No one is ever truly Anonymous. If a company cared enough they could get the IP of the computer that wrote The Forum post and then they would know who is putting up the post bragging about doing the wrong thing. As a professional photographer I wouldn't be bragging in a forum. You should donate that money to a good cause because Karma always comes around to get you!

If you try to start a union, it won't work. Pull your hand out of a bucket of water and the hole fills right in. You aren't employees, you aren't forced to submit your work to any agency. There are thousands of hobbyist, some really talented that would submit their work just for the thrill of seeing it sold online. I started in Macrostock when I got $600.00 and more for an image. I never dreamed I would start selling images for .25 in 2007. There were some great years in between (not considering what I got paid for macrostock). Now is a new decade of the microstock industry and it looks like it is going to be a take it or leave, choose your agency(s) choose how and what you shoot, and how much time you are going to invest in it. 
Between cellphones, good inexpensive DSLR's, hobbyist, buyers wanting rock bottom prices and free or copyright infringed images on the internet. It has become a very difficult environment for a great experienced stock photographer.
I just keep working as hard as I can and try to produce the best work I can come up with. I will stay true to what is in my heart, capturing photographs.

I don't sell work elsewhere and never ever did under my name or any other. That is the point I was making. According to legal when I called three years ago when the corporation was set up, If a contributer isn't a main part of the corporation they can sell their work elsewhere. I could have misunderstood what I heard so don't quote me, call and ask for yourself. I don't have a problem because I and all my pictures are exclusively on Istock and Getty and wherever they put them. I never had the need or urge to upload anywhere else. I don't get any special treatment. I never even got a picture of the week! I'm hoping this new deal will be special treatment for exclusives.  My special treatment is a lot of hard work, a lot of hours on this computer sorting, editing, sending files to the keyworders and not having much of a life outside of stock photography. And 30 subs is my worst day, I didn't want to give my real highest figures in this forum. It really is nobody's business. This crowd is tough...What happened to the world where people were happy for other people's successes?

As an Exclusive, The Corporation still makes enough to pay our large mortgage and go on shooting trips. I still upload everyday. I listen to what Istock asks for and try to shoot it. I never waivered from Exclusivity in 10 years and hope this change will keep earning status quo or go up. I never hired a model, I don't have a fancy studio.
I do feel bad for non exclusives but I was getting a little annoyed at the better placement of files when Exclusive only earn their money from Getty. They are finally realizing how important Exclusive contributors really are and are giving non exclusive the chance to become exclusive with the new sub system being counted as downloads. The downloads may be .o2, (at worst)  but it counts as a download toward exclusivity. In the chart to the right Istock exclusive earnings at 154.7 still blows all other agencies away. If I were you, and I'm not, I wouldn't be doing this mass exodus but rethinking how to become exclusive and becoming part of that 154.7 number. The other agencies will follow shortly behind, it's all business. SS started the standard with their sub style .38 sales and IS had to follow them and we became very successful with subs. if you wanted to know where your sub sales are going. In any given day, I could have 30 to 100 sub sales and growing and our program isn't that old so we are pulling from SS. Instead of pulling your ports, think about becoming exclusive and do the opposite of what you are doing, ignoring your port.

Already ordered mine. I will be selling 2 5d2's and 2 5d3's once I am sure I like the camera. Then I will get the underwater housing for it and will sell the housing that goes with the 5d2's...Waited for this a long time!

In the description area use this exact formula
++inspector, This is not taken in a Zoo or like. Taken on wild coast of Alaska ++
 That will get the image through.
If it doesn't you can scout the image
Then write your normal description under the ++ line. The inspector should delete it. If he doesn't you can delete it after acceptance.

www.istockphoto.com/jodijacobson

Happy Bunny-
You Are Driving yourself crazy, and these long threads on this forum about noise and focus in a picture are a little redundant.
Let me give you some great advice. There was one post that was very true in this forum.
I am exclusive with Istock but my friend is not. He has been shooting over 20 years.
When he submits to SS if they need his picture, it gets accepted. If they don't it gets a crazy rejection like out of focus when it was shot at f22 and in perfect focus shot on a Canon 5dm3. He knows how to shoot. There are times when he gets all commercial images rejected but all editorial images shot at the same time accepted so like the above post said you can't go by the rejection reason. SS probably has a million cookie shots and didn't want them, soft,noise, sharp or whatever. You need to look around and see what isn't shot and start composing that. I don't think SS would have accepted your cookies no matter how good they were. You will see many rejections from them and you won't understand most of them because most of them are because they just don't want the picture and push a button like out of focus or too much noise which isn't true. I get frustration phone calls from my friend at least once a week.
www.istockphoto.com/jodijacobson

One bit of advice about shooting editorial for istock. Don't waste your time shooting any famous people, track events, race cars, motocross, football games etc. They don't accept them. You can shoot street fairs, parades and unknown people. You can never shoot one child alone. There must be two or more children in the picture for it to be considered for the editorial collection. Think editorial pictures that would have long term value.

Bunny, there is a big learning curve in learning what can and can't be in a picture for commercial stock. The biggest problem I'm hearing here is you don't have a definite subject. Find a subject like a child, dog, model....something important that tells a story in the picture. Focus on them and the rest won't be important. My motto is, if in doubt, take it out. Anything that distracts from the main subject should be blurred in the distance or nonessential in the foreground.
 Cappuccino on the restaurant chain wall would have to be removed and then there could still be a possible rejection depending on the shot and the agency.
My editorials without people do sell well. They are used in blogs and other non commercial usage.
You need to tell a story within your picture.

I'm still here! Still love IStock by Getty and Yes I did move to sunny Florida 5 years ago. Living the life

I stayed exclusive and it payed off for me. Can't talk about anyone else except myself. I am very happy to hear what is going on behind the scenes at Istock by Getty. It is happening now, not in the future. So no one is fooling anyone.

Quote from: jodijacobson on February 25, 2015, 14:15

Shutterstock was the downfall to stock with their ridiculous 25 and 39 cent payouts for subscriptions!
It is my opinion they ruined the stock industry for everyone!  All of you that submit there deserve what they pay!

Jodi, you come out of lurking here for this?

Yup....