MicrostockGroup Sponsors

Show Posts

This section allows you to view all posts made by this member. Note that you can only see posts made in areas you currently have access to.

Messages - Jo Ann Snover

Pages: [1] 2 3 4 5 6 ... 233
I just did a search and was able to see my whole portfolio, including my sets. Things seemed about normal in responsiveness too.

I'm in Western Washington, USA, in case this is a regional thing

Adobe Stock / Re: Why is my adobe sales almost nothing?
« on: Yesterday at 15:01 »
...My keywords are all using adobe automatic keywords, I did not fill in myself, but the title is my own to fill out

Just because you did not fill them out yourself does not mean you are not allowed to (a) modify their suggestions or (b) enter your own.

You asked why your images aren't selling. If you care about sales, keyword images yourself and store those in the metadata of your image files. If your English isn't good then you'll have to hire a keywording service or take your chances with Google translate.

On the issue of the quality of automated keyword suggestions: If those keywords came from Adobe's keywording hints then they need to improve the software - even considering the rather unusual subject, having horse three times should be a firing offense. Not to mention offering multiple different animal keywords when there's only one animal in the picture.

Adobe Stock / Re: Why is my adobe sales almost nothing?
« on: Yesterday at 09:51 »
I have no idea what "very good" means to you for Shutterstock sales, but I think your main problem on Adobe Stock is probably keywords. The few I checked were pretty bad - not descriptive of what's in the image; repetitive - horse is shown twice for this image of a pig in a dress; not ordered so the first 7 keywords are the most important.

Keywords on the above are:

horse animal grass farm pasture horse meadow nature field mare animal grazing green summer white foal mammal black brown equine rural pony fast horse beautiful domestic

Assuming for the sake of argument that someone was looking for a pig in a dress in a field, your keywords would not help them find this image.

Edited to add that I looked at another from the above series and the keywords were different, but equally bad:

dog animal grass pet green puppy sheep horse canino white meadow nature farm mammal cute animal field young grazing pasture outdoors agriculture weimaraner dog black

Adobe Stock / Re: New design is confusing and awkward.
« on: Yesterday at 09:40 »
How do you edit or add more keywords once accepted ?

From the contributor dashboard, find the image to be edited (that's the hard part!). Click on the thumb and then the pencil next to the keywords. Make the changes you need and then save.

Adobe Stock / Re: Before you go.....
« on: November 12, 2018, 18:12 »
I don't know about this specific site, but this type of licensing has come up a number of times over the years - starting a decade ago I think. Fotolia permitted - and marketed - their API to sites that wanted to offer prints and murals where they could show the entire collection and then any time a specific customer ordered a print, a license would be purchased for that customer's print. In theory, if a second customer ordered a print of that same image, another license would have to be purchased.

There was contributor fuss that print sales required an extended license; lots of back and forth over the pros & cons. Fotolia's bottom line, if I recall, was that if the customer purchased a license he could go make a print himself for his own use (not for resale), therefore it was no different if the businesses offering prints and murals purchased the license on their behalf. I still don't think that was the right approach, but that's how it's been for a long time.

Shutterstock.com / Re: No sales today
« on: November 09, 2018, 10:14 »
The app keeps crashing, anyone else seeing this?

Yes. Was working fine yesterday. Last App update was Nov 2nd so I assume they've busted something on the server end versus a bug in the app itself.

...If you have small but decent (sharp, well lit, little noise) images, making a collage/array/group is a reasonable option (I've done that with a number of things and they can sell)...

Could you give me a sample of what you are talking when it comes to a collage.  Are you talking about something like this example?

Sort of. If you make an interesting looking collection with a clear theme it works best (these examples aren't my work, just stuff I found on SS)

There is no law on this in the US (and each country is different); it's just risk avoidance on the part of the agencies that sets their policies. They don't want to be sued - even if you win, that eats up profits. The agencies have no interest in establishing clear legal boundaries, just in staying far enough inside they avoid lawsuits.

As a photographer, you probably want to be risk averse too - royalties are small and lawyers are expensive.

So, you follow agency rules even when you don't agree with them or think they're being nervous nellies. At one time (years back) Dreamstime rejected images you provided a model release for if they didn't think one was needed - only part of a face, or hand and arm was showing! As you were penalized for rejections back then, it was a truly silly policy, but they'd just introduced searching by model release and they thought this would mess their search up.

Context, clothes, hairstyles, hardware (like a cane or wheelchair), and such can make someone identifiable without seeing a face.

You'll find lots of variations in the agency on property releases and when they're needed. Similar story.

If you have releases or can get them, supply them. If you can't and you love the image, perhaps try editorial licenses vs. commercial.

