Your opinion on the matter is well stated amanda1863.� The core nugget of truth that I see there is that "while this may be a gray area, they (and their in-house lawyer) judge this to be within bounds as far as their EULA."� It is that judgement on the part of istock that startled me so and has made me have a change of mind about using friends and family as istock models.

With that in mind, I am looking for advice or opinions from anyone who wishes to offer one about the use of non- professional models on other stock sites.� I had decided to return to exclusivity with istock after my 6 month obligation to Dreamstime had passed, but this whole episode has caused me to rethink that decision.� I remain hesitant about posting model shots at Dreamstime or ShutterStock... should I be?�

What about Rights Managed sites?� Is my understanding correct that RM sales are more controlled?� I'm vaguely familiar with Alamy but wonder if there are other less pricey RM companies.� Any advice appreciated.

I guess that lastly I need to clarify that I don't really want to argue whether istock was justified or not to make the judgement that they did.� It is what it is and I can work with that.� Whether I (or you) agree with it is not the point.� I am just trying to figure out how to proceed from here.

What kind of images does that leave you with?  How well do they sell?  (Not that I'm asking you to reveal trade secrets . . .  ).

Well, what did I say all along about iStock being the evil Walmart of microstocks? Anyways, I am one of the people who has removed all of his model released photos. Good riddance: I'm not going to have my girlfriend potentially on a right-wing fascist ad, my grandma advertising Chipendales or my mom with a thought bubble "Satanism. Is it for me?"

Nice portfolio Amanda1863. Honestly.

As for you removing your files from iStock, I am really curious after having read your comments why you persist in keeping a portfolio at a site that you profess to hate so much. You don't seem to understand that your shots of models on Shutterstock or Dreamstime or anywhere else could very well end up on  "right wing" or radical right political campaign ad, as long as the image is not meant to mislead the viewer into believing this is an actual person that supports the cause as in your thought bubble example.  It is a fine line that requires full understanding before you decide to jump into selling model released images.

Take a closer look at the ELUAs of the other sites you mention.  Not one of them spells out a comprehensive list of exactly what uses are ok and which ones cross the line.  it is all written in standardly vague CYA legal speak.

Now pardon me for not taking your objections seriously as we see that you are a full time exclusive member at iStock heavily involved in the community based on your posts, referrals and battle cage activity. It's nice that you like iStock so much. Just as I like Starbucks. Or as another Joe likes Walmart. It doesn't mean that others have to as well.

You are really curious after having read my comments why I persist in keeping a portfolio at a site that I profess to hate so much? Well, I shall give you two reasons, which I've stated before many times: 1) money: even after removal of my model released photos iStock still generates a solid income payment every month (and that's for not being exclusive), 2) I do not mind my photos of buildings, tomatoes or bees pollinating flowers on there. Stock is not art. I do not feel attached to my work I submit to microstock. It's technically perfect, conceptually useful for designers, yet devoid of any emotional or artistic value. Anything else I've ever shot, I would never upload to microstock, 3) whatever makes you feel that I "hate iStock so much"? I believe that they are over the top, arrogant and bloated company with bunch of inflated egos going about, acting like they are God's gift to the world, not acknowledging the wonderful photographers and illustrators (like yourself) who make what they are. But they do a good job of marketing and attracting buyers, so just like I will criticize Walmart for their arogance and labour practices, I will still buy t-shirts there; similarly with iStock: as long as they keep making me money I have no problems with selling my pictures there. I am a pragmatist. I have embraced microstocks as "the necessary evil" and come out well ahead.

And I understand quite well the reprecussions of having model released shots elsewhere. The point is how admins and others approach their relationship with those who make them money, i.e.: us the photogs / illustrators and the buyers / designers. iStock is without a doubt (and this is proven and can be shown by the number of locked threads, number of bans of members due to criticism, even quality of their customer service responses: which I can provide as well) filled with most blatantly self-important and arrogant staff out there. And this isn't my opinion. I try to keep my interaction with iStock to a bare minimum. I use it purely for making money, not giving a rat's ass about their "community" of moderated sycophants. And here I shall restate the point I made in the paragraph before: I think iStock does a wonderful job of marketing and sales, and I agree with you that they invented a brilliant business model. But I do know from experience that you got to keep up with the times or you will go down into the shits. And this recent issue where several well selling members of iStock (follow their thread and you'll know who they are) withdrawn their model released photos (to the total of about five thousand photos from just six portfolios) in protest / moral dillema illustrates that point clearly. Perhaps iStock can afford to do so with their fleet of exclusives.

While some may like to simplyify it down to "iStock is evil!" some may want to take the time to look at is a sobering example and use it as an opportunity to learn more about the industry.  It will only become a profession is you treat it like one.

