MicrostockGroup Sponsors


Author Topic: Looking to purchase Istock portfolios.  (Read 20716 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

« on: September 25, 2010, 04:43 »
0
Well the subject says it all.
I am looking into buying complete portfolios on Istock, preferably from exclusives (makes it simpler).
If anyone here has an offer (or knows someone who does) don't be shy :)


Dook

« Reply #1 on: September 25, 2010, 06:43 »
0
What is your offer?

« Reply #2 on: September 25, 2010, 07:02 »
0
i buy your complete porfolio and pay you money.
this will include full and exclusive rights of the photos/vectors.
(including JPG's, RAW's and PSD's)
as simple as that.

« Reply #3 on: September 25, 2010, 07:08 »
0
What is your offer?

I think this poster means "$10 per image", etc.  Your request for raw and edited files is certainly going to cost you a large sum.

rubyroo

« Reply #4 on: September 25, 2010, 07:08 »
0
You want wholly owned content?  Are you a Getty rep by any chance?

traveler1116

« Reply #5 on: September 25, 2010, 07:16 »
0
I'm listening what's your offer then? 

« Reply #6 on: September 25, 2010, 07:19 »
0
I am not afraid of large sums. Of course the deal needs to be economical for me as well.
I rep only myself (and my partner) and nobody else.
Since obviously a non selling photo is worth much less then a blue-flame one, eachphoto has its own price, but I am not interested in buying individual photos but rather complete portfolios.
The price of the portfolio will be determined by past sales and future potential in my opinion.

« Reply #7 on: September 25, 2010, 07:27 »
0
Well, I guess this is the way to go if you want to trick istock at their own game. The larger the port, the more you will make.

« Reply #8 on: September 25, 2010, 07:34 »
0
When you say "trick" do you mean that this is unacceptable with IS ?
And my goal is indeed to enlarge my port.

« Reply #9 on: September 25, 2010, 07:40 »
0
.
« Last Edit: July 16, 2014, 14:38 by attator »

« Reply #10 on: September 25, 2010, 08:47 »
0
You can have mine for $200k  ;)

$100k...

Heck, $70k
« Last Edit: September 25, 2010, 08:52 by ThomasAmby »

« Reply #11 on: September 25, 2010, 12:48 »
0
I might be tempted to buy small portfolios too. But they have to contain mostly "photos", and be from Istock Exclusives wanting to leave only. 

traveler1116

« Reply #12 on: September 25, 2010, 12:54 »
0
Bidding war? 

« Reply #13 on: September 25, 2010, 13:17 »
0
25,000 and its yours.

« Reply #14 on: September 25, 2010, 13:20 »
0
I might be tempted to buy small portfolios too. But they have to contain mostly "photos", and be from Istock Exclusives wanting to leave only. 

Hmmm. This is starting to sound like people wanting to buy portfolios to ensure they have enough Redeemed Credits to maintain their commission levels in future years. Devious!

« Reply #15 on: September 25, 2010, 13:52 »
0
I might be tempted to buy small portfolios too. But they have to contain mostly "photos", and be from Istock Exclusives wanting to leave only.  

Hmmm. This is starting to sound like people wanting to buy portfolios to ensure they have enough Redeemed Credits to maintain their commission levels in future years. Devious!


Exactly. And it could be have a nasty effect for Istock too, Imagine them having to pay 40% instead of 20 or 25% for the same files...
« Last Edit: September 25, 2010, 13:56 by Buzbuzzer »

« Reply #16 on: September 25, 2010, 13:53 »
0
Well, the only issue is that previous sales performance (especially based on the theory of what sells, keeps selling) doesn't guarantee that uploading under a new account will continue.

Unless you are just going to transfer the account or something.

« Reply #17 on: September 25, 2010, 14:20 »
0
.
« Last Edit: July 16, 2014, 14:39 by attator »

« Reply #18 on: September 25, 2010, 14:37 »
0
pepito: good assumption.
sjlocke: many questions are raised indeed. do the files transferd retain their BE placemnt and current downloads ?   is such a transaction sanctioned by IS at all ?
I am sure such port sales have been done in the past...

