In a way - I'm for subs, it seems like a good business model for the agency.  BUT - I'm against giving anything away.  And if I had the expenses that the big players have it would be outright criminal. 

Is there anyway we can do more than say "I'm not playing this game" and suggest ways to make subs more fair for both of us?

What do designers want?  Do they want 100 high rez photos - I really think not.  I bet they want smaller files to use in brochures, websites, newspaper ads.

Why not sell subscriptions for 4 or 5 mp and less?  Bait and Switch, they find the perfect photo but if they need a 10 or 15 mp this time.  Let them pay for it!    I can't believe a site like Shutterstock does not sell individual photos!  Are they afraid of losing their subscription clients?  Is it too much programming?   They have to lose thousands $ from those customers who are between subscriptions and go to Istock for a month.  What if they stay at Istock and never come back?

OR... instead of having a 15 photo per day download limit - make it a 15 credits downlimit per day.  1 credit for small  - 2 for medium - 3 for large... etc.   At StockXpert we would still only get $.90 for a largish file, but that's better than .30...  It's a compromise for both of us (unless in the end the agency is depending on leftover credits to turn a profit).

LO may not pay the best percentages, but they ONLY sell the largest/original size photo as an EL.  That's $25 to me - and it seems to work for them, they seem to sell a high percentage of large files.

Hey Leaf, I've been watching the numbers climb at the left.... nice little membership you have here.  I'm wondering though... are you awarding an ipod for the 1000 milestone?   Nice group of photographers you've collected here. 

Wonder how many regular visitors you have that haven't joined yet?  Who will be member #1000?? 

Nico, it's not a photographer's account.  It is an illustrator's.  Now that I've examined your example, I have no faith whatsoever that those brilliant illustrations in his portfolio are entirely his.  If he made a sillhouette out of your cricket player, I can't believe that he made any other figure from scratch.  It dissapoints me bigtime.   I had to hold back from posting a comment to the image that said "YOU THIEF!!! YOU STOLE THIS FROM NICO SMIT!!!!!"

If he only had a few in his port, I would think that oh, he's a beginner and doesn't understand copyrights etc.  This guy has 98 pages of illustrations!  He knows exactly what he's doing!!!!

Yes, I say do something.  I don't know what...  I'd think go straight to StockXpert (98 pages of illustrations...)

I did both Laurent and Rozmaryna.  Here's one just approved, no views yet!  Thanks.

http://www.stockxpert.com/browse.phtml?f=view&id=8114062

Are they for real?  Enter a public name?  Upload a closeup nice photo of the model's face?  This is even worse than Istock and stitching releases together.

What do I do?  Call my model a stage name like Delilah or Lucy and add that to my cheat-sheet of passwords and usernames?  You don't dare use their real names do you?

To be lazy and not read the other posts... if he paid you through his bank account there shouldn't be a fee should there?  If he paid by credit card there would be a processing fee. 

Also - in Canada, they charge me if I transfer less than $150 from PayPal to my bank.  I can't remember $ right now, I avoid transferring less than $150.  I think that in the U.S. there is no fee to send it to your bank account.

Maybe these two amounts combined total what you were charged?

I think you want this link re charges.  Yes, you incur fees paid by cc.  This is the US page though, the rates are likely different in your situation so you'll have to click through on the first note below the table. 

https://www.paypal.com/us/cgi-bin/webscr?cmd=_display-fees-outside
There is also a 5 credit card transaction limit per year on personal accounts.

But, am I sure what you are asking - are you receiving money or paying money?  If you are sending, you shouldn't be paying fees.

Someone has to pay credit card percentages, and unless the seller builds it into their price they always are responsible.  First, Mastercard or Visa is likely charging PayPal about 3%, Amex charges more.  So PayPal is passing that fee on to you - and likely adding their own commission. 

They may also add a per transaction fee of about $1.50 if I recall.

It's not the just the fact that there is a difference in price - prices differ on just about everything - it is the magnitude of the price difference.  I think you will be hard pressed to find the same DVD on sale for $10 and $50 (or even more if we want to talk about RM image differences) at different stores.

And I am not saying there is anything unethical about it - I am pretty much a Caveat Emptor kinda guy - but customers might find it as exploitive as photographers might find a 20% commission.   Where you stand depends on where you sit.  fred

But - when it comes to dvd's - Walmart will buy 100,000 and Big Dan's Video Drive-In will buy 3.  There will certainly be a price difference, or a huge difference in "commission".  I hope that an agency that only gives 20/30%can spend more on promotion.

I have been very happy with DT lately.  They give 50% and for me, were within top last month by a couple bucks.

This year I'm applying to Photoshelter and possibly Alamy. 

Does anyone know - on Photoshelter, if my application is approved will my photos show up in my portfolio automatically?  I'm wondering what I'll send over - I'll come up with something other than my micro work if the approved are placed for sale automatically.

Also - if I have photos from the same shoots as those on the micros - can I send over something that is essentially the same?  Maybe as RF?   I know there is nothing that says don't send to both, but I think we all agree to keep our portfolios separate... thoughts on similars? 

This designer posted a link to her own blog on the LO Forum, in it she refers to LO as her new boyfriend and  "I am really glad to have found you, especially since my *insult removed* of an ex-boyfriend, iStock, has raised prices for the new year. (The cycle of abuse just never ends over there, I�m telling you.) I am so done with that, and so ready for a new gig with you."

http://sabrinadent.com/?p=166. 

It's a nice little read from a designer - it's also good to know that IS pisses off designers as well as us.

Yep that's impressive.
He is doing RM as well, although i have never found wich image/agency. He kept it secret. 

Now could it be possible that he got his blad... free??? i mean he got so much exposure that i wouldn't be surprise that " Hasselblad" gives one in return for " advertisement"....... kind of sponsoring 

This is from Yuri's DT profile - I take it to read that yes, he was given his blad for free.  What an excellent Christmas present:  Extremely dedicated when it comes to digital quality Yuri just recently became officially sponsored by Hasselbald and will by Jan, 2008 produce exclusively with the Hasselblad Digital Medium Format Camera, H3D-II-39 at 39 Mega Pixel. Only a handful of photographers world wide are sponsored by Hasselblad.


Lee - if you are out there, he mentions your blog in his profile as well.

I think he goes by logos or something like that on other sites.

Hey guys, I was away for Christmas... received a new $10 referral on IS this week... anyone I know?