Author Topic: Has Alexandre Rotenberg sold his soul to the devil of free stock again? (Read 17802 times)

bestravelvideo · « **on:** January 17, 2023, 07:41 »

I’m a reader of his blog and I now see he started uploading to Unsplash & Pixabay
https://brutallyhonestmicrostock.com/2023/01/16/uploading-to-the-free-download-sites-as-an-experiment-unsplash-and-pixabay/
I can’t really understand how is that going to help us contributors though.

SpaceStockFootage · « **Reply #1 on:** January 17, 2023, 08:56 »

Why should it help us? It's something he's decided to do as an experiment, with his content, and he's explained why he's trying it in the post.

Jo Ann Snover · « **Reply #2 on:** January 17, 2023, 09:15 »

Alex can obviously try whatever experiments he feels will be valuable with his content - as pointed out above.

I would note that I wasn't at all impressed by the earnings chart of the person whose experience persuaded Alex to try this route. I earn more in a month from Adobe Stock than James Wheeler did (from Adobe Stock) in 12 months. I currently earn nothing from Shutterstock as they closed my account when I protested their 2020 royalty cuts, but the same was true for them before I became an outcast.

I don't have a large portfolio (just over 2,000 images) and as it earns reasonable returns, I wouldn't consider putting that at risk with an experiment similar to Alex's. If I earned what James Wheeler does, I'd have a lot less to lose and thus would probably be more willing to try out various things to boost my earnings.

The impact of free sites is already clear in that royalty per download is lower than it was, even when earnings are up because download volume is up.

SuperPhoto · « **Reply #3 on:** January 17, 2023, 12:36 »

There may be other benefits (other than just donations, i.e., notoriety), but taking a look at his other social media accounts (i.e., youtube accoutn, etc) - doesn't really seem to have impacted/benefited it that much, especially if those volume numbers are accurate (i.e., 650+ "million" views, very easy to 'fudge' statistics with computer programs just to make a sight look more presitigious than it is, etc).

trek · « **Reply #4 on:** January 17, 2023, 15:21 »

Seems like a quick way to get your portfolio re-posted and resold by others around the world. I hope Alexandre does a reverse image search in a year or so to see where his shots have traveled.

Roscoe · « **Reply #5 on:** January 17, 2023, 16:08 »

The experiment differs from what James is doing though.
As far as I understood, he has his better selling images also available on Pexels and Pixabay, and he has over 100.000 downloads there every month.
As he said in his video, it really takes a huge volume of downloads to get a fair amount of donations.

I just don't see this happening with pretty generic images. Not in volume, and not in donations.
No offence, but will a bunch of generic images like an udder full of milk or green banana's on a tree generate a significant amount of downloads and who will actually donate for that type of content?

Of course I can be wrong, so curious to see how the experiment Alex is doing will turn out.
His experiences can help others to make their own decisions.

cobalt · « **Reply #6 on:** January 17, 2023, 19:09 »

There are quite a few youtubers who suggest something like that, upload to agencies but also upload to free sites hoping for donations.

The question i always have - how much money do they make on youtube or social media with their videos?

Should that not be part of their income results?

Justanotherphotographer · « **Reply #7 on:** January 18, 2023, 04:47 »

LOL Alex isn’t “selling his soul”. He isn’t primarily a photographer or journalist. He’s part of the blogosphere making money from referrals, links and views. He’s just after links and clicks, as usual. The value for him doesn't come from selling licenses but from writing about the experience. Devaluing his work is irrelevant for him. See previous discussions on this forum, for example about his Vecteezy or Freepik articles.

ETA: for example
https://www.microstockgroup.com/general-big-6/my-first-month-with-freepik-!/

Brasilnut · « **Reply #8 on:** January 18, 2023, 08:42 »

Hey Theo, thanks for posting a link to the post. Interesting discussion.

I had a good think about this experiment and all your comments and will make the following adjustments:

1. For the sake of eventually getting more downloads which hopefully will become donations, I'll have to submit more quality content. This means that such quality images will probably lose all their value once given away for free (no doubt downloaded and re-sold by thieves), but then again perhaps most buyers won't bother shopping around that much (which is also part of the experiment). Perhaps what may work best are the dramatic fine artsty type shots that would do well on FAA. For the sake of experimentation it needs to be done as green bananas aren't going to be a hit; Here's some of my latest uploaded at Pexels - https://www.pexels.com/@brutally-honest-427052750/

2. As suggested by Trek, I'll conduct reverse searches on such images to see how many have ended up trying to be licensed by thieves at micros. Could be a fun little side project, doubt this has been covered elsewhere by other bloggers;

3. Curious to see if there's footage to be accepted by some of these sites to be given away for free. Perhaps footage would bring in more donations than stills. I don't mind giving away some footage that has never sold for many years, particularly if it's only HD.

