MicrostockGroup
Agency Based Discussion => Adobe Stock => Topic started by: RuthBlack on May 26, 2015, 12:04
-
I opted out of the Dollar Photo Club over a year ago, but I've just noticed that my entire portfolio, including recent uploads, is available there.
I've checked my preferences and they are still set at "opt out". I've sent them a message asking why this is, but it might be worth others checking to make sure their images aren't also showing on there.
-
My acct set as opt out, but yet my entire port shows up in DPC as well. I wonder what they will claim now??
-
Have you had sales reported from that?
-
Same here >:( - Have sent e-mail to fotolia. Thank you for the heads up!
-
Mine's there as well. Thanks for the notice. Contacted Fotolia.
As they pay higher royalties for subs when opted into DPC, I think they must retro-actively adjust subs earning for the time our portfolios were (involuntarily) on DPC.
I asked them to do so, let's see what the reply is...
-
Same here! >:(
(Oh and thanks Dirk, your post in the FT forum alerted me)
-
Same here! Images uploaded to Fotolia last week are showing up On DPC, even though I opted out over a year ago. I contacted them asking if I should delete my portfolio until it is corrected.
-
I opted out of the Dollar Photo Club over a year ago, but I've just noticed that my entire portfolio, including recent uploads, is available there.
I've checked my preferences and they are still set at "opt out". I've sent them a message asking why this is, but it might be worth others checking to make sure their images aren't also showing on there.
Thanks Ruth for the information. I checked in DPC and to my dismay, my images are there. I have sent a mail to support asking them to remove them as in FT preferences, DPC is still showing correctly as opted out (OFF).
-
Yeah, no respect!
-
Me too! Can't wait for the explanation ::)
-
Brought up the problem on the Fotolia Forum. Maybe we can get a buzz going.
-
Brought up the problem on the Fotolia Forum. Maybe we can get a buzz going.
Just added a post on that topic there and of course my optioned out portfolio is on DPC
-
I opted out of the Dollar Photo Club over a year ago, but I've just noticed that my entire portfolio, including recent uploads, is available there.
I've checked my preferences and they are still set at "opt out". I've sent them a message asking why this is, but it might be worth others checking to make sure their images aren't also showing on there.
Mine are on there also, my settings have also been set to off for over a year.
Wow
-
Surely this is a serious legal violation? Breach of copyright springs to mind (equivalent to unauthorised use by a buyer). I can't say it surprises me much, though.
-
Surely this is a serious legal violation? Breach of copyright springs to mind (equivalent to unauthorised use by a buyer). I can't say it surprises me much, though.
I opted out of the Dollar Photo Club over a year ago, but I've just noticed that my entire portfolio, including recent uploads, is available there.
I've checked my preferences and they are still set at "opt out". I've sent them a message asking why this is, but it might be worth others checking to make sure their images aren't also showing on there.
Same here and my partner's portfolio is there also.
Looks like they are mirroring the whole Fotolia portfolio again.
-
what fotolia?
its unbelievable how untrustworthy are the agencies.
-
what fotolia?
its unbelievable how untrustworthy are the agencies.
You might be able to send a message by starting a class action.
-
what fotolia?
its unbelievable how untrustworthy are the agencies.
You might be able to send a message by starting a class action.
we should all do this togehther.
A crowd funded kickstarter Lawsuit!
-
what fotolia?
its unbelievable how untrustworthy are the agencies.
You might be able to send a message by starting a class action.
we should all do this togehther.
A crowd funded kickstarter Lawsuit!
I despise Fotolia so much that I might well contribute, even though I couldn't be party to any proceedings, since they lost my portfolio years ago.
-
I found my files on DPC as well (the newer ones, I believe) and if any file has been sold as part of DPC I'm willing to sue their asses off for breach of contract and copuright infringement.
This is outrageous! How dare they, those *insult removed*.
-
I found my files on DPC as well and if any file has been sold as part of DPC I'm willing to sue their asses off for breach of contract and copuright infringement.
This is outrageous! How dare they, those *insult removed*.
Take a screen shot of your settings on their site.
-
All my images are there too! :-[
-
Either this has been done deliberately, in which case I'll close my account immediately, or this has been a very sad mistake on their part, in which case I cannot trust them handling my images with care ever again.
-
I found my files on DPC as well and if any file has been sold as part of DPC I'm willing to sue their asses off for breach of contract and copuright infringement.
This is outrageous! How dare they, those *insult removed*.
Take a screen shot of your settings on their site.
I did, thanks for the note.
-
Remember this? Fotolia D-Day (Deactivation Day) - May 1, 2014
It was a 64 page thread.
-
Remember this? Fotolia D-Day (Deactivation Day) - May 1, 2014
It was a 64 page thread.
And something like seven million images removed ... and now apparently back again.
-
My portfolio has also reappeared on DPC despite being opted out. I HATE THIS. Writing Fotolia support now.
-
Fotolia bye bye.......... for me stop upload. >:( >:( >:(
-
Remember this? Fotolia D-Day (Deactivation Day) - May 1, 2014
It was a 64 page thread.
I completely removed my port from FT as part of that protest and haven't regretted it.
This latest slap in the face to those who stayed and took FT's word that they would remove your images from DPC if you asked
is just more proof of what a sleazy operation FT is.
-
Can anyone check if there has been a sudden influx of images on DPC recently? Apparently all my files have been (re)mirrored again.
-
Can anyone check if there has been a sudden influx of images on DPC recently? Apparently all my files have been (re)mirrored again.
Maybe that is the reason why some saw the views on their images rising? Maybe that was when they started integrating our ports in DPC?
-
I wish I could say how I really feel but Leaf would ban me.
Smells like a class action lawsuit to me.
-
i think leaf could made exception today
I wish I could say how I really feel but Leaf would ban me.
Smells like a class action lawsuit to me.
-
Wonder if they beefed up number of images as part of the Adobe deal.
-
I was hoping Adobe to kill DPC, but look what they are doing instead! To sell our content without permission is a Epic Fail and a crime!
Obviously they won't make any positive changes to FT!
I will deactivate some of my images and stop uploading! The next step will be deleting my portfolio!
-
I was hoping Adobe to kill DPC, but look what they are doing instead!
I also thought that Adobe will somehow deal with the flippin DPC. Is this their way to deal with it? Unbelievable >:(
-
I opted out and my portfolio is in the dollar club as well. I will contact support as well. How f-ked is this!
-
Believe me, mat will be on here claiming its a bug. But we all know what it really is.
-
I've sent mail as well.
