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 - Daryl Ray

Pages: [1] 2 3 4 5 6 7
1
Alamy.com / "Your commission model is Alamy Silver."
« on: June 30, 2023, 20:31 »
Friendly reminder. Today's the day that Alamy punishes it's contributors, because they have become even more terrible at what they do, and are failing to make sufficient sales to meet their own self-imposed quotas. So remember to check your account status, and if they pooped the bed on your content like they did mine, it might be time to say goodbye. I just requested that my content be removed and my remaining balance paid out to me, ASAP. A 20% artist royalty is not something anyone should accept. Now to see if they try to keep my money due to it not being at the payout level or drag their feet on deleting my images. A bit sad, since they used to be a decent third tier earner back a few years ago, aside from their asinine review process. They really took a big fat dump though. Bye Alamy.

2
I reactivated my account in autumn  but dont upload new stuff.
But I now only have 0.10 sales and I am thinking about completely shutting down my account now.

Its not the new level structure but those 10 cent sales which make me really angry. Probably time for real action and a complete shutdown of my acount.

My concern was those sub $5 video sub sales were negatively affecting my overall video sales from other sites like Adobe Stock and Pond5.  I could've made $25-120 on those $3 video sub sales instead.  Yesterday, right after I unlicensed my portfolio on Shutterstock, I had the best sales day of this year on Adobe Stock.  It may not be a coincidence.  Plus, it just feel good not seeing those disrespectful and insulting cheap royalty sales reports on Shutterstock everyday.  I moved all my editorial clips to Pond5 exclusive account to get 60% royalty.

Why do you feel it necessary to repeat yourself over and over.

Seriously we get it.

And your Adobe uptick will just be a coincidence.

I, for one, will never get sick of hearing that a massive pile of good videos bailed on Shutterstock. Thank you blvdone. Repeat, bump, reiterate, and please keep encouraging others to get on the right track and ditch those scumbags. Shutterstock loses = we all win. Death by a thousand cuts.

3
General - Stock Video / Re: Best Video Stock Sites
« on: December 02, 2020, 06:59 »
Or just keep it smart and simple by joining Pond5 exclusive. 60% royalties, still maintain exposure to Adobe customers through the partner program, keep all your earnings by not splitting them with a third party distributor, and support the future integrity of this business by not supporting the companies that are actively destroying it and treat their contributors with contempt, ie Shutterstock.

4
General Stock Discussion / Re: Stolen content available for sale
« on: November 08, 2020, 21:34 »
Regardless of the race, ethnicity, religion, location, gender or sexual preference of the thief, Shutterstock should operate under a zero tolerance policy on any account that uploads even one clip/image that is not theirs legally to upload. Flat out. The moment Shutterstock becomes aware that a specific account is run by a thief, and chooses to ignore it, they become accessories to the crime and under any real legal scrutiny would be held at least partially responsible for any losses. Most likely, Shutterstock realizes that they get to keep 100% of sales from these accounts if left to sell and then conveniently removed before anything gets paid out. Making their behavior appear to be intentionally criminal.

5
Pond5 / Re: Pond 5 for still photo sales?
« on: July 02, 2020, 23:28 »
at 40%

Image sales on Pond5 pay 50% royalty.

6
You don't have to believe me, look at the monthly survey graph on this very site - P5 is one of those tiny lines right down the bottom amongst such giants as DT and 123RF in terms of earnings.

That graph is much more relevant to images sales performance than video or audio. Not accurate data to draw any conclusions about non-image sales.

60 to 40% difference in commission is negligible...The maths for me is very simply.

#1. Artists receive royalties, the company aka salespeople earn "commissions". #2. A 60% ROYALTY is 50% more than a 40% royalty (quite significant, actually) and that is a 400% higher royalty than what you're gonna be getting come January 1st on your Shutterstock, so yes, the maths is very simple. Gonna take a whole lot of those $0.36 sub sales or at least 4 sales with your paltry 15% royalties at Shutterstock to match a single normal sale at Pond5.

Then there's the pride and self-respect aspect, and not ruining it for everyone else, etc...

7
If you go exclusive, they get your files back onto Adobe and onto Vimeo stock. You get 60% of revenue.

If you go exclusive on Pond5, you shouldn't get your files back onto Adobe...or what do you mean? Am I misreading this?

Pond5 has a Global Partner Program in which the exclusives are included. Adobe is one of those partners. Pond5 content sold through those partners gets paid out to contributors quarterly.

