Author Topic: Photos.com and JIUUnlimited to be handled by IS (Read 54608 times)

GeoPappas · « **Reply #75 on:** June 16, 2009, 09:02 »

Quote from: Perseus on June 16, 2009, 08:41

OT perharps... btw, which of the Big 6 has the lowest payout? This could be an incentive to join them.
Can anyone who belongs to all 6 tell us?

Minimum Payout Levels:

IS: $100
DT: $100
SS: $75
FT: $50
StockXpert: $50
123RF: $50
BigStock: $30

graficallyminded · « **Reply #76 on:** June 16, 2009, 09:04 »

This is a disappointing move by Getty. I'll be losing a lot of revenue from this. Half of my monthly Stockxpert earnings in recent months were coming from the Jupiter Unlimited or Photos.com sales affiliation.

I have 10 times the amount of approved photos on StockXpert than I do on iStock, so this is a real "kick in the crotch" for me. I really don't understand the sense of this move. They're going to be losing a lot of images and cutting down the photos.com and JupiterUnlimited collection sizes dramatically, because I'm sure I'm not the only one that has thousands approved on StockXpert but only hundreds on iStock.

Milinz · « **Reply #77 on:** June 16, 2009, 10:06 »

Well it was very sneaky move to contributors!

And now they want me to upload my 850 StockXpert accepted images to istock?

How much time should Yuri and other big non-exclusives spend to upload their hundreds of thousands of images to istock CV? AND TO GET ACCEPTED?

I feel like they slapped me in my face with fist!

Well that one who made that decision is really NOT TO BE ON POSITION WHERE HE IS NOW! I publicly state that Getty decision maker is #$#$#$#$#$$##$$##$$###$$###$ MOTHER FU###!

This just makes me furious and I wish to fight back to Getty the best way I can.

lisafx · « **Reply #78 on:** June 16, 2009, 10:32 »

I don't have tens of thousands of images, but I have nearly 5k on StockXpert (approx same ones as on istock) and they are going to lose them all from Photos/JIU because I cannot bring myself to swallow this .05/DL slap in the face from Getty.

I think the culling from Photos/JIU has already begun because over the last several days my sub sales there have declined markedly.

Milinz · « **Reply #79 on:** June 16, 2009, 11:06 »

Quote from: lisafx on June 16, 2009, 10:32

I don't have tens of thousands of images, but I have nearly 5k on StockXpert (approx same ones as on istock) and they are going to lose them all from Photos/JIU because I cannot bring myself to swallow this .05/DL slap in the face from Getty.

I think the culling from Photos/JIU has already begun because over the last several days my sub sales there have declined markedly.

Noticed that here too... They've rocked all three almost as 60% of shutterstock sales for me!

PeterChigmaroff · « **Reply #80 on:** June 16, 2009, 11:11 »

I was looking at the incomes from Photos.com and JIUnlimited and can't see why I would continue to submit to StockXpert after the images are removed from these subagents. The income level would be too low to bother. One of the top 6 quickly becomes also-ran.

willie · « **Reply #81 on:** June 16, 2009, 11:52 »

Quote from: GeoPappas on June 16, 2009, 09:02

Quote from: Perseus on June 16, 2009, 08:41
OT perharps... btw, which of the Big 6 has the lowest payout? This could be an incentive to join them.
Can anyone who belongs to all 6 tell us?

Minimum Payout Levels:

IS: $100
DT: $100
SS: $75
FT: $50
StockXpert: $50
123RF: $50
BigStock: $30

Thank you GeoPappas. It's interesting to note that only SS payout at 75, which is lower than IS and DT. This being the real "industry leader", and prevalent unseated "leader" of micro; not IS as they claim to be. IS has been moving back and forth among Fotolia and Dreamstime, and yes, Stockxpert.

