Maybe it's just me, but I can't draw any comparisons between this and what Getty pulled on its contributors.  Fotolia lowered the credit costs for a few images sizes and top line ELs.  I realize this sucks for high end contributors.  But it hits Fotolia harder than the contributor, since FT make the lion's share of the commission.  

Obviously they wouldn't lower the credit cost if they could avoid it, because it hits them harder than it hits any contributor.  So their data shows them this is the right move for their company and its contributors.  I find no problem in this.  

Unlike Getty/IS which just decided to lower contributors' commission percentages and keep a higher % of the profit, in this case Fotolia and its contributors are clearly in the same boat together.  If Fotolia is wrong on this move, it will hit them harder than it will any of us.

+1

Quote from: lroberg on November 04, 2010, 13:36

Their intent is to leave it as vague as possible. They have a hoard of lawyers that can make sure it says what they want it to say.  If they wanted it to say 500K books, they would have.

A smaller client who doesn't spend much money gets the interpretation that it's 500k images.  A larger client who spends more money gets the 500K books interpretation.

Exactly. All the big corporate clients are the "respected" clients, while all the small buyers can go to hell. It's an old boys corporate club.

I'm beginning to think that's the trend in business theses days. My husband worked in field service until he lost his job in March; he told me he was disgusted at the way management no longer cared about the small clients, neglecting them in favor of the big accounts. He cared about his customers, both small and large. In fact, he lost his job because he refused to lie to a customer to help the sales department secure a sale. Seems to me that business is becoming steadily more ruthless and cut-throat in the 21st century.

Very interesting thread, Carolyn.  Seems like the "guarantee" may have had unintended consequences.  Here's the post from Chris3fer:

I work for a good size agency and its come up in a meeting today (for the second time in a year) that we shouldn't be using istock to make purchases. Quote from the meeting from pretty important purchasing people:


"They (istock) don't have proper licensing, and now they even have an additional legal guarantee you can purchase for another $100, because apparently their standard legal guarantee is meaningless. They also use a points system that doesn't make any sense. We should avoid them whenever possible."


It seems like charging extra for additional legal guarantees is making people think you have no real system for licenses and releases.


Like I said, this is the second time this has come up. a couple years ago everyone was using istock, now mangement is saying to stop. I just think this seems to be getting more common. Just sayin.

And his later post, which I think really speaks volumes about what Istock is losing:  In response to the question "Are you in a position to explain these licenses?"  He replies (emphasis added by me):

I am, but I didn't. I decided to cut back on my defending istock from 40% to 35% and I am currently over that percentage.. After all, money won't bring istock happiness.

Priceless!! 

This explains a lot for me. I've enjoyed a good acceptance rate at FT, but just recently I had a 3D rendered landscape image that I was very happy with get rejected. A second 3d landscape was accepted. I guess I should be thankful that one got accepted, considering that FT does not want landscapes. I was thinking of resubmitting with a request to give it a second chance, but based on what I read here, it would probably be a waste of time. Not much you can do, I guess.

Can't this idiot be banned? One inane post after another, shut up already!

So did this 47 pages of 'intelligent conversation' achieve anything? Yeah, I thought so. But when I add my 5c in few posts to the end of that freight train of pure smart, it's 'rant' 

I am more curious how many people have actually stopped uploading? I did the moment iStock came up with their new politics but when I look at portfolios of many concerned critics they still upload images to Istock....

I stopped uploading when I found out about their plan to cut royalties, but I haven't deactivated anything. I think that if most of iStock's contributors stopped uploading, customers would notice the lack of fresh content and shop elsewhere. IMO, spreading the word about iStock's poor treatment of contributors, and stopping all new uploads, are the most effective things we can do to fight back.

