MicrostockGroup Sponsors


Author Topic: Revised Artists Supply Agreement  (Read 38887 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

« Reply #75 on: August 29, 2011, 18:55 »
0
I guess if nothing changes I'll delete my images from IS on the 28th, or maybe the 29th to make more work for them. I am not going to help them destroy SS. Hopefully they give us the option to opt out before then, but I don't expect so.

In fact I expect them to opt in exclusives next.

Just when you think FT is the most money grubbing distributor IS does this. I can't say I'm really surprised though.


« Reply #76 on: August 29, 2011, 19:05 »
0
Now I'm faced with a very difficult decision - should I leave iStock altogether? I'm seriously considering leaving, but it will cost me a significant drop in income. I wish I knew what to do. I'm wondering how many of us independents will leave altogether - if most of us leave, will this harm iStock? Would they even care?

Try not to get too stressed :) For me it was best to get out and forget about what the company used to be. The loss of income I suffered after RC was introduced was very difficult, I took a hit when I dropped exclusivity and now I'm earning $100s instead of $1000s per year so it's not going to hurt as much when I start deactivating more of my files. Think what I'm trying to say is they'll make the financial problem go away for you over time (if that makes sense). Good luck!

« Reply #77 on: August 29, 2011, 19:14 »
0
Now I'm faced with a very difficult decision - should I leave iStock altogether? I'm seriously considering leaving, but it will cost me a significant drop in income. I wish I knew what to do. I'm wondering how many of us independents will leave altogether - if most of us leave, will this harm iStock? Would they even care?

Try not to get too stressed :) For me it was best to get out and forget about what the company used to be. The loss of income I suffered after RC was introduced was very difficult, I took a hit when I dropped exclusivity and now I'm earning $100s instead of $1000s per year so it's not going to hurt as much when I start deactivating more of my files. Think what I'm trying to say is they'll make the financial problem go away for you over time (if that makes sense). Good luck!

The answer to the bolded question is no, they won't care. In fact, their moves have all been to push non-exclusives out and continue to be. You should be making the decision for yourself, not based on what it will do to them.

RacePhoto

« Reply #78 on: August 29, 2011, 19:33 »
0
All this confirms is that iStockphoto is the grubby little company that ssssoooo many contributors (mainly non-exclusives) have been saying for ages on these forums. Their a bunch of cowboys out to make as much money as they can from all contributors with little or scant regard for the consequences. That's their raison d'tre. Why is anyone really surprised, this has been coming down the tracks for quite a while.

Grubby, grubby little outfit. Yuk. :D

Completely agree.  Except the part about anyone being surprised.  I don't hear anyone who's surprised.

Also not surprised. As for the rest of it, I'd just be repeating what the four pages have said in minutes after the announcement email went out. Odd how the opt in is passive, and there's no clear way to refuse and get out of IS? Very strange overall how it's handled.

Funny how a joke about becoming a SS MicrosStock exclusive is more and more likely to come true by 2012.

Had to research this before I could add it: ThinkStock license a small section. BOLD is mine!

3.4 Licensee may not, without obtaining the prior written consent of Thinkstock and the payment of additional License Fees: (i) use the Licensed Material in any posters (printed on paper, canvas or any other media) or other items for resale, license or other distribution for profit: (ii) include the Licensed Material in an electronic template intended to be Reproduced by third parties on electronic or printed products; (iii) use or display the Licensed Material on websites or in any other medium designed to induce or involving the sale, license or other distribution of "on demand" products, including, without limitation, postcards, mugs, t-shirts, calendars, posters, screensavers or wallpapers on mobile telephones, or similar items; (iv) sub-license, re-sell, rent, lend, assign, gift or otherwise transfer or distribute the Licensed Material or the rights granted under this Agreement; (v) Reproduce a single item of Licensed Material, or an element of the Licensed Material, in excess of 500,000 times per use; (vi) display the Licensed Material in any digital format or for any digital use at a resolution greater than 72 dpi, except in editorial or preliminary design work; (vii) use or display the Licensed Material in an electronic format that enables it to be downloaded or distributed via mobile devices or shared in any peer-to-peer or similar file sharing arrangement.