« Reply #19 on: September 25, 2010, 14:51 »
0
How would these sales work out practically ? Can anyone give an overview of the process by which ownership of the images is transfered ?

Can we transfer the images and then continue to upload new images ?

Is this something which iStockphoto or any of the other agencies recognise and will be cool with ?

So many questions. Like say my current exclusive portfolio currently averages $x00 per month .... what factor of  x is that worth on the scrap market ?

« Reply #20 on: September 25, 2010, 14:53 »
0
pepito: good assumption.
sjlocke: many questions are raised indeed. do the files transferd retain their BE placemnt and current downloads ?   is such a transaction sanctioned by IS at all ?
I am sure such port sales have been done in the past...

If you're at all serious about this, you should have done your homework and got the answers to these questions before going public. Apart from that, can you provide some information about how you intend to go about evaluating the value of a portfolio? I assume you'll be using some sort of Present Value calculation.

Also, instead of paying up a large up-front sum for the portfolio, it might be more economical to simply transfer a percentage of the royalties to the owner for a period of time, say three years, and then pay a smaller amount up front for the remaining life of the portfolio. An offer like this may attract more people, as they'd get money up front while still maintaining their income for a while. I know that I would certainly entertain that offer more seriously than one to purchase my portfolio outright.

« Reply #21 on: September 25, 2010, 15:05 »
0
sharp: I guess you are right, I didn't think that IS would have problem with such a move, but I will ask them just in case (in the next few minutes).
I am dead serius about buying portfolios. I mean not waste anyones time!
Ineed an NPV formula will be used in my end in order to calculate economic worthyness to us.

I have no problem with your idea, I even must say I like it even more then paying everything up front.
I am open to any other creative payment/sharing plans as well.

« Reply #22 on: September 25, 2010, 15:14 »
0
sharp: I guess you are right, I didn't think that IS would have problem with such a move, but I will ask them just in case (in the next few minutes).
I am dead serius about buying portfolios. I mean not waste anyones time!
Ineed an NPV formula will be used in my end in order to calculate economic worthyness to us.

I have no problem with your idea, I even must say I like it even more then paying everything up front.
I am open to any other creative payment/sharing plans as well.

I think you need to come up with a formula and publish it so that people can plug their numbers in and make a decision before approaching you. Something using monthly or quarterly earnings for the past few years would be simple enough that you'd get a lot of people trying it out, which would increase your chances of attracting some serious sellers. This way you'll only have to deal with people who are downright serious about this, and not the just curious. I'm certainly not going to tell you what my income is without knowing up front how much it's worth to you!

« Reply #23 on: September 25, 2010, 15:46 »
0
How about waiting for IS to answer the clarifications first?

The formula will consist of an X% CAP rate, Y years return, and Z% depreciation in income each year.
Changes will need to be made depending on canister level and exclusivity status.
The exact XYZ figures have not yet been determined.
Other more "creative" payment schemes like the one you suggested will also be positively considered.
Everything is open for negations and the exact figures will be settled in person and not in the public forum, rest assure of that.

My original goal was to see if there is any one willing to sell (and by willing to sell I don't mean "looking for a sucker" to buy my port for 10x its worth)
Because of the recent changes in IS I figured there might be some people who don't want to trouble themselves with it and essentially "sell out".

« Reply #24 on: September 25, 2010, 16:00 »
0
I suspect you'll struggle to agree a value with anyone. A portfolio seller tends to have an optimistic view on future returns (assumes that income will continue largely at current levels) whereas the buyer tends to take a much more pessimistic view (assumes that the income will fall due to competition, etc).

For instance I would only consider selling my port for 3x annual earnings minimum. However if I were buying I'd be unlikely to pay more than 2x for someone else's port.

