I have a question, maybe it's something stupid, I apologize for that. If I already have images in the microstock that Wirestock has. If I upload images there, will they appear as repeated? That is, will my same images compete with each other? Thank you.

If you upload images to Wirestock, which are already on other sites like Adobe or Shutter, those site will find thatr images as "duplicate" and will not take them a second time.
But you don't see at Wirestock, which of the 7 agencies have accepted your images, you only see if Wirestock has taken the image.

Still wondering about the Instant Sales, because a friend told me, those are one time buys from Freepix! Yeah I like the $3.40 but I don't like them becoming free. Talk about competing with myself? On the positive, most of those are images that haven't make $3 in ten years, on the other sites.

Very conflicting that I should be happy to get the money and then have my images offered for free on a site like Freepix, that's killing Microstock.

I was wondering about the "Instant Pay" too because I had a few of those (all 3.4$). If they are freepik sales then that's a clear breach of contract and trust in my opinion because I did not give them permission to sell images to freepik where anyone can download and use it for free. Good thing I have only 50 odd images there.

It's not about the money the images made but contributors need to know where the images are being sold. Without transparency, it's impossible for me to trust wirestock. So never uploading my images there again if these are proven to be freepik sales.

Very interesting, thank you very much.

I thought it worth adding to this thread as Wirestock has some 5,000 images in Adobe Stock's free collection. No idea how this deal was done - for the other factory contributors they negotiated a one year deal (according to Jim Pickerell's article)

Two things stood out for me. One was that the Wirestock contributions are noticeably different (not in a good way) from the other very high quality content in the free collection.

The other was that Wirestock images kept showing up in searches where they didn't belong. The keywording is truly terrible. As just one example, a lighthouse image had keywords for Maine and New England, but it clearly wasn't from there - the title "Building on a rock formation at the seashore" is clearly what you get when you let someone who knows nothing about the image do metadata.

The image is actually from Italy, the Punta Palascia Lighthouse. I didn't know that (only that it wasn't Maine), but a Google image search helped me out.

Something similar with "Harbor with colorful buildings by the ocean" which has modern, skyscraper & marina (there isn't one) as keywords, but none for Riomaggiore or Italy (what's in the picture)

I know that keywording and uploading is no fun, but if you're thinking of handing over your images to Wirestock, bear in mind that if the keywords are useless your images may never sell because no buyer will ever see them in a search for which they are applicable

I have a question, maybe it's something stupid, I apologize for that. If I already have images in the microstock that Wirestock has. If I upload images there, will they appear as repeated? That is, will my same images compete with each other? Thank you.

Sorry for being late to the party. Wirestock, when I started there, said they compared to the database at the agencies and didn't upload duplicates. Followed by, they did upload a duplicate to SS when I never checked SS for anything.  It's possible that they are supposed to remove duplicates before upload, but the agencies are also supposed to check. 

I thought it worth adding to this thread as Wirestock has some 5,000 images in Adobe Stock's free collection. No idea how this deal was done - for the other factory contributors they negotiated a one year deal (according to Jim Pickerell's article)

Two things stood out for me. One was that the Wirestock contributions are noticeably different (not in a good way) from the other very high quality content in the free collection.

The other was that Wirestock images kept showing up in searches where they didn't belong. The keywording is truly terrible. As just one example, a lighthouse image had keywords for Maine and New England, but it clearly wasn't from there - the title "Building on a rock formation at the seashore" is clearly what you get when you let someone who knows nothing about the image do metadata.

The image is actually from Italy, the Punta Palascia Lighthouse. I didn't know that (only that it wasn't Maine), but a Google image search helped me out.

Something similar with "Harbor with colorful buildings by the ocean" which has modern, skyscraper & marina (there isn't one) as keywords, but none for Riomaggiore or Italy (what's in the picture)

I know that keywording and uploading is no fun, but if you're thinking of handing over your images to Wirestock, bear in mind that if the keywords are useless your images may never sell because no buyer will ever see them in a search for which they are applicable

Instant Pay on WS is $3.40 - you can opt out of that. So far I've seen that images are on Freepix for sure. I don't know about Adobe and the contract for one year from WS? Maybe someone has tracked one of their images. I upload to Adobe myself and upload nothing through WS to Adobe. I'll never be able to see that.

