Thank you Alex. Does that mean everyone sees a new commission structure on January 1, 2013 or only new contributors after that time?

Quote from: BaldricksTrousers on February 11, 2012, 16:29

Both sites offer both, don't they? Although iS is primarily credit sales and TS is mainly subs. That was certainly the situation a month ago.

I'm pretty sure TS is subscription only.  Not as sure about iS but the ad certainly indicated they would be single image DL. 
Again, I'm not sure.  It is a question.

They have offered Image Packs almost from the beginning. It's very like SS's on-demand sales.

I got accepted and have uploaded since then quite some images. They review fast (24 hours) but they rejected so many bestsellers of mine that I wonder how they do this reviewing.  Anyway I try not bother about that too much. It's their loss..
Can you change the price of the accepted images? I notice all of them have 3,- . And where do you see if you are submitted for Extended license? I want to make sure that has been turned off. Thanks for the help you all.

Hover over your name and select Settings from the dropdown menu. It's in the Licenses section

I don't see a problem for me, but probably it's those with a ton of people images who'll be most concerned. Even with the "posed by models" disclaimer, someone with strong political views one way or another might not be too happy seeing themselves in an ad for a viewpoint they oppose. Even though model releases were signed, if you lose the use of a model you like working with or are worried about legal wrangling, it might be an issue. But SS thankfully provided an opt out.

I just can't see how they're going to collect such a premium for this small TOS change - but more money for a small additional license permission seems fine to me.

It's now February 9th, and still no word as far as I can see on the new commission structure that was to take effect on February 1st.

I logged out and logged in again so I could see if there new messages (I can't figure out where to find those notes to contributors if I'm already logged in) and the last one is the January 18th post saying that there would be a change and that details would be made available.

Has 123rf changed their mind about this? If nothing else it seems very odd to me to leave the site with a notice about something that clearly didn't happen on February 1st. Can we please get an update - and get the site updated with current information or just remove the January 18th post if you aren't changing anything?

Great site, too few buyers. Perhaps someone (decent) who wants to get in to the stock business can partner with Peter and put some marketing money and muscle into Stockfresh. I'm leaving my uploads there, but at a grand total of $18 since last summer, it's just not worth uploading more.

Quote from: cobalt on February 07, 2012, 11:06

...The other thing - how reliable are the payment systems of other agencies? With istock I have always been paid on time, no problem. I still don�t have experience with payouts at other sites.

I have no problems with any of the 20 agencies I get payments from. In fact, most are easier to deal with than istock. SS only allows one payout per month, but they do it automatically and like clockwork every month. No action required on my part. The ones that allow payouts any time generally pay out within a few days of the request. Some even same-day or within 24 hours many times.

Never missed a payment, lost a payment, or had any reason to contact any agency about a payment. And the only company that I ever wonder about whether or not I'm getting paid the proper amount at is istock.

There have been payment problems at other sites, but never more than a temporary hiccup - as has been the case several times at iStock.

Some sites (I think FT is still like this) don't have a set schedule and don't seem to be able to deliver a set number of days after a request, so that makes for a lot of "where's my payment" questions. They always end up paying in the end though.

The isolations look reasonable - and there are no red peppers, apples or tomatoes, which is good I do think that you should consider your staging and groupings more carefully, however, as I believe you're limiting the usefulness of your images by putting odd combinations in a shot.

So why is a woman holding a pen and her glasses at a desk captioned (with colored blocks) "growth"? What suggests growth in her expression or setting? You have a USB drive with a USB stick on it with a background saying Data Storage - who puts a stick on a drive like that? How could someone use an image staged that way?

I think if you look at some ads (web, magazine, newspaper) and brochures, annual reports, etc. you might get a better idea of how to stage things to be most useful to designers.

I looked at your Getty portfolio as well as iStock and DT. The thing that struck me was that it looked like you'd done exactly what you said - sent the RM rejects to microstock.

