MicrostockGroup Sponsors


Author Topic: Contributor ranking changing  (Read 46031 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

hilary

« Reply #125 on: December 04, 2008, 11:24 »
0
Anyone that has a blog, post the link to the petition, http://www.draiochtwebdesign.com/blog/an-open-letter-to-fotolia

Let's try and get as many people aware of what happened as possible, if you have friends that are contributors, email them.. we need as many names as possible!!!


« Reply #126 on: December 04, 2008, 11:46 »
0
Please do not take what I am about to say as being in any way supportive of FT recent decision to change their ranking system. I do feel that this was not handled as well as it should have been but FT 's Terms and Conditions do cover this situation. If you don't agree with it the T&C clearly states how to proceed.

I will not sign the petition. First of all FT clearly stated that anyone speaking out against them may be removed from their forums and / or their website. They have not hidden this fact and it is actually listed in the T&C under section 4. Secondly, the petition clearly states that Bobby was "fired". For Bobby to have been fired he would have to be an employee of FT. He is not. He is a supplier and independent contractor. Lastly, I will not sign a petition that the petition writer will not or can not sign. How much will FT really care about a letter that is written by someone who is not a contributor to FT?

I doubt that anyone is happy about the ranking changes, but creating petitions without thinking them through is not going to solve any problems. When you signed up you agreed to play by their rules.

hilary

« Reply #127 on: December 04, 2008, 11:52 »
0
Please do not take what I am about to say as being in any way supportive of FT recent decision to change their ranking system. I do feel that this was not handled as well as it should have been but FT 's Terms and Conditions do cover this situation. If you don't agree with it the T&C clearly states how to proceed.

I will not sign the petition. First of all FT clearly stated that anyone speaking out against them may be removed from their forums and / or their website. They have not hidden this fact and it is actually listed in the T&C under section 4. Secondly, the petition clearly states that Bobby was "fired". For Bobby to have been fired he would have to be an employee of FT. He is not. He is a supplier and independent contractor. Lastly, I will not sign a petition that the petition writer will not or can not sign. How much will FT really care about a letter that is written by someone who is not a contributor to FT?

I doubt that anyone is happy about the ranking changes, but creating petitions without thinking them through is not going to solve any problems. When you signed up you agreed to play by their rules.

1. Yes, you can get fired by your own agent, they just did it, they in effect 'terminated his contract'
2. I will have an FT contributor send the email, the most important thing at the moment is to get as many names on there as possible, the smallest detail is who will send it, it might never get sent at all if not enough people sign the thing

If you do not wish to show solidarity fair enough, it's everyone's own personal decision as to what is acceptable, and what is not, and how they themselves wish to be treated by their agent.

Those who wish to show solidarity with your colleague, please sign.

« Reply #128 on: December 04, 2008, 12:11 »
0
wow, that's exactly why I agreed with Zastavkin and his idea of an organisation defending our rights and interests
http://submit.shutterstock.com/forum/viewtopic.php?t=33557&postdays=0&postorder=asc&highlight=zastavkin&start=15

we need engaged people!...  :-\

CCK

« Reply #129 on: December 04, 2008, 12:20 »
0
I'm not a major contributor at FT, and stopped uploading months ago. I just logged in at FT, the first time in quite a while. There was a time when I thought FT would become one of my top sites, but alas that has not happened. So this issue convinced me to close my account with them.

« Reply #130 on: December 04, 2008, 12:28 »
0
I have nothing against solidarity. As I said I'm not fond of the changes or the way things get handled on that site either. What I'm saying is that your rush to write your petition has some fundamental problems. FT is not an agent or an employer. Bobby was not an employee. He was an Independent Contractor. The T&C clearly states this. Bobby was not fired. He was removed from the site per the T&C that he agreed to when he signed up.

Good luck with your petition.

hilary

« Reply #131 on: December 04, 2008, 12:33 »
0
I have nothing against solidarity. As I said I'm not fond of the changes or the way things get handled on that site either. What I'm saying is that your rush to write your petition has some fundamental problems. FT is not an agent or an employer. Bobby was not an employee. He was an Independent Contractor. The T&C clearly states this. Bobby was not fired. He was removed from the site per the T&C that he agreed to when he signed up.

Good luck with your petition.

His contract was terminated, I don't understand what your definition of getting fired is if not that!! But thanks anyway..

