pancakes

MicrostockGroup Sponsors


Author Topic: iStock Royalty Change  (Read 114130 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Justanotherphotographer

« Reply #300 on: October 29, 2016, 03:35 »
+16
In a way it makes sense to pay a percentage for subs, at least it means they aren't motivated to try and minimise the number of downloads the customer uses to do us out of commission.

Now the reality check. The percentage is terrible off the bat. Second, they are doing it so they can heavily discount packages and pass on the cost to us (so all those lovely tables are meaningless, customers wont be paying that much for packages).

Also bear in mind this is Getty. Their 85% isn't spent innovating or improving their service. Look at their upload process or buggy website. Compare with Adobe, who have just integrated stock into Creative suite, or SS who managed to offer a plugin to compete within weeks (days?). It is spent on old school sales reps used to take customers from the competition by low balling prices. It is like we are paying to shoot ourselves in the back, we are funding the switch from sites that pay us better commissions to IStock, which pays us terribly.


ShadySue

  • There is a crack in everything
« Reply #301 on: October 29, 2016, 04:14 »
+7
I understand Independents being upset because their royalty went from 15-20% to flat 15%
But paying the exact percentage of royalties for any single sale (credits and subs) looks to me like a fair move.
We still don't know their criteria about how many credits will be necessary to be in each category, thats something that will have to be judge the day they publish it.

My condolences and solidarity to independent fellows, but for exclusives, I still don't see the reasons to panic and close accounts

In theory, it's fair, other than the percentages, indie or exclusive being unfairly low. However, they have many ways in which, by incompetence or malice, they can prevent people from selling and reaching their target. For example: not adding new words to the CV for many months (explanation offered this week, but totally unacceptible); holding files in 'pending' for weeks or months; somehow rendering files totally unfindable; manipulating the best match search so that certain files (for many months, new files) are totally submerged, never to see the light of day again. Or placing indie files favourably  (in  the past year, I've often seen up to 12 out of the top 15 files being indie, despite there being a majority of exclusive files for that search term).
I see plenty of reason to panic and understand fully why people would want to close their accounts. It's a bigger decision for me, because I still wouldn't want to voluntarily sign up for an agency  would pay me 25c per download (iStock forced that on us with pisspoor Getty sales rather than me accepting it before uploading), so when I'm out, I'm out of the micro game.
Also there are so many indications that SS has been infected with whatever has blighted "iStockbyGetty" for years. The higher they rise, the harder they fall.
« Last Edit: November 02, 2016, 06:21 by ShadySue »

dpimborough

« Reply #302 on: October 29, 2016, 06:32 »
+28
I understand Independents being upset because their royalty went from 15-20% to flat 15%
But paying the exact percentage of royalties for any single sale (credits and subs) looks to me like a fair move.
We still don't know their criteria about how many credits will be necessary to be in each category, thats something that will have to be judge the day they publish it.

My condolences and solidarity to independent fellows, but for exclusives, I still don't see the reasons to panic and close accounts

You think 15% is fair??

So for a $100 sale the contributor gets $15 Getty pockets $85

 Stunning!  :o

« Reply #303 on: October 29, 2016, 11:25 »
+8
Every time they pay us less, they lose lots of images that might be just what their buyers want and can be found on their rival sites.  They lose buyers when we tell them how little istock pay and how only amateurs will do microstock if sites keep almost all the money. If if doesn't make a difference, I wonder why istock are doing so badly?

If they want to make more money, they should try paying us more.

ShadySue

  • There is a crack in everything
« Reply #304 on: October 29, 2016, 11:41 »
+2
Every time they pay us less, they lose lots of images that might be just what their buyers want and can be found on their rival sites.  They lose buyers when we tell them how little istock pay and how only amateurs will do microstock if sites keep almost all the money. If if doesn't make a difference, I wonder why istock are doing so badly?
At least partly it could also be all the search bugs, site bugs and an ever-changing, totally incompetent vision-free management. Of course, they are only doing the bidding of their masters.

« Reply #305 on: October 29, 2016, 12:40 »
0
Every time they pay us less, they lose lots of images that might be just what their buyers want

Looking for images to buy, one of the biggest problems with the microstocks in general is that there are too many images. Nearly all of them irrelevantly keyworded.

The small curated collections are a relief by comparison. Though lately some have too much content which only really works in a vertical orientation (I suspect because people are misunderstanding how responsive design tends to be typically approached in practice) .

« Reply #306 on: October 29, 2016, 12:44 »
+2
Every time they pay us less, they lose lots of images that might be just what their buyers want

Looking for images to buy, one of the biggest problems with the microstocks in general is that there are too many images. Nearly all of them irrelevantly keyworded.

