Hi!

I've been uploading to different microstock agencies my footage during the last year.

I'm aware that istock has a connection with Getty Images if you are an exclusive contributor, witch means that you are selling at two agencies at the same time ( I suppose ).

My question is, is there any body selling as exclusive contributor at Istock? Do you think it deserves the change?

I see the good and the bad,

Good:

Less time uploading and tagging and more time to shoot
Better search positioning at istock searches
Selling also at Getty Images
Better royalties (they start at 22 up to 45 if there are sales)

Bad:

Less opportunities to sell the content in other agencies
My content will be stuck at istock, no way to use it or sell directly
More risky if I don't get sales at istock

I know that is not an exact science, but, what are your thoughts?

Thanks a lot for your help

Ruben

Sean was an exclusive - until Getty summarily terminated the contract because they wanted to teach contributors a lesson and figured picking on Sean might have an impact.

I was an exclusive for a few years, but left when I saw the damage Getty was doing and was planning to do to iStock. Lots of exclusives have left in the last few years (since I left, so I only know anecdotally what's been going on for exclusives) because sales have tanked.

My personal opinion is that even if it might make sense for some who are still making enough sales to stick with iStock/Getty exclusivity, it would make no sense from a sales/revenue point of view to become exclusive today.

If you want to say you're with Getty and don't care about making money, then go with your gut.

Restrictions for exclusive contributors on iStock: "Artist may not sell anywhere else including the artist's own site", "Rejected files may not be sold elsewhere". 22-45%.
WOW. I mean, really?

LOL also but �.

We accept these punitive conditions as the norm in stock photography but has their validity ever been tested?

My experience in the UK was with building websites where my customers had been part of another firm and told they could not compete for bigX years.  Few cases went to court but could found upon other cases where bigX was seen as unreasonable and smallX agreed upon.  Some of the exclusivity contracts in stock photography look awfully like �restraint of trade� which Scots and English Law frown upon.

So , if you are willing to shell out $250K in legal fees for the right to sell your images elsewhere at $0.35 each, we on this forum will be eternally grateful to you  More seriously, US law with its class action suits might make a fighting fund for a test case a reasonable option.

My bet is that you can make much more money by skipping iStock, and selling at Shutterstock, Pond5, Videoblocks, and perhaps some of the smaller ones. Uploading and tagging is not that much of a deal IMO and totally worth it.