pancakes

MicrostockGroup Sponsors


Author Topic: Exclusivity, yes or no?  (Read 28283 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

SNP

  • Canadian Photographer
« on: July 07, 2009, 11:23 »
0
is now a good time to be exclusive to iStock? or is now a good time to be independent? or neither?
« Last Edit: July 07, 2009, 11:36 by hawk_eye »


« Reply #1 on: July 07, 2009, 11:35 »
0
A timely appropriate question hawk-eye!
Let's see.
Um, if I had invested my time with IStock and have done well there , and I qualify to contribute to Vetta? It's a wholehearted YES.
If , otoh, I am independent, which I am. I would keep my options open with Veer Marketplace, and see which of the two takes off.
Vetta is obviously more rewarding, so I would wish it succeeds, even though I am not exclusive.
That being said, I keep an eye to see which of the Big 6 will bring out their own version of premium stock to stop the rest of us from joining Getty. Not that I am such a big hurry to join IS. But as Sean pointed out aptly, those who hung around faithfully with IS should by now deserve to reap the rewards of Vetta.

Objective opinion. Hey, and welcome to MSG...  ;)

SNP

  • Canadian Photographer
« Reply #2 on: July 07, 2009, 11:50 »
0
I'm not overly concerned about my own exclusivity, that decision was made and continues to be the best choice for me, but I am curious how some of the recent big site changes have affected contributors still considering it.

« Reply #3 on: July 07, 2009, 12:05 »
0
Vetta, IMO, does make exclusivity more attractive.  I could see how that might sway some people who are on the fence.

OTOH, for me istock is way too volatile.  Too many big changes, and all of them come with major site problems and search issues. 

I would not like to have to rely on such an unstable site for most of my photography income.  Would drive me nuts!

puravida

  • diablo como vd
« Reply #4 on: July 07, 2009, 12:13 »
0
ggggeez PixelBytes, why do you know so much ??? lol.

yes, i have to agree with both of foregoing commentors. I would however wait to see what happens with Vetta. I am not a big fan of Istock either, although their ability to sell is not unknown to all independents.

still, as PixelBytes pointed out, to place so much trust in a volatile company is a bit of a decision risk. not sure if i like that. already i am quite pissed off with what some of the sites are doing, but as an independent i can at least change sides whenever they get anal with me. although being exclusive is convenient, you only have to upload to one site. a tradeoff i suppose.

« Reply #5 on: July 07, 2009, 12:20 »
0
Being non-exclusive, at 13 sites, I have to say I like it better. You have to keep in mind that when you are only on one site, you DON'T get to see the market as a whole very well. You'll never know if your images could do better elsewhere because you do not have a "birds eye" view of the market that non-exclusives do.

Case in point, I uploaded one of my recent shoots to all my sites, I was expecting SS to bring in the majority of its gross sales, as similar shoots had done. I was dead wrong. As I tracked sales, I found it wound up being SX that made the shoot really profitable. Had I only been on SS, I would have a loss on my hands.

Such are the benefits of non-exclusiveness.

« Reply #6 on: July 07, 2009, 12:29 »
0
As I said many times, I like IS and thinking about becoming exclusive a lot. However, being called "Freedom", I highly dislike the IS exclusive term which provides that you cannot give away your photos to family and frieds for free. I am not clear whether or not you can sell rejected photos as RM either. So it's too bad that I still haven't made the switch.

« Reply #7 on: July 07, 2009, 12:44 »
0
... as an independent i can at least change sides whenever they get anal with me.

ROFL!  That paints quite a vivid picture  :o

« Reply #8 on: July 07, 2009, 12:48 »
0
... I highly dislike the IS exclusive term which provides that you cannot give away your photos to family and frieds for free.

I would contact IS support on this one.  My understanding is that you just can't sell or give away images for commercial RF purposes.  Work for hire and giving prints to friends and family for personal use are not prohibited. 

Unless something about the exclusive agreement has changed....?

« Reply #9 on: July 07, 2009, 12:52 »
0
No, I don't think I am aware of any changes. What I meant is what if I give my photos to my family and friends for their e-comm websites? What if I donate some photos to the websites of local community and charities to promote their causes and businesses? All these can be perceived as commercial RF.

I wish someone can tell me if a rejected photo can be sold as RM too.

... I highly dislike the IS exclusive term which provides that you cannot give away your photos to family and frieds for free.

I would contact IS support on this one.  My understanding is that you just can't sell or give away images for commercial RF purposes.  Work for hire and giving prints to friends and family for personal use are not prohibited. 

Unless something about the exclusive agreement has changed....?

« Reply #10 on: July 07, 2009, 12:56 »
0
I also agree that being an independent, it helps me see the "forest" and not just "the tree".

Being non-exclusive, at 13 sites, I have to say I like it better. You have to keep in mind that when you are only on one site, you DON'T get to see the market as a whole very well. You'll never know if your images could do better elsewhere because you do not have a "birds eye" view of the market that non-exclusives do.

Case in point, I uploaded one of my recent shoots to all my sites, I was expecting SS to bring in the majority of its gross sales, as similar shoots had done. I was dead wrong. As I tracked sales, I found it wound up being SX that made the shoot really profitable. Had I only been on SS, I would have a loss on my hands.

Such are the benefits of non-exclusiveness.

« Reply #11 on: July 07, 2009, 12:59 »
0
Being non-exclusive, at 13 sites, I have to say I like it better. You have to keep in mind that when you are only on one site, you DON'T get to see the market as a whole very well. You'll never know if your images could do better elsewhere because you do not have a "birds eye" view of the market that non-exclusives do.

Case in point, I uploaded one of my recent shoots to all my sites, I was expecting SS to bring in the majority of its gross sales, as similar shoots had done. I was dead wrong. As I tracked sales, I found it wound up being SX that made the shoot really profitable. Had I only been on SS, I would have a loss on my hands.

Such are the benefits of non-exclusiveness.

Sorry hawk_eye, a bit of a sidetrack here, but related.
cardmaverick, I think someone has already pointed out yet another good point of exclusiveness. That being , if you have dulpicity over 5, 15 sites, you reach payout a lot later, if not even reaching payout on many ie. Crestock, because they sell little. IS, DT, because of their high payout point.
Being exclusive means a buyer has to come to one place to get your images, which also mean your sales would reach payout sooner, instead of selling 1 at Crestock, 3 at Dt, 5 at StockXpert,etc.. and not seeing a payout cheque too regularly.
This alone makes exclusiveness attractive to me. However I don't see it happening that soon as there isn't one site I am crazy over. Maybe that will change with Veer Marketplace.