Further, from the impression at this forum, SS contributors make more sales than IS, FT and DT, right? ie. they reach payout a lot sooner and more regularly because SS has a more effective marketing plan?

bittersweet · « **Reply #82 on:** June 16, 2009, 11:54 »

Quote from: lisafx on June 16, 2009, 10:32

I don't have tens of thousands of images, but I have nearly 5k on StockXpert (approx same ones as on istock) and they are going to lose them all from Photos/JIU because I cannot bring myself to swallow this .05/DL slap in the face from Getty.

Sorry for not paying better attention, but I would like to clarify the references to 5 cents. You aren't saying that you will be paid 5 cents per download, but that you'll be paid 5 cents less than you are being paid now? Is that correct?

(ETA: ~~This is a serious question, because it was my understanding that the non-exclusive payment would be flat 25 cents.~~Never mind. I understand.)

puravida · « **Reply #83 on:** June 16, 2009, 11:59 »

Quote from: Milinz on June 16, 2009, 10:06

Well it was very sneaky move to contributors!
And now they want me to upload my 850 StockXpert accepted images to istock?

How much time should Yuri and other big non-exclusives spend to upload their hundreds of thousands of images to istock CV? AND TO GET ACCEPTED?

I feel like they slapped me in my face with fist!

Well that one who made that decision is really NOT TO BE ON POSITION WHERE HE IS NOW! I publicly state that Getty decision maker is #$#$#$#$#$$##$$##$$###$$###$ MOTHER FU###!

This just makes me furious and I wish to fight back to Getty the best way I can.

You said, "And now they want me to upload my 850 StockXpert accepted images to istock?"
That does not mean all 850 is going to be approved, either ! IS don't want the "garbage" of StockXpert

disorderly · « **Reply #84 on:** June 16, 2009, 12:14 »

Quote from: Perseus on June 16, 2009, 08:41

OT perharps... btw, which of the Big 6 has the lowest payout? This could be an incentive to join them.
Can anyone who belongs to all 6 tell us?

BigStock has the lowest: $30 for PayPal. Then Fotolia*, StockXpert and 123RF at $50. Then Shutterstock at $75. iStock and Dreamstime bring up the rear at $100.

*Fotolia will let you cash out any time, but hit you with a fee if you have less than $50 in your account.

NYTumbleweeds · « **Reply #85 on:** June 16, 2009, 12:37 »

Quote from: lisafx on June 16, 2009, 10:32

I don't have tens of thousands of images, but I have nearly 5k on StockXpert (approx same ones as on istock) and they are going to lose them all from Photos/JIU because I cannot bring myself to swallow this .05/DL slap in the face from Getty.

I see this as a test... if you were to accept the 5 cent decrease the industry will learn that you will accept pennies for photos. I will not opt into IS. I am sad to see this happen to StockXpert, even with their problems they were responsive and friendly. My sales also seem to strictly come from JIU & Photos.com so I'm sure everything will drop to nothing...I have also already seen a decline.

I also wonder how this affects the end user who has a contract with the StockXpert three?

fotografer · « **Reply #86 on:** June 16, 2009, 12:38 »

To me it isn't so much about the 5c it's that I can't be bothered to go and tick each image individually. Apparently it's too late to just opt them all in,

Caz · « **Reply #87 on:** June 16, 2009, 12:59 »

Quote from: puravida on June 15, 2009, 15:26

M@M said "what's going to happen to the money we have already accumulated on StockXpert?"
My thoughts exactly.

Incidentally, then SV moved to Veer, they paid me what I had accumulated even if it was just a few dollars and did not reach payout point.

Let's see if Getty is as honourable as Corbis in this sense.

If they're not generating enough sales for you to generate a payment every week/month let alone the 90 day notice they gave you, why are you worrying?

Elenathewise · « **Reply #88 on:** June 16, 2009, 13:52 »

I think Stockxpert's days are numbered. Why else would they actually remove the images from the Jupiter distribution channels. What I don't get is why did they go to trouble recently to go through stockxpert's images and remove the ones they considered having copyright issues. Seems like a waste of time.