8
Shutterstock.com / Re: Mr. Crafty is at it again
« on: June 22, 2020, 12:37 »
So either he is flat out lying about how the new earning structure works (ie you only get the 10 cent sales for the " first 100 downloads", which we all know is bullcrap) OR he literally doesn't understand his own companies new earning structure. It's one or the other. Liar or idiot.

9
It's really encouraging to see all those big timers doing that, quite inspiring.

10
Wow, this guy is a total scumbag, Shutterstock or not.

11
I fear that Shutterstock is ready and waiting for this, and that this planned group deactivation of content is expected and will actually end up being another win for their bottom line.

There have been some contributors reporting that "deleted" content in their Shutterstock portfolios, which they had removed/deactivated up to two months earlier, was still searchable (at least on Google), clickable, able to be added to a cart and presumably able to be purchased. With an officially deactivated portfolio, this appears to mean that Shutterstock would retain 100% of those sales, adding insult to injury. So, if this is accurate, what all this mass deactivation may potentially do is just boost their profits without any noticeable loss in content options to the customers, depending on how they search for it. Not exactly the goal we're looking for, I'm guessing.

In my personal experience, after deleting the last of my content from iStock in 2012, they were still selling that content four years later on partner platforms. When I discovered this, I had to put up a bit of a fight to get paid for the back sales that occurred in that time (which I was surprised they did pay) and to finally persuade them to take it all down, completely. Although I'm still not entirely sure they have, eight years later.

Maybe someone with better legalese translation abilities than myself can decipher Shutterstock's terms & conditions and determine if this retaining and selling of deactivated or deleted content is in any way a violation of their own contract or if something about that practice violates any laws. Something real that the dirtbags at Shutterstock can be called out on, with actual legal repercussions.

12
Shutterstock.com / Re: Shutterstock just became iStock 2.0
« on: May 27, 2020, 11:38 »
And the magic word "lawsuit"? ... massive lawsuit? and the much feared word "discrimination" so feared by companies in times of political correctness. Could it be possible to use any of that?

I'm not a lawyer, but I don't think, given the terms of our contributor agreement can be altered at any time to anything and without notice, there's any legal issue to bring up.

The slashing of earnings for every contributor isn't discrimination against any group, so I don't see how that applies

Illegal, discriminatory? Nope.

Despicable, shameless, greedy, heartless, disgusting? Yup.

13
Shutterstock.com / Re: Shutterstock just became iStock 2.0
« on: May 27, 2020, 08:35 »
What is most infuriating is the intentionally skewed logic. Contributors invest upfront in their equipment, expertise and time to create, do all the titling and keywording and are even asked to promote. Stock companies then get their product for free, 99% of the work done, and all they have to do is sell, calculate payments and take care of their contributors with minimal respect.  As insultingly low as we were already getting paid, it was at least based on SOME kind of logical system that rewards loyalty and past performance. But now, Shutterstock is punishing/rewarding contributors based on THEIR own performance, not ours. Once we submit a file, it's in their court and it's on them to sell the product. If your files start dropping in sales because they are favoring Euro/Russian/Employee stock warehouses, bury your files in search results through incompetent tinkering, SS wins and you lose. If the company fails in their job and everyone's sales go down, every single contributor loses and SS still wins.

We are being rated/punished/rewarded based on Shutterstock's performance and handling of our files. We have zero control over this, and that's the crux of the BS here, IMO. The timing is particularly shameless and proves they are incapable of pulling their heads out of their own greedy orifices for even a second.

However, it's great to FINALLY see more contributors speak up about forming unions, coalitions, any form of activism or coming together to fight for our future. PLEASE continue that and do not be swayed by the same naysayers that immediately and repeatedly argue against it. Remember that most of them are either directly employed by a stock company or are in bed deep with one in some way or another, so their motivations are personal and not in the larger group of contributors best interest. Also, don't be surprised how many will stay complacent and just drop their trousers and smile while the companies take more and give less. Hell, look how many lemmings STILL contribute to and defend iStock. THAT is at least partly WHY SS believes they can (and likely will) get away with what they are doing.

I agree with your first paragraph but not your third paragraph. People here don't argue against a union because they're shills for SS it's just that most sensible people understand it's logistically impossible.

