Mutualism - when both species involved benefit from the relationship.
Commensalism - when one species benefits and the other isn�t affected.
Parasitism - when one species benefits, and the other is harmed in the process.

Is it true parasitism if the host is a willing participant?

Not willing participants. The agencies have amended the agreements many times as they see fit. Most of us go along with them because of the imbalance of power.

Maybe it's too early in the voting, or maybe it's just me, but seeing that 6/8 people have selected 'parasite' makes me wonder why I'm still bothering to visit this forum.

My question to the six people (so far) who view their agencies as parasites is this: Why are you still involved with them? If you view all microstock agencies as parasites, why are you still involved in this industry?

I hope my relationship with the sites is on a more professional basis than that of a parasite and host.
We both benefit, so it cannot be a parasitic relationship. No one here uploads their pictures for nothing.
If you think it is a scam, like the Nigerians, then stop uploading. Simple.

What I do feel is lacking in the case of some of the agencies, is respect.

What I feel is wrong is to put all the agencies under one label. Some are much better than others. My recent interaction with three different smaller agencies has been great, leaving me feeling that they are people who care.

I was looking for a word like racism that applies to stock agencies. I don't think it has been invented yet, but it is what we a doing here.

I really believe that anybody who is seeing agencies as parasites and not canceling their contributions is a hypocrite or a masochist. If you don't profit from a business relationship, why would you continue otherwise?

I agree that choosing anything other than mutualism doesn't make sense, but I believe it is resentment about site changes that made people choose parasitism.  Just for the protest, I guess, not an accurate description of the real situation.

I didnt vote as I feel it is very unbalanced and feel that things have gotten worse over the past year, part of this I feel is just the industry, increased competition, and overall economic climate etc.  

I do see that changes were made by the agency at StockXpert when they brought in subs, lesser but still some changes at fotolia when they did the same, and most recently changes at istock re photos.com, so I dont feel it is entirely "parasitic". However each of these changes (and in particular the original offerings, especially original photos.com) and my recent dealings with pixmac have left me with the feeling that the agencies dont care a great deal about contributors and consider them a mob of gullible sheep who will go along with any new deal, even to their detriment.  Maybe its wrong but I dont feel there is a lot of respect for contributors and couldnt agree with idealistic equal mutualism.  

but I gain income, skills, knowledge etc and really the most important thing is that it is a choice that I make.  It could be better but no-one makes me upload to these sites and I can go so far as to remove my images when I please (albeit with some delays), to me that rules out parasites.  I think if you are really thinking that the agencies are parasitic, you really have to ask yourself why are you doing this, is this the situation you really want, perhaps it is time to rethink doing stock and look at other areas, something you will enjoy more

Most businesses have to pay for their stock and then make whatever % over cost that they can.
Some (furniture stores) markup is 100%.
Other models call for a 30% margin.
In the very expensive end of things (diamonds for instance) sometimes the margins may be as little as 10%!
Yet all these business models seem to work and often the owners make a very good living. Some even become quite wealthy.

Enter this business model, where the product (our work) is free and they only pay us what? 20-25% IF it sells.

You would be amazed at the number of products in the high street that are there on SOR 'sale or return', much fresh produce is supplied like this, pay for what is sold and destroy whats left, and other products where the supplier supplies on a SOR basis and still the store owners dictate what the supply price will be.

Just like this industry the stores cover all the overhead costs of bringing the product to market, and pay the vendor only when there is a sale, more popular goods will get more exposure and a higher position on the shelf, poor performing products get moved to less space and a lower shelf until the store or supplier pulls the product.

Part of this relationship is that the stores will do the work to know what the competition is doing and what price the market will bear at the time, based on what market the store is aiming for will attract different products from their suppliers range, high volume products to the superstores, high value to the specialist and niche stores.

We just need to think like the suppliers and target our goods based on quality and content into the different stores to maximise the return, if you sell specialist or niche products through a superstore for a high volume low value return then that is your choice, or just a result of you not knowing where your product fits in the market, do you ever think 'that was a bargin I would have paid a lot more for that'.

I work in IT where the charge out rates are over $2000 a day and the resource or contractor rate is 30% of that, you would think that the companies are making a very high net profit but many fail and others report profits of between 3% - 5%, what tends to happen is we only focus on the raw selling and cost prices and not the overheads, extra costs of sale values.

If the websites could charge a lot more for the products they would, but they have to be realistic and fluid with their model to reflect changes in the market and manage customer expectation to survive, when a stock site fails the supplier may loose a couple of hundred dollars in effort, the investors in these failures loose millions, so have a far higher risk.

If you do not trust a website then you should not contribute to it, that is a choice you have in a free market.  

David  

It's not parasitism - it's a textbook "abusive relationship".  You used to be worth $1, but one day I say you're only worth 50 cents. Take it or leave it, that's how it is.

... well now I think you're only worth 30 cents.  Here's the money, walk away if you want.

... did I say 30 cents? I meant 25 cents.

... your lousy pictures are worth 12 cents.  I'm tossing the coins at your feet, I want to watch you pick them up.

... 6 cents, you scum.  Count yourself lucky.

... 2 cents, dog.

... want me to look at your pictures? Give me 10 cents...

50% votes for parasitism Must be a joke.   ( Or Old Hippy cloned into 14 new idiots)  Start an own site, and see how cheap it is...

Right on Sharply_Done.
Smiling Jack