pancakes

MicrostockGroup Sponsors


Author Topic: Uber vs microstock  (Read 14809 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

U11


« on: August 29, 2016, 08:21 »
+4
Can you see something common or microstock is copletely different story?
Quote
It's not just Uber. A growing number of delivery companies are going the so-called "independent contractor" route. Uber, Lyft, Flex, etc. are taking advantage of the fact that people simply don't know what they're getting into. People equate the $X per hour amount with a regular wage and think they're making bank, when in fact it's less than minimum wage (with no benefits). There is no regulatory floor here, and in fact some people working for these companies are probably winding up net negative.

Uber is cheap because people can't do math and don't understand what being an "independent contractor" entails. By the time they figure it out the hard way, Uber has already made their profit and has whole bunch of other ignorant suckers lined up to replace them.

Or put simply, if these jobs were really so easy and lucrative to make a profit, why . would they outsource them to the general public? The answer of course is that by outsourcing to the general public they are no longer are required to pay minimum wages, benefits, or expenses related to transportation. It's the old capitalist ideal: privatize the gains, socialize the losses.
from  http://uberpeople.net/threads/max-chafkin-is-an-idiot.99372/#post-1403030


« Reply #1 on: August 29, 2016, 10:38 »
+3
Honestly, this is not about any company in particular...

that's the nature of self-employment or contracted work.

« Reply #2 on: August 29, 2016, 11:01 »
0
Honestly, this is not about any company in particular...

that's the nature of self-employment or contracted work.
Yes self employment is far from the being your own boss dream for many.

« Reply #3 on: August 29, 2016, 11:23 »
+8
Can you see something common or microstock is copletely different story?
Quote
It's not just Uber. A growing number of delivery companies are going the so-called "independent contractor" route. Uber, Lyft, Flex, etc. are taking advantage of the fact that people simply don't know what they're getting into. People equate the $X per hour amount with a regular wage and think they're making bank, when in fact it's less than minimum wage (with no benefits). There is no regulatory floor here, and in fact some people working for these companies are probably winding up net negative.

Uber is cheap because people can't do math and don't understand what being an "independent contractor" entails. By the time they figure it out the hard way, Uber has already made their profit and has whole bunch of other ignorant suckers lined up to replace them.

Or put simply, if these jobs were really so easy and lucrative to make a profit, why . would they outsource them to the general public? The answer of course is that by outsourcing to the general public they are no longer are required to pay minimum wages, benefits, or expenses related to transportation. It's the old capitalist ideal: privatize the gains, socialize the losses.
from  http://uberpeople.net/threads/max-chafkin-is-an-idiot.99372/#post-1403030


A typically ideologically biased opinion.

Nobody is forcing Uber drivers to join the fleet.
Nobody is forcing photographers to join microstock.

Moreover, once they have joined, then can easily quit as well, if they don't like it. This is valid for both Uber drivers and microstock photographers. But it doesn't happen.
Why?
Because the deal is mutually acceptable. Win-win. Both parties have something to gain from it.

On a side note, my recent experience with Uber was outstanding: clean cars, polite drivers, easy to use app with immediate response. Overall much cheaper (about half the price) than private long term parking or regulated taxis, and much, much cheaper than the official airport long-term parking. A great deal!

Besides, there is no better certification and no better incentive for the drivers to offer a high quality service, than the continuous customer review system.
I talked to the drivers. They were OK with the 75% share they got and happy to work on a second job during their weekends.

Uber is great example proving that competition, relatively free from regulatory burdens, will lead to cheaper, better services, higher productivity and wealth.

Of course, well established taxi companies, a lot of them enjoying monopolistic deals with the local authorities (eg for airport operations) will lobby hard against new competitors, trying to block their business.
Same goes for the taxi driver's unions, equally interested in blocking their own competition.
And the local politicians, stimulated both by the political campaign contributions from the taxi companies, as well as by the votes expected from taxi unions, will have hard time resisting the regulatory temptations. Typical cronyism.

All these blocking efforts are made at the expense of regular consumers, forced to dig deep in their pockets and pay above market prices for those privileged by laws specially made for them.


« Last Edit: August 29, 2016, 13:08 by Zero Talent »

U11


« Reply #4 on: August 29, 2016, 13:53 »
+4
I think the point is that _possibly_  [some] uber drivers and micro stock photographers are losing more than gaining but because of the nature of crowdsourcing there are always some new people coming  trying to make it work for them.  So potentially you may have a live business which is unprofitable for the person doing the work

alno

« Reply #5 on: August 29, 2016, 13:58 »
+1

All these blocking efforts are made at the expense of regular consumers, forced to dig deep in their pockets and pay above market prices for those privileged by laws specially made for them.

Well said. You reminded me 'Atlas Shrugged' novel.

« Reply #6 on: August 29, 2016, 14:15 »
+1
I think the point is that _possibly_  [some] uber drivers and micro stock photographers are losing more than gaining but because of the nature of crowdsourcing there are always some new people coming  trying to make it work for them.  So potentially you may have a live business which is unprofitable for the person doing the work

This may be possible, indeed. While morons do exist, overall, the huge majority of people know their own interest, better than anyone else. So they will quit or do something about it, as soon as they realise driving for Uber or doing microstock is too much effort.
Unless they truly enjoy these activities and treat them as hobbies. After all, this is especially true for photographers, hoping to become famous through "exposure" traded against free photos  :) But I doubt Uber drivers will be fooled by similar fame delusions or spend time driving strangers around, as a hobby!  ;D
« Last Edit: August 29, 2016, 14:26 by Zero Talent »

« Reply #7 on: August 29, 2016, 14:27 »
+1
Honestly, this is not about any company in particular...

that's the nature of self-employment or contracted work.

Contractors can make excellent money if they are in the right field with a high demand skill and good marketing.  Driving and stock photography may not be the right fields, that's all  :o  Think plumbers, roofers, business consultants, high end photographers, and yes, I'm told some make good money in stock although I am not one of them.   I made more doing two assignments this month than in my whole YTD stock work.  And that was at a "friends and family" rate with possible additional revenue pending from print and dl sales.
« Last Edit: August 29, 2016, 14:32 by CJH Photography »

« Reply #8 on: August 29, 2016, 14:42 »
+2
Honestly, this is not about any company in particular...

that's the nature of self-employment or contracted work.

Contractors can make excellent money if they are in the right field with a high demand skill and good marketing.  Driving and stock photography may not be the right fields, that's all  :o  Think plumbers, roofers, business consultants, high end photographers, and yes, I'm told some make good money in stock although I am not one of them.   I made more doing two assignments this month than in my whole YTD stock work.  And that was at a "friends and family" rate with possible additional revenue pending from print and dl sales.
Thats right it boils down to supply and demand with modern photographic equipment its just too easy to make the kind of pics Microstock demands to make an easy living. If you have a rare/in demand skill and know how to exploit it you will do well. If you do something that almost anyone can do why would yo expect to make $$$$ at it?

