Author Topic: Opt Out of Enhanced Licenses at SS #OptInWhenTheyPayUp (Read 37575 times)

authenticcreations · « **Reply #100 on:** January 30, 2016, 13:30 »

We still can all immigrate to India.

Mirco

emjaysmith · « **Reply #101 on:** January 30, 2016, 13:38 »

If only.....

sharpshot · « **Reply #102 on:** January 30, 2016, 14:36 »

Quote from: noodle on January 30, 2016, 12:48

Another thought - sorry, it is very negative-

As the growing economies of countries like China and India continue, they will have a potentially MASSIVE growth in the middle income class. As these people income grows, they will be able to buy products sich as dslr's and join in on microstock too, further contributing to these bast image libraries. And for them, earning $50-75 / month is a nice etra income, whereas that is peanuts to those in first world countries.

Wont be so bad if those countries also start buying images. I would rather think of the potential buyers than the contributors.

PixelBytes · « **Reply #103 on:** January 30, 2016, 15:50 »

Quote from: green machine on January 30, 2016, 00:46

My reading of this (and my conclusion gives me no pleasure at all), is that whatever protest we can organise, at the end of the day SS is ruled by the investors, and the investors at the moment with nothing to show (no dividend and evaporating capital), for their investments, will be considering pulling their money, causing panic in SS management.

If the slide continues, expect more good news from Brennan, and even possibly at some point an aggressive takeover.

I could not agree more. Back when these sites were owned and run by individuals, there was room to negotiate. Now they are owned by shareholders, venture capital companies and the like, there is no way to negotiate. If we stage an action, will the shareholders care, or even know? Only people we have any contact with are low level salaried employees. They have no power or interest to negotiate with us. Their job is to tell us whats gonna happen and try to make it sound okay. Neither they nor anyone else up the line really gives a spit what we think or do.

Here's the memo for anyone that didn't get it yet: our feelings and actions are irrelevant to the entities running the top agencies. Your protests aren't just falling on deaf ears. Their falling on no ears at all.

Mantis · « **Reply #104 on:** January 30, 2016, 16:06 »

Someone in this thread or another (too lazy to check) said something along the lines of what's wrong with SS changing their business plan? All successful companies do this to adjust to markets, market segments, new platforms, etc, but those changes are VERY RARELY a consequence of more revenue for the contributor. Look at stock back 30 years ago (I am a little old I suppose) when a single image sold for $500 to $10K depending on how it was used, its uniqueness and the platform from which it was sold. Now we are angry (yes I am pissed off) that we're not getting $28 for very similar images. It will never stop and for those of us who rely on stock for some aspect of our lives a few bucks can amount to a lot if you have a well-selling portfolio.

It's unfortunate but contributors will always lose and agencies will always gain. SS could care less about us so long as they have their cushy, Google-like offices AND they are raking in the doe at our expense. Going public does that. So as long as SS is a publicly traded company, there WILL BE MORE ROYALTY CUTS. And as the infamous bullwhip effect occurs, we will see competitive responses that further erode what we get. With this change, SS not cut prices, only commissions. That's a response to Wall Street to shore up operating income. Wall Street wants good numbers every quarter, so I would not be surprised if we see more shaving this year from SS.

There is more though. Add in Fotolia to the mix. As they make strategic moves that further undercut SS (and other agencies) there will likely be competitive responses, and the viscous cycle continues.

I just spent the whole day preparing 1,000 videos for Alamy and may close Video Blocks and go back to Dissolve. Thank goodness I moved into video, but it, too, is seeing the same behaviors as images, so I am trying to get some of the goods now before it is too far diluted and no longer worthwhile to produce and submit.

Micro will be merely for those willing to get $50 a month for the lions share of contributors.

obj owl · « **Reply #105 on:** January 30, 2016, 16:42 »

No ears I hear you say, at no point in the history of man has it been easier to reach and disturb those with the power, social media has been embraced by all of them and it's a two way process.