BTW, is there a way to see "rejected" or something files?
Uploaded contents
1,764
Validated contents
1,677
Where are the missing files?
-
i think we need legal action, only money will stop them
-
The more I think about it, the more criminal this looks.
If any of our images on DPC have been sold without our consent, but we're opted out of DPC, they would not only need to remove our images, but also pay us an extra amount of royalties that was promised for those who remained opted in.
I'm willing to contribute financially to a class action lawsuit.
-
Mine are there as well. This is so dissapointing. Do we really need another deactivation shitstorm to make them understand that this is OUR content?
Are they really that desperate for content? There should be enough people who donīt care where they upload...
-
decision is made, im stoping uploading to fotolia, until this crap is over.
-
The more I think about it, the more criminal this looks.
If any of our images on DPC have been sold without our consent, but we're opted out of DPC, they would not only need to remove our images, but also pay us an extra amount of royalties that was promised for those who remained opted in.
I'm willing to contribute financially to a class action lawsuit.
Yes a class action could be a good investment if fotolia has to pay a compensation. We need a fond for class actions.
Investment maybe 100$ per person.
Is the action successfully the compensation will be distributed to the investors.
-
Must be part of Fodobe's Creative Cloud scheme.
-
Remember this? Fotolia D-Day (Deactivation Day) - May 1, 2014
It was a 64 page thread.
I completely removed my port from FT as part of that protest and haven't regretted it.
This latest slap in the face to those who stayed and took FT's word that they would remove your images from DPC if you asked
is just more proof of what a sleazy operation FT is.
Amen to that, martha.
-
BTW, is there a way to see "rejected" or something files?
Uploaded contents
1,764
Validated contents
1,677
Where are the missing files?
OT: click on the little monitor icon on the top line when looking at "my files", that let's you choose to see deleted files.
-
Where are the sales reported for DPC?
I can not sign in to the DPC site.
-
BTW, is there a way to see "rejected" or something files?
Uploaded contents
1,764
Validated contents
1,677
Where are the missing files?
OT: click on the little monitor icon on the top line when looking at "my files", that let's you choose to see deleted files.
Thanks. I don't know why they call them "deleted" if they're "refused". And I have no idea why they are "refused".
-
Butting in as someone who is not involved, but hates to see this sh*t, does anyone who is involved think it might be worthwhile posting about it on whatever Adobe groups are relevant to buying images - to get the word out that work is being sold at prices artists opted out of? ...
Or would that draw even more attention to the DPC?
Maybe only on groups/forums/whatever which promote the DPC? They are at best 'hijacked' but more realistically 'stolen' images.
-
I have only just joined FT and, having read these forums, opted out from day one. Yet I have just found my meagre but complete portfolio on DPC.
It's late now but I shall be emailing them in the morning.
-
The more I think about it, the more criminal this looks.
If any of our images on DPC have been sold without our consent, but we're opted out of DPC, they would not only need to remove our images, but also pay us an extra amount of royalties that was promised for those who remained opted in.
I'm willing to contribute financially to a class action lawsuit.
Yes a class action could be a good investment if fotolia has to pay a compensation. We need a fond for class actions.
Investment maybe 100$ per person.
Is the action successfully the compensation will be distributed to the investors.
Even though i am no longer with Fotolia I would pitch in $100 just to say I was part of bringing them down.
-
The more I think about it, the more criminal this looks.
If any of our images on DPC have been sold without our consent, but we're opted out of DPC, they would not only need to remove our images, but also pay us an extra amount of royalties that was promised for those who remained opted in.
I'm willing to contribute financially to a class action lawsuit.
Yes a class action could be a good investment if fotolia has to pay a compensation. We need a fond for class actions.
Investment maybe 100$ per person.
Is the action successfully the compensation will be distributed to the investors.
Even though i am no longer with Fotolia I would pitch in $100 just to say I was part of bringing them down.
Bear in mnd, they'll no doubt have Adobe's lawyers supporting them, could be very expensive. (Not that that's a reason to curl up and let them walk over people.)
-
These things are so frustrating. Why do they think that we will not notice??
Do they really believe they will get the deactivated 7 million files back with a "trick"?
Or that because now a year has passed, we no longer care about our content?
I am so tired of these things. Looks like SS is the only agency that pays attention to their reputation in the stock community.
I donīt want to give up working with Fotolia. But I have ZERO interest in DPC. Absolutely none.
-
I have just a few images still left over there, and sure enough they're all on DPC..,even though I opted out. Now I am unable to get to the preferences section of the site. Looks like they're attempting damage control. Take screenshots of everything!
-
Why FT cheat and pull our pants down, again? (BIG F-word), I am totally frustrated for these incidents. I sent contact support and screenshots that DPC IS OFF!
-
The more I think about it, the more criminal this looks.
If any of our images on DPC have been sold without our consent, but we're opted out of DPC, they would not only need to remove our images, but also pay us an extra amount of royalties that was promised for those who remained opted in.
I'm willing to contribute financially to a class action lawsuit.
Yes a class action could be a good investment if fotolia has to pay a compensation. We need a fond for class actions.
Investment maybe 100$ per person.
Is the action successfully the compensation will be distributed to the investors.
Even though i am no longer with Fotolia I would pitch in $100 just to say I was part of bringing them down.
Same here.
-
I sent contact support and screenshots that DPC IS OFF!
It looks like Fotolia has just removed the Opt Out DPC box from the preferences section of My Profile.
-
I managed to get in and get a screenshot of mine clearly showing the OFF option.
-
Why FT cheat and pull our pants down, again? (BIG F-word), I am totally frustrated for these incidents. I sent contact support and screenshots that DPC IS OFF!
It looks like Fotolia has just removed the Opt Out DPC box from the preferences section of My Profile.
Still there for me...
-
The more I think about it, the more criminal this looks.
If any of our images on DPC have been sold without our consent, but we're opted out of DPC, they would not only need to remove our images, but also pay us an extra amount of royalties that was promised for those who remained opted in.
I'm willing to contribute financially to a class action lawsuit.
Yes a class action could be a good investment if fotolia has to pay a compensation. We need a fond for class actions.
Investment maybe 100$ per person.
Is the action successfully the compensation will be distributed to the investors.
Even though i am no longer with Fotolia I would pitch in $100 just to say I was part of bringing them down.
Same here.
Me too.
-
My entire portfolio has shown up there today as well. Sent an email to Fotolio. Also "chatted" with Adobe Support and stated I needed to obtain and email or postal address for the Office of Customer Satisfaction or Company Relations regarding a matter with Fotolio (It's impossible to find an email address for Adobe Support...you have to go through their "wizard"). The representative said he would be right back with that information. Came back 10 minutes later with a link to their generic "Contact Us" page and told me I would have to call their marketing department. Big surprise.
