The rate of growth may level off, but growth is a given. What's everyone doing to pivot?

Quote from: BaldricksTrousers on March 27, 2014, 14:20
I find it odd that you want to use model releases to control commercial usage. If a model signs a release, why should the photographer have any right to limit the usage of a released image? 

Quite simply, the MR is an agreement between model and photographer. I would have thought you were clear on that. The release may include language to allow the photographer to assign it to others but the existence of a release agreed to by two parties does not mean anyone else may freely assume they are party to it.

In cases of unauthorized image use, I presume the publisher is setting themselves up for a bigger liability by publishing without a release than they are for copyright infringement since so few images are actually registered with the USPTO. (Yes, work in the US is automatically copyright to the photographer, however statutory damages are off the table unless registered.)

Quote from: Jo Ann Snover on March 26, 2014, 21:50

Quote from: BrianM on March 26, 2014, 19:22
...Copyright makes sense for a limited time, but it shouldn't be a perpetual/in perpetuity source of income for an entire family line. 10 years, maybe 20, great. Whatever we have now is more than enough, it should be less.

If an artist wants to release their work as public domain they always have that option. But during an artist's lifetime to say that they no longer have ownership and control over their work seems completely crazy to me. No one would ever be able to sustain themselves making art if that were the case?

You could possibly argue about extension of copyright after the artist's death.

I suppose that was a little "incandescent" of me     ... I'll agree 10 years is too short. 20 still sounded reasonable until Jo Ann pointed out loosing control of your work in your lifetime.

However, there are several points. Public Domain does not mean (at least to my understanding) that Model Releases wouldn't still be needed for commercial use. The photographer still manages those and decides who to assign them to and what they want to charge for that.

I guess, long before I was a professional photographer, I came to really despise this creation of artificial scarcity. We're almost living in an age where people could have anything they need. (3d printing, open source software, open source 3d models, etc.) And as we approach that, it seems like we toss up more and more artificial barriers to create haves and have not's. Now that I earn money from photography, I have a vested interest in copyright. But I don't want to be entirely hypocritical or forget the other side of the coin.

Copyright (as with patents) ought to incentivize creation and, for a limited time, create a monopoly for the IP holder. However, there is a bargain to be struck for the right balance. I don't think anyone here is so genius that their work should provide for generations. Certainly not Lauren    (Hey buddy, it's Brian from Frederick, I highly admire your skill and am still glad you're making money on your National Geographic intro.)

An opposing factor to copyright is culture. When you create art, photography, music, and publish it, it becomes part of the culture if it is good. It was also built or derived from a mixture of art, culture, and context in the time it was created. It freaks me that culture could be owned so strictly in some senses. It's a give and take, and I think the pendulum has swung too far towards take.

And listen, this is not anti-photographer. The same extreme uses of the IP umbrella are the reasons we can't sell photos that include certain trademarked SHAPES. ie cars. It's gotten rediculous. I'm glad AA's stuff is entering public domain. I'd like Grim's fairey tails and the old Disney stories based on them to hit PD soon too. And great music. But if it will stop people calling me an "idiot" I'll say maybe lifetime (or 20 years, whichever happens to be longer) should be the outer limit for a copyright. 

Glad these works are in public domain. And would love to see more music and art fall into the public domain. Copyright makes sense for a limited time, but it shouldn't be a perpetual/in perpetuity source of income for an entire family line. 10 years, maybe 20, great. Whatever we have now is more than enough, it should be less.

But it does raise a point I hadn't thought about for staging realistic looking homes and offices. Would these photos make great substitutions for blank frames or empty walls? I've occasionally used my own photos or art and provided a PR, but I'm no Ansel Adams

Is Getty extending a model release to the users of the viewer/embedder?

I'd guess so, but I'm kinda cloudy on that detail. I know I have a release from a model, and I can assign it to an agent who can assign it to a buyer who properly licenses a file. But in a case were a photographer is not paid at all for the use, and the image is displayed outside of the agent's website for a purpose other than displaying a catalog of images available for licensing, how is the model release extended? Are bloggers at risk using these images because they haven't procured a release as part of the licensing process?

Quote from: jjneff on November 14, 2013, 15:03
Seeing all of these oh yeah numbers for non-exclusives makes me feel left out.

JJ, the non-exclusive jump is a difficult one to make. Seven months in and I am still a ways from making what I did as an exclusive. And when you add up that consistent monthly shortfall, it is a lot. If/when I begin making more as a non-ex, it will take significant time to cover that loss and consider the move a net positive financially. (There are of course peace of mind and other aspects that contribute to a broader "bottom line".) Don't give up exclusivity lightly if earning money is a key reason you sell stock!