The ones with deaf ears are the defeatist contributors who use this thread to give reasons not to opt out and just carry on being milked like cows and given sour grass to live on.

I say, Opt out if for nothing more than your own dignity. The stories of a doomed future are a self fulfilling prophecy if you sit back and encourage it.

I will leave you all to spread your tales of woe, shame you couldn't do it on another thread, sorry you already did.

MysteryGuy · « **Reply #106 on:** January 30, 2016, 16:57 »

The agencies are quite literally nothing without us. They have no product to offer other than our work. Remember that when you're feeling powerless. I don't think any of us will be all that hard-hit if we opt out of ELs. At best we get a few a month. Opting out will not affect our bottom line all that much. But collectively, we can affect Shutterstock's bottom line quite a bit. This is one instance where we'll feel a lot less pain they they will.

Mantis · « **Reply #107 on:** January 30, 2016, 17:04 »

Quote from: MysteryGuy on January 30, 2016, 16:57

The agencies are quite literally nothing without us. They have no product to offer other than our work. Remember that when you're feeling powerless. I don't think any of us will be all that hard-hit if we opt out of ELs. At best we get a few a month. Opting out will not affect our bottom line all that much. But collectively, we can affect Shutterstock's bottom line quite a bit. This is one instance where we'll feel a lot less pain they they will.

This is absolutely true. But.....I would venture to guess that 95% or more of current contributors are not staying informed or don't care. We cannot influence either of those groups, only the 5% who do care or stay informed. Of that 5% (this metric is for discussion sake only) maybe 2.5% will act. This is why agencies will continue to do fine without those 2.5% who opt out. Jo Ann has the right idea by leveraging social medic to broaden the audience but MANY contributors simply will never see this. I am not disagreeing with you, I am merely pointing out that educating and informing the 95% is not really possible.

CONSPIRACY THEORY: What if SS takes punitive action on those opting out through a search penalty? Agencies use all kinds of triggers on search and it is feasible something like this could happen. It would be very interesting to see if we see less money. January was a disaster for me and I think it was a search to push newbies to the top since they are paid less.

gbalex · « **Reply #108 on:** January 30, 2016, 17:40 »

Quote from: MysteryGuy on January 30, 2016, 16:57

The agencies are quite literally nothing without us. They have no product to offer other than our work.

Remember that when you're feeling powerless. I don't think any of us will be all that hard-hit if we opt out of ELs. At best we get a few a month. Opting out will not affect our bottom line all that much. But collectively, we can affect Shutterstock's bottom line quite a bit. This is one instance where we'll feel a lot less pain they they will.

Agree,

The opposite mindset has gotten us into this mess. How much do you suppose is enough for Jon?

cobalt · « **Reply #109 on:** January 30, 2016, 18:30 »

Quote from: Mantis on January 30, 2016, 17:04

This is absolutely true. But.....I would venture to guess that 95% or more of current contributors are not staying informed or don't care. We cannot influence either of those groups, only the 5% who do care or stay informed. Of that 5% (this metric is for discussion sake only) maybe 2.5% will act. This is why agencies will continue to do fine without those 2.5% who opt out. Jo Ann has the right idea by leveraging social medic to broaden the audience but MANY contributors simply will never see this. I am not disagreeing with you, I am merely pointing out that educating and informing the 95% is not really possible.

CONSPIRACY THEORY: What if SS takes punitive action on those opting out through a search penalty? Agencies use all kinds of triggers on search and it is feasible something like this could happen. It would be very interesting to see if we see less money. January was a disaster for me and I think it was a search to push newbies to the top since they are paid less.

How many files did Fotolia lose in two weeks over the dollar photo club? 7 million?

Or getty over the deal with google?

Losing millions of files is very painful for every agency, thousands of customers have these files in their lightboxes for projects and when they complete the design and can´t buy they get really, really upset...

So shitstorm and witholding content are very, very powerful tools, negative social media chatter stays on the internet forever...

Agencies, especially agencies that plan to be around in a few years, have very solid reasons to avoid shitstorms. Too many of us are designers and buyers.

