MicrostockGroup

I've just been pointed at this site http://www.picturenation.co.uk/, I've never seen it before and I thought I'd sign up and check it out. But being a little new still I thought I'd ask opinions as the T&C confuses me.

This part

confuses me as I'm not 100% sure of all the act and despite further down it states that you retain copyright.

I'm just a little blonde and unsure of some of the parts that look a little suspicious so I'll be grateful for the opinions of people here who know much more than me and can save me signing up somewhere that isn't going to be good for myself.

Thanks in advance.

Quote from the website:
# You can have 5 images live on the picturenation site for no charge.
# If you have 5 images live on the site, you can upgrade to a PN Pro Account for just £10 annually, and upload as many images as you like. Images still have to be approved by the picturenation team.

Pay to have pictures online in a new agency without track record?
No, thanks.

Picture Nation is now two years old. Not a "new" site! I have 1000 photos there and have made some good sales. Comission is 40%and you get £30 for a high res sale (they are not microstock). The flaws you refer to are not. They accept editorial photos such as high street shops, famous celebrities etc which do not require property or model releases. Their customers include newspaper groups and the BBC! The £10 fee is in fact new and most of us have paid it as it is a good site. I am just amazed it hasn't been mentioned on this site before. Totally recommend them. Hope this helps. Regards, David

Welcome representative of Picture Nation. You're doing a fine job. Now, can we can have the real truth and nothing but the truth from someone else please.

That seems very harsh just based on what the poster said - that PN is not new, that it accepts images for editorial use as well as RF stock and that he has good sales there.

I am not a "representative" of Picture Nation either. I do know the founder, Jane-Louise Green and I have sometimes contributed bits of legal advice. I also have a small portfolio there. NewsFocus1 is correct. The site has been active for more than two years, and it was a considerable time in preparation and planning before that. It is not brand new and the payment has only just been introduced - it isn't some kind of scam. There is an open discussion, including complaints, about the introduction of the annual fee on the PN forums. People who already have a portfolio there will only be required to pay the fee if they upload more images, so no-one is being forced to pay. And no, I am not successful there. I have a relatively small number of images and my earnings are next to nothing, but clearly some contributors are doing very well. I hope the site weathers the current economic storms because I know how hard the founder and her team have worked, not because I am earning loads of money there, or have any financial interest in its success.

Yes, and for those interested here is the law itself: http://www.opsi.gov.uk/acts/acts1988/ukpga_19880048_en_4

A parking fee is quite unusual in microstock. On the other hand, it would prevent a massive sign-up of beginners with glorified snapshots. Anybody having done review work knows what I mean by that. It would only attract people that are confident about their port.
PN looks like a niche site for travel/editorial. I have no idea whether the "traditional" recent stock imagery with isolated models and staged scenes/emotions would be successful there. PN is certainly not for illustrations and vectors.

The site is a bit intriguing and I had a look at the images. View counts are decent. Content, well, there is room for improvement certainly. Perhaps Jane-Louise Green could pass by here and explain what kind of pictures PN is looking for, with its customer base in mind.

Ah, it seems I should go take a look there!

Regards,
Adelaide