Who dun it?
It behoves me little to preach on this forum being, as I am, just a stray entrant into this unfortunate business. Into the business of microstock, I mean. However one cant help but notice, if one takes a step back, that theres some strange going ons - right here, in the microstock industry.
Firstly one cant help noticing that agency after agency has dropped royalties at their sole discretion.
Agency costs are going up but so are the artists costs of production. In every business that I know, increase in costs are normally passed on to the consumer (read Buyer) in almost full part. That is how businesses survive and thrive in an inflationary world. In any other business if supplier payments are to be reduced it would generally mean protracted negotiations and mutual agreement. Not so in this business, as facts on the ground have repeatedly shown.
Then there is the business of treatment of copyright works.
Copyright vests with the artist. Obviously that appears to mean little if any representing agent has the contractual ability to give it away or sell it off without consulting the artist, for a small one-time return to the artist on a product that was designed for longevity based returns.
Or to strip off artist identification data from any artwork. (Lets erase the painters signature off the canvas, shall we).
So then .. who dun it? What conditions could make anything like this possible?
To put things in perspective we have one group, the contributors. These are many individuals who form a loose pool of people wielding cameras and suchlike. While many are skilled in the craft, however our group would not appear to be anywhere as versed in ways of business. To that end we may actually be a Low Occupational Understanding Team (lets just abbreviate that to LOUT sorry if the abbreviation sounds crass). We have then on the one hand, us, the Lout.
And on the other part there is the agency or agencies that represent us.
If youre a painter you might expect your agency to charge a commission of (estimations) 10 or 20 or 25 percent. In our business it starts at 50% and rapidly escalates to 85%. Eighty-five percent! Commission! What kind of idiots are we?
And then, on top of that, we sign up agreements of agencies that allows the agency to operate (seemingly, looking at facts on the ground), fairly at will. Their will.
So then, who dun it?
The correct answer to that question is us, the Lout. We did it, to ourselves and to this industry, that today might be standing on the brink of collapse.
Cardinal rule no. 1 - Business needs checks and balances.
Cardinal rule no. 2 Business needs checks and balances.
Cardinal rule no. 3 Business needs checks and balances.
We forgot all these three rules.
If there are inadequate checks and balances in a business, then one party or the other is relatively free to do as they please, even to take disproportionate advantage if it helps to further their specific business goals.
By not imposing checks and balances from our side, it is us, the lout, who dun it! We are ultimately responsible if this business will run to ground. Or at least as responsible as we think any agency might be.
* We have simply not enforced adequate checks and balances into the business from our side.
* Nothing can meaningfully change till that is done.
The role of the agency cannot be stressed enough. The agency is our reach to the marketplace. Without the agency there is no business. Lets respect that. But we need a format to ensure that the artist agent relationship is grounded in good and fair principals for all concerned. Like any other business, we need checks and balances in place.
Practical situation on the ground makes it difficult for us, as an individual contributor, to enforce check or balance. That is the truth of it. But we are not alone. We are a multitude of people who have however, refused to come together for common cause. Up to now that is. Perhaps its time to change that. Perhaps its time to do what should have been done a long time ago. All it might need is a simple association a worldwide association that represents microstock artists. An association that is funded by annual fee paid by artists; perhaps 50 $ or so per year per artist may do it looking at the thousands that we are. An elected board could even come from some of the smart, savvy people we see on these forums; some of the people who understand this business and who have the capability to be watchdog on all our behalf. And a hired lawyer as needed. Checks and balances could quickly get instituted. And the business may thrive in a free and fair manner for all parties concerned.
Am I way off track? Have I missed critical issues that make all this unviable? As I said Im a stray entrant into this very likeable industry: microstock. But there are many smart and industry-knowledgeable people on these forums, as one can clearly see when scanning through the posts. Isnt it time for some of them to come forward on all our behalf and assume a leadership stance for a common platform. Isnt it also time for the heavy-hitters, the ones with 20000 and 50000 etc images in their portfolios and top-end presence in the business, to come out and join hands with us lesser mortals. If an industry as a whole becomes unhealthy, the individual businesses will eventually not be healthy either, right!
Proactivity is the call of the hour. What are you waiting for?
(Opinions expressed are my own and the content is neither intended to be malicious nor to malign anyone).
www.sdeva.com