MicrostockGroup

Well I was opposed to Istocks original subs plan based on a percentage with no minimum amount because I couldnt accept a $0.05 (or lower) payment for an image... didnt realise I was already submitting to a similar system.

I started a couple of months ago with pixmac, then there was the issue with the competition on heroturko but I think to myself mistakes happen (shouldnt with a professional business, but I accept that they do)

Anyway I just went had a look and I see that I have 7.32 credits with them.

So I look at the break down

0000110389     2009-06-05 10:17:34  Image sell 0.047 cr.  Image: 0012475965   0.1 MPix     2010-06-05 10:17:34
0000097613    2009-05-22 04:43:10    Image sell    1.99 cr.    Image: 0013088495    0.5 MPix    2010-05-22 04:43:10
0000091809    2009-05-18 08:30:04    Image sell    0.089 cr.    Image: 0012398535    0.5 MPix    2010-05-18 08:30:04
0000088035    2009-05-13 00:47:33    Image sell    0.028 cr.    Image: 0012434443    0.1 MPix    2010-05-13 00:47:33
0000080227    2009-05-05 07:18:49    Image sell    0.198 cr.    Image: 0012398579    2 MPix    2010-05-01 07:18:49
0000044499    2009-03-24 16:37:07    Image sell    4.97 cr.    Image: 0012445189    30 MPix    2010-03-20 16:37:07

actually took me a bit to realise what I was seeing, I receive $0.047, $0.089 and a whole $0.028 cents for a sale. (so a little over 1700 $0.028 sales and you reach payout). They offer subs packages at $0.06 a credit and the artist gets 50%, oh well serves my right for looking into things properly.

but then it gets even more interesting...

I open up the images sold, and one of them shows downloads = 2, but its only listed once in my sales listing??? (ironically it is the image with the 2 cent sale) 

and then I search images, find one of mine and open it. User clearviewstock downloads =2 (doesnt include subs??) my 2 "bestsellers" aren't any of those that have sold?? 1 of them is actually an image they rejected (for poor lighting they are the only site inc ss, is etc to reject it, but I'm long over rejections).  So I go to manage my images and delete all the rejected images and now I am clearviewstock downloads =1

I think it is time that my portfolio was deleted





 

opened about 20 images, found another with 2 downloads that isnt even on my earnings list at all.  Wonder how many downloads I've really had when I open 800+ images

You can't. The lock in period is one year and last time I checked, you had to cancel your account by registered snail mail to Prague. People that upload to a site with 0.06$ on the front page only have to blame themselves.

Ok enough with the "blame the victim" stuff.  The fact that someone agreed to a bad deal doesn't mean it's a good deal, or a fair deal.  This site is obviously a royal ripoff and the only good thing is, they probably don't have the resources or the attention span to go after you if violate the one-year lockin.  Assuming of course it's even possible to delete your files.

On this forum I see posts attempting to justify every shabby thing these agencies do, by saying it was all covered in the original agreement, caveat emptor, etc. In a narrow legalistic sense that may be true but I'll bet these same people aren't as happy when they themselves get ripped off by a rental car company, or an insurer that wiggles out of a claim, based on some "fine print". And I'm sure Phil wishes he'd never clicked "Ok" on this one.  

Phil, thanks for posting and I'll put this pathetic microstock on my list of ones to avoid.

I don't know if it's possible at this site, but if you don't want your photos to be sold there for these miserable prices and you can't delete them, maybe you could (if possible) alter all the keywords, reducing them to a minimun of improbable keywords, so your photos won't be found.

I have a dinky web site of my own, with a database behind it, and I pay the hosting company about 8 dollars a month.  I could write the code to sell images off of it  After that, I pay for more storage, and it could be anywhere. Amazon S3 charges about 15 cents per gigabyte per month.   Maybe pixmac is just one of a group of web sites run by the same guy, all sharing server and storage. Who knows.  

Any time these sites cut commissions (or I should say, every time) they're going to issue a PR statement about how they're just raising money for - as Fotolia just put it - "marketing, technology and human resource growth".   Hey let's face it, they're raising money to raise money.  

it gets better... Terms and conditions

The royalty for images uploaded before April 1st 2009 downloaded with the non-exclusive license is 50% for the contributor, and 60%, for images downloaded with the exclusive license.

The royalty for images uploaded after April 1st 2009 downloaded with the non-exclusive license is between 30% and 44% for the contributor, and between 45% and 60% for images downloaded with the exclusive license - in both cases depending on volume of sales.

and further down

Pixmac reserves the right to change this agreement anytime and without any further notice.

so they've chnaged the royalties without telling anyone, on a sliding commission which doesn't seem to be listed anywhere on there site and faq infocenter for photographers still says 50% commission

so images uploaded after 1st april = 30% of $0.06 and the terms and conditions can change daily if they want, there are at least 4 or 5 differences since I agreed, so much for zager's we pay the best blah blah blah blah

I think the main reason why I trusted pixmac was because my images were already on their site, through fotolia.  I wonder what FT think about the pixmac subs prices?

I think I see an opportunity for a software product.

I'll create an application for image buyers.  Give it an image (it can be small)  and the keywords you used to find it, and it will search all the microstock sites for the same image, finding the lowest price.   

the first image in question with 2 reported downloads and only 1 showing isnt on fotolia, so its not that, but thanks anyway

all titles, descriptions and keywords removed and resubmitted for inspection (the last batch that I uploaded have just been approved without them) and in the meantime clicking on any of my images just comes up with a 404 image deleted error.  What a fun way to spend a day, not

oh well, I learn to be more careful before I bother with any other new sites

I emailed them about these low prices but haven't received a response.  I hope zager can come here and explain their strategy.  We wont make money with these low prices but they wont either, so what are they up to?

That would be a deadly application for the all you can eat for 0.01$ sites and I wondered how long it would take before somebody had that idea. Lookstat used the same technology for matching images on different sites and Tineye had it already for a while. Everybody then will probably end up with photos.com. Only exclusives are "safe".

It's just a matter of time till Google gets hold of the technology and makes it its base for Google images.