|
MicrostockGroup Sponsors
This section allows you to view all posts made by this member. Note that you can only see posts made in areas you currently have access to.
Messages - diego_cervo
26
« on: October 06, 2010, 02:00 »
My port is online since 1 week and yesterday I got my first XL sale  Not bad
27
« on: October 06, 2010, 01:52 »
well done!
28
« on: September 30, 2010, 02:16 »
@ Seb,
just wanted to thank you for your service! I really enjoyed isyndica.
I wish you the best!
29
« on: September 29, 2010, 05:49 »
thanks for the info!
nice blog by the way
ciao
30
« on: September 13, 2010, 12:09 »
I apologize if this has already been posted (the threads and posts on istock here are so many..... I'm sorry), but did you see this on wiki? "In September 2010, Getty Images IStockphoto Brand announced plans to cut payments to contributors by as much as 30% starting in 2011, while claiming that it furthered the interest of those same contributors. The royalty paid to non-exclusive contributors becomes as low as 15%[4] on the 1st day of 2011. Getty's motivation was greeted with skepticism by the iStockphoto community. Thousands of messages of complaint from contributors were posted on the iStock forum site within a few hours of the announcement[5]. "But money isnt going to be what makes you all happy." said CEO Thompson in his reply to the complaining contributors.[6]" here is the link: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Getty_ImagesThanks to whom wrote it!
31
« on: September 13, 2010, 11:57 »
I have 50 files pending since 3 or 4 weeks, but sales have been so good there lately that I don't mind if I have to wait I think they are either doing well with marketing or the new search engine pushes their buyers to microstock images. As a matter of fact you can narrow your search by microstock price but you can't do it by traditional macrostock price. Thus buyers have to see microstock images together with higher priced contents.
32
« on: September 12, 2010, 04:28 »
Has anyone else noticed a sharp and unusual increase in their rejections at IS all of a sudden? Like anyone who has been active on this forum?
For the past several weeks leading up to this I have had 100% approval rate. My overall rate there is over 90%. Just today, all of a sudden I had more than a third of images submitted in my last batch rejected. The reasons listed were things like artifacts and/or purple fringing. No attachments were included to show the "problem" areas, and I can't see them on my monitor. Plus images from the same shoots were accepted 100% without exception over the last several weeks.
Very hard not to view this as some sort of retaliation from speaking out here in the forums.
I stopped uploading to IS a while ago, so I can't say whether you are seeing retaliation. Nothing would surprise me, but another thing to consider is that maybe it's just a bad batch of reviewers. We just had a holiday and all, maybe there were substitute reviewers?
I sure hope this is more just a new inspector or some else. I find it hard to believe that any inspector or company would retaliate like this. to retaliate by rejecting images would be unprofessional and childish, and as pissed off as I am about the changes, I would find it hard to believe that some inspector at istock would drop to that level. I've had that kind of crazy batch of rejections happen after new inspectors came on board. Although, to be honest, I've not uploaded anything in some time due to personal issues and a general lack of time to do it.
Lisa, I agree with Jamirae that it may be because of some new inspectors. The pics I uploaded before the recent announcements have been approved so far and I'm sure that you care about artifacts much more than I do  Anyway, my pending queue is close to 0 since I stopped uploading there and soon I will not have much experience to share on this. I DO HOPE THAT MOST OF US WILL KEEP NOT UPLOADING TO ISTOCK, if not with the aim of affecting their business decisions, at least for some very basic ethical principles.
33
« on: September 12, 2010, 03:09 »
I got an email from DT where they say that my withholding rate is 0% while it should be 5% (as stated correctly in the W8 form).
I already contacted them and see what will happen
34
« on: September 10, 2010, 03:32 »
I would say Veer because it's Corbis Getty would get a double slap and it's unlikely that Corbis will ever sell Veer to its main competitor. AFAIK Veer has a good reputation among designers and the search engine is not bad. I'm well aware of its limits when it comes to reviewing time and keywords but at least Brian comes here to listen concerns from contributors. DT, SS and FT are all ok and I have good feeling about Stockfresh too. However I'm scared of acquisitions that may take place in the future and I think we need some other players in the top tier list. What we have learnt here is that Getty is good at planning how to screw contributors and knows how to play its cards. Who knows if some negotiations are going on right now....hey, I'm getting paranoid
35
« on: September 09, 2010, 12:26 »
And what happens if istock decides to make adjustments that are more acceptable to contributors. Are those buyers coming back? Probably not.
