|
MicrostockGroup Sponsors
This section allows you to view all posts made by this member. Note that you can only see posts made in areas you currently have access to.
Messages - kuriouskat
Pages: [1] 2 3 4 5 6 ... 28
1
« on: May 20, 2025, 02:25 »
They could have decided to pay their creators more.
That is mind blowing wealth, how much do you really need?
Wouldn't that have been nice? I've dropped from about $300 a month to around $15 a month over the last few years, but it seems our needs as creators are always the one's that get overlooked.
3
« on: April 12, 2025, 10:21 »
In the discord the removed files include simple color backgrounds that supposedly break adobes terms and other weird examples.
What is the point of that? In my case 36 files were removed and the example image shown is a background of an old wall with some paint and structure on it.
(see screenshot)
This does not make any sense at all :-?
Content isn't just being removed for compliance reasons, but also because it is similar to other content you have submitted. I had one removed yesterday for 'similar' reasons, and was quite cross, as the only other image I'd submitted from this location was quite different. However, when i checked a little more carefully, it was removed because I had accidentally submitted, (and had approved), the same image twice over.
4
« on: April 09, 2025, 02:49 »
I just returned after a hiatus. I'd deleted all my images. I uploaded new ones, they were accepted. But when I went to look the other day, it said I have nothing uploaded and I can't find my portfolio. Everything is different and Support has changed too. I wrote, and I got a reply that a "fellow contributor" had answered my question and it gave a link to "View" it. But the link just led to a general "Help" page with no indication of where the answer might be. No matter how many times I wrote, they never just answered the email, and then they sent me one saying my issue had been "closed"! I mean huh??!
I had a similar situation some years before to correct personal data - I got a reply that a "fellow contributor" will manage my case and i have to send my ID or passport. I answered - no, it does not look legal that somebody not employed will receive ID of a contributor. Had to abandon because there was repeating the same - not possible to reach employed support.
The 'fellow contributors' just ask you to send any documentation direct to submit@shutterstock.com. That's because they don't have access to your personal information, and it needs to be sent directly to Shutterstock staff.
6
« on: March 28, 2025, 03:19 »
I'm in the exact same situation - just waiting for a final $9 payout before closing my account. Seeing the dramatic drop in sales over the years, it really feels like there's no longer anything to gain by staying. Definitely time to move on.
I have $20 to go until next payout, but then I'm shutting it down. Although it will be time consuming, I'm planning on deleting all content before asking for account closure.
Smart to delete content yourself first. Doesn't guarantee they won't still somehow profit from it but most certainly better than trusting them to manage/delete the data properly.
Yes, I plan to do so as soon as I make the payout amount, so that I can get payment before the account is closed, but will hopefully stop them from earning money that they'll keep in the interim.
7
« on: March 25, 2025, 04:48 »
Must have been a real pain too. Sorry you had to go though that.
Maybe it really doesn't matter much with all the chaos in the world and finances these days but do you have a favorite and or do you contribute to those types of side gigs?
Thanks in advanced.
No, just to stock these days, and one or two print sites. To be honest, my images aren't the type that lend themselves so well to other merchandise, so the effort isn't really worth it for me, and is why I hadn't concentrated any efforts on Zazzle - hence losing my earnings to their fees. On FAA, there are the occasional sales of jigsaws and phone cases, but it's mainly prints, so I concentrate on that.
8
« on: March 24, 2025, 05:04 »
I'm in the exact same situation - just waiting for a final $9 payout before closing my account. Seeing the dramatic drop in sales over the years, it really feels like there's no longer anything to gain by staying. Definitely time to move on.
I have $20 to go until next payout, but then I'm shutting it down. Although it will be time consuming, I'm planning on deleting all content before asking for account closure.
9
« on: March 24, 2025, 02:56 »
When they first introduced this requirement years ago, I missed the deadline. I think the agreement at the time was to upload a certain amount once a year, and when I signed in to do so, ALL of my earnings balance had disappeared in Zazzle fees. Hard lesson, and I instantly shut the account.
