Very rare for me. It happens only with Dreamstime and Fotolia. Less then 10 times a year.
Istock absorbs the cost - I've red IS official post about this.

For anyone who says "great idea, start that site and I will put my photos on it", remember that someone has to run a business and that's a big job. Even though Perry�kudos to him for sharing his �dreams��says he isn�t planning to start that dream business, there�s always someone who thinks it would be nice to have their own agency and doesn�t realize the time and money involved. Not only setting up the business entity and web site but the day to day operations and ongoing costs for merchant accounts, business banking fees, data servers, hardware, etc. Even suggesting that photos be exclusive on one site means someone has to police it. A person with good photography skills may not have the time and/or skill set to make a go of running a business in addition to taking photos.

Micro investment site.
Each photographer put 500-20000$, we hire a professional team. We undercut prices first 18 months. All earnings are reinvest in the site first year.
Initial investors (us) will be owners of this business. No more changes "a la" FT or DT. We decide.

Quote from: photoshow on July 10, 2009, 02:40

Oh I would not prevent them from being able to license an RF image for extended uses. I would simply make them purchase an RM license and pay more appropriate fees for the extended rights. The right to reproduce and sell images for $50 or so is ludicrous. To be able to do it for that minimal fee and still have RF rights to do it over and over, naw that is a bad practice that we should have never allowed.

Ok that makes sense. Now someone please start this agency 

Godot is on the way...
Seriously, why we cannot start it ? Many good agency, like Magnum,  were created by photographers for photographers.

Once, when I was young, I donate few of my images for free. It was very stupid think. Don't trust sites moderators that's good for you.

Quote from: Freedom on July 07, 2009, 19:12

Another consideration is whether or not I can sell my rejected images as RM.

This is the clause in question:

Quote

You further agree that any Exclusive Content that is not accepted by iStockphoto and does not form Accepted Exclusive Content cannot be sold, licensed or otherwise made available to purchasers, licensees or other potential users without the prior written consent of iStockphoto. iStockphoto reserves the right to sell non-accepted Exclusive Content through another site or distribution venue determined by it, the compensation for which will be subject to a new rate schedule agreed between the parties.

The other ambiguous clause in the exclusive agreement is this one:

Quote

12. Effect of Termination
b. Upon the termination of this Agreement with respect to Still and Flash Content or Motion Content, or both, the grant of authority given to iStockphoto shall cease with respect to the relevant category of Content subject to the following conditions: (i) iStockphoto shall remove the applicable Accepted Exclusive Content from the Site and distribution partners within thirty (30) days of the termination of this Agreement; (ii) notwithstanding termination, iStockphoto and its distribution partners shall have the right to continue licensing Accepted Exclusive Content until it is removed from the Site or other sites where Accepted Exclusive Content is distributed and for up to (1) year following termination where such Accepted Content has previously appeared in iStockphoto's promotional materials, CD programs or distribution partner marketing programs; and (iii) regardless of the expiration or termination of this Agreement, iStockphoto will continue, in accordance with this Agreement, to pay compensation due to the Supplier at the non-exclusive royalty rate of 20% in respect of licenses granted to members during any transitional period, subject to any rights of set-off under this Agreement or at law.

It has been repeatedly brought up in discussion by people who understandably interpret this to mean that if you quit being exclusive, they will delete everything you uploaded as an exclusive. Admins have repeatedly countered by stating that is not the meaning of the clause, and that nobody's portfolio has ever been deleted against their will simply because they quit being exclusive. It is simply removing the "Accepted Exclusive Content" designation from the work, not removing the actual work.

I'm sure if it has happened, we would have heard about it. I haven't. Has anyone else?

I was exclusive videographer at IS. After canceled my exclusivity NO one file was removed.

Does version 4.0 pay better commission for subs?

Nope?!

Then kindly disappear and never appear again 

+1

Where do you find info about credits/prices? 

In my email box. It was their response to my email.

I had a sale yesterday for .47.  Another today for .43.  Both were (B)log images.  Does anyone know how this works?

Not me. 123RF and DT are specialized in strange earnings.

I think I got one of these partner sales. I received this email this morning:

We're pleased to let you know that one or more of your files was sold via offline means.
The content was used on one of the partner sites announced in the consumer-oriented alliance:
http://www.dreamstime.com/thread_11224

Image ID: 2295049
Royalties: $1.09

They never clearly explain their earning system. $1.09 for what? 18.16 post cards ($1.09/0.06)?
They have to pay for every word in the email?

Quote from: Achilles on June 19, 2009, 13:51

visual search

One way of working your way to the front page is participating in the assignments. Even if the assignment image doesn't sell, you'll get exposure and a chance of trapping a buyer in your port.

But don't forget that your image will be trapped for 12 months.

Hi everybody,
Sales at 123Rf picking up for me. Does someone else noticed it?

Can we have your definition of "picking up"?

For me 123rf was always dead (less than 30$/month). I gave up last month.

Let me see if I understood: the cost of credits will increase.

NO.
"This is not an update of the pricing in credits, but of the credit value itself. The credit amount required for image download will not change. Subscription plans will also stay the same.� - Achilles Page 1

Our commission will be lower (the ghost from FT strikes DT?)

YES
�we plan to adjust the royalty percentages in the upcoming months. We will first evaluate the results of the current price update. We hope contributors' revenue will not be affected and that the RPD remains at significant values� - Achilles page 1
"The extra budget will go into marketing and sales. It will allow us to attract new customers (most of them will be new to stock as some of you assumed above)". - Achilles page 3
* extra budget = contributors money

Your agent should handle this for you:
http://www.microstockgroup.com/general-stock-discussion/dmca-and-license/msg96039/#msg96039

LOL.
I'm sure the "agent" will handle this. Contributors problems are his priority.