Shutterstock has a much higher rejection rate than other places (at least for me) and still has by far the largest collection.

They get this massive upload stream because the wider community trusts them with their property.

I am sorry, I really don´t think 95% of the artists are just sheep or idiots.Producing stock is work and very frustrating, I think they all are careful who they work with.

Otherwise agencies with a bad reputation or a low earnings score, wouldn´t have much smaller collections. And Fotolia wouldn´t just have sneaked all our content to dpc, they would have asked us instead.

But deleting and opting out, coupled with a shitstorm are very powerful instruments. Everyone has to decide for themselves when they feel it is merited.

noodle · « **Reply #110 on:** January 30, 2016, 18:34 »

Quote from: gbalex on January 30, 2016, 17:40

Quote from: MysteryGuy on January 30, 2016, 16:57
The agencies are quite literally nothing without us. They have no product to offer other than our work.

Remember that when you're feeling powerless. I don't think any of us will be all that hard-hit if we opt out of ELs. At best we get a few a month. Opting out will not affect our bottom line all that much. But collectively, we can affect Shutterstock's bottom line quite a bit. This is one instance where we'll feel a lot less pain they they will.

Agree,

The opposite mindset has gotten us into this mess. How much do you suppose is enough for Jon?

Jon sold the company and made his billion $
I beleive he is still on as a consultant in some capacity, so whatever happens to SS is of no consequence, other than maybe some sadness in seeing his once dream project deteriorate.
But, whatever, i hear that $10k notes have higher cotton percentage, so they make for nice tissues.

Zero Talent · « **Reply #111 on:** January 30, 2016, 18:42 »

Quote from: MysteryGuy on January 30, 2016, 16:57

The agencies are quite literally nothing without us. They have no product to offer other than our work.

This is a very clear fallacy: very popular, but very wrong!

This is no different than saying that supermarkets have no contribution to the economy because they only sell products made by farmers.
Just imagine your life if have to constantly drive 100 km to the nearest farm, to buy your food directly from the farmer.
Or imagine how much a farmer could focus in producing your food, if he would have to drive 100 km to sell his products directly to you. How much time would he have left to do his expert work: producing your food?
There are farmers markets, here and there, during some weekends, but this is rather the exception to the rule.

BTW, you can always grow your own food, if you want, but you will most probably become a farmer yourself, instead of being a photographer.

The same goes with the agencies: they do your marketing and the sales (for a price), allowing you to focus on what you are good at: producing photography.

If you are good at marketing and sales, you wouldn't need agencies to promote your work. And you can quit anytime, if you think you are better at sales and marketing. What stops you?
Actually if you would be that good, I rather believe that you would already have your own agency

The "middle man", so hated by the leftists, is essential for a successful economy, because it allows everybody to specialize and focus on their core strengths, instead of wasting time and energy playing amateurish games in sales or marketing.

Having said that, it doesn't mean that you have to accept whatever the "middle man" wants from you. When you have actual leverage, you can negotiate. Someone said, in some other thread (or here?), that social media could be used as powerful leverage in negotiations.

But again, you could not be 100% successful without an agent, a lawyer or an accountant, while none of these professions do "actual work" as defined by some proletarians.

Mantis · « **Reply #112 on:** January 30, 2016, 19:05 »

Quote from: cobalt on January 30, 2016, 18:30

Quote from: Mantis on January 30, 2016, 17:04

This is absolutely true. But.....I would venture to guess that 95% or more of current contributors are not staying informed or don't care. We cannot influence either of those groups, only the 5% who do care or stay informed. Of that 5% (this metric is for discussion sake only) maybe 2.5% will act. This is why agencies will continue to do fine without those 2.5% who opt out. Jo Ann has the right idea by leveraging social medic to broaden the audience but MANY contributors simply will never see this. I am not disagreeing with you, I am merely pointing out that educating and informing the 95% is not really possible.

