Sure, it makes sense but I will give the same answer, please try it for yourself to see how they handle your privacy there. I don't want to write a very long story here and also, legally I am not supposed to write about it in case of lawsuit.

But please, don't take my word for it, just try it and keep us posted after your experience.

She doesn't have an account with Shutterstock, so there is nothing to delete. The rest of us don't really want to delete our accounts. Unless, you are going to send me monthly checks. 

I'd say if you are serious about this, then find who handles these things in the US government. My quick search looks like the FTC (federal trade commission) handles it, but I really didn't read much into it.

See I checked and I'm actually the best photographer in the world.  I asked everyone I know and they agreed.

It's not true until you get a coffee mug that says your the "world's greatest".

So after this joker wastes tons of Shutterstock's time and resources following up on this nonsense and entertaining the insane possibility that this claim has any merit, and possibly after this guy even attempts legal action (which it sounds like he might be motivated enough to do), can SS then sue him for all of the lost time and money spent on this? Or what about txking? The other guy is tweeting and posting about this, I'm assuming linking to your images. This might do harm to your reputation if it spreads far enough.

Just seems crazy to me that someone can simply fire off an email and begin a process that costs everyone involved, and then walk away without penalty after it will undoubtedly be found to be a frivolous claim.

As if photographers don't have enough to worry about these days, now you have to worry about someone suing you for taking pictures of your own face.

This is one of those things I'm afraid of. Somebody suing me for images that they mistakenly think they own. So much fraud and misuse goes on with our images I think it is only a matter of time.

Yuri's recent change of status, with his 'exclusivity' deal, almost certainly means that other microstock photographers will be selling more images per month than him. He's lost the vast majority of the high-volume subscription sales.

As an independent contributor my Istock sales only account for about 10% of the total volume of sales each month. Even if a more favourable best match positioning meant that Yuri's sales doubled at IS he could still have lost 80% of the volume he used to sell.

Step forward the new "world's top selling stock photographer" ... whoever you are.

Makes sense. I suppose whoever the number 2 independent is/was will pass him.

Lack of experience with a company doesn't mean that someone can't have an opinion about the company. That's how we all decide which new companies to join, isn't it? We do our research, ask questions, and decide which companies to work with. I've passed on invites from some new companies that I don't think are going anywhere. Just because I haven't participated in those companies doesn't mean that I can't have an opinion about their future prospects.

It works the same for established companies. Some people have past experiences with these companies and are no longer contributors. Some people might have never sold an image with a company but they may still have some insight into how that company is doing, where they are going, etc.

And when we're talking about SS, a public company, it's even easier to form an opinion when we all have access to detailed reports and financial data.

I kind of thought that was the whole point of MSG. It's to get news and information about sites from your peers.

That and being a social butterfly. 

Quote from: luissantos84 on July 29, 2013, 10:21

totally agree, not even contributing and saying which agency is best/worst makes no sense, just mixes things up in a wrong way

Why? You don't need to be a contributor at SS to know that they'll still likely be top 5 in a few years.

I totally agree. I'm not sure if I'll a contributor there in 5 years, but I'm sure they'll still be most people's number one. I can't just look at it from my earnings. It's much more objective to look at it from how the majority are doing.

Quote from: cthoman on July 29, 2013, 08:59

I can kind of understand. I could name my top 5 agencies, but they will never be everyone else's top 5 or the overall top 5.

Yes, but you have images with the agencies in your top 5 right? I am not going to add agencies to my list that I am not submitting to, when asked what is my most profitable top 5 agencies.

I quit Fotolia and iStock a couple years ago, but I still think they are some of the top agencies for contributors.

People complain when I have good months and people complain when I have bad months. I don't really see a pattern.

Quote from: cthoman on July 26, 2013, 08:31

Quote from: XPTO on July 26, 2013, 03:02

Lets' stop creating all this hype around him.

I actually just came to watch the circus.

And did you see the chimps?

I don't know about chimps, but there was a lot of poop flinging.

Lets' stop creating all this hype around him.

I actually just came to watch the circus.

Do you really think that the optimal price for those images is a 300USD/mth subscription? Am I the only one see this? And yes. It starts by somebody like me saying no thanks.

Welcome to the club. It took you long enough to get here, although I'm not sure about the whole iStock/Getty thing.

Btw you should jump on the bandwagon too cory.. your work would be a good addition for the network.. it never hurts to have a 2nd store..

Thanks. It's on my list. I just want to finish some other things up first.

I assume you meant revealed your involvement not reviled, although the typo made me laugh.