|
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 - Jo Ann Snover
Pages: 1 ... 37 38 39 40 41 [42] 43 44 45 46 47 ... 291
1026
« on: June 22, 2020, 15:21 »
1027
« on: June 22, 2020, 09:47 »
1028
« on: June 21, 2020, 18:09 »
Sorry, I'm out after 1st July. But I will not upload. And I will track how things is going. Maybe will change my mind.
Don't be sorry. Keeping the Q2 report low is a big plus. As is #NoMoreContent As for the comment that they'll make the numbers up once they've figured out how to, their financial reports and collection size claims are material information about the business. Lying there has the potential to put them in legal jeopardy. Not that they'd be the first corporation to manipulate or lie about their performance, but it's a much bigger risk for the execs than just putting crap images on their web site And a big thank you to everyone who is doing whatever they can to fight this cash grab. No #Shutterstock without our images, illustrations & videos
1029
« on: June 21, 2020, 17:40 »
Honest opinion. I wouldn't use it and I wouldn't recommend it to anyone, even a beginner.
One of the things you have to be able to develop is the ability to "see" the problems with your own images and know what to do (either in editing or by shooting differently next time).
If you don't develop that ability - and there's no way to do it but lots and lots of shooting, reviewing, editing (repeat) - I don't see how you can ever learn or improve.
I'd also question how you could possibly have any definition of "bad". Whether it's lighting, focus or composition, how do you separate artistic choices from a blunder?
1030
« on: June 21, 2020, 13:50 »
Not surprising, but you can't post a link to the Inside Imaging article on Instagram either (I tried this morning). The general "problem" message didn't explain, but I was able to post the same text and a link to the Coalition press release without a problem. I'd suggest posting links to the Coalition press release with text explaining Facebook's totally inexplicable & unjustified ban. The explanation we received from the Facebook employee who doesn't work in that department, but was trying to explain that Facebook wasn't "evil" as the public & media think it is  goes something like this Mentioning "boycott" was the trigger and it was probably an automated process that took the link down - except that the word boycott isn't anywhere in the article Once the article has been flagged (and removed from everywhere that linked to it), only the person who originally posted the link can "protest" the ban and request a review. So I have no idea who the original poster was, and regardless of how much information I might have about how wrong and unjustified the "ban" is, I can't do anything to formally appeal to Facebook. Seems to me that in addition to doing diddly squat to deal with serious problems they have on their site with hate speech and misinformation, Facebook has set up a "star chamber" to allow large companies to silence critics. And I'm sure the more money you spend on Facebook ads, the more your opinion counts. They really are tossers.
1032
« on: June 20, 2020, 18:38 »
There is also this great writeup about the whole gagging
https://t.co/n86sgoq15j
Sent from my HD1901 using Tapatalk
That just links to the article Alistair posted up top. Did you mean to link to something different?
1034
« on: June 19, 2020, 23:10 »
i think files count doesn't take down the deactivated files...indeed many buyers can't buy what they need because the file still show but when you click to buy it says that there is an error and to contact support...
We could not have seen the huge drops in file counts if only deleted files were removed from the count. I am sure that disabled files get removed from the totals too
1035
« on: June 19, 2020, 10:11 »
You can select past dates, but no more than 13 months in one go.
Their stats reporting is terrible and hasn't been improved in a long time (which leads me to believe they don't give this any priority), but you can get there if you do it year by year
1036
« on: June 19, 2020, 10:08 »
To sue you would have to show damages. SS gave you fair warning they were dropping payment to you the seller . Yes they drooped payment to almost zero. No one forced you to stay and get almost no money. I see no damages. I do see a company that is bad...but no damages.
What about people working for SS being payed under minimal hour wage and SS selling their work in your market?
Do you see the damage now ?
If you are talking about us the contributors, we are not working for SS, we are working for us and using SS service to sell our work. Minimal hour wage has nothing to do here.
I say it does.