Think before just doing stuff.
According to their second explanation it seems pretty unlikely that they are going to change their minds (I hope I'm wrong...) The picture is more like that they will adjust canisters year after year to pay less royalties as possible in order to keep their business "sustainable"
36
« on: September 09, 2010, 03:50 »
The idea of buying shares of an existing agency has been discussed in the past and it can definitely be an option. However I think that it would just postpone the problem....why royalties should be shared with someone else who mainly looks for profits for himself instead of going to contributors only? why decisions which affect our work should be shared with people that don't do our job? Many people here already pointed out that a coop (and building our own site) it's a hard way to go, but this at least this wouldn't be just a patch. Why not doing a poll? please forgive my english as I wrote this post in a rush....I hope you understand it
37
« on: September 09, 2010, 03:07 »
Upload boycotts have worked to improve things with other sites that lowered royalties. I don't know if one will work at IS. I don't even know if doing what we can to drive buyers to the more reasonable sites will work. But I do know that doing nothing will guarantee we all go down the tubes. There is no doubt about that.
At some point it isn't just about how much you think you can change. I am not certain we can get them to change anything. For me it is an issue of deciding whether I want to to stand up for myself or just accept whatever crumbs Istock wants to toss my way without protest.
Either way, my income is going to be affected. Not only will I lose probably 10% of my IS income (which is 4-5% of my overall income), but I expect I will also lose income on the other sites when brilliant photographers who have been exclusive begin competing with me on the other sites. We are all in for some pain. The question is should we try to salvage the industry or just let it go down. I'm gonna try and salvage what I can because that's what I believe in.
For the moment, I am going to contact every buyer I know, let them know what's happening to image producers at Istock, and offer them better choices of where to shop. I have also suspended uploading for the time being. I am leaving it open when I will resume uploading - don't want to box myself into a corner. Others are free to do what their consciences dictate.
100% agree! Like many others I stopped uploading to istock as well and I hope that all people here will do the same. Besides, thanks to all the buyers who have decided to shop elsewhere! Please this time don't let the protest end soon and accept everything they do.... This new istock policy will have lots of implications on big players and factories too, so I'm crossing the fingers and hoping they will join us in any form of protest. p.s. Thank God I never opted in for exclusivity!!
38
« on: September 08, 2010, 13:36 »
Moreover, anybody running the site will be perceived as a competitor by the existing stock sites, and personally, I don't like to give up my earnings and karma at DT or SS. Because, they will retaliate (rightly so).
This is a very serious issue indeed. While I am ready to invest (and possibly lose) $1000 on a project I trust, I am not ready to resign from the major sites, it would be an unsustainable loss for me.
I think that both you and FD made very good points. It's true that a new stock site needs exclusive contents in order to stand out and on the other hand that it's too risky to quit all major sites. My incomes depend on stock photography and microstock is still my core business. Said that, I really hope that a coop will be put in place next time one of the big4 will come up with a royalty cut Thinking loudly....instead of resigning from all agencies, what about stop uploading there and give all our contents (old and new) to the coop site? Any idea is welcome!
39
« on: September 08, 2010, 11:52 »
I agree that a union is impossible. We don't even agree with the simplest aspects here.
A group of photographers joining to create their own site is possible. It needs however a lot of work to make this successful. One should accept to lose money for a while before having a return. Are we all willing to take that risk?
Is it more risky than accepting everything from an agency? I love my job and I would hate to see things going even worst than this in 2 or 3 years. I'm confident that a coop may work in the mid run if many of us will join it! More will come because no other agencies can offer the same royalties (i.e. all profits-costs)
40
« on: September 08, 2010, 11:07 »
In five years it will 20% for all and 10% for non-exclusives - you don't believe me - well you didn't believe all the people that said to you five years ago after Getty bought iStock.