The small curated collections are a relief by comparison. Though lately some have too much content which only really works in a vertical orientation (I suspect because people are misunderstanding how responsive design tends to be typically approached in practice) .
I believe that the outfit that comes up with a more intelligent search that meets the specific needs of the individual   buyer will have a huge advantage....unfortunately I'm not clever enough to do that.

« Reply #307 on: October 29, 2016, 12:47 »
+1
Every time they pay us less, they lose lots of images that might be just what their buyers want

Looking for images to buy, one of the biggest problems with the microstocks in general is that there are too many images. Nearly all of them irrelevantly keyworded.

The small curated collections are a relief by comparison. Though lately some have too much content which only really works in a vertical orientation (I suspect because people are misunderstanding how responsive design tends to be typically approached in practice) .
I believe that the outfit that comes up with a more intelligent search that meets the specific needs of the individual   buyer will have a huge advantage....unfortunately I'm not clever enough to do that.

I think the solution is to employ people to curate smaller trend based collections. Quality and relevance trumps quantity.

(I am fully aware that my own legacy microstock content would not meet my own standards today btw :) )

« Reply #308 on: October 30, 2016, 00:56 »
+21
Stop discussing, just ask to delete your profile, as i do.
They will lower commission again in year or two. This is evident.
They have no respect, they just want your money and don't want to do anything, just look at their atrocious upload system and pathetic keyword system.

ps Contributors don't need to keyword images themselves, they must create art only.

People already have technologies aimed to recognize images and keyword them automatically.
Agencies just way too greedy to spend money to incorporate this feature into their system. They know: slaves do this manually. Why to bother?   
« Last Edit: October 30, 2016, 01:56 by spacedrone808 »

« Reply #309 on: October 30, 2016, 02:00 »
+2
Every time they pay us less, they lose lots of images that might be just what their buyers want

Looking for images to buy, one of the biggest problems with the microstocks in general is that there are too many images. Nearly all of them irrelevantly keyworded.

The small curated collections are a relief by comparison. Though lately some have too much content which only really works in a vertical orientation (I suspect because people are misunderstanding how responsive design tends to be typically approached in practice) .
I believe that the outfit that comes up with a more intelligent search that meets the specific needs of the individual   buyer will have a huge advantage....unfortunately I'm not clever enough to do that.

I think the solution is to employ people to curate smaller trend based collections. Quality and relevance trumps quantity.

(I am fully aware that my own legacy microstock content would not meet my own standards today btw :) )
I don't feel this is the way things are going...humans are too expensive and arguably too subjective and often biased

lemonyellow

« Reply #310 on: October 30, 2016, 02:16 »
+11
Stop discussing, just ask to delete your profile, as i do.
They will lower commission again in year or two. This is evident.
They have no respect, they just want your money and don't want to do anything, just look at their atrocious upload system and pathetic keyword system.

ps Contributors don't need to keyword images themselves, they must create art only.

People already have technologies aimed to recognize images and keyword them automatically.
Agencies just way too greedy to spend money to incorporate this feature into their system. They know: slaves do this manually. Why to bother?

Agree with deleting profile at iStock, that's what I just did. Enough is enough.

Disagree with automatic keywording. Still not good enough for precise description of most subjects.
Of course there is no need to overcomplicate it either with the controlled vocabulary.

ShadySue

  • There is a crack in everything
« Reply #311 on: October 30, 2016, 05:20 »
+1
I can 't see what 'deleting your profile' can do: we can't even see other contributors' profiles nowadays AFAICS, and I don't understand what good deleting it would do in any case.

If you 'meant' delete all your images, bear in mind you'd lose any outstanding earnings, and I don't know how long it would take to get them off the partner programs.

As for auto-keywording: that would certainly be a huge prompt to quit any agency. I don't even want another person doing mine.

The CV was a great idea, and a great feature back in the day. However, a combination of spammers and not being kept up to date means it's not as useful as it could be.

« Reply #312 on: October 30, 2016, 05:39 »
+1
The CV was a great idea, and a great feature back in the day. However, a combination of spammers and not being kept up to date means it's not as useful as it could be.

I have the impression that sooner or later the CV will have to be abandoned. But it will take a huge amount of expensive work to apply new and more useful metadata and I wonder whether much of the collection will, instead, be abandoned - or left to the old system. To be gradually replaced by new content tagged under some better, less ambitious, scheme. I could see it being like the transition from film to digital - where instead of scanning the old work, it was instead gradually replaced.

The CV is often very weak on specifics - in particular where translation is part of the mix. Not only because of spam but also because of the way in which specific meaning gets wrongly mapped to irrelevant meanings.

