pancakes

MicrostockGroup Sponsors


Author Topic: DepositPhotos and Shotshop- standard purchases gives only subscription amounts?  (Read 132482 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

« Reply #325 on: February 26, 2014, 15:49 »
0
So after one week agent sent a mail about deactivation. As i had there $14 he will transfer it to my buyers account and close the contributor one. Another one bites the dust....


« Reply #326 on: February 26, 2014, 17:38 »
0
How did U do this?!  :o

I got that answer: "As for the withdrawal, you may withdraw payments for the sale of your images once the balance in your account reaches $50 or more. It is technically impossible to withdraw less."
So I must wait this stupid $4 (drop by drop)...

« Reply #327 on: February 26, 2014, 18:55 »
+1
Yea, sure technically impossible... I find that hard to believe with the use of computers.
« Last Edit: February 26, 2014, 19:07 by DonLand »

« Reply #328 on: February 26, 2014, 20:17 »
0
I've been pondering and wondering what to do next with DP like everyone else and also have been fed a constant diet of subs at .30 each when low and behold an EL pops out of the blue.

Feb.26, 2014 EL  Credits $31.68 $0.00 $31.68

I have asked to be removed from the api and partner programs which I trust will happen soon.  Other than that I've decided to stay at DP and see if they'll get things sorted out.

« Reply #329 on: February 27, 2014, 02:02 »
+2
How did U do this?!  :o

I got that answer: "As for the withdrawal, you may withdraw payments for the sale of your images once the balance in your account reaches $50 or more. It is technically impossible to withdraw less."
So I must wait this stupid $4 (drop by drop)...
I received the same mail, but I replied, that I deactivated all my images and there will be no more sales. So I asked them again to send me the money. The next mail came with information that they can transfer it to my buyers account if I wish so. So I send them ID and that was it. They replied it will be done shortly.

« Reply #330 on: February 27, 2014, 21:07 »
+15
I've read this entire thread from start to finish, and I must say I'm astonished by the actions of Deposit and ShotShop.  I don't have any personal involvement because I'm exclusive iStock/Getty, but I'd like to add my commiserations to all those affected by this situation.

It seems to me inconceivable that Deposit could not have known that photographers were being fleeced by this deal.  And it also seems very unlikely indeed that they would have entered into this arrangement if there wasn't some significant financial benefit to Deposit.  There is certainly massive financial incentive for ShotShop who appear to be actively selling photographer's work knowing that they are paying hardly any compensation to those photographers.

Extraordinary and unacceptable behaviour.

« Reply #331 on: February 27, 2014, 21:17 »
+5
I've read this entire thread from start to finish, and I must say I'm astonished by the actions of Deposit and ShotShop.  I don't have any personal involvement because I'm exclusive iStock/Getty, but I'd like to add my commiserations to all those affected by this situation.

It seems to me inconceivable that Deposit could not have known that photographers were being fleeced by this deal.  And it also seems very unlikely indeed that they would have entered into this arrangement if there wasn't some significant financial benefit to Deposit.  There is certainly massive financial incentive for ShotShop who appear to be actively selling photographer's work knowing that they are paying hardly any compensation to those photographers.

Extraordinary and unacceptable behaviour.

This is what I have stated in some form a couple of times in this tread. Good portfolios being removed have to somehow hurt them. I agree wholeheartedly that DP knew exactly what they were doing and that they were SCREWING contributors. There's nothing innocent here. Pure * greed.

Ron

« Reply #332 on: February 28, 2014, 06:23 »
+21
I have been waiting for them to fix the keyword issue where compound keywords are split up in their editor. They have been telling me for 9 months it would be fixed, today they told me it would take another few months which is just a blatant lie. I had a backlog of 700 images but they dont care. Today I told them I am done. Mainly because of their sheer disrespect for contributors and this mess with Shotstop. Deactivated all but one and requested removal from all partners.

I am keeping my account open, because I dont trust them and so I can keep an eye on my images and 1.53$ balance, since they wont delete them from their servers ever.

I left this image online. A fitting image if you ask me.


« Reply #333 on: February 28, 2014, 06:25 »
0
Well done ;D

+1

StockPhotosArt.com

« Reply #334 on: February 28, 2014, 06:49 »
+3
Deactivated all but one and requested removal from all partners.

You are aware that they keep full resolution of the files you deactivate for "statistics only".

I think this is a far more serious issue than Shotshop since they keep the full-resolution of the file when for the intended use an x-small size would do.

Considering that they have deals with distributors that we never heard off, or find one and think that a site distribute FL, 123RF or another agency we may end having our images sold without our consent and DP keeping 100% of the sale.