« Reply #9 on: August 29, 2016, 15:01 »
+6
My guess is that if  Uber dropped the rates drivers receive as drastically as microstock companies have,  there would be zero Uber drivers left. 

PaulieWalnuts

  • We Have Exciting News For You
« Reply #10 on: August 29, 2016, 19:21 »
+7
On a side note, my recent experience with Uber was outstanding: clean cars, polite drivers, easy to use app with immediate response. Overall much cheaper (about half the price) than private long term parking or regulated taxis, and much, much cheaper than the official airport long-term parking. A great deal!

I just tried Uber for the first time on a recent trip and my experience was total opposite.

Each time I made a request they never could seem to find where I was even though my map showed exactly where I was standing probably within a couple foot radius. I added the name of the hotel and full address and they went to the back and through it was an apartment building. Marriott Courtyard apartment building?

I watched one driver pass me twice on the Uber map which she then had to drive a mile to come back around. Because of traffic and one way streets this took forever.

During each ride I literally had to pull up a mapping app on my phone to show them where to go. They still missed turns and exit ramps. One guy was totally driving the wrong way and told him to turn around because my destination was literally on the same street a mile in the opposite direction.

I can't remember ever having this happen in a cab. Any cab driver seems to know exactly where to go by just the name of the hotel or even building and never misses an exit getting there.

What I really think is needed is an Uber style app that connects all of the cab companies together. That way you get the convenience of the Uber app with the experience of a real cab driver. The Uber fares may be cheaper but I'm not sure it's worth the hassle.

Maybe in the case of photographers it's worth it to pay extra for an experienced pro.


« Reply #11 on: August 29, 2016, 20:21 »
0
On a side note, my recent experience with Uber was outstanding: clean cars, polite drivers, easy to use app with immediate response. Overall much cheaper (about half the price) than private long term parking or regulated taxis, and much, much cheaper than the official airport long-term parking. A great deal!

I just tried Uber for the first time on a recent trip and my experience was total opposite.

Each time I made a request they never could seem to find where I was even though my map showed exactly where I was standing probably within a couple foot radius. I added the name of the hotel and full address and they went to the back and through it was an apartment building. Marriott Courtyard apartment building?

I watched one driver pass me twice on the Uber map which she then had to drive a mile to come back around. Because of traffic and one way streets this took forever.

During each ride I literally had to pull up a mapping app on my phone to show them where to go. They still missed turns and exit ramps. One guy was totally driving the wrong way and told him to turn around because my destination was literally on the same street a mile in the opposite direction.

I can't remember ever having this happen in a cab. Any cab driver seems to know exactly where to go by just the name of the hotel or even building and never misses an exit getting there.

What I really think is needed is an Uber style app that connects all of the cab companies together. That way you get the convenience of the Uber app with the experience of a real cab driver. The Uber fares may be cheaper but I'm not sure it's worth the hassle.

Maybe in the case of photographers it's worth it to pay extra for an experienced pro.
Give him 1 or 2 stars and you will help other customers to avoid your bad experience by avoiding that bad driver.

This is how bad drivers will not be able to get enough customers to make a decent revenue. They will be forced to withdraw, unless they improve their skills and the quality of their service.
The reviews are a great quality control system and no governmental inspection, regulation or certification will ever do a better job nor guarantee you a good service from "regulated" drivers.

Moreover, I'm pretty certain Uber will even compensate you, up to a certain extent, if you complain to them.



Sent from my SM-G920T using Tapatalk

« Last Edit: August 30, 2016, 09:38 by Zero Talent »

« Reply #12 on: August 30, 2016, 00:23 »
+1
I have had nothing but good experiences with Uber, and have used the service in many cities around the world. Now I am looking at becoming an Uber driver to help finance my college studies, unfortunately the local authorities in Vancouver, BC are stalling on allowing Uber to commence operations.. I guess their brown envelopes from the taxi companies are to valuable

U11


« Reply #13 on: August 31, 2016, 07:46 »
+1
talking about good uber experience as customer should be compared with being microstock buyer, and being uber driver should be compared with being microstock  photographer.Otherwise the topic have no meaning.
Sure we can talk about benefits of the new taxi service but we all know them (i assume)

Shelma1

  • stockcoalition.org
« Reply #14 on: August 31, 2016, 10:56 »
+5

Nobody is forcing Uber drivers to join the fleet.
Nobody is forcing photographers to join microstock.

Moreover, once they have joined, then can easily quit as well, if they don't like it. This is valid for both Uber drivers and microstock photographers. But it doesn't happen.
Why?
Because the deal is mutually acceptable. Win-win. Both parties have something to gain from it.

Except that it's not. The owners of Uber are cleaning up, while the "independent contractors" are making less than minimum wage, which is why...

Quote
They were ... happy to work on a second job during their weekends.

I'll bet you dollars to donuts they would be MUCH happier making a decent wage with Uber so they could relax on the weekends, instead of having to work a second job because Uber is using a workaround to avoid paying the legal minimum wage and benefits.

Quote
Uber is great example proving that competition, relatively free from regulatory burdens, will lead to cheaper, better services, higher productivity and wealth.

How will the drivers accumulate wealth making less than minimum wage?

Quote
All these blocking efforts are made at the expense of regular consumers, forced to dig deep in their pockets and pay above market prices for those privileged by laws specially made for them.

God forbid you should pay fair rates, so the drivers who are keeping those cars clean and pretending to enjoy making less than minimum wage while working a second job on the weekends so you'll come back again, can be paid fairly.

« Reply #15 on: August 31, 2016, 11:51 »
+1

Nobody is forcing Uber drivers to join the fleet.
Nobody is forcing photographers to join microstock.

Moreover, once they have joined, then can easily quit as well, if they don't like it. This is valid for both Uber drivers and microstock photographers. But it doesn't happen.
Why?
Because the deal is mutually acceptable. Win-win. Both parties have something to gain from it.

Except that it's not. The owners of Uber are cleaning up, while the "independent contractors" are making less than minimum wage, which is why...

Quote
They were ... happy to work on a second job during their weekends.

I'll bet you dollars to donuts they would be MUCH happier making a decent wage with Uber so they could relax on the weekends, instead of having to work a second job because Uber is using a workaround to avoid paying the legal minimum wage and benefits.

Quote
Uber is great example proving that competition, relatively free from regulatory burdens, will lead to cheaper, better services, higher productivity and wealth.

How will the drivers accumulate wealth making less than minimum wage?

Quote
All these blocking efforts are made at the expense of regular consumers, forced to dig deep in their pockets and pay above market prices for those privileged by laws specially made for them.