« Reply #313 on: October 30, 2016, 07:01 »
+8
We have a big discussion in russian stock community about this very bad situation with istock

At this moment we decide to get in FreelancersUnion.org
We write directly to:
Sharon (Member Engagement Manager), 718-532-1515 x669. newbielink:mailto:[email protected] [nonactive]
Freelancers Union. 408 Jay Street, 2nd Floor, Brooklyn, NY 11201.


text of letter is something like that:
Good Day!
My name is ________ ,
and I represent the community of freelance stock designers.
We, as well as many other stock designers of USA and rest of the world, faced the outrageous case of devaluating our labors on the market of stock illustration.

All of us received letter from Getty Images which informed us on changing their policy and decreasing royalty payments ( newbielink:https://contributors.gettyimages.com [nonactive]...rticle_id=4845)
That means if client purchase advantageous subscription plan, then we receive $ 0,02 net, this is completley not proportional to the time and labor applied to creating any illustration design.

Could you give us advice what to do and how to act in this case?

We would like to attract attention to this issue and gather signs at change.org, to engage public organizations which could help us to make buzz around it and effect it to achieve setting of fair minimum payment for 1 illustration in this industry.

Best regards,


Also we a planning collective boycott of istockphoto.

Only all together we can do something with that!

At this moment we get 0.28$ from subscription at Istock

So we will get 14 times less. Just imagine if all other stock agencies will reduce royalties to this amount. In order of each 1400$ you will receive only 100$

« Reply #314 on: October 30, 2016, 08:33 »
+8
We have a big discussion in russian stock community about this very bad situation with istock

At this moment we decide to get in FreelancersUnion.org
We write directly to:
Sharon (Member Engagement Manager), 718-532-1515 x669. [email protected]
Freelancers Union. 408 Jay Street, 2nd Floor, Brooklyn, NY 11201.


text of letter is something like that:
Good Day!
My name is ________ ,
and I represent the community of freelance stock designers.
We, as well as many other stock designers of USA and rest of the world, faced the outrageous case of devaluating our labors on the market of stock illustration.

All of us received letter from Getty Images which informed us on changing their policy and decreasing royalty payments (https://contributors.gettyimages.com...rticle_id=4845)
That means if client purchase advantageous subscription plan, then we receive $ 0,02 net, this is completley not proportional to the time and labor applied to creating any illustration design.

Could you give us advice what to do and how to act in this case?

We would like to attract attention to this issue and gather signs at change.org, to engage public organizations which could help us to make buzz around it and effect it to achieve setting of fair minimum payment for 1 illustration in this industry.

Best regards,


Also we a planning collective boycott of istockphoto.

Only all together we can do something with that!

At this moment we get 0.28$ from subscription at Istock

So we will get 14 times less. Just imagine if all other stock agencies will reduce royalties to this amount. In order of each 1400$ you will receive only 100$

I think that the as you say the new royalties in Istock are bad and they will only become worse. I was a member of the former SAA (Stock Artist Alliance) and I can tell you they could not fight Getty when they began eroding the industry. And there is really no point to it. It is a private enterprise and they can and will do what they want BUT the power is within us It is every contributor and their personal decision that changes the Stock map.

No letters no boycott by a few hundred contributors is going to change the policy of any corporation and to expect that thousands are going to support it is naive. I think there are many honest and coherent contributors here that have pulled ports when any Agency pulled the rug under their feet. You cannot tame the beast.Remember the tale of the scorpion and the frog.....
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Scorpion_and_the_Frog

They will sting us again and again...not only them,any corporation that sees their suppliers as dispensable assets and not the human being behind. Hopefully there are some outlets that have proven much fairer attitude in the long term....support them and you will change the world......dont waste you time desiring to change Getty....it is not going to happen unfortunately.

Shelma1

  • stockcoalition.org
« Reply #315 on: October 30, 2016, 08:55 »
+17
I don't think it's so much trying to change Getty as getting the message out to buyers (and other microstock sites) that we won't accept 2 royalties. Forget Getty...they're on their way out.

« Reply #316 on: October 30, 2016, 13:35 »
+2
It is a private enterprise and they can and will do what they want BUT the power is within us It is every contributor and their personal decision that changes the Stock map.


We already have a good case how to fight for our rights!
Drivers for the cab-hailing firm Uber will learn later whether they are entitled to holiday pay, rest breaks and the National Living Wage.
http://www.bbc.com/news/business-37787067

"This case represents the first proper legal review of whether jobs in this part of the so-called gig economy really represent a new paradigm of freedom and self-employment, or in fact are simply a new technology ploy to deny employed workers ordinary employment rights and a national minimum wage," says Maria Ludkin, legal director at the GMB.

Right now, our Russian speaking part of contibutor society is working on petition, so wait for answer from Freelancers Unity.

Our intention is to put this case to court in Germany, Britain or USA.

