Quote from: Milinz on May 07, 2009, 14:42
Now, I will wait to see if they have robotized reply ready for this kind of messages ;-)

I hope they do and I hope it says something along the lines of "You're an arse".

Quote from: gostwyck on May 06, 2009, 23:24

Quote from: Justme on May 06, 2009, 23:06
So it looks like there has been a preliminary announcement " ass chewing " of iStocks contributors. And they are asking everyone to remove their Opt Out AVI's.  Must be having an effect. I think I will keep my AVI !

Dead right. We change our Avatars when they change their preposterous proposal to the satisfaction of the majority. I can't believe just how quickly everyone appears to be rolling over for their tummy to be tickled after a few soothing words. I knew it would happen __ but not this quick.

I don't think anyone is waving the white flags just yet, it looks more like a cease fire to me. No point in being confrontational about it if things can be solved constructively!

Quote from: Justme on May 06, 2009, 20:32

Quote from: stacey_newman on May 06, 2009, 20:17

at least I'm not hiding behind an anonymous username.

You may want to think about it. You may be better off if you were.

Why? At least Stacey is willing to listen other people's opinion and doesn't approach things with a closed mind. I'd choose a balanced discussion over a knee jerk mob reaction any day!

Very interesting! With lots of unhappy istock exclusives and a whole load of anti Getty sentiment, istock needs this like a whole in the head.

Every day it becomes more obvious why Bruce left as more of the behind the scenes goings on come to light! I wonder whether his own anti-compete terms mean he'll be free to do the same in a few years!

They've got to come back with something eventually! The guys in Calgary (or whoever is pulling the strings) has a few choices:

- Stay quiet and just implement it, loosing a hell of a lot of trust
- Come out and say nothing's changing, upsetting a lot of of people who have just been ignored
- Offer some comprise, potentially diffuse the situation to some extent
- Scrap it completely, please the contributors but still have everyone wondering what'll be on the cards when Getty start pulling istock's strings next time

I'm glad I'm not an admin right now stuck between the owners and a whole host of angry contributors and a decision without any favourable outcomes for contributor relations.

If istock just kept the exclusive content separate from the content transferred to photos.com then it would just be a case of an individual decision with a lot less impact on the exclusive group who opt out and whilst most people would probably still be saying they'll opt out I don't think there would be quite the same number of complaints about it!

(Thanks for the correction on my last post, didn't realise Jupiter wasn't owned by Getty at the time)

Quote from: MichaelJay on May 06, 2009, 16:08

Quote from: CraigSwatton on May 06, 2009, 15:52
You've hit the nail on the head. Why would a buyer pay $200-$400 for "exclusive" images at istock when they can get those not so exclusive after all files for $100-$200? Just to make things worse, the up to 40% commission on the $200-$400 is being replaced by 22.5% on the $100-$200. Good for buyers, good for the "Getty Family" but terrible for istock and its contributors, especially the exclusives.

Both are valid questions and should and can be asked.

My personal assumption to question 1 would be:
1) Most customers will need much less than 50 images a month, they will need 1, 2 or 5. For them paying $100 a month is not an option.
2) Many customers don't care if one image costs $1, $5 or $20. It's still much less than they had to pay in the past. But they want access to the best library for their projects.
3) Quite a few customers think like the one above. They don't buy at iStock nowadays. So currently your share of that market is $0.00

Yes, it might be possible that some customers will switch from model A to model B. But did it ever occur to you it also might happen that some customers will switch from model B to model A once they find "hey, that's great content but I want to have access to it all"? It could be working in both ways. I don't say it will but it could.

Don't assume that ALL customers will buy an ANNUAL subscription and download ALL images they are allowed to. Because that's not business sense.

And what I also would consider a bit more respect is if people don't always state that Getty makes all the calls. I don't know if this is the case or not but neither do you. Maybe you could consider that each time you are stating "this must be an order of Getty" you are at the same time saying "I don't trust the people having led iStock to where it is now to have a opinion, standing or strength at all." I'd expect everybody to have a bit more respect for those people and at least give them the benefit of the doubt that they actually believe this is a right step for all of us. At the end, they are humans even if that gets lost sometimes in our virtual environments.

This is something that somehow got a bit lost these days and makes me more than just a bit sad. Sorry to share that if you don't care.

I don't think absolutely everyone will leave istock and buy the smallest credit package but it is just as bad an assumption to think all customers at istock won't buy a subscription at photos.com to get their hands on exclusive content and when it's a poor royalty on an already tiny price, it makes it a real bad deal for exclusive contributors if anyone goes over.

As far as I'm aware, istock had nothing to do with the arrangement at StockXpert so the fact it has been transferred over to istock makes it apparent the idea came from Getty. If istock did turn round to Getty and say "you're right, it's a great deal for istock, lets do it" then why has no-one from HQ been able to come up with anything to back up why this deal is good for contributors and won't just be a repeat of StockXpert?

