MicrostockGroup Sponsors


Author Topic: Im ...after 13 years getting the feeling....  (Read 6732 times)

0 Members and 2 Guests are viewing this topic.

« Reply #50 on: November 27, 2017, 03:16 »
+2
Many of if not most of the smaller agencies pay a similar %age of their earnings as larger agencies often more . Low sales are not because of an abusive agency just one that is not very successful. Its a business decision whether its worth keeping or loading content on there. Its a matter of the terms of the site whether you consider them abusive unless its Ok to be abused for enough money.


« Reply #51 on: November 27, 2017, 08:53 »
+2
Many of if not most of the smaller agencies pay a similar %age of their earnings as larger agencies often more . Low sales are not because of an abusive agency just one that is not very successful. Its a business decision whether its worth keeping or loading content on there. Its a matter of the terms of the site whether you consider them abusive unless its Ok to be abused for enough money.

Yes and the big agencies pay me enough for their disrespect and insulting low commission, or I wouldn't do Micro at all. The small don't. Yes of course it's a personal decision for each of us. If the point at the start of this was about years from now, how most of the small ones will be gone, I was agreeing with the people who say it can't happen too soon. I can't support small places that do nothing to add to the industry except drive down the prices.

Look again, 500px 20 votes 5.2, that's not many people and not much money. While SS has 132 people making money and averaging 73 or $365 a month. DOes it make sense to work just as hard for $25 as we do for $365? Do we need to support places like 500px or help them go away? Buyers will still buy and need images, it's not about the place so much.

« Reply #52 on: November 27, 2017, 09:01 »
+3
But why scrap all the effort you put in to uploading there in the first place? Maybe not bother uploading more stuff to those but I can't see any logic in closing accounts with them.

And let's not miss the fact that the sum total of the scores for the four you would abandon (18.7) exceeds the individual scores of 123, Alamy and Pond 5, and accounts for more than 10% of the total of all the scored sites. Between them they account for about 20% of my total stock earnings.

1) Stockholm syndrome, or capture-bonding, is a psychological phenomenon described in 1973 in which hostages express empathy and sympathy and have positive feelings toward their captors, sometimes to the point of defending and identifying with the captors. You defend the people who take advantage of you for low pay and steal from all of us.

2) insecurity/low self-esteem, abuser is  the source of income, abused person is in denial. You support agents that don't deserve our work, because you wasted your time in your desperation for scraps, leftovers and bones, instead of the meat you deserve and earned.

3) The sum total of the wasted effort is less than if these thieves were gone and you make a steady percentage from agents that sold more and dealt with us more fairly than the tiny abusive blood * parasite agencies that drain the entire market into the sewers.

You want a drink of water and someone spits at you, so you defend them and wish the sum total of more spit, would help your thirst. Water is income. You would be better off going to the fountain and streams and avoiding the dribbles and rude mist.

People get angry about website changes, get angry about reviews and complain about slow or no support, then defend sites that pay us "spit" for our work and are abusive. I'll never understand that contradiction. Stop supporting the agencies that take advantage of us! That's more important. 50% of nothing is still nothing. An agency that pays 20 people $20 a month , and the rest of us nothing, is breaking the back of the market for everyone else.

Of course if this whole thing is about supporting 25 agencies that pay $10 a month and that's your way of working, feel free. But never complain again about low sales, partners, search, or anything, because you defend the abusive relationship that these agencies depend on to stay in business. You enable them.

Yeah. Yeah.

You're really going to win people over with nasty insults, aren't you?


« Reply #53 on: November 27, 2017, 14:53 »
+4
But why scrap all the effort you put in to uploading there in the first place? Maybe not bother uploading more stuff to those but I can't see any logic in closing accounts with them.

And let's not miss the fact that the sum total of the scores for the four you would abandon (18.7) exceeds the individual scores of 123, Alamy and Pond 5, and accounts for more than 10% of the total of all the scored sites. Between them they account for about 20% of my total stock earnings.

1) Stockholm syndrome, or capture-bonding, is a psychological phenomenon described in 1973 in which hostages express empathy and sympathy and have positive feelings toward their captors, sometimes to the point of defending and identifying with the captors. You defend the people who take advantage of you for low pay and steal from all of us.

2) insecurity/low self-esteem, abuser is  the source of income, abused person is in denial. You support agents that don't deserve our work, because you wasted your time in your desperation for scraps, leftovers and bones, instead of the meat you deserve and earned.

