DM shows iStock order for keywords. They don't hide anything from us. The words are in IS order, not our order. Is that some kind of naive optimism? Or do you just not undertsnad the facts in your negative world.

Every search on every site finds the words that we entered, when a buyer searches them, it finds the words they looked for. Your beloved IS, where you are exclusive, doesn't recognize a name it gets marked with a star as a not word, but if you have John Smith in the words, would you like IS to not find John and Smith? What should it find in your world? Some other words?

You keep using Alamy as the example because they are the only that ranks partly by contributor rank. The rest don't. Alamy also ranks search by relevance and diversity. Do you pay attention to that? All agencies use views, preview, search words, and a big many other things to make a match. It's not just about your words.

Because the agencies don't tell you how they do everything, you can't just make up your guess and claim it's intelligence. It's just a guess. When I ask for proof you answer, not naive optimism. Maybe not but it's not some imaginative conspiracy based on no facts or logic.

Many of my photos show on page 1 of SS search out of thousands of matches. Might be because they have good clean keywords or because I use words that have a good relation to word searches. But you complain and you aren't with SS. You should lean how IS works.

Correct precise keywords are important, there's nothing to agency tricks against us about that.

you need more options above $10/year

And more below. 

But every logo, trademark, personal image of a celebrity, people in the crowd, design, and anything else at the event are protected from commercial use.

http://www.pdnonline.com/news/Photographer-Settles-3142.shtml

Agencies don't want to pay lawyers to defend, so they make the rules in advance to avoid lawsuits. This doesn't mean people can't license some of the subjects you are protesting. It means the agencies do want to get into expensive litigation.

I know nobody has mentioned this before, but agencies make the rules for us and what they will sell. That doesn't mean that the restrictions are the laws. You need to write yourself a note that says that. Agencies make their own rules.

The IRS (in the US) requires a 1099-MISC to be issued for any amount at or above US$600.  This is not a lower end threshold.  Agencies may issue a 1099-MISC for any lower amount if they wish and many do (example Fotolia).  It's just that they must issue one if you have received $600 or above.  This law applies to US companies which is why many companies based outside the US do not issue any documentation.  There are some exceptions to this, such as Canva, who do issue 1099-MISC to contributors; but, that is purely voluntary on their part.  However it is still your responsibility to report all monies earned, whether or not you have received a 1099-MISC.

Correct except the law is above $600. The above is the word. You are also right about the optional for not US companies. Also right that some companies send them to everybody.

Make a note, if we get a form the IRS gets a copy of the form. No matter what amount. If you don't get one, but get audited, the IRS can get records from all the agencies if they know you worked for them.

Claim all income or risk penalty with interest which will be much worse.

Quote from: YadaYadaYada on February 16, 2016, 11:37

Agencies don't care and it's too hard to go back and check 50 million images, video and drawings. They should have done this right from the start. Now we are all penalized for the problem, buyers can't trust the keywords or make a good search.

It makes us look stupid and casts a shadow on all of Micro work as cheap amateurs fighting for more peanuts by any way.

I use only real and good keywords. I resent people who intentionally or accidentally don't know San Fran from Vancouver. Buyers can't find good search for images because the spammers and idiots have plugged the system. This is the way of Micro more words, words that aren't main subject, words that people imagine, anything to get more views. Grasping for any chance to make a few more pennies.

I'm quite happy for these folks to spam their images  It makes buying from Microstock companies unreliable for clients that require accuracy. Therefor they continue to buy from the specialist (often RM) agencies where prices are much higher.

+ Makes mine rise in the search for being accurate words. I don't like being included with the people who make us look bad, but I don't mind when it hurts their sales. By now people here should see that good words help your search placement and spam makes your pictures drop. Alamy explains that, clicks, views, zooms, sales. Raises search.

Words search on Micro, no view, no zoom or preview, no sale, you lose rank.

Then people here blame the agency for their falling search page change which is designed for giving buyers better results. Spam penality paid.

+ Find a lawyer willing to file class action suit. Shut them down.

Agencies don't care and it's too hard to go back and check 50 million images, video and drawings. They should have done this right from the start. Now we are all penalized for the problem, buyers can't trust the keywords or make a good search.

It makes us look stupid and casts a shadow on all of Micro work as cheap amateurs fighting for more peanuts by any way.

I use only real and good keywords. I resent people who intentionally or accidentally don't know San Fran from Vancouver. Buyers can't find good search for images because the spammers and idiots have plugged the system. This is the way of Micro more words, words that aren't main subject, words that people imagine, anything to get more views. Grasping for any chance to make a few more pennies.

Quote from: anathaya on February 15, 2016, 20:31

Quote from: marthamarks on February 15, 2016, 16:34

ETA: Maybe Mat could stop by and give us a bit of insight?

Yeah, it's great if he can give some explanations. It's totally unacceptable to do this without any warnings.

