Do any stock photography sites pay 100% of sales out to photographers?

Question

I've come over from Stack Overflow to see if anyone here uses stock photography/microstock sites and knows if any of the many out there currently give 100% of sales to photographers?

Obviously they've got to make money somehow and I know some do monthly subscriptions to photographers to host their images but I can't find any that charge a small upload fee to add images and pay out 100%.

I work for a design agency in Brighton and we recently sourced 7 images for a client for £4K and the photographer only sees something like 20% of this and it seemed a bit unfair.

EDIT: Amending the question, if it were a well used site would you USE a site where you paid a small fee for each photo you upload (either annually or a one off) and kept 100% of the proceeds?

Answer

You will find the larger agencies like Getty are reducing their commissions to photographers, to around 35%.

I know one of the smaller agencies offer a better rate.

Local Stock ## (100% commission)

However I don't know if they actually sell many.

Put it this way, I would rather have images at 35% commission that get sold and shown to a very wide audience around the world than get 100% of a very small UK market.

Check more discussion of this question.

What should one consider before signing contract with a microstock agency like Getty?

Question

Getty has shown interest in some of my images in flickr. This is my first time experience with microstock agencies. I am kind of nervous as well as excited. Is there anything in particular I should know or be aware of before involving in this?

Answer

Well, Getty isn't really microstock, they're probably the king of stock photography in general. The only thing I would be reluctant about with Getty is some recent behavior around their treatment of longtime artistic photographers under contract.

So, I think Getty is counting on good amateur photographers being excited about possibly getting published, maybe earning a little bit for their images, that they're using it as a hammer on people who previously dedicated their work to it. It doesn't speak well for Getty in my opinion.

Check more discussion of this question.