MicrostockGroup Sponsors


Author Topic: Portfolio on Dollar Photo Club even after opting out  (Read 28724 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

« Reply #150 on: June 02, 2015, 12:48 »
+3
Ok, I personally don't believe fotolia did that on purpose and just hoping no-one will notice it.

It might have been an "accident" as they claim.  Personally, I think it was a test to see if they could get away with it, and so far, it appears that they have.  With as little backlash as they have received for doing it the first time, whether accident or deliberate, how long do you think it will be before they do this again or something else equally repugnant?
« Last Edit: June 02, 2015, 12:55 by Gel-O Shooter »


« Reply #151 on: June 02, 2015, 13:27 »
+2
No words, Fotolia infringes copyright for thousands of contributors and they feel that the sum of a "full resolution credits sale" is enough to cover their crime.

I'm just a nurse, not a lawyer, but as I understand it, the minute you cash out and "accept" those few dollars, then you will be considered to have "accepted" their offered compensation?  Cheap compensation for possible copyright infringement, if you ask me.  On second thought, $11.06 is not enough for abusing my trust, FT.

ShadySue

  • There is a crack in everything
« Reply #152 on: June 02, 2015, 13:36 »
+11
I'm just a nurse, not a lawyer
Nursing is NOT a 'just' profession.

« Reply #153 on: June 02, 2015, 13:42 »
+7
I'm just a nurse, not a lawyer
Nursing is NOT a 'just' profession.

Thanks, Sue.  I like to think that in all those years of home health, I made a difference in a few people's lives.

« Reply #154 on: June 02, 2015, 14:57 »
0
I'm just a nurse, not a lawyer
Nursing is NOT a 'just' profession.

Thanks, Sue.  I like to think that in all those years of home health, I made a difference in a few people's lives.

Betcha you did!

« Reply #155 on: June 02, 2015, 15:41 »
+4


Betcha you did!

Thanks, Martha.  Back to our subject of Fotolia.....
Hubby isn't a lawyer either, but he does have a Master's in IT technology, and he has dealt with situations of this nature. He says that those of us who do not think a few pennies are adequate compensation for a possible copyright violation need to send a registered letter to FT corporate headquarters.  We need to go on record telling what they did, listing the files that they "borrowed" without consent, and telling them that the pitiful few dollars that they credited to our accounts is not acceptable compensation.  I realize that some of us depend on these checks to pay the rent. If/when you do cash out, make sure that you leave that exact amount in your account and tell them why you left it in there in your letter.

Here is their address:
Fotolia LLC
41 East, 11th Street, 11th Floor
New York, NY 10003
USA
« Last Edit: June 02, 2015, 15:47 by Gel-O Shooter »

« Reply #156 on: June 02, 2015, 19:54 »
+18
Ok, I personally don't believe fotolia did that on purpose and just hoping no-one will notice it.

I don't think you've been around long enough. They have a clear, purposeful track record of ripping off contributors.

Noedelhap

  • www.colincramm.com

« Reply #157 on: June 03, 2015, 03:45 »
+1
I believe one of my images has been downloaded via DPC, is this correct?

I have received the following royalties (bronze):

Subscription V All sizes 0.27 Credits (for the initial download on 2015-05-26)

Standard XXL All sizes 2.76 Credits (on 2015-06-01)

« Reply #158 on: June 03, 2015, 04:41 »
+16
Ok, I personally don't believe fotolia did that on purpose and just hoping no-one will notice it.

It might have been an "accident" as they claim.  Personally, I think it was a test to see if they could get away with it, and so far, it appears that they have.  With as little backlash as they have received for doing it the first time, whether accident or deliberate, how long do you think it will be before they do this again or something else equally repugnant?

Fotolia (and not just Fotolia, we've seen lots of examples) seem to be able to rely on having impunity because they deal with thousands of suppliers and individually nobody has sufficient sales to make it worthwhile pursuing them for one infringement or another. These incidents show that small-time internet businesses have hardly any rights because the rights they are supposed to have are impossible to enforce against multi-billion dollar companies. Of course, that means the big businesses can do anything they like, regardless of the law, and simply shrug off any concerns about consequences because they know nobody can afford to take them on.
« Last Edit: June 03, 2015, 04:44 by BaldricksTrousers »

« Reply #159 on: June 03, 2015, 06:02 »
+9
The only true way to stop them is to take photos off their site so they have nothing to sell. We have seen how well that works ( doesnt work). No one wants to lose the income, and the big companies know that too. Until people are prepared to bite the bullet and take the loss, i dont see any solution. They will continue to steal, because of exactly what you have just said.

« Reply #160 on: June 03, 2015, 07:57 »
+8
The only true way to stop them is to take photos off their site so they have nothing to sell. We have seen how well that works ( doesnt work). No one wants to lose the income, and the big companies know that too. Until people are prepared to bite the bullet and take the loss, i dont see any solution. They will continue to steal, because of exactly what you have just said.

For me I don't miss them one bit nor do I miss the measly $60 a month. Frankly, it would surprise me if anyone who left (or was kicked out) wants a reprieve to get back in. At this point if their management changed it would not be enough to convince me to go back.  There would have to be a clear policy shift that's not anti-contributor like they have today. But you are right. Money is a powerful sedative to action.

« Reply #161 on: June 03, 2015, 08:07 »
+4
For me I don't miss them one bit nor do I miss the measly $60 a month. Frankly, it would surprise me if anyone who left (or was kicked out) wants a reprieve to get back in. At this point if their management changed it would not be enough to convince me to go back.  There would have to be a clear policy shift that's not anti-contributor like they have today. But you are right. Money is a powerful sedative to action.

