pancakes

MicrostockGroup Sponsors


Author Topic: April 2021 Brutally Honest Earnings Report  (Read 4917 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Brasilnut

  • Author Brutally Honest Guide to Microstock & Blog

« on: April 30, 2021, 09:11 »
+4
It's that time of the month again and welcome back to the April 2021 detailed monthly report during these increasingly strange and desperate times!

https://brutallyhonestmicrostock.com/2021/04/30/april-2021-brutally-honest-earnings-report/



« Reply #1 on: April 30, 2021, 11:52 »
0
Interesting read

To be honest Alamy and Adobe have both knocked that turd shitterstock in to the long grass for months now.

Alamy is always 1st now then Adobe 2nd and shittystock now a dismal 3rd (they used to be far and away 1st above all others) . 

But I stopped seriously uploading to them as of May last year with the odd single substandard image thrown at them every now and then.

« Last Edit: April 30, 2021, 22:03 by Bad Robot »

« Reply #2 on: April 30, 2021, 13:31 »
0
Nice to finally get a good sale at Alamy - those really do make a difference. Sadly they do not come along every month for me.

I usually think of RPI as Return Per Image as opposed to RPD which is Return Per Download. So if I had 1000 images at a site and 10 of them sold netting me 10$ per sale the RPI would be $100/1000 or $0.10 and the RPD would be $100/10 or $10

Horizon

    This user is banned.
« Reply #3 on: May 01, 2021, 07:29 »
0
As soon as SS and Adobe take a nose-dive Alamy will change its algorithm to suit everybody they've been doing this for years. Then when SS and Adobe comes up to the surface again Alamy will change it back to suit their editorial members. The little old group that stand for about 80% of turnover!

« Reply #4 on: May 01, 2021, 09:04 »
+1
As soon as SS and Adobe take a nose-dive Alamy will change its algorithm to suit everybody they've been doing this for years. Then when SS and Adobe comes up to the surface again Alamy will change it back to suit their editorial members. The little old group that stand for about 80% of turnover!

Proof of this statement?

Horizon

    This user is banned.
« Reply #5 on: May 01, 2021, 09:56 »
0
As soon as SS and Adobe take a nose-dive Alamy will change its algorithm to suit everybody they've been doing this for years. Then when SS and Adobe comes up to the surface again Alamy will change it back to suit their editorial members. The little old group that stand for about 80% of turnover!

Proof of this statement?

Just my own and a few thousand old-timers observation throughout the years......anyway just wait and see for yourself.

« Reply #6 on: May 01, 2021, 13:24 »
+2
As soon as SS and Adobe take a nose-dive Alamy will change its algorithm to suit everybody they've been doing this for years. Then when SS and Adobe comes up to the surface again Alamy will change it back to suit their editorial members. The little old group that stand for about 80% of turnover!

Proof of this statement?

Just my own and a few thousand old-timers observation throughout the years......anyway just wait and see for yourself.

"a few thousand old-timers " sorry but thats just an opinion not a fact

« Reply #7 on: May 01, 2021, 20:18 »
0
Interesting read

To be honest Alamy and Adobe have both knocked that turd shitterstock in to the long grass for months now.

Alamy is always 1st now then Adobe 2nd and shittystock now a dismal 3rd (they used to be far and away 1st above all others) .  ...

as someone said:  Proof of this statement? - or is just your ONE datapoint? alamy barely shows up on the monthly poll

« Reply #8 on: May 01, 2021, 21:28 »
+1
Interesting read

To be honest Alamy and Adobe have both knocked that turd shitterstock in to the long grass for months now.

Alamy is always 1st now then Adobe 2nd and shittystock now a dismal 3rd (they used to be far and away 1st above all others) .  ...

as someone said:  Proof of this statement? - or is just your ONE datapoint? alamy barely shows up on the monthly poll

I know this is hard for you but do try to keep up  ::)

My datapoint is just that a single datapoint unlike the sweeping generalization based on nothing more than supposition.

« Reply #9 on: May 02, 2021, 02:11 »
+2
Interesting read

To be honest Alamy and Adobe have both knocked that turd shitterstock in to the long grass for months now.

Alamy is always 1st now then Adobe 2nd and shittystock now a dismal 3rd (they used to be far and away 1st above all others) .  ...
as someone said:  Proof of this statement? - or is just your ONE datapoint? alamy barely shows up on the monthly poll

I know this is hard for you but do try to keep up  ::)

My datapoint is just that a single datapoint unlike the sweeping generalization based on nothing more than supposition.
  Data or rather a statement from a single user is completely useless though. If you look at SSs published figures which are audited and would land them in deep trouble if they were wrong its clear that despite what people would love to believe they are doing ok. I know its hard for you but wishing it were otherwise is a waste of energy. https://investor.shutterstock.com/news-releases/news-release-details/shutterstock-reports-fourth-quarter-and-full-year-2020-financial

« Reply #10 on: May 02, 2021, 03:29 »
0
I made 34% percent more on Shutterstock in April 2021 than April 2020.

