Got a couple of downloads Friday but number of DLs has dropped a lot last few months. Without SOLs it would be bleak.

I check my account a couple times a week and saw the email just after I checked so I knew it was <$1  Still, rather be on the + side, though I was hoping for more!

Alamy licenses a lot of images for textbooks. If it shows a basic science principle that might be just the place for it. A lot less work for you and more chance of it selling multiple times.

I uploaded 5 new images Friday after not adding anything at all since last year. They passed right away, my timing was poor to upload before the weekend, but one sold this morning.

Totally unscientific in terms of showing how things are working of course, but glad it wasn't a total waste of time, assume it'll keep selling now and hope it boosts the others since they are all related in terms of subject matter or destination. My best-sellers for some years now are still my best sellers (and they vary in concept, and place). A bump to the next level for earnings early last month does not seem to have changed this.

Fotolia sends out a 1099.

40% of my sales were premium access when I checked last month and the amounts are pitiful. At first I hoped it meant something good - like the old S+ which used to earn me a decent amount. For a few years, as a non-exclusive - some years ago now, of course - iStock had the best RPI of all my sites by a substantial amount. At that time I was considering pulling my good-selling RF images from Alamy (back in the day when $250-400 per license was common) and beefing up my iStock portfolio which was small but earning me as much as the other micros where I had more photos, and, as I said, a really nice amount in terms of RPI, so I could go exclusive. Things certainly have changed.

Any thoughts on Trevellion vs Arcangel? Given their similar client orientation - I believe they are both especially know for beautiful and intriguing book covers - which would you try for first? I'd imagine being with both would be difficult. I've been holding aside artsy/dark work for a while with thoughts of eventually applying to one of them.

Do you get worthwhile sales with Robert Harding? I know they've been around for a long time. about 90% of my portfolio is travel - from the US and Europe - and it sells for me via my site, direct to clients and via Alamy, and more generic on the micros, but I'd like to see better revenues per photo. With that in mind, are they worth applying to? I have a large volume of travel that is currently RM, which I could pull, and other work not yet on any sites.

If you only have nature work (with appropriate scientific names for flora and fauna) as well as landscapes, is it worth applying to Sciencesource?

I'm always leery of joining smaller mid/macrostock sites. I joined one in Germany that was very strict with file size, editing, no micro similars, nearly all RM, etc and nearly all my sales have been subscriptions from their partner sites with my share of each under 1 Euro for the past three years. Disheartening.

Appreciate the thoughts already shared here as well as the pdf with all the links.

Asked about Adobe Premium a while back, it's invite-only at this point but they may open it up eventually.

I can no longer see anything on my financials page and my stats page no longer lets me download a CSV - I had just under $100 in November and now I don't see any financial info at all. 

yadayadayada - thanks your link helped me at least get my stats - you can't see any CSV links in Safari either. But I still can't see what they owe me although I can work backwards from the last payout at least.

I can't wait to get my last $100 and delete my entire account. The last time I made as little there as I did in 2016 is when I joined in 2011 - and that was only the last 6 months of the year and with a handful of images. Certainly not enough to deal with their shenanigans. 

They have been my #1 agency many times this year - actually most months. Average sales price per image this year is $68 and I averaged in the piddly $7 sales and still got that nice average. Highest license this year was $250 with $125 to me. Best last year was $400 with $200 to me. I've made payout most months - sometimes it takes longer since clients can be notoriously slow to pay which I don't love, but then I have calendar clients I license images to directly where I send them images 2 years in advance, 6-10 months later they chose images, and about a year later I can invoice them. That's how it often works with traditional stock photo sales. Slow but steady and once you have images in the pipeline it's not too bad.

Alamy is not the right place for everyone. I shoot a lot of secondary editorial and travel, so it's right in my wheelhouse. If I shot a lot of lifestyle, I'd sell them elsewhere.

With hundreds of submissions I went for several years without a rejection - but had two over the last few years - both times I missed sensor dust - my bad. Glad in both cases that they caught it as it would be embarrassing to have sold them. Since I had hundreds of submissions pass without incident, I was able to re-upload right away and wasn't punished for a month. My first year, back in 2008, I had a few of those month-long hiatuses and it was frustrating, but again, my fault. They expect you to be a pro or at least to shoot and process like one, but they are forgiving of the rare goof up if you have a good record.

I started with Alamy, so I'm used to their quirks. Much better than a dollar  - or 2 cents per download - so the extra effort is worth it.

quote disappeared

Best $$$ is on FAA.
I make lots of mostly small sales on redbubble which add up, though some months not so much.
Some sales on Crated and Photo4Me.

I market my portfolios on RB, FAA and Crated. I've found I do best when one of my photos is suddenly featured (on RB and Crated this has happened a couple of times), and this year from all combined did better than on the micros.

My print prices are much higher than the average on FAA, etc., so I don't need to make as many sales, and when I do they are worthwhile. I have been in 5 local gallery shows this year, where I sold framed and metal prints, so I like to keep those prices similar. I also sell products on all the sites that have them, though not for all images.

I think you need to market your work to see any appreciable sales, although in my experience those out of the blue keyword searches can lead to sales too.

I have a mix of purely fine art (i.e. non-stock) and artistic stock images on the sites. A couple of my best-selling stock photos also sell frequently as fine art, so there is overlap.

Happy to sign the petition.

Also, Shelma, once a large group of people sign, do you have the ability to put the fact that xx thousand artists signed a petition, with a brief description of the petition, on PR newswire?

Can you set it up so people see it on Facebook and can sign there and get their friends and followers to sign? I think that it can come from a concerned group of buyers, sellers, artists, business people, etc. all concerned about not seeing artists treated like peons. IMHO, the fact that they are reducing commissions to as low as 2 cents will outrage people beyond those who supply Getty/iStock.

Great idea. Hope my input helps. Happy to brainstorm with you and all those here who believe that the only way we can take any control of how our images are sold and how we are treated is to band together. Ignore the nay-sayers. We can do this together.

The petition may not succeed, but we'll surely fail if we don't try. Excellent idea.

My last sale there was in August. I've had a couple.