I dropped my exclusivity there two weeks ago ( i have to wait another two weeks to get crown removed)
 I'm note sure that I will stay there  with my files at all, since I  found to difficult to accept new ASA.

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

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.

I don't see this happening either.

There is too much money to be made from independent contributors. Today, if Istock forced an exclusive-only deal a substantial percentage of indy contributors would leave and IS would watch that money walk away. A lot of exclusives may leave too if a flood of new exclusives suddenly are competing for search placement. They may have gotten away with this a few years ago when they still offered warm-and-fuzzy benefits with exclusivity but they don't have the benefits or leverage today.

Ideally, to buyers, Getty would position the Getty "family" as a one-stop-shop for all images of all licensing types. To do this they need keep independant images but offer them in a way that looks more attractive than the competition. For indy files maybe that means lower prices or more licensing options (IS micro, TS/Photos.com subscription, etc). In other words "hey buyers, look, we have exclusive images plus most of the images offered elsehwere at a lower price! Why go anywhere else?"

Ideally, to buyers, Getty would position the Getty "family" as a one-stop-shop for all images of all licensing types. To do this they need keep independant images but offer them in a way that looks more attractive than the competition. For indy files maybe that means lower prices or more licensing options (IS micro, TS/Photos.com subscription, etc). In other words "hey buyers, look, we have exclusive images plus most of the images offered elsehwere at a lower price! Why go anywhere else?"

To me, this is exactly what new the ASA means - and it is going to hurt independent contributors the msot.

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. Voil�, Thinkstock, the new dollar bin - no make that $.28 bin 

One question I haven't seen asked or answered:

When the time comes and they do start to mirror/move files, will we retain the right to delete them? I imagine that the new file handling procedure JJRD talked about will bring a change in this regard, tying up our mirrored/moved files for 6-24 months before we're able to delete them.

I'm exclusive and opted out of PP so I was thinking more in terms of the 'upstream' mirroring/moving.

If they move or mirror my files elsewhere I'm going to ask them not to do that, or else I delete the file. If bestsellers are involved, then we'll quickly get to a situation where it's best to close the account. I think iStock and Spagetty Images are playing with fire - their loss will be greater than mine. Let's just wait and see what the new file handling actually entails.

I'm exclusive and opted out of PP so I was thinking more in terms of the 'upstream' mirroring/moving.
If they move or mirror my files elsewhere I'm going to ask them not to do that, or else I delete the file. If bestsellers are involved, then we'll quickly get to a situation where it's best to close the account. I think iStock and Spagetty Images are playing with fire - their loss will be greater than mine. Let's just wait and see what the new file handling actually entails.

I'm guessing that it will indeed be the best sellers that get mirrored/moved upstream. Makes sense on several levels: they are already proven sellers, they'll almost certainly only be paying you 20%, they don't have to give you RCs. If they move rather than mirror, the last point could be crucial for what they'd have to pay the top sellers on iStock.
My guess, and I'm usually wrong on the optimistic side , is that they'll first move/mirror most of the blue flames, then the red flames which have a high dl/month ratio.
If they indeed move rather than mirror, I know of a few people who will be particularly badly hit, as they have one or a couple of very high sellers and the rest of their port doesn't sell so fast.

They should just have said, "We are cancelling your choice whether to opt files out of ELs". Which they tried to do already by forcing non-opted in files to the back of best match searches, but presumably that wasn't effective enough.

Mostly because, as usual, they didn't bother to tell everyone about it. If you missed one forum post by rogermexico, you didn't hear that news.

Must admit I'm puzzled as to why anyone would want to opt out of ELs, anyway.

The way EL's are set up it's all or nothing. There is nothing to stop me from licensing your image and then selling it as a print on Zazzle or CafePress. Some photographers don't feel that the $10 to $20 that they get for the EL is enough compensation for that type of usage.

I think IS's biggest issue is that they've made everything to confusing for the customer and the contributor. IS tried to be a one stop shop and failed because they had no way to target the customers effectively. If I get a $1 an image ad - then I'm looking for $1 images - not $30 Agency or Vetta work. Now Getty is creating a system by which they can funnel the higher priced items to Getty, the mid level to IS and the lower priced items to thinkstock. The major flaw here is that they are using a completely arbitrary system to determine which images will go where.

