Important!: Royalty Changes and iStock Collections

Displaying 2621 to 2633 of 2633 matches.
mikemcd
Member is a Diamond contributor and has 25,000 - 199,999 Illustration downloads
Posted Wed Sep 8, 2010 12:27PM

Posted By JodiJacobson:

...There is still no company out there where you can make close to what we make here.  My assistant that shoots side by side with me, has almost the same pictures on other sites as me makes 1/12 of what I make here as an exclusive with very similar pictures...


In your opinion, and based on the experience of one non-exclusive contributor.

In the experience of this one other non-exclusive contributor (me), istock regularly ranks 3rd or 4th on my list of 13 companies I sell images with in terms of total monthly earnings.
schlol
Member is a Diamond contributor and has 25,000 - 199,999 Photo downloadsMember is a contributor and has less than 250 Flash downloadsMember is a Gold contributor and has 10,000 - 24,999 Illustration downloadsExclusiveExclusive iStockphoto Illustrator
Posted Wed Sep 8, 2010 12:27PM
Posted By space-heater:

If you go along with iStock/Getty and let this happen or take a "wait and see" approach then the next round will be worse. It may be a few months or a year but it will be worse.



First it was the Subscriptions that reduced our royalties, then the Opt-in, then the bump up in canister levels earlier this year, now THIS. 


Istock has been reducing our royalties over the past few years (ever since Getty took over) and this is the lowest of the low.  I'm sure the admins are going to come back and reduce the harshness of this punishment, just as they did earlier this year when they grandfathered the current canister levels (and that was still a blow to every contributor on this site). 


Even a less harsh version of this new royalty structure is unacceptable.  There's no good reason to change things from the way they are except corporate greed, IMO. Even a less harsh version of this restructuring would sound better after the initial announcment, but there should be NO reductions in royalties.  If the people at the top of the pyramid get more greedy than they already have been, the contributors at the base will leave.  Look at the outrage in this thread compared to past announcement threads which had to do with lowering contributor's loyalties.  All of those threads combined do not equal the response of this announcement.


Getty, you are smothering us. Leave well enough alone!



 
whitemay
Member is a Diamond contributor and has 25,000 - 199,999 Photo downloadsExclusive
Posted Wed Sep 8, 2010 12:28PM
I can't help thinking about those supermarkets which constantly squeeze their suppliers with lower and lower prices till the supplier eventually goes bust. The supermarket doesn't care - plenty more suppliers out there.
westphalia
Member is a Gold contributor and has 10,000 - 24,999 Photo downloadsExclusive
Posted Wed Sep 8, 2010 12:28PM

First of all, stop calling your self istock, use your real name, THE GREEDY GETTY GROUP.


istock stood for an ideal, a shining example of a community working together for mutual benefits and creative exellence, you have abandoned those ideals and the people that trusted you, the people that brought you your great success.


I find your lack of loyalty to your contributors quite disgusting.
mlwinphotoCLOSED
Member is a Bronze contributor and has 250 - 2,499 Photo downloads
Posted Wed Sep 8, 2010 12:29PM
Posted By beaucroft:

Posted By mlwinphoto:


Posted By JodiJacobson:
There is still no company out there where you can make close to what we make here.



Not true, at least not in my experience. There are several options out there.


With only just over 100 downloads, I don't think you are yet in a position to make this claim. I have just over 2,500 downloads, and I don't mind admitting that iStock represents just 20% of my overall sales.

Yes, I can make this claim.  I've been shooting for stock agencies for over 20 years and there are other options out there.  Besides, it sounds like you agree with me....?
duckycards
Member is a Diamond contributor and has 25,000 - 199,999 Photo downloadsMember is a Silver contributor and has 1,250 - 4,999 Video downloadsMember is a contributor and has less than 250 Flash downloadsMember is a Silver contributor and has 2,500 - 9,999 Illustration downloadsExclusiveExclusive iStockphoto IllustratorMember has had a submission accepted to the Designer SpotlightAwarded to fabulous photographers with more than 100,000 downloads
Posted Wed Sep 8, 2010 12:30PM
Posted By MichaelBlackburn:
I just called HQ, there is no additional info available other than the original post, but apparently there is an official announcement coming "soon" most likely from Kelly. After I mentioned that this was an obvious fiasco, HQ conceded and re-itterated that the formal announcement would come soon to address all this.