Milinz · « **Reply #89 on:** June 16, 2009, 13:57 »

Quote from: puravida on June 16, 2009, 11:59

Quote from: Milinz on June 16, 2009, 10:06
Well it was very sneaky move to contributors!
And now they want me to upload my 850 StockXpert accepted images to istock?

How much time should Yuri and other big non-exclusives spend to upload their hundreds of thousands of images to istock CV? AND TO GET ACCEPTED?

I feel like they slapped me in my face with fist!

Well that one who made that decision is really NOT TO BE ON POSITION WHERE HE IS NOW! I publicly state that Getty decision maker is #$#$#$#$#$$##$$##$$###$$###$ MOTHER FU###!

This just makes me furious and I wish to fight back to Getty the best way I can.

You said, "And now they want me to upload my 850 StockXpert accepted images to istock?"
That does not mean all 850 is going to be approved, either ! IS don't want the "garbage" of StockXpert

THAT WHAT YOU CALLED 'GARBAGE' MADE VERY GOOD MONEY TO StockXpert, GETTY AND ME!

BTW, I don't plan to sell that 'garbage' on 'stylish', 'the leader', 'the best' Getty runned places - It was F*ck up once - I don't let to be *removed coarse language* up twice from same source!

BTW, Do you have idea how long is needed to upload 850 files with producing additional 100 monthly and istock upload limits? Not in a life time!

Footage don't count - it is just several terrabytes!

So on Microstock there is only one true leader: SHUTTERSTOCK!

lisafx · « **Reply #90 on:** June 16, 2009, 14:03 »

Quote from: whatalife on June 16, 2009, 11:54

Quote from: lisafx on June 16, 2009, 10:32
I don't have tens of thousands of images, but I have nearly 5k on StockXpert (approx same ones as on istock) and they are going to lose them all from Photos/JIU because I cannot bring myself to swallow this .05/DL slap in the face from Getty.

Sorry for not paying better attention, but I would like to clarify the references to 5 cents. You aren't saying that you will be paid 5 cents per download, but that you'll be paid 5 cents less than you are being paid now? Is that correct?

(ETA: ~~This is a serious question, because it was my understanding that the non-exclusive payment would be flat 25 cents.~~Never mind. I understand.)

Yes, you have it right. Sorry if I wasn't clear. They are reducing our payout by .05, from .30 to .25. Which is just incredibly chintzy and insulting.

I have sold images for .25. Heck, I still get a few XS sales on istock for that or even less.

The point for me is they already have my images there, they are selling well. Getty can clearly afford the .30 they are already paying me, but they want to hose me out of a lousy .05 per sale just because they think they can.

I agree with the others here who have mentioned they are going to do everything they can to support Veer in hopes of providing an effective counterweight to Getty's attempts at monopoly.

Milinz · « **Reply #91 on:** June 16, 2009, 14:07 »

Quote from: lisafx on June 16, 2009, 14:03

Quote from: whatalife on June 16, 2009, 11:54
Quote from: lisafx on June 16, 2009, 10:32
I don't have tens of thousands of images, but I have nearly 5k on StockXpert (approx same ones as on istock) and they are going to lose them all from Photos/JIU because I cannot bring myself to swallow this .05/DL slap in the face from Getty.

Sorry for not paying better attention, but I would like to clarify the references to 5 cents. You aren't saying that you will be paid 5 cents per download, but that you'll be paid 5 cents less than you are being paid now? Is that correct?

(ETA: ~~This is a serious question, because it was my understanding that the non-exclusive payment would be flat 25 cents.~~Never mind. I understand.)

Yes, you have it right. Sorry if I wasn't clear. They are reducing our payout by .05, from .30 to .25. Which is just incredibly chintzy and insulting.

I have sold images for .25. Heck, I still get a few XS sales on istock for that or even less.

The point for me is they already have my images there, they are selling well. Getty can clearly afford the .30 they are already paying me, but they want to hose me out of a lousy .05 per sale just because they think they can.

