Quote from: holgs on October 24, 2009, 20:08
I'm surprised this hasn't received more comments... $400???

Has there been any update on this?

No. And for sure you won't hear any comments from Fotolia on this. They can take 70% of your actual sales, but you must bear the loss of sales from stolen pictures completely yourself.

Quote from: holgs on October 24, 2009, 08:00
The number of credit card fraud related transactions there is a cause for concern. It looks like they really don't have any effective security measure. I've had 4 transactions reversed in the last month for refused cards.

What really bothers me is that the transactions seem to correlate with Subscription sales - so someone signs up with a subscription, steals a lot of out photos then we get amounts subtracted from our balance.

one was on 15 October: (Image purchased with subscription, 07-21-2009 02:15:12 am) - so basically the fraud happened and they don't pick it up for 3 months?!?

Some contributors have had money deducted from transactions that happened over a year earlier. I agree the risk should be taken by the one who gets the lion's share of the commission. But apparently FT contributors are out of luck and had better just live with it. That's par for their course.

Wow!  I wonder what they do for fun? 

Just read a FT forum entry by Jason Stitt, an Emerald contributor, stating that he just got $400 (that's four hundred $$) deducted from his account for fraudulent credit card sales.  I hear about far more fraud complaints from there than from any other site.  I wonder if they're even addressing the problem at all...

Jason Stitt (an Emerald contributor) posted on their forum a couple of days ago that he just had over $400 removed from his account due to credit card fraud.  This has grown to be an alarming recurring theme over there.  I know it happens on other sites, but I never hear about it happening nearly so much anywhere else. 
Why?

Man!  I already spend far too much time wandering thru the photography section of www.stumbleupon.com.  Now you guys go and give me even more obstacles to getting my editing done.  Thanks!

Not to mention this will massively slow down the upload process at SS, DT, FT, BS, SX, 123, and others, if it becomes the trend across most or all micros.  Oy-vay!

Don't know if this has been mentioned here yet.  I really hope this person is no longer shooting weddings:

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1218248/Newlyweds-win-court-battle-1-500-wedding-photographer-shoddy-pictures-include-missing-heads-car-close-ups.html

Quote from: madelaide on October 02, 2009, 22:20
Pedro,

First the fake model releases, now this.  You are walking on fire, you know?

Refused images can be sold as RM in other agencies.  Anything different is contrary to the exclusivity agreement of any agency.

On the other hand, we've heard about exclusives whose spouses/gf/bf with a remarkably similar type of work are non-exclusive contributors to other agencies, what always raised some suspitions.

Are Istock's refused exclusive files eligible to be sold as RM on other sites?  I was under the impression that rejected exclusive IS files could not ever be sold anywhere else at all, including as RM, unless arrangements were made with IStock on a case-by-case basis.

Quote from: LSD72 on October 02, 2009, 20:17
Just put on a name tag with the initials of "L.C.V."

I think Shutterstock University would be a much better program.  They could teach budding microstock sites how to make subscription sales profitable for their contributors.

A recent rejection explanation from DT:

"Image is not RF stock oriented or its sales potential is too low at this stage. Please note that Stock photography is a commercial type of imagery, so, snapshots are not Stock. There are several vital requirements that an image must meet in order to be stock oriented. An image must serve a purpose, must have a concept, must have a good technical execution in terms of composition, exposure, light setting, optical performance. Creativity is a keyword for a successful stock image, as well. It is also very important to understand that Art and Stock are two fundamentally different categories of imagery, that only meet when an artwork can adapt to a wide range of commercial usage"

Wow.  Snapshot??  The SS and IS reviewers apparently didn't think so, or perhaps they thought as a snapshot it was a good enough to accept into their libraries.

And who has all those images now?

With all the flux and constant changes and new offerings going on with most sites, it seems like Shutterstock is holding quietly steady.  No major shifts or changes going on there recently, price increases, commission decreases, major site overhauls, etc, or am I mistaken?  My earnings there have never dipped drastically, only gone up very slowly but very steadily with my very slow and steady portfolio growth over 3 years.  Nothing extreme either way but always constant slight upward growth.  I don't pay attention to their forum much, so maybe I've missed some recent big changes, but I don't think so.  Anyway, if it is the case that no major shakeups have come from them, then why not?  Just business as usual for SS all this time?  Are they getting ready for a big move?  I don't hear very many people complaining about drastic reductions in their earnings there, so maybe SS has this micro business pretty well figured out.  Perhaps they are the site to really focus our future efforts on.  Then again, maybe not.  Don't know.  I really dislike subs in general, but I'm okay with the way SS handles them.  However, if Getty buys them out I believe they'll introduce a lot of stupid changes that will ruin the site.    Just thinking out loud.

MSG PUBLIC SERVICE ANNOUNCEMENT:

For the sake of improving the air quality around here, use of the "Ignore" button is highly recommended in cases like this one.

Thanks, Leaf, for adding that nice little touch to the site.  Much appreciated.

I'm going to nominate that first one for the Infinite collection.

Quote from: lisafx on September 04, 2009, 15:37
Maybe the recession here in Florida is worse than elsewhere in the country, but the studio pros that I am acquainted with are not netting anywhere near 7 figures a year.  Low six figures at best.  And they tell me they are being affected by the economy and having to add lower priced packages and explore new avenues of marketing. 

Of course maybe they are all lying, but if so it is a darned convincing show.

OTOH, Xposurepro, I applaud both your work ethic and your optimism.  Just not sure why it is so important to convince all of us, though?  Most of us on this board are mainly stock photographers anyway.

Speaking for myself, there is no amount of money you could offer me to deal with the tedium of running a studio and catering to the whims of portrait and wedding clients. (been there, tried that)  Shudder! 

Yes!  Bridezillas and mothers of Bridezillas make life truly miserable.

The title of this thread is misleading.  The large downloads have NOT disappeared.  They just turned into subscription sales.

Suljo, I really like your posts.  That worries me...

.....Hello?.....Did somebody say something??

Ask the magazine if their copy producers (writers), layout designers, and printer are also working for the credit and "free marketing" they will get from this publication and not getting paid in cash.  If they are all working just for credit given, then you go right ahead and join them.

Just say "no."

As an example,

http://www.dreamstime.com/thread_18291

What's so bothersome about a simple thread about subscriptions that they have to lock it so quickly??  And threatening to delete future ones??  Wassup?

Do you have any kind of review process for photos, as far as technical quality (noise, artifacts, etc.)?

PS- Also, I'm curious as to why you decided to start selling stock photo's.  Did you start to get requests from customers?

Wow, and Microsoft even! (Imagine that?)

http://news.cnet.com/8301-13860_3-10317763-56.html?part=rss&subj=news&tag=2547-1_3-0-5