-
I sent contact support and screenshots that DPC IS OFF!
It looks like Fotolia has just removed the Opt Out DPC box from the preferences section of My Profile.
Oops! looked in the wrong place.
-
Contributor area > My preferences
The development idea for FT.. there is Notification preferences, you should add:
- I would like to be notified when we next time cheat you
-
Oh, should we also write to adobe, because they are the owners?
Letīs see what happens tomorrow. Maybe this is just a bad dream and I can wake up and it all didnīt happen. :(
-
This is obscene. I sent them an email:
"I opted out of the Dollar Photo Club, and yet, my entire portfolio is there. Why is that? This is a gross violation of my terms of agreement. I DO NOT WANT MY FILES SOLD FOR ONE DOLLAR. PLEASE REMOVE IMMEDIATELY."
Someone should notify Andresr so that he knows that his 40,000 images are up there too. I think he was one of the big microstock factories that sent a letter to them last year during D-Day.
-
All of my photos are on DPC even though I opted out. I am collecting screenshots and will gladly participate in a class action lawsuit. Adobe might have deeper pockets, but a new reputation for cheating artists just might be a public relations nightmare for them.
-
My full portfolio is there too and I also opted out from the beginning when the first gave us the option. I stopped uploading at that time as well. Sales for my small portfolio were minimal but they dropped by half after the DPC opt out which I attributed to the DPC effect and my lack of uploading. Now I wonder how long they have been selling at DPC and if they've just been pocketing the money instead of crediting my account.
-
I have a pretty good idea about when they stole my files and put them back on DPC...just about the time my ODDS started dropping like a rock on SS! I am now in the process of deleting my entire port from FT. It appears that is the only way to protect them from these rotten b@stards!
-
My entire portofolio is in that Dollar Photo Sh*t Club too! >:(
this is unacceptable, we must do an action >:( >:(
hope that sh*tty website burn to hell >:( >:( >:(
-
You could consider complaining to the FBI.
It would be immensely difficult to put together a class action for various practical reasons - not impossible, and perhaps people would like to try, but immensely difficult and long-winded. The one thing that seemed to make a difference when I had my problems with Fotolia was the threat I made (and was ready to carry through) of reporting them to the FBI's internet fraud office, which is based in New York City, I believe.
At this point, I would urge people to be extremely careful in what they say, but if several million images have been put on sale in DPC against the specific instructions of the image owners and if nobody has seen any sales reported from those images then it seems to me that prime facie there are two grounds for thinking that there may have been criminal wrongdoing and that, therefore, a complaint to the FBI may be in order.
I would guess that if the FBI did launch a successful prosecution over this it would become much easier to win a civil court damages claim ... but I'm no lawyer blah blah blah.
As I recall, any individual who wishes to can register a complaint with the FBI but if you do you cannot subsequently withdraw it. It is up to the Bureau to decide whether or not to pursue it.
Finally, I would remind everyone that Fotolia will be watching this thread and there is a risk (based on what has happened before) of anyone who can be identified from their name or portfolio links here having their Fotolia account terminated if the company decides they have made damaging comments online.
-
I have a pretty good idea about when they stole my files and put them back on DPC...just about the time my ODDS started dropping like a rock on SS! I am now in the process of deleting my entire port from FT. It appears that is the only way to protect them from these rotten b@stards!
If you can demonstrate a link between reduced ODDs and the appearance of your portfolio on DPC it would be an important factor in determining any damages in a lawsuit.
-
If you can demonstrate a link between reduced ODDs and the appearance of your portfolio on DPC it would be an important factor in determining any damages in a lawsuit.
It would be kinda hard to do that since I have no idea exactly when they took it upon themselves to ignore the op-out instructions on my profile and steal my files. This is a new low, even for them. They may get away with it, but I will do everything I possibly can to make sure their buyers know how callously they disregard a contract.
-
If you can demonstrate a link between reduced ODDs and the appearance of your portfolio on DPC it would be an important factor in determining any damages in a lawsuit.
It would be kinda hard to do that since I have no idea exactly when they took it upon themselves to ignore the op-out instructions on my profile and steal my files. This is a new low, even for them. They may get away with it, but I will do everything I possibly can to make sure their buyers know how callously they disregard a contract.
Yeah, that's one of the reasons why a class action is difficult - you have to be able to show quantifiable damages.
-
Where is now OPT OUT button?
-
I am surprised this thread is going on for 3 pages and no word from Matt or anybody at FT.
Hellooooo out there.....? Contributors should have an explanation of this!
-
I am surprised this thread is going on for 3 pages and no word from Matt or anybody at FT.
Hellooooo out there.....? Contributors should have an explanation of this!
I'm not surprised at all.
I have just sent an email to support at DPC stating that I consider their action in offering my portfolio for sale to be a breach of contract with their parent company and a breach of copyright and to remove my images immediately.
Couldn't do any harm if everyone did the same even if it doesn't do any good.
-
Baldrick is right. I was booted off of fotolia for contacting the EU and trying to damage the company. Anyone here taking action against fotolia will get booted.
-
Looks like my port is gone from DPC now.
-
I was just in the middle of typing an email to them and thought I would check.
It would seem that mine has been removed as well.
It would have been interesting to compare the total number of images on DPC between yesterday and today!
-
Looks like my port is gone from DPC now.
Same for me, can't find any images of mine on DPC anymore.
-
For Fotolia to correct this within hours and without any explanation or resistance suggests to me that they are shyting themselves over being caught. (And they've done it right in the middle of the night in the US, too. How often does that happen? Could my mention of the FBI four hours earlier have something to do with it?)
The question is, is everybody just going to forget what they did? Or is something going to be done about it? Is it acceptable for a company to get away with behaving like this (and, no doubt, they will shrug and say it was a mistake by a computer or something like that - and if you believe that you'll beleive anything)? It's up to those of you who still have your portfolios there.
-
As much as I dislike FT as a company and their repeatedly proven anti-contributor behavior, in this case I would not rule out that it was simply an IT bug they only discovered after we made it public.
Things like that do happen.
But I am still waiting for an official explanation from them (which should include an apology and compensation for all files that were sold on DPC while they should have been opted out).
-
Mine are gone as well!
I do think it is good that they react very fast, this is different to what I am used to from istock, where they promise something will get done and five months later you are still waiting. At least on Fotolia the IT people are actually in control over their own site.