I don't know how WS could estimate "above the annual RPI of that asset" but  WS does say, the image has to be unsold for a period of time, before it will be offered as Instant Pay. If you don't like $3.40 one time payment, that's your choice. Images that have sold are not supposed to be part of Instant Pay. Only the images that have not generated any sales for several month in any of your selected agencies are chosen to participate in the Instant Pay program. Afterwards, the selected images are sent to the Instant Pay agencies which choose the images that comply with their requirements for which they make a one time payment. The earnings are later displayed on your Dashboard. In your Earnings by Photo you are able to see which images exactly have been sold. I want to inform that irrespective of the fact that images are chosen by Instant Pay you still keep licensing them through other agencies as well to which you have submitted before.

Someone needs to find an example of an image that was uploaded personally to WS that appears in the Adobe free collection and provide the details. I can understand that Adobe can check past sales, but they can't check past WS sales? Something is not right if, for example, one of my images is sold to Adobe, by Wirestock, for $3.40 because then the claim that Adobe based the pay on past sales, is impossible.

... bear in mind that if the keywords are (nearly) useless

I can attest that buyers do find my images, because they have sold.  However Jo Ann is essentially correct. The keywords are often vague descriptions, like "A vertical shot of a wooden direction sign surrounded by greenery" or "A high angle shot of a factory with smokestacks" and Sushi? "Overhead shot of raw foods placed in a white plate with black color in the background " those are real examples.

I upload rejects and images that have no sales ever on Adobe or SS after many years. Everything new and anything that sells, is not going to WS. My view is, making money from dormant, dead non-earning or buried images, is not competing with myself.

Also Wirestock V 2.0 (this reply was in July, I don't know if they read metadata yet or not, I haven't uploaded in months) You will have the chance to upload your photos with metadata with the new Wirestock 2.0 version.

Quote from: Uncle Pete on October 19, 2020, 09:54

Also Wirestock V 2.0 (this reply was in July, I don't know if they read metadata yet or not, I haven't uploaded in months) You will have the chance to upload your photos with metadata with the new Wirestock 2.0 version.

Yes they do read metadata now, although their interface remains quite buggy and I'm still missing the portfolio search functionality and feedback on whether files were accepted by an agency or not.

All of the earlier mentioned remarks are true. Their own keywording tends to be very generic or even wrong, and their collection contains a lot of garbage.

That said, I like using WireStock as an aggregator for low earning agencies like DT, DP 123RF and Pond5 giving me faster payout.
Additionally, I admit being guilty of adding generic garbage-like images too. You know, the kind of images which you usually don't upload to your personal agency accounts as keywording all these images isn't worth the time. So I let Wirestock deal with the keywording, and take whatever sales these images make. (which they, to my own surprise, do. Every now and then).

Yes, I'm guilty of uploading leftovers and rejects and personal rejects. Good to hear they are now, sometimes, reading metadata.

"aggregator for low earning agencies" is exactly the way to describe the way I see them. It solves the problem of taking years to get paid, and maybe never, when someplace like DT requires $100 in earnings to collect. I don't dislike DT, but with a trickle of downloads, and even worse, I'm uploading through WS now, it could be a long, long time.

Anyone who uses one of the stock uploaders and does their won work, doesn't really want WS. For myself and I can assume some others, with extra images, that aren't worth the time to do all the detailed work, or pay for software to distribute images, WS is a nice easy answer.

Yes, the information about what happened to images is a mystery. We don't know if something was accepted or rejected. WS does do quality review and they do reject before things are sent to agencies, but we don't know more than that.  The reporting of downloads seems fine and does attribute which agency the sale was at.

For all the negatives, and they take 15%, using them for easy distribution and aggregator for low earning agencies, is just fine with me. Things I care about, I do myself. This is just extra income for very little effort. As the discussion has been, how much work do you want to do for 10� ? I submit to AS, SS and Alamy on my own, the rest I don't care anymore. (no I don't do video)

I suppose it is an extra benefit for those who upload images there, each user will have accepted the proportional part of the income for belonging to free files. An extra for collaborators who upload to this group account. It all adds up.

I haven't found the WS photos on Adobe, maybe someone can help.

But to answer:

There is no proportional income from Adobe, artists who were asked to participate, accepted a payment in advance. It seems that the terms were, free for a year, and maybe then Adobe will select new images or do whatever they are going to do with this plan.

Wirestock has Instant Payment $3.40, the artist gets paid that and Nothing More! Your image can be on a free site forever Freepix for example, and you get nothing else. But there is an opt out for anyone on WS who doesn't want to supply free sites for a one time download payment.

No extra benefit