pancakes

MicrostockGroup Sponsors


Author Topic: Revised Artists Supply Agreement  (Read 54755 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

ShadySue

  • There is a crack in everything
« Reply #225 on: September 03, 2011, 16:54 »
0
I don't know if anybody else noticed but Pastor Scott's questions on the istock ASA thread keep getting deleted. He's tried twice and twice I see them disappear. Does corporate not want to answer questions anymore? I have his questions here:
<SNIP>
Thanks for posting these questions. They are very important, and I had missed his posts.


« Reply #226 on: September 03, 2011, 18:37 »
0
I did see the posts and I guess their logic for deleting them was that the thread was ostensibly for questions about the new ASA and the pastor's post was more a comment than a question - the questions were rhetorical, as I know we all know the answers.

We're effed, they rule and if we don't like it, we should just leave. Ugly stuff. Even uglier when they try to tack on a veneer of how it's all for our benefit.

And how did I end up here, fuming about iStock (again) when I really was looking for a recipe to cook golden beets!!

red

« Reply #227 on: September 03, 2011, 19:30 »
0
Warm Golden Beet Salad with Greens and Almonds

1 bunch beets, both tops and roots
Olive oil
Salt and freshly ground black pepper
4 cloves garlic, minced
4 ounces goat cheese, crumbled
2/3 cup toasted almond slivers

Heat the oven to 425F. Line a 9-inch square baking pan or cake tin with a big square of foil, large enough to complete enclose the beet roots. Lightly rinse the beet roots to remove any really clumpy dirt and pat them dry. Place them in the foil square and lightly drizzle with olive oil and sprinkle generously with salt and pepper. Fold up the foil and crease to seal. Bake the beets for 60 minutes or until they can be just pierced with a fork. Set aside to cool.

Meanwhile, chop the beet greens into bite-size ribbons. Discard the stalks between the roots and where the leaves start, but chop the leaf ribs along with the leaves. Rinse thoroughly to remove all traces of dirt and grit. In a large skillet, heat a drizzle of olive oil over medium heat and add the garlic. Cook on low for about 5 minutes or until the garlic is golden and fragrant. Add the chopped leaves and stir to coat with the garlic. Cook on medium-low for about 10 minutes or until the leaves are soft and tender. Remove from the heat.

When the beets are cool, rub them with a paper towel to remove the skin. Then chop into bitesized pieces and toss with the cooked greens, goat cheese, and almonds. Taste and season with salt and pepper to taste. Serve warm or cold. (This also makes an excellent pressed sandwich filling, especially with some extra goat cheese.)

« Reply #228 on: September 03, 2011, 19:45 »
0
Warm Golden Beet Salad with Greens and Almonds

1 bunch beets, both tops and roots
Olive oil
Salt and freshly ground black pepper
4 cloves garlic, minced
4 ounces goat cheese, crumbled
2/3 cup toasted almond slivers

Heat the oven to 425F. Line a 9-inch square baking pan or cake tin with a big square of foil, large enough to complete enclose the beet roots. Lightly rinse the beet roots to remove any really clumpy dirt and pat them dry. Place them in the foil square and lightly drizzle with olive oil and sprinkle generously with salt and pepper. Fold up the foil and crease to seal. Bake the beets for 60 minutes or until they can be just pierced with a fork. Set aside to cool.

Meanwhile, chop the beet greens into bite-size ribbons. Discard the stalks between the roots and where the leaves start, but chop the leaf ribs along with the leaves. Rinse thoroughly to remove all traces of dirt and grit. In a large skillet, heat a drizzle of olive oil over medium heat and add the garlic. Cook on low for about 5 minutes or until the garlic is golden and fragrant. Add the chopped leaves and stir to coat with the garlic. Cook on medium-low for about 10 minutes or until the leaves are soft and tender. Remove from the heat.

When the beets are cool, rub them with a paper towel to remove the skin. Then chop into bitesized pieces and toss with the cooked greens, goat cheese, and almonds. Taste and season with salt and pepper to taste. Serve warm or cold. (This also makes an excellent pressed sandwich filling, especially with some extra goat cheese.)

