Even then I wouldn't  trust google.  Their whole model relies on giving other people's  stuff away. Those images could still be stolen and relabled. Only trust images licensed from a reliable source, especially for your "not small" business.

Google is not the fault. It's just a search. Do you find a book on Google and copy it, for sale? Do you find a song with Google and then resell it as your own. Then why do you accuse Google of being the problem because people find photos and steal them?

What does trusting Google have to do with any of this? It's just a search like every other search. They don't sell or license.

The problem is people like kudrt who are either ignoring the laws and trying to make an excuse or don't understand the laws. Just because anybody can find something on the internet, that doesn't mean it's free. Legally ignorance is not a defense. kudrt is pretending that the laws he doesn't know or understand don't exist because he doesn't know them.

Then kudrt makes up some childish finders keepers legal argument and like you, and tries to blame Google instead of the people who steal. If the door is unlocked, and you walk in and steal things from a house, is it their fault for not locking the door, or yours for stealing?

Should the internet make searching illegal?

There is no reason for BS to exist. SS should just forward the url to SS and shut BS down. Doesn't work right, prices compete with SS there's that terrible video deal. Fix it or close it.

I thought SS would send payment if the earning is over $35. But the money is still there. How come?

You must log into submit.shutterstock.com, then go to your �Account Settings� and change the �Minimum Payout� amount. Did you do that?

I can't get excited about 28 cents PP no matter when they report it.

DP is pure filth.

I honestly don't understand their reasoning. Can anyone explain why they need to reduce royalties while increasing their prices?

"Thus, we expect to compensate authors' losses caused by reducing commission rate payments to keep the earnings of partners at the same level."

Does that mean they first lowered our royalties, and then increased their prices to "make up" for contributor's losses?

it means.


�If you can't dazzle them with brilliance, baffle them with bu11$h1t.�

― W.C. Fields

there is no way windows can detect the lost partition? my choice is taken down the harddrive from laptop and check like an external drive?

Yes, mount in an external case or a different computer, not running Windows 10 and see if the system can see your data. Unless you removed the partition or formatted it somehow, the data is still there. Above all, do not wirte any new data to the SSD until you have recovered your missing files.

This might help. But i'd put the drive into a different computer and see what's there.  http://www.partitionwizard.com/

 

Quote from: Zero Talent on September 01, 2015, 18:23

In my opinion (and this time it is only an opinion, indeed ) the exclusive stats are misleading for a simple reason: it is fair to assume that those IS exclusives have, in average, much larger ports than the regular non-exclusives.
The average revenue of a few exclusive "pro" ports will be obviously inflated when compared with the average revenue of similar non-exclusive "pro" ports, but mixed with a much larger number of small newbies ports.

These stats compare apples with oranges.

If we are to believe that the iStock exclusive numbers are correct, then that might indicate that over the last year, those exclusives with smaller ports have become independent in droves, heavily shifting the balance towards those with larger ports. That explanation makes sense (though it might be completely wrong  ). Thanks.

Good point. The ones that stay exclusive are doiing good. The ones that left, aren't axclusive. Seems that the exclusive make around 5X more then indies which makes the number bigger. Exclusive also get more Getty and higher subs pay. I don't see that as wrong, just that if you look at a small sample of people who stayed, of course they will have the high numbers.

Same for DP, DT and FT. The numbers look better because people who left aren't represented. Only the people who are happy who stayed. It all adds up to, telling us that the numbers are not comparing the same, but are apples to oranges.

SS numbers are for almost everybody except people who can't get past the review. They are more representative of micro in general for that one agency. What that tells me is SS is much better then the poll shows compared to the other. More belong more stay more make money.

Alamy measures is good but like all the rest it shows the past, not the future. http://www.alamy.com/blog/alamy-measures-2014-insights

I buy pizza and beer with money not percentages. SS made me 12 x more then DP until I dropped DP. I won't work for DP crooks.

I've said many times any site...ANY site who comes in and offers a 50/50 Split across the board weather it's SS of FT or whoever could control the market as far as contributors. And the competition would dry up and go home. I for one would love to upload to one fair site instead of 9 frustrating Ones that are ripping us off and getting wealthy doing it. The time saved alone would be worth it, IF  time is money and to me, It is.

Adobe could very easily have a complete monopoly if they wanted and that would justify a 50/50 split. If they did that Everyone would bail out everywhere else. But. It would probably be exclusive. Im In. Maybe Im just tired But....I would be in. And vice versa, If SS offered this, same deal.

50/50 split for exclusive you are right, they could take over and kill the competition at once.

Thanks.  Very timely.  Got my computer back from repair and they uninstalled my old copy of photoshop and the disc won't allow me install it any more times.

Contact adobe support and get a reset on your activation counter. They need to disable the other installs and you can get another.

Quote from: madman on August 21, 2015, 05:27

Quote from: Dumc on August 21, 2015, 01:56

I think this is because lots of contributors shoot the same object in countless different positions and angles. And then you have 5 different subjects, each having 50 different photo variations and there you have 250 images that look almost identical. Add thousands of contributors that are doing the same and here you go, hundreds of thousand of photos each week.

thats so true but sadly all selling sites still accept this kinda images because of their only think is to rise their own stock images amount, sadly including istock too anymore, what a blind sight, I wonder what will happen much much later, when the number of junk pictures so much increase in a unpredictable manner, customers will need to make hours of search.

OR....Hopefully we'll go back to the days when companies actually Hired Photographers to shoot for them.  digital came along, then Micro and everyone is a Photographer. Ya right. Digital made it to where everyone can enjoy Photography, It also killed traditional Stock work Done By a select few that made a living at it.

The minute companies discovered that we'll take 20 cents. we were done and I blame the original Microsites for going so Low especially Istock, then the rest. And I also Blame us for letting this happen. We went from a $400 average commission to 20 Cents in a week.

Biggest problem we face is to many are happy with 25/38 cents still , 12 years later. Thats the vast majority of submitters guys and there joining at a alarming Rate.

Is that what you teach at your microstock school? How to take 25c using models, a Nikon and in a expensive studio and equipment. Microstock opens the door to anybody who can take a marketable photo. Open and free for all to try. Some make a success some don't. But we are invited to try, instead of locked out.

If you want Harvard University campus why don't you search Harvard University campus. https://prime.500px.com/search/keywords=Harvard+University+campus Buyers are smart enough to figure that out, why can't you? A one word search is not a good test of a search. Many word search is much better. The search fails the most on IS. If it's not an exact match to all the words it returns, no results.

How does 500px have 50 million images?