Update: So far my images are pending review at Pixabay and Unsplash. Amazing how they still check for technical quality even if being given away. What they really should be checking for in view of rejecting unreleased content particularly at sensitive places which may lead to legal issues later on.

@justanotherphotographer

What I make from referrals is perhaps enough for a beer or two once a month and the way inflation is going soon will just be a chocolate bar/month!

Zero Talent · « **Reply #9 on:** January 18, 2023, 10:46 »

Yes.

ouatedeP · « **Reply #10 on:** January 18, 2023, 11:48 »

Quote from: Brasilnut on January 18, 2023, 08:42

Hey Theo, thanks for posting a link to the post. Interesting discussion.

What I make from referrals is perhaps enough for a beer or two once a month and the way inflation is going soon will just be a chocolate bar/month!

so better than Dreamstime.

Brasilnut · « **Reply #11 on:** January 20, 2023, 08:30 »

Exchanged some ideas with James and he provided the following tip which I'll follow:

Quote

Also, one thing I started trying recently is uploading the lowest resolution allowed to pexels (which is 4 megapixels), this make them useful for online but not that useful for print. The idea is that if someone sees an image they want on pexels but need a higher resolution image they need to buy it from me. Hasn't resulted in much yet but another thing you could try. Hope it helps.

Justanotherphotographer · « **Reply #12 on:** January 20, 2023, 12:31 »

Quote from: Brasilnut on January 20, 2023, 08:30

Exchanged some ideas with James and he provided the following tip which I'll follow:

Quote
Also, one thing I started trying recently is uploading the lowest resolution allowed to pexels (which is 4 megapixels), this make them useful for online but not that useful for print. The idea is that if someone sees an image they want on pexels but need a higher resolution image they need to buy it from me. Hasn't resulted in much yet but another thing you could try. Hope it helps.

The reason it a "hasn't resulted in much" is that it isn't correct that 4MP is "not that useful for print". Maybe if you're printing large posters but it'll work just fine for most other print, with a bit of upscaling or dropping to 200 DPI if necessary (it's 6.67 inches square at 300dpi). The chances of people finding your work on one of these free sites and also needing it in a larger resolution, and also being prepared to pay for it is so vanishingly small basing a business model on it is...unwise.

Brasilnut · « **Reply #13 on:** April 19, 2023, 06:31 »

Update on giving away my images for free like a fking idiot (as an experiment).

So, Pixabay featured one of my images of a red lighthouse against a blue sky on their home page which led to over 22,000+ free downloads after a few day (and no donations).

Three thieves decided to download it and re-sell it on Shutterstock (where I'm also re-selling):

https://www.shutterstock.com/image-photo/side-close-shot-red-light-house-2287205047
https://www.shutterstock.com/image-photo/resizedimage-red-lighthouse-balcony-2283907955
https://www.shutterstock.com/image-photo/red-colour-light-house-sky-2284676895

Those accounts predictably contain many stolen other works.

I've sent in a DCMA notice to Shutterstock's legal department and will be really really annoyed if they just remove the images without closing their accounts.

So far no donations and will keep uploading a few more images here and there and also hopefully catching these thieves. Will report any further news as usual in the monthly earnings report.

Alex

stoker2014 · « **Reply #14 on:** April 19, 2023, 07:04 »

As I understand it, on Unsplash, Pixabay and Pexels, all photos and videos are given away for free. How can an author make money there? What's the point of uploading content there?
Or it is done to advertise itself, and only something unnecessary is uploaded.

stoker2014 · « **Reply #15 on:** April 19, 2023, 07:08 »

Quote from: Jo Ann Snover on January 17, 2023, 09:15

I currently earn nothing from Shutterstock as they closed my account when I protested their 2020 royalty cuts, but the same was true for them before I became an outcast.

Were you banned just because you wrote to them that you are against lowering payments?

Roscoe · « **Reply #16 on:** April 19, 2023, 07:41 »

Quote from: Brasilnut on April 19, 2023, 06:31

So far no donations and will keep uploading a few more images here and there and also hopefully catching these thieves. Will report any further news as usual in the monthly earnings report.

Alex

Are you sure you want to continue Alex?
Because it looks like you are creating a honey pot for image thieves instead of something that actually makes you money (via donations).
22.000 downloads an no donations -> enough said I would say.

Unless your goal is to fish for image thieves, which is a noble thing to to, but still doesn't make you any money

Brasilnut · « **Reply #17 on:** April 19, 2023, 08:07 »

Quote from: Roscoe on April 19, 2023, 07:41

Quote from: Brasilnut on April 19, 2023, 06:31

So far no donations and will keep uploading a few more images here and there and also hopefully catching these thieves. Will report any further news as usual in the monthly earnings report.

