MicrostockGroup
Agency Based Discussion => iStockPhoto.com => Topic started by: Microstock Coalition on November 14, 2016, 09:34
-
Based on the results of the poll here and at the Russian group, we've decided to split the difference and ask for an increase of credit royalties to 40%, with subscription royalties staying as they are now. Please sign and share the petition. It's important that we get our message heard.
https://www.change.org/p/jonathan-klein-getty-images-istock-don-t-slash-our-royalties (https://www.change.org/p/jonathan-klein-getty-images-istock-don-t-slash-our-royalties)
-
Where did you get the industry standard percentage from?
-
What happens if they ignore this petition? I think the only way they would take any notice is if enough of us were willing to take down all our images, otherwise they can get away with ignoring it. Deactivation day failed a few years ago because people were still making good money with them but now I think the time has come when we need to do more than just sign a petition.
-
If they don't respond I will definitely close my account. It won't be much of a loss anyway if their royalty cut goes through.
-
As much as I agree with this petition it should be much more clear and concise as to whom the royalties affect. It reads as if all contributors are getting this sh!tty deal, and that is not the case. I would have made it clear that this is only for contributors who want the freedoms to place their images on multiple other sites that are getting this sh!tty deal. I wish you luck in this quest as I don't agree with what IS/GI are doing, but on the flip side you should also make the petition more accurate as to whom it is truly having the effect.
For me it's fairly clear what IS/GI is doing, they are really trying to rid the agency of non-exclusives and try to retain exclusives only. Nasty way of doing it, but that is how they play. I am also not clear in where you get your industry standard of 40% for microstock agencies. Very few agencies these days pay that much in royalties, even for the macros that is a bit of a stretch.
I'd love to have my cake and eat it too.
Good luck, hope it works.
-
Signed.
-
If they don't respond I will definitely close my account. It won't be much of a loss anyway if their royalty cut goes through.
My thought exactly.
-
Thanks to all the people who've donated or offered to donate photos, spent time writing, translating, posting petitions, reaching out to organizations, blogging, etc.
-
100+! :-*
Lets make some PR for the Petition:
https://www.facebook.com/istock/ (https://www.facebook.com/istock/)
-
100+! :-*
There are more than 20'000 artists at microstocks (photographers, graphic designers, videographers).
100 is less than 0.5% of contributors.
Why did I tell that? Because of your "!" and " :-* " ;D
BTW. I signed the petition yesterday.
-
signed
-
signed
-
signed
-
Nearing 200. :)
-
What does your iStock income pay for? Rent, mortgage, car payment, food, Starbucks run? Share your story and what you'll have to do to make up the loss in the comments section on the petition. (The world won't see it if you post it here.)
https://www.change.org/p/jonathan-klein-getty-images-istock-don-t-slash-our-royalties (https://www.change.org/p/jonathan-klein-getty-images-istock-don-t-slash-our-royalties)
-
"total f**king corporate fascists. done." - A buyer
-
Signed! And passed it along to family members who will be affected so they can sign.
-
Done
-
More than 300 signatures now.
-
90 signatures away from 500.
-
Signed, but I added that 30-40% was more reasonable. Current commissions suck and are likely to suck even more with the new model.
-
I decided against signing because I'm concerned about potential retaliation.
-
I decided against signing because I'm concerned about potential retaliation.
Why? What can they do? They are not going to come round your house and take you out are they?
An appeaser is one who feeds a crocodile, hoping it will eat him last ~ Winston Churchill
-
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.
I decided against signing because I'm concerned about potential retaliation.
-
I decided against signing because I'm concerned about potential retaliation.
Why? What can they do? They are not going to come round your house and take you out are they?
Nope, but they can close your account for any reason (it's happened) and although my earnings are dropping, they're still substantial and I don't want to jeopardize them with something that has zero chance of succeeding.
-
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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
Seems i stock will go the DPC way... Guess it's time to shut shop there
-
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.
-
Hmm... Can't seem to sign the petition. Maybe the last date is fone
-
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 (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.
-
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 (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.
-
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?
-
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 (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.
-
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.
-
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 (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.
-
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 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%.
-
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?
-
Exclusive are non exclusive for rights managed image licences. Some exclusives have been very non-exclusive for royalty free as well.
-
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.
