..in the 5 or 6 years I've been there, the only email I've gotten is the newsletter or responses to email's I have sent. Never any heads-up type of emails.

I did get email announcing the big cash grab Sept 7th this year - but otherwise they let you figure it out via the forums as best you can.

I think we started a new thread together. This is very bad news for me 

Yes - sorry about that. I already asked Leaf to delete my thread though...

The really bad news is no money for another week (we already have to wait one week) - they keep our money for an extra week and pay no interest on it. Cash flow management of this sort isn't unheard of for businesses but it sucks for those waiting to get paid.

Hello,

I am a USC graduate student conducting research on iStockphoto users. If you are an iStockphoto contributor and would like to be entered into a drawing to win a $20 Amazon gift card, please take this survey:

https://usc.qualtrics.com/SE/?SID=SV_bfq5OXfNAouvDMw

Thank you in advance! I appreciate your participation.

I was going to complete your survey, but a couple of questions in I found one I don't understand. How many hours a week do I spend on iStockphoto projects. I spend many hours a week on shooting, editing and uploading my work, but I don't know if you're referring to something other than that. IOW are you after numbers for forum participation time? You'll need to be a bit more specific I think.

Seems to me that if there's a market for it, maniuplated photos - along with 3D renders - make fine stock. Why would anyone want to make an arbitrary line over which designers or photographers should not step?

Those designers who want to do their own compositing will buy the plain jane raw materials. Those who are in a hurry or who can't do their own Photoshop work will buy the more finished pieces. More business for contributors seems good to me.

Are inMagine or ImageSource part of the "Getty Family" ?

Inmagine isn't - not sure about ImageSource.

It may be on thinkstock via StockXpert.  Now the artist got 25 cents instead of a few bucks.  Bummer.

It's labeled as iStockphoto on Thinkstock, not Hemera.

Without knowing why the photographer closed their iStock a/c, if they've terminated the agreement, iStock/Getty shouldn't be selling the images anywhere at this point. I understand their intra-site interfaces are broken, but that doesn't alter their legal obligations.

My guess is there are some weasel words in the agreement that says they have some "reasonable" amount of time to remove the files. Given how useless their software is, that could be many months...

SS introduced FTP uploads at the end of 2004. I forget when they started stored model releases, but it was a very long time ago. Other sites - particularly those whose sales aren't all that high - have gone to considerable lengths to make sure that the upload process is really streamlined.

I filled out the iStock survey although I can't imagine when or if they'll do anything about it. As you mentioned, people have been suggesting these things for years and nothing. Given that Getty is trying to squeeze out maximum profits, why they'd spend money now on improving things for contributors is a mystery to me.

I could make a very long list of tools for contributors they've actually promised, but have failed to deliver (batch editing tools for keywords? a useful interface for adding/removing files to E+ - that was going to be "in a few weeks" after it launched, and they've stopped saying anything about when). And the list of things they broke that were once working (the list for extended licenses that no longer has a date column, for example). I finally switched to Deep Meta because for a year they couldn't fix the bug where the site upload couldn't read IPTC data. Their track record with software is pitiful.

I don't think there's any mystery about what would be needed to lift IS out of the basement in terms of uploads and contributor tools. There's a ton of examples out there to follow.

Quote from: Risamay on October 01, 2010, 16:07

So glad someone brought up the clubfest going down over yonder. Pom-poms and all (and the very words used therein - not mine!) ... it's ... difficult to stomach if you've just eaten and hope to keep a meal down. To say the least.

Really? What __ even now How much abuse, greed and worthless disregard does Istockphoto have to demonstrate to them before they realise they are being shafted?

Not that I want you to encourage them, but apparently more than has been dispensed thus far

I think that there are some people who have lots of Vetta files who find the the whole situation OK for them - they feel well taken care of and don't connect with the vast majority of the contributor pool (even the exclusive contributor pool). I'm putting words in their mouths, but I think they'd make a variation of the argument often voiced by many independents that as long as the $$ keeps going up, they won't fuss about changing royalty percentages, or subscriptions or anything else.

By the time Getty takes aim at them, they may look around for support in fighting back, but I doubt there'll be much.  

As we've seen, each time one of the agencies pulls off a cash crab - and unfortunately iStock isn't the first, just the latest and most spectacular to date - it emboldens the others. They then claim they have to stay competitive.

@Lisa - we've been contributors for roughly the same amount of time.  The only constant seems to be change

...FT has moved up to take the #2 spot, although SS seems to be rallying and they are neck-and-neck. 

Sites rallying and competing in a race up sounds good - we need to look for small positives in the current cut-back-the-contributor-share environment

Quote from: retrorocket on September 29, 2010, 22:57

This is what rogermexico said,

"The plan is to make separate exclusivity options for illustration in the same way that video and audio are. So you could be an exclusive illustrator and non-exclusive photographer."

I don't read that as combining raster illos and vectors into one category. Perhaps I should get better at reading between the lines if that's what it says. Who knows these days ?

I was just mentioning what a contributor had said (I took it a bit more to heart than I might normally, since the person who said it used to work on the inside, so to speak - as an inspector at one time).  I'm sure HQ will clear up any speculation that wording has caused.

And welcome to 'MSG' - you'll be hungry for more of the bold flavours here, before you know it

I don't know how they could draw any sort of line that would allow them to separate raster illustrations from photographs if they decided to go that route. So many "photographs" are not straight from the camera - composites, heavily processed, collages, stitches. Then there are 3D renders which have always been treated as photographs even though they aren't.

Once you have pixels vs. vectors I don't know how you'd make the distinction clearly and unambiguously between pixels that were "illustrations" and pixels that were "photographs".

I'm sure they'll want to avoid rasterized vectors showing up elsewhere if exclusive illustrators become independent for photographs, but they've brought this mess on themselves with this series of crazy decisions to hose contributors.  I couldn't blame any vector contributor for wanting to keep vector exclusivity and make a little extra on the side with rasters.

Again "favoristim", when everybody can be or not be exclusive, at his own will. You make it sound as if were hand-picked. I'm sorry, what it makes me smile.

There is a cult of sorts - but not in who can be exclusive or not. There has been a ton of complaining in the Vetta forum - including by major contributors with massive sales - that there is a clique that gets near automatic Vetta acceptance and the select few who get to self inspect. No one will make the process known or transparent. There's no appeal or discussion. Rule by executive fiat.

If it were just about badges and such who would care? But there's a lot of money tied up with the improved search results position and higher prices these things bring with them.

Jeez, I take one HALF day off from keeping up with this ongoing train wreck and I feel like I am completely in the dark. 

Apparently Joyze posted some updates?  Would anyone be willing to break down the changes (if any) for me?   

Yes, you would all be well within your rights to tell me to ferret it out for myself, in that massive forum thread, or elsewhere.  But I hope someone will take pity on me and at least post a link to where I can find out any new, relevant information. 

Thanks in advance

Nothing big in Joyze's update here. Agency folks do not participate in our sweepstakes to  get to various royalty rates (there was worry the high prices would push all of us down as their RC totals would be so high.

Some non answers as to why Hulton Archive can be a non-exclusive exclusive but others can't.