I'm not saying that this happens or will happen, but the risk is HUGE!

Ron

« Reply #335 on: February 28, 2014, 06:59 »
+4
I am aware, but they dont delete them upon request either. So I better deactivate them and keep an eye out, rather than close my account.

Same happened on DT. I deactivated all my images about 18 months back, asked them to delete my images and close my account and keep the 11 dollar. They closed my account. 2 weeks ago I wanted to open a new account but I couldnt do that with my usual email address. Said privileges were revoked. I asked them to reset my email address and low and behold, all my images and money were still there. Wonderful isnt it.

« Reply #336 on: February 28, 2014, 08:40 »
+10
Deactivated all but one and requested removal from all partners.

You are aware that they keep full resolution of the files you deactivate for "statistics only".

I think this is a far more serious issue than Shotshop since they keep the full-resolution of the file when for the intended use an x-small size would do.

Considering that they have deals with distributors that we never heard off, or find one and think that a site distribute FL, 123RF or another agency we may end having our images sold without our consent and DP keeping 100% of the sale.

I'm not saying that this happens or will happen, but the risk is HUGE!

THIS is the way in which we all get hosed.  I am sure it says something to this effect in their fine print that they keep hi-rez files in perpetuity for some legal xyz reason, but the true intent is more than obvious. And I want to reiterate to viewers of this thread, "WHERE ARE YOU DP? WHY ARE YOU NOT TRYING TO SHOW YOUR LEGITIMACY IN THE MS WORLD BY BEING A GOOD CONTRIBUTOR STEWARD AND COMING IN HERE TO DISCUSS THIS ISSUE?" Unfortunately, we know the answer. Simply pathetic.

Beppe Grillo

« Reply #337 on: February 28, 2014, 08:58 »
+3




This is great Ron :)

We could all make a similar image and give it for free on Depositphoto
And of course disable all our other images


« Reply #338 on: February 28, 2014, 10:15 »
+16
Showing solidarity of spirit with a deactivated file from IS :)


lisafx

« Reply #339 on: February 28, 2014, 11:04 »
+1
Awesome photos!  Ron, yours has a timeless quality.  The clothes and hair almost look like they are from the 1940s. Great choice to go black and white! 

JoAnn, you have some serious stones to have posed for that and uploaded to your own account.  Being in microstock, you must have plenty of opportunities to use it!  ;D
« Last Edit: February 28, 2014, 11:07 by lisafx »

« Reply #340 on: February 28, 2014, 11:12 »
0
Few days ago I was thinking of taking that photos... I completly don't know why it comes to me when I think of this partners sites, re-sellers, secret lists of them, percent for us, $ for us, and all this cheap sh*t...

Ron

« Reply #341 on: February 28, 2014, 11:15 »
+1
Awesome photos!  Ron, yours has a timeless quality.  The clothes and hair almost look like they are from the 1940s. Great choice to go black and white! 


Thank you Lisa, unfortunately it hardly ever sold. I think it got some exposure on 123RF, but it wont sell properly across the board. Dont know why. I thought it would be useful for a lot of present day issues, and problems.

« Reply #342 on: February 28, 2014, 12:26 »
+1
JoAnn, you have some serious stones to have posed for that and uploaded to your own account.  Being in microstock, you must have plenty of opportunities to use it!  ;D

I'm shameless!!

I have pictures of my face with seborrheic dermatitis and bell's palsy; I've found my images in ads for Xanax and showing how well I'm doing after my heart attack (I was gardening in the image and the visiting nurse service apparently helped me a lot). But many of the micros wouldn't take the "bird" image - too rude :)  iStock was OK with it and I had a note saying any buyer who wanted the English (two finger) version to site mail me :)

w7lwi

  • Those that don't stand up to evil enable evil.
« Reply #343 on: February 28, 2014, 13:10 »
+3
Showing solidarity of spirit with a deactivated file from IS :)




What an appropriate location for the iStock watermark.  You couldn't have planned it any better.

« Reply #344 on: February 28, 2014, 14:55 »
0
What an appropriate location for the iStock watermark.  You couldn't have planned it any better.

 ;D ;D ;D

« Reply #345 on: February 28, 2014, 16:11 »
+4
Reading everything today, I am at page 14 now and what do I see right between Uncle Pete and Pixarts comments?

Earn royalties with Depositphotos. Get started!

