MicrostockGroup Sponsors


Author Topic: sjlocke was just booted from iStock  (Read 138697 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

« Reply #500 on: February 16, 2013, 14:57 »
+2
Maybe the Getty managers have recently bought SSTK stock? Seems to me that SS shareholders will be amongst the major beneficiaries of their actions.

Only if the presumed major defection of exclusives (which has yet to be proven) leads to a similar defection by buyers. I think that istock's prices and a growing awareness of cheaper alternatives is more likely to be the factor that shifts buyers, not the movement of files out of exclusivity. Let's face it, most exclusive files already have counterpards on SS and on average exclusives are no better than independents on any site with tough inspections.

If there is no difference between IS exclusives and independents on other sites,  then why is there a price difference?  If everyone is selling Mercedes or Fords, then why would other sites leave so much money on the table?

Because the sites put whatever prices they like on stuff. It doesn't say anything about the quality.  There are hundreds of us who have the qualifications to be "istock exclusives" who chose not to take that route.

My portfolio wouldn't get any better if I went exclusive tomorrow (and I qualified to be exclusive eight years ago).  Sean's archive won't get worse when it's not on istock, and Yuri and his factory of independents pretty much set the standard for that genre.

So I'm afraid the idea that exclusives' work has some special superiority is in the "emperor's new clothes" category.


« Reply #501 on: February 16, 2013, 15:00 »
+7

« Reply #502 on: February 16, 2013, 15:54 »
0

« Reply #503 on: February 16, 2013, 18:42 »
+5
Quote
increasing your risk by having only one income partner is just plain stupid

I really love it when experts tell me how to run my business. And call me stupid.

I really love it when 'experts' deny the most obvious and basic business principles that even an 8-year-old should be able to comprehend!

So you'd recommend 'a business' to have only one income partner then? That truly is the definition of 'stupid', especially when there are multiple other outlets available with which to spread the risk.

It is absolutely no different to sinking your entire financial portfolio into one particular stock on the market __ which everyone would agree is madness. No matter how much you believe in that particular stock you cannot control how their business runs or how the market will perceive them in the future.

Just make sure you don't you ever dare speak ill of Istock or Getty in your own name ... because they can cut your entire income off at a stroke. Just as Sean, arguably the most positive poster in favour of Istock, has recently discovered.

Ask Sean if he'll ever, ever, ever put all his eggs in one agency's basket again. I know the answer, even if you don't.

« Reply #504 on: February 16, 2013, 21:06 »
+1
Not sure if somebody already posted this short blog article from Photoshelter

http://blog.photoshelter.com/2013/02/istockphoto-terminates-top-contributor-in-aftermath-of-gettygoogle-deal/

vlad_the_imp

« Reply #505 on: February 17, 2013, 02:46 »
+3
Quote
So you'd recommend 'a business' to have only one income partner then?

Of course not, I wouldn't recommend it at all, I don't personally know any exclusives who rely entirely on iStock, myself included. I think everyone I know at iStock comes there with a freelance background or as an owner of a related business and continues with their freelance business alongside microstock. My comment was more to reflect that there a a number of people here who offer advice in a very definitive way, then when you look at their sales or experience, you think, hmm, their sales don't stand up very well as a example of how to do well, either as a non-exclusive or a business of any sort.


B8

« Reply #506 on: February 17, 2013, 03:09 »
+1
http://news.cnet.com/8301-1023_3-57569639-93/istockphoto-founder-re-enters-the-market-with-stocksy/

Article From CNET:

Quote
iStockphoto founder re-enters the market with Stocksy
February 15, 2013 | Stephen Shankland

Bruce Livingstone, a pioneer of Internet-based stock-art sales, is launching a new venture even as his original company struggles with some disgruntled photographers.

Bruce Livingstone, who founded microstock powerhouse iStockphoto more than a decade ago and left it in 2009, is trying again with a new stock-art sales venture called Stocksy.

