pancakes

MicrostockGroup Sponsors


Author Topic: Fotolia Banned me from their forum for posting this!  (Read 22365 times)

0 Members and 2 Guests are viewing this topic.

« on: March 03, 2009, 13:26 »
0
When I joined this site I didn't expect it to become a place it has become.. After one year here, I have never seen any positive improvement for contributors..

I had accepted it the way it is at the time I signed up.. But since I signed up too many things changed..

Change 1 - Subscriptions introduced..
It would only make sense for us if the sub sales at least counted towards our ranking.. Not as 1/4 of a credit sale!

2 possible resolutions to make it look reasonable for contributors:
a- Introduce an opt-out
b- count it towards ranking as 1 dl

Change 2 - Ranking system modified..
So it helps fotolia make more money, and contributors make less money..

Change 3 - Contributors commissions cut-down
with an excuse of advertising costs.. Price increse is supposedly going to compensate the loss..

But what I see on the big picture is fotolia gets %89 of the extra credit and contributors get %11
Again, this helps fotolia make more money, and contributors make less money..

So all the changes are for one big dream: To help fotolia make more money, while helping contributors make less money..

I can't help thinking that fotolia board is right now sitting down and trying fo find more ways to get the images even cheaper from us..

Let us know If you want to get them for free so there is no hassle.. I just want to remind you that I am not a 3rd world country workforce, working for 1 dollar a day..


I have a question to my fellow contributors: Say yes or no!

Do you think fotolia will ever implement a change that benefits contributors as much as it benefits fotolia?


Some improvements have to be done in favor of contributors in my opinion..

Let us know If fotolia is ever gonna make us feel at home?
« Last Edit: March 03, 2009, 13:27 by cidepix »


e-person

« Reply #1 on: March 03, 2009, 13:38 »
0
Not such a big issue. I deleted my photos from there anyway. I did not like them.

After two years of microstock I have developed a portfolio good enough to convince real life customers to hire me. Now I get phone calls to shoot for hundreds of Euros each time. And I mean to take photos of things over white. Much better than microstock... :-)

« Reply #2 on: March 03, 2009, 13:44 »
0
I don't regret a bit for telling the truth. That's not a problem.. I am not here to cry. I just think contributors should be taken seriously. The guy who banned me is getting paid because of the likes of me and you contributing there.

WarrenPrice

« Reply #3 on: March 03, 2009, 14:26 »
0
When I joined this site I didn't expect it to become a place it has become.. After one year here, I have never seen any positive improvement for contributors..

I had accepted it the way it is at the time I signed up.. But since I signed up too many things changed..

Change 1 - Subscriptions introduced..
It would only make sense for us if the sub sales at least counted towards our ranking.. Not as 1/4 of a credit sale!

2 possible resolutions to make it look reasonable for contributors:
a- Introduce an opt-out
b- count it towards ranking as 1 dl

Change 2 - Ranking system modified..
So it helps fotolia make more money, and contributors make less money..

Change 3 - Contributors commissions cut-down
with an excuse of advertising costs.. Price increse is supposedly going to compensate the loss..

But what I see on the big picture is fotolia gets %89 of the extra credit and contributors get %11
Again, this helps fotolia make more money, and contributors make less money..

So all the changes are for one big dream: To help fotolia make more money, while helping contributors make less money..

I can't help thinking that fotolia board is right now sitting down and trying fo find more ways to get the images even cheaper from us..

Let us know If you want to get them for free so there is no hassle.. I just want to remind you that I am not a 3rd world country workforce, working for 1 dollar a day..


I have a question to my fellow contributors: Say yes or no!

Do you think fotolia will ever implement a change that benefits contributors as much as it benefits fotolia?


Some improvements have to be done in favor of contributors in my opinion..

Let us know If fotolia is ever gonna make us feel at home?



I responded to your post on Fotolia but didn't get banned.  I KNEW your post would get deleted but didn't expect banishment.  As the FT admins have said ... "We've gotten rid of the """Bad Apples."""" 

They're attitude is certainly   "Slave and Master." 

 >:(


CCK

« Reply #4 on: March 03, 2009, 14:58 »
0
LOL I think you knew you would get banned for that.

I don't post on FT forum, and I don't upload anything. What I have with FT I keep. I haven't visited their site for months, but one day when I really need money I'll request a pay out - I don't know how much I have with them, so who knows, perhaps I get a surprise. Just hope they don't go bancrupt at some stage.

« Reply #5 on: March 03, 2009, 15:18 »
0
I don't post on FT forum


In general, I avoid site forums. They are private and they are a way of marketing. Many contributors just use to shout there "hail <enter site here>" in the hope that their ports get pimped by the Masters of the Search Engine. It works better if you do it in the thread of the Alpha Male of the site.  ;D

Quote
Chimpanzees show deference to the alpha of the community by ritualised gestures such as bowing, allowing the alpha to walk first in a procession, or standing aside when the alpha challenges. Canines (wolves & dogs, jackals, foxes, etc) show deference to the alpha pair in their pack, by allowing them to be the first to eat and, usually, the only pair to mate. The status of the alpha is sometimes achieved by means of superior physical prowess; however, in certain highly social species such as the bonobo and humans, a contender can use more indirect methods, such as political alliances, to oust the ruling alpha and take their place. Canines use eye contact to establish and maintain alpha position. Gorillas use intimidation.


The subspecies Homo Homo Microstockiensis uses flattering posts, cybergrooming of the alphas, submission gestures, and tribal shouts like "XYZ rocks, XYZ is the best..." at the XYZ forum.  :P

« Reply #6 on: March 03, 2009, 15:18 »
0
I don't post nor contribute to Fotolia anymore.  They are just internet business *.  I have left my photos up but don't go out of my way to visit the site unless its to request a payout, which my photos get me.  I don't upload any new stuff.  Stopped 2 years ago with FT 2.0 and the ensuing fiasco.


« Reply #7 on: March 03, 2009, 19:37 »
0
I don't post on FT forum


In general, I avoid site forums. They are private and they are a way of marketing. Many contributors just use to shout there "hail <enter site here>" in the hope that their ports get pimped by the Masters of the Search Engine. It works better if you do it in the thread of the Alpha Male of the site.  ;D

Quote
Chimpanzees show deference to the alpha of the community by ritualised gestures such as bowing, allowing the alpha to walk first in a procession, or standing aside when the alpha challenges. Canines (wolves & dogs, jackals, foxes, etc) show deference to the alpha pair in their pack, by allowing them to be the first to eat and, usually, the only pair to mate. The status of the alpha is sometimes achieved by means of superior physical prowess; however, in certain highly social species such as the bonobo and humans, a contender can use more indirect methods, such as political alliances, to oust the ruling alpha and take their place. Canines use eye contact to establish and maintain alpha position. Gorillas use intimidation.


