pancakes

MicrostockGroup Sponsors


Author Topic: iStock petition: Please sign and share  (Read 20630 times)

0 Members and 2 Guests are viewing this topic.

ShadySue

  • There is a crack in everything
« Reply #25 on: November 19, 2016, 04:39 »
+4
It's not only about Royalties, it's about how much the file sells for.
I just got reports of two G+ sales in October, which netted me 3c each, so the file sold for 10c and 80% would be 8c, all of which is totally unacceptable.
« Last Edit: November 19, 2016, 05:50 by ShadySue »


« Reply #26 on: November 19, 2016, 05:38 »
+9
Every time we see an article with images from istock or thinkstock we should be adding comments on how it makes the company look using images from a company that treats creatives in this way. Especially if it is in creative industry blogs and the like.

PureArt

  • UK
« Reply #27 on: November 19, 2016, 06:22 »
+4
I did not sign because the petition is somewhat misleading presuming that it has cut all photographers' and illustrators' royalties, and that simply is not the case. I am also baffled where the 40% royalty rate as an industry standard evolved from. I think retaliation is the least of your worries, I'd be more concerned with signing something that does not really reflect accuracy and clarity.

No problem at all, just create your own petition: accurate and full of clarity. People will sign it too.

Chichikov

« Reply #28 on: November 19, 2016, 09:47 »
+8
iStock is a company not a democracy
iStock does not care about petitions

If you are not happy leave them and don't lose your time with totally useless actions.

Rose Tinted Glasses

« Reply #29 on: November 19, 2016, 10:06 »
+4
I did not sign because the petition is somewhat misleading presuming that it has cut all photographers' and illustrators' royalties, and that simply is not the case. I am also baffled where the 40% royalty rate as an industry standard evolved from. I think retaliation is the least of your worries, I'd be more concerned with signing something that does not really reflect accuracy and clarity.

No problem at all, just create your own petition: accurate and full of clarity. People will sign it too.

I don't see the need for a petition of any sort. Rather I have simply come to terms with where this industry is currently at and where it is headed going forward. Not to be Dr. Doom here, but there is a combination of technologies/events/management/ etc. throughout the industry that makes agencies sickeningly profitable all the while cutting the life line and * the blood from the contributors. I don't want to get into a complete diatribe about any one single agency as it's way too late to start pointing fingers, rather it stems back to what photographers were willing to accept for their own personal choices. I have been vocal against certain agencies in the past for my own reasons, and now my predictions have more than come true - sadly. The fact of the matter is that the valuation of imagery has been in free fall for quite some time and photographers accepted pennies for usage of which the agencies figured this out very quickly and capitalized on it. Sadly the genie is out of the bottle and it's not going back. Signing any petition at this point in terms of what these greedy agencies offer us is like closing the barn door after the horses are all out.


« Reply #30 on: November 20, 2016, 02:43 »
+6
The petition helps publicise whats going on. It's worth signing even if you are going to stop working with istock over this.

I am not going to engage in yet another debate about rpds from micros but again istock and depositphotos are the only two sites who have consistently lowered rpd for contributors.

« Reply #31 on: November 20, 2016, 04:46 »
+5
Unfortunately I think also that this actions goes nowhere. The only thing that is going to change any agency behaviour is when they don't receive any quality images anymore. Every image with good commercial appeal that ends up in another agency and not in Getty (or any other with abusive practices) is a real stab to them. Buyers follow content , any agency with stale,obsolete or or poor content  is heading for disaster. They all know this too well. If Getty act the way they do is that they think that they still will get quality content in spite of this continued attack to contributors.

They are balancing of a thin line. They have a huge debt to pay and raising prices is not an option in this knive competitive market. They are squeezzing contributors. Slowly content providers are abandoning the ship but they hope that they are buying some time, the price is of loosing some producers. The ultimate crash is not far away, we know it ...they know it.

It's absurd to make this kind of actions, 500 or 5000 signers doesn't matter, a drop in an ocean.....cutting royalties is real dough in their banks in a three month timeframe. Remove content if you think it is not worth it to work with them anymore. This is the only language they understand.

« Reply #32 on: November 20, 2016, 06:45 »
+7
Stop uploading or close account. Publicise unfair practices everywhere, blogs, comments threads, clients, colleagues. Let companies doing cross promotions know they are damaging their image with their creative customers by working with IStock or Getty. Stop buying from any Getty outlet. Point everyone you know to other outlets too.

