pancakes

MicrostockGroup Sponsors


Author Topic: DepositPhotos and Shotshop- standard purchases gives only subscription amounts?  (Read 132416 times)

0 Members and 2 Guests are viewing this topic.

« Reply #475 on: March 14, 2014, 11:08 »
0
I delayed the inevitable since I had a very small portfolio. But, I decided to go ahead with my OPT OUT:
"Please OPT OUT my FULL portfolio (##) with your agency from all your partnership and reseller programs so that my images will be sold SOLELY on depositphotos.com. Please ensure that my images are removed from all Partners and Resellers at the earliest."

Let me see how quickly this gets done.

It took DP almost a month to take me off their partner sites, claiming that it was a 'difficult technical process'.  By comparison, I read another contributor's post that the same thing was done by another agency (DT) promptly and immediately when requested.  We can draw our conclusions from that!

I am sure it will take a similar timeframe for me though I am hoping that it would be quicker (like the reply on the ticket that I received in about 2 hours :)))


Uncle Pete

« Reply #476 on: March 16, 2014, 01:36 »
+26
And the other four or five sites? We don't even know all of them. DP has allowed second parties to pay subscription prices (to us) and those people have re-licensed our images. They did this for a contract or payment or both.

This was done under the table until we discovered it. And now people are happy because they could opt out?

What is wrong with you people. DP just cheated everyone of us, did a back door deal and sold the rights to your images illegally. And now you're happy because you found out and they stopped?

Wait until the next scheme they come up with to screw us and then people will be "happy" to discover and end that one?

This is dishonest business and proves what people have said since the day DP opened. They can't be trusted. But some people are so desperate for some quarters, that they will continue to support agencies that steal and cheat us?

Just absurd and ridiculous. Wake up!


DP pays the photographer a subscription. Nobody knows how much DP gets from Shotshop.

« Reply #477 on: March 16, 2014, 02:13 »
+6
I totally agree with Uncle Pete. As I wrote before, it seems to me just the peak of an iceberg.

« Reply #478 on: March 16, 2014, 03:06 »
+6
Uncle Pete +1

All images deactivated except this one:
http://goo.gl/hF2RTY

« Reply #479 on: March 16, 2014, 04:04 »
0
And the other four or five sites? We don't even know all of them. DP has allowed second parties to pay subscription prices (to us) and those people have re-licensed our images. They did this for a contract or payment or both.

This was done under the table until we discovered it. And now people are happy because they could opt out?

What is wrong with you people. DP just cheated everyone of us, did a back door deal and sold the rights to your images illegally. And now you're happy because you found out and they stopped?

Wait until the next scheme they come up with to screw us and then people will be "happy" to discover and end that one?

This is dishonest business and proves what people have said since the day DP opened. They can't be trusted. But some people are so desperate for some quarters, that they will continue to support agencies that steal and cheat us?

Just absurd and ridiculous. Wake up!

I wish I could give more than one + ......

I think you said everything that should be in latest situation. Some people can't see what is really going on or will accept this absurd. I can't understand why...

@ jarih,
I believe we are professionalists and middle finger is not good or funny now. Why don't you delete your images (account) if you feel bad and write few words (your opinion) about partners sites and re-sellers on your blog? Trust me, this way you'll get to more people. More people will understand your situation and maybe they can use your value informations... more and better than middle finger. I guess...
I think DP doesn't care what you think showing this image. You won't change much this way. Be more creative.
« Last Edit: March 16, 2014, 04:12 by Ariene »

« Reply #480 on: March 16, 2014, 04:17 »
0
And the other four or five sites? We don't even know all of them. DP has allowed second parties to pay subscription prices (to us) and those people have re-licensed our images. They did this for a contract or payment or both.

This was done under the table until we discovered it. And now people are happy because they could opt out?

What is wrong with you people. DP just cheated everyone of us, did a back door deal and sold the rights to your images illegally. And now you're happy because you found out and they stopped?

