Seems like a good thing, but I can't say it really matters to me.

Why is "fair" 50/50?

I can't speak from the agencies' perspective because I have no idea what their individual costs are, but from my perspective, I don't think what most agencies do for us is worth much more than 50% of the revenue. They do bring in a lot of customers, but when you start carving up those profits too thin, all those bulk sales are negated pretty quickly. 50% seems to be around the sweet spot, although I wouldn't mind getting a bill for what my share of what the advertising, reviewing and storage costs actually are. Running my own site has really opened my eyes to how little money most of these agencies actually deserve. People forget that just by uploading an image they are automatically becoming a searchable Google entry. All that tagging is pretty search engine friendly. It's basically free advertising for a variety of keywords. So if you want to see an agency produce more sales then upload more to it. Grow its catalog and search engine indexed content.

Is it still greed if it's not working?   I just have to wonder if all these changes worked for them. Was it worth it? Are they making more?

My numbers were way down, so much so that it didn't matter if I left. I estimate that they earned about 23K less from me this year than they did last year. Plus, any future earnings because I pulled the plug.

i think in alamy, the buyers should not alter the iptc data in the images, that includes file number..alamy info and copyrighted.

i found that images without any info..so it seems there is nothing i can do.

sometimes the images will be available without watermark..so it seems people can just download and reuse it?

Is that just for altering or changing the data? For instance, they don't want you putting your name into the copyright line. I can't imagine them actually requiring you to keep the data. It just doesn't seem feasible. What if you make a collage with several artists? Whose data do you use?

Sounds more familiar as a freelancer than working on stock. Working on stock art is more like a break from clients for me. I feel sorry for people that don't enjoy doing it, but do it anyway. I like doing contract work too, but you have to be careful choosing your clients.

No to be discouraging, but the micros have a lot of those images. So, they may get rejected. I just saw a thread somewhere of someone complaining about their little sphere headed man images getting rejected for "too many on the site".

From a customers persepective to have credits I can use all over the gettyverse is a fantastic idea. So is being able to see results from all agencies.

I already have this stuff that can be used at multiple sites. It's called money.  

Sorry, I couldn't help myself. You made it sound like Getty invented the concept of money. Really if you didn't have to buy all these extra credits that eventually expire, then you wouldn't need to use them other places. It sounds like they are listening to that complaint too though.

at literally every single photography event I have attended concerning stock, photographers comment about how scared they are to post here and how mean people get. it's completely unprofessional and unproductive.

Really? Maybe, those photographers should grow a pair. I'm kidding.  

Seriously though, I don't think it's really all that unwelcoming. You don't get as much sugar-coating here, but I find that a little more realistic. The world isn't all unicorns and lolly pops or hugs and rainbows. I would think as artists most of us are used to some criticism (I know I am).

Unfortunately, that doesn't seem to be the case because minor disagreements seem to quickly turn into name calling. And here we are with a thread about it. Maybe, everybody should get out the metaphorical sandpaper and toughen up their skin.  

Yes that's true, we're supporting MSG too. That's an easy question to answer but getting and retaining customers is the question most agencies ask themselves frequently I would think, not just start-ups like us. It's not going to be easy. It wasn't easy getting this far.

Value for money, useful content, ease of use, funds for advertising, referral system, good SEO, good customer service, extensive transparent stats are all things worth having. A unique selling point is a good thing - we've made no mention of that yet.

Congrats on the site. I've bookmarked it. I opened a shop for my own work last year (link in my signature), and it's definitely been an interesting experience to see it from the other side. Good luck!

Congrats!

...maybe a site with a illustration bias, reasonable prices, and commissions is something to give a chance. Looks like vectors sell for about $10 with a 40% commission.

That's what I thought too. Some definite positives, but I'm still not sure about the iStock design emulation.

I call shenanigans!