I don't recommend joining iStock - they used to be a great place but they've lost so much ground and pay such a pittance to independent contributors that it makes no sense to undercut other agencies that pay you better.

But did you try this page?

https://workwithus.istockphoto.com/en

Edited to add: read this thread about the royalties in the most recent statement. I had sticker shock when I saw 6.75 cents - even for a subscription royalty, that's pathetic. Truly, seriously pathetic. And unlike their previous larcenous royalty scheme, the rate (15%) will never increase.

http://www.microstockgroup.com/istockphoto-com/istock-february-2017-statement/

If Fiverr cared about anything but getting their cut of the gross, the huge pile of gigs offering stolen stock images would have been long gone. They could police it but they choose not to and hide behind the policy saying "don't do that".

They could be a decent marketplace, but they've been told over and over about this problem and the best they can do is remove one or two gigs if pushed.

http://www.microstockgroup.com/image-sleuth/fiverr/

http://www.microstockgroup.com/image-sleuth/shutterstock-images-for-sale/

http://www.microstockgroup.com/istockphoto-com/fiverrgetty/

Apparently the new plans are permanent as SS deemed the trial a success in bringing in new subscribers.

https://forums.submit.shutterstock.com/topic/90234-testing-new-pricing-plans-for-customers/?p=1601776

If the first half of March vs. February is any sort of guide, my dribs-and-drabs SODs, all of which I assume are some sort of subscription dressed up with a special name, are right now 3x the whole of February's SODs, but as that amounts to just under $13, I'm not going to get too excited -  that's one bad day's subscriptions, so woo yea...

Do a search here and you'll see how long this theft has been going on. For whatever reason (I suspect that it costs money to pursue these folks) SS hasn't done anything/much

I'd never heard of these guys until you posted. Looking at the site, I don't see anything much about prices and payment, but it does say that the client has exclusive rights to the images and that you get paid for "approved work"

The devil will be in the details

http://www.flashstock.com/contributors/

They curate the content - so does that involve them working with the client and allowing the client to change their mind? Do they have a series policy like Getty and some other agencies such that you can't sell as stock the "outtakes" the client doesn't want (I would expect them to)

And with the payment for approved work, do you get paid up front, regardless of whether the client drops the campaign or is it more like Alamy where you have a "sale" that shows up and the payment arrives in some number of months when the customer pays.

I'd ask a lot of questions before taking on something like this so you don't end up paying for a big shoot and models only to have no "approved work" and thus no payment

Oh I have, they won't budge. From what I saw on the first statement and what they sent me which is pages longer it does not match. I can
not prove it as they asked me too so I am out the money.

That really stinks.

Have you asked around to see if other contributors have had this happen as well for the November period? If a number of contributors have had the same "surprise" and band together to protest an insanely high level of refunds (something that doesn't fit with historical patterns in a major way), possibly it might make a difference.

The other type of pushback that might work is insisting that they provide you with records that they have taken offline (they have to have records internally for accounting and tax purposes. The fact that they've taken away your access to it doesn't mean the data isn't there any more). As long as you're careful not to libel them, suggesting that it's more than coincidence that the large returns number was paired with removal of records, rendering contributors helpless to dispute a hard to believe claim.

When have you ever - or any other contributor to this or another agency - had returns that were about 90% of the month's take? That just beggars belief, doesn't it?

I have a sale that hasn't cleared from April 2016. I've contacted support twice about it. Bottom line is that it's a large customer who has only paid part of their total invoice and until the entire invoice is paid, Alamy doesn't clear payments to contributors.

This is the first time this sort of delay has happened to me at Alamy, and although I realize it's difficult for them too, it seems the contributor is the worst off - the deadbeat customer has and has used my image; Alamy has received some of the money they are owed; contributors have received zip.

At some point - possibly on the one year anniversary which is coming up soon - I may contact them to ask why they don't make a partial payment of royalties based on the customer's partial payment to them. It was a $150 license ($75 owed to me), so it's not an "oh never mind" amount. I know that's not their policy, but at some point it feels as if Alamy is penalizing me for their failure to collect from their customer.

