MicrostockGroup
Agency Based Discussion => CanStockPhoto.com => Topic started by: sipaphoto on May 02, 2011, 13:22
-
Here's my own experience with CanStockPhoto.com as a contributing photographer for the last two years:
Sales are extremely slow, even for pro photographers, and even with a great portfolio of 400+ photos. I'm using the term "great portfolio" not a self-evaluation, but rather as a term used by CanStockPhoto staff in their last reference to my portfolio.
Contributors also should be aware that closing the account is a long and tedious process, where you have to go through and delete each and every photo manually through an edit process before the option to close the account is even available. I've read posts on this forum that you can submit a request to CanStockPhoto staff to delete your photos in mass, but this isn't posted anywhere on the CanStockPhoto website itself, so everyone just ends up going through the extremely tedious process and frustration ensues.
Last but definitely not least, the company will NOT, I repeat, they will NOT issue you a credit of your balance for your own photo sales if you close your account >:( . They call this an industry standard, even though most other stock agencies don't this as a practice. One thing is guaranteed though: You will forfeit your balance as punishment for closing your account. This information is buried in the fine print of the Member Agreement, but thrown in your face when requesting a refund of your balance.
-
I hate to be the wet towel, but...
Yes, every site I know of requires you to have a minimum amount of $$ before you can cash out. If you close your account before you cash out, they keep the difference. In a way this is fair as they also spent a lot of money reviewing a photographers photos getting them online. Canstock also has reasonable enough sales that waiting for a payout shouldn't take too long with 400+ photos.
I also think it is fair that a site doesn't advertise how to delete your portfolio 'en mass'. If someone wants to remove their port. I don't think it too surprising that they would contact support on how to do it easily.
-
Harsh words for small issues. Why so emotional?
Canstock is a slow seller, true, but beyond that one of the best and fairest sites out there. I totally trust duncan (owner) and his crew and it is one of the few sites which ahven`t betrayed their Contributors and pay a fair royalty.
-
No complaints from me. CanStockPhoto are selling quite nicely and they accept almost everything I upload with the fastest reviews. There are some nice higher priced sales. There must be at least 50 sites that are much worse. The only thing I don't like is the occasional $0.25 subs sale.
-
I If you close your account before you cash out, they keep the difference. In a way this is fair as they also spent a lot of money reviewing a photographers photos getting them online.
Couldn't disagree more. The agency already got its percentage on those sales which more than covers their costs. The contributor's commission balance should be paid without question when the account is closed.
-
I If you close your account before you cash out, they keep the difference. In a way this is fair as they also spent a lot of money reviewing a photographers photos getting them online.
Couldn't disagree more. The agency already got its percentage on those sales which more than covers their costs. The contributor's commission balance should be paid without question when the account is closed.
yeah, good point. Depending on the number of sales I suppose. If a photog. uploads 1000 photos, then removes his account after a month or two and has only had $10 in sales, .. that would end up costing the agency a fair bit.
How much money are we talking about sipaphoto?
-
Harsh words for small issues. Why so emotional?
Canstock is a slow seller, true, but beyond that one of the best and fairest sites out there. I totally trust duncan (owner) and his crew and it is one of the few sites which ahven`t betrayed their Contributors and pay a fair royalty.
+1 from me across the board. Duncan is great and has bent over backward to help contributors many, many times.
Not to mention that sales at Canstock have been picking up the last year or so. 400 image portfolio (regardless of how "great") is not large enough to make any sweeping judgments about sales on any of the micro sites.
-
I If you close your account before you cash out, they keep the difference. In a way this is fair as they also spent a lot of money reviewing a photographers photos getting them online.
Couldn't disagree more. The agency already got its percentage on those sales which more than covers their costs. The contributor's commission balance should be paid without question when the account is closed.
If I was a site owner I would also not pay out just because an account is closed! As soon as a person feels that his/her sales is a bit slow, they can close the account, get a payout (and maybe next month open a new account). You know the rules of payouts when you entered into an agreement with the site, can not see how one can think that the payout rule is suddenly changed because you want to opt out.
Think it is just common sense to only close an account after after you have reached / received a payout. If you feel uploading is a waste of time, just stop and leave your portfolio there in the hope it pay out somewhere in the future. Alternatively, just write of the few dollars........
Canstock is a great site and my top seller, but every site has a bit of a niche, so one just need to find the one best suited for your work.
-
it really doesn't take you much time to upload at Canstockphoto. it's one of the easiest site to deal with and also very fast in their review times. they're also my fastest growth site this year.
-
IMO any independant microstocker who does not submit to CanStockPhoto is probably making a mistake.
I second all the positive comments above, and add that my April sales there were up 114% year-over-year. :)
-
We're all going to close our accounts someday. Either that, or it will be done by our survivors or heirs.
Yes in a very few cases agencies might lose money on a portfolio due to reviewing costs - gee I sure wouldn't want anyone to see anyone in business taking a risk (like I do when I spent time shooting stock photos), or lose a few bucks.
