I got this email a week or so ago (I know there's another thread with a similar email):

Hello,

Between January 1-4 a bug occurred which incorrectly dropped your royalty rate by one level, meaning you were paid 5% less on downloads during that period. We have run a script to identify downloads that should have been paid at the higher rate between Jan 1 and Jan 4, 2012. Your account has now been credited with the outstanding amounts. Below is a summary of affected downloads.

    FileID         Amount Paid     Correct Amount   Difference         Date
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
0003980625          $00.72               $00.78             $00.06        1/2/2012
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
0013498542          $01.44               $01.56             $00.12        1/4/2012
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
0017195985          $00.84               $00.90             $00.06        1/4/2012
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Total Amount Paid: $0.24


Then today, I got this email:

Hello,

   We have run a script that should have paid out your 2012 Redeemed Credit royalty rate from Jan 1 to Jan 4, 2012 to rectify the royalty change that occurred at that time. Unfortunately this script was processed incorrectly, inaccurate payment and information were sent via e-mail to those affected. We will be removing the incorrect payments made (today - June 22, 2012) and will insure the correct amounts are sent out as soon as possible.

   Total Amount Removed: $0.24.

   We apologize profusely for this inconvenience. If you have any further questions please contact Contributor Relations.

   Best Regards,
   iStockphoto



hahahahaha I can't stop laughing.  What a joke!

Over april and into may so far, iStock seems to have been enjoying a slight resurgence for me.  Nowhere near it's former glory, but at least making up a little ground.  Very welcomed, indeed.  Anyone else seeing something similar?

I noticed a ~30$ increase in my balance a few days ago, and I thought it was probably an EL.  The EL still hasn't shown up, and I noticed that I do seem to have some little green bars on top of my February earnings now.  Did the Feb PP earnings come in all at once?

I'm pursuing a phd in something most people would consider "math-y", but I fear I might be missing something on this simple math here...

Shutterstock's subscription is $249 for 25 images a day, or 750 a month.  If someone were to download all of those images, that comes out to 33.2c per image.  Now I know shutterstock probably makes a lot of money off people not downloading their whole quota, but that is an unknown we cant really quantify right now.  So ignoring that, someone at the 25c level makes 75% royalties off of subscription sales... someone at the 33c level makes 99.4% royalties, someone at the 38c level makes 114% royalties. 

Often the people balking about fairer royalties also balk about subscription structures, which seems a little backwards to me.  Is this ever brought up in those arguments? Am I missing something else?

This is a random and weird question, I know, but I'm going to ask it anyways.  Does anyone seem to get more pleasure from seeing sales at one site than another?

Now I know many if not most people here will want to say "nope not at all - to me, money is money is money"... which is fine.  Say it.  No need to make fun of me for being open about my peculiarities though.

For some reason, I get the most pleasure from Dreamstime sales, though they are my #3 earner.  I get the least pleasure from FT I think.

Excluding art prints, which are obviously tops.

Anyone else feel something similar, or am I just endlessly strange?

I signed up for flickr for the first time ever a few months ago, mainly in an attempt to bring random internet views to my personal website, where I host my photos and point people to certain stock or print sites.

I guess I didn't uncheck the Getty bullet, so I got a sitemail that said something like "the getty curators have found your images and think that some of them would go great on getty, namely these pictures below:" then attached some of my photos from flickr they wanted me to upload to getty, and then they had a specialized link for me to create an account.  I followed the link to create my getty submitter account, but I guess that's all I'll be doing for now.

Suffice to say that all the photos they cited have been for sale on the RF micros for years.  My current workflow, which honestly is changing all the time, is:

Submit to SS. 
If SS accepts, submit to all other RF micros.
If SS rejects, but I think it is definitely a micro-type photo, submit to all other micros.
If SS rejects, but I'm not sure exactly if the photo is geared to micro, submit to Alamy RM.

