MicrostockGroup
Agency Based Discussion => iStockPhoto.com => Topic started by: ffNixx on February 01, 2013, 04:49
-
Our situation as iStock contributors will not improve as long as the current contract remains in place. A group of major contributors needs to gather together, hire a lawyer and demand that iStock/Getty negotiate with us on a new contract. There is plenty of scope for making the contract clearer and fairer. Opt-out provisions, transparency on custom deals, better definition of sub-licensing, etc.
As a small contributor, I would take part by sharing the cost of the effort. But the effort should be fronted by all, or nearly all, of the black diamonds, backed by the rest of us. Any black diamonds here willing to get this process started?
-
Our situation as iStock contributors will not improve as long as the current contract remains in place. A group of major contributors needs to gather together, hire a lawyer and demand that iStock/Getty negotiate with us on a new contract. There is plenty of scope for making the contract clearer and fairer. Opt-out provisions, transparency on custom deals, better definition of sub-licensing, etc.
As a small contributor, I would take part by sharing the cost of the effort. But the effort should be fronted by all, or nearly all, of the black diamonds, backed by the rest of us. Any black diamonds here willing to get this process started?
I believe any collective efforts by contributors should be aimed at the industry as a whole, not a specific agency. Screwing over contributors is not exclusive to Istock. Many agencies participate in that. The long term solution would be direct sales, cutting out the agencies altogether. Hopefully, that's the direction we are going.
-
A group of major contributors needs to gather together, hire a lawyer and demand that iStock/Getty negotiate with us on a new contract.
Good luck with that!
Screwing over contributors is not exclusive to Istock.
Dead right there too. The numbers of people here criticising IS and then licking the backsides of other agencies paying them a few cents never ceases to amaze.
The biggest problems is the large numbers of contributors who would upload pretty much whatever they were paid.
Any black diamonds here willing to get this process started?
My money is on the answer to that one being 'no'.
It's hard not to appear cynical and negative but this business encourages those two emotions.
-
I'm not sure why contributors keep barking up this tree. istockgetty is NOT going to change. They are in business to make money and they don't give a crap if they stomp all over the contributor's IP to get it. The only solution is for contributors to pick up their toys and go play somewhere else. If they still want to make money, that is.
-
If they still want to make money, that is.
I'm still making a 4 figure weekly income at IS. My knowledge of the experience of those who have left doesn't encourage me to leave. 3 are making less than they were at IS, 1 has returned to exclusivity. If I thought I could do better outside the handcuffs of exclusivity, believe me I would be first to go. As it is, I believe my income would be severely compromised, something I cannot afford to risk.
-
Our situation as iStock contributors will not improve as long as the current contract remains in place. A group of major contributors needs to gather together, hire a lawyer and demand that iStock/Getty negotiate with us on a new contract....
Bold italics added by me
You make demands when you have some leverage. What leverage do you think contributors have other than threatening to pull their content from Getty? And unless you remove the clause that says Getty can change the contract with 30 days notice, anything you negotiate is only temporary.
The problem is the balance of power. Getty earns a lot of people a lot of money - it may be less than it was, but it's still more than many other outlets. That gives Getty leverage - go read about the April 2011 contract changes with Getty contributors as one recent example of how they use that leverage.
The only thing that will improve the situation is another big dog that (a) Getty doesn't buy and (b) treats contributors better than Getty does.
-
I'm not sure why contributors keep barking up this tree. istockgetty is NOT going to change. They are in business to make money and they don't give a crap if they stomp all over the contributor's IP to get it. The only solution is for contributors to pick up their toys and go play somewhere else. If they still want to make money, that is.
Like Vlad said, I'm sure there are contributors making money. Otherwise, people like Sean would probably be jumping ship. That said, I agree with you. They aren't going to change.
-
the nightmare won't end unless we collectively sue google.. istock is just a small fish..