« Reply #25 on: September 25, 2010, 16:08 »
0
I suspect you'll struggle to agree a value with anyone. A portfolio seller tends to have an optimistic view on future returns (assumes that income will continue largely at current levels) whereas the buyer tends to take a much more pessimistic view (assumes that the income will fall due to competition, etc).

For instance I would only consider selling my port for 3x annual earnings minimum. However if I were buying I'd be unlikely to pay more than 2x for someone else's port.

Interesting topic. I'd never really thought about the value before. Gostwyck's estimate sounds about right though. I think it it would take me 2 to 4 years to build up my business again from scratch, so I think something in that range of 2x to 4x the annual earnings sounds correct.
« Last Edit: September 25, 2010, 16:10 by cthoman »

« Reply #26 on: September 25, 2010, 16:17 »
0
.
« Last Edit: July 16, 2014, 14:40 by attator »

« Reply #27 on: September 25, 2010, 16:52 »
0
I wouldn't sell my portfolio, but here are a couple of other issues for you to think through for transactions you might do - assuming iStock has no issues. It'd be good to know if you were allowed to keep the redeemed credit total of the year to date when the purchase occurred.

1) Would you require the seller to leave istock or could they build a new portfolio?

2) What rules on similars would you want to impose? I don't think I'm the only contributor who uses my own setting or family as models. If I can do a new shot of pumpkins at my front door or Christmas decorations around my fireplace to compete with the ones I sold you, you might not like that. OTOH I can't see agreeing never to use a particular model or set again.

3) If I were to sell to you and then start up again as an independent, to  the extent that any style I had showed in my work, you're then looking at competition from multiple sites. OTOH this isn't much different from one of Yuri's former workers becoming an iStock exclusive in that their photos look just about identical, so perhaps the issue isn't new.

4) What happens to model releases in such situations? I assume you'd want them all handed over along with the images.

5) Would the contract allow the seller to keep copies of the files for personal or portfolio use even if they never licensed them again?

6) Does this apply to photos only? Vectors provide a more complex set of issues as components can be reused in new illustrations in ways that don't apply to photos.

« Reply #28 on: September 25, 2010, 16:59 »
0
I'd be really surprised if Istock would go for this.  Lots of overhead in working out the transfer (internal to Istock) and assuring themselves that IP ownership was clear.  Bigger issue is that they might actually find themselves paying out royalties they claimed were possible but never expected to actually have to pay out.  :) They might also worry that as consolidation within Istock took place, a few big contributors would eventually have lots more negotiating power because they could threaten to walk with lots and lots of images.  
« Last Edit: September 25, 2010, 17:01 by Sadstock »

« Reply #29 on: September 25, 2010, 17:13 »
0
Gostwyck: You are essentially correct, and there is no true "intrinsic value" to a given portfolio. each one has his own figures and alternatives for the $$. its called the wonderfull world of financing (I spend 3 years studying it...). am I to understand your port is for sale ?

Jsnover: you indeed raise very important questions regarding such a deal, the answers of which will also affect final price.  they also change from person to person because of different port content (isolated on white VS family pics for example).
I rather cross these bridges once a serius seller comes along and after I get an OK from IS.
In todays world where multi bilion dollar corporations (did somebody say getty?) buy and sell other mulit bilion dollar corporations I am sure that such obstacles can be over come with some good will and negotiations.

I realy can't understand how there are so many contributotors out there and no way for effectivly selling complete ports/photos to one another.
its essentially like owning an yeilding asset (like a stock or corporate bond) with out the ability to sell the asset itself...

lisafx

« Reply #30 on: September 25, 2010, 17:15 »
0
Extremely good points Sadstock ^^.  This doesn't sound like a well reasoned game plan to me at all.  

FWIW, if I were selling my portfolio (which I am not), I would want the money up front.  What point is there to selling a portfolio but then taking on the risk of accepting a % of future sales instead of an up-front payment?!  The most attractive thing about selling would seem to be the ability to get cash up front and not have to worry about future sales trends.  