In the software business we used to joke about how hard it could be to get "that last check" from a customer whose finances were shaky. They'd keep paying you until they didn't need you anymore, then stiff you on the last check so you ended up working the final 2 weeks for nothing. We thought those customers were just swell guys and totally understood where they were coming from.
-
Mark me down as a CanStockPhoto supporter too. They are a good earner, solid RPD, and a good royalty percentage. It sucks that you got burned, but you definitely have to close any micro account carefully to make sure you don't leave money behind. Support will usually guide you on their policies. I just contacted support for 2 agencies today for deleting my images and they both had quick responses, were polite, and helpful. I know this isn't any consolation, but take it as a learning experience and move on.
-
Harsh words for small issues. Why so emotional?
Canstock is a slow seller, true, but beyond that one of the best and fairest sites out there. I totally trust duncan (owner) and his crew and it is one of the few sites which ahven`t betrayed their Contributors and pay a fair royalty.
I couldn't agree more! Sales have steadily increased for the last year.
One of the easiest sites to upload to with fast review times. I have to agree a portfolio of 400 images is really hard to judge success of sales at any stock site.
-
The most you should ever lose in closing a Canstock account is the minimum payout...I take that back...you'll lose all the revenue you would have gained if you just left the images there and forgotten about them for a few years. Why anyone goes through the extra effort of removing their files (verifiable fraud and abuse by the agency aside) is beyond me. You are only hurting yourself.
-
One small question - forgive me if this has already been mentioned but I have a link in my account settings that says "Cancel Account".
That should have done it. :-\
-
I hate to be the wet towel, but...
Yes, every site I know of requires you to have a minimum amount of $$ before you can cash out. If you close your account before you cash out, they keep the difference. In a way this is fair as they also spent a lot of money reviewing a photographers photos getting them online. Canstock also has reasonable enough sales that waiting for a payout shouldn't take too long with 400+ photos.
I also think it is fair that a site doesn't advertise how to delete your portfolio 'en mass'. If someone wants to remove their port. I don't think it too surprising that they would contact support on how to do it easily.
Well, you can be a wet towel all you want.. but you're still wrong in supporting these sites. However, I rather suspect that you have a good reason for supporting them, as in probably working for one.
That aside, you can't possibly believe all the Nutella you just tried to spread on my baby's diaper. Spare me please. They are absolutely NOT entitled to keeping any money that's been designated as my share from selling my photos. Remember, this is only my "share"! The website already made it's share which I might add is a much larger portion of profit than what's given the photographer as his share. The cost incurred by the company in "reviewing" my photos come out of the profits the company makes in selling them. It's absolutely ridiculous and irresponsible of you to try to justify their keeping the measly shares from the real bread and butter of these companies, the photographers themselves.
As for deleting files, it's just as easy for the company to add a simple text line saying "Click here to ask tech support to delete all your files in mass." After all, they did spend the time to add the following line instead: "You must delete all your photos before closing your account". Note the word "You" cleverly disguised as a substitute for the words "Hey, we can do it for you much easier and faster". :|
Finally, it's ridiculous to even have to wait until a company reaches a minimum before obtaining a payout when a photographer makes the decision to close the account. The ONLY reason a company does this is to earn even more money off the interest this money earns while sitting in the company's bank accounts.
So please, spare me the nuts in your Nutella... thanks.
-
Harsh words for small issues. Why so emotional?
Canstock is a slow seller, true, but beyond that one of the best and fairest sites out there. I totally trust duncan (owner) and his crew and it is one of the few sites which ahven`t betrayed their Contributors and pay a fair royalty.
Why so emotional... let's see. Why don't you to send me the money that CanStockPhoto is automatically forfeiting for me, and we'll see if you're emotional about it or not. The money forfeited is a small amount, but that's not the point. It's the principle of the thing, and unfortunately it seems that the vast majority of microstock companies have forgotten principle altogether. I'm here to remind those who read this post that they don't have to take this type of thing lying down, and that everyone has a voice when they've been wronged.
-
No complaints from me. CanStockPhoto are selling quite nicely and they accept almost everything I upload with the fastest reviews. There are some nice higher priced sales. There must be at least 50 sites that are much worse. The only thing I don't like is the occasional $0.25 subs sale.
Well good for you... Ignorance is bliss. Try closing your account when they owe you money and you won't be as happy, guaranteed.
-
I If you close your account before you cash out, they keep the difference. In a way this is fair as they also spent a lot of money reviewing a photographers photos getting them online.
Couldn't disagree more. The agency already got its percentage on those sales which more than covers their costs. The contributor's commission balance should be paid without question when the account is closed.
yeah, good point. Depending on the number of sales I suppose. If a photog. uploads 1000 photos, then removes his account after a month or two and has only had $10 in sales, .. that would end up costing the agency a fair bit.
How much money are we talking about sipaphoto?
The amount is actually irrelevant to be honest. Like any company, it assumes a certain amount of risk when it accepts the photographer and the photos. Sometimes this pays out, and sometimes it doesn't. It's called profits vs. loss. By the same logic you're using, the company would have the right to charge me money for time spent reviewing the photos if my photos generated zero dollars in sales. I'm sure people would flip if they actually received a bill in the mail after closing the account. I mean, the way you have it, companies should have zero risk and the risk needs to ALWAYS be on the photographer. Come on, whatever happened to fair business practices?
