pancakes

MicrostockGroup Sponsors


Author Topic: Dissolve debacle. So far, my clips are at $79. Anybody got slushed to $49?  (Read 60572 times)

0 Members and 2 Guests are viewing this topic.

Daisy

« Reply #25 on: August 02, 2015, 14:24 »
+4
Glad I trusted my instincts and didn't upload there then. Does anyone have a copy of their contract terms that they can post? Without signing up you don't really get access to it.

I don't understand how they can just change something as huge as that and not have to release people.

It's called greed. Dissolve is on a dive to the bottom and they just want to grab as much cash on the way as they can.

DO NOT UPLOAD TO DISSOLVE!


« Reply #26 on: August 02, 2015, 14:27 »
+1
Glad I trusted my instincts and didn't upload there then. Does anyone have a copy of their contract terms that they can post? Without signing up you don't really get access to it.

I can tell you right away that there is something along the lines of "Dissolve may amend product pricing at its discretion at any time for any or all product submitted to Dissolve"
and that by reading the "Term and Termination" section, there are ways that you can terminate your contract by means of a written notice.
"Ceasing to carry business" seems rather nice.There are ways to forcibly terminate your contract if you want to go all out but for the time being i will not post the terms of the contract although you may guess what these might be.

ShadySue

  • There is a crack in everything
« Reply #27 on: August 02, 2015, 14:33 »
+2
^^ is the contract secret? Surely not.
I see that there is quite a lot of easily-available info about unfair contracts in British Columbia; not so much for Alberta, but those directly affected might like to check this out more closely.

« Reply #28 on: August 02, 2015, 14:42 »
+1
^^ is the contract secret? Surely not.
I see that there is quite a lot of easily-available info about unfair contracts in British Columbia; not so much for Alberta, but those directly affected might like to check this out more closely.

No it propably isnt although i might need to read it more carefully to determine whether breach of confidentiality applies to posting the contract in public.
99% it doesnt but for the time being the affected parties (us,the contributors) already have our contract at hand and we can discuss it here publicly since this is what this place is for.

Others can always ask something specific,although i think that i pretty much explained the "pricing" clause which is what everyone has been interested in.
The other details such as the 5 year period you already know.

If noone else wants to post his contract and there is genuine interest i will post it,unless someone else does.
Until then lets see how this goes.

« Reply #29 on: August 02, 2015, 14:49 »
0
They will probably claim because the royalty PERCENTAGE hasn't changed, they can do whatever they want with their prices. However, this would mean they could drop prices to one dollar....

I am sure contributors signed the five year deal with the prices and royalty returns in mind when they signed up.

I am not a lawyer, but this looks like a change of the agreement to me.

But why involve lawyers? They could easily releasy anyone who wants to leave.

They can't be that desperate to hold onto the content, can they?

What about their reputation in the marketplace? Video is a much smaller world than photos and everyone is deeply connected.

The whole thing is just strange, like others have said, it looks like their business plan is not working.
Dreamstime has done the same thing for years.

« Reply #30 on: August 02, 2015, 23:41 »
+4
^^ is the contract secret? Surely not.
I see that there is quite a lot of easily-available info about unfair contracts in British Columbia; not so much for Alberta, but those directly affected might like to check this out more closely.
Well I never signed it, so uploading is of no consequence to me. Here you go. It's too big to attach here, so here is a link to Google Drive.

https://drive.google.com/folderview?id=0B5XjPpZC_ujSfm5NSXZUWGJNakE4TzlUbWFKUXd0UVZNbEVacmszdU4zSVlaMzNPMWFZU1k&usp=sharing

« Reply #31 on: August 03, 2015, 08:06 »
+2
^^ is the contract secret? Surely not.
I see that there is quite a lot of easily-available info about unfair contracts in British Columbia; not so much for Alberta, but those directly affected might like to check this out more closely.
Well I never signed it, so uploading is of no consequence to me. Here you go. It's too big to attach here, so here is a link to Google Drive.

https://drive.google.com/folderview?id=0B5XjPpZC_ujSfm5NSXZUWGJNakE4TzlUbWFKUXd0UVZNbEVacmszdU4zSVlaMzNPMWFZU1k&usp=sharing

Thanks. As I read through it the terms are certainly in DISSOLVES favor. Tickstock is right, it was my choice to upload there and I certainly have buyers remorse now.

« Reply #32 on: August 03, 2015, 08:38 »
+2
^^ is the contract secret? Surely not.
I see that there is quite a lot of easily-available info about unfair contracts in British Columbia; not so much for Alberta, but those directly affected might like to check this out more closely.
Well I never signed it, so uploading is of no consequence to me. Here you go. It's too big to attach here, so here is a link to Google Drive.

https://drive.google.com/folderview?id=0B5XjPpZC_ujSfm5NSXZUWGJNakE4TzlUbWFKUXd0UVZNbEVacmszdU4zSVlaMzNPMWFZU1k&usp=sharing

Thanks. As I read through it the terms are certainly in DISSOLVES favor. Tickstock is right, it was my choice to upload there and I certainly have buyers remorse now.

