Shutterstock is up 30% over April, but lower than March. Decent mix of photo, video,odd sales.

what do contributors say?   We want to kill the deal because the beta test period won't pay us for images that the testers use for a few weeks.  Are we really that short-sighted?!? (insert your tired arguments about who should pay for the beta test here... I'm looking at the big picture, and my "losses" during the beta test will be tiny drops compared to the big revenue that could be possible with the deal if it goes well.) 

Fact is, DT is one of the more fair-paying agencies out there.  We should give them some credit on this, and once the deal is finalized let them present the commission scenario to us.  If we don't like it, we can bail.  But for god's sake, let's give them the chance.

I am sorry, did I miss something? I am not seeing anyone say they want to "kill the deal". People just want to get paid. It�s normal.

If the potential partner thinks this is such a great opportunity, then what is the problem with paying us?

And if it is such a short test and only few images would probably be downloaded...well...even more reason to just pay us normally,right?

As has been said before, i don�t think the employees of dreamstime will accept not being paid for a few weeks. So why should we?

But the reaction from DT admins gives the impression that a majority of the artists have already opted out, right?

So why not come back with an offer that makes it interesting for the artists as well?

Negotiations have to be done in all directions with all business partners. You don�t�take one party for granted,especially if they own the product that is going to be sold.

At least this is the way business works in the real world that I know.

Talking to artists directly is very good. Banning them is bad.

I think if they offered opt in for individual files, they might get some more content.

But it looks like their plan was to offer high quality microstock content at prices that are just a fraction of what the overall market sets.

Why would we do that?

When they made up this plan, did they really think we don't care and just upload everything everywhere?

If I wanted to opt in I would have to treat Fotolia itself as the 1 dollar agency, because that is the portal for dpc. This would mean I could only send them lower quality content and I would have to remove what I believe should be set at higher prices from fotolia.

It makes no sense to work like that.

Anyway, don't they have enough images? DPC would probably still work if they just had 5 million files.

What I can't understand: Fotolia is a strong brand name, at least in Europe and
especially in the German-speaking countries. Why this strong brand is devalued to such activities like founding the dpc?

This is the part I really don�t understand. Fotolia is such a huge agency and strong brand in Europe and especially here in Germany. Why would you risk the reputation of Fotolia with DPC? The internet has no borders and the contributors are often buyers (designers,ad agency people..)

I just read what happened to Ron and Anyka. I really don�t understand what they want to do. Is DPC really so much more important than Fotolia???

This is all really scary. I just don�t understand the logic at all. Just like I didn�t understand how istock handled the Getty Google deal.

Looks like istock and Fotolia are doing all they can to increase the trust factor of Shutterstock. Can�t they see that a major driving force of SS success is their excellent understanding of how internet communities work?

No dramas - better business -  more money..

Exclusive artists need 15 - 30 subs sales (at 34 cents) to replace one normal 5-10 dollar exclusive download.

How long will it take to reach that goal? And how much money will they lose until then?

I think those are realistic concerns if a major part of your income comes from exclusive photo sales.

Did anyone report a 2,50 subs sales? The higher price option is being offered now, right?

Is it actually important whether or not a forum is immediately notified that sub sales are about to be reported ?

It is vitally important if it is a new system and people are obviously waiting for news and keep asking for it.

If it is a routine 3 year old monthly event,then no, it is not that important.

But here people have been waiting for news and expecting sales data much earlier. And then the news that comes in is presented with flaws (wrong dates etc). Considering istock�s bad track records, clawbacks and unreliable reporting it is just another thing that makes contributors feel unheard and ignored.

Overall it just reinforces the impression that there is no central manager who really looks at the whole system (sales,tech,customers,contributors,marketing). Just different departments working unconnected.

There was a lot of enthusiasm, fun and picture posting on facebook. They obviously had a great time. But it seems they are no longer transporting that into the forums. So it becomes more of a private event.

Maybe you can find accurate numbers from Jim Pickerell�s site,but I am sure RF sales must be over 80% of stock revenue in the whole market. Ignoring RF means, you are ignoring the majority of sales.

Like others here have said, travel images is probably the most overcrowded genre unless what you have is extremely rare or unusually well done. There are hundreds of thousands of extremely talented photo enthusists who take lovely pictures on their vacations and then send them up to all the stock agencies. Just have a look at Shutterstock/istock/Fotolia and getty what kind of images they already have and if what you have is in any way better or even comparable to their midlevel quality.

The question is: do you just want to place images that you were taking for yourself on agencies to get a little additional income, or do you really want to produce stock on a regular basis and generate a reliable income stream?

