MicrostockGroup Sponsors


Author Topic: Looking to purchase Istock portfolios.  (Read 20713 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

« Reply #50 on: September 27, 2010, 14:40 »
0
sjlocke: thats not risk, that would be plain stupidity.
Would you buy a bakery for example if the seller told you in advance he is planning on opening a bakery across the street as soon as the deal is closed ?  not only this, you know this bakery will probebly make better products then the bakrey you just bought!

Didn't think so.

I disagree. The person would be buying all your images and the copyrights to them. They'd have every right to get you banned or take legal action if you were just copying your old images. Agreeing to stop making images in your own style though would be business suicide and I don't know how anyone could agree to that.


« Reply #51 on: September 27, 2010, 14:50 »
0
sjlocke: thats not risk, that would be plain stupidity.
Would you buy a bakery for example if the seller told you in advance he is planning on opening a bakery across the street as soon as the deal is closed ?  not only this, you know this bakery will probebly make better products then the bakrey you just bought!

Didn't think so.

So, I sell you my portfolio.  What are you going to do?  Tell me not to shoot any more people shots ever?  I'm supposed to live the rest of my life on whatever you give me for the current port?  Don't think so.  I wouldn't go out of my way to duplicate my past content, but subject matter is going to come back up sooner or later.

« Reply #52 on: September 27, 2010, 14:52 »
0
cthoman: That is not what I said and not what I ment. if I buy a port of photos of a certain model posing for example, and you then go hire that model again and produce similar (or even BETTER) photos then my purchase is worhless.

Nobody intends for you to retire or become a burger flipper. but a buyer with some sense in his mind would try and avoid "shooting himself in the leg" .

« Reply #53 on: September 27, 2010, 15:09 »
0
cthoman: That is not what I said and not what I ment. if I buy a port of photos of a certain model posing for example, and you then go hire that model again and produce similar (or even BETTER) photos then my purchase is worhless.

Nobody intends for you to retire or become a burger flipper. but a buyer with some sense in his mind would try and avoid "shooting himself in the leg" .

Apologies. I guess I misunderstood. Regardless, I would think most of what you're paying for is turnkey and consistent sales. Taking over a successful business is much easier than building a new one. If the buyer had to reupload all the images and hope for the best with acceptance, sales and search rankings, I'd think that would be a deal breaker.

« Reply #54 on: September 27, 2010, 15:11 »
0
I don't think you could say 'forever' but it would be reasonable to have a non-compete clause for a defined period, say 2-3 years. Of course there wouldn't be any way to stop the photographer from building a new port during that time and then uploading it at the end.

« Reply #55 on: September 27, 2010, 15:15 »
0
I don't think you could say 'forever' but it would be reasonable to have a non-compete clause for a defined period, say 2-3 years. Of course there wouldn't be any way to stop the photographer from building a new port during that time and then uploading it at the end.

Definitely, but I guess that would probably factor in the price as well. My stock portfolio brings in freelance clients, so that would be something to consider.

All this talk though makes me wonder why some of these shooters that supposedly spend ludicrous amounts on shoots aren't buying portfolios instead. You'd think buying diverse content would be a lot more profitable if you spend a lot to create it.

helix7

« Reply #56 on: September 27, 2010, 16:51 »
0
helix7: The link to your ports don't seem to work for me, nor do u have a link to your IS port.
Nobody in his right mind would buy a port with out written concent that the seller will at least avoid producing similar images to the ones in the sold port.
It would be quite silly to have some one buy your port just to find out after a few months that you have duplicated the port with similar or better pictures.


I'm on iStock here: http://www.istockphoto.com/file_search.php?action=file&userID=1982621

If a non-compete would need to be involved, the price would have to be different.

Without a non-compete, I wouldn't go out and create identical images anyway. But I'd have to keep producing stock imagery to make a living. I would just modify my style, sort of reinvent my work and create a new portfolio, not a duplicate of the old one.

For a photographer, the equivalent practice would be to, say, never shoot a model who appears in any images sold in the current portfolio. And obviously try not to outright duplicate any images. Shoot only new models, new scenes, etc.

After all, you're not buying the rights to an image concept. You're buying images only. I don't think it would be reasonable to buy a portfolio of business images and then say that the artist can't shoot business concepts anymore.

« Reply #57 on: September 27, 2010, 17:17 »
0
Is there anything to stop a group of independents getting together and forming a company to use for istock?  We could eventually then get the highest exclusive commission, get in to all the higher priced collections and Getty.  The admin might be a bit complicated but it shouldn't be too difficult to have a database and split earnings up.  Seems like a better option than being stuck with less than 20% commission and having bad image placement in the search.

How does the Istock exclusivity concept work in that case? With Istock it's contributor exclusivity, not image exclusivity. Is a company a valid "contributor" in that regard? Independent of who contributes there?
In my mind it would automatically mean every contributor to the company will become exclusive to Istock according to their terms (no other RF business outside Getty). So joining such a company is equal to applying for exclusivity plus the added bonus of the highest commission level...

