MicrostockGroup Sponsors


Author Topic: iStockphoto to offer "Editorial Use" license  (Read 21651 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

SNP

  • Canadian Photographer
« Reply #100 on: December 16, 2010, 00:49 »
0
^ I think that's the big question facing us contributors in general these days.


« Reply #101 on: December 16, 2010, 00:58 »
0
so ? they must be joking if they are offering 17% commissions while stuffs at alamy is 50%. no way i'm putting editorial to istock  

50% looks better than 17% but 50% of what?

I like Alamy. They seem like decent people. I like the idea of higher commissions and higher prices. But for me Alamy performed about as bad as bottom of the barrel micros. The posts on their forums seem to back that up with a lot people saying they're earning a couple hundred dollars a month in sales from several thousand photos. That seems way below average compared to micro.

So what's more important? The percentage or the total dollars?

i'll go for agencies who are fair , and percentage 2nd. anyway my istock sales has not been doing well recently. macros has performed better by ratios for me lately.

« Reply #102 on: December 16, 2010, 01:02 »
0
I've seen no indication that Getty stuff will be trucked in.

I agree there has been no indication so far, having said that I can imagine after the "success of agency" Getty trying to milk the last drops of blood out of their billion and trillions of photos on file.   
I'm convinced this is whats behind this move though...opening the path to add another Getty Collection. They are already saying phase 2 will be a premium editorial collection (my bet is the majority of this premium collection will come from daddy G and select contributors can apply as well, same as agency now)...add the fact that editorial has to be submitted under the current upload restrictions keeping it somewhat restricted in size for now...
It's wild speculation, but i'd dare to put money on it... :)

ShadySue

  • There is a crack in everything
« Reply #103 on: December 16, 2010, 05:03 »
0
Yes , istock definately has more traffic , possibly just 0.30subs or 17% comission from maybe a  5usd sales. at alamy, 1 RM sale  per year from alamy would possibly cover your entire year sales in stock.  i think contributor should start to take a stand against bullying agencies.
You'd have to get a very good RM sale for that. Many RM sales are made with deep, deep discounts, and iStock has ELs, which would apply to some editorial sales, though their print run is very high.

Yep.  Most of the sales in the forum are gripes about $10 sales or $15.  Dreams of $1500 sales are rarely fulfilled.
At the same time, only a very tiny proportion of Alamy contributers post regularly on the forums: manyfold fewer than post on, say, iStock forums. I have a former pupil who's doing very well there with his niche (clue: geographically unattainable for you and I).

XPTO

« Reply #104 on: December 16, 2010, 05:14 »
0
Yes , istock definately has more traffic , possibly just 0.30subs or 17% comission from maybe a  5usd sales. at alamy, 1 RM sale  per year from alamy would possibly cover your entire year sales in stock.  i think contributor should start to take a stand against bullying agencies.

That's not quite true. I've got about the same income from IS and alamy with the difference that I have... 10 times more images on alamy!

In fact I have some sales on alamy that are just about the same I get at IS. And the license they give in alamy would be equivalent to a pile of EL's on IS. What I mean is that I sell images on alamy for about $6 with a license, that would cost almost $300 in IS.

Don't get me wrong after FL, IS is the agency I dislike the most because both are dishonest to their contributors making unilateral decisions with little or no communication, and I think alamy is a reference when it comes to communication and respect for it's contributors. But things are not as "pink" over there as you say.

« Reply #105 on: December 16, 2010, 05:23 »
0
Yes , istock definately has more traffic , possibly just 0.30subs or 17% comission from maybe a  5usd sales. at alamy, 1 RM sale  per year from alamy would possibly cover your entire year sales in stock.  i think contributor should start to take a stand against bullying agencies.

That's not quite true. I've got about the same income from IS and alamy with the difference that I have... 10 times more images on alamy!

