MicrostockGroup Sponsors


Author Topic: We need to collectively negotiate better contract with iStock  (Read 2192 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

« on: February 01, 2013, 04:49 »
-2
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?


« Reply #1 on: February 01, 2013, 06:04 »
+1
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.

vlad_the_imp

« Reply #2 on: February 01, 2013, 06:27 »
0
Quote
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!

Quote
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.

Quote
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.

« Reply #3 on: February 01, 2013, 07:47 »
+7
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.

vlad_the_imp

« Reply #4 on: February 01, 2013, 08:54 »
+3
Quote
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.

« Reply #5 on: February 01, 2013, 11:03 »
+2
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.

« Reply #6 on: February 01, 2013, 11:50 »
0
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.

« Reply #7 on: February 01, 2013, 11:56 »
+2
the nightmare won't end unless we collectively sue google.. istock is just a small fish..


 

Related Topics

  Subject / Started by Replies Last post
changes to contract

Started by Greg Boiarsky Alamy.com

11 Replies
6277 Views
Last post January 29, 2007, 10:09
by epixx
21 Replies
8340 Views
Last post April 07, 2013, 20:19
by dingles
9 Replies
2675 Views
Last post June 27, 2014, 06:40
by leaf
10 Replies
4362 Views
Last post December 20, 2014, 13:35
by Zoom Lens
10 Replies
1253 Views
Last post June 14, 2021, 05:58
by Uncle Pete

Sponsors

Mega Bundle of 5,900+ Professional Lightroom Presets

Microstock Poll Results

Sponsors

3100 Posing Cards Bundle