Hmm, but they sure make non-exclusivity more and more unattractive - I am afraid independents will be (with few exceptions) moved to the lowest priced tiers. Which may decrease their income, but also draw away customers from the competing agencies.  Do I see this wrong?

I see it as you see it. It doesn't make sense, that's for sure. I think they will milk everything they can from indies for as long as they possibly can, then will institute an "exclusive or leave" policy (once they get all their other ducks in a row, like dumping new collections and whatever they need into IS, etc.) So far, they have proceeded to do all the things that I thought, and that many others here have thought they would do. It's not mind-reading, for sure. Just the writing on the wall.

Quote from: Mellimage on August 30, 2011, 12:56

Hmm, but they sure make non-exclusivity more and more unattractive - I am afraid independents will be (with few exceptions) moved to the lowest priced tiers. Which may decrease their income, but also draw away customers from the competing agencies.  Do I see this wrong?

I see it as you see it. It doesn't make sense, that's for sure. I think they will milk everything they can from indies for as long as they possibly can, then will institute an "exclusive or leave" policy (once they get all their other ducks in a row, like dumping new collections and whatever they need into IS, etc.) So far, they have proceeded to do all the things that I thought, and that many others here have thought they would do. It's not mind-reading, for sure. Just the writing on the wall.

If this is what they do - then answer of independents might be the half-assed one: withdraw your bestsellers (so customers find them at the agencies where they have to pay higher prices (?) and where you earn higher comissions. Leave Istock with the rest.  I think this because if indy contributions end up in low priced collections, they are undercutting the prices of the competition. So you won't see your images sell there (or less and less so), and earn less comission over at Istock. At the same point Istock/Getty is increasing the uniqueness of its agency by adding more and more exclusive content customers cannot get elsewhere. And customers will maybe just buy in one place, sort by price for what they want.... . Again, correct me if my thinking is wrong.

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 ...

(blah, blah, blah ...)

I know these guys since 20 years back ... (Yeah, yeah, yeah ... blah, blah, blah)

Good grief. You do write such utter rubbish sometimes, no, make that pretty much all the time. Istock are not going to enforce exclusivity because they couldn't afford to do so. Not today, not tomorrow, not in the foreseeable future (i.e. not whilst still owned by H&F).

Over the years Istock have had plenty of opportunity to ensure exclusivity, by simply increasing Diamond-level commission to 50% or even a tad higher for BD's for example. They could have wiped out the competition before it had even started because Istock were so dominant in their proportion of the total revenue generated.

Unfortunately for them, because the competition have been allowed to grow, that opportunity has slowly slipped through their fingers. Istock's reputation and trustworthiness has also slipped badly too and I am quite sure that the vast majority of independent contributors would simply walk away from Istock if such an ultimatum were put to them.

If Istock insisted on exclusivity they could lose up to 70% of their library (on which they are probably paying an average commission of about 17%) and a great deal of the revenue that those images generate. Such an act would be the greatest gift possible to their competitors, a gift that would no doubt 'keep on giving', and would relegate Istock to a second-tier agency. It ain't going to happen so stop scaremongering with such ridiculous nonsense.

Youre full of sheit as usual,  jealousy shines through in your incipit postings, a complete moron would have read my post better then you. Your type gotsy-boy is well known in all circles, to be the first one of all to sign for exclusivity if you felt your ass was getting burnt.
This so called grammer school morality cakes your dishing out, save it for the reaper.

Youre full of sheit as usual,  jealousy shines through in your incipit postings, a complete moron would have read my post better then you. Your type gotsy-boy is well known in all circles, to be the first one of all to sign for exclusivity if you felt your ass was getting burnt.
This so called grammer school morality cakes your dishing out, save it for the reaper.

Spelling, grammar and language awful! 2/10 See me.

Getty have NO option but to sooner or later enforce a 100% exclusivity.....

Can't see that happening, considering iStock recently introduced 'The Agency Collection' which is non-exclusive, and a very large (if not the largest) portion of work on GettyImages is non-exclusive.

We've also bought time for SS to strengthen their own position and, which we know from our sales, they have taken full advantage of. Far from losing the battle I think this latest move actually proves that we won.

Personally speaking I count it as a loss, every sale I've lost from iS to SS has seen me make less money, I sell more now on SS than I've ever done and way above my statistical growth predictions, but I'm making less money than if those sales ratios between iS and SS were as they were a year (or whenever the village idiot made his first infamous speech) ago.

Include the factor that all the big agencies have or are taking more from us or freezing the commission and IMO the microstock industry as a whole may not be something worth pursuing in the very near future.

I have a vision of iStockPhoto-2020...

1. You create images they sell it.
2. You pay a placement fee of 10$ for every image you submit even if it is not accepted (reviewing fee).
3. They define the price of every image or they can share it for free as a promotion anytime they want.
4. You get 1 cent of royalty per download regardless of the price the image has been sold.
5. You can request a payment when you reach 500$ per month... in every month you do not reach the limit, you lose the money.

Welcome in 2020!

I don't know how many of you remember but Getty rolled out a Pay to Play program in 2006. It was $50 per image and Getty took 70% of the royalty for "advertising". http://blog.photoshelter.com/2006/11/gettys-pay-to-play.html

I don't know how many of you remember but Getty rolled out a Pay to Play program in 2006. It was $50 per image and Getty took 70% of the royalty for "advertising". http://blog.photoshelter.com/2006/11/gettys-pay-to-play.html

I love a good doomsday scenario as well as the next person, but I don't think charging contributors to place images on a site that sells at microstock prices will ever gain any traction. 

