I did change my password as a precaution, but also checked Shutterstock and Shutterstock Contributors twitter feeds, plus SS's facebook page.

Nothing on social media - where they typically post something about site problems. Just a bunch of content free posts with pretty pictures.

I honestly don't know what to make of this notification about a problem with the site that has only a spammy-sounding post from an unknown person. If this is the future of SS contributor support this is a total fail and they need to rethink how they're handling things. Not every contributor will be reached by posting here.

If this is a sincere, but misplaced, attempt to be helpful by one of the new gig-economy support folks who can't provide support because they have no access to account information or sales information or review status or (anything else), thanks for the effort. But tell Shutterstock management that this is a useless approach and ask them to send out a notice to contributors and post something on the contributor dashboard.

And get a verified account for support posts here (not sure how to do that with a gig army) as we can't do anything with random posts by people we don't know.

Yahoo has the earnings call transcript

https://finance.yahoo.com/news/shutterstock-inc-sstk-q3-2018-153440417.html

Stock is down about 13% so far today (on a day when the overall NYSE is up slightly)

The Enterprise segment is growing faster than the eCommerce platform (us). They grew the contributor base 75% over last year! Like they need more crappy content - is this so they don't care as much when longer term contributors used to higher earnings ditch them?

They mention a problem with video sales in particular - they claim they've fixed an unspecified technical problem that was behind that...

What can I do in this case ? Is there any chance to reactivate it ? What do you think ? I'm depressed now   

One of your earliest posts in Jan 2017 was about saving an account from being suspended - a tool to identify and remove titles that violated SS's spam rules. It seemed then a rather odd tool to generate as it would only be of interest to blatant, frequent spammers

https://www.microstockgroup.com/shutterstock-com/save-your-shutterstock-account-from-being-suspended

You didn't post here again (other than the one where you now say you were asking for a "friend", although you wrote "I've a company...") until your account is suspended

There are no links to your portfolio - are you still selling on other agencies and are you willing to share links to your portfolio(s) there? I appreciate that many want anonymity for a variety of reasons, but you seem to think this community can help you but you are essentially completely unknown to anyone here. You don't interact here except to ask about  - or offer tools to ward against - suspensions.

So we can assume that Shutterstock has made a terrible mistake - certainly possible - or that you have. I am not aware of any instance brought up here or anywhere else where SS has closed accounts in error. I think legit contributors would have screamed loud and long if it had happened.

Bottom line, absent any more information, if I were a betting person (which I'm not), I'd bet that Shutterstock had good reason.

But as many people have already told you, even if SS made a mistake, no one here can do anything to help you get that straightened out. Only Shutterstock can do that.

https://stock.adobe.com/contributor/207882786/christopher

There's your portfolio link (you posted to the contributor side which no one but you can see)

I think you haven't ordered your keywords with the first 7 (or 5, I forget which) being the most important. That's going to mean lower positioning in searches for your most sales-worthy keywords. If you search here you can see Mat Hayward confirm that this does matter for searches (i.e. it's not a contributor-concocted conspiracy theory)

The subject matter of your images isn't going to be high selling, especially in the fall busy season, so that and the small size of your portfolio at Adobe is probably also a factor.

Some of the search positioning is luck of the draw - if things get seen and sold when they're relatively new, they get better search position thereafter, which in turn helps sales. Possibly you were luckier on the other sites when the initial uploads occurred?

Or none of the above

As a general keywording guide, I'd not rely on words in the title being searchable - they are on Adobe Stock, but not all sites search them, so you loose out.

I went through the process because I was curious. After approved, I read through the questions that were on there a couple times. It's mostly just customer service type questions at Directly. Nothing real nefarious. Pretty much the same kind of stuff you might answer for free in the forums (Upload problems, site outages, nuts and bolts stuff). I can't say it really interested me all that much to participate. That and I'm not necessarily overly plugged into any of these sites anymore that I know what is going on with there formats, systems or contracts day to day.

So did you get any idea of what they were paying for the advice (although reading the answers to Brasilnut's query, I think the "experts" should have cash deducted from their contributor accounts for giving 100% useless answers)?

I can't defend Alamy's eccentricities with uploading, inspecting, keyword rules, their odd discoverability ratings, rank, zooms or anything else. Or their strange way of allowing customers to use images ages before reporting their use or (eventually) paying for them.

However, unless you have a really huge portfolio and a really consistent sales track record, it could just be a coincidence that you haven't had sales reported of late.

I've been with Alamy (somewhat half-heartedly, admittedly) for over a decade and sales are enough to be worth it, but erratic (unlike via the top microstock sites). Things lurch forward with some sales and then go quiet for a month; big ticket amounts and super-cheap prices.

I've never had any images rejected, so I think my erratic sales are just erratic sales. Yours might be as well.

No.

Have you sent email to support to ask for a reason?

Given that you and friends were all suspended, can you think of anything the group of you might have done - like buying each other's images - that could have been behind the suspension?