-
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 (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."
-
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.
-
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?
-
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%.
"...as low as..." you're a big boy, you can read and understand what you quoted right?
-
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?
If you took out the drama queen and emotion of which you seem to have a flair for, yes, that is much more accurate than the petition which is totally misleading.
And as "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."
You have a choice to agree to this or not. Judging by your anger, you accepted these terms. But to agree to it and consistently moan about it and be the drama queen you are is rather... dramatic. Do us all a favor and leave IS/GI and try and write a positive post for once without being angry. You have choices buttercup, so be and adult and leave IS/GI and place your work where it's all unicorns and you will find both internal and eternal happiness.
I personally think you are a live under the flight path of an airport and complain about it kind of person. You make a choice then need to go on and on and on about it and blame the airlines, the airport, the NTSB, and even the President when you could simply move to another more peaceful place and be happy, and heaven forbid anyone tells you this as you will have the desire to be defensive, scratch their eyes out and be mad at the whole world because you and only you chose to live under the flight path.
-
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?
did you read the original email from IS? They made it very clear that non-exclusives got a bad deal.
-
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%.
"...as low as..." you're a big boy, you can read and understand what you quoted right?
and big boy also understood that crappy deal is for non-exclusives only. the petition does not reflect this at all. it presumes it applies to all.
-
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?
If you took out the drama queen and emotion of which you seem to have a flair for, yes, that is much more accurate than the petition which is totally misleading.
And as "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."
You have a choice to agree to this or not. Judging by your anger, you accepted these terms. But to agree to it and consistently moan about it and be the drama queen you are is rather... dramatic. Do us all a favor and leave IS/GI and try and write a positive post for once without being angry. You have choices buttercup, so be and adult and leave IS/GI and place your work where it's all unicorns and you will find both internal and eternal happiness.
I personally think you are a live under the flight path of an airport and complain about it kind of person. You make a choice then need to go on and on and on about it and blame the airlines, the airport, the NTSB, and even the President when you could simply move to another more peaceful place and be happy, and heaven forbid anyone tells you this as you will have the desire to be defensive, scratch their eyes out and be mad at the whole world because you and only you chose to live under the flight path.
The petition is about thousands of contributors, not just me, though of course you'd like to make the thread about me. And airports, which is really on topic ::)
We did not agree to 2˘ royalties; they're trying to force it on us.
If you'd like to the petition to be more specific, just give us the stats and we could change it to "the vast majority" or "almost all."
-
It already says "as low as", it's clear that this is the worst case scenario (though from long experience I think this will actually be close to the default for most).
I think we should get back on track instead of allowing ourselves to be derailed by one person posting the same unproductive couple of points over and over again.
-
For whatever reason momentum seems to be picking up. I just checked and it's well over 600 now, so a whole bunch of people must have signed it this morning.
-
did you read the original email from IS?
Yes, of course, I did.
They made it very clear that non-exclusives got a bad deal.
Yes, they made. And this is the reason to create the petition.
But why should the petition have any words about the "exclusives"?! This petition is going to be sent to the iStock management. They do know what they wrote in their letter. Should we copy the whole text? Should we copy all their terms and policies as well?
-
Conversely, exclusives can sell certain images via Getty Images which can net "as low as 2c" (I had two in October of 3c, someone else reported 2c, which I guess must be 25% rounded down).
-
I personally think you are a live under the flight path of an airport and complain about it kind of person. You make a choice then need to go on and on and on about it and blame the airlines, the airport, the NTSB, and even the President blah blah blah
If you're still reading posts here, you gave yourself away with that. Go look at that Facebook page again and learn the difference between the FAA and the NTSB—organizations they don't have in Canada. ;)
-
signed
-
I personally think you are a live under the flight path of an airport and complain about it kind of person. You make a choice then need to go on and on and on about it and blame the airlines, the airport, the NTSB, and even the President blah blah blah
If you're still reading posts here, you gave yourself away with that. Go look at that Facebook page again and learn the difference between the FAA and the NTSB—organizations they don't have in Canada. ;)
Now if he had instead said the 'NHL' both Canada and USA have that agency lol! Go Leafs!
-
For whatever reason momentum seems to be picking up. I just checked and it's well over 600 now, so a whole bunch of people must have signed it this morning.
