March was my first full month with IS and I am completely disappointed.  I had heard such raving reviews during the past year and was really looking forward to joining the team.  I had my BME only because it was my first full month but I would not consider it worthy of a top tier agency.  Dreamstime and Shutterstock both gave me very respectable earnings last month; Fotolia and IS should be dropped from the top tier.

Oh, the numbers; grand total of $13.94 for March for IS.  Granted I have a limited port online at IS but I was still expecting better results.

At this rate, I will make diamond a couple hundred years after my death.  My great great great grand children will be so proud of me; this is if my children have kids.

How cute! The bliss of a new beginning...:-) seriously, this industry produces over 100 000 images A WEEK. It might take a while for you to get noticed...

istock has a subscription program, but I see very few sales through it. Definetely hasn�t affected my downloads.

Istock is not a small company, it has over 400 employees, tons of traffic, active forum etc...I sincerly doubt there are any plans to close it, seriously. It just wouldn�t make sense.

getty has all kinds of different outlets - jupiterimages, punchstock, thinkstock, photos.com and also sublicenses the content all over the globe.

I don�t know where all the differences are, but it must serve some purpose.

My images in the pp program are in at least three different sites (in addition to istock).

Well, if subscriptions are what all buyers want, why is istock still around??

Why didn�t all the buyers go to shutterstock? A long time ago?

I find it hard to believe that Getty/istock are planning to direct all their buyers to Thinkstock.

Anyway, to each his own.  I respect everyone who wants to opt out and hope they just keep the system that istock has just the way it is now. I also have some images that I will probably not want to opt in.

The Getty Photographers are not happy.

What surprised me that they are not sharing any content with istock. I mean, they already put the agency collection on istock, I would have thought if they are moving "downstream" that istock would be the next stop.

But from what I read from the non exclusives the duality of shutterstock and non subsctription sites works as long as it is not done on the same site.

I signed the contract, but I don�t have many images on Getty anyway.

I have most of my istock images in the PP program and I am not seeing a drop in downloads that I can in any way relate to the programm. In the beginning I only opted non sellers in, then gradually added most files. The images sell, but the sales pattern is not the same as on istock. I have some images that sell really well there that are not moving on istock at all.

As long as Thinkstock is kept on a different site, I feel fine with it. I hope they don�t merge it with istock.

This is one of the reasons I am glad to be exclusive. i�ll be happy to let Lobo and co hunt the thieves down...

I actually found one of my images on getty pics flickr two days ago and it has already dissapeared...

on getty themselves copyright is correct. It is some of their many partner sites that are worrying photographers. And it is possible to have instant sales on getty. Even with only one image on getty when I started I had an instant sale, although it went online at the end of the month.

I like the sales on getty, for me it works well. But getting images in has become very difficult. That is why many istocker prefer to take the Vetta/agency route.

Hi Lisa,

loads of respect here as well! :-)

I really don�t think the storm cloud has left istock untouched. But no, the decision wasn�t reversed.

But do you really think that a union would have achieved more? I doubt it, but here we differ of course.

Sometimes a management has to try something new even if it is unpopular. Inspite of the protest the new system had many good points, especially for new incoming exclusives (there was nothing to like for the non exclusives, I agree). Under the old system it had become extremely difficult to reach higher canister levels, the downloads had dropped as the prices increased, so the new RC levels that connect real value of the sale with your royalty level was intended as an improvement.

I know it backfired for many, especially mixed media contributors. I also dropped a level. But many people benefitted, you just don�t see them brag about it. Hardly anyone quit exclusivity about it.

Of course, I wasn�t happy about the lack of communication. As a moderator...well...you sit between all fires, nothing much you can do.

But if a union had existed - what would they have done???

And how do you organize a union with 80 000 people from around the globe?? If you have a union, then the members will have to sign voting power over to them for negotiations. I would never do that.

And just last week istock asked for contributors to nominate people they trust to discuss the fraud issue with them. I think that is a very good idea. If they do that more often, we would have a form of representation - free of charge, by the way (and thanks again to all the participants).

Ideally they would ask for new nominations depending on subject matter than we could have a fresh team everytime. Although Sean would be in high demand ;-)

So, no, we don�t have a union, but maybe "trusted contributors" are already a step in that direction.

So they do listen to the community. They have to anyway, internet marketing demands happy contributors. Discontent is bad for business.

But as the agencies grow, we also have to accept that decisions and changes will no longer be instant, but probably go through several layers of management.

And like I said in the thread on fraud: I look forward to any IPO, because the contributors become shareholders. Strong contributors like Sean might be asked by investors to sit on the board.

The internet changes at light speed, so I believe that we have all have more direct influence with our posts and discussions than we think.

I know istock is unpopular over here and with all the site problems, I can�t say I blame you, but FWIW anyone I ever met from management was genuinly interested in promoting the artists and the community. They are also very, very talented people. If they really just wanted to make money, they would be working in other industries. Doesn�t mean they don�t make mistakes. But they really do listen and read everything we write.

So, even without a badge I am optimistic...:-)

Completely out of touch and completely anti micro. Very arrogant whenever you came across them on the internet.

They could have easily survived by targeting the successful new photographers, but they were too interested in protecting their little club...

The succsessful artists had long included micro anyway.

@Curt

my sympathies. But most forum bans are temporary, they are more of a time out to take a step back and refocus. The world is bigger than istock :-)

Also keep in mind that the istock forums are very diverse and not everyone has the same type of humour. Some artists are extremely sensitive and read "critical" language as strong insults, not just on istock, but on themselves. They will then complain to the moderators. Other contributors, especially those with poorer English language skills, will just avoid the forums alltogether if they see "all that emotion". And it is not just the exclusives that withdraw. I live in Germany so the very direct "in your face talk" suits me fine, but people from other countries or cultures react differently.

Moderators have to find a balance to allow as many people as possible to take part in the forums. Plus it�s a company forum, not a free for all student board.

FWIW, I hope you have fun here in the meantime and can get in touch with Lobo, when the time is right.

Thanks for sharing the background Rob. This makes istocks wariness of including non exclusives much more understandable.

Fantastic Food and pictures! Thank you very much for sharing!

http://www.worldphoto.org/festivals-events/festival-tickets/festivals/festivalslondon-festival-somerset-house/

World Photography Festival 26th Apr 2011 - 1st May 2011

"Rumour has it that some istock submitters have extraordinary luck in getting their images to go before lax reviewers. I had a very high ranking diamond portfolio pointed out to me which seemed to fall way below the minimum normal standard. But any inspection fiddling going on will be a private matter and will be nothing to do with the general policy."

As a former istock inspector I would like to point out that I have never seen or heard any of that. Of course it is possible that inspectors make a bad decision (they are only human) and that is why members can appeal to Scout to have an image overturned. Also while inspecting you usually don�t look at who is submitting the image, you just look at the file in 100%. Training is pretty rigorous and ongoing.

My own images get rejected from time to time. Sometimes I agree, sometimes I send them to Scout, just like anyone else. Of course my rejection rate is pretty low, but I already had 89% acceptance before training.

For those who consider exclusivity, image rejection shouldn�t really be a question. If you spend time in the critique forum you can optimize your workflow to minimize rejections. Many people have acceptance rates of over 90%, both exclusive and non exclusive, even with simple cameras.