Funny! But Leaf cannot put this elsewhere in a Whoojay for DP topic I suppose ;D

A few months ago I was looking if I could find another agency to submit to and I searched the MSG forum to find info about Depositphotos. It costs me some time to find out, but what I found about their actions in the past made me decide not to deal with them.
And now I am glad I did not! And I am sure I never will in the future too. What a mess!
Hopefully for all of you this turns out well.

A quality label for agencies is a good idea, as it is very difficult for new contibutors to find out if an agency is a bit trustworthy or not. We should have a database here on MSG with info about every agency. Their rules and their behaviour. Only facts of course. Things like this should be documented and remembered.

lisafx

« Reply #346 on: February 28, 2014, 17:09 »
0
JoAnn, you have some serious stones to have posed for that and uploaded to your own account.  Being in microstock, you must have plenty of opportunities to use it!  ;D

I'm shameless!!

I have pictures of my face with seborrheic dermatitis and bell's palsy; I've found my images in ads for Xanax and showing how well I'm doing after my heart attack (I was gardening in the image and the visiting nurse service apparently helped me a lot). But many of the micros wouldn't take the "bird" image - too rude :)  iStock was OK with it and I had a note saying any buyer who wanted the English (two finger) version to site mail me :)

Hilarious!   Shameless are the best kind of models.  :D

lisafx

« Reply #347 on: February 28, 2014, 17:10 »
0
Awesome photos!  Ron, yours has a timeless quality.  The clothes and hair almost look like they are from the 1940s. Great choice to go black and white! 


Thank you Lisa, unfortunately it hardly ever sold. I think it got some exposure on 123RF, but it wont sell properly across the board. Dont know why. I thought it would be useful for a lot of present day issues, and problems.

Weird!  I would think it would sell like hotcakes.  Some of my favorites don't sell much either.  I have concluded that most buyers don't share my sense of humor. 

« Reply #348 on: March 01, 2014, 08:13 »
+16
Today I got a personal message. It seems that what I wrote about a quality label for agencies can be misunderstood, so Ill try to explain a bit:

What I meant with quality label was a list with basic information about every specific agency and info added about problems contributors had with them.
No personal opinions, only facts.

Like with Istock:
This is the agency.
This are the rules.
Prices can be found here. (link)
This is the submitting system. (No FTP, info about Deepmeta)
(That kind of things)
And added:
In 2010 they cut commissions this and that way.
In 2012/2013 contributors discovered. (some info about the Google deal)
Discussions can be found here: (links)

Same with Depositphotos:
Basic info about the agency.
Added:
In 2014 contributors discovered that for standard licenses that are sold at Reseller sites like Shotshop for higher prices then DP does, DP only pays out subscription amounts.  Sometimes this is only 1 percent of the original sale. Opting out from Partner sales is not a solution, for DP says a Reseller is not a Partner. DP also says resellers has the right to set their own prices. Contibutors say that reselling licenses for standard or subscription prices is against the agreement.
Discussion can be found here: (link)

No rating, no votes, only facts.
Things that are published in such a list must be indisputable. No personal opinions.
People can decide for themselves if they want to join such an agency or not, based on facts. But this way they are able to easy find the facts.

Now it is often difficult to find enough information. It costs time to search the forum and the internet, read the discussions etc. Not everything people are saying about an agency is true. The anonymous voting system can be cheated. You have to weigh all the opinions. The negative experience one person has is not something you can publish as a fact about the behaviour of an agency. Often there is simple miscommunication or something like that.
Agencies that doesnt have  such behaviour qualifies themselves automatically on such a list, for there are no added comments...



Ron

« Reply #349 on: March 01, 2014, 08:39 »
0
Collete, I was thinking out your idea last night when in bed. Been sick all week with a viral infection. I had the same suggestions as you just typed up. Just a summary of their terms and conditions and pros and cons. Maybe add a scorecard to that and then let people decide for their own if they want to join.

All you need is a domain, a wordpress site and someone to maintain it.

I did a list once which is something similar to what you just wrote. http://semmickphoto.com/2013/06/19/top-8-microstock-agencies-explained/

I think your idea deserves a thread on its own.


 

Related Topics

  Subject / Started by Replies Last post
8 Replies
5514 Views
Last post January 12, 2013, 16:06
by cardmaverick
0 Replies
5236 Views
Last post March 28, 2013, 13:35
by tomac
41 Replies
21539 Views
Last post April 08, 2015, 14:54
by Noedelhap
12 Replies
7198 Views
Last post March 17, 2016, 12:17
by Noedelhap
5 Replies
5194 Views
Last post January 30, 2016, 13:39
by Chichikov

Sponsors

Mega Bundle of 5,900+ Professional Lightroom Presets

Microstock Poll Results

Sponsors