I wasn't going to sign it, because I think its a waste of time but Rose Tinted Glasses persuaded me. He's done a great job getting more people to sign it :)
Looks like he's gone now but no doubt he will be back with another anonymous account trying to defend the indefensible.
-
http://petapixel.com/2016/11/22/1-billion-getty-images-lawsuit-ends-not-bang-whimper/ (http://petapixel.com/2016/11/22/1-billion-getty-images-lawsuit-ends-not-bang-whimper/)
-
[url]http://petapixel.com/2016/11/22/1-billion-getty-images-lawsuit-ends-not-bang-whimper/[/url] ([url]http://petapixel.com/2016/11/22/1-billion-getty-images-lawsuit-ends-not-bang-whimper/[/url])
Did anyone honestly believe there was a copyright case there? If you give up your copyright others are allowed to monetize it just like works where the copyright has expired.
-
Selling images that are in public domain is disgusting. Sending extortion letters to people, who use public domain images is beyond disgusting. And the judge is and idiot, obviously, probably bribed...
-
What a despicable company you work for, tickstock.
If the settlement was indeed just a slap on the wrist, which is truly outrageous, there's NO REASON TO CUT OUR ROYALTIES because, apparently, they don't need to make the payout they should have.
This sets a chilling precedent for large corporations monetizing the work of artists trying to do a good deed.
-
Nearing 700 signatures, folks. Now that we know Getty does not have a large settlement to pay, we should be more angry than ever. Please sign, ask friends to sign, and remember the royalty cut comes at the end of this week.
https://www.change.org/p/jonathan-klein-getty-images-istock-don-t-slash-our-royalties (https://www.change.org/p/jonathan-klein-getty-images-istock-don-t-slash-our-royalties)
-
Selling images that are in public domain is disgusting. Sending extortion letters to people, who use public domain images is beyond disgusting. And the judge is and idiot, obviously, probably bribed...
I think Getty used the argument that this is a well accepted practice and the example was Dickens novels reprinted for sale now. I think the same principle would apply to drugs whose patent has expired. Are those wrong as well? By putting your images or any ip into the public domain you should know that it is a real possibility that someone will monetize them or use them in a way that you completely disagree with, if you don't agree to that you shouldn't give up your rights.
-
Selling images that are in public domain is disgusting. Sending extortion letters to people, who use public domain images is beyond disgusting. And the judge is and idiot, obviously, probably bribed...
I think Getty used the argument that this is a well accepted practice and the example was Dickens novels reprinted for sale now. I think the same principle would apply to drugs whose patent has expired. Are those wrong as well? ...
Still, it's unlikely anyone would attempt to sue someone for e.g. publishing Dickens online. Especially how ridiculous was it that they that they tried to extort the author of the images.
-
Selling images that are in public domain is disgusting. Sending extortion letters to people, who use public domain images is beyond disgusting. And the judge is and idiot, obviously, probably bribed...
I think Getty used the argument that this is a well accepted practice and the example was Dickens novels reprinted for sale now. I think the same principle would apply to drugs whose patent has expired. Are those wrong as well? ...
Still, it's unlikely anyone would attempt to sue someone for e.g. publishing Dickens online. Especially how ridiculous was it that they that they tried to extort the author of the images.
I agree it's unlikely that someone would sue because no one has the copyright, which is the same as this case. Once you've given up your copyright you've given up your copyright.
From what they said "Getty painted it as an “honest” mistake that they addressed as soon as they were notified of the issue by Highsmith." I don't know anything more about that or how they generate notices but I do agree they should be more careful about it. Overall though I do appreciate Getty going after copyright infringers even if they sometimes make a mistake.
-
What a despicable company you work for, tickstock.
What company?
-
For whatever reason momentum seems to be picking up. I just checked and it's well over 600 now, so a whole bunch of people must have signed it this morning.
I wasn't going to sign it, because I think its a waste of time but Rose Tinted Glasses persuaded me. He's done a great job getting more people to sign it :)
Looks like he's gone now but no doubt he will be back with another anonymous account trying to defend the indefensible.
Or maybe go back to posting under another pro Getty account that has been dormant for a year or so...? Seems like quite a coincidence, one leaves, the other pops up.