This is easiest and most productive for those who have already deleted portfolios from IStock. You need to be sending buyers to your portfolio on sites you still upload to and treat you better, and you have nothing to fear from retaliation from Getty.

Of course only be honest, let people know when something is fact or your opinion etc.

IStock/ Getty was once the first and only place I would buy from. I would now never buy from them. If they were the only ones with an image I really wanted I would rather do without. Full stop.

« Reply #33 on: November 20, 2016, 21:23 »
+3
Seems i stock will go the DPC way...  Guess it's time to shut shop there

SpaceStockFootage

  • Space, Sci-Fi and Astronomy Related Stock Footage

« Reply #34 on: November 20, 2016, 23:02 »
+2
Wouldn't a petition for them to reduce the amount they pay be more constructive? The more they drop it, the more people will leave, and the more likely it is that they'll go the way of the dinosaurs. Then buyers will be forced to source content at other sites... the other sites that we prefer and that pay us a higher percentage.

« Reply #35 on: November 21, 2016, 04:27 »
0
Hmm...  Can't seem to sign the petition. Maybe the last date is fone

« Reply #36 on: November 21, 2016, 07:30 »
+4
Surge of signatures last night! Now closing in on 600.

https://www.change.org/p/jonathan-klein-getty-images-istock-don-t-slash-our-royalties

Please help get press coverage. Tweet the petition:

@noamscheiber (labor reporter for The New York Times)
@lydiadepillis (labor reporter for The Washington Post)
@wsjMelanie (Melanie Trottman, labor reporter for The Wall Street Journal)

Only 5 days until the royalty cut.

Rose Tinted Glasses

« Reply #37 on: November 21, 2016, 10:51 »
0
Surge of signatures last night! Now closing in on 600.

https://www.change.org/p/jonathan-klein-getty-images-istock-don-t-slash-our-royalties

Please help get press coverage. Tweet the petition:

@noamscheiber (labor reporter for The New York Times)
@lydiadepillis (labor reporter for The Washington Post)
@wsjMelanie (Melanie Trottman, labor reporter for The Wall Street Journal)

Only 5 days until the royalty cut.

And make sure to mention that this is only for contributors that choose to have their assets on multiple sites and have the option to have their fingers in as many pies as they choose. Tell the whole story kids. I don't like the offering one bit, but please please please tell the whole story. It would give you a lot of credibility. Signing any petition that is only  telling half the story is pointless in my books.

Do you really think the NYT, WP, and TWSJ won't report facts if they even choose to report on this?

It's sort of like moaning that there is not enough chocolate in neopolitan ice cream when you could have actually made a choice and ordered chocolate ice cream. But no no no, you wanted to have a bit of vanilla and strawberry too and signed a petition that there was not enough chocolate and you were deserving of having more chocolate.

« Last Edit: November 21, 2016, 11:16 by Rose Tinted Glasses »

Shelma1

« Reply #38 on: November 21, 2016, 11:07 »
+6
Sign the petition that's up and write a comment with more details. Or write a petition of your own. Or offer more concrete information. For example, the percentage of exclusive contributors who (might) keep making the same amount vs. the percentage who'll have their royalties slashed. Got stats?

« Reply #39 on: November 21, 2016, 11:13 »
+2
Surge of signatures last night! Now closing in on 600.

https://www.change.org/p/jonathan-klein-getty-images-istock-don-t-slash-our-royalties

Please help get press coverage. Tweet the petition:

@noamscheiber (labor reporter for The New York Times)
@lydiadepillis (labor reporter for The Washington Post)
@wsjMelanie (Melanie Trottman, labor reporter for The Wall Street Journal)

Only 5 days until the royalty cut.

And make sure to mention that this is only for contributors that choose to have their assets on multiple sites and have the option to have their fingers in as many pies as they choose. Tell the whole story kids. I don't like the offering one bit, but please please please tell the whole story. It would give you a lot of credibility. Signing any petition that is only  telling half the story is pointless in my books.
Nope, it's not about that. If this one's not for you then don't sign it.

