MicrostockGroup Sponsors


Author Topic: Is istock exclusive contributor worth it?  (Read 3058 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

« on: August 30, 2020, 04:30 »
0
Everybody is good, I want to consult one thing, hesitation ss have already cut prices in May reduce my income a lot, I want to try to register istosk sole contributor account, don't know what you think, I saw my friend is exclusive to istock contributor, income is very good, although I also have the non-exclusive istock contributor, income is too low.
I want to ask, what are the requirements for istock to apply for an exclusive right now? Do you still need 1,000 downloads? How long does it usually take? Has anyone successfully applied recently?
« Last Edit: August 30, 2020, 04:37 by [email protected] »


« Reply #1 on: August 30, 2020, 05:24 »
+8
Unfortuantely, iStock also has a long and sad history of unilaterally changing contacts, moving goals posts and screwing contributors over.

If you feel that exclusive is the way to go for your images, I'd honestly look at Stocksy and consider if your work, or the work you want to produce, fits their niche.

In my head there is a short list of agencies worth considering going forwards. Adobe, Alamy, Pond5 and maybe Dreamstime.

I know that it's not exactly scientific, but if you look at the general MS Poll Results at top right on this site, you will see that AS has overtaken SS for earnings and IS is now just a few short points behind iStock exclusive. In other words, if you stay independent and upload only to AS and a handful of other sites that pay better commissions you won't cannibalise your sales at idiot agencies like Shutterstock.



ShadySue

  • There is a crack in everything
« Reply #2 on: August 30, 2020, 06:03 »
0
I won't offer an opinion as to whether you should become exclusive at iStock: it all depends on your port and your tolerance of BS. (disclaimer: I'm exclusive and I'm earning less than 25% of what I earned in e.g.2011-12, when my port was about 30% of its current size, but I know that was better 'for me' than being indie would have been, through the years I've been active [historically, SS wouldn't have worked for my particular port]).
And who knows what will happen in future? Risky if you do, risky if you don't.

Nowadays, becoming exclusive isn't dependent on sales, it's done by them assessing your port for commercial value.

Be aware that if you choose to become exclusive, your existing files will all stay at their current 1 credit selling price, though you'll get your exclusive rate on these sales. Your subsequently uploaded files will sell at 3 credits, and you'll get your exclusive rate.
« Last Edit: August 30, 2020, 16:30 by ShadySue »

« Reply #3 on: August 30, 2020, 06:39 »
0
Thank you, I understand, I still can't put eggs in a basket, but I heard that istock is exclusive, there is a chance to sell pictures into the subset of gettyimages, and there is a better chance.
I won't offer an opinion as to whether you should become exclusive at iStock: it all depends on your port and your tolerance of BS. (disclaimer: I'm exclusive and I'm earning less than 25% of what I earned in e.g.2011-12, when my port was about 30% of its current size, but I know that was better 'for me' than being indie would have been, through the years I've been active [historically, SS wouldn't have worked for my particular port]).
And who knows what will happen in future? Risky if you do, risky if you don't.

Nowadays, becoming exclusive isn't dependent on sales, it's done by them assessing your port for commercial value.

Be aware that if you choose to become exclusive, your existing files will all stay at their current 1 credit selling price, though you'll get your exclusive rate omn these sales. Your subsequently uploaded files will sell at 3 credits, and you'll get your exclusive rate.

« Reply #4 on: August 30, 2020, 12:36 »
0
I'm on the fence also. Adobe is not enough to compensate for SS loses. Other agencies are not even worth mentioning. So, it comes down to decision Adobe vs Istock exclusive. It doesn't look like a hard decision at this moment and  in this environment.

« Reply #5 on: August 30, 2020, 13:00 »
+1
I don't know why, my adobe income is very poor. I already have more than 10,000 pictures on adobe, and only more than 100 dollars a month, I am so depressed!
I'm on the fence also. Adobe is not enough to compensate for SS loses. Other agencies are not even worth mentioning. So, it comes down to decision Adobe vs Istock exclusive. It doesn't look like a hard decision at this moment and  in this environment.

