Quote from: cobalt on July 24, 2013, 14:37

So what is your solution? Just not upload until they change things?

yep something like that

is removing the number of downloads the solution? we aren't here talking about the solution because there isn't one, we are trying to understand what is going on, at this moment this bug that is affecting most pictures doesn't matter how old or how many downloads it has

Removing the numbers will at least give you the privacy you need when you upload new files now.

I don�t want to stop uploading. I want to keep on working.

Quote from: cobalt on July 24, 2013, 13:59

Certainly makes it more complicated to decide what to send to fotolia.

Or incredibly easy... nothing. Because the file needs to earn its cost back within the first 6 months or it is unlikely it ever will.

No, there are files for every price point. But I thought the system with a mix of indie and partly exclusive content was a brilliant move to attract localized content and more high end stuff.

Let�s see if they rework this system. Otherwise, they will really only attract all the things that can sell in superhuge quantities.

And since Fotolia shows visible downloads for each file - this will lead to even more copying because as soon as a file has sales, it will be copied by someone else who hopes to get the same success.

At least they should remove visible downloads to avoid endless duplications between contributors if they want everyone to shoot ultrafast selling generic content.

I mean, now all you have to do is look at what sold in the last 6 months from the new uploads...and copy...

The images on offset are not exclusive. Many of them are also available at other sites and come from Westend61, Blend etc...

It looks like artist looking for higher end returns or even midstock returns will be forced to work with "aggregators" who take exclusive content and then work with agencies that have higher price bands.

This is a great pity, because the more levels there are between supplier and customer, the smaller the cut is that is left for the artist and the customer also has to pay higher prices.

I thought the exclusive images that Fotolia offers and that can be set to higher prices by the contributor are a very clever system. It attracts more high end content that might not be placed on the micros.

Or so I thought...

Guess we all have to work on our own little shops, or encourage pond5 where we can set our own prices. At least for content where we feel we can get higher prices.

Again, I don�t mind having a sensible system in place for content that doesn�t sell. But 6 months is just much too short.

Hm, I was preparing to upload quite a few files exclusively to fotolia. But a lot of those are seasonal images and they would obviously keep going up and down in price over the year.

I guess I will send those now to Alamy or maybe exclusive to Dreamstime, we will see. Or maybe I just keep them on my own website for the time being.

I have content that does not sell in high volume but wanted to leave exclusively with them for the higher price points.

...in 2010...many, many things have happened since then...and just look at what is happening now. Do you enjoy losing control over which files go into s+ and get mirrored on getty?

Quote from: cobalt on July 22, 2013, 12:17

So I prefer to upload to agencies that sell my files than to upload only to one agency and see them pile up without even getting any views.

And I am still sending files to istock as an independent.

I am very confused looking at these 2 sentences, aren't they somehow opposite?

When I was exclusive my new files didn�t sell, and this still seems to be the case for many exclusives now, see the link posted. But now that I am indie all my files are extremly cheap in the main collection and the volume of sales is going up and also new files are being sold.

So - no sales or few sales for new files while i was exclusive, more sales but little money for new files as an indie.

Hope that is clearer.

But isn�t that only true for the longterm exclusives with older files? Right now it seems people upload,upload,upload - with hardly any sales.

http://www.istockphoto.com/forum_messages.php?threadid=353233&messageid=6918228

So someone starting out now, I think they should take a good look at the whole industry first, don�t you think? they can�t really look at the established contributors from 2005-2008 and assume they will get the same returns.

And many agencies will take exclusive images, so you can get a balance with that. I wouldn�t be surprised if istock follows the lead of fotolia in that. It is a very smart strategy to get local exclusive content.

You will have to run this through google translate, but the numbers speak for themselves: After doing 5 years of microstock  Robert has reached an income of over 13 000 dollars a month. The majority of his income is from Fotolia and Shutterstock.

He works extremely hard and has a portfolio with over 10 000 files.

The article is in German, but the numbers are easy to understand.

F�nf Jahre Microstock � Meine Ums�tze und andere Zahlen | Alltag eines Fotoproduzenten

http://www.alltageinesfotoproduzenten.de/2013/07/22/fuenf-jahre-microstock-meine-umsaetze-und-andere-zahlen/

Thank you for taking me seriously, but unfortunately the rounded numbers don't really help. istock introduced them to prevent the automatic scraping of sales data of the top contributors, not to prevent seeing if a file has sold in general.

I have no problem if people can sort a search by "most popular" which in effect is a sort by downloads, as long as there is no number visible. It makes a big difference for the copy cats to see if a file has sold 10 times or 1000. It makes copying so much more successful when the number is high. And as I have repeatdly suffered from copy cats who would immediatly copy my work every 3 months, of course only the new files with sales, it is very, very frustrating.

So, a general "most popular" is fine, numbers of any kind, fuzzy or not, or flags etc...are not.

However, I don't mind if in my contributor profile you put a total number of files sold. This does help to reassure the customer that my work can be trusted to be bought.

But again, please don't split it up into how many photos or videos have sold, just one total.

To generally browse portfolios and images for inspiration is also not a problem, however there are people who specialize in copying to save on their own market research and although you cannot fully prevent, no numbers would be a major step forward.

I would definetly put more interesting work at higher prices on pond5 and I am sure, so would others.

Thank you for listening.

I don�t think there is a conspiracy not to pay us.

Just problems with technology and it�s management and of course the level of priorities...

It is really strange why they can�t pay out the PP sales. I mean they have been doing it for years, what is the problem now?

After all those weeks it is really hard to believe that it is an IT problem. More likely that everything was put on hold until the new manager comes in to make decisions.

That idea is hilarious. Custom photo shoots for 5 dollars? Of course....that is what we all love to do all day...

All the worlds stock imagery, at least the good quality content, is being supplied by a very, very tiny group of people who can create images with the necessary level of quality.

Good luck sending assignments to enthusiasts with mobile phones for 5 dollars...

ETA: with all the experience yuri has, I wonder if the concept is a different one to what is presented in that article. He really should know that custom photography doesn't work for 5 dollars.