10
« on: March 22, 2025, 02:46 »
I'm close to next payout, so I'll take that and then shut it down. It's a shadow of its past self anyway.
11
« on: March 19, 2025, 15:51 »
Plus isn't AI related or premium sale related - it's an 'all you can use' monthly subscription.
I was contributor to 123rf since 2006... so... I can know what it is about.
Oh, OK - I wasn't sure because you mentioned opting out of AI use. Anyway, I opted out of Plus, but now seem to be getting payments for Plus sales, so I wondered if anyone else was having an issue with this?
12
« on: March 19, 2025, 08:12 »
Plus isn't AI related or premium sale related - it's an 'all you can use' monthly subscription.
13
« on: March 12, 2025, 17:50 »
The problem is that reviewers can't know every photographic policy out there, so it's down the the contributor to check it out. You can get content approved as commercial, as your examples above show, but that doesn't mean that a site can't come after you for compensation, in the event that they are sued for misuse.
So True. I remember something like that on Alamy few yrs ago. Then also very good photographer I sometimes email with, he doesn't come to Forums but does contribute to stock, got sued because of unreleased image that was available commercially, think it was on Shutterstock
It's sometimes a very thin line, but it's better to err on safe side in my opinion. This is where this Forum can be very useful, because some people here know a lot. Much better than ad nauseam us politics garbage thread.
Agreed. Chances are that it would be perfectly fine as commercial, but I never want to knowingly take the risk. As photographers, we are the first to shout when someone misuses an image, so it's important to look at the situation from all directions.
14
« on: March 12, 2025, 05:24 »
About photography: There are plenty of commercial shots on all Stock Agencies and all commercial (including Adobe). Even on super anal iStock when it comes to Editorial criteria they are not Editorial. So if I am interpreting your post right, this is a breach?
I would suggest that any that include this building, (unless perhaps a very wide landscape where the building isn't the primary focus), would need to be editorial. The problem is that reviewers can't know every photographic policy out there, so it's down the the contributor to check it out. You can get content approved as commercial, as your examples above show, but that doesn't mean that a site can't come after you for compensation, in the event that they are sued for misuse.
15
« on: March 11, 2025, 03:34 »
this is clearly a modern work, (built in 1985 I believe)
Whilst it's tempting to try and sneak work in as commercial, it's not really worth the risk.
Correct, 1985
Re "sneaking as commercial" - definitely not what I am after. Hence post here looking for clarification
I just checked "property" field on Alamy. Thank you for input
Related: Nearby is Astrophysics laboratory, famous all over the world, including largest optical infrared telescope in the world. See https://www.iac.es/en/observatorios-de-canarias/roque-de-los-muchachos-observatory
I got loads of shots both outside and inside which I will eventually submit to stock. Outside shots should be commercial, ie.
But how about inside shot, showing that telescope?
Sorry, I wasn't meaning to imply that you were specifically trying to sneak these in as commercial - I was just making a generalisation. Many contributors do try to do so, as they think it gives the image more value, and others do so because they think mistakenly think it's OK as commercial. As for the observatory, again it's a modern building and, without a property release, you don't have permission to sell images of it, regardless of whether they are exterior or interior shots. Roque de los Muchachos Observatory actually has a media policy, (for both interior and exterior shots), that requires advance permission and credit to be added to all publications, which isn't practical for stock: https://www.iac.es/en/observatorios-de-canarias/roque-de-los-muchachos-observatory/visitshttps://www.iac.es/system/files/documents/2022-09/Normas_visita_medios_eng_sede.pdfJust for the record, I'm not trying to be difficult here, and I'm just pointing out that we all need to do our research and be more aware as, ultimately, a mistake could potentially cost us. The stock companies have the right to pursue us if we have submitted something that doesn't comply with their terms and conditions, and not having permissions makes us ultimately liable.