And he's doing it at a time when iStock is, if not necessarily vulnerable, the target of criticisms that it's out of touch with the army of photographers who contribute the imagery it licenses. To succeed, a microstock needs lots of customers licensing its photos, videos, and other works, and it needs a lot of contributors supplying a steady stream of fresh material.

It's these contributors Livingstone appears to be aiming to attract. The site describes Stocksy as "a stock photography cooperative owned and operated by artists," and it says contributors will have a stake in its success:

Our purpose is to create sustainable careers, ownership, and a long-term professional and equity strategy for our members.

Stocksy pays the highest royalty in the industry as well as dividends and patronage performance returns to artists, 50 percent on regular sales and 100 percent of extended licenses. By design, Stocksy pays out all profits to artists. In addition to paying dividend and patronage fees to artists on a yearly basis, each member of the co-op owns real equity in the company.

Livingstone declined to comment for this story.

Stocksy will face plenty of competitive challenges, and not just from iStockphoto, which since 2006 has been part of old-school stock-art firm Getty Images.

The microstock industry's growth was fueled by the abundance of low-cost, high-quality digital cameras and the Web, which provided a quick way to reach a global marketplace. Now there are dozens of microstocks around, including Fololia, Dreamstime, and Shutterstock, which is confident enough of growth that it went public in 2012.

But iStockphoto evidently is a source of talent for new microstocks. A case in point is photographer Sean Locke, who with 12,781 images and more than 900,000 sales is one of its top five contributors and a person who earned nearly all his income from sales through the company.

A week ago, iStock said it is terminating its relationship with Locke. According to his blog post on the subject, iStock was displeased with Locke's actions involving a Getty Images licensing deal with Google and with the fact that Locke had begun working with another stock-art firm.

"They also knew (somehow!) that I had joined this new stock site, even though it was closed to all but a relatively small group, and declared that this was against the 'spirit of the exclusivity agreement,'" Locke said.


Contributors often sign exclusivity contracts that pay them higher royalties if they agree to sell their imagery only through one microstock. Shutterstock founder Jon Oringer thinks exclusivity is bad -- "As a microstock photographer it just doesn't make sense to be exclusive to any one agency," he said in a January blog post -- but it's common. Now, though, Locke said he's moving his portfolio to multiple iStock competitors.

In a statement, iStockphoto laid the blame on the termination on Locke's helping a competitor:

In addition to other factors, Mr. Locke was actively recruiting exclusive iStock contributors to work with a competitive venture which is directly at odds with his relationship with iStockphoto. Given these actions, we made the decision to part ways with Mr. Locke under the terms of his exclusive agreement. We are excited to continue to work with the tens of thousands of contributors committed to the continued success of iStockphoto and Getty Images -- and wish Mr. Locke the best in his future endeavors.

Locke couldn't immediately be reached for comment about the recruiting issue. In his post, though, he said the severed relationship was liberating.

And the strong relations with contributors from iStockphoto's early days have faded, said Lee Torrens, author of the Microstock Diaries blog.

"iStock's soul is long gone," Torrens said. "They wiped out the entire content team, which was what kept the community functional...With the absence of leadership, old-time exclusives [exclusive photographers] are starting to jump ship. That probably doesn't hurt customers, but it bruises their reputation inside the industry."

Another photographer given the boot is Rob Sylvan, who also is author of "Lightroom 2 for Dummies.""I am very glad that I quit when I did and am no longer reliant on them as a source of income. I would urge any other iStock contributor to make sure you have a solid backup plan in place, and any exclusive contributor to start working on an exit strategy," he said in a comment to Locke.

iStockphoto said Sylvan "is identified as an administrator of a competitive venture's social media page, which, again, is directly at odds with his relationship with iStockphoto."


Some seeds of Locke's discontent were sown by the Getty deal with Google Drive, under which photographers' works could be used on Google Apps' online services for tasks such as word processing and presentations. The deal granted Google Apps users rights to 5,000 images, but they can be downloaded to a local computer and have copyright information and other metadata stripped out.

Locke objected to the Google Drive deal on iStock's forums, and a ruckus ensued with many photographers objecting. iStock scrambled to pull together its explanation as users howled.

