taking action that matters but the number of files, particularly best selling files. That's a very small portion of the contributor pool. Without a good number of those contributors in whatever union, there'd be no real bargaining.
Unpleasant realities maybe, but realities nevertheless IMO.
-
The only reason IS would consider talking or working with an advocate is because they can't live without us contributors. This used to be a piddling industry, 20 years ago there was no "microstock." Now it's become a multi-million dollar (billions?) corporate operation. Is this a case of the fox watching the henhouse? It's just an idea....I found Lobo offensive.
You'll notice that apart from Sean and LisaFX, most of the big hitters don't hang about here, nor do they frequent the forums. Most of those of us who do are very little fish, even if we all joined together.
And, as Donding says, there are plenty people snapping at our heels.
-
Another point is that none of the agencies are obliged to sell content for anyone. My guess is that although the separate agencies are in competition, if you made yourself enough of a pain you'd find none would deal with you.
The whole business of unions and unionisation is (in the UK at least) a whole lot more complicated than just all getting together to make the bosses see sense.
-
Unions wont work with this business model. Unless u get 100% of contributors willing to yank out their files or disable them, there will always be people that benefit greatly now that their buried file on page 100 appears on page 1. Currently, this crowd sourcing model has too much supply for the demand. I really dont get why some contributors celebrate 10 million files or 20. less piece of the pie for all
-
You're right. I haven't been reading the IS forums. Maybe I should start....
Very droll - if your sense of humor gets any drier it will morph into a sense of humour :)
^^LOL!! What a clever line! :D
-
I read your post - didn't realize it had been deleted. I don't think it was rude or way out of line - but then a post of mine got deleted a week or so ago that seemed relatively mild and polite. I don't honestly know if there's any guideline beyond the moderator felt that it should go as to what gets zapped.
Ha ha! I'm banned from the forums. I think I have to sit in a corner, meditate on my sins and drink copious amounts of Koolaid.
-
I read your post - didn't realize it had been deleted. I don't think it was rude or way out of line - but then a post of mine got deleted a week or so ago that seemed relatively mild and polite. I don't honestly know if there's any guideline beyond the moderator felt that it should go as to what gets zapped.
Ha ha! I'm banned from the forums. I think I have to sit in a corner, meditate on my sins and drink copious amounts of Koolaid.
What? You got banned? Effin' unbelievable. It gets more ridiculous as the days go by.
-
I read your post - didn't realize it had been deleted. I don't think it was rude or way out of line - but then a post of mine got deleted a week or so ago that seemed relatively mild and polite. I don't honestly know if there's any guideline beyond the moderator felt that it should go as to what gets zapped.
Ha ha! I'm banned from the forums. I think I have to sit in a corner, meditate on my sins and drink copious amounts of Koolaid.
They banned you too? Wow. It is freakin crazy over there.
-
I read your post - didn't realize it had been deleted. I don't think it was rude or way out of line - but then a post of mine got deleted a week or so ago that seemed relatively mild and polite. I don't honestly know if there's any guideline beyond the moderator felt that it should go as to what gets zapped.
Ha ha! I'm banned from the forums. I think I have to sit in a corner, meditate on my sins and drink copious amounts of Koolaid.
They banned you too? Wow. It is freakin crazy over there.
Were you banned as well cclapper?
-
With the circumstances are they are at the moment at iStock, being banned seems like a Badge of Honour. It reminds me of that story of Thoreau, who was put in prison for refusing to pay what he saw as an unjust Poll Tax. His friend, Ralph Waldo Emerson went to visit him in prison and asked, “Henry, what are you doing in there?” Thoreau replied, “Waldo, the question is what are you doing out there?”
-
Were you banned as well cclapper?
Not that I know of. I have only posted a few times about this whole debacle. The wooyaying and koolaid syndrome nauseates me, can't take too much of it. But it wouldn't surprise me, since I only ever DO post when something goes wrong. I have never been much of a wooyayer. I've posted comments about being a buyer and contributor, and I get dismissed for being a buyer because I am also a contributor. One way or another, a major player jumps in and discounts my comments somehow, as though I have no right to be there, and frankly, I think it's a total waste of time to be there anyway. So I am happy to oblige them all. ;)
-
The wooyaying and koolaid syndrome nauseates me, can't take too much of it.
Ditto
-
The wooyaying and koolaid syndrome nauseates me, can't take too much of it.
