MicrostockGroup Sponsors


Author Topic: Portfolio on Dollar Photo Club even after opting out  (Read 27977 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

« Reply #175 on: June 03, 2015, 15:15 »
+5
Maybe it's intentional incompetence...  ;D >:(


Semmick Photo

« Reply #176 on: June 03, 2015, 15:22 »
-3
Didn't they get paid full amount for this mistake?Seems in favour of the contributors.

Noedelhap

  • www.colincramm.com

« Reply #177 on: June 03, 2015, 16:50 »
+12
Didn't they get paid full amount for this mistake?Seems in favour of the contributors.

Doesn't seem like it, I received 2,76 credits instead of the full 12 credits. I certainly don't consider this a decent compensation for such a big "mistake". They violated my copyright and they'll have to come up with something much better than a meager credit sale.

Semmick Photo

« Reply #178 on: June 03, 2015, 17:10 »
0
I am probably missing something, dont images on DPC cost $1 ? Or do you want to get paid the FT credit price? Anyway, FT didnt make a profit if they pay the full price, the buyer paid on DPC, to the contributor.

« Reply #179 on: June 03, 2015, 17:24 »
+10
I am probably missing something, dont images on DPC cost $1 ? Or do you want to get paid the FT credit price? Anyway, FT didnt make a profit if they pay the full price, the buyer paid on DPC, to the contributor.
Even if they paid a big whopping $2.70 or so per file...still a cheap way to get out of a copyright infringement.  I sent them an email refusing it, and I'm getting the registered letter out tomorrow.

« Reply #180 on: June 03, 2015, 18:04 »
+15
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.

Here's my take. If 12 months from now (365 days) nobody found out, then FT gets the benefit of 7m images on DPC they normally wouldn't for that year. If on day 366 a contributor spots it, then FT claims, "oh, it's a bug. The images inadvertently went to DPC yesterday. We are happy to pay you full credit royalties for that one day." They keep 365 days worth of revenue. That's how untrustworthy and dishonest I think they are.

« Reply #181 on: June 03, 2015, 18:06 »
+11
My letter if anyone needs help:

Dear Fotolia,
It appears that on or about May, 26, 2015, your company did make all of my files available for sale on your Dollar Photo Club website. The following files were apparently sold through Dollar Photo Club:

File Numbers:


This action was done without my permission as evidenced on my account page, which I did make copies of at the time. On June 1, 2015, you credited my account in the amount of $00.00 as restitution for selling these four files without my consent. I hereby refuse this payment as compensation for your questionable actions, which may constitute an infringement of my copyright on the above named files.

(Furthermore, if I do request payment for royalties on non-disputed sales, then the amount of at least $00.00 will be left in my account and thereby still in your possession.)

Sincerely,

« Reply #182 on: June 04, 2015, 01:54 »
+12
All the mistakes on IS are attributed to incompetence, never on greed. Why would this be any different? Sean has a good point.

In my mind the difference between iStock and Fotolia is that iStock took over another company and found that there was a sum outstanding from a lost payment years earlier and then contacted me to tell me I could claim it and promptly paid; as for Fotolia, when I asked them to send a cheque for about $800 in accrued earnings they delayed for months and then put some sort of internal memo on my account saying they had paid me - I think that was the point when they blocked my account access - but when I then threatened to call the FBI if they didn't pay within 48 hours they immediately sent me my money regardless of their payment memo.

That's why I would attribute iStock mistakes to incompetence and why I do not have my portfolio with Fotolia - I can't do business with a company without having confidence in its honesty.

« Reply #183 on: June 04, 2015, 04:12 »
+20
All the mistakes on IS are attributed to incompetence, never on greed. Why would this be any different? Sean has a good point.

Well IS has a long history of greed and incompetence. I imagine their legal team are always on hand to make sure they don't cross the lines Fotolia has.

Fotolia has a long history of greed and dishonesty (especially where DPC is concerned; not announcing the launch of their new site and and even barefaced claiming that it wasn't their site at all, when in fact it was. Having a rep here who was pretending to be independent of the company and so on)

Any developments are of course viewed in the context of this history.

« Reply #184 on: June 04, 2015, 07:28 »
+6
All the mistakes on IS are attributed to incompetence, never on greed. Why would this be any different? Sean has a good point.