The subspecies Homo Homo Microstockiensis uses flattering posts, cybergrooming of the alphas, submission gestures, and tribal shouts like "XYZ rocks, XYZ is the best..." at the XYZ forum.  :P


LOL!

WarrenPrice

« Reply #8 on: March 03, 2009, 20:40 »
0
@Phil... now, that's funny, I don't care who you are.  PLEASE post that at FT.    ;) 8) :P  You seem to be another "bad apple." LOL

« Reply #9 on: March 03, 2009, 20:59 »
0
I agree, got tired of the crap and pulled our port when they made their last announcement about cutting our commissions while spending more money on advertising.

Next, they will ask contributors to start paying to upload.  I'm sure that's gotta be the next step...

« Reply #10 on: March 04, 2009, 02:38 »
0
BTW. do you know about any other agency who has DECREASED the commission recently? It is not very usual, is it?

« Reply #11 on: March 04, 2009, 06:54 »
0
I was almost banned from their forum as well, long before when I wrote that Ft search engine doesn't work well. I get mass rejections at FT lately, mostly because my images don't meet their desired level of aesthetic quality. I often think they don't have enough place for all images, because I never had this problem with other sites. I rarely submit similar images, but when I send 2 similar, I often get rejected one of them.
To be honest, I made only 30,something $ there in last year, while I had 5 payments on three other sites. On 123rf I have almost twice as much than on FT.

So, I think Fotolia doesn't like my work. I will continue uploading because I upload to more than 10 sites...but I can't say I am satisfied with their service. 

« Reply #12 on: March 04, 2009, 21:57 »
0
@Phil... now, that's funny, I don't care who you are.  PLEASE post that at FT.    ;) 8) :P  You seem to be another "bad apple." LOL

I just laughing at Flemish and CCK :)

(I was banned from FT's forum when they brought in subs)

« Reply #13 on: March 04, 2009, 23:12 »
0
(I was banned from FT's forum when they brought in subs)

OMG, I just love subs! Especially the 6 footers with everything on it!

Fotolia can be very funny. I always have to  ;D grin  ;D checking the upload conditions.

I am the author of the file and own all artistic elements in the image.

I recently did a shoot of a terribly nice large old castle. A very artistic one indeed, and not patched together of foam and plywood like the ones in Disneyland. But I had to check that I owned it.  ::) Is this perjury?

My file is the type of file Fotolia customers need.

This is the most hilarious one. How for hell's sake can you know what the customers of Fotolia need?  ::) You can just upload it and see if it sells or not. But no, Fotolia wants you to be sure and to commit that your shot is what customers really desperately need.

This would be a trial grandioso, Fotolia dragging an uploader in court and charging him with the premeditated crime of uploading a file that the customers don't need. How would they prove it? Fetch an average customer and park him in front of the bench, letting him testify onder oath that he certainly doesn't need a file like that?  :o

« Reply #14 on: March 05, 2009, 04:13 »
0
I deleted most of my FT portfolio. I am hooked up to get an email each sale. It seemed I got far more emails than the $ counter on the site indicated.

« Reply #15 on: March 05, 2009, 04:30 »
0
Well there must be something wrong with me.

I DO post on the FT forum
I AM sceptical about their 'improvements' and
I DO tell this in my posts

so why do they not ban me ??

why am I being discriminated ??  It's just not fair  ::)

« Reply #16 on: March 05, 2009, 12:37 »
0
@ WarrenPrice, Slave and master! That is exactly what they think. And that is what needs to be changed and what will change eventually.

@ CCK, I kind of knew they would ban me for my opinion. But If I am gonna get banned it should be for a reason like this. I have never been banned from a forum btw. somehow I turn out to be the bad apple when it comes to my lord fotolia.

@ FlemishDreams, Hilarious Post!

@ RGebbiePhoto & litifeta, We should somehow find a way to get all top 3000 or 4000 contributors move together and pull about hundreds of thousands images off of fotolia overnight if we want to make a statement. I am very disappointed at how some of the big guys digest these changes. Not everybody can really be BIG. Being BIG is not about money. I don't see them as BIGS anymore.

If we digest these today, we will digest anything. I have a stomach ache and I will never digest this.

@ Phil, Congratulations!  ;)

@ peep, no, there is no other agencies who did this. Our lord fotolia is unique. Whatever they do is unquestionably right and all for our goodness. They think about our goodness 24/7, that much, I am already impatient for their next amazing move.

@ whitechild, It is probably they don't think they should satisfy us in any way >:(

@ perrush, I read and liked your comments. I wish there were more of us.

@ ichiro17, fiasco after fiasco. This is not the way to run a business.

@ Mat, Thank you for banning me. I am not sure If I would come here to talk to all these cool people IF I kept wasting my time on undemocratic fotolia forum.

@ leaf, I have been reading this forum for a long time. Thank you for this opportunity. It is a great job you are doing here. I saw your posts about SAA. Let's not waste time with SAA. Let's start our own microstock artists union. It won't be very difficult to get to all top 2000-3000 contributors If we put our minds to it. I am volunteering that I will make hundreds of contributors a member of it. I will reach them and tell them what needs to be done to stop this selfish behaviour of some websites.

I learned my lesson. I was to naive when I thought fotolia would be wise and considerate enough to listen to my opinion. I wish they were good. But god knows who is the real bad apple.

Let's start our own union! Let's not digest this crap!

Thank you all!


« Reply #18 on: March 05, 2009, 15:38 »
0
Mat, well, I hope you read this part, at least...

Interesting that you use that photo as your icon.  I feel that's what FT did with it's contributors, crushed them under their heel.

Wish you could comment back, would love to hear the story on why you chose that particular image...

And bash?  Not bashing, telling the truth.  Of course, if you can't swallow the truth, then it feels like bashing. 
There is another thread where someone started slamming on Dreamstime, but the only responses were positive on DT's side, the site is well run and respected.  Interesting that a thread that started the same way about FT didn't bring the same response, in fact most agreed with the original poster.

It looks like it's time for a tea party...

Gebbie

« Reply #19 on: March 05, 2009, 15:46 »
0
Sheesh,

I had no intent to post in this thread.  Do what you do, but I will say that the one and only, single post quoted here did not result in a forum lock out.  As it has been mentioned before, many people on a regular basis question, complain, argue, debate, discuss many different subjects at any given time.  For the most part it is respectful and well-articulated and those that actually know me and not my reputation know that I enjoy a good debate so no, you were not locked out for making one post.

