The Getty strategy of slowly trying to bring things back to Trad/normal, isnt working either and mainly because the majority of their old style photographers are ofcourse joining the rf, micro industry. They really havent got much option.

Actually one of the reasons I think their strategy isn't working because of the very reason Bruce started iStockphoto in the first place, and the other is because Shutterstock opened a few years later and started the subscription model, which ruined the industry for ever. As you know many of the 'trads' blame iS for the demise, I don't deny it was a major factor but IMO it was Jon and SS that killed the industry for contributors with no attempt to get it back, you can't say that about iS.

The maybe there's hope for it.  I'll give it to the end of October if it hasn't cleared I'll email them.

Anita, if you haven't already done so just email them, they have the most friendly support staff of any agency you'll find, you may get a standard reply but at least you will have highlighted it.

My best advice for anybody on Alamy is ignore any figures, the only figure that matters is your 'cleared balance' figure because that's what you're getting.

As for the person that asked why sales are reported before they've paid, it's because many of the images on Alamy are RM, if you have a sale reported that's then cancelled it gives you some knowledge to help manage your RM portfolio and know what, where and how an image has been used legitimately and to follow up on any infringers you may find.

FTR over recent years Alamy have significantly improved their procedures on chasing up payments, it use to be horrendous believe me.

Easy to understand but impossible in reality.  It would be nice if we all left the lower paying sites and the buyers moved with us and bought as many images on sites that charge more and pay us more.  That's not going to happen.  Even if it did, we might end up on 1% commission and earning less than we do now.

And this is why as a business you are and will make less and less money year on in microstock, not just you but a lot of people myself included. And earlier on you blamed Getty for copying the Shutterstock business model, can you really blame them when so many contributors are saying how great it is there.

'Sell more Pay less to make the minions happy and us rich' and by point of this whole thread 'every once in a while send out a bulk email telling them Thanks'

I understand your point, but it really isn't that simple.  If every thousand sales I get on SS was on Istock or FT then I probably wouldn't get most of them at all because Istock and Fotolia's searches are so jerry rigged.  Not to mention IT issues. 

At least my customers can FIND my stuff on Shutterstock.  It isn't shoved way to the back behind every Exclusive, BS infinity collection, serial uploader, etc. and dozens of other criteria designed to boost the site's profits with no regard to consistency or customer needs. 

I am certainly no "fanboy" (or girl) but I do appreciate the fact that Shutterstock has managed to run their business so sensibly.  You can disagree with their business model, and I understand why you would, but at least they have run it competently and without lowering conditions for contributors.  That bears acknowledging, IMO. 

PS- I agree about supporting the smaller sites too.

We could discuss other sites issues all day and each person would have a different opinion, and I certainly understand why you like SS as do others, but to put things on a level perspective Shutterstock is certainly not without faults, there have been numerous bugs, problems with the search, photos 'disappearing' after upload etc etc
And although you may not acknowledge it, their search is rigged the same as every other site, but it just so happens it's rigged in your favour (and mine and every other 'high end' contributor) so you therefore don't see it as a problem.

I agree SS has been run sensibly which is why Jon has just pocketed a huge amount of money, they may not have 'lowered conditions for contributors' but in return they haven't increased commissions for many many years at a time when clearly they were making huge profits and the business was increasing.

In short SS is the same as every other site, their intention is to make as much money as possible through our images, they've succeeded in doing so by selling more of our stuff whilst giving us the least.

Oh and I don't actually advocate 'supporting the smaller sites', I'm not trying to support anyone other than myself, I'm doing this as a business. I just want the highest number of sales at the highest RPD I can get, and to a certain extent I don't really care how they treat me, I'm not doing this for a warm cuddly feeling, I'm doing it for money.

So....  What we need is the prices at DT, with their exclusive commissions coupled with SS volumes.  Let's all go exclusive with DT and the buyers will follow.

(Only half joking) 

You say you're half joking but yes actually that's pretty much it, except for the exclusive bit obviously, because then they'd have a monopoly and we'd all be stuffed.

As I said earlier I don't expect things to change, I just wish people to stop kissing up to a site that actually pays them the least, makes them look stupid but hey it's a free world.

You get 750 images for 249 dollar. So SS closes their door and then buyers go to another site. Where they pay, what, 7500 dollar for those 750 images. Do you really think they still download those 750 images. Every month?

No, SS has so many DLs is because its cheap, so people download more. Even bloggers who need an image can afford it. Ask them 50 times more for the same image and they will either go to Flickr or shoot photos themselves.

I'll give you an answer when you can show me you understand the business, which at the moment you haven't, sorry. For instance the DT subscription package is $240 (actually �149 because I'm in the UK) for 750 images not $7500. Also if you could give me the details of one single blogger that pays $249 to get images for their site that would be handy.

not that I don�t agree in/at some point but it seems quite impossible to see SS closing doors no? (making your analysis irrelevant)

not to mention that our rpd is going up, in my case not far from FT, DT, 123RF (etc etc)

AND already on the same level as IS considering PP sales

No I don't think SS will close it's doors anytime soon, but I wish it did. By your very own statement (which tells me you understand what I mean) if every 1000 downloads you had on SS was transferred to another site you'd make more money, hence I struggle to understand why SS has so many 'fanboys'.