Alex

Are you sure you want to continue Alex?
Because it looks like you are creating a honey pot for image thieves instead of something that actually makes you money (via donations).
22.000 downloads an no donations -> enough said I would say.

Unless your goal is to fish for image thieves, which is a noble thing to to, but still doesn't make you any money

That's a good question. If nobody will even donate $1 after 22,000+ downloads what hope is there? Images that don't get featured get few downloads. So this sort of proves the first hypothesis that people who download free stuff are some of the most selfish types out there (that's why they're downloading for free, duh

) No excuse that they're students or academic or not-for-profit entities...what's $1 these days?

Secondly, the thieves taking images and re-selling is predictable. This could be an interesting avenue to reel in thieves but not really worth my time. If SS paid me for this would be cool but that will never happen and I won't work for free especially for them.

I'll continue the experiment since I want to have at least 100 images spread and wait at least one year before jumping to conclusions. I've begun very very reluctantly uploading more quality images (downsizing the resolutions) so let's see if this will make a difference.

To be continued...

@stoker

People who upload to these sites aren't looking to make money from donations but get their work exposed which may lead to opportunities down the line. The PR of these agencies have sold them a false dream.

Zero Talent · « **Reply #18 on:** April 19, 2023, 08:14 »

This is also a good lesson for others who believe that giving their work away for free, in exchange for the "exposure" illusion is good practice.

Free stuff is not used, it's abused.

stoker2014 · « **Reply #19 on:** April 19, 2023, 08:34 »

On the other hand, if you leave links to your portfolios everywhere, this can lead buyers to stocks.

Roscoe · « **Reply #20 on:** April 19, 2023, 09:04 »

Quote from: Brasilnut on April 19, 2023, 08:07

That's a good question. If nobody will even donate $1 after 22,000+ downloads what hope is there? Images that don't get featured get few downloads. So this sort of proves the first hypothesis that people who download free stuff are some of the most selfish types out there (that's why they're downloading for free, duh ) No excuse that they're students or academic or not-for-profit entities...what's $1 these days?

Secondly, the thieves taking images and re-selling is predictable. This could be an interesting avenue to reel in thieves but not really worth my time. If SS paid me for this would be cool but that will never happen and I won't work for free especially for them.

I'll continue the experiment since I want to have at least 100 images spread and wait at least one year before jumping to conclusions. I've begun very very reluctantly uploading more quality images (downsizing the resolutions) so let's see if this will make a difference.

To be continued...

@stoker

People who upload to these sites aren't looking to make money from donations but get their work exposed which may lead to opportunities down the line. The PR of these agencies have sold them a false dream.

I admire your determination to make it work :-)

Don't forget the temporary conclusions: you've put in time and effort to build a small portfolio there that generated 22.000 downloads (I would call that a success) and no money.
Instead, you've got image thieves creating competition on sites where you offer the image for sale, and costing you time and effort to get the stolen content removed. (and you know for sure that keeping an eye out for thieves is a recurring task which will only consume more time as your portfolio grows).

Also: 22.000 downloads in a few days of a generic red lighthouse. I mean, it's a nice shot and all, but seems a bit odd that there is such a high demand for red lighthouses. So I wonder what the story behind the download volume really is. How many of those downloads are real and how many are bots that just scrape content for whatever reason (ai training anyone?). Maybe different types of images attract different types of freeloaders with higher percentages of willingness to donate. Could be, but I'm very skeptical.

But, as I said, the experiment and sharing your experiences is a noble thing to do.
Thanks for the update.

pancaketom · « **Reply #21 on:** April 19, 2023, 10:57 »

It seems like there should be a way to demand the sales of illegally uploaded images along with the DMCA notice, but we all know that not only does SS not really care, they actively are annoyed at people that point out stolen ports.

Uncle Pete · « **Reply #22 on:** April 19, 2023, 11:25 »

Quote from: pancaketom on April 19, 2023, 10:57

It seems like there should be a way to demand the sales of illegally uploaded images along with the DMCA notice, but we all know that not only does SS not really care, they actively are annoyed at people that point out stolen ports.

I have to say and I apologize, but if they had to track every stolen image and then trace back to the original author, imagine how complicated that would be. If this case, the thief has 69, or 10 or 3 images, and for all of them Usage score Never used.

We can't assume that just because someone stole an image that it was used.

Quote from: Brasilnut on April 19, 2023, 06:31

I've sent in a DCMA notice to Shutterstock's legal department and will be really really annoyed if they just remove the images without closing their accounts.

So far no donations and will keep uploading a few more images here and there and also hopefully catching these thieves. Will report any further news as usual in the monthly earnings report.

