Thanks again for the further info.

People have talked about contacting someone in the US Congress about this deal - I'd suggest that since Getty Images is headquartered in Seattle, Washington, it might be worthwhile to contact Washington State's Attorney General. The state attorney generals in the US generally deal with issues such as this - issues where one side believes they have been subject to unfair dealing - They are well set up for this type of thing and may be able to help with advice as well being able to take action on behalf of the photographers.

I'm a tiny contributor there and none of my images appear to be in the deal, so it makes no sense for me to do it - but if someone - especially if there's someone from Washington State - or better yet if a group of people contact the AG's office there, you might make some headway. Good luck!

Just a thought. This deal is terrible for the entire industry. It's tough enough for photographers to make a living - this type of thing just makes it tougher.

Quote from: Poncke on January 08, 2013, 15:49

That about the commission is not true. It takes almost two months to pay out. Cut off is the 15th.

Quote

Checks and PayPal payments are issued on the 15th of each month for all sales completed before the 15th of the the previous month.   For example, on 01/15, you will be paid for all of your unpaid orders that shipped before 12/15

Hi! You seem very familiar with the FAA. What puzzels me is this: it says original prints, etc. contact the artist. However I would rather see that the FAA did all the prints, dealings, etc. Is there a way to do this?

Re: self-defense: My last sale there was on December 5th so I will be paid in January. Kind of splitting hairs there aren't you? I get it that you may not like the site, but in reality, half the time you get paid the next month and half the time it's two months, so I guess if we're being technical we're both wrong. The point I was making is that I've had a good experience so far and I like the fact that I get paid even if I only make $65 one month, I don't have to wait for a minimum amount to accrue, which is good since my portfolio there is small right now.

Let's agree to disagree on FAA. I think it's a viable option and I shared my sales data so people can make up their own minds. So please, don't jump down my throat and accuse me of lying. What I said about the commission was true - I really will get a commission in January for a sale I made in December. Did I need to add that if the sale had been made after the 15th I wouldn't get paid until February for you to find my post accurate?

Re: self-fulfillment: I also like the fact that I can upload and keyword images, and then they do everything else - gives me more time to shoot. Self-fulfillment is great if you want to have people contact you and then you discuss what size they want, what kind of frame, mat, etc - it seems very time-consuming. Easier to direct people to FAA where they can choose from plenty of options on their own . And when it comes to photography, what's an original print? I assume one printed by the artist. That was more important back in the days of going into the darkroom than it is now, IMHO. You can sell originals on the site by having people contact you directly. So If you want to print the photos yourself or use a different lab,  it's similar to painters selling their original works - although you can't really set one price as they do unless you only sell one size print. I do self-fulfillment from my own site, and I usually use Miller's - but it is much more time-consuming than selling through FAA. FAA makes a profit because they're getting someone else to do the work for you. You have to deduct the cost of printing, matting etc from your profit anyway and FAA's printing costs are not out of line.

If someone is local I like the self-fulfillment option - I'll even hand-deliver stuff. It's a good way to make a new client. But FAA is showing promise for me and there are people on there who are making decent amounts every month, including some photographers I know.

I joined the free site ages ago but didn't upload any pics until 2012 -  the uploading procedure is annoying but I got past the first 25 pretty quickly and tripled my $30 investment with my first sale. I have a small portfolio there but I know people with large portfolios who are making sales every month. I just see it as another outlet for my work.
I've made two sales so far - both photos I took as part of a news event - just to show you what sells - it's hard to predict:
http://fineartamerica.com/featured/in-the-eagles-rigging-opsail-2012-marianne-campolongo.html
http://fineartamerica.com/featured/1-opsail-2012-festivities-marianne-campolongo.html

I've been invited to show some of my work from that shoot in a local gallery so I may be raising my prices on those very soon.

My prices vary - stuff I have on the micros or stuff that seems less traditionally "art" I price for less. I haven't added any works that I've had in galleries there but may do so at a much higher price. I figured for a $30 investment - and my time of course - it was worth looking into. The nice thing too is you get paid the month after you make a sale, so a $65 commission in December means a $65 check in January.

I promote my work on my FB fan page but haven't done anything else - I do worry that the growing number of photos there will make it harder and harder to sell though I'm selling stuff I uploaded in 2008 on SS despite the millions of photos added since then, so I prefer to stay optimistic and hope 2013 will outperform 2012. 
 

I got the same message and they have all my info so I don't see why I'd need to upload it again. In fact last year they sent me a 1099 for "income" I had "earned" but that they hadn't paid me. I contacted them and they said that it was technically "income" since I could convert it to credits - like I'm going to buy stock photos !!! Nothing like paying taxes on money I haven't received.

It is weird because normally you need to make $600 from a client before they have to send you a 1099 - but all the micros send them out whether you meet that threshold or not. It's not a big deal when it's income that they have actually paid you which you are obligated to report anyway, but none of the others send a 1099 for "earned" but unpaid income.

I've decided to drop fotolia because their extended licenses are so low it makes absolutely no sense to stay with them when I can make many times more for an extended license with shutterstock. Micro pricing is low enough - but with the limited licenses at least you're not giving away as much - but to receive $4 for an extended license is ridiculous. When I tried increasing the price it would always pop back to the default so I deleted most of my photos from the site already and have plans to drop it entirely.

Thanks for the info.

I started out with Snapvillage - it was my first attempt at stock but then I went with a site that wouldn't allow microstock so I left it, then I left the non-performing macro site. I actually had pretty decent sales on Snapvillage in the couple of months I was on it and now think it would have been good to have stayed with them back then.