On the good side, it looks like they prevent the On Demand sales which we have seen from some places. On the other, don't expect an EL for a book cover or anything under 500,000 impressions! If you like getting 25-28 cents for an EL, then IS/ThinkStock is the place for us.
« Last Edit: August 29, 2011, 20:27 by RacePhoto »

« Reply #79 on: August 29, 2011, 19:41 »
0
Getty is a business with a major investor, Hellman and Friedman seeking high dividends for the $2.4 billion they paid. It's NOT the feel good, photo love-in it started out to be.  Sure it sucks for no-exclusives. But 80% of the stuff on iStock is crap and it buries the "cherries". With over 10 million images it creates a search nightmare to find quality files. Then buyers head to other sites to find them and Getty wants to prevent that.

iStock is their microstock golden-boy and they paid a lot for it and they want to clean out the dead wood by sending it off to their loser sites in "siberia".(which they also paid a lot for and the ROI sucks). That starts with the non-exclusives. And frankly, its a good idea and smart business decision. And totally expected.

I know you non-exclusives are pissed and you should be. You are getting F-ed again. How many ways does IS need to tell you  to piss off? Their business model does not include you. They envision iStock as a premier microstock source with QUALITY exclusive files at a slightly higher price point. They don't want to be just a duplicate of all the companies they just acquired or compete with the low-ball sites.

It's all about building a better and mature product, enhancing the brand, positioning against the competition, appropriating and dispersing assets to improve sales and maximizing profit. And its ALL ABOUT MONEY. Get over it.

« Reply #80 on: August 29, 2011, 19:49 »
0
^^ That's a pretty condescending attitude. Sounds like you've been drinking the Kook-Aid and actually believe that only exclusives can produce QUALITY images. Maybe you'd better look again.

helix7

« Reply #81 on: August 29, 2011, 19:50 »
0
...In fact I expect them to opt in exclusives next...

100% agree. That will definitely happen.

« Reply #82 on: August 29, 2011, 19:51 »
0
@oxman:

If we're in the mood to call things by their true names, there's a ton of content on all the sites that's pretty average, and that includes large parts of the exclusive collection on iStock. And then there are people like me who did piss off by removing my files from the exclusive collection to the main collection & Photo+ (I had removed my Vetta files last September and opted out of Vetta/Agency at that time).

Did my files get less good when I switched from exclusive to non? Or is it that everything outside of Vetta/Agency is crap in your view?

And some of the crap is in the imported Getty Agency content, or Mr. Ed Stock's dull as ditchwater editorial content, all 17K+ files of which are exclusive plus.

I realize it's all about money, adapt or die, and on and on. That's why I dumped exclusivity as the "new and improved" iStock clearly wasn't for me.

What acts like sand in my undies is the idea that independents don't have the quality to be on the "premier" microstock site. That's just BS.

Noedelhap

  • www.colincramm.com

« Reply #83 on: August 29, 2011, 19:58 »
0
^^ That's a pretty condescending attitude. Sounds like you've been drinking the Kook-Aid and actually believe that only exclusives can produce QUALITY images. Maybe you'd better look again.

He's talking from istock's/getty's point of view, and I totally agree with this. Getty is making business decisions in an effort to keep their company profitable, even if this means screwing non-exclusives. They want to focus on their exclusive content, which is in general of higher quality and/or more popular.

ShadySue

  • There is a crack in everything
« Reply #84 on: August 29, 2011, 20:00 »
0
They want to focus on their exclusive content, which is in general of higher quality and/or more popular.
I wonder what Yuri would say to that?
Added: not meaning to insult other excellent independents - that was the easy hit.

« Reply #85 on: August 29, 2011, 20:02 »
0
^^ That's a pretty condescending attitude. Sounds like you've been drinking the Kook-Aid and actually believe that only exclusives can produce QUALITY images. Maybe you'd better look again.

