Author Topic: iStock Royalty Change (Read 136441 times)

BaldricksTrousers · « **Reply #475 on:** November 25, 2016, 15:17 »

Quote from: sharpshot on November 25, 2016, 13:57

So I have to disagree, Getty might not think it matters but they are wrong.

If the top 800 leave, Getty would really notice it. If the bottom 8000 leave they would just laugh about how much wasted server space was being recovered. And those most likely to leave are those with the least to lose. The top 800 would lose quite a lot. The bottom 8000 probably would never have made a payout, anyway. That's just how it is.

PixelBytes · « **Reply #476 on:** November 25, 2016, 15:38 »

Quote from: BaldricksTrousers on November 25, 2016, 15:17

Quote from: sharpshot on November 25, 2016, 13:57
So I have to disagree, Getty might not think it matters but they are wrong.
If the top 800 leave, Getty would really notice it. If the bottom 8000 leave they would just laugh about how much wasted server space was being recovered. And those most likely to leave are those with the least to lose. The top 800 would lose quite a lot. The bottom 8000 probably would never have made a payout, anyway. That's just how it is.

I'm in the top couple hundred and if my monthly income there drops any more I DONT stand to lose a lot. This year I make so little there that if I lose even one or two hundred $ /month it won't be worth staying.

everest · « **Reply #477 on:** November 25, 2016, 16:00 »

They will only loose buyers if they don't have a large enough range of content to offer. No petition is going to affect Getty. The power is on buyers side more than ever, agencies are trying to make it thinning margins and squeezing contributors to the last drop. Many cannot sustain this pressure and they move out the game, but not in the numbers to really affect the diversity of their library. There is so much repetitive content now that they really have enough to offer of nearly every subject. Even so much mentioned niche is sometimes well covered. They have ilustrations and specially photography to fill five Titanics now.....not all video they want so the still treat those contributors a little better.

It is tough folks, forget petitions, mourning the good all times, unions,etc.......try to produce a very unique style and move to exclusive better treating agencies. The huge Juggernauts of the stock industry don't really care about contributors anymore.The black hole is not going to be any brighter.

I know....gloom and doom......but it is what it is......

Quote from: Shelma1 on November 25, 2016, 11:37

Quote from: sharpshot on November 25, 2016, 10:52
It doesn't take much time or energy to request istock to close your account. It would hurt istock much more if 800 of us did that.

Would it?

If 800 people quietly close their accounts, what will it do? How would anyone know? Surely by now, after round after round of royalty cuts over the years, with mass deletions every now and again, at least 800 people must have closed their accounts, and many more have deactivated huge portions of their portfolios, me included.

Did it matter to Getty? Of course not. Nobody knows it happened but us.

What will matter to Getty is losing buyers. And being able to show them that thousands of artists have signed a petition about royalty cuts is useful.

YadaYadaYada · « **Reply #478 on:** November 25, 2016, 16:29 »

Quote from: BaldricksTrousers on November 25, 2016, 15:17

Quote from: sharpshot on November 25, 2016, 13:57
So I have to disagree, Getty might not think it matters but they are wrong.
If the top 800 leave, Getty would really notice it. If the bottom 8000 leave they would just laugh about how much wasted server space was being recovered. And those most likely to leave are those with the least to lose. The top 800 would lose quite a lot. The bottom 8000 probably would never have made a payout, anyway. That's just how it is.

I'd agree except add that if everybody here and everybody who signed the petition left, they still wouldn't care. If one peanut producer leaves the maarket or 800 peanut growers leave the market, there are many more to fill in. This is a world market, and for some reason, just like Micro, there are more and more people willing to work for underpaying peanuts if anybody else leaves.

The agencies have come to the power point of, if you don't like it, you can leave. They have 1000 other stupid people that are willing to work for nearly nothing. This is the house that the early people built on happiness for 25c sales or 15% commissions at IS. The same people who flocked to sell out their soul for 25c to be a member on DP.

And every time one agency lowers returns, people scream, but we are unheard. A petition with 1000 names has no weight to Getty.

PixelBytes · « **Reply #479 on:** November 27, 2016, 12:15 »

Quote from: YadaYadaYada on November 25, 2016, 16:29

Quote from: BaldricksTrousers on November 25, 2016, 15:17
Quote from: sharpshot on November 25, 2016, 13:57
So I have to disagree, Getty might not think it matters but they are wrong.
If the top 800 leave, Getty would really notice it. If the bottom 8000 leave they would just laugh about how much wasted server space was being recovered. And those most likely to leave are those with the least to lose. The top 800 would lose quite a lot. The bottom 8000 probably would never have made a payout, anyway. That's just how it is.