Quote from: MichaelJay on May 06, 2009, 15:33

Quote from: dirkr on May 06, 2009, 13:38
Now: many people assumed, that the reality will be closer to the 3 cents than to the "expected average". That puts one question to my mind. StockXpert currently pays a fixed 30 cents per download - out of the same subscription prices.
If the assumption were correct, that 20% (or 22,5%) of the real revenue of photos.com were at or near 3 cents, StockXpert would currently loose a gib amount of money. I can't believe that. So assuming that they take a similar 70% from total revenues for subscriptions as they do for PPD, the gross revenue per download would be at 1$ - leading to 20 - 22.5 cents per download for the proposed IS plan on average.

Still not a good deal (and still not one I support), but very different indeed.
Any mistakes in my thinking?

Seems like you are a bit smarter in coming up with assumptions based on facts rather than the people stating that customers not using the 750 downloads are plain dumb.

From a customer perspective it's simple: I may need 50 images per month, medium quality, medium size. I have option A) to buy those at a PPD site for maybe $200-$400 a month and I have option B) to buy those at a subscription site for $100-$200 a month. If the quality on the subs site meets my purposes, I will buy the subscription. I don't care if I waste 700 potential downloads because the decision already makes sense for me.

Now here's customer B: He says, well beyond those 50 I need I will download quite some more to keep as a reserve for future use or for personal benefit (let's make it my wallpaper). Still just because he needs to invest some time to pick & download, he won't sit in front of a computer for hours to download 700 images that he most likely will never use. Maybe he will download 100, maybe 150. So he stores those images on his hard disk, now what... he won't be able to use all or many of them in future projects because he can't his customers/projects based on the image he already has. Yes, he will use some of them. But in most cases the contributor is getting paid for a "license" that never will get used.

Obviously I am not informed in detail how those sites have worked in the past. So my theories are speculation as well but do they sound unreasonable? Really?

I certainly don't trust anyone blindly that all his decisions are right. But I also put some trust in not everything is wrong that is being said by a group of people with an excellent track record of taking care of my images. And finally, it's still an optional thing, nobody is forcing anyone. As an everday consumer I am used to get treated much worse by big companies...

You've hit the nail on the head. Why would a buyer pay $200-$400 for "exclusive" images at istock when they can get those not so exclusive after all files for $100-$200? Just to make things worse, the up to 40% commission on the $200-$400 is being replaced by 22.5% on the $100-$200. Good for buyers, good for the "Getty Family" but terrible for istock and its contributors, especially the exclusives.

You're right, istock does have a pretty good track record taking care of its exclusives. Unfortunately, Getty don't have a great track record with this exact arrangement, even a short visit into the StockXpert forum on here shows that! I'd love to carry on as an istock exclusive but the only thing that's being considered is Getty's bottom line regardless of how it impacts on istock and that's exactly why I'll be an independent artist in 30 days time. For the record, I had never even considered it until Friday.

Looks like they've had enough of contributors telling them the idea sucks on the official forums!  They're locking anything that mentions it!

Quote from: lisafx on May 02, 2009, 22:21

Quote from: stacey_newman on May 02, 2009, 21:57
well, I might have read your last post wrong, but if photos.com and jupiter take off under the direction of Getty/iStock, doesn't that pose a significant threat to sales at SS and some of the others?

Photos.com and JUI have already been under the direction of Getty for months and have made absolutely no dent in the (rising) sales at the independently owned micros.  The only thing that is new will be the addition of some istock formerly exclusive content.  

I don't see any benefit for exclusive contributors in supporting the prospect of eventual monopolization of this industry.  How long will istock exclusives be making up to 40% on istock if Getty owns it all and there is no DT, SS, FOT etc. to compete?  

At this point it seems to me the best way for content providers to protect their future earnings is to support the sites that are independently owned.  

Exactly what I'll be doing if this does go through!

Buyers can re-download a file within 24 hours. If you have a download the same size earlier in the day it's probably that as it shows up as a free download I believe.

Hate it. Non-exclusives can submit there already and having duplicate content available cheaper elsewhere totally undermines the exclusivity program!

You know what's really annoying? The fact that admins keep dropping into the thread to talk about relatively irrelevant things like why the announcement was made on a Friday but won't answer any important questions like how exclusivity stands even if you opt out when some exclusive artists will have their entire portfolios on sale for less elsewhere, why do Getty now deserve a 77.5% cut for any reason other than pure greed and whether vectors will be included.

I'm finding it incredibly difficult not to click on the cancel exclusivity button at the minute! This just feels like the decision has been made to benefit the Getty group as a whole at the detriment of istock which makes it a pretty lame time to be exclusive!