God forbid you should pay fair rates, so the drivers who are keeping those cars clean and pretending to enjoy making less than minimum wage while working a second job on the weekends so you'll come back again, can be paid fairly.

You missed the whole point: NOBODY forced these Uber drivers to do what they do. NOBODY is forcing you to do microstock, as far as I understand.  They choose freely to do it. We choose freely to do it! As long as they (and we) continue to do it, it means it is advantageous for them (and us). As simple as that!

They get 75% form the ride. Will more be better? Sure! Everybody wants more!

To continue the parallel, we can only dream to get 75% of our sales from microstock. Yet, both you and me are still moving forward with something between the pitiful 16-17% from iStock and 50% from Alamy.
Despite these abysmal percentages, I am doing twice my state's minimum wage, from microstock. Since this is not my profession I can only be happy with the additional income! I will still be happy even when this additional income will drop below the minimum wage.
I bet with you that full time Uber drivers make more than minimum wage! But even if they only work during their free time, the additional income is a bonus they never had, in the first place!

Would I be happier with more? Sure! Will they be happier with more? Probably!

Now what is fair? It is as simple as: fair is what determines both parties to freely enter in a given transaction.

Do you think fair is different and you should pay more than the driver is willing to work for? Then you are always free to leave a large tip and stay happy! Do the same with your cashier at your local supermarket and everywhere else you feel the employee deserves more than he/she accepted to work for.

Your are free to do this and please, let the others free to decide such things by themselves.
« Last Edit: August 31, 2016, 12:07 by Zero Talent »

PaulieWalnuts

  • We Have Exciting News For You
« Reply #16 on: August 31, 2016, 14:00 »
+2
God forbid you should pay fair rates, so the drivers who are keeping those cars clean and pretending to enjoy making less than minimum wage while working a second job on the weekends so you'll come back again, can be paid fairly.

And that's the catch. What should determine what they get paid?

Right now it's supply and demand. Same as microstock. If there are a ton of drivers who are unprofitable or underpaid because they're only looking at what they're paid and not what profit they're left with after operating costs then that's going to lean toward a generally unprofitable model for many, of not most, drivers. If most drivers quit because the pay or profit sucked, Uber would need to pay more to get drivers. Uber profits no matter what. It's like taking a part time job in a major city where you work 20 hours a week at $8 per hour. After taxes you end up with $110 dollars. Weekly gas, tolls, and parking cost $150. You're literally losing money working. I've been surprised at how many people only look at the $110 and not anything else before accepting the job.

If you get into a forced model, like a union, then pay may go up but you introduce new problems. I worked in a couple unions and one downside in my experience is it protected useless people who in most regular jobs would be fired. And the decent people had to pick up their slack and work harder. Not sure what downsides there would be for Uber drivers with this model but I'm sure there would be some.

Until something happens to regulate pay, drivers need to understand how to run a profitable business. That goes for microstockers too. If everyone moved away from the "at least it's something" mentality, supply would drop and micro sites would have no choice but to offer incentives such as better royalties and/or higher prices to encourage people to submit.
« Last Edit: August 31, 2016, 14:03 by PaulieWalnuts »


Shelma1

  • stockcoalition.org
« Reply #17 on: August 31, 2016, 15:59 »
+2

Nobody is forcing Uber drivers to join the fleet.
Nobody is forcing photographers to join microstock.

Moreover, once they have joined, then can easily quit as well, if they don't like it. This is valid for both Uber drivers and microstock photographers. But it doesn't happen.
Why?
Because the deal is mutually acceptable. Win-win. Both parties have something to gain from it.

Except that it's not. The owners of Uber are cleaning up, while the "independent contractors" are making less than minimum wage, which is why...

Quote
They were ... happy to work on a second job during their weekends.

I'll bet you dollars to donuts they would be MUCH happier making a decent wage with Uber so they could relax on the weekends, instead of having to work a second job because Uber is using a workaround to avoid paying the legal minimum wage and benefits.

Quote
Uber is great example proving that competition, relatively free from regulatory burdens, will lead to cheaper, better services, higher productivity and wealth.

How will the drivers accumulate wealth making less than minimum wage?

Quote
All these blocking efforts are made at the expense of regular consumers, forced to dig deep in their pockets and pay above market prices for those privileged by laws specially made for them.

God forbid you should pay fair rates, so the drivers who are keeping those cars clean and pretending to enjoy making less than minimum wage while working a second job on the weekends so you'll come back again, can be paid fairly.

You missed the whole point: NOBODY forced these Uber drivers to do what they do. NOBODY is forcing you to do microstock, as far as I understand.  They choose freely to do it. We choose freely to do it! As long as they (and we) continue to do it, it means it is advantageous for them (and us). As simple as that!

They get 75% form the ride. Will more be better? Sure! Everybody wants more!

To continue the parallel, we can only dream to get 75% of our sales from microstock. Yet, both you and me are still moving forward with something between the pitiful 16-17% from iStock and 50% from Alamy.
Despite these abysmal percentages, I am doing twice my state's minimum wage, from microstock. Since this is not my profession I can only be happy with the additional income! I will still be happy even when this additional income will drop below the minimum wage.
I bet with you that full time Uber drivers make more than minimum wage! But even if they only work during their free time, the additional income is a bonus they never had, in the first place!

Would I be happier with more? Sure! Will they be happier with more? Probably!

Now what is fair? It is as simple as: fair is what determines both parties to freely enter in a given transaction.

Do you think fair is different and you should pay more than the driver is willing to work for? Then you are always free to leave a large tip and stay happy! Do the same with your cashier at your local supermarket and everywhere else you feel the employee deserves more than he/she accepted to work for.

Your are free to do this and please, let the others free to decide such things by themselves.

Why on earth would you work in microstock if you made less than minimum wage? Then you might as well get a job at McDonald's.

Nobody's forcing these drivers to work for ber, but not everyone has the same education or opportunity for a betterr job. And from the article it sounds like Uber is pretty misleading in telling people how much they'll make per hour, when in reality, as they find out later, they're making much less.

There's an unfortunate trend in recent years of corporations hiring freelancers to avoid paying decent wages, avoid offering a decent number of hours, and avoid providing legally required benefits. in my industry, freelance pay stagnated or dropped in the past ten years, and women are gradually forced out of the corporate structure and into freelancing. (However, in comparison to the rest of the country we are still extremely well paid.) Still, it's unfair that huge ad agencies are raking in more and more profit by avoiding paying wages that keep up with inflation and relieving themselves of the expense of providing benefits.

« Reply #18 on: August 31, 2016, 16:44 »
+1

Nobody is forcing Uber drivers to join the fleet.
Nobody is forcing photographers to join microstock.

Moreover, once they have joined, then can easily quit as well, if they don't like it. This is valid for both Uber drivers and microstock photographers. But it doesn't happen.
Why?
Because the deal is mutually acceptable. Win-win. Both parties have something to gain from it.