Many/ most agencies don't even have contributor exclusivity. If we made a petition for them would we have specify that we can also sell on other agencies? Do we need to say that we could also get a job at Walmart or whatever when protesting about the arbitrary changes IStock is making to our non-exclusive contract? What they are doing for some other set of contributors is not relevant.

It's about how there are treating the majority of their contributors, non exclusives.

Rose Tinted Glasses

« Reply #40 on: November 21, 2016, 11:25 »
0
Sign the petition that's up and write a comment with more details. Or write a petition of your own. Or offer more concrete information. For example, the percentage of exclusive contributors who (might) keep making the same amount vs. the percentage who'll have their royalties slashed. Got stats?

Here is a stat for you, this is not what IS/GI is offering all "photographers' and illustrators'". It's pretty clear to me that they have chosen to create a divide in royalties for those who choose to remain exclusive versus those who choose to remain non-exclusive and the petition should reflect as such. As much as I don't like  the offering, the petition is full of holes. And that is not good if you are trying to make a point especially if you insist on getting major media involved. It comes across as a childish rant based on??? You are a big girl, surely you can see this.

Rose Tinted Glasses

« Reply #41 on: November 21, 2016, 11:29 »
+1
Surge of signatures last night! Now closing in on 600.

https://www.change.org/p/jonathan-klein-getty-images-istock-don-t-slash-our-royalties

Please help get press coverage. Tweet the petition:

@noamscheiber (labor reporter for The New York Times)
@lydiadepillis (labor reporter for The Washington Post)
@wsjMelanie (Melanie Trottman, labor reporter for The Wall Street Journal)

Only 5 days until the royalty cut.

And make sure to mention that this is only for contributors that choose to have their assets on multiple sites and have the option to have their fingers in as many pies as they choose. Tell the whole story kids. I don't like the offering one bit, but please please please tell the whole story. It would give you a lot of credibility. Signing any petition that is only  telling half the story is pointless in my books.
Nope, it's not about that. If this one's not for you then don't sign it.

Many/ most agencies don't even have contributor exclusivity. If we made a petition for them would we have specify that we can also sell on other agencies? Do we need to say that we could also get a job at Walmart or whatever when protesting about the arbitrary changes IStock is making to our non-exclusive contract? What they are doing for some other set of contributors is not relevant.

It's about how there are treating the majority of their contributors, non exclusives.

So who forced you to agree to the terms?

I did not agree to the terms of SS and subscription 8 years ago and did not submit work.

Let's be clear here, no agency forces you to agree to the terms and no agency forces you to submit work and no agency forces you to stay.

It's called being an adult and making an executive decision for what is best for yourself.

For example if IS/GI offered me this deal as an exclusive I would do one of two things, keep my work up there to have a trickle effect of income, become non-exclusive, and never submit an image ever again, or I would close my account and place my images with an agency I deemed to be in my best interests. Why you ask? because I would have a choice to either accept the terms or reject the terms and respond accordingly.

The last thing I would do in that situation however is sign a non factual petition.

« Last Edit: November 21, 2016, 11:39 by Rose Tinted Glasses »

« Reply #42 on: November 21, 2016, 11:35 »
+3
The petition doesn't say that the cuts apply to all photographers and illustrators, so I don't see a problem with it.  The bit about the industry standard 40% is annoying but its a bit late to change that now.

Even though I think this is a waste of time, I signed it anyway.

Rose Tinted Glasses

« Reply #43 on: November 21, 2016, 11:43 »
0
The petition doesn't say that the cuts apply to all photographers and illustrators, so I don't see a problem with it.  The bit about the industry standard 40% is annoying but its a bit late to change that now.

Even though I think this is a waste of time, I signed it anyway.

The petition implies "all". Unless I am reading this wrong, I don't see anything that even remotely hints otherwise.

Getty Images/iStock have announced that as of November 25, 2016, they will be cutting photographers' and illustrators' subscription royalties to as low as 2 per license, 93% lower than their current royalties. This will greatly reduce creative people's income and devalue their work virtually overnight. We want Getty/iStock to retain their current subscription royalty structure and increase their credit royalties to the industry standard of 40%.

Shelma1

« Reply #44 on: November 21, 2016, 11:52 »
+5
Sign the petition that's up and write a comment with more details. Or write a petition of your own. Or offer more concrete information. For example, the percentage of exclusive contributors who (might) keep making the same amount vs. the percentage who'll have their royalties slashed. Got stats?