« Reply #132 on: December 04, 2008, 12:37 »
0
I have nothing against solidarity. As I said I'm not fond of the changes or the way things get handled on that site either. What I'm saying is that your rush to write your petition has some fundamental problems. FT is not an agent or an employer. Bobby was not an employee. He was an Independent Contractor. The T&C clearly states this. Bobby was not fired. He was removed from the site per the T&C that he agreed to when he signed up.

Good luck with your petition.

How can you say Fotolia is not an Agent? That is exactly what they are.

Yes they are also the same T&C that were in place when I signed up (one of the first 250 members) that led me to belive that I had a goal of advancment and that goal of advancment was well definded and documented. Then as a large number ofd us reach the threshold of obtaining that goal of advancment Fotolia without prior notice moves the goal so far down the road on us so as to effectively postpone it by 3 years!

jsnover

« Reply #133 on: December 04, 2008, 13:42 »
0
This isn't my fight at this point - given that I'm now exclusive elsewhere - but I honestly think there is only one thing that will get FT's attention, and it isn't a petition.

People who don't like what FT's doing need to suspend uploading until FT changes policies to protect contributors from arbitrary account termination for things other than fraud (uploading images you don't have the copyright to and such).

They sell subscriptions and new images are the lifeblood of a subscription site. Given that this is a power struggle, if there's no muscle flexing from the contributor side the folks running the show will feel they can continue acting as they have.

The fact that the T&Cs at all the sites say they can change the terms at any time for any or no reason doesn't relieve them of the responsibility to act reasonably. Not all contracts are upheld if there's a lawsuit. FT knows that it's very hard for contributors to sue them to invalidate parts of the contract that might not hold up though, so again, the power is effectively on their side.

I think it's unlikely you'll get any emeralds or up involved in any action - they aren't really hurt by this even if it should put them on notice about the nature of the behavior they can expect. If a significant number of the other ranks participated, I still think you could get enough impact to get their attention.


« Reply #134 on: December 04, 2008, 13:50 »
0
You have my support, and my signature.

"A journey of a thousand miles begins with a single step."

This might seem like a small, insignificant thing to do (which honestly, Fotolia will most likely ignore), but we have to start somewhere.

« Reply #135 on: December 04, 2008, 13:57 »
0
I agree with Joanne 100%

The only thing that has ever worked against any of the agencies has been the treat to cut off the supply. Remember we own the content therefore we do own the power. The question is do we have the courage of our own convictions to exert that power or are we going to surrender that power to the agencies by not standing up for ourselves.

In the end it always comes down to the actions of the masses. It is not the single voice of a large contributor that extracts change. Even though the contributor is large the lone voice is small. It is the rakus voice of the many that combine to rise above the din and be heard. It is the voice of the many that bring about change and it is the power of the many that can break through seemingly impenetrable barriers.

I was dropped from Fotolia not because I spoke against them. I was dropped because they felt that is would send a message of of their ultimate strength and superiority over all of you. It is a message meant to intimidate and tame the beast that is the masses. It is all bravado though, they can not remove the masses, to do so would be seriously detrimental to their business. If the masses unite they can and will bring change. If the masses cower under the intimidation of the agencies then they can only expect for more and more oppressive behavior to come down the pipe in the future.

So in truth this is a fight that belongs to all of us regardless of which agencies we are or are not with.

« Reply #136 on: December 04, 2008, 14:03 »
0
I agree with Joanne 100%

The only thing that has ever worked against any of the agencies has been the treat to cut off the supply. Remember we own the content therefore we do own the power. The question is do we have the courage of our own convictions to exert that power or are we going to surrender that power to the agencies by not standing up for ourselves.


I have contacted support requesting that they remove my images and close my account.  My small, pitiful effort will not affect them at all, but perhaps my doing so will be just one more drop in the bucket of "protest"

RT


« Reply #137 on: December 04, 2008, 14:34 »
0
Bobby, I sympathise that your account was deleted.

However unlike the majority of people who have shown support I'm also a businessman and am fully aware that you are also, I appreciate that you have in the past taken part in a public campaign against certain changes, as have many, but like you I only do what is in my best interests, I'd be interested as to the nature of the phone call you made, where you asking for some kind of special treatment?

