For those of you who can't access the SS forums, here the first post of that thread by Vincent:


Hi everyone,
 
Our collaboration with Facebook continues to grow. As it grows, the SOD payout will vary, but should not fall below subscription rates - as promised in our original Facebook announcement.
 
We have identified a bug that resulted in some payouts that were below this minimum, and we are actively working to resolve this to ensure that you receive the accurate payout, both for future earnings and those you received earlier this week.
 
We will update you again once the fix is in place.
 
We apologize for the inconvenience, and thank you for your patience.

Thanks for providing that!

Yes, you are well off the mark with your views on social media. I rather doubt Facebook would have the market capitalisation it does based on your use case.

The use of Shutterstock images, so far as I can see, is more for business use: advertise an event, drive traffic to a website, promote a product where the number of viewers is considerably higher than kids posting their social life. Last time I looked (a while ago), it was also possible when selecting the Shutterstock image on Facebook to extract the underlying URL and get yourself a free medium-sized watermark-free image. Don�t know if that bug has been fixed yet but it is more of a concern to me than the use of images to illustrate the Hieronymus Bosch-type world you imagine teenagers inhabit.

I think that too. There is coming a battle between Adobe and SS. SS will beginning with the price race to the bottom. In longterm SS will loose the battle Adobe is to mighty.

Unfortunately in the mean time we will loose commisions in this battle.

i think the little ones are fbook. i don't mind so long as all you get on fbook is tiny in size.
i personally hate social media as they are meant to make tons of money from fools who put
their family album and dirty laundry on there page so that their friends and 10,000 other friends and pokers can see what they did last weekend getting smashed , doped, date-r*ped and thinking
it was fun.

the point is not just making free shows of their looseness which is far worse than the street ladies
of the night, because at least those ladies (and girlie-men) sell themselves and get paid for it.

the point here is that for microstock , the like button can be a misuse of the photos and vectors,etc
because it is repeated and seen by all their "friends" without having to pay for the usage.
which is the main motive of social media, get everything for free. .. never mind the
fbook small print agreement of how you give them the right to your photos,etc

correct me if i am worng about social media

Wow! What a twisted interpretation of social media. You obviously have a problem with what you consider "loose" women..

The SS images are thumbnails used in ads. I doubt many people are sharing the ads unless it's an offer they think a friend might be interested in. Nobody cares about the images themselves.

the point here is that for microstock , the like button can be a misuse of the photos and vectors,etc because it is repeated and seen by all their "friends" without having to pay for the usage.

Well, yes, that's indeed the point.
Not counting the direct licencing deal, if a company uses your picture on their site, blog or Fb page, and post 'share' icons, they are hoping their content will be freely spread all around the web.
AFAICS, most, maybe all, of the micros allow these share buttons.
IIRC, very few people complained about this at the outset. Difficult to put a lid on it now.
Part of the problem is the terminology. Just like "Royalty-free" seems to mean 'you don't pay any royalties, viz it's free to use', Share wouold seem to imply that the content is free for sharing.
I once had a pic licensed by a woman's magazine and it was on their website. I then found it on two home decor blogs, both acknowledging the copyright of the magazine, as the mag wrongly (as it was used editorially) hadn't credited me/iStock. Both bloggers declined to purchase the file from iS but each took the pic down instantly with an apology. However, both pointed out that the magazine site had 'share' (with the social media buttons) right next to the image, so they assumed that they were free to share the image on their blogs (having right-click/saved it) and the mag would be pleased as long as they were credited. To be fair, that's not an unreasonable interpretation of the invitation to share.

Well just had an 8c sod so theyve done nothing or theyre not honest

How about they are the .08 cents owed to you for the .30 SODs earlier in the month?

Aaah sorry then