Hi folks, I'm wondering if you are not an exclusive member and upload in several sites such as Sutterstock, iStock, Fotolia, Dreamstime, etc. I'd like to hear from you how some stuffs like:

- How are your sells doing in percentage comparing to iStock?
- Have uploaded the same amount of files on all them?
- What is you amount of files average per site?
- What sites are you in and how much of your income in percentage they represent to you?
- What is your favorite you like to use?
- Which one brings you more income?
- etc.

Thanks in advance.

Hey Lisa, thanks a lot for the link and the percentage info. Based on the folks percentage.
I'll calculate mine without the exclusivity percentage, how much I would make if I weren't exclusive. :0)
Of course, it is totally relative, and I think if I decide to give up, it would take more than a year to upload files to other sites and keyword all again and start to sell them well to compensate the quit.
If it is just one or two sites that will give good earnings, I'm not sure if would worth the effort and the risk. ;0)

iStock should allow at least the exclusives to use the rejected files into other sites!

Hi Gostwyck, thanks for your reply and advice I'll stay tunned. ;0)

I have 6-9k images uploaded to different sites. Only 2.5k on IS because of the upload limitation.

Average income %...

IS  2,6K images - income: 27%
SS  6,5K images - income: 25%
FTL   9K images - income: 23%
StockXpert 6,5K images - income: 12%
DT  8,3K images - income: 8 %
All the rest 5%

My favourite is IS. They give the highest RPI, they respect contributors the most and I love the contolled voculabry thing.
DT is the easiest to upload to but their recent too many similar rejections are bothering me a lot. And income is not too much.
SS is great in many factors but I dislike their batch based reviewing system and the fact that mostly new images are selling.
FTL is a great site but they are changing conditions too frequently and usually not for the favour of contributors. Actually their support is non-existing.

If you are looking for an answer about IS exclusivity my answer is definitely YES - go for exclusivity if you are allowed to.

Quote from: lucato on December 22, 2009, 16:58

iStock should allow at least the exclusives to use the rejected files into other sites!

If this clause is in the contract I don't see how it can be legal!    How can Istock legally control an image that they rejected? 

Because you are a "Getty Family" exclusive _artist_ .   Of course they can control how you sell your rejected images royalty free, under the contract terms.

Quote from: tdoes on December 23, 2009, 08:29

How can Istock legally control an image that they rejected?

Serfdom.

fascinating !!

quote :
A freeman became a serf usually through force or necessity. Sometimes freeholders or allodial owners were intimidated into dependency by the greater physical and legal force of a local baron.

That fits ! 

Quote from: sjlocke on December 23, 2009, 09:06

Because you are a "Getty Family" exclusive _artist_ .   Of course they can control how you sell your rejected images royalty free, under the contract terms.

You mean control how you can not sell your rejected images, period, don't you?

I thought the contract specifically states you cannot sell rejected images ANYWHERE, even as RM?

Yes it's bizarre:
"You further agree that any Exclusive Content that is not accepted by iStockphoto and does not form Accepted Exclusive Content cannot be sold, licensed or otherwise made available to purchasers, licensees or other potential users without the prior written consent of iStockphoto. iStockphoto reserves the right to sell non-accepted Exclusive Content through another site or distribution venue determined by it, the compensation for which will be subject to a new rate schedule agreed between the parties"
I guess you can always ask for 'prior written consent' - looks as if you couldn't even sell or give away rejected images privately. As usual, the wording of this iStock legalese is unclear and subjective, but it looks as though rejected images which 'cannot be sold, licensed or otherwise made available to ... other potential users" shouldn't, technically be given to models.
I really, really wish they'd get someone to write their legalese in Plain English. It really shouldn't be a matter for interpretation.

.

The OP doesn't specify what constitutes a big portfolio but here are my numbers:

With 826 files on IS, my largest port
IS � 48%
SS � 18%
DT � 15%
StockXpert � 12%
BigStock � 7%

I am VERY surprised that IS makes up that much of my income. Last year it was around 35%. Wow. I either have to stay independent and get my butt in gear with the other sites, or throw in the towel and go exclusive with IS!

Yes it's bizarre:
"You further agree that any Exclusive Content that is not accepted by iStockphoto and does not form Accepted Exclusive Content cannot be sold, licensed or otherwise made available to purchasers, licensees or other potential users without the prior written consent of iStockphoto. iStockphoto reserves the right to sell non-accepted Exclusive Content through another site or distribution venue determined by it, the compensation for which will be subject to a new rate schedule agreed between the parties"
[/quote]

I guess that's another reason why I won't consider becoming exclusive with Istock at this time with the contract clause stating a rejected file is still an exclusive file for them.