I think I recall a discussion several years ago regarding an arrangement of this sort.

 The deal was that they don't buy an EL but each time they sell a print they buy a license just for the size needed for that print. There was some discussion about whether this was right from a contributor's point of view and I think the agency argument was that if the buyer purchased a license they'd be entitled to make themselves a print of what they licensed to hang on their wall. The only difference here was that the print seller was doing the purchase on the clients behalf. The thing that's so hard to police is whether they really are buying a new license for each print.

This is exactly what I was thinking. It seems sort of like a loophole though.

You can ask FT to turn off all your EL's for you. They're pretty good about doing that.

But I actually did a Facebook search on my complete name and found two different profiles, my own and the fake one that I don't have access to because it's not a "friend" of mine - this profile has my image. I reported the fake profile to Facebook.
Just to be sure I tried changing my profile picture, and it only changed on my own profile, not the fake one.

Maybe, you have an evil twin?

Quote from: cthoman on July 16, 2011, 18:41

It's hard to believe it was necessary for non-exlcusives no matter how you slice it. I'm not a super earner there, but iStock's share of my earnings last year could pay somebody's salary. My share on the other hand doesn't even cover my mortgage.

taking for granted the portion I don't see...holy cow, when you put it that way, it's so true...crazy.

I think the sad fact of it is that iStock could have easily crushed their competition with moves in the opposite direction. Paying a flat 50% to all exclusives might have pulled all the fence sitters into exclusivity (myself included). I don't know if I'd want to go full exclusive now, but I'd probably make a deal with IS to dump their major competition for 50% of the share. I'd still want to be able to have my own site to sell through though. That deal is never going to be offered, so I guess I'll never have to be tempted. 

Let's be honest, non exclusives don't give a dam about Istockphoto for the most part, so they use an outside forum to belittle the company at every opportunity.

It may be the opposite. I always thought the reason iStock seemed to bear a large brunt of the criticism is because it was a well liked agency. So, people felt like they were stabbed in the back by their buddy. Fotolia did the same thing 3 times in a row, but there is less complaining about that. I think it is because contributors expect that from FT.  

To many contributors only viewed the Redeemable Credits from there own perspective/sales/portfolios.
When they try to see the bigger picture they wrongly assumed it was greed by Istockphoto that fueled the change.
The money the company now saves, with this new payment method,will be used to bring longevity to the company which in turn serves all our purposes.

I can't say I really care all that much about the longevity of a company that only wants to pay me 17% of the pie. There doesn't seem to be much of a future there, so I've focused my attention elsewhere.

We can't be expected to behave at some conference. If they let us out of our cages, we might go crazy. It would be like a cross between band camp and some sort of Bacchanalian festival. 

Interesting spreadsheet. I suppose portfolio degradation and royalty increases/decreases are unknown factors. Does that mean in the end it is a best guess?  

My theory for valuing my own portfolio was taking yearly revenue and multiplying it by the number of years you thought it would take to rebuild it. Not as statistically savvy, but it sounded fair to me.

are all the other agencies prices as low as canstock? Being exclusive mostly vector artist, i dont really see what other agencies charge. I just noticed the prices of the files and they are so much cheaper than istocks. no wonder buyers are leaving. so much cheaper competition. i wish these agencies would raise prices.

I was actually looking at this the other day because I was a little out of touch with it too. I came up with an average of between $15 and $20 for vectors. It's hard to nail down an exact price because of credits, pricing tiers and other factors. I agree with you though. I think CanStockPhoto could raise their top end prices on vectors and largest size rasters.

Don't other companies beta test their sites before going live?

I assume they do, but they probably personally invite well respected stock contributors or invite contributors specific to their niche. Like others have said, I've been invited to a number of different stock sites over the years, and I like to thoroughly review ALL the details before making a decision (beta or not). Everyone has different things that they are looking for in a new agency. I could give you a laundry list of things I look for. First, starts off with what they sell. Do they sell my type of work or files (vectors). 2nd is rights. I want to make sure the license isn't selling any rights I don't want to sell. Next is probably price. You want to make sure you are getting a fair price for your work. 4th is royalty rates, but you covered that. The 5th thing is any hidden things like image lock ins, upload process, etc. Also, I personally love contributor price setting. I think all new agencies should include this feature (hint, hint).

In other words, sell us on your company. What makes it great. Oh yeah, and best of luck. The micro contributors are a fickle bunch, but we can always use a few more great agencies.  

The main thing that happened was that what was previously a closed club became exposed to open competition. Its also a big reason why the SAA itself had to close its doors - they refused to accept the principle that the industry is now open to new entrants and that there aren't any gatekeepers other than success or failure at producing images. Instead of accepting that changes were there to stay: RF & microstock, and accepting the new entrants, they tried what many failing unions have unsuccessfully tried - a closed door policy. If they'd accepted that their industry had changed - both through RF and microstock and tried to influence those changes, they'd still be a going concern, and probably have membership numbers they'd never previously have dreamed of. Furthermore, they'd still be serving a useful purpose for stock photographers.  

Obviously they still think of microstock as being made up of amateurs, and that there is a pool of legitimate "professionals". The real �coming-of-age� isn't about microstock at all - its that the old-guard will increasingly be in the same boat as the rest of us. Some have adapted and are thriving in both forms of the game, others have already failed. Stock photography is still a viable industry - in total its probably earning more now than at any time previously - just that the cake is cut up in a different way, and is now available to far more buyers.

Unfortunately there's also no organisation trying to get artists a greater share of it. Instead we're reading the memoirs from a failed organisation.

Great post.

Right now, I'm pretty happy .

And here I thought you were grouchy all the time. 

I don't think there is anything wrong with sharing. I really enjoy what I do, so when people want to listen to me jabber on about it I'll usually share. Like others here, I occasionally give really smart a$$ answers to some of those questions you've heard a thousand times. Also, I like to give bad advise to throw off the competition. Kidding... or am I? [insert maniacal laughter here] 

P.S. I feel bad that I missed that other thread. I have a Canon Rebel, and I take really crumby pictures with it. I think that is mostly operator error though.

Oh come on, I have just over 400 photos over there and I'm making at least 240$/month (and I'm still at 33c level). I know you having 20x more photos (not sure how much, since I could find your port at SS, but it surely is more than 6,5k that you have at IS) doesn't translate to 20x more sales, but at least 5x more sounds about right. Wow, I thought you BDs are all making 10k+ and I was hoping to reach 1k at SS someday, so that I'd get around 2k/month (combined with the rest of the agencies), which would allow me a comfortable living (with all the expenses it would translate to roughly a bit more than 1k EUR). And isn't Yuri supposed to be making way over a mil/year (macro+micro)?

It would be nice if it worked that way, but growth isn't always linear. Sometimes it is, but not always. Like most complain about, the goalpost isn't necessarily still there waiting for you when you reach it.  Those suckers like to move around.