3) The sum total of the wasted effort is less than if these thieves were gone and you make a steady percentage from agents that sold more and dealt with us more fairly than the tiny abusive blood * parasite agencies that drain the entire market into the sewers.

You want a drink of water and someone spits at you, so you defend them and wish the sum total of more spit, would help your thirst. Water is income. You would be better off going to the fountain and streams and avoiding the dribbles and rude mist.

People get angry about website changes, get angry about reviews and complain about slow or no support, then defend sites that pay us "spit" for our work and are abusive. I'll never understand that contradiction. Stop supporting the agencies that take advantage of us! That's more important. 50% of nothing is still nothing. An agency that pays 20 people $20 a month , and the rest of us nothing, is breaking the back of the market for everyone else.

Of course if this whole thing is about supporting 25 agencies that pay $10 a month and that's your way of working, feel free. But never complain again about low sales, partners, search, or anything, because you defend the abusive relationship that these agencies depend on to stay in business. You enable them.

Yeah. Yeah.

You're really going to win people over with nasty insults, aren't you?

No insults in that piece at all Yada is just pointing out the blindingly obvious

You really should stop with the passive agressive stuff

« Reply #54 on: November 27, 2017, 15:13 »
+3
Many of if not most of the smaller agencies pay a similar %age of their earnings as larger agencies often more . Low sales are not because of an abusive agency just one that is not very successful. Its a business decision whether its worth keeping or loading content on there. Its a matter of the terms of the site whether you consider them abusive unless its Ok to be abused for enough money.

Yes and the big agencies pay me enough for their disrespect and insulting low commission, or I wouldn't do Micro at all. The small don't. Yes of course it's a personal decision for each of us. If the point at the start of this was about years from now, how most of the small ones will be gone, I was agreeing with the people who say it can't happen too soon. I can't support small places that do nothing to add to the industry except drive down the prices.

Look again, 500px 20 votes 5.2, that's not many people and not much money. While SS has 132 people making money and averaging 73 or $365 a month. DOes it make sense to work just as hard for $25 as we do for $365? Do we need to support places like 500px or help them go away? Buyers will still buy and need images, it's not about the place so much.

By this logic you should be exclusive with Istock.

farbled

« Reply #55 on: November 27, 2017, 15:56 »
+2
One of the "small" agencies for me is my number 2 earner out of all the agencies. Small is relative. You can be small and successful.

« Reply #56 on: November 27, 2017, 16:39 »
+5
But why scrap all the effort you put in to uploading there in the first place? Maybe not bother uploading more stuff to those but I can't see any logic in closing accounts with them.

And let's not miss the fact that the sum total of the scores for the four you would abandon (18.7) exceeds the individual scores of 123, Alamy and Pond 5, and accounts for more than 10% of the total of all the scored sites. Between them they account for about 20% of my total stock earnings.

1) Stockholm syndrome, or capture-bonding, is a psychological phenomenon described in 1973 in which hostages express empathy and sympathy and have positive feelings toward their captors, sometimes to the point of defending and identifying with the captors. You defend the people who take advantage of you for low pay and steal from all of us.

2) insecurity/low self-esteem, abuser is  the source of income, abused person is in denial. You support agents that don't deserve our work, because you wasted your time in your desperation for scraps, leftovers and bones, instead of the meat you deserve and earned.

3) The sum total of the wasted effort is less than if these thieves were gone and you make a steady percentage from agents that sold more and dealt with us more fairly than the tiny abusive blood * parasite agencies that drain the entire market into the sewers.

You want a drink of water and someone spits at you, so you defend them and wish the sum total of more spit, would help your thirst. Water is income. You would be better off going to the fountain and streams and avoiding the dribbles and rude mist.

People get angry about website changes, get angry about reviews and complain about slow or no support, then defend sites that pay us "spit" for our work and are abusive. I'll never understand that contradiction. Stop supporting the agencies that take advantage of us! That's more important. 50% of nothing is still nothing. An agency that pays 20 people $20 a month , and the rest of us nothing, is breaking the back of the market for everyone else.

Of course if this whole thing is about supporting 25 agencies that pay $10 a month and that's your way of working, feel free. But never complain again about low sales, partners, search, or anything, because you defend the abusive relationship that these agencies depend on to stay in business. You enable them.

