Hi, thanks colin!

Can I pick all your brains a bit more ?!

Is a seamless loop good because it looks better in preview? Or is it an advantage for the person that downloads them? I've tried to do one and I think it's seamless.
 
In After Effects I trimmed the work area so that the beginning was the same picture as the end (just by eye), then time lapped it. Then made the video a bit longer so that it looped a few times and made sure again the end and beginning matched and rendered it in Quick time.

It's on Fotolia and it plays continuously without any break. Is this a seamless loop or is there something I'm missing (it would be good to know before I carry on)?

Thanks
Suz

Most agencies have a video player that doesn't loop properly (in Firefox), i.e. it pauses a little bit when replaying. Fotolia is one of the few that shows the loop seamlessly.
So in most cases it doesn't look better in the preview, but it's more useful for the buyer, because if you have a 10 seconds video loop and the buyer needs 30 seconds of footage, he can still use your video.

Your method sounds about right, make sure the last frame isn't exactly the same as the first frame though, otherwise it plays the same frame twice

I try to loop my animations as much as possible. I never fade in or out.

I stayed opt in because I prefer to sale 10 EL for $15 each than 0 EL for $500 each�����

I prefer to sell 10 EL's for $28 rather than 10 EL's for $17, so I opted out.

I don't think it's technically possible to have metadata or a watermark embedded that cannot be removed. Like any digital file, it could be decrypted/hacked/altered so there's no trace left of the watermark of digital origin.

iStock is dying, hooked up on a heart-lung machine. I give it 2-3 years before Getty pulls the plug.

The upcoming changes will be the final nail in the coffin and drive the last buyers away, then sales will dry up even more. It's already 50% less of what it used to be.

Send them an email attaching the images or a "contact sheet" with thumbnails, a screen shot of the site and its language permitting the use, and a link to the relevant pages. Alternatively, you could put all that in a pdf and upload it as a "release," though someone further up the food chain than a reviewer may need to have a look.

I just had an illustration rejected for failure to include the original photo (mine) as a "release," forgetting how stringent they've become, which is actually a good thing theoretically, however annoying it is for us. Thinking of all the rip-offs of other's work that get past the reviewers, it's good to know some of them are on the ball, even if it makes more work for those of us who are playing by the rules. 

Thanks!

So, I have this animation I want to submit, using materials that are free to use commercially (which is explicitly stated on the website I got it from). However, the submitted animation was rejected because it potentially infringes intellectual property rights.

How can I resubmit it with proof that it's not infringement? I can only see a releases menu but that's for models/buildings.

I tried editing the price of an image but upon submitting/saving, it said:

"We're sorry, but something went wrong.

We've been notified about this issue and we'll take a look at it shortly."

Now the image in question seems to be unavailable, only the error message shows?

Well, I just got my first sale after 6 months, so there's an improvement 8 cents short of a payout, so hopefully the next one will be soon.

Can I suggest you start of with a different payment structure that is actually sustainable in the long term for both contributors and the site?

It could seem harsh to start off with but we have seen the alternative which is sites constantly cutting commissions to try and increase profits.

What about a tiered payment structure? Ones based on an absolute number of downloads inevitably end up with promises of volume that are never met, as the agency plays it safe with unrealistic predictions. How about one based on contributors' performance compared to other contributors. So those earning in the top 10% of contributors get 75% commission, the next 10% get 60% and so on down to say 25%. It will keep people motivated. Plus people can't really complain because if they are on a low tier they know it is directly based on their sale-ability compared to other contributors and how much they are contributing to the site's success, not because they have failed to meet an arbitrary level set by the site.

People will like the 40% commission and grandfathering for now, they wont like when the "exciting" announcement is made  that everyone has to be moved to standard commission, or when it is 30% then 25% in a few years when more money is need for marketing the site.

Please, no. I've had enough of creatively constructed level/RC-like commission systems, and they all sucked because the levels were almost always unattainable. Leave it the way it is, 52% for existing contributors and 40% for newcomers.

Don't complicate things just for the sake of it.

Could be useful for people who need only a couple of effects or small animations instead of whole packs. Still, I'd make sure to include the option to buy an effects pack.
From a buyer's perspective, I'd want some crucial file information on the detail pages, such as video resolution, video format and codec. I'd also prefer loopable animations as those are more versatile.

As a contributor, it could be worth it if you already had a big bunch of effects ready to upload. What kind of commission would you guys be asking?

What is wrong with the business concept of SS IS FT?

The leading agencies of today weren't late to the game, unlike you. If you don't offer something new, customers will stick to what they're familiar with

Additional you would keep all earnings. Isn`t this you all complain about every day.

100% of zero is still zero.
And how are you going to keep the site going without income?

Never said you need to spend any cent for marketing. Millions? Who is talking about millions of dollars? Welcome to 2016. So many ways starting with social media to attract customers. If we would have a contributor made agency this would be a nice way to attract many people.

It's not that easy. You can't rely on that marketing 'strategy' alone.

Who is buying your images? Yes people working in marketing/ design. If you offer them the same content and let them know we are "fair trade for contributors" we made the first good point. The customers are mostly design related people too. Community based content is the most favorite one.

Fair trade is of no benefit to the customer. Maybe one or two altruistic designers may give your agency a shot, but most clients will look further for a cheap subscription deal.

Asked for your wishes and ideas not for you money or time. So blabla. Iam bored already.  I will come back with a ready-to-go solution maybe in a half year. Mabye more/ other people are ready to join then.  Thank you and good night 

My wish is that you come up with a decent business plan before I spent time helping you with free advice on how to start an agency. But if you're bored already, maybe this isn't the way to go for you.

That time machine was a great investment toward my stock career.

Aside from shooting dinosaur pics, you can also go back to the days when microstock was booming. Something about killing two pterodactyls with one stone.