Now, that said, HOLY CRAP! Partner Program is blowing up and thank goodness for that. In October, PP swamped what I made everywhere else, including iStock proper as a non-exclusive. October was my BME as a non-exclusive, and only 30% below my best month as an IS exclusive this year.

As a non-exclusive, PP has been welcome and valuable to my overall monthly income. I hope Getty is on to something (oh, not that word)... reliable. I would love to see this stream of income in the PP continue it's solid trend.

Quote from: ranplett on September 17, 2013, 02:17

That's good news Brian. How many photos do you think you would need based on that RPI to match estimated iS earnings if you were still exclusive? I know it's tough to gauge.

Tough to gage Randy, because RPI is growing steadily from month to month, and I expect that trend to continue for quite some time as news of Stocksy spreads to more designers. The ones I meet love it when they see the photos and most haven't heard of it yet so I get the sense there is a big market and they're going to be loyal customers when they discover Stocksy.

Best estimate: I need to somewhere between double and quadruple my current Stocksy port to for it's income to exceed my best IS exclusive earnings. That would be 1/2 the size of my IS port at it's peak. That's very doable because Sean already has well more than that up.

For sheer income, in the short term, stay with IS if you are treated well or feel comfortable there. It was crushing my sole     so I made my choice early and I would guess in the medium term, let's say 3-9 months out, I should be earning more than I was as an exclusive. Best of all, it's not artist exclusive, so I can have additional revenue from SS or Symbio, etc. My battle for prioritizing time is always between local commercial, local clients, and stock. But within the stock category, hands down, and very easy decision, priority goes to Stocksy.

That's right about launching just six months ago MLwinphoto

And Tick, here's context: you are correct that Stocksy is outperforming my non-exclusive iStock earnings this month. It's the truest comparison I can make. It would be a wild guess trying to estimate what my IS exclusive earnings might look like now. However, and here's the real kicker, my earnings growth at Stocksy is happening with a portfolio that's 1/10 the size of my port at iStock! In terms of RPI/month, Stocksy is already besting my best ever exclusive months at iStock.

This is only one member's data, so take with a grain of salt. But here it is:

In the first week of September, my Stocksy earnings were much better than my iStock earnings. I wondered if the trend would hold true for whole month. We are only at the half way point, but I take my iStock earnings on the 16th and 1st day of the month. As I made my withdraw today, I checked my Stocksy stats: still besting iStock earnings handily.

I continue to be impressed by Stocksy's growth. Also feel this ought to be (although probably won't) a sign to other firms in this space. Not to try and imitate, but to mind the fundamentals -- fair royalties, care for suppliers, and honest dealing with buyers.

For me, solid sales trend growth over the 5 continuous months I've had sales at Stocksy. Also, my August was almost double my June, with no ELs yet. I'm starting to regularly have better sales days on Stocksy than iStock and I have every expectation that trend will continue and accelerate.

There is so much to like about Stocksy, but many people won't know the great vibe first hand yet. Among a few of my favorite things are the personal touches including direct access to editors if needed and incredibly responsive (like superhuman) technical support. You absolutely feel like a partner with the focus on customer's and contributor's experience, making the site and the business optimal for both. It's entirely 180 to the way things felt at the other place, as if you were expendable, even a resource to be strip mined.

The vibe in the forums is extremely positive, a lot of people encouraging and helping each other.

When Stocksy offers discounts, it doesn't come out of contributor's commission. Also, contributors keep 100% of ELs. Crazy, right?! Things like that really make you feel valued. I hope Stocksy's growth continues on the path it's on, not just for co-op owner/member/contributors, but also to reinforce the idea that businesses can thrive and take good care of their partners at the same time.

Quote from: BK on July 26, 2013, 03:01
If newspapers are firing photographers for iPhones it's just a matter of time. The question is how big the impact will be and how best to make money from it.

When firms eliminate jobs, it doesn't mean there is a way to "make money from it." It simply means that the owners or shareholders of that business get to keep more money because there are fewer employees to pay. A few people that were already doing quite well make a bit extra and lots of people that needed regular jobs to make ends meet are in a tougher situation.

It was this way for bank tellers, check out cashiers, farm labor, and now some of the higher skilled positions such as staff photo journalists. In the latter case, you can bet the firms aren't anxious to compensate the crowd sourced replacement, they just want cheap or free labor that's "good enough."

Quote from: JPSDK on July 17, 2013, 00:32
Brian, your video is quite shocking.
Revolutions are born out of that kind of distribution.

It is quite amazing what its tolerated, but they (or we) keep us pretty busy fighting among ourselves. Howard Zinn has some interesting examples of that in Amercan history.

