Most photographers I know do a mix of assignment work and stock, i.e. they'll shoot something specific for a client but the client has to buy it via istock (because we are exclusive).

Of course you don't have to do assignment work and make the client buy via istock:

From the exclusive ASA:

"2   Provision of Exclusive Content

a    In this Agreement, "Exclusive Content" means, as applicable to Supplier, one or more of (i) Photo Content, (ii) Illustration Content, (iii) Flash Content or (ii) Motion Content (collectively, �Content�); together in any case with other information, documents (such as model or property releases) or software relating to same, as the case may be or otherwise required to enable iStockphoto to realize the commercial potential of the rights granted in the Content ("Descriptive Information"); but shall not include (1) Content that is produced as "work for hire" within the meaning of United States federal copyright legislation or is otherwise the result of a specific commission by a bona fide client of the Supplier evidenced by written agreement where the Content deliverable from such commission is for the personal use of the client and not for resale or license to any other person or entity, except to the extent Supplier retains in such Content any royalty free rights of the type outlined in the Content License Agreement"

Why on earth should iStock get a penny (cent) from any money you've generated yourself.

(Of course, if you know that the work could earn more on iStock, and if, for some reason, you client is OK with it, I guess it might make sense. I'm guessing you make them sign off on being happy that a rival could (theoretically) use the images.

Sorry, quoted instead of modified.

you can shoot assignment work, but many don't want to bother themselves with running after the money. Usually these are arrangements done similar to TFP deals with models. You'll agree to shoot a restaurant, the chef and bring a few models as guest, but the restaurant owner then has to buy whatever he likes from istock.

Instead of sending everyone from the shoot a personal cd with pictures as payment for the location, they don't get it fully for free, but have to buy from istock.

Some photographers also take a reduced fee and mix a normal assignment job including for instance the high quality wine with all the labels and the stock shooting, which the client has to get from istock.

Basically you are scouting for free locations, free models, real people at their work place and this solution works well in many cases.

Some initial sales would help in best match too

Okay that all makes a bit more sense now!

Quote from: Microbius on November 28, 2011, 08:54

Quote from: ShadySue on November 28, 2011, 08:49

.......
(Of course, if you know that the work could earn more on iStock, and if, for some reason, you client is OK with it, I guess it might make sense. I'm guessing you make them sign off on being happy that a rival could (theoretically) use the images.

I still wouldn't understand why the original client would have to buy via IStock.

They wouldn't.

Indeed. I'd come to agreement that they can buy it directly for half price, that way I'd be getting triple the money and they'd pay half as much. Everyone would be satisfied. Even if you are an 40% exclusive, you do get 25% more (well at least  )

Quote from: ShadySue on November 28, 2011, 08:58

Quote from: Microbius on November 28, 2011, 08:54

Quote from: ShadySue on November 28, 2011, 08:49

.......
(Of course, if you know that the work could earn more on iStock, and if, for some reason, you client is OK with it, I guess it might make sense. I'm guessing you make them sign off on being happy that a rival could (theoretically) use the images.

I still wouldn't understand why the original client would have to buy via IStock.

They wouldn't.

Indeed. I'd come to agreement that they can buy it directly for half price, that way I'd be getting triple the money and they'd pay half as much. Everyone would be satisfied. Even if you are an 40% exclusive, you do get 25% more (well at least  )

I suppose if you guessed that the image could garner loads of sales on istock, it could be worth it to come to that arrangement. I'm astonished people agree to images of their location/staff potentially being used by local rivals, but there you go.

Are they still down for maintenance ... or, still hacked?

They seem to be up for me at this moment, but there were short lasting error screens earlier.
New bugs since the maintenance are being reported  on the bugs thread.

Balance seems current.  But ... sorting on "downloads" is still screwed up.  Latest DL is 10/31.  That ain't right!!
Was wondering if it is the same for others?

Yes, according the the forums, and my own experience.
Oh, site seems iffy again. I'm having to refresh 1 - 3 times whenever I move to a new forum page.

Are they still down for maintenance ... or, still hacked?

Honestly how can we know? Some of the bugs are super obvious, but others, like the latest downloads, aren't. I'm guessing that the latter is still messed up, since my last reported download was on the 1st of November, but it's impossible to tell what's correct and what isn't from our point of view other than looking at unusual patterns. Are the downloads off but the $ at the bottom correct? Vice versa? It's ridiculous. I mean, if this end of the site is so freaking buggy, inconsistent and unreliable, we're just supposed to trust that the backend that keeps track of sales isn't? There are bugs on the site that have been there for months (probably years). I guess that's why they need the bulk of the contributors' earnings - since their techs take 10x longer to fix bugs than anyone else and they need their pay for a job well done. *head explodes

Makes you wonder what it is like for the "buyers?"

At the moment in the Help forum, there's a post from Onion, saying he can't search using FF.
As it happens, because of the current bugfulness, I could post on the forums, so I replied saying that the site was dropping on and off all day, but only for a few seconds at the time, try another search.
I see there's an invisible post from Kelvin and my post has been cut  - and I got yet another email telling me my forum privileges have been revoked and telling me to contact CR (I did, but they won't reply).
But oddly, Kelvin didn't bother to add his own reply to Onion's question.
I have no idea whether Onion is a buyer as well as a contributor, but it seems odd not to allow an answer to stay - maybe another buyer had the same question/issue.
Well, they sure don't want me, but they don't seem to want customers either.

Yeah, but this one isn't so funny.
Basically the OP was:
My last download do not function and I�m aware that it is a topic already...I tried to refresh data about five times as suggested and ended up in somebody elses account....I did log out immidiately but if I can do so....somebody else can go into my account too or???
To which another contributer replied:
A few weeks back it happened to me too, I ended up in someone elses account. I reported it to contributor relations and here in the help topic. After reporting it and waiting a week for a reply they replied that I should clear my cache. I didn't think this was a serious reply for a very serious problem.
And after another few posts reporting the same thing, Kelvin locked the thread, telling the OP to 'Contact CR'.
A total nightmare, - security breach.
http://www.istockphoto.com/forum_messages.php?threadid=337527&page=1

Yeah, but this one isn't so funny.
Basically the OP was:
My last download do not function and I�m aware that it is a topic already...I tried to refresh data about five times as suggested and ended up in somebody elses account....I did log out immidiately but if I can do so....somebody else can go into my account too or???
To which another contributer replied:
A few weeks back it happened to me too, I ended up in someone elses account. I reported it to contributor relations and here in the help topic. After reporting it and waiting a week for a reply they replied that I should clear my cache. I didn't think this was a serious reply for a very serious problem.
And after another few posts reporting the same thing, Kelvin locked the thread, telling the OP to 'Contact CR'.
A total nightmare, - security breach.
http://www.istockphoto.com/forum_messages.php?threadid=337527&page=1

I am the smallest of fish, and the few sales I still get at IS (they really slowed down after the recent TS ultimatum)  mean little to me.  But someone else stealing my images would mean a lot.  So you're just adding to the list of reasons why I should close the account.  Maybe that should be a New Year's resolution - to drop IS and add 2 small, newer sites in its place.