Let's wait and see what Jon Oringer's big, recent brainstormy thingy brings into the ring.  

What was that about? Have you got a link for more information?

From the IS Lawyer starting on page 23 of the ASA thread on IS.

Hello all. We've taken a look through the most common legal questions that have been asked and have prepared some responses which you will see below. We are going to do our best to respond to any follow up questions.

1. Mirroring/Moving Content

Non-exclusive ASA

3(c) Accepted Content may be included in one or more current or future content collections (�Collections�) made available for licensing or distribution by iStockphoto or third party distributors (each a �Distribution Partner�). iStockphoto will determine the Collection and may subsequently move and license Accepted Content through a Collection on notice to you either through the Site or otherwise. For Content that moves into another Collection, the royalties paid to you shall be as set out in the Rate Schedule (defined below).

That means that iStock can move or mirror your non-exclusive content � photo, video, illustration or flash� on other Getty Images/ Master Delegate sites. Upstream or Downstream.

Right now, as has been said here and in the article, the only plans are to mirror non-exclusive photos and illustrations at thinkstock.com and photos.com. If iStock decides to move or mirror your content in another collection on another site at anytime, we will let you know.

Exclusive ASA

3(c) Exclusive Content may be included in one or more current or future content collections (�Collections�) made available for licensing or distribution by iStockphoto or third party distributors (each a �Distribution Partner�). Your Exclusive Content may be made available for licensing through a lower price tier royalty-free Collection of a Distribution Partner only if you opt in to the �Partner Program� category or other applicable indicator under the preferences panel of your account profile on the Site. Unless otherwise provided for in the upload process or on the Site, your Exclusive Content may be made available for licensing through a similar or higher price tier Collection of a Distribution Partner as may be determined by iStockphoto from time to time upon notice to you either by posting notice on the Site or otherwise. The price tier of a Collection shall be determined by iStockphoto, acting reasonably, taking in to consideration the average comparable pricing on the Site. For all Exclusive Content that moves into another Collection, the royalties paid to you shall be as set out in the Rate Schedule (defined below). The price tier of a Collection shall be subject to promotions and varying discounts from time to time.

That means that:

1.   You will only be in the Partner Program if you opt-in � This is the same as always. We can never move or mirror your content downstream without your opting in.

2.    Unless there is some other indication in the upload process or on the iStock site, iStock can move or mirror your exclusive content � photo, video, illustration, flash � to a similar or higher priced collection.

3.   What does �Unless there is some other indication in the upload process or on the iStock site� mean? You know how we have an opt-in for Vetta and Agency? That is � some other indication on the site�. The default is that we can move content upstream but we can also impose some �rules� on iStock that require you to opt-in.

Right now, as JJ mentioned, the ONLY exclusive files that will be moved or mirrored are the Exclusive Video files, which will be mirrored on gettyimages.com. Vetta and Agency will continue to be collections that you need to opt-in to.

There are no plans to move any content to punchstock or Jupiter Images. Those sites were given as an example of what a �similar or higher price tier Collection� might be.

As JJ has said, there are no other plans to move exclusive content. If those plans ever change, we will always give you notice of the move/mirroring of content.

So, why don�t we just limit the agreement to exclusive video files?

The language in the Agreement allows for flexibility. Even though, as JJ has said, there are no plans at this time to move any other exclusive content we would like to not have to change this Agreement for a long, long time. So it was drafted to allow for flexibility as the business changes.

To balance the flexibility that iStock has, we will always let you know what we are doing so that you can make a choice at that time whether it is right for you.

2. Agent vs. Distributor

Nothing nefarious was intended by the change of language. �Distributor � better reflects iStock�s actual role. All of our obligations to you, as always, are set out in the ASA. Nothing has changed in that regard.

3. Privacy Policy

�What is the purpose of 16(f)? What are the possible reasons for iStock handing out privacy data of contributor and models to anyone?�
Our privacy policy is pretty clear how we use personal information. Privacy Policy. We don�t sell your information or give it to a 3rd parties except as they may need it to provide a service for us or as specifically set out in the privacy policy.

But by way of example, here are some uses of contributor personal information: preparation of tax information slips, conducting of audits, data storage, sending emails to you regarding service updates or marketing information (if you are opted in).

4. Why can�t I keep uploading while I think about the changes?

Under the former ASA (and the new one) as soon as the new ASA was posted in the upload process, and you upload a file, you will have agreed to it. Unfortunately there is no way around that. Rather than surprise you with the �you have agreed�, we wanted to make sure that you knew what you were signing.

Even if you agree to the new ASA, you can always decide at a later date to terminate your relationship with us on 30 days notice.

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.

Many thanks..

For anyone who's interested, Istocklawyer just posted the differences between "agent" and "distributor" as used in the ASA.  

The word �distributor� better reflects the realities of the relationship between the contributor, iStock and the customer.

What they really mean is that being a 'distributor' as appose to our 'agent' lessens the blow for them when something like this happens:

http://www.pdnonline.com/pdn/news/Photographer-Settles-3142.shtml

Here's the finished ASA for non-exclusives

http://www.istockphoto.com/asa_non_exclusive.php