Just out of interest - what is the queue running at there just now?

sadly to say but I think they gave up on us   

It does rather feel like that - that they can't be bothered as they know there is no future for the site.

I have been with them since Oct 2010.  When I first started I sold an extended licence every 6 months or so which made a big difference, but I haven't had one since Jan 2012.  It is a very very long haul to the $100 payout without them. 

I am also feeling that they are not worth the effort any more.  Perhaps if they reduced the payout threshold to $30 like Bigstock I would see the point again.

Is there a link to the spreadsheet somewhere?  Can you keep posting an up-to-date tally in here please?  Cheers

Changed my mind - realised there was no point waiting.  My port has now gone.  What a relief!

Very interesting. His non-compete must have expired. It's showtime!

It has   A couple of years ago.

I might think about signing up if they would change their name!  Even GL hasn't got entirely rid of the old 'graphic leftovers' name, which just implied that they sell bits of rubbish nobody wants to me.

Quote from: StockCube on January 10, 2013, 18:37

I have a blog with some comparative income figures from when I was exclusive plus my last two years as an indie.

http://stockcube-stockcube.blogspot.co.uk/

Am I way off the mark when I look at your figures and interpret them as saying that you're earning less per month as an indie (partly because the other agecies aren't accepting your iStock images, as it seems like you have a lot fewer images in your other sites as you have on iStock), but you have peace of mind not being reliant on iStock?

Or one other interpretation might be that you've chosen not to put all of your iStock portfolio with all of your agencies (for whatever reason, e.g. splitting what images you send where to keep track of misuses).

Or ...?

Sorry Sue, I have only just seen this reply.  It is true that I have a lot less images for sale at my new indie agencies than I did at iStock.  Shortly after I dropped the crown I went through a series of major life events which took priority over uploading - to have spent time on stock at this point would have been the equivalent of 'fiddling whilst Rome burns' so I only had very limited time available to devote to my new agencies.  Now when I look back on a lot of my old iStock portfolio it seems like a lot of dross to me that I can't really be bothered with - they are welcome to it to be honest!  I took the best 150 images or so and uploaded those elsewhere - it is very much a case of diminishing returns after that and I prefer to devote what time I have to shooting and uploading new images instead.  I know from discussions with iStock exclusive friends of mine that their income has been steadily declining from around about the time I left iS so I doubt I would be earning much more now had I stayed. 

I don't advocate this approach to everyone, most people will want to upload every last thing they have in the hope it will make a buck or two here or there - but I offer my full stats figures as a way to show what can be achieved with a very small portfolio across multiple agencies.  Oh, and I hope to pass my old iS exclusive income at some time this year. 

So far, the facts are that Getty decided to give away my image for free on Google and stated they have more plans to do so.  My reaction to these facts are that I'm going to deactivate my images.
I'll for sure do 1000 on feb 2.  Not sure I feel like clicking that many boxes for too many hours but I'll commit to 1000.  I may get addicted and do more though
[/quote]

Leaf - I have heard that Sean Locke added a 'deactivate' button to his Greasemonkey script that helps with that sort of thing.  I have absolutely no idea what a 'greasemonkey' or a 'script' are, but I have heard tell it is a nifty thing for those in the know and saves a lot of bother...

I don't really know - I am not a lawyer.  I was hoping Sean could tell us.
If I had read that when signing up I imagine I would have thought that it meant they did not have to pull images that were used to promote iStock if the photog suddenly dropped the crown.  ie if there was an ad campaign ongoing with one of your images.  But in the current climate it reads in a far more sinister light.

Quote from: ShadySue on January 10, 2013, 10:10

Quote from: Noedelhap on January 10, 2013, 10:05

Shocking. Still no official reply. I do hope that right now, Exclusives will stand up to this abuse.

Hard to know what's to be done.
The b*stards have us by the short and curlies. Even if we totally teminate our accounts today, it looks like they can keep giving away our content for another year.

If I were to terminate my account, I would be sure that my content would not be available anywhere for another year.

I think she was referring to this in the ASA:
"notwithstanding termination, iStockphoto and its distribution partners shall have the right to continue licensing Accepted Exclusive Content until it is removed from the Site or other sites where Accepted Exclusive Content is distributed and for up to (1) year following termination where such Accepted Content has previously appeared in iStockphoto's promotional materials, CD programs or Distribution Partner marketing programs"

Hi Jeff, I left exclusivity in 2010 and have been blogging about it since with full income stats.  I am a single parent so don't get a lot of time to devote to stock, which is why my port and income remain fairly small (though I am working on it!)
http://stockcube-stockcube.blogspot.co.uk/

I haven't been able to upload for a couple of months now - I keep getting the error message too.  These are images that have been uploaded and are selling well on other sites already.  It is frustrating.