not with you and other symbiostockers,.. yet !
but as i said in my thread (editorials).. i am looking for alternative and other methods
of future generators of passive income.

several months ago, i had submitted a batch of new banknotes to a certain site, who rejected all due to copyright issues or something like that. some countries do not allow their currencies to be photographs due to counterfeit issues or whatever. while others only allow you to take a representation of it ie. a portion, one side, folded,etc.. but never flat out full face and back.

again, as i said, in certain countries, even a photocopy is considered counterfeiting.

so maybe that is the delay. still, i am not sure banknotes sell much either, as most banknote producers like de la rue,etc  supply newspapers,etc of such copies if they need to print a banknote in a new media,etc.
just my own insight. but i am seldom right, and most time wrong 

i think the writing is on the wall for this one, don't u think?

um, let me give u a hint ...or catchphrase
......... 3 years and no sales 

If such observations are unreliable, is the denial of them more reliable?

like all polls and reports,etc.. one would take it with a grain of salt as look at who is the "advertiser".
u r right in looking at it laterally, that perharps there is a self-interest in telling newbies u r not doing well, or getting a lot of aggression and volatility with your bottom line suffering shortfalls,etc..

as goofy pointed out in the other thread, how Yuri had everyone's cousin producing clones of his work.
who wants to come in here and go woo yea i am doing really really well.
and conversely, like u say , i am really doing shittily, so quite honestly, u r better off tossing burgers.

i would say, it would be 50 50 mix of denials and observations. the super sellers will wish you think she he is not doing well as they are, so you stop looking at their work and flooding it with even more clones, which your cousins have already saturated.

good point !

plus, depending on where you are in business.
if u r starting a business, it is expected your startup cost, will be high and you will not be reporting a net profit until at least 6 years. it is for this reason why the IRA will not come after you in the first 5 years. but if you are in the business for 10 years and not report a profit, IRA will be visiting you soon for an audit.

In my day job I deal strictly with editorial photos. From what I see the only place a shooter can really make money on editorial is with Getty. Getting in is another story....

cheers for coming here to give me your opinion. jrwasserman
yes, i observed for years that the only images on www are mostly Getty. no harm to try when i do have time to gather a portfolio or i suppose they will only invite you, so i will need to build a site with my work.

while we are on Getty, how do you feel about the rumours of them displeasing contributors with their new promotional idea? the one which many are claiming to not being paid for the usage of their images.
as great as the lure for any site like Getty,etc.. i like to know what are the changes in their treatment of their suppliers, as already we see many sites going the displeasurable route to cut your earnings in the interest of short term gains.
i suppose it is inevitable to discuss a site in particular. i said i would not welcome that here, but
if it is on topic, i guess we will need to be more open in discussion .

first post in donkey years 
---------------------------
been in and out of microstock since IS SS dt ft and some good ones that died with IS acquisition, and also editorials with dt, alamy. was there with Alamy since day 1 and had 100% approval where i had my editorials. but deleted my account after 4 years i noticed zero views. i wrote Alamy why certain portfolio get listed while others even with 100% approval are having zero views, got no answer so i closed my portfolio.

i know, from my own sales, that fotolia (before dpc) and dreamstime had the best sales with editorials.
ironically, they were RT commercial images that were used in editorials, which i googled and found..
used by named newspapers (NYTimes,Washington Post,etc)

today, my shift as i said is Events Photography. i have PhotoJournalism and was a stringer on spec in my 35mm days across the country. i only touched with micro because i travel alot and a painter told me i have nothing to lose to try SS,IS, and i got in and was pretty much happy with it, what little time i spent giving them images.

but i am thinking , by consensus, lifestyle micro is more or less saturated, and from what i hear,
my own peers are losing money with clones of their work. luckily for me, i did not depend on micro nor lifestyle.

still, we all profit with diversity and passive income. i like to hear from all their views of where editorials sell. i do not want to hear where xxx pays 90% or better % . 99% of zero is zero, and to me and you will all agree no doubt a waste of time when i can just go to say IS , SS, where sales are regular and leave my stuff there.

