Quote from: CD123 on August 27, 2011, 23:08
The "stop uploading new images" drive seems like a great way to suffocate a greedy website slowly but surely. Their customers will pick the lack of new content up and move to other sites. BUT, how many contributors are represented on this website who will actively participate in such a drive, compare to the total number of contributors. If the drive is only from us here, it might not even dent their new uploads that much. How to get a large proportion of their contributors to participate, I think, is the challenge......

It will be a slow process as many FT contributors have complained for months of lack of views/sale of their newly uploaded work!

Quote from: CD123 on August 27, 2011, 23:08
The "stop uploading new images" drive seems like a great way to suffocate a greedy website slowly but surely. Their customers will pick the lack of new content up and move to other sites. BUT, how many contributors are represented on this website who will actively participate in such a drive, compare to the total number of contributors. If the drive is only from us here, it might not even dent their new uploads that much. How to get a large proportion of their contributors to participate, I think, is the challenge......

You're not wrong!  They seem to have almost as many images as SS, possibly a similar number of contributors numbering 100s of thousands.  Using the DT rank here as a guide to possible number of independents on this site we're talking in the region of 600.  Of those only 40 have 10,000+ (lifetime) sales and 200+ have no sales.  All of the top 40 "going on strike" may have a minor impact, as for the rest of us, they wouldn't even notice...

They have enough contributors that that can absorb "dead loss" in the millions.  I know of several significant MS contributors who are permanently banned from FT.  And FT could care less. I mean CARE * LESS. If you stop uploading, they skmply don't care.

Stop uploading might not influence them fast, but it is a d*mn side better than doing nothing.......(at least it will start sending them a small message about their future if there might be a significant drop in new material due to their pricing and payment policy.......perhaps just a seed of doubt might have a decision influence).

Any other ideas or are they just so big and bad that the "little" fish can not bite them at all?  

Mind you, considering the mentality of some new contributors to FT, you have to wonder whether their supply of newbie hopefuls will ever dry up. Recently, I saw one complaint on the FT forum of a newbie who had submitted an image which was promptly rejected for sale. Their complaint was not that it had been rejected but that after 2 days it wasn't even visible in the 'FREE' section despite their having ticked the box 'Place in free section in the event of rejection.' 

I think cutting commissions hits sties more than they anticipate.  They get less traffic, as more of us encourages buyers to look elsewhere.  I presume that hits them with google search?  Their competitors get more new images and that should make their collections more appealing to buyers.

For a site that has already seen a decline in sales for lots of us, if the poll here is accurate, they are taking a big gamble.  They might make more money short term but that seems like a bad decision if it lets their competitors overtake them.

So perhaps we don't have to take any action?  Shutterstock is getting better for sales all the time and all the sites that have cut my commissions are in decline.

Quote from: sharpshot on August 29, 2011, 10:14
I think cutting commissions hits sties more than they anticipate.  They get less traffic, as more of us encourages buyers to look elsewhere.  I presume that hits them with google search?  Their competitors get more new images and that should make their collections more appealing to buyers.

For a site that has already seen a decline in sales for lots of us, if the poll here is accurate, they are taking a big gamble.  They might make more money short term but that seems like a bad decision if it lets their competitors overtake them.

So perhaps we don't have to take any action?  Shutterstock is getting better for sales all the time and all the sites that have cut my commissions are in decline.

Sorry, but I am struggling to get your point. On the one hand you say the infringing sites will get less tragic because "more of us encourages buyers to look elsewhere" and "their competitors get more new images" (I assume both those situations will be created due to actions by us), yet you state "So perhaps we don't have to take action"?
 

...

...