That's the FOTOLIA way. Although Adobe owns them, clearly Adobe does not mind their idiotic policy and the way they treat contributors.  Allowing the OLEG minions to keep running the joint tells me that Adobe really only cares about integrating the images into their products and far less about the substandard people, systems and infrastructure of FT itself. Mat simply cannot explain away the stupidity and arrogance of "the chad, for example, who makes and supports these policies.

I am so glad to be rid of these hacks.

Well said on all. FT is crazy with policy made on a whim to punish people.

Quote from: r2d2 on February 14, 2016, 02:29

Quote from: Chichikov on February 14, 2016, 02:07

Quote from: Rinderart on February 13, 2016, 20:28

Quote from: sharpshot on February 13, 2016, 07:04

I'm bored of complaining, until we all get together and run our own site or buy a majority share in one of the sites, what can we do about it?  Or we could all just use the few sites that pay 50% but that never happens.  This is all our own fault, I'm sure we could be much better off but the vast majority of contributors still don't care.

CORRECT...The "VAST" majority. and I would be safe to say the "VAST" majority don't even know about the new License or care. Thats the sad part. Just us 50/100/200 that think were gonna change something. I don't think so guys. Opt out of everything. they don't care.

+1

I have told this many times, but here some people think that they are the center of the world and that everything they say or think is holy word���

Ok and whats your solution now?

Every good thing starts with an idea. So talking about an alternative marketing channel is a good thing. Because it is the first step on a long way. But it is the firs step!

Why are you and Rinder so demotivating?

All these ideas have been tried before and not worked.  Don't blame the messenger(s).

Messengers? Chichikov is right. People just complain and cry but never do anything. Rinderart sends his work to DP and other big crooks for penny's but plays like the big prophet who saw the future. People here do nothing except talk while working for low cheap percentages and sending photos to cheap low paying sites. No wonder the agency don't care. They laugh at us as some small forum discontents.

If you send pictures to the sites that rob you and whore out your pictures for cheap subs, your complaints are nothing but empty talk. Stand up or shut up!

Shutterstock, FT, IS, P5 pays us. The rest are stealing, but people still upload to them. How stupid and a contradiction does that look?

Quote from: YadaYadaYada on February 14, 2016, 09:10

Quote from: arapix on February 11, 2016, 08:18

Hello All,

In fact I don't have good experience with licence issues.

I have read some articles , and I understand now what's difference between RF and RM

However all my previous uploads in many agencies was only RF

My question now , Can I sell photos as RM in Alamy for example , while I am selling them as RF in other agencies ?

Thanks in advance

Yes, but as soon as a picture sells RF you must remove it from the RM Alamy. If it sells RM you must remove from all RF sites. Until it sells at someplace you can offer with both license.

Wrong.
The contract stipulates:
"2.2
You cannot submit identical or similar images to Alamy as both Royalty
Free and Rights Managed. The licence type on Alamy for an image must be the same as the licence type for that image and similar images which you have on other agency websites."

Wrong, Alamy answered once before, you can license until one has sold, then must be removed.

http://www.microstockgroup.com/general-stock-discussion/alamy-and-rf-images/

http://www.microstockgroup.com/alamy-com/alamy-rm-or-rf/

Quote from: Justanotherphotographer on February 14, 2016, 02:30

Quote from: Rinderart on February 13, 2016, 20:28

Quote from: sharpshot on February 13, 2016, 07:04

I'm bored of complaining, until we all get together and run our own site or buy a majority share in one of the sites, what can we do about it?  Or we could all just use the few sites that pay 50% but that never happens.  This is all our own fault, I'm sure we could be much better off but the vast majority of contributors still don't care.

CORRECT...The "VAST" majority. and I would be safe to say the "VAST" majority don't even know about the new License or care. Thats the sad part. Just us 50/100/200 that think were gonna change something. I don't think so guys. Opt out of everything. they don't care.

What the vast majority do is of no interest to the agencies or anyone else. The people creating the vast majority of saleable images on the other hand are a small number, a few hundred, people and they are well aware of everything going on. They have to be to have built sustainable businesses in this highly competitive market. Their opting out makes a big difference as demonstrated numerous times.

SS obviously didn't do much to keep Yuri.  Istock kicked out Sean.  Most of the few hundred you are talking about didn't join us in deactivation day or most of the other protests we have tried in the past.  When the sites had much smaller collections, we did win a few battles but we failed to stop all of the big sites cutting commissions.  If it isn't obvious by now that we need to try something more than a few people opting out or stopping uploading, I don't know when it will be.

This should tell you how much they don't care about deactivation, protest, complaints, opt out or individuals. You only hurt yourself by these and staying with micro is riding a sinking ship.

Reading these complaint threads with all the anger year after year, it only gets worse. Protesting here must make somebody in the Empire State Building laugh till they hurt.

If the people making all the money are stock holders, with no dividends, at $28 a share, why don't people complaining here just buy shars and be rich?

You need a release for SS and all the micro RF editorial. You don't need a release for Alamy RM. The End