In the eyeem facebookgroup there is a contributor who is now taking eyeem to court and also trying to get a criminal case going accusing them of fraud.

If you look around the net apparently there are many other artists from their platforms also complaining about delays of over 9 months before they get paid.

https://www.facebook.com/groups/EyeEmMarket

I suppose it will end with eyeem being sold again�.

I wonder how they were able to buy it in the first place, knowing they probably didn't had the financial balance and outlook to do so.

Nice to see that someone wants to go through the hassle of taking legal actions just to prove a point, not necessarily getting paid.

I see two possible outcomes:

- Talenthouse finds new investors and is able to pay the contributors and everyone else they own money to.
Restoring trust is the only way to survive and ensure future business.

- They go bankrupt, while meanwhile the images at partners stay online and are still generating sales which ends up the trustee who handles the bankruptcy and tries to pay as many creditors as possible? Again, contributors probably last in row? And what happens afterwards? Images remain online and nobody gets paid? Or will someone take the effort to effectively remove the content from all their partner sites?

Quote from: Roscoe on August 19, 2022, 08:40

Quote from: Firn on August 19, 2022, 06:15

Quote from: Roscoe on August 18, 2022, 09:49

 Hard work beats talent (if talent doesn't work hard)

From my personal experience, with microstock, sheer luck beats talent and hard work. Might not have been the case when the selection of images was more limited, but now with millions of images for competition, it's mostly a matter of luck to have the right image at the right time displayed somewhere.

This one sold for around $100:
https://www.shutterstock.com/image-photo/orange-industrial-transportable-dumpster-container-1668704380

I  still have some images where I put lots of work into where I seem to have been able to produce something that is in high demand and the images sold hundreds of times. But even "hundreds of times" can, in worse case scenario, still mean like $50 only. For me it's rarely the images that are in high demand and sell in large quantities that bring in the money. It's the ocassional high amount sales that make the difference between a good month and a bad month on Shutterstock and these, at least for me, are often really random. I really can't attribute having earned $100 from a very random photo of a very random industrial dumpster, that took me literally 3 seconds to take, 0 seconds to post-process and under 10 seconds to keyword to "hard work" or "talent". Anyone who follows the minimum image quality standards of Shutterstock could have made, uploaded and sold an image like this. All it needed was luck.

I agree with you, luck is probably quite a big factor in the game nowadays.
But don't you think that hard work increases your chances in having that luck?

Hard work can be producing a lot of content, which increases your chances on having more occasional big sales of rather random shots like you had, or having an unintentional best-seller of a rather generic subject.
 
Hard work can be producing higher quality images, which also increases your chances of getting images actually sold on a very regular basis.

Or hard work can be analyzing the market trends and gaps in the database and start shooting that.

Or combining all of that together.

Whether the hard work is worth the returns is of course a completely different story

Yes, of course hard work, and also talent, plays a role. I don't doubt that. As said, there are images where I invested a large amount of work and time and some of them sell regularly - And across all agencies, counting together the sum, of course they also bring in a decent amount of money over time. But when I just sell my "regular" sellers within a month, my income is my "regular" income as well. Because of the time and effort I put into my photos that "regular" income might be much better than someone else's income, who just snaps a few photos without any real effort. But it's the big sales that make a difference between my average "regular" monthly earnings and a really great month. These big sales have a much bigger impact on my earnings and these are almost always really random photos that do not sell regularly at all, that's why I attribute them to the luck factor.

I am not sure I am getting across what I am trying to say so well. I am convinced that spending time and effort, not only into taking photos and videos, but also into doing research to determine what could sell well and also talent pays off and plays a role in microstock and helps you have a decent income.
 But this is a thread about high price photo and video sales and, at least for me, very specifically these sales rarely seem to be the ones connected to effort and work, but more to luck.

Yes, clear Firn. My post was indeed a more general remark regarding Microstock, not specifically aimed at fishing for high commissions.
So thanks for bringing it back on topic.
 
If I'm not mistaken, a discussion regarding which kind of images and subjects generally generate higher commissions took place in the past.
Can't find it after a quick and dirty search, maybe someone else remembers better than I do.
Anyhow, I don't think there was a clear conclusion regarding which kind of images have a higher chance to get better commissions.
So you might be right: it's a matter of luck and then only way to have a higher chance to win the lottery is obtaining more tickets. 

I do have the gut feeling that my illustrative editorial images are a bit more subject to generating higher RPD's.
But also way lower in volume, and nothing that comes close to double figure commissions.

