Like I said, if it is working for you and you are making a full time income and can earn enough to pay for your ongoing production. Good for you.

However for artist trying to make decisions it would be much more helpful if someone who had a visible portfolio said the same things as you.

I personally see much less risk in being indie, obviously.

I thought you have been advising it for a while now, talking about all the success Stocksy has had how there are so many opportunities exclusivity isn't the only game in town.  I didn't realize that caveat that all these great opportunities will "of course" "definitely" cost you money.

I have been sharing my experience tickstock and you know that. Going indie costs money. But so does staying exclusive, especially if your work does�t sell and you need to take on additional jobs or assignments to start paying for the stock production.

I know many indies who are earning much more than me and their income is growing steadily and is also higher than that of many of my exclusive friends.

The people who are exclusive to fotolia are going through a similar phase like the istock exclusives, by the way. Too much risk in exposure to one agency. But Fotolia offers exclusive images, so they can just decide to leave their portfolio there, or just take part of their files to the new agencies. It makes the transfer much smoother.

Being exclusive is no magic button to a full time income, neither is being indie.

Then I hope you will still have a full time in income in even one year tick stock.
 
Your portfolio must be doing much better than that of most people.

I feel much more comfortable repositioning myself. I know I will earn more money this way and don�t have to abruptly look for a day job because I am completely exposed to just one company.

By the way last month I already earned more on SS with 600 files than with 3600 on istock. So someone who comes in new - what will their experience be? I still have files with good positions, but a new artist? They upload to SS and istock...why would they ever go exclusive with such an experience?

It is no myth. Exclusive content is favoured, also in video.

If you go independent expect to lose more than 80% of your istock income. It is not just the drop in percentage - your images are much, much cheaper than exclusive files and you are no longer favoured in best match. However you will probably see a rise in the volume of downloads, because more people can buy your files. Doesn�t help much with the income.

When you then take your portfolio to the new agencies, you have to remember that many best match placements are taken by excellent indie artists who have been there for years. Uploading files isn�t difficult, but it takes time for your portfolio to move up in the ranks.

Of course it also depends on the quality of your content. I am sure sean will be making a lot of money again soon, at least on SS where he is contributing. But for me with a "normal" quality portfolio it will take a while.

The problem is really - if you stay exclusive and keep uploading but have no sales, especially from new work - what do you do? If your income keeps falling - when do you pull the plug?

Because when you go indie - all your work will sell, I have no problem getting sales for my new or old work on the new sites.

But nobody can give you a definite time frame how long it takes to regain your income, just like nobody can tell you how much you will be earning on istock in a year.

I think if you are uploading to istock, feel comfortable with the way they work and your new files get sufficient sales, at least enough to pay for your ongoing production, these people tend to stay.

It is the artist that can no longer pay for their production and have falling sales that at some point go indie. Or they start doing something else and just stop uploading.

Some people take a gradual approach - go indie with a second subject, video or illustrations. this way you can get to know the other agencies, see how much time it takes to upload there etc..

Originally my plan was to just go indie with video, also because the istock queue for video was over 3 months, even for exclusives, and I absolutely wanted to stay exclusive with photos.

Then came the Microsoft deal with over 1.3 million unpaid downloads and then the Getty Google deal. And I left.

I absolutely don�t regret it, but of course I still don�t have my old income. However - i haven�t tried. I looked at other ways to earn an income and took my time to get to know the agencies before I really decide where my energy should go.

I was not very interested in uploading to SS in the beginning - 33 cent downloads - who cares about that? But now I see I get these 28 dollar downloads, 12.50, 80 dollars,extended license etc...so this is a completely different result than I expected. Same goes for other sites. If it was only the sub income, it would�t be interesting, it is the mix of credit sales, extended licenses etc...that makes them interesting.

But of course: the agencies haven�t been waiting for you and the quality of the top level indie artist is the same as the top level istock exclusives. You will have to fight your way to the top like any other contributor and nobody is going to favour you in best match.

So - it is a personal decision. I don�t regret mine and from the people I know who went indie at the same time with me nobody is considering to go back to exclusivity. It just isn�t attractive to us, there are so many agencies and opportunities that I never even knew about.

But if somebody believes they just move everything to SS and will earn the same as before, they will be disappointed. they would�t be earning the same on istock if they came in with all their portfolio today.

I would definitely not advise anyone to just go indie without understanding what it means for their income.

We seem to have several people here who have been contributing to Getty for a very long time? Maybe they can share their experience? Sounds like an easy question.

That is great news Luis! I hear many people make a deal with models, for instance that they split the revenue from the shooting in a certain percentage. This will make it much easier to do such arrangements!

i don�t remember anyone ever claiming in micro stock that their prices were low to sponsor students?

Prices were low to take advantage of the internet and it�s wide distribution potential. Like the 99 cent apps in the app store for mobiles phones.

