Author Topic: Vetta Sale at iStock (Read 71192 times)

Risamay · « **Reply #150 on:** December 08, 2010, 19:43 »

Quote from: SNP on December 08, 2010, 19:19

I think my comments about the RC targets are in the least worthy of discussion, even if you disagree. I know that discussion is certainly happening around many iStock round tables in my own region anyways, so why it causes you SUCH offense is beyond me. I think it's just that it comes from me.

we're all talking very openly in my iStock circle about why we are, or aren't making targets. why we are or aren't making Agency. why we have or don't have files in Vetta. I think it's a reasonable discussion to work out why RC targets aren't being met. anyways, as I said earlier, I hope for the sake of fairness that the levels are adjusted to reflect more attainable goals. or bell curved as Sue has been saying. no one is arguing about that. but some of the people suggesting favoritism/conspiracy/Getty greed/iStock greed/iStock intentionally screwing us....well some of those people (and in this case I'm NOT referring to Jo Ann) are people who have barely produced uploads over many years. why exactly is that taboo to discuss?

As usual, whether intentionally or otherwise, you miss the point.

I took offense to that one comment, as did others. What offended me about your comment is no different from what/why others took offense. Had someone else made the same comment, I would have been equally put off.

The people who are making those suggestions are a mixed bag of Black Diamonds on down. So why you choose to highlight those of us making such comments who "have barely produced uploads over many years" is ... odd. Is the connection tied to your work ethic comment and being "serious about your business" (insinuating that others of us are not serious or as serious)?

What exactly is your point here if it's not that those producing less or with less regularity are somehow not as serious about the/ir business?

It's not that this subject matter is taboo, it's that it's nonsense. Just because someone doesn't upload a glut of files regularly does not mean that s/he is any less serious about the/ir business than you. To suggest or assume as much comes off as arrogant, haughty, offensive.

I'd suggest you go back and reread all the comments in response to yours. I think folks have done a good and clear job of highlighting why/what is offensive/incorrect.

ShadySue · « **Reply #151 on:** December 08, 2010, 19:44 »

@ Stacey:
The issue isn't personal, not is it about who uploads what.
It's a matter of how iStock have changed the goalposts, and so often and in so many ways over the past year.
It's about the lies they've told us, and the weasel words, and the backtracking, then attacking us from a different angle.
It's about total disrespect for the people who provide them with a living.
It's about the persuading independents to become exclusive earlier in the year, then shafting them. It's they I feel most sorry for in this whole debacle.
It's about whether we'll ever be able to trust 'them' again, and how else they'll screw us in future.
It's about in-clubs who get shoe-in to Vetta while equally good or better images are rejected and it's purely subjective - in one case by an inspector who has even fewer downloads than me, and in another case by an inspector who has only just learned how to keyword to iStock standards.
It's about how BM2, which was designed to reward good keywording, has been totally gazumped by Vetta and Agency.
It's about how, when I posted on the Vetta thread asking for Vetta images to be doubly checked over for keyword accuracy, JJRD posted within a very short time to say that that would NOT be happening. However, wiki-ing has helped.
And ultimately, given all of the above, whether it's sensible of anyone to 'work their butt off' to supply exclusively to istock, whether their option is to become independent and/or supply RM.
Oh, and off-thread, they have now changed the goalposts* with regards submitting to Getty, but as far as I can see, it's only been talked about in the Getty forum, not even in the exclusive one.
*to be honest, I never understood what the goalposts were, and was one of the 2/3 of people who apparently were accepted to submit to Getty, then didn't do it. I was astonished by that figure to be honest. You'd have thought they might have done some contributer market research to find out the reasons. And I see that at least one iStock/Getty contributer via the iStock deal first found out about it when he found his portal closed.
So many promises. So many pie-crusts.

Risamay · « **Reply #152 on:** December 08, 2010, 19:53 »

Quote from: sjlocke on December 08, 2010, 19:37

I think Stacey's "seriously" may refer to people who are spending full time hours creating a lot of usable stock, spending money on models and such, as opposed to other peoples' "seriously" which may mean a more part time approach, but no less serious about trying to create content the best they can, in their means and trying to follow the rules.