« Reply #6 on: August 30, 2020, 13:04 »
0
So, it comes down to decision Adobe vs Istock exclusive.
Adobe does not offer any exclusive programm and going exclusive on one agency without any benefit does not seem ike a smart idea.

« Reply #7 on: August 30, 2020, 13:44 »
0
So, it comes down to decision Adobe vs Istock exclusive.
Adobe does not offer any exclusive programm and going exclusive on one agency without any benefit does not seem ike a smart idea.
I know, that's why I said that it is not hard decision. Adobe, on its own, without exclusivity, can't compete with Getty/Istock. It comes down to Adobe, because other agencies are poor performers and SS did what it did.

« Reply #8 on: August 30, 2020, 13:46 »
+1
I don't know why, my adobe income is very poor. I already have more than 10,000 pictures on adobe, and only more than 100 dollars a month, I am so depressed!
I'm on the fence also. Adobe is not enough to compensate for SS loses. Other agencies are not even worth mentioning. So, it comes down to decision Adobe vs Istock exclusive. It doesn't look like a hard decision at this moment and  in this environment.
If it will make things any easier for you - I'm depressed, too  :)

ShadySue

  • There is a crack in everything
« Reply #9 on: August 30, 2020, 14:56 »
0
I don't know why, my adobe income is very poor. I already have more than 10,000 pictures on adobe, and only more than 100 dollars a month, I am so depressed!
I'm on the fence also. Adobe is not enough to compensate for SS loses. Other agencies are not even worth mentioning. So, it comes down to decision Adobe vs Istock exclusive. It doesn't look like a hard decision at this moment and  in this environment.
If it will make things any easier for you - I'm depressed, too  :)
As I said above, "I'm exclusive and I'm earning less than 25% of what I earned in e.g. 2011-12, when my port was about 30% of its current size", so I'm not exactly jumping with joy.
The situation is imponderable, it's impossible to make any sort of informed decision, as any agency/distributor can make changes at any time, very occasionally for the better, usually for the worse.
Even as exclusives, we are really  at the mercy of the search algorithm. I've had best sellers (by my standards) drop to almost zero overnight, and it's usually because of a change in algorithm (e.g. going from the first two lines for a keyword to below the tenth page). There is absolutely nothing we can do about that.

Noedelhap

  • www.colincramm.com

« Reply #10 on: August 30, 2020, 16:02 »
+7
Why would you want to be exclusive with the scummiest agency in microstock history? They did even worse things than SS. Cutting royalties and treating contributors like dirt. You may not have been around in 2016 when iStock-Getty completely massacred their own reputation and goodwill, but what they did to contributors back then showed their true colors.

Their sales fell off a cliff, they lost their market leader position to Shutterstock and never recovered. So, yeah, good luck.


« Reply #11 on: August 30, 2020, 16:27 »
+5
In the current environment, I'd be open to image exclusivity in the right circumstances, but iStock requires contributor exclusivity by media type and that's much, much harder to justify (a) given the current market and (b) given Getty/iStock's abysmal track record.

I was an iStock exclusive for 3 years (but that was a long time ago) and while I can fathom why current exclusives stay (given the crappy choices if they become independent), I can't see why anyone would become an exclusive now.

If you want to have your work on Getty Images you can submit to EyeEm (which is now seeing lots of low value sales via the Getty partnership) or one of the other agencies that submits work to Getty (Westend61, Mint Images, Brand X, Cavan, etc.). But there are so many low-ball royalties with Getty - and no opt out for you - why would you consider them any better than Shutterstock?

I know there's a phrase "any port in a storm" but I couldn't convince myself that Getty is a port

« Reply #12 on: August 30, 2020, 17:15 »
+7
Jo Ann pretty much summed it up.

