I noticed for the first time this morning that Snapwire have started distributing images through Alamy.  ***There are 4 or 5 of mine that are also already for sale directly through Alamy, which I am not exactly thrilled about.  Snapwire do have a "premium" collection which are exclusive and, in that case, I might be OK about the arrangement (although Snapwire are pretty light on info about how revenue is to be distributed in any partner arrangements, which is another gripe).  But now I am effectively competing against myself by having the same images available twice (which must be annoyng for customers seeing the same images pop up twice)

I appreciate that Snapwire's terms allow them to distribute through partner channels, and accepted that because I was keen to support a new player with a fair revenue arrangement (50-70% depending upon type of sale).  Frankly, I assumed that mainly was to allow them to distribute through Media Bakery which I think is related).  However, I am surprised that they have not communicated anything to distributors about distributing through another agency as big as Alamy.  It seem almost inevitable that there will be a reasonable number of people who contribute to both.  Personally, I would just like to be able to opt out of the Alamy arrangement, but will remove the overlap images from Snapwire if that's the only option.

(I have some other unrelated gripes about Snapwire, but have been willing to put them down to teething problems.)

Anyhow, thought others may like to know

***EDIT - well, I'll be darned.  Should have investigated more before posting. It seems that the images I am concerned about have at some stage been designated "Premium" (exclusive) at Snapwire, weeks or sometimes even months after initially uploading.  In the meantime, or maybe even before submitting to Snapwire, they had already been loaded elsewhere. Or (bizarrely) there seems to be one copy non-exclusive (Select) and one exclusive (Premium).  Since I had turned off notifications, because I just can't abide any more email spam, I hadn't noticed.  So I guess this means that it must just be Premium images being distributed on Alamy, which removes my initial gripe. Still inconvenient and irksome to have to go back through images many weeks later and work out where there might be an exclusivity conflict.  Since I am not at all keen on exclusivity, I think I will be going through and removing all "Premium" images from Snapwire and stick with Alamy, etc.  And drop a line to Snapwire suggesting that give people the option of choosing in advance if they want an image to be considered for exclusivity or not, rather than trying to figure it all out weeks later

I received this long email from Room the Agency - i must have signed up at some stage, but have never submitted anything.  I am curious what others, particularly those with tonnes more experience than me (err, just about everyone), might have to say about this - thoughts, comments, etc?

.......................................

This month, we send out our first sales reports � it�s just a start
 
On Thursday we will be reporting our first sales reports to members, as reported to us by Getty � I took a quick look this morning and it�s much as expected for a first month.
 
Payment due to those who have earned �25 ($42) or more � our minimum payment � will be paid on 5th June.
 
As from now, every month we will report to you by 30th of each month, sales as reported to us by Getty for the previous month. Payment will be made to members with �25 ($42) or more owing, around 5th of the month following, or the amount due will be carried forward to the next months payment date if below �25 ($42).
 
We need your payment details
Please ensure that you have input your bank (UK members only) or PayPal details into the �Images, Sales & Payments� section of your profile, or we will not be able pay you, when money is due.
 
We live in a Spotify World
 
For those of you that have been around for as long as I have, things are different, subscription was not part of the royalty remit and as such payouts per sale were higher than they are now. Times have, however, changed significantly and we now live in a subscription based, micropayment World.
 
What this means to us all is that earnings per sale will be significantly lower than they once would have been, but the amount of sales, over time, may become considerably higher as more customers become buyers.
 
When Spotify started out some 5 years back there was an outcry. They paid out very little to copyright holders, hit tracks were earning, on average, between $0.006 and $0.0084 per stream.
 
In 2009 this amounted to a few million dollars being paid out to all bands, for all songs accessed through Spotify in total. Shared amongst the many copyright holders, this amounted to little more than small change, a few dollars each on average per year � if they were lucky.
 
In 2013, however, the model had matured significantly and Spotify paid out $500 million in royalties. For �top global albums�, in July 2013 alone, Spotify paid a rather more appealing $425,000 in royalties to each producer, for each album and at the bottom end of the scale, $3,300 to each �niche indie album� rights owner.
 
iStock are coming, our sales will grow significantly
 
During April, we had no images live on iStock, who run a similar model to Spotify, with their subscription offerings. Over the next few weeks, all our content, unless it has been opted out by you, will go live on iStock. This will significantly increase our sales potential, as iStock makes up half of Getty�s $1 billion turnover.
 
