MicrostockGroup Sponsors


Author Topic: Adobe Stock took my money away  (Read 10890 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

« Reply #75 on: February 18, 2019, 13:18 »
0
After this, no desire left to think, buy, arrange, capture, edit, caption, keyword, upload, submit microstock photos for Adobe or any other company. it is what it is.


« Reply #76 on: February 18, 2019, 13:23 »
0
Where do you see these adjustments?
In my case, I can still see those high sales (over $300, over $130, etc), both on AS and FT sites....
Go to "credits" on Fotolia, then search for the respective sale. The image ID left besides the high/original amount is click-able and gets you to the sale's details. There you should see what's left.

Thanks for this. Sadly, it still doesn't explain which sales were affected for me. They show an amount that was deducted with a link "Invoice". This link is broken, just displays "Sorry, the page cannot be displayed for the moment". The deductions have also been taken off the 15th Feb, which is outside the 6h-13th time frame and there are no sales on the 15th that the deductions correspond to. This has resulted in my stats showing 30+ sales for a grand total of 1.49.

This just looks like they've attempted to correct the initial error with another error. Doesn't inspire confidence in the accounting systems. They shouldn't have taken anything off until they were confident they could correct it properly so contributors could clearly see what licences had been corrected and on the day it occurred. Now I just have stats that are going to look false in my accounting software.

« Reply #77 on: February 18, 2019, 13:44 »
0
Look only to the sales between 06.-13.02.2019 (no sale from 15.02. was affected!) ... and there only to the bigger ones (no standard credit sales) ... then click on the picture-ID - and voil: you see the real commission ... that's not really difficult!

« Reply #78 on: February 18, 2019, 15:10 »
0
Look only to the sales between 06.-13.02.2019 (no sale from 15.02. was affected!) ... and there only to the bigger ones (no standard credit sales) ... then click on the picture-ID - and voil: you see the real commission ... that's not really difficult!

It should be a little more obvious, I don't really want to click on several hundreds images just to find the ones affected. Some of the refunds for me were also only $2 or so it wouldn't be a case of just looking at the big sales.

« Reply #79 on: February 18, 2019, 17:01 »
+9
love it how matt jumps on every thread with positive news, but when the crap hits the fan the replies become far and between., the 12.5% is worrying though, wonder how they are going to spin that.

« Reply #80 on: February 18, 2019, 20:12 »
+3
love it how matt jumps on every thread with positive news, but when the crap hits the fan the replies become far and between., the 12.5% is worrying though, wonder how they are going to spin that.


Read post #52. I dont think Mat works in the accounting dept., either. Since he is a photographer himself, I am sure when he knows something, he will share it here. Dont shoot the messenger. Complain to Adobe support.

« Reply #81 on: February 19, 2019, 00:17 »
+3
love it how matt jumps on every thread with positive news, but when the crap hits the fan the replies become far and between., the 12.5% is worrying though, wonder how they are going to spin that.


Read post #52. I dont think Mat works in the accounting dept., either. Since he is a photographer himself, I am sure when he knows something, he will share it here. Dont shoot the messenger. Complain to Adobe support.
Delivering the "corporate" answer's simply his job. Not his fault for sure, but this doesn't help clarify things, either.

« Reply #82 on: February 19, 2019, 05:47 »
+3
12.50% @Mat w.t.-f?

« Reply #83 on: February 19, 2019, 07:20 »
0
"Further to our earlier email notifying you about a negative adjustment, we sincerely regret our error in stating that only license sales on Feb 12 were impacted, this problem of overpaying royalties occurred during the period Feb 6 13.
The adjustments were made for 80745923 and the negative adjustment was 2.75, which is reflected in your available payout balance on Adobe Stock and Fotolia.
Please note, if you requested a payout which is still pending, we are cancelling the request and credit the amount back to your account.
We are aware that the negative adjustment is not yet shown in your sales activity history or your total earnings and and thank you for your patience while we address the problem."

So, I got two of these, which equaled my $50 or so missing.  I find it odd that out of hundreds of sales during that week that just two sales were "overpaid".

« Reply #84 on: February 19, 2019, 07:56 »
+2
love it how matt jumps on every thread with positive news, but when the crap hits the fan the replies become far and between., the 12.5% is worrying though, wonder how they are going to spin that.


Read post #52. I dont think Mat works in the accounting dept., either. Since he is a photographer himself, I am sure when he knows something, he will share it here. Dont shoot the messenger. Complain to Adobe support.
Delivering the "corporate" answer's simply his job. Not his fault for sure, but this doesn't help clarify things, either.


It doesnt even sound like accounting has a grasp on what went wrong, why would you expect Mat to be able to clarify things. At least he checks in. More than I can say for some of the others. Images being stolen massively on SS, not a peep from them.

« Reply #85 on: February 19, 2019, 08:38 »
+1
love it how matt jumps on every thread with positive news, but when the crap hits the fan the replies become far and between., the 12.5% is worrying though, wonder how they are going to spin that.


