Jan 212013
 

On February 2nd 2013, a large group of artists and photographers will be deactivating their photos and images at iStockphoto. The movement began on the Microstockgroup forums, in a message board thread which as of today has been read 12,000 times. There is also a call for many artists exclusive to iStockphoto to give up their exclusivity and become “free agents” on this day.

Boxer punch

Artists are Fighting Mad at Google and Getty. Photographer: Diego Cervo

The decision to deactivate images is the result of perceived transgressions by Getty owned iStockphoto toward its artists over the past three years.

In September 2010, iStockphoto announced it would begin paying its contributors as little as a 15% commission while keeping the rest for themselves. Even the most successful of photographers such as Yuri Arcurs would receive no more than a 20% commission on each image downloaded.

In December 2012, it became apparent that Getty and  iStockphoto had cut a deal with Google where some contributors’ photos were used to fund the Google Images stock library under Google Drive.

In this latest slight to artists’ rights, Google announced on its blog that it was offering 5000 free stock images for use in documents, presentations, and so on. However there was no mention of where the images had come from, nor to whom the rights belonged. It turned out the images had come from Getty and iStockphoto, with little or no compensation to the artists to whom the rights belonged.

Even in cases where it could be shown that the artist received compensation for one sale, the images are being marketed by Google for free use by anyone in unlimited projects. A microstock license typically states that only one user has the right to utilize an image per sale. It is conceivable that thousands of sales per image have been lost to each artist. Further, the move by Google and Getty significantly devalued the work of the artists by putting a $0 price tag on each item.

A firestorm of angry artists took to the iStockphoto message boards in response. The debate has since spread to independent message boards such as Microstockgroup, and to the popular media.

Anger Turns to Action

While Getty is digging in its heels and putting its lawyers at the forefront of the message board debate, many artists have simply had enough of the transgressions and are now planning to do something about it.

Lisa F. Young, better known to designers as LisaFX, is upset with the deal between Google and Getty.  One of microstock’s most successful image producers, Lisa’s images have been used in numerous national advertising campaigns and featured on Late Night with David Letterman and ABC World News Tonight.

“Getty has gone too far in using our images without permission or adequate compensation.  Contributors really need to work together to send a powerful message about protecting our copyrights.  I plan to deactivate at least 500 images from Istockphoto on Feb 2 D-Day.  That will be a first step.  If Getty does not respond satisfactorily to contributor concerns, many of us will have to reconsider whether it is worthwhile to continue any business relationship with them at all, ” says Lisa.

Arguably one of the most famous stock image producers in the world, Yuri Arcurs also took his concerns to the Microstockgroup forum discussion. “Any deal that Getty is getting money in their pocket for, made possible by my (and your images), but that we do not collect a royalty on, is a scandal and deserves attention,” wrote Yuri. Arcurs started his own website, PeopleImages to sell his images direct to the public rather than watch agencies continue to devalue his work.

Founder of the Microstockgroup forums, and one of the most respected voices in microstock, Tyler Olson is also participating in the deactivation at iStockphoto. To anyone who thinks the deactivation will not make a difference, he disagrees.

“It will make a BIG difference to me and my images.  My images will no longer be licensed through an agency who is willing to let my images be given away from free.  That is the big difference I’m trying to make.  Anything more is bonus.  Having everyone remove their images on the same day may or may not raise iStock’s proverbial eyebrow but no matter what, it will save my portfolio from being given away for free.”

What Can You Do?

While contributors raise the specter of a mass image deactivation on February 2nd, they continue to wait for a reasonable answer from Google and Getty for how they intend to compensate artists for lost wages.

But you can act now.

Many stock artists have formed their own websites to offer their images, and ensure they keep the earnings rather than giving the lion’s share to agencies. By choosing to download stock images direct from these artists, you will be directly supporting the efforts of artists while taking power from mega stock agencies. The same way many of us choose to purchase our food direct from area growers at a local farmer’s market, we are now able to do the same with stock images.

We have compiled a list of known websites which offer stock images direct to the public from the artists. Our own Warmpicture Images Collective incorporates images from many artists under one umbrella, the same way a farmer’s market comprises multiple growers. We encourage you to not only begin doing business directly with these artists, but also to spread the word to other users of stock images so that the balance of power shifts away from the agencies, to the artists.