I'd agree except add that if everybody here and everybody who signed the petition left, they still wouldn't care. If one peanut producer leaves the maarket or 800 peanut growers leave the market, there are many more to fill in. This is a world market, and for some reason, just like Micro, there are more and more people willing to work for underpaying peanuts if anybody else leaves.

The agencies have come to the power point of, if you don't like it, you can leave. They have 1000 other stupid people that are willing to work for nearly nothing. This is the house that the early people built on happiness for 25c sales or 15% commissions at IS. The same people who flocked to sell out their soul for 25c to be a member on DP.

And every time one agency lowers returns, people scream, but we are unheard. A petition with 1000 names has no weight to Getty.

Istock paid 20% to those "early people" and currently pays 17-19% to some of us. Not to metion they paid up to 40% to exclusives from the inception of that program. SS paiid .38 to anyone willing to work moderately hard. With FAR less competition at most sites, they were not earning peanuts, but many earned solid 6k incomes. Thats why the early people were happy. It was a balance that seemed to work well. I didn't come along til a few years later, but even in 2009 there was still a good chance to make money. I am kicking myself for not getting in sooner because I am sure my hesitancy cost me couple hundred k.

The agencies screwing over their contributors like this is a relatively recent phenomena. Past 3 years maybe. Before that some tried, but petitions and group actions did mostly work to stop them.

sharpshot · « **Reply #480 on:** November 27, 2016, 17:17 »

Quote from: PixelBytes on November 27, 2016, 12:15

.....The agencies screwing over their contributors like this is a relatively recent phenomena. Past 3 years maybe. Before that some tried, but petitions and group actions did mostly work to stop them.

More like 6 years. It's all in this forum, istock sent us a "good news" email telling us they were cutting non-exclusives commission below 20%. Until then, we had some success improving things with a few sites but they ignored our deactivation day protest and all the big sites have given us "good news" since then.

PixelBytes · « **Reply #481 on:** November 27, 2016, 22:37 »

Quote from: sharpshot on November 27, 2016, 17:17

Quote from: PixelBytes on November 27, 2016, 12:15
.....The agencies screwing over their contributors like this is a relatively recent phenomena. Past 3 years maybe. Before that some tried, but petitions and group actions did mostly work to stop them.
More like 6 years. It's all in this forum, istock sent us a "good news" email telling us they were cutting non-exclusives commission below 20%. Until then, we had some success improving things with a few sites but they ignored our deactivation day protest and all the big sites have given us "good news" since then.

I became active 8ish years ago, but I remember making 20% as nonexclusive until at least 2013, and the thread on the deactivation day subject seems to back that up. So isn't that more like 3+ years?

Not saying it doesn't suck, but explaining why some of us felt happy with stock til the past couple years.

sharpshot · « **Reply #482 on:** November 28, 2016, 04:23 »

Quote from: PixelBytes on November 27, 2016, 22:37

Quote from: sharpshot on November 27, 2016, 17:17
Quote from: PixelBytes on November 27, 2016, 12:15
.....The agencies screwing over their contributors like this is a relatively recent phenomena. Past 3 years maybe. Before that some tried, but petitions and group actions did mostly work to stop them.
More like 6 years. It's all in this forum, istock sent us a "good news" email telling us they were cutting non-exclusives commission below 20%. Until then, we had some success improving things with a few sites but they ignored our deactivation day protest and all the big sites have given us "good news" since then.

I became active 8ish years ago, but I remember making 20% as nonexclusive until at least 2013, and the thread on the deactivation day subject seems to back that up. So isn't that more like 3+ years?

Not saying it doesn't suck, but explaining why some of us felt happy with stock til the past couple years.