Yesterday, iStock told CNET News it hopes for at least some changes to the Google Drive deal: "We can confirm that contributors were paid royalties for the use of their content in the license deal with Google. We are working with Google to refine the implementation which we believe will address some of the concerns raised by contributors."
« Last Edit: February 17, 2013, 03:14 by B8 »

« Reply #507 on: February 17, 2013, 03:53 »
+18
So you'd recommend 'a business' to have only one income partner then? That truly is the definition of 'stupid', especially when there are multiple other outlets available with which to spread the risk.

No, it isn't necessarily "stupid". It's highly risky yes. But over many years that risk was rewarded with about 3 to 5 times more income than independents have reported in their blogs and forum posts. That part has only changed recently for many but still many are probably making far more money than they would sharing their images across many sites.

Saying that it stupid to make more money than you could otherwise is pretty ignorant. It's a personal decision if you put the weight on "higher income" or "lower risk". Go back and figure out how much you have earned if I you had made 3 times more money in microstock for the last five years. Having given up that amount of money I wouldn't know why people wouldn't call you stupid. Or is money not so important to you?

« Reply #508 on: February 17, 2013, 06:29 »
+17
+ many of us went exclusive some years ago (me:2006) when there was believe in the company IS and we were treated rather fair.
Now that so many things went wrong it has certainly felt for some time now like an abusive relationship with golden handcuffs. The decision to go independent is inevitable - i think for all.
It was a good ride for some years, also in terms of money.

« Reply #509 on: February 17, 2013, 06:35 »
+6
Michael, we spent a lot of time here trying to work out whether the combined inde earnings were outweighed by the exclusivity deal. I think it's only since some images were mirrored on Getty and the inde/exc pricings were separated from each other that the divide really opened up. Around that time, a bunch of major independent decided to switch to exclusivity .... but before they completed the six-month lock-in at DT, things started to go haywire at iStock. I think that was about three years ago, maybe four.

Anyway, exclusivity was always a risk/reward gamble. Most people who signed up thought it was just a woo-yay target but I'm sure the more serious ones weighed up whether getty could be trusted to deliver the goods long enough for the benefits to outweigh the risks. It wasn't "stupid" to take that risk, but it was a gamble and it's not just for Sean that the pigeons have come home to roost, now. The reports of falling earnings and the attempts to divert sales to other content are all part of the downside risk that people took on when they decided to sign up. What WOULD have been stupid would have been to refuse to recognise that risk if your livelihood was going to depend on your relationship with iStock.

« Reply #510 on: February 17, 2013, 07:40 »
-9
all this talk about Stocksy is "vaporware".

as it is now, the microstock is a mature oversaturated cut-throat industry.
there's not a single chance for a tiny startup like Stocksy to get the foot in the door without being backed by investors and VCs fueling the company with TENS of millions $.

and these guys are there to make fat profits, not to provide photographers a "fair share" environment.
they will try to grow the company as much as they can and then sell it to the highest bidding competitor, that's their business plan.

early photographers who invest in Stocksy could make some money, but all the other random contributors being merely content providers will be taken for a ride again.

would you invest in Stocksy ? NO !

Poncke

« Reply #511 on: February 17, 2013, 07:48 »
+5
If you dont like micros, sean and stocksy, I suggest you open a new account at Alamy, it seems you have a better audience over there.
« Last Edit: February 17, 2013, 07:59 by Poncke »

« Reply #512 on: February 17, 2013, 09:00 »
+11
Michael, we spent a lot of time here trying to work out whether the combined inde earnings were outweighed by the exclusivity deal.

I don't agree. As SS went public, you can look up their revenue history. You can also read how much they pay out to contributors if you know how to read financial statements. And if you go back a few years, you will also find public statements by iStock about revenue and royalties. Take the SS numbers and triple that to add for FT and DT, even though I doubt they are even close to SS numbers.

