Moreover, you must pay attention to all your portfolio to set back the 1 credit files to 2, once they have sold again 5 times... I found recently one of mine was ready to be back at 2 and continued to sell for 1 until I noticed (they would care to notify me obviously...).

Huh? I just had a look at my port and credits at FT. They are all on 1 credit, included one with 175, 75 etc... downloads. I don't really understand the site. Do you have to do something special, or are "levels" or something the like automatically applied as on DT?

In my opinion Dreamstime stinks! and they will not be getting my business which means neither will their contributors which is unfair to them as they have done nothing wrong.  

Well that's life I guess, you win a little and you lose a little. In this case I'm losing a little since de facto, I only upload to DT for microstock. You have to admit you left off quite some steam in the original post, but I won't cast the first stone.  
The choir of the grumpy Granddads tuning in was rather funny, especially if you know their port. Warren has a great travel blog (I always enjoy), but in between trips, he tends to feed his ulcer. Don't Warren, be happy!

As to the wording of the consequences of the level system for the subs, I have to agree with you that those are not totally clear, to say the least, certainly not for a first time buyer. I can't comment on the EPS since I'm ignorant about illustrations. May the force always be with you!

PS - I do recommend DT wholeheartedly as a one-stop stop shop for all possible imagery needs, at affordable prices and fair practices towards their contributors. That's why people buy Oxfam coffee for too.  

The contributor agreement says they will do what is 'commercially reasonable' to credit the contributor but they don't guarantee it and require the contributor to waive this right. I think it's because they want to promote only themselves and not contributors. So if anyone sees an image credited to istock, they will go to istock, but if the contributor is credited, buyer can look for the contributor elsewhere. I think that's the reasoning behind this because of the word 'commercially', although they will say it's a technical problem but the agreement is clear, it's about money. They want all credit, 85% royalties and complete control over the files. Greedy companies do those things.

Bingo and very well to the point. That's why I didn't sign their agreement. Fair enough. Nobody was forced to sign the agreement. If it's a dealbreaker, then don't cut the deal. I still don't miss IS (and vice versa I suspect) 

Quote from: csproductions on October 30, 2011, 20:53

I never get more than one release from a model, even though we shoot on multiple dates.  But I no longer upload to istock, either.  I also don't bother writing a shoot description on the release.  It has never been an issue for me, but if it were ever become one, I could easily overcome it.

I'm not sure the judge would go for whatever your solution is.

I catched your first reply that you changed very wisely. It read "forgery". That would have been enough reason to accuse you of libel.
It's not because iStock sets its rules somewhere far away near to the polar circle that they are God's Gift to stock.

A year ago (when I was still uploading on iSuck) I had a bunch of releases just for them for every shoot day. Just because they can't program a proper model release library. Well with all those corporate suit-zombies there I can't blame them.

As I'm involved with a modeling agency that works with media (in Europe), our lawyers assured us that for media, commercials and also movies, a group release for the project is enough. But just for the sake of iSuck, I made a separate personal release for every turning (shoot) day for a few images for micro. All the images were accepted by iSuck at first, then their legal department came back 2 weeks later because the witness signed 24 hrs later (we had 4 turning days), and they deleted the images. Fair enough to me. I would just yell "Jump!".

For 16%, I won't even bother to write a new release, and with their "mirroring" my stuff at Stinkstock, I deleted my entire portfolio on their Suck site. It took a full evening but I enjoyed every moment of it, and I keep telling my media contacts never to buy from those sharks any more. Period. I'm gone there. Just don't accuse other people of "forgery" any more, ok?

I've asked Istockphoto's Artist relations and they told me my exclusivity agreement prohibits me from offering this app on the App Store (would be a breach of the Exclusivity agreement). I was astonished to hear this!

You can expect anything from iSuck. Why are you staying there anyways? That site is doomed. As to Apple apps, that's indeed a promising source for great revenue, if your apps are good. I'm actually moving into apps (and software) again after all those years since images microstock is dead. Apple has the right business model for contributors. They make it worthwhile.

As Leaf said, there are numerous ways around this ridiculous requirement.

Are copy cats a big problem for you and does it affect how you work? Do you have any strategies that help against them?

Yes, badly, no. Even if sales numbers are hidden, they still will find you in the search engine. Some even hang out here (MSG) to lurk for your flames. That's why I don't put links here any more. Sorry. You're right.

each week keeps getting worse and worse for me... i'm now down about 40% in weekly $ earnings from 'normal'.

