Done. (Keep in mind we're not all photographers.)

Done.

If you're getting too much of one sort of image, perhaps ask for "no more xxx" or "more yyy please" as most of us have a lot to choose from and it'd be good for the end result to look appealing overall

Why 1500px pictures without watermark?

1500 pixels is a reasonable size for Facebook pages and websites, quick to load and not big enough to steal and sell most likely

The maximum we may need for the site slider front page is 1500px. Take a look at what Adobe does on their front page https://stock.adobe.com/. We will probably have names and attribution - but I want to upfront that we are not going to add watermarks. I have 3 downloads at SS left and I could just buy slider pics anyway. Or just send me a bill for $0.10? You know that people who steal images just find them using reverse image search and Google anyway, right?

... not big enough to steal ...

Quite right. That was my thinking.

I thought you were creating a new stock site. Why don't you do that instead?

Why don�t you?

Quote from: microvideo on June 11, 2020, 11:51

I thought you were creating a new stock site. Why don't you do that instead?

Why don�t you?

+1

I'm sending my image. Thanks Alistair and everyone else involved in doing this.

But anyway, what is the idea, will it just be a collection of images to represent the talented artists who joined the coalition? What is the coalition planning to do then? Displaying them somewhere will not do anything on its own.

Okay, I see your point. What you are waiting for is the community to build its own stock agency and pull everyone onboard as exclusive, right?

Firstly, that's not what we are building in terms of this thread. Right now we are building an online home for stock contributors. That's what my team and I have volunteered to do, anyway. So you are quite right, we are not, at this point anyway, building an agency. We are building the site for an organisation that represents us as a first stage.

Is this the start of a fully contributor-owned agency where 80% or more of commissions are kept by contributors? I have no idea. It's certainly a possibility.

But I know where it starts.

It starts with us as a community pulling together right now as a group to send a message loud and clear not just to Shutterstock, but to every agency in the industry. That message is this:

As of this month, the global contributors are no longer yours to abuse with tinpot pricing and peanut royalties. For too long we have been pushed around like herd cattle milked daily for you to take all the cream.

We are not going to continue doing business like this. We are organising. We are working towards a unified front that represents our interests as contributors. And we will win, too, because really at $0.10 a download, what exactly do any of us stand to lose?

Quote from: Noedelhap on June 11, 2020, 12:09

But anyway, what is the idea, will it just be a collection of images to represent the talented artists who joined the coalition? What is the coalition planning to do then? Displaying them somewhere will not do anything on its own.

Okay, I see your point. What you are waiting for is the community to build its own stock agency and pull everyone onboard as exclusive, right?

Firstly, that's not what we are building in terms of this thread. Right now we are building an online home for stock contributors. That's what my team and I have volunteered to do, anyway. So you are quite right, we are not, at this point anyway, building an agency. We are building the site for an organisation that represents us as a first stage.

Is this the start of a fully contributor-owned agency where 80% or more of commissions are kept by contributors? I have no idea. It's certainly a possibility.

But I know where it starts.

It starts with us as a community pulling together right now as a group to send a message loud and clear not just to Shutterstock, but to every agency in the industry. That message is this:

As of this month, the global contributors are no longer yours to abuse with tinpot pricing and peanut royalties. For too long we have been pushed around like herd cattle milked daily for you to take all the cream.

We are not going to continue doing business like this. We are organising. We are working towards a unified front that represents our interests as contributors. And we will win, too, because really at $0.10 a download, what exactly do any of us stand to lose?

Sorry, but that wasn't the point I was trying to make, I don't mean building a contributor-owned stock agency. In fact I think we'd never be able to compete against the market leaders. 

What I'm talking about was: why should Shutterstock care that we all got 'united' on a website with a gallery to show off our work? It wouldn't give us any negotiating power. The images would just be sitting there, except they're not for sale, it's just a gallery. What message does that even spread? Nothing much. Clients would never see it, let alone care about our little coalition. We'd be as powerless as we are here, talking amongst ourselves.

For any power play we'd need to collectively pull our images, but we have no idea how many people would join that plan.

Suppose the coalition becomes a starting point for a small movement, even then we'd be lucky if we got 1% of all contributors on board. And that won't be enough.

So I ask you, what's the plan of action once the website is up and running? What are we organising? What action is the 'unified front' going to undertake? Are we going to protest in front of the ShutterStock HQ, #ContributorLivesMatter?

My team is just building a website to represent us. I can't really build a website representing stock artists without showing what we do. I could buy them, or I could ask those who we are representing to donate some.

I went first and donated my own.

It's always good to have lots of images available so that we can freshen up the look and feel from time to time. Again, note how frequently Adobe's images change.

Will a website change the world by itself? Hell no.

It's just one part of a broader strategy. There are more people involved in this. It's just getting started and already I think the pressure management at some agencies will be under is considerable.

Quote from: CommuniCat on June 11, 2020, 13:20

Quote from: Noedelhap on June 11, 2020, 12:09

But anyway, what is the idea, will it just be a collection of images to represent the talented artists who joined the coalition? What is the coalition planning to do then? Displaying them somewhere will not do anything on its own.

Okay, I see your point. What you are waiting for is the community to build its own stock agency and pull everyone onboard as exclusive, right?

Firstly, that's not what we are building in terms of this thread. Right now we are building an online home for stock contributors. That's what my team and I have volunteered to do, anyway. So you are quite right, we are not, at this point anyway, building an agency. We are building the site for an organisation that represents us as a first stage.

Is this the start of a fully contributor-owned agency where 80% or more of commissions are kept by contributors? I have no idea. It's certainly a possibility.

But I know where it starts.

It starts with us as a community pulling together right now as a group to send a message loud and clear not just to Shutterstock, but to every agency in the industry. That message is this:

As of this month, the global contributors are no longer yours to abuse with tinpot pricing and peanut royalties. For too long we have been pushed around like herd cattle milked daily for you to take all the cream.

We are not going to continue doing business like this. We are organising. We are working towards a unified front that represents our interests as contributors. And we will win, too, because really at $0.10 a download, what exactly do any of us stand to lose?

Sorry, but that wasn't the point I was trying to make, I don't mean building a contributor-owned stock agency. In fact I think we'd never be able to compete against the market leaders. 

What I'm talking about was: why should Shutterstock care that we all got 'united' on a website with a gallery to show off our work? It wouldn't give us any negotiating power. The images would just be sitting there, except they're not for sale, it's just a gallery. What message does that even spread? Nothing much. Clients would never see it, let alone care about our little coalition. We'd be as powerless as we are here, talking amongst ourselves.

For any power play we'd need to collectively pull our images, but we have no idea how many people would join that plan.

Suppose the coalition becomes a starting point for a small movement, even then we'd be lucky if we got 1% of all contributors on board. And that won't be enough.

So I ask you, what's the plan of action once the website is up and running? What are we organising? What action is the 'unified front' going to undertake? Are we going to protest in front of the ShutterStock HQ, #ContributorLivesMatter?

No the real plan of the coalition is to steel pictures frome the contributors in the Fb-groupe and start a ultimate Wallpaper for free site with ten 1500px images.
 

�  And co-opting Black Lives Matter when people are literally fighting for their lives is so uncool.�

They keep doing this despite being told how stupid it looks.