You will most likely find out that iStock has made more revenue and paid out more royalties than all microstock competitors combined for many years. Actually probably more than double than all the others combined. If that wasn't what independents were seeing, it is because the bigger part of those royalties ended up with the exclusive iStockers. There is a good reason why especially among the 100-200 highest earners on iStock there is only a very small amount (maybe 10?) of non-exclusives. Those are not stupid people, they shoot for the money and do what they can to optimize their income.

Not saying things might not have changed recently. Or maybe they still didn't change, maybe they will change in the future. But for the last five years - looking for the money alone - I still think being exclusive at iStock has made a much better return than being independent, unless you have significant income from macro as well. And compared to what a similar exclusive has made in the last five years at iStock, any independent will have to wait at least another five years to make up for that. That's just my personal conclusion but I base those at the huge amount of numbers available.

« Reply #513 on: February 17, 2013, 09:01 »
+2
Michael, we spent a lot of time here trying to work out whether the combined inde earnings were outweighed by the exclusivity deal. I think it's only since some images were mirrored on Getty and the inde/exc pricings were separated from each other that the divide really opened up. Around that time, a bunch of major independent decided to switch to exclusivity .... but before they completed the six-month lock-in at DT, things started to go haywire at iStock. I think that was about three years ago, maybe four.

Anyway, exclusivity was always a risk/reward gamble. Most people who signed up thought it was just a woo-yay target but I'm sure the more serious ones weighed up whether getty could be trusted to deliver the goods long enough for the benefits to outweigh the risks. It wasn't "stupid" to take that risk, but it was a gamble and it's not just for Sean that the pigeons have come home to roost, now. The reports of falling earnings and the attempts to divert sales to other content are all part of the downside risk that people took on when they decided to sign up. What WOULD have been stupid would have been to refuse to recognise that risk if your livelihood was going to depend on your relationship with iStock.


Even at that point in time Getty had history of mistreating its contributor, so yes, i would say that it was stupid to consider exclusivity with anything related to Getty. Count me in for being a little stupid too though, because i was very close to going exclusive. Then they reneged on the canister deal and i decided against it. Whew, that was close!

« Last Edit: February 17, 2013, 09:04 by cclapper »

« Reply #514 on: February 17, 2013, 09:51 »
-12
If you dont like micros, sean and stocksy, I suggest you open a new account at Alamy, it seems you have a better audience over there.

oh well, i'm probably already in "ignore" by most of the readers here.
i just come here to give my 2 cents about the stock industry, my holy war against micros is concluded.

i'll be glad to see the alamy forum sink, leave the boat while you're still in time.

« Reply #515 on: February 17, 2013, 10:37 »
0
If you dont like micros, sean and stocksy, I suggest you open a new account at Alamy, it seems you have a better audience over there.

oh well, i'm probably already in "ignore" by most of the readers here.
i just come here to give my 2 cents about the stock industry, my holy war against micros is concluded.

i'll be glad to see the alamy forum sink, leave the boat while you're still in time.

Hope you get in time to learn swimming... :P

« Reply #516 on: February 17, 2013, 15:47 »
+1
Michael, we spent a lot of time here trying to work out whether the combined inde earnings were outweighed by the exclusivity deal.

I don't agree. As SS went public, you can look up their revenue history. You can also read how much they pay out to contributors if you know how to read financial statements. And if you go back a few years, you will also find public statements by iStock about revenue and royalties. Take the SS numbers and triple that to add for FT and DT, even though I doubt they are even close to SS numbers.

We didn't know four or five years ago what last year's SS accounts were going to say, nor - back then - had iS made any statement about its turnover. In addition you are forgetting about DT, Fotolia and all the rest that the inde weighs into the mix. So it was NOT clear that iStock exclusivity was a better option. Having a bigger turnover doesn't necessarily mean anything if it is divided among a much bigger pool.

If you want to know how the argument went, it was this: iStock generated about 35%-40% of an independent's income. Switching to exclusivity as a diamond would immediately cause that to double, leaving the newly-crowned about 20%- 30% down. Files that had already been buried in the search by the review time trick might move up a bit but they would remain buried. Perhaps the better search position would make up for the missing 20% after a year or two, but that was uncertain.

