The site is not so bad. Meaning that things work quite well and I managed to upload a bunch of files.
(Uploading one file after eachoter reminded me of the good old days when I started with shutterstock, kind of relaxing process actually)

Now provide me with some sales and Ill ask for a FTP slot and really upload my stuff.

Im not sure its worth while to back up at all.
I have noticed that I rarely look at my old photos and I have noticed that I rarely connect the old harddrives with old backups.

I have about 2000 active (means selling) photos, they are backed up, but the rest, the 100 of thousands of photos from trips and from studioshoots, I rarely look at, and Im sure that they eventually become obsolete and die when I disconnect the drives.
As it is, its easier for me to take a new picture, than to find an old one.

I friend of mine, who takes a lot of photographs, just throws out his disks when they run full, he doesnt even care to format them.

That might be wise enough, for maybe we photographers are actually more providing state of the art digital material in an ever changing environment than  providing photos. I mean a photo is useles unless its online and visible, and its nothing more than another digital mass of zeros and ones, and might actually be a burden and a waste of time because every photo you store adds to the information entropy in the system you run.

So let me ask you this: What would happen if you deleted the mass of photos from your shootings and only kept the remaining few, that you actually process and keyword and put up for sale?

that means that they have gotten expenses.
Like new servers in Phoenix, new thai massage girl, healthcare and things for the employees.

I have tried all kinds of keyword strategies.
It really makes no difference as long as the basic are there. If you forget an important one, it does matter. But it doesnt matter if you type in beautiful or vibrant or other even worse spam keywords. Its my experience that buyers mostly search for concrete keywords and eventually colours.
Like  Crane + yellow+ truck

I wonder what you mean Rux?
a breeze?
Are you refering to the "wind of change"?
or what?

Quote from: JPSDK on January 20, 2012, 07:47

Cheating is not a way to go.
And I would say, that the agencies should not do business with people in countries out of reach of the law.
That would surely benifit us contributers from the expensive western world.

But of course they do. Again they dont care as long as it pays. The rules are always to their advantage.

So you think people might want to get out of the contract and to do so their best option is to raise a legal challenge, not just to quit exclusivity after 30 days? I think you must be a lawyer.

Why shouldn't agencies trade with people outside the reach of State of New York law, or wherever the contract says it is based? So that if the agency get sued, they can sue the artists under the indemnity clause? What other function does it server? The ability to delete an account is an effective enough way of enforcing the "law" against people who cheat.

I really don't understand the point you are making. Not dealing with people outside the US wouldn't (you don't really think they can enforce this in Italy or France, do you?) would not help artists at all. Most of the agency's sales market would disappear.

First I think the exclusives should read their contract. I thought they were bound for 6 months, not 30 days. That makes a difference. 30 days is not important enough to take any specific action.

Next, I really have a problem of the agencies do business in all those out of reach countries. The number is shrinking and law begin to apply more internationally. I can understand why the agencies are happy to increase both their customer volume and their contributers volume. But I, as a contributor am only happy with increase in costumers, not competitors. And also there are certain costumers I do not like as much as the agencies. Eg the type of customer that downloads our pictures and put them up for sale or for free on a .ru site.
Then there is the unfair competition with contributers from "lawless" countries. We just heard how someone might cheat with exclusivity, and thats not the only thing. And its not fair if it cannot be persecuted. In my country, which is Denmark there is a rule of law, and lawsuits coming from abroad would certainly find the way to the offender. I find it problematic that the agencies do not do more to protect our copyright, and that they only take the benifits of the global market and leave the competition and expenses to us.

If an agency doesnt have a smooth operating customer side, they are plain stupid.

The degree of lousiness on the contributer side, shows the respect they have for their contributors� time.

Which is not always much.
IS far worse than any of the others, and its very telling that they did not improve it in all the years I have been there.

Quote from: JPSDK on January 20, 2012, 05:31

My advice to the exclusives would be to read their contract carefully and see what it actually says.
A contract is an aggreement between two parties and BOTH should stick to it.

First thing to focus on is WHO are the legal entities involved? Have they changed, are the entities not the same anymore?
Second... There might be a breech or two from one of the entities, and if so, it makes the contract invalid, or at least negotiable.

In other words... contracts might not be so valid as you may presume...

So far, we've always had to agree to changes in the contract whenever a change has been made.
Of course the changes have always been in their favour, but we've always been made aware of it.
(Actually, I think the most recent was a default one, whereby if you didn't agree you were automatically opted in after four weeks or a month, but I can't remember what that was for)

oh yes. I forgot that. All these popups where you just click accepted without reading it. Thats a bugger.

Better just to quit exclusivity than look for a fight that could end up getting you sued for the return of commissions and thrown off the site.

You cannot do both, thats not what I suggest.
I suggest you look into the contract and see if you can claim it has been breeched by IS.

In my understanding there are 3 problematic areas:
The shift of name when IS was bought, can another company inherit the contributers contracts?
Was the migration of material to thinkstock agreed by the contributor.
The cuts in commission + manipulation of search engines.

What you can do is to inform IS that you consider the contract broken by a date, and such have no obligations do remain exclusive.
But then again, Im just speculating. I would advice people to read their contracts and judge for themselves.

Law is law and luckily it begins to apply more and more to internet companies that have been used to produce their own rules.
BTW... that is also a message to other agencies who also have their own rules.

My advice to the exclusives would be to read their contract carefully and see what it actually says.
A contract is an aggreement between two parties and BOTH should stick to it.

First thing to focus on is WHO are the legal entities involved? Have they changed, are the entities not the same anymore?
Second... There might be a breech or two from one of the entities, and if so, it makes the contract invalid, or at least negotiable.

In other words... contracts might not be so valid as you may presume...

This is my first post on this forum. I have not posted before, but eventually I have read the microstockgroup forums when there have been news in the industry.
Im not a major player, just an amateur that has been around since 2007, mostly on shutterstock.

And now is such a time... For important news.

A major agency is in trouble, and the trouble seems to be deep.
As I see it it started last year when they argued that the canister system was unsustainable and they couldnt afford to pay the future canister levels rises and therefore did all kinds of fancy things to secure the profit.  Raising prises for the customers and lowering commisions for the contributers. Greed that was, and a bad sign.

In my understanding such a statement means that they have been pushing liquidity (or lack thereof) in front of them and have not had the according expansion in sales volume to be able to pay their promises back. Its always dangerous to push obligations in front of you and especially in a shrinking economy. So my guees is that IS financial trouble already began back in 2008- 09, and they were able to pull it till now.

So what?
Im quite certain that the microstock part of their business is dying, but I dont know if they have plans in the mid stock market. They may try to be competitive with a business model for mid stock. They allready have a complex of strange licences and exclusive contributers, that could be trimmed to the mid stock areana. But I see no clear signs of such a strategy. IS more has the appearance of a giant fighting blindly and randomly in the mud, without being able to take the right steps to get out of it.

And so what?
If an agency cannot survive in the microstock market on an 85% share, they are not competent and deserve to die. And I do not mourn their death. But I do appreaciate the lesson the agencies might learn from this: There is a limit to how much you can rape and pillage. And maybe the most important lesson. We contributers actually have a voice. Some of us are both contributers and buyers, and we all have a voice, and we spread the word.  IS forgot that, and they died from their ignorance. bad karma killed them.
I like that, since we cannot make a union or do anything in common, the important lesson here, for the agencies to learn, is, that it all adds up, and in the end karma can change. Like someone said with the bacteria film.
IS deserved it.
Let the other agencies learn.