-
Harsh words for small issues. Why so emotional?
Canstock is a slow seller, true, but beyond that one of the best and fairest sites out there. I totally trust duncan (owner) and his crew and it is one of the few sites which ahven`t betrayed their Contributors and pay a fair royalty.
+1 from me across the board. Duncan is great and has bent over backward to help contributors many, many times.
Not to mention that sales at Canstock have been picking up the last year or so. 400 image portfolio (regardless of how "great") is not large enough to make any sweeping judgments about sales on any of the micro sites.
Exactly who signs your paycheck?
-
Most if not all sites have a minimum payout and if you cancel before you reach it you should expect to lose the money in your account. Seeing how low the minimum is is one of the details you have to read and decide on before you join and start submitting. Most people who are planning on leaving a site wait 'til they hit the minimum before leaving or keep a balance above the minimum for the last chunk of time so they can empty out their account as the last step.
I haven't tried to leave Canstock, so I can't say if the process is a pain or not, but if I had a heap of images I wanted removed I'd definitely be writing them with a request rather than doing it one at a time.
I am ready to jump all over a site when they lower commissions or otherwise screw the artists, but the minimum payout is something we all joined with full knowledge of (or should have if we read the fine print).
-
You did read the contributor agreement when you joined Canstock didn't you?
-
If I was a site owner I would also not pay out just because an account is closed! As soon as a person feels that his/her sales is a bit slow, they can close the account, get a payout (and maybe next month open a new account). You know the rules of payouts when you entered into an agreement with the site, can not see how one can think that the payout rule is suddenly changed because you want to opt out.
/quote]
I absolutely disagree simply because your logic trumps my rights as the owner of the photos. If I want to stop selling my photos, it is my right to do so. It's my right to close my account at any time and it's also my right to sign up again if I choose. It's also the company's right to decline my account if I sign up again "next month" as you suggest.
Another thing: I challenge you to be honest and tell us all how often you actually read the 10+ pages long Membership Agreements online before putting the little checkmark in the "I agree" box. Not only because they're long, but also because they're written in legal terms that only attorneys understand. Nobody reads those agreements, as evidenced by many studies done by several companies. Even Dateline NBC covered that topic in one of their newscasts. Companies know this and take advantage of it endlessly.
-
Mark me down as a CanStockPhoto supporter too. They are a good earner, solid RPD, and a good royalty percentage. It sucks that you got burned, but you definitely have to close any micro account carefully to make sure you don't leave money behind. Support will usually guide you on their policies. I just contacted support for 2 agencies today for deleting my images and they both had quick responses, were polite, and helpful. I know this isn't any consolation, but take it as a learning experience and move on.
That's what I'm doing, but it doesn't mean I won't also speak out against the company's policy. I think the policy is unfair and will voice my opinion, but I've already closed my account and forfeited the earnings. I just happen to not be one of those people who just takes things lying down. I'm just not the type to simply take things as they are just because a corporation tells me to.
-
Harsh words for small issues. Why so emotional?
Canstock is a slow seller, true, but beyond that one of the best and fairest sites out there. I totally trust duncan (owner) and his crew and it is one of the few sites which ahven`t betrayed their Contributors and pay a fair royalty.
I couldn't agree more! Sales have steadily increased for the last year.
One of the easiest sites to upload to with fast review times. I have to agree a portfolio of 400 images is really hard to judge success of sales at any stock site.
Really? Because I was under the impression that it's not quantity but quality that matters. Boy was I misguided.
-
The most you should ever lose in closing a Canstock account is the minimum payout...I take that back...you'll lose all the revenue you would have gained if you just left the images there and forgotten about them for a few years. Why anyone goes through the extra effort of removing their files (verifiable fraud and abuse by the agency aside) is beyond me. You are only hurting yourself.
I agree, but the photographer's rights are trumped time and time again in the legal system, and companies rarely pay for any of their fraudulent and abusive activities. I'd rather close my account and negate the whole issue altogether.
-
One small question - forgive me if this has already been mentioned but I have a link in my account settings that says "Cancel Account".
That should have done it. :-\
As soon as you click that, a message comes up that tells you that YOU must delete all your photos before cancelling the account. No choices for "select all" for a faster process, no message telling you that you have the option to email staff to do it for you in mass, nothing. The message also tells you that by cancelling your account you forfeit your balance, whatever that balance may be.
-
Most if not all sites have a minimum payout and if you cancel before you reach it you should expect to lose the money in your account. Seeing how low the minimum is is one of the details you have to read and decide on before you join and start submitting. Most people who are planning on leaving a site wait 'til they hit the minimum before leaving or keep a balance above the minimum for the last chunk of time so they can empty out their account as the last step.
I haven't tried to leave Canstock, so I can't say if the process is a pain or not, but if I had a heap of images I wanted removed I'd definitely be writing them with a request rather than doing it one at a time.