Well, if that's what was meant then that's what should have been said. For a professional writer, Stacey's posts are too easily and too often misunderstood or misconstrued.

Say what you mean and mean what you say, I always say.

Quote from: SNP on December 08, 2010, 19:37

^ it was meant in that vein. but it quickly was spun into something else. secondly, I do think there's seriously part-time Sean. there are people doing this part-time working full-time hours who have met their targets. in fact a contributor we both know was working full-time until a few months ago on top of being one of iStock's top sellers. anyways...and for the record, as for being haughty....I'm very open about my own non-successes. like Agency...I'm all but unwanted in there and I don't have much Vetta either. I'm not at all holding myself up as an example, except to say that it's not impossible to reach the RC targets, even if you're not a major contributor. and I'm certainly not. never said I was nor do I think of myself as one.

It was spun into something else because that's how it came off to more than one person. In your reply to me you still sounded the same as my initial read (see my reply previous to this comment). Why is it that you need Sean to clarify what you mean? And even if what Sean thinks you meant is what you indeed intended, I still take issue. One can be serious about the work they produce for stock and have only an hour to work on a project or shoot vs. many hours plural. It's about approaching your work professionally and passionately within the time allowed by your schedule. Some of us are part-time, some of us are full-time, some of us have barely any time at all for photography. And yet, we can all be serious, passionate, and professional about our craft and the work we produce. Your comment makes it sound like "seriousness" is a factor of how much work one produces, how regularly one produces work, and/or how much time one spends producing work.

This is just pure BS.

SNP · « **Reply #153 on:** December 08, 2010, 21:03 »

ok, so taking a step backwards...serious was obviously the wrong adjective. so I do apologize for the offense caused. absolutely not the intention. the discussion is about going forward and 2011 targets. whether any of us likes it or not, and this includes me because when I hit diamond next year only half-way through the year, my RC target will likely be beyond my reach....I believe that how much you upload and consequently sell is now clearly going to be a factor. it's already a factor and we all know it. but now our annual performance versus career-wide performance sets our royalties for the following year. so that being the case, I'm certainly going to be making even more effort to produce in terms of quality and quantity. I think it's the nature of what we do in microstock and if we don't do it, other contributors will. with the new system, we're very much pitted against one another in terms of the curve. saying that doesn't mean agreeing with it, but it's there and it's what we have to deal with.

jamirae · « **Reply #154 on:** December 08, 2010, 21:42 »

Quote from: SNP on December 08, 2010, 21:03

ok, so taking a step backwards...serious was obviously the wrong adjective. so I do apologize for the offense caused. absolutely not the intention. the discussion is about going forward and 2011 targets. whether any of us likes it or not, and this includes me because when I hit diamond next year only half-way through the year, my RC target will likely be beyond my reach....I believe that how much you upload and consequently sell is now clearly going to be a factor. it's already a factor and we all know it. but now our annual performance versus career-wide performance sets our royalties for the following year. so that being the case, I'm certainly going to be making even more effort to produce in terms of quality and quantity. I think it's the nature of what we do in microstock and if we don't do it, other contributors will. with the new system, we're very much pitted against one another in terms of the curve. saying that doesn't mean agreeing with it, but it's there and it's what we have to deal with.

you do realize that diamond has nothing to do with RC targets? unless you are simply equating what the current royalty system where a diamond level is 40% royalty to the RC targets. I suppose you could do that, but if you want to reach for that level in the RC system, then go for it, the color of your canister will allow you more uploads.

BooKitty · « **Reply #155 on:** December 08, 2010, 21:49 »

SNP... Please give up on this already. Every post you write just makes it worse.