I am exclusive and remain so for the very good sales volume. Sure, a minority of images sell for a pittance but most images sell for fairly decent coin. I am currently receiving 35% commission, and it is enough to live on, barely. In my situation, I'd be foolish to drop the crown. Being exclusive works well if you can get 15% or more of your images accepted into S+.

That said, my wife submits to multiple agencies and for where she is at in regards to volume produced and sales etc, she'd be foolish to go exclusive as she'd only make 25% commission, and that is not enough to warrant being exclusive.

If I was starting out in stock photography in the current pathetic state of the industry as a whole, I would not go exclusive with any agency.




« Reply #13 on: August 31, 2020, 04:05 »
+1
Okay, thank you, I still like SS, because it is my best selling bill
Jo Ann pretty much summed it up.

I am exclusive and remain so for the very good sales volume. Sure, a minority of images sell for a pittance but most images sell for fairly decent coin. I am currently receiving 35% commission, and it is enough to live on, barely. In my situation, I'd be foolish to drop the crown. Being exclusive works well if you can get 15% or more of your images accepted into S+.

That said, my wife submits to multiple agencies and for where she is at in regards to volume produced and sales etc, she'd be foolish to go exclusive as she'd only make 25% commission, and that is not enough to warrant being exclusive.

If I was starting out in stock photography in the current pathetic state of the industry as a whole, I would not go exclusive with any agency.

« Reply #14 on: August 31, 2020, 12:20 »
+6
I went iS exclusive back about 2003. Been exclusive since. 2008 through 2011 I made very good money. From iS I paid about half of 2 kids in private college, all photo gear expenses, and some photo related short vacations. This year I already have 3 months where I've missed the minimum $100 balance to receive a monthly payout. I'm at 30% (well, for now). I can't imagine it being beneficial to a new contributor starting in Exclusive. Albeit the percentages are better than Non-Ex, but you still need to be well into the sales chart to get a useful percentage return. With the number of images now on the site there is very little chance any of your images can become a regular seller - which is very much needed at these low prices. With the percentages changing almost every year, that carrot on the stick is always too far out to attain a new payout percentage level. Changing the levels is how iS and Getty adjust how much money they keep from the sales and how little they give to contributors. It is a hamster wheel with no end and very limited ability for new people to grow in the ranks. Only go exclusive if you have a niche of images already selling very well and you can keep feeding that niche with expected good repeating sales. Even then, the search engine can change and kill your image sales.

« Reply #15 on: September 01, 2020, 07:15 »
+4
Unfortunately, iStock also has a long and sad history of unilaterally changing contacts, moving goals posts and screwing contributors over.

iStock exclusive's download targets are unreachable due to coronavirus slowdown.
Many exclusives will lose their current royalty level this year.

« Reply #16 on: September 01, 2020, 08:46 »
+1
Thank you for your detailed answer! I understand
I went iS exclusive back about 2003. Been exclusive since. 2008 through 2011 I made very good money. From iS I paid about half of 2 kids in private college, all photo gear expenses, and some photo related short vacations. This year I already have 3 months where I've missed the minimum $100 balance to receive a monthly payout. I'm at 30% (well, for now). I can't imagine it being beneficial to a new contributor starting in Exclusive. Albeit the percentages are better than Non-Ex, but you still need to be well into the sales chart to get a useful percentage return. With the number of images now on the site there is very little chance any of your images can become a regular seller - which is very much needed at these low prices. With the percentages changing almost every year, that carrot on the stick is always too far out to attain a new payout percentage level. Changing the levels is how iS and Getty adjust how much money they keep from the sales and how little they give to contributors. It is a hamster wheel with no end and very limited ability for new people to grow in the ranks. Only go exclusive if you have a niche of images already selling very well and you can keep feeding that niche with expected good repeating sales. Even then, the search engine can change and kill your image sales.

