Quote from: warren0909 on February 05, 2010, 06:24
The big problem is with me and prob a few of the others is that we just dont know who you are and where your coming from. I have no problem as I use the same name here as I do with all the stock agencies. this can be verified by other people here in a matter of clicks, so for me nothing to hide.

I'm not sure about you but there are people out there making living from this possibly with families dependant on their income. FT has record of treating anyone they perceive as 'hurting their business' rather violently. I would understand anyone trying to hide their identity. Yet, obviously, we would have more credibility if people did not do that, especially in case they are larger/large contributors.

I agree with FD, you should not, in my opinion, leave the images on ThinkStock as it is the real low pay per download agency.

Note that FT gives us 0.3, DT 0.35, 123RF 0.36, SS is bit different as the initial is also 0.25, yet for anyone bit serious it goes quickly up to 0.33.

By supporting TS (don't we need an abbrev for the new stock?) in masses, we give the higher paying sub agencies clear message that we don't mind lowering our commissions.

And as for transferring StockXpert content to IS (instead of to TS), I think it was pretty clear from the beginning that this could not happen. It would cut some of the major rules of IS - like the upload limits, larger upload limits for exclusives, supposed higher standards...

Quote from: madelaide on February 04, 2010, 00:09

Quote from: gostwyck on February 03, 2010, 23:44
Why are you such an apologist for Fotolia anyway? Are you pimping yourself to take over Mat Hayward's position or something?

Don't be ridiculous, gotwyck.  Just because I don't agree with some of the whiners, it doesn't mean I am on FT's side.

And read OM's post.  I don't think there is any conspiracy on FT's currency calculations.  It's just the most convenient for them.

I think it is most convenient and most profitable for them (I strongly believe very high % of their customers pays in Euros and pretty significant % of contributors are registered in US zone even though they may also be Europeans).

I really believe that if another variant would be more profitable for them even if not so convenient they would do whatever they needed to make that happen.

Also, I don't see that many whiners here. Or we have different perception of what is whining and what is disagreement.

Quote from: borg on February 02, 2010, 22:45
What!?

Is it mean that isn't so bad about this credit price changing!?

If that's meant to be a question for me, then I don't know. I just posted the credit prices I see in the US zone. The $1 fixed credit price for contributors seems to be someplace in the middle.

Quote from: mocker on February 02, 2010, 22:25

Quote from: Danicek on February 02, 2010, 21:45
The US offer seems to be here:

21 credits = $ 24.00 (included 1 bonus credits - $ 1.14/credit)
55 credits = $ 60.00 (included 5 bonus credits - $ 1.09/credit)
115 credits = $ 120.00 (included 15 bonus credits - $ 1.04/credit)
180 credits = $ 180.00 (included 30 bonus credits - $ 1.00/credit)
325 credits = $ 300.00 (included 75 bonus credits - $ 0.92/credit)
700 credits = $ 600.00 (included 200 bonus credits - $ 0.86/credit)
1500 credits = $ 1,200.00 (included 500 bonus credits - $ 0.80/credit)
3200 credits = $ 2,400.00 (included 1200 bonus credits - $ 0.75/credit

The Credit for contributor is worth $1. They should really pay us % of the price, i.e. if someone buys our image with credits worth $0.75, our percentage should be calculated from that.

From looking at the above prices it is not really 100% if it would result in bigger or smaller commission (for us in US zone).

so if buyer paid for package of 325 credits or more - we are actually getting higher % then specified in our level?

Yes, the numbers seem to suggest that. However very high % of FT buyers are from Germany and the rest EU. These buy in Euros and Pounds. Whereas most contributors are probably in the $$ realm (I'm even though I registered from within EU where I also live now). This changes the % significantly.

The US offer seems to be here:

21 credits = $ 24.00 (included 1 bonus credits - $ 1.14/credit)
55 credits = $ 60.00 (included 5 bonus credits - $ 1.09/credit)
115 credits = $ 120.00 (included 15 bonus credits - $ 1.04/credit)
180 credits = $ 180.00 (included 30 bonus credits - $ 1.00/credit)
325 credits = $ 300.00 (included 75 bonus credits - $ 0.92/credit)
700 credits = $ 600.00 (included 200 bonus credits - $ 0.86/credit)
1500 credits = $ 1,200.00 (included 500 bonus credits - $ 0.80/credit)
3200 credits = $ 2,400.00 (included 1200 bonus credits - $ 0.75/credit

The Credit for contributor is worth $1. They should really pay us % of the price, i.e. if someone buys our image with credits worth $0.75, our percentage should be calculated from that.

From looking at the above prices it is not really 100% if it would result in bigger or smaller commission (for us in US zone).

Quote from: gostwyck on February 01, 2010, 18:33

Quote from: massman on February 01, 2010, 18:19
... but no one will leave FT and FT will carry on as it always has, because they can.

