I remember that Lee Torrens was calling the owner of Lucky Oliver visionary.
Depending on Lee Torrens comments is a bad omen for SnapVillage. 

ha ha, that's true. Actually, Lee Torrens *still* thinks the owner of LuckyOliver is a visionary, so I wouldn't listen to anything he says.

Ooh, this sounds like fun!
Please add me. Username:  leetorrens

Hey RH, I know what it's like when an agency does something to make you angry, so while I'm not on board with this particular complaint, I know the situation. But, think about this:

DT should better thinking about, that we contributors makes them cash.

That's obviously true, but it's also true that as individuals we have no power. ZERO power!  There are already tens of thousands of us and an infinite supply of people who will replace us. In light of that, not even grouping together will give us any more power. 

Microstock is an open market, so you have to deal with being pushed around by the people with power. Agencies with lots of buyers have power. It's very limited power (they can't drop commissions by 50% or raise prices by 100% and expect nothing to happen) but it's a lot more power than you and I have as contributors.

From my personal perspective, Dreamstime values their contributors more than any other agency outside iStock's exclusives. I think Leaf's explanation gives a good insight into the process and helps show that it's not a personal vendetta against you, but a process to keep reviews efficient and fast, which is good for all of us.

Heard back from the Fotolia press rep with the official Fotolia line. Not good news:

True: Fotolia no longer pay for 'new' referred photographers, only buyers. The press rep said that this had already been updated on the website and was surprised when I showed him that it hadn't.

True: They're blaming a bug that mistakenly assigned affiliates, so the removed affiliate will not be restored. Apparently when affiliates are affiliated to an account on a different date to the affiliate's registration date, they've been removed. Some affiliated accounts were older than the account that referred them - meaning it was impossible for the affiliate to have actually referred the new account.

Fotolia has, apparently, lost tens of thousands of dollars due to this bug. Affiliates were getting paid for accounts they didn't refer, but now that money has been stopped. Generously, they're going to let you keep the money they paid you by mistake! 

I told the press rep straight up that I didn't believe the explanation. I told him I thought it was awfully convenient that correcting a bug will save them lots of money, and that my referral earnings at Fotolia were previously in proportion to the size of the agency and the structure of their program but now were lower than smaller agencies with less generous referral programs.

I asked for the date the referral program was changed to exclude paying for referred photographers - he's going to get back to me.  I also asked if they know how long this 'bug' has been erroneously assigning affiliates.

So, conclusion. Fotolia has been accidentally paying us more than they needed to, which means their affiliate program was actually very weak. Now that they've stopped paying for referred photographers, it's REALLY weak! They are also yet to notify affiliates of the change or update the appropriate parts of their website.

I wouldn't exactly call her anonymous

http://www.stockphototalk.com/phototalk/2007/02/istockphotos_di.html
http://www.perrush.be/art_hidesy_01.html
http://www.designfederation.net/photography/amanda-rohde-inducted-into-the-istockphoto-hall-of-fame/

From memory that's not her first time in the mainstream media either, but I can't find the reference.

Or do you mean her neighbors don't know she's an online celebrity?  In that case, totally, unless you market yourself like Yuri. I think we'd all recognize him if we passed him in the street.

Has anyone other than me contacted Chad?

I phoned Chat late on Friday evening but no answer and I didn't leave a voicemail. I then sent him an email, but no response (it is the weekend).

I phoned their global press rep and he answered, but was running out the door and told me we could talk on Monday. I insisted it was important and rushed a mention of the problem, which came out very wrong. Anyway, he insisted he had to go, so we left it at that. I returned to my computer at 1am to see an IM message from him saying he'd postponed his plans to deal with my complaint, but my rushed mention of the problem was too off-track and he didn't know what problem I was talking about. I imagine if he had already been aware of the issue he would have guessed. Anyway, hat tip to the guy for getting back to me, and head slap to the guy for not changing his response until after he'd hung up.

So, no progress.

I just got the same response to my support requests as Melking:

We apologize for the inconvenience. Unfortunately we no longer pay affiliation revenue for new photographers. How ever we do pay out affiliation for new buyers that are recruited.

If that is true, Fotolia are not honoring their own contract for anyone who signs up now and refers photographers as they haven't updated the agreement their website - it still reads that they *do* pay for referred photographers.
On the assumption that the contract we've all signed says something to the effect that they can 'change the contract at any time without notice', then they've screwed us big time.
If it's in fact not true and what support have told me and Melking is erroneous, then Fotolia have support people giving out false information to their customers.

I'm looking forward to finding out which one it is. Breach of contract, screwing customers, or giving out False information.

Maybe it's a combination.

"We apologize for the inconvenience. Unfortunately we no longer pay affiliation revenue for new photographers. How ever we do pay out affiliation for new buyers that are recruited."

They can't be serious! If this is a change in policy how can they let it first hit the streets via a support response? If this is an error, how can they let a representative say something so monumentally erroneous?

Fotolia and Dreamstime also added a high quantity (relative to their usual quantities) this month, but iStock only added just over 30,000 !! 

Reading it again I need to clarify: iStock did add only 30,000 last month (according to my observations of the figures on their front page) but that's unusual for them. Their average over the previous 12 months is 120,000. Last month was unusually low (or they forgot to update the figure on the front page).

I concur. Shutterstock have been super-fast for me too over the past month.

I actually find many agency review times vary depending on what I've submitted. If they're people shots they get reviewed a lot quicker than isolated objects and landscapes. Not all agencies, but some.

Quote from: Read_My_Rights on September 30, 2008, 21:29

Quote from: sjlocke on September 30, 2008, 09:42

Quote from: yingyang0 on September 30, 2008, 09:10

100% IS and BME for earnings.

Aye.

Aye aye.

Aye aye aye.

Go White Sox!

Those of us with low earnings at iStock this month need not ponder the cause any longer! 

Wow, they sure picked two low-ballers to profile in that article - makes me think that someone with an anti-microstock bias pitched the story to them.

Yeah:

"Great work Jim. Just a few more of these articles and we'll have this microstock problem solved!"

Seeing as its $$ that pays the bills not DLs then I would think the $$ rating should trump DLs.

Agreed. Now how do we get the New York Times to rank their Best Seller list based on author revenue and Billboard to create album charts based on band royalties.

While money/revenue pays the bills, the world counts sales, and I'd guess that Yuri and Crestock are doing the same when making these claims.