« Reply #12 on: July 07, 2009, 13:06 »
0
No, I don't think I am aware of any changes. What I meant is what if I give my photos to my family and friends for their e-comm websites? What if I donate some photos to the websites of local community and charities to promote their causes and businesses? All these can be perceived as commercial RF.

I wish someone can tell me if a rejected photo can be sold as RM too.


I see what you mean.  I would contact IS Support if you decide you really want to be exclusive.  There may be workarounds for some of the issues you are concerned about.

bittersweet

« Reply #13 on: July 07, 2009, 13:24 »
0
No, I don't think I am aware of any changes. What I meant is what if I give my photos to my family and friends for their e-comm websites? What if I donate some photos to the websites of local community and charities to promote their causes and businesses? All these can be perceived as commercial RF.

I wish someone can tell me if a rejected photo can be sold as RM too.


I see what you mean.  I would contact IS Support if you decide you really want to be exclusive.  There may be workarounds for some of the issues you are concerned about.

You can't license your images with a royalty-free license. Period. You can sell your images as work for hire. You can donate your images under a rights managed agreement. The exclusivity agreement is very specific about what you cannot do. You cannot sell royalty-free anywhere else, and you cannot license images elsewhere that are rejected by istock. Rights managed and work for hire scenarios are completely allowed.

« Reply #14 on: July 07, 2009, 13:54 »
0

You can't license your images with a royalty-free license. Period. You can sell your images as work for hire. You can donate your images under a rights managed agreement.

Sounds like this would be the appropriate work around if she decides to go exclusive. Thanks for the detailed info :)

« Reply #15 on: July 07, 2009, 14:31 »
0
Vetta doesn't change anything for me because there are lots of other sites that I can sell RF at higher prices.  I am still happy to be non-exclusive and I have no regrets.  It would take too long to delete all my images from all the other RF sites now, so I don't really need to think about it any more.

I can understand why some people go exclusive, if istock consistently made more than 50% of my earnings it would be an option but that has never come close to happening for me.

« Reply #16 on: July 07, 2009, 15:04 »
0
Like Sharpshot says, there are too many photos to delete from various sites now. So I probably can't go that direction unless there is some dramatic reason to trigger it.

I think IS will be a huge winner and threaten its competitions like it never has been if it allows for exclusive contents. Many contributors will certainly allow IS to have the first pick. At that time, IS can truly boost that it has the best exclusive contents in its inventory.


« Reply #17 on: July 07, 2009, 17:17 »
0
Being non-exclusive, at 13 sites, I have to say I like it better. You have to keep in mind that when you are only on one site, you DON'T get to see the market as a whole very well. You'll never know if your images could do better elsewhere because you do not have a "birds eye" view of the market that non-exclusives do.

Case in point, I uploaded one of my recent shoots to all my sites, I was expecting SS to bring in the majority of its gross sales, as similar shoots had done. I was dead wrong. As I tracked sales, I found it wound up being SX that made the shoot really profitable. Had I only been on SS, I would have a loss on my hands.

Such are the benefits of non-exclusiveness.

Sorry hawk_eye, a bit of a sidetrack here, but related.
cardmaverick, I think someone has already pointed out yet another good point of exclusiveness. That being , if you have dulpicity over 5, 15 sites, you reach payout a lot later, if not even reaching payout on many ie. Crestock, because they sell little. IS, DT, because of their high payout point.
Being exclusive means a buyer has to come to one place to get your images, which also mean your sales would reach payout sooner, instead of selling 1 at Crestock, 3 at Dt, 5 at StockXpert,etc.. and not seeing a payout cheque too regularly.
This alone makes exclusiveness attractive to me. However I don't see it happening that soon as there isn't one site I am crazy over. Maybe that will change with Veer Marketplace.

I would disagree about reaching payout faster. Rate of payout is determined by a few factors like portfolio size, quality of the work, agency customer base, ect. I see regular payout each month at many of my big sites, and the little ones are getting very close to monthly payout as well, so its really a non issue for serious non-exclusive submitters. As for having your stuff at only one place, well, like I said in my other post, I have data suggesting you won't always win at the same agencies every time.

« Reply #18 on: July 07, 2009, 18:20 »
0
Personally I love exclusivity, its great for me, and it was a good decision on my part, but it doesn't work for some

« Reply #19 on: July 07, 2009, 18:22 »
0
I would disagree about reaching payout faster. Rate of payout is determined by a few factors like portfolio size, quality of the work, agency customer base, ect. I see regular payout each month at many of my big sites, and the little ones are getting very close to monthly payout as well, so its really a non issue for serious non-exclusive submitters. As for having your stuff at only one place, well, like I said in my other post, I have data suggesting you won't always win at the same agencies every time.

Interesting. CHeers cardmaverick. I wonder if anyone has a different opinion. It's good to know, tho!

« Reply #20 on: July 07, 2009, 18:32 »
0
I would disagree about reaching payout faster. Rate of payout is determined by a few factors like portfolio size, quality of the work, agency customer base, ect. I see regular payout each month at many of my big sites, and the little ones are getting very close to monthly payout as well, so its really a non issue for serious non-exclusive submitters. As for having your stuff at only one place, well, like I said in my other post, I have data suggesting you won't always win at the same agencies every time.

Interesting. CHeers cardmaverick. I wonder if anyone has a different opinion. It's good to know, tho!
I think the argument that images not accepted at one agency can be accepted at another is a bit misleading. It's a bit like hedging bets - you win more often but smaller amounts. Only those who have been on both sides of the fence can really speak about this, and even for them there are other changes that make comparisons not really fair. I think it's important not to get too attached to any one image and it's fate, but the success of your work as a whole.

« Reply #21 on: July 07, 2009, 18:36 »
0
I think IS will be a huge winner and threaten its competitions like it never has been if it allows for exclusive contents. Many contributors will certainly allow IS to have the first pick.

