I just got this notification:

Thanks for being a part of our community!

At Depositphotos, we�re always on the lookout to create new opportunities for our contributors. For this reason, we�re launching a special program to help you earn more with your current portfolio.
The new Depositphotos plan allows clients to download files from special collection. They�ll include high-quality works from contributors that aren�t receiving the attention they deserve.

This means that your content will have a higher chance of reaching potential buyers and being purchased.

Files that will receive an extra boost

We handpicked the files that we believe will find success within the program. Check out the files that we selected from your portfolio in this �Special Program� lightbox .
If you�re happy with our selection, then no further action is needed. If you would like to add or delete files, please do so within 7 days of receiving this email.

See your selected files ➝

What you�ll earn from selling files within the program

Your earnings will be based on a Revenue Share model. This means that 40% of net revenue will be allocated among contributors whose files have been downloaded within the new plan.
Read more details about the new model here.

If you have any questions, please contact [email protected]

Regards,
Depositphotos Team

The details behind the model specify this:

The Contributors who participate in the Revenue Share Special Program will be awarded royalties as follows. If a photo or vector image is purchased under the Revenue Share Special Program, your earnings increase with your Contributor�s Level. 40% of net subscription revenue is allocated among Contributors. The greater the proportion of an individual subscriber's downloads that relates to your files, the more you earn. The greater the number of subscribers who use your files, the more you earn. Earnings for photos and vector images are awarded in bulk at the end of the Revenue Share Special Program period.

I'm not sure what to make of it.

Same here.  Wonder if they are trying to do something similar to Elements.

Not sure how I feel about this - Selected contributors getting special treatment? Okay? Probbaly cool if you are one of the selected contributors, probably not so cool if you are not.
The Revenue Share model is my biggest issue, and also the issue I have with the new Adobe plan. It's basically the same. Depositphotos always gets a fixed 60% of all the money customers paid, but contributors have to "share" the remaining 40% with each other and the more customers download, the smaller the share will get. Again  an unfair plan that punishes contributors for making customers buy more images. Don't like this.

I would like to know what customers pay for these images? Apperntly a different price than for the other images, or why else is the payment for contributors differently? I have a slight suspicion that customers might have unlimited access to this gallery, just like with Adobe. Why else the share model? It seems to be a model where Depositphotos is not able to pay "per downloaded image". If they just wanted to "promote" work from selected artists - well, they are already doing that with things like the editor's choice gallery (which, by the way, from my experince, doesn't really lead to many additional sales), so, yeah.... unlimited downloads gallery for customers with special plan just like with Adobe is what I guess. Only difference is that Adobe lets customers with this plan download all our images, whether we agree to it or not, while on Depositphotos you at least get a say in that.

I have just emailed them to ask if it is possible to delete my chosen files from the new scheme (opt out) without deleting them from the whole site.
I can't speak for anyone else's images but the chosen ones of mine are, deservedly or not, ones which have rarely if ever sold. I am wondering if this is a way of encouraging us to shed some of the "dead wood" from the site by getting us to delete poor selling images. I am also a bit suspicious that this may be a trial which might lead to the whole commission system being changed.
I am hoping, but not necessarily expecting clarification soon.

Quote from: Noedelhap on April 29, 2021, 08:56

The revenue share model will be the new normal in microstock. Another agency jumping on the subscription bandwagon and untransparent revenue models.

At least there is an opt-out for the contributors. But I think it won't be long before this program is going to be implemented agency-wide for all contributors (with no opt-out, except delete your portfolio).

I am in the revenue share with Envanto, Elements, and that particular revenue share model is healthy. The difference is they are VERY picky about what gets selected, unlike DP who is using "unsold" or "low sell" images.  I think that they need to provide some deeper insights in the coming day or two regarding the "share" or I am going to opt out.  I think with DP we're looking at pennies per image sold as opposed to a bigger slice than their current 32 cents, or whatever.

So how does it work? Do you only find out what was sold at the end of the month, iStock style, or less often?

Quote from: Noedelhap on April 29, 2021, 08:56

The revenue share model will be the new normal in microstock. Another agency jumping on the subscription bandwagon and untransparent revenue models.

