I've added that link to my collection in my Copyright & IP bookmarks folder - thanks.

I'll post here if/when I get a response from 123rf

I now have 112 images on Thinkstock - I submitted a support ticket to istock on Monday with a list of file numbers and this morning got a note back that they'd put through a manual request but that the contract said they had 30 days to remove.

There are a couple of really old images that are still there (no people and nothing I care about selling) that perhaps I forgot to put in the list of numbers, but otherwise it's just the iStockalypse images that I left on iStock (editorial don't get transferred).

...I like the idea of the Ides of March, very symbolic!
...

And then there's the quote (with apologies to Caesar and Brutus):

Et tu Sutterstock?

So your post intrigued me. I found a few images listed as Getty's in Wikimedia:

http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Category:Media_licensed_by_Getty_Images

But if you look at one of those images, the description says it's in the public domain in the US and claimed by a professor as well as Getty as belonging to them! If you wanted to use that for something, the competing claims would be a bit confusing, IMO

As far as the more general question about their claims of a large library, I just thought I'd search for one beach - Grace Bay Beach.

Wikimedia versus Shutterstock

One more woman eating salad - nothing from Wikimedia and this pile from Shutterstock

I don't think there is any competition with the micros and I don't think there is a pay category unless I'm missing something

I predict they'll be lighting fast as soon as word gets out about their massive royalty cut - lots of people will just skip uploading there.

...I'd be curious if there are many of us who would keep their .38 rate if this same scheme were implemented at SS.

There's Yuri and then there's... ?

Your total's great Lisa - talent, hard work and all that - but you know that you're not by any means a typical contributor! I'm guessing not even typical for those of us earning the 38 cent subs royalty. So what it amounts to is a pay cut for any subscription sales that migrate from SS to BS.

Remember all Veer's big talk about their subscription program? I haven't seen more than a damp fizzle from their subs sales. The only one whose structure I liked was iStock's, but that just wasn't competitive (possibly just wasn't promoted) so the sales never really built up (even before they started sending all subs buyers to Thtinkstock)

Add BigStock to the list of sucky agencies.

123rf got it from iStock, BigStock got it from 123rf, and up next?

It makes me think of doing so more portfolio pulling - I'm on a roll and thoroughly pissed off to see the cancer metastasizing

It's $199 - which a google search on currency conversion says is 147.80 euros

I think there are a couple of things SS could reasonably do without upending their business model.

I don't think they should raise prices for subscriptions.

I to think we're probably underpaid for some ELs - Buy a 2 pack and buyer pays $199 or a 5 pack and buyer pays $449. We get a flat $28 which is 28% or 31% leaving SS with a tidy pile.

They have three tiers of prices for the on-demand stuff too - we get a flat rate. That might have room for them to share more of the gross on the more expensive sales

They could consider another tier at $20K where the subs price goes up to 39 or 40 cents - it's something everyone can shoot for but the increase will be limited to a subset of total subscription sales.

They're getting 21MP images for a subs program which wasn't typical in 2008. The growing percentage of non-subs sales has made that something most of us have decided to live with. I've always thought that EL royalty rates should be much much higher than for standard license sales - they can afford to share the gravy a bit more generously, IMO

I don't expect they'll do anything as I don't think they feel pressured to. They are the big earner for most people.

I have never done referral links and I don't like them. At this point, with an established agency, it's a kickback to someone who has done nothing for the business. I'd rather see those pennies spread around rather than used up in the completely wasted compensation of people who have "found" contributors for the leading subscription agency.

Well I hope $785 is the high water mark - and not just 'cause I'd lose then

I do think that for a while, raising prices at iStock from the $1-$2-$3 that they started with (after being free), was a good move. Images were still very reasonable and buyers were plentiful. The trick is figuring out where that line is where you go from reasonable to either too complex - too many collections and tiers and credit bundles and... - or just too expensive.

I think if you can show some clear differentiators - simple isolated objects versus multi-ethnic group shots in expensive settings, for example - you can even have a couple of price tiers on one site and make it work. I just don't see why you'd have those high price trad collections and stuff from 123rf (although that's now gone) and pixmac on one site without any clear distinction between the groups.

Of course it's possible that no one's buying the Blend and Image Source work at Pond 5...

I think CanStock and 123rf are too cheap. The upside on CanStock is the Fotosearch sales (although they've been a bit thin on the ground of late, except for subscriptions). There is no upside on 123rf - cheap prices and lots of discounting on top of that.

People have said Photo Dune is too cheap, but they're from $1 ($2 if you match to CanStock's smallest size) to $9

versus

$2.50 to $6 for CanStock

versus

1 to 5 credits at 123rf (which is often less than $1 a credit)

I'm in the process of uploading at GL Stock where I have $2-$5-$10 pricing. Too early to say how that will pan out.

I see your $525 and raise you $260! Image source is at $785

http://www.pond5.com/photo/10944696/mother-and-son-with-shopping.html


I think $200 for a blog size is a bit of a stretch - it's a fine stock image, but not really anything special