Me thinks this is very significant. Nico_blue is one of the most flabbergasting artists on iStock.

How long is it going to take Getty to realise just how stupid its system is?

Who cares.

Apps (and ebooks and music) help sell devices. It's a different model.

Having had some (profitable) experience in selling consumer-targeted apps (we called them "programs" then), I disagree. I'm talking 15-20 years ago. The secret of our success was, apart of being the first on the market with a USP, copy protection. I actually made a lot of money by selling the copy protection scheme exclusively to a very large publisher on the side. The scheme was based on a few extra bits written between the tracks of a floppy on a Unix workstation, something that the PC couldn't read under DOS/Windows. Then came the breakthrough of the iMac (that could make a bitwise copy of the floppies) and there went our sales... slowly but unavoidably.

The thing is that consumer products are copied like hell, whether it's legal, ethical or not. There are the bins (usenet binary groups), torrents and specialized sites. In gaming theory, the profit is maximal since they chance of getting caught is zero when you only watch/listen to the products in the privacy of your home while you don't have to pay for the product.
In the imagery business it's different, unless you use a stolen image as your screen saver or print it out for on the wall of your living room. As soon as an image is used on a web site or on a product, it's there to see and find for everywhere - and the new image recognition technologies make it easier and easier to find them. A small time blogger might get away with it, but a large company won't run the risk using a stolen image for just a few bucks.

Apps (if you are talking about iPhone/iPad apps) are so profitable to write, even for consumers, because Apple copy-protected in a way the whole i-business. There is no (simple) way to crack/download an app for Apple products without compromising the integrity of the device. There are many "reprogrammers and sim-unlockers" around in India and SE Asia but I didn't hear yet of one that had customers for "unlocking" an iPad, iPhone or even iPod. The owners of these things paid a premium price for their devices and they don't want it to be tinkered with.

That's why the business model of Apple is so profitable : vertical integration. In the hay-days of the Mac-Microsoft war, it was said that the PC was so successful in terms of quantity, not because the over-all quality of the framework, but because almost all PC software could be stolen unlike the one for the Mac. Writing a Mac app protects your investment in time and programming effort.

Dreamstime pays $1.05 for the level 5 subs.

I just had one a few hours ago of 1.26$ (level 5, exclusive). Many of my level 4-5's are exclusive. (I started a thread on the DT forum some time ago as to why it pays off to make your level 4-5's exclusive there if (and only if) they don't sell well elsewhere). For instance yesterday: Editorial, exclusive : 17 credits (2010) $9.35 = 55% but I had cases of 60% too.

In all these subs discussions there is an elephant in the room as to DT. The elephant is the level system. This is quite unique in the microstock world (as far as I'm aware). In fact, it is a Darwinian "Vetta", determined by sales on an image per image base, not by some editor's decision. On other sites, you'll just have to live with subs and hope for PP sales that deliver the largest share of our revenue anywhere. On DT, a sub sale is a sale that makes the image also climb up on the level scale. Not to mention the recent introduction of the level 0 (still 1 credit to buy) that becomes level 1 (3 credits to buy) just after one single sale (included a subs sale).

So imho, the subs system on DT can't be compared with any subs system anywhere else. To address the concern of OP : DT seems to handle the subs temptation (for buyers) well, especially in view of the recent introduction of the 1-week subs plan. My subs are still around 50-60% but not increasing, and my RPD (I'm not an illustrator) has been around 1.5-1.6$ the past 3 months, more than before the 1-week subs plan.

Apparently DT runs a tight ship with 1 captain-photographer in control while other sites fell to the multi-headed "corporate" temptation, a temptation that brought us in the economic mess in the financial world we are currently in.

Would it be legal to put up all your stock photos on Flickr with a watermark - and then wait for prospective customers to contact you?

My paying Flickr membership was canceled without any explanation (except a reference to the TOS) a few years ago by just doing that.

but the status is always your application had been rejected. I have sent at least 2 emails by using the contact on website, but never got a single reply. Possible to help?

Yes. You have been rejected. What part of rejected don't you understand?   Living in the Far East, I know how hard it is for an Easterner to lose face, so I totally sympathize, sortof. It's something like "don't call us, we'll call you"   Just move on.