Good god, what nonsense! I scarcely know where to start. Nobody's holding me hostage so the Stockholm syndrome jibe is nonsense; talk about agencies "not deserving our work" applies just as much to iStock and Shutterstock as it does to Deposit Photos, or Feature pics .... how do you determine that they're "deserving"? Istock used to send me 10 times per month what I get now, which hardly speaks of a caring personal relationship; there is no reason to suppose that if I remove all my pictures from agencies that deliver low returns I will get a single sale from anywhere else as a result, and if I do it might be a special 2c sale from IS rather than a 35c sale from DT, what a marvellous achievement that would be: none of the agencies (except Fotolia, who I  subsequently dropped) has ever done anything remotely like "spitting at me". Sure, the terms and conditions have deteriorated in some places, notably on iStock/Getty (which is ironically supposed to be a "good" agency according to the "dump those with less than 10 in the poll concept), but that's not a personal insult.
An agency that pays 20 people $20 a month is not affecting anybody's sales; unless, of course, it is selling 10 millon photos for every cent it pays out .... which is rather what iStock is doing.If it's paying 50c an image and paying out for 800 sales it isn't making the slightest dent in the richer end of the market.
If you're going to avoid being taken advantage of in microstock, then justs avoid microstock pure and simple, because EVERY agency is taking advantage. So if you're still in the micros, stop lecturing against agencies that you aren't in, because characterising low earners as dangerous to your income from the good guys really does sound like a Stockholm complex.

« Reply #57 on: November 27, 2017, 16:44 »
+3
DOes it make sense to work just as hard for $25 as we do for $365?

Most of the work is not agency specific, it's getting and processing the shot. Once the processed shot is in hand then the uploading effort is minimal, in some cases maybe as little as clicking a single button. If the images had to be shot and processed separately for every single agency then the equation would be very different.

« Reply #58 on: November 27, 2017, 22:58 »
+1
Some of these complaints sound like they're from traditional stock photographers in 2004 complaining about RF microstock, and how it was ruining their earnings.

My feeling is that there's a shift going on in the market. Photographers will probably lose out. But there's not much that can be done about it.


« Reply #59 on: November 28, 2017, 09:14 »
+3
Many of if not most of the smaller agencies pay a similar %age of their earnings as larger agencies often more . Low sales are not because of an abusive agency just one that is not very successful. Its a business decision whether its worth keeping or loading content on there. Its a matter of the terms of the site whether you consider them abusive unless its Ok to be abused for enough money.

Yes and the big agencies pay me enough for their disrespect and insulting low commission, or I wouldn't do Micro at all. The small don't. Yes of course it's a personal decision for each of us. If the point at the start of this was about years from now, how most of the small ones will be gone, I was agreeing with the people who say it can't happen too soon. I can't support small places that do nothing to add to the industry except drive down the prices.

Look again, 500px 20 votes 5.2, that's not many people and not much money. While SS has 132 people making money and averaging 73 or $365 a month. DOes it make sense to work just as hard for $25 as we do for $365? Do we need to support places like 500px or help them go away? Buyers will still buy and need images, it's not about the place so much.

By this logic you should be exclusive with Istock.

If you think about what you just wrote, the people who defend iStock are the worst in denial of the problems we face in Microstock. I suppose the other part, I'd agree, exclusives there are making their best money by ignoring all others. I'd bet the same who attack IS and say no one should be uploading there are often defending places like 500px for the commission rate, or saying the small pay from the little places adds up, to something.

Myself, I like the idea of picking the places that make the most for my effort, and ignoring the rest. That's not being an IS exclusive Getty which I detest, and that also means not supporting the parasite sites. More like the middle area that pays. Some people do well with 50 agencies, take what small change we can get. Some seem to like iStock exclusive, because of the favorable commissions and one site to feed.

I know there are others who have a small selection of favorite agencies, in the middle and top, and that's where they work. I find it best for my work or level of efforts.

None of us are held hostage or forced to do this. Why more people don't leave after what I read about the low sales, bad treatment or screwed up policies, I don't know. Why would anyone waste time on Panther or Crestock? $1 a month. Is that really of any value compared to the electricity it takes to upload.  :) And I'd agree with those who say, we are competing against ourself based on price, when we supply places like that. How many years does it take to reach payout?