He's talking from istock's/getty's point of view, and I totally agree with this. Getty is making business decisions in an effort to keep their company profitable, even if this means screwing non-exclusives. They want to focus on their exclusive content, which is in general of higher quality and/or more popular.

That is exactly right. I am not saying non-exclusives work is crap. Hell, 80% of my work is crap. The point is, if you were the CEO of Getty and knew what they knew about selling images and music files online, you would be doing what they are doing. It's just business folks ;)

« Reply #86 on: August 29, 2011, 20:18 »
0
It's just business folks ;)

I hate this statement.  It's used to justify the unjustifiable way too often.  It justifies mistreating employees, laying them off and then rewarding the company officers who do it.  It justifies polluting, and bribery, and cheating of every kind.  It implies that it is either impossible or at minimum inappropriate to behave in an ethical manner.  I believe and hope that's wrong.

Back in the dark ages of my first job post-college, my CEO gave a talk about the challenges of running a public company.  He described all the constituencies he had to satisfy, not just the stockholders and the customers, but the employees and the suppliers and the communities in which we had our facilities.  They all mattered, and they all had to be considered.  Somehow in the millenia since those primitive times things have changed, and only the bottom line counts. 

Color me unconvinced.  Eventually even the most passive supplier will decide he or she has endured enough, and will strike back.  It may not be rational, it may not be to our benefit, but boy, it'll feel good. 

(And it does.  Every file I delete from iStock and Fotolia feels like a tiny piece of my soul coming back to me.  What's that worth in stockholder dollars?)

« Reply #87 on: August 29, 2011, 20:18 »
0
In fact, their moves have all been to push non-exclusives out and continue to be.

I can't believe that's true, but all their actions seem to be (unintentionally, maybe?) pushing us in that direction. I guess it's probably just arrogance thinking that we won't leave and that they're number one no matter what. Oh well, I guess I'm happy (in a weird way) because they are making my decision easy for me.

« Reply #88 on: August 29, 2011, 20:28 »
0
Color me unconvinced.  Eventually even the most passive supplier will decide he or she has endured enough, and will strike back.  It may not be rational, it may not be to our benefit, but boy, it'll feel good. 

I think the same thing. How many times can you poke a bear with a stick before it tears you apart? The answer may be twice.  :o

« Reply #89 on: August 29, 2011, 22:20 »
0
were we supposed to get an email about this?  because I only heard about it by coming here. 

pisses me off, really.  I will have to think about this before I decide what to do, right now I'm just too upset to make a rational decision.  I guess I sort of knew something crappy like this would happen. 

« Reply #90 on: August 29, 2011, 22:39 »
0
were we supposed to get an email about this?  because I only heard about it by coming here. 

pisses me off, really.  I will have to think about this before I decide what to do, right now I'm just too upset to make a rational decision.  I guess I sort of knew something crappy like this would happen. 


I did get e-mail, sent out this afternoon. Doesn't say much, but here it is:

"Revised iStock Artist's Supply Agreements

iStockphoto recently made some changes to our Artist's Supply Agreements (ASAs).

We ask that you take some time to read and respond to the revised agreements. You can read an overview of the most significant changes to the agreements and how they'll affect you here.

You have until 11:59 PM MDT, September 28, 2011 to agree to the revised agreements. You will be unable to upload new files until you have accepted the terms of all applicable agreements. If you have not agreed to the terms (or provided a notice of termination of the ASAs) by that date, you will be deemed to have accepted the new ASAs under the terms of the existing agreements.

Review the ASA Changes Now

If you have any questions or concerns about the new agreements, please
contact [email protected].

You will be prompted to review and accept the revised ASAs the next time you sign in to iStockphoto."

« Reply #91 on: August 29, 2011, 23:38 »
0
If you're looking at it from a business standpoint, why alienate the people that provide the images that you pay the lowest commission to? Just curious...

Cogent Marketing

« Reply #92 on: August 30, 2011, 01:21 »
0
The infamous jester has just put down an exclusive contributor and explains as clearly as you like the status of non-exclusive contributors to iStockphoto, and I quote....

