Author Topic: iStock Royalty Change (Read 127097 times)

Justanotherphotographer · « **Reply #325 on:** October 31, 2016, 01:44 »

Quote from: Ilyas on October 30, 2016, 13:35

Quote from: everest on October 30, 2016, 08:33
It is a private enterprise and they can and will do what they want BUT the power is within us It is every contributor and their personal decision that changes the Stock map.

We already have a good case how to fight for our rights!
Drivers for the cab-hailing firm Uber will learn later whether they are entitled to holiday pay, rest breaks and the National Living Wage.
http://www.bbc.com/news/business-37787067

"This case represents the first proper legal review of whether jobs in this part of the so-called gig economy really represent a new paradigm of freedom and self-employment, or in fact are simply a new technology ploy to deny employed workers ordinary employment rights and a national minimum wage," says Maria Ludkin, legal director at the GMB.

Right now, our Russian speaking part of contibutor society is working on petition, so wait for answer from Freelancers Unity.

Our intention is to put this case to court in Germany, Britain or USA.

Do not delete your accounts, but deactivate top sales. This way you can impact.

Please believe me this will not work. Exclusives may have a tiny chance of success. For non exclusives their relationship with istock is nothing like the relationship uber drivers have with uber. The solution is to stop working with ISock.

Justanotherphotographer · « **Reply #326 on:** October 31, 2016, 01:52 »

Okay, sorry. After reading the summary of the uk case Uber drivers just won. A lot of the points that lead to the decision do seem to mirror our relationship to microstock agencies.

Pauws99 · « **Reply #327 on:** October 31, 2016, 01:57 »

Quote from: Justanotherphotographer on October 31, 2016, 01:52

Okay, sorry. After reading the summary of the uk case Uber drivers just won. A lot of the points that lead to the decision do seem to mirror our relationship to microstock agencies.

But a lot don't its a fundamentally different relationship total red herring. For a start no one asks us to do anything. If an agency contracted us via a customer to undertake a specific shoot then just possibly there might be something but even then unless its an exclusive relationship then thats just freelancing.

Justanotherphotographer · « **Reply #328 on:** October 31, 2016, 02:10 »

Take a look at the summary list of points. I haven't got the link right now but if you google the reddit thread discussing it the top comment summarises it. It's things like the agent has contact with the client while the worker doesn't. The agency gets to write and change the contract and so on. It is not as straight forward as it first seems. A lot of the fundamentals actually are mirrored.

Pauws99 · « **Reply #329 on:** October 31, 2016, 02:49 »

Quote from: Justanotherphotographer on October 31, 2016, 02:10

Take a look at the summary list of points. I haven't got the link right now but if you google the reddit thread discussing it the top comment summarises it. It's things like the agent has contact with the client while the worker doesn't. The agency gets to write and change the contract and so on. It is not as straight forward as it first seems. A lot of the fundamentals actually are mirrored.

I think I will wait and see if anyone takes it to court.......more pressing things to worry about

Justanotherphotographer · « **Reply #330 on:** October 31, 2016, 03:16 »

Quote from: Pauws99 on October 31, 2016, 02:49

Quote from: Justanotherphotographer on October 31, 2016, 02:10
Take a look at the summary list of points. I haven't got the link right now but if you google the reddit thread discussing it the top comment summarises it. It's things like the agent has contact with the client while the worker doesn't. The agency gets to write and change the contract and so on. It is not as straight forward as it first seems. A lot of the fundamentals actually are mirrored.
I think I will wait and see if anyone takes it to court.......more pressing things to worry about

Agree. The immediate solution is to at least suspend uploads preferably delete portfolios.

gyllens · « **Reply #331 on:** October 31, 2016, 05:41 »

Suspend uploads? deleting portfolios? thats like playing getty right in to the hands. Thats exactly what they want. Getty do not want IS. Full stop.

Justanotherphotographer · « **Reply #332 on:** October 31, 2016, 05:56 »

Quote from: gyllens on October 31, 2016, 05:41

Suspend uploads? deleting portfolios? thats like playing getty right in to the hands. Thats exactly what they want. Getty do not want IS. Full stop.

What do you suggest. How is refusing to work with them playing into their hands?

byman · « **Reply #333 on:** October 31, 2016, 05:57 »

I just asked for account closing.