Except that it's not. The owners of Uber are cleaning up, while the "independent contractors" are making less than minimum wage, which is why...

Quote
They were ... happy to work on a second job during their weekends.

I'll bet you dollars to donuts they would be MUCH happier making a decent wage with Uber so they could relax on the weekends, instead of having to work a second job because Uber is using a workaround to avoid paying the legal minimum wage and benefits.

Quote
Uber is great example proving that competition, relatively free from regulatory burdens, will lead to cheaper, better services, higher productivity and wealth.

How will the drivers accumulate wealth making less than minimum wage?

Quote
All these blocking efforts are made at the expense of regular consumers, forced to dig deep in their pockets and pay above market prices for those privileged by laws specially made for them.

God forbid you should pay fair rates, so the drivers who are keeping those cars clean and pretending to enjoy making less than minimum wage while working a second job on the weekends so you'll come back again, can be paid fairly.

You missed the whole point: NOBODY forced these Uber drivers to do what they do. NOBODY is forcing you to do microstock, as far as I understand.  They choose freely to do it. We choose freely to do it! As long as they (and we) continue to do it, it means it is advantageous for them (and us). As simple as that!

They get 75% form the ride. Will more be better? Sure! Everybody wants more!

To continue the parallel, we can only dream to get 75% of our sales from microstock. Yet, both you and me are still moving forward with something between the pitiful 16-17% from iStock and 50% from Alamy.
Despite these abysmal percentages, I am doing twice my state's minimum wage, from microstock. Since this is not my profession I can only be happy with the additional income! I will still be happy even when this additional income will drop below the minimum wage.
I bet with you that full time Uber drivers make more than minimum wage! But even if they only work during their free time, the additional income is a bonus they never had, in the first place!

Would I be happier with more? Sure! Will they be happier with more? Probably!

Now what is fair? It is as simple as: fair is what determines both parties to freely enter in a given transaction.

Do you think fair is different and you should pay more than the driver is willing to work for? Then you are always free to leave a large tip and stay happy! Do the same with your cashier at your local supermarket and everywhere else you feel the employee deserves more than he/she accepted to work for.

Your are free to do this and please, let the others free to decide such things by themselves.

Why on earth would you work in microstock if you made less than minimum wage? Then you might as well get a job at McDonald's.

Nobody's forcing these drivers to work for ber, but not everyone has the same education or opportunity for a betterr job. And from the article it sounds like Uber is pretty misleading in telling people how much they'll make per hour, when in reality, as they find out later, they're making much less.

There's an unfortunate trend in recent years of corporations hiring freelancers to avoid paying decent wages, avoid offering a decent number of hours, and avoid providing legally required benefits. in my industry, freelance pay stagnated or dropped in the past ten years, and women are gradually forced out of the corporate structure and into freelancing. (However, in comparison to the rest of the country we are still extremely well paid.) Still, it's unfair that huge ad agencies are raking in more and more profit by avoiding paying wages that keep up with inflation and relieving themselves of the expense of providing benefits.

I'm not a photographer. Microstock is only keeping me busy during (some) weekends and vacations.
So, from this point of view, as long as I'm making a profit, the extra income is welcome, even if below the minimum wage. Besides, I like making photos and I can't say the same about working at McDonalds (or driving for Uber, for that matter)

Even if you speak against corporations, you probably know that corporations are not always "raking more profits". Uber, for example, has 1.5 Billion losses for  1H2016. Billions with B!
Why are you not worried that a major employer might go bust, thus depriving all these drivers from the extra cash they are enjoying now?

I repeat, if the Uber is deceiving the drivers, or if the drivers didn't do their maths right when they signed-up, they can always quit and go back where they were before Uber offered them the chance to make an extra buck.

At the end of the day, what are you proposing: to force Uber to guarantee an income for drivers, instead of giving them 75% of the sale?

Let's extend the analogy: do you want microstock agencies to be forced to guarantee an income for all their contributors?

If that's what you want, I will only qualify to "work" for SS, the other agencies will have to "fire" me.
I will end-up losing half of my microstock income, because, based on my current sales, no other agency will be able to guarantee me the minimum wage, while still profit from my "work".

A classic case of noble intentions (better pay for people) ending up with unintended consequences: less pay or no pay, for the people you initially wanted to help.





« Reply #19 on: September 01, 2016, 01:39 »
+1
"I'm not a photographer. Microstock is only keeping me busy during (some) weekends and vacations.
So, from this point of view, as long as I'm making a profit, the extra income is welcome, even if below the minimum wage. Besides, I like making photos and I can't say the same about working at McDonalds". True for many. You can do exactly how much or little you want and unless you shoot models you don't have to interact with those pesky humans or take orders, metaphorically or literally from anyone. Thats why people do it for "peanuts"

gyllens

« Reply #20 on: September 01, 2016, 04:02 »
+1
And this is the thing with micro-stock this is what makes all agencies work on the assumption that some lost some gained. If fifty contributors leave today they are easily replaced by another hundred tomorrow. This is why they can do whatever they want with us and all we can do is either put up with it or bail out at a loss. On this score micro-stock must be a heavenly paradise for an entrepreneur.

« Reply #21 on: September 01, 2016, 04:48 »
+1
And this is the thing with micro-stock this is what makes all agencies work on the assumption that some lost some gained. If fifty contributors leave today they are easily replaced by another hundred tomorrow. This is why they can do whatever they want with us and all we can do is either put up with it or bail out at a loss. On this score micro-stock must be a heavenly paradise for an entrepreneur.
Maybe it was but I doubt more than a very few sites make much money.....when was the last new site to make any impact?

SpaceStockFootage

  • Space, Sci-Fi and Astronomy Related Stock Footage

« Reply #22 on: September 01, 2016, 05:15 »
0
And this is the thing with micro-stock this is what makes all agencies work on the assumption that some lost some gained. If fifty contributors leave today they are easily replaced by another hundred tomorrow. This is why they can do whatever they want with us and all we can do is either put up with it or bail out at a loss. On this score micro-stock must be a heavenly paradise for an entrepreneur.
Maybe it was but I doubt more than a very few sites make much money.....when was the last new site to make any impact?

Creavorite?  ;D

« Reply #23 on: September 07, 2016, 20:13 »
0
And this is the thing with micro-stock this is what makes all agencies work on the assumption that some lost some gained. If fifty contributors leave today they are easily replaced by another hundred tomorrow. This is why they can do whatever they want with us and all we can do is either put up with it or bail out at a loss. On this score micro-stock must be a heavenly paradise for an entrepreneur.

I agree except if 50 don't leave we are still getting replaced by 100 new people every week. How do the new people upload 18,000 new a year when we are hard pressed to add 1000?