No link to a photo in your port. to illustrate?  ;)

Microbius

« Reply #229 on: September 04, 2011, 04:56 »
0
Could the new supply agreement just be the first step in devaluing the work that is housed on competitors sites?
I mean just imagine if Is could just give away all the work on IStock from independent contributors without charge.
Suddenly the majority of images on the other sites are worthless, the value of exclusive images goes through the roof.
Watch the skies.

fujiko

« Reply #230 on: September 04, 2011, 06:44 »
0
I see it in a very simple way.

Independents must see agencies just like agencies see independents, they are replaceable. There are more agencies out there and more will come in the future.
If any agency does something that hurts other agencies, it must compensate the loss with an increase in revenue or otherwise it must be ditched as a bad agency.

So, if istock at any time reduces the prices so much to compete with shutterstock and this results in less sales on shutterstock with no increase in revenue on istock, istock must be replaced and all content deleted. Not doing so is just a bad business decision.

« Reply #231 on: September 04, 2011, 07:26 »
0
Could the new supply agreement just be the first step in devaluing the work that is housed on competitors sites?
I mean just imagine if Is could just give away all the work on IStock from independent contributors without charge.
Suddenly the majority of images on the other sites are worthless, the value of exclusive images goes through the roof.
Watch the skies.
There's a small problem with that.  People might tolerate low commissions but they will remove their portfolios if they start giving their images away for free.  It does make me wonder how low a commission some people will put up with though.  Would it be 10% or even 5%?  I'm sure that istock or FT will want to find out.  That's why I don't see much future in microstock, unless they can guarantee that commissions wont go any lower than they are now.

I also wonder if a site will try giving away images for free, sharing advertising revenue with contributors.  I'm not talking about the low commercial value stuff that the sites already give away.  A few small sites have tried this but none of the big sites.

People that can't get in to shutterstock and get lots rejected by the other big sites might want other ways to make money from their images.  Microstock was a new market but there could be something else coming along one day.

Cogent Marketing

« Reply #232 on: September 04, 2011, 14:11 »
0
Warm Golden Beet Salad with Greens and Almonds

1 bunch beets, both tops and roots
Olive oil
Salt and freshly ground black pepper
4 cloves garlic, minced
4 ounces goat cheese, crumbled
2/3 cup toasted almond slivers

Heat the oven to 425F. Line a 9-inch square baking pan or cake tin with a big square of foil, large enough to complete enclose the beet roots. Lightly rinse the beet roots to remove any really clumpy dirt and pat them dry. Place them in the foil square and lightly drizzle with olive oil and sprinkle generously with salt and pepper. Fold up the foil and crease to seal. Bake the beets for 60 minutes or until they can be just pierced with a fork. Set aside to cool.

Meanwhile, chop the beet greens into bite-size ribbons. Discard the stalks between the roots and where the leaves start, but chop the leaf ribs along with the leaves. Rinse thoroughly to remove all traces of dirt and grit. In a large skillet, heat a drizzle of olive oil over medium heat and add the garlic. Cook on low for about 5 minutes or until the garlic is golden and fragrant. Add the chopped leaves and stir to coat with the garlic. Cook on medium-low for about 10 minutes or until the leaves are soft and tender. Remove from the heat.

When the beets are cool, rub them with a paper towel to remove the skin. Then chop into bitesized pieces and toss with the cooked greens, goat cheese, and almonds. Taste and season with salt and pepper to taste. Serve warm or cold. (This also makes an excellent pressed sandwich filling, especially with some extra goat cheese.)

I know this was for Jsnover but thanks. I might give this a try. I bet it's good in a sandwich with Feta cheese too.

« Reply #233 on: September 04, 2011, 15:36 »
0
@ cuppacoffee

Many thanks - I didn't come back here yesterday, but had some wonderful roasted golden beets for dinner. I'll save this recipe for next time though.

helix7

« Reply #234 on: September 04, 2011, 17:13 »
0
I don't know if anybody else noticed but Pastor Scott's questions on the istock ASA thread keep getting deleted. He's tried twice and twice I see them disappear. Does corporate not want to answer questions anymore? I have his questions here:

From Pastor Scott:
Post:So I've read, waited, re-read and have my questions. Thanks for any forthright answers. I realize these are mutli phrased questions so just do what you can...

