Quote from: Sean Locke Photography on May 09, 2014, 06:11

Oh, here's your "good press":
http://www.prnewswire.co.uk/news-releases/istock-by-getty-images-announces-100-royalty-day-on-may-14-to-celebrate-its-exclusive-artists-and-the-launch-of-subscriptions-258450871.html

From the above: "In another move to reward exclusive artists, iStock has also launched a new affiliate program today. Contributors will receive a commission when they drive iStock customers to license any content, regardless of whether it's their own work."

Is this something new, or did I just miss it?

If it was a working affiliate program, that would be new.

"Positive press" as in "trying to get a good feeling groove going".  Sorry you didn't get that.

Must be really getting desperate for some positive press there.

Also, do I detect a non-too-subtle change in the wording of what the photographer gets from Stocksy? I thought they originally got 50% of the revenue from image sales. Now apparently, they get 50% of the profit. There's a very big difference between those words.

That's probably a mistype by the author.  It's still the same - 50% of the royalty, 100% of the EL, and a share of the profit at year end.

It's the job of the agencies to track sales.

I'm not sure what you mean by "track sales", but we all know micros aren't out there looking for infractions.

But I think that potential customers and casual viewers demand more respect than that. Even Magnum have dropped using watermarks. Legitimate commercial users simply do not steal content.

Well, of course they don't.  That's why they are called "legitimate users".  Watermarks are not to deter "legitimate users" from anything.

And if we love pictures - well why should that experience be spoiled by having to take measures which are not going to prevent piracy anyhow. It's self-defeating. It makes the pictures look bad.

Are you talking about selling stock, or just putting up some showcase work?  I'm not in love with an image of a hamburger (or whatever).  I just want it to retain its value as a piece of content someone can utilize.

And if we are talking about RF stock - there are already mostly going to be masses of places to find a non watermarked version of the same image at the same size as the comp or larger - just by finding somewhere it has already been used. So if someone wants to steal it then they already can.

Why make it easy?

http://www.microstockgroup.com/istockphoto-com/time-for-an-istock-replacement-site/
http://www.microstockgroup.com/general-stock-discussion/starting-a-new-stock-marketplace

I don't think that it is that everyone wants out of micro or into traditional stock. It's that there are a broad range of people that want different things from it. We've evolved with micro and have certain expectations now of what it should or shouldn't be.

As well, for me, personally, my 9 years of building a business were tossed out the window and I had to start from scratch.  If I'm going to concentrate on rebuilding my portfolios, it's going to be on the sector where I see the most promise now.  If I had 10,000 images that had grown on SS, I might have a different viewpoint.

"And, now that I think about it, how does that clause let them force our content into their new low-price subs model? Oh, I guess they'll say it isn't technically a "Distribution partner".  "

You've got them!  They are paying through the monthly PP mechanism!  They are having it both ways.

"Also just so it is clear Spaces offers up online sales statement to every photographer to show where their image sold and for what price."

So, then, once you are in, you would be able to know the share trail and decide if it's an acceptable arrangement.  That's good.  You just don't want to let people know before the are under a confidentiality contract?

I think if I made $50 from such a deal and found out that that ended up being 5% of what the image sold for, I would be pretty annoyed.

I don't understand why it's a bad idea for every agency to have knowledge that would help them get the best payment for their artists.

"it became clear that Tscheltzoff has thought long and hard about how to eliminate the last obstacles to easy image access."

Like taking photos from contributors without asking and giving them away for next to nothing, for example.

Is there a decision that Symbio users don't report symbio sales here?
Or ...?

I might have had one or two, but there is no sales history function in the implementation.