Quote from: Risamay on January 01, 2011, 23:41

Love it? No. But would I take it (and bitch about it)? Likely.

I'll probably leave my portfolio up until the company folds. Whenever that day may be.

I vant all ma pennies! No matter how few they may be

But doesn't there come a point when you realise that by supporting a ridiculously low-paying agency you risk (as in 100% certainty) damaging your sales elsewhere? Anyone who supports Thinkstock being a case-in-point. Nobody in their right mind would provide TS with content if they also contributed to SS/FT/DT for example __ you'd have to be a complete idiot to do so. That's 'a stand' that's very easy and relatively cheap to make.

I do believe you just branded me an idiot, my friend. Which is fine, as it's likely spot on

Honestly, while I know it's all connected, I don't believe there are enough people willing or taking said stand(s) to garner a significant difference in the matter. Therefore, I've chosen money over principle and seek simply to collect as much as I can from wherever I can, while I can. An easy position to take when stock photography isn't your sole source of income.

This is my feeling or approach at the moment, anyway. Now, if a mass of us were able to organize (all levels of canisters from top to bottom) to shun TS or delete our IS portfolios entirely in protest, I would happily join the movement. But as that hasn't happened and isn't likely to, I'd rather make some money (even if it's a pittance). Because, at the end of the day, I think the whole business is ultimately going to be so massive and massively saturated (before too terribly long) that we'll be lucky to make a few bucks each month, any of us.

I'm a chronic (clinical, even) killjoy, I know.

Quote from: SNP on January 01, 2011, 21:09

I think keeping your port there is the smart thing to do. I don't know why anyone would delete their images altogether as a number of contributors are claiming to be doing.

I would imagine it is a statement that it isn't ok to drop royalties to 15%.  Otherwise, if 15% is ok, why not 10?

Considering it's only three people (or so) taking said action, it's not much of a statement, is it?

The bigger statement (at the moment) is the number of exclusives either giving up or voicing their current consideration over relinquishing their crown.

It would be quite the statement, of course, if droves of us did as the these three are doing. It might even have an impact toward making TPTB reconsider current policy. However, since a mass of us clearly isn't willing to take this drastic stance or measure, things will likely continue on as they are, far less likely to change in our favor.

Further, I think if people sincerely still cared (about iStock and its long-term viability) they would actually, en masse, take said stance. I don't know about anyone else, but I'm tired of the fight. Eff it. I don't really care anymore. For myself, I have little faith in the company's future and while I would like (very much) for things to change in my favor and that of every contributor, I suppose I'd like instead to collect every last red cent iStock will pay me on my images sold (vs. deleting them all from iStock and getting zilch to make a statement). I put a lot of time and energy into building my portfolio there that I'd rather not flush down the toilet, if it'll make me a few more pennies. And if the company never gets its act together and ultimately fails at some point because of it, oh well. The number of evangelical, once loyal and dedicated exclusives who have left or are considering giving up their crowns should have been the cue to revise some of their unpopular policies.

Marisa - by taking off I meant dropping your crown. I'm sorry if you disagree with that statement and when you paraphrased me you changed what I said. I wasn't talking about just those who are removing images, I was actually referring to all exclusives dumping the crown.

I have no idea how many have dropped exclusivity and are deactivating images. I only know of three who are actively removing images, one of whom has deleted his entire port, which we all know because he started a thread here about his departure. there are a lot of exclusives 'taking off' or 'dropping the crown', however you want to word it. and as an exclusive, since as far as we know exclusive files are given some best match preference, remaining exclusive when a good number of people are leaving exclusivity presents a best match advantage if you agree that iStock is pushing exclusivity, which I believe they are. no comment on whether it's right or wrong, but just the way it is. it also doesn't mean that the hit I'm taking doesn't still hurt. I don't get a raise even though I was counting on it when I hit diamond. I lose out on Vetta and ELs. I'm not attaching any nobility to staying exclusive, nor do I buy into the notion of nobility on the part of those leaving the crown behind.

What I said I thought you meant by taking off, to refresh: "was that as more exclusive contributors cancel their contract and go independent, the more pie there is for remaining iStock exclusives."

