Let me stir the mud a bit more here.

Alamy's RM that everyone refers to is called L (Licensed) by Alamy because guess what? It's not really RM. The moniker RM, although probably not written into national statutes, general implies an image that has a known sales history. Therefore a buyer can use it knowing that someone down the street isn't using it or if they are using it they aren't in the same business. Now it's true that a lot of purchases are made without purchasing the extra rights but they could be and that's why there is still money in RM. Something had to separate RM for RF. So in Alamy's case they sell L because most of the images are RM in nature except often sold on other sites, hence no guarantee of sales history can be made. Also RM generally has a fixed and very defined licensed, usually for a specified period of time. So imagine this, a buyer after using the image for a year decides he wants to re-use it, he comes back a pays more. A crazy concept in the world of RF and especially micro, but hey, it's a crazy world. Did I every tell you about the times I made >$10,000 on a single sale or several images that each had a sales history's >$150,000.  Nah, I'd sound too much like a drunken loser.

Not going to miss the sales too much

That's for sure!!

Does anyone know how many images the average sub user downloads? i.e. what does an agency actually make?

From a buyers perspective, is there anything that really sets apart one agency from another?

Quote from: Zeus on June 02, 2008, 11:07

Technically, it is legal to re-assign a copyright to another individual or entity. Anyone who has done a work-for-hire job has done just that. sjlocke answered my question on the previous post in that most amateurs don't know how to handle image exclusivity issues and I doubt most amateurs would know how to handle multiple account issues as well. Most would expose themselves.

But we're talking about selling images at multiple sites, using two different names. Same last name, but different people, so how can both people hold the copyright on one image, and both upload it at different sites?

What you say above should not occur and plainly would be stupid if it did. I see no real reason to have two accounts at one site. My only reason for such a thing is if you clearly shot something that is obviously not Istock-centric but still felt it best to be marketed in the RF segment then you would re-assign the images to be placed elsewhere on a non exclusive basis. Never ever the same images or even images from the same shoot. Also there are some images that would be better suited for traditional RF than micro i.e. they would make you more money, then it would be nice to be able to choose. It's not straight forward the concept of exclusive representation.

Quote from: sjlocke on June 02, 2008, 06:33

Because you'd shoot one image, and then another vertical for another site, and say "Well, that first image is only on iStock, the second one is different".

Well i agree it could create problems like this, but the same problem currently exists in that you could upload the horizontal as RF to istock and the vertical as RM to alamy.. so having total RF exclusivity doesn't solve this problem.

The only way to solve this problem is to say that such things are not allowed and that is what sites do that require image exclusivity.  Many macro sites require image exclusivity which includes similars to the uploaded image.

The thing is traditional agencies allow image only exclusivity. It's not really an excuse; it does mean that photographers need to be educated as to what image can or cannot be used elsewhere if it is similar to one already on exclusive file. Getty, who as you know, owns iStock and does this very successfully. Unless you think micro photographers can't handle making such distinctions.

I was wondering if I could get an opinion from you veteran microshooters out there. Your best selling images on SS, do they  usually start off with an obvious spike in sales and continue along being generally high in sales or do they have a much longer longevity than the average image where they never really soar but never die off either, always giving you a sale here and there?

How do you delete an image at SS?

You need to go to the submissions summaries and find the image. there is a X there which deletes the image

As my portfolio builds I continue to see increases in DLs. I hit 62 on Wednesday plus an EL. I'm starting to see real improvements. Yesterday I deleted 7 images off my portfolio. Every since that moment not a single sale has been reported. True that Friday night and Saturday are slow but I've never seen zero in this time. Usually a half dozen anyway. I still find images of mine in searches. Is it just an unexpected lull? I perhaps need to get back on my anti-paranoia medication.

Quote from: hatman12 on May 30, 2008, 14:34

My main concern about iStock exclusivity is that it is too easy and allows the world to be awash with iStock exclusives.  That needs to change.

In fact, what is probably happening is that they are tending to get the moderately competent hobbyists who are doing this for 'pin money' and don't want the hassle of uploading to a load of different places.

I would guess that a lot of people who are in this seriously have no desire to close off all other avenues for RF sales. Apart from anything else, they'd probably take a hit in the pocket. IS will have to significantly up the rates they pay exclusives to get many of these people interested.

(P.S. I don't mean this to be derogatory of people who are exclusives. I'm talking about tendencies here)

For myself, I have been involved with the traditional end for a long time. Even if I wanted to become exclusive to iStock I can't because it is impossible to remove other RF images out of the market. Traditional RF involves CD distribution and as such usually carries  with it really long (often 20 year) distribution agreements for those images. I'm no big time shooter but those that are are excluded from going exclusive. Although the exclusives with iStock are great photographers, it seems a short sighted arrangement to not try and woo over  other big players if you could.

I find this interesting. I've just started contributing 3 weeks ago and although I am limited by IS's 15/week I still had more of an expectation. Right now I'm running something like 410s DL at SS to 3 at IS. Hmmmmmph.

If my camera accidently goes off while I'm putting it away then I'd like enough for that image that would cover the cost of processing, keywording uploading etc. If however I spend $1000 on a few hours talent then I would like considerably more.