I'm not sure you are going to get an answer. The way I understand it, if you cancelled your account and requested payment, on Feb. 11 your account will be cancelled and they will automatically send you your last payout. You will continue to make sales until Feb. 11, even if you deleted all your images from your account.

Good game, but the commercials were great.

So even if I was opted out from subs (therefore, as I understood, my images would not migrate), do I hve to delete them from StockXpert before asking for my last payout?

Madelaide, I did what you said...deleted my images and requested a final payout last week. Today I had another sale. It appears that even though you delete your images from your portfolio, they still remain in the StockXpert database and can be sold, because I had another sale today. (not complaining about that). Apparently, everything will be done automatically on Feb. 11 or 12 (whatever the final date is for StockXpert). I would say you don't need to worry about it, but frankly, at this point, they have (what I think is purposefully) created so much confusion, it's difficult to determine what the right thing to do is.

How did we get to a place where people agreed a photo was only worth 1 dollar to begin with, but now .30 cents is a rip off. It all started at Istock trading images for free.

Because we all had hoped that as sites increased prices to buyers, our commissions would also increase. There have been a number of sites who have done that. We all expected our commissions to grow, not go down. I think that was a realistic expectation at the time. Big business is trying to shove this concept of "you should be glad you have any work/sales at all and should be happy at whatever meager sum we throw your way" down our throats, and I am really, really tired of it.

Thinkstock pays .25 many others pay .30 but .30 is good and .25 is bad. Isn't .30 bad too, but people say that's good. Why are .30 subscriptions good and .25 bad? Shutterstock pays .25 thats good, Thinkstock pays .25 thatsbad.

Subs were NEVER good for any contributor. But they have now gone from bad to worse at Thinkstock.

They have to be by design or they would compete with iStock, something the exclusives there won't be amused with.

No one is amused by it, exclusives OR non-exclusives. It's a bad deal for every contributor in microstock.

Most of you are fine with this, because you see this as just another site.

No, we're not and no we don't. This doesn't only affect exclusives already at istock, this affects people who are seriously considering going exclusive at istock and it affects independents on istock who may upload to other subscription sites, none of which pays as low as 25 cents per image. This is pretty much a slap in the face, punch in the stomach, however you want to put it, to everybody in microstock.

I was reading the Welcome Thinkstock to the Family over on the istock forum.

this was posted:

Looking just at the facts: iStock's latest marketing mailshot is now promoting Thinkstock over and above iStock's own subscription service. The only aim of that can possibly be to drive iStock's subscription clients to there. Thinkstock will themselves very soon start selling "image packs" which look to be basically the same thing as iStock credit bundles, semantics aside.

As for the future I obviously don't know what will happen, but here's my wild stab in the dark. I sense that iStockers will be increasingly impelled to make our images available on Thinkstock. I would then expect that we would see fewer sales here & more "image pack" sales there of regular stock imagery, for which we will earn a smaller commissions than we currently do here.

iStock may then continue it's transition to becoming a mid level stock agency - being no longer microstock or a trad agency, and it could concentrate on selling Vetta & more high end imagery at the higher price level. But the days of selling bog standard objects on white here are possibly receding... just my crystal ball gazing nonsense.

And I know it's not the end of the world, because I am reliably informed by REM that if it was then I would "feel fine", but believe me, I really don't.

I agree with this poster's assessment of where it looks like Getty is headed. I have felt that for quite awhile. Stock is not my main career. I cannot compete with the big guys and shoot Vetta-type material. Which means my stuff will basically be shuffled to Thinkstock.

As an independent, I currently contribute to SS and make more than what Thinkstock will pay me. I was contemplating exclusivity at IS, because before this whole announcement, I would stand to make more money as an exclusive. This announcement, and my thoughts about what is going to happen to Getty in the future, have once again given me pause for the whole exclusivity thing. Coupled with the previous post I made.

The saga continues.

A Lydna.com subscription for $25 a month is well worth it...  Plus you can enable it/disable it at will.  So I just use it for 2 or 3 months a year of intense training and disable it the rest of the time.

I second this. Except I went all out and took a year subscription for $365 and this allows you to download exercise files so you can follow right along with the video. Then once your subscription is done, you still have the files to go back and refresh your memory with.

I have used Classroom in a Book for Dreamweaver and Flash. They are good too, but not as in-depth as lynda.com.

I'm guessing IS or StockXpert will not send out a 1099 because they are a Canadian company and their tax laws are different. I checked my 2007 and 2008 tax returns and I have never entered federal id numbers for them (because of the Canadian thing). I am sure it is just a TurboTax issue. I keep track of my earnings on Excel spreadsheets and through Quicken, so I am sure I am reporting the correct amount. That's about all the IRS is worried about.

Obviously, so how can I enter their Tax ID if they don't give it to me? Called IS...nobody's even bothering to answer the phones.

I think having a diverse portfolio is the best strategy, but...

I did a spot check of kelly clines port on IS...her main focus is food, mostly without people. So I don't think it's necessary to have all people in your port in order to be successful.

what happens when they change the requirements for the next level, or cut the commission, or change the meaning of "credits.?"
I think the only way to keep the agencies honest is diversity.  Why do you think DT is pushing so hard for exclusivity?  Or, why is iStock making it so much more lucrative?
All rules and calculations are subject to change.

The way I have started to look at it all is that it's all a crapshoot. There are pitfalls if you do go exclusive and there are pitfalls if you don't. You just have to pick one and go with it and hope for the best.

I have over 800 images on SS and do not notice the wall you are talking about. My sales have risen steadily over the 4-1/2 years I have been there. Unlike Gostwyck, I don't make anyways NEAR $100k, but for the type of images I have and the frequency with which i upload, I would say that I am probably on the right track. You will make yourself crazy if you constantly try to analyze the typical ebbs and flows of microstock.