News
JupiterImages accused of shaving commissions in Europe
[Excerpted from article by Stefan Hartmann, Visuell] The good old days of being able to charge clients administrative fees for image research and delivery on top of the reproduction charges are a thing of the past within the stock photo industry.But Jupiterimage has recently found a way to re-introduce this fee with all rights managed sales, albeit secretly.With this new variation it is not the clients but the contributing photographers and agencies that pay the fee.
This process takes place after the client has paid the reproduction fee and before the fee is split according to the contract between Jupiter and the contributor. Jupiter simply deducts 20% from the reproduction fee they receive and then splits the remaining 80% with the photographer. The client is unaware of any change in the reproduction fee.But the contributor has just had his share of the reproduction fee secretly reduced. For example, contributing agencies and photographers with a 50/50 split contract with Jupiter have been secretly reduced to a 40% margin without their knowledge.
Conversely Jupiter has increased their margin to 60% of the reproduction fee. This has been done without having to renegotiate the distribution contract with contributors, and without having agreement or even having to notifying them of the change.What is also curious with this “Technical administration fee” is that it is based on percentages. The cost involved in delivering a digital image to a client is always the same, whether the sales price is 500 or 50 Euros. But with a 500 Euro reproduction fee, Jupiter receives ten times the fee for the same effort. Contributing partner agencies and photographer alike feel they have been cheated and are hopping mad about the situation.Jupiter’s management in Germany confirmed that the “Technical administration fee” was installed as a standard element of software that originated from Jupiter’s French office. They also confirmed that the software has been in use in France for several years in Agence Image the agency owned by Laurent DiConstanzo now Jupiter’s “Director of Continental Europe. DiConstanzo decided to install his French software in Germany with the idea of creating a universal European system. This was done in consultation with Jupiter management in the USA.
Update (01/14/09): JupiterImages responds to allegations of shaving commissions in Europe
Posted in: Jupiter Media, News
Comments(9)
post a comment »imagewolf, December 20, 2008 [#]
I read this article in the German language version of Visuall last month and I couldn’t believe it!
If the management at Jupiter Germany (Ifa-Bilderteam) knew about this new fee, why didn’t the contributor’s contact there tell the photographers?
But the main question is when did Laurent DiConstanzo implement this deduction in Germany?
If it has been common practice in France for several years I’m sure that the French contributors will also want to know exactly when it was started.
This could add up to a considerable amount of revenue that photographers and contribution agencies have been cheated out of.
Also were the management in Jupiter’s USA office really notified about the deduction?
Perhaps not!
I heard that Di Constanzo was fired in June with December being his last month as “Director of Continental Europe” maybe as a result of his creative accounting?
If anyone has additional info on this please share it.
John, December 21, 2008 [#]
ALL,
What about the missing revenue that should have went to contributors? Are we going to be reimbursed?
Is anyone seeking legal advice?
Who will pay? Meckler, Di Constanzo? Getty?
This is just another example of how the takeover by a big agency can destroy the good name of a smaller one. Why didn’t our contact at IFA at least tell us about the deduction from our sales? I used to be a regular contributor to the German office, they were one of the most reliable sources of revenue in Europe. But after the takeover by Jupiter and then the change of management to Laurent Di Constanzo things went down hill fast. How could Jupiter make the owner of a small agency in southern France (AgenceImage) to their (Director of Continental Europe)? Obviously Jupiter made a big mistake. That Di Constanzo was fired in June came a bit late, the damage was done!
Signed,
A disgruntled contributor.
imagewolf, December 22, 2008 [#]
Thank you “disgruntled contributor” for answering my mail.
I’m sure there must be more photographers and partner agencies out there that once they read this article will be as angry as we are.
The English language version of Visuell came out last week so now all none German speaking contributors to Jupiter have the chance to read the article.
You mentioned an important point, who will reimburse the contributors?
Before Getty bought Jupiter, did they know about the (Hidden) technical charge that Di Constanzo implemented?
If they did then they are part responsible.
If it’s a surprise to Getty what will they do?
Thomas, December 24, 2008 [#]
Do I understand it correctly that the author is accusing Jupiterimages of betraying its contributors? Just wonder why the author is not willing to give any kind of background. Has he spoken to Jupiter? Has he spoken to organizations like the SAA? Can he offer any evidence?
It might be that Jupiters practices stink but this article stinks too.
imagewolf, December 25, 2008 [#]
Dear Thomas,
if you had carefully read the article above you would have seen that “Jupiter’s management in Germany confirmed that the “Technical administration fee” was installed as a standard element of software that originated from Jupiter’s French office. They also confirmed that the software has been in use in France for several years in Agence Image the agency owned by Laurent DiConstanzo now Jupiter’s “Director of Continental Europe.”