I do Micro because I want to. If I was as tortured by the agencies and needed money, as some of the posts I read here, I'd quit and do something else. I'm not going to defend a business model that takes advantage of the artists and pays us slave wages.

« Reply #60 on: December 05, 2017, 00:51 »
0
Many of if not most of the smaller agencies pay a similar %age of their earnings as larger agencies often more . Low sales are not because of an abusive agency just one that is not very successful. Its a business decision whether its worth keeping or loading content on there. Its a matter of the terms of the site whether you consider them abusive unless its Ok to be abused for enough money.

Yes and the big agencies pay me enough for their disrespect and insulting low commission, or I wouldn't do Micro at all. The small don't. Yes of course it's a personal decision for each of us. If the point at the start of this was about years from now, how most of the small ones will be gone, I was agreeing with the people who say it can't happen too soon. I can't support small places that do nothing to add to the industry except drive down the prices.

Look again, 500px 20 votes 5.2, that's not many people and not much money. While SS has 132 people making money and averaging 73 or $365 a month. DOes it make sense to work just as hard for $25 as we do for $365? Do we need to support places like 500px or help them go away? Buyers will still buy and need images, it's not about the place so much.

By this logic you should be exclusive with Istock.

If you think about what you just wrote, the people who defend iStock are the worst in denial of the problems we face in Microstock. I suppose the other part, I'd agree, exclusives there are making their best money by ignoring all others. I'd bet the same who attack IS and say no one should be uploading there are often defending places like 500px for the commission rate, or saying the small pay from the little places adds up, to something.

Myself, I like the idea of picking the places that make the most for my effort, and ignoring the rest. That's not being an IS exclusive Getty which I detest, and that also means not supporting the parasite sites. More like the middle area that pays. Some people do well with 50 agencies, take what small change we can get. Some seem to like iStock exclusive, because of the favorable commissions and one site to feed.

I know there are others who have a small selection of favorite agencies, in the middle and top, and that's where they work. I find it best for my work or level of efforts.

None of us are held hostage or forced to do this. Why more people don't leave after what I read about the low sales, bad treatment or screwed up policies, I don't know. Why would anyone waste time on Panther or Crestock? $1 a month. Is that really of any value compared to the electricity it takes to upload.  :) And I'd agree with those who say, we are competing against ourself based on price, when we supply places like that. How many years does it take to reach payout?

I do Micro because I want to. If I was as tortured by the agencies and needed money, as some of the posts I read here, I'd quit and do something else. I'm not going to defend a business model that takes advantage of the artists and pays us slave wages.

Well said.

« Reply #61 on: December 05, 2017, 02:41 »
+1
Some guy over att SS points out that European photographers gets an effective Dl time of 5-6 hours then theyre cut-off giving room for all the Americans. I can personally easily see some sort of a pattern there!..OTOH Laurin living in Vegas also complain over falling sales??

One thing is sure I wouldnt want to try and build some sort of future with todays Micro agencies.
« Last Edit: December 05, 2017, 02:54 by derek »

« Reply #62 on: December 05, 2017, 14:24 »
+1
Some guy over att SS points out that European photographers gets an effective Dl time of 5-6 hours then theyre cut-off giving room for all the Americans. I can personally easily see some sort of a pattern there!..OTOH Laurin living in Vegas also complain over falling sales??

One thing is sure I wouldnt want to try and build some sort of future with todays Micro agencies.

Any proof or just somebody whos seeing a pattern because they want to see one? Show me so I can watch my own or show me proof of the claim. People have been claiming blackout since the map first went live and they sat watching downloads every hour. Remember the software that read live and sent notice as soon as we got a download. Obcessive or what? SS blocked it from slowing down the whole site. How do I watch this and see the Dl getting cut off?

« Reply #63 on: December 06, 2017, 20:39 »
+4
The business has kind of gone full-circle for me. Stock was a cheaper answer for people looking for vector graphics, icons, logos, badges, etc. Now stock is so common-place and recognizable, people don't want stock because they see the same stuff everywhere. I have clients who I design trade show graphics for who are coming to me saying "We need to do a custom photo shoot, we can't show up and have the same image as one of our competitors." 10 years ago it was "Custom shoots are dead, stock is great!"

