Hi- sorry if this was addressed elsewhere. Does anyone prefer to be exclusive with istock to simplify their process and get the somewhat higher royalty rate? I figured most people wouldn't put all their eggs in one basket but I do recall one stock photo youtuber said he was exclusive and he preferred that.
That YouTuber is likely Luka Azman. He use to make a lot of videos extolling the virtues of full-time microstock work as an iStock exclusive, but his updates have long since ceased. I think he has abandoned the idea that iStock exclusive is worth it anymore.
yeah, that's the one. i don't see any real reason to do it as adobe makes me 2-4x as much every month. the extra 5-10% would still not cover what i'm getting with other agencies. i wonder why they don't make their offer more appealing since i can see the benefit of exclusive content on their end.
I am not an iStock exclusive contributor, but I was thinking about this option because besides slightly higher rate your photos also get better visibility - if you search for any topic, you will see mainly photos from the exclusive collection on the first page - and this aspect is quite important in today´s oversaturated market. But I don´t shoot lifestyle photos, which is what iStock wants.. so I have not applied :-\
Btw, Luka Azman is still iStock exclusive, there are always some of his photos / videos in the monthly editors´choice and if you check them they´re marked as Signature.
Quote from: Yola on May 09, 2026, 20:56
I am not an iStock exclusive contributor, but I was thinking about this option because besides slightly higher rate your photos also get better visibility - if you search for any topic, you will see mainly photos from the exclusive collection on the first page - and this aspect is quite important in today´s oversaturated market. But I don´t shoot lifestyle photos, which is what iStock wants.. so I have not applied :-\
Btw, Luka Azman is still iStock exclusive, there are always some of his photos / videos in the monthly editors´choice and if you check them they´re marked as Signature.
years back there were a few iStock exclusive folks that made money that most of us could only dream of making. I mean more then folks working on Wall street but those days are long gone now...
If I remember correctly there used to be a black diamond tier with 60% commission, but they soon got rid of that.
You do get a higher rate for being exclusive, along with better visibility, and if I was signing up today, I would certainly give it due consideration.
However, it's my understanding that the signature rate/search placement only applies to new submissions, and not to content that's already been approved, meaning that the several thousand images I already have in my portfolio wouldn't benefit in any way.
Quote from: stocker2011 on May 10, 2026, 01:47
If I remember correctly there used to be a black diamond tier with 60% commission, but they soon got rid of that.
60% was on fotolia.
For istock as an exclusive the highest was 40% in the good old days.
But you don't just get a higher royalty. exclusive content is often 3 times more expensive than non exclusive content.
So even today, the exclusives often don't just earn double of what they made before as non exclusives, but often 3-5 more because of the combo of higher prices, mire downloads because preferred in the search, sometimes very high extra sales from getty and the higher royalty.
I think especially if you do a lot of model released content, than going fully exclusive with istock can still be a very profitable idea.
If they offered a second exclusive only account like pond5, many would do that. And getty still hasd their own houseconttract. These macro contributors can send exclusive content to getty, but still be non exclusive anywhere else.
Just getting that house contract is apparently more difficult today.
However, easiest balance is to add a few exclusive content channels, arcangel, cavan images, stocksy, robert harding, stockfood...there are many macrostock agencies and macro distributors. or exclusive videon for blackboxglobal.
Being only exclusive with istock does remove a lot of friction, you just focus on production, they do the rest.
And getty also distributes your files to their partners, so soon also to shutterstock and others.
I did enjoy my magical time as an istock exclusive.
If they offered an exclusive upload channel or second portfolio I would be happy to send them exclusive content.
But otherwise for me being free is hard to beat.
Quote from: Big Money on May 09, 2026, 21:51
Quote from: Yola on May 09, 2026, 20:56
I am not an iStock exclusive contributor, but I was thinking about this option because besides slightly higher rate your photos also get better visibility - if you search for any topic, you will see mainly photos from the exclusive collection on the first page - and this aspect is quite important in today´s oversaturated market. But I don´t shoot lifestyle photos, which is what iStock wants.. so I have not applied :-\
Btw, Luka Azman is still iStock exclusive, there are always some of his photos / videos in the monthly editors´choice and if you check them they´re marked as Signature.
years back there were a few iStock exclusive folks that made money that most of us could only dream of making. I mean more then folks working on Wall street but those days are long gone now...
Yes, and this is only people who reported on the voluntary poll here.