-
The analogy with Dickens is erroneous because hes been dead a certain number of years his work is out of copyright. Try selling the work of a living author and see how far you get.
-
The analogy with Dickens is erroneous because hes been dead a certain number of years his work is out of copyright. Try selling the work of a living author and see how far you get.
Her work is out of copyright as well. She chose to give up her copyright and put the images into the public domain.
-
I wonder if the undisclosed settlement was .02 cents?
-
Alas, we'll never know. Because big businesses will put you through nasty depositions and drag you through a long legal battle (sometimes lasting years), delaying as long as possible, hoping you'll give up. And if you don't give up they wait until right before the trial date to make an offer, and then if you negotiate something much less than what you first sought but still substantial, they won't give you the settlement until you sign a nondisclosure agreement. That way they silence you and the bad publicity around the lawsuit magically disappears, and they go on with business as usual.
Not that this has happened to me, of course. ;) But when you hear the terms of a settlement have not been disclosed, it pretty much means the plaintiff has won a substantial settlement.
-
I wonder if the undisclosed settlement was .02 cents?
It might have been. It's hard to see what actual damages she was subject to.
-
Nearing 700 signatures, folks. Now that we know Getty does not have a large settlement to pay, we should be more angry than ever. Please sign, ask friends to sign, and remember the royalty cut comes at the end of this week.
https://www.change.org/p/jonathan-klein-getty-images-istock-don-t-slash-our-royalties (https://www.change.org/p/jonathan-klein-getty-images-istock-don-t-slash-our-royalties)
WOW!
You really believe that iStock will care about 700 people or 1000 (or even 10 000)?
Personally I have stopped to upload to them some time ago.
After the 25 I will give them another month (maybe two :o) to see what happens
After that I will decide what to do: stay or leave.
-
Getty/istock wont care but maybe it will get some publicity and people will find out about the pittance they want to pay us. Buyers might realise that they wont get the standard of content they are used to if all we get is $0.02?
-
Getty/istock wont care but maybe it will get some publicity and people will find out about the pittance they want to pay us. Buyers might realise that they wont get the standard of content they are used to if all we get is $0.02?
Do most of the buyers need high standard images or cheap average level images?
-
I wonder if the undisclosed settlement was .02 cents?
It might have been. It's hard to see what actual damages she was subject to.
Obviously I was joking....somewhat...to your point...my guess is the payout was very meager at best.
-
The minimum price changed from $ 0,02 to $ 0,10 per file by subscription licenses for non-exclusive contributors.
More: https://contributors.gettyimages.com/article_public.aspx?article_id=4856 (http://contributors.gettyimages.com/article_public.aspx?article_id=4856)
-
The minimum price changed from $ 0,02 to $ 0,10 per file by subscription licenses for non-exclusive contributors.
More: [url]https://contributors.gettyimages.com/article_public.aspx?article_id=4856[/url] ([url]http://contributors.gettyimages.com/article_public.aspx?article_id=4856[/url])
nothing changed unfortunately
price is $0,10 and our royalty commission is 15% so it is rounded to $0,02
-
Really, I'm sorry :(
-
Really, I'm sorry :(
Really, I'm sorry for iStock…
-
The analogy with Dickens is erroneous because hes been dead a certain number of years his work is out of copyright. Try selling the work of a living author and see how far you get.
That's not how it works, but you can believe what you want. You just shouldn't pretend it's the truth, on a forum. A living author can have public domain works. Or lose rights when she donates the rights to The L.O.C. The laws changed. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Copyright_Term_Extension_Act (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Copyright_Term_Extension_Act)
Before 1978 the laws were different and 28 years was term for copyright. Works which hadn't passed into public domain before that date, were extended 47 years making the total 75 years. Yes the death of an author comes into play for some works, but it's not as simple as how many years is somebody dead.
A book, photo or anything else that passed into public domain in 1949 could very well have a living author and be public domain. All books before 1923 have already become public domain. Just to be on topic, photos also.
Would you write the same if he had used Ben-Hur as the book? It is public domain.
Books and works from 1923 will now start passing into public domain. The copyrights have expired. http://www.gutenberg.org/ (http://www.gutenberg.org/) Project Gutenberg offers over 53,000 free ebooks. I know it's not Getty the devils photo agency, but without bias, the laws are the same for all.
