I'm in the same boat. Wrote them the first time 6 weeks ago,no reply. Tried again, now 3 weeks ago and got a reply : "I appreciate you writing in about this. Since the announcement of the VCG/Getty acquisition we have been quite busy. I am sorry things are taking longer than normal. I will try and get to this right away."
Now, 3 weeks later, my photo's are still online....*sigh*
Just wrote them again...

Veer did sort of ok for me (ok being about $20-50/month with about 300 images), but last week i got the email they are bought by Getty now.
I immediately contacted them to delete my portfolio asap, but so far i cant reach anyone there and dont get any response to my emails; its infuriating me at this point. I want my portfolio taken down, they just ignore me.
Anyone had any luck with this and know what it takes to have MY images taken off their site (and the partnersites i never wanted my images on in the first place)?

I got one for a whopping $0,95 a couple of days ago.

Quote from: sharpshot on March 04, 2013, 14:19
I did get an email and sent a link to a selection of my images on SS but haven't had anything back after 8 days.

Ditto here... 'd love to hear back though...(doubtful they're looking for dogs though )

Plus, its not because something is stated in a contract that its automatically valid by the law. They might just as well put in it they'll kill our firstborns, doesn't make it valid.

Un-be-effin-lievable...

You were part of the very soul of the istock as we knew it (although being the businessman you are you might not care about that sort of sentimental cr*p)
Kudos for what you've done for the community overthere. Chin up and forward to greener pastures, i'll join the choir singing you'll be better off in the long run and its their loss, with your skills there's no doubts about it!

Fi-na-lly the gray cloud gets a silver lining, its so good to see something positive happening!
After ditching FT and removing most of my istock portfolio MS future is looking bleak from here (BigStock port will go soon too). I do hope the smaller portfolio's will get a chance too, but if not i'm totally with Mantis, i hope some butts will get seriously kicked.
I'm very excited to see how this will unfold, the news did make my day!
Now let me in the FB group already 

Everyone's experiences differ, I have only good experiences with Veer. (apart from the issues mentioned above; reviews sometimes are slow, there's the PP you can't opt-out from and sub commissions often are $0,25).
They sell a lot better than BS for me, support mails are always answered swiftly, reviews are fair, two times they used one of my pics for a promotional action (included in a free bundle for new clients) and payed me a flat fee of $100 for it, after asking nicely first. Quite a contrast with whats happening somewhere else at the moment

One week later and its STILL not fixed (at least it isnt for me..).
Bad points for you Veer 

Quote from: scottbraut on May 26, 2012, 13:27

Quote from: Artemis on May 25, 2012, 23:03
Thanks Scott, but that doesnt cut it for me at all!
What determines the prices of these licenses?

To clarify, these licenses are part of individually negotiated sales to high-volume buyers. Pricing may be based on the volume of images being requested, the nature of the anticipated use (for example, advertising vs. editorial publishing), the level of commitment from the buyer, the need for multi-user accounts, and such things as special billing and workflow features. In addition, we have already noted the option for sensitive use.

We don't publish the details of any one sale, but we hope this provides general insight into some of the factors that are considered in custom pricing. 

Best Regards,

Scott
VP of Content
Shutterstock

Thanks for the additional info Scott, as much as i'd love to have all the details, this already tells us a lot more... i'm reassured

Thanks Scott, but that doesnt cut it for me at all!
· A license without a sensitive use option.
For individual images downloaded under these licenses, the contributor will typically receive a royalty of $2 to $15 or more, based on the cost of the license and the contributor's earnings tier (20 to 30%).

· A license with a sensitive use option.
These licenses typically result in a royalty of up to $75 to $90 or more, also based on the cost of the license and contributor's earnings tier. You must be opted into sensitive uses (an option found on your contributor account page) for your images to be available for this type of license. Receiving one of these royalties does not indicate that your image was or will be used in a sensitive manner. In fact, we expect that the vast majority of these licenses will not result in a sensitive use.

Both of these licenses can increase your earnings potential at a higher-than-typical royalty amount. We are very excited to bring more of these sales opportunities to you.
What determines the prices of these licenses? Are the license terms different (i.e are they 'extra enhanced') through the different amounts customers are paying for them?
For example: i received $2.80 for an 'other', not OD download yesterday. I suppose this is a single image download at a pretty big discount (seeing i normally get between $5-8 for those)? If i receive an $18 for an 'other' download, is this still a single image download (at a heavy inflated price  ), or is this a sort of enhanced download, and what extra uses are permitted then? And if i get $75-90 is it a single image download with as extra 'sensitive use'? (although this doesnt make sense because also people who are opted out get those amounts) .
A little transparency goes a long way, and quite frankly i think we're entitled to know how and under what license terms or images are sold.