Do not delete your accounts, but deactivate top sales. This way you can impact.

« Reply #317 on: October 30, 2016, 13:39 »
+8
I can 't see what 'deleting your profile' can do: we can't even see other contributors' profiles nowadays AFAICS, and I don't understand what good deleting it would do in any case.


If you have many thousands of images there that you want removed because you WONT accept .02 for them, then the only reasonable choice to remove them is to close your account.  It would be insane to waste time deleting 5-10k or more images one by one, even if it were allowed, which we are told it isn't.   

Of course if you are expecting one last big payout before it all goes to spit, then wait till its banked before you go if you want.  Will you always be leaving some pittance behind? Sure.  But better that then be treated like a back alley whore.
« Last Edit: October 30, 2016, 13:42 by PixelBytes »

« Reply #318 on: October 30, 2016, 13:46 »
+2
I can 't see what 'deleting your profile' can do: we can't even see other contributors' profiles nowadays AFAICS, and I don't understand what good deleting it would do in any case.


If you have many thousands of images there that you want removed because you WONT accept .02 for them, then the only reasonable choice to remove them is to close your account.  It would be insane to waste time deleting 5-10k or more images one by one, even if it were allowed, which we are told it isn't.   

Of course if you are expecting one last big payout before it all goes to spit, then wait till its banked before you go if you want.  Will you always be leaving some pittance behind? Sure.  But better that then be treated like a back alley whore.

The deactivate images still works.

« Reply #319 on: October 30, 2016, 13:52 »
+3
I deactivated all my best images years ago but thought I would deactivate some more and I can't even log in.  Will try again tomorrow.

ShadySue

  • There is a crack in everything
« Reply #320 on: October 30, 2016, 17:50 »
0
I can 't see what 'deleting your profile' can do: we can't even see other contributors' profiles nowadays AFAICS, and I don't understand what good deleting it would do in any case.


If you have many thousands of images there that you want removed because you WONT accept .02 for them, then the only reasonable choice to remove them is to close your account.  It would be insane to waste time deleting 5-10k or more images one by one, even if it were allowed, which we are told it isn't.   

Of course if you are expecting one last big payout before it all goes to spit, then wait till its banked before you go if you want.  Will you always be leaving some pittance behind? Sure.  But better that then be treated like a back alley whore.

I wasn't talking about not closing your account. I was talking about the pointlessness of deleting your profile. In fact, now that I'm back on the computer, I see I can't see my own profile, far less anyone else's, it seems to be expunged from my home page.

That said, as the new rates don't kick in until January 1st, it would be smarter (as I said in an earlier post) if you want out to contact CR and cancel your contract with iStock. The benefit would be that you'll get any payments which are due you, even to the extent of getting late payments for PP/subs, as your PP will be live for up to 90 days (and another sneaky clause about 'up to a year' if the images have been used in promotional material, which seems to count a lot more than just adverts). The other advantage is that they should have your files removed from the PP by 90 days, then you can kick up a stink, even legally if you want. I'm not sure that just deactivating your file from iS guarantees that they'll ever be removed from the PP, without you having to contact CR anyway - I certainly see nothing about that in the ASA.

« Reply #321 on: October 30, 2016, 19:58 »
+2
Some subscriptions we'll make more, but the big buyers and the 750 yearly we'll make much less. Most of the volume comes from these high number subs not the small packs where we can make more. But the bottom of this is locked at 15% for us, 85% for them.

http://www.ilbusca.com/temp/Subs_NE.jpg

« Reply #322 on: October 30, 2016, 21:42 »
+2
Just wondering... Are these rate and redeemed credit changes the entirety of the Getty/iStock Unification? Or is there more to come?

Unification was not mentioned in the recent email.

« Reply #323 on: October 30, 2016, 21:50 »
0
Some subscriptions we'll make more, but the big buyers and the 750 yearly we'll make much less. Most of the volume comes from these high number subs not the small packs where we can make more. But the bottom of this is locked at 15% for us, 85% for them.

http://www.ilbusca.com/temp/Subs_NE.jpg

I think ilbusca didn't consider the fact that each download from 1 Month Essentials 10 or 25 currently pay $1.00 to non exclusives.  So, even those small packs will bring a cut for non exclusives. 

Only the 1 Month Essentials 50 is in the safe zone for non-exclusives

The only non exclusives who could really see some benefit from this change, would be those who are former exclusives with lots of signature files.
« Last Edit: October 30, 2016, 22:02 by Digital66 »

« Reply #324 on: October 30, 2016, 23:50 »
0

You think 15% is fair??

So for a $100 sale the contributor gets $15 Getty pockets $85

 Stunning!  :o

Get a small party at McDonald and all your $15 earnings gone. Now feel like a beggar


 

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
37582 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
4845 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