Author Topic: Request for image (Read 23053 times)

grace · « **on:** June 21, 2015, 09:19 »

Hi,everyone.yesterday I received a email from Dreamstime

"This notification was sent by a potential buyer, who would like to purchase one of your files with exclusive rights license (SR-EL).
See info regarding terms and allowed usages at link below:
http://www.dreamstime.com/terms.php#sr-el

If you are able to sell exclusive rights license for the image, please use the "ENABLE LICENSE" button to enable the exclusive rights license and set the price. The buyer will be automatically notified. Only the lifetime Sell the Rights license can be enabled. Keep in mind that this request is for SR-EL. Please check the table to see prices for SR-EL.

May I know normally how much you guys set the price? But this image not only sell on dreamstime, it also on Istock and other agency.That mean I need to remove it from other agency if I want to sell it exclusive right? Any opinion/suggestion regarding,sell o nt sell?Thanks

Regards,
Grace

Semmick Photo · « **Reply #1 on:** June 21, 2015, 09:25 »

300 dollar and remove from all sites. If it's your best seller calculate potential earnings over a lifetime and ask something in that ball park.

tickstock · « **Reply #2 on:** June 21, 2015, 09:36 »

$300 dollars seems too low, good selling images should earn you over $1,000 best sellers over $10,000.

grace · « **Reply #3 on:** June 21, 2015, 09:40 »

Normally is after sold the photos just remove or before that?

noodle · « **Reply #4 on:** June 21, 2015, 09:47 »

once the deals done, then remove it.

good luck

Semmick Photo · « **Reply #5 on:** June 21, 2015, 09:50 »

You can ask for 1000 and you'll never hear back. Loads of people asked for decent amounts and it never came to a deal.

tickstock · « **Reply #6 on:** June 21, 2015, 09:56 »

So what? $300 is way too low you'll make more than that on most good photos.

ShadySue · « **Reply #7 on:** June 21, 2015, 10:00 »

Quote from: tickstock on June 21, 2015, 09:56

So what? $300 is way too low you'll make more than that on most good photos.

Not so much nowadays; we're not all as super successful as you claim to be.
(Not including the OP in 'we', I have no idea, obviously.)

Semmick Photo · « **Reply #8 on:** June 21, 2015, 10:05 »

Quote from: tickstock on June 21, 2015, 09:56

So what? $300 is way too low you'll make more than that on most good photos.

I am just answering to the question what I would ask. If you think that is too low then that is your opinion. No need to get upset.

noodle · « **Reply #9 on:** June 21, 2015, 10:05 »

Spmeone here not too long ago got the same request for an image

There is no back and forth negotiating, just an offer and an accept or reject from what I know

So this person didnt want to ruin the deal by asking too high, if I remember correctly, it wasnt a great selling photo, and a very simple one at that. he asked for $900 and the deal was done. Everyone left happy.

tickstock · « **Reply #10 on:** June 21, 2015, 10:11 »

Quote from: Semmick Photo on June 21, 2015, 10:05

Quote from: tickstock on June 21, 2015, 09:56
So what? $300 is way too low you'll make more than that on most good photos.
I am just answering to the question what I would ask. If you think that is too low then that is your opinion. No need to get upset.

I'm not upset just saying they should pay what it's worth or it's no loss.

heywoody · « **Reply #11 on:** June 21, 2015, 10:11 »

Quote from: ShadySue on June 21, 2015, 10:00

Quote from: tickstock on June 21, 2015, 09:56
So what? $300 is way too low you'll make more than that on most good photos.
Not so much nowadays; we're not all as super successful as you claim to be.
(Not including the OP in 'we', I have no idea, obviously.)

I can count on my fingers the number of images that have made more then $300, never mind $1000 or $10,000 ($10K seems like cloud cuckoo land for an individual image on any micro but who knows...)