He definitely raises some good points, especially the one about how the PP is viewed as a negative since exclusives can opt-out, and yet it's being spun as a positive in relation to the new ASA and forced independent artist participation.

Unfortunately it all just speaks to the ongoing issue of istock HQ blatantly lying to their contributors. We all realized pretty quickly that the whole "unsustainable" line was B.S., they were less than forthright in the fraud debacle, and now it's no surprise that they're giving us conflicting logic behind the new ASA. They can't spin this one perfectly for everyone, so they'll just keep telling exclusives that opting out is a perk while telling independents that their forced inclusion is a benefit, all the while hoping we're too dumb to realize that the stories don't fit alongside each other.
« Last Edit: September 04, 2011, 17:15 by helix7 »

lisafx

« Reply #235 on: September 04, 2011, 17:23 »
0
They can't spin this one perfectly for everyone, so they'll just keep telling exclusives that opting out is a perk while telling independents that their forced inclusion is a benefit, all the while hoping we're too dumb to realize that the stories don't fit alongside each other.

IMO they probably won't have to dance around this contradiction for long.  I am sure sometime within the next few months they will be able to tout the benefits of forced inclusion to everyone ;)

jbarber873

« Reply #236 on: September 04, 2011, 18:33 »
0
@ cuppacoffee

Many thanks - I didn't come back here yesterday, but had some wonderful roasted golden beets for dinner. I'll save this recipe for next time though.

And if you get any beet juice on your clothes, you can refer back to the laundry thread... ;D

helix7

« Reply #237 on: September 04, 2011, 19:42 »
0
They can't spin this one perfectly for everyone, so they'll just keep telling exclusives that opting out is a perk while telling independents that their forced inclusion is a benefit, all the while hoping we're too dumb to realize that the stories don't fit alongside each other.

IMO they probably won't have to dance around this contradiction for long.  I am sure sometime within the next few months they will be able to tout the benefits of forced inclusion to everyone ;)

I'm sure you're right, Lisa. It's really just a matter of time before this "perk" of exclusivity goes away. And I'm sure they find a way to make it sound like it's still a good thing for everyone.

« Reply #238 on: September 04, 2011, 20:09 »
0
I stopped submitting to IS long ago, but my old images still make a few hundred bucks per month there (and so over $1K for IS). If iStock does put exclusive imgs into PP, and so poses more of a threat to SS, I for one pledge on my sacred honor that I will remove my port from IS, no matter how big a PITA it is to do so.
They can't spin this one perfectly for everyone, so they'll just keep telling exclusives that opting out is a perk while telling independents that their forced inclusion is a benefit, all the while hoping we're too dumb to realize that the stories don't fit alongside each other.
IMO they probably won't have to dance around this contradiction for long.  I am sure sometime within the next few months they will be able to tout the benefits of forced inclusion to everyone ;)
I'm sure you're right, Lisa. It's really just a matter of time before this "perk" of exclusivity goes away. And I'm sure they find a way to make it sound like it's still a good thing for everyone.

ShadySue

  • There is a crack in everything
« Reply #239 on: September 05, 2011, 05:45 »
0
Have they said when they're going to re-issue the clarified ASA?
Or, in Canadian Law, does an amibiguous ASA with various 'clarifications' on a forum count as one legal entity?

« Reply #240 on: September 05, 2011, 08:45 »
0
They can't spin this one perfectly for everyone, so they'll just keep telling exclusives that opting out is a perk while telling independents that their forced inclusion is a benefit, all the while hoping we're too dumb to realize that the stories don't fit alongside each other.

IMO they probably won't have to dance around this contradiction for long.  I am sure sometime within the next few months they will be able to tout the benefits of forced inclusion to everyone ;)

They will create Vetta PP, where everyone gets pissed on!

I'm sure you're right, Lisa. It's really just a matter of time before this "perk" of exclusivity goes away. And I'm sure they find a way to make it sound like it's still a good thing for everyone.

