Quote from: lisafx on October 18, 2008, 13:27

Just did some random searches and non-exclusives are really, seriously handicapped in this current best match. 

For anyone who isn't exclusive, it seems kind of pointless to even be discussing what order our portfolios are in.  We aren't going to be getting any downloads there anyway....

I agree Lisa, the non-exclusives are now seriously f**cked. We now have two groups on IS, the 'Exclusives' and the 'Excluded'. I still don't get it though, they make 20% more money from everything that we sell. Aren't they cutting off their nose to spite their face? Maybe that thread congratulating Yuri pushed some buttons....

Anyway, I can't be bothered following the best match saga anymore. Sales are going to drop for us Excluded but what can we do. We have no voice, if we complain we'll just get the standard answer "You are non-exclusive, you can't have your cake and eat it". They still fail to recognise how we DO support IS. But anyway,  I am just grateful that IS is my fourth earner this month anyway.

I think you guys got it right here. Non-exclusives just got pushed to the back of the bus. Also does look like views are playing a big role.

I wonder if this is an attempt to increase traffic ranking..J/K

If anyone is interested in not offering prints for sale on builderking visit this thread:

http://us.fotolia.com/forum/viewtopic.php?id=14271

If you don't know what this is all about this thread will explain it:

http://us.fotolia.com/forum/viewtopic.php?id=13664

Right, I'm sure he would have much easier chance to get it accepted than you or I 

#3 site for me the last couple of months. All over the map before that.

edit

All my normal sellers are 1/10 approximatively. I noticed that a couple month ago and most people seem to have this ratio also. It's like Istock was paying for each 10 views LOL

Same here. With Fotolia being the exception, sometimes as low as 4/1 ratio. Still trying to figure out what the deal is there. If I had to guess I would say people sometimes shop at higher priced sites and buy from fotolia. Can't prove it though. 

Then when would an EL for prints or other resale items ever apply if people are allowed to purchase one-off licenses like this?

Exactly!!
Is this is a prelude of things to come? I wonder how long this has been going on and why were we not told about this?

Yeah i think both sides makes sense!
But i personally don't think they will sell many pictures and also stockphotography is not supposed to be art photography. I do produce pictures with more value to me lets say arty pictures but i would never think of it to give them to a microstocksite. I think this is the point! If you really care about such a private usage of MS-Stockpictures you made a mistake in first instance. Pictures you really care about don't belong to microstock if you wanna sell them as stock sell them RM or don't sell them at all at stock try to sell them as Fine-Art make Calendars, Exhibitions not everything you produce should go to microstock.

Right, I agree that the pictures that are most valuable to me I would never upload to microstock. But if you look around microstock there is some really nice work that works well for both advertising and wall art. I don't think it has to be one way or the other. Everyone's tastes are different anyway, sometimes people just want a print that will match their home decor or furniture. Hard to say how many are selling.

These guys are selling canvas dirt cheap, if you have ever tried to produce and sell canvas its costly.

I find it interesting how some people are not happy at all and others could care less..Its the usual mixed bag 

  thanks for that!!

The thing that gets me is this is not a stock photo site. It is a print site, they are marketting our images as prints and we are not getting fair compensation. If istock was to sell a gigantic canvas print, how much would the artist get? I have no problem at all if a customer goes to a stock site, purchases license, and goes through the trouble of printing it for their personal use.

What is the difference between this website and Fotolia cutting a deal with a fine art dealer? Couldn't they just tell the dealer: Here is 4 million images, print whatever you like and just include our basic license price in the print. We will take a percentage on that tiny price and give a few pennies to the artist. It just seems wrong to me, did I miss something? I'm still trying to get a grip on whats going on here. A little heads up would have been nice. Opt in/Opt out would be nice as well.

I also have an image on the first page of their best sellers list. So, yea, I feel I'm getting screwed. I'm about ready to delete the image from fotolia and any others that might have sales potential as prints.

 Being nonexclusive gives you a better chance to see what type of images sell. You might have one image that is doing well on Istock because it has good best match placement. If its not selling fairly well elsewhere across 6-7 sites, than you know you just got lucky.

Basically, you will have a better chance to learn what works for you by submitting at multiple sites. I'm sure most of us have had good images slip through the grill on istock that sell really well elsewhere and vise/versa. If you already have some experience and you know what works and what doesn't, than I guess it doesn't matter.

Another thing is: not everyone sells well at istock, its probably a good idea to figure out where your portfolio works best.

You can always choose to go exclusive at a later date, just watch the 3-6 month lock-in clause at some of the sites.

I looks like they figured out a way to cut the artist almost totally out of the $$ picture. Feeling a little bent over at this point!!!

I wasn't aware we were getting print sales through fotolia. Could this possibly be one of those mirror sites they were talking about offering a while ago?

Another thing, It says 100,000 pictures sold on the website. Has anyone received any print royalties?

Image #'s are the same on fotolia.

It looks like image lic. is included in the print price. Is it possible we are only getting paid for the standard image lic.?? I really hope that is not the case or I could see another "meltdown" coming.