File Sold ...
Purchase License: XXL
Commission: 0.29

Not - it was NOT a subscription, yet $0.29 for an XXL!  What's up with that?

This is what subs look like
File Sold (Subscription)...
Purchase License: M
 Sale Price: 0.29

This is what credits look like
File Sold ...
Purchase License: XL
 Sale Price: 10

Edited to add another weird one.  Credit Sales are normally credits, not a $ value?
File Sold ...
Purchase License: M
 Commission: 0.941599999999

Subs are in $, Sales are in Credits.  Either a glitch in how they explained it was sold, or an underpayment.  Only credit (?)sale today so I can't check any farther than that.  Anyone else?

At least 20 years ago when I worked at a Canadian head office they did a study and then - 20 years ago - determined that every time we cut a cheque manually it cost the company just short of $50.  I would request it, someone would cut it, Department manager approves it - 2 other people sign it.  Mail services carry it from one office to the next and back to me to stuff, stamp and mail.  Pond5 surely doesn't have as many hoops to jump, but I don't think $10 is unrealistic.  Just the postage is likely a buck.  Last time I ordered 125 company cheques it was $60 (48 cents each!)

Well, people are always remembered for the worst thing they ever said or did, so KT will have to personally coo and kiss 20,000 photographers' babies before we will ever forget "money isn't going to be what make us happy".

I am sick beyond words.

I'm no statistician, the 2 college statistics courses I took were many years ago, but it is interesting to see some of the thoughts here about SS's numbers for the quarter.

"Image collection expanded 49%". In one quarter!!?? That was a shock to me. In simple terms, it looks like you would have to increase your port by 49% every three months just to keep keep up. So if you start out 2016 with 1000 images you will need to add 3000 during the year just to stay even with SS's increase in its image collection. Ouch 

LOL, especially remarkable considering all of the "all 45 rejected" threads!

Not every company has a million dollars stached in a corner somewhere, just in case a patent troll shows up.

I'm not sure how every company would have the ability to steal money from hundreds of people and get away with it without going to jail either.  He took his rightful 50% he took the artists 50% - because in the Wild West of the Internet, there are no systems in place to protect anyone.  Who knows what he really got out of it.   It would be very easy to take YOUR money and hide it in motor bikes, yachts and vacation homes before he closed his doors.  He should be liable to SOMEONE.  It's lovely for him that he can live under the electronic cloak of invisibility.  If he owned a brick and mortar store and stole his employee's wages he would be front page news.

I'm human, I feel for this guy.  But still, he stole from other people that I feel sorry for too.  One person commented they lost $13,000!   I could feed my family for 2 years with that amount of money!

Remember Lucky Oliver?  They closed up shop and paid us our due.  I'm still a friend of Brian's on Facebook.  He doesn't have to hide his head in the sand or feel bad because he didn't rip anyone off (that I know of).

"We" should only be doing business with reps who put "our" earnings into a trust account.  This is another example of why we really need to become a part of an artists collective and have a Union to tell the agents what they can and can't do. 

I looked at their landing page and everything is so dull an flat - almost hazy like it was shot with film and not processed properly. 

Is that what they mean by "un" stock?  Photos that aren't quite cooked properly?

Does the money owed to people belong to Revostock or the contributors?  I presume it isn't Revostocks money.  Some sites might get away with not paying out below a payment threshold but how can they do this when its a much larger amount of money?  Where have Revostock said that they have spent the money owed to contributors?  Aren't their laws against that?

Of course the money is owed to the contributors.  Revostock is selling a property for a contributor and has a fiduciary responsibility to them.

What difference is this to someone knitting hats and having a shop sell them on consignment?  You would expect to get paid for every hat that is sold.  Think bigger - horses or used cars.  Why would digital property be any different?

I never in a million years would have thought Guy Kawasaki and Oleg Tscheltzoff in the same context but from what I have read in this thread, Canva seems to be modeling it's management style off the Fotolia legacy. 

If you don't have anything nice to say about Canva, don't say anything at all; or else.

Just to nitpick with one of Yuri's big criticisms, from near the end of his biased rambling... "There are no decent photographers in the world that don�t know what stock photography is and haven�t tested the waters already."  Sure, this is probably true today, but Adobe has its eyes on the future.  Does Yuri think the photographers/illustrators/videographers working 10 years from now will be the same people working today?  No, the top talent of the future isn't aware of microstock today because they're in grade school.  Adobe will influence the quality of future contributors because they will start out as students being trained in Adobe software.  Adobe Stock is the first place -- maybe for some the only place -- they will submit. 

So true!  But to clarify, you cannot contribute to AdobeStock directly can you?  Only through FT?  Perhaps future direct submissions to AS will be "exclusive" to make them stand apart from FT with their own exclusive content.

There is no way SS doesn't want you.  I remember when Istock lost it's exclusives enmasse a couple years ago they asked you to contact someone directly and I think it was a more or less direct pass once they saw the Istock port.

Anyone know if there is a name that Rose should contact?  Was it the Anthony guy who used to be in charge of editorial?

http://www.bbc.co.uk/newsbeat/article/34344619/all-about-that-bass-writer-says-he-got-5679-from-178m-streams

That is quite a slap in the face isn't it?  2 writers at presumably a 50/50 split = $11,358 for that many streams. 

What exactly is a stream?  Isn't a stream something like Spotify where you don't actually download the music?

What would make this story more interesting would be to hear what he received in total, publishing right, paid downloads, radio play, tours, tv appearances, I think I've seen in tv commercials as well.  Surely there was more income than $5679.

On a side note, remember Billy Ray Cyrus's version of Achey Brakey Heart?   I remember an interview with the writer of that song and his first royalty cheque (I think they were quarterly) was $250,000. 

They need to lower their minimum payout to about $30. Sheesh, if Shutterstock can lower theirs (when everyone could actually meet their higher minimum anyway) I would be more comfortable sticking with Veer.  I had planned to pull my port after last payment cleared, but while waiting they sold around $40 - since January they have sold $30.  I don't think I will see another payout until 2017 at this rate.