Ditto
Double ditto. and.. just to vent, because I can here -- the double-standard of being able to have a "woo yay" thread all to yourself while others (mostly newbies) are shunned to the colossal woo-yay thread of the quarter (or season or whatever), annoys me as well. If you're going to have a rule that all "woo-yays" belong in one thread, then stick to it. - okay, vent over.
-
Were you banned as well cclapper?
Apparently I have not been banned from the forums, as I was able to post one this morning. But I expect that thread will be locked very soon.
I took a payout on Sun. am and it left $.17 in my account. Today, I still have $.17 in my account. Either sales are not being reported correctly or my wooyaying-nauseating comment in another thread here has offended the mighty gods and they decided to punish me with no sales, because 2 days with NO downloads has not happened to me since I first started uploading a few years ago! I checked my most downloaded images and they are still showing in the best match as they did before.
-
Were you banned as well cclapper?
Apparently I have not been banned from the forums, as I was able to post one this morning. But I expect that thread will be locked very soon.
I took a payout on Sun. am and it left $.17 in my account. Today, I still have $.17 in my account. Either sales are not being reported correctly or my wooyaying-nauseating comment in another thread here has offended the mighty gods and they decided to punish me with no sales, because 2 days with NO downloads has not happened to me since I first started uploading a few years ago! I checked my most downloaded images and they are still showing in the best match as they did before.
November sales (one of amazing last four mouths) are total crap, at least for me.
-
I took a payout on Sun. am and it left $.17 in my account. Today, I still have $.17 in my account. Either sales are not being reported correctly or my wooyaying-nauseating comment in another thread here has offended the mighty gods and they decided to punish me with no sales, because 2 days with NO downloads has not happened to me since I first started uploading a few years ago! I checked my most downloaded images and they are still showing in the best match as they did before.
November sales (one of amazing last four mouths) are total crap, at least for me.
Yes, my November sales on Istock are pretty bad too. But in Cathy's case, with NO sales on a weekday (Monday) that sounds more like some sort of site glitch. Not that Istock ever has those... ::)
-
Were you banned as well cclapper?
Apparently I have not been banned from the forums, as I was able to post one this morning. But I expect that thread will be locked very soon.
I took a payout on Sun. am and it left $.17 in my account. Today, I still have $.17 in my account. Either sales are not being reported correctly or my wooyaying-nauseating comment in another thread here has offended the mighty gods and they decided to punish me with no sales, because 2 days with NO downloads has not happened to me since I first started uploading a few years ago! I checked my most downloaded images and they are still showing in the best match as they did before.
November sales (one of amazing last four mouths) are total crap, at least for me.
November usually sucks big time for me. After dropping exclusivity in mid-october, I had been expecting a very dismal November. However, surprisingly my downloads have really not slumped much at all. I'm down in earnings only because of the percentage drop when I left exclusive, but number of downloads appears to be fairly stable.
-
I took a payout on Sun. am and it left $.17 in my account. Today, I still have $.17 in my account. Either sales are not being reported correctly or my wooyaying-nauseating comment in another thread here has offended the mighty gods and they decided to punish me with no sales, because 2 days with NO downloads has not happened to me since I first started uploading a few years ago! I checked my most downloaded images and they are still showing in the best match as they did before.
November sales (one of amazing last four mouths) are total crap, at least for me.
Yes, my November sales on Istock are pretty bad too. But in Cathy's case, with NO sales on a weekday (Monday) that sounds more like some sort of site glitch. Not that Istock ever has those... ::)
@Cathy, how are your sales today? I got one just after midnight iStock time and nothing since.
I was wondering if there was some sort of reporting glitch, but one of my CN just said he had a good day yesterday and a good start to today.
My 'test' files are around where they've been for a while in best match and DM is still reporting hundreds of views.
-
@Cathy, how are your sales today? I got one just after midnight iStock time and nothing since.
I was wondering if there was some sort of reporting glitch, but one of my CN just said he had a good day yesterday and a good start to today.
My 'test' files are around where they've been for a while in best match and DM is still reporting hundreds of views.
OK, there had to have been some sort of glitch ( ::) ) because I went to do a few errands around 11:00. Just got back. Now I have $8.11 in my account. Four downloads from 9:31am, 9:41am, 10:02am and 10:26am. Hmmm. Aren't DL purchases usually recorded instantly on our account?
-
OK, there had to have been some sort of glitch ( ::) ) because I went to do a few errands around 11:00. Just got back. Now I have $8.11 in my account. Four downloads from 9:31am, 9:41am, 10:02am and 10:26am. Hmmm. Aren't DL purchases usually recorded instantly on our account?