I always wondered why they don't do that. Rejected images are not always that bad but as an exclusive, you have let them rot on your disk, despite all the effort you put into them.

puravida

  • diablo como vd
« Reply #22 on: July 07, 2009, 18:46 »
0
averil, you are so right. unless someone who has been exclusive and now independent can be the only ones to tell.

going exclusive or not, i feel in my own case would all depend largely on which site likes my work. i remember reading from the MSG archives someone (geopappas??)
said something like, "don't listen to what your neighbour is saying. SS is best, IS is best or whatever. find the site that approves most of your work and sell most of your work. that is the one that is the best.,, for you ! " 
that more or less sums it up for me. if ever i decide to go exclusive it won't be because my friends in this network tell me how well they sell, it will be based solely on which site takes my images and sell them. which site has my images on the first few pages vs getting my images buried on pg 100. which site gets me a view and a dl. not 1000 views and 0 dl, or worse 0 views for months. (you all know which sites i mean , so i won't get into that.).

it's all personal . for example, lately  ichiro17 has gone exclusive, and he likes it.
i think he is professional enough to know what he is doing. and if he says it works for him, that's it.  same for anyone else. pixelbytes does not go for it. and i believe that too is a valid decision.

« Reply #23 on: July 07, 2009, 18:47 »
0
As I said many times, I like IS and thinking about becoming exclusive a lot. However, being called "Freedom", I highly dislike the IS exclusive term which provides that you cannot give away your photos to family and frieds for free. I am not clear whether or not you can sell rejected photos as RM either. So it's too bad that I still haven't made the switch.

That is not true. You can give the pics to your family and friends for personal use. What you can't is to give away them for public licensed use. It's very different,

ShadySue

  • There is a crack in everything
« Reply #24 on: July 07, 2009, 18:57 »
0

You can't license your images with a royalty-free license. Period. You can sell your images as work for hire. You can donate your images under a rights managed agreement.


Sounds like this would be the appropriate work around if she decides to go exclusive. Thanks for the detailed info :)

It's not a workaround. Have you read the exclusive agreement http://www.istockphoto.com/asa_exclusive.php? (Though for sure it has not been written in clear English, and some clauses may or may not be understandable in US/Canadian courts of law, but make little sense to me - some of it seems to be ambiguous and some seems internally contradictory.)
The only thing you're not allowed to do is license your images RF anywhere else or give your images away free from a website, with no license. Other than that you can do whatever you like with your images, except for a bizarre and ambiguous clause which seems to say that if you want to license your rejected files RM, you have to get the explicit permission from support.

ShadySue

  • There is a crack in everything
« Reply #25 on: July 07, 2009, 18:59 »
0
As I said many times, I like IS and thinking about becoming exclusive a lot. However, being called "Freedom", I highly dislike the IS exclusive term which provides that you cannot give away your photos to family and frieds for free. I am not clear whether or not you can sell rejected photos as RM either. So it's too bad that I still haven't made the switch.

That is not true. You can give the pics to your family and friends for personal use. What you can't is to give away them for public licensed use. It's very different,
I'm not sure what you mean by 'public licensed use'. You can certainly give your images away for public use (e.g. to a charity) so long as it isn't for RF distribution.

puravida

  • diablo como vd
« Reply #26 on: July 07, 2009, 19:04 »
0
EDITED
...except for a bizarre and ambiguous clause which seems to say that if you want to license your rejected files RM, you have to get the explicit permission from support.


this is what i still cannot fathom the sensibility. if you rejected those images why is it so forbidden to allow them to be sold RM ?  this sounds too much like work for hire where every single images really belong to the company that pays you. can anyone justify this for me? other than just being quote: ANAL unquote...?


bittersweet

« Reply #27 on: July 07, 2009, 19:06 »
0

I'm not sure what you mean by 'public licensed use'. You can certainly give your images away for public use (e.g. to a charity) so long as it isn't for RF distribution.

That's why I suggested a RM agreement. Even if the term is listed as 100 years, it is the only real way to ensure that your donated image is not used in a way other than originally agreed to, for instance being given away as a free download, or even uploaded under another name and sold as RF.

« Reply #28 on: July 07, 2009, 19:12 »
0
Loop, if you had read my follow-up message, you'd see I was considering helping friends and relatives for their e-commerce websites, not just for personal use.

Another consideration is whether or not I can sell my rejected images as RM.

As I said many times, I like IS and thinking about becoming exclusive a lot. However, being called "Freedom", I highly dislike the IS exclusive term which provides that you cannot give away your photos to family and frieds for free. I am not clear whether or not you can sell rejected photos as RM either. So it's too bad that I still haven't made the switch.

That is not true. You can give the pics to your family and friends for personal use. What you can't is to give away them for public licensed use. It's very different,

bittersweet

« Reply #29 on: July 07, 2009, 19:29 »
0
Another consideration is whether or not I can sell my rejected images as RM.

This is the clause in question:
Quote
You further agree that any Exclusive Content that is not accepted by iStockphoto and does not form Accepted Exclusive Content cannot be sold, licensed or otherwise made available to purchasers, licensees or other potential users without the prior written consent of iStockphoto. iStockphoto reserves the right to sell non-accepted Exclusive Content through another site or distribution venue determined by it, the compensation for which will be subject to a new rate schedule agreed between the parties.

The other ambiguous clause in the exclusive agreement is this one:

Quote
12. Effect of Termination
b. Upon the termination of this Agreement with respect to Still and Flash Content or Motion Content, or both, the grant of authority given to iStockphoto shall cease with respect to the relevant category of Content subject to the following conditions: (i) iStockphoto shall remove the applicable Accepted Exclusive Content from the Site and distribution partners within thirty (30) days of the termination of this Agreement; (ii) notwithstanding termination, iStockphoto and its distribution partners shall have the right to continue licensing Accepted Exclusive Content until it is removed from the Site or other sites where Accepted Exclusive Content is distributed and for up to (1) year following termination where such Accepted Content has previously appeared in iStockphoto's promotional materials, CD programs or distribution partner marketing programs; and (iii) regardless of the expiration or termination of this Agreement, iStockphoto will continue, in accordance with this Agreement, to pay compensation due to the Supplier at the non-exclusive royalty rate of 20% in respect of licenses granted to members during any transitional period, subject to any rights of set-off under this Agreement or at law.

It has been repeatedly brought up in discussion by people who understandably interpret this to mean that if you quit being exclusive, they will delete everything you uploaded as an exclusive. Admins have repeatedly countered by stating that is not the meaning of the clause, and that nobody's portfolio has ever been deleted against their will simply because they quit being exclusive. It is simply removing the "Accepted Exclusive Content" designation from the work, not removing the actual work.

