pancakes

MicrostockGroup Sponsors


Author Topic: iStock Royalty Change  (Read 89420 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

« Reply #375 on: November 05, 2016, 06:01 »
+31
I've gone from earning over a 1000$ a month to probably not even reaching a 1000$ for the whole of this year.  I think it's time to say goodbye.


« Reply #376 on: November 05, 2016, 09:06 »
+5
For whomever wishes to submit a petition, I have created a possible draft. Correct it, pick it apart, make it say what needs to be said. Or ignore it and kill it. I submit this just as a starting place to get some petition wording.
-------
Petition served to __person__. Petition served to iStock/Getty.

Petition to establish royalties to Contributers which are in line with costs of creation of such contributed photographic and illustration content.

WHEREAS: The cost of contributors creating content is not insignificant. Costs include: computers, Internet access, travel, cameras, office space, pencils, desks, chairs, paper, scanners.

WHEREAS: The cost of contributors gaining education, training, and experience is not insignificant.

WHEREAS: iStock/Getty has announced changes to the Royalty payment structures to occur at or near the end of year 2016. Per these announcements, already poor royalty payment structures are, in some cases, getting lowered to the contributors. Per some calculations a low royalty of $0.02 USD is possible.

WHEREAS: iStock/Getty has the lowest paying Royalty structure in the Micrstock industry starting at a low 15% of the license sale price.

WHEREAS: iStock/Getty indeed has third party programs and collections that pay Royalties well under the iStock collection 15%.

WHEREAS: iStock/Getty uses Contributor content in situations where usage is not paid as related to the image. iStock Getty revenue is gained by viewed impressions or calculations outside of image licensing. Hence the contributor is not receiving a fair license royalty per image use.

WHEREAS: Volume licenses indeed create additional royalty payment to contributors. However, even dozens of license royalties at the iStock/Getty royalty structure do not adequately compensate for the contributor costs.

Content contributors, buyers, and interested parties, with signatures per this document, petition iStock/Getty to:

PETITION: To set a license royalty to contributors of no less than 25% of the license sale price.

PETITION: To set a license royalty to contributors of no less than $0.25 USD.

PETITION: To pay a contributor royalty of the higher amount of 25% or $0.25 USD for each license.

PETITION: To bring the third party image collections (Subscriptions, Getty, Partners, side usage calculations) into this minimum royalty structure.

We, the undersigned, support these minimum contributor royalty structures which should be implemented at iStock/Getty.

Shelma1

« Reply #377 on: November 05, 2016, 10:50 »
+2
Thanks!

I've written a very simple petition asking Getty to keep its current royalty structure, and it's been translated into 4 languages. I don't think Saturday (today) is the right day to publish it, based on the silence yesterday when I asked people to tweet and donate a photo. I'm not at my computer today, but I can post it tomorrow.

And of course, everyone's input is welcome. Whether we want to ask Getty to keep the current royalties or increase them is up to everyone...my gut feeling is that people would probably be more sympathetic to our cause if we just ask for our current royalties.

« Reply #378 on: November 05, 2016, 12:31 »
+37
I wont be signing a petition to keep 15 to 20% when other sites pay 30 to 50%.  They used to have an excuse when they had high sales volume but now that's gone, they seem like a waste of time for non-exclusives.

« Reply #379 on: November 05, 2016, 12:40 »
+17
All sites should be fair trade sites and pay artists 50% or better.   I wont sign a petition that accepts less. 

« Reply #380 on: November 05, 2016, 13:16 »
+5
For whomever wishes to submit a petition, I have created a possible draft. Correct it, pick it apart, make it say what needs to be said. Or ignore it and kill it. I submit this just as a starting place to get some petition wording.
-------
Petition served to __person__. Petition served to iStock/Getty.

Petition to establish royalties to Contributers which are in line with costs of creation of such contributed photographic and illustration content.

WHEREAS: The cost of contributors creating content is not insignificant. Costs include: computers, Internet access, travel, cameras, office space, pencils, desks, chairs, paper, scanners.

WHEREAS: The cost of contributors gaining education, training, and experience is not insignificant.