This is the reason I joined and uploaded. Plus all the fun.

If I want to give my files away for free I can do that anytime. But of course now Getty will be doing it for us all.

Well the equivalent to stocksy would be Offset, wouldn�t it? And Shutterstock is paying out 30% for non exclusive content. Isn�t that also revolutionary for a macro agency? I thought they all want exclusive content? I am not an expert in macro.

Offset has beautiful work and excellent prices up to 500 dollars. Simple pricing too.

But again, this probably belongs in a different thread.

What did Bruce ever do to you? Where your files selling for 500 dollars all the time before? And do you seriously believe that if your income went down it had something to do with him?

You could have taken advantage of the platform he and others created and made as much money as Lisegagne, Sean or Yuri if you had wanted to. Lots of smart photographers did, nobody stopped you from joining them. It still is a completely open platform, no need to buddy up to anyone to join. Just make great content and earn money.

But I suppose it is easier to blame others for the loss of income, when all you did was miss the amazing opportunity the internet brought us all.

I was referring to the following statement by Jonathan Klein in the BJP article:
"says Jonathan Klein, co-founder and CEO of Getty Images, in a prepared statement. �Innovation and disruption are the foundation of Getty Images"

I don�t consider giving the products away for free to combat the stealing of said product an innovation. My personal opinion of course.

But if they do find a way to bring in serious money with it for the artist, I�ll be happy to give them credit.

When Bruce was in charge of istock (until 2009) my income and that of most other artists was growing steadily. When he left they introduced the RC�s and many other changes and our income went down. They also focussed their energy on Thinkstock and actively encouraged istock customers to spend their money there. Was the internet or industry so different in 2009 than in 2012? No it wasn�t. The reason istock didn�t grow and revenue was falling was because Getty decided not to grow it the way Bruce did. Or they simply didn�t know how to grow it successfully the way Bruce and his team did. istock was the market leader in micro stock. Now it is Shutterstock. Who do you think is responsible for that?

Now Bruce and his team opened stocksy, and again I am making more money than I expected to make from the files that I have there. Somewhere along the line I got to connect Bruce with money. Others here connect Shutterstock and Jon Oringer with money because that is where they are seeing their biggest growth.

Money does�t happen by itself, it needs good entrepreneurial skills to harvest it.

And today I see Bruce and his team again set an example for the industry. stocksy is a total success, if anything they are over delivering of what I was expecting them to do.

If Bruce can start an agency that pays out 50% royalties and 100% of extended licenses and go from zero to the success and branding they have in one year - yes, for me that is innovative entrepreneurial work.

And it begs the question  - all the smaller production houses with excellent content - what are they doing wrong?

What are you trying to imply? That somehow with Facebook SS is making a lot more money than with their regular subscription service?

The 28 -30% they claim to pay out is consistent with the data from the balance sheet they publish every quarter. SS is a publicly traded company.

They can�t hide.

In any case - what does it have to do with Getty offering 35 million files for free on the internet to UNREGISTERED users? Of very expensive content, even RM content?

ETA: You can also just go and supply pond5 if you like. Always 50%, no subs and you can set your own prices. Works great with video. And I�m not aware of any major dramas in the last few years.

Now back to the topic.

I get paid for every Facebook sale, there is no need to opt out. Every time my file gets used, I get a normal sub download. And the customer does�t even get the file, the tiny thumbnail is only incorporated into the Facebook ads. If they want something larger for prints, they have to go to SS and buy a file.

Here is Michael�s summary, he tried it (and he bought one of my files, so I can verify it is correct):

http://www.michaeljayfoto.com/distribution-channels/shutterstock-and-the-facebook-deal/?fb_action_ids=10152378985371802&fb_action_types=og.likes&fb_source=aggregation&fb_aggregation_id=288381481237582

It is actually a better deal than the normal sub download (no XXXL for 33 cents).

@bunhill,

it might seem like black and white to you. But don't worry, if SS messes up, we will let them know...

And if Getty did something sensible - abolish the RC system, add the option of exclusive images on istock, the way they have for getty, or simply just real time view for the coming sub sales...they will get my applause.

Getty had nothing to do with the microstock revolution. That was the work of Bruce and his team and then later all the other micro agencies. Getty just bought istock, the way they always try to buy innovation.

They have no track record of in house innovation. It is not part of their company culture.

They are buyers, not innovators. Nothing wrong with that if it is done well. But looking at istock and all the mess they have been creating in the last few years for themselves, they just don't seem to be organically connected to online business 2014. They always come across as still living in the eighties or nineties.

The fact they always keep pointing the blame "elsewhere" tells you everything you need to know. Today business leaders take charge of their own mistakes. Blaming others does not inspire confidence.

But if they do turn the company around and work in a positive, energizing way, their reputation will improve with their success.