Because of the global change in royalty based businesses, Getty have had to change the way they sell to clients � that change is only just beginning. Many clients are now on annual deals and much of Getty�s sales are made below �6 ($10) per image.
 
As a result, we are expecting our average sale to come in at around �4.2 ($7), which will mean around �2 ($3) to you.
 
If you compare this with Spotify and it�s average $0.007 per stream, it�s a significant uplift, but not what we would like to see, of course.
 
Sure, you will still see some �0.20 ($0.30) or so sales on your sales reports, but over time these will grow to significant monthly payouts. Remember, it took Spotify 5 years to get where they are now and that�s without a great deal of competition, so don�t expect Getty to be paying out significant sums to us for at least a few months yet.
 
But, it will happen.
 
If it�s free, is not always, well, free
 
Some of you may have noticed that Getty made the brave decision to stop selling images to bloggers (most all were being stolen anyway) and started �giving� them away. Now, this may sound rather stupid, but in fact it is part of a long-term plan to earn more from these sales than they did when they tried to sell the content. As Getty track usage and users they will build into this model an advertising system that will benefit us all and we will all get paid from revenue earned from selling advertising, much as YouTube do with their videos.
 
Google earned over $5 billion from their YouTube advertising channel in 2013.
 
�YouTube will bring in about $5.60 billion in gross ad revenues this year (2013), according to eMarketer�s first-ever analysis of how much advertisers spend on the platform.�
 
Stay tuned for more news on this, over coming months.
 
A lesson learned, is a lesson taught
 
When I first got into shooting stock photography many years ago, I, like you guys was expecting a bumper payday first time round. It didn�t happen and it is unlikely happen for you either, although our member with the most earnings this month, earned over �500 ($840), which really quite good.
 
Most of the images we now have live were not live during April and the majority  of you will not have had any images live on Getty at all - we had no sales from iStock � that will take 3 months at least to build � and we had few �slots� in Getty�s ranking system � that builds with our image intake - so please, please, keep the images streaming in.
 
Things will all change over the coming months for the good, but realistically, like me, all those years back, you will have to give it a year before you can make any sort of judgment on your sales potential.
 
After that first year of sales I was overjoyed with my income � but because sales didn�t start rolling in for 6 months, I stopped supplying after month 1, as many people before me probably did too � �I�ll wait and see what happens�, was the usual retort.
 
Then, after 6 months, I was rushing through content. I wish I had listened to my agency and continued to supply early on.
 
Now for something really special and unique to end this message
 
Next month, as we tighten up our membership, making it even more difficult to join RooM without the right content and belief in what we are doing, we will be offering you all something really special and unique.
 
We will be offering you a way to earn much, much more money over time:
 
A profit share in the business.
 
We see our business as a collective and want to ensure that if we do well as a company, we all share in the profits � after all, without your content we are nothing more than a few images and a name.
 
As a collective we have real power and can have significant pull and influence at Getty. Alone, as suppliers, most of us would not have Getty RF contracts, let alone, Getty RM/RF and iStock accounts combined. As for search slots, we�d have none without each other.
 
As we grow the quality and number of our images significantly, Getty will give us more exposure and with that will come more sales, many more sales. For example, if we have, say, 2 slots in every 100 search results and earn $2m, doubling those slots to 4 will likely double our income to $4m.
 
Can we do that alone? No. Can we do this, with our in depth knowledge of Getty and the industry and your fantastic content? Yes, we can.
 
Stay tuned for news on our unique profit share offering, as we work it through with our accountants.
 
Thank you for your time, support and above all, fantastic images.
 

Hello all, quite new to all this and would welcome some input.  I am trying (second time) to get accepted at Shutterstock.  The first time, I submitted full-size images (from Canon 60D and 6D) and there were a number of rejections for focus and/or noise.  Since then, I have uploaded to a number of other sites and am trying with a fresh set of images - to the extent it helps, selected from those which have been accepted by the other top 3 - hoping odds are with me 

A question:  Shutterstock's guidelines say not to upsize or downsize, yet I seem to have read lots of posts where people seem to do this.  I gather for two main reasons:  1.  to minimise technical rejections and 2. because subscription means all sold for same price no matter size so leave larger sizes with other agencies.

I was planning to downsize my 60D and 6D to about 6MP, bigger than the minimum, but relatively small.  Thoughts?  What do others do?