Kind of reminds me of selling your house but still having to pay repair bills for problems it may have down the line... ???

« Reply #31 on: September 25, 2010, 21:20 »
0
Extremely good points Sadstock ^^.  This doesn't sound like a well reasoned game plan to me at all.  

FWIW, if I were selling my portfolio (which I am not), I would want the money up front.  What point is there to selling a portfolio but then taking on the risk of accepting a % of future sales instead of an up-front payment?!  The most attractive thing about selling would seem to be the ability to get cash up front and not have to worry about future sales trends.  

Kind of reminds me of selling your house but still having to pay repair bills for problems it may have down the line... ???

Yep I agree - there's no point in adding to the risk in the transaction for the seller if the whole point is to take your money and run.

The main reason I don't see IS going for it is that it may change the royalties thy earn from sometime like 25% to 40% on those images. I don't think someone not achieving payout is really that much of an issue.

« Reply #32 on: September 25, 2010, 22:37 »
0
I wouldn't sell my portfolio, but here are a couple of other issues for you to think through for transactions you might do - assuming iStock has no issues. It'd be good to know if you were allowed to keep the redeemed credit total of the year to date when the purchase occurred.

1) Would you require the seller to leave istock or could they build a new portfolio?
- He can stay and upload new pictures, no problem...

2) What rules on similars would you want to impose? I don't think I'm the only contributor who uses my own setting or family as models. If I can do a new shot of pumpkins at my front door or Christmas decorations around my fireplace to compete with the ones I sold you, you might not like that. OTOH I can't see agreeing never to use a particular model or set again.
- The rules are: you have send the buyer a cd of all the files, and erase all copies and originals from hard disks..

3) If I were to sell to you and then start up again as an independent, to  the extent that any style I had showed in my work, you're then looking at competition from multiple sites. OTOH this isn't much different from one of Yuri's former workers becoming an iStock exclusive in that their photos look just about identical, so perhaps the issue isn't new.
- Portfolio have to be exclusive to Istockphoto. I cannot have duplicates on others sites, i'm an exlusive contributor.

4) What happens to model releases in such situations? I assume you'd want them all handed over along with the images.
- Model release just follow the pictures.

5) Would the contract allow the seller to keep copies of the files for personal or portfolio use even if they never licensed them again?
- No.

6) Does this apply to photos only? Vectors provide a more complex set of issues as components can be reused in new illustrations in ways that don't apply to photos.
- I'm mostly interested in photos portfolio. Others medias just won't help me much.

I would buy complete portfolios, and pay cash for them. My price is between 2.5 to 3 years of actual revenues. Portfolios must have some sort of compatibility with mine though.

Legally speaking, there's no rules anywhere on Istock that keeps us from doing it.

And yes, i'm thinking of it very seriously... it might eventually be more profitable than uploading new pictures.

RacePhoto

« Reply #33 on: September 25, 2010, 23:31 »
0
I suspect you'll struggle to agree a value with anyone. A portfolio seller tends to have an optimistic view on future returns (assumes that income will continue largely at current levels) whereas the buyer tends to take a much more pessimistic view (assumes that the income will fall due to competition, etc).

For instance I would only consider selling my port for 3x annual earnings minimum. However if I were buying I'd be unlikely to pay more than 2x for someone else's port.

Odd you should mention that. I'd wonder if the opposite logic may apply and still have the same conclusions? The seller would assume a pessimistic view, that sales are going to drop, so it's time to sell, while the buyer would assume there's still some income to be made, thus buying? (OK so what, we came up with the same results)

Yes, 2X the past annual sales, or actual sales for the last two years would be a fair value if I was buying. The positive side to a seller is, no work, no obligations, no risk that the commissions will soon bomb and there will be less. Also a one time payment for the rights to the exclusive account, transferring all rights, gives someone a nice little payday for two years work, all in one check!

