Quote from: cobalt on June 18, 2015, 18:07

I am sure the stand the community took against the dollar photo club (and before against google) helped to make it clear how important it is to treat us fairly. SS has a lot more content than all the other agencies because more people trust them and they make a big effort to communicate well.

Technically speaking our content has also just been moved to adobe without giving us a choice or opt out. But because it comes across as a fair opportunity, at least to me, I doubt we will see a shitstorm demanding to pull content.

But if we had not made a stand..would we be offered 33% on AS, a change in the way subs are counted towards rank, which moved many people up one ladder etc...? Adobe is huge, they really don�t want a drama with millions of files disappearing over night.

All we want is a reliable work environment and sensible discussions with respect. Give everyone a chance to make money together.

So I hope this really is a new chapter for fotolia and us.

"and they make a big effort to communicate well." really???

I recoil every time I hear this XXXX and other often repeated fallacy's. Please they have permanent blinders and ear muffs on and have for years.

I would buy that they are making an effort to recruit and positively influence those who have a track record of promoting sites.

Quote from: StockPhotosArt on June 13, 2015, 01:38

If this is an forum used by ADULTS, where the discussion of ideas is the most important factor, than I do not see any value in th Minus button.

The people who disagree have the option to write an answer stating why they think differently, or to give a positive vote to an answer that state the reasons why they disagree.

To me, saying No without any further explanation in an adult environment is offensive, because it's treating adults as children. Children at a certain age need to hear No and simply No, because at their stage of development they do not understand complex reasons. But little after they start needing justifications to understand and accept the No. If this is an ADULT and PROFESSIONAL forum, than voting down without any further reasoning is treating adults as little children.

I do not see how removing the Disagree button makes people a "bunch of good little robots" as mentioned earlier. In fact it's the opposite. You can program a robot to press indefinitely a Minus or Disagree button, but you can't make it reply in an intelligent manner.

I disagree.


Pushing a plus button doesnt show any intelligence either. If people have to give a reason for disagreeing then they should have to give a reason for agreeing too. Either treat adults EQUALLY as adults, or scrap the - or + thing altogether.

Strangely enough, very few complain about receiving ego boosting +'s

Actually I think having the ability to show that you "do not agree" is less confrontational than the only remaining option of stating why using text. 

I prefer the less benign method of letting someone know I do not agree. 

Letting someone know I do not hold the same viewpoints, does not mean that I do not value their viewpoint, it just means we agree to disagree.

Quote from: gbalex on June 10, 2015, 16:08

Quote from: Shelma1 on June 10, 2015, 14:53

The conversation isn't confusing at all; I'm simply pointing out tickstock's hypocrisy. He's OK with iStock's lack of ethics, and it doesn't bother him if they break the law by claiming a file is exclusive when it is not, but he chastises me for suggesting I feel no pity for a company that acts dishonestly towards its contributors when one of those contributors tries to find what would be a perfectly legal loophole when it comes to exclusivity (which is a malleable concept as far as iStock is concerned).

It's not something I'd try. But I don't feel badly for iStock, because they set an unfair precedent by allowing special contributors to get the financial benefits of both exclusivity and non-exclusivity simultaneously. It's unfair to everyone else, who is either non-exclusive (like me) and gets lower royalties and lousy search placement, or is truly exclusive and forfeits the income from other sources.

It is your double standards that are confusing.

"Where do you draw the line? You're just fine with your representative advertising certain work as exclusive when it's not. You're still willing to do business with a company that breaks the law in order to gain some advantage over the competition. You seem to be totally Ok with your rep giving sweetheart deals to some people. Is it unethical to do business with them? Is it OK to turn a blind eye as long as they make you money?"

As for the original question, there is no grey area when it comes to right or wrong.

It is like saying because my wife does not clean the house the way I think she ought to; it is okay for me to cheat on her because she deserves to be punished for her infractions.

iS created a legal loophole for some contributors to get the benefits of exclusivity while also contributing to other sites. The OP is asking about the possibilty of a similar loophole that would allow him or her to act the same way as the contributors who benefit from iStock's special loophole. Who's wrong?

Then he needs to do the same thing that Yuri, Andres, etc did. Contact IS upfront and hammer out a mutually agreeable deal.

Quote from: tickstock on June 10, 2015, 12:15

Quote from: Shelma1 on June 10, 2015, 12:07

Quote from: tickstock on June 10, 2015, 11:59

Quote from: Shelma1 on June 10, 2015, 11:54

Quote from: tickstock on June 10, 2015, 11:48

Quote from: Shelma1 on June 10, 2015, 11:44

Quote from: tickstock on June 10, 2015, 11:23

Quote from: Shelma1 on June 10, 2015, 11:00

I would have a problem with the ethics if iStock hadn't already set a precedent by offering certain people faux exclusivity. Still, proceed at your own risk. I'd be unwilling to chance it myself.

