Before you decide make sure we still get 50% of SR, it would really suck if it has gone down to 30%.  It's not worth it for $600 as it sounds like it will continue to sell for you.

You're right, I didn't even stop to think of DT's commission. I've sold the rights to images in the past, but it was always the buyer contacting me directly, so I didn't have to give an agency a cut. I think that with an at least 50% cut to DT, plus considering the fact it's one of my best sellers, I've decided not to sell the rights. Thanks for your replies.

Amazing sjlocke, I actually agree with you on something! I have always resented the people who publish books and websites that serve to encourage the hobbyists, causing the micro world to become even more over crowded with contributors than it already is. Really, that's the LAST thing we need.

... and, I actually totally agree with Ian Murray:
"What concerns me is that we now have a new type of entrepreneur targeting the hobbyist and encouraging them, really against their own best interest, to enter the micro world. I mean those people who run pro-micro blogs, give workshops, sell books. I have no wish to be personally rude to anybody but this kind of spin-off seems parasitic to me and nothing to do with supporting a creative stock photography industry. It�s about finding positions from which to benefit from crowd sourcing whilst knowing full well the damage that it does both to new entrants and those already within the industry."

They're very chatty over there.

It's my impression that the main thing holding Veer back is what appears to be their contempt for the microstock model.  In other words, they simply don't believe in their product, so how can they possibly be successful?

Why do I think they have contempt for microstock? Massive senseless rejections right out from the start tell me they regard our work as little more than throw away junk. And, the massive rejections continue, despite the fact that many contributors got fed up and left them, and this while they don't even have the downloads and sales to attract new contributors to replace those who have left. They don't value our contributions, which is why they have not bothered to do anything about the poor quality of their inspection team, which is clearly unqualified to review microstock imagery.

Think of how Fotolia bent over backwards to please us when they first started; they didn't start treating us poorly (lowering commissions, changing the canister levels, ect) until they became very successful. Veer, by contrast, started treating contributors poorly from the start. Oh, there were lots of encouraging words from their representative on this site, but their actions spoke otherwise. They have never even attempted to explain the massive rejections. I, in turn, rejected them -- After the first massive rejection of my uploads, I pulled my work from their site and I've never regretted it. I don't want to work with people who have no respect for what I do.

Take the above with a grain of salt, no, a BIG chunk of salt - because these are my impressions and nothing else. I'm just curious to see if anyone else sees the situation as I do.

That's good to know, I thought I just wasn't getting any downloads there over the past 2 or 3 days.

Current istock rules are that for anything where it looks like a map was used to source an illustration image, all those fields quoted in the rejection have to be filled in in some way - certainly true for vector illustrations and also for renders. It's easy enough to do for NASA images assuming it's an acceptable source (my understanding is that most but not all of the NASA images are usable as a stock image source). These rules  have been in place for a while, but not for all time - eighteen months to two years ago, is my recollection of when the istock vector forums started seeing a lot of enquiries about rejections for map sources like this. I suspect there is further confusion as these NASA earth images are not always obviously maps - some might be considered photo of an object, some show countries more clearly, so I suspect some images get through with just the basic NASA acknowledgement, some get asked for the full map reference hoopla.

I can understand that they want an URL for where you obtained the NASA image, but why do they need to know the software I used, the date the image was created --- and --- this one I really don't get --- Layers of data used?!?! (come to think of it, I'm guessing that it probably has something to do with placing a cloud layer over a 3D sphere, with a terrestrial map in one layer, and the clouds in the outer layer) . I think I'll just avoid submitting images with NASA content to iStock -- unless it's something I really REALLY want to get into my portfolio. Thanks for your help 

Allsa,

Maybe the problem is the 3D characters and not the map?  Like they want to know if you created the character yourself or if it's a preset from some program?

No, I have a lot of images created using 3rd party models in my portfolio. This is a problem that only comes up when I use NASA content.

Quote from: Allsa on February 11, 2010, 17:46

Had I received a 'not suitable as stock' rejection, your reply might make sense. As it is, it's merely a pointless insult that doesn't address my original question. Frankly, I'm offended by the rudeness of your response.
I wanted to know how to go about submitting images that contain NASA content. I didn't ask for a critique of my work, and if iStock rejected it for quality issues, then they should have stated the real reason for the rejection.

I'm curious sjlocke, I know you have experience working in 3D, so why do you regard the use of 3D models as requiring less skill than using live human models? Since I find it's much easier to ask a human strike a particular pose than it is to actually pose a 3D character myself, I'm interested in hearing the reasoning behind this.