Adobe Stock / Re: My biggest sale!
« on: November 08, 2018, 22:31 »
I had 3 of those in the last 2 days, and even though it says that I have over 300 dollars total earnings the payout button is heated out and it says that I need to have at 50 dollars to ask to be paid. So, I'm guessing it's done kind of a glitch.

I had three of these $94.05 sales on Wednesday and wrote to support as I couldn't imagine a "subscription" sale with that royalty and wanted to check. It wasn't a glitch - it's Enterprise customers, like the high value SODs at Shutterstock.

Wednesday was a good day :)

Adobe Stock / Re: Important Fotolia Announcement
« on: November 08, 2018, 13:30 »
No Fotolia!!!!  I cant get in there at all now??  whats happening??

Fotolia is still up and running. You will have access until Nov 5, 2019. The features will be limited after February 5 but you will still be able to log in.

There should be a link to continue to Fotolia after you see the prompt to go to Adobe Stock instead.


It's there, but even when you have a direct link to the contributor page in a bookmark (https://us.fotolia.com/Contributor) and are already logged in, you frequently get the page directing you to Adobe Stock.

You don't want to click the link to log in to Fotolia because it will do just that, try to log you in anew even though you're already logged in (and that means you have to log in twice because of the capture problem where it tells you to accept the hidden capture that has no check box to accept it)

If you just go to your contributor link a second time, you'll get to the contributor page.

This is all clearly buggy, but I doubt it'll be fixed given the site's on a path to the exit. As long as the workaround (load the page twice) says functional, it's manageable.

The reality is that for stats, contributors will go to Fotolia until there's something useful on Adobe Stock or Fotolia stats are shut down completely.

If you have small but decent (sharp, well lit, little noise) images, making a collage/array/group is a reasonable option (I've done that with a number of things and they can sell).

Dreamstime is largely useless as it sells so little these days that it would help you to have the images there.

However, I do think you should give some consideration to the marketability of your images before investing time in processing them for upload anywhere. Having a rare image is only important if anyone wants to buy the image.

Stock images have to be useful to designers and sometimes things are rare in an agency collection because no one buys that sort of thing. There might be a few biology text books that would purchase a few insect images, but what else could you use it for?

Often, with stock images, it's the usual image, not the unusual one that will become a big seller.

General Stock Discussion / Re: Onepixel is now open for business!
« on: November 07, 2018, 12:57 »
I am not sure I see what is wrong with this agency. SS pays me 38 cents a sell. This company pays 35 cents a sale. I highly doubt they will sell the numbers of SS but the pay per image is nearly the same. ...

The amount of money you receive is a lousy way to compare two business transactions to see which one is better - it omits a bunch of factors that may make a huge difference to you over time. A money difference.

First, you need to be sure the same rights are being sold for the two compared amounts - more rights should result in higher income for you.

Second, you need to look at the overall deal for the buyer in both cases. If a buyer pays $5 in one case and $499 in the other and you get 38 cents for each, you got a much worse deal in the second example. It's highly likely (and it was this way before microstock) that in a business that charges buyers $499 to license an image that you'll see overall lower numbers of images licensed. The market will be smaller at those high prices.

Third, what volume commitment, if any, comes with a particular price. If two buyers pay $1 to license an image at different agencies, it matters - to contributors - whether their $1 price came with no commitments at all or only as part of a volume deal. If the buyer can just buy a single image for $1 (and you get 38 cents), you're much worse off than if that price only occurs if they commit to buy a true monthly subscription (i.e. a use-it-or-lose-it deal) of 250 images. While it may be someone else's images that get licensed this month, over many months, the fact that the buyer only gets a deal if they're a volume purchaser benefits the contributor community (excluding the spammy, schlocky, repetitive portfolios, but that's OK as they deserve to be ignored).

Fourth, how many different entities are getting a share of the buyer's money - just you and the agency, or you, a distributor or partner, plus the agency. In an era of low price deals, adding in more entities to those taking a share makes it hard for the business to succeed (and if an agency fails, all your work uploading their is wasted even if you get paid before they go belly up). IMO distributor arrangements are almost always lousy deals for the contributor, especially from any smaller/newer agencies

Understanding who benefits and who is shortchanged by the various agency arrangements is important if you plan to build a portfolio and continue to sell it for a few years. Top tip: if an agency email says they have "exciting news", you're about to get hosed :)

Adobe Stock / Re: Important Fotolia Announcement
« on: November 06, 2018, 14:07 »
Mat its about time you guys develop a app for AS.

...I'm the content lead for Video on Adobe Stock and would love to hear what you would need for an application.  I'm assuming you're talking mobile, but let me know if I'm wrong?  What are the main pain points and what should an application accomplish to address them?...

Not sure if you're looking for feedback from video contributors about their needs or are asking more generally about a contributor app for stats information.