I should really find the above quoted bit a little condescending. But I suppose sycophants for all sites will infiltrate the forums, as do the admins. For your information: I do not need to treat it as a profession, as I've been making a living as a full time photographer for quite a long time. PHOTOGRAPHY is my profession, not MICROSTOCK and I suppose that's where we differ. I simply wouldn't feel comfortable putting all my eggs into one basket. Commissioned assignments provide about half of my income, selling through traditional methods (mags, macrostocks, specialized agencies) another quarter. The final quarter of my monthly income comes from microstocks: primarily six agencies that generate a payment monthly and four others that trickle along like a slightly open tap. So as you can see, I'm deeply entrenched in photography, just to restate again: not microstock. And definitely not iStock.

Well, that's it for me. It's 5 in the morning. Sun shall be up soon, so I better get my camera ready for the golden hour.

Kacper, I never said everyone had to like iStock.  And if you think I'm condescending in my remarks I don't mean to be, but you did just say that you don't take my opinion or objection seriously.  I think if people are allowed to express a negative opinion iStock I should be able to share my opinion even if it differs from yours.  If I seem like I am being too personal with you, I apologize, it is because the first posts I saw on this site were from you and were insulting to some people that I consider friends and mentors who have always been good to me and perfectly pleasent in my experience.  I didn't say they were perfect and you have every right to disagree.  That's the beauty of free speech.  I hope you and I can agree to disagree (which we clearly do ) and get on with some useful discussion and debate which can be really healthy, and this board seems to be a great place for that.

The point I was getting at with the quote about treating microstock as a profession ( I didn't word it clearly,) is that the more it is treated like a serious business the more likely the individual contributer is to succeed monetarily in microstock, whether it is a full time income or supplementary income, on one site or many. That wasn't directed specifically at you at all actually it was a feeling I was getting from some of the comments in that thread at iStock where people were saying that it isn't about money for them and they only wanted to shoot family and things like that.  I just thought it seemed over there to be more of a divide between the people who have very few uploads and don't see it as an income source, and the people who are really serious about building up as much revenue as possible.

On a side note I am an exclusive to iStock for many reasons and one of the big differences to keep in mind (or that I will try to) is that I may have a much different perspective on it being a vector artist. there aren't many outlets at these prices for illustration.  The numbers don't lie on that, I'm not one of the leading illustrators there by any means, but overall vectors get more downloads per file than photos simply because there are less of them at this time, but that may change.

As far as the photo perspective and my opinions on the model issues in this thread, I did have a portfolio of photos when I started which are all deactivated because I wanted to focus on illustration. (And I'm not that great a photographer truth be told.)  The other basis for my opinions on the legal issues here come from having to deal with the cold hard truth that what the lawyer says goes, and in having a few conflicts where I had to enlist iStock's legal team in the past.

Do either of you need a modestly talented assistant from Colorado?

I think the commute to Singapore every day would kill you!

As Amanda points out, there are a number of people out in Microstock Land who simply want to sell a picture or two of relatives.  They tend to dilute the gene pool, as it were, by reducing the professionalism.  Those of us who are serious about it--whether beginners like me or others like Phil and kacper who have already proven themselves by their portfolios--should think about what these other people are doing to microstock.  They not only reduce the credibility of microstock as an enterprise, they dilute our earnings by making our good images hard to find in the dross that they fill the sites with.  They also come to this enterprise with unrealistic expectations, based on romantic notions of what it means to be a photographer.

I hardly think that you should blaim the amateur for trying to make some money off of their photos.

You should be blaming the agencies for accepting their stuff.  If it is not up to par, then it should be rejected.

You know, it's not the sarcasm that bothers me here (although the humor is juvenile).  What bothers me is the implicit support for piracy on a site whose contributors would lose money from exactly the piracy they're advocating.

Why don't they lock that thread?  This is exactly the type of unethical behavior I was talking about.  If this kind of stuff is more widely advertised, it will be a PR nightmare.  These people need to learn how to run a business.

Thanks for the post.

Now to something completely different. Take a look at this thread http://www.istockphoto.com/forum_messages.php?threadid=38573&page=1. It's about piracy. It's about stealing music and videos. Whether you do it or not is not important. Check out the admins "sarcastic" comment that pretty much outlines the best way to steal work off the internet. You'd think that people that are in business in selling copyrighted works woud be a little less hypocritical about things like that...

Heck, I owe you two for the fun you've provided, and the insight.  This is exactly why I joined this site--a frank exchange of ideas to learn from and participate in.

Now, if only Istock will review my files.  Because so many of their contributors are exclusives, I find myself waiting in line while they get all their files reviewed.  It makes it hard for someone like me to even consider exclusivity because I can't get reviewed fast enough (and upload enough) to reach the requisite 500 DL.

Professor, I believe by now we owe you an hourly fee for mediation!