But we have to keep paying attention, it is obvious that in a few months they might try this again.
Or be prepared that they change their user agreement and make DPC compulsary. But if they do, then I would have to change what I offer there, it will then only be content suitable for DPC, not Fotolia.
There is so much more they could do with Fotolia, it is sad if they keep scaring people away. With all the people already not uploading to istock, if Fotolia gets ignored as well, we will be left with only SS.
-
Good that they deleted the portfolios. Did anyone check the total number of files and is it dropping now? Also, even if the files were removed, they still committed a copyright violation. I cant believe Adobe condones this. Maybe Adobe ordered FT to correct the situation asap?
-
I cant believe Adobe condones this. Maybe Adobe ordered FT to correct the situation asap?
That could well be right. But there was one other time there was an instant change to their site - that was when they were caught out paying people less than everybody thought they were paying due to their decision at some point to put imaginary values on the credits. The line on their website defining the credit as having a fixed cash value rapidly vanished after the discrepancy was pointed out. It will be in the archives here, on the thread about the different rates they pay depending on which currency they choose to use.
So they have a track record of rapidly removing evidence of questionable behaviour even without the intervention of a reputable company.
-
I sent this:
WITHOUT PREJUDICE.
I have only been a contributor for a few weeks and in all that time I have ensured that the option to sell my files on DPC was switched to OFF.
I have now been made aware that my entire portfolio is currently for sale on that site.
Although I am no lawyer, I would suggest that this is at least a breach of contract and at worst a breach of my copyright.
I now need to consider my next action and would request an explanation as to why this has happened.
Please respond to this message as a matter of legal urgency.
Thank you
and just got this back:
Hi Ralph,
This was a bug within the search engine. Customers were not actually able to download the images
and the bug lasted only 1 day. Opted out contributors are still and have remained opted out the whole time.
Sorry for the confusion.
Kind Regards,
Fotolia EU
I must admit I didn't try and download any of the images.
This message took about 30 minutes so they were pretty quick to respond.
-
This was a bug within the search engine. Customers were not actually able to download the images
and the bug lasted only 1 day. Opted out contributors are still and have remained opted out the whole time.
Fotolia EU
That's a defence that is hard to challenge. How credible it is is another matter.
-
But we have to keep paying attention, it is obvious that in a few months they might try this again.
Or be prepared that they change their user agreement and make DPC compulsary. But if they do, then I would have to change what I offer there, it will then only be content suitable for DPC, not Fotolia.
Content suitable for DPC - that would be very very few files.
-
ALL gone.
Nice.
But I still did not find OPT OUT option.
Anybody?
-
I've sent mail as well.
BTW, is there a way to see "rejected" or something files?
Uploaded contents
1,764
Validated contents
1,677
Where are the missing files?
Sean,
go to "My files" and on top click on the monitor icon and choose "show rejected files" (or similar, I don't know the exact english wording, since I use the German site)
-
I opted out of the Dollar Photo Club over a year ago, but I've just noticed that my entire portfolio, including recent uploads, is available there.
I've checked my preferences and they are still set at "opt out". I've sent them a message asking why this is, but it might be worth others checking to make sure their images aren't also showing on there.
Thanks Ruth for the information. I checked in DPC and to my dismay, my images are there. I have sent a mail to support asking them to remove them as in FT preferences, DPC is still showing correctly as opted out (OFF).
I checked just now and my images seemed to have been removed from DPC. My mail to support is still in queue for a response though.
-
ALL gone.
Nice.
But I still did not find OPT OUT option.
Anybody?
Go to 'Contributor Area', click on 'My Preferences' on the left hand side. You will see "Sell your files on DPC?" on the right. Change the 'switch' to OFF.
;D
-
I sent this:
WITHOUT PREJUDICE.
I have only been a contributor for a few weeks and in all that time I have ensured that the option to sell my files on DPC was switched to OFF.
I have now been made aware that my entire portfolio is currently for sale on that site.
Although I am no lawyer, I would suggest that this is at least a breach of contract and at worst a breach of my copyright.
I now need to consider my next action and would request an explanation as to why this has happened.
Please respond to this message as a matter of legal urgency.
Thank you
and just got this back:
Hi Ralph,
This was a bug within the search engine. Customers were not actually able to download the images
and the bug lasted only 1 day. Opted out contributors are still and have remained opted out the whole time.
Sorry for the confusion.
Kind Regards,
Fotolia EU
I must admit I didn't try and download any of the images.
This message took about 30 minutes so they were pretty quick to respond.
I got this message as well. "Sorry for the confusion", as if it's a minor thing. We would have to take their word for it, that the images weren't downloadable, but my trust is long gone.
-
I got a brief response from my email to DPC support simply stating that none of my images are available on DPC as per my settings on Fotolia. No explaination or apology, just stating that they are not there as if that was always the case.
-
Next time a similar thing happens, don't go public immediately.
First try to download the file which shouldn't be on DPC, document every step of the way, collect all the receipts, and if you successfully buy your asset from a place where it shouldn't be available, you saved yourself a lot of time and money in lawyers.
-
ALL gone.
Nice.
But I still did not find OPT OUT option.
Anybody?
Go to 'Contributor Area', click on 'My Preferences' on the left hand side. You will see "Sell your files on DPC?" on the right. Change the 'switch' to OFF.
;D
TNX.
OFF is already long time.
:)
-
I got a brief response from my email to DPC support simply stating that none of my images are available on DPC as per my settings on Fotolia. No explaination or apology, just stating that they are not there as if that was always the case.t
show them a screenshot
-
After the team's response I have removed all of my pics.
-
My images now seem to have disappeared from DPC. I find it very hard to believe that "one day" was the same day we noticed what they were doing.
-
My images now seem to have disappeared from DPC. I find it very hard to believe that "one day" was the same day we noticed what they were doing.
I agree. Now, those who choose to stay with Fotolia will need to be looking over their shoulders and checking DPC daily. They will try to get away with it again. Their track record over the years is proof enough for me that this was intentional. I am so glad I am no longer with this unethical company.
-
If this happens again, I will try to download one image to check if they're indeed 'not available to customers'.
-
They SAY they weren't available for purchase, but what if they were? Hundreds of thousands of images available for a day...wouldn't take too many sales for them to beef up their income, without paying you your royalty. Kind of like when the phone company charges .10 for something that can't be accounted for...10 cents on one bill isn't worth the grief of finding out what it is and getting it removed. 10 cents times the number of customers the phone co. has and voila, a cool extra million dollars.