CONSPIRACY THEORY: What if SS takes punitive action on those opting out through a search penalty? Agencies use all kinds of triggers on search and it is feasible something like this could happen. It would be very interesting to see if we see less money. January was a disaster for me and I think it was a search to push newbies to the top since they are paid less.

How many files did Fotolia lose in two weeks over the dollar photo club? 7 million?

Or getty over the deal with google?

Losing millions of files is very painful for every agency, thousands of customers have these files in their lightboxes for projects and when they complete the design and can´t buy they get really, really upset...

So shitstorm and witholding content are very, very powerful tools, negative social media chatter stays on the internet forever...

Agencies, especially agencies that plan to be around in a few years, have very solid reasons to avoid shitstorms. Too many of us are designers and buyers.

Shutterstock has a much higher rejection rate than other places (at least for me) and still has by far the largest collection.

They get this massive upload stream because the wider community trusts them with their property.

I am sorry, I really don´t think 95% of the artists are just sheep or idiots.Producing stock is work and very frustrating, I think they all are careful who they work with.

Otherwise agencies with a bad reputation or a low earnings score, wouldn´t have much smaller collections. And Fotolia wouldn´t just have sneaked all our content to dpc, they would have asked us instead.

But deleting and opting out, coupled with a shitstorm are very powerful instruments. Everyone has to decide for themselves when they feel it is merited.

But all DPC did was add an opt out and they are still selling content with millions of images that most others never opted out of, so even though 7mil images were removed DPC is still around screwing contributors who remained with millions of images. It didn't stop them. SS has an opt-out so you would need far more than 7 million images to make a statement and that's why my opinion is that the weight of contributors who support DPC and SS EL cuts is FAR greater than those who don't, leaving it a win-lose.

marthamarks · « **Reply #113 on:** January 30, 2016, 19:18 »

Quote from: Mantis on January 30, 2016, 17:04

CONSPIRACY THEORY: What if SS takes punitive action on those opting out through a search penalty? Agencies use all kinds of triggers on search and it is feasible something like this could happen. It would be very interesting to see if we see less money. January was a disaster for me and I think it was a search to push newbies to the top since they are paid less.

Could happen! And if it does, I'll quickly (and happily) make my images exclusive on Fotolia.

Shelma1 · « **Reply #114 on:** January 30, 2016, 19:33 »

Quote from: Zero Talent on January 30, 2016, 18:42

Quote from: MysteryGuy on January 30, 2016, 16:57
The agencies are quite literally nothing without us. They have no product to offer other than our work.

This is a very clear fallacy: very popular, but very wrong!

This is no different than saying that supermarkets have no contribution to the economy because they only sell products made by farmers.
Just imagine your life if have to constantly drive 100 km to the nearest farm, to buy your food directly from the farmer.
Or imagine how much a farmer could focus in producing your food, if he would have to drive 100 km to sell his products directly to you. How much time would he have left to do his expert work: producing your food?
There are farmers markets, here and there, during some weekends, but this is rather the exception to the rule.

BTW, you can always grow your own food, if you want, but you will most probably become a farmer yourself, instead of being a photographer.

The same goes with the agencies: they do your marketing and the sales (for a price), allowing you to focus on what you are good at: producing photography.

If you are good at marketing and sales, you wouldn't need agencies to promote your work. And you can quit anytime, if you think you are better at sales and marketing. What stops you?
Actually if you would be that good, I rather believe that you would already have your own agency

The "middle man", so hated by the leftists, is essential for a successful economy, because it allows everybody to specialize and focus on their core strengths, instead of wasting time and energy playing amateurish games in sales or marketing.

Having said that, it doesn't mean that you have to accept whatever the "middle man" wants from you. When you have actual leverage, you can negotiate. Someone said, in some other thread (or here?), that social media could be used as powerful leverage in negotiations.

But again, you could not be 100% successful without an agent, a lawyer or an accountant, while none of these professions do "actual work" as defined by some proletarians.