As a buyer of equipment or anyone starting up a business, I'd want to be making a profit within the first two years, or at least after the first two years. Anything longer and it's too long to amortize the investment. With percentages dropping and sales possibly dropping. (hey look at the survey here, almost 50% claim they are already losing sales at IS because of the change?) I'd find it hard for someone selling to suddenly argue that their portfolio is worth more than two years earnings, when they have just announced that sales and profits are declining.  :o  ;D

Interesting contradiction, isn't it?

« Reply #34 on: September 26, 2010, 01:15 »
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.

« Reply #35 on: September 26, 2010, 01:44 »
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.

Its probably possible technically, but basically if it wasn't what iStock wanted there's nothing stopping them from terminating the supply agreement with 30 days notice. I doubt that they'd be keen for this sort of arrangement unless there were something in it for them.

lagereek

« Reply #36 on: September 26, 2010, 03:49 »
0
This action went on quite a bit in the old Trad-Photoagency world, with trannies and all that. Somehow with all this digital and billions of shots floating around, it seams an almost impossible task to administrate without comebacks and troubles.

« Reply #37 on: September 26, 2010, 03:50 »
0
also the upload limits could be too low to split between multiple members

« Reply #38 on: September 26, 2010, 04:04 »
0
A protfolie should be priced according to the renevue it produces.

If your port for instance gives you a 2.000 USD annual renevue, it could be looked at as the yearly interest for the asset (the portfolio).

At a marked interest of for instance 4% the value of the portfolio should be 50.000 $

The above assuming, that the portfolio continues to produce a renevue.

If the renevues goes down - for instance to aging or depleation, the values also goes down.

« Reply #39 on: September 26, 2010, 04:26 »
0
A protfolie should be priced according to the renevue it produces.

If your port for instance gives you a 2.000 USD annual renevue, it could be looked at as the yearly interest for the asset (the portfolio).

At a marked interest of for instance 4% the value of the portfolio should be 50.000 $

The above assuming, that the portfolio continues to produce a renevue.

If the renevues goes down - for instance to aging or depleation, the values also goes down.

Yes I agree but the big question is how much it goes down. Answer that and then you can come up with a value

traveler1116

« Reply #40 on: September 26, 2010, 06:23 »
0
How about waiting for IS to answer the clarifications first?

The formula will consist of an X% CAP rate, Y years return, and Z% depreciation in income each year.
Changes will need to be made depending on canister level and exclusivity status.
The exact XYZ figures have not yet been determined.
Other more "creative" payment schemes like the one you suggested will also be positively considered.
Everything is open for negations and the exact figures will be settled in person and not in the public forum, rest assure of that.

My original goal was to see if there is any one willing to sell (and by willing to sell I don't mean "looking for a sucker" to buy my port for 10x its worth)
Because of the recent changes in IS I figured there might be some people who don't want to trouble themselves with it and essentially "sell out".

The thing is nobody on here has asked if there are buyers for their portfolios so I assume most everyone is not looking to sell but might be willing to sell if the price is right.  I think if you are serious you should be coming with an offer or at least some idea of what you are willing to offer.

« Reply #41 on: September 26, 2010, 08:39 »
0
I've been asked several time, if I would sell my entire folio, but it never went trough, as I set the prises according to my example above.

I was at the last time bid 20$ per image, and thats not enough

« Reply #42 on: September 26, 2010, 12:18 »
0
With the proposed change on Istock, we might see more buyers than sellers...

« Reply #43 on: September 27, 2010, 09:27 »
0
completely agree..
« Last Edit: September 27, 2010, 12:25 by Reps168 »

helix7

« Reply #44 on: September 27, 2010, 10:22 »
0

$90k for mine, with no restrictions on me re-entering the business immediately.

Although that will likely never happen, for reasons discussed here and in previous threads on the subject. Selling a portfolio is tricky because agencies are under no obligation to make it easy for someone to transfer ownership of an image, let alone a portfolio of images. For the seller, it's fairly easy. Just remove every single image included in the sale from every account you have, and you're done. For the buyer, it's not so simple. Assuming that few of the agencies will accommodate a simple transfer of images from one account to another, there's the issue of re-uploading everything, getting everything approved again, etc. It's definitely more work from the buyer's perspective.