I don't miss them either, but I only made a measly amount too. It's a catch-22...the people who could affect the most change are the contributors selling the most and making the most money, but they have the most to lose.  :(

« Reply #162 on: June 03, 2015, 08:52 »
+6
Ok, I personally don't believe fotolia did that on purpose and just hoping no-one will notice it.

I don't either.  I know they've done some things in the past, but I attribute this to incompetence, not malice.

« Reply #163 on: June 03, 2015, 09:00 »
0
I believe one of my images has been downloaded via DPC, is this correct?

I have received the following royalties (bronze):

Subscription V All sizes 0.27 Credits (for the initial download on 2015-05-26)

Standard XXL All sizes 2.76 Credits (on 2015-06-01)

That's what my 4 looked like, so they got one of yours too.

« Reply #164 on: June 03, 2015, 10:39 »
+14
[For me I don't miss them one bit nor do I miss the measly $60 a month...

It's not so much one $50 a month or $100 a month but multiples - it adds up (or subtracts) when you do this for multiple offending agencies. Or, in the case of Deposit Photos, don't upload to them in the first place because of their crappy reputation.

In my case (agencies I left):

iStock - Getty-Google deal with no opt out
BigStock - crappy subscription royalty scheme with no opt out
Veer - crappy partner program (fixed royalties, no opt out and no list of partner sites given to contributors)
Fotolia - wouldn't have me back
Envato - fictional nonsense that I'm the seller not them


Semmick Photo

« Reply #165 on: June 03, 2015, 12:29 »
+4
Agree with jo ann. Left a few agencies and lost about 150$ per month. I do want that back.

Shelma1

« Reply #166 on: June 03, 2015, 13:10 »
+5
Ok, I personally don't believe fotolia did that on purpose and just hoping no-one will notice it.

I don't either.  I know they've done some things in the past, but I attribute this to incompetence, not malice.

I attribute it to greed.

« Reply #167 on: June 03, 2015, 13:40 »
+4
How could it be greed?  Obviously people are going to notice.  And they paid out more than they took in.  And they got lots of bad press here.  What benefit would come from it?

« Reply #168 on: June 03, 2015, 14:03 »
0
How could it be greed?  Obviously people are going to notice.  And they paid out more than they took in.  And they got lots of bad press here.  What benefit would come from it?

Agreed.
They have shown often enough that they are fully capable of changing their terms to our disadvantage when they think it benefits them.
If they want more files in DPC, they will simply remove the opt out. Without notice.
But then they would not backpedal.

So I'm with Sean here, it was a mistake and not on purpose.

Semmick Photo

« Reply #169 on: June 03, 2015, 14:10 »
0
All the mistakes on IS are attributed to incompetence, never on greed. Why would this be any different? Sean has a good point.

« Reply #170 on: June 03, 2015, 14:21 »
+6
All the mistakes on IS are attributed to incompetence, never on greed. Why would this be any different? Sean has a good point.

To us, the contributors, it hardly matters whether the mistakes that impact our royalties are due to greed or incompetence. Neither is encouraging.

ShadySue

  • There is a crack in everything
« Reply #171 on: June 03, 2015, 14:30 »
+2
All the mistakes on IS are attributed to incompetence, never on greed.
The mistakes are obviously incompetence. QED.
Everything else is greed.

Semmick Photo

« Reply #172 on: June 03, 2015, 14:33 »
+1
This was obviously a mistake. Not defending FT in any way. And it is very worrying that a little glitch puts all your images back on DPC.

Shelma1

« Reply #173 on: June 03, 2015, 14:35 »
+9
How could it be greed?  Obviously people are going to notice.  And they paid out more than they took in.  And they got lots of bad press here.  What benefit would come from it?

How do we know they paid out more than they took in? It never occurred to me to look for my files on DPC because I opted out. Who knows how many days the files were actually available before someone noticed and posted about it here? They've lied about so much already, including the lie about the files not being available for purchase, which they then had to backtrack on. I don't trust them at all when they say the files were only available for one day. It seems awfully weird that incompetence leads to profit.

« Reply #174 on: June 03, 2015, 14:56 »
+9
How could it be greed?  Obviously people are going to notice.  And they paid out more than they took in.  And they got lots of bad press here.  What benefit would come from it?

How do we know they paid out more than they took in? It never occurred to me to look for my files on DPC because I opted out. Who knows how many days the files were actually available before someone noticed and posted about it here? They've lied about so much already, including the lie about the files not being available for purchase, which they then had to backtrack on. I don't trust them at all when they say the files were only available for one day. It seems awfully weird that incompetence leads to profit.

You beat me to it. I don't EVER think it should be up to contributors to "discover" problems that directly affect their property and income. Where are the checks and balances, proofreaders, quality control people at these agencies? Sure a programmer can make a mistake (though it just seems like turning on everyone's portfolio in spite of an opt out seems fishy to me), but doesn't anyone check, after changes are made? Why does the incompetence only ever lead to contributors losing money. Why aren't there ever accidents causing double payouts in contributors' accounts? That's what makes me believe it is not incompetence, but intentional.


 

Related Topics

  Subject / Started by Replies Last post
150 Replies
47452 Views
Last post May 10, 2014, 00:00
by marthamarks
49 Replies
15196 Views
Last post April 08, 2014, 23:25
by leaf
1 Replies
3075 Views
Last post April 08, 2014, 20:32
by EmberMike
28 Replies
15067 Views
Last post October 27, 2014, 14:53
by Shelma1
0 Replies
1535 Views
Last post February 07, 2015, 16:51
by Holmes

Sponsors

Mega Bundle of 5,900+ Professional Lightroom Presets

Microstock Poll Results

Sponsors

3100 Posing Cards Bundle