Funny you should say that, because there's a growing movement in the U.S. for people to start eliminating lawns and start growing their own food. I did, and now grow almost all the fruits and vegetables I eat. It saves money on lawn maintenance, saves money on groceries, gives me fresh air and exercise and gives me better, fresher food. Supermarket food is really disappointing now. And my garden is much closer than the supermarket. (Of course, not everyone has the space or time to do that.)

Supermarkets make it easier for most people to shop for food, but if their suppliers all got together and stopped delivering to them, they'd quickly be out of business. Consumers would turn to a different supermarket chain very quickly. Of course, it's more difficult for farmers than it is for us. I doubt most of us will lose our livelihoods if we opt out of Enhanced Downloads.

Zero Talent · « **Reply #115 on:** January 30, 2016, 19:44 »

Quote from: Shelma1 on January 30, 2016, 19:33

Funny you should say that, because there's a growing movement in the U.S. for people to start eliminating lawns and start growing their own food. I did, and now grow almost all the fruits and vegetables I eat. It saves money on lawn maintenance, saves money on groceries, gives me fresh air and exercise and gives me better, fresher food. Supermarket food is really disappointing now. And my garden is much closer than the supermarket. (Of course, not everyone has the space or time to do that.)

Supermarkets make it easier for most people to shop for food, but if their suppliers all got together and stopped delivering to them, they'd quickly be out of business. Consumers would turn to a different supermarket chain very quickly. Of course, it's more difficult for farmers than it is for us. I doubt most of us will lose our livelihoods if we opt out of Enhanced Downloads.

Very good! Great initiative! But this is besides the point I want to make. You will still need your grocery store/supermarket close to the place you leave, no matter how much food you grow yourself. You still need a "middle man", to buy the expertise you don't possess from, in most aspects of your life.

Jo Ann Snover · « **Reply #116 on:** January 30, 2016, 20:47 »

Quote from: noodle on January 30, 2016, 18:34

Jon sold the company and made his billion $

I don't think Jonathan sold. Here's a report showing he still holds over 16 million shares and bought 200,000 last August

http://www.nasdaq.com/symbol/sstk/insider-trades/buys

gbalex · « **Reply #117 on:** January 30, 2016, 21:01 »

Quote from: noodle on January 30, 2016, 18:34

Quote from: gbalex on January 30, 2016, 17:40
Quote from: MysteryGuy on January 30, 2016, 16:57
The agencies are quite literally nothing without us. They have no product to offer other than our work.

Remember that when you're feeling powerless. I don't think any of us will be all that hard-hit if we opt out of ELs. At best we get a few a month. Opting out will not affect our bottom line all that much. But collectively, we can affect Shutterstock's bottom line quite a bit. This is one instance where we'll feel a lot less pain they they will.

Agree,

The opposite mindset has gotten us into this mess. How much do you suppose is enough for Jon?

Jon sold the company and made his billion $
I beleive he is still on as a consultant in some capacity, so whatever happens to SS is of no consequence, other than maybe some sadness in seeing his once dream project deteriorate.
But, whatever, i hear that $10k notes have higher cotton percentage, so they make for nice tissues.

As of 08/28/2015 Jon still holds 16,256,327 shares. It takes time to update this information and he may have bought additional shares after this date. As you can see he has good reason to prop up stock prices.

http://www.nasdaq.com/quotes/insiders/oringer-jonathan-891100

More insider info

http://www.nasdaq.com/symbol/sstk/insider-trades

noodle · « **Reply #118 on:** January 30, 2016, 21:28 »

Quote from: Jo Ann Snover on January 30, 2016, 20:47

Quote from: noodle on January 30, 2016, 18:34

Jon sold the company and made his billion $

I don't think Jonathan sold. Here's a report showing he still holds over 16 million shares and bought 200,000 last August

http://www.nasdaq.com/symbol/sstk/insider-trades/buys

My mistake.
I thought he had sold. Well, that IS interesting. His equity has taken a big, big hit. Even though hes still worth a gazillion bucks, even rich people cry when they go from $1B to 300 M

So, yes I guess I can return putting the blame on him, lol

cobalt · « **Reply #119 on:** January 31, 2016, 03:14 »