Wait until the next scheme they come up with to screw us and then people will be "happy" to discover and end that one?

This is dishonest business and proves what people have said since the day DP opened. They can't be trusted. But some people are so desperate for some quarters, that they will continue to support agencies that steal and cheat us?

Just absurd and ridiculous. Wake up!


DP pays the photographer a subscription. Nobody knows how much DP gets from Shotshop.

I am not happy with DP, not at all. They are dishonest!

But its DP (not Shotshot or any other partner or reseller) that pays the photographer the pitiful subscription price!
We simply do not know who much DP gets from their partners. The probably get a normal 50/50 deal.
I think its you who is naive here if you really believe that DP "allowed second parties to pay subscription prices (to us) and those people have re-licensed our images"
« Last Edit: March 16, 2014, 04:21 by a-b-foto »

« Reply #481 on: March 16, 2014, 06:20 »
+8
And the other four or five sites? We don't even know all of them. DP has allowed second parties to pay subscription prices (to us) and those people have re-licensed our images. They did this for a contract or payment or both.

This was done under the table until we discovered it. And now people are happy because they could opt out?

What is wrong with you people. DP just cheated everyone of us, did a back door deal and sold the rights to your images illegally. And now you're happy because you found out and they stopped?

Wait until the next scheme they come up with to screw us and then people will be "happy" to discover and end that one?

This is dishonest business and proves what people have said since the day DP opened. They can't be trusted. But some people are so desperate for some quarters, that they will continue to support agencies that steal and cheat us?

Just absurd and ridiculous. Wake up!


DP pays the photographer a subscription. Nobody knows how much DP gets from Shotshop.

I am not happy with DP, not at all. They are dishonest!

But its DP (not Shotshot or any other partner or reseller) that pays the photographer the pitiful subscription price!
We simply do not know who much DP gets from their partners. The probably get a normal 50/50 deal.
I think its you who is naive here if you really believe that DP "allowed second parties to pay subscription prices (to us) and those people have re-licensed our images"

But this is not the real point. To me the real point is that honestly we, as photographer have what we deserve. Now DP is not the only agency that act unfairly, but is a small earner de facto. A lot of people are scared by Getty because in the end, there they get a lot of money. Their answer is that principle don't feed family and don't pay bills. What I think it's not important and I can get this point, but why DP is so important for a lot of people? Am I missing something? They assure you a lot of money? Really are you so desperate that need this absurd agency? If DP can do this and artists remain with them, then for sure agencies can do whatever they want because they understood that people don't care what happen to their files.
If you find that your accountant has stolen your money, are you happy if he returns a third of the amount? And you'll continue to hold him as your accountant?
What I'm missing why DP is so special?



« Reply #482 on: March 16, 2014, 08:00 »
+3


But this is not the real point. To me the real point is that honestly we, as photographer have what we deserve. Now DP is not the only agency that act unfairly, but is a small earner de facto. A lot of people are scared by Getty because in the end, there they get a lot of money. Their answer is that principle don't feed family and don't pay bills. What I think it's not important and I can get this point, but why DP is so important for a lot of people? Am I missing something? They assure you a lot of money? Really are you so desperate that need this absurd agency? If DP can do this and artists remain with them, then for sure agencies can do whatever they want because they understood that people don't care what happen to their files.
If you find that your accountant has stolen your money, are you happy if he returns a third of the amount? And you'll continue to hold him as your accountant?
What I'm missing why DP is so special?

Absolutely agree! 

Every single stock agency is built on Contributor support - we form the backbone of their business, and without our work there is nothing to sell.

We should stop contributing to any agency that acts in unfair or unethical manner or in a way that is against contributor interest. 

Its a powerful message and can change the dynamics of the business.

We should instead focus on agencies who firmly keep their contributors in mind, and who believe in fair trade and fair play - the future belongs to them and we should be part of that success!

