MicrostockGroup Sponsors

Recent Posts

Pages: [1] 2 3 4 5 6 ... 10
I'm interested to know who is responsible if copyright infringement happens.
For example, a photo of a building is sold on Shutterstock but the authorized representative of the building does not allow licensing it for public use.
Let's say the representative of the building finds out the photo is used on a website without permission, who is responsible, Shutterstock or the person who bought the photo?

The reason I am asking is
I am planning to sell stock photos on my own website and I am not sure if some of the photos should have a property release for licensing.
Can I just sell the photos (without property releases) and say that the customer is responsible if any legal consequences occur?

Got mine too - I assuming that after applying the code the normal billing is put on hold for a year?

Yeah, I applied my code and it now says 23/08/2019 for my next billing date.
3 / Re: Video sale for $1.50?
« Last post by Video-StockOrg on Today at 00:24 »
I think in August we are already at the point where we sold more $1.50 than regular video sales. GG SS.
Got ours too....  :o just yesterday got pissed off over adobe media encoder not rendering random files and already thinking about switching to DR for working with stock files.

I'll be less pissed off over bugs now because it is free. Thx Adobe!
This Q-result every quarter, I'm beginning to think theyre cooking the books! after 14 years with this outfit I know people in every camp and I dont know ANYBODY who's doing any good or who really cares if the place is down or not??.

come on Paws whats  youre opinion youre good at this?
My opinion is as they are audited accounts and Oringer could go to prison for a very long time if they were fraudulent they are most likely correct. As has been said over and over again new supply far outstrips demand therefore most contributors will lose out. Its really that simple.

The supply otstripping the demand!  jeez we have known that for year now, nothing new!  no I dont buy that anymore theres got to be something else. before it was just some people, some camps crying and complaining NOW it almost everyone!

Wow. You mean all that crying and complaining that certain people were doing was actually about something real? I guess crossing fingers and wishing hard didnt make the problems go away after all. Its just easier to attack them rather than stand united against a company thats screwing you with your own property to make profits for themselves.

Supply is outstripping demand at Shutterstock because they made it so. I believe they opened the gates to anyone to desperately inflate their library and make as much money as they could for themselves before the stock photo market totally collapses. This is why sales are down everywhere:

Decent quality photos for completely free. Multiple sites are out there like this and they are growing fast. Web traffic stats show free sites getting constant high growth while most micro sites are falling. Shutterstock web traffic shows an increase but I'm sure thats the flood of new amateur contributor traffic and not paying customers.
Sites like Unsplash have convinced tons of naive photographers to give their portfolios away for free so they could stick the word free on the front page and generate mountains of traffic for themselves, starving out the existing market. This new trend does nothing but train consumers that our images have no value and that they DESERVE our images for free... even for commercial use. Why would they pay anything for images now?
There are tons of unaddressed legal issues at these sites that will create problems for them in the future such as the lack of releases but its pretty tough to compete with free in the minds of consumers. I believe the only course of action to take is to draw a line in the sand and that line is quality. Let the garbage images be free and the consumers will tire of it and will pay for quality again. Thats Shutterstocks mistake. They prioritize the garbage over the quality.

The ironic part is that all of this happened because contributors allowed it to. Its our property. Its our photos that make these sites even possible. Contributors chose to follow Shutterstocks poor choices and stick their head in the sand. What would happen to Shutterstock if contributors stood up to them and said no. What if contributors united together and opted out of sales on their portfolios in protest? They cant ignore their store literally shrinking. They cant ignore that loss of sales, especially under these conditions. Its our images that make all of this even possible.

Food for thought:

This what is mentioned by Unsplash:

"We do not actively encourage professional photographers to join and upload all of their photos. Were designers, developers and photographers ourselves, and we know that giving everything away isnt a sustainable way to make a living from your profession."

I hope this answers to why people are submitting to SS or other paid platforms and not to the free ones.
Adobe Stock / Re: Creative Cloud giveway for Adobe Stock Contributors
« Last post by mj007 on Yesterday at 20:56 »
Anyone have photoshop 6 software for sale being you are using cloud now ?
Got mine too - I assuming that after applying the code the normal billing is put on hold for a year?
8 / Re: Video sale for $1.50?
« Last post by jjneff on Yesterday at 20:07 »
This is really ticking me off!!!
9 / Re: Video sale for $1.50?
« Last post by nobody on Yesterday at 20:05 »
In a few years time we will sound like old timers saying, "Back in the day (2017) I use to get $30 for a video" Now I get $1.50 or less  :-\

Got mine as well!
Pages: [1] 2 3 4 5 6 ... 10


Microstock Poll Results