I'm sure if it has happened, we would have heard about it. I haven't. Has anyone else?

« Reply #30 on: July 07, 2009, 19:55 »
0
Correct me if I am wrong, but I read somewhere IS doesn't care what you do if the image is RM. Does anyone know for sure?

Another consideration is whether or not I can sell my rejected images as RM.

This is the clause in question:
Quote
You further agree that any Exclusive Content that is not accepted by iStockphoto and does not form Accepted Exclusive Content cannot be sold, licensed or otherwise made available to purchasers, licensees or other potential users without the prior written consent of iStockphoto. iStockphoto reserves the right to sell non-accepted Exclusive Content through another site or distribution venue determined by it, the compensation for which will be subject to a new rate schedule agreed between the parties.


« Reply #31 on: July 07, 2009, 20:09 »
0
Yes, you can sell RM wherever you want. Or donate as RM. But not the same image you are selling as RF at istock; that would cheat istock and the customer who bought this image as RM as well. Once one image is sold as RF it can't never be RM.

« Reply #32 on: July 07, 2009, 20:32 »
0
Another consideration is whether or not I can sell my rejected images as RM.

This is the clause in question:
Quote
You further agree that any Exclusive Content that is not accepted by iStockphoto and does not form Accepted Exclusive Content cannot be sold, licensed or otherwise made available to purchasers, licensees or other potential users without the prior written consent of iStockphoto. iStockphoto reserves the right to sell non-accepted Exclusive Content through another site or distribution venue determined by it, the compensation for which will be subject to a new rate schedule agreed between the parties.

The other ambiguous clause in the exclusive agreement is this one:

Quote
12. Effect of Termination
b. Upon the termination of this Agreement with respect to Still and Flash Content or Motion Content, or both, the grant of authority given to iStockphoto shall cease with respect to the relevant category of Content subject to the following conditions: (i) iStockphoto shall remove the applicable Accepted Exclusive Content from the Site and distribution partners within thirty (30) days of the termination of this Agreement; (ii) notwithstanding termination, iStockphoto and its distribution partners shall have the right to continue licensing Accepted Exclusive Content until it is removed from the Site or other sites where Accepted Exclusive Content is distributed and for up to (1) year following termination where such Accepted Content has previously appeared in iStockphoto's promotional materials, CD programs or distribution partner marketing programs; and (iii) regardless of the expiration or termination of this Agreement, iStockphoto will continue, in accordance with this Agreement, to pay compensation due to the Supplier at the non-exclusive royalty rate of 20% in respect of licenses granted to members during any transitional period, subject to any rights of set-off under this Agreement or at law.

It has been repeatedly brought up in discussion by people who understandably interpret this to mean that if you quit being exclusive, they will delete everything you uploaded as an exclusive. Admins have repeatedly countered by stating that is not the meaning of the clause, and that nobody's portfolio has ever been deleted against their will simply because they quit being exclusive. It is simply removing the "Accepted Exclusive Content" designation from the work, not removing the actual work.

I'm sure if it has happened, we would have heard about it. I haven't. Has anyone else?
I was exclusive videographer at IS. After canceled my exclusivity NO one file was removed.

« Reply #33 on: July 07, 2009, 20:48 »
0
I would disagree about reaching payout faster. Rate of payout is determined by a few factors like portfolio size, quality of the work, agency customer base, ect. I see regular payout each month at many of my big sites, and the little ones are getting very close to monthly payout as well, so its really a non issue for serious non-exclusive submitters. As for having your stuff at only one place, well, like I said in my other post, I have data suggesting you won't always win at the same agencies every time.

Interesting. CHeers cardmaverick. I wonder if anyone has a different opinion. It's good to know, tho!
I think the argument that images not accepted at one agency can be accepted at another is a bit misleading. It's a bit like hedging bets - you win more often but smaller amounts. Only those who have been on both sides of the fence can really speak about this, and even for them there are other changes that make comparisons not really fair. I think it's important not to get too attached to any one image and it's fate, but the success of your work as a whole.

I think you are misunderstanding me. My images from an entire shoot were accepted at all of my agencies. What I'm saying is the performance varied sales wise at each, and it was different from what was "usual" for me. SS was not the top grosser, which is typically the case. Anyhow, just clearing that up.

bittersweet

« Reply #34 on: July 07, 2009, 21:17 »
0
Yes, you can sell RM wherever you want. Or donate as RM. But not the same image you are selling as RF at istock; that would cheat istock and the customer who bought this image as RM as well. Once one image is sold as RF it can't never be RM.

From the clause quoted, it would appear that that is not necessarily the case for rejected content.

« Reply #35 on: July 07, 2009, 21:49 »
0
Yes, you can sell RM wherever you want. Or donate as RM. But not the same image you are selling as RF at istock; that would cheat istock and the customer who bought this image as RM as well. Once one image is sold as RF it can't never be RM.

Yes it can.  As mentioned before, you would just not be able to offer history or exclusivity as additional options.

« Reply #36 on: July 07, 2009, 22:14 »
0
Seems like there is a lot of conflicting info in this thread and conflicting interpretations of the exclusive contract - even from istock exclusives.

I stick by my original suggestion that if and when Freedom decides to be exclusive she(or he?) should call Support, explain the specific issues, and get the official word. 



bittersweet

« Reply #37 on: July 07, 2009, 23:50 »
0
Seems like there is a lot of conflicting info in this thread and conflicting interpretations of the exclusive contract - even from istock exclusives.

The only conflicting interpretation that I've seen seems to stem from a misunderstanding of the term rights managed, which does not inherently mean "exclusive use".

But you are right that the best way to reassure yourself that you have a complete understanding is to contact support. I would recommend via the support ticket system rather than a call, so that you have a record of your conversation for future reference, should you need to refresh your memory.

ShadySue

  • There is a crack in everything
« Reply #38 on: July 08, 2009, 07:35 »
0
Seems like there is a lot of conflicting info in this thread and conflicting interpretations of the exclusive contract - even from istock exclusives.

But you are right that the best way to reassure yourself that you have a complete understanding is to contact support. I would recommend via the support ticket system rather than a call, so that you have a record of your conversation for future reference, should you need to refresh your memory.
Yes, I had two very specific (to me) queries, both of which were apparently OK uses according to Support.