« Reply #17 on: September 01, 2020, 08:51 »
+1
This year may be the cause of the new crown pneumonia that caused the big data economy to be poor. What if there is no cause of the new crown pneumonia? According to last year's usual sales and download data, is it objective? I mean, is the result of my hard work now that the economic recovery after the end of the new crown pneumonia is a good return? ? ? ?
Unfortunately, iStock also has a long and sad history of unilaterally changing contacts, moving goals posts and screwing contributors over.

iStock exclusive's download targets are unreachable due to coronavirus slowdown.
Many exclusives will lose their current royalty level this year.

ShadySue

  • There is a crack in everything
« Reply #18 on: September 01, 2020, 10:33 »
+3
These are imponderable questions, meaning we have no objective way of assessing that. You could upload loads of great work, but at that exact time, new files are being held down in search algorithms, and might never recover. Or you could hold onto your files until there's an improvement in demand and lose possible sales. If you have found a niche which sells well and has little competition, you're winning in most future scenarios, especially if there is little potential for competition.

This year may be the cause of the new crown pneumonia that caused the big data economy to be poor. What if there is no cause of the new crown pneumonia? According to last year's usual sales and download data, is it objective? I mean, is the result of my hard work now that the economic recovery after the end of the new crown pneumonia is a good return? ? ? ?
Unfortunately, iStock also has a long and sad history of unilaterally changing contacts, moving goals posts and screwing contributors over.

iStock exclusive's download targets are unreachable due to coronavirus slowdown.
Many exclusives will lose their current royalty level this year.

« Reply #19 on: September 02, 2020, 16:31 »
+2

If it will make things any easier for you - I'm depressed, too  :)

Thanks to you, I'm a whole lot less depressed now.  ;D

« Reply #20 on: September 06, 2020, 11:38 »
0
No need Exclusive IS/Getty!
I am 35% on SS, this is difference:
2019.08  - RPI $0.84
2020.08  - RPI $0.56
28% low DLs After Covid-19

For other agency, see graphic

« Reply #21 on: September 07, 2020, 00:37 »
0
Thank you for your proposal, I still choose non-exclusive.
No need Exclusive IS/Getty!
I am 35% on SS, this is difference:
2019.08  - RPI $0.84
2020.08  - RPI $0.56
28% low DLs After Covid-19

For other agency, see graphic

« Reply #22 on: September 07, 2020, 00:38 »
0
Although the price of ss is reduced, the download is still the best!
No need Exclusive IS/Getty!
I am 35% on SS, this is difference:
2019.08  - RPI $0.84
2020.08  - RPI $0.56
28% low DLs After Covid-19

For other agency, see graphic

« Reply #23 on: September 08, 2020, 08:10 »
+3
iStock exclusivity is the great thing if you have a proper portfolio and ready to work under the briefs. And to work hard, BTW.

I'm iStock exclusive since 2007, and I made barely $1000-$1200 per month, which was nothing. But it was my side-project all those years. Since I started to work focused on it 2016, I have the constant growth in my income. Since 2018, I makes my live in the USA exclusively from iStock/Getty and I dropped almost all my freelance gigs. This pandemic year going almost 1.5 times better than the previous one. RPD is higger than $4 (combined for photo and video), with 35% royalty (and I expecting to reach 40% for video this year). Video is growing fast, photo is more tough market but still good.

But you have to evaluate your portfolio. You will have a good income only if you will have good S+ acceptance level, and the criteria for S+ acceptance is very strict and specific. It is not enough just to have a "nice quality content" - many great SS-like portfolios would have no chances there. Do your research. Long story short, if you don't shooting people, forget about it (not quite true but close enough).

And keep in mind that iStock exclusivity means TOTAL exclusivity: you can't sell RF-imagery nowhere else, so, all your accounts in other agencies must be shutted dowb prior you will move to exclusivity.

BTW, if you do speak Russian, check out my webinar "Интимные тайны iStock" - almost 5 hours, lol, but people reported that it was helpful :)

Sent from my LM-V600 using Tapatalk


« Reply #24 on: September 09, 2020, 05:27 »
0
Thank you for these valuable info!