It was only when exclusive files started being priced higher than independent ones and the Vetta and Getty options were opened up that it started to look as if exclusivity really might be paying way better than independence. But a lot of exclusives were scared by the price differential and complained that it would push all the sales into the inde's laps.

So it has never been a no-brainer that exclusivity would pay better and I still have some doubts about whether it actually did between 2005 and 2009 (and even then you would have had to be gold or diamond; bronze or silver would almost certainly have been better as independents) . After 2009 iStock quickly started running into the Getty clawback with redeemed credits, the dumping of Agency collections etc. into the site, loss of leadershim, etc, which made it's middle- to long-term prospects as a good income source questionable.

And remember the best match shifts, where, on a whim, they would slice 20 or 30% of some contributors' earnings overnight? The first of those was in 2006 or 2007, wasn't it? It's always been a risk. I said it in 2005 (until Bruce suggested I shut up) and I've thought the same ever since.

« Last Edit: February 17, 2013, 15:49 by BaldricksTrousers »

« Reply #517 on: February 17, 2013, 16:05 »
0
all this talk about Stocksy is "vaporware".

as it is now, the microstock is a mature oversaturated cut-throat industry.
there's not a single chance for a tiny startup like Stocksy to get the foot in the door without being backed by investors and VCs fueling the company with TENS of millions $.

and these guys are there to make fat profits, not to provide photographers a "fair share" environment.
they will try to grow the company as much as they can and then sell it to the highest bidding competitor, that's their business plan.

early photographers who invest in Stocksy could make some money, but all the other random contributors being merely content providers will be taken for a ride again.

would you invest in Stocksy ? NO !

A lot of people here probably hate what the post above says, but he has a point. The overwhelming business model of choice for many agencies since about the late 90's has been to start an agency, grow the collection, then sell it off to Getty or at the very least sign a distribution agreement with them. To be fair, only iStock has taken this road as far as micro agencies are concerned.

« Reply #518 on: February 17, 2013, 17:30 »
+4
all this talk about Stocksy is "vaporware".

Normally "vaporware" is describing something that has been promised for a long time and never materialized.  Hardly an accurate description of something we only learned about last month.

as it is now, the microstock is a mature oversaturated cut-throat industry.
there's not a single chance for a tiny startup like Stocksy to get the foot in the door without being backed by investors and VCs fueling the company with TENS of millions $.
I honestly am not aware of any industry that is not over-saturated and cut-throat at this time.  Lots of types of businesses used to be fun, you could work as you wished and make lots of money.  Not any longer.  I am really sorry for you that the world changed but it changed for a lot of people who suddenly found themselves working twice as hard to make a living.

and these guys are there to make fat profits, not to provide photographers a "fair share" environment.
they will try to grow the company as much as they can and then sell it to the highest bidding competitor, that's their business plan.
I certainly hope they are in it for the profit, I assume you are not giving your work away for free?  As to selling it off, well why worry? I thought you said it was vaporware?  And they do state it will be a cooperative, not a corporation.  Cooperatives are owned by all members not by stock holders.  And I was not aware they had published their business plan, perhaps you could link to that so the rest of us can be informed?

early photographers who invest in Stocksy could make some money, but all the other random contributors being merely content providers will be taken for a ride again.

would you invest in Stocksy ? NO !
I thought you said they had "not a single chance"?  And if this will be a cooperative then there is no opportunity to 'invest'.  In a cooperative contributors become owners based on their patronage, or usage, of the cooperative.

Poncke

« Reply #519 on: February 17, 2013, 17:55 »
0
If all the shares in the coop of all contributors always only add up to 49 percent they can never prevent a sale of the coop? Am I thinking that correctly?

« Reply #520 on: February 17, 2013, 17:56 »
0
If all the shares in the coop of all contributors always only add up to 49 percent they can never prevent a sale of the coop? Am I thinking that correctly?

