I read the whole interview to see if I could find some hint about the "abusers", but I couldn't.  The only abusers I can think of is buyers who infringe license restrictions.

FP is great to hear and implement improvements, and I was happy to read this:

Elena: We are planning to create a new �print� addition to the site and it will certainly require attending trade shows. Most of our exposure is through the Internet, however.

as I suggested it to them.

I am a bit intrigued by this part however:

Q: Can you give me your opinion about prices and percentage for photographers? You are unique in this field. You have the highest commission rates for photographers. It is an amazing 70%, but how can you run this site when you take only 30%?

Elena: Yes we do. However, there is a hidden fee. We add 1000% satisfaction to 30% of all sales. As the market expands, however, we will adjust our business vision to achieve better results.

Does it mean our 70% share will be reduced once the site expands? 

Regards,
Adelaide

Maybe you will be grandfathered in, but I can tell you trade shows aren't cheap.

One statement struck me:

Quote

"What we are realizing is that there are artists who do care to see their work in good hands and there are some who abuse the system. Our effort has been concentrated with helping to promote the artists and eradicate the abusers."

What would those abusers do then? I'm intrigued.

I don't know about FP but I know who they are on SS.
They stuff their vectors like a christmas turkey with hundreds of unrelated images, all for the price of one.

Sorry, I completely forget on this forum. I work to much 

Best regards

And what do you think about offering prints via Featurepics?

I think it's a good idea, as long as the terms are favourable and it's marketed properly.

A comment to the 70% at FP: as a photographer, high commission rates are obviously something I support, and even though the sales at FP are slow, it's always a pleasure to see that the result is real money instead of fractions of monies.

As long as the system (commission, acceptance rate and pricing system) stays as it is, I'm willing to give FP considerably more time than a couple of other agencies who came with great promises, but only pay dimes on the dollar, if anything at all.

Honestly I do not mind anymore so much about the percentage we receive. I earn the most with the agency which gives the photographer the lowest percentage but earn the least with the agency which gives the photographer the highest percentage.  I have been at FP pretty long almost the same time as on IS. But I have not received a payout on FP contrary to IS where I can have more than one payout every month. It seems that we photographers often think. "Wait a moment, the agency receives 80% but we only 20%, that not fair". But they invest a big part of the 80% in marketing and use the money to run the agency. This comes back to us in many more 20% sales.
If DT or StockXpert decided to lower the percentage to 40% and invest the extra 10% they get in marketing, I would not mind.
If I get 90% from one agency and have a sale in a year or a thousand sales from another agency where I only get 10% I definately would choose the agency which gives me only 10%.

Freezing:

Sorry, but I have to disagree.

You are talking about cause and effect here.  You seem to believe that a lower royalty percentage (the cause) leads to higher wages (the effect).  I don't think that it is quite so simple.  You go on to give an example, which includes IS and FP.  You state that IS gives you the highest wages even though it has the lowest royalty (20%) and FP gives you the lowest wages even though it has the highest royalty (70%).

My take on this is quite different.  I believe that IS is one of the highest paying agencies because it was the first in the business.  Being first on the Internet has proven to be key to an industry.  Just take a look at eBay or Amazon.  Plenty of other companies have tried to compete with them, but their names are now linked to their industry.  Whenever you think of online books you probably think of Amazon and whenever you think of online auctions you probably think of eBay.  I think that the same effect is happening with IS.  They were first out the gate and now their name is synonymous with online RF imagery.

Newer companies now have to "entice" contributors with something to get them to submit their images.  Thus, a higher royalty rate is usually part of that "enticement" package.  Would you join a new site if they only offered 20%?  Probably not.  So the newer the site, the higher the royalties (usually).  And the newer the site, the lower the wages earned (usually).

FYI - reply of Elena on the FP forum:

We used the word in the wrong context, sorry. We have had a few cases where
people were STEALING images from somewhere, and then
trying to sell them on our site (or, as I know on other sites as well). We
call such people abusers of the stock photography business.

Adelaide, we won't be reconsidering 70% anytime soon. For some images that were uploaded a long time ago, we are still paying 90%

Elena,

I wished you decided to resume the 90% commission.   

Regards,
Adelaide