Didn't they get paid full amount for this mistake?Seems in favour of the contributors.

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.

Quote from: Semmick Photo on June 03, 2015, 14:10

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.

Quote from: Semmick Photo on June 04, 2015, 08:21

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.....
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.

Quote from: Mantis on June 04, 2015, 13:20

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.

Quote from: marthamarks on June 04, 2015, 13:45

Quote from: Mantis on June 04, 2015, 13:20

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.

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.

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/