He has an agreement with iStock just like the "faux exclusives" do.  If you aren't ok with that then you shouldn't be exclusive, I don't think it grants anyone the right to cheat or try to defraud the company and buyers.  I think it's rather telling that you are ok with that kind of behavior.

You're ok with a corporation offering exclusive favoring in search results and higher commissions to some people who are also allowed to license their work elsewhere, but not giving the same agreement to others? How about labeling files that are licensed elsewhere as being "exclusive to iStock?" That's false advertising, at least in the U.S. Illegal, not just immoral.

I'm not going to do something illegal or immoral because of it.

 If you actually read my posts, you'd see that I'm not either. But you're being awfully hypocritical if you're OK with iStock breaking its own rules for some and breaking the law with its advertising claims but take umbrage at an individual giving him or herself the same advantage iStock gives to only certain contributors.

I read what you said it's quoted above.  You said you had no ethical problem with cheating or lying because "istock set a precedent".  Personally, that's not the kind of person I want to be.  Not because I worry about being caught like you say but because it's wrong.

Where do you draw the line? You're just fine with your representative advertising certain work as exclusive when it's not. You're still willing to do business with a company that breaks the law in order to gain some advantage over the competition. You seem to be totally Ok with your rep giving sweetheart deals to some people. Is it unethical to do business with them? Is it OK to turn a blind eye as long as they make you money?

If you believe they are breaking the law then file a complaint, doing illegal or immoral things in response isn't the right answer it just makes you an immoral person.  iStock can make sweetheart agreements with contributors, it's their business.  Jealousy doesn't make it ok to do immoral or illegal things either.

If you're OK with skirting the boundaries of ethics by doing business with a company that offers sweetheart deals and breaks the law, don't chastise others for seeing what they're doing and looking for ways to skirt around things as well.

You've drawn an arbitrary line that stops exactly where you personally feel comfortable with questionable ethics and illegality as long as it makes you money, but still feel entitled to climb up on your high horse.

Confusing conversation considering that you shelma1 are still doing business and making money from such a despicable company.

Maybe....Just maybe there setting up to release the new forums?

BS & SS are both down and shutterstock has stated that the forums are on different servers.

At the very least they are working on the main site and the roll out is not going well.

LOL Via shutterstock's twitter account



http://www.virgin.com/entrepreneur/pitch-to-rich-2015-judges-announced

A regular occurrence, no other site goes down as often.

I am all for helping other contributors out.

However I am not into helping a company which is already devaluating our assets to fill their pockets.

There have been numerous site bugs that plague contributors on the shutterstock in addition to serious review issues and shutterstock expects us to put up and shut up. They have no intention of addressing any issues that costs contributors time and money.

Helping shutterstock is a lose lose on the contributor side. They have already taken more than they deserve. And by breaking the original referral agreement, they have shown their true colors in regard to integrity and trust.

The only time we ever hear anything from shutterstock is when they want something from us. When we are experiencing problems they are no where to be found.

Now they want referrals from us for new contributors and they want us to train them.

http://submit.shutterstock.com/forum/viewtopic.php?t=148941&start=34

"Hi everyone,

We absolutely love this thread and it gave us an idea for a series on our blog where we show both the setup image (like some of you have in this forum post) and the end result on Shutterstock with a short description by the photographer about the concept and the execution.

We think this could be a huge help to contributors who are struggling to get content accepted or are unaware what it sometimes takes to get a great shot.

If you would like to submit as a candidate, please send the following in an email to [email protected]:
please put in subject line: Behind the Shot
attach the behind-the-scene image (max 10 MB)
a link to the final image on Shutterstock.com
a short description (no more than 1 or 2 paragraphs) on why you decided to shoot it that way, if you used a trick that improved the image, which tools and materials you used, etc."

I don't buy it that SS is so gullible not to notice a rogue reviewer. It would also mean a portfolio has a dedicated reviewer which I doubt as well.

Really your guess is as good as mine. But for the sake of argument there are more than a few ports filled with replicated crap. I know of one huge port filled with nothing but a mostly identical shot of plain yogurt.

As an example there was one well know pimper that used to baffle minds in regard to reviews.  Not only did shutterstock accept everything the pimper submitted, we had to see it in every thread, day after day, year after year.  Mean while much better images were being rejected on a daily basis.

There is just no way shutterstock could have NOT noticed this. As for the explanation of why shutterstock never did anything about it. It baffles the mind. 

They need to send out a correction via email. Otherwise anyone can license an image for templates under the standard license and point to the original email if challenged legally.

The department that created this add has had 11 days to correct their error.  I am a buyer and have not received an email to correct or clarify the faulty information they sent to buyers.

As always, actions convey intent and reality