That said, if someone is serious about it, I'd be seriously interested in selling as long as there is nothing in the contract that keeps me from creating a new portfolio and staying in the microstock business.

« Reply #45 on: September 27, 2010, 10:41 »
0

$90k for mine, with no restrictions on me re-entering the business immediately.

Although that will likely never happen, for reasons discussed here and in previous threads on the subject. Selling a portfolio is tricky because agencies are under no obligation to make it easy for someone to transfer ownership of an image, let alone a portfolio of images. For the seller, it's fairly easy. Just remove every single image included in the sale from every account you have, and you're done. For the buyer, it's not so simple. Assuming that few of the agencies will accommodate a simple transfer of images from one account to another, there's the issue of re-uploading everything, getting everything approved again, etc. It's definitely more work from the buyer's perspective.

That said, if someone is serious about it, I'd be seriously interested in selling as long as there is nothing in the contract that keeps me from creating a new portfolio and staying in the microstock business.

Wow, even I would consider that, and I'm not looking to buy. I think your port is worth more than 90k, please take it as a compliment

« Reply #46 on: September 27, 2010, 11:50 »
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.

Same thoughts...
« Last Edit: September 28, 2010, 08:47 by Digital66 »

« Reply #47 on: September 27, 2010, 13:02 »
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.

Digital66: The main problem would be the upload limits imposed by IS. for us the current 60 per week isn't enough. for a group of people this problem gets worse...

« Reply #48 on: September 27, 2010, 14:01 »
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.

That's part of your risk.  I wouldn't sign away my right to keep on doing what's doin'.

« Reply #49 on: September 27, 2010, 14:23 »
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.

« 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 »

« Reply #75 on: September 28, 2010, 19:30 »
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. 
-----------------------------
Also one of the most valuable assets in a portfolio is best match placement.  I suspect that many contributors, myself included, could delete our top selling images, upload them again, and find that they just don't sell all that well because they did not get lucky with best match.  Of course there are lots of images that really are that good and would succeed again too, but its a gamble.

« Reply #76 on: December 01, 2010, 09:33 »
0
Hi,
I'm interested in selling. Please contact me at newbielink:mailto:[email protected] [nonactive]

Thank you!

« Reply #77 on: December 01, 2010, 11:46 »
0
Im curious to know if someone has sell or buy any port yet??

« Reply #78 on: December 01, 2010, 13:12 »
0
Im curious to know if someone has sell or buy any port yet??

I was almost conned into buying a worthless one.
lucky for me it was only "almost" :)

« Reply #79 on: December 02, 2010, 03:02 »
0
Point 1.: Isnt it much easier to hire some of us to create let say 100-200-500 etc. pictures in their own style and specified well selling subject insted of trying to grab someones port? I mean the result will be the same and it will be much easier for both sides - no copyright transfer of already submitted images, no trouble with deleting, deactivating, evaluating disputable value, risky reupload etc. Whats more, you will get new hiqgh quality high res pictures instead of some risky low-res old files. This is especially extreme risk at IS - Ive started in 2008 and I know there are many ports from 2005-2006 of the same size and much worse quality - but the pics got great search rank in the start and continue to sell like hotcakes - such ports have often up to 20-30x more sales then mine! However such pictures will be not accepted today.

Point 2.: 2 years income of the portfolio is pretty low price. I did stop uploading for several months and sales drop just to some level. Reupload of same pictures of course could lead to both raise or drop in sales, hard to tell. However 2 years is nothing - I see it after more then 10 years of selling pictures. The return might be slow but the pictures sell not year or two but very very long! The days when resolution of cameras multiplied every year are gone and even the low-end cameras now produce high quality images with nearly to zero noise up to iso400 - these pictures could be sold even in next 5-10 years for sure.