Undisclosed settlement wasn't for copyright or the DMCA violation or anything we would like to believe. It was the last of the unfair trade practices claims for the state of New York. At minimum they paid for lawyers fees, so she broke even, and may have added a small token payment, admitting no wrong, as a courtesy. These paymenst are made privte for both sides as well as to lessen the chances that people will see it as a way to make a quick buck from Getty, by filing suits.
A fair settlement would be for Getty to stop selling her work, without compensation? Or pay her for every use.
-
I stand correctly, partly...US law differs from UK law in this respect so yes its not simple. Although the author of Ben Hur died in 1905 so maybe not the best example ;-).
-
it takes like 2 seconds to sign....just trys, also if you don't expect nothing
-
I stand correctly, partly...US law differs from UK law in this respect so yes its not simple. Although the author of Ben Hur died in 1905 so maybe not the best example ;-).
;) back, some books from the 20s are public domain US, not UK. Yes, UK and most of the civilized world had easier and better copyright laws many years ago. US is catching up. That happens with young countries. I can't name one but some things never published in the US are public now but not in Europe. Without application, the rights have expired. Some expired were not renewed, like old movies you can buy DVD for $1 or download free.
My objection is, not anything is easy or simple with copyright. Age of book or death of author is over simplifying.
-
Getty/istock wont care but maybe it will get some publicity and people will find out about the pittance they want to pay us.
Would be nice, but maybe a little bit optomistic. I mean, how many people enquire about the welfare of the workers who produced the clothes that they're buying? If it looks good and the price is right, then I'd say the majority of people don't really care. Rightly or wrongly, that's just the way it is unfortunately.
-
Getty/istock wont care but maybe it will get some publicity and people will find out about the pittance they want to pay us.
Would be nice, but maybe a little bit optomistic. I mean, how many people enquire about the welfare of the workers who produced the clothes that they're buying? If it looks good and the price is right, then I'd say the majority of people don't really care. Rightly or wrongly, that's just the way it is unfortunately.
Me.
For this reason I have stopped to buy Nike products many years ago…
-
how many people enquire about the welfare of the workers who produced the clothes that they're buying? If it looks good and the price is right, then I'd say the majority of people don't really care. Rightly or wrongly, that's just the way it is unfortunately.
It's quite a thing now, and some retaillers have woken up to the fact that it's not only the right thing to do, but a fairer policy attracts a viable percentage of the market.
-
The petition now has more than 800 signatures.
21 days until royalty cuts take effect.
See all the current microstock petitions at our blog: https://microstockcoalition.wordpress.com
-
Signed >:(
-
Article about the petition and royalty cut on the Freelancer's Union Facebook page:
https://www.facebook.com/freelancersunion/ (https://www.facebook.com/freelancersunion/)
And on their blog:
https://blog.freelancersunion.org/2016/12/02/getty-images-istock-petition/ (https://blog.freelancersunion.org/2016/12/02/getty-images-istock-petition/)
The more people who "like" or comment on the Freelancer's Union Facebook post, the more people Facebook will show the post to. It's free advertising to creative professionals who license images. Hint hint.
-
Article about the petition and royalty cut on the Freelancer's Union Facebook page:
https://www.facebook.com/freelancersunion/ (https://www.facebook.com/freelancersunion/)
And on their blog:
https://blog.freelancersunion.org/2016/12/02/getty-images-istock-petition/ (https://blog.freelancersunion.org/2016/12/02/getty-images-istock-petition/)
The more people who "like" or comment on the Freelancer's Union Facebook post, the more people Facebook will show the post to. It's free advertising to creative professionals who license images. Hint hint.
I "liked" the Facebook post.
-
Comment from the petition:
"As a freelance writer/editor. I am supporting freelance photographers and illustrators who are the backbone of Getty Images. I'll be cancelling my Getty images account and I hope that all freelancers do the same."
Almost 900 signatures. :)
-
Influx of buyers signing the petition. Some new petition comments:
"I'm sick of the little guy getting screwed."
"As a freelancer and artist, I stand firm with my fellow freelancers! Without talented freelancers, Getty Images/iStock would not be the same. Don't force artists to leave your platform because of this HUGE pay cut."
"This is an outright attack on freelancers and a reduction to slave wages."