I will __ most definitely. Do they really think they can increase prices to the customers by over 30% and pass none of it to us? They are supposed to be paying /us a fixed % royalty on our sales and when prices go up then so should our commissions. I've taken copies of all the relevant documentation and am seriously considering taking court action to recover the difference.

Once again FT are acting as Istock's Chief Exclusivity Recruiting Officer.

BTW, they never really did. And all depends on where one happened to register. Even though I registered from withink EU, I'm $$ contributor meaning that one my credit is 1$. Whereas others may have their credits praiced in Euros or Pounds and in fact earn significantly more per credit.

In they are selling their credits in variying prices, then they need to give us variable commissions for every sale based on the credit spent price. Just like IS does.

This one seems to be new and they are planning a lot with it. There are already numerous blog posts about it (from today 2/1).

see (an example):

http://www.earthtimes.org/articles/show/introducing-thinkstock-a-new-kind-of-image-subscription,1144260.shtml

Quote from: lisafx on January 27, 2010, 22:27
I am pretty sure that some buyers DO search on one site and buy on another. 

At Dreamstime, where we can see what words or phrases were searched I have often seen my images searched for by the exact image title (and I don't mean something obvious like "apple isolated").

That's very interesting info and kind of firm proof that some indeed do...

This really sounds like too wild a theory to me. The above shots are very well covered subject. I doubt any reviewer would reject them to protect their portfolio when there are hundreds, thousands other competing image. It would not make any difference.

Wrong button or some other reason (like being in bad mood) sound much more realistically to me. Obviously the reason given for the rejection is irrelevant.

I use the predecessor of its predecessor, the 400D for everything I do (I don't have the kit lens, though).

So, yes, it is good enough to produce pictures accepted on stock sites.

When I was buying it, the seller forced me to go with Tamron SP AF 17-50 mm F/2,8 instead of the kit lens telling me it is much better deal (still likely not matching the L lenses).

I'm pretty sure buyer has to provide some info in order to make the accounting stuff work for both side. I believe the 'US' customer is based on this info (i.e. where the the customer is locations/is paying taxes).

Quote from: cidepix on January 05, 2010, 23:30

Quote from: gostwyck on January 05, 2010, 23:09

Quote from: sharpshot on January 05, 2010, 21:25
.... I think this is going to be a huge problem for FT if they don't sort it out quickly.  It looks like there is a significant number of contributors that don't want to spend money and time doing the paperwork for an ITIN.  It pushes them towards exclusivity with istock or just using the sites that don't ask for the ITIN.  I think fotolia have underestimated the amount of money they will lose from this.  Hopefully it will dawn on them and now they know other sites have an agreement with the IRS, there really isn't any excuse they can use.

... is the right answer.

FT need to get their * together and quickly or I will be past caring and simply go exclusive as soon as I can. What annoys me more than anything is that they appear to be withholding US tax on all sales irrespective on whether not the sale originated from the US. This simply has to be illegal doesn't it?

It certainly is!

It is not that simple. As far as I know, they are witholding 30% on sales in the US for people with validated submitted form without ITIN and applying 28% income tax on all sales for people without the form. I'm pretty sure they are basing this on something, they may be wrong, yet it is not just a mistake.

Also, to Sharpshots point, doing math for my (it may be statistically irrelevant as the sample is not large enough) sales, the 30% witheld on US sales (which is what is happening to me as I have validated form without ITIN), equals to approx 4 - 5% of the money earned. That's not that much. So it may actually push people towards exclusivity, yet it is more the absurd unprofessionalism with which FT handled this that may push people towards exclusivity so that they don't have to handle stuff with such an agency.

Quote from: tdoes on January 06, 2010, 03:52
I need to ask Fotolia that once the forms have been reviewed and approved will sales be credited appropriately that were made while the form was pending in their queue?

Not sure which deduction you are questioning here. The witholded tax won't be returned to you retroactively by FT. If you get the ITIN (and are qualified for less than 30% witholding), you would have to claim it from IRS. FT will only stop to withold it on sales from that moment on.

Quote from: RacePhoto on January 06, 2010, 03:56

Quote from: cybernesco on January 06, 2010, 01:19

The above mention thread has changed.   Daniela is checking to see if a PDF file is acceptable with the IRS.  Until then we are to request  the W7 letter by mail.

(http://www.fotolia.com/forum/viewtopic.php?id=24454):

Denis

The Three Stooges are running the legal department?

If you go to the IRS site and download any US tax forms, they are all PDF files!

Like this one, W-9 download, note the site is IRS GOV   http://www.irs.gov/pub/irs-pdf/fw9.pdf


W-7 Here:  http://www.irs.gov/pub/irs-pdf/fw7.pdf

However were are not discussing the forms here. We are discussing the hand-signed letter from FT that we need to attach to the form. It has to be hand-signed. They seem to be checking if the PDF printed version (i.e. not literally hand signed) is acceptable.

