This is going to shock you I know, but I'm going to play devil's advocate

I never opted to have my images offered for free when submitting them originally.  When the offer was presented to sell the right to offer my images that have remained unsold for 2 years or more to an unknown free site for $.50 each I balked and waited.  When I looked at my unsold images I realized 2 things...

1:  I had a crapload of unsold images after two years.  Somewhere around 1,000
2:  Most of those unsold images were unsold for a reason.  The low acceptance rate gripes you find today, you did not find 2 years ago as some of you may recall.  Most images were rejected because they had a date stamp in the corner or something.  If I had to guess, I would say 75% of the photos I had in the "unsold" category would not be approved today. 

So with no gun to my head and absolutely no idea where my photo's would end up I opted to sell the pics for $.50 a pop.  I took the $500 I was paid for them and spent it with no qualms whatsoever.  It would be a bit hypocritical for me to get worked up about it now.  I read the word "donate" when referring to offering their images for free.  I was paid.  If you were not and you opted to give your images for free originally..I'm sorry, but that's on you.  The only incentive I can see to do that would be to simply have bragging rights that your images may be used by somebody somewhere for something.  I would rather get paid. 

If there are 350,000 images available that means they paid $175,000 for them.  I can't help but think there must be some thought that has gone into this as to a tangible return. 

Mat

From what I understand, there are photographers that opted rejected photos into the free section that are now on the new site, so Fotolia didn't pay anything for all those photos....that would make the $175,000.00 way off - it would be much lower.  Feel free to correct me if I'm wrong though.

I saw the same thing and went and asked about it on the IS Forum a while ago.

http://www.istockphoto.com/forum_messages.php?threadid=80253&page=1

Of course the thread got locked and the forum moderator was rude to me even though he was in the wrong.  There are many files that are public domain on wikimedia that are oddly similar to files on IS.

Please keep us updated on how things go.  I'm curious if you have to put yourself on payroll, if you will incure payroll taxes and so on.

Okay, I've had some more coffee.  Here's are what are going to be some major problems that could easily blow this whole thing to shreds assuming enough photographers would even be interested in joining.

1. Collective would mean exactly that - COLLECTIVE.  If a majority doesn't agree with your idea, don't pack your bags and move - deal with it.
2. Although everyone would love to make millions...it must be remembered - this is microstock, not midstock and not traditional.  With that said, contributors can not be pricing their photos at prices that are way above the competition for the same size image.  If that was to happen the only people coming to the site, would be the photographers - no customers - fresh photos or not, we're in a recession.
3. Reviews - you get rejected, dont throw a fit...Breath in, exhale, move on...  No one's perfect and there were problems with the photo - the last thing an agency needs is 1 million photos of some half dead crocus flower with a fully dead, yellow lawn in the background.  Quality over quanitiy.
4. Willingness to listen to what the owner of the agency says about potential customers..in other words, not just catering to the photographers...but to the customers also.
5. Patience....there would clearly be no instant gratification here.  3 mo or even 6 mo down the road, I think photographers will starting pulling their ports (collective or not) if they are not patient enough.  Rome was not built in a day people.

Hey there Everyone!

I just got Aprils Stats posted if your interested and I have put a new poll "best match 2.0 - Friend or Foe".  The last poll "Your Best Paying Agency per Month" has ended and the results are after the blog archive on the right hand side of the page.

http://snaprender.blogspot.com/  

Thanks!

Snaprender

I'm not exclusive, but I am getting a kick out of how IS is going about this...calling it an "opportunity" - which it could be considered for non-exclusives (although I will be opting out myself), but hey at least the non-exclusives aren't taking a royalty cut of nearly 50%.

Here's your opportunity Exclusives - its a doozy:

The opportunity to sell your 'exclusive' files on sites that Getty chooses and no where else making them no longer truely exclusive to IS.

The opportunity to devalue 'exclusivity'

The opportunity to sell subs that could actually provide you $0.06 or more of royalty

The opportunity to take a royalty cut of nearly 50% (22.5% vs 40% or so)


<insert sarcasm> Wow - it's overwhelming what a generous opportunity IS is providing <end sarcasm>

I hope no one opts into this deal...it stinks, but it's not surprising when even the admin's mentality is that 22.5% of something is better than 100% of nothing (the fact that the 22.5% is close to nothing does not seem to faze them...)  Maybe the $0.01 photos are their next plan..because heck, $0.01 is better than $0.00! Right?

Yeah, the files size was actually small (compared to most of my 2d & 3d)...but I haven't done a motion stop as long as yours.  I also don't even own a camera that makes it possible to shoot a 21mp photo  .  I chose to shoot each photo 2048 x 1536 - which is plenty big for an HD1080 and allowed me to downsize them a wee bit to make imperfections disappear.

I am seriously impressed with your ambition for your first stop motion video.  Freezing cold weather - building and Igloo - I got cold just watching it!  I went for a little easier stop motion - Stacking coins, then I reversed it and called it 'Money Loss'  .

Snaprender
http://snaprender.blogspot.com/

I'd keep shooting lots and lots of photos (taxes would eat a big chunk of that change anyway).

I've got a 27" monitor, so maybe that's why I can see it so well..LOL.

Here's a better link - see if this helps.

http://www.google.com/imgres?imgurl=http://www.rmc.sierraclub.org/rfg/Images/ist2_581051_green_recycle_symbol.jpg&imgrefurl=http://rmc.sierraclub.org/rfg/index.shtml&h=380&w=380&sz=29&tbnid=75CQjsEDsdwOwM::&tbnh=123&tbnw=123&prev=/images%3Fq%3Drecycle&usg=__M0m5xHSA0z7CVydVpPP43yWeU3w=&ei=8bHvSdPwFaiEtAOKh-XhCg&sa=X&oi=image_result&resnum=7&ct=image

then click the 'see full size image' - you should be able to see the IS camera on the lower left of the sign.

Since I'm not technically the one directly selling to the customers and collecting the money - I couldn't figure out what the heck to use - so I put 999999. 

I closed my account with them a while ago.  I had to send multiple emails to support.  It helps to use strong multi-word profanity when describing to them that you want your account closed. 

Snaprender

I rarely sell anything on there, but I like them - so I keep uploading and will keep uploading.  Their upload process is easy - so that helps too   

Snaprender
http://snaprender.blogspot.com/

Quote from: snaprender on March 27, 2009, 10:20

I can't help but find the irony in this ...  Here Crestock shows offensive and degrading advertisements......and yet there is 'Judge Ross' on the side bar publically degrading their very own contributors photos in the 'worst image of the day' - which if it's your photo - you might just find offensive.

Snaprender

good point. i am not with Crestock, but maybe they should change the title to something less destructive
and more positive "win win" . like instead of a "this is crap", do something that offers help to a "bad stock photograph". this way , those whose images are rejected for the same reasons will learn what elements to avoid . this in turn would benefit the contributors , and Crestock, as the approval rate increases . win win situation. Take off Judge's wig , break his hammer, and get Ross to put on an ombudsman's overall.
wouldn't it be nicer and friendlier ?

I totally agree.  I have never seen the point on ole' Judge Ross.