I understand needing to keep a limit on the number of contributors reaching the top payout percentages.

I don't.

Despite the prevailing shitstorm iS seems to have removed all my images off Thinkstock that ended up there via StockXpert as promised.

Kelly says 76% of exclusives will not take a hit.   43.7% of them won't because they are bronze.   Another 29.8% are silver, and stand a fairly good chance of hitting that low 2000 credit target.  Add in the 1.9% base contributors that are guaranteed to go up.  That is 75.4% of exclusives.

iStock is gunning for your royalties golds and diamonds, I guess we now know why the silver target was set so comparatively low.  It makes it easier for them to say that 76% of people will not see a change.

Even if you maintain your current level, is it safe to say that any serious advancement is dead in the water for most people?

Just out of curiosity what is the downside here to video?

Sorry I find it here,  http://www.istockphoto.com/article_view.php?ID=861

Quote from: Zeus on September 08, 2010, 10:18

Quote from: grp_photo on September 08, 2010, 10:03

20% is the norm for RF with Getty and yes it has to be exclusive too (though session- and not contributorwise).
If 20% for exclusive stuff is not enough for you, you are free to choose a different agency - good luck!

A bit simplistic, as it's image exclusivity and not artist.

I think the worst thing about all this is the inability to plan. It's impossible to be sure that the lines won't be redrawn in the near future. You work your butt off and just as you are nearing a milestone the map is redrawn. Detour time.

It's not image-exclusivity its session- and similiar-exclusivity (you can read the guidelines at Getty they are quite strict) and I said so.
Getty pays their pro-photographers 20% why oh why should they pay housewives 40% in the long term.
In five years it will 20% for all and 10% for non-exclusives - you don't believe me - well you didn't believe all the people that said to you five years ago after Getty bought iStock.
It's a genius plan from Getty and you have to adore it. Istock will prosper and they will be the only microstock-agency which content will grow creative- and quality-wise and not just number-wise. And Getty will make a lot more money out of it. That is to kill two birds with one stone - genius!

Yes it is similar exclusive, but that is still a far cry from artist exclusive. Also an image has value regardless of the status of the creator. That is exactly how the mentality of microstock got going. People thinking they are out just having a little fun making a few dollars here and there. Now that many of them are making more than a few dollars they don't like the idea of seeing their income dwindle. Obviously. Who would? I won't argue at all that the percentages, or other creative income limiting changes won't happen. I would agree completely with this. Anyone making 40% on iStock right now and is a housewife is also one hell of a photographer as well. As a matter of fact the notion of housewives should not make this kind of income should send a rain of crap down on your head.

20% is the norm for RF with Getty and yes it has to be exclusive too (though session- and not contributorwise).
If 20% for exclusive stuff is not enough for you, you are free to choose a different agency - good luck!

A bit simplistic, as it's image exclusivity and not artist.

I think the worst thing about all this is the inability to plan. It's impossible to be sure that the lines won't be redrawn in the near future. You work your butt off and just as you are nearing a milestone the map is redrawn. Detour time.

Non-exclusives will definitely be hurt by this. But with a 1-5% drop on just one their selling avenues. Middle of the road exclusives though seem to be hurt the most. Many are saying they'll be dropping 5%. Thankfully mine is staying the same, but that 1.4million mark seems next to impossible.
On the other hand, I as well think we will hear a second announcement later this week with a compromise of some kind. Probably a lowering of the targets for next year or some kind of 1-year royalty lock-in rate.

Just to clarify a simple math principle, when  you go from 20% to 15 % you do not lose 5% you lose 25%. That is one quarter not one twentieth.

Quote from: Perry on September 07, 2010, 16:51

The misery will not stop here: Remember, they can tinker with their royalty targets every year, just to keep us from earning too much. Who knows, the base royalty could be 10% for 2012...

January 11, 2011 we will post new targets. These targets will affect your royalty growth for 2011 and set your initial royalty rate for 2012.

Notice the words "royalty growth". This almost certainly applies that the redeemed credit targets will be changing every year. So if you did 12,501 in credit sales in 2010 you get 30%. If you do 12,501 credit sales again in 2011 but they increase the target to 15,000 you now only earn 25% for the entire year.

Not only the royalty rates can be adjusted, but the redeemed credit goals as well. So what's to stop them from doing something like

2010:  12,500 = 17% non exclusive / 30% exclusive

to

2011: 15,000 = 17% non exclusive / 30% exclusive
2012: 17,500 = 15% non exclusive / 28% exclusive (sorry, times are tough, unsustainable, etc)

Yes or maintain this new structure and  double the price of a credit and half the number of credits and image costs.

I've made two requests to have my images removed from Thinkstock and so far nothing has happened although I am told that by the end of next week this may happen. I'll see.

Lot's have although I have not done so myself. It's complicated. Anyone can take pictures, but not many can take pictures that meet the technical and esthetic requirements you need. And of those i doubt many want to release a copyright to you for a few dollars.

I guess I look at what I make on average for images on micro and don't much like what I see. I've done a couple of mainstream shoots i.e. models in business situations and they do okay in micro. But any that are a bit unusual just don't sell well enough in micro to bother. Like I said it may make a few dollars but in reality a few dollars is as good as nothing. Also it is NOT true that buyers don't search micro type images on Alamy. I just sold a very simple shot of a hand and paint roller against white for about $40. Very micro in composition except it probably had some technical flaw that would have had it rejected from micro. I absolutely hate micro for their pixel arrogance. Micro photogs were riding a wave a couple of years ago enjoying their lofty position not noticing that the beach was coming up. From the many "are sales slowing down" posts I see here I would say they too have a storm to weather. I think any stock photographer has  got his work cut out for him these days.

Double post?

I go and opt out. But every time I go back to the page the check box is ticked again.