MxR

« Reply #25 on: September 09, 2020, 10:54 »
0
iStock exclusivity is the great thing if you have a proper portfolio and ready to work under the briefs. And to work hard, BTW.

I'm iStock exclusive since 2007, and I made barely $1000-$1200 per month, which was nothing. But it was my side-project all those years. Since I started to work focused on it 2016, I have the constant growth in my income. Since 2018, I makes my live in the USA exclusively from iStock/Getty and I dropped almost all my freelance gigs. This pandemic year going almost 1.5 times better than the previous one. RPD is higger than $4 (combined for photo and video), with 35% royalty (and I expecting to reach 40% for video this year). Video is growing fast, photo is more tough market but still good.

But you have to evaluate your portfolio. You will have a good income only if you will have good S+ acceptance level, and the criteria for S+ acceptance is very strict and specific. It is not enough just to have a "nice quality content" - many great SS-like portfolios would have no chances there. Do your research. Long story short, if you don't shooting people, forget about it (not quite true but close enough).

And keep in mind that iStock exclusivity means TOTAL exclusivity: you can't sell RF-imagery nowhere else, so, all your accounts in other agencies must be shutted dowb prior you will move to exclusivity.

BTW, if you do speak Russian, check out my webinar "Интимные тайны iStock" - almost 5 hours, lol, but people reported that it was helpful :)

Sent from my LM-V600 using Tapatalk

Hi Alex, a couple of questions. I have seen that my sales in Getty Moment have increased and that now it is more difficult to find the E + collection in Getty ... What percentage of your earnings comes directly from getty? 50%? If it is from Signature + getty it can have a lot of impact a change of getty search algorithm would be terrible.
What is your RPD profit per photo? Mine at Getty only 3.81. I also consider exclusivity ... but my earnings in shutter are 4 times higher than in istock.

Thanks!

« Reply #26 on: September 09, 2020, 11:09 »
0


Hi Alex, a couple of questions.

Hi!
I don't have my detailed data in my hands now. Regarding RPD, as I mentioned, in July the combined RPD for both iStock&Getty, photo&video is higher than $4. But I don't care about RPD. PremiumAccess, for example, brings tons of extra-cheap sales and it ruining RPD. It doesn't matters, by many reasons. Only the total income is matters and it is growing.

BTW, exclusive percentage affects only sales from iStock, Getty have only 20% flat commission. So, when you makes downloads targets, it matters only for iStock part of sales, not Getty.

For me, S+ photo sales, combined from iStock and Getty, generates about 70% of my income from photo, when S+ makes about 30% of my total portfolio. And S+ are selling much better than regular photos on iStock, too. The rest 70% aren't bad photos, but what is matters is the trend. Getty's S+ selection criteria is strict and based not on the "quality" of the imagery (in fact, technical requirenents are pretty loose nowadays) but mostly on concepts, ideas, subjects, and it works. If you have photos which would not be selected for S+ you will make no money, disregard how great quality it will be.

Also, I don't remember exactly my income percentage split between iStock and Getty, but in fact, Getty's part is going up constantly.

Sent from my LM-V600 using Tapatalk
« Last Edit: September 09, 2020, 11:27 by Krakozawr »

« Reply #27 on: September 10, 2020, 00:36 »
+1
Yes, my dear Mr. Krakozawr, exclusive Istock contributor is still a good choice, but only good pictures are required, I have seen some high price sales, indeed the average price is very high! It takes time, it takes effort, and it takes a cumulative number of pictures.
iStock exclusivity is the great thing if you have a proper portfolio and ready to work under the briefs. And to work hard, BTW.