Yes SS makes people lots of money, but the buyers that go there aren't doing it for fun they're doing it because they need that many images, if SS closed they'd still need those images but they'd have to go to a site that pays us more for them. The basic fundamental for any business is to get the most profit from your product, I've never understood the folk who cheer on the site that gives us the least?

Is there some advertising initiative going on...............

I doubt it, I may be wrong but I think they're waiting for the 'second coming' or whatever their latest excuse is for not doing any marketing.

Lisa I can only imagine that your 'sales success' there is connected to a freak miracle whereby someone somehow stumbled upon the Stockfresh site by accident, I hope it continues for you but I'm guessing you'll be back with the rest of us (i.e. pathetic sales figures) that were taken in by their initial hype and now can't be bothered to waste the time to delete our stuff.

Do you not deal in hypotheticals?

I'd rather not for fear of someone resurrecting their 'brick from building' irrelevant scenario!

(there is a legal thing whereby it's whether someone else would agree that someone in an image was 'you').

Yes that the 'third party identity' I referred to earlier when I said about people being confused over 'if they can recognise themselves in a photo', and the very reason we, in this country, use it. It gets more complicated but I'm not going to start that discussion off.

Quote from: RT on October 03, 2012, 03:32

I bet if you ask a number of microstock contributors what the law is regarding 'recognisable person' they'll reply along the lines of "if you can recognise yourself in a photo......." which is complete and utter rubbish as a lot of countries have the 'third party' requirement.

In fact, the release protects you also from the third party requirement. There's a photo on iStock (at least it was, I can't even remember which it is now) with a woman who looks just like me from the back: hair, shape and way she is sitting. Both my husband and sister were sure it was me. I'm equally sure that the contributor didn't sneak a photo of me and put a different jacket onto me and paste me into a place I've never been. However, in the event of some sort of claim, the release would help show that it wasn't 'me' in the photo.
Though I have to say, I've always wondered what would happen if a claim came to court and the model who had signed the release couldn't be found (moved on, new address/phone/email).

That's not the 'third party' requirement I was referring to, I was referring to 'third party identity' like we have in the UK.

But I'm confused by your scenario, if it isn't you and you know it isn't you why would you be taking the photographer or agency to court? And if a 'claim came to court and the model who signed the release couldn't be found' who's making the claim?

Hi!  87K images, Youre not kidding are you?  and exclusive to Alamy. Dangerous game to play.

You strike me as someone who's been in traditional stock for a while, check out his portfolio, do you think he has a choice about being exclusive to Alamy!

For me Dreamstime was the biggest drop, down over 30% from the same month last year in both download numbers and revenue.

@RT. Congratulations, your last post to ShadySue is a remarkable improvement on your previous sweeping statements about "no law", with replacing it with "no standard" law. Else your statement was like:
"There are no law and no international law about throwing bricks from high buildings. Tell me why I may not throw bricks from the Empire State."
Model Releases are not governed by a law on its own (like throwing bricks of high buildings). These releases falls under the bigger umbrella of the right to be treated with integrity and the right to privacy.
Examples: http://www.usconstitution.net/constfaq_q113.html (if you are American) and you will find in every country Acts and Common Law (you can look it up yourself, a forum is not suited to summarize 500 page textbooks).
Your newly found insight in your last post did a lot taking the humor out of your previous legal outspokenness.   

No no congratulations to you for an (flawed) attempt to save face. I would go as far to say I'm glad you've finally got it because you said "Model Releases are not governed by a law on its own", but your 'brick' law comment clearly indicates that you haven't.

FTR I haven't replaced my "no law" with "no standard law" so I'll say it again there is no law (international or otherwise) on model releases. And if you read what I said again you'll see I was saying there is no standard definition of a model release or when one is required.

"There are no law and no international law about throwing bricks from high buildings. Tell me why I may not throw bricks from the Empire State."

Ummm whilst I do not admit to being an expert, could I point out to you that there probably is no 'Throwing bricks from high buildings' law, and you could go ahead and throw a brick from the Empire State - however the very act of doing so may mean you have broken other laws, but you wouldn't be charged under the 'Throwing bricks from high buildings' law you'd most likely be charged for: 'Illegal Trespass' if you weren't meant to be there, 'Assault' if your brick hit someone causing them injury, 'Criminal damage' if it landed on a car or other building and 'Theft' if it wasn't your brick. But if it was your brick, you had permission to do so and it landed nice and safely there's no law to stop you, in fact builders around the world do it each and every single day I expect.

I really can't put it any clearer than that, there is no 'model release law' or 'selling photos of people for commercial use law' international or country specific, but there are many laws that may cover the consequence of doing so, because of that photo agencies try to safeguard themselves by setting up their own policies and uploading rules along with putting the onus on the buyer, but these are not law just their opinion - hence they differ from agency to agency.

My whole reason for replying to Shadysue in the first place was because I feared she'd fallen into the trap that a lot of people do by taking what a certain agency has said about model releases and deeming that to be law, it isn't, I bet if you ask a number of microstock contributors what the law is regarding 'recognisable person' they'll reply along the lines of "if you can recognise yourself in a photo......." which is complete and utter rubbish as a lot of countries have the 'third party' requirement. The best and only advice that any contributor needs is - If you don't fully understand about model/property releases just comply with the requirements for the individual agency you're uploading to at the time and ignore that it may be different to another one.