@Grace - just bear in mind the DT take a hefty cut of the sale price (think about 60%) which needs to be factored into your decision.

tickstock · « **Reply #12 on:** June 21, 2015, 10:48 »

Quote from: heywoody on June 21, 2015, 10:11

Quote from: ShadySue on June 21, 2015, 10:00
Quote from: tickstock on June 21, 2015, 09:56
So what? $300 is way too low you'll make more than that on most good photos.
Not so much nowadays; we're not all as super successful as you claim to be.
(Not including the OP in 'we', I have no idea, obviously.)

I can count on my fingers the number of images that have made more then $300, never mind $1000 or $10,000 ($10K seems like cloud cuckoo land for an individual image on any micro but who knows...)

@Grace - just bear in mind the DT take a hefty cut of the sale price (think about 60%) which needs to be factored into your decision.

You're right DT take 50% so that means your file only has to make $150.01 to do better than that. Most of us have 100's of files that have earned that much.

tickstock · « **Reply #13 on:** June 21, 2015, 10:59 »

Quote from: ShadySue on June 21, 2015, 10:00

Quote from: tickstock on June 21, 2015, 09:56
So what? $300 is way too low you'll make more than that on most good photos.
Not so much nowadays; we're not all as super successful as you claim to be.
(Not including the OP in 'we', I have no idea, obviously.)

You don't have to be that successful to make $150 on an image. 15-20 regular sales, or about 2 ELs, or 60 subs will get you there or 1 El 5 regular sales and 15 subs. That doesn't seem too difficult to reach.

ShadySue · « **Reply #14 on:** June 21, 2015, 11:28 »

Quote from: tickstock on June 21, 2015, 10:59

Quote from: ShadySue on June 21, 2015, 10:00
Quote from: tickstock on June 21, 2015, 09:56
So what? $300 is way too low you'll make more than that on most good photos.
Not so much nowadays; we're not all as super successful as you claim to be.
(Not including the OP in 'we', I have no idea, obviously.)
You don't have to be that successful to make $150 on an image. 15-20 regular sales, or about 2 ELs, or 60 subs will get you there or 1 El 5 regular sales and 15 subs. That doesn't seem too difficult to reach.

Maybe not on DT, I couldn't say.
On files uploaded since late 2012 on iS, it seems just about impossible to get any sales at all. You seem to be about the only exception to that rule. In fact, I've just done a DM stats fetch and I seem to have had five files (total) viewed in the past four days - looks as though subs must be on their way down too.

tickstock · « **Reply #15 on:** June 21, 2015, 11:32 »

Quote from: ShadySue on June 21, 2015, 11:28

Quote from: tickstock on June 21, 2015, 10:59
Quote from: ShadySue on June 21, 2015, 10:00
Quote from: tickstock on June 21, 2015, 09:56
So what? $300 is way too low you'll make more than that on most good photos.
Not so much nowadays; we're not all as super successful as you claim to be.
(Not including the OP in 'we', I have no idea, obviously.)
You don't have to be that successful to make $150 on an image. 15-20 regular sales, or about 2 ELs, or 60 subs will get you there or 1 El 5 regular sales and 15 subs. That doesn't seem too difficult to reach.
Maybe not on DT, I couldn't say.
On files uploaded since late 2012 on iS, it seems just about impossible to get any sales at all. You seem to be about the only exception to that rule.

If it's better for nonexclusives then it should be even easier to get to $150. I might be one of the last exclusives to still be coming to this site, the people that used to come here have stopped.