Will most likely hit 1,000 signatures today. :)
https://www.change.org/p/jonathan-klein-getty-images-istock-don-t-slash-our-royalties (https://www.change.org/p/jonathan-klein-getty-images-istock-don-t-slash-our-royalties)
New comment:
"As a design director of a large publisher, I appreciate the work that goes into good photography and illustration. I feel that artists (photographers and illustrators) should be paid a fair price for the work. Getty's decision on subscription royalties will affect where I purchase photographs or illustrations."
-
Article about the petition on The Business Ahead:
https://thebusinessahead.com/2016/12/08/getty-images-to-slash-freelancer-royalties/
-
Only a week left. Looks like I'll be closing my account.
-
"The very creatives that give Getty/iStock such a high quality product get treated like this?! This can't be more wrong." - recent comment from the petition
Tomorrow is the day our royalties are slashed. There's no reason the petition, and any media attention it can bring to Getty/iStock policies, should stop tomorrow, though. As people's royalties start to shrink (the people who stay with iStock, for some reason), and many people pull their work, there will be even more to report.
If you haven't signed yet, remember the petition will still be there. Almost 1,100 signatures now, including signatures from hundreds of buyers.
https://www.change.org/p/jonathan-klein-getty-images-istock-don-t-slash-our-royalties (https://www.change.org/p/jonathan-klein-getty-images-istock-don-t-slash-our-royalties)
-
You can't petition a business to change their model. They will only change anything if they start seeing their profits decline.
Istock has always treated non-exclusives dreadfully but even so they make up 30% of my total earnings... at the moment at least. We'll see what happens after the change.
-
I'm sure all those who did nothing will enjoy taking one up the a*** from Gty tomorrow :o
-
-
-
This and few other "decisions" made by Getty in the last 2 years made me close my account ... I was with Istock since 2005. This is a pure robbery.
-
Just checked and noticed that the petition is (still) online. It now has 1105 supporters and I signed it a couple of weeks ago too. It seems very long ago.
How does it work? Has the petition been delivered at some point or is it just waiting on the web? What's going to happen?
-
Just checked and noticed that the petition is (still) online. It now has 1105 supporters and I signed it a couple of weeks ago too. It seems very long ago.
How does it work? Has the petition been delivered at some point or is it just waiting on the web? What's going to happen?
Wondering the same. Update Shelma1? Anything happening?
-
I dont have istock account, but do you even make good money with 15%?
Is there a point to even open account with them and do all of the work to submit pictures if its so low?
-
I dont have istock account, but do you even make good money with 15%?
Is there a point to even open account with them and do all of the work to submit pictures if its so low?
I make about $100 a month from about 100 video files. Not sure how good that it compared to others. I guess the overall income is more important than the percentage, but keep in mind... if you do upload there you will be shunned from society, vilified by your peers, and you'll no longer be invited to parties, as you'll be contributing to the end of the world as we know it.
-
I dont have istock account, but do you even make good money with 15%?
Is there a point to even open account with them and do all of the work to submit pictures if its so low?
Average about 145 sales $80 a month, not worth it with over 2000 images
Especially when you realise Getty made an average of $533 per month on those self same sales!!! a profit to them of $453!!! >:(
-
Signed !
-
I dont have istock account, but do you even make good money with 15%?
Is there a point to even open account with them and do all of the work to submit pictures if its so low?
30-40% of SS on a good month. The subs and ts have erroded sales so much it could be 20% in 2017. I'd leave except I'm waiting for the new rates to see if it's as bad as predicted. 2c commission? That will send more of us running out the door as fast as we can.
-
I will sign today, but can anyone or everyone give me some more information? I have like 12,000 images on Istock and normally make around 700-1000 a month from my no exclusive portfolio.
this month I'm looking at around 150$ with only a week to go... Can Istock really be this bullish? I'm thinking about pulling all my images but i can only guess Istock will make it very hard for us to take the images down.
Maybe if enough of us got together we could strike? demanding istock to take our images off line or change the deal back to what it was which was already the worst payers out there.
I'm very depressed about the situation.. any insight to what is actually going on and the actual new Commission rate would be great. Getty write it in such a way its very hard to understand it.
I'm feeling for all the stockers out there right now.. this really is a punch in the face in a already hard time.