I am ready to jump all over a site when they lower commissions or otherwise screw the artists, but the minimum payout is something we all joined with full knowledge of (or should have if we read the fine print).
The problem with deleting photos is that you're directed to delete each photo yourself when you click Cancel Account. There's no indication about contacting staff or that any other option is available. Only people who chose to complain about the process would actually contact staff and be told about other options, but the vast majority of people will just go through the process as directed.
-
You did read the contributor agreement when you joined Canstock didn't you?
Let's just say that I don't believe for a second that you yourself read the Member Agreements of all the stock websites you have listed below every one of your messages, or that you remember what those agreements actually stated. I further challenge that the Member Agreements are intentionally written in paragraphs that only Attorneys understand, and the general person such as myself does not.
-
They might be slow but heck! I rather have Duncan and his crew then others who rip you to bits.
-
Remember, this is only my "share"! The website already made it's share which I might add is a much larger portion of profit than what's given the photographer as his share.
CanStockPhoto is 50/50, so we get the same as they do from each sale. Obviously, you didn't get your share from your closed account sales, and I feel for you. But, I still think CanStockPhoto is a good company and not worth your ire. It's a tough world out there. I learn so much from each deal I've been cheated on over the years. I'd like to think that they've never happened, but each one makes me wiser. ;D
-
Remember, this is only my "share"! The website already made it's share which I might add is a much larger portion of profit than what's given the photographer as his share.
CanStockPhoto is 50/50, so we get the same as they do from each sale. Obviously, you didn't get your share from your closed account sales, and I feel for you. But, I still think CanStockPhoto is a good company and not worth your ire. It's a tough world out there. I learn so much from each deal I've been cheated on over the years. I'd like to think that they've never happened, but each one makes me wiser. ;D
That sort of makes it even worse in my eyes, because it means that they're behaving like a business partner who decides to take off with your share of the business profits when you decide to go separate ways. There are laws protecting against that in business law, but there are no laws protecting photographers from these unfair business practices.
-
They might be slow but heck! I rather have Duncan and his crew then others who rip you to bits.
So what you're saying is that they may suck, but they're the lesser of two evils, so that makes them ok?
-
It's come to my attention that a few people on here aren't contributing photographers, but rather microstock company employees defending their industry's business practices under the disguise of average contributors. I had no idea. I have to say that this shows a lack of integrity since it really isn't a fair debate when one side is loaded with infiltrators with a corporate agenda.
-
I think there's enough information available for people to make sure they have a portfolio that will make money with sites like CanStockPhoto before opening an account there. I didn't bother uploading my portfolio until I knew it would make some money. If people sign up and don't read the small print, then they can't get enough sales, I really don't have a lot of sympathy. CanStockPhoto holding on to the money doesn't make much difference to me, this is a business and that looks like a sensible business decision. I respect sites that payout below the minimum payout but I don't think they're obligated to do that.
The only site that kept some of my money because I lost patience with them was albumo. That was my mistake and I'm not bitter about it.
-
Really? Because I was under the impression that it's not quantity but quality that matters. Boy was I misguided.
I agree that quality not quantity matter but if that was your case you would only have had to wait a week or two more at most to reach payout before closing.
-
I'm another who likes canstock (but not the $0.25), for me they are definitely worth the time to upload to, but I do think all sites should payout when you close the account but do any of them payout you if you are under their amount when you close?
-
I'm not sure who you think are company employees here, but some of the people you have rudely lashed out at on this thread have been extremely successful stock photographers, and one even the owner of this forum.
Maybe you should be a bit better informed before you start mud slinging?
-
You did read the contributor agreement when you joined Canstock didn't you?
Let's just say that I don't believe for a second that you yourself read the Member Agreements of all the stock websites you have listed below every one of your messages, or that you remember what those agreements actually stated. I further challenge that the Member Agreements are intentionally written in paragraphs that only Attorneys understand, and the general person such as myself does not.
I find it incredibly unbelievable and somewhat stupid that someone wouldn't read the terms before signing up. I've never signed up to a site before reading the terms... and not just skimming through them but carefully reading them. How can you make a decision about whether they're worth joining if you haven't read their terms? I read Alamy's terms a few days ago. I was excided about joining them and it wasn't until I read the fine print that I decided they were overrated on this thread because they sell RFs that are equivalent to Extended Licences on other micros for as low as ~$3.00.
Saying that no one reads the terms because their long is rubbish. In the time you took to read this thread and respond to the posts you did, you could have read the terms of an MS agent. Saying that their difficult to understand is also rubbish. They're fairly easy to comprehend and if you've read one, you'll find they all pretty much say the same thing, give or take a few clauses here and there.
The terms aside though, I agree with you about agents not paying you out when you leave is probably not ethical but they pretty much all do it and you should have known this before you signed up.
Castock is one of two of my best sellers and the site and staff are very easy to deal with. I've never had a problem with them... the uploading process is easy, reviews are super fast, payment is fast, customer service is excellent and sales are pretty good... they have been for me anyway.
My only small gripe, as someone else has mentioned above, are the odd $0.25 subs that we get but they're easy to live with when they're followed by a fotosearch $19.80 sale.
