Quote from: salparadis on October 24, 2015, 05:25
Actually, I think that bigger preview might help to increase the sales, although there may by more people stealing images. As an independent web and graphic designer I don't like to use the small preview images from stock agencies to show how the final product will look like to the customers. Customers wants to see the quality preview and are deterred by the lowres watermarked pictures, so I rather look for some free source of quality pictures, or stock agencies with the higher quality previews as I can't afford to waste money and buy something which I will not use in the final design. There is an increasing number of photographers who offer their pictures with Creative Commons or Public Domain license. And you can find their pictures on portals with such self-explanatory names like deathtothestockphoto or gratisography. So blaming the agencies that they are trying to give your pictures for free doesn't make any sense. They want to earn something in the constantly changing world same as the photographers do. You can't expect increasing income if the offer starts to exceed the demand. It's simple economy. Adapt or die. This is how nature works.

BS.
If photographers offer their photos for free, they earn nothing.
Even photographers need to pay bills!
We don't live by just the fun of taking photos.

Quote from: Dodie on October 25, 2015, 15:42
How do you got this search result page? This is not just any search but a custom one, this is what you mean by "small subset"? Did you search for all the keyword contained in the URL of this page? G00gle search result doesn't come in subsets, unless you put the keyword in there.

As I think, Kenny just wanted to mean that Google haven't indexed all those preview images yet. (Just my guess)

Quote from: 60D on October 25, 2015, 15:56

Quote from: Dodie on October 25, 2015, 15:42
How do you got this search result page? This is not just any search but a custom one, this is what you mean by "small subset"? Did you search for all the keyword contained in the URL of this page? G00gle search result doesn't come in subsets, unless you put the keyword in there.

As I think, Kenny just wanted to mean that Google haven't indexed all those preview images yet. (Just my guess)

Thanks 60 D, I didn't mean to hurt Kenny. G00gle doesn't index all images anyway, that is to our advantage now.

Shutterstock.com team: Protecting of copyright on Shutterstock.
link to the petition ---

https://secure.avaaz.org/en/petition/Shutterstockcom_team_Infringes_copyrights_of_contributors_by_Shutterstock

QuoteDear Shutterstock.com team,

At the moment, the watermark used in the preview function recently implemented on shutterstock site actually has failed in its main purpose: it is hardly visible, if at all, and it can be easily removed, even without complex manipulations just by downsizing the preview image.

As a result, we feel that our works are now unprotected, exposed to public access and available for download to anyone.

We have specified the list of proposals that we would like to see implemented as soon as possible:

1. Make watermarks larger and more noticeable:

• Reduce the pitch of the watermark grid to 100 pixels for more reliable protection of icon sets.
• Increase the width of the grid lines to 5 pixels.
• The lines of the watermark should be contrast to the background. The pixels of the lines should have at least 15 levels of brightness in contrast to the surrounding pixels.

2. Inform contributors about any changes on the web site relating to copyright before such changes actually made.

Contributors who have signed this petition suspend uploading of the new images until the elimination of the negative consequences produced by Shutterstock.com.

Looking forward to your cooperation

and they think this will result in more sales?

Such a bad feature for photographers. Even the new watermark can be cleaned easily although some of big previews has no watermark.
For those who believe big preview option will increase their sales, there should be "OPT IN" button in the profile section of each user.
I want to "OPT OUT" because I definitely believe it will decrease my sales!

Quote from: LesPalenik on October 26, 2015, 00:56
and they think this will result in more sales?

Maybe they believe in Santa Claus and the Tooth Fairy, too.

Shutterstock: OPT OUT

Its the only way for now, i did it and if feel more safe for my photos, i don't want to share them for free to google
I hope they will undone all this stupid move

Absolutely Shameful.

Quote from: midasik1 on October 25, 2015, 21:25
Shutterstock.com team: Protecting of copyright on Shutterstock.
link to the petition ---

https://secure.avaaz.org/en/petition/Shutterstockcom_team_Infringes_copyrights_of_contributors_by_Shutterstock

QuoteDear Shutterstock.com team,

At the moment, the watermark used in the preview function recently implemented on shutterstock site actually has failed in its main purpose: it is hardly visible, if at all, and it can be easily removed, even without complex manipulations just by downsizing the preview image.

As a result, we feel that our works are now unprotected, exposed to public access and available for download to anyone.

We have specified the list of proposals that we would like to see implemented as soon as possible:

1. Make watermarks larger and more noticeable:

• Reduce the pitch of the watermark grid to 100 pixels for more reliable protection of icon sets.
• Increase the width of the grid lines to 5 pixels.
• The lines of the watermark should be contrast to the background. The pixels of the lines should have at least 15 levels of brightness in contrast to the surrounding pixels.

2. Inform contributors about any changes on the web site relating to copyright before such changes actually made.

Contributors who have signed this petition suspend uploading of the new images until the elimination of the negative consequences produced by Shutterstock.com.

Looking forward to your cooperation

Under "Announcements" there's "Updated Shutterstock Watermark".
What do they say? I can't have access to that, the page reloads like forever.

