I'm sorry but that's crap. Quantity of images doesn't say anything about someone qualifications. There are a couple of six-figure earners in this business with portfolios smaller than 500 images. And plenty of folks with huge portfolios of garbage. It's pretty lame to say that they don't think someone is serious unless they have 1,000 images.

You're right, it's not personal. It's worse. It's completely arbitrary that they throw out this minimum number of images they want to see before they'll actually judge your work on it's value, instead of simply how many decent images you can crank out quickly. It's got nothing to do with improving anyone's portfolio or figuring out what designers need. Many folks around here already have that figured out, and some of the real pros are doing well in this business without 1,000 image portfolios.

We judge by the quality and quantity. If you have 1,000 images but they are similar to what we already have, we're not interested. If you have 200 images and your details and concepts are out of this world, you're in.

If your portfolio doesn't make us go "WOW," we have no interest. We only need so many images of a waving American flag, shields, grunge elements, flowers or of cute puppies and we only want to add so many artists.

After being an image reviewer and library owner for over 8 years, I am rarely impressed and I'm disappointed in the lack of creativity and uniqueness these days.

I'm looking for diversity of images, quality, and the wow factor and for artists that contribute on a regular basis (weekly or even monthly) that are in this for the long haul so I don't have to add more artists later.

I looked up your portfolio and you are offering the same styles that others already have submitted to us.

Your green icons: http://www.emberstock.com/green_icons/

Our green icons: http://clipartof.com/-ecology_logos

Your sketches: http://www.emberstock.com/sketchy_notebook_elements/

Our sketches: http://clipartof.com/432394

Your grunge: http://www.emberstock.com/splatter_and_scratch/

Our grunge: http://clipartof.com/104474

Your shields: http://www.emberstock.com/shields_pack/

Our shield: http://clipartof.com/1065178

Your media icons: http://www.emberstock.com/social_icons/

Our media icons: http://clipartof.com/-media_icons

So after reviewing your portfolio, I don't see anything that we MUST have on ClipartOf.com This is why we would not accept you. You would not do well at ClipartOf.com because you don't have anything different to offer our clients.

The issue here is not lack of talent, but lack of imagination. Use both together and the outcome would be refreshing.

Thats why I said it varies from site to site. I was just giving an example of one site.

Jamie Voetsch
http://www.ClipartOf.com/

One problem with these sites is that they dont promote the artist at all.

Notice how there is absolutely no credit or mention of the artists. They are about promoting the images, but definitely not the artists.

Its just one of my peeves and something serious artists should consider before contributing their images to any site. You will not get any recognition for your work, but those sites will.

Jamie Voetsch
http://www.ClipartOf.com/

That is very true, loop, unfortunately... But if people stopped getting greedy and did the hard work themselves there is no need to decrease the earning percentage. We have better plans than that over here

Any artist who is making less than 50% commissions is being ripped off. Why on earth should a library make more than the artist who created the file?! Those that choose to put up with it simply dont value their work well enough.

  WOW! I am always shocked and disappointed when I hear about this kind of stuff happening to artists.

As co-owner and 100% involved partner of ClipartOf.com I would never, ever, EVER treat our artists this way! If an artist asks a question, they get the honest answer from us, even if it sucks! We dont give the run around and neither should any other site.

What did your agreement say regarding distribution and commissions when you joined FT?

Frankly I feel that FT is majorly in the wrong and this is a big joke. If FT is the one paying you for your earnings they better dang well know what is going on and they better give you the information that you are requesting as it is their responsibility to do so, being as you are not a direct contributor of Photoexpress, FT is technically acting as your "agent" and needs to let you know what your earnings will be. You should also have an option to opt out of the Photoexpress site since apparently they are a whole different operation.

Its amazing what artists will put up with these days just to make money, but the truth is that you are being gypped even if you think are making the big bucks. You could be making more. You just have to grow some balls, stand up for yourself, and stop letting these greedy micros walk all over you!

Jamie
http://www.clipartof.com/
Sorry we are not accepting contributors at this time. We want to remain personable with our current artists. However feel free to keep checking back. When we are ready to take on more artists, we will have an artist application link somewhere on the site.

Awesome cclapper!

I have notified the artists that I know. We also found one of the other artists and notified her/him.

This stuff makes me so angry.

Some artists look at this as if "its bound to happen" I see it as "YOU, the artist, are letting it happen"

All you have to do is leave those sites that are treating the artists like dirt and under pricing your work. The only reason why these sites are successful is because the artists are contributing to them. If you REALLY value your artwork and you REALLY want to make it alive out of this mess, YOU have to make a choice and stand up for your values.

I find it interesting that ClipartOf is listed as one of the most expensive. We give the artists control over their pricing. What does that mean? That means that the artists price their images at what THEY think they are worth. They can change their prices at any time, with the minimum being $10 and the changes take effect IMMEDIATELY. An artist can price at a $10/11/12/13/14 tier if they want.

SpiderPic is NOT going to take over the world. Eventually customers are going to catch on that there is missing and important information. Its a trick, a gimmick.

One thing that they leave out is the license terms. ClipartOf for example seems really expenses, but we dont have any tricky extended licenses with an extreme difference between the displayed image price and the extended license price, or with super fine print that is too confusing for customers. There is ONE straight up, TRUE royalty-free license, no bull. Period. So yes, customers ARE willing to pay for the no-nonsense license that IS cheaper than most extended licenses. I, in fact, today heard directly from a customer that she will never license from anyone else due to the confusion and legal issues that arose from an "extended license" that she misunderstood. I often hear "thank you for being straight up and simple!" from our customers.

These "extended licenses" are confusing the customers! They end up paying the cheapest licenses, then get in trouble for not being able to read or understand the endless fine print and using the image in the wrong manner.

In the end, the customers want a fast, friendly and honest service. Extended licenses and "fake" cheap pricing are not honest and are misleading.

Jamie Voetsch
ClipartOf.com
All about the artists!