but there is really no site that excels in editorials. not the paporazzi stuff of movie stars, but editorials.. events, sports,celebrities making surprise appearances,etc..
bread and butter stuff that we used to make during the 35mm days.

i know, from my own experience here, newsmedia no longer pays anyone , ie. we get it all free from wire (Reuters,etc), and whatever left, we take smartphones from readers. actual quote from several editors i had while traveling across country.

but i firmly believe other papers still take stock photos, as i said, i have several stock photos that are still being used every year for the same contents (taxation, sporting event, awards,etc).

but ft, dt,is, ss, do not really sell editorials . Alamy say they do, but you don't sell NFA is they don't get your images viewed.  i know it was not seen, because the history said ZERO VIEWS.
i cannot see how that is even possible with any site. unless my port was not visible,
which could be possible too. who knows.

anyway, this is not an Alamy thread. so please don't tell me about Alamy.
please do tell me about where i won't be wasting my time uploading editorials.

SS take editorials too, but lately they have been wacko with credentials. not every sporting event concert festival etc requires credentials. what is held in public open to public do not require credentials, and i got this from many organizers across the country. you only require credentials when it is a paid entrance event or an event closed to only the press .

outdoors festivals,etc  do not require credentials because you are giving them free advertising if your editorials sell as stock photos and are used worldwide.

then again, this is not about Shutterstock. so please do not waste Tyler's webspace talking about Shutterstock credentials on MY THREAD HERE, CHEERS !!!  I LOOK FORWARD TO YOUR INSIGHTS.

Quote from: PixelBytes on July 26, 2014, 16:14

Quote from: Rinderart on July 26, 2014, 15:23

Quote from: LesPalenik on July 24, 2014, 00:16

It seems, that people NOT uploading to zillion agencies are reporting consistent or growing sales on SS.

Im hearing the same Les.

But are the increases enough to make up for not uploading to, say, 7-10 other sites?

There are no guarantees, and of course, it depends on each portfolio and the individual agencies, but I believe that not only there will be increases (or more realistically, a reduction in decreases), but personally, it saves me uploading efforts to the marginal sites, and also it makes me will feel much better that those images were denied to the most exploitative agencies whose only distinguishing features are the rock-bottom prices.

again, good read.
in response i can only speak from my own side. as LesPalenik said "makes me feel much better..iamges denied to agencies rock bottom prices". it was exactly this denial which made me look into other possibility 2 months ago. as i said in the other thread by paulie (profitable), looking much closer to home which i have long neglected.
upon denial, i said, Ok FINE, YOU MAY NOT WANT THEM, BUT SOMEONE AT HOME MIGHT.

and after 2 months of hard work of pushing my wares here, i am finally finding results
.  does it mean i have to get dressed again and commute, etc... since i work in my pjs as a stock photographer for years, never needing to leave home, and just working where there is an internet cafe abroad,etc..

i guess we get pushed out, and perharps the best thing that has happened to some of us...
only thing is we have to wake up and get dressed all over again, instead of working whenever we feel like it , in my case midnight till sunrise,lol.
but it could be a good change of work method to go back to the "old ways" with new people...
3 generation new.

Absurd Post, many answers.
Post interesting, fewer answers...
an apple isolated over white whit ...
Dont worry now for these, just only improve!

i am not sure if i understand this. whether or not it is interesting , depends on whether u want to answer the OP question.
also, apple isolated over white... isolated is fine...

to date, i have boring apple, and other food isolated (over white)
and each recorded 100 dollars, while some of my favorite which to me, have improved
extremely, have recorded 10 dollars apiece.

why is it so many ppl assumed isolated apples is a waste of time?
some ppl do not make isolated apples because it is not isolated if it has a shadow.

and not everything that is awesome looking is what the clients need.
top sellers will tell you that it is not what you think is awesome looking that sells,
it is what the client thinks is awesome that sells.

or else everyone with a Flickr account would be top sellers in SS

So hilarious.  Some newbie lecturing Pauly on how to go far in stock.  This guy has been successful for years.  He don't need your advice.  You need his.  If you ignore, well that's on you.

 
like the other thread where the newbie told SJLocke.. and u r who??? or something like that.
this is funny too. 