They are supposed to be, AFAIK. It's only the bar graph that takes a day to update...
-
OK, there had to have been some sort of glitch ( ::) ) because I went to do a few errands around 11:00. Just got back. Now I have $8.11 in my account. Four downloads from 9:31am, 9:41am, 10:02am and 10:26am. Hmmm. Aren't DL purchases usually recorded instantly on our account?
They are supposed to be, AFAIK. It's only the bar graph that takes a day to update...
The new and improved F5! Leaves our money in the IS account longer!
-
ROFL. Just gotta love the "update" from management. More lame BS. Pathetic.
Paraphrasing: "It's really hard to fix, even though we had it right BEFORE we changed it." what? They can't just put it back to how it was?
-
Today in the IS forum I suggested that contributors get together and contract some kind of ombudsman....or advocate. It was deleted by the moderator....which sucks big time. Do any of you photogs with IS know of any conversations or efforts to hire an advocate....someone to watch over our interests? It wouldn't cost much per contributor. Am I crazy or is this a good idea?
An union? Forget it... It's not possible. What could be hoped, when many people who just weeks ago were talking of integrity and were calling for a general upoalidg boycott to IS are now uploading themselves as crazy again? In this kind of work and internet relationship, creating an union is utopia. Market forces are what decide. There's a point (a price /comission point) where for most people exclusiviness or even regular membership is not worth. Should this point be reached, things would happen naturally. "Old" micro agencies would fade, some new with brigther ideas would emerge.
-
Yesterday I had an E+ file EL get 33.60 for 125 credits. The minimum credits to buy the EL would be 130 because xsmall E+ files are 5 credits. So because I'm silver I get 40% of money from ELs that works out to between 64.6 cents per credit and 57.9 cents per credit depending if they bought L size. Am I correct and does this mean it hasn't been fixed yet?
-
I'm not suggesting that IS create this position. I'm saying that we contributors demand this advocate.
Contributors - "We demand an advocate"
iS - "No"
Contributors - "Right then, we'll ummm, well we'll ummmm, ooh I know we'll ummmmm, OK we'll all leave come on everybody who's with me? (Sudden feeling of being alone creeps in!)
-
Yesterday I had an E+ file EL get 33.60 for 125 credits. The minimum credits to buy the EL would be 130 because xsmall E+ files are 5 credits. So because I'm silver I get 40% of money from ELs that works out to between 64.6 cents per credit and 57.9 cents per credit depending if they bought L size. Am I correct and does this mean it hasn't been fixed yet?
Dunno, but we know it hasn't been fixed yet anyways.
-
Is there a thread open on IS now that will let the Admins communicate to us what is being done and what the likely time frame for getting this fixed will be? Just kidding I know the answer....but seriously why haven't there been any announcements on this yet.
-
Is there a thread open on IS now that will let the Admins communicate to us what is being done and what the likely time frame for getting this fixed will be? Just kidding I know the answer....but seriously why haven't there been any announcements on this yet.
There is an open thread here (http://www.istockphoto.com/forum_permalink_popup.php?threadid=270252&messageid=5204402), and I suggest you open a support ticket. I think that they need to be a little more formal about bugs that withhold royalties from contributors (you'll see I've said that in the thread :))
I don't know if they will close my support ticket (as they did the others), pointing at the forum thread with a promise as a "resolution". If they do, I'm going to open another one.
-
Is there a thread open on IS now that will let the Admins communicate to us what is being done and what the likely time frame for getting this fixed will be? Just kidding I know the answer....but seriously why haven't there been any announcements on this yet.
There is an open thread here ([url]http://www.istockphoto.com/forum_permalink_popup.php?threadid=270252&messageid=5204402[/url]), and I suggest you open a support ticket. I think that they need to be a little more formal about bugs that withhold royalties from contributors (you'll see I've said that in the thread :))
I don't know if they will close my support ticket (as they did the others), pointing at the forum thread with a promise as a "resolution". If they do, I'm going to open another one.
That was an earlier reply, which I and others got.
I wrote again, saying that the matter was not resolved, and the first answer was unacceptable and got this reply on the 12th:
"I do apologize and yes at the time (and still) that is the only information we have been given. I will pass your comments along to my Manager and check with "Joyzee" as well who posted the last admin update to see if there is a date now as to when these missing funds will be added. Once we have that the forums will be updated as well."
Four more days and counting ...
-
My support ticket did get closed - very politely and empathetically but still closed.
