Author Topic: Portfolio on Dollar Photo Club even after opting out (Read 37497 times)

objowl · « **Reply #125 on:** May 27, 2015, 16:41 »

Quote from: MatHayward on May 27, 2015, 12:40

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 ?

Jo Ann Snover · « **Reply #126 on:** May 27, 2015, 16:43 »

Quote from: Anyka on May 27, 2015, 14:55

Quote from: Semmick Photo on May 27, 2015, 14:33
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.

Mantis · « **Reply #127 on:** May 27, 2015, 16:56 »

Quote from: objowl on May 27, 2015, 16:41

Quote from: MatHayward on May 27, 2015, 12:40
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.

objowl · « **Reply #128 on:** May 27, 2015, 17:25 »

Quote from: Mantis on May 27, 2015, 16:56

Quote from: objowl on May 27, 2015, 16:41
Quote from: MatHayward on May 27, 2015, 12:40
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.

Justanotherphotographer · « **Reply #129 on:** May 28, 2015, 08:17 »

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"?

Justanotherphotographer · « **Reply #130 on:** May 28, 2015, 08:20 »

Quote from: Jo Ann Snover on May 27, 2015, 16:43

..... 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

Gel-O Shooter · « **Reply #131 on:** May 28, 2015, 08:40 »

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.

Dumc · « **Reply #132 on:** May 28, 2015, 10:20 »

And I bet that the demand for "arterial blood gas" is so high, buyers are going to be really missing those 8 images.

Pixart · « **Reply #133 on:** May 28, 2015, 10:50 »

Quote from: Dumc on May 28, 2015, 10:20

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.

marthamarks · « **Reply #134 on:** May 28, 2015, 10:54 »

Quote from: Dumc on May 28, 2015, 10:20

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.

Dumc · « **Reply #135 on:** May 28, 2015, 11:19 »

It's a loss for contributor too.

Semmick Photo · « **Reply #136 on:** May 28, 2015, 13:01 »

Quote from: marthamarks on May 28, 2015, 10:54

Quote from: Dumc on May 28, 2015, 10:20
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

marthamarks · « **Reply #137 on:** May 28, 2015, 13:52 »

Quote from: Semmick Photo on May 28, 2015, 13:01

Quote from: marthamarks on May 28, 2015, 10:54
Quote from: Dumc on May 28, 2015, 10:20
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 finds—voilà—8 wonderful images on SS or DT or IS.

Gel-O Shooter · « **Reply #138 on:** May 28, 2015, 17:48 »

Quote from: Dumc on May 28, 2015, 11:19

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.

Gel-O Shooter · « **Reply #139 on:** May 28, 2015, 17:59 »

Quote from: Dumc on May 28, 2015, 10:20

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.

Gel-O Shooter · « **Reply #141 on:** June 02, 2015, 09:28 »

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.

Sean Locke Photography · « **Reply #142 on:** June 02, 2015, 09:35 »

Quote from: MatHayward on June 01, 2015, 11:42

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 ?

Gel-O Shooter · « **Reply #143 on:** June 02, 2015, 09:57 »

Quote from: Sean Locke Photography on June 02, 2015, 09:35

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.

Sean Locke Photography · « **Reply #144 on:** June 02, 2015, 10:10 »

Good. Guess I didn't get any.

gbalex · « **Reply #145 on:** June 02, 2015, 10:44 »

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.

Gel-O Shooter · « **Reply #146 on:** June 02, 2015, 11:48 »

Quote from: gbalex on June 02, 2015, 10:44

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.

Dumc · « **Reply #147 on:** June 02, 2015, 12:08 »

You're such a hero!

Gel-O Shooter · « **Reply #148 on:** June 02, 2015, 12:21 »

Quote from: Dumc on June 02, 2015, 12:08

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.

Dumc · « **Reply #149 on:** June 02, 2015, 12:26 »

Ok, I personally don't believe fotolia did that on purpose and just hoping no-one will notice it.

MicrostockGroup Sponsors

Author Topic: Portfolio on Dollar Photo Club even after opting out (Read 37497 times)

objowl

Jo Ann Snover

Mantis

objowl

Justanotherphotographer

Justanotherphotographer

Gel-O Shooter

Dumc

Pixart

marthamarks

Dumc

Semmick Photo

marthamarks

Gel-O Shooter

Gel-O Shooter

MatHayward

Gel-O Shooter

Sean Locke Photography

Gel-O Shooter

Sean Locke Photography

gbalex

Gel-O Shooter

Dumc

Gel-O Shooter

Dumc

Related Topics

Sponsors

Microstock Poll Results

Sponsors