In this instance, for several days there was a long string of negative, angry posts that crossed way over the line of debate into the realm of attack with the intent of riling up the troops and starting some sort of who knows what?  The Fotolia forum is not the place for that.  It's a private forum and frankly, if you hate the site so much that you feel compelled to angrily bash it day after day, hour after hour in countless threads regardless of the topic then why bother being there in the first place?  Hell, I feel like I did you a favor because now you aren't subjected to my mindless censorship and can really vent your frustration here. 

I don't plan on posting anything else in this thread so bash away and have fun.

All the best,

Mat


I know my fault. I shouldn't have attempted to post anything on fotolia forum. Big mistake. We learn from our mistakes.

On the other hand, I don't hate fotolia. Why would I hate fotolia. I love microstock. I am really hoping it could become more considerate towards contributors.

I am not here to bash. I am here to share. I never insulted anyone and never will do. There is no way you can show me a single post with hatred.

Concerns? Yes!
Hatred? No!

As Ben Linus says in "Lost" : We are the good guys Mat  :)

I understand your concerns and if you don't want to post here, no problem.

Thanks for the input. That is right I don't know you well. In fact, I don't know you at all. If you are in the UK. I can buy you a coffee and you can see If I am a guy of hatred or not.  :)

Good day to you!

« Reply #20 on: March 05, 2009, 16:00 »
0

Thanks for the input. That is right I don't know you well. In fact, I don't know you at all. If you are in the UK. I can buy you a coffee and you can see If I am a guy of hatred or not.  :)

Good day to you!

Maybe I'll take you up on that Cide.  Very nice of you to say. 

As for the face stomping pic and why I chose it?  I don't know, seems appropriate sometimes.  I can tell you it was probably the most fun my wife ever had on a photoshoot.  She really got into it..maybe too much :)

Yes, I know I said I wasn't going to respond but I couldn't help myself.  Cide..I'm putting you back on with forum access but please just be careful about jumping over that line OK?  At least not at such regular intervals :)

Thanks,

Mat

« Reply #21 on: March 05, 2009, 16:15 »
0


Maybe I'll take you up on that Cide.  Very nice of you to say. 

As for the face stomping pic and why I chose it?  I don't know, seems appropriate sometimes.  I can tell you it was probably the most fun my wife ever had on a photoshoot.  She really got into it..maybe too much :)

Yes, I know I said I wasn't going to respond but I couldn't help myself.  Cide..I'm putting you back on with forum access but please just be careful about jumping over that line OK?  At least not at such regular intervals :)

Thanks,

Mat


Mat,

I learnt my lesson, fotolia forum is not for posting. But thanks, It will be usefull for reading. I haven't given up on helping fotolia become more considerate and nicer to it's contributors.

We do need a union. Not for bashing fotolia or fighting against fotolia. We are not in a war. As I had said on fotolia forum, contributors need to be included in the decision making process.

Not single contributors. Not just me. Not just you or anyone. We need a union that will be considered when making a decision.

Thank you,
Cihan

« Reply #22 on: March 05, 2009, 16:16 »
0
Well, i guess the experience is different for each one of us. I have just started in this business a couple months ago, and slowly increasing my port.
In this time, Fotolia has been gradually risen the position of my incomes, and right now is my second income generator, just after SS. I request my first pay the 1st of march and since then (in this 4 days) i have earned 38 U$ just almost the same as in SS.
I cant believe that someone can earn more in 123RF, i have made less than 3 U$ in all this time there.

As i stated at the beginning, everybody has it's own experience.

« Reply #23 on: March 05, 2009, 16:34 »
0
Mat, well, I hope you read this part, at least...

Interesting that you use that photo as your icon.  I feel that's what FT did with it's contributors, crushed them under their heel.

Wish you could comment back, would love to hear the story on why you chose that particular image...

And bash?  Not bashing, telling the truth.  Of course, if you can't swallow the truth, then it feels like bashing. 
There is another thread where someone started slamming on Dreamstime, but the only responses were positive on DT's side, the site is well run and respected.  Interesting that a thread that started the same way about FT didn't bring the same response, in fact most agreed with the original poster.

It looks like it's time for a tea party...

Gebbie


Thank you Gebbie!  ;)

« Reply #24 on: March 05, 2009, 16:48 »
0
Are we able to make some kind of legal, and powerful enough organization to stand up for us when we need it? It could be tough in the beginning, but it would bring us many goods...

« Reply #25 on: March 05, 2009, 16:54 »
0
Are we able to make some kind of legal, and powerful enough organization to stand up for us when we need it? It could be tough in the beginning, but it would bring us many goods...

One of the very realistic requests made to sites should be to be clearer and more specified about rejection reasons, and in general, use the same list over sites. No individual contributor can ask that, but a group could. You don't have to start the world revolution (yet) to make a difference.

« Reply #26 on: March 05, 2009, 17:18 »
0
Right...just someone has to start it. Maybe someone who is powerful enough in microstock world.

« Reply #27 on: March 05, 2009, 18:54 »
0
As much as I like the idea, I don't think it would work as all the sites can easily update their terms and conditions to ban such activity while it's still in its development.

« Reply #28 on: March 05, 2009, 20:41 »
0
As much as I like the idea, I don't think it would work as all the sites can easily update their terms and conditions to ban such activity while it's still in its development.

ban what activity? 

No one can stop you from joining a group.  And if agencies started banning people from joining a Microstock Alliance group, then they probably shouldn't have us as contributors, anyway.

Gebbie

« Reply #29 on: March 05, 2009, 20:57 »
0
No one can stop you from joining a group.  And if agencies started banning people from joining a Microstock Alliance group, then they probably shouldn't have us as contributors, anyway.

It would probably be illegal too.

« Reply #30 on: March 05, 2009, 21:27 »
0
I'm being the devil's advocate here, but I think they could find a "legaleze" wording to do it in the contributor's contracts if the group has any legal status at all. If it is just an informal group, that would be more difficult. However, an informal group might not work as efficiently on the issues it advocates.


« Reply #31 on: March 06, 2009, 05:15 »
0
I'm being the devil's advocate here, but I think they could find a "legaleze" wording to do it in the contributor's contracts if the group has any legal status at all. If it is just an informal group, that would be more difficult. However, an informal group might not work as efficiently on the issues it advocates.