Read post #52. I dont think Mat works in the accounting dept., either. Since he is a photographer himself, I am sure when he knows something, he will share it here. Dont shoot the messenger. Complain to Adobe support.
Delivering the "corporate" answer's simply his job. Not his fault for sure, but this doesn't help clarify things, either.


It doesnt even sound like accounting has a grasp on what went wrong, why would you expect Mat to be able to clarify things. At least he checks in. More than I can say for some of the others. Images being stolen massively on SS, not a peep from them.

I don't think anyone is having a go at Mat for this, we know he doesn't work for the accounting side of things. But, as a contributor representative he will be able to contact those that do know and, hopefully, he'll come back to us with what he finds out. This can take a bit of time. Maybe Mat will confirm he is waiting on additional information and will pass it on when he has it.

« Reply #86 on: February 19, 2019, 09:06 »
+26
While we are on the conversation of mistaken royalties - I find it curious that when mistakes are made, royalties are scrapped back seemingly quite quickly.

However, the times when I've reported someone who has stolen my images (and had sales with those images), I haven't ever seen the royalties from those sales.  The pirate accounts are closed but it appears that the royalties are simply 'absorbed' into the agency (not only Adobe stock.. all sites seem to do it this way).  Shouldn't those earnings be passed onto the photographers account?

« Reply #87 on: February 19, 2019, 09:11 »
+7
I haven't ever seen the royalties from those sales.  The pirate accounts are closed but it appears that the royalties are simply 'absorbed' into the agency (not only Adobe stock.. all sites seem to do it this way).  Shouldn't those earnings be passed onto the photographers account?

I couldn't agree more. This has happened to me too and I SHOULD be owed several hundred dollars (that I know of).

The thief didn't get the payout, the customer didn't get the money back, and I didn't get it. So... Basically the agency stole it. Quite low.

« Reply #88 on: February 19, 2019, 09:14 »
+1
And why in hell will they cancel my requested payment when they removed the miscalculated royalties from my account at the same time? Totally weird

« Reply #89 on: February 19, 2019, 09:37 »
0
While we are on the conversation of mistaken royalties - I find it curious that when mistakes are made, royalties are scrapped back seemingly quite quickly.

However, the times when I've reported someone who has stolen my images (and had sales with those images), I haven't ever seen the royalties from those sales.  The pirate accounts are closed but it appears that the royalties are simply 'absorbed' into the agency (not only Adobe stock.. all sites seem to do it this way).  Shouldn't those earnings be passed onto the photographers account?

A couple of years ago i was pleasantly surprised from istock. I found one of my images stolen in another portfolio and i contacted istock about this, on the next day(after their response) this account was suspended and after a week or two all royalties were transferred to my account, there were hundreds of sales as far as i remember.
« Last Edit: February 19, 2019, 09:40 by Deyan Georgiev »

« Reply #90 on: February 19, 2019, 09:40 »
+1
love it how matt jumps on every thread with positive news, but when the crap hits the fan the replies become far and between., the 12.5% is worrying though, wonder how they are going to spin that.


Read post #52. I dont think Mat works in the accounting dept., either. Since he is a photographer himself, I am sure when he knows something, he will share it here. Dont shoot the messenger. Complain to Adobe support.
I don't think he is 'shooting'  messenger.  Mat is a nice person for sure but he is Adobe PR guy and it's a part of his job.
I am curious how Adobe will deal with this problem. So far they are very amateurish. Or maybe it on purpose to hide something sleazy.

« Reply #91 on: February 19, 2019, 10:21 »
+1
love it how matt jumps on every thread with positive news, but when the crap hits the fan the replies become far and between., the 12.5% is worrying though, wonder how they are going to spin that.


This above is shooting the messenger. In post #52 Mat already said when he knows more, he will report. But I agree, its unprofessional as to how Adobe is handling it. And if they are only paying 12.5%, thats really wrong. It doesnt seem to matter how big a company is, they just dont seem to be able to handle $$ transactions accurately and consistently. I dont think anyone here can be blamed for thinking something nefarious is going on, if they are thinking that. Makes me wonder how many billions Amazon might make on transaction mistakes.

« Reply #92 on: February 19, 2019, 11:05 »
+6
...I can also confirm that the percentage I was left with is only 12.5% (for each sale in the bunch, exactly the same 12.5%)

Assuming the amount originally credited to me was the buyer's cost, I have two different percentages and neither of them are round numbers. One is close to 12.5 percent (12.5018603958922%) - a $67.19 "royalty" that was fixed to $8.40

The other one was originally credited as $2.64 but "fixed" to a 38 cent subscription royalty. That was 14.3939393939394%

I thought that the 38 cent subscription royalty was a floor when a highly discounted package for a large buyer would have resulted in a small royalty at the 33% rate. I'd prefer 87.12 cents/credits, which is 33% of what the buyer paid.

I will note that both the above percentages are worse than the industry "leading" 15% iStock pays.

I appreciate that neither SS nor AS wants to disclose the details of the terms offered to their large corporate customers, but if we're not getting 33% on all sales through AS, with a 38 cent floor on subscriptions if the royalty would otherwise fall below that, then those details need to be spelled out for us.

