I don't know how long it's been like this but personally I've adopted the process of converting credits as soon as the last one gets paid, it's a silly system but works for me. I'm finding that it takes between 4-7 days to get a payment processed.

Yes they're a macrosite, and they have the toughest acceptance rate of any site I'm on, by that I mean they're very focused on what content they want, which although fustrating at times is something I like.

I like the opportunity to sell images for higher prices but why would people pay $299.95 when they can get the same image for $10?  How will this be justified to the buyers when they see these vastly different prices for the same images?

Because they're not buying an image, they're buying a license to use an image, and I'd imagine like Alamy the license will be less restrictive than a normal microstock one.
We'll know more about the license when the scheme comes into effect.

I am still waiting for istock to have FTP

Could you imagine the chaos that would cause, I mean a few of the inspectors went on holiday last month and we still haven't got our upload limits back, implement FTP and I'd guess that non-exclusives would be limited to 1 upload every 6 months 

I got rejected image of a man from behind on Dreamstime, because I attached MR, and it was not needed. I mean couldnt they remove MR or leave it, it wont harm in any way.

I've had a few of these in the past, extremely stupid thing to do on their behalf.

I contacted Brian about this because I had been reading the part on the royalty page saying you're paid at the end of the month as long as your balance is over $10.

He looked into it and said I would be paid on July 15th.

And nope I didn't get my payment paid either.

  They're owned by Inmagine.  This sounds like complete baloney to me. 

Don't get me wrong, I am sure you are telling the truth Stitcher, but I am not so sure Inmagine is.   I just don't believe any company of that size could possibly be run like that.

Lisa StockXpert is owned by Jupiter,  it's 123RF that's owned by Inmagine.

Nope definately not, the market is already too oversaturated.

I've heard rumours about a new site that's due to open based in the UK, trouble is it's going to be subscription based.

What makes it worse and nearly made me fall off my chair is when I discovered that they've been consulting a woman who has no idea about microstock or photography and yet has convinced them she's an expert, then on top of that I found out about another guy who has convinced them he's one of the top 4 microstockers in the world.

Anybody who knows anybody in microstock wouldn't put these two in the top 5000 microstockers!!

So in answer to the question, No I would definately not contribute to a start up and especially not a subscription site.

P.S. Terminal 5 at Heathrow "WILL" loose your bags in transfer so give yourself a day or two before your first scheduled shoot to cover for their silly new system of baggage handling.

Best,
Chumley

Wouldn't that make for a great advertising campaign, how about:

'We're so confident that we'll lose your bags that if we don't we'll refund the hotel you booked waiting for them to be found'

There's a company in the UK that's very successful at flogging over exposed portraits, whilst the images themselves are no great shakes they 'sell' the service by framing them in top quality frames, upon which are stuck these little metal 'logos' that they use, when I first found out how much they charge I was gobsmacked and couldn't believe anybody would be stupid enough to pay that much for what was just a portrait on a white background that had the levels boosted in PS afterwards, now having spoken to a few people that have paid for the service they all said the same thing, it was the presentation that sold it to them.
They also all said that in hindsight they know they've been ripped off, one thing I will say is that the frames are the best bit and those little metal logo's look cool.

Don't know if that helps.

Having re read your question I would say it's subjective, why not try both and see which one sells most, personally speaking I wouldn't want the photo title on it, a small and subtle signature that doesn't distract from the photo I could live with.

Doing a signature would be easy, just buy a graphics tablet and apply it in PS.

Anyway, it's going to take months if not years from launch for a site to build a customer base. If you want to take such a short term view then you should just stick to the established sites.

I agree, but in an industry that is reknowned for start up's I would suggest the only way to survive is  either to open as a side wing of a larger established company or enter the market with a bang, sitting back and waiting will result in failure.

YAY promised the bang, and it was looking good and I believed they had a chance with their initial approach, but I'm sad to say the day it opened they stalled and unless they do something pretty special soon I can't see them being around in a year.

They're offering the exact same product as many other market leaders in the industry, they need to have something that will either lure customers away from those sites or create something new, LuckyOliver had just that with their quirky site but they had the wrong man in charge and it failed, what will Yay offer?

One note to ponder: If you were sick would you ask another photographer for advice, or would you ask a doctor?
So if you have a copyright issue problem my recommendation to to seek legal advice, not that of another photographer.

I know of both Doctors and Lawyers that are photographers, and in the case of photo copyright a lawyer that is also a photographer would probably be your best bet as they would have a better understanding of the subject.