MicrostockGroup

Microstock Photography Forum - General => General Stock Discussion => Topic started by: RT on November 25, 2010, 05:20

Title: An example of why subscription sites are bad for contributors
Post by: RT on November 25, 2010, 05:20

Just read this on Fast media magazine:

http://www.fastmediamagazine.com/blog/2010/11/24/alert-your-highres-access-accounts-were-being-traded/ (http://www.fastmediamagazine.com/blog/2010/11/24/alert-your-highres-access-accounts-were-being-traded/)

For some it's not good enough that they can get our work for nearly next to nothing but they feel the need to let others use our work without paying for it.

Title: Re: An example of why subscription sites are bad for contributors
Post by: Sean Locke Photography on November 25, 2010, 05:23

That is absolutely bizarre: http://seraphicdesign.livejournal.com/ (http://seraphicdesign.livejournal.com/)

I mean, how can these sites not notice this going on?

BTW, another reason "download 750 images a month" is ridiculous.

Title: Re: An example of why subscription sites are bad for contributors
Post by: RT on November 25, 2010, 05:30

Do the sites check or even care?

Title: Re: An example of why subscription sites are bad for contributors
Post by: molka on November 25, 2010, 07:13

Quote from: RT on November 25, 2010, 05:30

Do the sites check or even care?

why would they? the subscriptions expire the same whoever is clicking. the only reason they might be alerted is that they were always banking on buyers using a lot less than the full capacity of the sub, but you can't tell that to the people can you? especially the contributors. for ppl like ss contributors, this might even be good, more dl's.