However, although they have rewritten the exclusivity Agreement since I became exclusive, it's actually become longer and more convoluted. I really wish they'd set it out in plain, unambiguous English. Just like I wish they'd sort out the beginners manual to explain that nowadays just about any photo of a person or part of a person needs an MR.

The exclusive/reject thing is apparently so that they can, if they choose, distribute the rejected images elsewhere at some time in the future. I thought they might do this with the derisory-seeming photos.com and JIU deal, but they are not going to do so, apparently. I thought at least some images rejected for 'poor light' (which in my case means the real, 'flat' light which we get 90% of the time) could go there.

puravida

  • diablo como vd
« Reply #39 on: July 08, 2009, 08:54 »
0
going off slightly, i hope hawkeye  will allow me to ask this question-
 those of you who are not for exclusive, would you still go for exclusive image with a specific site? if so, which site, and were they beneficial?

« Reply #40 on: July 08, 2009, 10:42 »
0
going off slightly, i hope hawkeye  will allow me to ask this question-
 those of you who are not for exclusive, would you still go for exclusive image with a specific site? if so, which site, and were they beneficial?


Bit OT, but I would be happy to submit exclusive images to istock if they allowed it.  Particularly to Vetta.  But I don't think they are ever gonna allow it...

« Reply #41 on: July 08, 2009, 10:47 »
0
going off slightly, i hope hawkeye  will allow me to ask this question-
 those of you who are not for exclusive, would you still go for exclusive image with a specific site? if so, which site, and were they beneficial?


Bit OT, but I would be happy to submit exclusive images to istock if they allowed it.  Particularly to Vetta.  But I don't think they are ever gonna allow it...

I doubt it.  I believe the reason they don't allow for exclusive images is because its easy to post a similar image on another site, which would really defeat the purpose.  And yes, its not allowed, but if you are a non-exclusive posting to every site, the resources are just not there to monitor that type of stuff. 

I would love to see them build a much more exclusive gallery and weed out non-exclusives from my point of view as an exclusive artist, but that won't happen either and it doesn't enhance the value of their collection.  All-in-all, I do believe they are doing well at managing what they do have though, I have always thought this, and I'm not saying this just because I'm exclusive.  Sorry if its off-topic

« Reply #42 on: July 08, 2009, 11:30 »
0
I would love to see them build a much more exclusive gallery and weed out non-exclusives from my point of view as an exclusive artist

That's already there. A buyer can check the "exclusives artists" only checkbox.

« Reply #43 on: July 08, 2009, 11:48 »
0
Oh yes, I hadn't noticed that.  What I meant was no non-exclusives at all.  However, I realize thats unrealistic and possibly a very bad business model.  But that checkbox works for me.


« Reply #44 on: July 08, 2009, 12:11 »
0
Oh yes, I hadn't noticed that.  What I meant was no non-exclusives at all.

Ah, ok. Well that would be a great idea. Go for it!
The problem for the exclusives would then be that commissions would have to be lowered, since their higher commissions are partly subsidized by the lower commissions of free contributors.

« Reply #45 on: July 08, 2009, 12:30 »
0

Ah, ok. Well that would be a great idea. Go for it!
The problem for the exclusives would then be that commissions would have to be lowered, since their higher commissions are partly subsidized by the lower commissions of free contributors.


True that^^.  

Plus of course, the exclusives get many other advantages over non-exclusives, such as search engine placement, private forums, etc. and those perks would become irrelevant if everybody was exclusive.

But the number one reason not to get rid of independents is (drumroll please....)

Because istock would lose roughly half its content.  They could no longer claim to have what the others have PLUS exclusive content.  Other sites would then have much larger collections and a big competitive advantage.

But hey, if you want them to go that way, cool by me.  I have already run the numbers and I would get by just fine without the income istock generates.  Even more so when their buyers realize the collection has been halved and go joining other sites en masse ;D


puravida

  • diablo como vd
« Reply #46 on: July 08, 2009, 12:46 »
0

Ah, ok. Well that would be a great idea. Go for it!
The problem for the exclusives would then be that commissions would have to be lowered, since their higher commissions are partly subsidized by the lower commissions of free contributors.


True that^^. 

Plus of course, the exclusives get many other advantages over non-exclusives, such as search engine placement, private forums, etc. and those perks would become irrelevant if everybody was exclusive.

But the number one reason not to get rid of independents is (drumroll please....)

Because istock would lose roughly half its content.  They could no longer claim to have what the others have PLUS exclusive content.  Other sites would then have much larger collections and a big competitive advantage.

But hey, if you want them to go that way, cool by me.  I have already run the numbers and I would get by just fine without the income istock generates.  Even more so when their buyers realize the collection has been halved and go joining other sites en masse ;D



interesting response from both sides (cevapcici, PixelBytes)  (ichiro17) .
 i was actually hoping to touch on exclusive images other than IS, but you (cevapcici, PixelBytes) brought up another pointer i never thought of, viz the importance independents figure in the whole IS equation. although i am sure exclusives will no doubt beg to differ.

 thx you 3, and thx too to hawk_eye for letting me go OT (silence mean consent ).



« Reply #47 on: July 08, 2009, 14:23 »
0

Ah, ok. Well that would be a great idea. Go for it!
The problem for the exclusives would then be that commissions would have to be lowered, since their higher commissions are partly subsidized by the lower commissions of free contributors.


True that^^.  

Plus of course, the exclusives get many other advantages over non-exclusives, such as search engine placement, private forums, etc. and those perks would become irrelevant if everybody was exclusive.

But the number one reason not to get rid of independents is (drumroll please....)

Because istock would lose roughly half its content.  They could no longer claim to have what the others have PLUS exclusive content.  Other sites would then have much larger collections and a big competitive advantage.

But hey, if you want them to go that way, cool by me.  I have already run the numbers and I would get by just fine without the income istock generates.  Even more so when their buyers realize the collection has been halved and go joining other sites en masse ;D



This is exactly why I said it would be a horrible business decision.  Thats why they manage the collection, and I submit to it :)
« Last Edit: July 08, 2009, 14:25 by ichiro17 »

« Reply #48 on: July 08, 2009, 14:50 »
0
Has anyone ever tried to find an image at another microstock site that is similar enough to an exclusive image at IS? Is having exclusive images within a microstock collection that valueable considering the microstock model? How exclusive is an image if it has sold 10,000 times?