It's not right that contributors don't know and can't find out what the royalty structure is when deciding whether or not to supply images to an agency.

« Reply #93 on: February 19, 2019, 11:36 »
0
...I can also confirm that the percentage I was left with is only 12.5% (for each sale in the bunch, exactly the same 12.5%)

Assuming the amount originally credited to me was the buyer's cost, I have two different percentages and neither of them are round numbers. One is close to 12.5 percent (12.5018603958922%) - a $67.19 "royalty" that was fixed to $8.40

The other one was originally credited as $2.64 but "fixed" to a 38 cent subscription royalty. That was 14.3939393939394%

I thought that the 38 cent subscription royalty was a floor when a highly discounted package for a large buyer would have resulted in a small royalty at the 33% rate. I'd prefer 87.12 cents/credits, which is 33% of what the buyer paid.

I will note that both the above percentages are worse than the industry "leading" 15% iStock pays.

I appreciate that neither SS nor AS wants to disclose the details of the terms offered to their large corporate customers, but if we're not getting 33% on all sales through AS, with a 38 cent floor on subscriptions if the royalty would otherwise fall below that, then those details need to be spelled out for us.

It's not right that contributors don't know and can't find out what the royalty structure is when deciding whether or not to supply images to an agency.
Jo Ann, I think those 12,5% still apply in your case as they round up on whole cents. 12,5% of 67,19 make 8,398. And 12,5% of 2,64 would have been 0,33, so less than the minimum granted at your rank, that's why it's 0,38 now. Fact, though, is that we actually don't know whether or not the higher amounts shown in the overview are the buyers' cost. AS might as well have made a mistake while correcting mistakenly accounted amounts, *before* the deductions were made (by changing the information within the details, but not within the overview). On the other hand, in my case this would mean that the respective buyer originally was charged about 345,- (if those 115,- were 33% of what he was charged) instead of 43,-. I guess it would take me far less than a week to notice, if I were charged more than 300,- too much for a single image license.
« Last Edit: February 19, 2019, 11:42 by Anja_Kaiser »

Uncle Pete

  • Great Place by a Great Lake - My Home Port
« Reply #94 on: February 19, 2019, 12:06 »
+1

It's not right that contributors don't know and can't find out what the royalty structure is when deciding whether or not to supply images to an agency.


I apologize for cutting up your post but that was a brilliant point that stands out.


« Reply #95 on: February 19, 2019, 12:33 »
+1

It's not right that contributors don't know and can't find out what the royalty structure is when deciding whether or not to supply images to an agency.

All I can find on the Adobe Stock website (https://helpx.adobe.com/stock/contributor/help/royalty-details.html) is the statement: "The royalty rate for photo, illustrations, and vector content licensed on Adobe Stock is 33% of the amount paid by the customer for the content. "

There is no mention of any special deals where this rate is not honored.

So if (big if, we don't know yet what exactly was happening there) AS does indeed pay a lower rate, they would be breaking the contract.

ShadySue

« Reply #96 on: February 19, 2019, 12:46 »
0
It's not right that contributors don't know and can't find out what the royalty structure is when deciding whether or not to supply images to an agency.
All I can find on the Adobe Stock website (https://helpx.adobe.com/stock/contributor/help/royalty-details.html) is the statement: "The royalty rate for photo, illustrations, and vector content licensed on Adobe Stock is 33% of the amount paid by the customer for the content. "
Doesn't that leave wiggle room for something like a Premium Access system, whereby the buyer pays a premium to buy images at a low rate, and suppliers only get their percentage of the per image rate?

« Reply #97 on: February 19, 2019, 12:57 »
+1

....I think those 12,5% still apply in your case as they round up on whole cents. ...

That's certainly a plausible hypothesis :) I would note that if what we receive on the Enterprise customer contracts is 12.5%, then the $94.05 royalties I received back in November (and I checked that those were legit via support as I'd not seen that sort of sum from AS before) would have meant the buyer spent an eye-watering $752.40! That's more than Getty (for an RF sale).

Which all comes back to our need to know what sorts of royalties we're getting - in writing; with updates if things change...

« Reply #98 on: February 19, 2019, 13:00 »
+1
So if (big if, we don't know yet what exactly was happening there) AS does indeed pay a lower rate, they would be breaking the contract.
What contract? There is no contract with any agency, it is just the TOS where they tell us their requirements and we accept what we get.

« Reply #99 on: February 19, 2019, 13:53 »
+1
I'm pretty sure that Adobe, if really took 87,5% that wasn't on purpose. I doubt they'd risk their reputation, because eventually it would be found out. Like on depositphotos.


 

Related Topics

  Subject / Started by Replies Last post
7 Replies
4693 Views
Last post August 23, 2008, 09:20
by stokfoto
100 Replies
17963 Views
Last post July 07, 2011, 15:08
by leaf
3 Replies
3437 Views
Last post March 02, 2017, 21:43
by michaeldb
6 Replies
4892 Views
Last post August 18, 2017, 17:25
by SpaceStockFootage
0 Replies
2670 Views
Last post November 20, 2017, 08:14
by Stock Performer

Sponsors

Microstock Poll Results