So I had a read of the artist supply agreement to see what it said about payment timing. The exclusive agreement (which I think is the same in this respect as the general one) says:
In response to a written request, iStockphoto will endeavor to make payment of fees in respect of purchased downloads of Accepted Exclusive Content on a monthly basis on or about the 15th day of the month following the purchase of Accepted Exclusive Content, except when sales reporting from a distribution partner is delayed, in which case payments will be made in the month following the date such sale is reported, provided such fees aggregate a minimum of US$100, failing which fees owing will be retained until they exceed such minimum.
Seems pretty loosey-goosey in that it doesn't even include the word "reasonable" with endeavor and says nothing about what happens if they blow the deadline.
My new ticket requests that they compute my withheld royalty and pay it to me regardless of whether they fix the code on the site that computes El royalties. They want to tie those two (and I can see that it'd be less work for contributor relations to wait until they fix the code to do the back payments) but I see no reason they need to be.
The agreement says request in writing, so my ticket is a written request to be paid. I would hope it'd be sooner, but I want to start the clock ticking so I can complain again after December 15th if they haven't paid.
It's not Joy's fault that this mess is happening, and I feel bad that I'm making work for contributor relations staff who likewise aren't to blame for this either. I think it's important to do whatever we can to ensure we get paid promptly.
It's not a ton of money in my case, but I guess my sense-of-injustice button got pushed big time by their cavalier attitude to paying us.
-
My support ticket did get closed - very politely and empathetically but still closed.
So I had a read of the artist supply agreement to see what it said about payment timing. The exclusive agreement (which I think is the same in this respect as the general one) says:
In response to a written request, iStockphoto will endeavor to make payment of fees in respect of purchased downloads of Accepted Exclusive Content on a monthly basis on or about the 15th day of the month following the purchase of Accepted Exclusive Content, except when sales reporting from a distribution partner is delayed, in which case payments will be made in the month following the date such sale is reported, provided such fees aggregate a minimum of US$100, failing which fees owing will be retained until they exceed such minimum.
Seems pretty loosey-goosey in that it doesn't even include the word "reasonable" with endeavor and says nothing about what happens if they blow the deadline.
My new ticket requests that they compute my withheld royalty and pay it to me regardless of whether they fix the code on the site that computes El royalties. They want to tie those two (and I can see that it'd be less work for contributor relations to wait until they fix the code to do the back payments) but I see no reason they need to be.
The agreement says request in writing, so my ticket is a written request to be paid. I would hope it'd be sooner, but I want to start the clock ticking so I can complain again after December 15th if they haven't paid.
It's not Joy's fault that this mess is happening, and I feel bad that I'm making work for contributor relations staff who likewise aren't to blame for this either. I think it's important to do whatever we can to ensure we get paid promptly.
It's not a ton of money in my case, but I guess my sense-of-injustice button got pushed big time by their cavalier attitude to paying us.
I hope you get your money. Don't feel bad for holding them accountable for what they owe you. Of course it's not her fault, but it is her job. They are paid employees and this is their job. It's not like you're being snotty about it, you're only asking for what is rightfully yours and they should be working to clear up the mess and get you what is yours. I see nothing wrong with that.
-
It doesn't make sense to pay them before they fix the code, because then, they'll be having to do special calculations over and over instead of just once.
I just don't know why it is taking so long to fix.
-
It doesn't make sense to pay them before they fix the code, because then, they'll be having to do special calculations over and over instead of just once.
I just don't know why it is taking so long to fix.
I realize it doesn't make sense for them to pay first, but what is the point of us (contributors) being endlessly reasonable while they d!ck us around?
The site's just a mess of bugs and while I'm delighted that buyers are apparently able to keep buying and this week looks like being a BWE, the only thing they're consistently delivering are excuses (as to why things aren't fixed) and requests to be patient.
At this point I think we need to be hard line about things until they start being more responsible and responsive.
They are obliged to pay us for the licenses sold and they're not doing it. When I had my own business and didn't get paid by clients I got used to politely hounding those who don't pay up on time. I'm quite prepared to do this with iStock.
I have lots of guesses about why they're not fixing these problems and not one of them amounts to an acceptable excuse.
-
I just don't know why it is taking so long to fix.
Basically because they don't really care. It's not a priority. They've designed a little competition to keep the children occupied with instead.
-
My support ticket did get closed - very politely and empathetically but still closed.
