Author Topic: Revised Artists Supply Agreement (Read 62916 times)

lisafx · « **Reply #200 on:** August 31, 2011, 11:14 »

Lobo keeps inserting the word "currently", as in there are "currently" NO plans to MOVE material from Istock to other outlets.

"Currently", as I read it, somewhat negates the whole rest of the statement. They clearly aren't ruling it out for the future.

ShadySue · « **Reply #201 on:** August 31, 2011, 11:19 »

Quote from: lisafx on August 31, 2011, 11:14

Lobo keeps inserting the word "currently", as in there are "currently" NO plans to MOVE material from Istock to other outlets.

"Currently", as I read it, somewhat negates the whole rest of the statement. They clearly aren't ruling it out for the future.

"Currently" means it is definitely on the agenda for the near future.
It doesn't seem that long ago that Lobo said there were no "current" plans to introduce editorial.

cobalt · « **Reply #202 on:** August 31, 2011, 11:22 »

A few years ago istock deleted content that hadn´t sold even once in 3 (or was it 5?) years. As the library keeps growing, I wouldn´t be surprised if something like that happens again. You even have contributors demanding it.

What I take from Lobo and JJ´s statement that the new ASA is not designed to remove content from istock (like removing all Vetta content and putting it on getty).

Obviously they can change that with 30 days notice.

I wish they would tell us more about that new upload process that is coming. I feel we are missing part of the picture here.

Risamay · « **Reply #203 on:** August 31, 2011, 12:16 »

Frances Twitty rocks.

Since I'm still banned by demand on iStock and don't care to ask Lobo to lift my self-imposed gag, I'll WooYay her page 31 post here.

For anyone who's excited about a closer association with Getty, get a clue. Read France's post and you won't be doing cartwheels about the new iStock ASA.

Quote

I've been trying to put my mind around all of this. I haven't been super involved lately here in the forums because of some personal issues (my husband was in a motorcycle accident this summer -- he's basically fine now, but recovery will take approx. a year -- that's why some of you haven't heard from me in awhile!)

Anyway, back in April 2011, I cancelled my contract with Getty and no longer upload images to them. It was for a variety of reasons -- their take it or leave it new contract, their distributional delusions indicating they had the 'right' to put my work anywhere they * well pleased, their copyright issues whereby contributors were NOT given credit for their work, their inconsistent royalties (as low as 4 cents on high quality work and my only Vetta sale through them that netted me a whopping $1), their low volumes which never made any sense when you considered how many 'partners' they distributed to which made me question whether or not all sales were accurately accounted for and whether or not we received appropriate payment (not easy to tell with the copyright issue), etc.

I opted to 'downstream' myself to only istock. Joining the PP at istock was never a good idea to me, so I was strictly in istock proper. Now, with this new ASA, I'm being upstreamed again!!! Back to all of Getty's problems. And some people think this is a good thing. How exactly is this a good thing?? Once in a blue moon you *might* get a decent sale. More often than not, revenues and volumes are disappointing. Just ask any Getty contributor.

I am not pleased about istock's new ASA. They are doing the SAME THING to contributors that Getty did -- mandating a contract that should be negotiated. Exclusives have lost control over their images (even though it is being said it is an upstreaming, I've seen the upstream and it ain't all that). Non-exclusives are REALLY being treated unfairly as well. Those of us long-termers with larger ports cannot/will not close our accounts as it is a MAJOR pain to do so and will result in at least a temporary lack of income, which most of us cannot afford. But over time, these decisions will wash through and the ramifications will be seen. This might just be the final nail in istock's coffin.

Some of you woo-yayers might want to jump back into the reality of the situation.

Source (though who knows if Lobo will leave it live on IS):
http://www.istockphoto.com/forum_messages.php?threadid=333754&page=31

nruboc · « **Reply #204 on:** August 31, 2011, 12:32 »

Quote from: Ploink on August 31, 2011, 01:45

It's posts by senior people at IS like this: click that would scare me sh*tless, if I'd earn more than 50 bucks a month over there:

>>As stated earlier in this thread, our entire uploading, inspection & administration systems are being redefined as we speak. I am not talking details here : I am talking a brand new way to operate. It will take months still to see the obvious (and it will be huge). In the meantime, as also stated, we are looking at quick wins in order to make our system work better.<< (by JJRD)

Also note how the lawyer and Lobo carefully use the words mirror/move all the time. Although there are no plans to move anything "at this time", you can bet that within twelve months low-selling independent files will be "moved" downstream instead of "mirrored", thus clearing the "main collection" at IS. Voilà, Thinkstock, the new dollar bin - no make that $.28 bin

That post jumped out at me too. You just know that behind the scenes, they're looking at what some contributors are making and saying to themselves "How can we get more of that".