At the end of the day Fotolia have done nothing illegal in changing their terms, they owe you nothing, you are a supplier and nothing more, as such they have the right to terminate your account, you keep stating you were close to Emerald and now it would take three years, so what! were they supposed to wait for you to get to Emerald before making any changes, you had as much chance as the others who did reach that level but you didn't and they did, that's business.

You've mentioned them lining their pockets (or words to that effect) ummm... they're a business and how they run it and what they do with the proceeds is their business, they have just raised the price of the credits we get paid which I notice hasn't been mentioned much. Tell me when you have a good month do you give your models extra money? Do you explain to them how you spend your profits?

As has been pointed out they made it very clear anybody bad mouthing them would have their account deleted, you can't say you weren't warned, I would advise you to be careful regarding your future actions and statements on public forums regarding Fotolia because you could end up in a legal battle, you're pissed we can all see that and my advice would be to move on.

I'm annoyed about the recent change on Fotolia, however nothing they have done has changed the way my images are represented which is what I choose an agency for, they have just raised the commision I receive on any sales which IMO is a good thing.

As for the petition thing, then sorry I'm not signing it, and to whoever wrote it no he hasn't been fired because he didn't work for them.

Will I stop uploading there, nope sorry they're a reasonable source of revenue for me, and in case you're interested yes I was close to a rank change, but that's business and I have the freedom of choice whether to use them as a representative for me or not.
Same goes for iStock and their recent best match change which has effected me far more than Fotolia, again it's my choice.

I keep seeing a lot of people saying things like 'standing up for our rights' etc ..... what rights exactly? We do not work for them we are all self employed (technically speaking)  they are an agency we we choose to represent our work in return for a commission on any sales they make on our behalf.
Apart from any rights regarding the usage of our work under the license they sell for us we don't have any.
For those who are going to stop uploading in support of Bobby, your choice but at the end of the day who do you think is going to lose out the most?

Bobby I wish you well for the future.






jsnover

« Reply #138 on: December 04, 2008, 14:47 »
0
...for, they have just raised the commision I receive on any sales which IMO is a good thing.

They didn't raise credit prices worldwide. In the US the credit price is still $1.00 AFAIK (I just went to check but can't get to the site right now - it's just a blank page). It probably hasn't been mentioned much because a large percentage of contributors are not affected by it.

And as far as standing up for rights, it isn't only in employee/employer situations that two parties to a business arrangement take action to protect their interests. You need to consider not only short term gain/loss, but long term. Every time an agency gets to bully its suppliers and gets away with it, not only does it make it more likely they'll do the same sort of thing again, but other agencies will follow suit - market pressures, competitiveness, etc.

« Reply #139 on: December 04, 2008, 14:52 »
0
Bobby, I sympathise that your account was deleted.

However unlike the majority of people who have shown support I'm also a businessman and am fully aware that you are also, I appreciate that you have in the past taken part in a public campaign against certain changes, as have many, but like you I only do what is in my best interests, I'd be interested as to the nature of the phone call you made, where you asking for some kind of special treatment?

At the end of the day Fotolia have done nothing illegal in changing their terms, they owe you nothing, you are a supplier and nothing more, as such they have the right to terminate your account, you keep stating you were close to Emerald and now it would take three years, so what! were they supposed to wait for you to get to Emerald before making any changes, you had as much chance as the others who did reach that level but you didn't and they did, that's business.

You've mentioned them lining their pockets (or words to that effect) ummm... they're a business and how they run it and what they do with the proceeds is their business, they have just raised the price of the credits we get paid which I notice hasn't been mentioned much. Tell me when you have a good month do you give your models extra money? Do you explain to them how you spend your profits?

As has been pointed out they made it very clear anybody bad mouthing them would have their account deleted, you can't say you weren't warned, I would advise you to be careful regarding your future actions and statements on public forums regarding Fotolia because you could end up in a legal battle, you're pissed we can all see that and my advice would be to move on.

I'm annoyed about the recent change on Fotolia, however nothing they have done has changed the way my images are represented which is what I choose an agency for, they have just raised the commision I receive on any sales which IMO is a good thing.

As for the petition thing, then sorry I'm not signing it, and to whoever wrote it no he hasn't been fired because he didn't work for them.

Will I stop uploading there, nope sorry they're a reasonable source of revenue for me, and in case you're interested yes I was close to a rank change, but that's business and I have the freedom of choice whether to use them as a representative for me or not.
Same goes for iStock and their recent best match change which has effected me far more than Fotolia, again it's my choice.