So Jamie misunderstood your initial comment (as I suspected) and I clarified - correctly guessing at what you *really* meant. You're welcome  

And thank you for quoting the number of contributors you know of who are actively removing their images. I *knew* it was less than five!

Quote from: Risamay on January 01, 2011, 20:42

Quote from: SNP on January 01, 2011, 20:24

Marisa - I don't need you to paraphrase for me. thank you though. I meant what I said. I don't wish any ill will on any contributor. despite disagreements, we all work for our sales and we're all different people with different frames of reference. so please don't speak for me when it's just a thinly veiled insinuation anyways. I'm not surprised your dropped your crown and all the best to you, sincerely.

Just trying to help you out (as your words are so often "misunderstood" or "twisted" by your own account, are they not). Because if you do sincerely mean what you said then, well - it makes no sense, as contributors are not "taking off". On the contrary, what we're seeing is exclusive contributors canceling said IS contract (taking off their crowns then, so to speak - but that's not what you said/meant, as I was trying to suggest, eh) in order that they can freely contribute to other agencies as independents. While a handful may in fact be closing out their iStock portfolios altogether or (more) no longer uploading, it seems (from reading the IS forums) that most are leaving their IS portfolios intact and fully intend (and hope) to continue to earn money there.

I think keeping your port there is the smart thing to do. I don't know why anyone would delete their images altogether as a number of contributors are claiming to be doing. that makes no sense. anyways, in one way I envy the freedom you have. but the potential loss of income is too risky as far as I'm concerned. I've weighed that option heavily and since putting it to bed, I haven't considered dropping the crown again. doesn't mean I won't at some point.

So, your reading of the individual contributor announcements in the IS forums is that more exclusives are "taking off" - by which you mean they have chosen to "delete their images altogether". What makes no sense is your assertion that there are "a number of contributors [who] are claiming to be doing" this. Where are you seeing this "number" posting and what is (ballpark) said "number"? One? Two? Five? I've seen one or two, but five or (even less likely) more?

You aren't acknowledging the big picture - the potential loss of income that you refer to is largely at the outset and (hopefully) temporary (at the outset).

I won't speak for others, but in canceling my exclusive commitment to iStock I did so for financial reasons that were directly tied to what I view as pointedly poor and unfortunate (to say nothing of unfair) business decisions on iStock's part. I don't have illusions that I will immediately make as much or more than I was recently earning on my iStock portfolio, rather I am looking at the bigger, long-term picture. It will take time and a great deal of effort to succeed as an indie (I would expect); i.e., to do as well or better than I was doing (in terms of pure $) at iStock. That is fine by me. I'd rather begin that hard work now than wait for iStock to fail me further and be even more behind when it comes to embarking on the independent path. For me the time to leave was now. Do I regret that I didn't jump ship sooner? No. I needed to stay committed for as long as I did to be certain. Would I kick myself in the crotch if I stayed on longer? Likely so. The writing is on the wall, plain as day from where I sit. I've no regrets about the timing or wisdom of my "departure".

Marisa - I don't need you to paraphrase for me. thank you though. I meant what I said. I don't wish any ill will on any contributor. despite disagreements, we all work for our sales and we're all different people with different frames of reference. so please don't speak for me when it's just a thinly veiled insinuation anyways. I'm not surprised your dropped your crown and all the best to you, sincerely.

Just trying to help you out (as your words are so often "misunderstood" or "twisted" by your own account, are they not). Because if you do sincerely mean what you said then, well - it makes no sense, as contributors are not "taking off". On the contrary, what we're seeing is exclusive contributors canceling said IS contract (taking off their crowns then, so to speak - but that's not what you said/meant, as I was trying to suggest, eh) in order that they can freely contribute to other agencies as independents. While a handful may in fact be closing out their iStock portfolios altogether or (more) no longer uploading, it seems (from reading the IS forums) that most are leaving their IS portfolios intact and fully intend (and hope) to continue to earn money there.

the crown holds no emotional value to me. until there's a good reason to blow it off, I won't be losing it. if there is a good reason, I would drop it without regret.

There are good reasons a-plenty, of late. Take your pick! Why else are we now seeing once dedicated iStock evangelists closing out their exclusive contracts (or taking it into serious consideration)?

