If H&F bought Getty, how does Getty still own part of their own company with the latest "sale"? Possibly H&F never bought all of Getty? Maybe someone can explain how Getty can ratain shares in the latest sale, if they were sold in the past.

H&F sold the company - part to Carlyle Group and part to Jonathan Klein and members of the Getty family. They effectively bought part of it back versus "still" owned it.

No surprise that the "contributor news" is full of bad news for indies. Lovely that they are offering convenience to their Getty360 top customers, but I see no reason whatsoever that they can't pay indies their contract rate (15% to 20%) on any sales made through that program - or a straight 20% like everyone else.

As far as the supposed improvements in the Google deal, the missing images from a few days ago (see here) are back (including Sean's tailgate images), so any thought that they'd removed content to placate iStock contributors is out the window.

Also, I do not see any license information displayed in search results as the Google text says I will - see here for the Google "Learn More" page. So there's no way to know what license goes with what.

The note that you have to say "posed by model" for sensitive uses doesn't in any way address the concerns of iStock contributors - if you license through iStock, sensitive uses are prohibited (although they never seem to want to enforce those), aren't they?

On the iStockalypses, the feedback I have seen via Facebook groups is that the new format is totally lame and not what you pay them money for, so I'm not sure where they got the idea they're giving contributors what they wanted. I think it's a training exercise so they can bring on new contributors to replace some of the disaffected exclusives they're losing as a result of their greedy and dishonest policies over the last few years.

Edited to add that the kicker for IS exclusives is that they now get 20% for their iStock content instead of their 25% to 45% when purchased by one of the Getty360 customers.

I'm sure they'll go on and on about how it's OK 'cause it's a higher price (but if you look at the complaints about the large number of low value sales from Getty mixed in with some at much higher prices, it's not clear how much more than will be) but the bottom line is that they have figured out a way to get everyone to 20% and do away with the higher royalty rates for exclusives.

Now it's just the biggest customers (and I don't suppose they'll share the percentage of total sales those big customers represent; I'm guessing it's high as lots of the smaller ones have left by now) but it's just one more small change to make that apply across the board and you've effectively done away with exclusive royalty rates while keeping exclusive contributors from selling elsewhere.

Geniuses!!

So the upload limits for vectors have been raised to let the crap from clipart.com be freely dumped onto IS's site. What's even funnier than this happening is the reasoning given in Jenn's blog post (see below). In practical terms, no one individually is going to be able to able to create that many illustrations per week, so the huge limit is really only useful for anyone bringing in a brand new portfolio...

"bortonia - Mar 13/13, 13:12
vector illustration inspections have historically had a much faster turnaround than the other file types on iStock. Because of this, we've been tweaking our upload limits over the past year to see how well we can handle higher submission volumes.

Our last adjustment was made in January and our average inspection time is still under 2 days, which is the same as it was 3 years ago. In other words, our inspectors are rockstars.

We've looked at how many people are actually using their existing upload slots and the number is surprisingly low. This got us thinking, what's the point in even having a limit to vector uploads anyways?

We are topping out our upload limits at 999 submissions per week (the maximum we can assign with our current upload system). This change already shows for our Exclusive contributors, with non-Exclusives to follow over the coming days.

Our inspectors are ready so bring on the submissions!"

..jsnover: I think 85% of 2010 is quite good! I'm still exclusive at iStock and sales keep getting worse. I wouldn't be surprised if I drop the crown before the year is out. It just seems like such a daunting undertaking.

November & December 2012 I matched my Nov & Dec 2010 exclusive earnings, so I was happy about that. This year will be different as I left iStock (all but my iStockalypse and editorial images) on D-day in February and just left Bigstock (over the lack of an opt out from their low-ball subscription program).

I'm well aware that my earnings will take a hit from this - and if SS reduces my royalties I won't hesitate to leave them too, and I'm expecting that will happen at some point this year, possibly after the 6 month window they gave the Bridge to Bigstock folks is up in August.

Regarding DT, my RPD is $2 and in Nov 2012 (my highest month of 2012) it was $1.82, however I still made more money total in November 2006 when they were making me half as much per download but the volume was better. I think their pricing model is a mess and that they could be so much better than they are.

In addition to the similars policy (don't upload a whole series that would be perfectly acceptable at any other agency; DT will rejeted all but a few and your approval percentage will take a hit), this apparent cycle that they maintain (it sounds insane, but you'll get a period with almost nothing but subs and then one with almost nothing but credit sales; I can't figure out why that would be), and some saying that your approval percentage factors in to your search placement, there has been talk in the past that you need to have your significant keywords in the title for best search placement.

Bigstock support replied this afternoon that they would remove my portfolio but leave my account so I could "...request your earnings at your convenience." My convenience would be to request my earnings right now, but that wasn't being offered

My images may show up in searches for up to 48 hours but downloads won't be possible.

It's an extra extra large TIFF file - they upsize the largest JPEG to offer it at 10 credits

I received a reply from support this morning saying (1) no opt out for subs and (2) did I really want to remove my files but leave my account open as they don't normally do that. She'd have to check and see if that was possible and would I write to confirm that was what I wanted.

I explained (again; I had made it clear why I asked in the first message - that I want to clear the last 7 days of sales so they don't keep the balance) why and said that if there was another procedure for me getting paid in full all the money I was owed, I was happy to do it a different way.

We'll see. The funny thing is that I went through this same two-step in 2008 when I went exclusive at IS. First they said they couldn't do it, and then they were able to after I fussed about leaving 7 days worth of royalties on the table.

Is this really so hard to comprehend? It wasn't my idea to withhold royalties for a period of time...

I don't check those numbers, but just did a quick check for a few days in March and everything looked correct as a multiple of 38 cents on the subs downloads.

I'm not aware of anything other than the crap going on at Bigstock where there's a variable rate for subs downloads for a given sales level at SS. Have you contacted support?

It hasn't been mostly subs, but a fair number.

The only decision I have to make is whether I formally ask if I can opt out (others have and been told no by Bigstock support) before I have them remove my portfolio. The ides of March is my day to take the files down if I don't have an opt out.

I'll then need to wait a week for my sales to vest (their one week wait is a ridiculous pain in the rear) and then request payment.

Once I'm paid I'll close the account

I have just got $0.906 for a PEL , which is 50 credits. Have sent of an email to much sure it is correct.

Any one else got one this low lately?

 

No, but in the past I had some insanely low numbers that were errors - or they got fixed after I complained. They said that 40 cents a credit was the minimum price on which royalties would be paid - so 20 cents a credit for us at 50% royalties. If it's below that, then it's wrong.

Also note that if you change your mind while the 30 day clock is running, there is no going back - so you can't just cancel your cancellation as it were.

I asked support about this in early 2011 when i was trying to decide if I'd leave exclusivity. That is a pretty big financial penalty if you start the 30 day clock when you aren't sure. You'd not want to upload anywhere else for just 90+ days, so that'd mean that you'd wait out the 90 days with indie income from iStock and no income from other sites to make up the difference.

Has someone notified SS?

I was finally able to receive payment from Pixmac this week, and this morning received the PayPal payment which had a $2.37 fee deducted from the $53 I was owed.

The amount doesn't match the 2.9% + 30 cents a transaction for debit cards or the outside the US fees (.5% to 2% for bank account funded amounts and 3.4% to 3.9% for debit/credit card funded). The deduction is 4.47% of the total.

Is this how payments from Pixmac typically are? I think if there are fees they should pay them, but as this is a first and last transaction for me (I'm trying to get my portfolio onto Pond5 as review time allows), I'll just take the loss and be done with them if it's always this way.