Well IS has a long history of greed and incompetence. I imagine their legal team are always on hand to make sure they don't cross the lines Fotolia has.

Fotolia has a long history of greed and dishonesty (especially where DPC is concerned; not announcing the launch of their new site and and even barefaced claiming that it wasn't their site at all, when in fact it was. Having a rep here who was pretending to be independent of the company and so on)

Any developments are of course viewed in the context of this history.

Ron is trying to get back on FT (or maybe he already is back), so I would expect him soften his anti-FT posts. I will admit, I'd do the same if I were wanting back in, but that ain't going to happen.

Semmick Photo

« Reply #185 on: June 04, 2015, 08:21 »
+9
I am not back in. And I stated at the very beginning when coming back here on MSG under my business name I would change my ways on the forum. I am not here to rough feathers or get into arguments, with anyone.

I did ask what the possibilities were of me coming back to FT since they are now a different company. However, I was denied a return to FT. Matt stated in this forum that FT wants to prove to us that they value their contributors. The fact that they dont consider that the past is water under the bridge, let bygones not to be bygones, etc. only proved to me that they are still far away from proving anything other than they are still the same as before the Adobe takeover.

« Reply #186 on: June 04, 2015, 10:39 »
+11
I am guessing this was a mistake on FT's part. But the way they reacted to it was pretty telling. They have a long history of doing questionable practices and things that are very damaging to contributors and usually they eventually admit it is their policy and tell us to take it or leave it or do a very small back pedal.

Or maybe someone tried to pull a fast one and their lawyer told them that they would lose this time, so they reversed course. Their credibility is long gone and it is going to take a whole lot to get any back.

In any case I bet it is only a matter of time before the next sketchy "partner" or "exciting opportunity" or "glitch" or whatever they might call it.

« Reply #187 on: June 04, 2015, 12:37 »
+5
I am not back in. And I stated at the very beginning when coming back here on MSG under my business name I would change my ways on the forum. I am not here to rough feathers or get into arguments, with anyone.

I did ask what the possibilities were of me coming back to FT since they are now a different company. However, I was denied a return to FT. Matt stated in this forum that FT wants to prove to us that they value their contributors. The fact that they dont consider that the past is water under the bridge, let bygones not to be bygones, etc. only proved to me that they are still far away from proving anything other than they are still the same as before the Adobe takeover.

Ron, you must have really done something especially obnoxious to them.  With everything I've been up to the past few days, they still haven't cancelled my account. ... ??? .....Moment of respectful silence..... ;D
Kudos!

« Reply #188 on: June 04, 2015, 13:20 »
+8
I am not back in. And I stated at the very beginning when coming back here on MSG under my business name I would change my ways on the forum. I am not here to rough feathers or get into arguments, with anyone.

I did ask what the possibilities were of me coming back to FT since they are now a different company. However, I was denied a return to FT. Matt stated in this forum that FT wants to prove to us that they value their contributors. The fact that they dont consider that the past is water under the bridge, let bygones not to be bygones, etc. only proved to me that they are still far away from proving anything other than they are still the same as before the Adobe takeover.

Ron, you must have really done something especially obnoxious to them.  With everything I've been up to the past few days, they still haven't cancelled my account. ... ??? .....Moment of respectful silence..... ;D
Kudos!

He spoke the truth....that much i can confirm. I did the same. Both ron and i were kicked out along with a few others in here.

« Reply #189 on: June 04, 2015, 13:45 »
+8
Both ron and i were kicked out along with a few others in here.

And some others of us happily departed FT on our own. No loss in my book.

« Reply #190 on: June 04, 2015, 22:42 »
+9
Both ron and i were kicked out along with a few others in here.

And some others of us happily departed FT on our own. No loss in my book.

Unfortunately, it is a loss not being able to do business with the third biggest-selling agency. The reduction in stress levels compensates for that but in purely cash terms the list on the left suggests it represents a loss of something like 10% of potential income and nobody likes to have a 10% pay cut.

« Reply #191 on: June 05, 2015, 00:00 »
+1
Both ron and i were kicked out along with a few others in here.

And some others of us happily departed FT on our own. No loss in my book.

Unfortunately, it is a loss not being able to do business with the third biggest-selling agency. The reduction in stress levels compensates for that but in purely cash terms the list on the left suggests it represents a loss of something like 10% of potential income and nobody likes to have a 10% pay cut.

