MicrostockGroup Sponsors


Author Topic: thinkstockphotos.com - Getty New Family  (Read 108225 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

SNP

  • Canadian Photographer
« Reply #200 on: February 06, 2010, 10:21 »
0
^ yup. but the power lies with contributors, don't opt in...enough of us don't and they can power thinkstock without our images....good luck with that


Dook

« Reply #201 on: February 06, 2010, 14:39 »
0
Another day has now gone by and my images are still on thinkstockphotos...even though I opted out a long time ago. They can call it a h*ckup or a f*ckup or whatever sweet little terms they have going on over at the IS forums, but basically it doesn't seem to matter whether a person opts out or not.

I find it hard to believe my images couldn't have been removed in the past 3-1/2 days.
It is better for you to contact support. I did few days ago and my pictures  were removed  from Thinkstock yesterday.

« Reply #202 on: February 06, 2010, 15:30 »
0
Quote
It is better for you to contact support. I did few days ago and my pictures  were removed  from Thinkstock yesterday.

I did contact support, almost 4 days ago, and my images are still up. Like you, others are reporting that they are coming down, but so far mine are still there.

alias

« Reply #203 on: February 06, 2010, 17:21 »
0
The people who do not like the way the PP is going are so vociferous and angry on the IS forum that it would be almost impossible now for anyone to contradict them without suffering their anger.

There is clearly an issue with image packs because those are essentially credit sales.

But subs are inevitable. Cheap images for people who use lots are inevitable. Print is dying. Ultimately, for the most part, there will probably be Vetta, maybe something in the middle and sub prices. And we will make the rest of our income on work for hire and / or commissions. The same as ever.

It's a pity that the forum previously rejected % royalties. 20% is where it's going.

helix7

« Reply #204 on: February 06, 2010, 19:03 »
0
Not sure if this is covered already in this thread, but does anyone know how we are supposed to get new images into ThinkStock if we can't upload via StockXpert?
IStockPhoto and then opt in to the Partner Program

Seems ridiculous that you'd have to have one ThinkStock portfolio via StockXpert and another ThinkStock portfolio of all images going forward on istock.

I'm just going to delete my StockXpert portfolio next week and leave it at that for now. Hopefully some day istock makes it worthwhile to get involved with ThinkStock, but until then I'm just going to stay away from this one.

« Reply #205 on: February 06, 2010, 22:21 »
0
But subs are inevitable.

Don't know why you'd think this.

« Reply #206 on: February 07, 2010, 04:36 »
0
But subs are inevitable.

Don't know why you'd think this.
Nor do I, there is nothing inevitable here, we are in charge.  In the highly unlikely event of the microstock industry going to cheap subs only, I would get out of it.  There is always the option for us to sell direct to the buyers.  I think it is more likely that someone will come up with a new way of selling digital files, so we wont have to rely on sites that take a large chunk of our commissions.  Perhaps the idea that we upload once to our own site and people get a small commission for selling our images will be the way forward?  It is a big market now and we are using a selling system that is looking old, I am sure someone will be working on something better.

alias

« Reply #207 on: February 07, 2010, 09:35 »
0
Subscription makes sense for websites [with frequently updated content]. If the prices work then the volume can be huge. Image prices have to be low enough to make sense relative to the other costs associated with making an online page and in terms of the lower ad revenues generated vs print. Web is going to be the main place where images get used. Print being in massive decline.

There is still going to be a market for more expensive stylish and more obscure boutique images for designers.

@sharpshot: The no1 issue about selling direct to clients via some marketplace system relates to the need to guarantee the images and indemnify the clients. Specifically in terms of copyright and releases. Solve that affordably and you would be king. Any different model has to offer the clients something better or at least as good.

Getty have always been impressive at seeing where the market is going.
« Last Edit: February 07, 2010, 09:41 by alias »

« Reply #208 on: February 07, 2010, 10:21 »
0
Subscription makes sense for websites [with frequently updated content]. If the prices work then the volume can be huge. Image prices have to be low enough to make sense relative to the other costs associated with making an online page and in terms of the lower ad revenues generated vs print. Web is going to be the main place where images get used. Print being in massive decline.

No it doesn't.  Newspapers have always had frequently updated content.  Why do suddenly websites that need frequently updated content get it for nearly free?  Costs associated with making an online page are negligible.  Why should Yahoo, serving pages to millions, get their content for $.30?

SNP

  • Canadian Photographer
« Reply #209 on: February 07, 2010, 10:47 »
0
^ + 1


alias

« Reply #210 on: February 07, 2010, 11:24 »
0
Newspapers have always had frequently updated content.  Why do suddenly websites that need frequently updated content get it for nearly free?  Costs associated with making an online page are negligible.  Why should Yahoo, serving pages to millions, get their content for $.30?