Pixart · « **Reply #205 on:** August 31, 2011, 13:30 »

I don't even know what they pay for Thinkstock downloads. Was it .25 or is it even lower than that now?

I have no problem with subs whatsoever, but I demand that they be resonable. XXXL or Vectors paying .25 is NOT resonable. It's utterly stupid, stupid stupid. XS, S maybe M I could live with.

This is what I'm pretty sure is going to happen with our content, I'm not sure that they will "move" anything when they can simply "skim" like they do in other industries:
-Content is mirrored on another seller within the family. The other seller is effectively a totally separate entity, but still a member of the Getty family.
-Seller charges customers $10 per download (for easy math)
-Seller splits 50% or less with their supplier (Istock) = $5.
-Istock give it's Independent 15% of their $5 = $0.75.
-Getty has chopped another 7.5% from our earnings thinking we wouldn't even notice.
-To add further insult, Istock will likely use the new clause (paraphrase) to "deduct costs associated".

I don't read the design mags, but haven't I heard they are not advertising Istock? Anyone know which company they are pushing?

ShadySue · « **Reply #206 on:** August 31, 2011, 14:07 »

Quote from: Pixart on August 31, 2011, 13:30

I don't read the design mags, but haven't I heard they are not advertising Istock? Anyone know which company they are pushing?

It's up to iStock to advertise in mags, otherwise the mags are going to mention whoever's advertising wih them.
For a while iStock advertised everywhere, then they seemed to stop advertising in the consumer and prosumer mags. When they were advertising, so were all the others, including several that have since folded. Over the gap, I was only seeing ads for Shutterstock (in mags on newsagents' shelves in the UK).
Recently iStock took to advertising in a magazine aimed at professional photographers. That must say something, though it seemed as though they were selling coals to Newcastle. Still haven't found any in, for example, the mags aimed at professional web designers (which I often have time to flick through at WHS at the station). Since Borders went bust, I don't see things like dgusa or Photoshop User.

lisafx · « **Reply #207 on:** August 31, 2011, 14:10 »

Quote from: Pixart on August 31, 2011, 13:30

I don't even know what they pay for Thinkstock downloads. Was it .25 or is it even lower than that now?

It went up to .28 a few months back. The tactic of starving them for content forced them to up royalties. Now that all independents are pushed into the PP that may change though.

bunhill · « **Reply #208 on:** August 31, 2011, 15:07 »

Does hardly anyone read design magazines anymore Sue?

cthoman · « **Reply #209 on:** August 31, 2011, 15:13 »

Quote from: bunhill on August 31, 2011, 15:07

Does hardly anyone read design magazines anymore Sue?

I thought we were just supposed to look at the pictures?

ShadySue · « **Reply #210 on:** August 31, 2011, 15:28 »

I do wonder, however, if there are some more buyers around. I'm selling some older, low-selling files, BUT some of them are low-demand, low-supply files, so not subject to the vagaries of the Best Match.
(Others are in larger-demand/supply areas, which just shows that low-selling files aren't necessarily uncommercial files, they just get lost.)

jamirae · « **Reply #211 on:** August 31, 2011, 16:28 »

Quote from: ShadySue on August 31, 2011, 14:07

Quote from: Pixart on August 31, 2011, 13:30
I don't read the design mags, but haven't I heard they are not advertising Istock? Anyone know which company they are pushing?
It's up to iStock to advertise in mags, otherwise the mags are going to mention whoever's advertising wih them.
For a while iStock advertised everywhere, then they seemed to stop advertising in the consumer and prosumer mags. When they were advertising, so were all the others, including several that have since folded. Over the gap, I was only seeing ads for Shutterstock (in mags on newsagents' shelves in the UK).
Recently iStock took to advertising in a magazine aimed at professional photographers. That must say something, though it seemed as though they were selling coals to Newcastle. Still haven't found any in, for example, the mags aimed at professional web designers (which I often have time to flick through at WHS at the station). Since Borders went bust, I don't see things like dgusa or Photoshop User.

the one magazine i read and subscribe to regularly, Photoshop User (comes with the NAPP membership), still seems to always a have a 2-page istock ad right inside the front cover. To that extent I do not see the istock ads lessening. NAPP also has a very close relationship with iStock and many of the tutorials you find in the magazine use istock images (properly credited with the photog's name).

briciola · « **Reply #212 on:** August 31, 2011, 18:28 »

Quote from: lisafx on August 31, 2011, 14:10

Quote from: Pixart on August 31, 2011, 13:30
I don't even know what they pay for Thinkstock downloads. Was it .25 or is it even lower than that now?