I have requested the colsure of my Eyeemaccount already a month ago. Nothing happens, the account is still up. No sales report either. I wrote them again, and got this quite fast answer.

Quote

Hi Kim

we have received your request to fully delete your EyeEm account. Please allow us 7 days to do so. This will pull all your images from EyeEm Market and our Partners. Partner image takedowns can take up to 21 days.

Please make sure that you are requesting your account deletion from the exact same email address that is associated to your EyeEm account. Otherwise we won't be able to process this request.

If you have pending payouts, we will trigger them to be paid out before deleting your account. This will add an additional week, to assure your payout goes through. In case you don't wish to receive that last payment but rather speed up your account deletion process, then please reply with "No payout request needed, please delete my account asap".

Best,
your EyeEm Support Team

PS: If you have changed your mind or if you want to change the type of deletion request, then please reply to this message by copy & pasting one of the other three [ ] options below. Right now the request marked with

• is activated:
• Please delete my full EyeEm account and all images on EyeEm Market and Partners

[ ] Please delete all my images (Market and Partners) but keep my account active (to keep access to payouts history, keep receiving newsletters, etc)
[ ] Please only delete my images that are on Partners (keep my EyeEm account and Market images)
[ ] I have changed my mind, please don't take any action / I did not request an account deletion

The 21 days referred to have already expired onc without result.
But I notice taht they can speed things up if I do not want my pending payments. In other words, they are broke!

Could be, things are not going well with Talenthouse I just found out.

Meanwhile there's a lot of complaining on social media. Not only regarding EyeEm but also regarding other brands under the Talenthouse umbrella.
A lot of the contributors and creatives are still waiting for payments by Talenthouse.

I'd strongly advice against providing them new content, and it might be wise to try to get your images removed from their platform and partner sites. (if you can get it done, they don't seem to be responding to those kinds of requests anymore)

Two huge sales saved the last month.

Indeed. They happen at iStock/Getty too, and more frequently than at Shutterstock in recent times. At least that's my experience.
Even at disrespectful 15% commissions, my RPD is higher at iStock/Getty than it is at my current 30% commission rate with Shutterstock.
And a potential raise to 35% later this year will not save that. 

Quote from: Zero Talent on August 18, 2022, 10:46

Quote from: Roscoe on August 18, 2022, 09:49

I do. Hard work beats talent (if talent doesn't work hard)

Exactly! Work and acquired knowledge (through work) is the answer.
I am not blessed with talent, I'm no artist, I'm an engineer. Everything I do in this field comes from research, analysis and self-learning, not from luck, not from talent.

I have "Zero Talent". 

Btw, here is another sale that qualifies for "occasional high-priced sale", that just happened today on SS:

Now I am getting depressed with your high sales. Go away!

Can't speak in Zero Talent's name but I think what he's trying to say: anyone can do it if you really want to.
At least, that's what I get out of it.

Rule of thumb is that it takes 10.000 hours of proper practice and education to master a certain discipline.
I know there are exceptions and certain factors in a discipline that require other characteristics (e.g. physical) too, but 10.000 hours of proper practice will really beat out a lot, if not most, of more talented competition. Hard work often goes hand in hand with consistency, reliability and adaptability while talent without hard work is strongly dependent on the right conditions, luck in other words, to thrive.

Whether it's worth it to dedicate all that time to microstock is another question of course and for most of us the answer will be hell no. On the other hand, you really don't need that 10.000 hours for microstock. Most of us already know how to handle a camera and getting a decent looking shots out of it. If you are willing to invest time in reverse engineering success stories, you can probably go a long way in microstock. So we can all create our micro success stories and decide for our own how far we want to go with that. Find the right balance between liking what you do, invest some time in things you don't necessarily like but need to grow, and the returns (which can be financially or emotionally, pleasure) you get out of it.

So far my philosophical meandering take on the topic.

True, but make a note, that iStock slashed prices and values far before SS joined the depressing 10 cent route. Remember unsustainable and everyone makes 15%, no levels, no bonus, no nothing. And then Connect?

The bottom line, and I'm not supporting it, is the way to cut expenses for the agencies, is cut the cost of goods sold. Our commission. Prices have not stayed the same. There has been some adjusting to terms and licenses to make the prices lower, which means we get paid less. Everyone here notices less EL, less SO and less of the other high priced types of use.

Yes, many people make more by supporting the SS insulting rewards for our work. Let me say, Willing Victims who make a choice to take the money, instead of making nothing.