I also had one payment of $27 from Adobe Stock compared to none in April 2020.

« Reply #11 on: May 02, 2021, 04:48 »
0
Interesting read

To be honest Alamy and Adobe have both knocked that turd shitterstock in to the long grass for months now.

Alamy is always 1st now then Adobe 2nd and shittystock now a dismal 3rd (they used to be far and away 1st above all others) .  ...
as someone said:  Proof of this statement? - or is just your ONE datapoint? alamy barely shows up on the monthly poll

I know this is hard for you but do try to keep up  ::)

My datapoint is just that a single datapoint unlike the sweeping generalization based on nothing more than supposition.
  Data or rather a statement from a single user is completely useless though. If you look at SSs published figures which are audited and would land them in deep trouble if they were wrong its clear that despite what people would love to believe they are doing ok. I know its hard for you but wishing it were otherwise is a waste of energy. https://investor.shutterstock.com/news-releases/news-release-details/shutterstock-reports-fourth-quarter-and-full-year-2020-financial

OK for the record "To be honest Alamy and Adobe have both knocked that turd shitterstock in to the long grass for months now.

Alamy is always 1st now then Adobe 2nd and shittystock now a dismal 3rd (they used to be far and away 1st above all others)  FOR ME ONLY"

There is that better?   ::)

bunch of piss takers

« Reply #12 on: May 02, 2021, 06:13 »
+1
I made 78% less on SS in april 2021 than april 2020.
And 30% more on Adobe in april 2021 than april 2020.

« Reply #13 on: May 03, 2021, 19:49 »
+3

My datapoint is just that a single datapoint unlike the sweeping generalization based on nothing more than supposition.

that datapoint is tainted --you forgot about your original statement that:
... I stopped seriously uploading to them as of May last year with the odd single substandard image thrown at them every now and then

hardly a fair comparison when you're not submitting!

« Reply #14 on: May 04, 2021, 07:10 »
+1
To the op :
Your statement: "capturing and submitting editorial photos in a legal mess, but as the risk is very small its not something I would worry about"
Maybe you should have more respect for people in public places (I remember picture of homeless people that you sell without their consent).
Spannish "Aggressive Shepherd-Painter" is agressive but... maybe we can understand his reaction.

steheap

  • Author of best selling "Get Started in Stock"

« Reply #15 on: May 04, 2021, 10:08 »
+4
I'm always late (compared to Alex), but here are my results for April. Not too good as a trend, and well down on both March and previous Aprils. The lack of large single sales (on SS and Alamy) was the main reason for the drop.


Full details as usual on my blog: https://backyardsilver.com/making-not-as-much-money-from-stock-photography/

Steve

Brasilnut

  • Author Brutally Honest Guide to Microstock & Blog

« Reply #16 on: May 04, 2021, 15:10 »
+5
To the op :
Your statement: "capturing and submitting editorial photos in a legal mess, but as the risk is very small its not something I would worry about"
Maybe you should have more respect for people in public places (I remember picture of homeless people that you sell without their consent).
Spannish "Aggressive Shepherd-Painter" is agressive but... maybe we can understand his reaction.

Such a fuss over some photons. Anyway, the general rule of thumb is that consent is not required when shooting in public, but depends on jurisdiction and needs further analysis. UK being the most liberal and photography-friendly. Portugal/Spain/Italy less so.

Homeless people were remunerated accordingly, unless unconscious.

In an alternative reality, the Shepherd would have asked nicely and I would have replied nicely by removing both images, sending him high-resolution copies for his marketing and I would have helped to promote his work. In this reality he can fk off to his pastures.

Photography is not a crime. You should support freedom of the press.


« Reply #17 on: May 07, 2021, 06:46 »
+1
To the op :
Your statement: "capturing and submitting editorial photos in a legal mess, but as the risk is very small its not something I would worry about"
Maybe you should have more respect for people in public places (I remember picture of homeless people that you sell without their consent).
Spannish "Aggressive Shepherd-Painter" is agressive but... maybe we can understand his reaction.

Such a fuss over some photons. Anyway, the general rule of thumb is that consent is not required when shooting in public, but depends on jurisdiction and needs further analysis. UK being the most liberal and photography-friendly. Portugal/Spain/Italy less so.

