@loop: you're probably right. I guess I should have said traditional publishing. I worked/still work in traditonal print publishing. The whopping royalty percentage for my book was 6 percent. Articles for publications are different. I'm usually paid a flat rate per piece, no royalties. anyways, back on topic...the incorrect data in the article, IMO, is more directly attributable to the publication rather than to KK.

That's the point. We don't do traditional photographing.

I don't know why people always bring up the "he is a nice person and seems like a good guy" thing. Many neighbors of Jeffrey Dahmer that were interviewed said things like "he was such a nice boy, he used to mow my lawn every week" and "he always said hi to me when he passed by".

And no, I'm not comparing KK to Jeffrey Dahmer. My point is, just because you meet a person a few times and they seem "nice" doesn't mean you really know a person.

More can said about a person by things like what kind of company they work for, how they treat their customers, how they treat their vendors, etc. � not just to their face but behind their back, too. It doesn't really matter to me what kind of a nice guy KK is. He still works for Getty/IS, and Getty/IS still took away money from me. That he affiliates himself with such a company speaks volumes to me.

For those who don't know who Jeffrey Dahmer is, in a nutshell, a serial killer who ate his victims.

Maybe, but often you don't need more than five minutes to know if someone you've just meet is a jerk, I've gone through this many times in my life.

I don't know why people always bring up the "he is a nice person and seems like a good guy" thing. Many neighbors of Jeffrey Dahmer that were interviewed said things like "he was such a nice boy, he used to mow my lawn every week" and "he always said hi to me when he passed by".

And no, I'm not comparing KK to Jeffrey Dahmer. My point is, just because you meet a person a few times and they seem "nice" doesn't mean you really know a person.

Hey, at least you didn't invoke Godwin's Law and compare him to Hitler

But I agree.  He can be the nicest guy on Earth personally, but what matters to me is the decisions he's making that affect contributors.  Assuming he IS making any decisions or just following orders.    Ooops - there's Godwin's Law again

Hey, at least you didn't invoke Godwin's Law and compare him to Hitler

ROFL! I didn't know what Godwin's Law was...googled it. Too funny! No, no Hitler references from me. 

Quote from: SNP on March 30, 2011, 11:30

Quote from: ShadySue on March 30, 2011, 11:22

Quote from: SNP on March 30, 2011, 11:19

the article is fine IMO.

Including the blatant lie: "commission levels stretch from 20% to 45%"?

Can we hazard a guess as to the extent of this lie:
Number of contributors earning less than 20% commission = ?
Number of contributors earning 45% = ?

would it have mattered if he had said 15% to 40%? it wouldn't have changed the context of the article in any way.

So you see no difference in value between the truth and a lie? They are equally valid in your eyes? And you used to write for magazines? It explains a lot about the media today.

you know that isn't what I meant, nor is it even what I said. calling it a 'lie' is a value judgment. it's precisely that type of paraphrasing that is one of the main problems with bad journalism. other than Kelly and the reporter, who knows how the information was exchanged and how it was summarized in the article. you can call it misinformation, you can call it flat out wrong, but calling it a lie is spin. You're stating that Kelly actively sought to deceive readers of the article. FWIW, I believe very strongly in ethical journalism, it's how I have always worked, so I found your comment particularly insulting. maybe that was your objective.

as for other comments that it doesn't matter if Kelly is a nice guy....yes, in fact it does. ethical people are usually ethical in all aspects of their lives. conversely unscrupulous people are unscrupulous in most areas of their lives. As I haven't met Kelly, I can only go on what I've been told and I've always heard he's an honest, nice and smart guy. I think that's relevant.

@SNP -  "(...that it doesn't matter if Kelly is a nice guy)....yes, in fact it does. ethical people are usually ethical in all aspects of their lives. conversely unscrupulous people are unscrupulous in most areas of their lives"

Are you really saying what I've understood, that Kelly is "an ethical guy"  Where's the ethics in telling people that have just potentially lost tons of money that they should be saying thanks instead of lamenting their loss?  Or the ethics in screwing photogs while he sits raking in the millions?  Or in saying to distraught people whose livelihood depend on this that they'll open a discussion, only to ignore thousands of posts in the thread?  You really have your head right up your arse.

Quote from: michealo on March 30, 2011, 10:14

At an average of $10 per image sold that would be a $310 million turnover which would be about a 10% of the global stock imagery turnover

Which is probably right and makes you wonder why they have Kelly running something that valuable.

Yes, have you noticed that his title is COO? He's never gotten the CEO title and certainly hasn't earned it the way things have been going. 

I don't know if it's a correct word, but this interview looks like a MOCKERY.

More like CROCKery.

"rates have risen at iStock"

Yes, for Istock. Not for contributors.

+1 and two for one quote.

What has risen is rejections for nit.

I wanted to see where in this interview the "unsustainable" comes in. Sounds like might good times to me, except for the artists of course.

Yes I'm so happy for the 15% pittance they grant me and other independents. Toss some coins to the beggars on the street. I wish SS would start that exclusive program!