-
I'm not sure who you think are company employees here...
That's what I was wondering. Is it me? ;D
-
Looked to me like some of the comments were directed to Lisa and Leaf. Which implies that the OP has never read anything on this forum before and just came here to spew vitriol
-
The OP felt like he got burned by CanStockPhoto and when people ridiculed him for not having read the fine print more carefully, that made him even angrier. Rudeness ensued.
My feeling is, forget the weasel words: pocketing a supplier's last commission check is pretty tacky. It's just one more example of the shabby things you can rationalize doing on the internet, where "contributors" are just email addresses and paypal accounts, and you never have to even talk to the person you're doing business with, let alone look him in the eye.
-
Exactly who signs your paycheck?
Huh? I'm self-employed. 100% of my income comes through royalties from sales of my images.
And if your implication is that I am somehow on the payroll of one of the micro sites - WRONG. Sorry to disappoint.
The OP seems to feel that anyone disagreeing with him/her is on Canstock's payroll. The other alternative - that they are overreacting and throwing a public tantrum isn't possible, so there must be some conspiracy at work... ::)
-
The OP seems to feel that anyone disagreeing with him/her is on Canstock's payroll. The other alternative - that they are overreacting and throwing a public tantrum isn't possible, so there must be some conspiracy at work... ::)
True. The idiom "There's none so blind as those who will not see" seems to fit the OP perfectly.
-
I thought this thread would be a good one when I saw the title...
Leaf, Lisafx, and the others who posted here are all highly respected photographers and forum members, who offered their honest thoughts. Certainly none of them deserved being spoken down to, nor are they employees or affiliated with Can Stock Photo.
As I mentioned when you opened your first support ticket with us, we always regret hearing about any confusion or negative feelings. Although in this case the fact remains that our Membership Agreement governs how we operate and the rules that we follow, including regarding the closing of accounts. I would absolutely expect any photographer entering into an agreement with us would read the terms before accepting them, as it would be hard to comprehend blindly accepting a contract otherwise. Our agreement is as concise and easy to understand as possible, including:
"10. Cancellation of Service
Company reserves the right to restrict, suspend or cancel your Membership at any time for any reason without prior notice or liability. Company may change or discontinue all or any aspect of the Site at any time, including the availability of any feature, database, or Content, without prior notice or liability. Cancelled accounts forfeit the rights to any accumulated earnings, credits, or subscriptions. No refunds will be made."
It is true that to use the automated account closing tool, you must first remove your images. This is to prevent people from accidentally wiping their entire portfolio with the wrong click of a button. In cases where people have a large portfolio, they will usually open a support ticket and we remove everything for them.
Regarding why we require a minimum payment amount on account closure, there are several reasons, which others have hit on. In short, there are significant costs involved with submitting images (inspector fees, bandwidth, storage), in addition to regular variable costs (merchant fees), and payments costs (PayPal & administration fees). At the same time we do not require any lockin period for your content, and we provide some of the highest commissions in the industry. We can't do this while also providing $9 cashouts to every individual who may submit hundreds of images, only to decide a few weeks later that stock photography is not for them (example). We certainly do not make a profit on such closures - it is still a financial net loss. This is why many agencies have a minimum lockin period - which again, we don't.
I sincerely regret hearing anytime someone has hard feelings towards us, as we work very hard to be as honest and fair as possible. We pride ourselves in operating differently than others in our industry, and am glad to see many here recognize and appreciate this effort. Unfortunately despite our best efforts, we can't always make everyone happy, as seems to be the case.
Regards,
Duncan
-
Quote: I agree that quality not quantity matter but if that was your case you would only have had to wait a week or two more at most to reach payout before closing. End quote...
That's a complete assumption. The website doesn't have enough clientele, as evidenced by their own visitor logs, and thus doesn't produce enough sales for their contributors. Look it up yourself..
-
I'm another who likes canstock (but not the $0.25), for me they are definitely worth the time to upload to, but I do think all sites should payout when you close the account but do any of them payout you if you are under their amount when you close?
Some do and some don't. In other words, some do the right thing and some decide to stiff photographers of their shared earnings.
-
I'm not sure who you think are company employees here, but some of the people you have rudely lashed out at on this thread have been extremely successful stock photographers, and one even the owner of this forum.
Maybe you should be a bit better informed before you start mud slinging?
In my experience, those who defend themselves the hardest turn out to be guilty themselves... I didn't make an accusation against any specific person here, so maybe it's you who should get better informed.
-
deleted, he's not worth the effort
-
I hate to be the wet towel, but...
Yes, every site I know of requires you to have a minimum amount of $$ before you can cash out. If you close your account before you cash out, they keep the difference. In a way this is fair as they also spent a lot of money reviewing a photographers photos getting them online. Canstock also has reasonable enough sales that waiting for a payout shouldn't take too long with 400+ photos.
I also think it is fair that a site doesn't advertise how to delete your portfolio 'en mass'. If someone wants to remove their port. I don't think it too surprising that they would contact support on how to do it easily.
Well, you can be a wet towel all you want.. but you're still wrong in supporting these sites. However, I rather suspect that you have a good reason for supporting them, as in probably working for one.
