The difference is that Shutterstock pays too little, and Freepik pays 65% of too little. And makes it difficult while at it, by asking for a tax residence certificate.

The difference is that Shutterstock pays too little, and Freepik pays 65% of too little.

ha ha ha 

...but you either go with the flow or stand on your principles and lose money as new sites take a larger share of the pie...

Not sure if this is the case as the people who upload everywhere regardless of RPD are the ones complaining of falling income. Last year was my BYE in terms of total income (been here since 2006). I don't give my work to these sorts of sites at all and the lower paying micros get none of my new work.

That's great and a very valid point.

Yes, this IS the real point.
As for Justanotherphotographer last year was my BYE, I'm not so "old", I'm in from 2014
In the meantime I closed my account with DP and others low earnings agencies, some others are still alive only with old works.

I have my answer (my opinion of course) on this point:
Quantity is no more a problem, there are trillions of images, free and low cost, on any human activity you can imagine. And I feel we are near the breaking point.
The only difference are new ideas and quality.

Steve, I think that selling with freepik, as other low sellers, is not devaluating single images; but is devaluating your ideas!
You have a lot of ideas and you should not give away your ideas for 0,1 cent.

Clients do'nt need more millions of same images, they search for new and quality ones.
There is no more sense at all to say "I have 300/600/900 hundred millions of images". It's no more question of quantity, market is changed.
The buyers goes where are the good ones, so it's our responsability to drive clients to agency we like

Steve, I think that selling with freepik, as other low sellers, is not devaluating single images; but is devaluating your ideas!
You have a lot of ideas and you should not give away your ideas for 0,1 cent.

Another very good point. However, ideas are also quickly copied by others..

I think the way I look at this now is that I am aiming to achieve the maximum annual income from these photos as I sort of transition more towards print sales which I find more satisfying. The actual amount per download doesn't actually bother me very much - I've no idea what that is on Canva these days, but I do know what Canva pays me each month. Freepik seem to be heading in the same direction. So unless we think that someone will search multiple agencies for a particular image of mine (assuming they know about it), then putting images on most sites would seem to give the best chance of achieving the maximum annual income. I don't think any of us know the extent of multiple agency searching by most stock buyers. I assume not a lot, but I am guessing, I think!

Steve

In freepik you will never sell a photo for more than 0.07
In freepik if you leave, you must let them exploit your photos for a year without remuneration.
If I like your work, I'll download it all from Freepik for less than 10 dollars...and maybe I'll sell it as my own...

This is the article mentioned above.
https://backyardsilver.com/freepik-stock-agency-a-deal-with-the-devil/

 I do need to update the article to mention the tax withholding of 35%. I plan to obtain the residency certificate from the IRS in the USA, which is definitely a pain and an expense ($85 for a personal one) and it has to be obtained each year. If I continue to earn what I have in these first months, it will be a worthwhile venture.

However, there is a massive unknown issue in all this - will buyers go to Freepik to download my image at 7c rather than go to Adobe and pay a lot more, or will the buyers already be at Freepik and so they are choosing between a free one and one of mine that they pay a little for. It is the same question that has plagued us for the past 10 years - if we support agencies that license images for less, will we lose sales at more expensive agencies. I see this as just a continuation of the evolution of stock photography - steadily downhill, yes, but you either go with the flow or stand on your principles and lose money as new sites take a larger share of the pie.

Steve

Steve, it's not just about you, its about your sphere of influence. I respect everyone's right to their own choices, but both you and Alex are published authors, and I suspect have a greater following than the average contributor, who trust what you recommend.

Freepik is just trying to fill their database with as much good photography as possible, and the more people who upload to them, then the more the whole public/buyer perception of the value of quality photography is degraded even further.

iStock, SS, and Alamy all pay out 10c or less commissions, but they also offer larger returns so that a contributor can earn more overall. (My RPDs currently are: 0.62, 0.67, and 3.61 respectively). What is Freepiks? 0.06c? So, who is losing money now?   (** refer my last 5 sales on SS (all photos) attached below)

There is still decent money to be made from photos in microstock. The value of video sales took a big hit since the agencies started introducing video subs, but photo income is still ok. Especially from sites like Adobe Stock.

I just want to add with regard to, you can't prove that buyers shop around. But with all due respect, you can't disprove that either.

I often see on DT searches containing full titles copied from other sites. That's maybe because the buyers already found what they need through a global search, and then they switch to DT, because they already have a subscription, or because they have a better deal.

The question that's harder to answer is about the magnitude of this behavior and if it's significant enough to make a dent.

Steve, Alex, I am horrified that talented photographers like you are chasing 7 cents at Freepik. You are wasting your time! The time spent uploading could be time spent creating premium work, prints and book covers.
If your customers find out you value your work at 0.07 why would they want to spend $$$ to purchase your prints or book covers?

I just want to add with regard to, you can't prove that buyers shop around. But with all due respect, you can't disprove that either.

Free sites up until now are renown for not having a wide range of quality stock. But if large amounts of contributors start uploading to them, this is going to change that and the whole market could end up in freefall.

Please, please, please don't recommend uploading to them, especially in bulk.

Agree with this 100% and would add an additional caution in regard to uploading there.

Many images get downloaded for free or tiny amounts, then resubmitted to the main stock sites under a new, or sometimes several new accounts, so you really start to lose control. I wouldn't want my own images competing against me at the main sites, and potentially diluting my sales, as it often takes quite a while to notice, report and then get these accounts taken down.

I also wouldn't want someone suggesting to Shutterstock/Istock/Adobe, that my content came from Freepiks, even if I am the copyright owner, as they have a tendency to suspend accounts pending investigation. Again, the short-term gain could quickly be lost if your account on Shutterstock is suspended for a month, or even indefinitely.