ShadySue · « **Reply #16 on:** June 21, 2015, 11:34 »

Quote from: tickstock on June 21, 2015, 11:32

Quote from: ShadySue on June 21, 2015, 11:28
Quote from: tickstock on June 21, 2015, 10:59
Quote from: ShadySue on June 21, 2015, 10:00
Quote from: tickstock on June 21, 2015, 09:56
So what? $300 is way too low you'll make more than that on most good photos.
Not so much nowadays; we're not all as super successful as you claim to be.
(Not including the OP in 'we', I have no idea, obviously.)
You don't have to be that successful to make $150 on an image. 15-20 regular sales, or about 2 ELs, or 60 subs will get you there or 1 El 5 regular sales and 15 subs. That doesn't seem too difficult to reach.
Maybe not on DT, I couldn't say.
On files uploaded since late 2012 on iS, it seems just about impossible to get any sales at all. You seem to be about the only exception to that rule.
If it's better for nonexclusives then it should be even easier to get to $150. I might be one of the last exclusives to still be coming to this site, the people that used to come here have stopped.

There are a few more of us still here.
I'm not sure it's really better on iS for indies. I don't see their new uploads flooding out as real sales either, and at the insulting percentage they get, I doubt many of them find it easy to get to $150, certainly not without spending at least that much to make the images. Profit is more important than gross takings.
Anyway, apologies, this is a DT thread, though Grace does need to consider whether she's likely to make more money on her other sites, which mpre likely would be her 'other agency'.

tickstock · « **Reply #17 on:** June 21, 2015, 11:35 »

Quote from: ShadySue on June 21, 2015, 11:34

Quote from: tickstock on June 21, 2015, 11:32
Quote from: ShadySue on June 21, 2015, 11:28
Quote from: tickstock on June 21, 2015, 10:59
Quote from: ShadySue on June 21, 2015, 10:00
Quote from: tickstock on June 21, 2015, 09:56
So what? $300 is way too low you'll make more than that on most good photos.
Not so much nowadays; we're not all as super successful as you claim to be.
(Not including the OP in 'we', I have no idea, obviously.)
You don't have to be that successful to make $150 on an image. 15-20 regular sales, or about 2 ELs, or 60 subs will get you there or 1 El 5 regular sales and 15 subs. That doesn't seem too difficult to reach.
Maybe not on DT, I couldn't say.
On files uploaded since late 2012 on iS, it seems just about impossible to get any sales at all. You seem to be about the only exception to that rule.
If it's better for nonexclusives then it should be even easier to get to $150. I might be one of the last exclusives to still be coming to this site, the people that used to come here have stopped.
There are a few more of us still here.
I'm not sure it's really better on iS for indies. I don't see their new uploads flooding out as real sales either, and at the insulting percentage they get, I doubt many of them find it easy to get to $150, certainly not without spending at least that much to make the images. Profit is more important than gross takings.

I'm not talking about nonexclusive on iStock, I'm talking about nonexclusive on all the sites. Most people here say you make more as a nonexclusive so it should be very easy to make $150 if the image is good.

Mantis · « **Reply #18 on:** June 21, 2015, 11:40 »

As Ron stated hearing back is a whole different issue. I've had many requests like Grace and i have priced them from $300 to $1500 and in every case i never heard back. I think the buyers are hoping you will sell them for $50 and when they see $300 they sh!t their drawers.

Dumc · « **Reply #19 on:** June 21, 2015, 11:56 »

I guess it all depends on what kind of image is buyer requesting for EL. For example I had few ELs for images that didn't sell more then 10 times in all agencies combined in 1 year period. So 100$ for an image, that doesn't sell well isn't such a bad deal.

ShadySue · « **Reply #20 on:** June 21, 2015, 11:59 »

Quote from: Dumc on June 21, 2015, 11:56

I guess it all depends on what kind of image is buyer requesting for EL. For example I had few ELs for images that didn't sell more then 10 times in all agencies combined in 1 year period. So 100$ for an image, that doesn't sell well isn't such a bad deal.

On iS, when I was getting ELs, I noticed that most ELs were sold on images which seldom sold; I had a theory that buyers were deliberately looking for image which hadn't sold much. (Not always, my BSs sometimes got ELs, but it was noticeable that ELs were often on older, low-sellers.)

Dumc · « **Reply #21 on:** June 21, 2015, 12:03 »

Yes, I have the same experience. All ELs that I had (not that there were many of them) were more or less low-sellers.