I wouldn't argue with trying to make the most out of your work, but I would suggest that you won't see much return from the microstock agencies with that approach. I found your Getty portfolio visually appealing and the microstock images not so much. You might find that some other work that doesn't suit the RM agencies might be a better microstock option for you - perhaps you have access to a location or some gear that might give you useful images for the micros.

Quote from: michaeldb on February 02, 2012, 19:38

Quote from: FreeTransform on February 02, 2012, 17:29

Quote from: sjlocke on February 02, 2012, 16:07

I think there's a difference between "buyers want platypuses" and "buyers want vector versions of copyrighted fonts"

But put 'em in a "photo" and they're fine. Same with calendars.

Nobody's trying to upload entire fonts. As John said, they figured out a way to accept them in logos.

Exactly. Exactly. Those claiming copyright infringement of typeface licenses by Anja might look at the image again. http://www.shutterstock.com/cat-23-Illustrations-Clip-Art.html#id=65754793

The only typefaces used in the image are for sample text, with the exception of the the hand lettered word 'Menu'. The elements for sale are not 'fonts'. Are the IS defenders claiming that the tens of thousands of designers who bought this image did so to use the words 'Sample Text' or 'Place Your Own Message' in their designs? The idea is ridicuolous

I don't think it's ridiculous. I think the idea is that you are benefitting from another artists work, even if you aren't including the entire font. Think about the other thread where artists were including heavily photoshopped versions of artwork on posters ( iron man, etc.). As they were layered, and not 'clean', they weren't much use to designers... But the seller was benefitting as the poster looked better because of it. Everyone agreed it wasn't cool to do, and even illegal, which btw including fonts in a design for resale is also.

Put another way, why not just include generic free fonts? Because different fonts add to the design, and you are benefitting. I don't think it's so clear-cut.

Font copyrights are a very complex issue - over the name as well as the designs. When Monotype, ITC, Bitstream and others first started selling fonts for computers I seem to remember all sorts of issues over people calling a font "Swiss" instead of Helvetica and whether that infringed - even if the whole typeface was redrawn and not identical. Putting a few letters in vector form in a vector file is not the same thing as delivering a useable typeface (with all the spacing information, kerning, tracking, etc.).

And as far as benefiting from another artist's work, we do this all the time with almost every photograph we sell, but only some of the objects - clothing, hats, fabric, furniture, houses, bridges, landscape gardens, etc. - are protected. I didn't have I.M. Pei design my house, so I can sign a property release for it and photograph it to sell for Royalty Free stock. But if I owned property designed by a famous artist I couldn't. I can include a straw hat or picnic basket I didn't design or make in my photos but not a Le Corbusier chair. The examples go on an on - iStock made a dividing line over which items could be included and which not for photographs and it could easily do the same for sample text if it wanted to.

If I hand draw some vector letterforms for sample text that are clearly similar to typefaces that others have created, I don't think that is a problem for sample text any more than using my house in my photographs is a problem. The designer is going to use an actual font they own to do their own text, not the vectors for samples. No one is giving away fonts they don't own the rights to.

I have seen several threads in the IS forums over the last month or two where someone asks about a rash of refund notices. Do a google search of the forum threads as IS's native search is useless. You can then look at just the last month or a date range of your choice.

My sales have been terrible lately - so perhaps that's why no refunds - but I don't recall people in the past complaining about batches of refunds, refunds going back many months and so on (except for that big highway robbery clawback that was the subject of the conference call and a promise they wouldn't do this again.

Perhaps this is Getty practice bleeding over to iStock - any big customer calls and complains that they never actually used the images they bought and they can get a refund. I think the micro model should preclude this sort of thing (barring accidental duplicates, damaged files, flawed images, size upgrades, and so on). You buy it you keep it, whether you end up using it or not.

I wonder what they were thinking when they came up with that copy? From the buyer perspective (more of their cash) it doesn't really work; from the supplier perspective they've cut royalty rates for so many Getty groups over the last year it's a cruel joke; perhaps it's a inside joke that H&F is taking more from Getty?

It takes more time to search? It takes more time to get images online? In what context is "it takes more" a good thing?