Here is my first experience with the infringement report form:

I found a DT thumbnail with a DT watermark of one of my pictures used on a Facebook site. First I sent this finding via the standard contact form, getting a reply that I have to use the newly established infringement report site. Ok, I started:

First I had to enter the ID of my picture in the DT database. Ok, that was easy.
Then came another page up where DT is asking for several mandatory information:

1. A link to the website where the picture was found - so I entered the link to the Facebook site.
2. A valid email address of the infringing party - luckily I found one on the Facebook site. But if you can't provide an email address DT will not process the report because you can't complete the form. what?

Next day I got a reply from DT, named "DMCA Request - refused". Oh dear ...

1. It said that a certain link in my information was not working. The link in question was a link I never entered into the forms, it pointed to some unknown website not related with Facebook at all - I have no idea where DT took this link from ...
2. It then had a section with my report details. In this section my entered link to Facebook was shown but malformed due to some added http:// before and therefore also not working.

So basically you can report a potential misuse of picture to DT - practically it fails because the report script is probably broken and working wrong, sending or saving information you have never entered, includes broken links and finally asks for mandatory information like a valid email address which in many cases you can't even provide ...

Well, I won't report misuses of thumbnailsimages with DT watermarks anymore. It's PITA and not worth the effort.

Regardless, you can't submit an image larger than your camera native size.

Another good reason to remove any EXIF information which is not absolutely necessary. No camera information - no native format - no rejection for not matching a camera's native format.

There are cameras providing RAW files which have actually more pixels than the "native" JPEGs with in-camera and external software just using a crop. Trying to explain this to istock's inspectors is a waste of time. The oh-so-clever inspectors always responded with "don't upsample". Hilarious. After removing the EXIFs I never got another "upsampled" rejection. Win-win - bigger files, less rejections.

For example if you are going from 25% to 20%  that is 25/20=1.25  so a 5 point drop in your overall commission really translates to 25% less earnings!

Erm - are you serious with your math? 25 % of 25 is 5?

Keep them. Those few bytes don't hurt ...

Sorry, but posting something that's been known and discussed for weeks now (in the appropriate forum) just for placing your referral link into several forums is a bit lame, isn't it?

(That's why I dislike referral programs - you'll always find somebody st*pid enough to spam the whole world while dreaming of becoming rich.)

I'd second the idea of charging by hours. I have done this twice in the past, and the clients were happy to get a modified picture according to their wishes which nobody except them can use.

Additionally if the modifications are small there is almost no way to sell the modified picture via agencies - a few of them will reject the picture for being too similar to previous uploads, so there is no other way of earning money with this picture than getting paid for the time you spent on the modification.

Clients who speculate on a $1 download for a bespoke picture are not worth the effort. If they want a customized picture then they should live with a customized price.

Could you add a "2002" to the poll please?

IMO istockphoto's exclusivity is good for both very lazy and for very busy people. If you are in the middle between lazy and busy, then being independent might be the better choice.

Now that's great - someone has ruined my predictions by downloading 4 pictures today ... Thank you!

None of the above until they start charging more for mine work and paying more. You can make more begging on a street corner.

I think we all got your point now. Why don't you just move on - to the next street corner perhaps?

Some germans are ok,some are not.You can decide which group you belong .....

Well, if this "horray" puts me into the non-ok-german corner - so be it. Though I don't know how my birthplace could have influenced my opinion concerning your istock ban ... What if I was not a German?!

Can someone post the grosses for the top 6 agencies for the last couple of years so we can compare?

Sorry, I can't show bars, but at least I can do a list of Decembers and totals from the last 2 years:

DT: if Dec 2006 was 100% then 2007 was 150% and Dec 2008 has passed 260% (by Dec 22)
DT: year 2008 total in comparison to 2006: 290%

IS: 100% / 103% / 25% (by Dec 22)
IS: year 2008 total in comparison to 2006: 110%

SS: 100% / 120% / 50% (by Dec 22)
SS: year 2008 total in comparison to 2006: 160%

StockXpert: 100% (2007, no Dec 2006 stats) / 50% (by Dec 22)
StockXpert: no complete year 2007 stats, so no comparison to 2008

Panthermedia: 100% / 70% / 270% (by Dec 22)
Panthermedia: year 2008 total in comparison to 2006: 570%

Unless the bar from one year is exactly the same height as a bar from the other year ...

You got it. Hint: if the 2008 bars would be non-adjusted then there would be at least one bar without gray space at the top.

Btw cannister changes don't affect me - I'm not exclusive ... Increased my portfolio by 30% this year, but royalties dropped by at least 50% (comparing Decembers only: ~65%)