Microbius

« Reply #241 on: September 06, 2011, 03:17 »
0
Could the new supply agreement just be the first step in devaluing the work that is housed on competitors sites?
I mean just imagine if Is could just give away all the work on IStock from independent contributors without charge.
Suddenly the majority of images on the other sites are worthless, the value of exclusive images goes through the roof.
Watch the skies.
There's a small problem with that.  People might tolerate low commissions but they will remove their portfolios if they start giving their images away for free.  It does make me wonder how low a commission some people will put up with though.  Would it be 10% or even 5%?  I'm sure that istock or FT will want to find out.  That's why I don't see much future in microstock, unless they can guarantee that commissions wont go any lower than they are now.

I also wonder if a site will try giving away images for free, sharing advertising revenue with contributors.  I'm not talking about the low commercial value stuff that the sites already give away.  A few small sites have tried this but none of the big sites.

People that can't get in to shutterstock and get lots rejected by the other big sites might want other ways to make money from their images.  Microstock was a new market but there could be something else coming along one day.
I was just pointing out that it could be seen as advantageous for them to offer non exclusive images at the lowest possible price to devalue the worth of other agencies' collections. It was a bit tongue in cheek/ conspiracy theory.

« Reply #242 on: September 06, 2011, 04:47 »
0
They can't spin this one perfectly for everyone, so they'll just keep telling exclusives that opting out is a perk while telling independents that their forced inclusion is a benefit, all the while hoping we're too dumb to realize that the stories don't fit alongside each other.

IMO they probably won't have to dance around this contradiction for long.  I am sure sometime within the next few months they will be able to tout the benefits of forced inclusion to everyone ;)

I'm sure you're right, Lisa. It's really just a matter of time before this "perk" of exclusivity goes away. And I'm sure they find a way to make it sound like it's still a good thing for everyone.

Whilst I do share many of the misgivings voiced here about the policy of putting all non-exclusive content into the PP, and I do have my doubts about the direction IS are taking with this, I would point out that the Exclusive perk isn't about being able to "opt out" - it's about being able to choose different price points, and pricing models, for different images.

Sean for instance won't have anything to do with the PP, some put in everything they can, while others put in poorly performing images hoping they'll pick up sales in the new platform.  I guess we'll see how it pans out.

Isn't choice supposed to be a good thing?

lagereek

« Reply #243 on: September 06, 2011, 05:27 »
0
I see it in a very simple way.

Independents must see agencies just like agencies see independents, they are replaceable. There are more agencies out there and more will come in the future.
If any agency does something that hurts other agencies, it must compensate the loss with an increase in revenue or otherwise it must be ditched as a bad agency.

So, if istock at any time reduces the prices so much to compete with shutterstock and this results in less sales on shutterstock with no increase in revenue on istock, istock must be replaced and all content deleted. Not doing so is just a bad business decision.

Only trouble is, there are very few agencies you can rely and depend on, apart from that you have a whole heap of sites, where about 95% are simply"trying" themselves. For an independant, SS and IS,  are no substituts for each other, you have to go with both, especially since SS, dont enforce exclusivity. DT, can at times produce marvellous results and FT, is just kind of hanging in there, after their devastating best match change.
There are tons of sites but very, very few that are dependable.

« Reply #244 on: September 06, 2011, 05:40 »
0
Whilst I do share many of the misgivings voiced here about the policy of putting all non-exclusive content into the PP, and I do have my doubts about the direction IS are taking with this, I would point out that the Exclusive perk isn't about being able to "opt out" - it's about being able to choose different price points, and pricing models, for different images.

Sean for instance won't have anything to do with the PP, some put in everything they can, while others put in poorly performing images hoping they'll pick up sales in the new platform.  I guess we'll see how it pans out.

Isn't choice supposed to be a good thing?

Choice is indeed a good thing provided that the options are reasonable. The huge mistake they made, when launching the PP, was not to match the 30c sub commissions independents were getting from StockXpert before they shut it down.

Of course shutting down StockXpert was another huge mistake in itself. StockXpert's website was streets ahead of TS, it already had all the independent content and even a decent customer base too. It would have been so much easier to have modified StockXpert into an exclusively subs/image-pack site. More muddled thinking from TPTB at Getty.

lagereek

« Reply #245 on: September 06, 2011, 05:46 »
0
Whilst I do share many of the misgivings voiced here about the policy of putting all non-exclusive content into the PP, and I do have my doubts about the direction IS are taking with this, I would point out that the Exclusive perk isn't about being able to "opt out" - it's about being able to choose different price points, and pricing models, for different images.