I'm iStock exclusive since 2007, and I made barely $1000-$1200 per month, which was nothing. But it was my side-project all those years. Since I started to work focused on it 2016, I have the constant growth in my income. Since 2018, I makes my live in the USA exclusively from iStock/Getty and I dropped almost all my freelance gigs. This pandemic year going almost 1.5 times better than the previous one. RPD is higger than $4 (combined for photo and video), with 35% royalty (and I expecting to reach 40% for video this year). Video is growing fast, photo is more tough market but still good.

But you have to evaluate your portfolio. You will have a good income only if you will have good S+ acceptance level, and the criteria for S+ acceptance is very strict and specific. It is not enough just to have a "nice quality content" - many great SS-like portfolios would have no chances there. Do your research. Long story short, if you don't shooting people, forget about it (not quite true but close enough).

And keep in mind that iStock exclusivity means TOTAL exclusivity: you can't sell RF-imagery nowhere else, so, all your accounts in other agencies must be shutted dowb prior you will move to exclusivity.

BTW, if you do speak Russian, check out my webinar "Интимные тайны iStock" - almost 5 hours, lol, but people reported that it was helpful :)

Sent from my LM-V600 using Tapatalk

« Reply #28 on: September 10, 2020, 00:53 »
0
Yes, it is not fast and easy money.

Sent from my LM-V600 using Tapatalk


« Reply #29 on: September 10, 2020, 01:03 »
0
Hello, my dear sir, is it easy for me to apply for istock exclusive now, are there any requirements? I heard that the previous requirement was 1000 downloads, what about now?
Yes, it is not fast and easy money.

Sent from my LM-V600 using Tapatalk

« Reply #30 on: September 10, 2020, 03:30 »
0
Hello, my dear sir, is it easy for me to apply for istock exclusive now, are there any requirements? I heard that the previous requirement was 1000 downloads, what about now?
Yes, it is not fast and easy money.

Sent from my LM-V600 using Tapatalk
It is not required anymore (1000 downloads). However, your portfolio will be reviewed and only if they find it commercial enough you will be accepted. Don't be surprised to be turned down if you don't have people pictures.

« Reply #31 on: September 10, 2020, 06:03 »
0
When the new ones become exclusive their old pictures become exclusive too? Or are just the new ones?

ShadySue

  • There is a crack in everything
« Reply #32 on: September 10, 2020, 06:13 »
0
When the new ones become exclusive their old pictures become exclusive too? Or are just the new ones?
CORRECTION: All your RF files must be exclusive at iStock.
However, your old pics will still be sold at one credit, though you get your new percentage on them.

Whether they are incapable of upgrading old pics, or they just don't want to, is the old 'incompetence vs malice' conundrum.
In the Old Days, they were willing and able to upgrade old pics if someone became exclusive.
« Last Edit: September 10, 2020, 12:31 by ShadySue »

« Reply #33 on: September 10, 2020, 06:16 »
0
Thanks, Im thinking about it, so can I still give my old photos to SS ft, haha
Hello, my dear sir, is it easy for me to apply for istock exclusive now, are there any requirements? I heard that the previous requirement was 1000 downloads, what about now?
Yes, it is not fast and easy money.

Sent from my LM-V600 using Tapatalk
It is not required anymore (1000 downloads). However, your portfolio will be reviewed and only if they find it commercial enough you will be accepted. Don't be surprised to be turned down if you don't have people pictures.

ShadySue

  • There is a crack in everything
« Reply #34 on: September 10, 2020, 06:47 »
0
Thanks, Im thinking about it, so can I still give my old photos to SS ft, haha

No, you can't.
Exclusivity at iS is artist exclusivity, so you can only sell RF files via iS/Getty. If you are caught out, you'll likely be removed altogether (I think that has happened in the past, someone can correct me if I'm wrong).
You can sell other (non-sister) files RM anywhere you like or on print sites like Fine Art America (other suppliers are available).

« Reply #35 on: September 10, 2020, 08:09 »
0
When the new ones become exclusive their old pictures become exclusive too? Or are just the new ones?
Just the new ones.
The wrong answer.
Don't mess up "exclusivity" and "sale price". Yes, the old photos will stay in the "essential" collection and will cost 1 credit.