I think an agency would think twice before doing that.  Like someone on the FT said : "If we all pulled are portfolios at agency X, we actually wouldn't lost any $$ at all" ... because buyers would just change agency and we have all the same images there.

regarding FT.  It has been a good earning for me the past 6 months and this month looks good too.  Maybe I'm not to happy about their changes, but I'm not happy with IS either.  StockXpert and BigStock are why too small to mean anything.  Leaves only SS and DT to be content about.

So FT isn't the worst place on earth (yet) ...

except

for that $---issue where we don't get any answer from FT.  It really annoys me not getting any response for management.  They know there are wrong, that's why they don't want to speak about it.

But again, let's do the math :

I have/had 55 affiliates at FT

7 of them are registered at the US
46 in the UK
1 in Germany
1 in France

Of my last 10 sales, I sold 4 images to a german customer and 3 to a french one.  The other 3 seems to be english or american.

Now, you don't need to be a professor to see why they increased the credit price in europe and refuse to pay the US and UK contributors their fair share.  Are am I wrong ?

RT


« Reply #32 on: March 06, 2009, 06:36 »
0
@ RGebbiePhoto & litifeta, We should somehow find a way to get all top 3000 or 4000 contributors move together and pull about hundreds of thousands images off of fotolia overnight if we want to make a statement. I am very disappointed at how some of the big guys digest these changes. Not everybody can really be BIG. Being BIG is not about money. I don't see them as BIGS anymore.

Cidepix, I understand your frustration but try to understand for the BIG players it is all about money, if you operate a business selling microstock it is the net profit a site produces that is the most important factor in deciding whether you sell your images via them, having morals and firm beliefs in the way you're treated is all well and good but that doesn't balance your account book, any of the big players will come out and air their opinion about any changes they're not happy with but that's as far as it will go for as long as the site in question gives an adequate return, when that stops happening they'll pull out.

Forming any sort of Microstock alliance may sound good but will it have any actual effect, the agencies are aware of the people that make them money, they are also aware that these people operate a business. Look at the SAA lots of shouting and standing up for rights, has it had any actual effect - No, sure they'll take a proportion of credit for a few things but in the real world they haven't done much at all.

Everybody selling stock images is an individual, you cannot have a union of individuals.   

WarrenPrice

« Reply #33 on: March 06, 2009, 10:38 »
0
The part about "individuals" doesn't make much sense.  All unions started as individuals ... even the United States.

The Actors Guild might be a better example.


« Reply #34 on: March 06, 2009, 11:13 »
0
I so agree with this.  Putting food on the table and paying the bills is by far the most important part of selling my images.  I love DT but they only provide me with half of what my 3rd selling site  produces so until I start losing money I won't go against any of these top sites. At the moment that is not the case with any of the changes that Fotolia has made so far.  I have had 2 of my best earnings days ever this week since the last change at Fotolia so at the moment they have my support.
I made a stand against the overwhelming 25c downloads at crestock by stopping uploading but they made almost no difference at all to my income.

 


Cidepix, I understand your frustration but try to understand for the BIG players it is all about money, if you operate a business selling microstock it is the net profit a site produces that is the most important factor in deciding whether you sell your images via them, having morals and firm beliefs in the way you're treated is all well and good but that doesn't balance your account book, any of the big players will come out and air their opinion about any changes they're not happy with but that's as far as it will go for as long as the site in question gives an adequate return, when that stops happening they'll pull out.

   

RT


« Reply #35 on: March 06, 2009, 12:52 »
0
The part about "individuals" doesn't make much sense.  All unions started as individuals ... even the United States.

If there was a microstock union and that union made the announcement that all it's members should stop uploading to a particular site because of it's latest change in terms what do you think would happen:

a - the members would follow the unions call
b - the members would do whatever they thought best for their own business

the answer would be 'b' because we are all individuals and therefore the union would have no power whatsoever, and of course every stock agency knows this, so therefore I ask what is the point of forming a union.

There have been many management turn arounds in both microstock and traditional stock, and they have all been the result of many members individually contacting the site by email or in their forums, I personally would never let a union representative be my spokesperson.

 

« Reply #36 on: March 06, 2009, 12:59 »
0
I think the same, RT. Unless this union is a legally recognized organization with all members having a binding membership agreement. Such organization would probably have membership fees as well.

« Reply #37 on: March 06, 2009, 13:14 »
0
Forum sites are a great source of information.  HOWEVER...  you also get trolls casting doubt.

I would agree with an Alliance that was there with actual facts on updates to sites, and easy to understand terms that translates over to other languages.  There could also be a rating system, giving the great points, and the not so great points.

It's true, as Individual Photographers, we would ultimately make our own choices.  But an alliance might unencourage people to join sites that don't pay timely, have unreasonable rejection rates, and that are unresponsive to their contributors. 

For example, Albumo hid their 400 day lockout on images hidden in their TOS, and it was only available to be seen AFTER you registered.  Do you read the TOS directly after you just read it and agreed to it? Or do you visit it again when you have an issue? 

I think, if there was an independant agency reporting on every site, it would kind of act like a credit report for the contributors.  Are the agencies credible?

Yes, we all have different opinions on every site, but the general consensus is usually the same. 

« Reply #38 on: March 06, 2009, 13:37 »
0
Forum sites are a great source of information.  HOWEVER...  you also get trolls casting doubt.
I'm not sure if you meant to comment my posts here. Maybe I was not clear, I am all for any kind of alliance or union that would advocate contributors interests. I am just trying to point out to some obstacles that we might encounter doing that.

Any sort of independent agency would be a great thing as it would give guidelines to present and future contributors. However, this raises more questions, for example, who ensures that this agency is independent, and not influenced by some interests, perhaps interests of a particular stock site? This is not something that can be regulated, so the authority of this agency would highly depend on its perceived reputation.

RT


« Reply #39 on: March 06, 2009, 13:39 »
0
For example, Albumo hid their 400 day lockout on images hidden in their TOS, and it was only available to be seen AFTER you registered.  Do you read the TOS directly after you just read it and agreed to it? Or do you visit it again when you have an issue? 

I never joined Albumo but if what you're saying is true and you weren't informed at the time of signing up that the terms you've just signed would change once registered, then they're not legal and as such they cannot enforce the 400 day lockout.

To be honest even if it did it wouldn't be too much trouble to get out of, same goes for all these sites that state a 3,6,12 month lock in, if I wanted out I'd be out tomorrow.

« Reply #40 on: March 06, 2009, 17:00 »
0
Are we able to make some kind of legal, and powerful enough organization to stand up for us when we need it? It could be tough in the beginning, but it would bring us many goods...