They announced the cuts in 2010, so you must of been getting below 20%in 2011? Here's one thread about it http://www.microstockgroup.com/istockphoto-com/so-what-are-we-all-going-to-do/

YadaYadaYada · « **Reply #483 on:** December 03, 2016, 18:58 »

Quote from: sharpshot on November 28, 2016, 04:23

Quote from: PixelBytes on November 27, 2016, 22:37
Quote from: sharpshot on November 27, 2016, 17:17
Quote from: PixelBytes on November 27, 2016, 12:15
.....The agencies screwing over their contributors like this is a relatively recent phenomena. Past 3 years maybe. Before that some tried, but petitions and group actions did mostly work to stop them.
More like 6 years. It's all in this forum, istock sent us a "good news" email telling us they were cutting non-exclusives commission below 20%. Until then, we had some success improving things with a few sites but they ignored our deactivation day protest and all the big sites have given us "good news" since then.

I became active 8ish years ago, but I remember making 20% as nonexclusive until at least 2013, and the thread on the deactivation day subject seems to back that up. So isn't that more like 3+ years?

Not saying it doesn't suck, but explaining why some of us felt happy with stock til the past couple years.
They announced the cuts in 2010, so you must of been getting below 20%in 2011? Here's one thread about it http://www.microstockgroup.com/istockphoto-com/so-what-are-we-all-going-to-do/

Frosting and fabrications won't change the truth Pixel, Since TS around 2010 most independents have been getting 15% or less. IS has diverted sales from credit to subs and TS. They keep making exciting changes which only mean we get less. RC was another way to pay less to more people.

Exclusives do get what they work for and I've always said they deserve that for being loyal and exclusive. They should get better search placement.

PixelBytes · « **Reply #484 on:** December 03, 2016, 23:24 »

Quote from: YadaYadaYada on December 03, 2016, 18:58

Quote from: sharpshot on November 28, 2016, 04:23
Quote from: PixelBytes on November 27, 2016, 22:37
Quote from: sharpshot on November 27, 2016, 17:17
Quote from: PixelBytes on November 27, 2016, 12:15
.....The agencies screwing over their contributors like this is a relatively recent phenomena. Past 3 years maybe. Before that some tried, but petitions and group actions did mostly work to stop them.
More like 6 years. It's all in this forum, istock sent us a "good news" email telling us they were cutting non-exclusives commission below 20%. Until then, we had some success improving things with a few sites but they ignored our deactivation day protest and all the big sites have given us "good news" since then.

I became active 8ish years ago, but I remember making 20% as nonexclusive until at least 2013, and the thread on the deactivation day subject seems to back that up. So isn't that more like 3+ years?

Not saying it doesn't suck, but explaining why some of us felt happy with stock til the past couple years.
They announced the cuts in 2010, so you must of been getting below 20%in 2011? Here's one thread about it http://www.microstockgroup.com/istockphoto-com/so-what-are-we-all-going-to-do/

Frosting and fabrications won't change the truth Pixel, Since TS around 2010 most independents have been getting 15% or less. IS has diverted sales from credit to subs and TS. They keep making exciting changes which only mean we get less. RC was another way to pay less to more people.

Exclusives do get what they work for and I've always said they deserve that for being loyal and exclusive. They should get better search placement.

Don't get me wrong. I agree they've been screwing us for a long time.. That's why I haven't uploaded there in almost 3 years. I wasn't counting the Thinkstock subs as part of the % drop, but it did drop overall earnings. Some of you guys started before I did and probably remember outrages I didn't go thru or else didn't notice as I was building my port. I do know that I make a couple % over the minimum on the few credit sales i get, at least til the 23rd of this month. Then it's Merry Christmas contributors - BEND OVER and all goes even farther down the tubes. If the money's gone, so am I.

Had such a good month on Adobe/FT I may not even miss IS.

YadaYadaYada · « **Reply #485 on:** December 03, 2016, 23:51 »

Quote from: PixelBytes on December 03, 2016, 23:24

Quote from: YadaYadaYada on December 03, 2016, 18:58
Quote from: sharpshot on November 28, 2016, 04:23
Quote from: PixelBytes on November 27, 2016, 22:37
Quote from: sharpshot on November 27, 2016, 17:17
Quote from: PixelBytes on November 27, 2016, 12:15
.....The agencies screwing over their contributors like this is a relatively recent phenomena. Past 3 years maybe. Before that some tried, but petitions and group actions did mostly work to stop them.
More like 6 years. It's all in this forum, istock sent us a "good news" email telling us they were cutting non-exclusives commission below 20%. Until then, we had some success improving things with a few sites but they ignored our deactivation day protest and all the big sites have given us "good news" since then.

I became active 8ish years ago, but I remember making 20% as nonexclusive until at least 2013, and the thread on the deactivation day subject seems to back that up. So isn't that more like 3+ years?