Alex

I must agree, take down these accounts, before one of them gets a download. How many sales have you had on SSTK for this image. I can't say for sure, but I might guess that of the 22,000 free downloads, maybe one of those was someone who might have paid on SSTK for a license?

I'm enjoying the experiment, and if this was diving into a lake, to see how deep the water is... OK good, You Go First!

After one of your posts, I decided to upload 100 images to Freepiks. (113 actually it says 135? I don't know) I get reports of Estimated earnings, it's 33¢ this month. When I look at earnings, I see nothing. I don't understand how that works. It shows that I have 17 DLs to date. But I am level 3 now. 🤩

If anyone wants to look and see my wonderful gallery of leftovers and old photos, it's https://www.freepik.com/author/crapstock/2 Yup, I'm Crapstock on their site.

Since I started, that paperclip image has been rejected everywhere. Even Lucky Oliver and DT. And I stacked them up so carefully?

Jo Ann Snover · « **Reply #23 on:** April 19, 2023, 11:45 »

Quote from: stoker2014 on April 19, 2023, 07:08

Quote from: Jo Ann Snover on January 17, 2023, 09:15
I currently earn nothing from Shutterstock as they closed my account when I protested their 2020 royalty cuts, but the same was true for them before I became an outcast.
Were you banned just because you wrote to them that you are against lowering payments?

I had been posting a lot on twitter about the reduction in royalty rates and they closed my account twice. The first time ostensibly because I'd changed my profile picture in violation of their rules (which I hadn't - my profile picture was the same boring headshot it had been for ages) and the second time because of my public comments:

"We disabled your account in consideration of your public comments regarding Shutterstock. While we respect your opinion, it may not be a good fit for Shutterstock to represent your content. In section 4 of the TOS, Shutterstock reserves the right to terminate an account in Shutterstock's discretion."

stoker2014 · « **Reply #24 on:** April 19, 2023, 13:32 »

Quote from: Jo Ann Snover on April 19, 2023, 11:45

I had been posting a lot on twitter about the reduction in royalty rates and they closed my account twice. The first time ostensibly because I'd changed my profile picture in violation of their rules (which I hadn't - my profile picture was the same boring headshot it had been for ages) and the second time because of my public comments:
"We disabled your account in consideration of your public comments regarding Shutterstock. While we respect your opinion, it may not be a good fit for Shutterstock to represent your content. In section 4 of the TOS, Shutterstock reserves the right to terminate an account in Shutterstock's discretion."

1. It was necessary not to link twitter to the account on the shutter.
2. Or it was necessary to write on Twitter from another account.

Uncle Pete · « **Reply #25 on:** April 20, 2023, 13:04 »

Quote from: Jo Ann Snover on April 19, 2023, 11:45

Quote from: stoker2014 on April 19, 2023, 07:08
Quote from: Jo Ann Snover on January 17, 2023, 09:15
I currently earn nothing from Shutterstock as they closed my account when I protested their 2020 royalty cuts, but the same was true for them before I became an outcast.
Were you banned just because you wrote to them that you are against lowering payments?

I had been posting a lot on twitter about the reduction in royalty rates and they closed my account twice. The first time ostensibly because I'd changed my profile picture in violation of their rules (which I hadn't - my profile picture was the same boring headshot it had been for ages) and the second time because of my public comments:

"We disabled your account in consideration of your public comments regarding Shutterstock. While we respect your opinion, it may not be a good fit for Shutterstock to represent your content. In section 4 of the TOS, Shutterstock reserves the right to terminate an account in Shutterstock's discretion."

Account closed for Twitter Posts? I'll assume they also blocked you from Twitter access to their pages and removed your posts?

https://submit.shutterstock.com/legal/terms?language=en#:~:text=The%20following%20Terms%20of%20Service%20%28%22TOS%22%29%20is%20a,carefully%20and%20be%20sure%20you%20understand%20it%20fully.

Nothing about Shutterstock's Discretion in section 4.

Big Toe · « **Reply #26 on:** April 20, 2023, 13:32 »

Quote from: Uncle Pete on April 20, 2023, 13:04

Account closed for Twitter Posts? I'll assume they also blocked you from Twitter access to their pages and removed your posts?

https://submit.shutterstock.com/legal/terms?language=en#:~:text=The%20following%20Terms%20of%20Service%20%28%22TOS%22%29%20is%20a,carefully%20and%20be%20sure%20you%20understand%20it%20fully.

Nothing about Shutterstock's Discretion in section 4.

