Author Topic: Revised Artists Supply Agreement (Read 55225 times)

rubyroo · « **Reply #100 on:** August 30, 2011, 02:46 »

Quote from: Microbius on August 30, 2011, 02:28

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"

Yes that's exactly how it feels to me too. I seem to recall that trad photographers were saying the very same thing years ago over Getty's treatment of their work, so I suppose it was inevitable that we microstockers would end up feeling the same.

grp_photo · « **Reply #101 on:** August 30, 2011, 03:57 »

I'm sooooooooooo surprised!

cathyslife · « **Reply #102 on:** August 30, 2011, 05:21 »

Quote from: elvinstar on August 29, 2011, 23:38

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...

Yeah.

I've no doubt this has been their plan all along, but boy, for the past 6 years they sure have been happy to TAKE millions from us crap-producing non-exclusives, haven't they? Just one more reason that they have proved themselves despicable...

roopcreative · « **Reply #103 on:** August 30, 2011, 05:30 »

Quote from: Cogent Marketing on August 30, 2011, 01:21

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.......

Aye, the little wolflike Napoleon feels browbeating is the best way to moderate a forum. Giving non-exclusives a choice between being bent over and shafted in the PP or not letting the door hit them in the ass on their way out is not much of a choice.

PaulieWalnuts · « **Reply #104 on:** August 30, 2011, 06:03 »

I said over a year ago that this was coming.

To me this just looks like another business decision about shuffling collcetions, nothing more. They have some low value stuff at Getty and some high value stuff at Istock. They just want to be able to move images where they make sense when they want to.

I'm not so much concerned about this move but the fact that they continue to regularly make changes. It's hard to commit to building a collection with them when at any moment they may introduce a change that's a deal breaker.

ShadySue · « **Reply #105 on:** August 30, 2011, 06:29 »

Quote from: PaulieWalnuts on August 30, 2011, 06:03

I said over a year ago that this was coming.

To me this just looks like another business decision about shuffling collcetions, nothing more. They have some low value stuff at Getty and some high value stuff at Istock. They just want to be able to move images where they make sense when they want to.

I'm not so much concerned about this move but the fact that they continue to regularly make changes. It's hard to commit to building a collection with them when at any moment they may introduce a change that's a deal breaker.

Indeed. JJ said that this is only the 'first iteration'. Who knows what's down the line.
There's not one thing in that announcement which is even a 'sweetener' for contributors, apart from the 'negative positive' that in this iteration they won't compulsorily move exclusive files into the PP.

Mantis · « **Reply #106 on:** August 30, 2011, 07:29 »

Quote from: helix7 on August 29, 2011, 18:49

Quote from: Blammo on August 29, 2011, 18:47
Would be fun to what would happen if SS gave gave a small raise at this point,could that motivate the people seriously fed up with Istock to drop them all together ..... sorry I´m tired neeeed sleep

I don't need a raise to be motivated, and I'm guessing neither do many people.

I'm not rushing to any decisions today, but I feel like my hand is being forced here.

You have to accept the fact that Istock is making a huge push to load content onto PP sites and, as a result, will be putting a lot of marketing effort into the "added content" as well. That to me simply means pulling traffic away from Istock, making it even harder to hit our RC levels. That means pay cuts for many...again. I am in the same boat. Taking a week or two to think this over but I am pretty burned out on taking pay cuts, putting content on "ghosted sites" with no little or accountability (at least from the contributor's viewpoint) and putting up twice as much content to maintain flat sales. I am certainly not motivated by Istock.....FOR SURE!

Mellimage · « **Reply #107 on:** August 30, 2011, 08:24 »

I've summarized a few of my preliminary thoughts on the changes in a blog entry, feel free to check it out and correct me if I am wrong in my thinking.

http://mellimage.blogspot.com/2011/08/news-2011-08-30.html

Microbius · « **Reply #108 on:** August 30, 2011, 09:22 »

Quote from: sad but true on August 30, 2011, 08:59

They should just pay everyone in lube. Maybe gum as a bonus.

Nooooo we said in the survey we like it dished out raw. The lube is what got Kelly sacked!

caspixel · « **Reply #109 on:** August 30, 2011, 09:59 »

Quote from: Microbius on August 30, 2011, 09:22

Quote from: sad but true on August 30, 2011, 08:59
They should just pay everyone in lube. Maybe gum as a bonus.
Nooooo we said in the survey we like it dished out raw. The lube is what got Kelly sacked!