I expect that trend of more custom work and less stock income to continue. I still submit to stock a little, but at some point (maybe within the next year), I'll have to just stop altogether because it's not worth it anymore. Being a vector guy, the cost of production for me is minimal. I use the same hardware and software I'd need to have for custom design work, so there's no added expense there. But if I were a photographer, and I had to invest in shoots for microstock, I'd have quit by now for sure. I can't imagine it's cost-effective for very many people anymore to sink money into this and have high hopes of a return on that investment.
« Last Edit: December 06, 2017, 20:41 by EmberMike »

« Reply #64 on: December 07, 2017, 13:20 »
0
The business has kind of gone full-circle for me. Stock was a cheaper answer for people looking for vector graphics, icons, logos, badges, etc. Now stock is so common-place and recognizable, people don't want stock because they see the same stuff everywhere. I have clients who I design trade show graphics for who are coming to me saying "We need to do a custom photo shoot, we can't show up and have the same image as one of our competitors." 10 years ago it was "Custom shoots are dead, stock is great!"

I expect that trend of more custom work and less stock income to continue. I still submit to stock a little, but at some point (maybe within the next year), I'll have to just stop altogether because it's not worth it anymore. Being a vector guy, the cost of production for me is minimal. I use the same hardware and software I'd need to have for custom design work, so there's no added expense there. But if I were a photographer, and I had to invest in shoots for microstock, I'd have quit by now for sure. I can't imagine it's cost-effective for very many people anymore to sink money into this and have high hopes of a return on that investment.

You've got it right.

« Reply #65 on: December 07, 2017, 13:27 »
0
Some guy over att SS points out that European photographers gets an effective Dl time of 5-6 hours then theyre cut-off giving room for all the Americans. I can personally easily see some sort of a pattern there!..OTOH Laurin living in Vegas also complain over falling sales??

One thing is sure I wouldnt want to try and build some sort of future with todays Micro agencies.

Any proof or just somebody whos seeing a pattern because they want to see one? Show me so I can watch my own or show me proof of the claim. People have been claiming blackout since the map first went live and they sat watching downloads every hour. Remember the software that read live and sent notice as soon as we got a download. Obcessive or what? SS blocked it from slowing down the whole site. How do I watch this and see the Dl getting cut off?

Oh dear! nope just mentioning it. No big deal and no conspiracy theory. I personally quite agree with the guy though. I'm seeing a pattern there but you and others might not.

« Reply #66 on: December 12, 2017, 17:21 »
+1
No one cares anymore what happens or where this is going because it's so disappointing. Am i right???

What took you so long to figure this out. We might care about ourselves, but the future of stock art is going to be more disappointing forever. There are no rapidly expanding markets like there were in 2007. Now the business is contracting, declining and becoming unprofitable for most of us. That's not doom and gloom, that's facing the facts.

Change and adjust or find something else, don't think that what worked before will work now, that goes for you and Derek and the rest who are stuck in the old days instead of looking for new opportunity in the future, that means change and adjusting.

Jim....trust me. I can adjust very well. I asked that question to get folks to talk and you did. I make peanuts with Micro. I make a very good Living with many,Many other things. you would be surprized. I wrote 10 Years ago that stock cannot be my source of Income. at best it "WAS" 25% Now it's 15%. I simply Moved My priorities to Other things 5 Years ago. Not many have those Options. Im 75 Man. Been On my own since 15 when My dad took Me out of school. I did pretty well. I saw the entire world and 4 EX wives.....LOL Merry Xmas man. If ever near Beverly Hills, we should talk over drinks. I am Famous for my Martinis.

I still own a Major amount of copyrights man. Im doing great.
« Last Edit: December 12, 2017, 17:25 by rinderart »

Tyson Anderson

  • www.openrangestudios.com
« Reply #67 on: December 12, 2017, 17:50 »
+5
Yo this microstock industry is amazing.  I was introduced less than 3 years to an industry where I can shoot what I want, when I want, and make money uploading it from home.  Unstable?  If you say so... after 3 years of working at it part time I'm making thousands of dollars a month and that just keeps going up.  Common sense tells me not to put all my eggs in this basket, but my growth and sales numbers tell me to go all in. 

With all the negativity on the internet, this forum is still where I see the most complaining and negative comments.  Sometimes I wonder about these people complaining and what the percentage of time spent creating new content is compared to time spent complaining on this forum about an industry that is nothing but a great opportunity to work for yourself.

Summary:  Quit wasting time complaining about low sales and start creating content worth selling!