I didnt trust Fotolia LONG before DPC and removed my images back then. I don't see how they can be trusted now. >:(
-
They SAY they weren't available for purchase, but what if they were? Hundreds of thousands of images available for a day...wouldn't take too many sales for them to beef up their income, without paying you your royalty. Kind of like when the phone company charges .10 for something that can't be accounted for...10 cents on one bill isn't worth the grief of finding out what it is and getting it removed. 10 cents times the number of customers the phone co. has and voila, a cool extra million dollars.
I didnt trust Fotolia LONG before DPC and removed my images back then. I don't see how they can be trusted now. >:(
I totally agree. I am in the process of deleting my entire port. They have proven that they can't be trusted and I don't have time to check up on them every day.
-
I totally agree. I am in the process of deleting my entire port. They have proven that they can't be trusted and I don't have time to check up on them every day.
I had my portfolio taken down there years ago but yesterday I STILL felt I had to go and check both Fotolia and DPC to make sure my stuff wasn't there. You can never be sure if a portfolio has been deleted by an agency or just taken offline (making it liable to suffer "search engine bugs").
-
I have not received a response to my site mail, but I did receive a response to my Facebook post and also sincere apologies
In the real world, if one business did this to another, a company the size of Adobe would issue a statement to the owners of the mismanaged content (craftily worded by their legal team). Let's see if they just brush this under the carpet, after all who are we? Just stupid nobodies with no voice and individually no significance.
-
I totally agree. I am in the process of deleting my entire port. They have proven that they can't be trusted and I don't have time to check up on them every day.
I had my portfolio taken down there years ago but yesterday I STILL felt I had to go and check both Fotolia and DPC to make sure my stuff wasn't there. You can never be sure if a portfolio has been deleted by an agency or just taken offline (making it liable to suffer "search engine bugs").
DP, DT and BS keep your portfolio hidden and not delete it, as far as I have experienced. I dont know about others yet.
-
I had my portfolio taken down there years ago but yesterday I STILL felt I had to go and check both Fotolia and DPC to make sure my stuff wasn't there. You can never be sure if a portfolio has been deleted by an agency or just taken offline (making it liable to suffer "search engine bugs").
Funny, but I did that same thing last night. Searched on FT and DPC for a few of my rarest images (Olive-sided Flycatcher, for example) and was delighted not to find them.
It's sad to be so paranoid, but given the experiences with this outfit, probably wise.
-
Haha, can you believe I did the very same thing!
I had my portfolio taken down there years ago but yesterday I STILL felt I had to go and check both Fotolia and DPC to make sure my stuff wasn't there. You can never be sure if a portfolio has been deleted by an agency or just taken offline (making it liable to suffer "search engine bugs").
-
Haha, can you believe I did the very same thing!
I had my portfolio taken down there years ago but yesterday I STILL felt I had to go and check both Fotolia and DPC to make sure my stuff wasn't there. You can never be sure if a portfolio has been deleted by an agency or just taken offline (making it liable to suffer "search engine bugs").
Add one more to that list. Easy to search underwater stuff.
-
If you look here, DPC says they have 34 million images:
https://www.dollarphotoclub.com/Member/SignIn (https://www.dollarphotoclub.com/Member/SignIn)
But when you look at their FAQ, it says they have 26 million images:
https://www.dollarphotoclub.com/Info/FAQ (https://www.dollarphotoclub.com/Info/FAQ)
Lots of inconsistencies, but it's scary that they already have 26-34 million images. I wish more people would opt out and destroy this perversion of microstock.
Fotolia currently has 39 million images.
-
I totally agree. I am in the process of deleting my entire port. They have proven that they can't be trusted and I don't have time to check up on them every day.
I had my portfolio taken down there years ago but yesterday I STILL felt I had to go and check both Fotolia and DPC to make sure my stuff wasn't there. You can never be sure if a portfolio has been deleted by an agency or just taken offline (making it liable to suffer "search engine bugs").
Good idea, I think I will check too.
-
Hello everyone,
As you are aware, contributors that had opted out of Dollar Photo Club were inadvertently opted in for approximately 20 hours. Initially when the bug was discovered it was thought that this only impacted the search engine and that buyers received a 404 error if they attempted to purchase a license to use the file. We recently discovered however that some images were downloaded and licensed.
We are very sorry to everyone that this has impacted. To demonstrate our sincerity, any images belonging to opted out contributors that were downloaded while this bug was active were paid a subscription commission and now Fotolia will add a full resolution credit sale commission (standard license) to those effected. Those effected will see the additional commission in the next few days.
My role at Fotolia has recently changed. I have switched into a full-time contributor relations role. Contributors are an important part of Fotolia and I would like to personally prove that to you as we move forward. I can be reached directly via email should you have any questions, comments or concerns: [email protected]
Kind regards,
Mat Hayward
-
See guys? It was a simple bug. Go put your pitchforks and flaming torches back into the woodshed, for whatever happens next week. LOL
(https://i.imgflip.com/m2ply.jpg)
-
Mat, thank you for the personal response to my query on the FT site. I have several reasons to have mistrust Fotolia, but am overjoyed that you are now full time contributor relations - in you I have the utmost respect and faith! Regards
-
To demonstrate our sincerity, any images belonging to opted out contributors that were downloaded while this bug was active were paid a subscription commission and now Fotolia will add a full resolution credit sale commission (standard license) to those effected.
See. The images WERE able to be downloaded. ;)
-
Hello everyone,
As you are aware, contributors that had opted out of Dollar Photo Club were inadvertently opted in for approximately 20 hours. Initially when the bug was discovered it was thought that this only impacted the search engine and that buyers received a 404 error if they attempted to purchase a license to use the file. We recently discovered however that some images were downloaded and licensed.
We are very sorry to everyone that this has impacted. To demonstrate our sincerity, any images belonging to opted out contributors that were downloaded while this bug was active were paid a subscription commission and now Fotolia will add a full resolution credit sale commission (standard license) to those effected. Those effected will see the additional commission in the next few days.
My role at Fotolia has recently changed. I have switched into a full-time contributor relations role. Contributors are an important part of Fotolia and I would like to personally prove that to you as we move forward. I can be reached directly via email should you have any questions, comments or concerns: [email protected]
Kind regards,
Mat Hayward
Mat,
I do appreciate you coming here as the official voice of Fotolia and acknowledging the mistake that was made.
I also appreciate that Fotolia wants to compensate contributors for files downloaded on DPC although they were opted out.
Being a long term member of this board you will know (and can easily read in this very thread - as well as in many others) how much trust was destroyed over the years by Fotolia.