ShadySue

  • There is a crack in everything
« Reply #483 on: March 16, 2014, 08:03 »
+2
We should instead focus on agencies who firmly keep their contributors in mind, and who believe in fair trade and fair play - the future belongs to them and we should be part of that success!
Which agencies do you suggest who meet these criteria and wich can also attract customers and stand up to the demands of big buyers for huge discounts?

« Reply #484 on: March 16, 2014, 08:17 »
+3
We should instead focus on agencies who firmly keep their contributors in mind, and who believe in fair trade and fair play - the future belongs to them and we should be part of that success!
Which agencies do you suggest who meet these criteria and wich can also attract customers and stand up to the demands of big buyers for huge discounts?

Good point. If we assume all agencies do this then we should get out of micro stock. I am not saying they don't act dishonestly or at least try to hide shady deals that while probably defendable in court, would create a sh&t storm of pissed off contributors.  Istock/Getty google deal, DP scam, FT, etc.  I am sure that the list goes on.  Even though DP "fixed" this particular cheater button, I am still on the fence about disabling my port.  The ONLY thing that keeps me from doing that is my financial situation, where I am the sole supporter to two households.  That takes priority over closing accounts that provide me income.  I usually classify a keeper site as roughly $100 a month and DP fits that bill.  If it were Stockfresh I would have just closed my account as I only make $6 a month there.  HOWEVER, my dual household is coming to an end soon and when it does won't be so forgiving (probably not the right words because I don't forgive jack sh*t what DP did and DP as a whole).
« Last Edit: March 16, 2014, 08:30 by Mantis »

« Reply #485 on: March 16, 2014, 08:22 »
0
We should instead focus on agencies who firmly keep their contributors in mind, and who believe in fair trade and fair play - the future belongs to them and we should be part of that success!
Which agencies do you suggest who meet these criteria and wich can also attract customers and stand up to the demands of big buyers for huge discounts?


Should this be a hard one?  :) But some examples from my perspective.

For me, Shutterstock works.  They have a sub based model and they have the volume to justify that rate.  And if I look at the mix there are pretty good OD and occasional SOD etc sales that pump up revenue - the RPD is certainly not the worst I get.  I find DT pretty good too.  Not quite at par to SS but as images climb in ranking I can see pretty good value creation - although wish they hadn't the sub because its not enough volume to justifies that rate.  Then there's a few smaller agencies, like GL - I dont have so much content there but understand that many contributors are happy - although they dont deliver much in sales for me yet.  And I think about Symbiostock more and more .. in the longer run it may be a very good way to go.

Finally .. although I may not agree with EVERYTHING the above agencies do in terms of their business tactics, however I have not had issues with ethical or questionable behaviors - that says a lot to me.

ShadySue

  • There is a crack in everything
« Reply #486 on: March 16, 2014, 08:47 »
+1
We should instead focus on agencies who firmly keep their contributors in mind, and who believe in fair trade and fair play - the future belongs to them and we should be part of that success!
Which agencies do you suggest who meet these criteria and which can also attract customers and stand up to the demands of big buyers for huge discounts?
... And I think about Symbiostock more and more ..
Is Symbio an 'agency'?

« Reply #487 on: March 16, 2014, 08:54 »
+2
 
[/quote]
Is Symbio an 'agency'?
[/quote]

Yes, the content creators own agency.

ShadySue

  • There is a crack in everything
« Reply #488 on: March 16, 2014, 09:05 »
+1

Is Symbio an 'agency'?
[/quote]

Yes, the content creators own agency.
[/quote]

Fair enough.
Thanks for your answers.

« Reply #489 on: March 16, 2014, 10:40 »
+2
Why don't you delete your images (account) if you feel bad and write few words (your opinion) about partners sites and re-sellers on your blog? Trust me, this way you'll get to more people. More people will understand your situation and maybe they can use your value informations... more and better than middle finger. I guess
I agree. I wrote already to editor of local photo magazine if they like to make a story about this view of point of microstocking and of course about the DP. I also wrote the warning for local finnish stock photographers.