Costs of producing online content are not negligible. Publishers still have to employ writers and editors. But advertising revenues are significantly less.

Photographers with large portfolios of high quality relatively generic lifestyle images have a fantastic opportunity to make money selling more images for less. If the prices are low enough volumes will be higher.

Didn't the industry more or less have this same volume vs price argument as microstock emerged ? How is this any different ?

« Reply #211 on: February 07, 2010, 11:28 »
0
Why should Yahoo, serving pages to millions, get their content for $.30?

Thats a bit misleading - to get $0.30 an image you have to buy in bulk, just saying.

I think the future might actually be the purchase of controlled hot linked images you can't easily take a screen capture of, you get it for "x" amount of time on your domain and then its gone. Not sure if the technology is here yet on the anti screen capture thing, but I don't see why it couldn't happen, I tried taking a screen cap of a DVD playing in Nero once and it always failed, I just got a blank box when pasting into Photoshop. Thats were the idea came from. They could also hide the source file, and maybe even do something to prevent right clicking and saving from the agency site. Just a futurist guess.... and yes I have plenty more! LOL.

« Reply #212 on: February 07, 2010, 11:44 »
0
I don't know how everyone can take it so lightly that their photos are appearing on Thinkstock when you didn't opt-in.  Why wouldn't you send a cease and desist or a take down notice?  They are in clear violation of your copyright and breaking the law.

« Reply #213 on: February 07, 2010, 11:48 »
0
Thats a bit misleading - to get $0.30 an image you have to buy in bulk, just saying.

It's not misleading.  A sub plan at $250 a month for 750 an image is around $.30.  That's not bulk, that's the plan.


« Reply #214 on: February 07, 2010, 11:50 »
0
Costs of producing online content are not negligible. Publishers still have to employ writers and editors. But advertising revenues are significantly less.

Photographers with large portfolios of high quality relatively generic lifestyle images have a fantastic opportunity to make money selling more images for less. If the prices are low enough volumes will be higher.

Didn't the industry more or less have this same volume vs price argument as microstock emerged ? How is this any different ?

Costs of producing image content are not negligable.  If they have to employ writers and editors, there's no reason images have to be essentially free.

So what, we have to cycle up and and down every couple years?  That makes no sense.  How is it different?  We were already there at cheap to free.  We've worked our way up from there.

alias

« Reply #215 on: February 07, 2010, 12:15 »
0
Costs of producing image content are not negligable.  If they have to employ writers and editors, there's no reason images have to be essentially free.

So what, we have to cycle up and and down every couple years?  That makes no sense.  How is it different?  We were already there at cheap to free.  We've worked our way up from there.

Difference between images and the written word is that the images we are talking about are RF which means they can be sold over and over. Where as the written content is generally salaried. It might be syndicated but it won't be sold over and over differently. Mostly.

I'm saying that I think cheap subs are part of the inevitable future. And bigger prizes for more obscure images which sell less often.

No point in us getting into too much of a back and forth about it though. If you don't sell them cheap subscription images I am fairly certain that someone else will. That's what I think will happen.

9/10x I think it is better for any content producer to be on a fixed fee rather than a per image price. That way everyone shares the same incentives. That fixed download amount is what I would focus on.
« Last Edit: February 07, 2010, 12:21 by alias »

« Reply #216 on: February 07, 2010, 12:28 »
0
...
I tried taking a screen cap of a DVD playing in Nero once and it always failed, I just got a blank box when pasting into Photoshop.
...


There are many freeware/shareware/software apps that can screen capture from a DVD - in Windows you can even do it without additional software by simply turning off the Hardware Acceleration on your video card.


« Reply #217 on: February 07, 2010, 13:14 »
0
...
No point in us getting into too much of a back and forth about it though. If you don't sell them cheap subscription images I am fairly certain that someone else will. That's what I think will happen.
...

Yep, that's what the short history of the stock photography industry shows. The argument microstock photographers are making to boycott sub sites (because of too-low-commissions) is akin to the argument traditional stock photographers are making to boycott microstock agencies (also because of too-low-commissions). And we all know how well that approach is working.

« Reply #218 on: February 07, 2010, 13:19 »
0
Subscription makes sense for websites [with frequently updated content]. If the prices work then the volume can be huge. Image prices have to be low enough to make sense relative to the other costs associated with making an online page and in terms of the lower ad revenues generated vs print. Web is going to be the main place where images get used. Print being in massive decline.

No it doesn't.  Newspapers have always had frequently updated content.  Why do suddenly websites that need frequently updated content get it for nearly free?  Costs associated with making an online page are negligible.  Why should Yahoo, serving pages to millions, get their content for $.30?

