MicrostockGroup Sponsors


Author Topic: iStockphoto to offer "Editorial Use" license  (Read 21615 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.



ShadySue

  • There is a crack in everything
« Reply #76 on: December 14, 2010, 10:29 »
0
Dang, this had me excited for a second...pretty weak they won't be accepting celebrities or sports considering it is next to impossible to get in with Getty at this point. 

Mat
They're not going to let micro compete with the mother ship, when celeb/sport is probably what's still making Getty the most money at Macro prices.

ShadySue

  • There is a crack in everything
« Reply #77 on: December 14, 2010, 10:40 »
0
Hasn't the feedback from Micros been that it isn't worth sending editorial images RF/micro? Even though iStock still seems to have a higher reach, that's hardly going to make a difference.
Maybe Getty has some 'wholly owned editorial content' from somewhere?

« Reply #78 on: December 14, 2010, 12:47 »
0
^^^I would agree with that and I would think istock did as well, otherwise they would of introduced editorial years ago.  Can't help but feel this is being set up to try and get more money from images that don't make much with Getty, what other reason can there be?

« Reply #79 on: December 14, 2010, 16:29 »
0
I'm sure someone asked and answered this somewhere, but is this editorial going to be available to exclusives only?
It hasn't been stated that that will be the case, i.e. it looks like it will be open for all. Hey, they want to get the bigger percentages from nons.

Page 2 of the Xnet Blog: Editorial Use Only thread on IS -

Posted By AndrewJohnson:
Will everyone be able to upload to editorial?

Posted By rogermexico:
Yes.


And then again on Page 11 -

Posted By cnicbc:
Awesome! I think I remember something similar being introduced a while ago, but it was limited to "elite" photographers. I did read everything, but for assurances sake: this time it's for everybody?

Posted By rogermexico:
If you can upload photographs to iStockphoto, you can upload photographs to iStock for editorial use. So yes.

« Reply #80 on: December 14, 2010, 17:16 »
0
I'm sure someone asked and answered this somewhere, but is this editorial going to be available to exclusives only?
It hasn't been stated that that will be the case, i.e. it looks like it will be open for all. Hey, they want to get the bigger percentages from nons.

Page 2 of the Xnet Blog: Editorial Use Only thread on IS -

Posted By AndrewJohnson:
Will everyone be able to upload to editorial?

Posted By rogermexico:
Yes.


And then again on Page 11 -

Posted By cnicbc:
Awesome! I think I remember something similar being introduced a while ago, but it was limited to "elite" photographers. I did read everything, but for assurances sake: this time it's for everybody?

Posted By rogermexico:
If you can upload photographs to iStockphoto, you can upload photographs to iStock for editorial use. So yes.


For today, everyone can submit editorial. As if none of the admins at IS have ever gone back on their words before.

ShadySue

  • There is a crack in everything
« Reply #81 on: December 14, 2010, 18:59 »
0
Posted By cnicbc:
Awesome! I think I remember something similar being introduced a while ago, but it was limited to "elite" photographers
That's probably a reference to that ill-fated Istanbul editorial lypse, after which submitters didn't have a portal for their images. I guess they'll now be able to send them editorial to the new iStock collection. Hope they didn't delete them in frustration!

vonkara

« Reply #82 on: December 14, 2010, 19:41 »
0
I heard Getty contributors will be able to submit as well. I can't remember where I read that in the editorial thread on Istock. I think it would be advantageous to submit editorial. But if even a portion of the Getty collection is online the first days, it's almost worthless.

If this is right, then would they sell the same portfolio they have at Getty or what... for a fraction of the price? I don't really understand if it's the case.

« Reply #83 on: December 14, 2010, 21:11 »
0
I heard Getty contributors will be able to submit as well. I can't remember where I read that in the editorial thread on Istock. I think it would be advantageous to submit editorial. But if even a portion of the Getty collection is online the first days, it's almost worthless

That hasn't been said anywhere, afaik.

vonkara

« Reply #84 on: December 15, 2010, 00:19 »
0
Here it is, i found it. It was shank ali...
My concern is...Getty editorial contributors are able to contribute to OUR collection.The 1000's upon 1000's of Agency files added to our library was a bitter sweet pill to swallow IMO.(one Getty contributor already has over 600 Agency sales ! )

I didn't say it was true, just that I heard. It's also on my mind though.

« Reply #85 on: December 15, 2010, 05:40 »
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 
« Last Edit: December 15, 2010, 06:02 by yuliang11 »

« Reply #86 on: December 15, 2010, 06:18 »
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 

Alamy commission is 60% for most people and 89% of their profits go to a medical research programmme.  http://www.alamy.com/medical-research.asp
I'm not doing this for charity but it highlights the difference between the two businesses and makes istock's justification for cutting commissions look pathetic.

ShadySue

  • There is a crack in everything
« Reply #87 on: December 15, 2010, 06:44 »
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  

Alamy commission is 60% for most people and 89% of their profits go to a medical research programmme.  http://www.alamy.com/medical-research.asp
I'm not doing this for charity but it highlights the difference between the two businesses and makes istock's justification for cutting commissions look pathetic.