I'm going with Zero. Nobody is forcing us to do Micro and nobody is forcing Uber drivers to work for a below minimum wage. Do micrstockers make minimum wage for the average person. Not the few percent that make a good wage, of all the people doing this, the returns are paltry, along with the percentage share of sales being being slave labor.

Voluntary slave labor which makes it like what? Anyone know a Microstock pimp who gets referral fees for recruiting us?  ::)

PureArt

  • UK
« Reply #24 on: October 30, 2016, 07:36 »
+1
Uber loses right to classify UK drivers as self-employed: https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2016/oct/28/uber-uk-tribunal-self-employed-status

Quote
Uber drivers are not self-employed and should be paid the national living wage, a UK employment court has ruled in a landmark case which could affect tens of thousands of workers in the gig economy.

The ride-hailing app could now be open to claims from all of its 40,000 drivers in the UK, who are currently not entitled to holiday pay, pensions or other workers rights. Uber immediately said it would appeal against the ruling.

Employment experts said other firms with large self-employed workforces could now face scrutiny of their working practices and the UKs biggest union, Unite, announced it was setting up a new unit to pursue cases of bogus self-employment.

Now, keeping in mind this precedent, what do you think? Is it possible to force Microstock Agencies to consider contributors as employees (using a court, trade union)? And it is good (or bad) for us (contributors) to be considered as employees?

« Reply #25 on: October 30, 2016, 08:17 »
+3
No chance......Microstock sites impose no conditions on us that could be construed as employment.

PureArt

  • UK
« Reply #26 on: October 30, 2016, 08:48 »
0
What conditions does Uber impose? Some fixed working day/time? (I just know almost nothing about their conditions.)


« Reply #27 on: October 30, 2016, 09:07 »
0

ShadySue

  • There is a crack in everything
« Reply #28 on: October 30, 2016, 09:10 »
0
That ruling only affects uber drivers in the UK and is being challenged.
There's a huge difference with Micro where suppliers are from most countries. If some legal judgement ruled in favour of contributors from one country, the agencies could choose to disallow contributors from that country. If they needed particular locations, plenty people travel widely.
Also, I have no idea about other agencies, but for example when I signed with IS, the contract was very specific about which legislations governed the contract or any disputes, and it wasn't mine (offhand, IIRC, it was Canada, England and one other).
« Last Edit: October 30, 2016, 09:13 by ShadySue »

« Reply #29 on: October 30, 2016, 09:14 »
+1
We are more akin to suppliers than employees Mstock agencies impose no conditions on us in terms of targets what we shoot or performance manage us. It sounds to me that the Uber case is quite borderline and no doubt will make lawyers plenty of money.

PureArt

  • UK
« Reply #30 on: October 30, 2016, 09:17 »
0
... If some legal judgement ruled in favour of contributors from one country, the agencies could choose to disallow contributors from that country. ...

I thought about that too. But, can they break the contract with existing contributors? They can write: "We do not accept UK contributors any more." (and state some "valid reason"), but what about existing contributors? Just close their accounts?

ShadySue

  • There is a crack in everything
« Reply #31 on: October 30, 2016, 09:26 »
0
... If some legal judgement ruled in favour of contributors from one country, the agencies could choose to disallow contributors from that country. ...

I thought about that too. But, can they break the contract with existing contributors? They can write: "We do not accept UK contributors any more." (and state some "valid reason"), but what about existing contributors? Just close their accounts?
If they wanted to do that, they probably could. Again, I haven't studied other agencies, but iS reserved the right to close your account with IIRC 30 days' notice, just like contributors can request closure of accounts without giving a reason. Micro agencies wouldn't want to have the infrastructure to build in favourable conditions for a subgroup of suppliers, and they'd rather get rid of that subgroup to discourage others.
« Last Edit: October 30, 2016, 18:40 by ShadySue »

« Reply #32 on: October 30, 2016, 09:32 »
+1
But its not going to happen! Its like saying "Just Eat" employs all the restaurants on their list. How would you even begin to calculate an hourly rate?

PureArt

  • UK
« Reply #33 on: October 30, 2016, 09:42 »
+1
Ok, let's think about another thing: How can contributors control the honesty of a Microstock agency? Amount of sales, the sale price, sales via partners, offline sales, etc.

Is there any legal way like an audit or so?

« Reply #34 on: October 30, 2016, 10:32 »
0
Ok, let's think about another thing: How can contributors control the honesty of a Microstock agency? Amount of sales, the sale price, sales via partners, offline sales, etc.

Is there any legal way like an audit or so?


Contributors can control the honesty of agencies by refusing to do business with them, but you are never going to see that happen, for various reasons, like: "my earnings pay my mortgage" or "it's better to make 5 cents per image than nothing at all." Those are just a couple of examples.

ShadySue

  • There is a crack in everything
« Reply #35 on: October 30, 2016, 10:44 »
0
Ok, let's think about another thing: How can contributors control the honesty of a Microstock agency? Amount of sales, the sale price, sales via partners, offline sales, etc.

Is there any legal way like an audit or so?
You can request an audit at iS at your own expense. You need to check your contract with and terms and conditions of all the companies you're considering supplying.

PureArt

  • UK
« Reply #36 on: October 30, 2016, 10:54 »
0
ShadySue, thank you for your answer. Does "iS" mean "iStock"? Did anybody ever paid for such an audit at iStock? Maybe at any other agency?


« Reply #37 on: October 30, 2016, 11:08 »
0
I think though in practical terms you have to trust them and hope the country they are based enforce the various regulations of that country. Scary really but I see no real alternative. I'm guessing it would cost quite a bit to pay for an audit.

dpimborough

« Reply #38 on: October 30, 2016, 11:24 »
0
The so called sharing economy is just a charter for chisellers carpet baggers and snake oil salesmen to make themselves rich without actually employing anyone and providing benefits.  It's parasitical   :o

« Last Edit: October 30, 2016, 18:10 by Teddy the Cat »

« Reply #39 on: October 30, 2016, 18:23 »
+1
The so called sharing economy is just a charter for chisellers carpet baggers and snake oil salesmen to make themselves rich without actually employing anyone and providing benefits.  It's parasitical   :o

You forget that the sharing economy provides tons of free stuff, you most probably enjoy every day: free photography tutorials, free photography apps, etc.

I wonder who is that "parasite" in these cases!

ShadySue

  • There is a crack in everything
« Reply #40 on: October 30, 2016, 18:41 »
+1
ShadySue, thank you for your answer. Does "iS" mean "iStock"?
Yes
Quote
Did anybody ever paid for such an audit at iStock? Maybe at any other agency?
I have no idea.