Yes, of course. As always here comes the softening of the rotten news and the soothing talk. Don't fall for the new improved more attainable goals. There is no reason we should give in to allowing a foot in the door to lowering our commission rate. There is no reason they should take away the extra 10% on ELS. There is no reason to lower subscription pay. There is no reason to allow these new collections to compete with us or lower rates on Vetta so they can take more. There is no reason to go backwards on our cut! Don't sit back and let it happen!
Cloudniners
Member is a contributor and has less than 250 Photo downloadsMember is a Diamond contributor and has 25,000 - 199,999 Illustration downloadsExclusiveExclusive iStockphoto Illustrator
Posted Wed Sep 8, 2010 12:31PM
This is very disappointing to say the least. It's also demoralizing and appears to be severely wounding the iStock artist base. I don't see how kicking so many contributors in the stomach will inspire dedication, creativity, and exclusivity.

(Edited on 2010-09-08 12:31:46 by Cloudniners)
ZargonDesign
Member is a Diamond contributor and has 25,000 - 199,999 Photo downloadsExclusive
Posted Wed Sep 8, 2010 12:31PM
This idea that i have to keep qualifying for diamond every year is nuts! I want to see this Redeemed Credit Total off the site its does not motivate the contributor in any way. It also punishes the contributor that works in more than one medium. This can not be aloud to stand in any variation or watered down version. Istock is currently my only agent for stock photos and they are selling me down the river. 
SuperflyImages
Member is a Silver contributor and has 2,500 - 9,999 Photo downloadsExclusive
Posted Wed Sep 8, 2010 12:32PM

I, for one, think that iStock's decision regarding the new royalty structure is an intelligent one, which will reward those who are consistently producing high-quality imagery. It seems quite smart to create a merit-based system, rather than an oligarchy of those who signed up first. Respect will still be given to those who have been with iStock the longest (respect that is well-deserved), as reflected in the canister levels, but now newcomers have more of an equal opportunity to achieve higher royalty rates, if the quality of their images is good enough. And for this, I'm grateful. 
ProArtWork
Member is a Gold contributor and has 10,000 - 24,999 Photo downloadsMember is a contributor and has less than 250 Flash downloadsMember is a contributor and has less than 250 Illustration downloadsExclusive
Posted Wed Sep 8, 2010 12:32PM
Posted By JodiJacobson:

I know I am not the popular opinion here but I was always a company person.
I never believed in Unions...I think they put good companies out of business.
I never Believed in Teachers Tenure. All that gives you is teachers that don't have to work as hard.


And I don't believe Diamonds and Black Diamonds should make more than me if most of their downloads aren't current.


I believe if you work hard, you will get what you deserve. I upload around the clock and I expect to earn what I put into Istock.


I like the floating levels...(maybe make them a little more realistic). The floating levels will keep our library fresh and keep contributers from resting on their laurels.


There is still no company out there where you can make close to what we make here. My assistant that shoots side by side with me, has almost the same pictures on other sites as me makes 1/12 of what I make here as an exclusive with very similar pictures.


I still love it here, I do hope the levels become a little more realistic.



We are not employees! We are contributors.


You say you don't believe in Diamond and Black Diamond making more than you, but on the other hand you say "I believe if you work hard, you will get what you deserve."


Keep in mind this is about unfair business practice and not Rush Limbaugh's employment politics!
sylvanworksCLOSED
Member is a Diamond contributor and has 25,000 - 199,999 Photo downloadsMember has had a File Of The WeekMember has been inducted into the iStockphoto Hall of Fame.
Posted Wed Sep 8, 2010 12:33PM
OK, the folks at HQ have been reading the responses and have been putting together a reply. I'm going to lock this so everyone can catch their breath for a few minutes. I've been told the response will be posted within the next hour.
sylvanworksCLOSED
Member is a Diamond contributor and has 25,000 - 199,999 Photo downloadsMember has had a File Of The WeekMember has been inducted into the iStockphoto Hall of Fame.
Posted Wed Sep 8, 2010 1:40PM
OK, I've just been told it is almost ready.
sylvanworksCLOSED
Member is a Diamond contributor and has 25,000 - 199,999 Photo downloadsMember has had a File Of The WeekMember has been inducted into the iStockphoto Hall of Fame.
Posted Wed Sep 8, 2010 1:55PM
This thread has been locked.
Displaying 2621 to 2633 of 2633 matches.
Not a member?Join
Cart (0)