Fortunately.. I pulled my little port from there a while back.

I can "what if" all day long. Would you if iStock did the same? Would you if Gettys did not allow you to Opt out? Would you if Corbis bought Dreamstime and made it a full sub site? Insert whatever scenario you will.

If what you do with your images make sense to you.. then do it.

Micro is killing Macro... did you stop uploading then?

Subs are Killing Micro...now what?

SS will never offer exclusivity because they lack the technical structure to support it and have seemingly little interest in ever updating the website in any way. They still can't even get vector and JPG versions of an image on the same page. I have serious doubts that they have the capability to overhaul the site to the extent required to divide contributors into exclusive and non-exclusive groups, adjust payment schedules accordingly, tag images as exclusive, etc. That plus I doubt they would want to invest the money in it and I even wonder if they have the technical ability to do this sort of an upgrade at all.

I wouldn't hold my breath on an SS exclusive offering, and even if it did happen I doubt they will offer the $1+ per DL that a lot of people would require to make it financially feasible to go exclusive.

Exclusive or non-exclusive by photo. When they fix the JPG / vector problem it would be a natural fit to add one more category at the same time.

Asking for people to be agency exclusive wouldn't make sense for the SS program.

I really can't understand the whole point of exclusivity in microstock: the basic idea of royalty free is that the same pictures will sell over and over - who cares if a picture is exclusive to a site?

I don't see what's hard to understand. Having a large collection of exclusive images is what sets Istock apart from all the other microstock sites. It is their main selling point. 'You can't get what we have at other sites.' Surely you can understand why some photographers would want to be exclusive? Less time uploading, higher commission, better search placement, more opportunities, etc. What's so difficult to understand?

You can only reliable sell what you can reliably control, so I'd be ok with all agencies having exclusive content, but thats where the exclusivity needs to end - at the content level. Photographer exclusivity isn't a very good idea from the producer perspective, that opens you up to abuse, keeping exclusivity at the content level mitigates the abuse risk.

Even if the agency isn't "abusing you" - being exclusive on the photographer level is too restrictive. I hate the thought of not being able to sell at other agencies penetrating new markets because I was chained by a contract. There are also the questions about the long term viability of the agency your exclusive with as a photographer. Yes, if your holding tight at 4 agencies and one sinks, you could be in trouble, but at least you are free to find another opportunity, thats not so easy if you signed the Istock exclusive contract.

Even if the agency isn't "abusing you" - being exclusive on the photographer level is too restrictive. I hate the thought of not being able to sell at other agencies penetrating new markets because I was chained by a contract. There are also the questions about the long term viability of the agency your exclusive with as a photographer. Yes, if your holding tight at 4 agencies and one sinks, you could be in trouble, but at least you are free to find another opportunity, thats not so easy if you signed the Istock exclusive contract.

Where are these new markets? If I was looking for new markets it wouldn't be in Micro.  All I see is bunch of sites with same material competing for the same customers. Not worried about one of the big 4 sinking, if it happened, customers would just buy from another site. What eats me up inside is: If I strongly disagree with the way a certain top 4 company runs their business, I can't leave because of the money. No one knows what it's going to be like down the road. Maybe it will just be a everything is "free" lets make money off ads, as some have mentioned. If that happens, we're all screwed.  If Istock decides they want to stop taking care of their own, they will lose what makes them the best site out there. If I had to place a bet right now on which site would be the last one standing, it would be a no-brainer.

As far a "dead" images go, If it's a good image, just fix it, or upload another one from the same series.

Another thing, This talk about the future and "free images", make money from ads. It reminds me of Music and MP3.com. At the turn of the Century MP3.com was giving away free music and paying contributors by the download. I think I remember it being like 5 cents a download. It was possible to make money, I think at one point I was making a couple hundred bucks a day in downloads and others were making a lot more. Short lived though, The big 5 music companies didn't like this so much, so Universal bought out MP3.com. I wonder if the same thing will happen with the free image sites? I'm sure Getty, Corbis, etc...don't like the sound of this. Plus, you really must like money to be the flag bearer for this venture.