If you're asking about an app for stats in general, have you looked at Shutterstock's contributor app for phones (iPhone & Android) and tablets? It's not perfect, but it's useful. There are many, many stats that Adobe doesn't currently have anywhere - like total sales in $$ and units for a given image - and some nice little extras such as telling you when an image sells for the 100th time, or 1st time, which is both useful and fun information to have.

You want access to sales stats, recent acceptance/rejection of images. Viewing your portfolio and any collections. Searching for an image in your portfolio. Shutterstock lets you upload content too although I don't upload that way so have no insights to offer.

It'd be good to have the browser interface on a desktop have all these features too - that's had so little work done since "Insights" was added. You can't get a monthly list of sales in $$ and downloads simultaneously, for example - my huge monitor with tons of space for more information and I see one type of information at a time (and the downloads total is shown with $$ signs in front which should be a simple fix)

Canva / Re: Canva "Good News"
« on: November 06, 2018, 03:22 »
...Once weve got the product up and running and have a strong customer base well be launching our contributors images for licence....

So the product will initially not have contributors' images available? Just Getty's 37 million+ images?

Anything about how and when the conversion to USD from local currency will happen? I'm sure you recall several agencies playing games with currency conversion rates and timing...

Which in turn reminds me of how professional photographers felt about microstock. :)...

These two things are not equivalent - I'm somewhat frustrated that this comparison is raised any time anyone who contributes to microstock complains about something being unfair or unreasonable. Just because two groups of people are unhappy does not make what happened to them the same.

Microstock was a competitor to traditional agencies offering similar products on different (more convenient) terms. Part of the reason that microstock initially took off was that there was a new way to buy something of equivalent quality with less hassle (instant download from a web site with no price negotiation, sales rep hassle or contract to be negotiated). Most of the previous generation of stock producers started out doing this as a side gig with out-takes from custom shoots.

Shutterstock is trying to screw its own contributors by providing cheap but largely useless support in an effort to cut costs. They aren't crowdsourcing the same or a similar service, but trying to palm off something even worse than cutting and pasting boilerplate just by calling it contributor support. As soon as they come up with some broken AI software "equivalent" they'll fire the underpaid gig economy workers

The party to aim our ire at is Shutterstock for treating contributors with disdain and letting go professional support staff. The gig economy "support" folks will soon be collateral damage, so they should be looking for their next gig now.

General Stock Discussion / Re: New FREE Stock Selling Course
« on: November 03, 2018, 14:14 »
Think TAP Learn is flogging courses at $9.99 a month, although it doesn't appear there's much there. You have create an account to watch the free courses and I'm not interested enough to do that.

The author of the stock course is Rich Harrington and his LinkedIn page says he's the CEO of Think TAP Learn (it also says he's VP of Education for Skylum)

His Facebook page is stuffed with links to all sorts of how-to videos


What I was looking for was a link to his stock portfolio - assuming he'd actually done this himself vs. just taken it as a topic for another how-to video.

I didn't find a link anywhere, but if someone does, post it here.

...Are you interested in a full copyright transfer of this image to Shutterstock for (a minimum) of $1500.00 commission?...

Why do those who say the copyright transfer is to the client think that? That's not what the text in the OP says.

I'm not all that concerned with this transaction - up to the person affected - but am concerned if SS is embarking on a new way to do business that might not be advantageous to contributors. I'm aware of what Dreamstime does, but that's hardly any sort of industry standard.

Just remember that it's the money you get at the time of the deal that's important - hints, but no legal commitments to pay, future sums are worthless.

I don't understand the offer being made - but no, I haven't heard of Shutterstock buying out images before.

What I don't understand is that copyright transfer to Shutterstock is a one time legal transaction for which I would expect a one time payment from SS. Once they own the copyright they are free to do what they want with the image(s).

If they're talking about minimum payout for the first year with the possibility of more money later, that doesn't sound like a copyright transfer but a complex rights managed deal.

If the restrictions on the sister images are forever, I'd suggest that you try and sell the copyrights to all of the images rather than give away any earnings for sister images at all images for all time, particularly if the subject matter/people/props/location is one where you have many images that would no longer be licensable.

$1,500 is a nice royalty, but they're asking for a lot of rights, so don't shortchange yourself.

I did change my password as a precaution, but also checked Shutterstock and Shutterstock Contributors twitter feeds, plus SS's facebook page.

Nothing on social media - where they typically post something about site problems. Just a bunch of content free posts with pretty pictures.

I honestly don't know what to make of this notification about a problem with the site that has only a spammy-sounding post from an unknown person. If this is the future of SS contributor support this is a total fail and they need to rethink how they're handling things. Not every contributor will be reached by posting here.

