Me. Never regret it.

I still have my crown :-) my Clapper will be gone on Oct.11 As far as I know video's that are at Getty will remain there even after you drop exclusivity. You will drop from 25% to 20% on Getty earnings. Of course I say this tongue in cheek as they can change and do to you whatever they want so nothing is guaranteed! I a still not thrilled with the sub prices at SS so I will keep my photos exclusive at IS for a while as photos are not my main focus. I am thrilled to be offering my full medical collection at SS and Pond5 in October, all of my clips are already loaded, keyworded and approved so all I have to do is flip the switch when my 30 days are up.

On iStock you have written you didn't drop the crown and you are happy to be an exclusive artist. Are you the same Jjneff?

Try 'Fresh Match' with Vetta images. Yuri's fan club.
These guys are not smart, they are not even able to make things in more 'discrete' way.

Stocksy is a newcomer but after almost half year probably most active contributors should have sales.
I like the idea of co-op and all artistic and human approach of this site. But what about a business side?
I'm seriously considering to invest my time and money to participate but is it worth? Do they have any chance to be successful?
Any thoughts after 5 months?

I almost forgot an old typo: rates at the official iStock page (http://www.istockphoto.com/help/sell-stock/rate-schedule) are wrong.  To fix it probably 1 min will be enough as we are talking about not more than 100 characters. This problem is known for at least 2 months. Not very professional.
But what is really incredible for me is this statement, from iStock admin Kevinjay:
"As noted, the info on the Royalty Rate page is incorrect in places. It's a known issue and will be remedied at some point but thus far has not been a priority. If you have any queries about the royalty rates, please contact Contributor Relations." (http://www.istockphoto.com/forum_messages.php?threadid=355808&page=1)
Is my understanding of English wrong or is this guy saying that official website is full of crap but they don't care?

I read topics about impacts of deleting files and especially D-Day. Many good points for both, pro and cons. I understand perfectly people who hesitating.
I propose to create D-Days, on monthly or bi-monthly basis. For example every 13th of each month. Instead of deleting files we have decided to deactivate anyway (for different reasons like protest, quality, better performance on other site etc), we wait and delete them only on one day of the month.
I cannot see any cons. And advantages are there:
- it is not more individual but collective action.
- we can use 'D-Days' term for "our" communication
- sites should monitor different operation. Huge increase of deactivation will remain sites not to go too far
- good for my spiritual health
- costless
 We can start with Fotolia... Are you available on 28th?

I wouldn't be surprised if they work on scripts which include only a fraction of our sales. These guys don't know what ethic means. We have absolutely no possibility to check if we have been correctly paid.
Since last price change I get a third what I used to and their revenues should be much lower too. To balance they should pay us less.

Right Managed, "The unique"
http://www.shutterstock.com/cat.mhtml?lang=en&search_source=search_form&version=llv1&anyorall=all&safesearch=1&searchterm=red+dress+woman&search_group=#id=82713592&src=UahImPGvJ7gjcYle8PWEWw-1-0

Stocksy 1 : 0 Offset
For instance Stocksy looks more attractive IMO. The prices are more affordable, adapted to freelancers pockets.
Exclusivity is a good idea too. Buyers often are considered as idiots. I'm buyer too and don't appreciate the fact that the same product could be find for 100 times less (or rather that I'm paying 100 times more then regular price).
I like Stocky's sustainable approach. I like the fact they accepted photos not 100% matching with theirs standards from contributors, excellent photographers btw, who needed help. Finally a little dose of humanity in stock business.

The key phrase is "founding photographers".  You can be way above black diamond IS and be told "no thanks"  from what I hear.   Which means the "founding photographers" will be given certain advantages.

If I was Bruce I would say 'no thanks' to all contributors, included black diamonds, posted all "exited" "F5" "great news" in iStockapocalypse thread. Is simply disgusting. How these people could participate to this masquerade after what has been done to SjLocke (aka Robin Hood)?

So there is no guarantee it will stop.
What is interesting for me it's that the communication job is now made by Lobo. Lobo is not an iStock  employee, he is a contractor.

Unfortunately I don't think you pulling your content from Istock is going to hurt anyone but yourselves but once again I respect everyone's right to do as they choose and those that do pull their entire collection I applaud.

Jonathan, my relation with my models, professionals and "free" (family, neighbors, friends...) is based on trust. It is very important for me. This was one of the reason to become exclusive at iStock - control of images with people. I knew that there was a risk and I clearly explained this to my models before signing releases. But this risk was limited. Now the risk is huge. I don't what to see people who trusted my suffering because two morons signed a contract they shouldn't. No choice, these images have to be removed before it is too late.

Is it iStock or Getty or both you propose to sue?

Have no idea. Maybe Google or Rebecca. This is why I propose to hire a lawyer. Is his job to find the best (if any) solution.

With IStock you have the problem of class action being banned under the terms. Sending out negative letters about iStock to concerned people at the same time you are suing them might get you into hot water and damage the prospects for court action (I don't know, I'm just pointing out something to think about).

We have numbers. Some people can sent letters others go to court. Be banned from iStock is not scaring anymore. In few month iStock will not be here.

If you are serious, you need to start off by getting a copyright lawyer's advice - which shouldn't be too expensive, if you can get 100 people or so to back you.  They would need to be people whose work had been affected by this, not just anyone.

Yes, this is the idea.
Personally I'm not concerned, I haven't  found my images. But I think we cannot let them do it. I understand a contributor who is vulnerable facing merciless company with an army of lawyers. I understand that alone artist is hesitating to spend xxxxx$ with no guarantee of return. But if 100 people participate, at least we can have an idea what is feasible.
It's a David Goliath case.

@Oxman
Naive? Absolutely not.
I suppose that chances are small but I'm curious to check. Who knows?
What is your estimation of chances we have? Based on what?
Microstock - small gain but many times. Why not small contribution, many times for a noble cause?