Not saying it doesn't suck, but explaining why some of us felt happy with stock til the past couple years.
They announced the cuts in 2010, so you must of been getting below 20%in 2011? Here's one thread about it http://www.microstockgroup.com/istockphoto-com/so-what-are-we-all-going-to-do/

Frosting and fabrications won't change the truth Pixel, Since TS around 2010 most independents have been getting 15% or less. IS has diverted sales from credit to subs and TS. They keep making exciting changes which only mean we get less. RC was another way to pay less to more people.

Exclusives do get what they work for and I've always said they deserve that for being loyal and exclusive. They should get better search placement.

Don't get me wrong. I agree they've been screwing us for a long time.. That's why I haven't uploaded there in almost 3 years. I wasn't counting the Thinkstock subs as part of the % drop, but it did drop overall earnings. Some of you guys started before I did and probably remember outrages I didn't go thru or else didn't notice as I was building my port. I do know that I make a couple % over the minimum on the few credit sales i get, at least til the 23rd of this month. Then it's Merry Christmas contributors - BEND OVER and all goes even farther down the tubes. If the money's gone, so am I.

Had such a good month on Adobe/FT I may not even miss IS.

Please accept my apologizes for thinking you were a happy iStock zombie drone.

I read the message and understood wrong.

Like the old old threads where people averaged 50c a download, not including any EL. Now we can include EL and after subs and ts, I don't think I average 50c a download anymore. Less downloads means less income while we get latest exciting news.

Most agencies are finding new ways to pay less peanuts to us chumps. Istock is just the master at pretending we don't see through them. How did they go from overwhelming top agency with happy contributors, to #3 with people who haven't left, still disgruntled? Maybe they just don't care? Otherwise how can they be that stupid?

PixelBytes · « **Reply #486 on:** December 03, 2016, 23:58 »

Quote from: YadaYadaYada on December 03, 2016, 23:51

Quote from: PixelBytes on December 03, 2016, 23:24
Quote from: YadaYadaYada on December 03, 2016, 18:58
Quote from: sharpshot on November 28, 2016, 04:23
Quote from: PixelBytes on November 27, 2016, 22:37
Quote from: sharpshot on November 27, 2016, 17:17
Quote from: PixelBytes on November 27, 2016, 12:15
.....The agencies screwing over their contributors like this is a relatively recent phenomena. Past 3 years maybe. Before that some tried, but petitions and group actions did mostly work to stop them.
More like 6 years. It's all in this forum, istock sent us a "good news" email telling us they were cutting non-exclusives commission below 20%. Until then, we had some success improving things with a few sites but they ignored our deactivation day protest and all the big sites have given us "good news" since then.

I became active 8ish years ago, but I remember making 20% as nonexclusive until at least 2013, and the thread on the deactivation day subject seems to back that up. So isn't that more like 3+ years?

Not saying it doesn't suck, but explaining why some of us felt happy with stock til the past couple years.
They announced the cuts in 2010, so you must of been getting below 20%in 2011? Here's one thread about it http://www.microstockgroup.com/istockphoto-com/so-what-are-we-all-going-to-do/

Frosting and fabrications won't change the truth Pixel, Since TS around 2010 most independents have been getting 15% or less. IS has diverted sales from credit to subs and TS. They keep making exciting changes which only mean we get less. RC was another way to pay less to more people.

Exclusives do get what they work for and I've always said they deserve that for being loyal and exclusive. They should get better search placement.

Don't get me wrong. I agree they've been screwing us for a long time.. That's why I haven't uploaded there in almost 3 years. I wasn't counting the Thinkstock subs as part of the % drop, but it did drop overall earnings. Some of you guys started before I did and probably remember outrages I didn't go thru or else didn't notice as I was building my port. I do know that I make a couple % over the minimum on the few credit sales i get, at least til the 23rd of this month. Then it's Merry Christmas contributors - BEND OVER and all goes even farther down the tubes. If the money's gone, so am I.

Had such a good month on Adobe/FT I may not even miss IS.

Please accept my apologizes for thinking you were a happy iStock zombie drone. I read the message and understood wrong.

Like the old old threads where people averaged 50c a download, not including any EL. Now we can include EL and after subs and ts, I don't think I average 50c a download anymore. Less downloads means less income while we get latest exciting news.