« Reply #58 on: September 27, 2010, 20:02 »
0
So did you hear back from istock if they will allow merging portfolios? Because if they don't then this whole discussion is kinda pointless unless you are going to be disambiguating thousands of files with no real guarantee of whether they will be approved and where they will end up in the best match.

« Reply #59 on: September 27, 2010, 20:10 »
0
Oh, I'm sure US won't be merging anything.  You'd either have to transfer ownership of the account, maybe under a 'business', or upload from scratch.

« Reply #60 on: September 28, 2010, 02:00 »
0
You can buy only exclusive content, because non-exclusive content will continue to sell on other agencies under other photographer's name.

« Reply #61 on: September 28, 2010, 03:34 »
0
Is there anything to stop a group of independents getting together and forming a company to use for istock?  We could eventually then get the highest exclusive commission, get in to all the higher priced collections and Getty.  The admin might be a bit complicated but it shouldn't be too difficult to have a database and split earnings up.  Seems like a better option than being stuck with less than 20% commission and having bad image placement in the search.

How does the Istock exclusivity concept work in that case? With Istock it's contributor exclusivity, not image exclusivity. Is a company a valid "contributor" in that regard? Independent of who contributes there?
In my mind it would automatically mean every contributor to the company will become exclusive to Istock according to their terms (no other RF business outside Getty). So joining such a company is equal to applying for exclusivity plus the added bonus of the highest commission level...
I have no intention of doing this, it was just an idea.  Don't know if we could do this but if people are going to be merging portfolios and istock are allowing non-exclusive outside agencies to use their collections, the rules seem to be unclear.  I never understood how exclusives can use photos taken by NASA photographers and vintage images out of copyright.  They didn't create those images, is that different to transferring copyright to a business and using that exclusively for istock?

« Reply #62 on: September 28, 2010, 03:48 »
0
You're right, the agency stuff seems to contradict the rules for exclusivity.
But if it was possible to transfer copyright to a company and use that for exclusivity at Istock, everyone could easily set up his "image exclusive" Istock presence... Simply create your own company, transfer copyright for some of your images there and be exclusive. And be independent with the rest, outside of that company. I can't believe that this will fly with Istock (though I have no intention at all to try it...)

« Reply #63 on: September 28, 2010, 12:53 »
0
Just got an official answer from IS.
Even though this makes things much more complex and much more risky, I am still on the market for portfolios!

Thank you for your email.

To do this, there are a few steps that iStock requires.

1.       The contributor you wish to take over must deactivate all files from iStock
2.       You need to supply us with a transfer of copyright document showing that they agree and sign over all rights.
3.       All files that you receive from the other contributor will need to be uploaded within your regular weekly upload limits and put through our  current inspection standards.

Any monetary exchanges for the files will be handled on your own and not with iStock.

Please let us know if there is anything else we can help you with.

 
Kelly
iStockphoto LP
Contributor Relations
Toll-free 1-866-478-6251

« Reply #64 on: September 28, 2010, 13:43 »
0
That isn't surprising.

lisafx

« Reply #65 on: September 28, 2010, 13:48 »
0
That isn't surprising.

Not at all.  And I would think it would put a damper on the whole idea. 

Most folks early work would not qualify now.  Also, if IS has had the benefit of selling these images for months and/or years, who's to say they will want the bulk of them that don't sell well.  They may just accept bestsellers and forget the rest. 

« Reply #66 on: September 28, 2010, 14:13 »
0
cthoman: That is not what I said and not what I ment. if I buy a port of photos of a certain model posing for example, and you then go hire that model again and produce similar (or even BETTER) photos then my purchase is worhless.

Nobody intends for you to retire or become a burger flipper. but a buyer with some sense in his mind would try and avoid "shooting himself in the leg" .

Apologies. I guess I misunderstood. Regardless, I would think most of what you're paying for is turnkey and consistent sales. Taking over a successful business is much easier than building a new one. If the buyer had to reupload all the images and hope for the best with acceptance, sales and search rankings, I'd think that would be a deal breaker.

I Agree..

« Reply #67 on: September 28, 2010, 14:34 »
0
That isn't surprising.

Not at all.  And I would think it would put a damper on the whole idea. 

Most folks early work would not qualify now.  Also, if IS has had the benefit of selling these images for months and/or years, who's to say they will want the bulk of them that don't sell well.  They may just accept bestsellers and forget the rest. 

It's still possible to do it, but it put a much lower value on portfolios. Since only a portion of it would be re-uploaded, the best ones.

« Reply #68 on: September 28, 2010, 14:43 »
0
It's still possible to do it, but it put a much lower value on portfolios. Since only a portion of it would be re-uploaded, the best ones.

That's kind of what I was thinking. Buyers and sellers might have a harder time agreeing on a price because the portfolios aren't as valuable to the buyers. That and the risk seems pretty great that you could buy a portfolio full of useless images that IS would reject.

« Reply #69 on: September 28, 2010, 14:56 »
0
Just got an official answer from IS.
Even though this makes things much more complex and much more risky, I am still on the market for portfolios!