If you are mostly interested in money, why not let the customer guide you? With that I mean upload 300 Rf files to agencies with high volume traffic and sales,i.e. the top 4 sites on the right and then simply observe what sells. Also try to create a regular upload flow of at least 10-20 images a week to get into the shoot.upload.repeat rythm. Have a look at the agencies request list, what they are really asking for and I am sure travel images is usually not on there.

And experiment with things you would maybe not normally shoot for yourself - food,lifestyle,photoshop collages etc...or add some editorial into the mix. Just experiment and have fun.

Then after a few months and with 1000 images online you will have a much better understanding how stock works,what the customers actually want to buy from you and if the whole regular production workflow is the right thing for you. And then might be a better time to look at adding exclusive images to certain agencies and trying RM etc...


Perhaps you stumble on a special niche related to a hobby you have - building canoes/canoe travel/family holidays or the classic - all about wine,wine production,people with wine,wine recipes. Or if you love to travel, specialize in one genre - mostly camping shots, or horseback riding journeys, holidays with elderly people or travelling with children.

There is no limit to what you can do with stock photography and once you have found a good combination of what you love to shoot and what your customers love to buy it is a fantastic way to earn a living. But you really need to just do it and experiment. It is very hard to predict how much you will earn otherwise.

And regular uploads are often more important than the most fantastic images. People with a decent midlevel quality that upload 50 files a week will usually outsell a superstar photographer who only uploads 50 images a year. You need to get your work seen, every agency is an individual marketplace and customers have to find you in the 200 000 images that are being uploaded every week in the industry.

I really love my job, but it is not for everyone. But it is worth trying if you love photography.

Hi Eric,

signing a deal and uploading content are two different things. A 6 year commitment is very extreme. This is a very fast paced industry and companies move up and down the success ladder at lightening speed. I certainly wouldn�t commit my portfolio to just one agency for 6 years.

If possible, maybe try to negotiate a one year trial phase with corbis, just to get to know them. If they are really interested, they should be able to give you an individual contract with an early opt out possibility.

If not, then I would only give them non exclusive files in the beginning. Also ask them how many files a year they expect you to produce, i.e. what are their minimum requirements?

In the forum here we have Jonathan Ross from spacesimages/blend. Maybe send him a sitemail and ask his advice.

It takes time to find the right partner for your production.

Might also be worth applying to stocksy or Offset or other special collections in the industry.

It is a very good move if true. If only they had done this 5 years ago but...anyway. It is so much easier for branding, they will save tons of money while increasing brand awareness and exposure.

For me the solution is to send content suitable for the risk or the price point. I would never send the same files everywhere.

But there is always dry leaves, flower images,simple and especially really old holiday files that can find a home on a risky agency.

If all my work was expensive to produce or I was able to only create high quality bestsellers, I would stay away from microstock alltogether.

You are not getting 15% for a video sale.

i think istock has by far the lowest video royalty in the industry for indepedents.

The istock video team are absolutely lovely people, the royalties are not their fault.

But if istock paid out a normal industry standard of around 30% their work would be more appreciated.

I think if pond5 got that facelift and removed the visible downloads to encourage people to think of their own ideas instead of copying the bestsellers (and making them just a little cheaper to drive traffic to themselves) they could be a fantastic photo agency as well as a video agency.

I really like that I can set my own prices. Not all files are equal in production costs and value. I also like that they take nearly anything.

But in addition to a serious makeover they would also need inspiring, high quality lightboxes, i.e. editors that sift through it all and sort the best into different style themed galleries, to make it easier for the customer.

They probably need investors with 100 million dollars or more to lift them to the next stage. Again the question is - do the owners want that? Maybe they are fine with being the top video agency in the market and don�t even want to get into the shark tank of photo sales.

Sometimes I wonder if pond5 got connected with stocksy somehow, what could they achieve together? stocksy has such a fantastic interface and great marketing. Pond5 has the videos,audio and everything else. Maybe they could collaborate on a photo stock project?

I also really like Shutterstock. Fantastic service, reliable sales, great looking website and their ipad app is a real work of art.

The downside are the subs and the punchy, fully focussed style that excludes a lot of content, most of what they have on Offset probably wouldn�t pass the Shutterstock inspection.

It is also not possible to decide on higher prices if I believe it deserves to be more expensive. I do understand that their keep it simple approach makes it really useful for their customers.

And of course Shutterstock is very good at working with the artist community. Since many of the artists are also designers and buyers this is a really smart thing to do. Makes you wonder why so many agencies keep forgetting that making us distrust them is upsetting their customers as well.