Quote from: Mantis on January 30, 2016, 19:05

Quote from: cobalt on January 30, 2016, 18:30
Quote from: Mantis on January 30, 2016, 17:04

This is absolutely true. But.....I would venture to guess that 95% or more of current contributors are not staying informed or don't care. We cannot influence either of those groups, only the 5% who do care or stay informed. Of that 5% (this metric is for discussion sake only) maybe 2.5% will act. This is why agencies will continue to do fine without those 2.5% who opt out. Jo Ann has the right idea by leveraging social medic to broaden the audience but MANY contributors simply will never see this. I am not disagreeing with you, I am merely pointing out that educating and informing the 95% is not really possible.

CONSPIRACY THEORY: What if SS takes punitive action on those opting out through a search penalty? Agencies use all kinds of triggers on search and it is feasible something like this could happen. It would be very interesting to see if we see less money. January was a disaster for me and I think it was a search to push newbies to the top since they are paid less.

But all DPC did was add an opt out and they are still selling content with millions of images that most others never opted out of, so even though 7mil images were removed DPC is still around screwing contributors who remained with millions of images. It didn't stop them. SS has an opt-out so you would need far more than 7 million images to make a statement and that's why my opinion is that the weight of contributors who support DPC and SS EL cuts is FAR greater than those who don't, leaving it a win-lose.

But that is the whole point, if they have an opt out and don't do it, they made a business choice to keep their files on dpc. I know intelligent people with good portfolios that are opted in, while I am still opted out of dpc.

I am just trying to highlight that just because someone doesn't join a shitstorm ticket, doesn't mean he or she is an idiot.

To just label everyone as a "victim" of the agencies and helpless...really does not represent the reality of the stock industry. On the contrary I find people to be very smart and business wise, especially those that successfully make a reliable income every month.

Nobody is forced to submit to stock agencies and if you feel unfairly treated and the agency is not ready to talk to you, then public stands and deletions are much faster at getting results than a multi year court case.

So whoever feels strongly about the royalty change, by all means make a rally cry, but you will have to accept that not everyone feels the same way about it.

Like others have mentioned, supporting and focussing on artist friendly sites is overall probably the best we can do. But these agencies have to also really want to become Number one, we would all stand behind pond5 for photos, but they don't seem to making much progress in photo sales.

Pauws99 · « **Reply #120 on:** January 31, 2016, 04:08 »

Quote from: noodle on January 30, 2016, 12:48

Another thought - sorry, it is very negative-

As the growing economies of countries like China and India continue, they will have a potentially MASSIVE growth in the middle income class. As these people income grows, they will be able to buy products sich as dslr's and join in on microstock too, further contributing to these bast image libraries. And for them, earning $50-75 / month is a nice etra income, whereas that is peanuts to those in first world countries.

But there will also be growth of businesses etc wanting images and their income will grow making $75 less attractive.

jonbull · « **Reply #121 on:** January 31, 2016, 07:48 »

Quote from: noodle on January 30, 2016, 12:48

Another thought - sorry, it is very negative-

As the growing economies of countries like China and India continue, they will have a potentially MASSIVE growth in the middle income class. As these people income grows, they will be able to buy products sich as dslr's and join in on microstock too, further contributing to these bast image libraries. And for them, earning $50-75 / month is a nice etra income, whereas that is peanuts to those in first world countries.

what i tried to say from the beginning...if you want do this work full time you can do mostly where cost of living is low...and it can be also a bice choice...spend time in ukraine and asisa and i have much more fun and good living than where i live, but i understand is not possible for everybody.
i'm sure 50 percent of files in micro stock now are coming from 5 6 country, ukraine thai russia china

Lana · « **Reply #122 on:** January 31, 2016, 08:01 »

Quote from: Mantis on January 30, 2016, 17:04

CONSPIRACY THEORY: What if SS takes punitive action on those opting out through a search penalty? Agencies use all kinds of triggers on search and it is feasible something like this could happen. It would be very interesting to see if we see less money. January was a disaster for me and I think it was a search to push newbies to the top since they are paid less.