You know, in Finland often one word (image) meaning very, very very much.

« Reply #490 on: March 16, 2014, 15:31 »
0
Question from a new person to micro/mid stock photography.

I was approved to submit to DepositPhotos Friday, and as such have no photos online with them yet.

If I Opt out of re-seller and affiliate sales, does that protect me in the future, or is the general consensus that DP is going to find another way to act unethically?

Thanks

Jon



« Reply #491 on: March 16, 2014, 15:41 »
+5
Question from a new person to micro/mid stock photography.

I was approved to submit to DepositPhotos Friday, and as such have no photos online with them yet.

If I Opt out of re-seller and affiliate sales, does that protect me in the future, or is the general consensus that DP is going to find another way to act unethically?

Thanks

Jon
This one time we have discovered the fraud. Be sure that other tricks will follow.

« Reply #492 on: March 16, 2014, 16:56 »
+10

I am not happy with DP, not at all. They are dishonest!

But its DP (not Shotshot or any other partner or reseller) that pays the photographer the pitiful subscription price!
We simply do not know who much DP gets from their partners. The probably get a normal 50/50 deal.
I think its you who is naive here if you really believe that DP "allowed second parties to pay subscription prices (to us) and those people have re-licensed our images"

If you read earlier in this thread, you'll see a contributor posted the text of a reply Shotshop sent him when he applied - that they don't work with microstock photographers. There were other contributors who submit to Shotshop directly who earlier in this thread reported having work rejected as "not suitable" only to find that same work on Shotshop's site but via the DP reseller API

I realize that is circumstantial evidence, but to me it says very clearly that Shotshop does not have clean hands in this deal. And I would point out that many deals with distributors are not 50/50, so I don't think there is a normal. Those of us who have been on the receiving end of these "deals" for a while are not being naive, but circumspect.

And as you point out, we don't know what DP is paid - and you don't know either - but contributors should know about the split between agency and distributor.

Alamy, for example, (a) lets you opt out, albeit only once a year and (b) is up front about the split - 40% for the distributor, 30% for Alamy and 30% for the schmuck who created what's being licensed. I applaud their transparency, but I opted out of distributor deals as it just seemed wrong for the company that did virtually nothing to walk away with the lion's share of the payment.

« Reply #493 on: March 17, 2014, 03:21 »
+2

I am not happy with DP, not at all. They are dishonest!

But its DP (not Shotshot or any other partner or reseller) that pays the photographer the pitiful subscription price!
We simply do not know who much DP gets from their partners. The probably get a normal 50/50 deal.
I think its you who is naive here if you really believe that DP "allowed second parties to pay subscription prices (to us) and those people have re-licensed our images"

If you read earlier in this thread, you'll see a contributor posted the text of a reply Shotshop sent him when he applied - that they don't work with microstock photographers. There were other contributors who submit to Shotshop directly who earlier in this thread reported having work rejected as "not suitable" only to find that same work on Shotshop's site but via the DP reseller API

I realize that is circumstantial evidence, but to me it says very clearly that Shotshop does not have clean hands in this deal. And I would point out that many deals with distributors are not 50/50, so I don't think there is a normal. Those of us who have been on the receiving end of these "deals" for a while are not being naive, but circumspect.

And as you point out, we don't know what DP is paid - and you don't know either - but contributors should know about the split between agency and distributor.

Alamy, for example, (a) lets you opt out, albeit only once a year and (b) is up front about the split - 40% for the distributor, 30% for Alamy and 30% for the schmuck who created what's being licensed. I applaud their transparency, but I opted out of distributor deals as it just seemed wrong for the company that did virtually nothing to walk away with the lion's share of the payment.