But on iStock, exclusivite means not "pictures' exclusivity" but "contributor's exclusivity" - you will be the exclusive cobtributor, and ALL your RF-imagery must be exclusive for iStock. It means that all your accounts in otger agencies must be turned down.

You will still able to sell your imagery in otger agencies via other licenses though - for example, via RM license, ir as goods on POD services.

Sent from my LM-V600 using Tapatalk
« Last Edit: September 10, 2020, 08:31 by Krakozawr »

« Reply #36 on: September 10, 2020, 08:10 »
0
Thanks, Im thinking about it, so can I still give my old photos to SS ft, haha

No, you can't.
Exclusivity at iS is artist exclusivity, so you can only sell RF files via iS/Getty. If you are caught out, you'll likely be removed altogether (I think that has happened in the past, someone can correct me if I'm wrong).
You can sell other (non-sister) files RM anywhere you like or on print sites like Fine Art America (other suppliers are available).
Oh, yes, you are correct! Sorry, I respinded furst tgen I saw your abswer to the same question.

Sent from my LM-V600 using Tapatalk


« Reply #37 on: September 10, 2020, 08:15 »
0
Hello, my dear sir, is it easy for me to apply for istock exclusive now, are there any requirements?
It is easy to apply, but evaluate your portfolio first. If you will see that your content will not be accepted into S+ collection most likely, you will not want to apply - it will be a disaster, abd you will lost money most likely.

Sent from my LM-V600 using Tapatalk
« Last Edit: September 10, 2020, 08:33 by Krakozawr »

ShadySue

  • There is a crack in everything
« Reply #38 on: September 10, 2020, 12:29 »
0
When the new ones become exclusive their old pictures become exclusive too? Or are just the new ones?
Just the new ones.
The wrong answer.
Don't mess up "exclusivity" and "sale price". Yes, the old photos will stay in the "essential" collection and will cost 1 credit.

But on iStock, exclusivite means not "pictures' exclusivity" but "contributor's exclusivity" - you will be the exclusive cobtributor, and ALL your RF-imagery must be exclusive for iStock. It means that all your accounts in otger agencies must be turned down.

You will still able to sell your imagery in otger agencies via other licenses though - for example, via RM license, ir as goods on POD services.

Sent from my LM-V600 using Tapatalk
Sorry, I totally misinterpreted the question.
Absolutely, the old files will now be exclusive, like all one's RF files.
Somehow, I thought the question was about whether the old files would be sold at 3 credits, which is a pretty important question if someone had an existing port of several thousand files. However, that wasn't the question.

« Reply #39 on: September 11, 2020, 07:37 »
0
If I have understood the answers, the old files when you become exclusive don't change their status. So they sell for a lower prize than the exclusive ones  :o :o :o


ShadySue

  • There is a crack in everything
« Reply #40 on: September 11, 2020, 07:44 »
0
If I have understood the answers, the old files when you become exclusive don't change their status. So they sell for a lower prize than the exclusive ones  :o :o :o
Yes, but remember, buyers can filter to see essentials only (despite them once promising that that would 'never' happen, which must be in the Getty 'alternative definition' dictionary).  ::)

« Reply #41 on: September 11, 2020, 16:21 »
0
woao.



 

Related Topics

  Subject / Started by Replies Last post
13 Replies
5903 Views
Last post January 28, 2008, 08:23
by sensovision
6 Replies
10570 Views
Last post September 30, 2011, 01:43
by tbmpvideo
10 Replies
2398 Views
Last post December 11, 2012, 07:49
by StockCube
9 Replies
5898 Views
Last post December 03, 2015, 14:58
by amperial
6 Replies
1647 Views
Last post January 11, 2020, 00:22
by rinderart

Sponsors

Mega Bundle of 5,900+ Professional Lightroom Presets

Microstock Poll Results

Sponsors

3100 Posing Cards Bundle