pancakes

MicrostockGroup Sponsors


Author Topic: iStock Royalty Change  (Read 114114 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

« Reply #175 on: October 26, 2016, 09:53 »
0
When we deactivating file on istock by click on the site is it gone from partners site ? Or what to do to delete them from partners???


« Reply #176 on: October 26, 2016, 09:54 »
+3
On a "Positive" note, noone mentioned that they didn't send the message on a Friday of a long weekend at 5:00 Calgary time.  Cocky SOB's

« Reply #177 on: October 26, 2016, 10:20 »
+7
I deleted my port down to almost nothing years ago - and my earnings reflect that. At least this new exciting news won't hurt me much.


You could've just posted one of your remaining pictures on IS to describe your attitude to the news: cactus


Thanks for a good laugh after this ridiculous news. Between our elections and one of the largest photo libraries in the world expecting photographers to earn as little as 2 cents a photo, I am ready to believe anything can happen. You can't make this stuff up. I'm less than $15 from my next payout but may just close my account now anyway. Really disgusted.

« Reply #178 on: October 26, 2016, 10:42 »
+2
When we deactivating file on istock by click on the site is it gone from partners site ? Or what to do to delete them from partners???

It's going from partner program, also.

« Reply #179 on: October 26, 2016, 10:52 »
+3
Getty's Actions Threaten Creative Livelihoods  :) :) :) :) remember this email ?


« Reply #180 on: October 26, 2016, 11:40 »
0
With a roll over subscription package, calculation of your cut will have to wait until the subs have been used up or expired, so you could be waiting a while before payout, is that the case?  Or would a cut off point at the end of each month be used.  In which case if only 50% is used one month you are on a winner, but if 150% was use in the second month you lose?  Nice to have a simpler, more transparent system.

Lobo answer that doesn't answer your question.

Originally Posted by: cmcburney Go to Quoted Post
UPDATE: TUESDAY OCT 25 UPDATE: 4:30pm MST

Thank you for your patience, everyone. We know everyone has questions and we hope to be able to address as many of your concerns as possible. We have a few things we'd like provide some clarity on a few of the initial queries that came up:

2017 Royalty Rates
As an Exclusive artist, you will start 2017 at the rate at which you ended 2016. For example, if you are at 30% on December 31, 2016, you will start 2017 at 30%. If you do not achieve a higher rate throughout 2017, your 2018 rate will be determined by the tier you fall into at the end of 2017. No Exclusive contributors will see their royalty rate decrease for 2017. If you are a non-exclusive artist, the flat rate that was applied on November 25th will carry forward to 2017.

Royalties based on Subscription usage
There also seems to be some confusion related to how your royalties will differ depending on the number of downloads a customer has made against a subscription. We've prepared a few examples to demonstrate how things are going to work. For the purpose of this demonstration, we will use the Essentials 10 Subscription, which has a list price of $40 USD.

Low Utilization (20%)
# of downloads made: 2
PPF: $20 ($40/2 downloads)
Non Exclusive Royalty: $3 ($20*0.15)

Medium Utilization (50%)
# of downloads made: 5
PPF: $8 ($40/5 downloads)
Non Exclusive Royalty: $1.20

Full Utilization (100%)
# of downloads made: 10
PPF: $4 ($40/10 downloads)
Non Exclusive Royalty: $0.60

This examples illustrates your royalty for this subscription can range from 60 cents to $3 based on the number of downloads, and how for this subscription, the minimum royalty is not applied

Thank you again for the feedback
We know we haven't answered all your questions. We are working on some responses that we hope to share shortly. We appreciate your patience while we work to provide as much clarity as we can.

« Reply #181 on: October 26, 2016, 11:44 »
+6
Last month was so good for me on istock, I earned almost as much as on shutterstock. Everytime I shout WOO-HOO!, something really bad happens next. True story.

ShadySue

  • There is a crack in everything
« Reply #182 on: October 26, 2016, 11:58 »
+7

Lobo answer that doesn't answer your question.