SNP · « **Reply #156 on:** December 08, 2010, 22:15 »

Quote from: jamirae on December 08, 2010, 21:42

Quote from: SNP on December 08, 2010, 21:03
ok, so taking a step backwards...serious was obviously the wrong adjective. so I do apologize for the offense caused. absolutely not the intention. the discussion is about going forward and 2011 targets. whether any of us likes it or not, and this includes me because when I hit diamond next year only half-way through the year, my RC target will likely be beyond my reach....I believe that how much you upload and consequently sell is now clearly going to be a factor. it's already a factor and we all know it. but now our annual performance versus career-wide performance sets our royalties for the following year. so that being the case, I'm certainly going to be making even more effort to produce in terms of quality and quantity. I think it's the nature of what we do in microstock and if we don't do it, other contributors will. with the new system, we're very much pitted against one another in terms of the curve. saying that doesn't mean agreeing with it, but it's there and it's what we have to deal with.

you do realize that diamond has nothing to do with RC targets? unless you are simply equating what the current royalty system where a diamond level is 40% royalty to the RC targets. I suppose you could do that, but if you want to reach for that level in the RC system, then go for it, the color of your canister will allow you more uploads.

I am equating it to the royalty system. I won't get the raise, that is what I was referring to, so I'll be stuck at my current royalty level. sorry for confusing the issue.

SNP · « **Reply #157 on:** December 08, 2010, 22:17 »

Quote from: BooKitty on December 08, 2010, 21:49

SNP... Please give up on this already. Every post you write just makes it worse.

...you have what, 100 files? thanks for the advice....

nruboc · « **Reply #158 on:** December 08, 2010, 22:39 »

Quote from: BooKitty on December 08, 2010, 21:49

SNP... Please give up on this already. Every post you write just makes it worse.

The fact that she's ignored by 21 members says it all, really

BooKitty · « **Reply #159 on:** December 08, 2010, 22:50 »

Oh, I am sorry. I did not realize I needed to have a huge number of files to be entitled to an opinion on how each post you make digs you deeper and that you only hear yourself and don't listen to others. And not to mention your "apologies" for sounding offensive ring quite hollow IMO (and yes, I am entitled to it whether I have 100 illustrations or 1000000000).

Now I am positive you are a just a snob with an inflated sense of self.

If you feel in order for me to speak I need to be at your level of "seriousness", this is probably why you have 21 people ignoring you. umm, make that 22.

Risamay · « **Reply #160 on:** December 08, 2010, 22:51 »

Quote from: SNP on December 08, 2010, 22:17

Quote from: BooKitty on December 08, 2010, 21:49
SNP... Please give up on this already. Every post you write just makes it worse.

...you have what, 100 files? thanks for the advice....

Translation: "I upload my butt off. [And you don't.] I work at producing better content everyday. [And you don't.] I'm serious about my business. [And you're not.]"

Susan S. · « **Reply #161 on:** December 08, 2010, 23:17 »

On the other hand it looks like Getty/Istock don't think that some people are hard working enough either.

For those of you not able to follow on the closed forum, istock Getty contributors have just received emails either saying
You can continue to contribute to getty and our editors will decide where your images best fit:
or : you can pay 50$ an image and submit through photograher's choice.

JRRD categorised the recipients of the last email thusly: "Not for people who truely worked hard and made sure to succeed at Getty Images."
Glad I never took up the offer of a contract.

Risamay · « **Reply #162 on:** December 08, 2010, 23:59 »

Quote from: Susan S. on December 08, 2010, 23:17

JRRD categorised the recipients of the last email thusly: "Not for people who truely worked hard and made sure to succeed at Getty Images."

Nice.

BaldricksTrousers · « **Reply #163 on:** December 09, 2010, 01:17 »

I guess letting people submit to Getty without paying $50 a file was unsustainable

SNP · « **Reply #164 on:** December 09, 2010, 01:38 »

Quote from: Susan S. on December 08, 2010, 23:17

On the other hand it looks like Getty/Istock don't think that some people are hard working enough either.

For those of you not able to follow on the closed forum, istock Getty contributors have just received emails either saying
You can continue to contribute to getty and our editors will decide where your images best fit:
or : you can pay 50$ an image and submit through photograher's choice.

