Quote from: yingyang0 on April 04, 2008, 15:42

Seriously, I'm shocked on this one. I never expected iStock to be willing to take all of the risk while sharing the reward, because I sure wouldn't have in my business. I hope it works.

I am also extremely shocked on this one, but I doubt that IS will take "all of the risk".

They will most likely greatly benefit from the lack of sales on the weekends, holidays, sick days, vacation days, business trip days, etc in which case they will receive 100% of the profit for that day (and we will receive none).

Well those weekend "lost profits" go to equalize the losses iStock will incur by paying higher per credit then what the buyer paid when the subscription is fully used (because the subscription costs will be less then lowest credit price of .96 per credit currently offered). I don't see an actual risk for the contributors here, do you? Unlike the other subscription models where you have to worry about cannibalization, contributors aren't making less than per credit sales, they're actually making the same or potentially much more. So there isn't an added risk for contributors really unless I'm missing something.

Quote from: yingyang0 on April 04, 2008, 11:19

I'll eat my shoe if at the end of the day contributors aren't making less and buyer's aren't getting less for the dollar (with iStock pocketing the difference on both ends).

You want fries with that? 

Crap. Anyone have any hot sauce?

Seriously, I'm shocked on this one. I never expected iStock to be willing to take all of the risk while sharing the reward, because I sure wouldn't have in my business. I hope it works.

Under this scheme contributors always get paid based on the full subscription payment for every day that a customer actually makes a purchase. Very fair (except of coutse those credits have been bought at deep discount).

Sorry hatman but that's not how it will or even could work. Your theory means that all commissions would be calculated at the end of the day. That kind of load would crash their servers every single day. Not to mention that it would defeat the purpose of having different size downloads because you could potentially earn more from a XS download than from a XXL.

The real system will undoubtedly screw all contributors and buyers, with iStock pocketing the difference. Here is a more likely outcome:

Day one: Buyer has 10 credit per day subscription and uses all 10 credits = same as before (only less because the subscription offers the credits at a deep discount)

Day two: Buyer uses 5 of his 10 credits = same as before (only less because the subscription offers the credits at a deep discount). iStock will pocket the value of the 5 credits that were not used.

Day three: Buyer uses only 1 of his 10 credits = same as before (only less because the subscription offers the credits at a deep discount). iStock will pocket the value of the 9 credits that were not used and MAKE A HUGE PROFIT!

I think photographers at IS are about to get screwed, and I said so in the thread. I went exclusive at IS because I thought it was the better model for photographers. If they actually go through with this I'll probably drop exclusivity because it won't be worth crap.

It all started when they went to the net sales/commission model. That allowed them to experiment with screwing photographers more and more while still keeping up sales and therefore widening margins. This is just another step in the process.

Not to mention this new change drastically lowers the value of being exclusive! I'm pissed, and I don't even consider microstock a real source of income (though did include on my 1040). I can't imagine what exclusives that depend on iStock income must be feeling.

Quote from: yingyang0 on April 01, 2008, 23:54

Quote from: sharply_done on April 01, 2008, 23:38

Geez, where's your sense of humour?
You must be a riot at parties.

It's one thing to to prank, friends, family, co-workers. It is another thing to intentionally interferer with another person's business/livelihood. I love april's fools, just I would never do one that could financially harm people, especially people I don't know.

My prank this year: I came to work early and installed the "blue screen of death" screensaver on everyone's computer. The best part was how long it took the IT guy to figure it out.

well I don't think there was much harm done to corbis.... It is common for newspapers and radio stations to have april fools news, so why can't a stock site.

I noticed the highlighting. There is a huge difference between me playing a joke on people I've hired and work with, and me messing with a competitors business. If I put out a fake press release that I am buying my competitor I'd expect to be sued, period! Newspapers put out fake news that is obviously a joke and that doesn't hurt/insult other news stations. Crestock put out an insulting press release that had no obvious sign of being a joke.

Geez, where's your sense of humour?
You must be a riot at parties.

It's one thing to to prank, friends, family, co-workers. It is another thing to intentionally interferer with another person's business/livelihood. I love april's fools, just I would never do one that could financially harm people, especially people I don't know.

My prank this year: I came to work early and installed the "blue screen of death" screensaver on everyone's computer. The best part was how long it took the IT guy to figure it out.

I only know that im my case  SS beats all of them together , and it beats them good.

Even per photo? You have about 4,800 photos on SS and only 572 on IS.

hi, i just submitted a new posting from someone who got good advice from a retired lawyer,etc.. what to do if they do not respond after the agreed turnaround time, usually 1 business day:
instead of posting it all over again, here's the thread...

http://www.microstockgroup.com/index.php/topic,3629.0.html

A better way to have the photos taken down would be to have a lawyer write a take down notice under the DMCA. If the website is hosted in the US then by sending the take down notice you are almost guaranteed to have the photos taken down very quickly. (notice that you're going around the actual website and having the ISP where the website is hosted take down the offending images).

A fellow contributor and I did some detective work last week on Albumo.  We discovered their real address and tracked their "offices" down to an apartment about 10 minutes from where I live.  They also registered their LLC through some cheesy legal website instead of dealing directly with the California Secretary of State.  I'll be so glad when my 400 days are up.  What a waste of time. 

It's not really a secret requiring "detective" work (10 second search). If they actually wanted to be stealthy it is very easy to hide the actual owners of a company. The terms of all the contracts clearly say that Home Mines LLC is the company that owns the site. Here is the contact info if anyone is interested.

Address:
4941 Stamas Ln. #3
Fair Oaks, California 95628
United States

phone: 916-967-1301
email: [email protected]

google is your friend I found the link to stockxpert portfolio of that person immediately.

That was my first response, but the image I wanted wasn't available on any other site. Since I'm not familiar with stockxpert, how do you contact photographers there since you say I can?

P.S. Condescending posts are not helpful, actual ways to contact him are.

There was mention in this thread that he moved to Bigstock, but why I don't know

Actually that thread is why I asked. He didn't "move" because he wasn't exclusive and was always on a lot of sites. It appears he was kicked off of iStock but that seems very strange for a diamond contributor.

http://www.istockphoto.com/marmion

Well I didn't yet call them but i sent a message through their support site. Do you think calling them would be better?

Much better. Remember that it is Easter weekend, so monday would be best.

I have allstate home owner's insurance with a special rider to cover my camera gear and a few other things. I negotiated the actual terms of the riders with my agent when I first got them and haven't looked back yet. It helped that I've know my insurance agent for years.