WHEREAS: iStock/Getty has announced changes to the Royalty payment structures to occur at or near the end of year 2016. Per these announcements, already poor royalty payment structures are, in some cases, getting lowered to the contributors. Per some calculations a low royalty of $0.02 USD is possible.

WHEREAS: iStock/Getty has the lowest paying Royalty structure in the Micrstock industry starting at a low 15% of the license sale price.

WHEREAS: iStock/Getty indeed has third party programs and collections that pay Royalties well under the iStock collection 15%.

WHEREAS: iStock/Getty uses Contributor content in situations where usage is not paid as related to the image. iStock Getty revenue is gained by viewed impressions or calculations outside of image licensing. Hence the contributor is not receiving a fair license royalty per image use.

WHEREAS: Volume licenses indeed create additional royalty payment to contributors. However, even dozens of license royalties at the iStock/Getty royalty structure do not adequately compensate for the contributor costs.

Content contributors, buyers, and interested parties, with signatures per this document, petition iStock/Getty to:

PETITION: To set a license royalty to contributors of no less than 25% of the license sale price.

PETITION: To set a license royalty to contributors of no less than $0.25 USD.

PETITION: To pay a contributor royalty of the higher amount of 25% or $0.25 USD for each license.

PETITION: To bring the third party image collections (Subscriptions, Getty, Partners, side usage calculations) into this minimum royalty structure.

We, the undersigned, support these minimum contributor royalty structures which should be implemented at iStock/Getty.

I would add lenses, professional lighting and light modifiers, studio space, props, model fees, and location fees, photo editing software, photo storage, etc. to the photographer expenses.

I would be happy to sign the petition but sad to say I don't expect anything to come of it.  The only thing that will ever get Gettys attention will be mass exodus of contributors so their store shelves are EMPTY.
« Last Edit: November 05, 2016, 13:20 by PixelBytes »

« Reply #381 on: November 05, 2016, 14:33 »
+2
I think they are taking the route netflix is on at the moment.  Less content but more of it exclusive. They aren't interested in a big collection of nonexclusive stuff anymore. If they were they'd be mad to bring in the changes. I think you would have to be crazy as a non exclusive contributor to keep uploading to them now.

« Reply #382 on: November 05, 2016, 15:14 »
+15
I won't sign a petition either that only demands to keep to current royalties. It should ask for at least 30%. Maybe in the case of istock I would think about signing it at 25%, but not sure. I know it's unrealistic to expect that from Getty, still I just can't sign my name under a petition that asks for 16-17% royalty instead of 15...

« Reply #383 on: November 07, 2016, 14:26 »
+7
I'm not/wasn't exclusive.  I just voted with my feet and,I agree, it's tough to put my name to anything that specifies what is still less than a fair pay rate.

« Reply #384 on: November 08, 2016, 01:41 »
+4
+1 to not signing a petition ro keep the already terrible rates. Stan's was pretty close to what I would sign but listing specific expenses is maybe too much. I would ask for the 25 guaranteed minimum on subs for start.  25% minimum commission is terrible but a step in the right direction I guess. 25 25 has a certain symmetry.

You know for any of this to work we would have to at least organise a long term strike where everone suspends uploading until demands are met right? This would be the only way to actually make a difference. I think it's easier just to stop working with them altogether.
« Last Edit: November 08, 2016, 01:48 by Justanotherphotographer »

« Reply #385 on: November 08, 2016, 02:45 »
+3
The odds of them now moving to increase rates must be...
about...
now where's that infinite improbability drive thing gone?
:(

« Reply #386 on: November 08, 2016, 03:04 »
+5
Well if people would band together and take some action the chance would be 100%, they would have no product.
The chances of people banding together are close to zero, so yeah

« Reply #387 on: November 08, 2016, 04:51 »
+22
A petition for keeping the existing commission? This is insane for me.
15-20% was, is and always will be outragous, insulting and unacceptable.