Quote from: stacey_newman on May 02, 2009, 01:56
yes Craig, exactly. and the problem is that exclusivity demands so much of a photographer and if the returns are diminishing, then there is a huge problem.

one issue that I wish could just be talked about on iStock forums without being shut down, is their method of making these announcements. they get people so wound up by releasing such little info. as an exclusive, I would have simply appreciated a mailing to just exclusives telling me how this is going to affect me, with a clear business model demonstrating the projected affect on exclusive sales.

I did have my fingers crossed after the premiere collection e-mail that things were going that way but it looks like it was just a one off!

Quote from: cdwheatley on May 02, 2009, 01:31
I think they are just looking for other ways to market Istock images, Just like the Getty collections.

Difference there is the content is kept separate. Anything uploaded to istock by an exclusive can only be found at istock even though they may have totally separate files at Getty.

Now content is being shared elsewhere for a much lower price and a much worse deal for contributors.

Quote from: stacey_newman on May 02, 2009, 00:40
this is what I think also, but I don't always trust my gut when it comes to iStock. I am too emotional about it sometimes. for those of us on the fence about exclusivity, this certainly seems like a push to go non-exclusive. I have been hanging onto exclusivity believing that it would one day be required at iStock. now I think perhaps the opposite might be true.

this feels like a very big fish decision. from the top. I think the sale to Getty was the beginning of a prolonged end to iStock. it will eventually be absorbed IMHO. whether or not to be on the inside or the outside when/if that happens, that is the question.

My thoughts exactly. Even if I opt out, other people opting in totally devalues the concept of exclusivity. I'll give it a chance to pan out first but it's certainly making me rethink exclusivity.

Exclusive artists being able to put totally separate files at getty makes sense and in a similar I would 100% back non-sellers at istock being moved to photos.com. What I object to is exclusive content being shared with sites selling it at a lower price. Makes exclusivity almost worthless!

I've waited for 6 months for a decision before. I think legal issues take a lot longer than technical ones to make a decision on which is understandable.

From past experience though, images overturned scout don't come in as old images, they have the same best match positioning as anything that's passed normal inspection at the same time!

Hopefully CE will clear it up pretty quickly. The response from CR that the contributor in question received is simply untrue. It clearly states that files can only be moved to RF with the owner's permission, as long as you refuse any files being moved to RF then you're only ever selling RM which the istock exclusivity agreement explicitly allows!

Also, I imagine most contributions to Alamy by istock exclusives are editorial (i.e. no releases) so there's no chance of them being changed to RF anyway!

Quote from: leaf on March 26, 2009, 11:59
wow, that is an interesting find. Thanks for posting that.  Here is what the quote from istock was

Quote"In the 'RM' agreement signed with Alamy - they reserve the right to change the agreement to RF at any time with 45 days notice to you. As files are held on their site for a 6 month period, we unfortunately would not be able to approve your exclusivity application with files posted on Alamy."

Untrue. Have a read of the agreement at Alamy:

Quote
6.2 Where you appoint Alamy as your licensee to grant Royalty Free Licences or Rights Managed - Exclusive Licences in respect of an Image, Alamy may vary the Licences it grants in respect of that Image from Royalty Free or Rights Managed-Exclusive to Rights Managed-by giving 45 days prior notice to you at any time. If you notify Alamy during the 45 day notice period that you do not agree to such variation then Alamy may either continue to grant Licences in accordance with the original licence type in respect of that Image or, at Alamy's option, may delete that Image from the System.

They can change a licence with 45 days notice but if you don't agree either the change won't happen or the image will be deleted. As long as you refuse any change to RF then you're not breaching the istock exclusivity agreement.

Quote from: disorderly on March 04, 2009, 02:36
Boy, if I were exclusive, I'd be seriously pissed right about now...

Why? S**t happens and the attack could have happened anywhere, I'm just thankful and impressed istock dealt with it so quickly and efficiently.

Yes it might dent yesterday's sales but closing the site isolated the problem and stopped it becoming a major issue!

Yuri has answered that question pretty well right here.

If you downsize to the minimum size that doesn't mean your image drops out of a size bracket (i.e. go to the min L size if you're starting with an image in between L and XL) it can be the difference between acceptance and rejection on some occasions for focussing or artificating issues.

Better to do that, or even download to the absolute minimum than to not upload at all! No-one gets it right 100% of the time and it is a numbers game at the end of the day,

I suspect buyers don't care whether any given image is exclusive, it doesn't make much odds when it's on sale RF.

What buyers do care about is like you say, finding good images that match their requirements. If there are a whole load of good images only up for sale at one place, that site has a unique selling point that'll bring buyers back.

It's more important to the sites than to the buyers as it means they can then compete on quality and breadth of content rather than just quality of the search and the price.

It also means buyers won't go to the site with the best search to find an image then use the contributor name to find the image on the site with the best price.

Release standards do seem to be getting stricter. I had to go back and get the model to fill in her phone number, which she didn't fill in initially because she's changed it this week!

Quote from: whitechild on February 17, 2009, 22:29
I think those things will sell. Especially the woman faking climax

Yup, it's my best selling audio already!