I think exclusive images via Vetta makes great sense.

I am sure there is going to be a great deal of change within the industry over the next few years, what if one of those changes was that every microstock agency insisted on contributor exclusivity, who would you partner with as they stand now? and what other changes would the agencies have to make to attract the talent? Would the race to the bottom be over?

« Reply #49 on: July 08, 2009, 14:58 »
0

..., if you have dulpicity over 5, 15 sites, you reach payout a lot later, if not even reaching payout on many ie. Crestock, because they sell little. IS, DT, because of their high payout point.
Being exclusive means a buyer has to come to one place to get your images, which also mean your sales would reach payout sooner, instead of selling 1 at Crestock, 3 at Dt, 5 at StockXpert,etc.. and not seeing a payout cheque too regularly.
This alone makes exclusiveness attractive to me.

 of course you're assuming that all the people who visit those other sites will come to IS to buy your images instead -- not very likely;  your exposure on IS will be increased, but you're getting ZERO exposure elsewhere;

re payouts, it doesnt make that big a difference - maybe get a payout every other month rather than every month.  in software, royalties are usually only pad quarterly

steve

graficallyminded

« Reply #50 on: July 08, 2009, 15:41 »
0
I'm exclusive only to my wife.  ;D

« Reply #51 on: July 08, 2009, 17:29 »
0
ooohhh you've left yourself so open with that one, especially with the pickle. But its a public forum and I wont go there :)

puravida

  • diablo como vd
« Reply #52 on: July 08, 2009, 18:33 »
0
ooohhh you've left yourself so open with that one, especially with the pickle. But its a public forum and I wont go there :)

 ;D yes, we need to practise a bit of discretion here. we won't want Tyler to start rating comments (R- G - X - PG) . let's keep this PG at worst  ;D

grp_photo

« Reply #53 on: July 09, 2009, 04:05 »
0
YEEEEEESSSSSSSSSSSS!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! (but not for me  ;D)

« Reply #54 on: July 09, 2009, 04:12 »
0
That's my favourite answer.  :)
YEEEEEESSSSSSSSSSSS!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! (but not for me  ;D)

« Reply #55 on: July 09, 2009, 05:14 »
0
Personal choice question with plus and minus points for both exclusive and non-exclusive.

If the revenue and effort contributing to other websites outweighs the extra benefit of going exclusive then it is likely not a sound move.

If the benefit of going exclusive outweighs the revenue and effort uploading to other websites then it could be a sound move.

Other considerations are Istocks RF trading restrictions and changes in the industry, some other websites will quickly follow Istock and Veer and have a premium collection within a library and this will becomes accepted practice, so there is a possibility that on the now slower sites that do follow Istocks move, you may in the future be reaching a payout point far quicker.

As much as content providers can be exclusive to one website, many customers will find an asset website and open an account, and will just stick with that website, banks offer nice incentive to high risk customers in school children and students, because the banks know that often your first bank is the only one you will use, if they provide a good service why move to save a few cents or pennies.
 
Exclusives can say the buyers can only find their assets on Istock, the same argument can be said that the other agencies will have some exclusive customer who will never see the exclusive artists assets, and as an exclusive you are affected more by policy changes if 100% of your stock income comes from just the one website.

David

« Reply #56 on: July 09, 2009, 06:14 »
0
I would never be exclusive. Years ago I was exclusive with IS, but then I thought that I could make more by submitting also to other sites, and I was right. I believe that it's not a good thing to have "all eggs in one basket". Businesses grow and businesses die, and it may happen quite fast. What would IS exclusives think if IS sales dropped by 50% (that is a very possible scenario).

Submitting to many sites makes my monthly earnings much more stable.


« Reply #57 on: July 09, 2009, 07:35 »
0
I would never be exclusive. Years ago I was exclusive with IS, but then I thought that I could make more by submitting also to other sites, and I was right. I believe that it's not a good thing to have "all eggs in one basket". Businesses grow and businesses die, and it may happen quite fast. What would IS exclusives think if IS sales dropped by 50% (that is a very possible scenario).

Submitting to many sites makes my monthly earnings much more stable.

Not necessarily more stable, but it spreads the risk.  With that I agree.  I have had no issues with stability with my iStock portfolio, but maybe thats just my portfolio and it doesn't apply to others.  The biggest logical hole I can poke into your argument is that if iStock dies, your exclusivity agreement is useless and you can run away if you want.  You can then submit to all the sites (not that I would want to submit to more than 5 or 6 because its a gigantic waste in my opinion) and you may or may not be any further behind, depending on the situation. 

The all the eggs in one basket cliche is becoming the most annoying phrase in this business.  There are many people with these proverbial eggs in iStock's basket and many of them are doing great.  You have the few disgruntled exclusive submitters who just comlpain the majority of the time, but they are going to be everywhere.

My advice is:  Do your research, educate yourselves and then make a well-informed decision on estimates you can derive from first- and secondhand- opinions.  There is no other way to do it.  If you listen to everyone else, you will just get more confused.

« Reply #58 on: July 09, 2009, 07:51 »
0
Not necessarily more stable, but it spreads the risk.  With that I agree.  I have had no issues with stability with my iStock portfolio, but maybe thats just my portfolio and it doesn't apply to others.  The biggest logical hole I can poke into your argument is that if iStock dies, your exclusivity agreement is useless and you can run away if you want.  You can then submit to all the sites (not that I would want to submit to more than 5 or 6 because its a gigantic waste in my opinion) and you may or may not be any further behind, depending on the situation. 

But what if Istock doesn't die but just slowly looses business? Then you'll have to make a decision (without first hand knowledge about download trends in other agencies) if and when to pull the plug.

As others have said before, I think becoming exklusive is an easier decision than going back to independant.

The all the eggs in one basket cliche is becoming the most annoying phrase in this business.  There are many people with these proverbial eggs in iStock's basket and many of them are doing great.  You have the few disgruntled exclusive submitters who just comlpain the majority of the time, but they are going to be everywhere.

It may be only a boring cliche as long as the basket is sitting firmly on the table (and that seems to be the situation right now).
But once it starts slipping down, you want to get the eggs out as fast as you can.

(Paying for health insurance is just a waste of money - as long as you are not sick...)