It went up to .28 a few months back. The tactic of starving them for content forced them to up royalties. Now that all independents are pushed into the PP that may change though.

that was my very first thought, they can now push it back down and almost nobody will withdraw their files as it'll mean taking them off IS too

Jo Ann Snover · « **Reply #213 on:** August 31, 2011, 19:58 »

Quote from: briciola on August 31, 2011, 18:28

Quote from: lisafx on August 31, 2011, 14:10
Quote from: Pixart on August 31, 2011, 13:30
I don't even know what they pay for Thinkstock downloads. Was it .25 or is it even lower than that now?

It went up to .28 a few months back. The tactic of starving them for content forced them to up royalties. Now that all independents are pushed into the PP that may change though.
that was my very first thought, they can now push it back down and almost nobody will withdraw their files as it'll mean taking them off IS too

I wouldn't be too sure about that last part. I'm already on the fence about leaving iStock completely and that sort of push would be likely be enough to do it. As would another cut in independent's royalty rates - all these income reducers just take away one more reason to stay.

jamirae · « **Reply #214 on:** August 31, 2011, 20:49 »

Quote from: jsnover on August 31, 2011, 19:58

Quote from: briciola on August 31, 2011, 18:28
Quote from: lisafx on August 31, 2011, 14:10
Quote from: Pixart on August 31, 2011, 13:30
I don't even know what they pay for Thinkstock downloads. Was it .25 or is it even lower than that now?

It went up to .28 a few months back. The tactic of starving them for content forced them to up royalties. Now that all independents are pushed into the PP that may change though.
that was my very first thought, they can now push it back down and almost nobody will withdraw their files as it'll mean taking them off IS too

I wouldn't be too sure about that last part. I'm already on the fence about leaving iStock completely and that sort of push would be likely be enough to do it. As would another cut in independent's royalty rates - all these income reducers just take away one more reason to stay.

I'm with Jo Ann on that part - further cuts would put me over the edge. Right now I'm going to try and work a like a madwoman to get as much of my port on DT and SS as possible. those two have been my best earners since going Independent, despite only having a few hundred files up so far. And also building up at WarmPicture and Stockfresh - though they are not big earners, they have good potential in my mind. so if I had to drop IS, I could do it easily with income I'll be making up elsewhere.

helix7 · « **Reply #215 on:** August 31, 2011, 20:52 »

Quote from: lisafx on August 31, 2011, 14:10

It went up to .28 a few months back. The tactic of starving them for content forced them to up royalties. Now that all independents are pushed into the PP that may change though.

I fully expect this to happen. istock's message with the required PP inclusion for independent artists is pretty clear. The PP was never intended to benefit us in any way, so how we feel about it is really of no concern to istock/getty. With that in mind, I fully expect to see pay cuts coming down the road.

jsmithzz · « **Reply #216 on:** August 31, 2011, 22:27 »

Quote from: cobalt on August 31, 2011, 11:22

A few years ago istock deleted content that hadn´t sold even once in 3 (or was it 5?) years. As the library keeps growing, I wouldn´t be surprised if something like that happens again. You even have contributors demanding it.

That's not quite accurate. Some people are demanding that they be moved to the dollar bin.

lagereek · « **Reply #217 on:** September 01, 2011, 00:42 »

Remember folks! as Gotswyck says: theres always a silver lining

Gannet77 · « **Reply #218 on:** September 01, 2011, 02:56 »

Quote from: lagereek on September 01, 2011, 00:42

Remember folks! as Gotswyck says: theres always a silver lining

and every silver lining has a cloud...

Risamay · « **Reply #219 on:** September 02, 2011, 12:38 »

I think Ink is right.

Quote

I don't know if this has been stated, and just don't have the time to go thru and read all the rest of the posts, but from the language being used it would appear that the future Vision/direction that they are taking steps towards is to pick and choose images (subjectively) images that belong on lower paid sites within the Getty family.

It would be quite interesting to see how they are going to hand pick (would take an army) to say one image belongs in one place and another image belongs in another with lower value. I can understand the concept of doing such to filter out some junk or old images from searches to improve a buyers experience. I'm not sure how iStock benefits from mirroring images on all sites. If I were a buyer (and I am sometimes) I would be going to the lower paying sites to get some of those mirrored images rather than using iStock. This is what leads me to believe that there will be a new process (probably announced in Dec..I'm guessing) that will change the approval process to not only determine if it is accepted, but "where it is accepted to. It would seem this is completely the setup to treat each site, low, med, or higher dollar, as "collections" similiar to Agency or Vetta.

From a business standpoint, I do not see the mirroring as a benefit to anyone, but a preliminary step. And from much of the IS feedback or lack there of with some questions, I am beginning to see the larger picture.

I might be way off base here, but I think I'm pretty close.