And to the OP, look for the statements that mark amounts as uncleared (x) or cleared (o) in the balance of account

I had a quick look and thankfully didn't see any from my portfolio. The prices are much lower than other POD sites and as I already sell elsewhere, I would want an opt out from what has to be a lowball royalty given the prices they're selling the prints for.

Zero Talent, did they ask you about your work being included? I'm assuming not or you wouldn't have had to "find" 7 of yours.

It may be, if amazon is successful, that they'll drag prices down at other POD sites as a result, but I certainly wouldn't want to compete with myself by being forced into SS sales of this sort. Shades of Getty and the Google deal that they think they no longer have to ask about anything.

I hope someone who is included asks SS to let them opt out so we can see just how good SS still is at listening to contributors...

I contacted Shutterstock and pointed them to this thread for details - it's complicated! - and asked them to please investigate

Actually sounds like collusion.

If it is, then Shutterstock knows about and enables it in some way. Identical model release numbers isn't something a contributor could do on their own.

This is so weird, I'm not sure it can be right - I'm wondering if SS's database is totally and utterly corrupted. What I think I see is that two different contributors, ESB Professional and Sergey Nivens have the same images (with different image numbers) in their portfolios and are using the same model release for both.

When you do a "Same model" search, the URL shows a number for that model release. If you look at the case I posted above, you'll see the the vectorfusionart copies have different model release numbers.

But take a look at these two photos which are identical in model and doors, but with different skies/mountains behind them

ESB Professional (earlier image number):

https://www.shutterstock.com/image-photo/businessman-standing-front-opened-doors-making-340334069

Sergey Nivens (newer image number):

https://www.shutterstock.com/image-photo/open-new-doors-opportunities-394845343

Do a same model search for each and you get the same model release number for both

https://www.shutterstock.com/search?models=16512749&context_photo=340334069

https://www.shutterstock.com/search?models=16512749&context_photo=394845343

Both sets of results say 5,507 images use that release. If that wasn't weird enough, click on any of the images in the ESB Professional "same model" search and the image you get is one of Sergey Nivens!

Take this image from ESB Professional - click on any one of the "same model" thumbs shown on this page and you are taken to images in racom's portfolio. This woman's model release number is 14049070 for both contributors

https://www.shutterstock.com/image-photo/nerdy-scholastic-young-woman-wearing-geeky-318060599

https://www.shutterstock.com/image-photo/young-woman-short-red-hair-white-583304458

I'm truly stumped for an explanation. Even if someone had made a copy of a model release it would have a different number in SS's database, but these have the same number...

But look at the image numbers - ESB professional is 225,089,575 and Iakov Kalinin is 223,808,896. Not sure how you steal and get an *earlier* image number. And in ESB pro's port is an even earlier number of the same scene, 220,682,149

Plus if you look at ESB profession and pathdoc's portfolios there are other images where ESB professional has only one or two and the other artist a whole series

https://www.shutterstock.com/g/ESB+Professional?searchterm=lightbulb&search_source=base_gallery&language=en&sort=popular&safe=true
https://www.shutterstock.com/g/pathdoc?searchterm=light+bulb&search_source=base_gallery&language=en&sort=popular&safe=true

and

https://www.shutterstock.com/g/ESB+Professional?searchterm=money&search_source=base_gallery&language=en&sort=popular&safe=true
https://www.shutterstock.com/g/pathdoc?searchterm=money&search_source=base_gallery&language=en&sort=popular&safe=true

But then you have this almost identical pair and ESB Professional is the lower number - I did a quick look but couldn't find a common source (I wondered if they were both taking images from another person and adding their own lens flare)

https://www.shutterstock.com/image-photo/people-bokeh-street-london-223809385
https://www.shutterstock.com/image-photo/people-bokeh-street-london-221639851

If it's one person with multiple portfolios, that's against SS rules I think, unless they have permission