« Reply #388 on: November 08, 2016, 06:02 »
+13
ok, what i dont understand with some of you

this petition is mostly because of those insulting 2 cent per image

you dont care that you will earn 14 times less from subscription sales, but suddenly you care about 15% commission.(this not apply for those of you who deleted pictures when 15% cut happened)

i personally think that everything below 50% is unacceptable, that's why i upload to alamy even my sales are very small there, but if we can say something, even if that dont change anything, just to be heard I dont see anything bad in that.

for those who continue to upload images there for 15%, and don't what to sign petition but are signing that they agree with 15% and 2 cents royalty every time they upload new images there, how that makes sense to you?


« Reply #389 on: November 08, 2016, 06:22 »
+7
ok, what i dont understand with some of you

this petition is mostly because of those insulting 2 cent per image

you dont care that you will earn 14 times less from subscription sales, but suddenly you care about 15% commission.(this not apply for those of you who deleted pictures when 15% cut happened)

i personally think that everything below 50% is unacceptable, that's why i upload to alamy even my sales are very small there, but if we can say something, even if that dont change anything, just to be heard I dont see anything bad in that.

for those who continue to upload images there for 15%, and don't what to sign petition but are signing that they agree with 15% and 2 cents royalty every time they upload new images there, how that makes sense to you?
It doesn't, no one should be uploading anything new until this is resolved.

Shelma1

« Reply #390 on: November 08, 2016, 06:39 »
+4
ok, what i dont understand with some of you

this petition is mostly because of those insulting 2 cent per image

you dont care that you will earn 14 times less from subscription sales, but suddenly you care about 15% commission.(this not apply for those of you who deleted pictures when 15% cut happened)

i personally think that everything below 50% is unacceptable, that's why i upload to alamy even my sales are very small there, but if we can say something, even if that dont change anything, just to be heard I dont see anything bad in that.

for those who continue to upload images there for 15%, and don't what to sign petition but are signing that they agree with 15% and 2 cents royalty every time they upload new images there, how that makes sense to you?

I don't really get it either, because photographers have been at 15% for while now.  Though of course I agree that I'd love to see Getty raise non-exclusives' royalties up to at least 30%, which is right around Shutterstock and Adobe levels.

I personally think anything less than 80% sucks, because honestly, artists' representatives outside the stock world usually take a 20% cut, not 85%, 70% or even 50%. Only after I started uploading to iS did I even realize how terribly stock artists were compensated.

« Reply #391 on: November 08, 2016, 10:44 »
+14
I still can't quite believe that so few people made a stand when they cut below 20%.  That was the final straw for me, all my best selling images were deactivated and I haven't uploaded anything new for years. 

If Getty had the choice of paying us 30% or having no images to sell, what would they choose?  If they chose to have no images to sell, that would send buyers to sites that pay us more.  Isn't that the worst that could happen if we all decided not to put up with less than 20%?  Obviously this is different for exclusives but they don't seem to have as many of them as they used to.

« Reply #392 on: November 08, 2016, 11:34 »
+1
I still can't quite believe that so few people made a stand when they cut below 20%.  That was the final straw for me, all my best selling images were deactivated and I haven't uploaded anything new for years. 

If Getty had the choice of paying us 30% or having no images to sell, what would they choose?  If they chose to have no images to sell, that would send buyers to sites that pay us more.  Isn't that the worst that could happen if we all decided not to put up with less than 20%?  Obviously this is different for exclusives but they don't seem to have as many of them as they used to.

That was what made me stop uploading, I think it was some other indignity/abuse that got me to delete most of my images.

« Reply #393 on: November 09, 2016, 02:47 »
+4
I still can't quite believe that so few people made a stand when they cut below 20%.  That was the final straw for me, all my best selling images were deactivated and I haven't uploaded anything new for years. 

If Getty had the choice of paying us 30% or having no images to sell, what would they choose?  If they chose to have no images to sell, that would send buyers to sites that pay us more.  Isn't that the worst that could happen if we all decided not to put up with less than 20%?  Obviously this is different for exclusives but they don't seem to have as many of them as they used to.

Fully agree.
Typical case of Prisoner's Dilemma:

"I know we're all better off if we all leave. But if I silently stay while others leave, I will have less competition, so I am better off".

Unability to cooperate due to the theoretical possibility to gain by not cooperating...

« Reply #394 on: November 09, 2016, 04:33 »
+5
I still can't quite believe that so few people made a stand when they cut below 20%.  That was the final straw for me, all my best selling images were deactivated and I haven't uploaded anything new for years. 