Most agencies are finding new ways to pay less peanuts to us chumps. Istock is just the master at pretending we don't see through them. How did they go from overwhelming top agency with happy contributors, to #3 with people who haven't left, still disgruntled? Maybe they just don't care? Otherwise how can they be that stupid?

I think you nailed it. They just don't care AND they are that stupid!

And it seems likely they are bleeding money from their greedy, stupid policies. It blows my mind that some other sites seem to be going down the same road!

FWIW, I was a happy drone when I first joined, before they started to poison the well. I just didn't remember how long ago that was. I missed the glory days by a couple years, but things still seemed okay in 2009. I never in my life would of predicted how bad things could get there. So glad I was never exclusive!

Phadrea · « **Reply #487 on:** December 05, 2016, 02:16 »

I recall daring to criticise them all those years ago and getting shot down in flames by a lot in the forums who have since been bitten on the backside by Istock. I saw the early signs but many were wearing Istock tinted sunglasses.

BaldricksTrousers · « **Reply #488 on:** December 05, 2016, 02:47 »

Did they start messing us about three years ago or six years ago? Well, maybe eight or more years ago. See this thread from summer 2008 http://www.microstockgroup.com/stockxpert-com/StockXpert-photos-com/

I'm not even sure that's the earliest sign of looming troubles. When did Fotolia disconnect the value of a credit for photographers from the cost of a credit to buyers? I can't remember.

But if you really want to go back to the first sell-out, it was Bruce selling to Getty back in 2005 IIRC. Many early submitters were virulently anti- big business and regarded Getty as the great Satan. I'm told that a lot quit after Getty bought iStock. So that pushes it back more than a decade.

gyllens · « **Reply #489 on:** December 05, 2016, 03:18 »

Quote from: BaldricksTrousers on December 05, 2016, 02:47

Did they start messing us about three years ago or six years ago? Well, maybe eight or more years ago. See this thread from summer 2008 http://www.microstockgroup.com/stockxpert-com/StockXpert-photos-com/

I'm not even sure that's the earliest sign of looming troubles. When did Fotolia disconnect the value of a credit for photographers from the cost of a credit to buyers? I can't remember.

But if you really want to go back to the first sell-out, it was Bruce selling to Getty back in 2005 IIRC. Many early submitters were virulently anti- big business and regarded Getty as the great Satan. I'm told that a lot quit after Getty bought iStock. So that pushes it back more than a decade.

Absolutely! the trouble started with Bruce selling to Getty and although I was a long long time member of Getty I for one was against that deal. I smelled trouble from the very start. Getty itself started to show trouble and anxiety already when Mark Getty left the business in the hands of we all know who!

There has always been trouble at Istock and always this stupid friction between exclusives and independents even though not even 10% are exclusives. I recon a good lessen would be if all the independents just deleted their portfolios and left only then would Istock feel and experience the doom of a few exclusives trying to sdave an already sinking ship.

Justanotherphotographer · « **Reply #490 on:** December 05, 2016, 03:23 »

Does anyone remember that post by an ex employee explaining why getty is run the way it is? It explains a lot. We are perplexed by what they are doing because we expect the company to be run like a stock agency competing for customers and the best content. Actually like a lot of "businesses" nowadays it is just a financial vehicle to juggle funds about and make money by slight of hand.

gyllens · « **Reply #491 on:** December 05, 2016, 03:29 »

Because they have always been billions in debt and really dont care. A few moths back they lost four or five long term and very well known RM photographers who was with them since the early 90s and didnt even flinge an eyelid.
The company is today run by suits trying to be clever business men and non creatives trying to run a creative business. Nowadays their pass-time is to sue people in the hope of earning a few dollars. Thats why.

BaldricksTrousers · « **Reply #492 on:** December 05, 2016, 03:41 »

Quote from: gyllens on December 05, 2016, 03:18

There has always been trouble at Istock and always this stupid friction between exclusives and independents even though not even 10% are exclusives.

After they brought in the exclusivity thing in 2005, in response to the appearance of Shutterstock and DT, Bruce managed to keep any friction fairly minimal. It was when he completed his 3 year stint under Getty that they really ramped up the friction. I particularly recall a jarring piece of "great news" from Kelly Thompson, I think it was, where he said something along the lines of "the exclusives are all we care about", I actually protested in the forum that this was a new attitude and got a number of fairly aggressive replies from exclusives. Maybe it was part of the famous "money won't make you happy" post.

gyllens · « **Reply #493 on:** December 05, 2016, 04:06 »

Correct and with Thompson thats where it all started that was the beginning of the end for us independents. Besides I am sure that Getty really dont want this Istock thorn in the side I am sure that withing a year or something they will either sell or fold the IS company.

