Then I will quote is as the diamond I'm speaking to who is not meeting target says it...I wish I had kept seriously uploading. It would have been easier to meet my target. Henceforth he's also going to be uploading a lot more. It's obvious the files uploaded must then sell to help meet rc next year.

Nowhere in there is any implication about working hard. Another colleague, gold, recently asked my advice. His talent is supreme, he works his butt off. Just needs to upload more.

Quote from: SNP on December 09, 2010, 11:50

I am one of the demoted to Photographer's Choice even though I have uploaded almost 50 images to the Photodisc collection.

Work hard, and they'll still kick your a*se.

Yes, seems so. Though my theory, which I'm literally sitting here discussing

I'm guessing it applies to those of who were actively submitting. but I don't know.

On the other hand it looks like Getty/Istock don't think that some people are hard working enough either.

For those of you not able to follow on the closed forum, istock Getty contributors have just received emails either saying
You can continue to contribute to getty and our editors will decide where your images best fit:
or : you can pay 50$ an image and submit through photograher's choice. 

JRRD categorised the recipients of the last email thusly: "Not for people who truely worked hard and made sure to succeed at Getty Images."
Glad I never took up the offer of a contract.

for the record. what I said has been completed twisted around. but there's zero point in defending my original words.

@Susan: as for this Getty email issue, indeed we've received notes about Getty submissions and indeed many of us have been *re-routed*....which to me is simply a demotion. I'm in just about total agreement with your post. FYI the Photographer's Choice option starts with 10 free files. each FIRST downloaded results in a new file slot for free according to our understanding of the agreement.

SNP... Please give up on this already. Every post you write just makes it worse.

...you have what, 100 files?  thanks for the advice....

Quote from: SNP on December 07, 2010, 22:44

I certainly think it's harsh. at the same time, playing devil's advocate....an agency must protect its artists and its guarantees to customers....if it's a slap on the wrist, what's to deter contributors from copyright infringement? in publishing, plagiarism can result in fraud charges and potentially imprisonment. again, no insinuation about the case at hand....just saying, I don't think it's as easy as calling it unfair.

Maybe yes, but the least an agency could do with a long term contributor is contact him beforehand an explain him the situation, and listen to what he has to say (not just sending a generic e-mail that doesn't explain at all what has happened).

yes, agreed. but I guess in theory that gives a guilty party time to cover tracks. this is a relationship we have with our agencies and I think courtesy should almost always be involved. this does seem incredibly discourteous.

^ it was meant in that vein. but it quickly was spun into something else. secondly, I do think there's seriously part-time Sean. there are people doing this part-time working full-time hours who have met their targets. in fact a contributor we both know was working full-time until a few months ago on top of being one of iStock's top sellers. anyways...and for the record, as for being haughty....I'm very open about my own non-successes. like Agency...I'm all but unwanted in there and I don't have much Vetta either. I'm not at all holding myself up as an example, except to say that it's not impossible to reach the RC targets, even if you're not a major contributor. and I'm certainly not. never said I was nor do I think of myself as one.

I think the Agency search bug should be a priority too. it's absolutely ridiculous that buyers have to go through that to search for files. I don't get the hold up on that bug. how frustrating.

I don't agree with splitting out collections though. I think they've already considered an option to omit Vetta/Agency files from searches but I don't know what the final decision is on that issue.

Quote from: cclapper on December 08, 2010, 09:20

Quote

From SNP: I guess it depends on how you look at. I upload my butt off. I work at producing better content everyday. I'm serious about my business. I guess that comment will ruffle feathers, but it's not meant to. my point is that contributors who mean to produce and improve and supply will reach their targets. if contributors on the whole don't meet targets, or just miss them....it seems they'll revisit the targets to the benefit of contributors.

I don't appreciate the comment about "being serious about your business" either. Just because a person isn't an uploading factory doesn't mean they aren't serious about their business. The statement and the whole situation reminds me of that of a wife-abuser. He beats the crap out of her then tells her it's her fault because she shouldn't have said or done something. Getty/IS takes away our commissions, changes the goalposts, "borrows" EL money, breaks the search engine, breaks the reporting of sales, and then some people have the gall to say it's our fault because we didn't work hard enough or we're not good businesspeople.