Quote from: FreeTransform on March 30, 2011, 11:27

Agreed with SNP. I have met Kelly only very briefly and have nothing bad to say about him. I know he and Bruce are best friends, and that says a lot. My impression is that he is a bit deer-in-the-headlights when it comes to answering questions.

He may well be a lovely person, in person, and a good friend to Bruce, but one thing Kelly is not is [a] Bruce. His Q&A skills, be it for a fluff piece or in response to the community (via the forums), leave MUCH to be desired.

The last thing you want in a leader is a chronic case of foot-in-mouth, which Kelly (sadly, for all) seems to have in spades.

Oh, he is probably very nice, too nice in fact so Getty is bullying him into all sorts of things and ofcourse he follows.

lol, at least it looks like someone's bothered about whether the content of the article is factually correct.

Quote from: ShadySue on March 30, 2011, 11:22

Quote from: SNP on March 30, 2011, 11:19

the article is fine IMO.

Including the blatant lie: "commission levels stretch from 20% to 45%"?

Can we hazard a guess as to the extent of this lie:
Number of contributors earning less than 20% commission = ?
Number of contributors earning 45% = ?

would it have mattered if he had said 15% to 40%? it wouldn't have changed the context of the article in any way. to put it in perspective, in publishing authors get 4% to 8%-if we're lucky. I'm not stating that I agree with 15% for non-exclusives. I completely disagree with so low a percentage in our industry for any artist. but I'm just saying that suggesting it was a great big LIE designed to mislead seems silly. because even had they printed the 'truth', it would have hardly changed the article.

For every 1 photographer involved with iStock there are 10000 that are not and those shooters will not know that the interview contains false information.

You have to ask yourself several questions here: First what's going on? Did the interviewer alter his words? To what end? If not that means that kelly gave false information. So then you ask is the top guy at iStock a complete idiot and doesn't know what they pay contributors? If he does have that info then he deliberately gave false info i.e. lied through his teeth so again: to what end? If he lied, then how could you trust anything he or the company says?

There are no little white lies. If he's going to lie about commissions what else will he/they lie about?

I would also suspect that Canon or whoever supplied the article to Canon employs fact checkers to ensure that the interview is accurate to protect against Libel. If the interviewer falsified the numbers they would be open to legal action from iStock. Tends to make me doubt bad journalism when Kelly himself probably read the article possibly even before it was published.

In my experience the nicest guys are the ones you watch the closest.

Quote from: SNP on March 30, 2011, 11:30

Quote from: ShadySue on March 30, 2011, 11:22

Quote from: SNP on March 30, 2011, 11:19

the article is fine IMO.

Including the blatant lie: "commission levels stretch from 20% to 45%"?

Can we hazard a guess as to the extent of this lie:
Number of contributors earning less than 20% commission = ?
Number of contributors earning 45% = ?

would it have mattered if he had said 15% to 40%? it wouldn't have changed the context of the article in any way. to put it in perspective, in publishing authors get 4% to 8%-if we're lucky. I'm not stating that I agree with 15% for non-exclusives. I completely disagree with so low a percentage in our industry for any artist. but I'm just saying that suggesting it was a great big LIE designed to mislead seems silly. because even had they printed the 'truth', it would have hardly changed the article.

For every 1 photographer involved with iStock there are 10000 that are not and those shooters will not know that the interview contains false information.

You have to ask yourself several questions here: First what's going on? Did the interviewer alter his words? To what end? If not that means that kelly gave false information. So then you ask is the top guy at iStock a complete idiot and doesn't know what they pay contributors? If he does have that info then he deliberately gave false info i.e. lied through his teeth so again: to what end? If he lied, then how could you trust anything he or the company says?

There are no little white lies. If he's going to lie about commissions what else will he/they lie about?

I would also suspect that Canon or whoever supplied the article to Canon employs fact checkers to ensure that the interview is accurate to protect against Libel. If the interviewer falsified the numbers they would be open to legal action from iStock. Tends to make me doubt bad journalism when Kelly himself probably read the article possibly even before it was published.

In my experience the nicest guys are the ones you watch the closest.

I'd be very surprised if 'fact checkers' were employed for this online article. Online magazine publishers are still in the dark ages in terms of the quality of their content. there still exists this mentality that an error in print is far worse than a mistake online, even though online work has the potential to reach a much larger, broader audience more quickly. Fact checkers cost money. Magazines are in many ways just PR vehicles, as someone said earlier. Not all magazines--but many industry publications in particular are designed simply to allow suppliers and services to advertise under the guise of a 'product review' or an objectively researched profile, which is not truly objective at all.

I am left wondering why IS pumps out something like this, which is basically a recruiting poster for new contributors, who will send  IS a ton of low quality images, which IS will spend time and  money reviewing and rejecting.  Is this what IS wants - more repititious stuff from newbies?  

What's the point, for IS, of encouraging people to buy DSLRs and get into this game at this time?  Canon's motivation is obvious so maybe they're the real source of this "interview".  All that's missing is "mention IStock when purchasing your new Canon, and receive a free lens cleaning cloth", which triggers a little kickback to IS for the camera sale.