What do they mean by "Be part of an exclusive group of ImageBrief�s photographer community", exclusive as in great or as in only on imagebrief?

I think exclusive as in premium members

Ok so images are nonexclusive and RF?

Ok so images are nonexclusive and RF?

RM only, non-exclusive

Then of course, turn you off in the search engine so they only have to payout the 50%-ers.

It's really not a huge amount to spend.  If you make $250 in a year at Shutterstock you paid them more than $600. 

Quote from: tickstock on June 23, 2015, 20:01

It's really not a huge amount to spend.  If you make $250 in a year at Shutterstock you paid them more than $600.

Not upfront.
SS has to sell your files before they get a penny.
Huge difference, they have an incentive to market files.
If you make nothing on SS, you've also lost nothing.

They have an incentive to sell your work because they want you to sign up for another year, if you aren't selling they won't make any more money.  Also SS doesn't need to sell one photo to get their money, if you buy a subscription and never use it they get paid.  $500 per year sounds like a lot until you compare it to what you are already spending on other sites, if you make $10,000 a year on SS you're paying nearly $25,000 for that privilege. 

It's not as though SS is alone in this, so can't understand why you singled them out for the comparison.
Still, I don't do 'speculate to accumulate' with stock, and I don't do SS.
YMMV.

There is a fundamental difference between paying up front with no guarantee of sales or any refund if they're useless at marketing their images and someone who does sell your work taking a commission from the price.

You're not spending anything to sell on Shutterstock. You're not getting 100% of the sale, but for the fledgling agency, 100% of nothing is still nothing. The agency portion of a sale is not money we spend; the full sale is not our income with the agency commission an expense (Envato tried to make it that way, but that was them indulging in fiction).

Even if you assume good faith on the part of the agency, we have lots of examples of failed agencies - where they can't generate sales from known sale-capable portfolios. If they fail, you're out your time to upload plus $500. Getty was able to get photographers to pay to place their images with them because Getty had a track record (at the time) of generating sales. I doubt they could get many people to give them cash up front today.

If a new agency is after content, asking the contributor for money as a way to get it is, IMO, the equivalent of a contributor IQ test.

Not saying I'm going to sign up, just that the cost is pretty small.  How many sales would it take to break even?

Quote from: tickstock on June 23, 2015, 20:36

Quote from: ShadySue on June 23, 2015, 20:34

It's not as though SS is alone in this, so can't understand why you singled them out for the comparison.
Still, I don't do 'speculate to accumulate' with stock, YMMV.

It would be strange to pick 123RF,  SS is used by most everyone here so it makes sense for most people.

No, as more or less every micro does cheap subs, you could just have used the generic 'subscription site' in your example.

What royalty rate would I use for "generic subs"?  I'd have to pick some fake arbitrary number that is meant to represent every single site selling subs and then deal with you telling me the next second that there is no such thing as "generic subs".  It makes sense to use the most widely used site as an example, more people will relate to and understand it than if I made some numbers up or picked a site that less people use.  The logic applies to other sites so substitute those in your head if it makes you happier.  Besides it has nothing to do with subs, I'm talking about the royalty rate.

admin edit: leave out the personal jabs

Shady it's just Tickstock being tickstock. Ignore his trolling.

I have been on ImageBrief with the non paying choice for over two years now.  I have been shortlisted twice.  One they picked a completely different kind of image look, so understood.  The other they said it was not completed.  I have had shots that no kidding, not exaggerating, twice that were exactly what the brief asked for and how on earth very many persons could've had anything even close is beyond me.  And those were not even marked as viewed. about half of mine are never marked as viewed.  So assuming they are even honest with that marking anyway, I didn't get seen much.  It takes work time to put photos on there, especially if you are making the shot per the request instead of something you already have.  Even if you already have it, chances are you need to tweak it to better present for what the say they want.  And what they say they want is another problem.  Often they pick something that isn't very close, so why even bother trying.  Some of the buys are in my opinion for fabric and other products, particularly the closeups of masses of objects like fruits.  They will be selling that, assuming it sells well, over and over.  Selling your photo over and over just printed on something.  Why would you get paid say $150. to do let them profit on your photo???  Another thing to consider is that most of the images I see as sold are flat, washed out, no details at all, just generic stock stuff that my little niece could take on a $100. camera.  So again, why use your talent, equipment, and honed skills to try??  And this is one of the killer things, I have seen images sell on there that are so so bad you have to wonder if it really happened.  I really could just go on and on I suppose.  Bottom line is, I am not paying them for anything.  And even though I am continually tempted to submit photos to them, I do not see the point of wasting my time.  I am going to try other options, maybe Shutterstock and a webpage to sell prints or something.