I think this could be another flavor of the talk about a trend towards more real/authentic content and images. Although Yuri's sales would suggest that there's only so much truth in that

I think a while back someone was talking about people sticking with web sites that were useful - and that getting people to your site if you had nothing of use to them when they got there was a waste of time. If a stock photo is useful in some way given the site content, I don't think the fact that it's stock vs. the owner of the business's wife in a custom shot would make much difference to the site visitor.

Ask designers about used car ads - you'll get an earful about how awful they are (and they are visually completely hideous). The fact that they keep running them must mean they're useful somehow in spite of their ugliness.

A custom photo shoot of a boring TV isn't going to be any more more appealing than a stock photo of the same thing.

Once upon a time there was not an XXXL size on IS. After it was introduced they promised they'd go and resize (and thus reprice) existing files whose size met the requirements for XXXL. That work hasn't been completed.

I have XXXL files, but as they were all uploaded after the size came into being, I'm not personally affected by this bug.

The other problem is the rounding error on subscription sales - they're rounding 28.5 cents down to 28 cents instead of up to 29 cents. They're blaming it on a technical flaw in floating point calculations - ignoring the fact that they shouldn't be using floats to do currency computations in the first place.

Ok maybe someone could help me with this does 4.25 for a big web 25 credit video dl seem low?  Base exclusive contributor.

68 cents a credit is what the buyer would have paid for this if $4.25 was the royalty at 25% on a 25 credit sale. That's within the bounds of a big credit pack purchase, I think. And they've been offering various discounts lately (which we pay for).

And Lobo has locked the thread asking for more information.

So I was posting a reply when Lobo locked the thread about this.

My post was saying that it's beyond belief that a large site has so few checks on code that handles money that a royalty rate change could just get onto the site by "accident".

I think iStock needs to stay what they're doing to improve the review process of code changes like this - it could very easily have gone undetected given the pathetic state of the contributor reporting tools on our sales.

This a big site doing a lot of business. I want to have confidence that my money is being handled securely and calculations of royalties are made at the stated rates.

I think IS owes an explanation of what they're doing to change the procedures they currently use so this never happens again. It's disgraceful that they just say "oops - sorry!" and lock the thread.

The thread is now locked with a terse note that they test site features - like changing button colors and vector prices on one size - and this was such a situation.

Un-effing-believable!!

There's a recent reply to the Help forum thread on IS about this, and the person who called to speak to IS support was told that the 10% bonus exclusives have typically received on EL sales went away last month - we knew it was going in January, but apparently it got taken away sooner.

There clearly is no end to the lengths IS will go to to vacuum up income from what was once the contributor portion. I guess they must be desperate to make their year end numbers to collect their bonuses or keep their jobs.

Quote from: PaulieWalnuts on October 27, 2010, 18:00

What's odd is while the Istock forums are being locked down Getty is introducing forums ()

 Wow, really! The plot thickens...

From an e-mail they sent out to contributors on October 5th:

"We will continue to enhance the site over time with improvements and updated information. We�ll soon be launching a discussion forum where you can engage directly with the Getty Images contributor community and Getty Images employees. So keep checking back to the contributor�s site to see what we�ll do next."

I think it was Sean who commented in the IS forums that it was a wonderful idea given their track record handling the IS community. Someone told them social media are hot...

Sorry (as a contributor to IS) that you had this experience, but I'm not surprised. I've voiced my opinion of some of the problems with the imported Agency content - it's from Getty and while that price may seem ordinary there, it stands out when it's sold via IS where there's lots of comparable and/or better content at a tenth the price.

They have said that they'll allow you to filter out Agency and Vetta (and have those search preferences be savable so you don't have to keep doing it via the advanced search dialog) but I don't know when those changes are coming. Advanced search does let you exclude Vetta and Agency (but you can't separate those).

If you have a minute to contact support to voice your opinion, that would be great. They have dismissed contributor complaints about this, but perhaps might listen to the customer.

I'm fairly certain that at some point in the future I'll be independent again - because at some point in the future Getty will get what it wants and have everyone's royalties at 20% max.

Right now it appears that for 2011 I'll be able to get 35% (which is staying the same if you don't count the last few weeks of the year where I'll be diamond and briefly earning 40%). On that basis I'll probably put up with the many unpalatable changes at IS and stay exclusive for 2011.

My guess is that the redeemed credit totals required for 35% for 2012 will rise significantly and that without Vetta or Agency (I pulled out of Vetta once they mandated that those files go to Getty with no opt out) it'll be hard to get there. Once that happens moving back to independent becomes very likely.

One of the things that deeply irks me is splitting photos and illustrations - I don't have many illustrations and was contemplating doing more. Had also thought about branching out to video. With the current compensation scheme that becomes untenable. Why they want to discourage multi-media contributors is beyond my comprehension, but that's what they've done.

I'm hoping that perhaps in the next year there will be some changes at IS - especially if the recent craziness doesn't sit well with buyers and the geniuses who thought it up then don't make their targets. That may just be wishful thinking on my part...

In another thread, Lisafx mentioned that 90% of her income came from the top 4 sites. I think for most of us that's roughly true. So while you can add a trickle to your income from the smaller sites, it really doesn't make a ton of difference to your totals.

Before I became exclusive I switched some of the low-earner sites to an intermittent upload status - every 3 to 6 months I'd catch them up with recent stuff in my portfolio.

I think the advice to focus on what sells - at the big 4 - is good.

Quote from: alias on October 26, 2010, 03:02

Thread ended because someone posted that agency collection pictures are upscaled ?

I had missed that.  Are Agency images upscaled?   Isn't that one of the biggest taboos on Istock? 

I don't know if any of the subset of the Getty Agency collection that is now on IS is upscaled, but Getty does allow/require that, so it's certainly possible.

From the Getty contributor portal:

"Interpolating the image up to our 47.5-52MB requirement is best achieved using a Fractal algorithm like
�Genuine Fractal Print Pro�. However, in most circumstances simply re-sizing in recent versions of
�Photoshop� (Adobe Creative Suite 1 or higher) is acceptable. As such, it is important to experiment with
different techniques. Ultimately, the quality of the final 47.5-52MB file you prepare for submission is your
prime consideration; no noise, artifacts, distortion, or moir� should be visible. The largest file size your
image can be sold at is 300MB, so image integrity is critical when interpolating."

It is complete bollocks that the Agency collection on IS has gone through the same inspection process that other contributors have with their work. They've pulled many images (starting with the "technical glitch" that gave us the toilet door) after the fact when problems have surfaced.

Getty's rules are different for stuff on their own site - for example, they allow multiple logos in books on a shelf or Times Square shots, even though they don't allow what they call "isolated" logos. My guess is that's why the pharmacy shot they removed from IS Agency Collection after I pointed out a pile of logos was allowed on Getty.

I don't care if they want to allow others to follow the Getty rules and allow logos (I've never understood the sense of upsizing though, it's just an outdated habit that should be dumped). What I care about a lot is (a) being told one thing when what happens clearly contradicts it and (b) one set of rules for a special group that bypasses those rules the rest of us have to abide by.

I was independent for nearly 4 years before becoming exclusive and I'd say that you shouldn't be scared at all about becoming an independent.

There's a learning curve - each site has slightly different inspection procedures and policies; all of them are easier to upload to than IS. It won't take long to get the hang of the rules at each site.

The IS that was has changed significantly. Other sites will sometimes yank you around too, but IMO there's no safe haven - no one ideal site. You'll want to get accepted at the other three sites of the big 4 to get your income, plus whatever other smaller sites you feel like contributing to.

Good luck.