Homeless people were remunerated accordingly, unless unconscious.

In an alternative reality, the Shepherd would have asked nicely and I would have replied nicely by removing both images, sending him high-resolution copies for his marketing and I would have helped to promote his work. In this reality he can fk off to his pastures.

Photography is not a crime. You should support freedom of the press.

Thank you for a great informative post once again and congrats on your successful month on Alamy. Hope that you will see more of those big sales!
 
The Shepherd case is INTERESTING. Maybe he had several reasons to be furious. Some people do think that having their photo (or photos of their property) taken means trouble of some kind. Can you blame them. Some stranger has images of them and can do whatever with them. Others of course feel at home in front of camera and have 100s of selfies taken daily, but this guy probably didn't belong to the latter group.

A photographer has his or her rights but a person has a right to be left alone. I usually think in situations like this, "what if this would be me?" Do I want somebody to point a camera at me when I walk on the street? NO!
OK, then I will have to give the same privacy to others, too.





« Reply #18 on: May 08, 2021, 05:03 »
0
How can you have stats for April for iStock, when earnings are yet to be published around 20th of May?

Brasilnut

  • Author Brutally Honest Guide to Microstock & Blog

« Reply #19 on: May 08, 2021, 05:07 »
0
To the op :
Your statement: "capturing and submitting editorial photos in a legal mess, but as the risk is very small its not something I would worry about"
Maybe you should have more respect for people in public places (I remember picture of homeless people that you sell without their consent).
Spannish "Aggressive Shepherd-Painter" is agressive but... maybe we can understand his reaction.

Such a fuss over some photons. Anyway, the general rule of thumb is that consent is not required when shooting in public, but depends on jurisdiction and needs further analysis. UK being the most liberal and photography-friendly. Portugal/Spain/Italy less so.

Homeless people were remunerated accordingly, unless unconscious.

In an alternative reality, the Shepherd would have asked nicely and I would have replied nicely by removing both images, sending him high-resolution copies for his marketing and I would have helped to promote his work. In this reality he can fk off to his pastures.

Photography is not a crime. You should support freedom of the press.

Thank you for a great informative post once again and congrats on your successful month on Alamy. Hope that you will see more of those big sales!
 
The Shepherd case is INTERESTING. Maybe he had several reasons to be furious. Some people do think that having their photo (or photos of their property) taken means trouble of some kind. Can you blame them. Some stranger has images of them and can do whatever with them. Others of course feel at home in front of camera and have 100s of selfies taken daily, but this guy probably didn't belong to the latter group.

A photographer has his or her rights but a person has a right to be left alone. I usually think in situations like this, "what if this would be me?" Do I want somebody to point a camera at me when I walk on the street? NO!
OK, then I will have to give the same privacy to others, too.

Research by CCTV.co.uk concludes that in London there is now 1 CCTV Camera for every 13 people, meaning there are now 691,000 CCTV Cameras in London (2020/21)

Source: https://www.cctv.co.uk/how-many-cctv-cameras-are-there-in-london/
https://www.usnews.com/news/cities/articles/2020-08-14/the-top-10-most-surveilled-cities-in-the-world

Then a civilian someone goes crazy over a tourist capturing a few stills while on holiday! Oh, the irony!

ShadySue

  • There is a crack in everything
« Reply #20 on: May 08, 2021, 05:45 »
+1
Also remember that in London in particular, and also other cities and towns, many 'public' streets are actually privately owned, where your rights aren't as you might expect. E.g.:
https://www.theguardian.com/cities/2017/jul/24/revealed-pseudo-public-space-pops-london-investigation-map

"UK Law
On the whole, UK law doesn't prevent photography in public places. The UK has relatively liberal laws regarding photography compared with many countries. Although there are some exceptions, the key principle is that you can photograph people and buildings without needing permission, providing you are in a public place.
As long as you're not causing any harassment, you're allowed to photograph other people if they are in a public place.

Public vs. Private
Many of the incidents in which photographers come into difficulty is that many places which you instinctively think are public are in fact privately controlled. This includes some shopping centres, car parks, some parks and play areas (depending on the attitude of the landowner) and various private structures, for example, Millennium Wheel on the South Bank in London. There is a trend for public places to become private, particularly in town centres which are developed with new shopping centres. "
https://www.blpawards.org/competition/photo-rights

« Reply #21 on: May 08, 2021, 06:58 »
+3
You are just wrong and don't understand how freedom of press works. In public space you have no right to not to be your image being taken by a photographer or a security camera. Those images cannot be published in a commercial way but yes in an editorial way. That means if an article is about a city for example and you are standing in the shot the article has all the right to use the image with or without your authorization. Tha's the law in most democracies. You might like it or not but that's how it works. In North Korea China and Venezuela it might be different do.


