Wow...

Would be interesting to hear from folks that were on Lucky Oliver and Albumo.  From what I understand LO closed shop in a pretty orderly and ethical way.  Everyone's images got deleted and everyone got paid.  Am I remembering that right? 

My understanding is/was ..what has been reported on payouts is correct.. you only got paid if you were above the payout point.. fortunately I was.

On the other hand... I still surf and find my photos out there... linked back to a non-existent LO.

My experience with LO has left me cautious about StockXpert.  I am beyond payout now... however, I fully expect to continue sales there... the question is,  Should I cash in what I have and hope I hit another payout... or.. should I trust that the 'big boys'  will see to it that  IF they closed StockXpert, everyone will get all their earnings no matter how small?    Tuff question. =tom

I just recently got bit by the HDR bug.....  I'm going to be 'test driving'  some HDR software..   =tom

Seems to me that:
1) You can never properly evaluate your own work and
 2) In general everyone gets a few accepted that should have been rejected.

Few have any room to complain.
c h e e r s
fred

Amen to that, Fred.   I have actually gone back and deleted some stuff that was accepted years ago... and has never sold....  obviously, it should never have been accepted in the first place.

However....  I am a big advocate of  're-subbing'.   
   If your picture is technically pure.... and you've been rejected for 'Not stock",  "got too many" ... reasons such as this... I always re-sub later and more than not,  the pic is accepted and sells.
As some have alluded to...  the  "got too many"  type of rejections changes day to day...
But I know that there are many that would disagree with that mentality.
      Of course, if the pic has been rejected for a tech reason... one should always relook at the image with an open mind.  I have found too often that the reviewer picked up on something that I missed and should have caught myself.  And many times such as with IS... you have opportunity to fix the problem and re-sub anyway...   go for it! =tom

Most books don't print high enough to go above the 500k limit.

I dealt directly with the publisher once on such an issue, wrote an outside RM contract and got the money, if I remember correctly.

You are correct on that... I should have thought of that... most of the book runs I've been involved with were less than 1,000,  sometimes only 4-5 hundred. 
   thanks for setting me straight sjlocke!  =TOM

P.S.   LOL... of course maybe the customer is the U.S. Fed... they seem to print hundreds of thousands of books that wind up sitting in a warehouse in Arlington... ha ha ha...

Tough call.  I would ask about the size of the print run.  It may require an EL. 

You might want to run this past istock customer support. 

Some of the legal eagles around here may have better advice

I agree with lisafx.....  a simple question... how can they be using it on a run of books without an EL?

This is a tough one, especially  IF  they did buy the image already... it would seem to me that the buyer would first go back to IS and ask this question... If I were a buyer, that's who I'd be asking....
     almost sounds fishy, bro.  =tom

p.s. Congrats!!!  Publishing books, mags, etc  is the way to go.  Later, try dealing direct with the publishing company as a free lancer for hire.

.....read out loud with the best ticked off sarcasm you can muster up....
            "  I'm Shocked!  NO!!, Not FT!?!?! "

Absolutely the worst business  AND  I dont mean just microstock business,  I mean any/every business I've every had to deal with in my 60 year life (okay maybe except for the gas & electric monopoly). THE WORST.  Only the supreme being of the universe knows just how far flung your pictures are to  "partners'  around this planet and maybe even Mars and Venus.....

I have been locked out of my account for a couple months now.... thank goodness,  I yanked all but one of my pix off FT 3 years ago. Their business practices sucked then and it seems they
 suck even more today.

I wish you success in your trials, sir!!!   =tom

I do hard copy/paper magazine work and I do web-magazines and I have NEVER done one for free. Especially paper magazines....  Dude... I pull in 4 digits for one day's work (and that's not counting the cents .. that's four left of the decimal point, Philadelphia rate).  So when a paper magazine wants to use your pix for free... who's kidding who... blah blah start up blah blah blah... It costs a BUNDLE to start up a paper mag, especially in NYC.  I'm sure the staff isn't working for free.
    I know you are chompping at the bit, it is the GREATEST seeing your work in a major magazine.  I was thrilled to see Forbes use my stuff, its a real ego rush!!

None the less,  Forbes paid for the pix.

Couple of things.... Advice already given is great....
    A.  Yeah, they can use your work for free, in return for some freebie from them.... such as an ad, the publication of your website, etc
    B.  If they are truly a start up operation... one thing they will need, obviously, since they want your pix, one thing they will need is  'staff photographers'  or 'contributing photographers" 
        Tell them you will give this batch for free if they will pick you up as a contracted free lance contributing photog.  A signed contract meeting your terms. That's what I have.  You do not have to be exclusive to them, you can still sell to other magazines.
      Along that point.  Being associated with the publishing business for a few years now.... I can tell you,   the odds of a magazine on it's own, starting up and continuing... are a gazillion to one.  Either they will fold in a year or, they will be bought up by a conglomerate publisher.  Your contract will be valid with the new people and... you will be exposed to more than one magazine. That's what happened to me.
     If, if... you can get into that kind of publishing, magazines, newspapers, books, etc....  it's good  and regular money.