(https://i.postimg.cc/8cpKPGP1/msg-poll-years-12-to-17.jpg)
200 would be $1,000 while 80 would be $400
Quote from: cobalt on May 10, 2026, 14:46
Quote from: stocker2011 on May 10, 2026, 01:47
If I remember correctly there used to be a black diamond tier with 60% commission, but they soon got rid of that.
I think especially if you do a lot of model released content, than going fully exclusive with istock can still be a very profitable idea.
I have no model released content on istock. I have a little on other agencies but istock always rejects my releases for random reasons and I have no desire to spend extra effort on them given the payout structure. I appreciate the input though, it seems there is some sort of case to be made for going the exclusive route though it probably won't suite most contributors.
First time I hear about a problem with releases. Are you not using a standard agency release like shutterstock or from adobe?
Quote from: cobalt on May 12, 2026, 09:04
First time I hear about a problem with releases. Are you not using a standard agency release like shutterstock or from adobe?
Try this? https://crapstock.com/other/model-release-istock.pdf
Any release that has any other agency name or doesn't have all the details they require, will be rejected. The above is the iStock/Getty release.
I'm exclusive (and sell different images RM at Alamy, but do better at iS) originally because of simplicity, and later because I happened to meet a bloke who was submitting to SS with the same range/quality of subjects I shoot and wasn't doing well there. IIRC, Adobe doesn't take Editorials, so that's a non-starter for me.
However, be aware that exclusive files don't always get a great advantage in search. In fact, it's almost 50-50 on the first page of three random searches I did earlier today.
(However, a buyer can choose to exclude indie files)
Also be aware that although you sign up thinking you're going to get 30%, many exclusive sales are made via Getty, for which we get 20%, not much more than the 15% for indies.
I just looked and I have almost double my sales going for 20%, than 30%.
The average rpd of my 30% sales is $1.61 and my average at 20% is 37c (sic).
Adobe takes illustrative editorials. Requirements here: https://helpx.adobe.com/stock/contributor/help/illustrative-editorial-content.html?x-product=Helpx%2F1.0.0&x-product-location=Search%3AForums%3Alink%2F3.8.2
Quote from: cobalt on May 12, 2026, 09:04
First time I hear about a problem with releases. Are you not using a standard agency release like shutterstock or from adobe?
when i tried to submit them they were releases from shutterstock or adobe. always got rejected cause of digital signature or some other thing. i even tried to use istock's release for a model i used in a lot of shots but they told me the date on the release didn't match or some BS like that. i gave up trying since i earn pennies on photos anyway.
Quote from: ShadySue on May 12, 2026, 19:30
I'm exclusive (and sell different images RM at Alamy, but do better at iS) originally because of simplicity, and later because I happened to meet a bloke who was submitting to SS with the same range/quality of subjects I shoot and wasn't doing well there. IIRC, Adobe doesn't take Editorials, so that's a non-starter for me.
However, be aware that exclusive files don't always get a great advantage in search. In fact, it's almost 50-50 on the first page of three random searches I did earlier today.
(However, a buyer can choose to exclude indie files)
Also be aware that although you sign up thinking you're going to get 30%, many exclusive sales are made via Getty, for which we get 20%, not much more than the 15% for indies.
I just looked and I have almost double my sales going for 20%, than 30%.
The average rpd of my 30% sales is $1.61 and my average at 20% is 37c (sic).
interesting, thanks for the detailed response. are you only shooting editorial? any video?
I've been exclusive for iStock images since about 2006, soon after I started submitting.
Total income was all up until about 2013, then steadily down (despite adding some non-exclusive video and RM on Alamy) until 2021, since when it has been fairly steady but nowhere near a living wage! Then again, I'm retired, it's just a hobby for me.
Compared to, say, Alexandre Rotenberg, who is not exclusive and posts his earnings each month, I probably average about the same or perhaps not quite as much - sometimes more, sometimes less - but I have only about half his number of images, and I don't work very hard at it, as he does! I also make little attempt to upload stock type images, I mostly take wildlife, travel and landscapes, plus some editorial. Just stuff I like to take as I go about.
As far as I can tell, being exclusive has always worked best for me, but I do think that it would probably be more difficult these days - especially if you already have a substantial portfolio income from other sites which you'd have to lose.
Just my experience. YMMD.
Quote from: yuriy on May 13, 2026, 03:24
Quote from: ShadySue on May 12, 2026, 19:30
I'm exclusive (and sell different images RM at Alamy, but do better at iS) originally because of simplicity, and later because I happened to meet a bloke who was submitting to SS with the same range/quality of subjects I shoot and wasn't doing well there. IIRC, Adobe doesn't take Editorials, so that's a non-starter for me.