A photographer has his or her rights but a person has a right to be left alone. I usually think in situations like this, "what if this would be me?" Do I want somebody to point a camera at me when I walk on the street? NO!
OK, then I will have to give the same privacy to others, too.

« Reply #22 on: May 08, 2021, 08:40 »
+1
Its not that simple. If people or paintings are the main object of the image like Alexanders second image https://brutallyhonestmicrostock.files.wordpress.com/2021/04/salamanca.jpg you are not allowed to sell it or publish it without the permission of the person you are photographing.
Alexandre also publishes on his blog that the artist has given no permission to make a photograph.
In this case i think Alexandre probably will loose lots of money if the angry artist will take this issue to court.
Just my opinion.
« Last Edit: May 08, 2021, 08:43 by ttart »

farbled

« Reply #23 on: May 08, 2021, 10:36 »
0
You are just wrong and don't understand how freedom of press works. In public space you have no right to not to be your image being taken by a photographer or a security camera. Those images cannot be published in a commercial way but yes in an editorial way. That means if an article is about a city for example and you are standing in the shot the article has all the right to use the image with or without your authorization. Tha's the law in most democracies. You might like it or not but that's how it works. In North Korea China and Venezuela it might be different do.


Don't forget Quebec, and certain situations in Canada in your list. As well as many "public" areas in the US that have security implications, like outside of prisons for example. Its not black and white at all.

"...no consent is needed where the person is an anonymous element of the scenery, even if it is technically possible to identify individuals in the photograph."

Its the "anonymous" part that gets tested of course. Canadian law (1998) apparently starts with the default that you can't, and its on the photographer to defend why they can should it go to court. Another example is in London, where many streets are apparently privately owned, and the bylaws can be quite strict.

Its up to the photographer to know the laws where they are shooting. Alex is right that the guy over-reacted, but perhaps he had a prior bad experience? In any event, there's legal, and there's prudent (not saying Alex was not prudent, he came across as respectful in the face of an angry fella). I hope everyone stays safe out there. :)

« Reply #24 on: May 09, 2021, 02:03 »
+3
Just to inform, this is NOT personally directed to Alexandre. I'm speaking generally about shooting strangers in public.

We photographers tend to get so defensive about our legal rights. Relax. It shouldn't ALWAYS be about legal rights. What about common decency, and what's reasonable? The other person you are pointing your camera at is not an anonymous object or a piece of meat. That's a real person with thoughts, feelings and opinions. I don't think it hurts too much to be considerate to other people, when you are shooting. Show some respect. If you are like most photographers, you have an enormous backlog of images to work on. It can't be ALL about that one photo of that one person who doesn't want his/her photo taken.

It's never a bad idea to think of your own reputation. If somebody starts complaining about you, it can be bad for your business. You come across as difficult to work with. Potential clients looking for a freelancer will choose someone else to work with.

"Freedom of press" is a huge exaggeration when it comes to microstock photography. A great deal of editorial micro shots are just a bunch of unreleased images that are not topical and will never be published by any news media. Even a microstock photographer who shoots some newsworthy shots every now and then can't be associated with daily news reporters employed by nationwide or international media. That's a whole different ball game.

You are just wrong and don't understand how freedom of press works. In public space you have no right to not to be your image being taken by a photographer or a security camera. Those images cannot be published in a commercial way but yes in an editorial way. That means if an article is about a city for example and you are standing in the shot the article has all the right to use the image with or without your authorization. Tha's the law in most democracies. You might like it or not but that's how it works. In North Korea China and Venezuela it might be different do.


A photographer has his or her rights but a person has a right to be left alone. I usually think in situations like this, "what if this would be me?" Do I want somebody to point a camera at me when I walk on the street? NO!
OK, then I will have to give the same privacy to others, too.


 

Related Topics

  Subject / Started by Replies Last post
1 Replies
1292 Views
Last post January 31, 2021, 09:24
by Bad Robot
2 Replies
1402 Views
Last post February 28, 2021, 07:37
by Brasilnut
11 Replies
2891 Views
Last post April 05, 2021, 13:18
by alexandersr
9 Replies
2153 Views
Last post June 06, 2021, 18:03
by wds
7 Replies
2761 Views
Last post July 11, 2021, 21:08
by alan b traehern

Sponsors

Mega Bundle of 5,900+ Professional Lightroom Presets

Microstock Poll Results

Sponsors

3100 Posing Cards Bundle