If you wanted to get a job in construction and the company is unionized they won't let you pick up a hammer unless you're a member of the union. That's what gives them power. But this is microstock and it's crowd sourced. The criteria for entry is access to a camera and an internet connection. That only leaves it open to hundreds of millions of people around the world. How do you hope to make joining a union mandatory? Mandatory membership is why it's called a "union". Without it you're an activist group and SS will ignore you. The people that come to this site regularly represent maybe 1-3% of all contributors.

Anyone who joins SS after June 1st will probably not be aware of the earnings structure before and will simply sign on.

Having said that, good luck. All everyone else can do is decide for themselves if they'll "drop their trousers". I'll bite the bullet and opt out of all sales at the end of the month. It's been a good ride.

As is always misunderstood by the naysayers, we don't need a "union" specifically, not in the way you mention. It doesn't need to be "mandatory". What we need is some type of coalition, (definition: "a group formed when two or more people, factions, states, political parties, militaries etc. agree to work together temporarily in a partnership to achieve a common goal. The word coalition connotes a coming together to achieve a goal.")

It just needs to be a group with enough content represented that the stock companies are forced to negotiate or risk a real palatable backlash. It should involve information campaigns, social media blitzes, etc. Most importantly, it should introduce consequences to greedy actions by the companies. Will it work? Who * knows. But the continued refusal to even entertain the concept didn't stop Shutterstock from screwing us, did it?


14
Shutterstock.com / Re: Shutterstock just became iStock 2.0
« on: May 27, 2020, 07:29 »
What is most infuriating is the intentionally skewed logic. Contributors invest upfront in their equipment, expertise and time to create, do all the titling and keywording and are even asked to promote. Stock companies then get their product for free, 99% of the work done, and all they have to do is sell, calculate payments and take care of their contributors with minimal respect.  As insultingly low as we were already getting paid, it was at least based on SOME kind of logical system that rewards loyalty and past performance. But now, Shutterstock is punishing/rewarding contributors based on THEIR own performance, not ours. Once we submit a file, it's in their court and it's on them to sell the product. If your files start dropping in sales because they are favoring Euro/Russian/Employee stock warehouses, bury your files in search results through incompetent tinkering, SS wins and you lose. If the company fails in their job and everyone's sales go down, every single contributor loses and SS still wins.

We are being rated/punished/rewarded based on Shutterstock's performance and handling of our files. We have zero control over this, and that's the crux of the BS here, IMO. The timing is particularly shameless and proves they are incapable of pulling their heads out of their own greedy orifices for even a second.

However, it's great to FINALLY see more contributors speak up about forming unions, coalitions, any form of activism or coming together to fight for our future. PLEASE continue that and do not be swayed by the same naysayers that immediately and repeatedly argue against it. Remember that most of them are either directly employed by a stock company or are in bed deep with one in some way or another, so their motivations are personal and not in the larger group of contributors best interest. Also, don't be surprised how many will stay complacent and just drop their trousers and smile while the companies take more and give less. Hell, look how many lemmings STILL contribute to and defend iStock. THAT is at least partly WHY SS believes they can (and likely will) get away with what they are doing.

15
Shutterstock.com / Shutterstock just became iStock 2.0
« on: May 26, 2020, 10:37 »
email just received:

"In the coming weeks, Shutterstock will be updating the earnings structure that determines how much you get paid when customers license your work. We are making this adjustment in order to reflect changes in the market for creative content, help to create fair opportunities for all our contributors, and reward performance with greater earnings potential.

How does it work?
 
   These new levels are based on the number of times your content is licensed rather than your lifetime earnings.
 
   All contributors reset to level 1 for both images and videos every year on January 1st.
 
   There are separate levels for images and for videos, and you graduate through them independently based on your download count in each category.
 
Stay tuned for updates that include tips to help you quickly climb to the higher levels!
 
Thank you,

Paul Brennan
VP, Content Operations "

16
Pond5 / Re: Pond 5 Sales Dropped Off
« on: August 04, 2019, 07:45 »
Ah, got it. The ones going on about those taking issue with Pond5 excluding clips above $50 in search results are already bottom feeding sellers. That's why you're not upset, because you're already selling way below industry standards and this test did not affect you.

I find the sense of self-important ego d**k waving in in these rooms nauseating.

17
Pond5 / Re: Pond 5 Sales Dropped Off
« on: August 03, 2019, 08:07 »
"As shady as one could consider that test to be, it was only live during these last two weeks, so hardly responsible for any slowdown since February..."