If Getty had the choice of paying us 30% or having no images to sell, what would they choose?  If they chose to have no images to sell, that would send buyers to sites that pay us more.  Isn't that the worst that could happen if we all decided not to put up with less than 20%?  Obviously this is different for exclusives but they don't seem to have as many of them as they used to.

Fully agree.
Typical case of Prisoner's Dilemma:

"I know we're all better off if we all leave. But if I silently stay while others leave, I will have less competition, so I am better off".

Unability to cooperate due to the theoretical possibility to gain by not cooperating...
Hopefully istock have proven that staying with them didn't make things better.  I think my earnings went up on other sites when I deactivated all my best selling images, it looks like most buyers search for images on more than one site.  All the time I would of spent uploading to istock went on uploading to Alamy and they now make as much as I was getting from istock when they had my full portfolio.  It feels much more satisfying working with a site that has a 50/50 split.

dpimborough

« Reply #395 on: November 09, 2016, 11:52 »
+3
I still can't quite believe that so few people made a stand when they cut below 20%.  That was the final straw for me, all my best selling images were deactivated and I haven't uploaded anything new for years. 

If Getty had the choice of paying us 30% or having no images to sell, what would they choose?  If they chose to have no images to sell, that would send buyers to sites that pay us more.  Isn't that the worst that could happen if we all decided not to put up with less than 20%?  Obviously this is different for exclusives but they don't seem to have as many of them as they used to.

Fully agree.
Typical case of Prisoner's Dilemma:

"I know we're all better off if we all leave. But if I silently stay while others leave, I will have less competition, so I am better off".

Unability to cooperate due to the theoretical possibility to gain by not cooperating...

More like Stockholm syndrome  ;D

Quoted from Wikipedia

"Stockholm syndrome can be seen as a form of traumatic bonding, which does not necessarily require a hostage scenario, but which describes "strong emotional ties that develop between two persons where one person intermittently harasses, beats, threatens, abuses, or intimidates the other."
« Last Edit: November 09, 2016, 11:56 by Teddy the Cat »

« Reply #396 on: November 09, 2016, 14:52 »
+3
I don't think Istock will ever agree to 50% although this is what we really should be getting. 25 or 30% would be more realistic.
Haven't uploaded anything in a few weeks anyway,  at the moment either keeping my existing port there or closing my account,  depending on how things turn out.

Look forward to signing the petition.

« Reply #397 on: November 10, 2016, 09:17 »
+5
Who wants a petition? Anyone?

Noedelhap

  • www.colincramm.com

« Reply #398 on: November 10, 2016, 13:10 »
+10
I still can't quite believe that so few people made a stand when they cut below 20%.  That was the final straw for me, all my best selling images were deactivated and I haven't uploaded anything new for years. 

If Getty had the choice of paying us 30% or having no images to sell, what would they choose?  If they chose to have no images to sell, that would send buyers to sites that pay us more.  Isn't that the worst that could happen if we all decided not to put up with less than 20%?  Obviously this is different for exclusives but they don't seem to have as many of them as they used to.

Fully agree.
Typical case of Prisoner's Dilemma:

"I know we're all better off if we all leave. But if I silently stay while others leave, I will have less competition, so I am better off".

Unability to cooperate due to the theoretical possibility to gain by not cooperating...

More like Stockholm syndrome  ;D

Or iStockholm Syndrome.

« Reply #399 on: November 10, 2016, 15:33 »
0
Sorry for the petition delay.


 

Related Topics

  Subject / Started by Replies Last post
17 Replies
8520 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
29451 Views
Last post January 24, 2011, 12:54
by ShadySue
6 Replies
3904 Views
Last post July 25, 2014, 08:32
by KimsCreativeHub
3 Replies
4075 Views
Last post October 30, 2015, 13:47
by Microstock Posts
6 Replies
3721 Views
Last post February 27, 2017, 00:56
by stockmn

Sponsors

Mega Bundle of 5,900+ Professional Lightroom Presets

Microstock Poll Results

Sponsors

3100 Posing Cards Bundle