JRRD categorised the recipients of the last email thusly: "Not for people who truely worked hard and made sure to succeed at Getty Images."
Glad I never took up the offer of a contract.

for the record. what I said has been completed twisted around. but there's zero point in defending my original words.

@Susan: as for this Getty email issue, indeed we've received notes about Getty submissions and indeed many of us have been *re-routed*....which to me is simply a demotion. I'm in just about total agreement with your post. FYI the Photographer's Choice option starts with 10 free files. each FIRST downloaded results in a new file slot for free according to our understanding of the agreement.

alias · « **Reply #165 on:** December 09, 2010, 04:11 »

$50 route is open to everyone same as the flickr.

Sean Locke Photography · « **Reply #166 on:** December 09, 2010, 05:36 »

Quote from: Susan S. on December 08, 2010, 23:17

On the other hand it looks like Getty/Istock don't think that some people are hard working enough either.

For those of you not able to follow on the closed forum, istock Getty contributors have just received emails either saying
You can continue to contribute to getty and our editors will decide where your images best fit:
or : you can pay 50$ an image and submit through photograher's choice.

JRRD categorised the recipients of the last email thusly: "Not for people who truely worked hard and made sure to succeed at Getty Images."
Glad I never took up the offer of a contract.

Just to clarify, if I understand it correctly, the easy backdoor for iStockers of the Diamond, Gold and sometimes Silver level is going away, due to the fact that Vetta and Agency images are being ported up automatically (we'll see) to Getty and properties. So, if people are creating work of that level anyways, they can submit to those two collections to get onto Getty. However, additionally, each person (afaik) was looked at and offered either an 'outside' house contract at Getty that covers all collections, or just the basic photographer's choice option. I would assume that in this decision, they evaluated the work of the person, how much they contribute, ie., their 'value' to Getty, and offered based on that.

JJ's somewhat unfortunate comment notwithstanding.

Eyedesign · « **Reply #167 on:** December 09, 2010, 05:42 »

Quote from: sjlocke on December 09, 2010, 05:36

Quote from: Susan S. on December 08, 2010, 23:17
On the other hand it looks like Getty/Istock don't think that some people are hard working enough either.

For those of you not able to follow on the closed forum, istock Getty contributors have just received emails either saying
You can continue to contribute to getty and our editors will decide where your images best fit:
or : you can pay 50$ an image and submit through photograher's choice.

JRRD categorised the recipients of the last email thusly: "Not for people who truely worked hard and made sure to succeed at Getty Images."
Glad I never took up the offer of a contract.

Just to clarify, if I understand it correctly, the easy backdoor for iStockers of the Diamond, Gold and sometimes Silver level is going away, due to the fact that Vetta and Agency images are being ported up automatically (we'll see) to Getty and properties. So, if people are creating work of that level anyways, they can submit to those two collections to get onto Getty. However, additionally, each person (afaik) was looked at and offered either an 'outside' house contract at Getty that covers all collections, or just the basic photographer's choice option. I would assume that in this decision, they evaluated the work of the person, how much they contribute, ie., their 'value' to Getty, and offered based on that.

JJ's somewhat unfortunate comment notwithstanding.

Yep that how I understand it. Works for me reduces the amount of work I need to do, upload to Vetta stuff gets ported over to Getty (we'll see).

ShadySue · « **Reply #168 on:** December 09, 2010, 05:59 »

Stacey: "according to our understanding of the agreement"
Sean: "If I understand it correctly"
Eyedesign "That's how I understand it"

Says it all.
Why oh why oh why don't they employ someone who can write these things in clear English? So many of istock/Getty's contracts and agreements are unclear and open to interpretation. Or even get the Clear English Society to look their stuff over and write it better?
Remember, if we, whose first language is more-or-less English (with a Scottish/American/Canadian/woteva) spin have difficulty making it out, how much more difficult must it be for people for whom English is a second or third language.
It would be interesting to know whether the translations in to the 'community' languages are equally unclear.
H*ck, I'm unclear even who should be getting the emails - is it only those who are already submitting in good numbers and successful with sales? Do the others have to be reading the forums to get the news? I certainly haven't got an email (accepted but never submitted, partly because of the tax thing, partly because the e-paperwork was so very confusing, partly because of the very broad range of what they consider sister/similars in natural history.)