And re-building trust is so much harder than losing it in the first place.
So if your statement "Contributors are an important part of Fotolia and I would like to personally prove that to you as we move forward." is sincere, talk to those who make the decisions at Fotolia (and Adobe) about what needs to be done.
Actions speak louder than words.
Re-building contributors trust requires showing them you care for their needs.
Essentially that means re-doing the anti-contributor moves Fotolia has introduced over the years.
I am a contributor to Fotolia since 2007, and I have experienced many such moves:
- lowering royalty percentages
- moving goalposts for next levels
- introducing subs without opt out
- counting subs only as a quarter download for achieving the next level
- introducing "monthly packs" - nothing else then slightly changed credit packs - and only paying subs royalties, resulting in insultingly low percentages
- introducing DPC, with the clear aim of grabbing marketshare from competitors at the cost of contributors (by aiming at low volume buyers and reducing credit sales royalties by subs royalties)
- ...
just to mention the most important moves.
A long list of to dos.
Let me repeat: Actions speak louder than words.
I believe the big majority of contributors reading here will not believe a word you say. Me included. Due to the history of FT, which never included any positive moves for contributors.
But once FT / Adobe starts to act, that might change.
Best Regards,
Dirk
-
Hello everyone,
As you are aware, contributors that had opted out of Dollar Photo Club were inadvertently opted in for approximately 20 hours. Initially when the bug was discovered it was thought that this only impacted the search engine and that buyers received a 404 error if they attempted to purchase a license to use the file. We recently discovered however that some images were downloaded and licensed.
We are very sorry to everyone that this has impacted. To demonstrate our sincerity, any images belonging to opted out contributors that were downloaded while this bug was active were paid a subscription commission and now Fotolia will add a full resolution credit sale commission (standard license) to those effected. Those effected will see the additional commission in the next few days.
My role at Fotolia has recently changed. I have switched into a full-time contributor relations role. Contributors are an important part of Fotolia and I would like to personally prove that to you as we move forward. I can be reached directly via email should you have any questions, comments or concerns: [email protected]
Kind regards,
Mat Hayward
First Fotolia started DPC and mirrored all content without notifying us. Then when we protested they made opting out available but offered people who opted in higher royalties, which we who opted out did not receive. Then our opted out lower royalty images were discovered on DPC anyway. Then Fotolia claimed it was only a one day glitch and customers could not purchase the images. Now it turns out they could and did purchase images. Thanks for stopping by, but I'm sure you'll understand why I don't believe a word of it.
-
Lets not forget, people who try to stand up for their rights got booted off. Maybe I was the only one booted off, I dont know, but I wish they would see it from my perspective instead of kicking me out for wanting to protect my own property.
-
what a big fat lie, contributor is least important, i see, adobe is even worse.
close dpc and start to pay us honest
at this moment i stop uploading to fotolia. happy?
Contributors are an important part of Fotolia and I would like to personally prove that to you as we move forward. I can be reached directly via email should you have any questions, comments or concerns: [email protected]
Kind regards,
Mat Hayward
-
Lets not forget, people who try to stand up for their rights got booted off. Maybe I was the only one booted off, I dont know, but I wish they would see it from my perspective instead of kicking me out for wanting to protect my own property.
No you were not the only one. Fotolia shut down my 8000 file portfolio the same day as yours.
Without notification or communication.
-
Hello everyone,
As you are aware, contributors that had opted out of Dollar Photo Club were inadvertently opted in for approximately 20 hours. Initially when the bug was discovered it was thought that this only impacted the search engine and that buyers received a 404 error if they attempted to purchase a license to use the file. We recently discovered however that some images were downloaded and licensed.
We are very sorry to everyone that this has impacted. To demonstrate our sincerity, any images belonging to opted out contributors that were downloaded while this bug was active were paid a subscription commission and now Fotolia will add a full resolution credit sale commission (standard license) to those effected. Those effected will see the additional commission in the next few days.
My role at Fotolia has recently changed. I have switched into a full-time contributor relations role. Contributors are an important part of Fotolia and I would like to personally prove that to you as we move forward. I can be reached directly via email should you have any questions, comments or concerns: [email protected]
Kind regards,
Mat Hayward
So images COULD be downloaded without our consent and opted-out contributors WERE opted-in after all! Why doesn't this surprise me? Therefore, the reply I received from Fotolia was simply a made up load of nonsense:
"This was a bug within the search engine. Customers were not actually able to download the images
and the bug lasted only 1 day. Opted out contributors are still and have remained opted out the whole time."
Two lies in 3 sentences. Congratulations.
Whether it was a (very sad, sad) mistake or not, copyright WAS infringed and those affected should be compensated much much more than a lousy credit sale commission to make things right.
Not only have images been made available, affected contributors have also unwillingly contributed to this horrible nightmare of a program called DPC.
A company that is unable to protect our images from appearing in the wrong search results is in my opinion highly incompentent and untrustworthy.
-
Lets not forget, people who try to stand up for their rights got booted off. Maybe I was the only one booted off, I dont know, but I wish they would see it from my perspective instead of kicking me out for wanting to protect my own property.
You weren't the only one. Speak truth and ye shall meet Fotolias grim reaper. They hate the truth and punish you for speaking it. I would not trust a single thing this agency says.
-
"This was a bug within the search engine. Customers were not actually able to download the images
and the bug lasted only 1 day. Opted out contributors are still and have remained opted out the whole time."
Two lies in 3 sentences. Congratulations.
Two lies in three sentences assuming that "the bug (sic) lasted only one day" is true.
-
If you look here, DPC says they have 34 million images:
https://www.dollarphotoclub.com/Member/SignIn (https://www.dollarphotoclub.com/Member/SignIn)
But when you look at their FAQ, it says they have 26 million images:
https://www.dollarphotoclub.com/Info/FAQ (https://www.dollarphotoclub.com/Info/FAQ)
Lots of inconsistencies, but it's scary that they already have 26-34 million images. I wish more people would opt out and destroy this perversion of microstock.
Fotolia currently has 39 million images.
They have 900 less as of today. I left them the first photo I submitted to them back in 2005. A photo of a butterfly....downloaded exactly once in 10 years.
-
Hello everyone,
As you are aware, contributors that had opted out of Dollar Photo Club were inadvertently opted in for approximately 20 hours. Initially when the bug was discovered it was thought that this only impacted the search engine and that buyers received a 404 error if they attempted to purchase a license to use the file. We recently discovered however that some images were downloaded and licensed.