I keep seeing a lot of people saying things like 'standing up for our rights' etc ..... what rights exactly? We do not work for them we are all self employed (technically speaking)  they are an agency we we choose to represent our work in return for a commission on any sales they make on our behalf.
Apart from any rights regarding the usage of our work under the license they sell for us we don't have any.
For those who are going to stop uploading in support of Bobby, your choice but at the end of the day who do you think is going to lose out the most?

Bobby I wish you well for the future.


I did not make a phone call and I did not ask for special treatment. I sent an email that expressed my displeasure with the change and informed that I would cease uploading new content but not remove the nearly 5,000 images I already had there.

The phone call came from them the next day telling me they were deleting my account.

While their changing the terms of ranking may not be illegal it most certainly is unethical to have so many work for so long toward a published goal only to move the goal miles and miles down the road just as a large number of contributors who have worked long and hard are on the threshold of reaching that goal.

A proper move by Fotolia would have been to grandfather existing contributors to the original goal at least until they reached their next level upgrade and then they could apply the new standards. To move the goal that so many worked so hard to reach is tantamount to punishing those who have made you a success for working hard to help you build your business. Would you freeze your work staffs earnings because they worked hard and made you a success?






« Reply #140 on: December 04, 2008, 14:57 »
0
RT,

I feel I have to speak up regarding what you have just said.
Yes, we have no "rights", that we would have if we were employees.  In fact, one of the main reasons why I'm not doing stock fulltime is that I have a lot more rights and protections as an employee that I do as a stock contributor.

I realize that Fotolia is a business, and has an enlightened self-interest to make money.  This is part and parcel of a free economy. All independent business entities have their own agendas, with the most basic goal to increase earnings (or maximize rents in show-off speak).  Fotolia is a business entity, as are other competing agencies and, as you rightly put, so are all of us.

It is in their best interest to get products at a cheapest possible cost (meaning with the lowest possible reward to us, the supplier).  I think it's clear, as the industry becomes more competitive, agencies such as Fotolia are exploring ways of doing that.  We can choose to accept it, or we can choose to explore ways to make our position stronger. This is business.

I realize that, in the larger scheme of things, supporting Bobby actually helps us all, and more importantly, helps me.
And yes, honestly, it's me that I'm the most concerned about.

« Reply #141 on: December 04, 2008, 15:24 »
0
I can guarantee you, every single stock agency is having managerial meetings where the primary topic is how to increase profits.

I can guarantee you, in every single one of the meetings, one of the solutions they've arrived at is to lower costs.

The easiest way is to lower the amount paid to the suppliers, either now or in the future, as a percentage of revenue.  (by this I mean maintaining payment rates to suppliers regardless of future price increases to the customers would also apply)

The only thing holding them back is possible reaction by suppliers.

The only one, so far, who has tried to implement something like this is Fotolia.
I can guarantee you every single stock agency is watching to see what the outcome will be.

Full time microstockers who feel they have the most to lose in the short-term should actually be the most worried, because they have the most to lose in the long-term.

These are just my personal theories mind you.
I would really appreciate some like-minded discussion (with actual economic and management theory) beyond
"I am a businessman, so if you call Fotolia greedy, you are naive"
and
"Fotolia is greedy. The *insult removed*."

« Reply #142 on: December 04, 2008, 15:46 »
0
Bobby,

Is there a place in the forum where we can know you were banned?  I believe your posts must have been deleted...  It would be a good way to bring the discussion of the arbitrary deletion of your portfolio.  Their unethical attitude must be brought to evidence.

Given the unreasonable spli subs are having in FT too, I'll stop uploading. 

Regards,
Adelaide

jsnover

« Reply #143 on: December 04, 2008, 16:22 »
0
I would really appreciate some like-minded discussion (with actual economic and management theory) beyond
"I am a businessman, so if you call Fotolia greedy, you are naive"
and
"Fotolia is greedy. The *insult removed*."


I'm not an economist and I'm not a manager at the moment, but have been in the past, however I'll discuss. Think of how various business situations that have made the press in the US have played out. Many, many times, one airline will raise prices on something; if the customer reaction isn't what they hoped, the other airlines don't follow suit and then the original airline backs out the increase. The airlines wold plan it out overtly if that weren't illegal in the US.

