There are plenty of other places to buy images...

For me it's a statistical difference (tiny port / tiny money) but, by picking the better sellers, seems to have added about 20% to overall earnings there....

Do they still have that feature on the upload page to copy metadata from the previous image (including title, description & keywords)??  If so, this sort of rejection seems strange...

I just started there with 3D stuff also. First 10 were reviewed really quickly, the next batch took a few weeks and it takes a long time to "appear on the shelves".  No rejections so far,  downloads nos  look similar to DT/FT and return per download seems on a par with the others.  On the evidence so far it looks worthwhile ....

For me this is a hobby that more than pays for itself so essentially I don't really care about relative payments rates because time spent isn't a factor.  I'm just making an observation that the current model is for downwards prices.  For me, SS return per download is less than half what it is on DT but return per image is 3 times greater.  Do any search on both sites and you will pretty much see the same images returned so what is driving the traffic?  The only difference I see is price and the only way to buck the trend is if each site has exclusive content, with good incentive for for making content exclusive (instead of spreading it right across the Internet) so that what the buyer is looking for is not available at a fraction of the price elsewhere.

Consider it a theoretical argument only, I don't see it actually happening 

Supposing a loaf of bread costs $1 and the price is falling all the time because of great wheat harvests.  Someone corners the supply of wheat and it suddenly becomes much more expensive and a loaf of bread now costs $5.  Your average bread eater has a choice; pay the $5 or give up bread.

It�s not the first time I�ve made this suggestion but figured it was impractical because of the vast numbers of people submitting to stock sites.  However, I notice that very tiny sales in the order of 12 credits in a week results in a 7 day ranking of around 3000 on FT.  FT is not the industry but the only site I know of that produces this kind of information.  Extrapolating, I�d suggest that less than 3,000 people are making $100 per week from MS � that�s a fraction of minimum wage where I live.  Further, probably less than 1,000 are making a living and maybe dozens who would be classed as high earners.

So here�s the question, really aimed at those getting multiple thousands of DLs a month, but anyone feel free to join in:

Using SS style licensing as an example, if a site paid say $2 commission for a sub, say $20 for an OD and $150 for an EL for exclusive CONTENT (could never see the point in contributor exclusivity) downloads, would you buy into it bearing in mind that there would be a period of great pain while the supply is drying up on the low paying sites?

>>> no agency ends up in the top tier with bad inspection.

unsupported assertion.

the success of an agency in no way PROVES their review process is good - it may be they can do well DESPITE a bad review process. 

Possible but extremely improbable - any retailer that doesn't select the right stock is not going to be very successful

this is far from accurate, we cannot blame inspectors, they are following agency policy and demand at a specific moment.. inspectors and inspection are totally different subjects..

+1 but I vote for IS on that basis

Quote from: heywoody on March 16, 2012, 07:53

Quote from: BaldricksTrousers on March 16, 2012, 04:37

Quote from: heywoody on March 16, 2012, 04:25

I don't do editorial but DT seems to view it as RF but with trademarks allowed...

RF is a license type, editorial is a usage type. All the micros that offer editorial are selling it as RF with trademarks allowed.

True - just referring to apparent acceptance policy, i.e. seems no requirement to be newsworthy.

Again agreed - the only point I was makng was that it seems like a good home for non-newsworthy editorial shots that don't get past reviewers elsewhere 

Which means they got it right. Microstock editorial is never going to be about news, it's all about feature articles which need photos that show reality. In any case I still favour Alamy for that. It's a total waste putting real news photos that will be out of date tomorrow on a microstock site.

I don't do editorial but DT seems to view it as RF but with trademarks allowed...

As pointed out there are any number of reasons why the guy could be innocent despite the evidence and, even if guilty, I'm not aware that picture ideas are copyrighted or there would be a hell of a lot of people in big trouble.  The real issue though is that there is overwhelming evidence to suggest that an accusation is enough to condemn someone and that is just not right.  I wouldn't finger a pickpocket in Saudi even if he had robbed me because I know what would happen to him.

Quote from: RT on March 10, 2012, 06:01

Quote from: CarlssonInc. Stock Imagery Production on March 10, 2012, 05:33

This is the danger. People get all worked up, claiming someones image is "original" and someone else's is a copy. They get reported to a stock library who probably don't really care (there is no money in investigating these things thoroughly) and someone has their account suspended. So forgive me for not woo-haying that someone just had their account terminated, lost income for being too close for comfort for some anonymous forum poster's taste without it being clear who was first with the concept/idea and where exactly the line for copying is - it is quite evident that there is more than one copy-cat in this case, who is really the original, who was first, whom inspired whom.... This is a minefield,  similarities can be deliberate or coincidental - I don't support DELIBERATE copy-cats, but leave room for honest mistakes, error in judgement as to where the line is is really drawn.

This is the real danger, I've seen images of my own being used for 'creative inspiration' some of which were done by someone extremely well known in microstock, and I've created images that I've later seen are very similar to someone else's. Like many other I don't advocate taking somebody else's work and making an identical copy however I challenge anybody here (most notably the OP) to put up their portfolio for scrutiny by others to see if any of their images are similar to another - "original" - image somewhere on the internet.

And I firmly believe that any agency that publishes 'most popular', 'best sellers' or displays the download figures of images but then takes the easy way out by just closing/suspending accounts that are challenged are the real culprits in the alledged 'copy-cat' fiasco.

Whole-heartedly agree. The line between original and copy is very undefined. Only the ones accused of copying truly know the truth whether it is a flagrant act of copying or similarity due to pure coincidence, back of the head inspiration or deliberate copying (carbon copy or very similar). Therefore one should be very careful to judge, as always. The least the libraries could do is to that get rid of the public download data, aren't the briefs/newsletter/research-reports enough for us to create needed imagery - showing number of downloads is almost like asking contributors with a dodgy moral compass to copy.

Totally agree also � far too many villagers with pitchforks.  If people proven guilty are punished, the accuser should be similarly punished where it�s not proven.