Quote from: gameover on July 11, 2020, 05:44

Does it happen to you too?
I changed my link in my SS profile and I discovered that SS is tampering with it, redirecting the URL at a dull website of home improvement.
Have a look at my ss profile https://www.shutterstock.com/g/gameover/about
Maybe it is just me, but... childish, uh?

https://twitter.com/acrogame/status/1281899115518078976

The link is missing the ":" after https (the URL shows a ":" but the actual URL in the bottom left corner is without a ":"), thats why the browser thinks it's  "www.https.com" instead, which just happens to be a home improvement website. I don't think there is anything malicious going on here, must be a coding error?

thank you! I put my complete Url with https:// because they have only http://
Poor SS, I was thinking very badly of them 

So i come to my final decision:
- enable my port at JUL 8
- delete all valuable stuff
- will not upload nothing new (forever)
- allow to flow fading income till it stops at some point
- delete ss bookmark
- forget about all this mess

I think that such scheme is pretty optimal.

agreed, I'll do the same (before disabling, I deleted my valuable stuff yet)

Hey guys!

We are launching beta test of Pixify for a handful of people this week. If you are interested please read the latest newsletter that was sent out this evening: https://mailchi.mp/fc075b99d1d8/pixify-beta-test-launching-now

Congrats for the hard work! Your website looks functional, absolute professional and beautiful! With your quality I think it' s the best way to pursue a fair business 

For nearly a month (since the infamous 1st of June) a couple of disquieting questions have been bouncing back and forth within my skull:
-   what are we to do if/when the other agencies follow Shutterstock�s despicable example and start treating their contributors like beggars?
-   How come a fair agency like Picfair appears to sell nearly nothing even though they offer such awfully great pictures?

I do know all too well what it�s like to set up a photostock agency  - I did it. Once you solve the  technical problems (quite a hard cliff themselves) and get it to run fine, you find out to your dismay that keeping it up and running � server fees, updating, de-hacking, automation, you name it � is way more expensive (at least in time) than you optimistically thought when you started.

No, I don�t really think that setting up a new agency � with so many small ones out there struggling to survive � would be a solution. What we need is a new concept, something that would entice anyone who needs one or more images having specific requirements. The cue came from Alex Rotenberg as he told us how a customer, unable to find his images on Shutterstock any longer, got directly in touch with him.

So why not to put in contact clients and contributors, thus bypassing the agencies?
All it would take would be a surprisingly cheap and simple no-profit site, a sort of artists� cooperative dedicated to illustrations, photos and video clips, where potential clients may freely ask for images having some specific features. Their requests appear on a board and get immediately sent per E-mail to all photographers who subscribed (for free).
A mother knows her baby, a photographer knows his/her images: the one who has an image that may satisfy the client (say, a kid playing in a puddle) replies uploading ASAP one or more watermarked images onto a page that only the client may access.

That would be really big news: a thoughtful human response, no AI at all, no 300 pictures of the same lonely puddle in the park taken from 300 different angles. And no time wasted on keywords (do we all loathe them!)

As far as prices are concerned, that�s all to be seen: fixed price, normal and premium, private negotiation� a matter of taste. However the cooperative rules must be simple and clear, and accepted by all subscribers; that�s important, the one who doesn�t play fair gets kicked out without ceremony.
The site would be extremely simple � though attractive � and wouldn�t require any special server performances, or large amounts of memory, or special skills to run it. The only costs would be:
-   annual server rent (not much).
-   software maintenance (not much if regularly performed, but it must be done weekly to keep the software up to date and to prevent possible undue intrusions, malware and hacking).
-   start-up software development and further expansions if the initiative is successful (affordable).

No commission on sales � we�re talking of a no-profit initiative and this way it shall stay, lest greed creeps in and shatters(tocks) it to crumbles 

The expenditures above would be covered by all subscribers after their first sale; if some 1000 � 1500 artists gather and join, it would be a matter of a few $ each yearly � transparent management, all expenditures publicly documented, no hidden costs.

Of course there should be a page telling the cooperative�s history and its goals, with a nice name (how about �Shutterstock�s castaways�?) and some well-groomed galleries of monographic pictures about current topics, something like the Photocase�s ones.

Maximum publicity to all successful sales on the site.
No a-priori exclusive, though it may be individually agreed with the client case by case.