PaulieWalnuts · « **Reply #22 on:** June 21, 2015, 12:22 »

If it were me I wouldn't do it a Sell the Rights unless it was a ridiculous amount but that's me and I want full control over my work. I'd ask for at least the amount the image is expected to earn during its lifetime. Otherwise why bother doing it? How much is it earning per month now? As an example if it's earning $10 per month I'd say five years minimum and maybe up to ten years so $600 to $1200.If it's $5 per month than $300 to $600. If they balk at your price, oh well, you're not losing anything by just letting it continue to earn as it is. And I'd tell them nicely but firmly exactly that. That you would earn more not doing an SEL so it doesn't make sense to do it for less than whatever price you come up with.

I always go higher with price. I just had a designer contact me and tell me their budget was no more than $40 for a couple of images because they could get similars as RF on micro. I thanked them for their interest and said they would be $200 as single-use RM. They bought. But it probably depends on the image. Unique images usually command higher prices. Good luck.

heywoody · « **Reply #23 on:** June 21, 2015, 12:32 »

Quote from: tickstock on June 21, 2015, 10:48

Quote from: heywoody on June 21, 2015, 10:11
Quote from: ShadySue on June 21, 2015, 10:00
Quote from: tickstock on June 21, 2015, 09:56
So what? $300 is way too low you'll make more than that on most good photos.
Not so much nowadays; we're not all as super successful as you claim to be.
(Not including the OP in 'we', I have no idea, obviously.)

I can count on my fingers the number of images that have made more then $300, never mind $1000 or $10,000 ($10K seems like cloud cuckoo land for an individual image on any micro but who knows...)

@Grace - just bear in mind the DT take a hefty cut of the sale price (think about 60%) which needs to be factored into your decision.
You're right DT take 50% so that means your file only has to make $150.01 to do better than that. Most of us have 100's of files that have earned that much.

I don't doubt it but there's a hell of a difference between 150 and 10K

tickstock · « **Reply #24 on:** June 21, 2015, 12:33 »

Quote from: heywoody on June 21, 2015, 12:32

Quote from: tickstock on June 21, 2015, 10:48
Quote from: heywoody on June 21, 2015, 10:11
Quote from: ShadySue on June 21, 2015, 10:00
Quote from: tickstock on June 21, 2015, 09:56
So what? $300 is way too low you'll make more than that on most good photos.
Not so much nowadays; we're not all as super successful as you claim to be.
(Not including the OP in 'we', I have no idea, obviously.)

I can count on my fingers the number of images that have made more then $300, never mind $1000 or $10,000 ($10K seems like cloud cuckoo land for an individual image on any micro but who knows...)

@Grace - just bear in mind the DT take a hefty cut of the sale price (think about 60%) which needs to be factored into your decision.
You're right DT take 50% so that means your file only has to make $150.01 to do better than that. Most of us have 100's of files that have earned that much.

I don't doubt it but there's a hell of a difference between 150 and 10K

It's more common than you think.

ShadySue · « **Reply #25 on:** June 21, 2015, 13:22 »

Quote from: tickstock on June 21, 2015, 10:48

Most of us have 100's of files that have earned that much.

You can prove that? Most of us?
Depends who the 'us' are that you are defining, I guess. Without 'us' being defined, the sweeping statement is meaningless.

tickstock · « **Reply #26 on:** June 21, 2015, 13:27 »

Quote from: ShadySue on June 21, 2015, 13:22

Quote from: tickstock on June 21, 2015, 10:48
Most of us have 100's of files that have earned that much.
You can prove that? Most of us?
Depends who the 'us' are that you are defining, I guess. Without 'us' being defined, the sweeping statement is meaningless.

Many of us, average annual income is $17,000 with 3500 images so it stands to reason that most people here have lots of $150 earning files if they've been around a few years.

