Quote from: spike on May 29, 2020, 07:41

Quote from: SuperPhoto on May 29, 2020, 05:46if you have a non-google form, I'll fill it in. google is NOT anonymous, despite whatever they say. especially when tehy say "you MUST sign into google, with your verified phone account, before we will let you fill in this form"...

That's just to prevent spam and/or people filling out the form multiple times. 

Maybe. But I-m not going to get a Google account and another email just for this. Sorry.

Quote from: Justanotherphotographer on May 28, 2020, 13:39

Percentages MUST be based on an actual percentage of what the buyer paid for the image (subscription fee/ actual images downloaded) not on the total possible number of downloads.

Mmm ... Istock nightmare ? Nooo !

I prefer 35% now (i'm in level 5) that 15% one or two months later ...

I follow what is happening in this forum. I wouldn't answer much. Maybe it will be my first message. We boycott SS and I try to support it from twitter. I think it will not be by boycotting the SS to bring the SS string. Let's send messages to the customers that SS works with. Let's also tag these customers on Twitter. I believe it will be more useful. No company wants to be badly associated with the artist.

Google Translate sorry

Quote from: spike on May 29, 2020, 07:41

Quote from: SuperPhoto on May 29, 2020, 05:46if you have a non-google form, I'll fill it in. google is NOT anonymous, despite whatever they say. especially when tehy say "you MUST sign into google, with your verified phone account, before we will let you fill in this form"...

That's just to prevent spam and/or people filling out the form multiple times. 

there are other simple ways of verifying this, without using google...

Quote from: Jo Ann Snover on May 29, 2020, 05:45

Quote from: thirdbornentertainment on May 28, 2020, 23:54
Why even bother trying to salvage anything with this company? It's like trying to get an abusive spouse to promise to stop beating you. What is the point? SS is junk and we really don't need them.

I'm not optimistic that we can get changes - Shutterstock is now a big public company with a huge image library - but the reason to try is that they've earned many thousands for lots of us and for a long time were undisputed monthly earnings leader after Getty and the private equity idiots ruined iStock (the first far and away leader in earnings).

At 10 cents a sub download we don't need them, but it isn't June 1st yet and possibly they might be worried enough about noticeable quantities of proven salable content being removed from their library to rethink their cash grab.

I'm going to wait it out and see how my earnings are for the next 6 months. If they continue to get big licenses for me then I'll stay.

155 responses - preliminary results

Collective portfolio size: 1179912 assets

• Levels must be calculated on a 12-month window, and not be reset at the beginning of each year.

92.3% YES
7.7% NO

• There should be a change for video levels (Levels 5 and 6 are unattainable)

71% YES
3.9% NO
25.2% I DON'T KNOW

• Shutterstock needs to end the video subscription program

59.4% YES
19% NO
28.4% I DON'T KNOW

• Apply the levels structure to on-demand content, but leave subscriptions alone. (25c-38c, as they were before June 1st changes)

78.7% YES
21.3% NO

---------------

• If you answered "no" to the question above, what should be the minimum baseline guarantee for a subscription royalty?

• In any pay rate system percentages must be based on an actual percentage of what the buyer paid for the image (subscription fee/ actual images downloaded) not on the total possible number of downloads. See image below and description for clarification.

80.8% YES
19.2% NO

181 responses, collective portfolio size: 1325521 assets

That's not even 1% of their library.

I had the best intention to try and organize us, so we can use our leverage directly with shutterstock, but I'm just one guy and this poll wasn't spread around enough for it to have an effect. Guess we deserve $0.1 per image.