I don't know what camera you have, but somewhere in there is a sensor. I would suggest taking pictures in the aspect ratio of the sensor so you capture all the camera is capable of. You can crop later if you think it makes sense visually.

A long time ago, one of the original microstock success stories said that the strategy with a new agency was to give them 300 or so proven sellers. Give them a few months and see if they can sell those. If yes, upload more. If no, they're clearly not going anywhere.

It's not a bad approach, with the caveat that there are some issues to watch out for - a lock on the time approved content has to remain, the inability to delete your own content, license terms that seem like a bad idea (for example, including an extended license for the standard license price - that's a real example, BTW), onerous uploading rules or conditions (don't read metadata, want a custom size or title/description format), lots of partnership deals that they won't let you opt out of.

If an agency isn't producing much in the way of sales, I'll typically leave content there as long as they aren't reducing royalties or changing the terms of the site in some major way. I have left a number of sites of the last few years. As an example, the most recent was 123rf. Their sales were falling drastically for me (and I was still uploading there) but the trigger was that they have a noxious tiered royalty system, and the sales decline resulted in me moving down one notch in the royalty rates. To me, that seemed to be a perverse reward for the agency for their inability to sell my content (which I know is saleable from what happens at SS and Fotolia/Adobe). They keep more of the cash the worse they get.

Some agencies are good for one type of content and less so for another - for a while, illustrators would get better results from CanStock than other contributors; Pond5 was always the video place - they've certainly not done much with images. Unless you have lots of different types of images, I'd say that 10 agencies seems like a lot. Don't upload to the ones that don't produce, or cut it back to a once a year catchup.

22 custom exclusive use images for $300?

Sigh.

$15 a photo for custom work? How long did it take you to shoot the 40 images you submitted, including setting up the props and returning their items? That seems like an insanely low amount for a one time payment.

I use the word payment loosely as you haven't seen a payment - when are you supposed to be paid for accepted work? I assume there's a payment schedule.

Why exactly do you see this as a good return for the work you did?

They're clearly infringing my copyright and the terms of the standard license.
...

I understand your frustration, but just to clarify, I don't think the newspaper's actions are infringing your copyright. They are probably infringing the licensing terms under which they obtained a copy of your image, but that's not the same thing.

Also, offering the image for sale as a print isn't the same thing as selling it as a print. Some other agencies (Fotolia used to, not sure if they still do) permitted print sites to offer Fotolia images and then purchase a license for each print sale.

Nothing you could recover from this would pay for the expense of hiring a lawyer.

Have you tried asking Mat Hayward to help speed things up? This isn't really a simple DMCA case - you want this thief's portfolio removed as it's a huge problem to upload other people's work (for the agency and any customers, not just for you). His email is in this thread

http://www.microstockgroup.com/fotolia-com/call-for-content/msg488451/#msg488451

I see that your work is also on Shutterstock. With your upload dates there and at Adobe Stock, you should have a pretty clear case that you're the original author. Have they asked you for any more information to support your case?

I received the Alamy email yesterday and I have money deposited into my bank account directly. Looking back, that typically happens on the 5th or 6th of the month. So less than 9 working days but not at the same time as the email.

They're pulling the plug July 31st.

http://support.crated.com/hc/en-us/articles/115003221606?mc_cid=839fb95626&mc_eid=8a2f9d9ede

Not entirely clear how adding this custom-photo-shoot-on-the-cheap company really helps Shutterstock with their "platform" ambitions. Perhaps it's having a list of things to offer larger corporate clients/prospects so they look more comprehensive than just a stock library with an asset management (WebDam) option?

I don't recall reading this Forbes article (almost a year old now) before, but they don't think SS can do well long term without unique content.

The SEC filing says they paid $50m from cash on hand. This list shows all their acquisitions (although no prices for WebDam or Bigstock)

And my April 2016 sale that had been outstanding is now marked as cleared- very happy that it finally happened, but still find the business model pretty upsetting (that the customer uses the image and we don't get paid for over a year).