See the last words in 4 c:

"Shutterstock has the right to refuse to establish an account or to close any existing account, for fraud, intellectual property infringement, violation of a third party's rights including those of privacy or publicity, artificially inflating downloads, submission of material that is obscene in nature, violent or that might be construed as defamatory, failure to comply with Shutterstock's guidelines as may be amended from time to time, for any breach of the terms of this or any other agreement that you have with shutterstock, or for convenience."

So they reserve the right to close accounts whenever they find it inconvenient to keep the account open.

Jo Ann Snover · « **Reply #27 on:** April 20, 2023, 13:55 »

Quote from: Uncle Pete on April 20, 2023, 13:04

...Account closed for Twitter Posts? I'll assume they also blocked you from Twitter access to their pages and removed your posts?...

They had blocked me from their contributor and main accounts on Twitter, but you can see and read (though not respond) if you are not logged in (in an incognito window). Same with LinkedIn.

They couldn't remove my posts because they weren't made as replies to their posts (after they blocked me) but the hashtags made sure they were found and lots of unhappy contributors were amplifying the noise in the middle of 2020 when this all blew up.

Stuff like this:

https://twitter.com/joannsnover/status/1296943168185700352

Evaristo tenscadisto · « **Reply #28 on:** April 20, 2023, 18:38 »

I think your adventure through these websites can be of some entertainment for you brasilnuts. Right? ;-)

Although sites like Pexels gives "unlimited access to over 3 million free, high-resolution photos and videos". This is very useful for some Research companies that i have in mind... and i do know that companies go to this sites first before buying anything in others.

Good luck for your experimentation! (Boa Sorte!)

Maybe i learn "something" unexpected but you got me thinking in an little Machiavellian way: Perhaps doing a website like Pexels and sell trained models for machine learning directly to companies. They could easily donate 1000 dollars for 25K sale work.

Brasilnut · « **Reply #29 on:** April 21, 2023, 05:57 »

DCMA updates

Adobe Stock:

Spotted two thieves at AS who were trying to re-sell the red lighthouse. Their legal team acted quickly and took down the images but left their accounts intact. Here's one of them:

https://stock.adobe.com/ca/contributor/211377677/abdul?load_type=author&prev_url=detail

SS:

No update. Very slow to act and they will also most likely just remove the lighthouse images and keep the thieving account active.

----

Overall, super disappointing if they're not shutting down whole accounts. One theft/infringement should be enough to constitute a material breach of the contributor agreement. I'll try to reach out to AS on Twitter about this...can't on SS as they blocked me on there.

Uncle Pete · « **Reply #30 on:** April 21, 2023, 11:00 »

Quote from: Big Toe on April 20, 2023, 13:32

Quote from: Uncle Pete on April 20, 2023, 13:04
Account closed for Twitter Posts? I'll assume they also blocked you from Twitter access to their pages and removed your posts?

https://submit.shutterstock.com/legal/terms?language=en#:~:text=The%20following%20Terms%20of%20Service%20%28%22TOS%22%29%20is%20a,carefully%20and%20be%20sure%20you%20understand%20it%20fully.

Nothing about Shutterstock's Discretion in section 4.

See the last words in 4 c:

"Shutterstock has the right to refuse to establish an account or to close any existing account, for fraud, intellectual property infringement, violation of a third party's rights including those of privacy or publicity, artificially inflating downloads, submission of material that is obscene in nature, violent or that might be construed as defamatory, failure to comply with Shutterstock's guidelines as may be amended from time to time, for any breach of the terms of this or any other agreement that you have with shutterstock, or for convenience."

So they reserve the right to close accounts whenever they find it inconvenient to keep the account open.

Good points. I was looking for the specific words that SS used, but you are correct. Shutterstock's Discretion is covered as, they can do anything they want, if they want.

Lina · « **Reply #31 on:** April 22, 2023, 05:32 »

Quote from: Brasilnut on April 21, 2023, 05:57

Overall, super disappointing if they're not shutting down whole accounts. One theft/infringement should be enough to constitute a material breach of the contributor agreement. I'll try to reach out to AS on Twitter about this...can't on SS as they blocked me on there.

Yeah, probably all images are stolen. I was too lazy to search for all images, just found bicycle on Pixabay: https://pixabay.com/vectors/bike-bicycle-motorcycle-cycling-7342379/
and butterfly: https://pixabay.com/illustrations/moth-butterfly-insect-wings-7725211/

Brasilnut · « **Reply #32 on:** April 24, 2023, 06:26 »

Quote from: Lina on April 22, 2023, 05:32

Quote from: Brasilnut on April 21, 2023, 05:57
Overall, super disappointing if they're not shutting down whole accounts. One theft/infringement should be enough to constitute a material breach of the contributor agreement. I'll try to reach out to AS on Twitter about this...can't on SS as they blocked me on there.