It's possible that there was some sort of software glitch or mistake, but asking here won't get you answers - only Shutterstock contributor support can help you.

I agree that they really should be more clear that they may not give away our work for use by customers (versus use for promoting the agency in their own ads), but has there been any specific example of Alamy behaving badly, making money for themselves through some means other than a license for specific works while "giving away" licenses for use of our images? I'm not aware of any, so I put this in the sloppy contract terminology bucket versus slimy business practices bucket.

I also noticed a new clause that lets them give balances away to a charity of their choosing, in certain circumstances. My concern is there is nothing stating they have any obligation to try and contact the contributor prior to taking this action:

"12.7. If you have not supplied payment details or any supplied details are incorrect or you have chosen a payment method that we no longer support then (i) if your cleared balance is over the payment threshold specified in clause 12.3 Alamy may remit any cleared balance that is over 2 years old to a charity of our choice; or (ii) if your cleared balance is under the payment threshold specified in clause 12.3 Alamy may remit any such cleared balance that is over 5 years old to a charity of our choice."

I would also like to be clear on whether opting out of distributor sales (which I have) means anything with respect to offering my images for sale via third parties - which I wouldn't want for the same reason I don't want distributor sales:

"9.1. In addition to the promotion rights set out in 8.3 above you grant Alamy permission to sell your Images at any price and by any method we feel appropriate and to supply Images to third parties without Alamy having to consult you, including but not limited to trials with new Customers, prototypes/proof of concept and high volume low unit price licences. Where Alamy does not make a charge to these third parties, you will not receive payment."

If I have no control over these third-party schemes, it could include other agencies I already have images with, plus I'm splitting low unit price fees with both Alamy and whoever the third party is - so just like distributor sales but worse because the customer price is very low.

I got an invitation, but couldn't find anywhere (including the terms of service) how much you actually get paid. Not doing anything until I find out.

I got the invitation too. I couldn't find anything out about compensation either. Hiding what you get paid is never a good sign.

I read some of the blurb on Directly's web site and they're pitching to their customers (SS in this case) how they can cut their support costs while improving response times - saving 67% per ticket.

Couple Directly's pitch with the SS-specific video (I did watch it; it didn't say much of interest) which also didn't mention how much we'd be paid, and I figured they somehow think we'll do this for the love of SS and something minuscule in terms of payment.

Considering the trajectory of SS compensation to contributors - all these lower priced, lower royalty packages that effectively mean less per month for me over time - I'm not feeling I'd be the beneficiary of this transaction.

They want to keep investors happy with a better bottom line. They're going to have to go elsewhere to get help doing that. We've already "given".

Quote from: Jo Ann Snover on October 04, 2018, 12:58

Quote from: jjneff on October 04, 2018, 08:58

Never got my code and am well passed the requirements

I haven't received my code either. I did contact support earlier and supposedly I'd be in the next batch. But if another batch has gone out - ccbcc mentioned receiving one this week - then I'm puzzled.

Hi Jo Ann,

Moments ago I received an updated list and see that you are on it. I'll reach out to you via email to make sure you are all set.

Thanks for your patience,

Mat

I received a message from Mat earlier, and then just a minute or two ago, I received my email. Mat's magic wand fixed up whatever was amiss.

Many thanks for the assistance.

Getty has many special deals - Premium Access is the name of one of them (I think; they have changed it many times). Your royalty rate applies to whatever negotiated fee that customer has agreed to. I believe that when logged in they show you the rates you're entitled to see, so it's not about being in the wrong country, but not being an account with any sort of special pricing.

If you're independent, you get 15% for photos and 20% for illustrations & video.

Shutterstock "single & other" downloads have generated royalties (not license amounts) up to $120. There are higher priced deals out there, and it's more about the buyer and their license needs than about your content.

I think it's a problem that contributors cannot know the details of some of these private deals - the agencies don't divulge what rights they've licensed, so it's a good price or a bargain, and all you know is the royalty you'll receive. We've asked about this in the past and gotten nowhere

...Unfortunately, on Getty my images have no descriptions and the keywords (that are both in the metadatas and in 500px) have been replaced by terrible keywords : only very generic keywords, no places, countries or city names. I have a close up of an eye that does not have the keyword 'eye'.
It seems to be the same for all images from their "500px collection". I even found a horse keyworded "goat".

I closed my 500px account a while back, but I have work on EyeEm which has a similar deal with Getty for distribution. It's the same with respect to keywords. Getty removed all the useful ones that identified the location. I can understand adding some of their CV baggage to existing keywords, but cannot fathom why they remove descriptions and keywords that will help an image sell (and in many cases, the removed keywords are in the CV, so it isn't an issue with a missing term.

Files do occasionally sell in spite of Getty's butchery, but I haven't bothered contacting anyone about it because my prior experiences with Getty suggest I should save my breath to cool my porridge