I agree with the others here who have mentioned they are going to do everything they can to support Veer in hopes of providing an effective counterweight to Getty's attempts at monopoly.

And not just Veer - there is something about Fotosearch too - they sell how Puravida stated 'garbage' which istock 'don't need'.

Freezingpictures · « **Reply #92 on:** June 16, 2009, 14:10 »

I am surprised that so many people are are upset for loosing out on the photos.com and JIU sales. There weren't much anyways and I opted out last month, because I thought these little earnings are not worth it submitting to sites which pays as low as 30 cents for a subscription download.
For me nothing changes, but yes its kind of a bad move for Getty trying to lower our commission. My bet is they will just end up with a lot less images.

bittersweet · « **Reply #93 on:** June 16, 2009, 14:17 »

Quote from: lisafx on June 16, 2009, 14:03

Quote from: whatalife on June 16, 2009, 11:54
Quote from: lisafx on June 16, 2009, 10:32
I don't have tens of thousands of images, but I have nearly 5k on StockXpert (approx same ones as on istock) and they are going to lose them all from Photos/JIU because I cannot bring myself to swallow this .05/DL slap in the face from Getty.

Sorry for not paying better attention, but I would like to clarify the references to 5 cents. You aren't saying that you will be paid 5 cents per download, but that you'll be paid 5 cents less than you are being paid now? Is that correct?

(ETA: ~~This is a serious question, because it was my understanding that the non-exclusive payment would be flat 25 cents.~~Never mind. I understand.)

Yes, you have it right. Sorry if I wasn't clear. They are reducing our payout by .05, from .30 to .25. Which is just incredibly chintzy and insulting.

I have sold images for .25. Heck, I still get a few XS sales on istock for that or even less.

The point for me is they already have my images there, they are selling well. Getty can clearly afford the .30 they are already paying me, but they want to hose me out of a lousy .05 per sale just because they think they can.

I agree with the others here who have mentioned they are going to do everything they can to support Veer in hopes of providing an effective counterweight to Getty's attempts at monopoly.

Thanks, Lisa, for explaining. I wasn't planning to opt-in more than the handful of formerly deactivated files anyway. In all honesty, I thought I'd misread something regarding the non-exclusive payments since at the time of the announcement it wasn't going to apply to me. Now that I'm on the countdown to be uncrowned, I need to start paying better attention to these things.

gostwyck · « **Reply #94 on:** June 16, 2009, 14:18 »

Quote from: lisafx on June 16, 2009, 14:03

The point for me is they already have my images there, they are selling well. Getty can clearly afford the .30 they are already paying me, but they want to hose me out of a lousy .05 per sale just because they think they can.

I agree with the others here who have mentioned they are going to do everything they can to support Veer in hopes of providing an effective counterweight to Getty's attempts at monopoly.

I think this is going to backfire on Getty & Co. The way they're messing about with the JIU/PC customers is just going to drive them into the arms of the competition. I wonder if they've written to advise them that 3M images are shortly to be removed from the library? The PC forums might make interesting reading in 89-odd days!

Surely SS, DT & FT are the real counterweight to Getty? Veer will have do to extremely well (and spend an awful lot of money) to get anywhere near the current market share of those three within the next 3-4 years.

Milinz · « **Reply #95 on:** June 16, 2009, 14:49 »

Quote from: gostwyck on June 16, 2009, 14:18

Quote from: lisafx on June 16, 2009, 14:03
The point for me is they already have my images there, they are selling well. Getty can clearly afford the .30 they are already paying me, but they want to hose me out of a lousy .05 per sale just because they think they can.

I agree with the others here who have mentioned they are going to do everything they can to support Veer in hopes of providing an effective counterweight to Getty's attempts at monopoly.