I'm with Alamy too so I'll wait until they have that figured out before I even consider Veer.
Corbis was such a big name in stock, it's a shame that they aren't performing any better.

Anyone have any luck with the Compass section of Pocketstock? I filled out the application but it didn't seem like it went through. Searching on Pocketstock was easy but their contributor-facing part of the site seems to time out frequently. The prices for the Compass images are all over the map. It'd be a good place to upload the RF stuff I only have on traditional stock sites, but a waste if nothing sells.

I also was reading their tagging app info. I'm assuming they also read metadata. Otherwise it will be unworkable to upload images and have to cut and paste from Lightroom or Bridge. That would be a deal-breaker from the start.

Thanks again for the input.

-Marianne 

I was thinking of dropping them all together. I have a small portfolio there and it's smaller now because I've taken off a bunch that were zoomed on Alamy and purchased on Fotolia for 25 cents - I've got a couple of photos that sell often but @ 25 cent a pop it's ridiculous. I hate the fact that subscription sales let people use them for the same uses as an extended license elsewhere. And all I've had for months on end is subscription sales.

I haven't uploaded anything new there because they cut into my Alamy RF and SS Extended license sales. I've stopped putting the same RF on micros and Alamy (even though they allow it). Thinking my best bet may be to stick with SS, iS and DT and not waste my time on the smaller sites.

I've got a very tiny port so I know my sales are not really representative - but it's been a year since I've had anything other than subscription sales there. I have a few exclusives there and they haven't sold in ages. They were trending up for me last year but this year they tanked. I'm not uploading new images so I'm sure that makes things worse.   

Your kids are cute! Keep trying. I like the girl in the oversized suit but definitely white background. Post your new ones for us to see!
 

I didn't see anything in the last month re: how either of these sites are doing - other than the polls and was wondering whether either of them was worth uploading to?

I got an invite from Pocketstock today and see the last discussion in September was that they'd started some bidding deal and that no one had made a cent yet. They piqued my interst with the earn 40% if you sign up in the next week deal, and I'm buried with other work right now, but could get some stuff up to lock it in. I've actually been concentrating on traditional stock lately and was considering dropping all micros except Shutterstock, Dreamstime and iStock and ramping up my uploads on those three. Do you think it's worthwhile to sign up with Pocketstock or is it dead in the water?

I've seen a lot of discussions about Veer and it looks like they are active on the boards here. I see they are way down in the low earners though - I'm guessing that's their micro site since their macro site is well established - for those of you on there do you think it's worth the trouble to upload - and do you have a chance to get into the regular collection if you start out in the micro?

Hope it's okay I combined these into one instead of jumping in to two old discussions.

Appreciate any advice. Thanks! 

-Marianne
 

Might not be spam. You don't want to ignore a potential client. Tell her you have many photos available to license as stock and ask her which photo(s) she's interested in & to send you more information.

Good luck. Hope it's for real. -Marianne

I agree with Sean too.
Use photos that aren't on the micros. It's one thing to sell them as prints, and another to say they are limited editions when you really can't be sure if someone else is out there printing them.

I recently put some of my photos on redbubble for iPhone cases and figure there's lots of art on things like that, so I'd sell them as prints, but I wouldn't sell any of them as limited edition prints. The term "Limited Editions" connotes something unique and valuable. Since each print of a photo is an original, it's an iffy thing to differentiate between the signed prints and others unless you are printing them yourself. If it's a POD site, it's not very different than someone else printing and selling your work. The signature arguably adds some value, but I'd be hesitant  about selling limited editions that only differ in that one respect - your signature - unless you're really famous or you are printing them yourself. If someone is buying work by a lesser-known artist, IMHO they don't want to see it for sale elsewhere.

You must have some other work you can sell on your friend's site. Good luck!

September was my best month this year on Alamy and tied for best month this year on SS. (Not my BME on either - that was Nov 2011 for Alamy, and June 2011 for SS)

DT was finally up a bit, and had sales on Bigstock for a change, but wondering if it's worth bothering with any but SS and Alamy any more.
iStock had been climbing for me but now they reject editorial images saying I need a model or property release (for photos shot with a press pass, no less) and my earnings are going nowhere after a steady, if slow, climb.

Overall my 2nd best month this year for stock photo income (but again thanks to non-micro stock licenses, and print sales of my stock photos).
Sales on all sites except for DT and Fotolia have surpassed the total I made by year end 2011, so that's a positive step, and both of those have surpassed where I was @ Sept 30 last year and are pretty close to year end figures without entering into the holiday season, when my sales tend to climb, so I'm hopeful.   

Sorry but also relieved to hear I'm not the only one who has seen DT sales drop off a cliff.

SS looked to be tanking a bit too but then in July it picked up considerably. I haven't uploaded there in ages, so I was relieved to see it bounce back to normal/high levels.

iStock was building steadily for me since the spring but seems to be flattening out, though with <100 images there it's hard to call anything a trend.

I found some of my as-yet unreported images from Alamy online and in publications recently so hoping that means I'll get a big bump in sales come September, given late reporting there. I've been concentrating a lot of my efforts on RM the last couple of months and sales were showing up steadily until I hit a slump in July (NUs only - awful), so nice to know sales are still actually building and I just have to wait for them to show up. Zooms are up too.

The rest aren't even worth the effort and I'm thinking of closing my accounts after my next payouts.

Though no individual records, BME for total payouts. Probably the most important stat