At least there is an opt-out for the contributors. But I think it won't be long before this program is going to be implemented agency-wide for all contributors (with no opt-out, except delete your portfolio).

I am in the revenue share with Envanto, Elements, and that particular revenue share model is healthy. The difference is they are VERY picky about what gets selected, unlike DP who is using "unsold" or "low sell" images. 

How is it healthy exactly? It's just a way to devalue content. In Envato's case, the high-quality images will be selected, which seems to me is detrimental for credit sales and higher commissions that quality content deserves.
And because it's all thrown into some revenue pool (of unknown size) which makes it all very untransparent.

Quote from: Mantis on April 29, 2021, 09:38

Quote from: Noedelhap on April 29, 2021, 08:56

The revenue share model will be the new normal in microstock. Another agency jumping on the subscription bandwagon and untransparent revenue models.

At least there is an opt-out for the contributors. But I think it won't be long before this program is going to be implemented agency-wide for all contributors (with no opt-out, except delete your portfolio).

I am in the revenue share with Envanto, Elements, and that particular revenue share model is healthy. The difference is they are VERY picky about what gets selected, unlike DP who is using "unsold" or "low sell" images. 

How is it healthy exactly? It's just a way to devalue content. In Envato's case, the high-quality images will be selected, which seems to me is detrimental for credit sales and higher commissions that quality content deserves.
And because it's all thrown into some revenue pool (of unknown size) which makes it all very untransparent.

It's healthy for me because I went from $50 a month with PD to ~6.5X a month with a fraction of the images.  They reduced my port from 3k images to about 500, yet my monthly income has increased significantly. 

Okay, think I worked out how to select which files to incude or remove from the scheme.

The email says
"We handpicked the files that we believe will find success within the program. Check out the files that we selected from your portfolio in this �Special Program� lightbox .
If you�re happy with our selection, then no further action is needed. If you would like to add or delete files, please do so within 7 days of receiving this email. "

If you follow their link we are actually the curators of our lightboxes. You can edit it by clicking the star at the bottom of the page and making sure the "Revenue Share Special Progam" folder is selected (rather than favourites)

I had a bit more time to look over their selection, and they literally sliced off THE MOST popular files I had left on the site for the program (as well as a few low sellers). Why the need to lie and say that they are included poorly selling files only?! They obviously don't give two s**ts about trying to rebuild a reputation after all the BS with the sites initial launch, or following the scandal after the trial purchases by the Russian community etc. I guess a leopard really doesn't change it's spots

"Contributors who participate in the Revenue Share Special Program will share 40% of net subscription revenue. Royalties are prorated among Contributors according to the proportion of their files in individual subscribers� downloads, with increased earnings for those at higher Contributor�s Levels. Royalties for files downloaded under the Program are awarded in aggregate at the end of each month."

I wonder if anybody got royalties from the Revenue Share Special Program, because all I see is $0.00.
After I removed all best sellers, good sellers and average sellers from their selection I left some low sellers for a test.

When I checked earlier in June, I was seeing a revenue share payment on my May stats page, but that is now showing zero. The total earned hasn't changed, so something is off with the sales reporting.

I came here because I don't know what to make of this email either...

I've already lost interest.  Back to life.

I opted out.  If I can't understand what they're doing, I won't be able to tell if there is an error.

I opted out.  If I can't understand what they're doing, I won't be able to tell if there is an error.

My thoughts, though my concern is not so much that there could be an error I would not notice (as this happens with other agencies as well, for example Alamy, where some sales sometimes never get reported and other than by chance there is also no way for you to ever notice), but simply that the information given is way too vague.

I have absolutely no idea what earnings I could expect from this sheme (and seeing as all agencies do is cut our earnings and sell images for even cheaper, it's very obvious that earnings would not be to my advantage) and if it weren't for threads about this in microstock forums, I would not even understand how it is supposed to work at all. Opting in would feel like signing a treaty I did not get to read.

Sooner or later we might not even be given a chance and DepositePhotos might change to some unlimited downloads/shared revenue model altogether - but they aren't anywhere near my top earners, so I would not hesitate to pull my port, should it come to this.