I'm starting to believe you! I use to be optimistic, but I don't see the glass half-full this time. It clearly seems to me that istock followed the move of FT when cutting royalties so what scares me is that other agencies will follow this pattern sooner or later. Besides, how many exclusives will drop the crown? I don't know if this will affect the traffic to istock but it may turn in less sales=less redeemed credits=less royalties.
41
« on: September 08, 2010, 10:13 »
thanks for posting this Leaf.
I hope some people here agrees that a co-op is not an utopian thing. It needs a lot of work but it is definitely the best solution for any microstocker:
-Higher royalties
-no risks of price/royalty cuts
-no aquisitions by third parties that may turn an agency in what istock is now
Honestly, I paid istock so much money in the past years that I'm not afraid to invest in a project like this one. I can't complain on what istock did in return but it's the getty attitude that scares me..... and I can't see a bright future now.
42
« on: September 08, 2010, 07:51 »
it has been suggested many times to create an agency from scratch owned by photographers. Basically, no middlemen.
This happens every time that we hear this kind of announcements from IS or FT. But after a few days people give up because it requires too much efforts.
Are we sure this is not the right time to do it?? Can we do a poll to see who is interested (I apologize but I don't remember if a poll has already been done in the past....)
Best
43
« on: September 08, 2010, 04:51 »
Actually this hits most exclusives far harder than independents. If like me and many others you are at diamond level and say comfortably between the 40-150K redeemed credits here's how the numbers work out;
Exclusive drops from 40% to 35% __ a reduction of 12.5% of total income.
Independent drops from 20% to 18% or 10% of Istock income. However being as Istock is probably only about 35% of total income the actual reduction in total income will be about 3.5%.
Right. If they are squeezing us even though their business is going well, what would they do if they loose market share?? Ask for a blood donation from us?? We allowed FT to cut royalties a few months ago, now istock is doing the same.
44
« on: September 08, 2010, 04:39 »
I don't like unions, never used one but I do think we could get behind the sites that pay a decent commission and have reasonable prices for the buyers. If the vast majority of contributors and buyers abandoned sites that pay low commissions, we would all be better off. Why is that so difficult? I really find it hard to understand why we can't get together contributors and buyers to improve microstock for all of us.
This isn't like some other industries where the contributors have no power and have to put up with being treated unfairly, it's easy to buy and sell images and I don't see why it should cost more now than a few years ago when the costs of running a site and marketing were higher.
All we need to do is select the sites that are fair to contributors and buyers and only use them. If the other sites want our business, they can make changes.
I don't like unions too and you are right when you say that contributors have power, but I think that abandoning istock should be the last move. Most of us (if not all) will be damaged by this new istock's policy and I think it will be easier to convince a large number of people to stop uploading this time. Can it be worthy to try to negotiate something better before saying goodbye to istock and go elsewhere?
45
« on: September 08, 2010, 03:31 »
Of course if the past is anything to go by now that this Bombshell has been dropped they will come along with a little sweetener
All I can say it better be a huge Candy Store!
maybe yes, but what about 2012? and 2013?  How will the redeemed credit structure be changed in the years to come? I wonder why we (and I mean all people here, big players included) don't seriously consider to stop uploading and let istock know it really well! I know that it has been suggested dozens of times but I'm with istock since late 2005 and I never saw an announcement worst than this one! What else we should tolerate then?
46
« on: September 06, 2010, 01:36 »
two of my images are there (the woman in lab clothes).
this is really disappointing!!
47
« on: August 28, 2010, 06:12 »
thanks for the advise.
48
« on: August 25, 2010, 02:39 »
totally agree with you.
Maybe is the buyer that has to pay a (small) fee before being redirected to an agency website, where he can then buy and download the image. No keywords, author's name etc. have to be displayed to the buyer before he pays this fee.....it wouldn't prevent him to search directly on an agency, but at least the task would be time-consuming.
Besides, I think that it should be up to the contributor to specify where his images are available so that both exclusives and non-exclusives may benefit from this project.
Best,
Diego
49
« on: July 09, 2010, 11:19 »
mine as well.
50
« on: May 29, 2010, 03:25 »
congrats for the sale, Jonathan.
Best,
Diego
|
Sponsors
Microstock Poll Results
Sponsors
|
Show Posts