16
« on: March 10, 2025, 05:28 »
Yes, there could be consequences, and it's important that we are careful as to whether we submit to the commercial or editorial category. Reviewers can always make mistakes but, in this instance, this is clearly a modern work, (built in 1985 I believe), and is the main subject or very prominent in the image. It should only have been submitted as editorial in the first place, because it contains artwork that is the intellectual property of the original artist. It would need a release for the commercial section.
The Shutterstock agreement states the following:
d. the Content and all parts thereof are owned and/or controlled by you, unencumbered and original works and are capable of copyright protection in all countries where copyright or similar protection is available;
This isn't the case if you submit someone else's artwork as commercial without permission.
So, as stated in the agreement further down:
a. You agree to indemnify and hold Shutterstock, its subsidiaries, affiliates, directors, officers, and employees harmless from and against any and all claims, losses, damages, costs and expenses (including reasonable attorneys' fees and disbursements) arising out of any breach or claimed breach of any of your representations or warranties or any of your obligations under the TOS. You will only be liable for any incidental, consequential, or special damages in the case of third party claims.
In other words, if there is a claim against Shutterstock, and you've breached the agreement, you pay the price.
Whilst it's tempting to try and sneak work in as commercial, it's not really worth the risk.
17
« on: March 03, 2025, 09:58 »
When 123RF introduced their 'all you can download' Plus plan, I promptly opted out.
Since then, I've seen the option on the submissions page for Premium, Premium and Plus and Free collection, and mine has defaulted to Premium only for the last couple of years.
However, for the last 10 days or so, I'm getting Plus sales recorded in my daily stats, and I haven't changed anything. I've searched the site, and can no longer find the opt out.
Is anyone else experiencing this?
I have a nasty feeling that I may have missed an exciting news email
18
« on: February 21, 2025, 03:25 »
There is a tab for now to use legacy, we don't know how long that will stay. There's also a comment tab on top. Try the new and tell them what you think.
legacy's gone now which is sad & the Earnings summary tabs like 'on demand enhanced etc. no longer work. only shows subscription earnings. We have a saying in my part of the world 'if it ain't broke don't fix it'
and it seems there's no longer a 'select all'
if it don't stink, don't stir it!
If you check the box to the left of the thumbnail for one image, then an option appears on the black bar at the top of the page, so you can select all.
19
« on: February 12, 2025, 03:44 »
Apparantly in India a government-issued ID is required to open a Paypal account.
I've just checked their website, and a Photo ID + proof of address, (in the form of a bank statement or utility bill), are required. I'm in Europe.
20
« on: February 11, 2025, 18:35 »
As for Payoneer, PayPal or Skrill, I believe it's only possible to have one account on each, and they need to be linked to a bank account for withdrawal. Certainly, where I'm from, you can't open a bank account without verifying your identity.
Not true, I have more than one Paypal account and two of them are linked to the same bank account. Yes, true, you can't open a bank account, without proper ID, but no one checks to see if that data matches your Microstock name and account. The stock agencies just like to know that you have a valid Paypal account, and they trust that.
I use one Paypal just for Microstock, another for eBay, and a third for marketplace sales. Best of all, Paypal keeps sending me notifications that I "have been selected, to apply for PayPal credit card" 
That's interesting, because the support pages for PayPal certainly say you can have just one business account and one personal account only. Shutterstock are the same, and if you have a business contributor account, it has to be a separate legal entity, and with a payment account in the business name. When a Shutterstock account is set up, the name you use is added to the 'Payment to' field on the account settings page. You can't change this yourself, and if it doesn't match your payment name then you don't get paid. So if your payment account is in the name of Jonathan Smith, and you innocently sign up to Shutterstock as Jon Smith, then you have to provide an ID document to Shutterstock to get them to change this, otherwise the payment fails.
21
« on: February 11, 2025, 14:17 »
kuriouskat, I don't know what the rules are now for registering a new account, but when my document was about to expire, Shutterstock required me to upload a new document. Maybe Shutterstock doesn't require this anymore.