I wrote a post on the Creative Market forum about the legalities of stock photo use and licensing. We'll see what they say.

I don't mean to downplay any licensing issues and legal protections (or lack thereof). If Creative Market is doing something wrong, it should be fixed.

That said, I still do think that they're being judged too harshly for something that many companies, including Shutterstock, still do. In doing some brief research for that forum post I put at CM, I found photos of trademarked buildings like the Pike Place Market also on Shutterstock. Lots of them, actually, and not listed as Editorial, even though the Pike Place Market sign and clock are trademarked. I shouldn't be able to get a commercially-licensed photo of the Eiffel Tower lit up at night (lighting design is protected), but I can grab a bunch of images like that at SS right now. I thought anything shot at Princeton University was trademarked, and SS has a campus photo up for commercial use. And a few of Dartmouth (also supposedly trademarked).

You guys have a problem with it, that's fine. It's a completely valid complaint. But I expect that you'll be directing your concerns to Shutterstock and the other companies you upload to as well if it is so reprehensible to see a company selling photos of trademarked buildings and designs.

Mike, point taken!
u r right.
we should not be fighting against each other. instead, we should be looking for new sources or alternatives to Getty, SS,etc.. agencies that make money for us.
as eventually, as IS history teaches us, they will take profit, sell the agency and leave you with the baby and the bath water to hang to dry 

problem is, with always  the new flavours of the month/year/...
they don't live up to the hype.
the other thread says, we need to compete with Stocksy. but really, there is no need to compete
with something that new, without any history.
if you need to compete, or more appropriately, find a viable alternative ...
it is to Getty and Shutterstock.
because these are the ones that have been making money for all of us.

and when the parachute turns concrete, we need another agency to jump to.
as i said, it used to be IS and SS. today, there is no one to come even close to SS.

well, look on the bright side of life...
if WWIII comes, we won't have to worry about microstock and all the madness of agencies pushing earnings down

It's passive income once you're done. Forget about it for a few months,bam! new lenses, new camera bodies. If you're not doing it full time, that is.

+1

it is , as paulie says, not passive income to those who go to it on a regular basis, pumping in 100, 1000, images wkly, mthly,etc.. oblivious to their trial balance and P&L .  in that sense, it can
become a total PITA 

but as goofy points out, some ppl fish for fun,etc. my own ex-business colleague in music fished for fun, has a pencil boat and tons of lures,etc... he travels all over the peninsula to fish. got divorced because he was spending more time on fish than wife lol.
the same with music. many times, as musicians, we rant about how little money we made at times. but another colleague who sings in everything, from janis blues to theatre,etc.. pointed out to me, that she would sing anyway, so whether she made pennies or 10 K ,it is still as Epsilonth calls it
passive income.

it is passive income for those of us who have to shoot no matter what.
i shoot Events photography, model portfolio, etc.. none of these go into micro. but i shoot food
which i eat , and this is passive income to me.
yes, in that sense, micro "stock" or any "stock" photography is similar to "stock" market.

you don't trade daily, you put in and you let it build (or fall). then you watch the passive income roll in, if you invested well.

if you're doing it full time, you won't be considering this passive income;
you consider it a PITA, having to jump through hoops, on a daily basis.
and needing to replace your camera from wear and tear.

still, many of us, shooting 1,000 frames daily , regardless of whether it is to earn money or not.
it is once again, as an actress i shot last week tells me, when i told her she looks like having fun
for as long as i have been watching her at the Event. she says, "everything i do, i am having fun;
the money is just the icing".

otoh, stock photographers do not find it fun, if they are not balancing the books.
in this case, they throw in the towel. i think it's all about finding a balance,
and having more than one income source. and then you have indeed, several passive income
and not have to lick the boots of the agencies.  and throughout the years, when one passive income is low, the other peaks and you're still balancing the books