ShadySue · « **Reply #27 on:** June 21, 2015, 13:38 »

Quote from: tickstock on June 21, 2015, 13:27

Quote from: ShadySue on June 21, 2015, 13:22
Quote from: tickstock on June 21, 2015, 10:48
Most of us have 100's of files that have earned that much.
You can prove that? Most of us?
Depends who the 'us' are that you are defining, I guess. Without 'us' being defined, the sweeping statement is meaningless.
Many of us, average annual income is $17,000 with 3500 images so it stands to reason that most people here have lots of $150 earning files if they've been around a few years.

I presume you're referring to the annual survey? A lot of people seem to crawl out of the woodwork to do that, so I'm not sure that 'most of us' can refer to 'most of the people who post in msg', which is kinda what is implied without being spelled out in that phrase. In fact, a few huge earners could bias that survey a lot. Or a lot of liars.

tickstock · « **Reply #28 on:** June 21, 2015, 13:52 »

Quote from: ShadySue on June 21, 2015, 13:38

Quote from: tickstock on June 21, 2015, 13:27
Quote from: ShadySue on June 21, 2015, 13:22
Quote from: tickstock on June 21, 2015, 10:48
Most of us have 100's of files that have earned that much.
You can prove that? Most of us?
Depends who the 'us' are that you are defining, I guess. Without 'us' being defined, the sweeping statement is meaningless.
Many of us, average annual income is $17,000 with 3500 images so it stands to reason that most people here have lots of $150 earning files if they've been around a few years.

I presume you're referring to the annual survey? A lot of people seem to crawl out of the woodwork to do that, so I'm not sure that 'most of us' can refer to 'most of the people who post in msg', which is kinda what is implied without being spelled out in that phrase. In fact, a few huge earners could bias that survey a lot. Or a lot of liars.

Ok would it be better if I had said "many of us have lots of files that have made $150", it's not a very high bar.

everest · « **Reply #29 on:** June 21, 2015, 14:02 »

I think tickstock is right. When I was exclusive making more than 500$ /image was very easy with hundreds over 100$ many dozens over 1000$ and a few over 10k. I would say that now it is much more difficult on Istock and for sure as an independent with my short experience......I would say it is impossible to make 5 figures with any photo nowadays in microstock..............

Quote from: tickstock on June 21, 2015, 11:35

Quote from: ShadySue on June 21, 2015, 11:34
Quote from: tickstock on June 21, 2015, 11:32
Quote from: ShadySue on June 21, 2015, 11:28
Quote from: tickstock on June 21, 2015, 10:59
Quote from: ShadySue on June 21, 2015, 10:00
Quote from: tickstock on June 21, 2015, 09:56
So what? $300 is way too low you'll make more than that on most good photos.
Not so much nowadays; we're not all as super successful as you claim to be.
(Not including the OP in 'we', I have no idea, obviously.)
You don't have to be that successful to make $150 on an image. 15-20 regular sales, or about 2 ELs, or 60 subs will get you there or 1 El 5 regular sales and 15 subs. That doesn't seem too difficult to reach.
Maybe not on DT, I couldn't say.
On files uploaded since late 2012 on iS, it seems just about impossible to get any sales at all. You seem to be about the only exception to that rule.
If it's better for nonexclusives then it should be even easier to get to $150. I might be one of the last exclusives to still be coming to this site, the people that used to come here have stopped.
There are a few more of us still here.
I'm not sure it's really better on iS for indies. I don't see their new uploads flooding out as real sales either, and at the insulting percentage they get, I doubt many of them find it easy to get to $150, certainly not without spending at least that much to make the images. Profit is more important than gross takings.
I'm not talking about nonexclusive on iStock, I'm talking about nonexclusive on all the sites. Most people here say you make more as a nonexclusive so it should be very easy to make $150 if the image is good.

ShadySue · « **Reply #30 on:** June 21, 2015, 20:42 »

Quite. Past glories are of no consequence to the OP in estimating what a file might earn into the future.

tickstock · « **Reply #31 on:** June 21, 2015, 22:06 »

Good work still earns good money.