Yeah, I took offense to that haughty bit as well.

I'm sorry this offended you. it wasn't meant to be haughty. it's just realistic. anyways, it seems the reality isn't what you want. you want to gripe and you clearly just want to be pissed off. it's funny Marisa, when I first started on iStock, I read your blog regularly. I really love your photography and have always respected you, even when we've disagreed. guess that doesn't go both ways. anyways.

it's not nonsense at all. and you'll notice in my post that I acknowledged that the quality obviously has to be there. chances are someone who isn't that *good* wouldn't be uploading 1,000 average images regularly anyways. I'm constantly surprised how often buyers choose *average* files. often designers want a foundation image without anything done to it so they can design its use themselves etc. you're effectively making my point even more clear. bad files move back. I'd agree that poor files are most of the time moved back as they go without being purchased (and sometimes good files get buried due to circumstance and eventually pop up in best match again and start to sell). so if someone with close to a decade of experience is continually improving and growing their portfolio, their files will not be amongst the files being pushed back because they'll be selling and they'll more easily reach their RC targets.

sorry, but serious contributors are uploading more than 10 files per week because we all know of each ten uploaded, MAYBE 1 will take off and that's being optimistic. usually not all 10. contributors who are looking to see growth upload. period. I'll use my own portfolio to be fair. I know someone with the same sized portfolio as me and he garners 10x the number of sales that I do. his performance is astronomical. but I've been on iStock for four years and my port is almost at 6K. I reached my RC target three months ago. I'm no sjlocke....but I upload a lot. I often fill my upload slots and I have a busy life too. I have to put food on my table too. I have a family, I have responsibilities and I also have writing obligations. I write three hours per day. so what? who you are as a person doesn't get factored into your RC.

and yes, OF COURSE your sales numbers have to move up with your portfolio growth. that's stating the obvious.

Jo Ann - I say this with respect, because I know you know the business. I would not highlight you as an example, but since you did in response to my post, I'd say you are precisely the type of diamond they want producing more. in close to 7 years, you have just 2,500 files. that's less than 40 uploaded per month over 6 years...to be conservative since you're not quite at 7 years. that is simply not enough to maintain sales or growth. in any business that growth per year would not be adequate in terms of supporting further growth.

that does not speak to quality of your work, which we all agree is great I'm sure. nor does it speak to your knowledge, which I'm the first to say you have a great deal of and which you share very generously. but if I forget it is you in the example...there are many higher canister levels who reached diamond--the second to highest canister level--simply by whittling away at it for a few years. that's okay, but why should they get the same income as a contributor producing hundreds of files per month, and therefore generating income with more downloads (assuming the quality is there).

I don't think the RC system is perfect or even great by any means...but I think it is slightly more fair in theory than canister levels. maybe not in terms of the levels they've set...and I'm hoping those will be modified if contributors aren't making their targets.

Quote from: SNP on December 07, 2010, 17:54

Lisa - in reply to your other question...adjusting the RC targets downward is good...isn't it? Andrew's just said they won't be adjusted up. meaning, if anything, if people aren't reaching targets en masse, they'll adjust the targets to be more reasonable.

translation, they want to see contributors producing. that's my take anyways.

I don't think they will raise targets for this year, unless they're trying to get rid of loads of contributers; and if they wanted to do that, they'd just do it.
What they do in the future, who can tell.
As Susan says, we can't take their 'word' at face value. Even if they genuinely mean it at the time, tomorrow, next week, next month, who knows?
The RC targets are very demotivational. I've no chance of reaching the 35% target, and my uploads of the past 18 months aren't selling, so it doesn't seem worth the effort, so if they want to see the humble minions producing, they've gone a funny way about it.

I guess it depends on how you look at. I upload my butt off. I work at producing better content everyday. I'm serious about my business. I guess that comment will ruffle feathers, but it's not meant to. my point is that contributors who mean to produce and improve and supply will reach their targets. if contributors on the whole don't meet targets, or just miss them....it seems they'll revisit the targets to the benefit of contributors.

seems reasonable to me. I'm not happy about losing anything on Vetta sales, since I've only got <20 Vettas anyways.....but that's my only beef about this initiative. I don't think we should be hit with the cost of marketing in addition to what is already taken in their royalty chunk.