Yeah, probably all images are stolen. I was too lazy to search for all images, just found bicycle on Pixabay: https://pixabay.com/vectors/bike-bicycle-motorcycle-cycling-7342379/
and butterfly: https://pixabay.com/illustrations/moth-butterfly-insect-wings-7725211/

Indeed, all stolen.

So, small update is that both AS and SS have removed the stolen images from four different accounts, but have unfortunately/frustratingly left the accounts intact with the remaining images (all stolen presumably). Some of these accounts have 200+ images.

I've requested for the fraudulent accounts to be shut down on the DCMA email thread but have not received a reply. Also radio-silence on my tweet to AS. Dead end it seems and wasting my time.

@Mat Hayward: If you're reading this, could you please clarify what is AS's official policy on finding an account with stolen images, in particular whether a full account can be closed upon discovery of at least one stolen image via a DCMA complaint of a copyright holder.

Roscoe · « **Reply #33 on:** April 24, 2023, 09:21 »

Quote from: Brasilnut on April 24, 2023, 06:26

Quote from: Lina on April 22, 2023, 05:32
Quote from: Brasilnut on April 21, 2023, 05:57
Overall, super disappointing if they're not shutting down whole accounts. One theft/infringement should be enough to constitute a material breach of the contributor agreement. I'll try to reach out to AS on Twitter about this...can't on SS as they blocked me on there.

Yeah, probably all images are stolen. I was too lazy to search for all images, just found bicycle on Pixabay: https://pixabay.com/vectors/bike-bicycle-motorcycle-cycling-7342379/
and butterfly: https://pixabay.com/illustrations/moth-butterfly-insect-wings-7725211/

Indeed, all stolen.

So, small update is that both AS and SS have removed the stolen images from four different accounts, but have unfortunately/frustratingly left the accounts intact with the remaining images (all stolen presumably). Some of these accounts have 200+ images.

I've requested for the fraudulent accounts to be shut down on the DCMA email thread but have not received a reply. Also radio-silence on my tweet to AS. Dead end it seems and wasting my time.

@Mat Hayward: If you're reading this, could you please clarify what is AS's official policy on finding an account with stolen images, in particular whether a full account can be closed upon discovery of at least one stolen image via a DCMA complaint of a copyright holder.

Sad indeed that they just remove the image and don't do further investigation on the account, and shut it down when it turns out that one DCMA request was only the tip of the iceberg. Uploading a stolen image is not an accident nor a coincidence.

I guess it's a matter of time and money. Stolen images sell as well as others (which is income), and removing images or shutting down accounts is resourceful (which is a cost)
So it's not "their problem" and it's up to the owner of the image to complain.

fotorob · « **Reply #34 on:** April 25, 2023, 02:17 »

[redated]

cobalt · « **Reply #35 on:** April 25, 2023, 06:41 »

Quote from: stoker2014 on April 19, 2023, 07:08

Quote from: Jo Ann Snover on January 17, 2023, 09:15
I currently earn nothing from Shutterstock as they closed my account when I protested their 2020 royalty cuts, but the same was true for them before I became an outcast.
Were you banned just because you wrote to them that you are against lowering payments?

They banned me as well. Together with several other people.

I learned from someone that I was considered an „influencer“ in the stock community.

Don‘t know if that really was the reason, but I turned my port back on after 2 week protest and also explicitly wrote that in public. I signed the petition like many others and of course was not happy with the changes.

But as soon as the two weeks where over and I turned my port back on, I got kicked out.

No explanation, just a 2 liner that their legal stuff allows them to do this.

I loved the Shutterstock team, the people I met over the years were just fantastic.

Even held Shutterstock shares for quite a while.

The company seemed to have a great corporate culture, very modern, very thriving on critique.

But it looks like everyone I met is no longer there.

And since they closed their forums, it is sadly a new company under the same name.

Don‘t know if the new CEO is better.

When they reopen a forum to talk directly with their producers, we will know they are moving back to being innovative.

If you don‘t talk to the people you work with, it is difficult to grow.

Especially when Adobe does such a great job with their producer liason and also Getty here in Germany appointed Luis Alvarez as brand ambassador.

Jo Ann is an extremely well respected lady and always has well researched and intelligent comments.

I suppose she was too logical in her public writing.

Pacesetter · « **Reply #36 on:** April 25, 2023, 16:00 »

Reviews (at least for video) can be very fast on Shutterstock. Like in a matter of minutes sometimes. But makes me think if significant numbers of contributors have reduced their uploads or stopped uploading altogether.

alijaber · « **Reply #37 on:** April 25, 2023, 17:17 »

I removed around 750 clips the last few days and put them exclusive at P5, I get bored from these 1$ dollar sales per clip

microstocktruth · « **Reply #38 on:** May 17, 2023, 08:02 »

The rise of free stock image agencies has brought about significant changes in the photography industry and the market for stock images. While these platforms offer benefits such as cost-free access to images, convenience, and opportunities for aspiring photographers, it is crucial to consider the broader implications and challenges they present.