Or they might as well impose a near 100% rejection rate on any new content we would try to submit in the future... Anyways, if SS is to choose to punish those who joined this initiative then it will be my biggest disappointment in all this microstock industry..

Mantis · « **Reply #123 on:** January 31, 2016, 09:03 »

Quote from: cobalt on January 31, 2016, 03:14

Quote from: Mantis on January 30, 2016, 19:05
Quote from: cobalt on January 30, 2016, 18:30
Quote from: Mantis on January 30, 2016, 17:04

This is absolutely true. But.....I would venture to guess that 95% or more of current contributors are not staying informed or don't care. We cannot influence either of those groups, only the 5% who do care or stay informed. Of that 5% (this metric is for discussion sake only) maybe 2.5% will act. This is why agencies will continue to do fine without those 2.5% who opt out. Jo Ann has the right idea by leveraging social medic to broaden the audience but MANY contributors simply will never see this. I am not disagreeing with you, I am merely pointing out that educating and informing the 95% is not really possible.

CONSPIRACY THEORY: What if SS takes punitive action on those opting out through a search penalty? Agencies use all kinds of triggers on search and it is feasible something like this could happen. It would be very interesting to see if we see less money. January was a disaster for me and I think it was a search to push newbies to the top since they are paid less.

But all DPC did was add an opt out and they are still selling content with millions of images that most others never opted out of, so even though 7mil images were removed DPC is still around screwing contributors who remained with millions of images. It didn't stop them. SS has an opt-out so you would need far more than 7 million images to make a statement and that's why my opinion is that the weight of contributors who support DPC and SS EL cuts is FAR greater than those who don't, leaving it a win-lose.

But that is the whole point, if they have an opt out and don't do it, they made a business choice to keep their files on dpc. I know intelligent people with good portfolios that are opted in, while I am still opted out of dpc.

I am just trying to highlight that just because someone doesn't join a shitstorm ticket, doesn't mean he or she is an idiot.

To just label everyone as a "victim" of the agencies and helpless...really does not represent the reality of the stock industry. On the contrary I find people to be very smart and business wise, especially those that successfully make a reliable income every month.

Nobody is forced to submit to stock agencies and if you feel unfairly treated and the agency is not ready to talk to you, then public stands and deletions are much faster at getting results than a multi year court case.

So whoever feels strongly about the royalty change, by all means make a rally cry, but you will have to accept that not everyone feels the same way about it.

Like others have mentioned, supporting and focussing on artist friendly sites is overall probably the best we can do. But these agencies have to also really want to become Number one, we would all stand behind pond5 for photos, but they don't seem to making much progress in photo sales.

Totally Agree.

Dr Bouz · « **Reply #124 on:** January 31, 2016, 11:37 »

for one comment above (supermarket parallel):

if there is no supermarket (which "only" sells farmers product) - yes, you'll have to drive/walk/whatever 100miles to the nearest farm, and trade with farmer directly.

if there is no farmer - anywhere/nowhere - you can go and try to find one in first-class private jet - but, having in mind there is no farmer - you won't eat. - no farmer-no food supply. food/farmer is "older" than supermarket.

i was selling my images before microstock, and i'll sell them after microstock as well - if there is demand for content. somehow, there will be the way from customer to producer. but, you guess - if there is no images - there is no images.

MicrostockGroup Sponsors

Author Topic: Opt Out of Enhanced Licenses at SS #OptInWhenTheyPayUp (Read 37575 times)

authenticcreations

emjaysmith

sharpshot

PixelBytes

Mantis

obj owl

MysteryGuy

Mantis

gbalex

cobalt

noodle

Zero Talent

Mantis

marthamarks

Shelma1

Zero Talent

Jo Ann Snover

gbalex

noodle

cobalt

Pauws99

jonbull

Lana

Mantis

Dr Bouz

Related Topics

Sponsors

Microstock Poll Results

Sponsors