 Exactley, I had one of my images used on yahoo's homepage one time and everyone who saw it asked how much they paid for it and when I told them, they laughed.. It felt kind of degrading, because I knew it was too cheap.. But I made the choice to sell at those price points, although it doesn't have to be like that, we do have a choice but it usually means sacrificing and risking some profits temporarily, so most people are understandably reluctant..

« Reply #219 on: February 07, 2010, 13:35 »
0
The only reason because ceap suscription sites exists is because agencies can still make money with this scheme. Contributor, in the long term an taking in account the weekly influx of new images, doesn't. For an agency, selling 100 photos from 100 different contributors gives the same benefit that selling 100 photos of the same contributor. Selling for pennies is, have been and will be always against our interest. In the mid-long term, suscription cheapo sites will lose a great numer of good potographers.

« Reply #220 on: February 07, 2010, 13:55 »
0
...
In the mid-long term, suscription cheapo sites will lose a great numer of good potographers.

That may very well be, but if there are enough buyers who are content with 'good enough' images, not having the 'best' images won't stop these agencies from succeeding. Like I said earlier, boycotting agencies that don't surpass a minimum revenue-per-download is a strategy with a track record of failing - the only thing you will succeed in doing is removing yourself from a growing marketplace.

History shows that you - those vehemently opposed to subscriptions - need a better plan than the one you've got. Assuming subscription agencies are here to stay, you need to change your way of thinking. Instead of ignoring sites that (you think) don't pay enough for your imagery, wouldn't it be better to produce stuff specifically intended for them? As an iStock exclusive, I have the option of producing images that I can easily dedicate to the various collections: main, Vetta, ThinkStock, and the soon-to-be Exclusive+. And I intend to do just that. On the flip side of the coin, I also have the opportunity to make imagery for Getty - but I have chosen not to do so. Why? Because that marketplace is in (sharp) decline, and I'd rather invest my time in a growing market.

What are those evolutionary buzzwords again - adapt or perish?
« Last Edit: February 07, 2010, 14:24 by sharply_done »

« Reply #221 on: February 07, 2010, 14:12 »
0
No, I don't believe in boycotts. I go by "Act Local, Think global".

But thee logic is the logic. A moment will arrive when the low prices an the dilution will lower very much the photographer's earnings. Amateurs and hobbyists will stay, professionals will leave because costs of production will make it anti-economic. It's not a boycott, read my lips, it's just the economy.

« Reply #222 on: February 07, 2010, 14:29 »
0
So, how many times are you going to vote to reduce your royalties?  Now, it's $.30 or so flat.  Until someone offers $.10 per, because someone will fill it up with useful stuff.  The next comes in at $.02.  Because the volume is huge!  Now you've taken what we've worked hard to improve over the last 8 years and just dumped it in the trash.

Again, this is not the macro-micro discussion.  This is actually your peers trying to actively work more for less.

« Reply #223 on: February 07, 2010, 14:46 »
0
...
Again, this is not the macro-micro discussion.  This is actually your peers trying to actively work more for less.

Yes, but it's a similar argument that will have similar results.

If there's a marketplace for cheaper imagery - and there definitely is - you ignore it at your own financial loss. So go ahead, sjlocke, continue making fancy images for a so-so return at Getty. I'll practice techniques to whip off a lot of simple low-res stuff for the ultra-cheap subscription market - I'm already pretty good at it thanks to Shutterstock. Let's rejoin the discussion in a year to see how we fared.
« Last Edit: February 07, 2010, 15:23 by sharply_done »

« Reply #224 on: February 07, 2010, 15:39 »
0
...
Again, this is not the macro-micro discussion.  This is actually your peers trying to actively work more for less.

Yes, but it's a similar argument that will have similar results.

If there's a marketplace for cheaper imagery - and there definitely is - you ignore it at your own financial loss. So go ahead, sjlocke, continue making fancy images for a so-so return at Getty. I'll practice techniques to whip off a lot of simple low-res stuff for the ultra-cheap subscription market - I'm already pretty good at it thanks to Shutterstock. Let's rejoin the discussion in a year to see how we fared.


Wouldn't you be better off being independent if the future is low cost subs?


 

Related Topics

  Subject / Started by Replies Last post
3 Replies
3777 Views
Last post February 09, 2010, 17:09
by lisafx
11 Replies
4765 Views
Last post November 01, 2013, 18:53
by w7lwi
27 Replies
7827 Views
Last post April 16, 2015, 10:30
by elvinstar
35 Replies
11939 Views
Last post March 30, 2016, 14:24
by ArenaCreative
6 Replies
4772 Views
Last post September 07, 2017, 03:59
by JQzmanovic

Sponsors

Mega Bundle of 5,900+ Professional Lightroom Presets

Microstock Poll Results

Sponsors