Congrats to your Alamy sale!
One theory says that if your pictures are truly unique and you put them on multiple agencies, the buyers will find and buy them from the cheapest agencies.

And it's really hard to imagine that a human would be pressing the same button for all those rejections in a batch of 30.
 

Is there a limit on number of images in a set when viewed through the Show Stats in Actions Menu?
The stats work great in smaller sets (i.e  20-200 images), but I get no results for larger sets (i.e. 600+)

There is one section there that can be applied equally well to selling stock images:

Joining as Many Sites as Possible

One of the biggest factors that's going to accelerate the switch to 5% commissions is... human nature.
I see this all the time with sellers on FineArtAmerica.com.   A seller will join the site, upload a few images, generate some sales, and then think:
"Hey - if I'm making $500 per month selling on FAA, how much more could I earn if I also joined websites X, Y, and Z?"
The seller then goes and joins X, Y, and Z, without really paying attention to the commission structure on those sites.

Here's a perfect example.   Society6.com only pays out $15 for the sale of a canvas print.   It doesn't matter if the print is 8" x 10" or 40" x 60".   The most that you're going to earn is $15.
So - by joining Society6, you're effectively endorsing $15 as an acceptable payment for the sale of your canvas prints.   You're broadcasting to the entire print-on-demand industry: "I'm OK with $15 payments."
On FAA, you might be selling your canvas prints for $100 and earning a nice income doing so.
However, if you're also selling the same canvas prints for $15 on Society6, here's what's going to happen in the long run.   Buyers will find your prints on both FAA and Society6, and if your prints on Society6 are $85 less than on FAA, buyers are going to buy from you on Society6.

Just like that - you've undercut yourself, lost out on $85, and encouraged the growth of a business model that dictates low prices to you.   Over time, all of the other print-on-demand sites in the industry will realize that $15 is an acceptable price to pay a seller for a canvas print.   Why?   Because you told them that you're OK with it.   Hundreds of thousands of sellers on Society6.com are OK with it, too.
That emboldens the other print-on-demand companies to follow suit and lower their own payments.
Is there anything wrong with selling canvas prints for $15?   Not necessarily.   Just understand that the entire industry will slowly move in that direction as more and more sellers become OK with that price point.
Remember - Cafepress just convinced 20 million sellers to accept 5% commissions.   Cafepress sells 24" x 36" canvas prints for about $150... which means that the sellers will keep $7.50 for each each sale.

Could be that some SS reviewers figured out a way how to increase their income.

Firstly, by hitting the same Reject (and sometimes the Accept) button several times in a quick succession, they can drastically increase their productivity and profitability.
Secondly, by sending majority of images into the Rejected pile, they count on the fact that some contributors will resubmit their images what means more images in the pipeline and more income for the reviewers.

Stats:
Fotolia: 29,074,942 images
DPC: 22,226,912 images
Difference: 6,848,030 images

It would appear, some contributors opted back in, after all...

Not necessarily. But surprisingly, there are still some people uploading to FT, and that increases also the DPC count.

7 million images is a big number by any means.
And this doesn't take into consideration images that were removed by some artists from the FT collection altogether.
In reality, the number of images withheld or not uploaded anymore to this outfit will be much higher.

Sooner or later, IS subs will have an impact on SS. And also DPC, of course, and more regarding OnDemand sales.

Only to some extent. Even more impact have the 38 million images on SS. If the current flood of accepted images continues, by next spring we'll see 50 million images on SS. Too bad, the market is not growing at the same rate.

"The purpose of this email is to tell you that based on the quality of your images, you are among only a few contributors that have been selected to participate in this test program."

>> Well, looks like we all received the email, so they are lying to us.  Disgusting. Email subject "Exciting news" ?!?!?! Shame.

It takes a real genius to come up with a letter like this. Almost as brilliant as the statement from FT that they will compensate for the DPC fiasco by paying EL's on DPC. How does it feel to send out such offers?
 
Those bright minds should take a course how to write respectful and effective emails. What will they come up with next?

I think, that quite a few contributors do not read forums and are not even aware that their images are on DPC. As long as we keep it up, more contributors will find out about it and many will opt out.

On one hand, even 20 million images is a huge collection for a viable distribution, on the other hand, if best images are removed from there, many buyers will start looking elsewhere.


 

I read somewhere that this "everyone licenses to everyone" is part of the macro business culture.

More like, it is a "creative method" to pay less the original supplier and spread a greater portion of the profit between the agency cartel.

 

I got a nice thank you from a buyer on twitter after mentioning the boycott and suggesting an alternative (I suggested Symbiostock). It's a nice opportunity to point buyers to the site(s) you feel give you the fairest deal as a contributor.

Yes, it is a great opportunity to mention Symbiostock as an alternative even if the payback is not immediate.

Well, it could be summarized that the DPC outfit is:
- cheap for an average buyer who needs just run-of-the-mill imagery
- profitable for the agency owner who doesn't need to spend money on image uploader, inspections and pays pittance for the image royalties
- not so great for the poor souls who didn't opt out (or don't even know about the whole circus)