I looked at your site just now - I had not done that before.

This isn't a guide, but a very selective subset of agencies with a sort-of cross agency search function (you only show a few from each agency in the comparison). There's also some very misleading information about licensing, releases and distinctions between micro and macro.

You don't include Shutterstock? What sort of misleading headline is it to say "Search ALL the stock image websites for ANY image" when you're not searching one of the largest? On your Top Pics page you list agencies with the "largest" collection of images but exlcude Shutterstock which has more images than any your list with the exception of Getty and Alamy.

When you list sites, you don't make any mention that there are lots of other sites (e.g. Stocksy or CanStock) - how is that helpful if you're trying to provide a guide for those who don't know what's out there?

You are also saying things that are muddled and seriously misleading, such as:

"However, the distinction between microstock and macrostock has lately become more blurry. This is because many microstock image websites now also offer an extended license to their products. If you purchase this license to a product, the product will normally be withdrawn from further sale at the stock image website, which means no other users can purchase the right to use this product in the future"

Extended licenses typically permit larger print runs, products for resale, templates or multiple users. Dreamstime offers a buy the rights option and Alamy's RM offers periods of exclusivity but that's about it. You repeat the incorrect information here. Many macrostock agencies sell both RM and RF licenses to work they represent. Microstock agencies offer RF plus a limited set of additional rights via an extended license.

You also say:

"Macrostock image websites generally sell you exclusive rights to images (or other media products)"

That's not accurate. RM licenses typically specify which uses, sizes and a length of the license term. Exclusivity may or may not be an option, but that's not their primary selling point. The fact that an image is exclusive to a particular agency is not the same as offering exclusive use to a client. You have a much better description of an RM  license here.

What you write about model and property releases is really muddled. People can use any image they want for any purpose - there's no worldwide authority that doesn't "allow" this for privacy reasons. If you use unreleased images in commercial ways you risk a lawsuit from the person or owner of the property, which is why people buy released images.

I have no idea what you're referring to when you write:

"In order to have such a permission, there are two options: 1) There would either need to be such a permission already in place, or 2) you would need to enter into an agreement with that person called a model release. That means that the person in the image or video would grant you the right to use that product commercially."

Buyers of stock images from agencies have no information about who the model is so they can't go to get a release from the model directly. The photographer/videographer signs the contract with the model when the shoot takes place. Same for property releases.

And why pictures of tropical fish on a page about model releases? You don't need a release for wildlife.

I have never had the experience you did, but I did once contact Alamy when I had intentionally deleted some items and changed my mind a week or two later. As we were within the 6 month lag time that deletion requests all go through, it was easy for them to undo my request and keep the images online.

Alamy support has always been responsive, polite and helpful. I'm sure they'll get this straightened out for you if you explain what has happened

I've never been asked to sign something additional for a license - what's the wording of the document they want signed? Is the "client" name on the form?

I'd get in touch with SS support via the web site to ask if this is legit to see what they say, but I agree with you that this sounds very odd.

...Are we allowed to say here?ill add mine if we are.

You're not supposed to disclose that information as of a change a few years back in the contract we agree to as contributors:

https://submit.shutterstock.com/legal/terms?language=en

From Section 15:

"By submitting any Content to Shutterstock, you acknowledge that you will acquire certain confidential and proprietary information, including but not limited to royalty rates, royalty payments and earnings data (collectively, "Confidential Information"). You agree to keep Confidential Information confidential and to not disclose Confidential Information to any third party other than representatives, agents, attorneys, accountants, auditors and advisors with a bona fide need to know, who shall first agree to keep the terms confidential."

I think that download numbers would be considered part of that list (although I'm not aware of any action they've taken for breaches of these terms). Especially as the information is largely meaningless without the context of a particular portfolio, I don't know why you'd take the risk.