Quote from: click_click on May 17, 2012, 18:03
DT

...and Photodune, and Stockfresh.

'Green Wing' is just genious! 
I also loved Little Britain, and nobody mentioned Absolutely Fabulous yet!

A lot of blindly woo yay'ing for SS.
We suddenly see a totally new amount of commissions popping up and everybody just starts cheering while nobody even seems to wonder where it comes from. Just like i wanted more transparency from iS i want it from SS too. $18 to $70 sales sure are nice, but where the heck are they coming from?! Its clearly not sensitive use, and probably not single image buyers either (afaik they go for roughly $19 each of which we get 30%). So what is this? What are the license terms?! What are buyers charged for this mysterious product(s?) and do we really get 30%?
Am i really the only one wondering about this?!

Strange, i also had my first refund there yesterday, but it was dated on yesterday. (an XS for $0,35  )

Quote from: Freedom on April 08, 2012, 03:45
Edge, yes, I stand by what I said.

Personally, that image didn't make me feel comfortable.

But if you look at his port, apparently he knows what he is doing. I think he is experimenting.

Don't forget, in the history of art, impressionists used to exhibit as "Salon des Refusés". Marcel Duchamp was not allowed to exhibit his Bicycle Wheel even at the exhibition where he was himself a juror.

Whether or not his image is successful is another story, I applaud iStock for allowing the experiment. Art is meant to explore and expand new boundaries, its standards are evolving, unless you or we only want to settle to be a photo technician forever.

Quote from: heywoody on April 07, 2012, 20:10

Quote from: Freedom on April 07, 2012, 19:32
By looking at his port, I think this is one of his styles. It's nothing wrong with being edgy.

Unfortunately, for most nobodies, we can not afford this luxury.

Edgy?  That?

I'm with you here Freedom. I'm not saying i think the image is a masterpiece, far from, (although i probably like it more than the typical plastic toothpaste smile retinaburning cheeziness), but when looking at his port (which is a pretty darn great port imho) it blends in and fits the mood. Taken out of the context of the port the image is awkard, which just might cause it to sell once in a while. I also think most of us submitting it would get it rejected in no time. Unless we had a great (experimental) portfolio to back it up.

Oops, misread microstockphoto's last line! The non-creditting part ticks me off so badly i take every oportunity to gripe about it

Also in case you didnt know, your name will nowhere to be found with your pictures, so you will not be creditted overthere 

I fall in the $3-4 category; for me its important... i cant stand feeling ripped off and abused. (although i know its not only or totally what this poll reflects, still, a good part of this RPI comes from ditching the a-holes)
If there was a site that payed 5 cents per sold image but had huuuuge sales volume, i still would NOT submit to it. The idea that only what you get at the end of the month counts is what keeps us getting screwed and the" take whatever pennies you can get" attitude makes me cringe. I know im losing money over it (definitly by ditching istock and FT), and i do regret that, but its not worth the constant bitter taste in my mouth. I know many will disagree, but to each its own i guess.

A lot less pathetic than Photodune overhere, now THAT site is overrated to me... granted, its still weekly sales here at SF but the times in between are definitly decreasing, PD is just dead for me.

Only $0,25'ers here so far 

I must be the only one seeing only the header and no pictures, and a couple of unresponsive arrows? 

Quote from: stockastic on February 13, 2012, 17:36
I never really believed the theory that you had to keep uploading to maintain sales.  For many months last year I didn't upload anything, but my existing (small) portfolio continued to make the same trickle of sales, in fact it actually increased.

Likewise, i never followed the 'feed the beast' strategy and always uploaded with hiatusses (hiati? hiates? ) , my sales never suffered from it.

I dont vote for the polls either, but SS is now, and has been in january too, through the roof for me.
Havent uploaded the past months, yet it keeps rising and rising; i also noticed OD's are up a lot the past 6 months or so.

Hehehe. Mad PS skills too Suljo
I particularly like the biiig celebrity lightbox add on the frontpage with ONLY Edstock files, the ones "regulars" cant submit.