Sure that's true, but as the old saying goes, Dissolve has positioned itself within the pack, where the view never changes. Lead dogs they ain't.

« Reply #33 on: August 03, 2015, 08:57 »
+3
^^ is the contract secret? Surely not.
I see that there is quite a lot of easily-available info about unfair contracts in British Columbia; not so much for Alberta, but those directly affected might like to check this out more closely.
Well I never signed it, so uploading is of no consequence to me. Here you go. It's too big to attach here, so here is a link to Google Drive.

https://drive.google.com/folderview?id=0B5XjPpZC_ujSfm5NSXZUWGJNakE4TzlUbWFKUXd0UVZNbEVacmszdU4zSVlaMzNPMWFZU1k&usp=sharing

Thanks. As I read through it the terms are certainly in DISSOLVES favor. Tickstock is right, it was my choice to upload there and I certainly have buyers remorse now.

I knew where i was getting into.Of course i never believed that it would happen so fast and without a single shred of shame.
i also suspect that they weren't alone in this desision (not VB) but this is no place for speculation ,and it doesnt really matter in the end.
Im just mentioning it because the thought of it alone bothers me to an extend.
As i said before i find our only means of "defense" to be public disclosure.We may have been screwed completely but others wont.
Thats a form of relief for me anyway.

Daisy

« Reply #34 on: August 03, 2015, 10:34 »
+2
I should have gone with my gut instinct after the $5 clip fiasco.
There appears to be nothing we can do about the situation other than disclose it to the public and to stop uploading clips.

Let's just hope other companies do not follow them otherwise it's the Death Bell.

DISSOLVE SUCKS!

« Reply #35 on: August 03, 2015, 11:05 »
+5
After they clawed back some of my May Royalties in June due to some corporate deal gone awry, leaving me owing them money (yeah right), they jumped to the bottom of my list. Now this bizarre move - I don't expect them to rise to the top, for sure. They seem to be in that phase where they feel contributors are expendable.  That's so 2009...

« Reply #36 on: August 03, 2015, 14:02 »
+2
After they clawed back some of my May Royalties in June due to some corporate deal gone awry, leaving me owing them money (yeah right), they jumped to the bottom of my list. Now this bizarre move - I don't expect them to rise to the top, for sure. They seem to be in that phase where they feel contributors are expendable.  That's so 2009...

So you got this "huge corporate deal" thingy too ..
I wonder who else.
Last month I had a 4K return from the previous month that was charged onto me,as well as a number of reduced sales for a total revenue of 20usd each, plus a few more 4K returns because "the client actually wanted hd" which were further discounted as hd.





« Reply #37 on: August 03, 2015, 14:37 »
+4
After they clawed back some of my May Royalties in June due to some corporate deal gone awry, leaving me owing them money (yeah right), they jumped to the bottom of my list. Now this bizarre move - I don't expect them to rise to the top, for sure. They seem to be in that phase where they feel contributors are expendable.  That's so 2009...

Very istock-ish.

« Last Edit: August 03, 2015, 14:39 by trek »

« Reply #38 on: August 03, 2015, 16:23 »
0
After they clawed back some of my May Royalties in June due to some corporate deal gone awry, leaving me owing them money (yeah right), they jumped to the bottom of my list. Now this bizarre move - I don't expect them to rise to the top, for sure. They seem to be in that phase where they feel contributors are expendable.  That's so 2009...

So you got this "huge corporate deal" thingy too ..
I wonder who else.
Last month I had a 4K return from the previous month that was charged onto me,as well as a number of reduced sales for a total revenue of 20usd each, plus a few more 4K returns because "the client actually wanted hd" which were further discounted as hd.

That's ridiculous.  We don't know what really happened.  They can say anything.  Our trust is going down.

« Reply #39 on: August 03, 2015, 16:24 »
0
I should have gone with my gut instinct after the $5 clip fiasco.
There appears to be nothing we can do about the situation other than disclose it to the public and to stop uploading clips.

Let's just hope other companies do not follow them otherwise it's the Death Bell.

DISSOLVE SUCKS!

So, did they actually sell contributors' HD clips for $5?


« Reply #40 on: August 03, 2015, 16:33 »
0
Yes. Something about files coming through a partner I think, but the original artist apparently didnt know. They said later they were testing price points and their test showed that customers didnt mind paying higher prices.