Well, yes, it would be a loss if I had to make a living at this. I'd put up with a lot, I'm sure, if that were the case.

But, as I've said before, I don't have to put up with anything. And FT obviously wasn't interested in my US birds and critters, because my acceptance rate there hovered around 20%, compared to 72% at DT and 80% at SS (back in the good old days before they raised the bar sooooooooo high).

I'm free to come and go from these sites when they become too frustrating. Truly sorry for others who don't have that option.

« Reply #192 on: June 05, 2015, 07:51 »
+8
Both ron and i were kicked out along with a few others in here.

And some others of us happily departed FT on our own. No loss in my book.

Unfortunately, it is a loss not being able to do business with the third biggest-selling agency. The reduction in stress levels compensates for that but in purely cash terms the list on the left suggests it represents a loss of something like 10% of potential income and nobody likes to have a 10% pay cut.

You do make valid points but here's where I disagree. More than once FT has shown factually to mislead and lie to contributors. One example is the "DPC" isn't ours, even though without my permission they put my images there for $1. By doing that they are trying to steal market share (not find new markets) from agencies where I make more. Thus, they in effect cannibalize my revenue elsewhere, make me less money and at the same time rank high. They win - we lose. Many of their decisions are "industry differentiators" that force competing agencies to lower pricing and consequently commissions.  So for my dollar, it is better NOT to have my images there as I believe that even though I would make my $60 a month, I would lose $100 cumulatively across other agencies. Of course I cannot quantify that without knowing specifically that buyer A moved from one agency to FT and was purchasing my images, but I believe that the scenario is real and that FT is this destructive.

Shelma1

« Reply #193 on: June 05, 2015, 08:05 »
+10
The truly unfortunate thing is that they have potential to grow hugely with their Adobe partnership. Every ad agency uses the Adobe suite, so now Fotolia images will be available to the biggest buyers without them having to leave the program they're working in. I really wish someone else had made that deal. I'd much rather have SS in there, for example, though that might lead to even more of a monopoly.

Semmick Photo

« Reply #194 on: June 05, 2015, 08:42 »
+1
I am still thinking Adobe is a reputable company who are not sitting around waiting to get lots of bad press. And certainly they dont want to be associated with copyright infringements, which the DPC seems to be, and cock ups like this. They dont want their software to be pirated, so they must understand sames goes for our images.

Takeovers need time. I am hoping Adobe is analysing FT now they own them and at some point come up with a reorganisation. Surely heads are going to roll. And surely they want a good relationship with their contributors as we are using their product to create images, which they will then again sell within their product. That wont work if you keep pissing them off like FT keeps doing. I would be really surprised if Adobe keep walking the same path as FT. Unless they have bought FT without the intention of changing management , processes and culture.

ShadySue

  • There is a crack in everything
« Reply #195 on: June 05, 2015, 08:48 »
+8
Or who knows? They could take over a micro and make it worse.
It's been done before.  ::) (though by a company with a far worse 'exisiting' reputation.)

« Reply #196 on: June 10, 2015, 20:36 »
+5
I am not back in. And I stated at the very beginning when coming back here on MSG under my business name I would change my ways on the forum. I am not here to rough feathers or get into arguments, with anyone.

I did ask what the possibilities were of me coming back to FT since they are now a different company. However, I was denied a return to FT. Matt stated in this forum that FT wants to prove to us that they value their contributors. The fact that they dont consider that the past is water under the bridge, let bygones not to be bygones, etc. only proved to me that they are still far away from proving anything other than they are still the same as before the Adobe takeover.


Did you think about your blog post? I don't think you really want to be back in, you just want to start trouble. http://semmickphoto.com/2014/05/02/microstock-agency-fotolia-leads-race-bottom/

Semmick Photo

« Reply #197 on: June 11, 2015, 01:39 »
+1
I  disagree


 

Related Topics

  Subject / Started by Replies Last post
150 Replies
46973 Views
Last post May 10, 2014, 00:00
by marthamarks
49 Replies
14839 Views
Last post April 08, 2014, 23:25
by leaf
1 Replies
3021 Views
Last post April 08, 2014, 20:32
by EmberMike
28 Replies
14800 Views
Last post October 27, 2014, 14:53
by Shelma1
0 Replies
1510 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