I am very skeptical about a union of microstock photographers.  I didn't see a real move towards a united action in FT changes, maybe a slight one in StockXpert's changes (a lot of members leaving, but not really a coordinated action). 

Regards,
Adelaide

« Reply #41 on: March 06, 2009, 17:16 »
0
Like someone on the FT said : "If we all pulled are portfolios at agency X, we actually wouldn't lost any $$ at all" ... because buyers would just change agency and we have all the same images there.


I was the one who wrote that. I am not sure if someone else used it as well:)


And because of the above logic RT, I can not agree with you. It is a WIN WIN situation for us. Regardless which agency sells our images, we will sell them. We don't really care which agency exists or disappears. So the answer to your question must be (a) If the contributors have not got any health problems that affects their thinking  :)

I don't see why would the  so called BIG players not follow the aforesaid announcement of the union? Do you really think Yuri or Andres or someone else like you or me would lose any money if we pulled our images off of X agency?

I can not agree with your opinion that it will hurt us. The last people will be hurt is us If we do it in a well organised way. IF we pull our images from X agency, we will not lose a single penny! Ah ok, maybe for a couple of days we can lose some pennies but when the customers of X agency realize that the agency is dead with no images then they will go elsewhere to still buy our images.

Contributors only need a simplistic brain to know that pulling our images from one agency will not hurt us.

If we put our minds to it and form this union we are talking about, I am sorry but if we want we can make even BigStock the biggest agency in the world. IF we want we can start talks with X agency and agree on a let's say %60 commission and no subs model and everybody pulls the images off of other agencies and we have a single power that pays us %60. The agency will win too, because %40 of no competition is quite big as well. That would still be more money than any of them are making right now.


If there was a microstock union and that union made the announcement that all it's members should stop uploading to a particular site because of it's latest change in terms what do you think would happen:

a - the members would follow the unions call
b - the members would do whatever they thought best for their own business

« Last Edit: March 06, 2009, 17:23 by cidepix »

« Reply #42 on: March 06, 2009, 17:24 »
0
Although I said %60 on my above post I think %50 is pretty good with no subs ever!

RT


« Reply #43 on: March 06, 2009, 17:35 »
0
Contributors only need a simplistic brain to know that pulling our images from one agency will not hurt us.

Let me know when you've convinced Yuri to pull all his images of the site he earns the most at, then after you've convinced him let me know when you've convinced Andres for whom it's his second highest earner, of course you'll then have to contend with the likes of Sean and convince him to pull out of iS, and then and then ... you see if you do your research you'll discover that all the big players earn varying amounts at different agencies, we don't all have the same 1,2,3


If we put our minds to it and form this union we are talking about, I am sorry but if we want we can make even BigStock the biggest agency in the world. IF we want we can start talks with X agency and agree on a let's say %60 commission and no subs model and everybody pulls the images off of other agencies and we have a single power that pays us %60. The agency will win too, because %40 of no competition is quite big as well. That would still be more money than any of them are making right now.

And then BigStock becomes a monopoly, reduces our commission to 5% and there's nothing we can do because all the other sites have disappeared!! Have a look at your local college for an economics course  ;)

« Reply #44 on: March 06, 2009, 17:48 »
0
Contributors only need a simplistic brain to know that pulling our images from one agency will not hurt us.

Let me know when you've convinced Yuri to pull all his images of the site he earns the most at, then after you've convinced him let me know when you've convinced Andres for whom it's his second highest earner, of course you'll then have to contend with the likes of Sean and convince him to pull out of iS, and then and then ... you see if you do your research you'll discover that all the big players earn varying amounts at different agencies, we don't all have the same 1,2,3


If we put our minds to it and form this union we are talking about, I am sorry but if we want we can make even BigStock the biggest agency in the world. IF we want we can start talks with X agency and agree on a let's say %60 commission and no subs model and everybody pulls the images off of other agencies and we have a single power that pays us %60. The agency will win too, because %40 of no competition is quite big as well. That would still be more money than any of them are making right now.

And then BigStock becomes a monopoly, reduces our commission to 5% and there's nothing we can do because all the other sites have disappeared!! Have a look at your local college for an economics course  ;)

RT  :)

I will make a few points that I will always stand for.

1- Any union is better than no union: My points above are a bit utopic but a union will make us part of the decision making process. I bet we won't even need to ask X agency to get our opinion before they implement anything new.

2- We don't really need to convince everybody: Yuri and Andres make big money for themselves but what they make is still very small compared to what we all generate for the agencies. I love Yuri's work but his a few thousand images are only a small part of 5+ million images.

3- Do you really not see If we really manage to be organised and pull our images altogether we won't lose any money. (Even %20 of all contributors will hurt them enough to make them ask us before they do anything)

4- X agency will not have any legal power to lower our comissions to %5 as we will make our own agreement before anything is done. Forget about usual terms of service you are used to.

lisafx

« Reply #45 on: March 06, 2009, 18:56 »
0
I'm all for a union or alliance or whatever.  I would certainly pay dues to it if it was going to negotiate on my behalf with the agencies. 

The problem seems to be that for all the talk nobody wants to take the initiative and form one.  I don't have time or experience to do it and don't know anyone else that does either.

Another big hurdle would be getting enough people to join so that they represented a sufficient proportion of the microstock image collection that they would have some authority. 

Frankly with most people doing this as a hobby and not serious income there might not be enough interest.

« Reply #46 on: March 06, 2009, 19:22 »
0
We're living in different countries, microstock sites are also in various countries. Some of us earn a hundred dollars a day, others a month. Some of us even refuse to show where we live or our real names.  Some of us have thousands of images online, some have a few dozen. Some of us are happy with subs sales. Some love site A, some hate this same site.

I would like to know what are the concrete ideas to make this variety of contributors work in cohesion.

Regards,
Adelaide

RT


« Reply #47 on: March 06, 2009, 20:07 »
0
2- We don't really need to convince everybody: Yuri and Andres make big money for themselves but what they make is still very small compared to what we all generate for the agencies. I love Yuri's work but his a few thousand images are only a small part of 5+ million images.

and earlier you said..

I don't see why would the  so called BIG players not follow the aforesaid announcement of the union? Do you really think Yuri or Andres or someone else like you or me would lose any money if we pulled our images off of X agency?