« Reply #41 on: October 30, 2016, 18:57 »
+1
The so called sharing economy is just a charter for chisellers carpet baggers and snake oil salesmen to make themselves rich without actually employing anyone and providing benefits.  It's parasitical   :o

You forget that the sharing economy provides tons of free stuff, you most probably enjoy every day: free photography tutorials, free photography apps, etc.

I wonder who is that "parasite" in these cases!

That's not "the sharing economy".  That's just sharing.

« Reply #42 on: October 30, 2016, 19:04 »
0
The so called sharing economy is just a charter for chisellers carpet baggers and snake oil salesmen to make themselves rich without actually employing anyone and providing benefits.  It's parasitical   :o

You forget that the sharing economy provides tons of free stuff, you most probably enjoy every day: free photography tutorials, free photography apps, etc.

I wonder who is that "parasite" in these cases!

That's not "the sharing economy".  That's just sharing.

Just sharing, true... but free stuff is part of the economy, like it or not.
« Last Edit: October 30, 2016, 19:32 by Zero Talent »

« Reply #43 on: October 30, 2016, 20:08 »
+3
In Toronto Uber now pays for driver's commercial car insurance since the city passed a byline forcing drivers to have it. If they did not pay it, it would be uneconomical for drivers to work. Somehow in the stock photo business people carry on even if it is not economical. Defies logic.

SpaceStockFootage

  • Space, Sci-Fi and Astronomy Related Stock Footage

« Reply #44 on: October 30, 2016, 21:53 »
0
I can't see how it would work. At least with Uber, the drivers are carrying out a defined activity, for a specific amount of time, all of which is pretty constant from one driver to the next.

How would you quantify the time taken to shoot an image or a video? Would my tomato on a plate be worth the same as an aerial polar bear party at the north pole? How would you factor in the cost of props, travel, models etc?

They'd also have to have barriers to entry. Would people get paid for clips that aren't approved? They've put in the time, so they should get paid. As a result, approval rates would drop so tat SS don't have to pay out on clips that might not make them a bunch of money.

If they do have to pay out on clips that aren't approved, and there aren't any barriers to entry, then global unemployment could be eradicated overnight for anyone that owns or buys a camera... just sit at home for eight hours a day taking pictures of your cat and you're guaranteed minimum wage.

Not to mention the direct correlation on Uber of rides booked and wages paid... they know what it costs and they know what they'll make. SS have no idea what they will make from any one image or clip. For it to work, they'd have to reduce commissions considerably to compensate for the massive amounts they'd be paying out in minimum wages. Great for people who don't sell much, really bad for people who were making a lot more than minimum wage in the first place.

So yeah, with the current model, it will never work and it's very unlikely it would ever happen. It would be like the app store paying minimum wage to app developers, or Amazon with e-book writers. The only way it could work is if SS lowered commiasions, dictated how many clips you needed to submit a month, the content of those clips, and a specific level of quality... all of which are reviewed on a regular basis and can result in you getting 'fired'.

I think I'd rather it stayed how it is now!

« Reply #45 on: October 30, 2016, 22:04 »
+1


In Toronto Uber now pays for driver's commercial car insurance since the city passed a byline forcing drivers to have it. If they did not pay it, it would be uneconomical for drivers to work. Somehow in the stock photo business people carry on even if it is not economical. Defies logic.

You do realise that is not Uber who pays the extra insurance. It is the end user who will have to dig deeper in the pockets for the same ride, to cover for the regulation costs.
It is no different than the city asking its residents to pay an additional transport tax on top of other direct taxations.

When it comes to photography, what defies logic is that we have a lot of microstockers complaining about low royalties, while happily giving their work away, for free, in exchange for "exposure" and other illusions of fame.




Sent from my SM-G920T using Tapatalk


dpimborough

« Reply #46 on: October 31, 2016, 02:11 »
+2
The so called sharing economy is just a charter for chisellers carpet baggers and snake oil salesmen to make themselves rich without actually employing anyone and providing benefits.  It's parasitical   :o

You forget that the sharing economy provides tons of free stuff, you most probably enjoy every day: free photography tutorials, free photography apps, etc.

I wonder who is that "parasite" in these cases!

We are not talking about individuals or companies who choose to share information for free (usually it's done to draw people to sites or in support for existing products and advertising)
but corporations who use zero hours contracts and the so-called sharing economy to avoid their social and economic obligations by not employing a permanent workforce.

Delivery drivers cleaners taxi drivers warehouse staff paid less than minimum wage classed as "self employed" when in actuality they are employees and should be entitled to employment benefits but the employer uses this situation to avoid these societal and legislated costs and place themselves at an advantage over companies that do have employees.

People like you complain about paying "higher" prices but if it supports the self employed and employees I say say good.  They have mortgages and bills to pay too and deserve not to be used as indentured or casual labor.

Neither does government and the wider tax paying community need to be loaded with providing social benefits to cover the "sharing economy's" staff when they should be covered by the employer.

In the case of Uber in the UK they effectively avoid the costs of holiday provision, maternity pay, sick pay, training, national inurance contributions and a raft of other items such as employees liability insurance and redundancy cover. They also avoid the costs of health and safety and the implementation of other legal requirements in the work place.  Placing the onus of that cost on the worker.

Your inference about the end user of freely provided stuff being a parasite is wide of the mark.
« Last Edit: October 31, 2016, 03:23 by Teddy the Cat »


dpimborough

« Reply #47 on: October 31, 2016, 03:29 »
+1


In Toronto Uber now pays for driver's commercial car insurance since the city passed a byline forcing drivers to have it. If they did not pay it, it would be uneconomical for drivers to work. Somehow in the stock photo business people carry on even if it is not economical. Defies logic.

You do realise that is not Uber who pays the extra insurance. It is the end user who will have to dig deeper in the pockets for the same ride, to cover for the regulation costs.
It is no different than the city asking its residents to pay an additional transport tax on top of other direct taxations.

When it comes to photography, what defies logic is that we have a lot of microstockers complaining about low royalties, while happily giving their work away, for free, in exchange for "exposure" and other illusions of fame.




Sent from my SM-G920T using Tapatalk

All companies have to be covered by employee, public liability vehicle and property insurance these are all costs to normal companies and are used in accounting to determine overall costs to the company these costs are factored in to the prices charged to customers.

So Uber should be no different. Though they try to work it so they don't have these costs which is an unfair advantage.

To say that a normal company is charging too much when they have to cover  these costs that are required by law is a nonesensical argument.