I do this because usually the Alamy RM stated number is to expect something like 1 dollar per image per year.  I have a small (and I like to think high quality, but who doesn't) portfolio, and on SS alone, I see WAY more than 1 dollar per image per year.  IS I also see way more than that, but its sliding.  Others, the jury is still out, since I'm a newish independent, but I'm interested in giving RM a tentative try, so that influenced my workflow decision.

Not really sure how getty would fit into this, as it seems I'm a "flickr submitter" which means that I can only submit the photos theyve already tapped.  So they cant replace the Alamy RM step, I don't think.  And I don't think I want them to replace the micro steps, since who knows what they will and will not tap, or how long it will take.

Comments on my workflow decisions?

I uploaded some photos via FTP and now when I try to submit them, all features of the editor work except the actual submission part. When I select the check box next to them, none appear to 'select', so I can't hit the submit for review button, as it's still greyed out.  Hitting 'select all' doesn't select any, either.  This happens on both firefox and chrome.  Anyone else?

Hey guys,

modified

Hi all, very new here, not too new to microstock or photography, but it's always been a hobby.  Photography, a very large and influential hobby...  submitting to stock, more of a footnote.  Please don't take that as any sort of smug superiority, it's just meant to serve as an excuse for why I've never really taken the time to nail down exactly what to write in a description.

I have read many threads here in the past few days, and have learned a TON, even though Ive been on istock for 6 years.  But, most of you tend to submit, for the most part, different types of photos than me.  I submit almost entirely landscapes and nature.  So I haven't really found the answer I've been looking for in old threads.

Sorry for beating around the bush.  My main question is this: for landscapes like mine, should I include the exact location in the description?  Right now I've been: never including it in the title (unless, like SS, there is only one title/description field), sometimes including it in the description, and always including it in the keywords.  This really is more just hedging my bets though, as I'm not sure what the best tactic is.  For stock photos of a waterfall or meadow, say (which I have many of), would knowing the exact location scare off some buyers?  For instance, I have some very popular "rain forest waterfall" images, which I have seen advertised all over the place, including tourism brochures for places that are NOT where my photo was taken.  Or advertising tropical rain forests, when in fact the waterfall was a temperate rain forest.  Any thoughts on this?  Has this been discussed before?

For instance, take my "Hidden rain forest waterfall with lush foliage and mossy rocks"... this thing is all OVER the place in rain forest ads, tropical and temperate.  Would adding "taken in North Carolina" diminish its value?



Please let me know if this should go in critique.  Since it is more about general landscape strategy, I thought it should go here.

Hey guys, I'm brand new to this site, but not to the microstock world.  I joined IS in 2005, and made some good earnings there (not living wage, but quite profitable as a hobby I guess).  I have a pretty small portfolio, though I like to think high-ish quality (don't we all) of landscapes and nature scenics, as that is my true passion.  What with my small portfolio, IS's new royalty structure really hit me hard, and so I rescinded exclusivity about 4 months ago, which made the hit twice as hard.  For instance, august 2010 vs 2011 saw a 20% increase in downloads, but a 65% decrease in earnings!  65%!!.  In addition to the two obvious reasons stated already, I think this was also because of best match loss (though honestly I think most of my sales come from the 'popular' sorting), but also because I had a lot of images in Vetta that were selling.  Which perhaps made it a dumb decision to rescind exclusivity.

Anyways, now that I've started uploading more places, I see a very slow but steady crawl back upwards.  It might take me a while to reach where I once was, but honestly I'm very happy with my decision.  It has, believe it or not, been fun to upload more places, and I find it spurring my creative blood.  Also, I feel more at ease without having to worry quite as much about the endless stream of unsettling news coming from IS.  So that's that.

Anyways, I've spent the past 4 months strolling around the forums on several of the big 4, but each forum has its own way of bugging me.  Then I found this place, have lurked for 2 or 3 days, and think I've found the right forum for me.  This place looks great.  I also recognize lots of familiar names here.

Anyways, long story short: Hi!