Here is a stat for you, this is not what IS/GI is offering all "photographers' and illustrators'". It's pretty clear to me that they have chosen to create a divide in royalties for those who choose to remain exclusive versus those who choose to remain non-exclusive and the petition should reflect as such. As much as I don't like  the offering, the petition is full of holes. And that is not good if you are trying to make a point especially if you insist on getting major media involved. It comes across as a childish rant based on??? You are a big girl, surely you can see this.

Actually, I'm a fairly small "girl," little "boy."

I just read the petition again and I don't see the word "all" anywhere. Maybe you had your bifocals off when you looked at it?

I'd be happy to suggest they add this: "Getty divides contributors into two classes: Exclusive and Non-exclusive. Exclusive artists give up the right to license their images anywhere else, even directly to clients themselves. In return, Getty charges higher amounts for their images, even though there is no guarantee of exclusivity to buyers...in fact, there is no limit on how often an 'exclusive' image can be licensed to multiple end users, despite the higher price tag."

Sound accurate?

« Reply #45 on: November 21, 2016, 11:59 »
0
Exclusive are non exclusive for rights managed image licences.  Some exclusives have been very non-exclusive for royalty free as well.

ShadySue

  • There is a crack in everything
« Reply #46 on: November 21, 2016, 12:00 »
+1
No; not accurate. Exclusives can licence other files as RM, can license privately so long as the terms are not RF, can do 'work for hire' and we can sell prints.

Shelma1

« Reply #47 on: November 21, 2016, 12:05 »
+2
They could also add: "In addition to charging higher prices for so-called 'exclusive' images that can in actuality be licensed an infinite number of times, Getty also charged (thousands? tens of thousands)? of clients for the use of more than 18,000 photos taken by photographer Carol Highsmith, who is currently suing Getty for a billion dollars for violation of copyright. Highsmith donated the images to the Library of Congress for use by the public free of charge. More details about the pending lawsuit can be found in this article in Forbes: http://www.forbes.com/sites/legalentertainment/2016/08/03/pay-up-getty-sends-trolling-letter-to-photographer-highsmith-demanding-money-for-her-own-photos/#693548682c2b
It's no coincidence that the royalty cuts come at a time when Getty is likely to settle for a huge sum."

Shelma1

« Reply #48 on: November 21, 2016, 12:07 »
+1
No; not accurate. Exclusives can licence other files as RM, can license privately so long as the terms are not RF, can do 'work for hire' and we can sell prints.

And so you begin to see the difficulty of describing Getty's various confusing licensing terms in a short tweet or a simple petition.

PureArt

  • UK
« Reply #49 on: November 21, 2016, 12:13 »
+3
Sign the petition that's up and write a comment with more details. Or write a petition of your own. Or offer more concrete information. For example, the percentage of exclusive contributors who (might) keep making the same amount vs. the percentage who'll have their royalties slashed. Got stats?

Here is a stat for you, this is not what IS/GI is offering all "photographers' and illustrators'". It's pretty clear to me that they have chosen to create a divide in royalties for those who choose to remain exclusive versus those who choose to remain non-exclusive and the petition should reflect as such. As much as I don't like  the offering, the petition is full of holes. And that is not good if you are trying to make a point especially if you insist on getting major media involved. It comes across as a childish rant based on??? You are a big girl, surely you can see this.

Ok, it is clear to you, as you said. But did iStock tell that to us? No, they did not. It is just your guess. And if it is just a guess (not confirmed by iStock) then why should we write it in the petition?!

It would give you a lot of credibility.

Filling the petition with guesses does not make it better. This way we will lose the credibility. Is this what you want?


 

Related Topics

  Subject / Started by Replies Last post
5 Replies
3980 Views
Last post March 14, 2007, 22:16
by Pixart
8 Replies
3856 Views
Last post March 16, 2011, 18:27
by jsmithzz
14 Replies
4299 Views
Last post April 13, 2013, 15:11
by drial7m1
15 Replies
4165 Views
Last post November 15, 2016, 03:44
by Pauws99
8 Replies
1861 Views
Last post June 12, 2020, 05:41
by Chichikov

Sponsors

Mega Bundle of 5,900+ Professional Lightroom Presets

Microstock Poll Results

Sponsors

3100 Posing Cards Bundle