-
Harsh words for small issues. Why so emotional?
Canstock is a slow seller, true, but beyond that one of the best and fairest sites out there. I totally trust duncan (owner) and his crew and it is one of the few sites which ahven`t betrayed their Contributors and pay a fair royalty.
+1 from me across the board. Duncan is great and has bent over backward to help contributors many, many times.
Not to mention that sales at Canstock have been picking up the last year or so. 400 image portfolio (regardless of how "great") is not large enough to make any sweeping judgments about sales on any of the micro sites.
Exactly who signs your paycheck?
-
I didn't make an accusation against any specific person here, so maybe it's you who should get better informed.
hmmm?
-
Quote: I find it incredibly unbelievable and somewhat stupid that someone wouldn't read the terms before signing up. I've never signed up to a site before reading the terms... and not just skimming through them but carefully reading them. End quote...
If this is true then you're one of the few who do read them. I'm not saying that there aren't odd cases out there who actually digest every sentence, and I admit, it probably is stupid to trust enough to agree to a silly online agreement without having an attorney read it first nowadays, so I guess I'm naive in my belief that there are still people out there still capable of doing the right thing. My bad...
-
If I was a site owner I would also not pay out just because an account is closed! As soon as a person feels that his/her sales is a bit slow, they can close the account, get a payout (and maybe next month open a new account). You know the rules of payouts when you entered into an agreement with the site, can not see how one can think that the payout rule is suddenly changed because you want to opt out.
/quote]
I absolutely disagree simply because your logic trumps my rights as the owner of the photos. If I want to stop selling my photos, it is my right to do so. It's my right to close my account at any time and it's also my right to sign up again if I choose. It's also the company's right to decline my account if I sign up again "next month" as you suggest.
Another thing: I challenge you to be honest and tell us all how often you actually read the 10+ pages long Membership Agreements online before putting the little checkmark in the "I agree" box. Not only because they're long, but also because they're written in legal terms that only attorneys understand. Nobody reads those agreements, as evidenced by many studies done by several companies. Even Dateline NBC covered that topic in one of their newscasts. Companies know this and take advantage of it endlessly.
I guess if you close your bank account you also tell them how their contract should have looked and what their rights in respect of fees, etc. are (according to your norms, because you did not read the contract, as it is long)? Smell the roses, this is business not a post your picture playground. If you did not read it tough! And no, I did not read everything either, and therefore I would not chase up a big stink afterward, as it was my duty to do so. If the contract deviates from the norm, one might still have reason to feel a bit done in, but Canstock does not, it is the industry norm. So just suck it up, be strong and move on. ;)
-
Wow... A blind elephant can see that so many of you have an agenda in defending microstock companies like CanStock. I mean, even Duncan of CanStock replied to the post within hours. What are the odds of that? That in an Internet world of infinite blog postings, my miniscule and insignificant post would have been found by a leading head of the company and even replied to... The odds of that are simply astronomical. Now, maybe Duncan is a regular on this blog, in which case, wow what are the odds that I myself would stumble upon a website he frequents?? Wait... Unless this whole thing is just a nice front for microstock companies to ridicule and humiliate photographers who complain about these companies unfairness. In that case, Bravo! You had me fooled.
I mean, all I did was offer my honest experience with the company, and immediately I was ridiculed, called stupid, ignorant, a poor photographer, low earner, and now an OP. :) I don't even know when I went from sipaphoto to just an OP, but here I am.
I don't know you people from Adam and after your generous "sympathy" I really don't want to either, but two people emailed me privately through my website to tell me to be cautious because many contributors here are not contributing photographers but rather microstock company reps here to make people like me look stupid through ridicule. After reading many of your comments I don't see much that refutes their email warning. Now, I'm brand new to this forum. I only joined yesterday, and yes, I joined to voice my complaint. The members who warned me though are long-standing members, unlike me, and the fact that you ripped into me for daring to voice my complaint only adds fuel to these members' and my accusation.
-
Quote: I guess if you close your bank account you also tell them how their contract should have looked and what their rights in respect of fees, etc. are (according to your norms, because you did not read the contract, as it is long)? End quote::::
@CD123: if I close my bank account I don't have to worry about cashing it out first. The bank rep will curteously place my remaining balance in a nice envelope and refund me all my money. That's ethical. Don't use bad examples mate..
-
Do you realize that OP means original poster don't you??? Not an insult.
-
Wow... A blind elephant can see that so many of you have an agenda in defending microstock companies like CanStock. I mean, even Duncan of CanStock replied to the post within hours. What are the odds of that? That in an Internet world of infinite blog postings, my miniscule and insignificant post would have been found by a leading head of the company and even replied to... The odds of that are simply astronomical. Now, maybe Duncan is a regular on this blog, in which case, wow what are the odds that I myself would stumble upon a website he frequents?? Wait... Unless this whole thing is just a nice front for microstock companies to ridicule and humiliate photographers who complain about these companies unfairness. In that case, Bravo! You had me fooled.