For further confirmation and evidence I suggest you get your hands on a copy of the “Visuell issue 6/2008”.
In the original printed article there is far more background info than you see here.
There is even a screeen shot of an original internal invoice showing the 20% deduction.
Hopefully once you have gathered a bit more information you will be able to define what really stinks!
John Carrey, December 29, 2008 [#]
Just to give a little information about Laurent Di Constanzo.....
He resigned in summer 2008 and was about to leave Jupiter in December 2008 but he changed his mind when knew about Getty buying Jupiter....Can you imagine why??
Yes. it´s not so difficult, just to get his redundancy check…
imagewolf, December 29, 2008 [#]
Thanks John for this added bit of intrigue.
The plot thickens!
Do you think the settlement check that Di Constanzo doesn’t deserve will cover the lost revenue to the cheated contributors?
Should they sue him?
Or is it a better bet to go after No 3 or No 1?
Are there any able lawyers out there willing to take on No 1 and No3 in the stock photo business?
I’m sure there would be a positive response from the contributors if the ball started rolling!
Jupiterimages, January 06, 2009 [#]
The story in Visuell, and its subsequent reprinting here, contains several serious inaccuracies. “About the Image” did not seek comment or clarification from Jupiterimages prior to reprinting the story. The following Q&A;was provided to “About the Image” on Monday, December 22nd, with a request for a clarification to the original article. As no clarification has been forthcoming, we are providing this information here. If you are a contributor to Jupiterimages or an agency distributing content through us and have any questions or concerns related to this issue, please contact Maria Kessler or your editor. Jupiterimages always seeks to operate with the highest level of ethics and professionalism.
1. What is the Jupiterimages service fee and does it pertain to all images?
Various Jupiterimages’ offices around the world charge service fees, but the article questioned our practices in Europe. In Germany and France, Jupiterimages charges a service fee only on rights-managed images because rights-managed image sales are more service-oriented using dedicated personnel. They require added administrative time for customer-requested image searches through analog and digital archives, obtaining model and property releases, confirming editorial uses, researching sensitive subject issues and obtaining clearance in consideration of our growing worldwide distribution.
2. When did the service fee go into effect?
In France, charging a service fee for rights-managed images has been an industry-wide practice for many years. Jupiterimages Germany implemented this particular fee on April 21, 2008 as part of a new finance-based system that shared the rights-managed pricing matrix and mechanisms of our French office.
The IFA Bildagentur division of the Jupiterimages business in Germany has had a long practice of charging service fees. The Jupiterimages.de business had dropped this practice for several months before this new service fee was put back into effect.
3. Do Jupiterimages’ customers know they are being charged a service fee?
Yes, the service fee appears clearly and prominently as a separate line item on both the original sales quote and the final invoice so it is not mistakenly confused with the usage fee. It is also stated in the general sales terms that are binding to the quote. In addition, service fees are explained in the general terms and conditions of any site that charges them.
4. Are Jupiterimages contributors aware that Jupiterimages pays royalties on usage fees only?
Yes, we are clear about contributor payments in our agreements. It is Jupiterimages’ worldwide practice to separate service fees from usage fees. Contributor and supplier royalties are paid on usage fees, not service fees, which is stated explicitly in our agreements.
5. When Jupiterimages Germany implemented service fees in April 2008, were usage fees reduced?
No, for all pre-existing rights-managed contracts in Germany, usage fees (and therefore contributor royalties) remained unchanged. New rights-managed sales after April 21, 2008 were quoted using the new finance system which clearly showed the service fees. Usage fees are routinely reviewed to be competitive in the marketplace. As a result they rise and fall with the market over time.
For more information, please contact:
Maria Kessler
VP, Creative Business Affairs
alan meckler, January 06, 2009 [#]
I am shocked that a blog of this quality would post a story without first checking with our company about the accuracy of the accusations. Essentially the writer of the story, Stefan Hartmann, is a fraud for writing the story to presumably gain exposure for his future endeavors. And the publisher-editor of this blog is just as guilty. Earlier comments posted by our company help explain the background about this claim. In the United States a company and an individual are innocent until proven guilty.. I am even more amazed that the publisher-editor of this blog when confronted with the facts by our company would not consent to publish our truthful side of the story. Another well known online publication in the field, SELLING STOCK, upon hearing our side of the story has chosen to offer a balanced viewpoint showing both sides of the story without taking sides. ABOUT THE IMAGE obviously lacks the class and quality to follow suit.