Justanotherphotographer

« Reply #48 on: October 31, 2016, 03:44 »
+2
Okay here is the quote I mentioned in the other thread. I don't want to clog that one up as I don't think this is immediately relevant to the IStock case but interesting. This is a list of the main reasons the court found for the drivers posted here:
https://www.reddit.com/r/worldnews/comments/59ucyb/uber_drivers_in_the_uk_have_won_an_employment/

I have added notes for how it relates to us as microstock photographers:

The key reasons why the tribunal considered Uber drivers as employees are here: https://imgur.com/a/q7iPo
Edit - summary of the key reasons:

Uber has sole and absolute discretion to accept or decline bookings Microstock agencies have sole discretion over when to make sales, and who to allow to sell their work on the site

Uber interviews and recruits drivers Microstock sites test photographers before allowing them to sell and can "sack them" at their discretion

Uber controls key information passenger contact details and destination in particular. Drivers cant access such information and don't even know where they are going until the trip starts. Mirostock sites control key information, customer contact details, photographers have no access to the information and don't even know who has licensed their copyright material

Uber requires drivers to accept trips assigned to themMicrostock sites require photographers to sell to customers regardless of who the customer is

Uber sets the default route Microstock sites set all the terms of sale etc.

Uber fixes the fare and drivers cant negotiate a higher fare or other terms with passengers (as an independent contractor would be able to)Same, microstock sites can arbitrarily change prices, offer our work for sale etc. and we have no say.

Uber imposes fixed conditions such as the type of vehicle that drivers must use and how drivers do their work Microstock sites have fixed conditions of what can be sold on the site in terms of file formats, resolutions etc.

Uber subjects drivers to performance management and disciplinary procedures Same again, account suspensions and so on.

Uber determines issues such as rebates without involving the driverRefunds anyone?

The discontinued guaranteed earnings scheme (fixed pay being a characteristic of employees)
Uber takes on risk of loss such as in the case of fraudulent passengers
Also ditto in some caes of fraud, refunds

Uber (not the drivers) handles complaints by passengers, including complaints about drivers Again, same

Uber can amend the drivers terms unilaterallyAbsolutely

Forbidding drivers from contacting passengers after rides (someone running a business would normally be able to contact his clients) This too

Using terms like "on-duty" and "off-duty" and referring to "our drivers" and "our vehicles" Our collection, our photographers, also yes


Remember the issue here isn't that we can walk away it is whether we are employees. An employee of a company can also just walk away from their job, even if it a part time one they are still employees and allowed some protection.
« Last Edit: October 31, 2016, 03:46 by Justanotherphotographer »

SpaceStockFootage

  • Space, Sci-Fi and Astronomy Related Stock Footage

« Reply #49 on: October 31, 2016, 04:24 »
+2
That's all well and good, but I think you're missing the main point, which isn't even in your list as it kind of goes without saying... whether they're an employee or an independent contractor, people who work for Uber are given assignments to complete, and they are paid as a result of completing those assignments.

We don't do that. We submit images as and when we like with absolutely no obligation to do so. SS don't tell us to upload stuff and then they pay us for uploading that stuff. We're using their services as a marketplace for us to sell our stock content. We don't work for them in any way shape or form.     

Justanotherphotographer

« Reply #50 on: October 31, 2016, 04:33 »
+2
That's all well and good, but I think you're missing the main point, which isn't even in your list as it kind of goes without saying... whether they're an employee or an independent contractor, people who work for Uber are given assignments to complete, and they are paid as a result of completing those assignments.

We don't do that. We submit images as and when we like with absolutely no obligation to do so. SS don't tell us to upload stuff and then they pay us for uploading that stuff. We're using their services as a marketplace for us to sell our stock content. We don't work for them in any way shape or form.   

I thought Uber drivers chose when they worked, just as we chose when to produce images?

We chose when to work, but once we are working we get no say as to who we sell to and how we price images, and all the other pints above. I just think the parallel is interesting. I always thought there was no comparison too until I read the judgement.

SpaceStockFootage

  • Space, Sci-Fi and Astronomy Related Stock Footage

« Reply #51 on: October 31, 2016, 05:09 »
+2
Sure, we choose when to produce images... but the production of those images is of no benefit to Shutterstock. The only benefit to SS is if we then upload those images, those images are considered worthy of going live on the site, and those images then sell.

The benefit to Uber is much more direct. Customers call a ride, the driver gets told where to pick them up, where to drop them off, and that's what the driver does. Then Uber get paid X and and the driver can get paid Y. They can work when they want, but when they do decide to work, then they are very much told what to do and when... whereas we arent.

Couple of things to consider though, if hell does freeze over...

A) Everyone would have to be exclusive. They're not going to want to pay people to produce images and then have them selling them elsewhere. 

B) If we're considered employees, then surely we'd not own the copyright on our own work, as it would be 'work for hire'?


Justanotherphotographer

« Reply #52 on: October 31, 2016, 06:02 »
0
Sure, we choose when to produce images... but the production of those images is of no benefit to Shutterstock. The only benefit to SS is if we then upload those images, those images are considered worthy of going live on the site, and those images then sell.

I drive my car but it is only of benefit if an Uber customer is in there.

The benefit to Uber is much more direct. Customers call a ride, the driver gets told where to pick them up, where to drop them off, and that's what the driver does. Then Uber get paid X and and the driver can get paid Y. They can work when they want, but when they do decide to work, then they are very much told what to do and when... whereas we arent.

I don't think that was a major factor in the ruling. I mean as a self employed contractor when you offer a service all the above can be true, and in both cases you can walk off the job. All this would be true of a taxi driver who is an employee of a taxi cab company too.

Couple of things to consider though, if hell does freeze over...

A) Everyone would have to be exclusive. They're not going to want to pay people to produce images and then have them selling them elsewhere. 

Could be the case, but not sure as the benefit of having a bigger library could be more than having exclusive content. Who knows?

B) If we're considered employees, then surely we'd not own the copyright on our own work, as it would be 'work for hire'?

Excellent point and pretty much invalidates all my other arguments. It was interesting while it lasted...

« Reply #53 on: October 31, 2016, 06:55 »
0
Quote
B) If we're considered employees, then surely we'd not own the copyright on our own work, as it would be 'work for hire'?



In this case the car shoud belong to Uber (Toronto case)

« Reply #54 on: October 31, 2016, 07:04 »
0




In Toronto Uber now pays for driver's commercial car insurance since the city passed a byline forcing drivers to have it. If they did not pay it, it would be uneconomical for drivers to work. Somehow in the stock photo business people carry on even if it is not economical. Defies logic.

You do realise that is not Uber who pays the extra insurance. It is the end user who will have to dig deeper in the pockets for the same ride, to cover for the regulation costs.
It is no different than the city asking its residents to pay an additional transport tax on top of other direct taxations.

When it comes to photography, what defies logic is that we have a lot of microstockers complaining about low royalties, while happily giving their work away, for free, in exchange for "exposure" and other illusions of fame.




Sent from my SM-G920T using Tapatalk

All companies have to be covered by employee, public liability vehicle and property insurance these are all costs to normal companies and are used in accounting to determine overall costs to the company these costs are factored in to the prices charged to customers.

So Uber should be no different. Though they try to work it so they don't have these costs which is an unfair advantage.