Pauws99 · « **Reply #32 on:** June 22, 2015, 00:25 »

Also need to take into account the risk element i.e there is no guarantee you will sell at all again. Considering how downbeat many seem to be about the future it surprises me the value of sales they project.

fotografer · « **Reply #33 on:** June 22, 2015, 07:14 »

Quote from: ShadySue on June 21, 2015, 13:38

Or a lot of liars.

What would be the point in lying if you are anonymous? Showing off is pointless if nobody knows who you are.

hansenn · « **Reply #34 on:** June 22, 2015, 08:50 »

Quote from: noodle on June 21, 2015, 10:05

Spmeone here not too long ago got the same request for an image

There is no back and forth negotiating, just an offer and an accept or reject from what I know

So this person didnt want to ruin the deal by asking too high, if I remember correctly, it wasnt a great selling photo, and a very simple one at that. he asked for $900 and the deal was done. Everyone left happy.

I think it was me. Sold it for $900, got paid $450,-.
Had to remove the file I mean within 2 or 3 days from all sites.
The file only sold once or twice since it was online.
Shortly after that I received two more requests, I asked the same price, but never heard anything from it.

ShadySue · « **Reply #35 on:** June 22, 2015, 12:38 »

Quote from: fotografer on June 22, 2015, 07:14

Quote from: ShadySue on June 21, 2015, 13:38
Or a lot of liars.
What would be the point in lying if you are anonymous? Showing off is pointless if nobody knows who you are.

Someone relatively recently said in a thread here that he always lies in the poll.
I guess a posse could be got together to bump up or push down figures for any number of reasons, though the ones I can think of right now would be more productive on the monthly poll than the annual one.

tickstock · « **Reply #36 on:** June 22, 2015, 12:43 »

I don't remember that, who said they always lie in the poll?

ShadySue · « **Reply #37 on:** June 22, 2015, 16:04 »

Quote from: tickstock on June 22, 2015, 12:43

I don't remember that, who said they always lie in the poll?

Do you really keep a record of who says what?

tickstock · « **Reply #38 on:** June 22, 2015, 16:26 »

Quote from: ShadySue on June 22, 2015, 16:04

Quote from: tickstock on June 22, 2015, 12:43
I don't remember that, who said they always lie in the poll?
Do you really keep a record of who says what?

No but I don't remember anyone saying they lie about what they enter into the poll, that is a person and post I would remember though.

ShadySue · « **Reply #39 on:** June 22, 2015, 16:42 »

Quote from: tickstock on June 22, 2015, 16:26

Quote from: ShadySue on June 22, 2015, 16:04
Quote from: tickstock on June 22, 2015, 12:43
I don't remember that, who said they always lie in the poll?
Do you really keep a record of who says what?
No but I don't remember anyone saying they lie about what they enter into the poll, that is a person and post I would remember though.

I was totally unsurprised, so I remembered the post, not the person.

bunhill · « **Reply #40 on:** June 22, 2015, 16:58 »

Quote from: fotografer on June 22, 2015, 07:14

What would be the point in lying if you are anonymous? Showing off is pointless if nobody knows who you are.

Hmmm. I haven't done it for ages because I don't really care and I am working on something more interesting. But a while back I went through a stage of having an invisible tracking pixel in my signature and was able to more or less suss out who most people are starting with the location of their IP addresses and the time of the posts. Over time I would realise who people were from posts and portfolios on other forums.

The reason for doing it was not primarily to suss out who was who but because I was curious about who was using more than one login name to support their own posts - and who had quit but come back with another name. At that time the forum was more activate and argumentative. Also I was curious about what country some of the posts were from.

(The more surprising thing was noticing the company IPs which were reading the forum at that time. The agencies were to be expected - but there were financial companies reading the forum too.)