Just depends on how they draft up the legal stuff. Could be that the guy who owns 51% can only sell his 51% under the terms of a co op.
« Last Edit: February 17, 2013, 17:58 by Mantis »

« Reply #521 on: February 17, 2013, 18:30 »
0
If all the shares in the coop of all contributors always only add up to 49 percent they can never prevent a sale of the coop? Am I thinking that correctly?
No, a cooperative is a specific legal entity under US and Canadian law.  I am not familiar with how it would work in other countries.  Ownership is by the users of the cooperative, typically each member has a certain amount of stock, usually 1 share.  So ownership is always dilute.  Profits are distributed based on patronage, not ownership so someone with 10% of total usage (in this case sales of images) would get 10% of whatever net is achieved.  Income tax (in the US) devolves onto the owners based on patronage and 1099-PATR forms are issued to indicate that.

That is not to say they could not organize it as a corporation and just call it a cooperative, but that is how a true cooperative is organized and operates.

« Reply #522 on: February 17, 2013, 19:31 »
-1
all this talk about Stocksy is "vaporware".

as it is now, the microstock is a mature oversaturated cut-throat industry.
there's not a single chance for a tiny startup like Stocksy to get the foot in the door without being backed by investors and VCs fueling the company with TENS of millions $.

and these guys are there to make fat profits, not to provide photographers a "fair share" environment.
they will try to grow the company as much as they can and then sell it to the highest bidding competitor, that's their business plan.

early photographers who invest in Stocksy could make some money, but all the other random contributors being merely content providers will be taken for a ride again.

would you invest in Stocksy ? NO !

A lot of people here probably hate what the post above says, but he has a point. The overwhelming business model of choice for many agencies since about the late 90's has been to start an agency, grow the collection, then sell it off to Getty or at the very least sign a distribution agreement with them. To be fair, only iStock has taken this road as far as micro agencies are concerned.

...and Stockexpert.
(my bold above)

fritz

  • I love Tom and Jerry music

« Reply #523 on: February 17, 2013, 19:58 »
+1
all this talk about Stocksy is "vaporware".

as it is now, the microstock is a mature oversaturated cut-throat industry.
there's not a single chance for a tiny startup like Stocksy to get the foot in the door without being backed by investors and VCs fueling the company with TENS of millions $.

and these guys are there to make fat profits, not to provide photographers a "fair share" environment.
they will try to grow the company as much as they can and then sell it to the highest bidding competitor, that's their business plan.

early photographers who invest in Stocksy could make some money, but all the other random contributors being merely content providers will be taken for a ride again.

would you invest in Stocksy ? NO !

Agree 100%.  What's the big deal about Stocksy. Do you really believe that Bruce will make something "revolutionary" like IS did at the time. It worked in 2002  but for god sake it's 2013 many things has been changed. I mean look at the list on the right.He sold IS to Getty got $50 million and now what? Must be boring sitting at home doing nothing but spending $50 mil. Sorry but don't believe Stocksy will be replacement for betrayed IS contributors. Don't forget he sold IS to Getty and now we are dealing with this greedy monster because of him.

dbvirago

« Reply #524 on: February 17, 2013, 20:09 »
+2
If you dont like micros, sean and stocksy, I suggest you open a new account at Alamy, it seems you have a better audience over there.

oh well, i'm probably already in "ignore" by most of the readers here.
i just come here to give my 2 cents about the stock industry, my holy war against micros is concluded.

i'll be glad to see the alamy forum sink, leave the boat while you're still in time.

Are you twelve? They won't let you play, so they are going to fail.


 

Related Topics

  Subject / Started by Replies Last post
5 Replies
14592 Views
Last post August 22, 2006, 15:49
by amanda1863
9 Replies
5126 Views
Last post February 26, 2008, 13:20
by Ziva_K
11 Replies
8961 Views
Last post April 02, 2008, 18:58
by Jimi King
0 Replies
3017 Views
Last post May 20, 2008, 15:05
by melastmohican
7 Replies
17236 Views
Last post June 08, 2008, 13:41
by mantonino

Sponsors

Mega Bundle of 5,900+ Professional Lightroom Presets

Microstock Poll Results

Sponsors