There is a thread about it somewhere.

http://www.microstockgroup.com/dissolve/introducing-dissolve/msg386175/
« Last Edit: August 03, 2015, 16:38 by cobalt »

« Reply #41 on: August 03, 2015, 16:35 »
0
Yes. Something about files coming through a partner I think, but the original artist apparently didnt know. They said later they were testing price points and their test showed that customers didnt mind paying higher prices.

There is a thread about it somewhere.
Well I can say that customers don't mind paying $79

« Reply #42 on: August 03, 2015, 17:01 »
+1

Quote
Well I can say that customers don't mind paying $79

Last time i sold a clip for less that 79 was two and a half months ago at the "other site".

Daisy

« Reply #43 on: August 03, 2015, 17:10 »
+1
I should have gone with my gut instinct after the $5 clip fiasco.
There appears to be nothing we can do about the situation other than disclose it to the public and to stop uploading clips.

Let's just hope other companies do not follow them otherwise it's the Death Bell.

DISSOLVE SUCKS!

So, did they actually sell contributors' HD clips for $5?


Yes. They sold 1080p for $5. They were 'given' the clips by T3Media.

Daisy

« Reply #44 on: August 03, 2015, 17:22 »
+5
Dissolve said that they were only testing the $5 price point.
But when they launched they promoted the $5 price heavily.

It was only after they launched that we realized that the clips were supplied by hundreds of unknowing contributing artists who had not given their permission.

Dissolve basically launched on the backs of those contributors. They've been screwing contributors from day one.

« Reply #45 on: August 03, 2015, 17:25 »
0
I should have gone with my gut instinct after the $5 clip fiasco.
There appears to be nothing we can do about the situation other than disclose it to the public and to stop uploading clips.

Let's just hope other companies do not follow them otherwise it's the Death Bell.

DISSOLVE SUCKS!


Who is T3Media?
So, did they actually sell contributors' HD clips for $5?


Yes. They sold 1080p for $5. They were 'given' the clips by T3Media.

I don't know about T3Media.  Seems like a very small site.
« Last Edit: August 03, 2015, 17:46 by helloitsme »

PaulieWalnuts

  • We Have Exciting News For You
« Reply #46 on: August 03, 2015, 17:38 »
+2
5 years? That's crazy. Maybe if they we paying insane money but not at those prices.

« Reply #47 on: August 03, 2015, 18:04 »
+1
Glad I trusted my instincts and didn't upload there then. Does anyone have a copy of their contract terms that they can post? Without signing up you don't really get access to it.

I don't understand how they can just change something as huge as that and not have to release people.

It's called greed. Dissolve is on a dive to the bottom and they just want to grab as much cash on the way as they can.

DO NOT UPLOAD TO DISSOLVE!

In hindsight I'm glad I wasn't accepted as a contributor last month.

« Reply #48 on: August 04, 2015, 00:00 »
+7
After reading all this I'm glad I didn't make a deal with them earlier. 30% royalty and executive experience at istock/getty, veer and fotolia all seemed like red flags. But if not for this move I wouldn't learn about Videoblocks and their 100% royalty offer, which is funny because surely that was not on the list of things Dissolve wanted to accomplish.

« Reply #49 on: August 04, 2015, 02:44 »
+2
^^ is the contract secret? Surely not.
I see that there is quite a lot of easily-available info about unfair contracts in British Columbia; not so much for Alberta, but those directly affected might like to check this out more closely.
Well I never signed it, so uploading is of no consequence to me. Here you go. It's too big to attach here, so here is a link to Google Drive.

https://drive.google.com/folderview?id=0B5XjPpZC_ujSfm5NSXZUWGJNakE4TzlUbWFKUXd0UVZNbEVacmszdU4zSVlaMzNPMWFZU1k&usp=sharing

Thanks for that.

The agreement term is for 5 years - it doesn't seem to specify anything about how much content needs to be provided by a contributor, or whether there's an obligation to keep licensing all of the content for 5 years or how to remove any content that has been previously supplied.

There is a reference to a first recital of the agreement - article 1.1(k) - do contributors need to list the footage that they're supplying when they enter into the agreement? Is there any link between the upload process and this clause?


 

Related Topics

  Subject / Started by Replies Last post
21 Replies
22349 Views
Last post August 27, 2015, 11:53
by helloitsme
27 Replies
26139 Views
Last post February 19, 2015, 15:09
by gcrook
8 Replies
7661 Views
Last post May 26, 2015, 22:57
by ruchos
32 Replies
22308 Views
Last post June 03, 2016, 09:22
by ccbcc
0 Replies
3821 Views
Last post February 13, 2020, 09:00
by helloitsme

Sponsors

Mega Bundle of 5,900+ Professional Lightroom Presets

Microstock Poll Results

Sponsors