May-be a super stupid idea, but if the marketing site-to-be would not be selling directly, and only through links to - let's say - the big 4 ... why not ask for sponsoring?   SS/IS/DS/FT would benefit from the existence of a site that shows really creative images, so might they not be willing to sponsor it ?

I just noticed that Rodeo is deleting lots of images (or has been deleting them, cause I don't look every day).
My number of images there went down with about 13% (about 400) in one go.
Looks like spring cleaning in summertime.

Any other Rodeo-submitters noticed the same ?

Totally agree.  Between 2006 and 2008 income still went up because of the raises, but the number of downloads has not been growing for 2 years now, it's even going down, and as we did not have a raise last year, SS income is going down too, even with a bigger portfolio.

While I'm waiting for any reaction by the Ebay-seller of the doll (and keeping my fingers crossed), I wonder what she should sign ...
Let's assume she is the person who painted the doll's face and there is no resemblence with any real baby.  So I suppose there's no model release needed, but a Property Release.  However the owner = me.  Should I just copy the standard property release and change the word "property" into something like "handpainted doll" ?

I think it's weird that situations like this do not occur more frequently.  Isn't it very common that people are the owner of art they did not create themselves?  For instance : I see hundreds of images of nativity scenes of christmas figurines owned by the photographer, but not created by him/her ...

I'm having the opposite situation :  SS and DS are not doing well at all and Fotolia is doing great, for August that is.  About 15% better than last year's August, but not covering the Dreamstime loss.  So your kind of buyers is going from FT to DS/SS and my kind of buyers is crossing over to Fotolia?  Still, bottom-line August will be my worst month of the year.

My August expectations were VERY low this year because last year's August was a complete disaster.  I checked the stats and saw that sales only picked up half September in 2009, right on a Monday.  So I'm keeping my eyes fixed on Monday 13th September ...

How old is she?  Old people can be GREAT models!

OK, I wrote to the Ebay seller who sold me the doll.  I checked her sales text, and she's not REALLY saying she made it herself, so I just hope she did. 

I think we are somewhere between art and craft here.  The doll is a factory product that is supplied in pieces.  It is a kind of new hobby for gifted women to apply special paints to the face, sew a body, attach the limbs, implant hair and eyelashes and if you're good at it, the result is very real.  If this is art, then the creator/painter needs to sign a property release I suppose?  If not, then the owner should sign the release (which is me!).

If you all think this is art, and the Ebay seller sends me an answer that she did NOT paint the doll's face herself ... what next?   

Now this is a new problem for me :  I shot a few photos of a young woman holding a baby.  Only, the baby is a doll, a REALLY beautiful one, and it looks like a real baby.  It is so real, that any one would believe it is a real mother and baby portrait.

Knowing I would be in trouble with Model Releases, I wrote a "note to editor" while submitting the first image, explaining why I am only adding 1 model release.  
The result ?   6 out of 7 agencies already rejected it for missing MR.  Fotolia accepted it without a problem, so they apparently are the only ones that read my note.

Of course I can resubmit, but if I have to submit and resubmit every picture of that photo-shoot, I'll be quite irritated in the end.  So I thought :  what if I made a fake Model Release, pretending I'm the mother?  Who's going to sue me?   Would I be doing anything illegal that would get me into trouble with the agencies?

Congratulations!  I wish you many more successful years, fun shoots and at least one big raise per year!

Not a bad idea at all, since we all know that the only thing any site will do in a situation like this is close down the infringer's account, without compensation for the one who reported it.   A settlement between the copyright holder and the infringer + removal of all images involved would be a much better solution for every party (even for Istock!).

No, watch out, don't touch the "Extended License Opt Out" button!   

To opt out of Thinkstock :  Control Panel (top right) => Contributor (bottom left)
=> Partner Program => click "Remove All" button.

What I don't understand is the "transfer" of images to ThinkStock.  Most of us have many more images on StockXpert than on IS (in my case it's 3100/1800), and the StockXpert announcement talked about the Hemera collection of StockXpert images to ThinkStock.
I was opted in on StockXpert and IS and haven't changed anything (yet), but only 300 IS pictures are appearing on ThinkStock, and not even my bestsellers.  If I click "hemera", the result is zero.
Why aren't they using the StockXpert collection?  The number is not growing, so it's not a question of slow transfer.  And why only 300 IS photos without the bestsellers?  Any thoughts?