So now you're arguing with yourself, what hope has a union got  ;D

Seriously though I only mentioned those two because you mentioned them earlier, I agree that their portfolios are a tiny amount of 5 million images, but what you need to understand is that of the aforementioned 5 million images I can almost guarantee you that 4.5 million of those images make a very small fraction of the agencies overall sales, of the ones that are left there will be a large segment that belong to photographers of the type I mentioned.
So if for example I ran an agency with 1000 photographers and out of that 1000 photographers 50 make me 90% of my turnover do you really think I'd care if the other 950 threatened to leave, now if all 1000 united and threatened to leave I'd sit up and listen, but I'm well aware that my top 50 photographers who are all successful business men and women are not going to that, so the 950 leave - I then market my site as an elite collection of handpicked quality images by the worlds top 50.


Milinz

« Reply #48 on: April 09, 2009, 10:27 »
0

...

Seriously though I only mentioned those two because you mentioned them earlier, I agree that their portfolios are a tiny amount of 5 million images, but what you need to understand is that of the aforementioned 5 million images I can almost guarantee you that 4.5 million of those images make a very small fraction of the agencies overall sales, of the ones that are left there will be a large segment that belong to photographers of the type I mentioned.
So if for example I ran an agency with 1000 photographers and out of that 1000 photographers 50 make me 90% of my turnover do you really think I'd care if the other 950 threatened to leave, now if all 1000 united and threatened to leave I'd sit up and listen, but I'm well aware that my top 50 photographers who are all successful business men and women are not going to that, so the 950 leave - I then market my site as an elite collection of handpicked quality images by the worlds top 50.



Happilly that would never happen. That 50 left contributors don't think they earn enough and any coordinated action will make their solidarity in that action... Maybe some won't join - but that is as in any strike...
I am sure that Yuri or Andersr or anyone who can be called 'big' understands that all actions are in contributor benefit. So, ideas with opposition to some 'what if' is not real.
Look at CRESTOCK and see for yourself!
« Last Edit: April 09, 2009, 10:29 by Milinz »

batman

« Reply #49 on: April 09, 2009, 15:58 »
0
To expect an open border union is ridiculous at most, highly undoable at least.
Why not just get a handful of hot shot photographers to join force with you? Your combined talents would get equal those stock producing machine that are the big sellers at this moment.  It's more realistic and doable if you just look within your own network and get the people you feel comfortable working with you , than  dream of a revolution which is like barking at the moon. A more realistic force is to get your network to form as one "band"  under one name or brand if you like.
Forget the union.
« Last Edit: April 09, 2009, 16:04 by batman »

« Reply #50 on: April 09, 2009, 22:35 »
0
You can't have a union of stockers for the simple reason you can't set up pickets on the internet.

« Reply #51 on: April 09, 2009, 22:51 »
0
Remember the old saying about how you can put a frog in a pot and if you raise the temperature slowly enough, there is never a point at which he decides to jump out - so he gets cooked?  That's how the microstocks got the price of a photo down to 25 cents, over a period of years.

Hey if these sites thought they could charge us to upload, they'd do it.

RacePhoto

« Reply #52 on: April 09, 2009, 23:41 »
0
More realistically what's going on is a price war between the agencies. They keep cutting prices to attract buyers. This will drive out the weak sites, but in the end we are the ones losing right now.

This happened when the railroads were starting. Lower prices until they were shipping things for a loss, just to get the business. Eventually some smart operators took the business and shipped it with their competitors, which cost the competition money and drove them under.  ;D

How's the airline business around the world? Eventually many couldn't keep giving away seats and working for nothing. There are less choices, but at least they can fly you in a safe plane without shorting the maintenance.

None of us knows when, but when the business end sorts out and there are only the select "good" micro sites, the prices will start to go back up to match the level of quality and library of available images.

If anyone wants to hasten the process, just stop uploading to the new sites that are going to discount to the limit to get business and stop uploading to the sites under the top ten. They are already on life support. Pull the plug on the discounters who are bleeding the system and forcing the lower prices.

« Reply #53 on: April 10, 2009, 01:03 »
0
None of us knows when, but when the business end sorts out and there are only the select "good" micro sites, the prices will start to go back up to match the level of quality and library of available images.

If anyone wants to hasten the process, just stop uploading to the new sites that are going to discount to the limit to get business and stop uploading to the sites under the top ten. They are already on life support. Pull the plug on the discounters who are bleeding the system and forcing the lower prices.

Maybe there is better method, opposite to yours, to make sites respect us. If we uppload tons of crap to not respectful sites they will be in trouble. Numbers of  good images will not increase, only reviewers fee...
It's like voting. Less we are happy more we uppload ;D

« Reply #54 on: April 10, 2009, 02:13 »
0
Quote
Less we are happy more we uppload

How true this is.....

This is what is killing us...........the less we make.....the more we upload to try to make up for it.....and the more the Companies make.    And the more photos we have online....the harder it is to quit. :'(


« Reply #55 on: April 10, 2009, 07:27 »
0
To expect an open border union is ridiculous at most, highly undoable at least.
Why not just get a handful of hot shot photographers to join force with you? Your combined talents would get equal those stock producing machine that are the big sellers at this moment.  It's more realistic and doable if you just look within your own network and get the people you feel comfortable working with you , than  dream of a revolution which is like barking at the moon. A more realistic force is to get your network to form as one "band"  under one name or brand if you like.
Forget the union.


What an excellent idea, I bet there are loads of microstock contributors who have the technical knowledge to build a site, forget the union just go independent, sell on your own terms, take a risk and quit whining.

either that or just join the AOP!


« Reply #56 on: April 10, 2009, 07:41 »
0
That's how the microstocks got the price of a photo down to 25 cents, over a period of years.

0.25$ ? I get many subscription sales of 0.19$ on Gods Gift to stock: iStockphoto.

« Reply #57 on: April 10, 2009, 08:10 »
0
Thanks racephoto for a good historical comparison.   It's becoming clearer all the time that microstock as it is today probably isn't sustainable.  Basically we're working in a sweatshop, we have no collective bargaining power.

The only value the agencies add is screening for image quality.  If there were a way around that, we could eventualy  do without them and sell directly to buyers. You will laugh, but - why not Ebay? Mainly  because Ebay's user interface isn't sophisticated enough to view hundreds of thumbnails; but that's just a technical issue for Ebay which they could certainly address.

I'm thinking of a paid screening service, where competent people look at your images for a few cents apiece and certify itheir basic quality Once this service had some credibilty and buyers started to accept it, we could sell direct through various means.  Ebay, personal sites, "coop" sites where we pool resources to get advertising and Google ranking....

If history teaches us one thing it is to find a way to CUT OUT THE MIDDLEMAN.

« Reply #58 on: April 10, 2009, 08:25 »
0
If history teaches us one thing it is to find a way to CUT OUT THE MIDDLEMAN.

