Funny thing. I get sales every day on DT. As soon as I turned off EL's I have yet to get a sale. Probably coincidence, but he's see what happens over the month.

I think it's coincidence. I opted out Feb 23rd when they first announced this and I've seen no obvious change in sales since. There are days (particularly weekends) without sales (which never used to happen before things tanked last year) but there seems to be no increase in that since Feb 23

iStock requires RF exclusivity for whichever medium (photos, vectors, audio, video) you choose. So you can be exclusive for photos and not for vectors, for example. You also may license work rights managed (RM) even if you are RF exclusive with iStock - so you can have a different portfolio of RM images with other agencies (Alamy, for example) at the same time as being photo exclusive for RF work at iStock.

If you mostly did video but wanted to try vector exclusivity at iStock, that might work - your main earner would continue to be the independent work. Or just go with image exclusivity instead (at those agencies that offer it)

..."why delete your dead port, it's already there."

Because of changes like this, you still have to monitor it, because of dodgy partnerships you might not be aware of, because it might get sold to the Chinese.  That's off the top of my head, do you really need the hassle if it ain't earning?

You can opt out of partnerships at DT (I did that years ago). If it gets sold, we'll all know. And I didn't say it wasn't earning, just that earnings had fallen dramatically from what they were. ELs were few and far between, but once opted out, no further monitoring is needed.

I just turned off all my WEB and PEL licensing.

I did when they announced that this was coming as of March 1st.

As almost everything has dried up (for me) on DT in the last few months it's an easy call to make. Even if they "punish" those who opt out with lower search position,  the drop won't hurt anything like as much as it would have in the past

New list just published via Forbes - Free stock photos via 33 EPIC sites! 

http://www.forbes.com/sites/tomaslaurinavicius/2016/03/07/free-stock-photos/#691d720522c6

Talk about breathless prose - "...Epic Sites With Breathtaking Free Stock Photos"??

The article reads like an advertorial and if you look at the sites he links to, some quite specifically exclude commercial use, in spite of  the article's claim that these are "...breathtaking free stock photos you can use for your personal and commercial projects."

Here's this guy's web site

http://tomaslau.com/

And his tutorial page on envato

http://tutsplus.com/authors/tomas-laurinavicius

I didn't look at all the sites he included in his list, but the ones I did look at were pretty limited in one way or another. Many also included "premium" pages of images so the freebies are only part of the deal.

I realize that Forbes is now owned by a Hong Kong investor group, but this is poorly researched, poorly written drivel.

The interesting aspect for those of us who sell licenses to use our images is people trying various other avenues - specifically the free collection with some paid bundles.  They all seem to gloss over use of brand names in the images and who knows if the images with people are released. The bundles are cheap too (although by and large the quality is low, so perhaps it's not a bargain).

There were ads for agencies on several of the sites (as well as all sorts of other ads). Perhaps the model is free images will get you enough ad revenue to make a living?

https://blog.fotolia.com/us/2016/03/02/keywords-guide-to-the-galaxy/

Those prices are extremely cheap - $2.25 for a full size image. Your site mentions subscriptions - probably even cheaper, and probably even lower royalties for contributors.

Saying licensing terms are "like on other sites" is a cop out - which other sites did you have in mind? There are a number of pretty significant variations out there, and recent experience with things like SS increasing the print run under a standard license which severely cut into extended license sales have made it clear that the details matter.

I can't imagine that Google ads and social media will do much - if it would, sites like GL stock would have done a lot better.

Given that the web site is full of placeholders and your marketing plan is (IMO) a tad light, I can't see any reason to pass on images and then hope something good might happen later.  You're asking for a lot in seeking images at this stage - I understand why you need them, but what are you really offering in return?

The site is back again - the site's been up and down this afternoon. They have some very funny 404 page images, including one of a guy with a skateboard on his head...

http://snip.ly/d4yyo#http://www.dealstreetasia.com/stories/32367-123rf-32367/

What this would mean for contributors? Not clear, but based on the Shutterstock experience, nothing good would be my guess

Remember that Andy Sitt (123rf founder) is also an investor in Stock Unlimited - aiming to be the Spotify of visual content according to the article

https://www.digitalnewsasia.com/aiming-be-spotify-visual-content?page=1

He's apparently behind Designs.net and EasyDesign (anyone know anything about them?)

https://www.startupgrind.com/events/details/startup-grind-kuala-lumpur-presents-andy-sitt-123rf#/

I'm sure rf123 will have something to say

I sent 123rf a support ticket suggesting they might want to get the copycat site name changed.

Doesn't stop a bad site trying to start up, but they shouldn't ride on the coattails of an existing agency's traffic to do it.

... I'm more bothered about a Chinese company having them without my permission.

But a Chinese company does have them if you have work on Getty (via anywhere else other than Veer) - VCG is Getty's distributor in China and has been for a number of years now.

Edited to add: apparently VCG has or is about to invest $100 million in Getty:

http://uk.reuters.com/article/uk-vcg-getty-idUKKCN0VS0A0

http://www.forbes.com/sites/dougyoung/2016/02/22/china-chases-tough-photo-market-with-getty-images-investment/#3d9c00ea5662

http://press.gettyimages.com/getty-images-statement-regarding-a-potential-partnership-with-visual-china-group/

So VCG owns a good chuck of what used to be Corbis, has invested in 500px and Getty plus is Getty's China distributor. The Forbes article contains the following rather sad comment:

"Chinese firms are notorious for chasing overseas companies that are past their prime, and Visual China appears to be following in that trend with these latest deals."

Quote from: Carmen on December 01, 2015, 15:31

If you have your images for sale in DP, you deserve to be ripped off and abused. We all know who these guys are, their methods and their ways of making business since long time ago. Knowing all these facts if you are willing to stay in DP you deserve everything they decide to do with you.

Can You be more specific?? I've been around a Long time and seen all the games and scams. Haven't seen any there.

The Shotshop scam was their most sleazy episode IMO.

Very brief summary is that they did a partnership with another site where the sales were up to 99 euros and the DP contributor was paid a subscription download royalty per sale. People who were opted out of partner deals had their work on Shotshop too - DP's explanation was that they weren't a partner but were using the API to make the purchase, so that was different. After the images were removed from Shotshop they came back again and were removed a second time after contributor outcry.