Perhaps veering too far off course, but I think the bigger issue of the economy and lack of jobs is just playing out again in our field with tighter budgets and lower ratio of demand vs supply for stock images. I have skilled friends that have been out of work for 6 months or longer, they had nothing to do with microstock, but it's an anecdotal warning to me that the answer to shrinking micro revenues may not be a different career or an "adaptation."

I used to scoff along with many others at buggy whip maker vs automobile manufacturer arguments, but it appears we are approaching a structural change in economies with robotics and automation that is finally limiting the need for labor. It is one explanation for the giant productivity gains since the 70s that pair with flat inflation adjusted wages. So, at the point where labor is simply in lower demand, how do whole populations make a living? How do you spread the wealth that goes to those with infrastructure capital? My Utopian wish (naive, kid view) was that we'd own robots that went to work for us. Presently, it looks like a very small group will own all the capital and receive all the spoils.

Here is a thought experiment in a sci-fi short story form --
  http://marshallbrain.com/manna1.htm

Sean called this video propaganda, but considering low demand for jobs and declining purchase power, it's pretty obvious economic activity would be a lot stronger if things weren't so lopsided.
  Wealth Inequality in America

Just looking at http://www.dashphoto.eu/ as one example of a Symbiostock site, have to say it looks beautiful!

I think some priority features are needed, most important being SSO (Single Sign On) to all Symbiostock sites. Means only one user account needs to be created across all sites. There are open source frameworks for this already I believe.

Have to agree with a lot of what JPSDK says.

While I don't know much about Sym, I've been hopeful about it's potential since I saw the early threads popping up. It absolutely needs some standardization (doesn't have to be centrally enforced, but perhaps by agreement for people that join a certain hub, and probably that hub with good pricing and licencing and checkout would become the dominant fork). Standard pricing and license would be a huge benefit to buyers. All stock sites need to think about the customer. I've been talking with many designers lately and they hate the pricing complexity at many sites. Some who haven't heard of P5 yet loose all enthusiasm when I tell them photographers set their own price. They don't want to find pics only to find they aren't in budget.

I'm also a huge fan of Open Source software! Implementing Linux and other F/LOSS was a big part of my first profession. Believe me, Linus Torvalds (father of Linux) has completely shredded people working on his projects and there have been some very ugly debates. In the end, criticism and hashing things out made the software more reliable and they absolutely worked towards standards too. Any complaints about Sym should be welcomed and considered. They may be dismissed after good thought/discussion but just saying something is open and new and waving away criticism won't lead to a strong product.

Best of luck to the Symbiostock idea and development! I am very glad people are trying to push it forward!

What's holding me back?

I don't understand what it is. Can someone explain it in very simple terms?

It's a self hosted site? But it links sites together for search so if you don't have images, someone else's in the network are show? Is there a consistent look and feel so customers from one Sym site are immediately comfortable with another site?

Quote from: Beppe Grillo on June 15, 2013, 08:24

First I sent pictures that were rejected a few months ago. All were accepted without any problem.
Then I pushed a bit and I sent pictures whose quality was questionable. All accepted.
I pushed the envelope further, I sent blurry pictures, moved, noisy, with artifacts, etc.. All accepted
I did it again with others of the same kind ... All accepted .........

My conclusion is that now iStock accepts everything and anything ...
This is not good news I think

This is great fodder for my upcoming talk to designers which includes a slide about the different aesthetics of various RF agencies.

The other thing it has me wondering is where Getty stands on Inspectors. They are paid, so they are a cost center to be reduced. I have friends who are Inspectors and I don't want to see that happen! If it did, I think you would see more of iStock's best moving on from exclusivity.

Getty must consider, if inspection standards at iStock become virtually nil, no reason to pay skilled people to evaluate images and you can outsource checking model releases. Inspectors on the other hand might be inspecting so quickly now because with lower standards, possibly make up for lost sales by rapid clicking tons of new content in. If they are instructed to lower standards that naturally speeds up their pace.

Quote from: Juanmonino on May 18, 2013, 17:33
it would be interesting to see if any other big players will follow yuri.

I think the key here will be that Yuri became a "Getty Exclusive" not an "Istock Exclusive". It'll be like a couple of the other distribution houses Getty made deals with that get to place content on IS as "exclusive" but get to continue selling through their original brand/channel. I'll bet People Images stays.

So, what are the implications? A windfall for Yuri, and congrats to him! Next, if it pulls high quality content off of subs sites and low price point sites, it is good for mid-stock, Stocksy, and higher priced collections at agencies. Probably good for micro contributors too easing the need to compete against his factory at the lower price points.