Quote from: MikLav on January 05, 2010, 20:31
a good point is made in the neighbor thread - if Fotolia persists on ITIN they will have to male paper letters to everyone; and this wouldn't be cheap when multiplied thousands times.

Actually, as I posted in the other thread, they seem to send it as PDF with 'hand written' signature. Easy to automate. Long term costs close to 0.

Here is the post from FT forum (http://www.fotolia.com/forum/viewtopic.php?id=24454):

All you need to do, Denis, is contact customer support in the US and request the letter; they will send you a PDF with a hand-written signature.  Like Mat said, you need to contact CS, not post it here on the forum.

thanks,

Daniela

Director, Fotolia United Kingdom

^^ Looks like they are sending the letter as PDF with 'hand written' signature. If that satisfies IRS (and I guess it will), then that is easy to automate and hence cut the costs to almost 0 (long term).

So this almost sounds like there really isn't any legal reference that we could quote that would kind of force FT to not require ITIN. It is just a special arrangement with IRS and no one knows on what exactly it is based and whether FT does not want to or cannot make it.

Quote from: MikLav on January 05, 2010, 16:17
However I don't have a formal legal reference for that statement

Yes, and that's the problem. I've not seen anyone citing any actual legal reference for that statement.

Quote from: hqimages on January 05, 2010, 13:23

Quote from: elvinstar on January 05, 2010, 02:27
Where is everyone seeing the tax percent being taken off? Also I cannot find where to view whether it was a US or non-US sale? If i am a US resident and i already filled out a form in the past do I have to do it again? Or does this only apply to non-US residents. Sorry I am very confused...

If you live in Europe, and the download is made in Europe also, America cannot take any tax on that sale.. if you live in America, I'm not sure, you may just get taxed on every sale regardless of where the download occurs..

FT is US agency. One would say your statement holds true even if the sale happens through US agent. Yet I assure you tax laws are not fully logical. So I wouldn't be surprised if under some conditions the income would get taxed.

There was confusion caused obviously by unbelievable lack of communication and confusing info in messages that got out, yet it seems that the fact is that:

- They have been deducting 30% from US sales for people that submitted the form without ITIN
- They have been deducting 28% from all sales for people that did not submitted the form
+ Likely those that submitted the form with ITIN get the appropriate deduction according to the treaties (although I've not heard that from anyone, I would assume that the really big players put their acts together, probably also because they already had the ITIN)

Is this illegal? I would consult layer first. The 30% deducted is clearly the witholding rate for non-treaty countries. Searching for whether ITIN is required or not on IRS site, I have mixed impression. Is it 100% that SS has it right? No.

The 28% is supposed to be some sort of US income tax. Is income of non-US person made through sale to non-US customer through US based agent supposed to get taxed like that? One would think that it would be illogical. Yet we all know tax laws tend to be illogical at spots.

What I'm trying to say here is that it is not clear whether this whole thing is illegal (partially). One thing is clear - this is by far the most poorly handled action of any agency or employer I've experienced so far.

Quote from: suemack on January 05, 2010, 08:06

Quote from: alias on January 04, 2010, 22:05
^ flickr is definitely allowed and lots of people have websites with galleries.

from the Photo.net tos
'You also grant us a perpetual non-exclusive worldwide royalty-free license to use, reproduce, adapt, publicly perform and publicly display your User Content on the Site and to promote the Site'

This section of Photo.net TOS does not seem to have any impact on whether you can or cannot display your stuff on Flickr.

Quote from: elvinstar on January 05, 2010, 02:27
Where is everyone seeing the tax percent being taken off? Also I cannot find where to view whether it was a US or non-US sale? If i am a US resident and i already filled out a form in the past do I have to do it again? Or does this only apply to non-US residents. Sorry I am very confused...

When I'm logged to FT, I click on My Credits in the upper menu, there are all the sales credits like this:

   Photo Sale credit - File ID: 11224000   +1.6

   Photo Sale credit - File ID: 13848922 (withholdings included at 30%)   +1.4

The second one had witholding.

Then if you click on My Files in the upper menu Statistics in the submenu, you see options for stats viewing, the last two options are new and are for the tax stuff:

How many of my files have been viewed?
How many of my photos have been downloaded?
How many files did I buy/download?
How many credits have I earned?
How many credits have I converted?
How much is the withholding amount?
How many credit have I earned from US buyers?

From the latest info on the FT forums, it looks like people who had filled in the tax form without ITIN are subject to 30% witheld on US sales only. People that had not filled in anything are subject to 28% tax on all their sales which some hint is legal and is supposed to stay that way. We will see...

Quote from: ThomasAmby on January 03, 2010, 16:22
I do want to complain, but feel powerless. Seriously. This is a joke.

Fill in the FT help desk ticket. Describing the fact that the witholding happens on all of your sales. There are probably others doing this, yet the more, the better. I know this may not get you anywhere, yet there is chance. Actually this is bit different than just the other stuff on which their support proved to be unresponsive. This would be clearly illegal and they will know that.