Write to them and ask. They are a reputable agency and I'm sure they'll get back to you.

EDIT:
Just glanced through the old post with the list of microstock partner programs and found this:

11-16-12 - Added Agefotostock/Kalium/Potassium to Veer

So If you're with Veer that could be why your photos are there.

Can you upload them as editorial?

According to my graph, I had a one-week dip in December with no new image sales, but my December stats show I actually sold at least one new image that I uploaded in November, nearly every day that week, so it seems like it could be a reporting glitch.

Interestingly, I usually have my data set to 3 months, but when I set it to a year, considering images uploaded in the past year as new, it tells a far more encouraging story as to how well my new images are selling. Funny how your definition of "new" can seriously impact the facts that you base your insights on, isn't it?

I have no doubt that contributors with a larger percentage of older images got hurt more by the search change. I had an image that I shot in 2010 when I first started that had 1,600+ downloads. It was on the top of the search for "child." For almost three years, it generated 5-10 sales a day all by itself. They changed the search and it disappeared into the middle somewhere. So I can imagine that if you had a lot of images that were best sellers in that age range or older, then they lost popularity, which would naturally affect your sales to a large degree. Meanwhile, about two-thirds of my port is less than two years old. While I lost out on a couple of good sellers, the rest are holding up better because they're newer.

In that way, it's true that people on the 38 cent tier would more likely see their sales drop. But it's a secondary effect, not a targeted one. I believe Shutterstock operators in this case when they say their goal is to keep fresher imagery to the front, but I don't think they are bothered if that means they save some money by paying lower rates at the same time.

The real bad news is that it makes it really hard to build a portfolio and sustain sales because sooner or later a larger portion of your port will get old and your popular files will become less popular. I'm not sure how possible it is to keep enough fresh material in your port to maintain sales when you now have to compete with many more new files than ever before.

I'm on the top of the coaster now because of some lucky timing. That's all.

In stock, traditional and micro, from all I've read, images tend to last about 3-5 years as places, fashions, and trends change. Of course, there are images that are timeless and will sell for much longer, but search algorithms probably put a fair amount of emphasis on image age to keep things fresh, both so their buyers don't just see the same images all the time, and to take into consideration the fact that images will become dated. 

At the same time, the fact that new stuff isn't getting the same bump that it used to is probably helpful to long-term contributors so the files with proven track records don't get buried by new stuff that may never sell.

It's got to be a tough balancing act and I imagine that they tweak the algorithms to increase sales without considering whose files they are. Our commissions are so small, even magnified by thousands of contributors, that I doubt they really worry about whether the .25 newbies' or the .38 top contributors' photos show up at the top of the pile. They are making way more than we are with every license, so saving a few pennies per sale by deliberately giving unproven work by newbies who don't have a track record preference over those who do, really doesn't make sense in the long run. As tough as it is for those of us who've been with them a long time to see our new work move up, I imagine it's even harder for those who are new.

I have to think that part of the algorithm considers how many sales per photo each contributor has. I've only got 199 photos on SS, nearly a third of them added in 2013, but I've been there since 2010, and I get sales every day - and have done for a long time. My port is mostly travel, nature, and some backgrounds and concepts - not traditional big sellers. So I have to think that there's something in the algorithm that is helping my photos get seen out of the 32 million on there. Several of my images show up on the first row for searches, so the fact that I average about 20 sales per photo (adjusted over time) has to be part of the mix, I'd guess. Your analysis, based on a much larger and more successful portfolio, seems to bear that out.

It must be great to have an image that sells so often, but, like having one agency account for 80% of your sales, having one image account for a huge percentage of sales can be scary if that image starts to lose popularity but with all your new content you've clearly hedged your bets.  Though it's tougher now for new images to find their audience, I think the best stuff will still rise to the top, although there are bound to be some good images that get lost in the incredibly huge crowd and never find their way out. 

Enough armchair analysis. Heading into NYC to have some fun - hope everyone is having a great weekend.

I didn't want to delay and just sent them a message requesting that they close my account. No financial consequences really since I was making so little there, but I feel good that I did it.

I want out of their "exclusive" club! 