I mean, all I did was offer my honest experience with the company, and immediately I was ridiculed, called stupid, ignorant, a poor photographer, low earner, and now an OP. :) I don't even know when I went from sipaphoto to just an OP, but here I am.
I don't know you people from Adam and after your generous "sympathy" I really don't want to either, but two people emailed me privately through my website to tell me to be cautious because many contributors here are not contributing photographers but rather microstock company reps here to make people like me look stupid through ridicule. After reading many of your comments I don't see much that refutes their email warning. Now, I'm brand new to this forum. I only joined yesterday, and yes, I joined to voice my complaint. The members who warned me though are long-standing members, unlike me, and the fact that you ripped into me for daring to voice my complaint only adds fuel to these members' and my accusation.
There aren't many good microstock forums, this is probably the one most people use. So it's highly likely that the head of a site that likes to keep an eye on what contributors are up to will be looking here. Duncan often replies to posts, as do several other site owners and employees. Most of them have an official badge, so we know they are involved with the site.
-
OP is original poster or the guy/gal that started the thread. A lot of people here have strong opinions and many of them are very negative about agencies. CanStockPhoto just happens to be one with a lot of favorable opinions, so people were just voicing their rebuttals. I'm a contributor to CanStockPhoto. You can find my portfolio here:
http://www.canstockphoto.com/cthoman/ (http://www.canstockphoto.com/cthoman/)
I'm not sure about anyone's hidden agendas, but there are a lot of agency representatives that pop into the forums here. They are usually clearly labeled or identify themselves though and not being covert about it.
-
deleted, he's not worth the effort
+1
-
I normally post here, as most of the site reps reply in their own site's forums (I find it most helpful and it make this site tops). About people getting charged up about certain sites they respect; well what did you expect with your heading, stating that CanStock "stinks" (very "ethical" from you launching an attack like that against a site which just do what every body else does...?).
I am sure there are site owners, site reps and other co-conspirators crawling this site, waiting to pound on innocent complainants, but if you visit more frequently you will, in time, see who are actual co-artists (keep an eye out for the guys with the sunglasses.......).
In any case, if you have the right to voice your opinion (especially in such harsh terms), every one else here have the same right (even the ones that disagree with you).
-
deleted, he's not worth the effort
+1
+50
-
Do you realize that OP means original poster don't you??? Not an insult.
Yes, thank you. I was merely pointing out that I quickly went from SipaPhoto (my actual handle) to a generic OP designation. I was being ironic.
-
Wow... A blind elephant can see that so many of you have an agenda in defending microstock companies like CanStock. I mean, even Duncan of CanStock replied to the post within hours. What are the odds of that? That in an Internet world of infinite blog postings, my miniscule and insignificant post would have been found by a leading head of the company and even replied to... The odds of that are simply astronomical. Now, maybe Duncan is a regular on this blog, in which case, wow what are the odds that I myself would stumble upon a website he frequents?? Wait... Unless this whole thing is just a nice front for microstock companies to ridicule and humiliate photographers who complain about these companies unfairness. In that case, Bravo! You had me fooled.
The chances of Duncan finding your post here is highly likely, and the chance of you posting here is also highly likely. There are only a few microstock forums, so the chance of you posting on this one is about 1 in 4. The forum is broken up into areas for each microstock site so members can discuss the sites they want. The owners can also easily follow what is discussed about their site and many owners / employees respond to the discussion, something that is very appreciated. Some sites (http://forum.yaymicro.com/), even use MicrostockGroup as their primary discussion area. As others have mentioned, the majority of site reps are given a 'verified' label
-
There aren't many good microstock forums, this is probably the one most people use. So it's highly likely that the head of a site that likes to keep an eye on what contributors are up to will be looking here. Duncan often replies to posts, as do several other site owners and employees. Most of them have an official badge, so we know they are involved with the site.
Thank you for that information. However, I looked up Duncan's posts and he's got a total of 54 posts. I probably have more by now and I only joined yesterday. Additionally, while the employees of companies may have an official badge, anyone can start multiple accounts using personal email addresses which would not have badges associated with them. I could easily create such accounts myself, then log in and out and post supporting responses to my own comments all day long.
-
I'm not sure about anyone's hidden agendas, but there are a lot of agency representatives that pop into the forums here. They are usually clearly labeled or identify themselves though and not being covert about it.
As I responded to another user a few minutes ago, having a company badge doesn't mean all that much to be honest. Anyone can create multiple user accounts here and log out of their company account, log in with a personal one and post responses that don't display a company badge all day long. Saying that they are always labeled and always identify themselves isn't really accurate or realistic is it?
-
When I spotted the title of this thread I thought it must be about Canada's election last night, but of course it's not, but it's indeed a very stinky thread.
I am so thankful that I don't really have anything that comes close to the significance of this topic to rage about.
-
I am sure there are site owners, site reps and other co-conspirators crawling this site, waiting to pound on innocent complainants, but if you visit more frequently you will, in time, see who are actual co-artists (keep an eye out for the guys with the sunglasses.......).
In any case, if you have the right to voice your opinion (especially in such harsh terms), every one else here have the same right (even the ones that disagree with you).