LOLOLOL

Cogent Marketing · « **Reply #110 on:** August 30, 2011, 10:05 »

Quote from: Mellimage on August 30, 2011, 08:24

I've summarized a few of my preliminary thoughts on the changes in a blog entry, feel free to check it out and correct me if I am wrong in my thinking.

http://mellimage.blogspot.com/2011/08/news-2011-08-30.html

Could you amend the bit "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." (Quoted after Cogent Marketing). and accredit the quote for Lobo at iSP? It was pasted off his response to an exclusive on the iSP forum this morning.
Thanks

louoates · « **Reply #111 on:** August 30, 2011, 10:10 »

I'll repeat what I predicted over a year ago: The end game at IS is to have all exclusives. This latest go round is just a step in that direction. There may be two or three more intermediate (and increasingly noxious) steps to drag us into the exclusive camp before IS goes 100% exclusive. They will still have an income stream from non-exclusives via their partnerships.

lisafx · « **Reply #112 on:** August 30, 2011, 10:15 »

Apparently some non-exclusive images may also be sold upstream at higher priced outlets.

http://www.istockphoto.com/forum_messages.php?threadid=333754&messageid=6469594

It has never made sense to me that non-exclusives didn't have access to the higher end Getty collections. Some of the top independents are already there through other distribution channels.

Pixart · « **Reply #113 on:** August 30, 2011, 10:17 »

Sure, but the way they work they'll sell it for $600 and pay you 60 cents.

lagereek · « **Reply #114 on:** August 30, 2011, 10:34 »

Getty have NO option but to sooner or later enforce a 100% exclusivity, its their ticket to survival, simply because for every exclusive gained its another agencies loss. Thats why. Make no misstake, they are not stupid, they know that among independants, there are just as good, sometimes even better artists who are supplying a whole string of competitors. Getty cant live nor in the long run survive this predicament, its an infamnia and a thorn.

So, whats the answer? well since most independants wont come over freely, they will force us, like with this new contract and the RM contract, etc and as Lisa said, how can you give up 35% of your earnings? well its impossible, isnt it? so we either put up or shutup.

I know these guys since 20 years back and believe me, pretty soon we have no option but to either go exclusive or bail out, simple as that. I wonder what Oringer of SS, thinks of all this? in many ways it will come to have an effect on his company. For every indie signing this pp business its competition to him and for every indie signing up exclusivity, its even worse. Maybe he should make a move towards something?

Microbius · « **Reply #115 on:** August 30, 2011, 10:38 »

You could be right about Getty's strategy, and that's why they were failing as a business, and that's why they will end up driving IStock into the ground too.

What they need is the best of the independent content AND the exclusive content, otherwise they have no advantage over the competition. If IS was 100% eclusive there'd be just as much stuff available on SS and not IS as visa versa i.e. exclusively available everywhere but IStock

lisafx · « **Reply #116 on:** August 30, 2011, 10:40 »

Quote from: lagereek on August 30, 2011, 10:34

Getty have NO option but to sooner or later enforce a 100% exclusivity, its their ticket to survival, simply because for every exclusive gained its another agencies loss. Thats why. Make no misstake, they are not stupid, they know that among independants, there are just as good, sometimes even better artists who are supplying a whole string of competitors. Getty cant live nor in the long run survive this predicament, its an infamnia and a thorn.

So, whats the answer? well since most independants wont come over freely, they will force us, like with this new contract and the RM contract, etc and as Lisa said, how can you give up 35% of your earnings? well its impossible, isnt it? so we either put up or shutup.

I hope you're wrong Christian. But if you're right, and they do offer and "exclusive or leave" option, I will be leaving. If I have to choose between 35% of my income and 65% of my income, it's no contest.

Forcing a choice like that on independents would be suicide for Istockphoto, IMO. Most of us would leave, I am certain. Even with our stuff still there buyers seem to have left in droves over the past year. When our content disappears from Istock and its partners, buyers will have even more incentive to leave too.

ffNixx · « **Reply #117 on:** August 30, 2011, 10:45 »

The worst part of this bad announcement is the international distributors none of us can opt out of. They sell for a pittance and we'll likely get 10% of that. If they sell at all - they're an open invitation to theft.

The Sub-Saharan example they quoted is a red herring. Most sales will come from places like Germany, Russia, Eastern Europe. In those sorts of places the buyers are stoic enough to insist on supporting their local agencies, and careless enough to buy content coming from Spagetty Images through them.

Spagetty Images = Titanic.

click_click · « **Reply #118 on:** August 30, 2011, 10:54 »

If IS wanted all non-exclusives to leave at some point it's a death sentence to them - at least IS will be very different from what it is now.

It may become just a contributor portal for exclusives to be included into some future Getty collection but IS like we know it as a self operating agency couldn't exist anymore (just with exclusives).

Non-exclusive content was always part of their business, and the major part AFAIK. No idea if numbers have been released how much % of all profits have come from exclusives vs. non-exclusives but the non-exclusive side is something they cannot afford to drop.