Sean for instance won't have anything to do with the PP, some put in everything they can, while others put in poorly performing images hoping they'll pick up sales in the new platform.  I guess we'll see how it pans out.

Isn't choice supposed to be a good thing?

Choice is indeed a good thing provided that the options are reasonable. The huge mistake they made, when launching the PP, was not to match the 30c sub commissions independents were getting from StockXpert before they shut it down.

Of course shutting down StockXpert was another huge mistake in itself. StockXpert's website was streets ahead of TS, it already had all the independent content and even a decent customer base too. It would have been so much easier to have modified StockXpert into an exclusively subs/image-pack site. More muddled thinking from TPTB at Getty.

Agree!  one of the biggest mistakes was to close stockXpert, they had it already made. About the PP,  just wait and see,  I bet when time comes, they will all be supplying PP, even the die-hard screamers within Getty/IS,  will follow and sooner or later Getty wont give them any option.
They will do anything and everything to topple SS.
« Last Edit: September 06, 2011, 05:48 by lagereek »

fujiko

« Reply #246 on: September 06, 2011, 07:45 »
0
I see it in a very simple way.

Independents must see agencies just like agencies see independents, they are replaceable. There are more agencies out there and more will come in the future.
If any agency does something that hurts other agencies, it must compensate the loss with an increase in revenue or otherwise it must be ditched as a bad agency.

So, if istock at any time reduces the prices so much to compete with shutterstock and this results in less sales on shutterstock with no increase in revenue on istock, istock must be replaced and all content deleted. Not doing so is just a bad business decision.

Only trouble is, there are very few agencies you can rely and depend on, apart from that you have a whole heap of sites, where about 95% are simply"trying" themselves. For an independant, SS and IS,  are no substituts for each other, you have to go with both, especially since SS, dont enforce exclusivity. DT, can at times produce marvellous results and FT, is just kind of hanging in there, after their devastating best match change.
There are tons of sites but very, very few that are dependable.

Well, for now site changes have had only an effect on their own sales without affecting other sites.

What I mean is that if any agency "steals" costumers from another agency and the result is a loss for the contributor, it make no sense to continue working with the agency that is hurting the revenue on other agencies.

You are right in that they are not interchangeable right now and many are just disappointing.

But in the long run, one has to stick with the agencies that make the market grow, not the ones that shrink it.

rubyroo

« Reply #247 on: September 06, 2011, 07:59 »
0
Of course shutting down StockXpert was another huge mistake in itself. StockXpert's website was streets ahead of TS, it already had all the independent content and even a decent customer base too. It would have been so much easier to have modified StockXpert into an exclusively subs/image-pack site.

Amen to that, and to the 30c subs fee.

Well said.

« Reply #248 on: September 06, 2011, 10:53 »
0

Whilst I do share many of the misgivings voiced here about the policy of putting all non-exclusive content into the PP, and I do have my doubts about the direction IS are taking with this, I would point out that the Exclusive perk isn't about being able to "opt out" - it's about being able to choose different price points, and pricing models, for different images.

Sean for instance won't have anything to do with the PP, some put in everything they can, while others put in poorly performing images hoping they'll pick up sales in the new platform.  I guess we'll see how it pans out.

Isn't choice supposed to be a good thing?

Choice is great.  Enjoy it while you still have it.


 

Related Topics

  Subject / Started by Replies Last post
9 Replies
4738 Views
Last post January 30, 2009, 11:18
by hali
0 Replies
1972 Views
Last post January 09, 2010, 02:59
by Anita Potter
4 Replies
2594 Views
Last post January 21, 2015, 09:01
by dsonnenburg
22 Replies
5896 Views
Last post April 26, 2018, 07:51
by Uncle Pete
2 Replies
2472 Views
Last post November 11, 2021, 22:52
by k_t_g

Sponsors

Mega Bundle of 5,900+ Professional Lightroom Presets

Microstock Poll Results

Sponsors