"You realize you can contribute where ever you like, right? Exclusive contributors ONLY contribute to Getty Properties. That means you can decide if you want to be involved here or not. Raging in the forums over and over again isn't going to change the fact that the ASA has changed.

The fact is pretty plain. If you want to contribute to iStockphoto as a non-exclusive contributor your files will also be available on the partner sites. Period. If you decide that isn't for you we appreciate that. You can close your account and only submit your work on alternative agencies. It's entirely your choice".

Smart move as statistically 70-80% of their highest selling images come from non-exclusives? It might not represent the volume in profit terms but it might have something to do with the reason customers come to iSP in the first place, clearly the non-exclusive images are the most popular in the eyes of customers.

Every day Lobo comes to work, I fear a village might be missing their idiot.......
« Last Edit: August 30, 2011, 02:14 by Cogent Marketing »

lagereek

« Reply #93 on: August 30, 2011, 01:42 »
0
I wonder how long till FT does something else to us. They normally go blow for blow with Istock. (unfortunately we're the punching bag)

If you got RC's for sales on partner programs etc and the royalities were the same as SS then I think they would get more support for this. I can understand Illustrators being very annoyed.  28c or $$ for a vector which one would you want.

True!  but unfortunately FT, in imitating IS, in everything,  FT, have probably paid a much higher price in drops and everything. FT, used to be brillant, now with its imitaing best match changes and everything, its become just middle of the road. Costly!  and a great pitty.

lagereek

« Reply #94 on: August 30, 2011, 01:49 »
0
This is nothing!  this,  we predicted well over a year back, just kiddies-stuff.  The BIG BLOW, will come in about a years time when they announce a contract to either become exclusive or piss-off.

« Reply #95 on: August 30, 2011, 02:18 »
0
I started uploading some images again the last couple of weeks and I want to delete those first. I forgot how to delete files. Anyone can tell me how to do this? Thanks

Microbius

« Reply #96 on: August 30, 2011, 02:28 »
0
Basically to sum up the new agreement says "if you leave your work with us we will act entirely as if we own the copyright to it, only without having done any of the hard work to create it"

Cogent Marketing

« Reply #97 on: August 30, 2011, 02:37 »
0
I started uploading some images again the last couple of weeks and I want to delete those first. I forgot how to delete files. Anyone can tell me how to do this? Thanks

Select Contributors tools/My uploads. Click on the image (not the edit) and scroll down to administration. Enter a reason in the Change File status box (anything you like) and click Deactivate file.

« Reply #98 on: August 30, 2011, 02:40 »
0
Thanks!

Cogent Marketing

« Reply #99 on: August 30, 2011, 02:44 »
0
This is nothing!  this,  we predicted well over a year back, just kiddies-stuff.  The BIG BLOW, will come in about a years time when they announce a contract to either become exclusive or piss-off.

I doubt this will happen unless the major non-exclusives have already left/gone their own way. It would have happened already I think but for the likes of a few massive non-exclusives. Remember that Getty are only interested in money - even they are not so stupid to give a way millions of dollars in revenue from a few non-exclusives, even more so as they cost Getty less in terms of commissions. Most of the bigger non-exclusives are already in the PP so this change makes no difference to the big turnover folks anyway.


 

Related Topics

  Subject / Started by Replies Last post
1 Replies
3095 Views
Last post March 16, 2007, 10:17
by Kngkyle
9 Replies
3397 Views
Last post January 30, 2009, 11:18
by hali
0 Replies
1309 Views
Last post January 09, 2010, 02:59
by Anita Potter
4 Replies
1617 Views
Last post January 21, 2015, 09:01
by dsonnenburg
22 Replies
3356 Views
Last post April 26, 2018, 07:51
by Uncle Pete

Sponsors

Mega Bundle of 5,900+ Professional Lightroom Presets

Microstock Poll Results

Sponsors

3100 Posing Cards Bundle