Easier to tell today if it's been used than in the past since things can be found online - though I know at least back in 2009-2011 the folks at Alamy would be looking through magazines to see if images had been used. Trust can be abused but without it you'd have no customer relations. Alamy is still very different than the micros - people can call up Alamy, have them do searches for them, their clients buy fewer licenses for generally higher prices and most of them are buyers who are used to the traditional RM system.

We trust the agencies to tell us how many times they've licensed our photos and how much we've earned from it. Are they more trustworthy than Alamy's clients?

I'm in the New York area, so if you're somewhere with less competition, hope it works out for you. I "qualified" back when they first started it (I think you needed 10 sales then) - maybe in 2009? but haven't had any assignments yet - it's a nice idea but not sure how much interest it has generated. I'd imagine if you're in some remote area it might prove beneficial. Best of luck!

Mine's fine. Hope yours returns shortly!

Total volume looking to be normal for me, though heavier on the subs than usual, so earnings are on the low end of normal, and I doubt they'll top Jan 2013, which was my 2d BME and my BMY. 

With half the month and almost the entire year ahead, however, it's a bit early for prognostication (IMHO) 

Bunhill's publishing experience jives with my own. I deal with publications a lot and they often need photos and written copy many months in advance. Often, the contract will include a negotiated price for a "kill fee" if the story doesn't move forward - but this is generally for assignment work - which is not the same as stock. The point is, even in that case you can do a lot of work - work that often can't be sold elsewhere - and end up getting less than you anticipated. The world of book and magazine publishing is run very differently than the world of small business buyers licensing photos for their websites for pennies on the dollar - and as Sue said, it's more likely that the refunds will be on the higher cost images because the client has more to lose. It's to Alamy's advantage to keep their customers happy and we can't fault them for that, even if losing the license profits are a big disappointment.

I had a return the first week in January last year, after the sale in December - of an image sold for over $250.00 - I contacted Alamy and they said the project was scrapped. I was bummed and angry - but just in general -  it wasn't a great way to start off the year but it wasn't Alamy's fault. Prices may be down, but Alamy is still a traditional agency dealing primarily with traditional buyers such as magazines and book publishers.

I agree - iMac is terrific for image editing. Powerful, fast and great screen. Mine has dual hard drives. SSD (Solid state drive) with all my programs on it and a regular 1TB drive for my photos. Highly recommend it.

I've found the last quarter sales have been very strong with a BME for me in October and some nice credit sales this month (though many sub sales of my Level 4 & 5s too). Despite the uptick in sub sales and fewer credit sales, my income there has climbed steadily. I did get an annoying rejection of a city skyline with many buildings taken from a public street for "potential trademark violations" which shows the reviewer's lack of understanding today, but on balance DT has been a good site to deal with and sales continue to grow steadily. Notwithstanding a dismal 2nd quarter last year, income was up 77% in 2013 over 2012, with a portfolio increase of only 30%.

I also like the fact that you can choose to make some files exclusive - I've done that with a few I felt were good after they were rejected by other sites, and some of those have earned me over $100 each. Granted, my top seller at shutterstock has earned me just under $350 there, and SS earns me about 30% more than DT overall, but I find DT to be a very strong second place micro site. I'd give them a chance.

I have a small port there (under 200 photos) and built it up quite slowly (I have 3.54 DLs average per image) and my photos do well in searches despite it being so small, so the advice not to add all your photos at once may be sound.

I just applied to depositphotos and was going to add most of my micro port via FTP at once, wondering now if that's a bad idea?

Did a quick online search and it appears that Art.com merged with allposters.com in 2005 and that they are not owned by SS or Getty:

From their corporate website:

"Art.com Inc. runs five sites in the USA�Art.com, AllPosters.com, ArtistRising.com, PosterRevolution.com and Zenfolio�and has a strong international presence with 25 local sites in Europe, Japan, Canada, Australia, Mexico and South America. "

Here's their site: http://corporate.art.com/aboutus/default.asp

If you've permitted the licensing of your photos as prints for resale on bigstock or other sites, that may be why you're seeing your work there. They probably have licensed it.