Be offended if you like.  I'm just telling you that iStock wants more work to be put into something than a simply posed model on a texture wrapped sphere.  Look at it as a variation on this thread:
http://www.istockphoto.com/forum_messages.php?threadid=127861&page=1#post2098761

Actually a great deal of work went into those images. The original renders had problems with distortions in the mesh which required a considerable amount of correcting in photoshop; in fact, the clothing in the pig image was severely distorted. The earth photo was a flat NASA image doctored to look 3 dimensional, again, you assumed wrong. I could have mapped the earth image to a globe, but I decided to create the illusion of 3D with a 2D image. What difference does it make one way or the other? You have many simple 3D images in your portfolio, so your responses don't make any sense to me.

You are one of the most successful people in microstock, so I value your opinion here - but you aren't making much sense as far as I can see.

Using free or purchased models with a simple sphere wrapped with a texture does not show a level of work high enough for iStock acceptance (thank goodness).  This is the kind of thing that is great for SS, but not for IS.

Had I received a 'not suitable as stock' rejection, your reply might make sense. As it is, it's merely a pointless insult that doesn't address my original question. Frankly, I'm offended by the rudeness of your response.
I wanted to know how to go about submitting images that contain NASA content. I didn't ask for a critique of my work, and if iStock rejected it for quality issues, then they should have stated the real reason for the rejection.

I'm curious sjlocke, I know you have experience working in 3D, so why do you regard the use of 3D models as requiring less skill than using live human models? Since I find it's much easier to ask a human strike a particular pose than it is to actually pose a 3D character myself, I'm interested in hearing the reasoning behind this.

Whenever I create an illustration that uses NASA resources (usually a photo of the planet earth) and upload it to iStock (giving credit to NASA in the description), iStock rejects it with the following:
It appears that the map you have submitted was derived from a map, or similar source, using distinctive elements that are recognizable from the original. Since the map is the predominant aspect of the file, it may be a prohibited derivative work.

Please include the following information in your description of the file to have this file reconsidered:
- The source of the map you have used for reference (URL or a scan to verify ownership)
- The software you have used to create your file
- The date your file was created
- The layers of data used.

There are many images on iStock using photos of the planet earth, they simply say "courtesy of NASA" in the description field. Do they really require ALL of this information whenever a NASA image is part of the overall illustration? Theses two images (the devil one submitted a while ago, the other just recently) were both rejected with the above message.
Here are links to the images in question:

http://www.shutterstock.com/pic.mhtml?id=45968809
http://www.shutterstock.com/pic-21003310/stock-photo--d-render-depicting-the-devil-in-control-of-the-earth.html

So does anyone know how I can possibly get these types of images into my iStock portfolio?

thanks...

Some of my images automatically were migrated over to Thinkstock, although it was mostly moldy oldies that don't sell. I was thinking maybe ThinkStock is a place where IS plans to dump non-sellers, and that seemed like a good idea. Now, after reading this thread, I'm wondering if I'm harming the Micro industry by leaving them up. Wouldn't a cheap subs site be a good place to dump our non-sellers and at least get something for them? And have most of our porfolio on the higher paying sites? That was going to be my strategy, but after reading this thread, I'm wondinering if I should opt out completely.

I'd be willing to give the new site a try - IF they do not offer subscriptions. My StockXpert earnings went seriously downhill after they started with the subscriptions.

My thoughts exactly! It's too risky.

And this is the very reason why I reject exclusivity at one single site. They might review their review standards, and all of a sudden you will have most or your images rejected and can do nothing about it.

Regards,
Oliver

What? Did you actually read any of this thread before posting? FT has been deducting taxes from our earnings, that's what all the complaining is about, and the subject of this thread! Your response makes no sense.

Quote from: Allsa on January 06, 2010, 20:23

BUT how will we (meaning those of us from the US) find out the total $ paid to the IRS so we can deduct that amount from our 2010 income tax payments? Employers send W-2 forms, will Fotolia send us W-2's in January 2010? It should count as part of our income taxes.

They are not deducting any taxes for US, it is your responsibility - I expect they will just send a copies of 1099 to IRS and to you as SS does.

What I do not understand is why they are asking for W-9 again? I believe (though I may be wrong, I've already demonstrated my perfect memory on other thread ) that I already submitted it last year. Employers do not ask W-9 every year, only when they hire you/