I haven't heard back anything from stock colleagues yet, but I checked out the site myself, and find it VERY problematic - for starters- specifically, the terms you must agree too to submit images. Below are just 2 clauses that are very troubling:
'COMPANY reserves the right to alter, modify or update these terms of use at any time and you agree to be bound by such modifications, alterations or updates.'
'By uploading content such as image files, Contributor Member agrees to give COMPANY and all users irrevocable nonexclusive royalty-free rights to use the content for any purpose including publication, display, modification, and creation of derivative works.'
These 2 clauses alone tell me that this is NOT a legitimate agency, but rather a giveaway of your images and rights. And clicking on the 'about us' link, and reading the background of the two owners, says to me that this is one of the current scams running.
Some background: In recent years, the two top stock agencies, Getty & Corbis have been buying up smaller agencies to consolidate the market and 'own' all the 'content' (meaning your intellectual property). Mark Getty has been quoted as saying 'intellectual property is the oil of the 21st century'. Numerous small agencies have been bought out for big bucks. And 'bought' is actually not quite acurate though, because agencies do not actually own the photographs they represent (except for those that they contracted out, to be shot under work for hire agreements). What they are buying is the name and the rights to represent that library of images.
As a result, recently, some people have seen this as an opportunity to cash in, and have tried to start stock libraries of their own (with the internet, that is easy to do, unlike in the past). Many experts speculate that these new agency start-ups are being created only with the hopes that they will be bought out by the big two. Looking at the bios of the owners, that is what I suspect here. They have no experience marketing images.
And even if they did, this is clearly a 'royalty free' agency. Meaning: the photographer gets screwed. If you have no experience with stock, there are a few things you need to understand: The most important is the value of your images, over time, to sell repeatedly (with you getting paid EVERY time, based on the useage).
Royalty free schemes go after students & amateurs mostly-- because they tend to not understand the true value of their work, or stock, and/or may just need the money. Often they buy out images at what amounts to pennies on the dollar. One big agency, several years ago, trying to build their royalty free library, offered photographers $25,000 for 100 images (that was 100 images of the agencies choosing, and you can bet they were only choosing the most highly marketable). $25,000 sounds like a lot, and if you were a struggling photographer, you might jump at it (and some did), but in the long run they lost even bigger money. Why? That 25K was a one-time payment for those 100 images.
I have 45 images that are on file with a major agency, and those 45 images, in the last 10 years, have earned me over $200,000. That's less than half the 100 images that I'd have to had sold for that 25K deal - yet I earned almost ten times that amount with them, because I own them and get paid every time they are licenced.
Sorry to go on so long, and hope I don't sound preachy, but these royalty free & microstock schemes tick me off. They are ripping off photographers.
There's a lot to learn about stock - and the industry has been in constant flux for a number of years. But to get a decent background, you can go to:
www.StockArtistsAlliance.org They have a free, downloadable magazine on their site called 'KEYWORDS'. I think there might actually be 2 different issues to download. It's a good way to get started.
That concludes my sermon for today.