In fact I have some sales on alamy that are just about the same I get at IS. And the license they give in alamy would be equivalent to a pile of EL's on IS. What I mean is that I sell images on alamy for about $6 with a license, that would cost almost $300 in IS.



ok, i like that . but i'll still post to alamy. sometimes it's not all about money   ;D
« Last Edit: December 16, 2010, 05:29 by yuliang11 »

ShadySue

  • There is a crack in everything
« Reply #106 on: December 16, 2010, 05:26 »
0
Sorry, hit quote instead of modify. Again.  :-[
« Last Edit: December 16, 2010, 09:34 by ShadySue »

ShadySue

  • There is a crack in everything
« Reply #107 on: December 16, 2010, 05:35 »
0
In fact I have some sales on alamy that are just about the same I get at IS. And the license they give in alamy would be equivalent to a pile of EL's on IS. What I mean is that I sell images on alamy for about $6 with a license, that would cost almost $300 in IS.

Here's the down.
Alamy give big discounts to two main groups. Newspapers and textbook publishers. Their main market at the moment is the UK and Europe.
Speaking of the UK:
Newspapers are in big trouble, and some have already folded. They are not going to spend $300 on a non-specific photo. Also, on iStock, a print run has to be 1/2 million before you have to buy an EL, which apart from some huge newspapers doesn't happen often.
The UK economy is in a total mess. I was a uK teacher until very recently and know for a fact how much per capita has been cut. In my case, by 1/3 in the session 09-10, and to 50% of that for this current session. Projections were that the cuts would be even more swingeing for the next four years at least. That means very little budget for books. So the only way publishers will be able to stay afloat is to severely cut the price of their books (again, several educational publishers have gone out of business recently). And the best way to do that is by reducing the prices of their images.

iStock, on the other hand, offers deep, unadvertised discounts to huge corporations who spend lots on credit packages. So your 250 credit EL might be worth very little to you.
Remember that the $300 cost EL is worth a lot less to you, and will, for most of us, be less still in January, that drop being even worse for exclusives, who lose their 10%.

The Alamy vs IS for editorial will not be a simple decision.

ShadySue

  • There is a crack in everything
« Reply #108 on: December 16, 2010, 06:52 »
0
Now they're discussing 'staging' photos for editorial at iStock. :-(
And some don't see why that is wrong (I suspect that might be a difference between general American and UK sensitivities on what 'truth' means).
Exactly why textbook publishers don't buy there just now.
Unless, of course, they're going to make a real distinction when searching between 'real' editorial and photos which can be used to illustrate editorial articles in magazines with a caption 'posed by model'.
I'd like some sort of check button to indicate that an image is natural, unposed and unaltered, in 'available' light, even to be applied to existing images.
Addded: I see someone has posted the obvious, that a staged photo (e.g. of a kid-on homeless person) should go into the main collection.

« Reply #109 on: December 16, 2010, 10:24 »
0
Staged editorial with perfect lighting and models? Isn't that just regular stock?

rubyroo

« Reply #110 on: December 16, 2010, 10:31 »
0
Regular stock with more forgiving release requirements.

Not 'true' editorial, for certain.

ShadySue

  • There is a crack in everything
« Reply #111 on: December 18, 2010, 07:05 »
0
I'm really worried about the honest of captioning/integrity of labelling.
Until recently there was an iStock admin/inspector (both) who, for example, keyworded many photos of a man in a monkey suit as 'gorilla', 'animals in the wild' ('monkey suit' is in the CV) [1]. It's bad enough that he did this, and it got through inspection, over several days, hence presumably many inspectors, (most of his pics had several unquestionably wrong (i.e. objective as in my example, not debates about subjective terms like 'beautiful woman' or 'expressing positivity'), keywords, all apparently accepted) without this sort of thing (probably not literally that example) appearing in editorial.
[1]They're not there now. Don't bother to look and berate me for calling someone out. But it took months to get the keywords cleaned up.


 

Related Topics

  Subject / Started by Replies Last post
11 Replies
6798 Views
Last post July 22, 2010, 16:28
by madelaide
5 Replies
8637 Views
Last post September 07, 2010, 19:24
by RacePhoto
2 Replies
2063 Views
Last post December 31, 2010, 23:23
by RacePhoto
1 Replies
1716 Views
Last post March 07, 2011, 13:29
by rubyroo
5 Replies
5083 Views
Last post April 18, 2012, 15:55
by Paulo M. F. Pires

Sponsors

Mega Bundle of 5,900+ Professional Lightroom Presets

Microstock Poll Results

Sponsors

3100 Posing Cards Bundle