You're also right, that the OP needs to decide on their own if they want to get into this situation again, working for SS, and make something, that's undervaluing our work, or just do something else or concentrate on agencies that pay better. (which is down to Adobe?)

Many people talk about how we should do something or how we should stop uploading, but no one says how anything will change for the better if we do that. Back to throwing a pebble into the lake. We are nothing but a gnat on a 300 pound gorilla's back. 400 million images, what would 10,000 here and there matter. iStock adds half a million new assets a month.

If someone has a realistic, working solution, not some personal philosophy, not about their perception of their personal value, I'm in with that plan. Show me how we can actually make a change and I'm in.

I was not actively involved to microstock when iStock/Getty massacred the commissions. So Shuttergate was my first "shock" in that regard.

True, the only agency that manages to balance better commissions at decent volumes is Adobe. At least for me. Yet, they only account for roughly 25% of my microstock income. Maybe 30% or so if I include some sales via Wirestock. Go figure. The rest is Shutterstock, iStock/Getty and some minion breadcrumbs.

I disabled my portfolio for a while, as many others did. And the only impact it had was a drastic decrease of my microstock earnings. Shutterstock didn't change their minds and sales at other agencies did not increase. So I took it. The hit. Enabled my portfolio again, as many others did, made a fairly decent rest of the year (considering my rather smallish port) and made a very good 2021 there. I saw a drastic decrease in bigger commissions in 2022, but (admittedly by a small margin), Shutterstock is still my top earning agency this year so far.

I look at how much an agency brings in at the end of the month. And three of them are worth my time and effort in that regard: Adobe, Shutterstock, and iStock/Getty.
They account for roughly 80%. The money is made by the big three, and two out of three are treating contributors like poop.

So yeah, I would love to be part of an initiative that makes them change their minds or go broke. But it's not gonna happen. That train has left the station and it's on it's way to the next one. As you said, the few dozen activist contributors who are willing to take a financial hit to make a point are nothing more than a gnat on a 300 pound gorilla's back.

Maybe we should ask ourselves a different question: what would feel like a fair price for licensing an image?
The most probable answer would be: well, that would depend on the usage, right?

10 cents for licensing an image on a social media post that vaporizes in a few hours or a low-traffic website?
You know what? Fine by me, go ahead, I don't care.

But this? 

STANDARD IMAGE LICENSE grants you the right to use Images:

As a digital reproduction, including on websites, in online advertising, in social media, in mobile advertising, mobile "apps", software, e-cards, e-publications (e-books, e-magazines, blogs, etc.), email marketing and in online media (including on video-sharing services such as YouTube, Dailymotion, Vimeo, etc., subject to the budget limitations set forth in sub-section I.a.i.4 below);

Printed in physical form as part of product packaging and labeling, letterhead and business cards, point of sale advertising, CD and DVD cover art, or in the advertising and copy of tangible media, including magazines, newspapers, and books provided no Image is reproduced more than 500,000 times in the aggregate;

As part of an "Out-of-Home" advertising campaign, including on billboards, street furniture, etc., provided the intended audience for such campaign is less than 500,000 gross impressions.

Incorporated into film, video, television series, advertisement, or other audio-visual productions for distribution in any medium now known or hereafter devised, without regard to audience size, provided the budget for any such production does not exceed USD $10,000;

For your own personal, non-commercial use (not for resale, download, distribution, or any commercial use of any kind)


That's a different story huh?
500,000 reproductions, worldwide, for 10 cents. Am I getting that right? Feels a bit... I don't know. Stretched? Like I totally misunderstood something. 
And do the 33, 36 or 38 cents at Adobe make us feel so much better then?
If not, what would be a fair price for a Standard License allowing customers to reproduce it 500,000 times?

I don't have the answers Pete. But I soothe myself with the fact that Microstock pays for new gear, and some trips.
And I made that money basically with something I really like doing: shooting and editing.
And I try to ignore all the rest. Why? There's nothing we can do about it.

I'd like to be paid better and fairly, but the market creates the pricing. Supply and demand creates the value of what we do. SS is not leading, they are following.

The way I look at it: Shutterstock followed the market opportunities that their suppliers (contributors) created. They did not slash contributor earnings because they needed to lower customer prices in order to stay competitive. Customer prices stayed the same? Shutterstock just saw an opportunity to take a bigger chunk of the pie for themselves because supply by contributors vastly exceeds demand by customers, and they could afford to lose some angry contributors.