The devaluation of photography and reduced earnings for professional photographers are among the primary concerns stemming from the widespread availability of free images. This shift in the market has impacted the ability of photographers to sustain their businesses, invest in equipment, and deliver innovative and high-quality work. The compromised quality, limited variety, and lack of customization options in free stock image agencies also raise concerns for designers and content creators seeking unique and authentic visuals.

The negative impact extends beyond photographers to stock image providers who have faced increased competition and declining revenues. Additionally, the potential for copyright infringements and unauthorized use of images poses legal risks for users of free stock image agencies. While user donations can provide a form of appreciation and supplementary income for photographers, they do not address the underlying issues of fair compensation and devaluation within the industry. User donations may be unevenly distributed, perpetuating inequalities and creating dependency on fluctuating financial support.

Moving forward, it is crucial for the industry to find a balance between accessibility and fair compensation for photographers. Education on copyright laws, implementing stricter guidelines, and promoting ethical practices can help protect photographers' rights and maintain the integrity of the industry. Additionally, supporting and valuing the work of professional photographers while exploring sustainable business models can contribute to a thriving and diverse photography ecosystem.

By understanding the multifaceted nature of free stock image agencies and their impact, stakeholders can navigate the challenges and work towards a more sustainable and equitable industry where both creators and users can benefit. It is important to foster an environment that values the creative work of photographers and ensures fair compensation, rather than relying solely on user donations, which may not address the underlying issues of devaluation and reduced earnings. Through collaborative efforts, we can strive for a photography industry that recognizes the importance of creativity, innovation, and fair compensation for all stakeholders involved.

Brasilnut · « **Reply #39 on:** September 06, 2023, 07:48 »

I've just published an update and conclusions from this * experiment:

https://brutallyhonestmicrostock.com/2023/09/06/conclusion-to-uploading-to-the-free-download-sites-as-an-experiment/

cobalt · « **Reply #40 on:** September 06, 2023, 08:08 »

Thank you for the update.

It was an interesting experiment and your article can be shared with anyone tempted to try this.

But also good to read that the sales at the micros didn‘t suffer.

Customers who buy stock need a legal license. downloading from free sites is not really an option for them.

Justanotherphotographer · « **Reply #41 on:** September 06, 2023, 11:24 »

Quote from: cobalt on September 06, 2023, 08:08

Thank you for the update.

It was an interesting experiment and your article can be shared with anyone tempted to try this.

But also good to read that the sales at the micros didn‘t suffer.

Customers who buy stock need a legal license. downloading from free sites is not really an option for them.

Well, his sales weren't directly impacted as far as he could tell. That's not the same as sales on stock sites not being impacted by these sites in the aggregate. Taking the flag example he gave; the buyer could have thought his flag was “good enough” for free, and therefore didn’t have to buy a different one from another contributor on one of the stock sites. This is certainly true when you zoom out all the way, i.e. if these sites weren’t fed at all a lot more buyers would be having to license images overall.

As far as the donations go, I am surprised anyone donates voluntarily at all. I am sure a lot of the people downloading from these places assume a lot of the work is stolen anyway, so why donate to someone who may have only pinched the photo from elsewhere? They just want the cover to be able to say they didn’t know (if only to themselves). Even if the “buyer” believes you are the photographer, you’ve already made it clear your work has no value to you so why should it have more value to me? Along the same lines, I am not overly sympathetic to the theft either. You’ve demonstrated your work is worthless to you so why kick up a stink when someone else can make a living out of it?

PigsInSpace · « **Reply #42 on:** September 06, 2023, 21:39 »

I must admit I’m surprised not even one person donated. Not even one?! I’m not one to upload to the free sites, but seriously!

Brasilnut · « **Reply #43 on:** September 07, 2023, 06:37 »

Quote from: PigsInSpace on September 06, 2023, 21:39

I must admit I’m surprised not even one person donated. Not even one?! I’m not one to upload to the free sites, but seriously!

Maybe after a million downloads I would earn my first $1 in donations!

wds · « **Reply #44 on:** September 07, 2023, 08:04 »

Interesting but not surprising. Thanks for taking the effort to show a real world experiment!

Her Ugliness · « **Reply #45 on:** September 08, 2023, 03:18 »

I am not surprised at all that there were no donations. People go to sites that offer free images, because they want FREE images. If they are willing to pay for images they go to other platforms. That seems like a no brainer to me.

fotorob · « **Reply #46 on:** September 21, 2023, 03:56 »

@Brasilnut:
Thanks for the update.
I think the most worrying find of your experiment was the amount of potential thieves trying to re-sell your free images.
This does directly hut your own sales at the stock agencies, as it shifts the sales to more people and away from your images.
On a small scale maybe, but nevertheless...