Sam
-
I discovered microstock world about 11 yrs ago, while still a student, but used it mainly as a graphic designer for my clients. Few years ago I decided to open my own contributor port. It didn't take me long to realize that was the worst possible time to do it. I read about it on every forum, blog, was shocked with contributor stats over the years... Looked like the ship was sinking. I decided I won't give my precious time to something that is being slowly killed. My portfolio with just a couple of pics uploaded was there for about 2,5 years.
A month ago I decided to start uploading again. At the same time I uploaded photos on IS and on SS (ofc 5% more on IS as they didn't reject any single one). I have a small port of about 100 photos. In the last 30 days I earned 5 times more on SS than on IS. No need to say more.
But there is a catch. Every one of us knows that our photo is worth more than 0,25 (or 0,02!). So selling it for that amount of money doesn't make any sense. But for someone who lives in a country where average monthly salary doesn't go beyond $50 or $100, it does make a lot of sense. It means they can get to that number with a lot smaller port than I would be happy with.
We are all living in a different places and our living costs vary. It can sound stupid that someone still stays on IS and earns peanuts, but for them it might not be peanuts at all. It's not the same thing living in Singapore or in Madagascar.
P.S. Signed
-
this month I'm looking at around 150$ with only a week to go... Can Istock really be this bullish? I'm thinking about pulling all my images but i can only guess Istock will make it very hard for us to take the images down.
You cannot delete any of your images yourself, but you can ask for your account to be terminated. They should do it within 30 days of your request, although anecdotal evidence here is that for some people at least it has taken longer.
-
I will sign today, but can anyone or everyone give me some more information? I have like 12,000 images on Istock and normally make around 700-1000 a month from my no exclusive portfolio.
this month I'm looking at around 150$ with only a week to go... Can Istock really be this bullish? I'm thinking about pulling all my images but i can only guess Istock will make it very hard for us to take the images down.
Maybe if enough of us got together we could strike? demanding istock to take our images off line or change the deal back to what it was which was already the worst payers out there.
I'm very depressed about the situation.. any insight to what is actually going on and the actual new Commission rate would be great. Getty write it in such a way its very hard to understand it.
I'm feeling for all the stockers out there right now.. this really is a punch in the face in a already hard time.
Sam
Not reporting much while in transition. Wait and see what happens, you might get an incredible report one day.
Yes you can delete images yourself. Sorry Sue, it's right there if you look in the right place. I'll give your kind of advise.
I do tell people where to find information even when they seem to be unable or unwilling to check for themselves. Teach a man to fish sort of idea.
Go Fish. :)
-
The files 'seem' as though you can delete them, but they're not actually deleted - a good few people got caught out by that, so it was fairly widely reported.
(Unless that has changed in the last couple of weeks )
-
The files 'seem' as though you can delete them, but they're not actually deleted - a good few people got caught out by that, so it was fairly widely reported.
(Unless that has changed in the last couple of weeks )
You might have something there.
You might well ask! Still, some answers come reasonably quickly, even if not all.
-
S0, how much do us non-exclusives earn now at iStock per image. I just checked my deep meta statistics and I'm up to almost $12 this month. Its usually $100-$200 per month.
thanks
-
S0, how much do us non-exclusives earn now at iStock per image. I just checked my deep meta statistics and I'm up to almost $12 this month. Its usually $100-$200 per month.
thanks
Non-exclusives are getting 15%, which means your image as sub can go as low as $0,02. Someone please correct me if I'm wrong
-
S0, how much do us non-exclusives earn now at iStock per image. I just checked my deep meta statistics and I'm up to almost $12 this month. Its usually $100-$200 per month.
thanks
Non-exclusives are getting 15%, which means your image as sub can go as low as $0,02. Someone please correct me if I'm wrong
Not going to correct you or say wrong, but we have not see yet, how much we will get. That 2c is just a theory right now. We could get more per download also. We don't know. And before you ask, no I don't honestly think we'll get more, just that according to the list and percentages, we could.
More likely we will all independent 15% flat will get something less. Once the 2c or below 28c start coming into the reports, I'd guess there will be the biggest mass exodus from IS since any of the protests or closings, and justified.
Why would anybody stay when IS is already dropping for independent artists. It's only going to get worse. Maybe that's the plan. Drive out indie and promote exclusive.