Wal-Mart strong-arms one supplier into accepting less favorable terms or more onerous work specifically preparing product for them. When that supplier caves, they try it again with the next one. Read this article if you're interested in the tale.

http://www.fastcompany.com/magazine/77/walmart.html

These situations are all about trying to jockey for more power and control if you can. Obviously you can sow the seeds of your own eventual undoing if you go too far. Understanding just who has the power in a given situation is really important - if you don't have any, threatening and blustering won't do any good. Games of chicken can be tough - in my neck of the woods the recent Boeing strike is an example of a long and costly strike that was resolved in ways that could have been done before the strike even started. Both parties got hurt (not to mention all the businesses in the area affected indirectly). When both sides dig in thinking they have to prove a point, sometimes both can lose.

FT is counting on a lack of concerted contributor action to be able to push through their changes. They know that their business would fold tomorrow if most of the contributors close their accounts and contributors look at their monthly income if they did that (and worry about losing their earned rank if they later have to start over) and dither. If they had gotten a worse black eye over the introduction of subs, would they have pulled the current stunt?

Iriz

    This user is banned.
« Reply #144 on: December 04, 2008, 16:53 »
0
If they had gotten a worse black eye over the introduction of subs, would they have pulled the current stunt?

No, they probably wouldn't and your comment only echoes what others have said on here already. Bobby is simply not going to get the support he is seeking and if you look at the numbers signing the petition - which is a futile exercise IMO - there is no significant numbers coming out in unity for this one man crusade against the autocrats.

What's more, I think it's rather selfish to try and drum up support for what amounts to a rash decision on the part of one contributor. Looking at the issue and the comments made one might reasonably conclude there was impulse involved here. Now the whole debate seems to have turned into a face saving exercise with the "isn't it awful fraternity" trying to be seen to say all the right things because one of our own has been injured or fallen on his own sword more to the point.

RT


« Reply #145 on: December 04, 2008, 17:42 »
0
I did not make a phone call and I did not ask for special treatment. I sent an email that expressed my displeasure with the change and informed that I would cease uploading new content but not remove the nearly 5,000 images I already had there.

The phone call came from them the next day telling me they were deleting my account.

Appologies it's a long thread I thought you made the initial phone call, maybe the content of your email was read by them as threatening, or have you made some statements in public which could be read that way.

While their changing the terms of ranking may not be illegal it most certainly is unethical to have so many work for so long toward a published goal only to move the goal miles and miles down the road just as a large number of contributors who have worked long and hard are on the threshold of reaching that goal.

But we are in the middle of a worldwide recession with hundreds of businesses closing each day, I appreciate that they weren't forthcoming in explaining the reasoning behind such a move but there may be issues none of us know about, and of course they wouldn't want to 'air their dirty laundry' for all and sundry to see, I'm speculating of course but it did cross my mind that could be the reason. I'd rather they stay operating and providing a revenue stream for me albeit with some minor changes.

A proper move by Fotolia would have been to grandfather existing contributors to the original goal at least until they reached their next level upgrade and then they could apply the new standards.

I don't think 'proper' is the right term, but to do what you suggested would have been sociable, but as I said above we don't know the reason they did it, so your suggestion might not have been a viable option in their forecasting.

To move the goal that so many worked so hard to reach is tantamount to punishing those who have made you a success for working hard to help you build your business.

It's a two way thing, whilst you helped make them succesful in retrospect so did they you! And to be punished would be to have something you had taken away, you didn't actually have it in the first place.
Would they have the right to anything if all of a sudden you decided to go exclusive somewhere and pull all your images off FT.

Would you freeze your work staffs earnings because they worked hard and made you a success?

No I wouldn't, but then they are employees and would have employees rights, we are not employess of FT.
But just to add again they haven't frozen our earnings, in actual fact they've just increased them for everyone irrelevent of ranking by increasing the credit value.

This whole scenario would have a different meaning if it was in reference to certain macro agencies where you sign an exclusive contract for a fixed period of time, but it's not it's a microstock agency where neither party has any any form of ties.

Maybe you could speak to a third party and see if you can resolve your account deletion, I think Yuri is well thought of on FT.