Two years further down the road, we are rapidly creating another lower market, the one of flat fee/unlimited downloads or even totally free content, which makes Shutterstock anything but a bottom of the barrel agency nowadays. Not in terms of total earnings. Distribute a thousand decent quality stock images to the well known agencies, and you will notice that Shutterstock still is a top tier agency in terms of monthly earnings (considered you can get your images approved  ).

So whether the OP should start again with providing content to Shutterstock is mainly an emotional decision to take from my point of view. Are you willing to take the insult of selling the majority of your content in the 10 - 20 cents range? From a business perspective it's an easier decision: your monthly microstock earnings will increase significantly by including Shutterstock.

stock answers

good one. Made me laugh.

Same for pictures. They get accepted by Wirestock, but don't seem to get uploaded to the agencies. And I'm talking manual keywording, no easy submissions.
A couple of weeks back I got in touch with their support and the answer was rather vague: yes we have some issues for some agencies but we expect it to be fixed soon.

Until now nothing seems to be fixed, so I refrained from uploading to Wirestock.
Makes no sense if they don't submit it to the agencies.

I don't keep track of how their collections on different agencies grow, so might as well be the case that they are very picky to what they send to agencies.
Their current collection at Dreamstime (which takes about everything you throw them) is 882,739 assets.

Another I noticed: Extra channels sales kicked off. Well, kicked off... I sold a bunch of images all for 9 cents. They have an API integration with the South Korean agency Miricanvas. The royalties are calculated based on their overall subscription revenues and total number of downloads for each month. So whoever wanted to avoid flat fee subscription sites but enabled extra channels... there you go. On the positive side: it's a market which is generally less accessible for most of contributors I guess, so a microbit of an extra which we otherwise wouldn't have.

I wonder if the need for Enhanced has declined so much, or if buyers are just not licensing correctly lately.

Fair point. Who's actually checking whether the use of an image is correctly licensed?

We don't know who licensed it and we don't know how and when it is being used.
Sure, we can use google alerts and do reverse image searches, but that only reveals a a part of the possible usage of our content.
Anyhow, I'm not doing any of that, except for the occasional search engine stuff to see where my images ended up.
Hundreds of sales per month are impossible to track. And even if we discover misuse of a license, are the agencies willing to chase the buyer?

On the other hand, I see a decline of bigger commissions across all agencies.
Only iStock/Getty and Shutterstock deliver bigger two digit commissions on a stretching every now and then.
I had exactly one bigger $$ sale on AS this year (yet, they still deliver a rather fair RPD).
Ages since I've seen a +2$ sale on Dreamstime, and even longer on other agencies. 

I can hardly imagine the demand for enhanced licenses decreased. Another explanation could be that licensing conditions improved in favor of the buyer. Get more usage options for the same price. Or there's a growing amount of misuse by the buyer. Deliberately or unknowingly.

Licensing conditions are anything but my field of expertise, maybe someone else can tell us more about how the conditions "evolved" over the years.

Quote from: Uncle Pete on August 03, 2022, 10:09

When I look at pages, I see more of Getty Images than any other agency.

I just browsed the images on some German news sites I frequently go to and there too Getty is the one most often credited.
Other than that it's IMAGO, picture alliance or dpa - All german agencies and two I have never heard of before: Contentity and bitprojects. Upon googling them Contentity is another German agency and I have no clue what bitprojects is as google gives me results related to bit coins.
But none of the images used are from free sites.

I don't think I have ever consciously seen free images used anywhere but on (mostly personal) blogs.

Maybe it's country dependent. I see Unsplash images being used in premium newspapers, glossy magazines and their websites here. Not always, but still, it is being used, and to my feeling more and more.

Most of them use a combination of their own photographers for interviews and local reportages, mainly AP or other press agencies for global news articles, and then Unsplash and mainly Getty (sometimes Shutterstock or .... Eyeem(!) ) for more human interest, general articles or clickbait filler. I have the feeling they use free content from Unsplash wherever they quality-wise can, so they can limit lower the subscription fees at Getty or other major agencies. But of course, I don't keep numbers or records, I only do observations (I'm one of those fools who actually reads image credits)

Small update: despite the email from their support, still no payments from May and June.
It even gets worse: they fail to deliver sales reports from July.
I never had a month with no (partner) downloads at Eyeem, and a lot of fellow contributors also complain about missing sales reports.

Irony of microstock is that having invested $500 on a tilt-shift lens, a $90 sale at SS just popped in for this distorted junk shot that I uploaded in 2017! Stupid buyers!

Distorted junk or not, enjoy the $90 sale. It's a rare, certainly for that kind of images.
And your new gear will trigger you to take a lot more of those shots, but better ones, thus increasing future sales.