Source:
http://www.istockphoto.com/forum_messages.php?threadid=333754&page=39

lisafx · « **Reply #220 on:** September 02, 2011, 13:21 »

^^ Makes sense.

helix7 · « **Reply #221 on:** September 02, 2011, 14:04 »

Quote from: lisafx on August 31, 2011, 11:14

Lobo keeps inserting the word "currently", as in there are "currently" NO plans to MOVE material from Istock to other outlets.

"Currently", as I read it, somewhat negates the whole rest of the statement. They clearly aren't ruling it out for the future.

The use of the word "currently" at istock means simply "we're not going to do it now, but reserve the right to do so in the future."

As it relates to the revised ASA, you could look at the bit about fraud deductions. Back when that conference call took place, everyone seemed content with the idea that "currently" there were no plans to deduct earnings that were the result of fraudulent credit card charges. Now under the new ASA we can see that they do intend to resume fraud deductions. So "currently" is often exactly what it sounds like at istock. This is what we're doing now, but we are probably thinking about doing something completely different in the near future.

ARTPUPPY · « **Reply #222 on:** September 03, 2011, 15:27 »

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. Kind regards.

Q. We were consulted before this ASA?
It was mentioned early on that this ASA policy was crafted after consulting with many of us? (“After consulting with contributor representatives globally.) We knew who the fruad clawback conference call people were, and the illustration call, can we also be told who contributed to this? Who among these global ones suggested this ‘alley-way’ as a positive? Were the persons who were consulted chosen at random or hand picked? Since much of the new ASA centers on adding content to the PP’s, were the ‘representatives’ of both sides of the issue of the PP consulted or just those who participate in the PP? In other words, how objective were the suggestions, the consulting that were/was acted upon? Also is it current iS policy to preface an administrative action by a consult of its contributors? The survey’s timing seemed oddly close. Did the timing of the survey have anything to do with the ASA? Was it what the ‘consulting’ referred to or deemed to serve a psychological purpose before a major change or just an coincidence of sorts?

Q. Is the ASA a positive thing?
If the exposure of the PP was/is seen by certain admins as a positive (“I believe in these changes….This looks like some exciting and positive changes), why is it referred to as going ‘downstream?’ Despite the lower price points, if TS and photos.com were so positive such as the low similarly priced crowdsourced microstock iStock used to be forcing the high priced trads like Getty to have to buy them so as to only be cannibalized by their own, then why are non-ex’s essentially punished by ‘having’ to do it? If the PP is effective why the need to force people to 'use it or lose it?' Why is a perk of being Excl. being able to avoid the PP if it is so positive? Perks were always advantages. Is being out of the PP a perk and an advantage to iStock as an Exclusive? It is to me. In other words how can something be both a ‘good thing’ and yet seen by so many as such a bad thing? I’ve avoided it since its inception and haven’t seen a financial reason to join it. Some of our best contributors also. Getty had to buy iStock to prevent the cannicalization, we don't have that resource as contributors. Why call it ‘downstream’ if it is good, and force non-ex’s and allow Excl’s from it, but still refer to it as good?

Q. Do we lead other sites or follow them?
To answer the question of why PP doesn’t earn RC’s, the answer was basically ‘since other sites don’t use a tiered system like iStock’ so you can't. (“Other sites have set royalty rates and don't use a tiered royalty rate system like iStock, therefore you won't be entitled to receive redeemed credits for files downloaded through Partner sites.) This all seems to make a massive disocnnect when we are told often how we are part of the Getty 'family' but why doesn't our family have consistent rules among its 'partner sites' that reflects the sentiment of the family?
Why is ‘our’ policy set by what other sites do/don’t? What does it matter what other sites do if earning RC’s is a good idea for us? Why can’t RC’s be earned on OUR PP? Do other sites determine our policy and we must follow their examples?

Thanks for any thoughful answers to these thought provoking questions. (End of his post.)

I think he raises some good points...

lisafx · « **Reply #223 on:** September 03, 2011, 15:32 »

Quote from: ARTPUPPY on September 03, 2011, 15:27

I think he raises some good points...

Indeed he does. As usual. Sorry they were deleted. Easy to see why though. Those are exactly the type of questions they don't want to answer...

pancaketom · « **Reply #224 on:** September 03, 2011, 15:54 »

I also noticed that someone's reply - to paraphrase as best I remember:

"you know the answers, you don't like the answers"

was deleted too.

MicrostockGroup Sponsors

Author Topic: Revised Artists Supply Agreement (Read 62916 times)

lisafx

ShadySue

cobalt

Risamay

nruboc

Pixart

ShadySue

lisafx

bunhill

cthoman

ShadySue

jamirae

briciola

Jo Ann Snover

jamirae

helix7

jsmithzz

lagereek

Gannet77

Risamay

lisafx

helix7

ARTPUPPY

lisafx

pancaketom

Related Topics

Sponsors

Microstock Poll Results

Sponsors