Sean Locke Photography · « **Reply #169 on:** December 09, 2010, 06:06 »

I'm certainly not trying to come across as an expert on the details of the change. However, the first post in the thread is pretty clear on the changes.

This is slightly further down: "E-mails have been sent directly to those who will continue to be able to upload unique content to Getty Images."

ShadySue · « **Reply #170 on:** December 09, 2010, 06:17 »

Quote from: sjlocke on December 09, 2010, 06:06

I'm certainly not trying to come across as an expert on the details of the change. However, the first post in the thread is pretty clear on the changes.

This is slightly further down: "E-mails have been sent directly to those who will continue to be able to upload unique content to Getty Images."

That's certainly what I read. So why wouldn't they email everyone else to tell them about the changes? Not everybody hangs about the forums. It's pretty bad when someone, who has been submitting to Getty for a while, only finds out when he finds his portal closed when he goes to upload. Even a "we don't want you any more" email would be more respectful than that.

cathyslife · « **Reply #171 on:** December 09, 2010, 08:37 »

Quote from: ShadySue on December 09, 2010, 06:17

Quote from: sjlocke on December 09, 2010, 06:06
I'm certainly not trying to come across as an expert on the details of the change. However, the first post in the thread is pretty clear on the changes.

This is slightly further down: "E-mails have been sent directly to those who will continue to be able to upload unique content to Getty Images."
That's certainly what I read. So why wouldn't they email everyone else to tell them about the changes? Not everybody hangs about the forums. It's pretty bad when someone, who has been submitting to Getty for a while, only finds out when he finds his portal closed when he goes to upload. Even a "we don't want you any more" email would be more respectful than that.

Because they have never been that respectful or businesslike.

jamirae · « **Reply #172 on:** December 09, 2010, 09:18 »

haha.. that's a riot. So yeah, I just logged into my Getty account, or attempted to, and just a small box popped up saying "user account disabled." wow. thanks for the notice, folks.

I didn't really have anything there and have been trying to figure out how to get my dozen or so images off of Getty since I dropped my exclusivity at iStock. I guess my images still stay but now I have to contact someone to get them removed. kind of silly the whole thing. no instructions, no notice -- unless I had happened to wander into the Getty forum on istock, which I only did because I saw this. Business Communications 101: step one=communicate!

caspixel · « **Reply #173 on:** December 09, 2010, 09:30 »

Wait. Am I understanding this right? Some select contributors might now have to PAY to submit to Getty?

cathyslife · « **Reply #174 on:** December 09, 2010, 09:46 »

Quote from: caspixel on December 09, 2010, 09:30

Wait. Am I understanding this right? Some select contributors might now have to PAY to submit to Getty?

If I'm not mistaken, this is nothing new. I seem to remember other threads talking about this, but never paid too much attention because it didn't apply to me.

The whole Getty/IS model is changing. It will now be closer to a trad agency, rather than a microstock agency. Either you're in, or you're out. They aren't going to get rid of contributors in an above-board, businesslike way. They will continue with their chickensh*t games until those who aren't interested in their new model leaves of their own accord. That way, they aren't responsible. They aren't breaking any agreements or contracts. You make your own choice.

MicrostockGroup Sponsors

Author Topic: Vetta Sale at iStock (Read 71192 times)

Risamay

ShadySue

Risamay

SNP

jamirae

BooKitty

SNP

SNP

nruboc

BooKitty

Risamay

Susan S.

Risamay

BaldricksTrousers

SNP

alias

Sean Locke Photography

Eyedesign

ShadySue

Sean Locke Photography

ShadySue

cathyslife

jamirae

caspixel

cathyslife

Related Topics

Sponsors

Microstock Poll Results

Sponsors