Justanotherphotographer · « **Reply #334 on:** October 31, 2016, 06:04 »

Okay, here's a quote from SpaceStockFootage from the Uber discussion thread and anyone looking to take them to court in the same way as Uber drivers have Uber needs to read it:

Quote from: SpaceStockFootage on October 31, 2016, 05:09

B) If we're considered employees, then surely we'd not own the copyright on our own work, as it would be 'work for hire'?

IMHO he's absolutely correct.

Shelma1 · « **Reply #335 on:** October 31, 2016, 06:33 »

We're not employees. The stock sites are marketplaces, or artists' representatives, but not our employers. If for some reason we were considered employees, that would mean that if you submit to 20 different sites, each of those sites has to provide you with, for example, health benefits? Think how crazy that is.

When you're a Uber driver, you can't sell the same ride over and over again.

However, we certainly have the right to complain about unfair business practices, like 2 cent royalties when the going rate is closer to 15 times as much. And we can most certainly refuse en masse to supply a marketplace that tries to screw us out of the money our work makes for them. And we can let the public know about such business practices and alternative places to license our images.

KleberPicui · « **Reply #336 on:** October 31, 2016, 07:47 »

My first disappointment

Luka · « **Reply #337 on:** October 31, 2016, 08:30 »

I just got a 0.03. Waw. I'll dress myself nice and go to shopping

. Unfortunately I didn't have time to delete everything. But I think tonight I will have less sleep and finished what I have started,

Dumc · « **Reply #338 on:** October 31, 2016, 08:34 »

Those are probably some Getty earnings, they're happening every month....0,01$-0,06$...

Luka · « **Reply #339 on:** October 31, 2016, 08:49 »

Quote from: Dumc on October 31, 2016, 08:34

Those are probably some Getty earnings, they're happening every month....0,01$-0,06$...

I was also a little bit confused. Did I understand it wrong or this Royalties will occur starting with 25th November?

PureArt · « **Reply #340 on:** October 31, 2016, 09:30 »

Quote from: Dumc on October 31, 2016, 08:34

Those are probably some Getty earnings, they're happening every month....0,01$-0,06$...

So, they sell the pics at a MacroStock (Getty) for something like $500 and pay us a royalty of $0.02 ?!

I just opened few pics at Getty and got this message: "Buy this photo at £ 485.00 GBP. Or just £ 400.00 with an UltraPack. Save Now".

£ 400.00 GBP = $500 USD

Jens G · « **Reply #341 on:** October 31, 2016, 09:40 »

Quote from: Dumc on October 31, 2016, 08:34

Those are probably some Getty earnings, they're happening every month....0,01$-0,06$...

Then I suppose I should be happy, because I had $0.13 from G.I Connect in august $:-\$

PixelBytes · « **Reply #342 on:** October 31, 2016, 10:58 »

Quote from: Justanotherphotographer on October 31, 2016, 06:04

Okay, here's a quote from SpaceStockFootage from the Uber discussion thread and anyone looking to take them to court in the same way as Uber drivers have Uber needs to read it:

Quote from: SpaceStockFootage on October 31, 2016, 05:09
B) If we're considered employees, then surely we'd not own the copyright on our own work, as it would be 'work for hire'?

IMHO he's absolutely correct.

Depends on where you live. In the US the creator of the work owns the copyright by default, even if it is done through an employer or work for hire. There would have to be a separate signed agreement for the copyright to be transferred to the employee.

Shelma1 · « **Reply #343 on:** October 31, 2016, 11:06 »

Quote from: PixelBytes on October 31, 2016, 10:58

Quote from: Justanotherphotographer on October 31, 2016, 06:04
Okay, here's a quote from SpaceStockFootage from the Uber discussion thread and anyone looking to take them to court in the same way as Uber drivers have Uber needs to read it:

Quote from: SpaceStockFootage on October 31, 2016, 05:09
B) If we're considered employees, then surely we'd not own the copyright on our own work, as it would be 'work for hire'?

IMHO he's absolutely correct.

Depends on where you live. In the US the creator of the work owns the copyright by default, even if it is done through an employer or work for hire. There would have to be a separate signed agreement for the copyright to be transferred to the employee.