If we would just use SS to sell our work we would be able to determine the prices of our work and yet the prices are determined by SS so they are clearly in charge here setting standards and defining rules.
One can then more accurately say that SS is running a platform in which instead of employees they are using freelancers for their main product production which they pay in royalties in a way that freelancers are potentially earning less than minimal hourly wage which makes clear damage for regular image creating employees and other companies in the industry.
If someone in NY wants employ people in the same niche and compete with SS he stand against unfair competition in which SS (or similar paying agencies) product providers potentially work for less than minimal wage.
If that someone can prove that, he clearly has a legal case. And that one has all parameters to calculate that beside how many images can an average contributor produce, process, keyword, upload and categorize in an hour so I guess an union can be used to legally determine that standard.
Also you say you sell your work at SS. Even so, you can not legally offer your work under minimal wage. Again someone just has to prove you are not able to earn minimal wage at your work time and you are undercutting real worker illegally. Not only SS. You directly.
That is the law in almost every country that has minimal wage.
In the US, you have no case. There are plenty of prior decisions about mis-classifying as independent contractors workers who in essence are employees That is not us. Shutterstock does not control when or how we do our work, or even if we do any work in a given week or month. I can't speak for law elsewhere, but there is no case to bring in the US, so you don't even get to damages issues
1038
« on: June 18, 2020, 18:49 »
I wouldn't even be surprised if SS reports disabled ports as part of their collection, even if they aren't currently available.
Mine is off unless they make some serious changes or I decide to turn everything back on and just let things coast and get as many pennies as I can in the meanwhile - which is pretty unlikely at this time, but who knows what the future holds.
We couldn't have gotten the declines we have unless disabled for sales was subtracted from the totals they show
1039
« on: June 18, 2020, 14:07 »
If you could get a Thai translation of this posted in the Thai Facebook group, that would be excellent https://www.facebook.com/groups/261369748434285/permalink/275941660310427/#BoycottShutterstock until June 30, 2020 (please 💕) I know this will be hard for some, but please think about what you can manage. Shutterstock (NYSE:SSTK) ends its fiscal 2nd quarter 30 June 2020. In their Q1 2020 report, in "Key Metrics" they included: "Image collection expanded 27% to approximately 330 million images.". They report this every quarter (and it's been large increases so far). We would very much like to have the Q2 report reflect our portfolios being withdrawn - much lower numbers. We would then have our efforts be recorded in a way that's hard for Shutterstock (or other agencies) to ignore. If people doing a temporary freeze can wait until July 1 to turn sales back on, that's a week and a bit longer than originally planned, but it would make a huge difference. This could be such a huge win for us
1040
« on: June 18, 2020, 01:48 »
Some (most of?) these ideas are being discussed in the Coalition (name being decided!) Facebook group https://www.facebook.com/groups/261369748434285/For example, one person had made a list of buyers. There was also a list of publications to contact et.c Rather than try and coordinate in two places, can those who want to help pick up the discussion there?
1041
« on: June 17, 2020, 19:14 »
But we are not workers for Shutterstock, Inc. so this story just doesn't cover our situation
1042
« on: June 16, 2020, 13:20 »
https://www.linkedin.com/in/thomas-crary-01246510/Tom's background is finance (look at his degrees). He was previously Pond5's CFO, so not an outsider, but not really from the creative side of the business I have only a few photos at Pond5 (I don't do video) and it's never been much as a photo site (although I just got paid yesterday, so it's reliable, just low volume), so I don't have anything much at stake here. Finance people are clearly essential to keep a business thriving & on track. I have not, in general, seen it as good news when a CEO is a finance person.