However, be aware that exclusive files don't always get a great advantage in search. In fact, it's almost 50-50 on the first page of three random searches I did earlier today.
(However, a buyer can choose to exclude indie files)
Also be aware that although you sign up thinking you're going to get 30%, many exclusive sales are made via Getty, for which we get 20%, not much more than the 15% for indies.
I just looked and I have almost double my sales going for 20%, than 30%.
The average rpd of my 30% sales is $1.61 and my average at 20% is 37c (sic).
interesting, thanks for the detailed response. are you only shooting editorial? any video?
No video.
30% editorial, most of the rest wildlife.
Quote from: wds on May 12, 2026, 22:35
Adobe takes illustrative editorials. Requirements here: https://helpx.adobe.com/stock/contributor/help/illustrative-editorial-content.html?x-product=Helpx%2F1.0.0&x-product-location=Search%3AForums%3Alink%2F3.8.2 (https://helpx.adobe.com/stock/contributor/help/illustrative-editorial-content.html?x-product=Helpx%2F1.0.0&x-product-location=Search%3AForums%3Alink%2F3.8.2)
Which is NOT really Editorial like the rest of the sites and what is normally seen as editorial or news. It's just their way to allow product shots by using that name. "conceptual imagery designed to illustrate articles on current events and newsworthy topics." It's a real stretch of the term, just for their purposes.
Quote from: yuriy on May 13, 2026, 03:22
Quote from: cobalt on May 12, 2026, 09:04
First time I hear about a problem with releases. Are you not using a standard agency release like shutterstock or from adobe?
when i tried to submit them they were releases from shutterstock or adobe. always got rejected cause of digital signature or some other thing. i even tried to use istock's release for a model i used in a lot of shots but they told me the date on the release didn't match or some BS like that. i gave up trying since i earn pennies on photos anyway.
Because it's impossible logically for the witness to "witness" the model signing, on a different date. How did they see them sign? :) Make all the dates match, the shoot, the witness, the model, it's that easy. The release is for the agency to cover their ass, in case the model files a claim. The fact that you make all the dates the same, doesn't nullify the legal document, it just makes Getty happy.
Adobe rejected mine because I didn't sign that I was the owner of the material that I photographed, when I gave myself a release to use that. Also, I don't recall which agency, probably IS and Adobe and maybe SSTK, where I had to get a release for myself, signing for, by myself, and have a witness saying that I signed for a self portrait or self modeled image. I mean, really? ::) The only good part of that is, I haven't had to make a new one for every time I uploaded some silly selfie.
(https://www.shutterstock.com/image-photo/man-looking-behind-stack-casino-600w-1174084678.jpg)
i get your point but if i use the same model on 5 shoots is that 5 releases with 5 dates? i know they need to cover their asses but i submit model released stuff to adobe with a 3 year old model release with no issues (same with shutterstock back when i used to submit to them, and they accepted each other's releases as well).
Quote from: yuriy on May 15, 2026, 16:31
i get your point but if i use the same model on 5 shoots is that 5 releases with 5 dates? i know they need to cover their asses but i submit model released stuff to adobe with a 3 year old model release with no issues (same with shutterstock back when i used to submit to them, and they accepted each other's releases as well).
Every shooting needs a new release, new shooting day, one new release yes, that is normal.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AoNipEMsgwA (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AoNipEMsgwA)
model release clip from getty youtube
Quote from: yuriy on May 15, 2026, 16:31
i get your point but if i use the same model on 5 shoots is that 5 releases with 5 dates? i know they need to cover their asses but i submit model released stuff to adobe with a 3 year old model release with no issues (same with shutterstock back when i used to submit to them, and they accepted each other's releases as well).
I guess it's different for "Real Models" than for selfies. I've been using the same release for years. Sorry that they are making everyone do extra work with a release for every shoot. On the other hand, that's a different situation. Good Luck.
A new factor for anyone considering iStock exclusivity. They're changing the rules so that all your content will move to the higher priced collection (currently Signature; it will be named Premium after July 1).
They sent email June 1st which included this:
"...We are also aligning how files move between collections when a creator's exclusivity changes. From as early as June 1, 2026, and retrospectively, if a Non‑exclusive creator moves to Exclusive, their files will move to the Signature / Premium collection. If an Exclusive creator moves to Non‑exclusive, their files will move to the Essentials / Basic collection."
Previously, your files stayed where they were and just earned the higher percentage. Impossible to know if the higher price would reduce sales volume, but Signature is over twice the price of Essentials.
Yes, and that will also hurt for former exclusives.