Artist Direct Stock Image Sources

Warmpicture Images

LisaFX Stock Photography

My Stock Vectors

Real Stock Photos

People Images

Clip Art Candy

Jareso Stock Database

Vectorella

Denis Pepin Stock Images

Travelling Light

ElenaPhoto

About Photostock

Steve Cascoly

Rudersdalfoto

Sweetsham Illustrations

Pixels Away

Photostockit

Photogenic

Fotoroad

 

 

Nov 252011
 

The biggest liar in the world is a politician.

And the second biggest liar is a statistician.

Over the past several years, the popularity of stock photo subscriptions has skyrocketed. Nearly every stock photo agency offers some form of subscription plan these days. And the ads for these subscription plans remind us of another truism.

If it sounds too good to be true, it probably is.

Get this photo for as little as 16 cents! Download 750 images per month for only $249! Really? That equates to 33.2 cents per high resolution image. Aren’t they paying some of their photographers 35 to 40 cents per sold photo? How could any stock agency sell photos so cheaply and not go bankrupt?

The answer is, they can’t.

When a stock photo agency sells you a subscription, they know ahead of time that you will never download that many photos. They depend on you failing to get your perceived money’s worth. And they go out of their way to make it as difficult as possible for you to download your full quota.

A common technique is to combine your monthly download quota with a daily download quota. Sure, you could download 750 images in a month. But you are limited to 25 image downloads per day in a normal 30 day month. If you download only 10 photos on Monday, you can’t make it up by downloading 40 on Tuesday. Those 15 photos you never downloaded are gone forever.

Businessman Pulling Out Hair

Only 2 more hours to download 20 more photos!

Not working on the weekend? Too bad. There goes another 50 or so lost photos. Out of the office for a week? Another 175 downloads lost, with no opportunity to get a refund.

Nobody is Talking

As you might guess, the stock photo agencies aren’t telling anyone how many downloads per month subscribers actually use. However there have been some troubling rumors in recent years.

In a 2008 post to the Microstock Group forum, one of the world’s most successful stock photographers and businessmen, Yuri Arcurs, quoted an unnamed industry insider who claimed stock photo buyers use only 15 to 30% of their quota per month.

Yuri is a straight shooter in public forums, and as intelligent as he is talented. The math makes a lot of sense, and supports the claim that 70 to 85% of the stock photo download quota is lost.

If we assume only 15% of the downloads are used by the subscriber, then the $249 deal is for only 113 images, not 750. The cost per photo rises to $2.21. Now consider a photographer is being paid 33 cents per download. That yields a paltry commission percentage of 15% to the artist, while the agency keeps 85%.

Now that is how you make money! I think we are beginning to understand how Cashier Change stock photostock photo agencies get away with baiting buyers with super low prices.

They place barriers in front of customers, preventing them from downloading enough photos. And they keep the artist in the dark as to how low their commission really is.

Do Buyers Care?

If you are downloading stock images for you blog or your design business, you probably care quite a bit that you aren’t getting your download quota in your stock photo subscription plan.

But what about a person tasked with purchasing photos daily for a large business? The appeal of the subscription plan is strong for the business owner, who can set a budget of $200 to $250 every month for photos and simply forget about it. It wouldn’t be difficult to believe that the owner of a large business would be completely insulated from whether or not the business is getting its money’s worth.

The person further down in the company hierarchy, charged with downloading photos, probably has little to no concern about downloading a full quota. It’s not their money, right? Who gives up their lunch hour to catch up on stock photo downloads?

Stock Photo Subscription Recommendations

When considering if a stock photo subscription plan is right for your business, evaluate if you will be able to download anywhere near the quota given to you. Are there daily limits? If so, can you catch up on Tuesday if you don’t reach your quota on Monday?

Do some realistic math calculations to determine how much you are really paying per stock photo. Are you better off purchasing photos individually? Most people would likely save money by purchasing photos on demand, rather than racing against the subscription clock.

Talk to other stock photo buyers. How many photos did they download last month? How many did they pay to download?

We hope for transparency in the coming years regarding the statistics behind stock photo subscriptions. Buyers and artists each deserve to know what they are signing up for. Until then…

Let the Buyer Beware