CD, I don't think I ever said people don't have the right to disagree with what I'm saying. They absolutely do! Even the companies themselves have the right to disagree, and even support their policies if they choose to do so. My hope isn't to take anyone's rights away. It's actually in the hopes of changing the way these companies conduct themselves with regard to these policies, which aren't laws by the way, only company policies and subject to change. But these companies act as if these are laws written in stone, only changeable by an act of God. I'm naively hoping that enough people will read these posts to care about how these companies treat contributors.
I'm glad to hear about photographers who are very happy with CanStockPhoto. I have no doubt they're happy. I was happy too for two years, up until I tried closing my account and found out that in closing my account is where I opened a can of rotten worms. I have a fundamental problem with the policy section dealing with the company keeping my portion of earnings if I decide to close my account. This is tantamount to a company keeping my final paycheck if I decide to quit a job. It's not legal in any other industry I can think of except here...
-
I could easily create such accounts myself, then log in and out and post supporting responses to my own comments all day long.
You wouldn't be the first one to try. :) There have been members who opened multiple accounts and had conversations with themselves... such accounts are pretty easy to spot and the accounts are simply removed.
-
You wouldn't be the first one to try. :) There have been members who opened multiple accounts and had conversations with themselves... such accounts are pretty easy to spot and the accounts are simply removed.
Are you telling me there is order on this ship of crazy degenerates, captain? ;D
-
My hope isn't to take anyone's rights away. It's actually in the hopes of changing the way these companies conduct themselves with regard to these policies, which aren't laws by the way, only company policies and subject to change.
I think that's a good effort to have. If it was changing subscription policies, being able to change or set prices or a minimum royalty amount, I'd probably be right there with you. But, account canceling payouts isn't high on my wish list of changes to the micros.
-
I could easily create such accounts myself, then log in and out and post supporting responses to my own comments all day long.
You wouldn't be the first one to try. :) There have been members who opened multiple accounts and had conversations with themselves... such accounts are pretty easy to spot and the accounts are simply removed.
Wich proves my point...
-
I didn't make an accusation against any specific person here, so maybe it's you who should get better informed.
hmmm?
You're right, I did actually single someone out in response to their post at one point. My bad. Apologies.
-
I could easily create such accounts myself, then log in and out and post supporting responses to my own comments all day long.
You wouldn't be the first one to try. :) There have been members who opened multiple accounts and had conversations with themselves... such accounts are pretty easy to spot and the accounts are simply removed.
I disagree.. tell the whole truth please. These types of accounts are actually very hard to spot, especially when they don't hint at any affiliation to the company, but rather defend the company as if they're contributors having great experiences with them all the time. People who have only good things and absolutely nothing negative to say about a company they only interact with on such an impersonal level as the Internet are suspicious. I'm sorry, but there is no company in existence that can only make people happy, and so happy that people are willing to jump on here, defend a company they have no interest in, and rip on fellow photographers for voicing their bad experience. Companies like that just don't exist, so I'm sorry, but if you're not suspicious of these people and their motives then you're hiding your head in the sand.
-
Companies we have no interest in...... :D - We are contributors to these sites. ::)
Personally I think you are an impostor who represents (owner or rep) another site and are having a swing at CanStock because they are better than your site. Please stop bashing the competition. Go home, you do not belong here you under cover infiltrator...... >:(
;D :D
-
Stop feeding the troll.
-
Stop feeding the troll.
O' no, another new impostor "Daevid" :o They are taking over the site!!!!! I am out of here!!!!!!
-
Companies we have no interest in...... :D - We are contributors to these sites. ::)
Personally I think you are an impostor who represents (owner or rep) another site and are having a swing at CanStock because they are better than your site. Please stop bashing the competition. Go home, you do not belong here you under cover infiltrator...... >:(
;D :D
Wow, that was mature.
-
I'm not sure who you think are company employees here...
That's what I was wondering. Is it me? ;D
ha,cthoman
I followed your step to join the Can, and it doesn't disappoint me,thanks,man ;D
-
Sorry, if you have this much innate mistrust for stock sites...you should probably find a different line of work.
I suspect you lost more in future revenue by blowing those 400 images away in a rash decision, then was forfeited to Canstock.
-
Sorry, if you have this much innate mistrust for stock sites...you should probably find a different line of work.
I suspect you lost more in future revenue by blowing those 400 images away in a rash decision, then was forfeited to Canstock.
Probably, but I retained my integrity, self respect, and rights to sell my photos at fair rates, all of which are much more important to me than lost future revenue through microstock.
-
I'm sorry, but unless you're receiving regular paycheck-sized revenue on a weekly basis from your microstock sales, your being a contributor doesn't mean you actually have an interest large enough in the company to defend them this passionately. That would be like owning a single share in Microsoft and actually thinking your voice should be influential in any Microsoft-related debate.
-
ha,cthoman
I followed your step to join the Can, and it doesn't disappoint me,thanks,man ;D
Dang it! I need to stop being so optimistic. It's just encouraging competition. ;D
-
and with that...
Willie Nelson - The Party's Over (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UmO_04yYi9Q#)