I have already started on this by posting in a couple of designer's forums about how Getty/iStock treats their photographers and recommended them to go shop elsewhere (SS, DT, FT, Veer) if they want to be more ethical and fair.

A written letter would be a very effective way to make some changes.

http://search.twitter.com/search?q=istock

I just got an urge to upload some images to Alamy...

What does this mean? :
"You will retain the royalty rate from the end of the previous year "

I just started a thread in a local designer's forum about the pay cut for non-exclusives and told them that if they want the photographer to get a more fair payment they should shop their images elsewhere; I also gave links to SS, DT and FT. (I wish SX would still exist...)
I Also mentioned Veer because I think they would like their attitude.

I wish some of you did the same, just to get people to understand that iStock/Getty are greedy *insult removed* that don't care if the photographer will be able to pay his/her bills.

I just started to hate iStock.

They are a bunch of greedy a**holes.

Quote from: Perry on September 02, 2010, 09:00

If you are really going to do some comparison, why not compare SS to IS+PP, that would be more fair because then both have "pay per downloads" and subscriptions.

Because PP is a separate agency ... and a direct competitor to IS (although of course both are owned by Getty). Would you prefer all your IS commissions to be on the PP instead? If so then carry on supporting the PP.

So you think it's fair to compare the earnings per sale between a subscription site and a (partly) pay-per-download site?

Quote from: Perry on September 02, 2010, 09:00

In June, my average payout per download at IS+PP was $1.09

What would it have been if all your sales had been on the PP? Just 25c or a little bit more?

I think only a small portion of clients could switch from a pay-per-download site to a subscription site, and vice versa. Therefore I think your argument is invalid. You should compare a subscription site to another subscription site: At PP you make $0.25, at SS the average is propably something like $0.30-ish. It's still just peanuts.

And no, I don't like the $0.25 at PP, I'd rather get $0.40, but it isn't up to me. I just get a 10% boost on my IS earnings by just ticking a box. I think Oldhand earlier in this thread has the same philosophy as me.
I just want my tiny slice of the PP cake.

Quote from: elvinstar on September 01, 2010, 08:20

I would guess that they bothered because it's extra income... Just a guess.

I would guess it's on a similar level to prostitution then. Less tangible or immediate concepts like self-worth, legitimacy/transparency or long-term health/business can just be ignored ... because it's extra income. Figuratively speaking they knew they were likely to be screwed ... and that's what happened. Heigh-ho.

I don't see the difference between $0.25 sales at Thinkstock and $0.25 sale at - let's say - Shutterstock. I don't think it's fair to call other people prostitutes here, because in a way we are all prostitutes in micro business...

I put my images on IS partner sites because I get about 10% more money from IS that way, without doing anything special, just clicking some boxes... But I'm still dissappointed that it takes weeks to give us the money, I think they either just want to get some interest on our money OR they have suddenly run out of money.

I use this method, crude but effective and have never had an isolated on white image rejected by istock.
Shoot subject on a white board, outside on a still day, with light cloud.
Take it into Capture NX2, sample the white board with the white picker and set it to 1000% white.
Job done.

Yor method doesn't work if the subject has white parts, or some glossy metallic parts or...
And with your method you don't get crispy textures (as with careful studio lighting). The technical quality could be enough for IS, but carefully lit photos sell much better, I have noticed.

If all my photos sold like that, I would have been able to retire by now.

I just did some maths, just for fun. If my all photos sold as my top seller, I would be a multi-millionaire. I don't know if I should cry or laugh when I think about this

If they're taking this from their share, it's ok.  But doesn't 89% of the profits sound a lot?

They are not taking it from "their share", they are taking it from their profit.
Let's say the photographer gets 60%. Alamy gets 40%. Alamy has to cover their costs, let's say 30% goes to the expenses of running the business, that leaves 10% profit. And if 90% of that goes to charity, that would be 9% of the total cost of an image.

they are horrifically cliched and lacking sublety. But that's simply the market speaking because contributors tend to produce what is proven to sell and the default search orders reflect the buying habits.

And it's partly also becayuse "shiny happy images" gets more easily accepted...