My advice is:  Do your research, educate yourselves and then make a well-informed decision on estimates you can derive from first- and secondhand- opinions.  There is no other way to do it.  If you listen to everyone else, you will just get more confused.

That is absolutely true, everyone as he/she wishes.
But listening to other people might give you some hints what variables in the equation to consider.

« Reply #59 on: July 09, 2009, 08:20 »
0
To counter your points: 
If the situation is that bad or getting bad, going back to independent won't be so difficult.  You will be able to see it coming, and if you are that unhappy with the situation, then you have a decision to make.  No one said it was ever going to be an easy one.

Insurance is a zero-sum game.  I'm not sure how to apply the insurance game to many sites, so I'm not going to try.  Just remember that tables don't fall over if they are built properly.  You wouldn't go exclusive with crestock or bigstock because those tables are not being run as effectively as iStock.  Im not saying they are bad sites (well maybe Crestock) but iStock has a lot of money and a lot of industry knowledge behind it.  Makes the table much more stable.  If you want to spread your risk, going outside the microstock industry adn finding contract work is a better way to spread that risk.  When you pull an elastic to wrap it around as much as possible, sometimes it doesn't work the way you think it would.

All I know is that its getting very difficult for new entrants to come into this industry and make an impact (bye LO).  Takeovers are starting, and the consolidation part of the industry is starting, which means the big boys come out to play and the little boys get trampled.  Will this be how it works? Not sure.  But with Getty buying Jupiter, the writing is on the wall...


« Reply #60 on: July 09, 2009, 08:26 »
0
To counter your points: 
If the situation is that bad or getting bad, going back to independent won't be so difficult. 

Uploading files to all the other sites could be considered a big task.

« Reply #61 on: July 09, 2009, 09:04 »
0
To counter your points: 
If the situation is that bad or getting bad, going back to independent won't be so difficult. 

Uploading files to all the other sites could be considered a big task.

You guys are all over the board in terms of opinions :)

From some not caring about uploading everywhere (I've done it, and I love not having to do it) to guys who hate iStock's upload process so much that they'd rather upload everywhere instead.

« Reply #62 on: July 09, 2009, 09:48 »
0

You guys are all over the board in terms of opinions :)

From some not caring about uploading everywhere (I've done it, and I love not having to do it) to guys who hate iStock's upload process so much that they'd rather upload everywhere instead.

Which isn't a bad thing , ichiro17, we can't all think alike. That's the beauty of the forum, to evoke opinions and move mountains (hopefully).

Back to you, what 's your take after going exclusive. Are you earning more, less, same, ??? as before being independent all over the board?
Care to share your actual data?   Wish you well as usual , as I am one of those who is sitting on the fence, for now !

« Reply #63 on: July 09, 2009, 10:32 »
0
No numbers to give, but I will say that right now the growth has been wonderful from IS and I had my 2nd best month of the year as an exclusive in June vs. Jan to May being non-exclusive.

Upload limits help.

« Reply #64 on: July 09, 2009, 12:07 »
0
To counter your points: 
If the situation is that bad or getting bad, going back to independent won't be so difficult. 

Uploading files to all the other sites could be considered a big task.

You guys are all over the board in terms of opinions :)

From some not caring about uploading everywhere (I've done it, and I love not having to do it) to guys who hate iStock's upload process so much that they'd rather upload everywhere instead.

Well, I can't speak for anyone else, but to me, there is a vast difference between spending the last couple years uploading to 6 - 8 sites in small batches at the same time and slowly building a portfolio of several thousand images, VS having to reupload those thousands of images all together to 6 or more sites if I decided to drop istock exclusivity. 

So yeah, it is not a lot of trouble to upload to istock plus a number of others at the same time.  OTOH if I had to spend the 6 months waiting time and countless hours deleting my portfolios across the micros, and then changed my mind about exclusivity it would be a massive PITA to have to reupload to all those sites again.

Same for istock exclusives who decide to drop exclusivity.  Their earnings would be instantly cut in half (if they are diamond) and, assuming a decent sized portfolio, it would take months of hard work to get their ports on the other major sites.  Not to mention the time it would take to build up a reputation with their buyers, get favorable search positions, etc.  Probably a year or two just to get back to what they were making on istock.

Seems to me that after a certain portfolio size and ranking you risk a lot by changing course either way.

« Reply #65 on: July 09, 2009, 12:32 »
0
Definitely a big risk.  Is it worth it? Not for me to decide that for you :)

Just a quick math problem for you guys

If I was to drop exclusivity, I would only upload to: 

Bigstock because I like the mgmt and they were regular in sales (not sure about upload limits)
FT because they are of the big 4 and you can't not, even though they will reject everything because they feel like it (no limits, just reject everything quickly)
DT (has a limit, but say 1000 photos at 50 pics per day, 20 days of uploading)
SS (Can be beneficial to do it slowly)

Here's the big question - is the time you save with iStock over time as an exclusive equal to the time you will spend in the future uploading to these sites?  All hypothetical though :)

« Reply #66 on: July 09, 2009, 13:18 »
0

Here's the big question - is the time you save with iStock over time as an exclusive equal to the time you will spend in the future uploading to these sites?  All hypothetical though :)

that's easy -- here IS exclusivity wins - but that's not the real comparison -- you need to factor in the lost sales at those other sites.  2 yrs ago dt & is were my best performers. now is barely registers, and ss and dt trade off 1st place each month - if i had gone exclusive with any of them, i'd have missed out on 60-70% of income over the last year or so.  the new exclusive site would have to have DOUBLED income immediately just to break even

for me, i've stopped upl to FT - it's just not worth the time, but continue with ss, dt, BigStock, sx and is in that order

my bottleneck is editing and IPTC captioning - i've got about 500 images that just need iptc right now.  once done with that, i just setup ftp to all sites as the last thing i do [takes maybe 1' per site]

steve


« Reply #67 on: July 09, 2009, 13:21 »
0
Well I've tripled my IS income after exclusivity, which makes up for anything I might have lost so far as non-exclusive.  I have no issues with that, which is why the question isn't so easy and why its not so clear cut.

« Reply #68 on: July 09, 2009, 18:06 »
0
Well I've tripled my IS income after exclusivity, which makes up for anything I might have lost so far as non-exclusive.  I have no issues with that, which is why the question isn't so easy and why its not so clear cut.

that's great -- what % of your sales was from IS before you switched?

s

« Reply #69 on: July 09, 2009, 18:26 »
0
39% to 43% of the total for the most part.  It was always a toss up who the winner would be with SS.  But I feel SS is a monster that constantly needs feeding orelse it doesn't perform, another reason why I switched - I can't keep up with that.