Heaven forfend that I should be seen as an apologist for iStock, but that Alexa chart

... suggests that they're spending more on marketing.
(yeah, yeah, then getting the punters in, they p*ss them off by a site that seldom works properly, bugs that take years to fix and slag them off on the forums)
But yes, I'd rather support Alamy's range of charities than JK's Manhattan flat.
But I WISH Alamy would set a simple 'Editorial only' button.
Added: thanks for your reminder about Alamy's charities. At the time I had a photo uploading to iStock and a horizontal 'similar' I was working on to remove 'possible' IP problems, i.e. iStock would always reject to 'be on the safe side'. I cancelled the upload, went back to the original RAWs and will upload to Alamy. Funny how you get into habits ... or 'muscle memory'. In fact, I think it's probably more of an Alamy/editorial image anyway, but I still find it hard to call beween them.
« Last Edit: December 15, 2010, 09:03 by ShadySue »

« Reply #88 on: December 15, 2010, 07:09 »
0
I wonder how much of that traffic is editorial buyers?  If it was significant, I think istock would of offered it years ago.

ShadySue

  • There is a crack in everything
« Reply #89 on: December 15, 2010, 07:15 »
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 
Alamy commission is 60% for most people
60%/40% for most people. ('agency' sales being 40%). Your actual average will depend on which markets buy your work.

« Reply #90 on: December 15, 2010, 08:53 »
0
Here it is, i found it. It was shank ali...
My concern is...Getty editorial contributors are able to contribute to OUR collection.The 1000's upon 1000's of Agency files added to our library was a bitter sweet pill to swallow IMO.(one Getty contributor already has over 600 Agency sales ! )

I didn't say it was true, just that I heard. It's also on my mind though.

You need to interpret shank's writing.  Read "are" as "will be allowed".  Actually imagine he's talking in the present tense of some future possible universe time line.

traveler1116

« Reply #91 on: December 15, 2010, 09:02 »
0
I think it has more to do with a non-compete and Getty. The rules page states no news, sports or celebrities because Getty does it better.
Yep my reading too.

ShadySue

  • There is a crack in everything
« Reply #92 on: December 15, 2010, 19:38 »
0
Hmmm, reading some of the most recent posts about sports images, it seems like Sean's assessment of it being editorial-lite may have some truth.
Just like there are some images they won't accept in the main because US equivalents might not be allowable, even if perfectly legal in other countries and links to legislation are provided, it seems the same will apply to editorial.

« Reply #93 on: December 15, 2010, 20:42 »
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 

Alamy commission is 60% for most people and 89% of their profits go to a medical research program.  http://www.alamy.com/medical-research.asp
I'm not doing this for charity but it highlights the difference between the two businesses and makes istock's justification for cutting commissions look pathetic.


Now that's my kind of company!   ;D

No way am I sending editorial to iStock.  What I already have at Shutterstock, Dreamstime and BigStock doesn't sell often enough to justify sending anymore to them, so there's no reason for me to stop sending stuff to Alamy just so I can earn a few cents at iStock.

« Reply #94 on: December 15, 2010, 20:42 »
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.
 
Heaven forfend that I should be seen as an apologist for iStock, but that Alexa chart

... suggests that they're spending more on marketing.
(yeah, yeah, then getting the punters in, they p*ss them off by a site that seldom works properly, bugs that take years to fix and slag them off on the forums)
But yes, I'd rather support Alamy's range of charities than JK's Manhattan flat.
But I WISH Alamy would set a simple 'Editorial only' button.
Added: thanks for your reminder about Alamy's charities. At the time I had a photo uploading to iStock and a horizontal 'similar' I was working on to remove 'possible' IP problems, i.e. iStock would always reject to 'be on the safe side'. I cancelled the upload, went back to the original RAWs and will upload to Alamy. Funny how you get into habits ... or 'muscle memory'. In fact, I think it's probably more of an Alamy/editorial image anyway, but I still find it hard to call beween them.
« Last Edit: December 15, 2010, 20:46 by yuliang11 »

ShadySue

  • There is a crack in everything
« Reply #95 on: December 15, 2010, 20:51 »
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.

« Reply #96 on: December 15, 2010, 20:57 »
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.

« Reply #97 on: December 15, 2010, 21:00 »
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.

most of my editorials are only getting 1 sub download and the photo just dies. i get EL when i'm lucky. anyway i think i have trust issue with istock. i think contributors should be vary agencies with dodgy practices. Do not forget what someone did to you and said it is fair cause it will happen again someday  ;D  

ShadySue

  • There is a crack in everything
« Reply #98 on: December 15, 2010, 21:20 »
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.

most of my editorials are only getting 1 sub download and the photo just dies. i get EL when i'm lucky. anyway i think i have trust issue with istock. i think contributors should be vary agencies with dodgy practices. Do not forget what someone did to you and said it is fair cause it will happen again someday  ;D  
It'll be a matter of working out what will sell best where. If it's my small obscure home town, Alamy would be the place for it. It'd never sell on iStock, and if something newsworthy happens there one day, I might make a few Alamy sales. I'm guessing I'll stick with Alamy for most of my editorials, especially as I won't reach 35% on iStock when I hit gold in a few weeks.
Times Square - well, there are 9825 TS images already on Alamy, so it might be better for the contributor to get in early on iStock. Sadly that would undercut the traditional editorial market, which of course is what they're aiming to do.
Looking at the sales I've made on Alamy, I doubt if I'd have made more than a couple of sales from any of them on iStock. Looking at the pics that haven't sold on Alamy: same. So still better off on Alamy.
« Last Edit: December 16, 2010, 09:37 by ShadySue »

PaulieWalnuts

  • We Have Exciting News For You
« Reply #99 on: December 15, 2010, 21:26 »
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?


 

Related Topics

  Subject / Started by Replies Last post
11 Replies
6793 Views
Last post July 22, 2010, 16:28
by madelaide
5 Replies
8634 Views
Last post September 07, 2010, 19:24
by RacePhoto
2 Replies
2061 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
5077 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