Nope. Work for hire is an exception to copyright law, and in cases of work for hire the employer owns the copyright. It can extend even further...in ad agencies the client owns the copyright, not you or even the ad agency you work for...because your time is paid for, ultimately, by the client. https://www.copyright.gov/circs/circ09.pdf

Shelma1 · « **Reply #344 on:** October 31, 2016, 11:46 »

I'm speaking with someone from Freelancer's Union this afternoon. Keep in mind that this isn't really what you think of as a "Union;" they don't organize people or represent groups legally. So I'm not sure where this will go or how or whether they can help in any way. However, dozens of people have emailed them, so we did get their attention.

Right now they're just confused and want clarification about what's going on.

r2d2 · « **Reply #345 on:** October 31, 2016, 11:56 »

Quote from: Shelma1 on October 31, 2016, 11:46

I'm speaking with someone from Freelancer's Union this afternoon. Keep in mind that this isn't really what you think of as a "Union;" they don't organize people or represent groups legally. So I'm not sure where this will go or how or whether they can help in any way. However, dozens of people have emailed them, so we did get their attention.

Right now they're just confused and want clarification about what's going on.

Dozens of people! We can make our own union! Maybe a Facebook group for the beginning or twitter to be connected and up to date.

raclro · « **Reply #346 on:** October 31, 2016, 12:07 »

I must admit I only check in to my iStock account about once a month, and this forum every few months. I've never been to their new forum. Sorry to hear the latest bad news for any of you that depend on this for all or a significant part of your income. Istock has been very poor for years about communicating changes to us. Not sure why that is.
I am exclusive there with over 7000 images and have been with them about 11 years. I have no interest starting over at another agency. Mine is a hobby but is was nice averaging $1400 per month for a while back in the old days. That's down to about $300 now. Partly their fault, partly mine, mostly the simple law of supply and demand in my opinion. There are so many files available and I suspect millions more coming online every week across the industry. As a result, the agencies don't value the contributors as in the past.
I do continue to upload at times, not with hope of increasing sales,simply so I can continue to expense all the hobby gear I buy through the LLC I set up.
It still amazes me people buy much at all with all the free content out there.

Shelma1 · « **Reply #347 on:** October 31, 2016, 12:31 »

Quote from: r2d2 on October 31, 2016, 11:56

Quote from: Shelma1 on October 31, 2016, 11:46
I'm speaking with someone from Freelancer's Union this afternoon. Keep in mind that this isn't really what you think of as a "Union;" they don't organize people or represent groups legally. So I'm not sure where this will go or how or whether they can help in any way. However, dozens of people have emailed them, so we did get their attention.

Right now they're just confused and want clarification about what's going on.

Dozens of people! We can make our own union! Maybe a Facebook group for the beginning or twitter to be connected and up to date.

Didn't that happen once before, and didn't Getty retaliate? I was completely out of the loop then.

Recards · « **Reply #348 on:** October 31, 2016, 12:40 »

Quote from: Shelma1 on October 31, 2016, 11:46

I'm speaking with someone from Freelancer's Union this afternoon. Keep in mind that this isn't really what you think of as a "Union;" they don't organize people or represent groups legally. So I'm not sure where this will go or how or whether they can help in any way. However, dozens of people have emailed them, so we did get their attention.

Right now they're just confused and want clarification about what's going on.

I'm sorry I didnt see this message earlier.

Dumc · « **Reply #349 on:** October 31, 2016, 13:05 »

Quote from: raclro on October 31, 2016, 12:07

It still amazes me people buy much at all with all the free content out there.

I don't think there's that much free content out there. It's just, that people think, that they can use it for free, or sites with "free content" which was actually stolen from agencies.

MicrostockGroup Sponsors

Author Topic: iStock Royalty Change (Read 127097 times)

Justanotherphotographer

Justanotherphotographer

Pauws99

Justanotherphotographer

Pauws99

Justanotherphotographer

gyllens

Justanotherphotographer

byman

Justanotherphotographer

Shelma1

KleberPicui

Luka

Dumc

Luka

PureArt

Jens G

PixelBytes

Shelma1

Shelma1

r2d2

raclro

Shelma1

Recards

Dumc

Related Topics

Sponsors

Microstock Poll Results

Sponsors