With the all the turmoil going on at the IS forums these days, one thing is clear to me: Nobody, or at least very few, believes that a company that distributes images need an average of 75%-85% per sale to be profitable. This is why the discussion at IS continues, and people won't calm. It's simply beyond imagination. I've read so many intelligent statements from contributors that I would never be able to phrase myself, but this is clear, many people refuse to adapt.

To prevent things like these happening in the future, how would people feel like signing some sort of a "contract" that ensured they would not work with new agencies offering a commission lower than a certain percentage? Note that this would not affect the agencies you're currently submitting to but is a guarantee that you're requirements are met by upcoming agencies.

Knowing that we would then have to agree on a percentage we could have for instance three levels, 30%, 40% and 50% (I would probably sign up for 40% or 50%).

All of our names would be put on a list on the web and if enough of us were listed, the new agencies will have to meet certain requirements to do business with some of us.

Perhaps it could have a clause that required the agency to fix the percentage in the contract so it wouldn't be lowered in the future.

This could be the beginning of something bigger as I don't believe we can agree on a coop or a union. Maybe this could be the beginning of more involvement in the business from the contributors. We've never demanded anything from new agencies, maybe we're ready for that?

I know Yuri doesn't go for anything below 40%, if we could get him to sign that would be a good start.

If you think this idea is stupid, please let me know why. I'm just desperately trying to do something to change the microstock world in favour of the contributing artists.

I haven't read all the posts on this topic, over 30 pages I believe, so if this has already been mentioned I apologize.

Someone who knows about SEO, create a web site with a unique URL that simply and elegantly explains photographers' issue with iStock. Not defamatory in any way, not  a flashy website, just a basic list of concerns. If it's coded properly it should rank somewhat high in the search results, it wont rank very high initially. All the photographers who agree with the statement on this page will have a link on this page to their web site and provide a reciprocal link on their own web site to the web site taking issue with IS. Reciprocal links help sites rank higher (at least they used to) So the links in essence are the same as a petition. With each link to the photographers web site, adjacent links to their images on other micro sites could be provided. Each link could also have a small thumbnail showing the type of images that photographer sells at the other micros. Then a press release is written by someone who knows how to write, unlike me, again not defamatory, and this is sent to any and all magazines, blogs, forums, anyplace that might have an interest in this issue and where image buyers might frequent. Finally, a pool is created through paypal and money is collected through donations to buy an add in a major design publication stating the issue. This could cause IS to back down, and dissuade other micros from trying something similar in the future. Heck, this could become an organization for micro stock similar to SAA. Just an idea.

Thank you for your kind words Eireann

Seems it was a bad idea after all. I don't feel like putting in any effort if we're just two people on the list