If this is a sincere, but misplaced, attempt to be helpful by one of the new gig-economy support folks who can't provide support because they have no access to account information or sales information or review status or (anything else), thanks for the effort. But tell Shutterstock management that this is a useless approach and ask them to send out a notice to contributors and post something on the contributor dashboard.

And get a verified account for support posts here (not sure how to do that with a gig army) as we can't do anything with random posts by people we don't know.

In this morning's email Getty sent a survey about Custom Content briefs. I took it to see what they were asking and all the questions were about how they could get you to contribute to Custom Content (or contribute more if you already were).

That says to me that they aren't getting the contributor response they were hoping for. In the couple of places where one could type in free-form responses, I pointed out that this was trying to get a custom shoot on the cheap and how to improve it was to make things more fair and better compensated for contributors, not just a bargain for the buyers.

Anyone else get a survey from Getty about this?

Yahoo has the earnings call transcript


Stock is down about 13% so far today (on a day when the overall NYSE is up slightly)

The Enterprise segment is growing faster than the eCommerce platform (us). They grew the contributor base 75% over last year! Like they need more crappy content - is this so they don't care as much when longer term contributors used to higher earnings ditch them?

They mention a problem with video sales in particular - they claim they've fixed an unspecified technical problem that was behind that...

I'm guessing there's more to this story we haven't yet heard, but it can't just be the IP address that is the trigger.

Imagine a co-working space with shared resources and computers - like this one - which are all over the US (and I assume elsewhere too). Shared office and resources are part of the deal. I think all users in a space would show up with the same external IP address.

It would be perfectly legal to hire a person to do the uploads for multiple contributors - an administrative assistant. That wouldn't be typical for the smaller/part time/home based contributor, but I think SS can accommodate that.

As with another recent account closure reported here, no one here can help you sort this out. You're new here (this is your first post) so possibly you don't realize this is just a group of contributors who exchange information.

Assuming you really had two truly separate contributor accounts, content, payout accounts and no content sharing, write to SS and explain the situation - in detail - and ask them to reverse their decision. Don't fudge the truth with them. If it's legitimate, lay out the arrangement - perhaps the fact that it appears to SS you lied to them was the issue.

And for anyone else considering non-typical arrangements, how hard would it be to contact SS up front to explain what you're doing and get their explicit OK of the arrangement to avoid all this?

Shutterstock.com / Re: Shutterstock has terminated your account.
« on: October 24, 2018, 19:41 »
What can I do in this case ? Is there any chance to reactivate it ? What do you think ? I'm depressed now  :'(  :'(

One of your earliest posts in Jan 2017 was about saving an account from being suspended - a tool to identify and remove titles that violated SS's spam rules. It seemed then a rather odd tool to generate as it would only be of interest to blatant, frequent spammers


You didn't post here again (other than the one where you now say you were asking for a "friend", although you wrote "I've a company...") until your account is suspended

There are no links to your portfolio - are you still selling on other agencies and are you willing to share links to your portfolio(s) there? I appreciate that many want anonymity for a variety of reasons, but you seem to think this community can help you but you are essentially completely unknown to anyone here. You don't interact here except to ask about  - or offer tools to ward against - suspensions.

So we can assume that Shutterstock has made a terrible mistake - certainly possible - or that you have. I am not aware of any instance brought up here or anywhere else where SS has closed accounts in error. I think legit contributors would have screamed loud and long if it had happened.

Bottom line, absent any more information, if I were a betting person (which I'm not), I'd bet that Shutterstock had good reason.

But as many people have already told you, even if SS made a mistake, no one here can do anything to help you get that straightened out. Only Shutterstock can do that.

General Stock Discussion / Re: ADAGP Payback
« on: October 24, 2018, 16:47 »
The iStock newsletter just arrived and it mentions this organization. Its legit

General Stock Discussion / Re: Bizarre sales stats?
« on: October 23, 2018, 14:23 »

There's your portfolio link (you posted to the contributor side which no one but you can see)

I think you haven't ordered your keywords with the first 7 (or 5, I forget which) being the most important. That's going to mean lower positioning in searches for your most sales-worthy keywords. If you search here you can see Mat Hayward confirm that this does matter for searches (i.e. it's not a contributor-concocted conspiracy theory)

The subject matter of your images isn't going to be high selling, especially in the fall busy season, so that and the small size of your portfolio at Adobe is probably also a factor.

Some of the search positioning is luck of the draw - if things get seen and sold when they're relatively new, they get better search position thereafter, which in turn helps sales. Possibly you were luckier on the other sites when the initial uploads occurred?

Or none of the above :)

As a general keywording guide, I'd not rely on words in the title being searchable - they are on Adobe Stock, but not all sites search them, so you loose out.

Pages: [1] 2 3 4 5 6 ... 233


Microstock Poll Results