To say that a normal company is charging too much when they have to cover  these costs that are required by law is a nonesensical argument.

The very fact that someone thinks that it is required "by law" makes this discussion far from being non-sensical.

Why do you accept a 3rd party (a government) to interfere between drivers, who frewillingly signed-up their contract, and Uber? Why do you assume that Uber drivers need "protection", to be forced on them, by a 3rd party? I'm sure a lot of them are fine, as they are. Having a third party interfering in a contract and grab a share of the revenue, under the threat of force, is something worth to be discussed.

Moreover, extrapolating your logic and assumptions, those photographers posting free tutorials on youtube, allowing Youtube to make money from advertising, by exploting their popularity, should also be treated "by law" as youtube employees.
This will be the end of youtube, and the end of the free tutorials you enjoy today, obviously.

Even more, same logic dictates that microstock agencies must be forced "by law" to treat us as employees.

This will also be the end of microstock.

Maybe SS will be able to offer me that status, since I make enough sales for them to hire me. But all the other agencies, I currently work with, will have to fire me, because I will become too expensive for them.
So you think I need protection from the government? No, I don't.
The protection you want imposed on me, will make me lose at least half of my revenue.
So, please leave me without your non-sensical "protection", I'm fine as I am today.

Sent from my SM-G920T using Tapatalk


Justanotherphotographer

« Reply #55 on: October 31, 2016, 07:11 »
+2
The law provided protection for employees. You can like that or not, but that isn't the point being discussed.

The discussion is about whether the drivers are in fact employees or not, not about whether there should be any protection for employees full stop. If they are employees they are entitled to the same protection as other employees.


Justanotherphotographer

« Reply #56 on: October 31, 2016, 07:13 »
0
Quote
B) If we're considered employees, then surely we'd not own the copyright on our own work, as it would be 'work for hire'?


In this case the car shoud belong to Uber (Toronto case)
Thanks for clearing that up I guess?


SpaceStockFootage

  • Space, Sci-Fi and Astronomy Related Stock Footage

« Reply #57 on: October 31, 2016, 07:53 »
+1
Quote
B) If we're considered employees, then surely we'd not own the copyright on our own work, as it would be 'work for hire'?



In this case the car shoud belong to Uber (Toronto case)


Wrong! The work for hire on SS would be the images or video you create. The work for hire on Uber is delivering somebody from A to B...  Uber own 'the ride', so they can charge for the ride and the driver can't. They don't own the car!

Yes, you need a car to.work for Uber, but that's not what they're selling. They're selling a service that is carried out with the use of a car.

Just like when somebody hires a wedding photographer. They own the prints and not the camera. A caterer, they own the food created and not the kitchen knives.

« Reply #58 on: October 31, 2016, 08:09 »
+1
We dont sell videos or images. We selling right to ride on them ;) And our car is iMac

SpaceStockFootage

  • Space, Sci-Fi and Astronomy Related Stock Footage

« Reply #59 on: October 31, 2016, 08:37 »
+1
iMac? Oh right, sorry... I didn't realise this was just your hobby. Sorry if all this is going over your head slightly.

😉

« Reply #60 on: October 31, 2016, 09:26 »
0
The law provided protection for employees. You can like that or not, but that isn't the point being discussed.

The discussion is about whether the drivers are in fact employees or not, not about whether there should be any protection for employees full stop. If they are employees they are entitled to the same protection as other employees.

You are right! The law is providing protection for employees. But for the employees of those  well established, old school, taxi companies, lawmakers and lobbyist get their sponsorship from.

When Uber drivers are forced to become employees, the same law will obviously work against them. Uber drivers, with other primary jobs, willing to work only now and then, let's say only during weekends, will become too expensive for Uber, when Uber is forced to pay for that employee a "protection tax", you take so easily for granted.
The "protection tax" will be passed on to the consumer, reducing the total amount of rides and making the services too expensive for some customers. We can also analyse additional negative implications on the local economy, but I'll leave that for some other time.

At the end of the day, the camera is for us what the car is for Uber drivers. We can use it for leisure or for an extra buck, through microstock or transportation services.

The fact that we sell our work through the royalty system, is not really relevant to the discussion. As mentioned by Ilyas, Uber drivers sell the usage of their car and their driving skills, the same way we sell the usage of our photos, or even more: the usage of our camera and our photography skills.

Uber is doing marketing and billing. This is no different than what microstock agencies do for us.

Moreover, may I remind you that some microstock sites (eg Dreamstime) allow you to sell your work in one go, by selling your "rights" forever.

The resemblance between disrupting, innovative, crowd-sourced businesses like Uber, Airbnb, microstock etc is obvious.

I really hope that we will not end-up being regulated as an industry, we will not end-up being required, by some bureaucrats, to become "certified" photographers, or being driven out of business, when forced to swallow that so called employee "protection".


« Last Edit: October 31, 2016, 11:13 by Zero Talent »

« Reply #61 on: October 31, 2016, 17:29 »
+1
These companies are just following the already successfuliy established stockphoto market for their company structures, how we have allowed ourselves to be  truly shafted by companies that have NO interest in photography commercially or artistically they just see us as a GREAT source of CHEAP labour. We are just not desribed as that. Can you imagine a Barrister, Accountant, Surgeon working for an organisation that tells them that they will take 90% of the fees they charge and not allow them to work elsewhere, then sell their services to third and fourth even 20th parties, and then saying you will only get paid 50% of what their services are paid for.
Or and when someone steals your images (services) they say, it's to hard to procecute.
And worst of all they HIDE behind corporate business structures.


SpaceStockFootage

  • Space, Sci-Fi and Astronomy Related Stock Footage

« Reply #62 on: October 31, 2016, 21:53 »
0
I think the massive thing that separates the two is that although your doctor might be getting $20,000 a year rather than $200,000 with them taking 90%.... in this game, that doctor has the potential to bill for the same operation.... ten, a hundred, a thousand times over.

In that respect, we're doing pretty well compared to the poor souls over at iDoctor.com

« Reply #63 on: November 02, 2016, 15:34 »
0
http://submit.shutterstock.com/legal/terms/

We don't work for agencies, they work for us.


 

Related Topics

  Subject / Started by Replies Last post
72 Replies
50299 Views
Last post July 08, 2011, 15:22
by cathyslife
36 Replies
27160 Views
Last post January 10, 2013, 06:03
by Anyka
6 Replies
4647 Views
Last post September 10, 2014, 04:45
by 3Stock
16 Replies
6135 Views
Last post September 28, 2016, 09:22
by CJH Photography
53 Replies
10268 Views
Last post February 22, 2021, 11:10
by Uncle Pete

Sponsors

Mega Bundle of 5,900+ Professional Lightroom Presets

Microstock Poll Results

Sponsors