All the above should obviously be discussed in detail once (if) this initiative takes shape and color. Mine is just a stone I�m throwing in the pond, let�s see now if it makes any waves�

Strange, I see a significant revival of sales with royalties within the range of 2-3 dollars  at DT and 123RF, where I don't upload from ages. Anyone else?  Could be that SS customers are looking elsewhere?
Better many piranhas than a shark?

I deleted 3600 quality images at SS and yesterday disabled the 994 remaining and the few videos.
Today I see my 994 images online still on sell (https://www.shutterstock.com/g/gameover?rid=268774). Anyone else?

Getting a head start on D-Day.

thank you! I think it was a difficult decision.  it is good for the self-esteem 

Yesterday I deleted this image at shutterstock
https://stock.adobe.com/de/stock-photo/id/269596670
Nothing exceptional, but today I sold it at Adobe, receiving 0.99 Euro instead of 0.10 USD.
Don't be your cheap competitor 

Quote from: gameover on June 09, 2020, 06:54

my two cents on the 10 cents.
https://luisafumi.com/blog/2020/06/09/shutterstocks-treason/
enjoy 

Quote

For better or worse? Obviously for worse, and (surprise, surprise) the news were broken out just a few days before.
In a nutshell: if until the end of May 2020 my basic income was 36 cents/download, now Shuttestock has decreed that 10 cents/download must be enough.
Sure, in case of special sales I might still get something more � but anyway less than half as before.

This person is a "Master Physicist" with extra expertise in statistics (like for example, a hotdog with extra cheese inside). She decided to join the even higher than physics, academic circle of doing stock photography, and apparently after all that is being said, still can't pick up a calculator and do some basic 2nd grade mathematics to her earning stats to determine the actual gain or loss from all this. She thinks that because the earlier Tier 3, $0.36 minimum, was decreased to a new $0.1 minimum in her level 4 (?), that her earnings are down -75%. In reality those earnings, from the people that still have some decency left inside of them are calculated to be -5% or -10% or even -20% in smaller portfolios, but still with a chance of increasing the rpd and gaining more from EL's and OD's. So the tier system could in reality be fair unless accurate data shows otherwise.

What is not fair in the system is the upcoming January reset. But by the over reaction of people like her about the tier system, the voice of the reasonable contributors can't be heard.

For small contributors that are just starting out, get educated and start calculating your RPD and stop reading nonsense written by illiterate people.

Visit this thread and do some accurate calculations to help the effort:
https://www.microstockgroup.com/shutterstock-com/accurate-calculations-of-old-rpd-vs-june-rpd-(constant-updates)/

After all, each Shutterstock contributor must be reminded that by clicking "I Agree" they have agreed to let Shutterstock determine the contributor rates as they wish at any given time. There is nothing unethical. The January reset is still something that could be negotiated, but certainly not by the contributors that act like animals and lowering the average contributor image to that level.

Okay, you have enjoyed, goal achieved.

Quote from: gameover on June 08, 2020, 06:42

Until now I was silent. I happen to have a master in physics and as such I'm supposed to be familiar with statistics and to know how to use it correctly.
Yours doesn't look like statistics for dummies, as much as statistics for morons. If you count the pimples on your face you'll possibly get a similarly plausible forecast.
Strangely enough your desperate arguments look very much like what I would expect of a Shuttertroll.

Better keep on staying silent. The only troll here in here is you, interfering with a small percentage of us that try to gather some objective info and using us as a vent to your misfortune. I am not your enemy, therefore don't address me as such and show some respect, as it could may have reflected the fact that you are "educated". Apparently your university degree wasn't put in the best use if the only uses you found for it were to be mentioned in forums to present you as an authority about anything. If you had any better idea about how to find out in approximation how much is the real cut, you would have said so. But you didn't. You only came to throw more insults.

Oh yes. you're right: I have a few more sensible uses for my professional education. But, alas, seeing statistics so badly mishandled 'pour �pater la galerie' makes my heart bleed.
However, if it may comfort you, you're not the only one...

Quote from: gameover on June 06, 2020, 12:56

What about this?

I like that. Really great concept!

The only way you might improve it would be to change the cut-off "shut" to "sh*t"� as in SHITTERSTOCK.

Thank you! OH yes, it was tempting...

How about a Twitter campaign where everyone posts photos, videos and illustrations that are #NoLongerOnShutterstock ? You could include a link to where the work is still available.

This would allow many more people to get involved, because you don�t have to close your account or turn your port off, just delete one item. Imagine if thousands of people did this all on the same day.

Excellent idea !!!