THIS test had only been running that long. And it most definitely would have caused a massive slowdown for any sellers offering clips above the excluded price points. In case you didn't know, this test was accidentally stumbled upon by a contributor. That's not "considered" to be shady, that's straight-up behind the back betrayal of trust. It's also likely that several other asinine tests have been running since February and before. Remember, Pond5 refuses to inform us of these tests. It is incredibly naive to assume this was the only sales damaging blunder they've made this year.

"It seems a lot of people have a hard time understanding that the chance of YOUR clip being in front of the eyes of a buyer at the right time when there are 17.5 MILLION clips to choose from is pretty small."

What a condescending comment. And the irony is the failure to understand that search results don't bring up every clip every made. On a specific given search term, a clip isn't competing with "17.5 million clips". Many searches have fewer than 500 results, many other niche topics less than 100. When Pond5 excludes every clip over $50 or $80 from a search, that is a major problem that more contributors in that price range should be aware of, and very vocal about. Attacking the intelligence of the contributors who are actively speaking up about this is just unnecessarily rude. Try to comprehend that.

18
Pond5 / Re: Pond 5 Sales Dropped Off
« on: August 02, 2019, 07:54 »
Check the Pond5 forums. They were/are conducting a test. This test puts a $50 price cap on some searches, and a $80 on others. So if you have clips priced above those price points, Pond5 have intentionally been excluding your clips from the search results. If they can't be be found, they cannot possibly have a chance to sell. Then some staff rep had the nerve to make a post in that thread saying that the test results were positive, which of course means positive for Pond5's bottom line. That excludes everyone he was directly talking to in the forums, who unanimously expressed disappointment and frustration at what's clearly a factor in widely experienced sales drops. This is how disconnected they have become from their former identity of being the most contributor-friendly stock site. Those days seem to be officially over.

He added that they can't be bothered to inform us when they run these asinine tests. Be prepared for a lot more of this non-sense.

19
.

Regarding the Ansel Adams image, I would be careful about reporting that as copyright infringement.

I spoke to a young lady recently who worked on app that encourages people to follow Ansel Adams's footsteps and recreate his photos. This project was sponsored by Adams' relatives. This particular photo may have been the result of that.

While Adams own the original photo he took, he doesn't own the landscape. Unless the photo on SS is the exact same photo he took, I'm not sure SS is obligated to take it down. The composition is similar, but the lighting in the mountains is different and the clouds are different. It may not be original, but the contributor probably owns the photo.

Gotta imagine some parts of the landscape, tree placement, tree size, foliage, even the flow of the river, would look a little, if not dramatically different than it did in 1942 when Ansel Adams took that image. Not to mention the shadows, reflections, lighting, ripples in the water, etc. Unless this Shutterstock contributor took this image around 80 years ago and in the exact same spot at the exact same time of day, I'm not buying this theory. The Shutterstock image replaced the clouds from the Ansel Adams shot and darkened the rest.

Shutterstock should be ashamed of themselves for removing their forum thread about this, essentially condoning the theft.

20
It's interesting how triggered some people get over asking that a given thread not be derailed from it's intended discussion by regurgitated junk. So weird that a dude with a port like yours and due respect is arguing with an anonymous person on a forum about it. Strange times indeed.

21
This thread will die BECAUSE of you and the other fatalists that have no vision and are scared to death of angering the stock companies.

Oh, the drama!

Sorry, I didnt realize we elected you to moderate.  This is a discussions board and everyone is free to contribute to the discussion as they like.  If youre going to actually DO something, then go right ahead.  Nobody is stopping you.

Do you understand that I'm simply requesting that this thread not be flooded with biased commentary without substance?

What if me and several other contributors decided to chime into every polite iStock and Stocksy sales discussion thread with our opinions on those companies? Over and over and over? It would be arrogant, rude, something that should be discouraged, wouldn't it? You'd ask us to stop, wouldn't you?

22
It's hard to get past the raw idea stage when just the mere mention of contributor empowerment triggers a bunch of defeatist negativity. What is your goal, exactly? Again, you guys don't think it will work, you think it's been tried as best as it's ever been tried and that's all the proof you need. Good for you. Will you be happy once everyone that has a glimmer of hope is knocked down to your level?

You read too much into this.  Feel free to go ahead with whatever you like, but in six months, we'll just be pointing back to this thread when the next person posts "Let's form a union!!!".  That's experience talking.