Shelma1

« Reply #68 on: December 12, 2017, 18:17 »
+9
Less than 3 years...yeah, I felt the same way when I was in this less than 3 years. I was making thousands each month and every year my earnings went up. Talk to us in another 3 years.

« Reply #69 on: December 12, 2017, 18:35 »
0
Yo this microstock industry is amazing.  I was introduced less than 3 years to an industry where I can shoot what I want, when I want, and make money uploading it from home.  Unstable?  If you say so... after 3 years of working at it part time I'm making thousands of dollars a month and that just keeps going up.  Common sense tells me not to put all my eggs in this basket, but my growth and sales numbers tell me to go all in. 

With all the negativity on the internet, this forum is still where I see the most complaining and negative comments.  Sometimes I wonder about these people complaining and what the percentage of time spent creating new content is compared to time spent complaining on this forum about an industry that is nothing but a great opportunity to work for yourself.

Summary:  Quit wasting time complaining about low sales and start creating content worth selling!

Exactly!!!




« Reply #70 on: December 12, 2017, 22:56 »
0
Less than 3 years...yeah, I felt the same way when I was in this less than 3 years. I was making thousands each month and every year my earnings went up. Talk to us in another 3 years.

Twice in one day. You've got it. +

Tyson Anderson

  • www.openrangestudios.com
« Reply #71 on: Yesterday at 03:14 »
0
Less than 3 years...yeah, I felt the same way when I was in this less than 3 years. I was making thousands each month and every year my earnings went up. Talk to us in another 3 years.

Hey maybe you're right and I'll learn my lesson.  I still think that if my sales decrease over the years, the least productive thing I could do is get on here and complain.  This website has a lot of knowledge to pick up on about this industry... just so much negativity to look through to find it.

« Reply #72 on: Yesterday at 04:22 »
0
Less than 3 years...yeah, I felt the same way when I was in this less than 3 years. I was making thousands each month and every year my earnings went up. Talk to us in another 3 years.

Hey maybe you're right and I'll learn my lesson.  I still think that if my sales decrease over the years, the least productive thing I could do is get on here and complain.  This website has a lot of knowledge to pick up on about this industry... just so much negativity to look through to find it.
Those three years is money in the bank who knows what will happen in the next three.

« Reply #73 on: Yesterday at 09:46 »
0
Some guy over att SS points out that European photographers gets an effective Dl time of 5-6 hours then theyre cut-off giving room for all the Americans. I can personally easily see some sort of a pattern there!..OTOH Laurin living in Vegas also complain over falling sales??

One thing is sure I wouldnt want to try and build some sort of future with todays Micro agencies.

Any proof or just somebody whos seeing a pattern because they want to see one? Show me so I can watch my own or show me proof of the claim. People have been claiming blackout since the map first went live and they sat watching downloads every hour. Remember the software that read live and sent notice as soon as we got a download. Obcessive or what? SS blocked it from slowing down the whole site. How do I watch this and see the Dl getting cut off?

Oh dear! nope just mentioning it. No big deal and no conspiracy theory. I personally quite agree with the guy though. I'm seeing a pattern there but you and others might not.

I'm just mentioning that you see a pattern and claim others do, but don't show anything of this imaginary pattern. I don't see it, thousands of others don't see it, but you can't stop saying that there's cutting off. You reply therre's no conspiracy? Xfiles does better, with a little sceptical investigation of unsupported claims. What I mean is spreading rumors and lies isn't a very good way to be professional as you claim to be.

Shelma1

« Reply #74 on: Yesterday at 09:51 »
+3
Less than 3 years...yeah, I felt the same way when I was in this less than 3 years. I was making thousands each month and every year my earnings went up. Talk to us in another 3 years.
the least productive thing I could do is get on here and complain.

Yet here you are...


 

Related Topics

  Subject / Started by Replies Last post
7 Replies
2945 Views
Last post February 27, 2008, 18:19
by sensovision
45 Replies
6975 Views
Last post June 30, 2012, 19:08
by oxman
4 Replies
1220 Views
Last post November 23, 2012, 11:35
by oxman
41 Replies
7305 Views
Last post September 12, 2013, 19:20
by cuppacoffee
15 Replies
2408 Views
Last post January 15, 2016, 15:43
by Lana

Sponsors

Microstock Poll Results

Sponsors