1043
« on: June 16, 2020, 12:02 »
Jo Ann Snover doesn't need any more things to do!! https://twitter.com/joannsnover/status/1272934303807098881It would be really great to have the collection size waaaay down when they close their books on Q2 2020 Then Stan Pavlovsky would have more explaining to do in the earnings call... Edited Jun 17 I'd like to emphasize (sorry for the color, but it will perhaps catch someone's eye) how much of a difference it would make if we can keep the collection size low through June 30, 2020For those of you who can, another week and a bit (beyond the planned one week) would mean we could get our action in writing in their "Key operating metrics" section of the report. The collection size and percentage growth are in every quarterly report Take a look at the numbers for 2017 - Q1 2020. It's natural the percentage growth will slow as the collection balloons (image spam much??), but imagine how striking it would be to see a 13% or 14% growth rate. The lowest previous report 2017-19 was 30%, Q1 this year was 27% 201763%, 57%, 52%, 46% 201842%, 41%, 42%, 42% 201939%, 37%, 34%, 30% If we can hold the collection down to 320 million, it'd be 14% growth (they do it over the same quarter previous year, so Q2 2019 in our case; the comparison is 280 million images). That would be about half the previous lowest growth... It might even be possible to contact analysts to get them to ask about it, but I'm not sure about being able to do that
1044
« on: June 16, 2020, 09:43 »
I turned my portfolio off May 31 and it stays off until I see something positive happen - perhaps the old rates plus a tier or two above the previous maximums?
1045
« on: June 16, 2020, 09:42 »
Btw when/if we re-enable our port/image sales down the line do all our previous images come back? In catelog manager I can only see 300 images now whilst I had over 6k before.
Sent from my ONEPLUS A6013 using Tapatalk
Everything should be back once you re-enable. In my catalog manager I can only see those files I put into sets - which is a huge chunk of them I did the turn off/on once before (a long time ago) when I was an iStock exclusive for 3 years.
1046
« on: June 15, 2020, 18:36 »
Never mind. That was easy. Done! Over 26000 images.
Have you joined the Facebook group? https://www.facebook.com/groups/261369748434285/Are you OK with going public and letting me tweet about you joining #BoycottShutterstock? You can PM me here (and no is a fine answer; some people don't want to be public about it) or find me in the Facebook group
1047
« on: June 15, 2020, 18:30 »
And we are having an effect. The collection has been growing for years. Now, even though people have been uploading (and there's a lot of repetitive stuff mixed in that just will never sell) the collection is still shrinking
#BoycottShutterstock
1048
« on: June 15, 2020, 18:28 »
microstock graphic
Are you aware of the Shutterstock terms & conditions that all accounts agree to that say, in part "You agree that you will not use Shutterstock's Trademarks in any manner that might tarnish, disparage, or reflect adversely on such Trademarks or Shutterstock." https://www.shutterstock.com/termsIt's possible they won't bother to pursue a legal case, but if you weren't aware that you were probably violating the terms - and wanted to keep your account open for the future - it'd be good to think about the legal aspect of this
1049
« on: June 15, 2020, 13:41 »
You don't have to read the number at the bottom of the page, which was suspect in the past, sometimes updated, sometimes not.
https://www.shutterstock.com/search and enter nothing. Search: 321,985,595 stock photos, vectors, and illustrations are available royalty-free.
While bottom of the page says: Over 324,009,728 royalty-free images with 993,927 new stock images added weekly.
Sorry to add something that doesn't agree with the dropping numbers, assumed that all are caused by people leaving. Phil and I both noticed drops of millions of images, earlier this year. Before the commission change.
Just because no one else was watching or tracking back then, doesn't mean nothing happened. There were big drops.
I know about the search stuff. I've been tracking those numbers too. There was a 12,701,237 loss of images on Feb 27 2020 and then the numbers climbed again. I've asked around about the reason for such a huge one-day drop, but other than purges of stolen content, no one knew I have many numbers (as they reported them, so who knows how accurate) from the Internet Archive's Wayback machine to give context to what's happening now They haven't updated the numbers at the bottom since the afternoon of June 12th
Pages: 1 ... 37 38 39 40 41 [42] 43 44 45 46 47 ... 291
|
Sponsors
Microstock Poll Results
Sponsors
|
Show Posts