But free?    Nothings free.  They will have to free-back on you.

The only folks  that get free from me are  non-profit organizations, like Ronald McDonald Childrens Charities....  in this case, not only are you doing a nice thing,   dude,  you get tons of free advert and marketing and... new business.
    wishing you success!!!    =tom

So, I just got sick of all the competition on these microstock sites, and I set up my own web site (www.photosfordesigns.com).

So that's the story, just thought I would let you guys know that, it is possible to do other things, maybe even to sell directly to the buyer on your own, although it remains to be seen, but if it is a disaster I'll let you know It'll be an interesting experiment either way!!

Hey, it worked for me.  I'm still subbing to micro, but I make a bunch more free lancing either by selling something already done to a specific buyer or contracting to shoot what the customer wants.

In the legal sense,  all of the people I deal with have their own terms and so far,  ALL have my interest at the forefront.  My work is always mine, there is a limit agreed to upfront on usage, usually one time only and limited to 'x' printings (magazines/books/etc),  the only extra to them is use of an image in advertising the product.  I have a signed contract with each as a free lance photog all terms understood...   and so far in 3 plus years, I have never had a problem.

I tell my local photog friends to get out there and sell themselves.  4 digit paydays always beat 30 cent subscriptions.  Selling direct as your own agent and in need of legal foundations... thats a little tougher.   I would reccomend, looking to publishes, art directors, editors and such.... and make sales there.  They have legal to protect themselves, which in turn, protects your intellectual property and rights.   =tom

depends on the folks asking...
      sadly,  everyone with a digital camera fansies themselves a "photographer'... 
and while the digiatl age HAS  enabled some with talent that  never knew they had... to come out of their shells,  most are still family snapshoters.

If it's a good friend, I'm honest with them (well, I'm honest with everyone).. but .
If they have 'the eye',  I will encourage them with positive tech tips. With friends, I'll take the time to sit down and look at their work... then critique it
If they don't have the talent..... I try to let them down easy by showing them... what sells on micro and show them they have to 'gain much more experience...'

I always try to be nice and no matter how funky their pix are,  try to find a few good ones to praise... indicating that they need to produce shots like that on a 90% level at the minimum,  or... they'd be wasting their time.  Most... accept that  they... really,  aren't that good.

OTOH....  I've had a few friends.... start giving me a run for the money. They are becoming good/great!!   =tom

If you don't see it in "My uploads" by sorting in "Last DL", try the other choices "Extended License" or "Prints".

Don't forget also that if the image sold again later, only the last sale appears there.  Check all images sold after the 12th and see if one was sold also on the 12th.

bold added by me.

Yeah...  I like IS... but tracking sales has always been a pain in the seat... one thing I learned recently... due to illness, I hadnt tracked sales anywhere to a couple months (4 on IS).. WHAT A HASSLE GOING BACK AND DOING IT ALL... took me a couple hours. I think my fav sales tracking is SS... it's simple and direct and all there in one place daily.  =tom

^^^I think they said our images will be on photos.com and JIU untill the end of August. 

ah.... I must have missed that somewhere...  Yeah, I'm still selling on the other two,... in fact, the sales there  (jiu & photo) are up a bit.  Dont know if it means anything or just a coincidence. =tom

I'm still uploading there but the site is seriously flawed in several ways, mainly due to the abuse of a few contributors.

Yesterday I was researching how many views my recently uploaded images had had by doing a few searches and sorting them by "Date, descending". I noticed that one particular contributor had somehow managed to upload (and had approved) about 300 images from the same series of a couple of pizzas __ basically their entire allowance of 25-images-per day for 11 consecutive days! Obviously this has just shoved all the images approved before them so far down the search order that they are unlikely to be seen again. Just search for 'pizza chilli' to view them yourselves. IMHO this is crazy and is detrimental both to buyers and other contributors.

Celeste.

Celeste,   you've hit a topic that has been irking me since day one in the biz ..   4 dozen (or a lot more-300) of the same subject from angles changing a couple degrees! (and not with StockXpert in particular).
   I was looking thru one of the sites that had popped up on another thread concerning ripped off images to see if any of mine were there.  I could not believe how many times a shot of some guy with headsets on showed up. And the fact was, it looked like the shooter took a pic, moved the cam 2 inches shot again, moved 2 inches and shot, again and again and again. I am not exaggerating. Honestly, there had to be a dozen and a half of the, essentially, same shot.  HOW does stuff like this get accepted and why?  There were several other subjects the same deal. 
   What an incredibly nonesensical waste of my time.   If I were a buyer, on a deadline, I'd be totally ticked and be looking elsewhere for images. NOT TO MENTION.... these images had nothing to do with the search I plugged in.  Hence, spam keywording.

On the topic of uploading to StockXpert...  I've gone into holding pattern... HOWEVER,  my sales have not declined there  and much to my surprise,  I'm still experiencing sales (this week) with JIU & Photo.com.  I thought that was supposed to be over by now?  While I have been with IS for a few years,  I'd still like to upload to StockXpert... they have been, more than not, my #3 sales site. It would be a shame in my book if they closed down.  =tom