We are very sorry to everyone that this has impacted. To demonstrate our sincerity, any images belonging to opted out contributors that were downloaded while this bug was active were paid a subscription commission and now Fotolia will add a full resolution credit sale commission (standard license) to those effected. Those effected will see the additional commission in the next few days.
My role at Fotolia has recently changed. I have switched into a full-time contributor relations role. Contributors are an important part of Fotolia and I would like to personally prove that to you as we move forward. I can be reached directly via email should you have any questions, comments or concerns: [email protected]
Kind regards,
Mat Hayward
Do you think that to unilaterally add a full resolution credit sale commission (standard license) for a download on Dollar Photo Club is fair without first discussing the situation with those affected? Fotolia breached their contract with contributors, breached their trust with contributors, some contributors are distressed enough to have deleted their images, some contributors will no longer upload images and you think a full resolution credit sale commission (standard license) is fair?
I don't recall any contributors asking for a full resolution credit sale commission (standard license) as compensation for their losses, why would Fotolia think this would be an acceptable response for selling contributors images on a despised platform, which they have proactively opted out of ?
-
Lets not forget, people who try to stand up for their rights got booted off. Maybe I was the only one booted off, I dont know, but I wish they would see it from my perspective instead of kicking me out for wanting to protect my own property.
No you were not the only one. Fotolia shut down my 8000 file portfolio the same day as yours.
Without notification or communication.
And after I returned as an indie after being an iStock exclusive, Fotolia refused to let me back as a contributor. I did ask.
They had earlier warned me that if I kept trying to organize contributors they'd close my account; that was before I became an exclusive). It's not the same as booting an active contributor, but is very different, IMO, from contributors who are removed because of copyright infringement or something that affects the legitimacy of their supplied content and violates the artist supply agreement.
The Dollar Photo Club mess was even worse than described above. At first, Fotolia said they had nothing to do with DPC. Then they acknowledged it was a subsidiary and told contributors who asked to opt out that they could only do that by removing their portfolio from Fotolia. When enough people did that, Fotolia grudgingly introduced an opt out.
We could go further back to see similar problems - the introduction of subscriptions, which had no credit at all towards rank (an upload boycott got increased royalties and the crappy 4 for 1 rank credit).
I seem to recall that during one of those dust ups, Matt became quite snippy about how I really didn't have much of a stake in the Fotolia community anyway (I was still a contributor at the time). Possibly he just didn't like me for some reason (we've never met) and possibly his bedside manner in his new job will be different from the situation back then, but my takeway was not positive when Matt was confronted with someone being blunt about what was going on (versus the happy talk Fotolia was peddling).
At a minimum, please would Matt have Tyler give him an official "I'm a representative" badge so everyone knows he's Fotolia's contributor liaison.
-
Hello everyone,
As you are aware, contributors that had opted out of Dollar Photo Club were inadvertently opted in for approximately 20 hours. Initially when the bug was discovered it was thought that this only impacted the search engine and that buyers received a 404 error if they attempted to purchase a license to use the file. We recently discovered however that some images were downloaded and licensed.
We are very sorry to everyone that this has impacted. To demonstrate our sincerity, any images belonging to opted out contributors that were downloaded while this bug was active were paid a subscription commission and now Fotolia will add a full resolution credit sale commission (standard license) to those effected. Those effected will see the additional commission in the next few days.
My role at Fotolia has recently changed. I have switched into a full-time contributor relations role. Contributors are an important part of Fotolia and I would like to personally prove that to you as we move forward. I can be reached directly via email should you have any questions, comments or concerns: [email protected]
Kind regards,
Mat Hayward
Do you think that to unilaterally add a full resolution credit sale commission (standard license) for a download on Dollar Photo Club is fair without first discussing the situation with those affected? Fotolia breached their contract with contributors, breached their trust with contributors, some contributors are distressed enough to have deleted their images, some contributors will no longer upload images and you think a full resolution credit sale commission (standard license) is fair?
I don't recall any contributors asking for a full resolution credit sale commission (standard license) as compensation for their losses, why would Fotolia think this would be an acceptable response for selling contributors images on a despised platform, which they have proactively opted out of ?
I would be happy if Oleg was ousted and "the Chad" was ousted. I have nothing against Matt personally and he is more than likely just the messenger.
-
Hello everyone,
As you are aware, contributors that had opted out of Dollar Photo Club were inadvertently opted in for approximately 20 hours. Initially when the bug was discovered it was thought that this only impacted the search engine and that buyers received a 404 error if they attempted to purchase a license to use the file. We recently discovered however that some images were downloaded and licensed.
We are very sorry to everyone that this has impacted. To demonstrate our sincerity, any images belonging to opted out contributors that were downloaded while this bug was active were paid a subscription commission and now Fotolia will add a full resolution credit sale commission (standard license) to those effected. Those effected will see the additional commission in the next few days.
My role at Fotolia has recently changed. I have switched into a full-time contributor relations role. Contributors are an important part of Fotolia and I would like to personally prove that to you as we move forward. I can be reached directly via email should you have any questions, comments or concerns: [email protected]
Kind regards,
Mat Hayward
Do you think that to unilaterally add a full resolution credit sale commission (standard license) for a download on Dollar Photo Club is fair without first discussing the situation with those affected? Fotolia breached their contract with contributors, breached their trust with contributors, some contributors are distressed enough to have deleted their images, some contributors will no longer upload images and you think a full resolution credit sale commission (standard license) is fair?
I don't recall any contributors asking for a full resolution credit sale commission (standard license) as compensation for their losses, why would Fotolia think this would be an acceptable response for selling contributors images on a despised platform, which they have proactively opted out of ?
I would be happy if Oleg was ousted and "the Chad" was ousted. I have nothing against Matt personally and he is more than likely just the messenger.
I was speaking to the unverified Fotolia representative as a messenger, whether he is just a benign go between or not. I am 100% confident, having read his posts from the times before he admitted being an unverified Fotolia representative, that he would be unswerving in his support of Fotolia's actions, whatever they may be.
-
Matt, please could you answer the concerns regarding what now appears to have been misinformation sent to contributors; that the files were never available for download from DPC?
Could you give some indication as to why we should now believe that we will be paid for any downloads made during the time of the bug given that we were initially mislead as to the nature of the "bug"?
-
..... At first, Fotolia said they had nothing to do with DPC. Then they acknowledged it was a subsidiary and told contributors who asked to opt out that they could only do that by removing their portfolio from Fotolia. When enough people did that, Fotolia grudgingly introduced an opt out......
