Change to ASA

Have we had any communication from HQ regarding the very quite change in the ASA last month or the reason for the poor exchange rate?

I want to hear about this too- how about we keep this thread open?

This has not been answered or explained as far as I remember

It appears that they changed the ASA (from "total" to "net") but have been paying us "net" since 2008. I think that means they owe contributors millions of dollars.

Istock, please correct me if Im wrong? Contributors keep asking about this but no one seems willing to answer. I find that odd.

(Edited on 2012-11-06 05:12:46 by Leontura)

/
/Well, if they comment on it or admit they probably become truly liable for millions of dollars.


Personally I would welcome a positive solution for the future:


- give us regional sales information, i.e. which country was our file sold to


- pay us an additional percentage if files are sold in our "home territory"


Nothing would encourage the production of localised, less generic content more than money.


And it becomes a market driven, self regulating system.  


It is also only fair, because regional content without generic appeal will sell less, yet has the same (or even higher) cost of production. But unlike artistic files there is no special collection with higher prices.


We would still lose out on the general exchange rate for other territories. But at least in our home area we would be encouraged to produce locally.


Another option would be to annouce a "regional bonus" depending on countries at the beginning of the year (together with RC). For instance if they need more content for China, they add 3%, for India 4% etc.... These would change every year, depending on the markets they want to push into.


Contributors could then try to create more content for these regions independently from where they live. many people have access to models from many countries and cultures, especially in the US.



It appears that we lose roughly 3-5% on royalty with the exchange rate problem. A system like this could balance it and benefit everyone involved.



Or maybe someone can come up with another creative solution for this dilemma.


Obviously - paying out what is missing would be the best solution. But I understand that this will probably be difficult to push through higher management.

(Edited on 2012-11-06 06:47:56 by cobalt)

This seems straight forward and uncomplicated to me. Istock drew up the ASA, all we are asking is that they abide by it. Please pay the contributors the money owing with appropriate interest as soon as possible. While you are at it please also explain why Istock is comfortable changing the ASA without 30 days notice and without the contributors signing the new ASA as is the protocol?

What is "ASA"? what changes? What has Istock done this time?

I would like a answer on this issue as well.

ASA



I don't think it matters if it says net or total. It has the same meaning to me: Money that iStockphoto got for the sale of any image. In case of credits we all know that bottom dollar can vary wildly. In case of a CC sale, it is whatever was left and transferred into iStock account. At least, that is how it should be.


Here's what Royalty Schedule says:

How We Calculate Royalties
Using the royalty rate established by a contributor's "Redeemed Credits", royalties are paid out based on how much money was spent licensing the content, regardless of what payment method was used to license it.

(Edited on 2012-11-06 20:15:37 by slobo)

Any lawyer will tell you that "total" and "net" have completely different meanings. "Net" means after costs. "Total" means before costs. Apparently, Istock has been paying us "net" for overseas sales instead of "total" since 2008. Now they've changed the ASA and dont seem to be commenting on the last 4 years.

Ho ho.

According to my understanding of an agreement, if it is broken by one party then it is no longer binding on the other.

That goes for all contracts.


+ there can be compensation issues.

(Edited on 2012-11-07 01:21:54 by jpsdk)

True. How could one side enforce a contract when the other party can rightly state that the other side is not adhering to it.

We've been asking about this since 7th September - some communication is needed.

Today, paying with cash, an XXXL Agency file costs $400.00 USD, or £286.50 GBP if buying in the UK.

Using the current Citibank rate, £286.50 is worth $459.26, yet apparently in this case we're getting paid a percentage of $400.00, not a percentage of $459.26 (the amount paid by the customer).  The worst currency exchange deal in the world wouldn't cost $59.26 on that transaction, yet as far as we know that is what iStock is taking in addition to their commission.

We've been told that information on this will be provided in the forums.  What is going on here, please.

I second this - information on this matter is urgently needed!

It's not, and never has really been an "Agreement". That would to my (non-legal) way of thinking imply some input from both sides. It is really just their  "Terms and Conditions" which we have to agree to before they will do business with us.


Whatever it is, changing it without prior notice doesn't give me great confidence for the future in what it says about our rights here to be honest.


There really seems to be no concern for contributors here at all any longer.


 


 


 


 

Would also like to hear what Istock management has to say on this matter

Over to you iStock - what do you have to say?

At the risk of incurring the wrath of forum participants, with regard to amending the ASA, I’d point to the following:
Clause 16e in the General section of the ASA states: "This Agreement can be amended . . . by iStockphoto posting amendments on the Upload portion of the Site." There is no provision for iStock to provide notice.
There may be some confusion that arises from the sentence that immediately follows in the same clause which reads:
 “Continued provision of Content or failure to terminate this Agreement within thirty (30) days of posting of such amendment will be deemed to be acceptance of the amendment by the Supplier and it will be incorporated by reference into this Agreement.” This does not mean iStock has to give contributors 30 days’ notice. It means that if a contributor uploads even once we have agreed to the change or if we don’t terminate our agreement with iStock within 30 days of the amendment then we have accepted the change. This is typical of a “deemed acceptance” clause.
This is different from Rate Schedule changes which are governed by Section 5 (a) in the Compensation section, where 30 days’ notice is required.
If there is another clause in the Agreement that appears to obligate iStock to offer 30 days’ notice with regard to amending the Agreement, I’m not sure where it is and in any event, I suspect iStock would rely on this deemed acceptance clause.
I would also suggest that iStock will not comment on the contributors’ interpretation of required notice issue because to do so could undermine their position in the event of a future dispute (i.e. litigation).
The scope of my post is limited to the amendment rights we’re all governed by under the ASA, it has nothing to do with potentially misallocating compensation to contributors which, I believe, is a separate issue.

(Edited on 2012-11-07 11:58:28 by DonMcGillis)

(Edited on 2012-11-07 12:40:37 by DonMcGillis)