Yes, a person has only one Tax ID number. But it can be faked, because it's a photo, you can change any number. And the Tax ID number is only needed if the fraudster fills out a tax form, but he may not fill it out.
As for the payment account, it probably has to be strictly individual on Shutterstock (not necessary on other stocks). And yes, it's unclear how the fraudster will withdraw money. Shutterstock sends money only to 3 payment systems. Maybe you can have multiple accounts on Skrill, but I'm not sure.
So, if the fraudster can't withdraw money, how does he withdraw it?
It seems that you can also create an account on PayPal without documents. But PayPal does not work in all countries. Just as Skrill and Payoneer do not work in all countries.
I know many people who have signed up without providing ID, although when I signed up many, many years ago, I have to upload my passport. Maybe the requirement has been recently phased out or is location dependent? As for Payoneer, PayPal or Skrill, I believe it's only possible to have one account on each, and they need to be linked to a bank account for withdrawal. Certainly, where I'm from, you can't open a bank account without verifying your identity.
22
« on: February 11, 2025, 12:12 »
To create an account, you need to upload a valid passport. Do these people have so many passports?
After all, Shutterstock not only deletes the portfolio, it also blacklists the author by passport.
Not these days, a photo ID isn't required.
If I get banned from Shutterstock, can I create another account and not show Shutterstock any of my documents?
I think you are wrong.
I'm not wrong. Account verification is done on email alone, but Shutterstock will ask for sight of further documents in some circumstances if they are suspicious about anything. However, you can't use the same payment account as another account holder, and presumably this would also apply to past accounts? Adding an account that's been previously used is likely to be a red flag that will result in further investigation. You also have to provide a Tax ID number, and his is where many of the fraudsters come unstuck, as they suddenly realise that using a false name means they can't submit the tax form and therefore can't get paid.
23
« on: February 11, 2025, 04:26 »
To create an account, you need to upload a valid passport. Do these people have so many passports?
After all, Shutterstock not only deletes the portfolio, it also blacklists the author by passport.
Not these days, a photo ID isn't required.
24
« on: January 21, 2025, 11:58 »
Probably all Canva contributors got the email recently regarding content suitability for educational purposes, as per the following except:
In the coming months, you may receive emails from Canva notifying you if some of your content in Canva's library may not be suitable for some users in Canva for Education. Don't worry—you don't need to take any action. Your content will still be accessible outside the age-specific settings for Canva for Education.
I fully expected to get notification that some of my content was not considered suitable for younger viewers, as I have a number of wildlife images involving predation, and even one or two of the main sites have deemed them only suitable as mature content.
However, I was surprised to receive an email today as follows:
Notice of violation
To create a safe and respectful environment for everyone on Canva, we have policies that restrict certain kinds of content and behavior.
We’re writing to let you know that content or behavior associated with your account violates Canva’s Contributor Agreement.
There is then a long list of images involved, including the wildlife predation shots that I expected to be excluded from this age-related section.
The email closes with:
Repeated violations may result in the permanent suspension of your Canva account.
I honestly don't have an issue with what Canva are doing, but telling me that I'm violating the Canva Contributor Agreement and this may result in permanent suspension of my account, is a bit alarming.
25
« on: January 18, 2025, 09:11 »
For the month of December, Getty gave me twice as much income as Shutterstock.
This has never happened before. It means our money is being stolen. Or Shutterstock is being deliberately bankrupted.
Or customers are going elsewhere? A drop in income doesn't mean that anything underhanded is happening and, if you look at the search, there is a lot of very ordinary content at the top of the search, and a lot of AI content. Couple this with the facility to search by 'new' being removed, and perhaps customers have just got fed up with not finding what they need, so they are going elsewhere. As my RPD is so low on Shutterstock, I'd be much happier if customers went to Adobe or Istock, as the RPD there is more than double Shutterstock's rate.
Pages: [1] 2 3 4 5 6 ... 28
|
Sponsors
Microstock Poll Results
Sponsors
|
Show Posts
