Gl�delig jul!

I finally reached Silver after a year of hard work. I'm being rewarded with a 1% reduction from bronze.
And I'm a vector contributor, so most likely I won't benefit much from the increased prices of rasters.

I requested a payout 10 days ago as well, but it's still pending and I don't have high hopes of receiving the payment without submitting the W8-BEN.
I'm NOT letting them take 30% of my US income as the treaty says 0% for my country, but I have NO CLUE how to apply for an ITIN.

I was hoping that Fotolia would find out for themself that this ITIN is not necessary, but I probably have to go through all the hassle of getting an ITIN anyways.
How do I proceed? Anyone who reads this, how are YOU dealing with this as an individual? In my opinion, this is a major problem that is not being discussed enough.

From PhotographersDirect's page arguing against microstock:

UPDATE August 2009
There has been a lot of talk recently about a design including an image from istock being used on the cover of Time Magazine. The reported price is 30 dollars, though it is not clear if this is what the photographer received or (more likely) he received 20% of this. Amongst all the back and forth discussion on newsgroups about how great/awful this is for the photographer, I think the most pertinent post I have seen is a simple link to Time Magazine's advertising rates.
 
Time Magazine is not to blame here, the photographer is, because he made the image available for that price, with no reasonable limits on use.

It's a nice picture, but no one should pay $1000 for a picture of an isolated jar. I don't care about their budgets, the picture is a generic isolated shot with no production cost, and not worth $1000, simple as that. That's my opinion.

Doing well there with 101 images, and I'm still very impressed with the way Jamie runs her business.

Wow, I'm quite surprised.

I live in Denmark, and have often seen images from this site used by major companies (print and web) here in Denmark. I always believed this was a macro agency without really having a look. It seems to me that subscription prices are nano (really! 1 license allows 1000 users to download images unlimited from their collection for three months) whereas single image products are at macro prices(? - approx. $120 for one image).

Also, on the "sign-up as a photographer"-page it says nothing about commissions and their terms of service-page seems to be broken. It's not anything like microstock though, their photographers are actually working in teams (and there is probably no way for them to earn money proportionally with their skills and efforts, as in microstock).

All in all, it actually seems to me as a threat to microstock.

http://ekstrabladet.dk/kup/sundhed/article1249957.ece
This is a link to an article of the danish tabloid Ekstra Bladet, which is one of the biggest in Denmark. The image credits Colourbox.com

http://kvinder.bt.dk/menu/sundhed/vis/laes/10-slags-mad-der-forbraender-fedt-kopi-1/
This is a link to an article of the biggest competitor to Ekstra Bladet - B.T. - also using images from Colourbox.com

http://jp.dk/indland/krimi/article1874757.ece
...And Jyllandsposten (known for publishing images of Muhammed)

http://www.dr.dk/sundhed/Ditsundevalg/Artikler/2009/1105142908.htm
And DR (Denmarks Radio)

Seems that everyone is using them

Quote from: ThomasAmby on October 21, 2009, 11:04

That looks EXTREMELY interesting and reliable since Switzerland is associated with watches.

Switch watches are produced in China, also the real ones. Ipods are produced in China too.

Well, this makes SWISSTOCK totally unreliable as a stock photo company, and I have now unsubscribed.

Last time I looked at that 'top 50' I concluded most of them got there by keyword spamming.  Now there's something to complain about.

Well, I strongly disagree! All of the top 50 images are outstanding images of high quality and usability. They cover popular subjects and are well composited.

Besides, I don't believe that keyword-spamming actually works. Why would you search for something, say, a flower, then end up buying an image of a monkey? This might actually happen occasionally, but is definitely not sending any images to the top 50.

I haven't had many as well, but I have had three ELs on the same image on Shutterstock. It is this one: http://www.shutterstock.com/results.mhtml#photo_id=24607831

I guess it is being used as a happy birthday card or something like that, but what do I know. Either the three ELS have been a coincidence or birthday card illustrations attract EL-buyers

I hope everyone who receives this message tells them no way. Their "offer" seems incredibly offensive!

They are basically telling you that your business isn't that serious anyway. In order to use your images, they will have to buy the appropriate licenses - just like everyone else.

It does seem like you have a customer base - do you accept vectors (EPS) or do you intend to do it in the near future ?

And also, yes, you would attract significantly more european contributors with an online tax treaty form like the one they set up on Shutterstock

yes they take micro images but you get reduced commission of 30% instead of 50%

re prices differences I dont know who you are with but there is already a lot of difference (maybe you only do midstock so not valid)

smallest size (with cheapest option)
ft = $.75 (buying 2500 credits
is = $.95
panther = $1.14 (5000 credits)

but on bigger sizes say about 4000 x 4000 pixels there is a lot more difference
fotolia = 7 credits = $7
istock = 28 credits = up to $42 depending on credit package bought (in case 3x 10 credit packs - which would be dumb but possible - but its 6x the price of fotolia)
most of the micros somewhere in between but then in midstock
panther = 135 credits = $154  - $267 (depending on package)
zymm have some my images for $5 for bigger size than this

all of this can be same image, and not a criticism of any site just saying it is a mess (of course then you have subs - which back to panther are optional but still there at down to $0.27 per image

but to really compare you have to look at the licences as many of the more expensive sites allow you to do more with the image.
ie to my understanding, panther standard licence is equivalent to most sites extended licence. In he case of istock this is 125 credits so at bigger sizes similar to panther and in the case of small sizes or subs even panther then become very very cheap (as many sites do have el's on small sizes and dont include el licence on subs) - again not a criticism, just an observation

Sounds great As long as they offer different licenses and perhaps give some buyers reason to buy there instead of lower priced agencies because they need a specific type of license, it is okay with me.

They are not very illustrator-friendly it seems. I have to go through a photography test, though I don't have any photos to submit 

I see. Thank you for clearing that up Andy