Thank you for your email.

To do this, there are a few steps that iStock requires.

1.       The contributor you wish to take over must deactivate all files from iStock
2.       You need to supply us with a transfer of copyright document showing that they agree and sign over all rights.
3.       All files that you receive from the other contributor will need to be uploaded within your regular weekly upload limits and put through our  current inspection standards.

Any monetary exchanges for the files will be handled on your own and not with iStock.

Please let us know if there is anything else we can help you with.

 
Kelly
iStockphoto LP
Contributor Relations
Toll-free 1-866-478-6251

OK, this brings up my next question. What's the difference between buying someone's account and willing your account to a family member? Would they have to jump through all the same hoops? Also, what is to stop you from changing the copyright info on your files? I assume people change the copyright info on their files occasionally to put it under a business name or married name.

« Reply #70 on: September 28, 2010, 15:04 »
0
OK, this brings up my next question. What's the difference between buying someone's account and willing your account to a family member? Would they have to jump through all the same hoops? Also, what is to stop you from changing the copyright info on your files? I assume people change the copyright info on their files occasionally to put it under a business name or married name.

When a portfolio is "willed" to a family member the account is frozen ... no files can be added to it, only income can be pulled. That's what I've heard/read in the iStock forums about it at least. I'm sure if the family member wanted to use the files to create their own account then yes, they would have to jump through the same hoops.

As for copyright name ... just a guess but as long as the person is the same person (name change) or they are their own business then they probably don't have to re-upload images or create a new account.

« Reply #71 on: September 28, 2010, 15:22 »
0
When a portfolio is "willed" to a family member the account is frozen ... no files can be added to it, only income can be pulled. That's what I've heard/read in the iStock forums about it at least. I'm sure if the family member wanted to use the files to create their own account then yes, they would have to jump through the same hoops.

As for copyright name ... just a guess but as long as the person is the same person (name change) or they are their own business then they probably don't have to re-upload images or create a new account.

Interesting. It makes me wonder if I should set up everything as business name instead of my real name as a sole proprietor. That way it seems you would have more options or room to maneuver to turn over your business or sell it. Not that I have any plans of going anywhere, but it would be nice to know everything could be easily transferred.

« Reply #72 on: September 28, 2010, 16:17 »
0
When a portfolio is "willed" to a family member the account is frozen ... no files can be added to it, only income can be pulled. That's what I've heard/read in the iStock forums about it at least. I'm sure if the family member wanted to use the files to create their own account then yes, they would have to jump through the same hoops.

As for copyright name ... just a guess but as long as the person is the same person (name change) or they are their own business then they probably don't have to re-upload images or create a new account.

I've never seen that.  My profile is "owned" by my business LLC, which should pass to whomever is listed in my trust documents.  It shouldn't matter.

RacePhoto

« Reply #73 on: September 28, 2010, 17:05 »
0

OK, this brings up my next question. What's the difference between buying someone's account and willing your account to a family member? Would they have to jump through all the same hoops? Also, what is to stop you from changing the copyright info on your files? I assume people change the copyright info on their files occasionally to put it under a business name or married name.

The only acceptable way to do this would be take over the account. Buying the images and having to re-upload for review would be absurd. Not just the limits, but the reviews, keywords, acceptable subjects, and rules have changed.

Long ago in business 101 they said, never use your own name in a business, because if you sell it, you lose the right to your own name. :D If the company was hypothetically XYZ-Photo and you sold your IS account, the new buyer could transfer everything, including the copyright to the images, because they would belong to XYZ-Photo. All you would have to do is change the owner record and the payment details. Doesn't matter if you can't upload more to the account, it's a stand alone business entity. Of course the buyer would need to clear owning multiple accounts on IS. More problems.

Now if IS says you can't buy or transfer and account. This whole discussion is ridiculous. Having to upload everything over again? Too risky and no assurance that they would get accepted or that they would rank where they were and make the sales they did in the past.

Non-compete would mean selling identical images, including re-shooting the same subjects and concepts. Simple enough as in the bakery example. You can't re-open across the street with the same business you just sold.  :) In some states, it's the law.

« Reply #74 on: September 28, 2010, 17:21 »
0
Illustration companies are doing it in many countries. I wonder if this will change the industry and the ability of any small port to make money?

If the right offer came my way I think I would just get out of stock all together.
« Last Edit: September 29, 2010, 00:11 by Renee »


 

Related Topics

  Subject / Started by Replies Last post
6 Replies
3912 Views
Last post July 20, 2008, 14:43
by daintee
0 Replies
2527 Views
Last post August 14, 2008, 04:42
by stozka
9 Replies
4097 Views
Last post September 25, 2009, 05:34
by PedroV
24 Replies
7604 Views
Last post October 12, 2009, 17:59
by HughStoneIan
18 Replies
5590 Views
Last post December 23, 2009, 15:09
by tdoes

Sponsors

Mega Bundle of 5,900+ Professional Lightroom Presets

Microstock Poll Results

Sponsors

3100 Posing Cards Bundle