http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/in-pictures-16243313

I was interested to see they managed to work the 'unsustainable' idea into this article!

With so many best-selling exclusive contributors from Istock recently opting to become independent it occurs to me that there is a huge potential to raise significant sums of money for charity via Shutterstock's referral programme. At 3c per image sale it could literally raise millions for a charity such as Medicines Sans Frontiers/Doctors Without Borders.

Is this a practical proposition and if so how could it be implemented? Perhaps leaf could provide some guidance here?

What are your thoughts on this issue?

I think that's an excellent idea to bear in mind.

Is it 3c per image for ever or up to a certain limit?

great shots....beautiful colours. we're fortunate in Toronto to be the most ethnically diverse city in the world (per capita). The Diwali celebrations here were beautiful. I wish I'd gotten out to shoot some of them.

I couldn't believe how diverse Toronto was when I went there recently. Completely changed my ignorant concept of Canada and Canadians!

Quote from: fotoVoyager on December 02, 2011, 07:07

This will be a problem for all the agencies in the long run; it may be that iStock - as has been the case from the start of this adventure - is leading the pack.

So effectively you're saying that the micro model is, indeed, "unsustainable"?

It's the logical outcome for this business model as it works at the moment. Increasing image supply inevitably leads to lower returns for contributors till it reaches at point that it's not economically viable to shoot anything specifically for microstock that costs more than cents to produce since the likely return per image will be so small.

As we know, the trad agencies started as collections of unused assignment shots and developed into stock shot for that purpose but they managed to kept the returns artificially buoyant by limiting photographer access and grossly inflating the value of even mediocre images.

Perhaps they'll have to return to that kind of model in the very long term in order to stay supplied with professional quality images. The days of mega-high prices for stock are gone and microstock has shown there's no real secret to being a good photographer: you just need a modicum of seeing ability, post-processing competence and to work hard - most of us are proof of that!

I'm an iStock exclusive photographer. Here are my numbers.

This November 2011 compared to

November 2010:

$ -25%
DL -44%

November 2009:

$ +1%
DL -59%

November 2008:

$ -5%
DL -73%

I haven't kept track of my portfolio size over that time but it's probably fair to say it increases by a couple of thousand images a year at least.

In the New Year I'm going to start the long and laborious process of keywording my images in the exif data in preparation for when iStock is no longer sustainable for me. What a shame.

Quote from: fotoVoyager on December 01, 2011, 12:32

Hmmpfh. Went to sign up with Shutterstock only to find someone else has already grabbed my brand identity of 'fotoVoyager'. I tried searching for images by that username but got no results. Anyone else had this kind of problem? I'll go and sign up as Sean Locke if identity grabbing is allowed!

It's likely to be a totally dormant account __ about 90% of them are. That account holder has probably never even passed the submission test let alone has an active portfolio.

Try contacting SS, explain the situation and who you are and maybe they'll close the other account and give you your moniker back. It is very much to the advantage of both SS and their customers that your work should be easily found. Good luck with it.

Thanks, I'll do that.

Quote from: sjlocke on November 23, 2011, 07:51

IMO, you're not going to win any contests by shifting uploads to Getty.

I respect your opinion Sean, but if iStock isn't not working for me anymore, what other options do I have without leaving exclusivity? And don't say the Partner Program (I know you won't Sean).

Not many. I feel your pain. My download numbers are less than a third of what they were a couple of years ago.

Someone (Rapideye perhaps) suggested making sure all your images are keyworded with non-cv terms embedded now so the transition to independence won't be as painful or slow when iStock becomes financially unviable for full time exclusive photographers.