They sure will put the pressure on more and more over time, no doubt, and more us will leave because of that, but there are plenty of contributors on this planet that live in places where the little money they actually pay out is a lot to survive wherever they live.

lagereek · « **Reply #119 on:** August 30, 2011, 11:09 »

Quote from: lisafx on August 30, 2011, 10:40

Quote from: lagereek on August 30, 2011, 10:34
Getty have NO option but to sooner or later enforce a 100% exclusivity, its their ticket to survival, simply because for every exclusive gained its another agencies loss. Thats why. Make no misstake, they are not stupid, they know that among independants, there are just as good, sometimes even better artists who are supplying a whole string of competitors. Getty cant live nor in the long run survive this predicament, its an infamnia and a thorn.

So, whats the answer? well since most independants wont come over freely, they will force us, like with this new contract and the RM contract, etc and as Lisa said, how can you give up 35% of your earnings? well its impossible, isnt it? so we either put up or shutup.

I hope you're wrong Christian. But if you're right, and they do offer and "exclusive or leave" option, I will be leaving. If I have to choose between 35% of my income and 65% of my income, it's no contest.

Forcing a choice like that on independents would be suicide for Istockphoto, IMO. Most of us would leave, I am certain. Even with our stuff still there buyers seem to have left in droves over the past year. When our content disappears from Istock and its partners, buyers will have even more incentive to leave too.

Hi Lisa!

Yep! but it wont stay at 35% of your income though, would it? both me and you, Im sure, positive, would earn a hell of a lot more being exclusive at IS. My own thing about not going exclusive hasnt got anything to do with monies, my problem is: I dont trust their financiers or creditors, etc, you know like H&F, etc, thyre the kind of people who would pull the plug on you if you show a bad year and then what? you dont know where you stand with that sort of people.

Click-click, has got it wrong, financial suicide? not at all and why? simply because most independants with any sizable port and income would in fact go exclusive, if it came to that. At the same time as they benefit from indies turning exclusive, theyre stopping compeeting agencies from earning. Simple.

You see? this is why they have no option but sooner or later enforce exclusivity.

lthn · « **Reply #120 on:** August 30, 2011, 11:14 »

Ok now stone me to death and call me a troll, but I'd like to point something out about the attitude of most contribs I see around here. You ppl go all crazy about petty "theft" when you see some of your images on the displayed "illegaly", spend time and energy looking them up, bug ppl, IPs and send DMCA notices, all that for something that probably did few cents worth of damage or more likely nothing since it has very little to do with actual sales... but when the agencies keep shafting you to hell, you just sit around and take it, including insults from such worthless abominations as Lobo, just to rub some salt into the wound. Just brilliant.

Mellimage · « **Reply #121 on:** August 30, 2011, 11:15 »

Quote from: Cogent Marketing on August 30, 2011, 10:05

Quote from: Mellimage on August 30, 2011, 08:24
I've summarized a few of my preliminary thoughts on the changes in a blog entry, feel free to check it out and correct me if I am wrong in my thinking.

http://mellimage.blogspot.com/2011/08/news-2011-08-30.html

Could you amend the bit "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." (Quoted after Cogent Marketing). and accredit the quote for Lobo at iSP? It was pasted off his response to an exclusive on the iSP forum this morning.
Thanks

I can and will.

Yuri_Arcurs · « **Reply #122 on:** August 30, 2011, 11:16 »

This is a pretty critical move. Commissions in the "less than 10%" are probably due soon through sister agencies/partner reselling.
My team and I are researching the extend of this, but a royalty set by Istock on partner distribution is not something we favor at all.

Jo Ann Snover · « **Reply #123 on:** August 30, 2011, 11:19 »

Quote from: lthn on August 30, 2011, 11:14

...You ppl go all crazy about ...

You people? So you mean you're not a contributor? You're clearly a member here, so you can't be referring to members here as "you people".

If your point was that there are many different things that anger contributors, that's true, but it's like saying "The sun's hot" - we don't generally need to have that noted as it's taken as a given.

nruboc · « **Reply #124 on:** August 30, 2011, 11:21 »

I could be wrong but I don't think IS wants to get rid of independents. I think it's much more likely that they will bring in much more content from their wholly owned content and other properties onto IStockphoto. Basically they want IStockphoto to be like Thinkstock, with the collections/content they make the most money from up front. This will be a very gradual process, slowly but surely.

MicrostockGroup Sponsors

Author Topic: Revised Artists Supply Agreement (Read 55225 times)

rubyroo

grp_photo

cathyslife

roopcreative

PaulieWalnuts

ShadySue

Mantis

Mellimage

Microbius

caspixel

Cogent Marketing

louoates

lisafx

Pixart

lagereek

Microbius

lisafx

ffNixx

click_click

lagereek

lthn

Mellimage

Yuri_Arcurs

Jo Ann Snover

nruboc

Related Topics

Sponsors

Microstock Poll Results

Sponsors