Originally Posted by: cmcburney Go to Quoted Post
...
We know we haven't answered all your questions. We are working on some responses that we hope to share shortly. We appreciate your patience while we work to provide as much clarity as we can.

Isn't it weird that they've never been able to communicate in a way that people can actually understand. Even when RogerMexico (IIRC) was their spindoctor, he'd make announcements, then there would be loads of questions and explanations.
If they'd only really simplify their uber-complicated system and work with the Plain English Society.
But they really, really don't want us to understand how much we're being ripped off, as though we can't read between the lines.

Ironically, even today, they put out a request images to set up and shoot.  ::) Just go for it, suckers!

« Reply #183 on: October 26, 2016, 12:05 »
+13
So as usual, there is a "Trick" in the details.

Customers can roll over unused downloads, so artist will mostly get the lowest possible payment..and...those payments might be delayed by several months, if the customer needs longer to use up the rollover subs.

Why do they even bother to come up with such a complex system?

Why not drop the offical royalty to 5% and be done with it?

After all the confusion cannot change reality. Artist always compare their results in the real world, so how much you can earn on getty or istock is no secret.

Offset, Stocksy and Adobe will be swamped by artist begging to join their macro collections.

And many people will write their Ph.D.ˋs about the self created destruction of Gettyimages.




« Reply #184 on: October 26, 2016, 12:25 »
0
With a roll over subscription package, calculation of your cut will have to wait until the subs have been used up or expired, so you could be waiting a while before payout, is that the case?  Or would a cut off point at the end of each month be used.  In which case if only 50% is used one month you are on a winner, but if 150% was use in the second month you lose?  Nice to have a simpler, more transparent system.

Lobo answer that doesn't answer your question.

No, to be honest it was a rhetorical question given that they think that they have come up with a simpler system means that they have not asked themselves the difficult questions, not that it is that difficult, well not until they try to put it into practice.  With the addition of discounts no one will know what they are being payed for what, but payout at $0.02 per download may be a long time coming and the question will be long forgotten by then.

« Reply #185 on: October 26, 2016, 12:29 »
+2
On FB iStock page all "bad" comments about Royalty Change were removed from admin.  :-X

« Reply #186 on: October 26, 2016, 12:35 »
+1
And many people will write their Ph.D.ˋs about the self created destruction of Gettyimages.

It really depends how you look at it though, doesn't it? It has made a lot of people very wealthy - even whilst sometimes seemingly lurching from crisis to crisis over the past 30 or so years (which is true of almost all agencies - as a result of technology and the ever evolving markets). And it has earned lots of other people very good money - whether as investors or as contributors. Even insignificant plebs like me have done ok out of it.

So it's hardly been a disaster. Granted, today smaller privately owned companies which are closer to their customers and suppliers seem to have the advantage.

Even when RogerMexico (IIRC) was their spindoctor, he'd make announcements, then there would be loads of questions and explanations.

There was never a time when they communicated particularly well or seemed certain where the bus was going. I think that was understandable during the boom years. It was a completely new thing so there wasn't really an obvious route map.

--

It's not just about iStock. There are far too many people supplying stock images (and hoping to still get paid). Today most will struggle to earn back what they 'invest' in equipment. And most could probably earn more per hour at McDonalds.
« Last Edit: October 26, 2016, 12:38 by bunhill »

« Reply #187 on: October 26, 2016, 12:46 »
+14
$0.02 does not even cover the usage of a shutter actuation (based on cost of shutter repair when one has to repair a broken shutter which inevitably happens after lots of shutter actuations).

« Reply #188 on: October 26, 2016, 12:52 »
+5
"We appreciate your patience while we work to provide as much clarity as we can." What a pity they didn't think of doing this sooner.......I know the minimum 2 c has grabbed the headlines but actually I think no one outside I-stock has any clue how much images will earn and I doubt they know either. But I'm willing to bet it won't be good news.