« Reply #80 on: December 31, 2010, 07:38 »
0
hi
i`m readdy to sell
newbielink:mailto:[email protected] [nonactive]
happy new year

Microbius

« Reply #81 on: December 31, 2010, 09:25 »
0
This was so obviously a non strater. The person asking for portfolios hadn't even done the smallest bit of research into it before coming forward.
And after claiming they already had a large income from IStock (I guess to make themselves sound more like a big player with purchasing power) it turns out their dial is hardly registering in the green.
This thread should be left to die, it's a fantasy.

« Reply #82 on: December 31, 2010, 10:04 »
0
This was so obviously a non strater. The person asking for portfolios hadn't even done the smallest bit of research into it before coming forward.
And after claiming they already had a large income from IStock (I guess to make themselves sound more like a big player with purchasing power) it turns out their dial is hardly registering in the green.
This thread should be left to die, it's a fantasy.

Why speak of things you obviously know nothing of  ?

Microbius

« Reply #83 on: December 31, 2010, 11:05 »
0
It's okay, anyone can read the thread, and look at the dial under your name and know exactly what the score is.
What I wrote is simply a summary of what has emerged as this thread has gone on.
I'm not commenting on anything that hasn't been very obvious from the discussion above, no complex deductions necessary.

« Reply #84 on: December 31, 2010, 11:17 »
0
It's okay, anyone can read the thread, and look at the dial under your name and know exactly what the score is.
What I wrote is simply a summary of what has emerged as this thread has gone on.
I'm not commenting on anything that hasn't been very obvious from the discussion above, no complex deductions necessary.

Again, you deduct your conclusions on facts you have no knowledge of...
The dial on near my nick name means what ? how much available funds I have for a purchase ? my seriusness ? my business experience ?
You don't know me, you dont know my figures, you dont know who (if at all) was and is in contact with me, you dont know anything actually...
So why make statements that are based on nothing ? this thread is old and much has changed since. If you have a question, feel free to ask. its a much better approach then try and insult another forum member.
FYI my stock income (which is over 500$ a month and growning constantly) is less then 2% of my monthly income. but I am not trying to start a pissing contest.
Just wanted to make sure that people don't think I don't mean business!

And for the rest of you, yes I am still looking for portfolios :)

PaulieWalnuts

  • We Have Exciting News For You
« Reply #85 on: December 31, 2010, 11:26 »
0
It's okay, anyone can read the thread, and look at the dial under your name and know exactly what the score is.

The dial totals images in the portfolio plus downloads.

So someone's dial could be redlined with 20,000 images and 1 download. Or 1 image and 20,000 downloads.

So, by itself, it really doesn't mean much other than they have a lot of something.

Microbius

« Reply #86 on: December 31, 2010, 11:55 »
0
Please reread my post. It doesn't say that you don't have any funds. What it said is that
1. you implied that you were a very successful IStock contributor:

pepito:
i doubt if anyone who gets less than substantial income from istock would be offering to buy an entire portfolio.  i'm assuming they already have selling power on their own.

you:
pepito: good assumption.

= fantasy, see your dial which clearly shows, no not a good assumption

2. that this is not a serious business offer as you had not thought through any of the implications. Anyone can verify this for themselves by reading the thread from the start.

« Reply #87 on: December 31, 2010, 12:24 »
0
Please reread my post. It doesn't say that you don't have any funds. What it said is that
1. you implied that you were a very successful IStock contributor:

pepito:
i doubt if anyone who gets less than substantial income from istock would be offering to buy an entire portfolio.  i'm assuming they already have selling power on their own.

you:
pepito: good assumption.

= fantasy, see your dial which clearly shows, no not a good assumption

2. that this is not a serious business offer as you had not thought through any of the implications. Anyone can verify this for themselves by reading the thread from the start.


1. "substantial" is a subjective term. I make over 500$ a month from MS and plan to pass 1,000$ a month in about 8 months time. For some
this is peanuts for some this is a lot.
2. Not only have have I went over all of the implications, I also spoke of this with my accountent, my CPR, a lawyer, and IS themselves.

