I think it was around 3% because they always paid the same subscription price even if it was a single image sale.

So it is an improvement, quite a drastic one from their perspective.

Colourbox is my local agency (cos I live in Denmark)... and yes, like Jens G said, all or at least many Danish newspapers use them. I made the front page once and got 20 cents for my efforts and the credit was Colourbox.

Cobolt is perhaps right with a 3% royalty, because I have just got 2 euros on a 10 euro sale. That means a month ago, the agency took a whopping 98%... and the photographer got 2%.

In my mind that is unethical and worse than Getty, and iStock......

That is how they have managed to exist....  taking more than their fair share of the pie. And I also have to say that is very Un-Danish. !

Ron, I do not have a business account with paypal. I am peanuts, a private person.

 Point is re colourbox... as a private person and a receiver of a few payouts via paypal from the various agencies... I have never had to pay the fee ...

With CB I was astonished that I had to pay to get my money via paypal. I changed it back to bank transfer the day after.

But it is not really about whether I have to pay the paypal fee or not, it is really about the ethics of a company who makes lots and lots of money and who decide to throw the fees onto the photographers who supply them.

As for the raise that the Orignial poster talks about....  ha... it actually worries me that the talk is about "good photographers" getting a raise.  if it ever happens.

What does that mean?

The machines that upload thousands... or the guy with 400 pics that sell well? (I am neither of these).

Seems that CB is just the same as IS and all the other agencies. Screw the photographer......  because there are always more willing to supply at a cheaper price.

I know a Chinese girl that lives not so far from you!