Quote from: cclapper on December 13, 2010, 19:59

I'm sure someone asked and answered this somewhere, but is this editorial going to be available to exclusives only?

It hasn't been stated that that will be the case, i.e. it looks like it will be open for all. Hey, they want to get the bigger percentages from nons.

Page 2 of the Xnet Blog: Editorial Use Only thread on IS -

Posted By AndrewJohnson:
Will everyone be able to upload to editorial?

Posted By rogermexico:
Yes.

And then again on Page 11 -

Posted By cnicbc:
Awesome! I think I remember something similar being introduced a while ago, but it was limited to "elite" photographers. I did read everything, but for assurances sake: this time it's for everybody?

Posted By rogermexico:
If you can upload photographs to iStockphoto, you can upload photographs to iStock for editorial use. So yes.

Quote from: sharpshot on December 13, 2010, 14:08

I will stick with alamy for editorial.  It doesn't seem to of taken off with the micros and I wonder why it has taken so many years for istock to have editorial?  As they aren't likely to sell in the same volume as non-editorial, it seems like a waste of time with low microstock prices under 20% commission.

I'd agree. Most editorial shots are going to be low-volume sellers more suited to RM prices.

Good points.

As soon as my IS exclusivity is no more, come the New Year, I will try a mix of both and adjust where I'm submitting as needed.

Quote from: ShadySue on December 10, 2010, 18:26

I really, really don't understand why they do that childish F5 thing. They post F5, and everyone has to post F5, F5, and by the time there's a post it's in the middle, so you have to waste time finding it, and they say they've got some great news but they're not going to tell us until Monday. Why don't they just tell us as soon as they have something to tell us instead of making us worry over the weekend. That's generally held as 'bad management'.

I get a little maudlin thinking about the days when F5 meant something good, and the excited anticipation was actually warranted. *sigh* 

Yeah. Those were the days

If they truly understood the way they've destroyed contributor (and buyer) confidence, trust, spirit - they'd stop the F5 stuff and just make straight, professional announcements because they'd get that what was once excited anticipation is now waiting and worrying about another what sauce storm on the horizon. And if they knew that, why would they continue to do that to us. Particularly if they aim to rebuild trust and all that jazz.

Ugh.

I will be shocked - but overjoyed - if Monday's announcement is actually something to celebrate.

I'm sure we're all quite different than who we are in forums.

Who I am online is who I am offline. Though offline (or online but off-forum) the language is a lot more colorful and "unladylike". Shocker.

Lisa - my support has never been unconditional. it's just been gossiped about in that vein.

Lisa said seemingly unconditional. And I would agree. Because despite your beefs with iStock over the years, overall, your support for iStock is baffling and seemingly unconditional. The instances to support this general perception are plentiful, which is why Lisa and so many others [may have] perceive[d] you as such.

Quote from: Risamay on December 09, 2010, 22:35

Quote from: lisafx on December 09, 2010, 20:17

There is just no security or stability in having to hit a constantly moving target.  And for me, that kind of pressure is totally demotivating, not to mention smothering to creativity.

Precisely.

Not to mention the fact that I don't shoot for microstock because I want to work for someone else. In fact, quite the opposite. The agencies are supposed to be working for me! And in return, they take most of the money!

If I only want to shoot part-time, I accept the fact that I'm not going to make the same amount of money as someone shooting full-time. That's my choice. But to impose goals on me like I were an actual employee of Getty just goes a little too far for my taste. And if I don't meet those goals, my images get sent to the back of the best match, regardless of how successful they have been in the past?

Totally. They've transformed a great company and something that was a lot of fun for pros and amateurs all into a run-of-the-mill factory or sweatshop. They'll get a lot of hot new shots out of it, to be sure, but more than that they'll get a glut of average files that will pass inspection but just clog up and bog down the collection, and search. Not to mention piss off and (at worst) lose once loyal (exclusive) contributors and buyers both, in the process.

I don't know if there's anything you could do to boost sales at IS as an independent, except to go exclusive.

Just because one is IS exclusive does not mean that one will have more IS sales than if one were to be/remain independent. On the contrary, word on the street from those who've dropped their crowns has been ... a boost in sales. Less in IS royalties, of course, but more downloads.