To be effective for SEO, you'll need to combine several photographers. To have similar quality, you need to have trusted long-term reviewers. You'll need a coder to maintain and extend the code, and not one that runs away in the middle of the project like what happened on YAY. You'll need at least 1 full-time staff for offering support to contributors. and to buyers. You'll certainly need an accountant. You'll need a CEO to coordinate it and post to the MSG. Well... this is another microstock site;D


« Reply #59 on: April 10, 2009, 08:50 »
0
[Well... this is another microstock site.

No. It's another for-profit business, but it's not a microstock. We pay for image screening - just a certification of quality so buyers know they're not wasting time looking at our thumbnails. But then we market and sell anyway we want - off our own sites, a jazzed-up Ebay of the future, or cooperatives.  We set our own prices. 

Obvously, it wouldn't be a one-man business, it would require resources and investment.  If you think about it, a failing microstock of today could transition into a screening service.


batman

« Reply #60 on: April 10, 2009, 09:23 »
0
stockastic, i hate to agree with your pessimistic view of microstock but i do.
unfortunately, it is already feeling like a sweatshop as the top performing site are selling well produced images for less than the price of a packet of cashews.
when was the last time anyone paid a bob, a quarter US, for anything ?
the only big winners in this game besides the Big 6 will be those living in countries where a 15 UScents sales would make you run outside to shout to the community you just made another subscription sales , and you are indeed a successful stock photography already  ;)
well, look at the bright side, if stock prices (the real markets) keep plunging, and stock images keep getting cheaper, we could pack our bags , leave UK or US for some 3rd world country and make a good living just selling microstock images.
woo hoo !  ;)

Milinz

« Reply #61 on: April 10, 2009, 09:51 »
0
[Well... this is another microstock site.

No. It's another for-profit business, but it's not a microstock. We pay for image screening - just a certification of quality so buyers know they're not wasting time looking at our thumbnails. But then we market and sell anyway we want - off our own sites, a jazzed-up Ebay of the future, or cooperatives.  We set our own prices. 

Obvously, it wouldn't be a one-man business, it would require resources and investment.  If you think about it, a failing microstock of today could transition into a screening service.



That you want is already there it is called Featurepics. They have the lowest rate for your ON-LINE shop with possibility to make collections and set your own prices... All for free upload and even review with 30% expence for authors - I see that you may even link to your collections on featurepics and make a sale froim your own site  ;)

« Reply #62 on: April 10, 2009, 10:08 »
0
batman, good point - the real  problem is that I live in the US where 25 cents means nothing...

Milinz, thanks for the tip. And there is also CutCaster, where I'm already uploading. These sites are in fact already very close to what I'm talking about.  But will they survive, without charging some small amount for review?


« Reply #63 on: April 10, 2009, 10:55 »
0
Obvously, it wouldn't be a one-man business, it would require resources and investment.

Well then it's a stock site. Unless you would do it all by yourself. The argument that you can set your own prices also holds for Zymm, Cutcaster and Featurepics.

« Reply #64 on: April 10, 2009, 10:58 »
0
[Well then it's a stock site. Unless you would do it all by yourself. The argument that you can set your own prices also holds for Zymm, Cutcaster and Featurepics.

What I'm suggesting is a company that just does reviews.  They don't hold, display or sell your photos - that's up to you.  All they do is let you display their logo with your images, stating that they've been independently reviewed for image quality.

« Reply #65 on: April 10, 2009, 11:04 »
0
What I'm suggesting is a company that just does reviews.  They don't hold, display or sell your photos - that's up to you.  All they do is let you display their logo with your images, stating that they've been independently reviewed for image quality.
1. Rinder had an idea like that 2-3 years ago, but without review. He thought skilled microstockers knew perfectly well when their image was good or not. Play your own reviewer. If you collect a bad reputation, people won't buy any more. Or do it like MP, where the buyer can zoom in at full size. He had a look into it and he concluded he couldn't handle the management, not if he wanted to stay a photographer.
You can also introduce peer review: many of the the good photographers here are already reviewer at some site.
Imagine the pressure put on the reviewer when he is directly paid by you.
2. What about Smugmug?
« Last Edit: April 10, 2009, 11:06 by FlemishDreams »

« Reply #66 on: April 10, 2009, 11:49 »
0
Actually I think I do need review, myself.  But that's not really my point.  Let's say the web itself improves to the point where sites can advertise their content in a consistent, searchable way (if you're techinically minded, this is what the
"Semantic Web" concept - now being developed by the W3C - is all about). In that not-too-distant future a buyer could use a web search engine (like Google) directly to search for something like "image, stock, photograpic, color, vintage telephone" and get meaningful results instead of the [email protected] that would turn up today.  They'd get hundreds of thumbnails from you, me, and many other photographers, available for direct purchase at our own sites or 3rd-party image hosts.   But looking at all these thumbnails, a buyer needs to know which are actually quality images.  Without that knowledge they're reliant on a microstock middleman; they can't spend time figuring it out by trial and error.

I want to run my own restaurant, but no one will come in unless they know it's approved by the health inspector.
« Last Edit: April 10, 2009, 12:01 by stockastic »

« Reply #67 on: April 10, 2009, 14:19 »
0
I want to run my own restaurant, but no one will come in unless they know it's approved by the health inspector.

Explained like this, it sounds like a very good idea. Especially the universal image search engine by Google etc... they added metadata and surrounding info recently to power Google Images, while before, the search only relied on file names. If they would buy the Tineye technology (which I expect) they could even sift the duplicates of the same image on several sites, included those of the customers that bought it. Personal sites will have the same chance as stock sites. Paypal has developed some cool APIs to sell from a personal site directly.

A certification organism of reviewers would be a major asset then, since they can attach technical quality labels in an undisputed way. No rejection for similars nor LCV. Let the buyers decide... Darwinian approach. You've got a great idea there, when will you start implementing it?  :P

zymmetricaldotcom

« Reply #68 on: April 10, 2009, 16:09 »
0

« Reply #69 on: April 10, 2009, 18:21 »
0
It was discussed before, and although I think we could collectively have some strength, I don't see this union even here: we have different opinions about almost everything concerning microstock. In a few occasions, protests made changes.  In most cases however, people complained but stayed in the offending sites. 