They're tricking us ... the preview now is smaller yes, but when you'll just right click the image and "view" you get a huge preview with almost invisible watermark. Easy to save it in 1500*1100, a free image 

As I write this, Shutterstock has reverted to the way previews were shown a couple of months ago. Meanwhile, this is the first time that I haven't met my own minimum in over 2 years by the middle of the month...and I still haven't today.
Oh - and my Fotolia sales (and downloads) have consistently stayed 20%-25% ahead of Shutterstock this entire month. Well over my minimum for more than a week.

I feel a change in the air, and it ain't Autumn.

No change for me, SS is doing great while FT is almost dead.

Link to the petition.

Quote from: Rinderart on October 26, 2015, 16:52

Quote from: midasik1 on October 25, 2015, 21:25
Shutterstock.com team: Protecting of copyright on Shutterstock.
link to the petition ---

https://secure.avaaz.org/en/petition/Shutterstockcom_team_Infringes_copyrights_of_contributors_by_Shutterstock

QuoteDear Shutterstock.com team,

At the moment, the watermark used in the preview function recently implemented on shutterstock site actually has failed in its main purpose: it is hardly visible, if at all, and it can be easily removed, even without complex manipulations just by downsizing the preview image.

As a result, we feel that our works are now unprotected, exposed to public access and available for download to anyone.

We have specified the list of proposals that we would like to see implemented as soon as possible:

1. Make watermarks larger and more noticeable:

• Reduce the pitch of the watermark grid to 100 pixels for more reliable protection of icon sets.
• Increase the width of the grid lines to 5 pixels.
• The lines of the watermark should be contrast to the background. The pixels of the lines should have at least 15 levels of brightness in contrast to the surrounding pixels.

2. Inform contributors about any changes on the web site relating to copyright before such changes actually made.

Contributors who have signed this petition suspend uploading of the new images until the elimination of the negative consequences produced by Shutterstock.com.

Looking forward to your cooperation

Quote from: ravens on October 27, 2015, 06:47
Link to the petition.

I signed the petition tonight. Hope it helps!

Done !

Signed.
Number of signatures over 400 now

Done.

It would be just as effective if every contributor (how many...tens of thousands?) stopped uploading, rather than worry about a petition with 400 names. I realize that signing a petition is at least doing something, and I can appreciate that, but these things have never been effective, because some people say they are going to do something, but never really follow through, and some people never do it in the first place. Shutterstock pretends to appear like they are listening, but in the end, they will do whatever makes them the most money. If clients don't want big watermarks, they aren't going to put big watermarks, no matter how much contributors scream. It's all about the $$.

I will give them until after the next payout to come up with a better solution for that watermark. If they don't, I will just close my account. I am sick and tired of these people making billions of dollars, with my help, and them not even having the least bit of respect for me and my property. I only have my images at 2 places now, and I am winding down my participation anyway. I make pennies as it is. When my stuff starts being given away, I'm out. 

I'll never understand people saying these things have never been effective. We were given an opt out of DPC because of group action, and DPC is now on its way out. SS has already responded with a new (but still ineffective) watermark, and hopefully will strengthen it further.

My neighbors are the same way. A few of us are fighting expansion of a nearby neighborhood noise nuisance, and everyone I talk to will say our efforts have been ineffective because the noise hasn't completely disappeared, even though it's been reduced by about 80%.

Just because the response isn't instantaneous or 100% doesn't mean it's ineffective.

I sign the petition

I disagree.

Group action can make a difference. This is why it is important that people sign the petition _and_ do not upload. We have to be consistent to protect our content the best we can. We need to think long term, not just this week's sales.

I signed the petition yesterday and will not upload until the watermark is safe enough.

Like you all, I work hard for my images and do not want somebody stealing them. Currently anybody can save 1500*1100 image with nearly invisible watermark. They do not even have to be logged in users.

Quote from: cathyslife on October 27, 2015, 11:11
It would be just as effective if every contributor (how many...tens of thousands?) stopped uploading, rather than worry about a petition with 400 names. I realize that signing a petition is at least doing something, and I can appreciate that, but these things have never been effective, because some people say they are going to do something, but never really follow through, and some people never do it in the first place. Shutterstock pretends to appear like they are listening, but in the end, they will do whatever makes them the most money. If clients don't want big watermarks, they aren't going to put big watermarks, no matter how much contributors scream. It's all about the $$.

I will give them until after the next payout to come up with a better solution for that watermark. If they don't, I will just close my account. I am sick and tired of these people making billions of dollars, with my help, and them not even having the least bit of respect for me and my property. I only have my images at 2 places now, and I am winding down my participation anyway. I make pennies as it is. When my stuff starts being given away, I'm out. 

The horror continues, i don't understand , they don't care ?

Signed - up to 436 now.

Quote from: mcp on October 27, 2015, 16:04
Signed - up to 436 now.

Good for you, Martin! Happy to see somebody from the UK on the list.

I've been watching this petition since it was announced. Spotted a bunch of signatures from Russia, Ukraine, Romania, and Thailand, etc, but not a whole lot (yet) from the USA.

C'mon, fellow Americans, let's add our voices to this effort.