Oh yeah, forgot about that aspect. Why can't they just deal with contributors honestly? Wouldn't it just be easier than always having to back-peddle?
I was going to say they always get caught out anyway, but then who knows, there could be a massive list of things they are doing we haven't discovered. I dread to think.
Oh just a PS. the tick box for giving away images to the free section has defaulted back to "yes" on the upload screen again. Just another "bug" I am sure
-
It just gives me a warm fuzzy feeling to see that their specialized medical content has taken a small hit with my departure. Before yesterday if you searched for something specific like "arterial blood gas" you would have had about 10 choices. Now they have exactly 2. We're not quite as expendable as they would have us believe. ;D
-
And I bet that the demand for "arterial blood gas" is so high, buyers are going to be really missing those 8 images.
-
And I bet that the demand for "arterial blood gas" is so high, buyers are going to be really missing those 8 images.
That's not entirely the point... his/her whole collection of medical images is gone. Even knowing how to properly name and label a shot of an arterial blood gas legitimizes the agency. Were his/hers the best? What are they left with? Knowing nothing I would label it something like blood analyzing unit and the buyer would be looking for something a bit more specific.
-
And I bet that the demand for "arterial blood gas" is so high, buyers are going to be really missing those 8 images.
For buyers who are looking for that, going from a selection of 10 images to 2 is a loss. Even bigger loss for FT, and it serves 'em right.
-
It's a loss for contributor too.
-
And I bet that the demand for "arterial blood gas" is so high, buyers are going to be really missing those 8 images.
For buyers who are looking for that, going from a selection of 10 images to 2 is a loss. Even bigger loss for FT, and it serves 'em right.
those 2 images will get 5 times more downloads and ft notices nothing
-
And I bet that the demand for "arterial blood gas" is so high, buyers are going to be really missing those 8 images.
For buyers who are looking for that, going from a selection of 10 images to 2 is a loss. Even bigger loss for FT, and it serves 'em right.
those 2 images will get 5 times more downloads and ft notices nothing
That may be true, Ron, but not if the buyer doesn't like either of the 2 images left, decides to look elsewhere, and findsvoilā8 wonderful images on SS or DT or IS.
-
It's a loss for contributor too.
I have five other agencies to upload content to. Now, there may be thousands of other Licensed Nurse/Surgical Technologists just dying to upload specialized medical content to Fotolia, but I seriously doubt it.
-
And I bet that the demand for "arterial blood gas" is so high, buyers are going to be really missing those 8 images.
If you are the photo editor of a medical textbook or scientific journal, then you just might be missing those eight images.
-
Hello all, I wanted to follow up to let you know that we have finished applying the sales from the Dollar Photo Club reactivation into the affected Fotolia accounts. The sales have been added as additional full resolution credits sales in addition to the Dollar Photo Club sale/commission that was already applied.
If you have any specific questions or concerns please feel free to write to me directly: [email protected]
Kind regards,
Mat Hayward
-
I see that 4 of my files were downloaded on DPC because of your "mistake". I guess FT gets to keep $11.04 as a parting gift from me since my files were deleted and my account cashed out days ago. Thanks for nothing, FT.
-
Hello all, I wanted to follow up to let you know that we have finished applying the sales from the Dollar Photo Club reactivation into the affected Fotolia accounts. The sales have been added as additional full resolution credits sales in addition to the Dollar Photo Club sale/commission that was already applied.
If you have any specific questions or concerns please feel free to write to me directly: [email protected]
Kind regards,
Mat Hayward
Specifically, how would one know, looking at https://us.fotolia.com/Contributor/SoldContents ?
-
Specifically, how would one know, looking at https://us.fotolia.com/Contributor/SoldContents ?
Mine showed up on my "sales" page 4 days after the files were deleted as "standard XXL" sales, so it was pretty easy to see what they were.
-
Good. Guess I didn't get any.
-
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.
-
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.
My blog entry on my website:
Fotolia Departure
05/31/20150 Comments
My apologies to those of you who were used to seeing my work on Fotolia. A few days ago, it came to my attention that Fotolia had "accidentally" included all my files in their photo clearance rack bin that they call "Dollar Photo Club". They did this despite my clear instructions on my user account not to do this. I'm not sure if this is a copyright violation, but it is at least a sneaky, dishonest, and underhanded way to use my work for their benefit. Accordingly, I immediately removed my files from their site. They reimbursed me a measly $11.04 for "accidentally" acquiring my files without my consent. A paltry amount that I will never even see, since my files are deleted and they have a $50 minimum for payout. You would think that a company like Adobe, who owns Fotolia, would be more responsible, given the millions of dollars in profits that they have made over the years from artists like me. In my opinion, it just shows the level of greed that Corporate America has now embraced as the new norm.
-
You're such a hero!
-
You're such a hero!
If we don't stand up for our rights, who do you think will? The agencies? I'm not rich enough to afford a lawsuit, I am just a retired nurse with a website and a blog. If all I can do is write about it when they push us around, then it's at least something. If we all do nothing, then that is exactly what we'll be working for a few years from now....nothing.
-
Ok, I personally don't believe fotolia did that on purpose and just hoping no-one will notice it.
-
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?
-
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.
-
I'm just a nurse, not a lawyer
Nursing is NOT a 'just' profession.
-
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.
-
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!
-
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
-
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.
-
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)
-
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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
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. :(
-
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 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.
-
[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 $100 a month but multiples - it adds up (or subtracts) when you do this for multiple offending agencies. Or, in the case of Deposit Photos, don't upload to them in the first place because of their crappy reputation.
In my case (agencies I left):
iStock - Getty-Google deal with no opt out
BigStock - crappy subscription royalty scheme with no opt out
Veer - crappy partner program (fixed royalties, no opt out and no list of partner sites given to contributors)
Fotolia - wouldn't have me back
Envato - fictional nonsense that I'm the seller not them
-
Agree with jo ann. Left a few agencies and lost about 150$ per month. I do want that back.
-
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.
-
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 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.
-
All the mistakes on IS are attributed to incompetence, never on greed. Why would this be any different? Sean has a good point.
-
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.
-
All the mistakes on IS are attributed to incompetence, never on greed.
The mistakes are obviously incompetence. QED.
Everything else is greed.
-
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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
Maybe it's intentional incompetence... ;D >:(
-
Didn't they get paid full amount for this mistake?Seems in favour of the contributors.
-
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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
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,
-
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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
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!
-
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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
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.)
-
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/ (http://semmickphoto.com/2014/05/02/microstock-agency-fotolia-leads-race-bottom/)
-
I disagree