It's a daft idea - SS, DT, 123rf do it. They don't even offer contributors the option to upload a TIFF. The insanity is that 123rf charges an arm and a leg to get the upsizing "professionally" done - I can't imagine why customers would pay for this, but a few do.

The argument the agencies made when they introduced it was that customers expected it so rather than arguing they gave them what they expected. I would guess that was largely customers used to the old world of drum scanned slides who viewed output from digital cameras as "less" even though in many cases they got bucket loads more and sharper detail from Yuri's Hasselblad or everyone else's 5D Mk II

See the discussion on this here

I've been banned since being told to take a little break in September 2011 - see the details here in an earlier MSG post

I still have an open support ticket from May 4, 2012 asking if my ban is permanent and if not, may I have my forum privs back. Other than a note in September 2012 from oldladybird saying "I am going to forward this onto the correct department as it was assigned incorrectly and was buried in the ticketing system." I've heard nothing.

It wouldn't seem too hard to just reply that the ban is lifetime, but they won't or can't do that. So for the most part the ban's a help in that it has weaned me from spending time in the forums.

Did someone contact Shutterstock about this (I suppose someone should contact iStock too...)? I don't know what they could do, but perhaps if all the stock sites contacted Google to see what could be done about this?

I found a number of high res files and as with CD123's example, the format of the link was site-name/wp-content/uploads/big-shutterstock-image.jpg

Is there some web site development tool that follows this format? And why would you upload the huge version of the file if you were only going to display it in a browser?

Even if that image is licensed by the site, they're not supposed to display it above 1200x800 (or something like that) per most of the licenses.

The new search looks lovely, but it's going to be an image thieves road map!

I wouldn't call Mr. Ross's post 'nonsense' but I think it shows a desire to minimize, in one's thinking,  the destructiveness of what IS is doing =, and a hope that this will all just blow over and things will get back to normal.  I think that's unrealistic.

I think Jonathan Ross' approach a "go along to get along" approach, but I gave Snufkin's post a heart because I think his analysis is sound. If you placate a bully or give in to blackmail you've just set the tone for how the next exchange is going to go - and they'll be back for more. Not if, but when.

I will also forever think of Blend Images with its new and improved name

If you have bills to pay and you're stuck, then appeasing the bully may be the right move for you for now. But you need to be clear that you're appeasing a bully, not delude yourself into thinking you're strengthening a relationship. Those who need to stay exclusive awhile longer may be under no illusions - I hope they're under no illusions - as to what sort of entity they're beholden to. Having their exit plan in place - or using the next year to make an exit plan - would be a wise move for all of them, IMO, no matter how much money they're making now.

The only emotional component of this decision for me is that for the moment I'm staying at iStock because I hate to leave the site I started with - sort of the reverse of the nonsense spouted by the OP in this thread. And if I do leave completely, I'll take the risk and wait for February 2nd because I've always been a fan of doing what I can - even if others poo-pooh it as insignificant or pointless. Even if Getty doesn't give a rat's ass, I'll know that I did what I could about an unconscionable situation.

Okay, so I opted-out from Partner Program 10 days ago. But yesterday I received as usual... a miserable 0.40$ for some PP sale. How can I know that I really deactivated all files from PP?

PP sales are posted once a month - mid to end - for the prior month. So we just finished (I think) seeing the December PP sales. I would expect you'd see sales posted in mid-February for files that were for sale in the first part of January.

What was the date for this 40 cent sale?

I think this is similar to the WIX integration, but via a tweet I happened upon, the project sharing/management platform Kona has announced it now has Google Drive integration

I realize that Getty/iStock are arguing that this isn't really a new platform as it's just accessing work on Google Drive, but as things move around in these platforms - to other users or displayed on the web - what originated in a Google Drive doc is going to end up many other places.

These images aren't the size you submitted and downsizing can hide a lot of noise, focus and other flaws, so it's possible there are more problems than noted here.

You need white backgrounds (or some defined color) - the nest white balance is off
The lighting isn't great on the broom shot
The skull on flag is an odd shot - what were you trying to say? - and white balance is off.

When you say things look great on your monitor but not on photobucket, that's a red flag that you haven't figured out how to color manage your workflow. Is your monitor calibrated? Do you embed a profile in your JPEGs when you upload - and what color space? If you have no idea what I'm on about, read here and here.

You will need to have a legal entity - a company - hold the copyright to your images if you want to upload into one account. As far as I know none of the microstock sites will let you have an account with two different copyright holders - and when you upload you agree that you have full copyright to that image. Only one of you at a time can do that as individuals.

There are several teams - Husband and wife in some cases - doing this, but there's always one copyright on all the images.

If this is just a buddy, I think the issues - pitfalls - would be those that hit any partnership. One wants out, one works harder than the other, one sells better than the other.

I wouldn't touch an informal arrangement of this sort with a 10 foot pole and I think you'd have to be serious about stock as a business to go to the expense of making a company.

It's now fine for me too (US west coast)

Take a look at my new picture on my user_view page

Unless you are planning to produce a significant volume of work and especially to target the Vetta and Agency collections (these are edited, open only to exclusives and thus you can't guarantee your work will be included), I can't see any reason for you to consider exclusivity at iStock.

The RC (redeemed credit) system they put in place in 2010 means that you will have to produce in volume and sell the higher priced work to make more than a 25% royalty (the bottom level exclusive royalty). You'll probably make more money as an independent selling at most of the top and middle tier sites.

I did spend 3 years as an iStock exclusive and returned to being an independent as a result of the changes they made and the impact that had on my earnings.