I wrote support and they replied that the minimum price of an LEL is 20 credits.

I am tier 3 so I get 40%.  I got $1.24 so that means the total price was $3.10.

If the minimum is 20 credits then if my calculation is correct it is 15.5 cents per credit

That is way, way below the floor of 40 cents a credit (for the purpose of paying royalties) that all their past communications with us about small royalty amounts had mentioned. In things written before they slashed contributor royalties you'll see mention of 20 cent minimum royalties but everyone was on 50% back then.

See this post where a number of items come up, but I had received a royalty that would have meant the buyer paid 12.4 cents a credit - it turned out to be a mistake and they fixed it:

http://www.microstockgroup.com/123royaltyfree-com/100mb-sale-for-$11-58-wow/msg285837/#msg285837

This post here talks about discounts and how promotional credits are handled

http://www.microstockgroup.com/123royaltyfree-com/123-any-improvements/msg258098/#msg258098

It'd be nice if someone from 123rf would make a statement about whether or not we are now seeing credit prices as low as 15.5 cents a credit and will be paid only our percentage of that amount versus a floor of 40 cents a credit.

Clearly all the agencies can go back on any and all promises they made in the past. It'd be nice if they'd have the decency to tell us about these changes instead of just hoping we don't figure it out...

Couple of things. dreamstime supports Google authorship and a couple of sites let you connect to your Google+ profile, and I've written a blog post about what's going on there:

http://www.digitalbristles.com/getting-our-names-with-our-images-in-the-search-wilderness/

Also, here's where things are with my code changes that removed all the errors in structured data with Symbiostock sites as the updated pages have been crawled by Google (click for full size):



It started out with every page having an error, and we're now nearly done with the errors as the crawl catches up

I know this is an old thread, but having set up Google Authorship for my Symbiostock site - and written a blog post about it last month - I just did another blog about tying in with the agencies where possible. You can read the blog post and see some screen shots of the results here.

You get to that list Ron linked to from the submitter interface Insights -> Image Gallery Stats. Unfortunately only some columns are sortable - number of downloads or date uploaded

"...Dollar Photo Club will target a small audience of approved members and provide exclusive photos."

from the TechCrunch article

You must mean 1987, the first Mac wasn�t even around until �83. My first Mac was the 512K in 1984. I think the Mac II came out in '86 or '87. The company got a few 512K boxes in 83 (they came with a case so you could take them home but they were heavy) and asked me to figure them out so I could teach others. It had MacPaint and MacWrite for software, that's it. By 1987 I was learning QuarkXPress but Photoshop wasn�t around until �89. It was called something else though. I use an iMac now and love it, the monitor is much improved from that old glossy screen. It is very compact but really sturdy.

She said Apple II, not Mac II and that could have been '82

I think I'd point him to some of the write ups of Getty's lawyers going after people for unauthorized use and make it really clear that doing this is putting him (and his employer if he's doing this for work) at risk of getting a very large bill or being sued.

Also tell him that you will send him a bill for the license fees only if he uses it - because you're his friend - but no one else will be that generous if he gets caught.

I have had situations where people I know who license work (not photos) were using photos they found via Google (without buying licenses) that I recognized as stock - you'd have thought people in that situation would have been more aware... In that case though, they changed the images once I pointed out the issue.

Use Getty as the big scary example even if that's not where they were planning to steal from this particular time - they're the clearest example to drive the point home, IMO

I like the look of the image gallery much better, but I prefer the organization possibilities - plus the link to my website - from my portfolio page. In particular the ability to make sets in whatever groupings make sense to me to give an overview of what's in my portfolio.

It's a bit confusing to have both and a shame that the one with fewer options looks better than the one with more! Let's hope they do something to consolidate these two overviews of a contributor

Lovely!

Things seem to be mostly working but here are a couple of things I noticed:

1. You fixed the problem Martha noted where the preview falls off the right side of the browser window, but the same thing happens if you're at the bottom of the window - the preview is only partially visible and needs to move up by the amount that's hanging off the bottom

2. There's an odd double flash as the preview loads the first time -  the window briefly appears and then goes away again. I can't get a sure-fire description of how to get the double flash but it happens a lot (Chrome, Mac 10.9.1)

3. The alt text (tooltips) shows the title much of the time but it then switches to "undefined". This comes and goes, even for the same page of search results, so it's not a problem with the image itself as you'll sometimes see the title and sometimes see undefined

4. Should we (you!) dump the magnifier icon now there are hover previews? It seems redundant even though you can see the sizes & prices on that window.

5. Once or twice I got a bizarre double preview window for the same image - one a bit higher up than the other - plus a preview for a second image. I can't reproduce this though.

What Ron said Read the blog post about it here

http://www.shutterstock.com/buzz/contributor-mobile-app

StockXpert managed to do very well with stock.xchng as its leadin, but I thought that PhotoDune would have done better given all the other Envato marketplaces as a leadin, and it's just OK.

If it's just by invite, then it's more like the Getty-Flickr deal, just without the large existing buyer community

Pinterest and social media are good for buzz and eyeballs, but I'm not half as convinced that this has anything to do with sales. People spending a ton of time with free stuff is not a "gateway drug" for licensing stock images. From what I've read of Pinterest demographics, it's overwhelmingly women.

It could be work related, but I'm guessing it's more wedding planning/party planning/project planning (making table centerpieces out of something fluffy and cute). I'm not a Pinterest user One agency - DT - has encouraged Pinterest users to pin our watermarked thumbnails, for example. I have no clue if this leads to any sales as there's no tracking tool I'm aware of.

DeviantArt had some sort of deal with Fotolia to license work - not sure how that panned out, but if you look at download numbers in the 2,900+ collection, only the first 200 have double digit downloads and 1,000 of them have no downloads at all.

DT performed surprisingly well (for them) in November and December, but this month - always a slow one - is back to normal. Masses of subscription sales.

What I found a bit disconcerting was looking at some of my level 5 image sales and noticing that the few that weren't subs were those highly discounted numbers of credits - I think that's a new buyer deal of some sort. It's certainly nice to see images get lots of downloads, but at DT it's a double-edged sword as I think it means your proportion of subs for those images will increase.

I should note that I haven't gone back to analyze all the sales data. These observations were from looking at a few of my level 5 images after I saw a very low royalty on a sale at maximum size.

edited to add - right on cue, I got another of those discounted sales for a level 5 image to with today's bunch of subs sales. 10 credits for a large that should be 17 credits!