I think this is going to backfire on Getty & Co. The way they're messing about with the JIU/PC customers is just going to drive them into the arms of the competition. I wonder if they've written to advise them that 3M images are shortly to be removed from the library? The PC forums might make interesting reading in 89-odd days!

Surely SS, DT & FT are the real counterweight to Getty? Veer will have do to extremely well (and spend an awful lot of money) to get anywhere near the current market share of those three within the next 3-4 years.

Well, I am sure that Corbis will understand and accept that challenge ;-)

June 16, 2009
(Stockxpert pay-per-download) 2 $4.00
June 16, 2009
(Stockxpert subscription) 1 $0.30
June 16, 2009
(Photos.com subscription) 2 $0.60
June 16, 2009
(Jupiterimages Unlimited subscription) 2 $0.60

lisafx · « **Reply #96 on:** June 16, 2009, 15:11 »

Quote from: gostwyck on June 16, 2009, 14:18

I think this is going to backfire on Getty & Co. The way they're messing about with the JIU/PC customers is just going to drive them into the arms of the competition. I wonder if they've written to advise them that 3M images are shortly to be removed from the library? The PC forums might make interesting reading in 89-odd days!

Surely SS, DT & FT are the real counterweight to Getty? Veer will have do to extremely well (and spend an awful lot of money) to get anywhere near the current market share of those three within the next 3-4 years.

I definitely think it will backfire too, if enough of us with big ports stay opted out. Although I am baffled to read a couple of fairly successful independent contributors on istock's forums asking how to opt in to this or complaining that they thought they were opted in but aren't.

If anyone here is a member of those designer forums gostwyck mentioned they should probably post about this so the designers are aware what's coming, and can at least buy anything they have lightboxed before it vanishes.

On DT, Fotolia and SS, absolutely, they are and have been great counterweights to Getty so far. I just don't know that all their owners would be immune to being bought out if the price was right. Because Veer is owned by the only other titan in the industry - Corbis - I think they are not so vulnerable to a buy out. I don't know that they will succeed, but I sincerely hope so.

At a minimum I would like to make back on Veer what I am losing on StockXpert's demise.

gostwyck · « **Reply #97 on:** June 16, 2009, 15:45 »

Quote from: lisafx on June 16, 2009, 15:11

Although I am baffled to read a couple of fairly successful independent contributors on istock's forums asking how to opt in to this or complaining that they thought they were opted in but aren't.

So was I. It's not the first time I've been totally perplexed by one of those individuals though. Strange that he now want's his entire port there via IS although to date he has less 20% of it there via StockXpert. It's like 25c is more of an incentive than 30c to him. Hmm.

lisafx · « **Reply #98 on:** June 16, 2009, 16:03 »

Quote from: gostwyck on June 16, 2009, 15:45

So was I. It's not the first time I've been totally perplexed by one of those individuals though. Strange that he now want's his entire port there via IS although to date he has less 20% of it there via StockXpert. It's like 25c is more of an incentive than 30c to him. Hmm.

LOL. If that's the case maybe we should have all jumped at the (possibly-as-low-as) 3 cents that was originally proposed

gostwyck · « **Reply #99 on:** June 16, 2009, 16:13 »

Quote from: lisafx on June 16, 2009, 16:03

LOL. If that's the case maybe we should have all jumped at the (possibly-as-low-as) 3 cents that was originally proposed

Staggeringly there really were people convinced that the 22% was the better deal __ and silly old mathematics wasn't going to convince them otherwise.

MicrostockGroup Sponsors

Author Topic: Photos.com and JIUUnlimited to be handled by IS (Read 54608 times)

GeoPappas

graficallyminded

Milinz

lisafx

Milinz

PeterChigmaroff

willie

bittersweet

puravida

disorderly

NYTumbleweeds

fotografer

Caz

Elenathewise

Milinz

lisafx

Milinz

Freezingpictures

bittersweet

gostwyck

Milinz

lisafx

gostwyck

lisafx

gostwyck

Related Topics

Sponsors

Microstock Poll Results

Sponsors