MicrostockGroup

Interesting development at DT. Upload limits, based on Approval Rating, have been modified for all contributors but the biggest change has been to those with an AR of 80%+ who who have dropped from 50 per day down to 20.

Read all about it here;

http://www.dreamstime.com/forumm_21188_pg1

This appears to have been designed to curb the activities of the 'photo factories' limiting them to a maximum of 600 new uploads per month and also making it less convenient for them to do so. As so few contributors will be affected by this it does seem targetted against a very small group.

True enough but these 'photo factories' are also the contributors who are investing the most into their shoots, working the hardest, producing the best quality and in the process ... making the most money for DT. The factories are only economically viable because they also produce the sales to justify the investment. It's not much of a 'thank you' to Yuri and the like is it? DT is effectively saying they'd prefer them to scale down their operations.

Surely the members of a photo factory could (with some internal reorganisation and rewriting of contracts, presumably) just join as individual members? It could be argued that this is more honest anyway.

Why is this a new vs. old contributor argument?  Looks like it's simply based on acceptance ratio.  Mine has been around 90% since I started contributing at DT just over a year ago, so it applies to me.  Of course, I only submit 2 or 3 a day, so it won't affect me.  I see this as a good thing.

As a buyer looking for "just the right image" I get discouraged and weary when I find page after page of all the same images at all the agencies. I don't go from place to place because of price, but for image uniqueness. If this is a (small) attempt on DT's part to make their collection "different" by including more small players without tons of similars I applaud it.

However, it will take a looooong time for their huge supply of images to present itself as different. This won't happen until more contributors become exclusive, and more agencies favor and promote their exclusives. Yes, I'm a small player and exclusive but I'm looking at this from a buyer's perspective.

I'd much prefer if DT, and other stock sites, got rid of all the so, so similar images from the big players. They are starting to look very dated. Culling is always controversial because it is subjective but it would be wonderful if one of the agencies took it upon themselves to really get rid of the similars, meaning between different photographers. Too many copiers. I'm not describing similars in terms of a few different angles of the same shoot - I sometimes wish an image was shot just a bit different for my particular need, but I mean all the different, but same, shots (such as business meetings who always seem to only include good-looking young executives on a white background) from the multiple photo factories.

Maybe I missed something, but where do you see that it is an old vs new contributor argument.  Most of the comments were referring to the 'factories' (whether they are old or new).  It applies to them because they are probably the only ones who would really feel the effects of this change.

For reference here is the changes.

I don't know about the others, but it is almost impossible to upload every day for me. I have to travel, to shoot outdoors or I just have day off, so I can use only around 70-80% of my upload limit. It would be better to have weekly limits.

20 a day is plenty, even for a bulk contributor.  At first I said hey, what, don't limit the GOOD photographers - but then I thought that I've never been able to upload 7200 images.  This may truly affect 5-10 people in the world on the high end.

I am not an "image factory", but I find this very confusing. I thought DT's purpose, like any other stock agency's, was to make money selling images. Production companies exist because people who run them know what sells and can shoot it well. They have their expenses, and if a certain subject stops making money, they don't just keep shooting it (not if they have half a brain) but move on to something else that proves to be profitable. How else can you run a successful business? Why would any agency choose to limit contributions from people who produce high quality highly sellable images? If there will be too many of curtain subject, supply-demand law will take care of it automatically. Production companies won't keep shooting the same stuff in a same way and lose money - well, I already said that:) So.... to me it looks like DT is not focusing on making money anymore... I am not sure what they are focusing on though.... Unless the whole thing with limiting uploads is due to the shortage of reviewers (but then why not say that?...)

I think it's a good move. It evens a bit between massive uploaders and the other contributors. Which should only be beneficial to sales and diversity, in my opinion.

we've gone so negative on the image factories now I would think Yuri's 30k images would be a drop in the ocean in a library of 8 or 10 million images.

I think the bigger problem is search engines. why can an image average a couple of sales a day on one site yet go for a few years without a single sale on another, I'm sure the difference in buyers between sites isnt that big. I also have sets where 1 image does well on one site and a different image from the same series does well on another.

I can see why DT do it with their structure, concerns over too many people wanting to save money and buy the similar rather than pay for the higher ranked image, so they make less. Concerning considering how much they dropped commissions. But then someone will just buy someone elses similar image, there is not that many really unique subjects / images

daily rather than weekly amount gets going to the site each day so generates a nice amount of traffic.

Be logical. 20 per day is more than 7,000 per year, that is 70% of your current port over 5 years. Are you really throttled down with "only" 7,000 images per year, especially if you're working alone and not with an editing crew like Arcurs? Are you telling that DT is not commercial with 7,000 per year, and IS is, with 750 or 1,000 per year?
If you produce in bursts, having particular days of 50 images ready for instance, the only thing you will lose is convenience, since you will have to submit them over a period of several days. It's still more convenient than on IS with weekly limits.

Ummm.... never mind:) I wasn't talking about myself, I thought that was pretty clear... But, if there is a need to become personal:)...  why do I have to lose my convenience  of being able to click through my stuff at once? To make the life of Arcurs or Monkey Business or the likes difficult? How does that make sense? And ya, Istock upload limits suck more, but how's that relevant?