So I had a read of the artist supply agreement to see what it said about payment timing. The exclusive agreement (which I think is the same in this respect as the general one) says:
In response to a written request, iStockphoto will endeavor to make payment of fees in respect of purchased downloads of Accepted Exclusive Content on a monthly basis on or about the 15th day of the month following the purchase of Accepted Exclusive Content, except when sales reporting from a distribution partner is delayed, in which case payments will be made in the month following the date such sale is reported, provided such fees aggregate a minimum of US$100, failing which fees owing will be retained until they exceed such minimum.
Seems pretty loosey-goosey in that it doesn't even include the word "reasonable" with endeavor and says nothing about what happens if they blow the deadline.
All iStock's 'commitments' to its contributers are very loosely worded with words like 'reasonable' which have no legal definition. Yet our obligations to them are cast iron, (if not always crystal-clear).
-
I just don't know why it is taking so long to fix.
Basically because they don't really care. It's not a priority. They've designed a little competition to keep the children occupied with instead.
They've said that they are treating this as a priority, but if this is how their priorities get handled I'd hate to see what happens to "regular" to-do list items!
And on the topic of the little competition, I just got a newsletter from IS and it said that 950 iStockers nominated work for the Stockys contest. That seems like an embarrassingly small number even given the subset of total contributors that are actively submitting to the site.
I didn't submit because I can't find an ounce of enthusiasm for a celebration given the slasher-movie games they're playing with our royalties. Perhaps others felt similarly?
-
Well, I didn't submit either. I'm guessing it's all silvers and below...
-
Silver here and I'm not submitting either. They really need to pay us our money as a bare minimum, are they going to add interest for the delay?
-
My support ticket did get closed - very politely and empathetically but still closed.
So I had a read of the artist supply agreement to see what it said about payment timing. The exclusive agreement (which I think is the same in this respect as the general one) says:
In response to a written request, iStockphoto will endeavor to make payment of fees in respect of purchased downloads of Accepted Exclusive Content on a monthly basis on or about the 15th day of the month following the purchase of Accepted Exclusive Content, except when sales reporting from a distribution partner is delayed, in which case payments will be made in the month following the date such sale is reported, provided such fees aggregate a minimum of US$100, failing which fees owing will be retained until they exceed such minimum.
Seems pretty loosey-goosey in that it doesn't even include the word "reasonable" with endeavor and says nothing about what happens if they blow the deadline.
All iStock's 'commitments' to its contributers are very loosely worded with words like 'reasonable' which have no legal definition. Yet our obligations to them are cast iron, (if not always crystal-clear).
------------------------------
Even if Istock were clearly in violation of its agreement there is this
"Any and all disputes arising out of, under or in connection with this Agreement, including without limitation, its validity, interpretation, performance and breach, shall be submitted to arbitration in Calgary, Alberta, pursuant to the rules of the Arbitration Act (Alberta) in effect at the time arbitration is demanded."
and also
"You agree to waive any right you may have to (i) trial by jury; and (ii) to commence or participate in any class action against iStockphoto related to the Site, this Agreement or any agreements contemplated hereby."
Not to mention if somebody did take any legal action, Istock would no doubt drop the contributor from Istock entirely.
-
"You agree to waive any right you may have to (i) trial by jury; and (ii) to commence or participate in any class action against iStockphoto related to the Site, this Agreement or any agreements contemplated hereby."
Wow. So you cannot really defend your rights given by the IS agreement because you waive it upon signing it. You obviously still can defend yourself in case you think there is some sort of violation of law (because you cannot waive right to do so).
-
I doubt anyone will do it because the amounts of money involved (individually) don't warrant it, but it's highly unlikely that the whole contract as written would hold up in court if legally challenged.
Burble in contracts sometimes only has force because one side has the money and the lawyers and the other doesn't. They can write anything they like. That doesn't per se make it a legally enforceable contract, in Alberta or anywhere else.
-
I just don't know why it is taking so long to fix.
Basically because they don't really care. It's not a priority. They've designed a little competition to keep the children occupied with instead.
They've said that they are treating this as a priority, but if this is how their priorities get handled I'd hate to see what happens to "regular" to-do list items!
And on the topic of the little competition, I just got a newsletter from IS and it said that 950 iStockers nominated work for the Stockys contest. That seems like an embarrassingly small number even given the subset of total contributors that are actively submitting to the site.
I didn't submit because I can't find an ounce of enthusiasm for a celebration given the slasher-movie games they're playing with our royalties. Perhaps others felt similarly?
950 is all? crazy. I feel the same as you and didn't submit anything either.