So Yuri and Lisa's images will be listed as "low priced" and put on Thinkstock/photos.com while lower quality/less sellable images will be moved to Getty because they are owned by exclusives. (Note: Not all exclusives have low quality images the point is simply that work is not automatically better simply based on the exclusivity of the artist even though that is the defining line according to Getty/Istock.)

Quote

So Yuri and Lisa's images will be listed as "low priced" and put on Thinkstock/photos.com while lower quality/less sellable images will be moved to Getty because they are owned by exclusives. (Note: Not all exclusives have low quality images the point is simply that work is not automatically better simply based on the exclusivity of the artist even though that is the defining line according to Getty/Istock.)

Yuri already has 24,000 images on Thinkstock.  I doubt this will affect him.

It will when they decide to move instead of mirror the images later down the line. I really think that this is the end game plan. To have each site with a distinct market. It's not a bad idea until you see what they are using as the measuring stick.

I am not really surprised by the new ASA. It�s been obvious since the change of the Getty agreement that they want to have the flexibility to move content between their different agencies. As long as the content is mirrored and my main istock portfolio stays under my control, I have no problem with that. I am anyway opted into EL and the partner program.

The one thing I really welcome is that all video content will be mirrored on getty, even if it is just a clip of ducks in the park. I know many photographers who are exploring video and are not thinking of going exclusive, because there was no additional incentive for exclusive mixed media artists. Now at least we get two sales channels, so even if I never produce video in volume I can stay exclusive with both photo and video and hopefully generate enough income.

That so many photographers are thinking of signing up with pond5 for video, was worrying me a lot, because customers will obviously not just buy video there, but also pictures.

I hope they will mirror more content (illustrations, flash...) to encourage mixed media artists to stay fully exclusive.

Obviously I am still upset that our copyright isn�t being attributed properly in the gettyverse. my images are showing up on Corbis under strange names. They said it is on their radar and I hope it will be adressed as soon as this new upload system that JJ keeps talking about is complete.

It sounds like they want to create a huge Gettyecosystem, so that as a contributor my images will become part of an endless image machine that keeps moving content around.

Will I feel comfortable with that? Well, as an exclusive I appreciate that I only have to deal with one upload process and one payment system. I also wonder if the new gettyverse will be so different to what the independents experience who deal with many agencies,i.e. I do expect there to be problems with late payments from some agents, some image transfers getting stuck etc...if you have so many different parties involved it will not be perfect.

I think those who have a reason to be most worried are the traditional Getty photographers. Whenever Getty comes out with a creative brief, they no longer have to wait for the few photographers interested to shoot something for them - they can dive right into the pool of all 120 000 artists and come up with very specialized, regional, fresh content. That is why they also want to be able to move independet content "upstream" if necessary.

This will be great for the customers, getty really will be a one stop shop and probably can fullfill most image needs globally, including editorial.

As contributors I suppose we have to come to terms with this vision.

Either you become independent and supply only those agencies you feel you can "bond with" or fit whatever criteria you choose plus maybe have your own store, you can differentiate between Rf and RM, giving higher quality RM to your preferred agencies and RF to everyone, or you can sign up to be exclusive with the universe of Getty.

For me it will be a combination of the Gettyverse and other freelance work, maybe even something not photography related. It will still be a much better life than "traditional business".

JJRD

Posted 2 mins ago
Quote

There shall be NO such thing as ''remove''.

This is all about ''mirroring''.

...in reply to a post by PeskyMonkey

Thanks Jasmin.  Mirroring doesn't bother me at this point.  It was bound to happen sooner or later.  Removing, OTOH, would be a big problem. 

JJRD
Posted 2 mins ago
Quote
There shall be NO such thing as ''remove''.
This is all about ''mirroring''.
...in reply to a post by PeskyMonkey

In the first iteration.
And, as far too often, JJ directly contradicts the FAQ, which Lobo has helpfully quoted:
2. Unless there is some other indication in the upload process or on the iStock site (as is currently the case with Vetta and Agency), iStock can move or mirror your exclusive content � photo, video, illustration, flash � to a similar or higher priced collection.