I believe the site is in beta at the moment  and they only have a small amount of internet images indexed. I found quite a few on my images in use that I hadn't seen before and reading forums on other sites people are finding quite a few misuses of images that still have watermarks.
It should be a great tool when it's all up and working properly.

Quote from: leaf on May 19, 2008, 16:40

Quote from: snurder on May 19, 2008, 13:55

Josh, have you looked at Tin Eye and it's possible integration into your system? Take a look at the video there.

http://tineye.com/login

wow, cool stuff.
I have signed up for a beta account.

Thanks for the link, Snurder. Its interesting technology which we've been aware of for awhile. I've been testing it again this morning using links to high selling images.. the results aren't very encouraging.. A search using one of Yuri's best-selling images only got 4 results.. where its probably present on at least 14 stock sites alone. Not to mention the hundreds of times it must have been downloaded and used for webpages and online content. Given these results it doesn't really seem like its a practical solution, yet...

Anybody come across different results from this? Leaf?

I've just had a look at the sales for the last week and haven't got any at less than .375 a credit.

I've been paid between 100$ and 500$ for reasonably easy shots by people contacting me through the IS site mail.

From threads in the SS forums that is exactly what has happened.  I think that they were hoping to be able to give a much larger raise.

The only thing I can think of which justifies this is the possibility that their sales have fallen through the floor since iStock announced subscriptions.

My sales are higher than they have ever been so it is affecting me positively.  I guess it's a case of where one person loses out another person gains.  
I can sympathise with how you feel as I have had the same thing happen to me at IS in the past but unless Fotolia's overall sales go down then I don't suppose it is important to them which of the contributers get the sales.  Only they know how sales are since the change and if in fact it has helped overall sales then they are not likely to do anything about  it.  
There is a lot of talk on the forum about bad search results but from my experience there have always been bad search results and always will be.

No I can't get there by clicking 'lightboxes' only by clicking on the Shutterstock logo.

I get what you mean.  I have done work for hire for books etc. and made much more money but the pleasure of seeing it in use isn't any greater than when I sell it microstock.  Maybe I'm just easy to please

I gave up my day-job very long ago
Microstock works for me. But other photographic works too for me. If i like to see a nice publication of my work i do editorial.

Agreed, we choose to sell our images at this price so shouldn't whinge when it is being legally used.  I have seen my images many times in newspapers, magazines and books but will get a huge thrill the day I see one used on a large poster even if I got 25c for it.  If I didn't agree then I wouldn't sell at this price.  The whole model of microstock is about volume of sales not about individual sales.
Congrats to the OP and I hope that they do e.mail you the images in use.

Oh what a bunch of whinging bores. Congratulations to the OP though- I know it feels good.

In case you haven't seen it in the forums the raise will be announced on Tuesday 13th. 

Is there anyway to find out if we are refrerals for somebody else as I may well have clicked on refreral links without realizing it.

Same here.

Quote from: JBe on May 08, 2008, 14:11

Yeah i  heard that too its true!
I found a way around it tho', i own their system!
Heres a tip to you guys.. http://zapatopi.net/afdb/build.html
I mean, laugh all you want, but try it first it works!

Also I hear that ALL the companies are hiring people just to browse through forums and newsgroups and hack mails to see who is badmouthing the agencies.. and teach them a lesson... ouch...

THE BIG BROTHER is so evil :/

exactly for this reason I use the stupid nickname here instead of my usual business name I use on all pages...
I may be a bit paranoid but I am not going to take the risk :-)

I don't think she gave it enough time.  I have been on FT and StockXpert for nearly 2 years now and on both sites it's only been the last few months that I have really taken off in these two places.  In Fotolia I am now in the top 80 in all time sales where as 6 months ago I was nowhere near that. In another 6 months I will be able to double my prices there.  I've only been at 123 and bigstock for a few months so am doing badly compared to everywhere else but hope that by this time next year they wil increase also.
Bonnie has an amazing portfolio so I think if she had given it another year she would have made a lot more money.   Maybe she just decided that she couldn't be bothered to upload to that many sites.

Quote from: ebola on May 07, 2008, 17:28

I would be curious if there is anyone out there that has gone exclusive and then opted back out at Istock.  It seems that anyone that goes exclusive stays exclusive, which seems to speak for itself.

Bonnie Jacobs (bonniej) is a diamond level exclusive at istock. She went exclusive when the program first started, and then decided to "play the field" for a while (I believe she had a gold canister at the time). Eventually she realized that it was more profitable for her to return to exclusivity at istock (see her istock blog entries from August 07)

http://www.istockphoto.com/bonniej

My consistently best selling image was uploaded in my first batch over a year and a half ago and sells daily and often has multiple sales but other images which I think are equally good often gradually sink.