Quote from: sharpshot on March 31, 2011, 02:40

Quote from: sjlocke on March 30, 2011, 21:12

That bottom right box about the iStock royalty changes makes no sense at all.

It makes about as much sense as the management spin we get from istock.  They try and polish the turd, this is making it smell worse

No, I mean they are randomly pasting things together:
"In 2010, iStockphoto announced a big change in royalty rates: photographers need to sell more than 150,000 credits a year to receive 40% in royalties, otherwise they'd see a pay cut.  This means iStockphoto receives 85% while photographers receive a payout of 15%."

To start, it makes no sense, because it mixes exclusive with non-exclusive terms.  Then it compares almost the highest of one to the lowest of the other.  It also seems to assume that all exclusives were making 40% prior to the new paradigm.  Then it erroneously assumes everyone who doesn't make 150,000 credits falls to the lowest level of independent.  And photographers don't sell credits.

Guys, sincere thanks for ripping apart the wording in the �royalty changes� section! It made perfect sense at the time of publishing but with hindsight, it was rather confusing The info has been updated in the graphic...