.

.

er more money over having a better means of tracking image misuse. I send out a few DMCAs every month, and I'm sure other misuses slip through the cracks, but I'm fine with that. I won't sacrifice earnings for better compliance enforcement.

Protecting our work and making money go hand in hand I think.

1. You can still DMCA as an indie.
2. Lots of IStock exclusives have complained about zero action being taken following a reported violation over the years.
3. The only advantage as far as policing goes is Getty's, they can send threatening letters and get out of court settlements if they know they have the work exclusively, I don't think the contributor sees any of that cash (AFAIK)

I guess anyone can send a letter.   What I'm saying is, for example, if you found an unwatermarked image on a website at 3000x2000 pixels do you know that it is not allowed?   It is not ok at Shutterstock or Dreamstime but is it ok at one of the 100 partner sites?  Sure you can send a DMCA letter to someone but what if they bought that image and used it within the terms?  What about finding images used in print runs of millions, you have to assume that you don't get an EL because maybe Fotolia or a partner site sold it.  I don't think lots of exclusives have complained about zero action being taken, it hasn't been my experience and I write to them all the time.  I don't know about whether or not Getty gives the contributor anything for those letters, maybe they get their image licensed?  At Istock I think it says that after lawyer bills are payed any damages are split or something to that effect.

.

Quote from: tickstock on February 12, 2013, 10:46

...The other main issue, maybe even more important, is that when submitting to the top 20 agencies there is no way to have your work policed.  In effect you have to give up on protecting your IP.  We've seen the issues Istock has had, many of those issues are present at the other stock sites but no one has taken the time and effort to examine them like Sean has at Istock.  Look at the thread about partner programs, how many of you have gone through to read the license for every partner program you have images selling at?

The IP protection issue is moot. There was a discussion here just a couple of weeks ago about an istock exclusive having problems with protecting their work and istock wouldn't help them. It's an empty promise that istock doesn't back up.

As for partner programs and spreading my work out, frankly, I'm not concerned about it. I'll gladly trade the warm and fuzzy feelings of having all of my work under one roof for the increased earnings. And I have zero doubt that I earn far more by spreading my work around than I would if I were exclusive.

That's how this business works. You can have your IP "protection" (or whatever you want to call the empty promise istock provides) and greater control over licensing, or you can have more money. At least that's how it works out for me, and I suspect for a lot of people.

As for the money, well, it's not just Yuri making thousands per month on subscription sales.

The IP issue is not moot.  I don't know the problem you are talking about with that one contributor but my point was that when you have images being licensed on 20 different sites and 100 partner sites all with different terms there is basically no way to even know that your images are being used incorrectly.  At least having an image sold exclusively (don't just think Istock, think stocksy, Alamy, Pond5 even) at least you can send a DMCA notice when an image is used incorrectly if the agent won't do anything.  I have had no problems with Compliance Enforcement though. 

Oringer must be running around giving high-fives to anyone he meets right now. Those financial projections will be so much easier to reach with Mr Locke's portfolio on SS ... and not on IS. What a gift!

So he is submitting to the sub sites, I always thought he opposed putting his images there.  That is big news.

Quote from: EmberMike on February 11, 2013, 15:06

Quote from: ffNixx on February 11, 2013, 14:51

On Sean's blog in the comments, Rob Sylvan reports his contract was also terminated with 30 days notice. Are there any more, anyone else getting booted?

So this was because of their relationship with Stocksy, right? Seems like that has to be the issue there.

There is no mention of Stocksy in Sean's blog post

Sure there is just not by name.
"A week or so ago, I became aware of a new entrant to the stock agency world, still in Beta testing (not available to the public).  As I have done at other times, at other sites, I took the opportunity to join the membership when it arose, to investigate the site, the workflow, the pay schedule, etc.  For while I have been successful as an exclusive iStockphoto contributor, I am not blind to the opportunities that can be provided by others.  Since I joined, I uploaded files to test and experiment with the system.  Keep in mind, at this stage in the game, the other site is not licensing content and does not violate any exclusivity agreement."

.

.

Quote from: tickstock on February 11, 2013, 12:34

...Always with the conspiracy theories..

Conspiracy? Who said anything about a conspiracy?

 To quote from A Princess Bride "I don't think it (that word )means what you think it means" Just because people have a badly thought out or mistaken or even unethical plan doesn't mean it's a conspiracy.

The conspiracy that every action taken is because of the grand plan to lower royalty rates or get people to quit exclusivity when there are much more plausible reasons for terminating Sean's account, like the ones he sets out in his own blog.   

Quote from: jsnover on February 11, 2013, 11:58

It's either heads on pikes (scare off the others who might be thinking of leaving so they get compliant and "behave), drive them all out (cull the exclusives to save money on royalty payments) or they're not very bright and haven't a clue what they've just done.

I think it's this. I bet it really annoys Getty that one of their companies pays anyone more than 20%. I think that's why the independents get less than 20%. It allowed istock to lower the average rate and get it closer to 20%.

They are going to delete all his files if they wanted to pay him 20% or less they would have ended his exclusivity.  Istock also didn't make this public (heads on pikes).  Always with the conspiracy theories, I think reading Sean's blog post gives the most rational and clear headed explanation of why this happened.

.

.