I do not have to read that earlier in this thread, I know that from 1st hand experience because I am a Shotshop contributor. Unlike many others in this thread who keep posting things as "facts" that are obviously only specualtion. Some people in this forum sure like their conspiracy theories... I would rather stick to the known facts. But I guess Im the only one...

And just for the record (as I keep getting quoted and misinterpreted):
Im not defending any of the actions of either DP or Shotshop.
I have actually stopped uploading to DP and Im only waiting for my next payout.





Beppe Grillo

« Reply #494 on: March 17, 2014, 04:16 »
0
[]

Just absurd and ridiculous. Wake up!


Completely agree with you.

Wake up, yes, okay.
But then what to do except whining on forums?
Concretely.

« Reply #495 on: March 21, 2014, 11:22 »
0
... These are the sites if you want to check for your photos: Samphotostock, Viewphotos.ru, stock.chroma.pl, dekorowalnia.pl, fototapetygdansk.pl, microfotos.com


I asked DP if this is partner site and here's the reply:

"I have checked the links you sent. Popscreen website (http://www.popscreen.com/... my image) uses your image illegally. We contacted with the website management and warn them regarding a copyright infringement. As for the second link (http://fototapetygdansk.pl... my image) the image is used with Stock Image watermark. The image was stolen from the istockphoto website (www.istockphoto.com) and the image is used illegally as well.
These wesites are not our partners."


You better check this sites out!
« Last Edit: March 21, 2014, 11:26 by Ariene »

ShadySue

  • There is a crack in everything
« Reply #496 on: March 21, 2014, 11:40 »
0
... These are the sites if you want to check for your photos: Samphotostock, Viewphotos.ru, stock.chroma.pl, dekorowalnia.pl, fototapetygdansk.pl, microfotos.com


I asked DP if this is partner site and here's the reply:

"I have checked the links you sent. Popscreen website (http://www.popscreen.com/... my image) uses your image illegally. We contacted with the website management and warn them regarding a copyright infringement. As for the second link (http://fototapetygdansk.pl... my image) the image is used with Stock Image watermark. The image was stolen from the istockphoto website (www.istockphoto.com) and the image is used illegally as well.
These wesites are not our partners."


You better check this sites out!


The Polish site link you gave mapped to their home page, so I couldn't see your image there.
However, having clicked on a few, they all have the white diagonal cross and 'Stock Image' as a watermark, so I don't know how they know for sure they were stolen specifically from iStockphoto - the old iS watermark was iStockphoto with the camera icon, IIRC it certainly wasn't 'Stock Photo'.

« Reply #497 on: March 21, 2014, 12:17 »
0
The Polish site link you gave mapped to their home page, so I couldn't see your image there.

Because I put link to home page not to my image ;)

ShadySue

  • There is a crack in everything
« Reply #498 on: March 21, 2014, 12:51 »
0
The Polish site link you gave mapped to their home page, so I couldn't see your image there.

Because I put link to home page not to my image ;)

Fair enough, but on your own image, was it an iS watermark?
Of course, watermarked images can be stolen from iS; but I wondered why your DP contact said iS.

EmberMike

« Reply #499 on: March 21, 2014, 13:44 »
0
That Polish site has to be a partner. Do a specific search and you get the exact same results on there as you get from Photogenica. Same images, even in the exact same order. Even with identical image numbers.

No way they're not getting those images from DP.



 

Related Topics

  Subject / Started by Replies Last post
8 Replies
5513 Views
Last post January 12, 2013, 16:06
by cardmaverick
0 Replies
5233 Views
Last post March 28, 2013, 13:35
by tomac
41 Replies
21531 Views
Last post April 08, 2015, 14:54
by Noedelhap
12 Replies
7196 Views
Last post March 17, 2016, 12:17
by Noedelhap
5 Replies
5192 Views
Last post January 30, 2016, 13:39
by Chichikov

Sponsors

Mega Bundle of 5,900+ Professional Lightroom Presets

Microstock Poll Results

Sponsors