« Reply #70 on: April 10, 2009, 19:00 »
0
Well, if anyone starts a 'Union' or an 'Alliance' - I'm in (for a reasonable amount of union or alliance dues).  I would do it myself, but I do not have the experience  :-\

Snaprender

« Reply #71 on: April 11, 2009, 07:41 »
0
http://www.zymmetrical.com/blog/


The idea of stockastic is not that bad: an independent review house (food health inspection) and a clearing house to guarantee your ID and legality and verify/archive your model releases while keeping your privacy. Assuming every photo then comes with an inspection and verification fee, plus you have to maintain your own site and do the SEO (adding presale costs), - the real issue is then what the difference is with a stock site like Zymm, that gives 70% and allows pricing.  ::)

One good reason to still do it is the tsunami of "low commercial value"/"we don't need this" rejections of technically perfect shots, that start to plague all the sites. A contributor is at the merci of what they think is salable, and sites often neglect the long tail.

Quote:

Quote
In November of 2006 I received an email from Bradt Travel Guides. They had found a photo of a condor in my gallery and wanted to use it for the cover of a new guidebook on Peruvian Wildlife. They offered a price, I countered, they offered the same price, I accepted. Now my photo is on a book. Its on a real book in the real world. Cool.

After selling the photo I thought hey, maybe I could sell other photos! The obvious place to do this was on stock photography websites. I tried out some of the leading ones. Most rejected the photos I submitted. One popular stock site actually called the photo that I had already sold as unsellable. That was funny.

So this, Steves story, and a few others around the office got us thinking. What gives the editors of stock photo sites the right to be policing the marketplace? Shouldnt the buyers decide what suits their needs? Shouldnt any photo a photographer wants to sell be able to be placed for sale? As we found out, the photo you least suspect could very well be the perfect photo for someone. This was the beginning of ClusterShot.
« Last Edit: April 11, 2009, 08:05 by FlemishDreams »

« Reply #72 on: April 11, 2009, 10:00 »
0
Like FlemishDreams says, I really don't need some middleman telling me what images they think they like.   I just need a way for buyers to find my images, and be assured that the full-size image doesn't have problems not visible in a small online view.

CutCaster is already close to what I want - they accepted 100% of what I gave them.   I hope CC takes off.


Milinz

« Reply #73 on: April 11, 2009, 19:23 »
0
batman, good point - the real  problem is that I live in the US where 25 cents means nothing...

Milinz, thanks for the tip. And there is also CutCaster, where I'm already uploading. These sites are in fact already very close to what I'm talking about.  But will they survive, without charging some small amount for review?




Featurepics will survive for sure - I know some things behind the scene but I can't tell you anything of it... And all that is completely positive with possibility to have your own site which is linked to your previously made collection there... Also many interesting changes are happening there with many to come... They are building the strong position and are long way in front of competitors as Zymm or Cutcaster in image quantity as well in traffic position and sales...

Also, they have quality reviews - not LCV except in really overabundant or too similar images - but, they are always ready to make business efforts and to listen authors!

Here is my referral link to all interested:

http://www.featurepics.com/Authors/Images9285.aspx
« Last Edit: April 11, 2009, 19:39 by Milinz »

« Reply #74 on: April 11, 2009, 19:51 »
0
Featurepics looks interesting.  Thanks to this forum I am still learning what's already out there. 

What's "LCV"?

« Reply #75 on: April 12, 2009, 21:10 »
0
well---
« Last Edit: April 12, 2009, 21:43 by werkmann »

« Reply #76 on: April 12, 2009, 23:20 »
0
What's "LCV"?
Low Commercial Value.

RT


« Reply #77 on: April 13, 2009, 05:56 »
0

What's "LCV"?


It's what any successful stock agency needs to know in order to survive  ;)

Milinz

« Reply #78 on: April 13, 2009, 08:20 »
0

What's "LCV"?


It's what any successful stock agency needs to know in order to survive  ;)

Any agency will survive anyway have they 'LCV' or not - that has never been question of survival... The point is if some agency has targeted choice of buyers so for some agency Model images are what they think is needed and landscapes are 'LCV' for them and completely opposite for other agency... On my expirience there is no real 'LCV' except for technically good images with quite unclear subject matter - but that images too can be used as backgrounds... So 'LCV' is quite stupid way for someone to tell you 'we don't need this image because it is technically ok but, we really think it is crap'.

Agency is representing authors of images and to survive they need that authors. There is no any agency which can survive without authors! Also, when they in some agency think they are Masters of all authors I now publicly can say that they may take their cameras and go shoot as well as take their wacom tablets and draw illustrations.... I don't like that someone takes 75% from me and acting as I am their slave who needs to obey, listen act and upload by their own invented rules differing from all other agencies in this industry called stock imagery.
« Last Edit: April 13, 2009, 08:32 by Milinz »

batman

« Reply #79 on: April 13, 2009, 11:20 »
0


Any agency will survive anyway have they 'LCV' or not - that has never been question of survival... The point is if some agency has targeted choice of buyers so for some agency Model images are what they think is needed and landscapes are 'LCV' for them and completely opposite for other agency... On my expirience there is no real 'LCV' except for technically good images with quite unclear subject matter - but that images too can be used as backgrounds... So 'LCV' is quite stupid way for someone to tell you 'we don't need this image because it is technically ok but, we really think it is crap'.

Agency is representing authors of images and to survive they need that authors. There is no any agency which can survive without authors! Also, when they in some agency think they are Masters of all authors I now publicly can say that they may take their cameras and go shoot as well as take their wacom tablets and draw illustrations.... I don't like that someone takes 75% from me and acting as I am their slave who needs to obey, listen act and upload by their own invented rules differing from all other agencies in this industry called stock imagery.

goo d point Milinz, but i really can't see any solution to handling the Masters of all authors...
except perharps that you apply for a job as a reviewer with the sites these reviewers submit theit own works, and then reject all their best images, and then give them a taste of their own medicine.
only one problem, they don't give the names of the reviewers so you really cannot fix them.
 ;)

or you could buy shares into Getty , get them to do another takeover, and get rid of the reviewers  ;D

just a crazy idea ! ;)
« Last Edit: April 13, 2009, 11:22 by batman »


 

Related Topics

  Subject / Started by Replies Last post
9 Replies
3935 Views
Last post July 26, 2008, 12:27
by Maui
5 Replies
8435 Views
Last post March 17, 2009, 21:26
by davey_rocket
2 Replies
1379 Views
Last post November 04, 2016, 16:50
by catavic
6 Replies
2382 Views
Last post July 25, 2017, 16:21
by HalfFull
6 Replies
3734 Views
Last post August 14, 2017, 18:18
by Steveball

Sponsors

Mega Bundle of 5,900+ Professional Lightroom Presets

Microstock Poll Results

Sponsors

3100 Posing Cards Bundle