I thought the RM option interesting but as far as I can tell RM work must be exclusive.  Which rules that out for me.

Rights Managed just means that you are licensing specific uses, often for a specific period. Exclusivity is one of the options, but doesn't have to be there. So I might license RM an image to use in Europe for 12 months for $yy and if I want to extend that to the whole world it would be 2 x $yy. If you want it for another year in Europe, that's another $yy. For a royalty free license, for the rights granted, you have no time or geography limits. Typically exclusivity for a certain period (or even exclusive to one industry segment - so you're the only computer software company with that image) costs a lot more.

The key thing is that you have to know who has had the image and have a history of uses to be able to address future buyer requests for specific licenses. Royalty free doesn't track usages at all (which is why it's so convenient for buyers)

Depending on the site's approach, I think supporting a selection of new ones that appear to be (a) serious efforts and (b) reasonably funded is in our best interests. One of the newbies may take off and possibly, even when successful, offer contributors a better deal than the existing agencies.

I'll have to have a more detailed look at the site and license terms, but I did have a couple of questions based on a first quick browse:

In the blurb about applying to be a contributor, you describe the requirements for the 10 images submitted to include "Must be an original inate image directly outputed from your camera." If you mean a RAW file straight from the camera, that's a unique (not in a good way) requirement. Every image I submit has been edited, and I wouldn't consider showing anyone the straight from the camera version.

Did you just mean to say that the work has to be our own from our own equipment? Or an image no greater than the camera's native maximum size? If none of the above, what did you mean?

What is the 10% tax you charge on top of the prices shown? Who is the tax paid to and do all buyers worldwide have to pay it? No other agency I'm aware of adds tax to the image prices.

I'd echo the comments of earlier posters that discouraging people from submitting their files from a camera like mine (21mp Canon 5D Mk II) pretty much rules out submitting anything to StockTal - even though I can create smaller sizes of files with a Photoshop action, I'm just not going to do that without a very good reason - too much complexity to manage for a small new agency -  "actively discourage members constantly uploading 8, 9 or 10 mb images. Its not the business niche we are targeting."

I see a few vectors on the site, offered in a ZIP format, but nothing in the contributor quality guidelines about what format/version you accept, if you generate the preview for it. There's also nothing in the description for the buyer of what format the vector is in (it should say, perhaps something like the info shown for video clips).

Photos (top bar) is plural, not possessive; drop the apostrophe

I saw a picture that showed the license plate of a car parked on an Azores street - none of the agencies accept identifying information like that unless the shot is sold with an editorial license. Plus, the branding on the red bike and the car in that picture are clearly visible. Are you planning to ensure that your site doesn't have a lot of legally problematic images? Contributors should know better after they've been around the block a time or two, but you (the agency) as well as the photographer have to concern yourself with display of copyrighted and trademarked items.

There was a post about the widget recently. I think the reason it hasn't made a bigger splash here is that almost no one uses Bing

Also, individually, there's not a lot we can do until there's a use that violates one of our copyrights specifically (such as sending a DMCA takedown notice).

Let Getty go spend some of its money on fighting this - I'm guessing they feel it steps on their toes with their freebie blog images rather that they really have any concern over contributor copyrights.

So it appears the download packs are gone - this is what I see today on the pricing page (US site): http://digitalbristles.com/temp/123rf-no-download-packs.jpg

I had been tracking the "subs" that weren't my regular rate and noticed some big gaps - after July 24th, I didn't see another until August 19th. One more on Aug 22 and nothing since. I guess they stopped selling these and the stragglers in August were just using up what they had?

I don't remember seeing anything about these packs going away (but then they didn't tell us they had introduced them either) but I'm happy that they have.

http://www.istockphoto.com/simplified-image-collections

18 (new) credit ELs

credit packs include a one credit pack (how is that not cash pricing?)

Apparently an e-mail was sent out with a link to this page - a contributor received it although it looks like it was intended for buyers.

Wouldn't this mean folks will hold off downloading any larger sizes - if they can - until after the changeover? The FAQ says you can't later download a larger size if you purchase now...

Could we get something specific to PhotoDune? I read the blog and the detail of service charges with a hypothetical $100 item, but that has nothing to do with photo sales.

What is the Buyer Fee for each size of my photos - which list on the web site from $1 to $9? Let's assume a credit purchase as I understand authors no longer get a cut of the fee for a cash purchase (and that it has been reduced to $1 from $2)

If I'm getting 45% of the $1 to $9, then this is good news.

If I'm getting 45% of something less than $1 to $9, I honestly don't see how this makes any sense - you need to post the royalty rate the author receives out of what the buyer pays. Everything else is your costs of doing business and how you break it down is of no concern to me as an author.

As it is described in the blog it will make PhotoDune purchases look more like the tangle of fees and taxes typically seen on a cell phone bill in the US and everyone hates that complexity (perhaps that won't translate - possibly Australian mobile bills are simpler .

It really obfuscates the bottom line if you say you take 55% but it's really 55% of something other than what I can see on the page where my images are for sale. How and where can I see the number you take 55% of?

Of course, if I have the wrong end of the stick, perhaps you can explain.

Some newbie!!

Depending on the ratio of subscriptions to everything else, you should see some nice income increases - it's impossible to tell with the SODs but I'm guessing that they, like the ODs pay out at a higher rate.

It's time to get more of your older Christmas stuff up there

Unless you think the publication acted in bad faith (i.e they have a history of doing this), why try and obtain extra money from them?

They're willing to correct their mistake, which seems as if their heart is in the right place. What's the theory of operation that says you (a) get to collect from them directly - this should go through the agency that licensed it; or (b) get something extra because the publication goofed?

123rf lets you download your own images

I've sent them a note asking for more information. It's not a big amount, but I think we should know where (and in which year) earnings come from rather than just getting a lump sum with no details.

And I made my first sale there today!  I won't post about them all (let's hope there are lots!) but just thought I'd indicate that the small store (only 8 items in it) had seen a sale (no one I know and I'm pretty hopeless at the promotion stuff

These aren't subscriptions, but they are a bit different from SS or other site's image packs - they expire in a week (originally it was 30 days I think, but the site currently says 1 week). So this can't really be used as a credit substitute as easily.

However, I think the appeal for the buyer would be that you get 5 or 10 images, regardless of level, at a fixed price. If you buy with credits you pay more for a level 5 than for a level 0 or 1.

As a contributor, we receive a flat rate, which is quite a bit less for a level 5 image than the rate we would receive on a credit sale (45% for a level 5 image which would be $3.10 royalty on one of the 10 pack images the buyer pays $6.90 for). If the buyer paid with credits, a maximum size level 5 images is 19 credits - about 3 times the price of the subscription pack.

When we get $2 for a $6.90 sale, that's 28.9%, not 45% as a level 5 image would/should get. So it seems to me these image pack purchases are a way of undoing the problems the image levels have created for buyers while also cutting the royalty rate for contributors some more.

It's the death of a thousand cuts - starting at a 50% royalty and simple pricing, then making a complex mess of multi-tiered pricing with most of the promises made to sell us on the changes broken - double subs royalty on top level images, non-subs sales making higher royalty levels as well as higher prices. Finally moving towards undoing the complexity of level pricing without restoring the royalty level back to 50%.

The forum threads were trying to say that the $2 sub is so much better than 35 cents (or 42 for an exclusive) which might sound persuasive, but it's much less so if you look at these "subs" as credit packs where you don't make the stated royalty percentage for the image's level.

So what is the story? Was this a mistake?