I read too much into this? All I suggested was that people relax for a second with the constant "I know it all. I've seen it all. You can't have an original idea without my consent" commentary flooding these sorts of threads and let the thread live or die on it's own. And here's exactly the smug, arrogant, no-vision-having sort of response I expected. Seems like you people get off on coming in here and smashing to bits any hopes of even getting to a brainstorm point of improving contributor empowerment. Some of you are even sitting there with a finger hovering over the reply button waiting to disagree with anything that critiques the stock companies, within seconds. Are you actually being compensated by them or are you trolling against your own best interests for free?

I ask again, for the third time, WHAT IS YOUR GOAL? Why are you people so oddly motivated to act and speak up AGAINST fellow contributors that want to improve life for ALL CONTRIBUTORS? You refuse to answer, why? Where are all of you when it's time to push back on the latest stock company greed move? Noticeably silent. Unless it's a blanket defense of the company. Yet, you're so confidant and persistent with your criticisms of even the vague concept of putting power back in artists hands. How many times have these negative people chimed into this thread? A lot, huh? Weird, right? What are they afraid of?

For every "hey. maybe there's an idea....", there's 50 posts ripping it to bits. This thread will die BECAUSE of you and the other fatalists that have no vision and are scared to death of angering the stock companies. You come into here before any concepts can even be halfway formed and spread the same repeated bs lines, over and over. You clearly WANT this to fail. Do you even know what your agenda is??

If I could make one suggestion, as I can't stomach reading the misguided arrogance in this thread: A fresh topic should be started for ideas on this concept, with the REQUEST that all defeatist commentary without any substance (such as the quote above) be left out and keep it only a thread to actually discuss possible ideas to improve contributor empowerment. Those with a positive forward vision are clearly outnumbered by negative reactionists, so it would be a unique experiment to see if something positive could grow from it when free from the over-whelming negative premature conclusions. Of course, it could only work if these trolls could control themselves instead of relentlessly salting the earth, actively fulfilling their own predictions of failure.

Worst case scenario: no good ideas come of it, and it dies due to lack of interest. Would it be too much to ask to let that happen on it's own?

23
It's hard to get past the raw idea stage when just the mere mention of contributor empowerment triggers a bunch of defeatist negativity. What is your goal, exactly? Again, you guys don't think it will work, you think it's been tried as best as it's ever been tried and that's all the proof you need. Good for you. Will you be happy once everyone that has a glimmer of hope is knocked down to your level?

I'm not saying either side is right or wrong in their OPINIONS, but those trying a little too hard to pick apart the IDEA of a pushback against the stock companies towards fairness is either a company troll or drank a little too much of the corporate BS koolaid. Maybe since a lot of the naysayers are admitted former iStock exclusives and current iStock contributors, that they're afraid of losing all those shrinking pennies if there's an effective movement away from the worst companies.

Maybe those that were fooled by iStock in the past, and still supporting them, aren't the opinions anyone should take seriously. You obviously couldn't make good judgements then, why should anyone think you could now?

izzikiorage, don't let the constant barrage of negativity ruin the concept for you. They think that since they cannot conceive the idea of contributor empowerment, that it's impossible and no one else should even consider it. Again, either they're just trolling or they can only be described using words that would come out as asterisks on this forum.


24
Trying to wrap my head around what the motivation would be for photographers to choose to come onto a forum like this and put a suspicious amount of effort into attempting to make a basic premise like this sound like a failure before it begins. What freaking harm would come from supporting the simple CONCEPT of contributor empowerment of any kind? Or at least making your point, if you feel the need, and maybe find a different use for your time than persistent knee-jerk fighting against your own best interests.

You don't think it's a good idea? You don't think it'll ever work? You think past efforts are proof it can't be done? Awesome. Now do you have any constructive help to offer or is it just gonna be endless snappy negative remarks intended to knock everyone else down to your defeated perspectives?






25
Pond5 / Re: It's official, you are exclusive.
« on: March 28, 2019, 04:46 »
I honestly don't understand what point you are trying to make here, it sounds like you think we shouldn't be getting paid at all.
My point is to adapt and think how to make money in volume with penny sales...

Got it, all you had to say.

Pages: [1] 2 3 4 5 6 7

Sponsors

Mega Bundle of 5,900+ Professional Lightroom Presets

Microstock Poll Results

Sponsors