Try not to be so narrow minded and judge people by the silly dial beside their nick...
And if you if you can't just have some patience and watch my dial rise :)

RacePhoto

« Reply #88 on: December 31, 2010, 17:24 »
0
Wow CPR, hope you got better? :)

So what did the guru's at IS say about buying someone else's portfolio? We had many variations on the suspected answer. Lets assume they said it was OK because you are still looking. And then do you take over the account, because photos can't be transferred. So you would have multiple IS accounts under your control, none could be exclusive, unless all were. Anything to add?

And I still say two years projected earnings is a fair price to pay and fair price for a seller. The buyer is taking all the risk, we don't know what the commissions will be. They already dropped since the thread started. No one knows what the sales will be for aging images. Like a stock, the past performance is no guarantee of what will happen in the future. If the images are worth so much to the seller, they wouldn't be considering selling, would they!

How do you as a buyer, propose to control all the other copies of the same images, that are on multiple other sites, for sale RF and some have been sold?

I think it's looks pretty complicated.


Please reread my post. It doesn't say that you don't have any funds. What it said is that
1. you implied that you were a very successful IStock contributor:

pepito:
i doubt if anyone who gets less than substantial income from istock would be offering to buy an entire portfolio.  i'm assuming they already have selling power on their own.

you:
pepito: good assumption.

= fantasy, see your dial which clearly shows, no not a good assumption

2. that this is not a serious business offer as you had not thought through any of the implications. Anyone can verify this for themselves by reading the thread from the start.


1. "substantial" is a subjective term. I make over 500$ a month from MS and plan to pass 1,000$ a month in about 8 months time. For some
this is peanuts for some this is a lot.
2. Not only have have I went over all of the implications, I also spoke of this with my accountent, my CPR, a lawyer, and IS themselves.

Try not to be so narrow minded and judge people by the silly dial beside their nick...
And if you if you can't just have some patience and watch my dial rise :)

« Reply #89 on: December 31, 2010, 18:46 »
0
For me, the purpose of buying a portfolio was to boost sales on Istock only, to reach the Required Credit to stay at the same level, so it has to be an "exclusive Istock portfolio".

The actual problem to do so is the procedure required from Istock:

1-Remove all the files from the sold account
2-Re-submit all files to my istock account with releases and selling contract. All files must pass the actual inspection criterias.

This give me two options:

-Buying only top selling images and resummit them
-Or buying the account without transferring anything. This doesn't help me much, and I'm not sure Istock would appreciate either...

I'm still looking for interesting portfolio, and a solution, but if you have one to sell, put the link here to your portfolio, or send me an email, so I can take a look at it.

Tony

« Reply #90 on: December 31, 2010, 19:14 »
0
Funny . If you had to take them down first from the old contributor. Buy the portfolio and if they make them undergo inspection as a "new" image. How many would pass current inspection "standards"?

« Reply #91 on: December 31, 2010, 19:18 »
0
It makes things much more complicated. But i'm working on a solution...

« Reply #92 on: January 01, 2011, 17:59 »
0
It makes things much more complicated. But i'm working on a solution...

How mysterious!

vlad_the_imp

« Reply #93 on: January 01, 2011, 18:02 »
0
Quote
is less then 2% of my monthly income.

So you earn about $300,000 per year or thereabouts, yet you're still messing about uploading images? Why?

« Reply #94 on: January 01, 2011, 18:07 »
0
Quote
is less then 2% of my monthly income.

So you earn about $300,000 per year or thereabouts, yet you're still messing about uploading images? Why?

No, that is +- my income, not profit (I wish...)
I don't upload anything. I don't even know how to hold a camera.
My partner does though :)

« Reply #95 on: January 01, 2011, 18:37 »
0
Hi All,

 If you have images that could fit www.spacesimages.com style and needs we would be interested in purchasing images. PM me if you re interested.

Best,
Jonathan


 

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