Justanotherphotographer · « **Reply #494 on:** December 05, 2016, 04:31 »

Thompson was only ever a puppet. If you think he was involved in the big decisions I think you are wrong. I suspect his only role was to try and sugar coat orders from on high. He failed miserably but given what he had to work with I'm not sure he could have succeeded.

Don't get me wrong. F*** him for going along with it, but I don't believe he was the organ grinder.

BaldricksTrousers · « **Reply #495 on:** December 05, 2016, 04:49 »

Quote from: Justanotherphotographer on December 05, 2016, 04:31

Thompson was only ever a puppet.

True. iS hasn't had a CEO since Bruce left, has it?

gyllens · « **Reply #496 on:** December 05, 2016, 04:57 »

Quote from: Justanotherphotographer on December 05, 2016, 04:31

Thompson was only ever a puppet. If you think he was involved in the big decisions I think you are wrong. I suspect his only role was to try and sugar coat orders from on high. He failed miserably but given what he had to work with I'm not sure he could have succeeded.

Don't get me wrong. F*** him for going along with it, but I don't believe he was the organ grinder.

I know! but even behind the scenes one can create lots of mayhem from second level management and he did!..... I belive Scott went to Adobe/Ft after leaving SS and now an then there is a very strange similarity in the cut-off patterns and geo searches?? we will see.

gyllens · « **Reply #497 on:** December 05, 2016, 05:00 »

Quote from: BaldricksTrousers on December 05, 2016, 04:49

Quote from: Justanotherphotographer on December 05, 2016, 04:31
Thompson was only ever a puppet.
True. iS hasn't had a CEO since Bruce left, has it?

Thats because Getty dont want a proper CEO at Istock. They want a yes-man somebody they can boss around and scare!. Just look at the present CEO at Getty. Makes you laugh.

sharpshot · « **Reply #498 on:** December 05, 2016, 05:06 »

Quote from: BaldricksTrousers on December 05, 2016, 02:47

Did they start messing us about three years ago or six years ago? Well, maybe eight or more years ago. See this thread from summer 2008 http://www.microstockgroup.com/stockxpert-com/StockXpert-photos-com/

I'm not even sure that's the earliest sign of looming troubles. When did Fotolia disconnect the value of a credit for photographers from the cost of a credit to buyers? I can't remember.

But if you really want to go back to the first sell-out, it was Bruce selling to Getty back in 2005 IIRC. Many early submitters were virulently anti- big business and regarded Getty as the great Satan. I'm told that a lot quit after Getty bought iStock. So that pushes it back more than a decade.

I think the problems started 15 years ago when istock started paying just 20% to its contributors. Alamy were around then, I think they were paying 60%? Other sites started up paying a much higher percentage than istock and that meant they had a lot of competition. I think if istock started at 50% and didn't sell out to Getty, it would have almost no competition.

Mantis · « **Reply #499 on:** December 05, 2016, 07:47 »

Quote from: Justanotherphotographer on December 05, 2016, 04:31

Thompson was only ever a puppet. If you think he was involved in the big decisions I think you are wrong. I suspect his only role was to try and sugar coat orders from on high. He failed miserably but given what he had to work with I'm not sure he could have succeeded.

Don't get me wrong. F*** him for going along with it, but I don't believe he was the organ grinder.

Maybe and maybe not. Pretty much the next day at 500px he slashed commissions by 40%. That was 500px owners taking his f u k d up advice. That tells me a lot about him. I think he was far more culpable than many give him credit.

MicrostockGroup Sponsors

Author Topic: iStock Royalty Change (Read 136441 times)

BaldricksTrousers

PixelBytes

everest

YadaYadaYada

PixelBytes

sharpshot

PixelBytes

sharpshot

YadaYadaYada

PixelBytes

YadaYadaYada

PixelBytes

Phadrea

BaldricksTrousers

gyllens

Justanotherphotographer

gyllens

BaldricksTrousers

gyllens

Justanotherphotographer

BaldricksTrousers

gyllens

gyllens

sharpshot

Mantis

Related Topics

Sponsors

Microstock Poll Results

Sponsors