Sorry to all StockXpert fans for undercounting their image base where are you getting this figure from? their newsletter? how do I subscribe?

The StockXpert newsletter just came out and says that they have over 270,000 images.  It looks like they are about to overtake CanStockPhoto shortly.

You can subscribe to the StockXpert newsletter by going to your account and editing your profile.

IMO, the royalty % that microstock pays is not as important as two other numbers:

1. The total royalty amount over all images: This is the number that others have discussed in this thread. �In other words, it is better to make 100 sales @ 0.20 (which is $20.00), then it is to make 10 sales at 0.50 (which is $5.00).  This figure is what makes Shutterstock a great site.  They have small royalties, but LOTS of sales.

2. The average royalty/image.

Here are my averages:

LuckyOliver	$1.043
Stockxpert	$0.856
DreamsTime	$0.813
Fotolia	$0.566
BigStockPhoto	$0.500
iStockphoto	$0.448
Shutterstock	$0.25
123RF	$0.270

As you can see, LuckyOliver has the highest average royalty/image (@ $1.04).� But this figure is only based on a few sales, so I will need to give it some time to get a better reading, but I believe that it will be one of the higher paying sites (based on average royalty/image).

But if sales pick up and the average royalty/image is high, then this site could be very good for photographers.

Quote from: GeoPappas on September 30, 2006, 06:24

Quote from: kkart on September 30, 2006, 06:04

20!!!! uploads per 168!!! hr period? Effectively 20 a month?!?!? Sigh....this doesn't even make it worth my time.

168 hrs is a week, not a month.

Gee can ya tell who didn't have coffee in em when they wrote this? lol

And can you tell who didn't attend grade school math?  ROTFL

More thought, and I may be wading in deep **** here, but maybe taking this thread to the broadcast media might result in the culprit and GalaStock becoming accountable in a legal and/or monetary form. Could save a lot of individual lawsuits for those inclined to take it that far. I just think it's a totally newsworthy event that we have participated in--or, am I living in fantasy land?

P__

Probably fantasy land... 

I'm not sure of the laws in Latvia, but I doubt that an international lawsuit would come about from all of this.  Who would have the money to hire a lawyer for something like this?  How much would be gained from the lawsuit (probably nothing)?  How does Latvia treat copyright law?

On top of all of that, the photos were submitted to a French site.  So in which country does the case reside?

The good news: Dreamstime has added a Model Release library.

The not-so-good news: Many of the big-hitters don't like the fact that Dreamstime has added fields for the photographer to enter a model's info (name, address, phone, date of birth, etc) which can be hacked.

You can read the full thread here:

http://www.dreamstime.com/thread_5692

I guess that mine weren't good enough to steal!

 

I am quite confused about some agencies REQUIRING upsizing.  This seems to contradict good photo editing, since upsizing can degrade an image.

Does anyone understand the reasoning behind this?

On top of all of the other stuff that is going on over at iStock, there is one more tidbit that you all might find interesting:

iStock has made the statement that God is a "fictional being".

I have a few Christian images that had the keyword "God" in them.  That keyword is now translated to the tag "God (Fictional Being)" and there doesn't seem to be an alternate choice.

I'm sure that all of the religious folks out there will just be so happy to learn that they have been worshipping a fable...

Lucky Olivers size chart is available @ http://www.luckyoliver.com/guide/buying_images

I just checked one of my images (@ http://www.luckyoliver.com/photo/91556/Good+To+The+Last+Drop), and it was also downsized.  It was downsized from 3072 * 2048 (or 6,291,456 pixels) to 2715 * 1810 (or 4,914,150 pixels), which is close to one of their standard image sizes (of Large at 1920 * 2560 or 4,915,200 pixels).  I'm not sure why they don't offer the original size for this image, since downsizing can degrade the image.

Another of my images (http://www.luckyoliver.com/photo/173438/That%27s+The+Ticket+%28Blue%29) was downsized from 4725 * 2543 (or 12,015,675 pixels) to 3022 * 1626 (or 4,913,772 pixels).  A MUCH bigger difference.� Once again, the downsize is close to one of of their standard sizes (of Large at 1920 * 2560 or 4,915,200 pixels).� But I'm not sure why it isn't available at XLarge (which is 2800 * 4200 or 11,760,000 pixels) and why it was basically downsized from 12 MP to 5 MP, which is quite a substantial drop.

I agree that someone at LO needs to address this.

I don't see how the current TOS ferbids this kind of use, even if some of you would like it to.

As was said at the beginning of this thread:

The IS TOS (Terms of Service) (@ http://www.istockphoto.com/license.php) state that it is prohibited to use an image of a model in a manner that (a) would lead a reasonable person to think that they endorse a business, or (b) depicts them in any way that would be offensive or unflattering.  The ad obviously violates both.

I had a 10c download today.

Adelaide:

What image did they purchase of yours?  I am wondering if it was the same buyer and we will see some obvious pattern.

Here is my photo that was purchased for 10 cents:

http://www.istockphoto.com/file_closeup.php?id=1949062

I had a 10c download today.� When we say they should increase the photographer's commission.... what's going on??

Interesting.

I also had a 10 cents sale today.  This was the first time that I had ever received a 10 cent sale.  I wonder if it is correct?  And if it is, what is it for?