Brasilnut · « **Reply #47 on:** September 21, 2023, 07:03 »

Quote from: fotorob on September 21, 2023, 03:56

@Brasilnut:
Thanks for the update.
I think the most worrying find of your experiment was the amount of potential thieves trying to re-sell your free images.
This does directly hut your own sales at the stock agencies, as it shifts the sales to more people and away from your images.
On a small scale maybe, but nevertheless...

Yes, the thieves was a predictable yet depressing development.

It's been two weeks of many emails back and forth and I've only just finally been able to remove my images from Pixabay (even if I deleted my account they were still active).

Worst business model ever, hope it's a cautionary tale to anybody considering uploading in there for whatever reason.

Zero Talent · « **Reply #48 on:** September 21, 2023, 10:35 »

https://petapixel.com/2023/09/21/photographers-experiment-sees-78k-photos-downloaded-zero-donations/

Brasilnut · « **Reply #49 on:** September 21, 2023, 14:42 »

Quote from: Zero Talent on September 21, 2023, 10:35

https://petapixel.com/2023/09/21/photographers-experiment-sees-78k-photos-downloaded-zero-donations/

Fame at last!

The author/editors of the article deliberately omitted to mention that many accounts from South Asia downloaded my images for free and tried to re-sell at SS, AS and iStock. Perhaps they don't want to rock the boat with those agencies. At least they linked it to the blog post where I mentioned it many times.

RalfLiebhold · « **Reply #50 on:** September 21, 2023, 15:20 »

Quote from: Brasilnut on September 21, 2023, 14:42

Quote from: Zero Talent on September 21, 2023, 10:35
https://petapixel.com/2023/09/21/photographers-experiment-sees-78k-photos-downloaded-zero-donations/

Fame at last!

The author/editors of the article deliberately omitted to mention that many accounts from South Asia downloaded my images for free and tried to re-sell at SS, AS and iStock. Perhaps they don't want to rock the boat with those agencies. At least they linked it to the blog post where I mentioned it many times.

Alex, I would be quite annoyed if others published interesting news with my research - and also find it quite impertinent.

Do you leave the article now just like that?

Brasilnut · « **Reply #51 on:** September 21, 2023, 15:37 »

Quote from: RalfLiebhold on September 21, 2023, 15:20

Quote from: Brasilnut on September 21, 2023, 14:42
Quote from: Zero Talent on September 21, 2023, 10:35
https://petapixel.com/2023/09/21/photographers-experiment-sees-78k-photos-downloaded-zero-donations/

Fame at last!

The author/editors of the article deliberately omitted to mention that many accounts from South Asia downloaded my images for free and tried to re-sell at SS, AS and iStock. Perhaps they don't want to rock the boat with those agencies. At least they linked it to the blog post where I mentioned it many times.

Alex, I would be quite annoyed if others published interesting news with my research - and also find it quite impertinent.

Do you leave the article now just like that?

Getting a huge amount of quality traffic to my blog, so so far it's been positive.

The experiment is over, not much to talk about. Interesting that I just got an email from someone who read the article and because of my findings decided to quit at the free sites. Hope there's momentum there with others who come to the same conclusions. Perhaps if I can get enough people to come forward I'll draft something.

I'm actually trying to get some paid-writing gigs at Petapixel so let's see if something will happen when I follow-up with the editors.

pancaketom · « **Reply #52 on:** September 21, 2023, 19:04 »

Hopefully it leads to some good stuff, and you don't just die from the exposure.

JamoImages · « **Reply #53 on:** September 22, 2023, 01:24 »

Yay, Alex! Congrats on getting famous

I've had a similar experience with free sites. On Unsplash, I have over 10,000 downloads and on Pexels, I've reached 5,000 downloads since the start of 2022. I've received maybe 3-5 donations and have been tagged on Instagram a couple of times. I currently have around 60 photos on both platforms.

DiscreetDuck · « **Reply #54 on:** September 22, 2023, 11:23 »

Quote from: bestravelvideo on January 17, 2023, 07:41

Topic: Has Alexandre Rotenberg sold his soul to the devil of free stock again?

Impossible! since the devil has no money anymore!
he spent everything for buying Adobe's soul!

MicrostockGroup Sponsors

Author Topic: Has Alexandre Rotenberg sold his soul to the devil of free stock again? (Read 17802 times)

Justanotherphotographer

Justanotherphotographer

Justanotherphotographer

Related Topics

Sponsors

Microstock Poll Results

Sponsors