A warning fable for anyone who might be considering exclusivity:


]A young girl was trudging along a mountain path, trying to reach her grandmother's house. It was bitter cold, and the wind cut like a knife. When she was within sight of her destination, she heard a rustle at her feet.
Looking down, she saw a snake. Before she could move, the snake spoke to her. He said, "I am about to die. It is too cold for me up here, and I am freezing. There is no food in these mountains, and I am starving. Please put me under your coat and take me with you."
"No," replied the girl. "I know your kind. You are a rattlesnake. If I pick you up, you will bite me, and your bite is poisonous."
"No, no," said the snake. "If you help me, you will be my best friend. I will treat you differently."
The little girl sat down on a rock for a moment to rest and think things over. She looked at the beautiful markings on the snake and had to admit that it was the most beautiful snake she had ever seen.
Suddenly, she said, "I believe you. I will save you. All living things deserve to be treated with kindness."
The little girl reached over, put the snake gently under her coat and proceeded toward her grandmother's house.
Within a moment, she felt a sharp pain in her side. The snake had bitten her.
"How could you do this to me?" she cried. "You promised that you would not bite me, and I trusted you!"
"You knew what I was when you picked me up," hissed the snake as he slithered away.

Beware

So, we are ending in bashing each other. This is getting more desperate every day.

+1

Thinkstock advertising is plastered all over The Huffington Post website, and the hypocrisy of this frustrates me to no end.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/
The Huffington Post is a progressive, left-wing, anti-corporate news website, and yet they have Thinkstock, Getty's greedy substitute for StockExpert, plastered all over their site at regular intervals. To add insult to injury, they frequently use well labeled Thinkstock images as illustrations for their stories, providing yet another endorsement of the abomination known as Thinkstock.

I've been wanting to approach them about this, but I don't know how to go about it. Under 'contact us' they have an option where you can send in news tips, and I was thinking of sending them some info about how Getty shafted the istock contributors. But I'm not sure what links to send along them along with my 'news tip'; and I'm looking for suggestions - any links or ideas anyone?

Mine Here:

http://www.dreamstime.com/royalty-free-stock-photo-take-the-bonus-and-run-image12888275

My trusty and dead-on accurate Samsung CRT monitor finally got to the point where I could no longer perform an accurate hardware color calibration 
The blue gun was dying.

While I really, really was in love with the idea of a 30" monitor, the cost was too high to justify.
I finally decided on the NEC MultiSync LCD 2690WUXi(2).
The almost 26" screen is wonderful and I have a 20" Dell LCD set to the side to in profile mode for my Photoshop tools.
That leaves me the entire NEC screen for my image!

The NEC has a built in 12 bit color look up table (LUT) and this monitor's color gamut has 97.8% coverage of the Adobe RGB color space.
If you get the NEC Spectraview software with it; hardware color calibration is a total no brainer. It utilizes the built in LUT for calibration.
Just set up the puck, hit go and the monitor calibrates itself without any human intervention.
In addition, this monitor's color gamut has 97.8% coverage of the Adobe RGB color space.

I have used Eizo monitors and I find this NEC to be equal or better.

Here's a link:  http://www.necdisplay.com/Products/Product/?product=8899a96d-28dc-484f-a4de-14309a636738

It looks like a gorgeous monitor, but I'm not sure I want to spend that much. I think I paid around $800 for the Samsung 244T. Patrick's HP monitor sounds good, but I'm leery of HP, and the price sounds too good to be true. Decisions, decisions....

My beautiful  Samsung SyncMaster244T monitor is dying, and I've been shopping for something comparable. I searched on this forum, found a recent discussion about monitors; and learned that my monitor was discontinued. It's replacement, the  Samsung SyncMaster245T was recommended instead, but it turns out that model has been discontinued, too. There are a gazillion monitors available, at all different prices, and I can't decide. Does anyone have any suggestions?

I don't have any images on Thinkstock, I deleted all of my files from StockXpert right after it closed because I didn't want anything of mine migrating over to TS. Now I check my settings on iStock - and I'm opted in for the partner program! You can uncheck the box, but as soon as you take another look, the box is checked again! So I'm having the same problem that many others have reported, too.