« Reply #70 on: July 09, 2009, 23:00 »
0
39% to 43% of the total for the most part.  It was always a toss up who the winner would be with SS.  But I feel SS is a monster that constantly needs feeding orelse it doesn't perform, another reason why I switched - I can't keep up with that.

So even at 40%, as a silver level contributor, you appear be losing about 30% of your total income. That must be pretty painful?

Despite the fact that IS are doing very well for me recently (averaging about 35% of income over the last year) I'd be losing about $1000 per month if I were exclusive. I can most surely bear the extra time to upload my average of 50-odd files a month to other sites for that difference in income __ an hour or two at most I would think.

« Reply #71 on: July 10, 2009, 07:36 »
0
Gostwyck, you are a moron (so this post is for you):

Lets do simple math (since you can't) and you can't read either.  

Lets say I used to make $1 a month with all my sites.  If I averaged 35% (low end) of that as IS income before exclusive, I would make 35 cents from iStock

Since going exclusive, my income has tripled (as I have stated already but since you can't read you wouldn't get that).  Therefore, I make .35 x 3 (3 is the number you would use if you triple something).  I'll give you a few minutes to use a calculator to catch up.


....wait for it



....wait for it...


Anyways, I don't know if you've caught up with technology and learned how to use that calculator, but .35 x 3 is $1.05, which, if you were wondering, is greater than $1.  Therefore, dumbass, I haven't lost anything or if I have, not much at all accounting for any ebb/flows.

Now, since your country's school system wasn't that good to you, I hope you can find the mental capacity to leave my posts alone so that I can share my experiences with others on this forum in a calm manner.  I hope you can find someone else to harass on another forum that encourages bad math, poor reading skills and unsubstantiated arrogance.  I don't know why you have something against people at iStock (me, or Stacey Newman or whoever) (by the way, since you are so awesome, why don't you post a portfolio link?) can you please go away.  I'm sick of you, and I'm sure a lot of other people are, although they are much more polite and they don't say it.


« Last Edit: July 10, 2009, 07:52 by ichiro17 »

graficallyminded

« Reply #72 on: July 10, 2009, 08:34 »
0
Well I've tripled my IS income after exclusivity, which makes up for anything I might have lost so far as non-exclusive.  I have no issues with that, which is why the question isn't so easy and why its not so clear cut.

That sounds great and all, but everyone has to examine their own stats - and obviously we all have completely different content.  If I tripled my avg istock monthly earnings, I'd still only be making around 1/4 of my total income from stock.  Heck - it's a pain in the butt to submit to a lot of sites.  If iStock was 50% of my income, and I could triple it by going exclusive, then some might want to consider it.  BUT, the thing is, I'm not too keen as to put all of my eggs in the same basket as others have already mentioned.

« Reply #73 on: July 10, 2009, 09:04 »
0
Well I've tripled my IS income after exclusivity, which makes up for anything I might have lost so far as non-exclusive.  I have no issues with that, which is why the question isn't so easy and why its not so clear cut.

That sounds great and all, but everyone has to examine their own stats - and obviously we all have completely different content.  If I tripled my avg istock monthly earnings, I'd still only be making around 1/4 of my total income from stock.  Heck - it's a pain in the butt to submit to a lot of sites.  If iStock was 50% of my income, and I could triple it by going exclusive, then some might want to consider it.  BUT, the thing is, I'm not too keen as to put all of my eggs in the same basket as others have already mentioned.

I get that.  I said that earlier.  But gostwyck can't read well.  I explained it worked for me.  For you, you also only have a few photos on iStock from what I remember seeing.  So given that you don't have many accepted or you don't submti a lot, then its not good for you.  However, you aren't an abrasive idiot about it, you said your piece and you justify your decision.  I never tried to force exclusivity on anyone, I just said it works for me and tried to back it up with numbers.  Unfortunately, the math skills of some members isn't up to par


bittersweet

« Reply #74 on: July 11, 2009, 11:51 »
0
Since I am now officially in the ranks of the independents, I am looking forward to seeing how things go. Even though a lot of people find it works for them, I do not intend to use the shotgun approach when deciding where to place my images. I will not be giving my vectors away via SS and I'm leery of some recent developments at fotolia. I have about a quarter of my portfolio uploaded to veer and the results of the inspection process seem to indicate that we are a good fit. When I return from vacation next week I am going to concentrate in earnest on getting the rest online prior to the release. 

« Reply #75 on: July 11, 2009, 12:15 »
0
I look forward to hearing how it fares for you


bittersweet

« Reply #76 on: July 11, 2009, 12:56 »
0
With the hits I've taken the past six months or so, I'm confident that things can only improve. I also feel a sense of relief that I have greater control over decisions about what happens to my work.



lisafx

« Reply #77 on: July 11, 2009, 16:29 »
0
With the hits I've taken the past six months or so, I'm confident that things can only improve. I also feel a sense of relief that I have greater control over decisions about what happens to my work.



I second Ichiro's interest in hearing how things go for you.  Not many of us have the experience of a long exclusive career and also a non-exclusive one.  JoAnn comes to mind, having gone the other direction.  Your experiences will be of great interest Whatalife. 

Wishing you great success with your choice :)

« Reply #78 on: July 11, 2009, 17:55 »
0
Best of luck.  I'm not sure what your strategy is, but I'm sure you will make the appropriate adaptions to make it work for you.

bittersweet

« Reply #79 on: July 11, 2009, 22:21 »
0
Thanks very much, Lisa!  :)


 

Related Topics

  Subject / Started by Replies Last post
14 Replies
6399 Views
Last post June 30, 2007, 17:51
by yingyang0
9 Replies
4040 Views
Last post April 18, 2008, 12:11
by stokfoto
69 Replies
26724 Views
Last post July 02, 2009, 18:49
by gostwyck
67 Replies
27036 Views
Last post October 28, 2009, 07:33
by ichiro17
0 Replies
2711 Views
Last post September 26, 2009, 10:28
by pixeled

Sponsors

Mega Bundle of 5,900+ Professional Lightroom Presets

Microstock Poll Results

Sponsors