What else? It appears to shaft established exclusives at IS by watering down that exclusive label yet again. Establishes that anyone can be exclusive but some are more exclusive than others. And, seems to suggest that if you want a sweet deal like Yuri (or the other "Getty Exclusives" got), that IS exclusivity may be a shackle to be shed before you can make a deal with Getty. Few people probably have the clout, but some do. And if some banded together... for example, imagine 4 or 5 of the top ten contributors making a new "brand" to negotiate a similar type of deal with 40k-50k of top quality/selling files as leverage.

Quote from: Microstock Posts on April 23, 2013, 16:27

Quote from: davidgoh on April 23, 2013, 15:59

Quote from: luissantos84 on April 23, 2013, 15:37
http://www.istockphoto.com/stats

Total files 13184228
Waiting approval 88946

Thank you! What a strange, barren page...

That link just goes to their homepage. Did they just get rid of the page?

It's just a status page, not intended for general consumption, kind of nice that regular contributors can see the queue length. You have to be logged in or you get redirected to the home page.

Quote from: ffNixx on April 21, 2013, 10:50
Something I have come to realize about Stocksy, is that if they were a genuine co-op, they would pay a royalty closer to 100% than just 50%. With their present structure, a small contributor will find they have a new boss: large contributors competing with them. Because the profit is disproportionally distributed to the large contributors. This seems to go against the principle of equal opportunity that a co-op should embody.

If I ever succeed in joining them, I'll be working for sjlocke!

As overall revenue grows, Stocksy will pay close to 100% royalties to contributors! 50% is what we get paid right at the time of sale. At the end of the year, profit (after costs to run the coop) is distributed among members. As revenue grows to greatly outweigh operating costs, that percentage paid to contributors approaches the full value of the sale when you add the initial commission plus the year end profit sharing.

It's not disproportionate at all. If a member works hard and makes 100k sales, and someone else has other projects going on this year and puts in less effort and makes 1k sales, it is fair dealing that the one who put in more effort makes more from profit sharing, proportional by definition.

Quote from: tickstock on April 12, 2013, 01:03

Quote from: sjlocke on April 12, 2013, 00:35
Oh, and IS gets to keep more of the sales price, yeah!

I'll work extra hard to get up to 40% by the end of the year so that doesn't happen.

Better work harder than that. I'm pretty sure Sean was one of number of people you could literally count on one hand that were making 45%.

Agree with you Stacey!! Dropped my crown recently. Appreciating fresh motivation for shooting, energetic about diversifying, and experiencing a breath of fresh air each day by no longer being highly dependent on one company that's rudderless and unable to make positive moves for it's suppliers.

I cannot fathom what GettyCarlyle's long term plan is for the iStock brand; unless it's the seemingly obvious of squeezing every ounce of profit from the former iStock business unit and it's contributors for short term gains. That may be profitable for Getty and Carlyle, and they can sell off or write down the empty husk, but it's not sustainable for iStock employees, it's buyers, or it's contributors. iStock tweets daily now, welcoming new exclusives, but conspicuously absent is any appreciation for veteran exclusives -- whether they are staying exclusive or departing after bringing in hundreds of thousands of dollars in revenue.

After the buyouts, there is little hope for a sustainable career path as an iStock exclusive, unless you can land a spot on the inspection team. The supplier cycle becomes: welcome hobbyists and newbies, grow them a bit, but with RC based royalty growth suppression, income peaks and levels out prematurely, professionals must nab a subcontractor job or find other venues for growth. Generally, it's up, then out. Over the long haul in this pattern, the average level of experience of iStock contributors falls. (And by extension the overall quality of the library.) If they were still aiming squarely at microstock price points, it might work. But selling at close to mid stock prices, with a contributor base trending toward more inexperienced, and one that increasingly cannot earn enough to hire good locations and models... it just doesn't add up.

Quote from: Poncke on March 26, 2013, 18:01

Was the bigger commission actually bigger then the $$ cut he would have gotten at IS?

Bigger cut, and about the same income, in dollars, for the contributor, and only 1/3 the price for the buyer! That's assuming it's a non-ex contributor, which is the majority of iStock's content. What do most indy's make? 17% or so? At GL they make 52%!

On top of all that, GL makes 48% which seems pretty well sustainable in the absence of share holders screaming for ever growing quarterly profits.

That is awesome news! It's really good to hear stories like that. This industry can be very healthy for everyone involved. Let's hope the pendulum is swinging back towards some balance for contributors and good service for buyers. (A fair share for fair companies too!)

Just last week, my wife was looking for an image for her industry blog. They often shopped at IS but were getting more frustrated with the prices and having trouble finding images there. I said to check GL Stock Images. Long story short, she found the perfect image quickly, about 1/3 the price, purchase was easy, and she felt good about the contributor getting a bigger commission. Guessing they will make GL their first stop for their regular blog image needs.

Thank you!