Justanotherphotographer

« Reply #189 on: October 26, 2016, 12:58 »
+3
On the contrary I think they know full well how much they'll be paying us per download because they know how many dls the average user uses and how much they plan to discount packages in future.

What they don't know is how much they will profit. That depends on how much they succeed in stealing custom from other agencies with their discounts and how much abuse we are prepared to put up with. I am hoping they are in for a nasty suprise.

« Reply #190 on: October 26, 2016, 13:00 »
+3
I think no one outside I-stock has any clue how much images will earn and I doubt they know either. But I'm willing to bet it won't be good news.

We have already moved into an era when the majority of images used as content will earn nothing.

« Reply #191 on: October 26, 2016, 13:04 »
0
On the contrary I think they know full well how much they'll be paying us per download because they know how many dls the average user uses and how much they plan to discount packages in future.

What they don't know is how much they will profit. That depends on how much they succeed in stealing custom from other agencies with their discounts and how much abuse we are prepared to put up with. I am hoping they are in for a nasty suprise.
In a rational world you would think that but this is the I-Stock "universe". I doubt they have much idea what they are doing...I could be wrong of course.

Chichikov

« Reply #192 on: October 26, 2016, 13:06 »
+2
How they count in iStocks?
15% of $0.10 is $0.015, not $0.02!!
(Are they so generous?)



« Reply #193 on: October 26, 2016, 13:12 »
+2
How they count in iStocks?
15% of $0.10 is $0.015, not $0.02!!
(Are they so generous?)

Yes, that's your safety net they so generously provided.  Presumably, because when discounts are factored in less than a cent would not look good.

« Reply #194 on: October 26, 2016, 13:48 »
+32
My fingers hurt. Deleting 1.600 files by hand is a pain in the a... I've been with iStock exactly for about 10 years now. Started in november 2006. But now the bow has been overdrawn. Enough is enough. I can only but appeal to all those fellow contributors to withdraw respectively delete their portfolios. If there are no files to sell may be iStock management will come to grips. Yes, it is a sad and memorable day. I am done with them  :(  Goodbye Getty.

« Reply #195 on: October 26, 2016, 14:15 »
+3
Many contributors are probably kidding themselves that the gear they buy is still an investment.

« Reply #196 on: October 26, 2016, 14:27 »
+1
I want to delete my port too. Don't want to give those greedy shitheads more profit.
But problem is that they already spread our files via partner sites...

« Reply #197 on: October 26, 2016, 14:50 »
+5
I am just waiting for the point where photographers pay THEM a percentage for the privilege of selling their work. This is scraping so close to zero that it is insane. How can anyone produce reasonable work for these rates. They have effectively priced photographers out of the equation.

« Reply #198 on: October 26, 2016, 15:58 »
+16
i see i am late to the party, everything has been said already. though not sure who's running that joint but i am the sure the whole istock management staff is suffering from delusions of grandeur,. on the other hand, its quite an achievement to come up with that indecipherable complicated horse manure and twist it into a false positive. would love to be a fly on the wall. probably would see something like this



self-pleasuring egotistical self-absorbed irritating little shits

« Reply #199 on: October 26, 2016, 16:27 »
+3


 

Related Topics

  Subject / Started by Replies Last post
17 Replies
9606 Views
Last post September 09, 2010, 19:38
by madelaide
iStock royalty cut goes live

Started by helix7 « 1 2 3 4  All » iStockPhoto.com

85 Replies
37578 Views
Last post January 24, 2011, 12:54
by ShadySue
6 Replies
4758 Views
Last post July 25, 2014, 08:32
by KimsCreativeHub
3 Replies
4844 Views
Last post October 30, 2015, 13:47
by Microstock Posts
6 Replies
4634 Views
Last post February 27, 2017, 00:56
by stockmn

Sponsors

Mega Bundle of 5,900+ Professional Lightroom Presets

Microstock Poll Results

Sponsors