ETA: obviously there are much better ways of looking at the stats - before anyone starts a technical conversation. Mine was a lazy and only half bothered approach.

heywoody · « **Reply #41 on:** June 22, 2015, 17:05 »

Quote from: fotografer on June 22, 2015, 07:14

Quote from: ShadySue on June 21, 2015, 13:38
Or a lot of liars.
What would be the point in lying if you are anonymous? Showing off is pointless if nobody knows who you are.

Showing off is pointless, period. Doesn't stop people though...

ShadySue · « **Reply #42 on:** June 22, 2015, 17:09 »

Quote from: bunhill on June 22, 2015, 16:58

(The more surprising thing was noticing the company IPs which were reading the forum at that time). The agencies were to be expected - but there were financial companies reading the forum too.

When my personal site was active, I got hits from all sorts of companies partciuarly from the US, e.g the US Army etc etc. I assumed it was people reading at work breaks, but now I know some US entities are all over everything.

Noedelhap · « **Reply #43 on:** June 22, 2015, 19:40 »

There are multiple factors to consider when determining a good price:

- How well is the image doing for you? What do you expect to earn in a lifetime? (taking into account shelf life: 3 yrs, 5 yrs... perhaps more?)
- Is it a unique image or a very common one?
- Who is the potential buyer: a small start up business or a large corporation? (Which you probably don't know.)

I consider $300 way too low for the full rights, especially if you get only 50% of that price.
I once asked a price of about $650. It wasn't a particularly well performing image. They accepted. It was a direct request by e-mail so I got to keep the full 100% on that sale. Afterwards I got the feeling I could have asked more.

I've had another image sale (via an agency) which netted me more than that. The agency did the negotiations and asked a few thousand dollars. I was baffled to hear they accepted, but it goes to show there are buyers who are willing to pay.

Sure, most buyers will be scared off, but if you're going too low you're leaving money on the table. The way you value your images may be different than the way they value them. So don't be too scared to negotiate and don't undervalue your work.

grace · « **Reply #44 on:** June 22, 2015, 22:13 »

May I know most of the agencies, like Istock,canstockphoto,fotolia,pixta, can remove photo by ourself or need to contact them to remove?Thanks

qwerty · « **Reply #45 on:** June 22, 2015, 22:58 »

I had a request via dreamstime and never heard back, I think I priced it at $500. Maybe they thought they'd get it for $50

ShadySue · « **Reply #46 on:** June 23, 2015, 03:31 »

Quote from: grace on June 22, 2015, 22:13

May I know most of the agencies, like Istock,canstockphoto,fotolia,pixta, can remove photo by ourself or need to contact them to remove?Thanks

You can deactivate files from iStock yourself, don't know about any others.
Some agencies require notice - up to six months for some - to delete a file. Alamy is one of these, but if you remove titles, descriptions and keywords, the file can't be searched for, though presumably it still shows in your portfolio. Don't know if the other 'tied-in' agencies work like this. Surely some other people here can tell you.

Noedelhap · « **Reply #47 on:** June 23, 2015, 04:24 »

Quote from: grace on June 22, 2015, 22:13

May I know most of the agencies, like Istock,canstockphoto,fotolia,pixta, can remove photo by ourself or need to contact them to remove?Thanks

Depends. At some agencies you can delete them yourself, some agencies have to be contacted by e-mail, but I had no problems deactivating the images.
Better check it yourself before any such sale takes place, so you can act timely.

f9photos · « **Reply #48 on:** June 26, 2015, 07:38 »

One more thing to consider:
the image can be bought by SR-EL1 license (you don't know it beforehand) which means 1 year exclusivity, and in this case you get much less than 50% of set price (my last such sale earned me $31.25, same as usual extended license). Nevertheless you have to delete the image from all agencies. Is it worth the trouble?

MicrostockGroup Sponsors

Author Topic: Request for image (Read 23053 times)

Semmick Photo

Semmick Photo

Semmick Photo

Related Topics

Sponsors

Microstock Poll Results

Sponsors