« Last Edit: December 04, 2008, 17:52 by RT »

RT


« Reply #146 on: December 04, 2008, 18:00 »
0
I've just been sent this, it was posted by Chad Bridwell on the Yahoo micropayment forum:

"Hello Everyone,

 Would any of you continue to do business with a grocery store, restaurant, beauty salon, airline, etc who continued to call you names and use derogatory language against you publicly?
 No logical person would do this. Why should Fotolia be any different? What
Bobby Deal has done over the years is appalling and Fotolia has been
very  tolerant until now. Calling us F**kers, *insult removed*, and Rapists, is
not professional and we do not have to tolerate this any longer.
After giving him many warnings we decided close his account.
 Chad Bridwell
 Director of US Operations
 Fotolia.com"

Clearly there is a history involved here that goes way beyond the issue of recent changes.


 

Iriz

    This user is banned.
« Reply #147 on: December 04, 2008, 18:15 »
0
I've just been sent this, it was posted by Chad Bridwell on the Yahoo micropayment forum:

"Hello Everyone,

 Would any of you continue to do business with a grocery store, restaurant, beauty salon, airline, etc who continued to call you names and use derogatory language against you publicly?
 No logical person would do this. Why should Fotolia be any different? What
Bobby Deal has done over the years is appalling and Fotolia has been
very  tolerant until now. Calling us F**kers, *insult removed*, and Rapists, is
not professional and we do not have to tolerate this any longer.
After giving him many warnings we decided close his account.
 Chad Bridwell
 Director of US Operations
 Fotolia.com"

Clearly there is a history involved here that goes way beyond the issue of recent changes.


 


If what has been quoted above is correct and if someone referred to me or my business using that sort of vocabulary I would kick their account from here to the other side of Mars and then sue their sorry ass for libel.

Count yourself lucky that the only thing you've lost is your account!!
« Last Edit: December 04, 2008, 18:17 by Iriz »

cphoto

  • CreativeShot.com
« Reply #148 on: December 04, 2008, 18:24 »
0
I've just been sent this, it was posted by Chad Bridwell on the Yahoo micropayment forum:

"Hello Everyone,

 Would any of you continue to do business with a grocery store, restaurant, beauty salon, airline, etc who continued to call you names and use derogatory language against you publicly?
 No logical person would do this. Why should Fotolia be any different? What
Bobby Deal has done over the years is appalling and Fotolia has been
very  tolerant until now. Calling us F**kers, *insult removed*, and Rapists, is
not professional and we do not have to tolerate this any longer.
After giving him many warnings we decided close his account.
 Chad Bridwell
 Director of US Operations
 Fotolia.com"

Clearly there is a history involved here that goes way beyond the issue of recent changes.


 


If what has been quoted above is correct and if someone referred to me or my business using that sort of vocabulary I would kick their account from here to the other side of Mars and then sue their sorry ass for libel.

Count yourself lucky that the only thing you've lost is your account!!

The actual post that Chad was referring too is this one:

"They did nothing but blow smoke up are asses on this one. Giving us
> > an opt out does nothing to solve the greater issue of undermining an
> > already undermined industry. Allowing print resale for a 30 cent
> > commission simply shows what greedy *insult removed* all these agencies are
> > becoming. I swear if just one agency would step up and prove that
> > they knew there place in the industry and would treat the content
> > providers like clients (which we are) then I would give serious
> > consideration to providing exclusive content to that agency. Of
> > course that will never happen so I will continue to whore my elf out
> > to all the pimps for my penny here and my penny there."

To me that's just straight talk and to the point.  No personal attack and a valid personal opinion.  What's wrong with that?

« Reply #149 on: December 04, 2008, 18:37 »
0
no thats not the post chad was talking about. Chad never referenced that post, sj_coburn did (in the yahoo email group), and it was just a reference to show an example of language used in a point that sj_coburn was making.

the quote was from this thread, this post
http://www.microstockgroup.com/index.php?topic=5258.msg57637#msg57637

which was pointed towards stockxpert from photoshow - and has nothing to do with fotolia.
« Last Edit: December 04, 2008, 18:40 by leaf »


 

Related Topics

  Subject / Started by Replies Last post
42 Replies
12422 Views
Last post February 05, 2009, 11:37
by null
3 Replies
2783 Views
Last post June 21, 2010, 16:05
by luissantos84
3 Replies
3682 Views
Last post April 11, 2011, 06:32
by Lizard
5 Replies
3589 Views
Last post November 26, 2011, 01:36
by FD
0 Replies
1551 Views
Last post October 13, 2017, 18:43
by StockStudio

Sponsors

Microstock Poll Results