So from the results so far it would appear it's a 50-50 split. There's a lot of statements that echo my own experience.

As the old saying goes 'never say never' but I have it on good authority that none of the top microstock agencies strike deals when it comes to finances even for the top selling content producers, things are done to sweeten the upload process and certainly to get a bit more exposure (which obviously has slight financial implications) but nothing on the commission front. Hence all the top selling producers sell their stuff absolutely everywhere.

I thought the megapixel race was over.  Hope Canon don't feel the need to cram even more into an already overcrowded 35mm sensor, unless Nikon have done what Canon hinted at a couple of years ago and create a MF slr?

I don't understand how people think the smaller sites aren't worth uploading to...........

Speaking personally it's because I view uploading my images to a site and the time it takes me to do it as payment for them to market my images, the commission they take from any sales I see as an ongoing payment for ongoing marketing. So I don't understand why anybody would upload to a site (big or small) if that site is doing diddly squat about marketing your images.

Put another way, say it takes you a whole day to upload your portfolio and complete the process to get them online, say your normal 'day rate'  is between �500-�1000, that's how much you've just paid site x to market your images, on top of that they then take 50% plus of any sales commissions - now don't you think they ought to be doing a bit more than the 'fingers crossed Google will find it' campaign that the likes of (insert pretty much anybody in the lower tiers) is doing.

I may be wrong and it's a free world but am I the only one that believes these agencies should be working on our behalf to sell our stuff, or did I miss the charity clause.

If you want to protect your returns from SS, IT, DT and any other site you really like... STOP jumping on board every low-cost agency that pops up.  By supporting the bargain basement sites, YOU'RE driving your returns down to .20 per image.  

I agree in principle that people should stop uploading to every new agency purely for the reason it's new and they desperately want another source of revenue, but you were right in that folks are "supporting" these agencies, meanwhile these agencies do absolutely nothing to market the images and take commission off contributors.

Can anybody here tell me what marketing (other than the odd google ad) any of the agencies in the 'low tier' or even some in the 'middle tier' actively do to sell your images?

The next question would be 'why do you upload there then'?

I even wonder if some people understand the principles of selling via an agency.

Think I'll wait for the 5 to come out.

Well done, nobody can say for sure whether you'll get any sales from it but it's free promotion of your work either way.

@ Lagereek - are you sitting down?











Man landed on the moon - Elvis is dead - They've launched a camera that doesn't need film !!!   

Thanks!

yes its been around a few moths,  very handy indeed, my latest payouts using paypal.

Ummm... The option to be paid by Paypal started today, you can't have had your latest payouts using Paypal.

@Leaf - Direct funds transfer has been an option for years.

While i am dealing with him knowing that there is option that he can buy all my portfolio in XXL around 250$ with subscription makes me crazy

Then accept his offer for $400

But you CAN do something though. I don't care which sites they're after, the very moment after they put me back to white I'm gone, together with my 7000 files.

Likewise, and I think they'll be a great many others too.

I know very little about law, but something in the distant recesses of my brainbox remembered something about anti-competitive law.

Doesn't the paragraph on 'Principle' in the link below cover the area FT is concerned about, and wouldn't this be a more appropriate avenue to take rather than taking such a dictatorial stance towards contributors?

Perhaps someone with greater knowledge of such things could enlighten me.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Competition_law

I wouldn't have thought so because:

1.  They're not stopping you from selling on those sites
2.  As far as I can see they're not doing anything directly to target any particular sites to put them out of business
3.  Fotolia are not the dominant market leader, and this particular move isn't going to make any difference in that.

In short they'd just argue that by your own freewill you've decided to upload to a site that sells less and pays less, and all they're doing is saying "fine you can sell on those sites at a lower commission than we pay, but if you do we'll pay you the same amount in commission"

You'd have a better case if you could prove that they have imposed this condition on some but not all of their contributors that fall under this new clause, because then they are directly restricting you in competing with others within their same organisation, if that happens of course!

I applaud the ethics behind this move because I strongly believe that uploading to sites that sell our images at a fraction of the cost the 'big' agencies do can only damage our future and make worse this 'price war' we've got into. And I have no respect for anybody that uploads to every single site going 'because they're new and we should support them', sorry I do this as a business, I'll upload to a site that shows me they're working to market my images and pay me what I consider to be a decent share of the commission based on that.  

Having said that I'm equally disgusted by Fotolia's attempt to disguise this as anything other than a way for them to make more money, if Fotolia genuinely believed in what they are saying then they should give the contributors notice that they're removing their images from the Fotolia site - of course we know that won't happen because it's just a money making exercise for them.

@Chad - Please don't follow in Kelly Thompsons footsteps, please treat your contributors with some modicum of intelligence.