So my account has now switched over to the new look.

I can obviously see the attractions to this design. I especially like the huge (yet well water-marked) preview image.

But I hate, hate, hate the loss of descriptions, including the removal of LB and similars links.

And there is no similars carousel, but I guess they said that was coming "soon"?

Sean wrote a brief blog post on it:
http://www.seanlockephotography.com/2015/02/27/white-gold-dress/?utm_source=rss&utm_medium=rss&utm_campaign=white-gold-dress

Some of the comments are pretty funny, especially the one telling Sean to google 'correcting indoor photos'. But in the end, it's clear that the original photo was horribly overexposed, so no wonder all the confusion and angst.

^^ Best summary to date of the iStock / Getty debacle of Sep '14.

Private Lightboxes are gone now as of today.

Mine are still visible and accessible. But it's just a matter of time before your statement is true for everyone.

Thanks, Zach, I do appreciate your reply.

Which brings me to...I can see the cheese, but where is the trap?

As Mantis has said, it's pretty worrisome that they don't come here to answer questions, despite having asked for feedback in their original thread.

The trap may be clause 2.5, as I pointed out in that original thread:
2.5 Promotions. We may, from time to time, run promotions for Members and we may include your Content as part of such promotions.  You agree and acknowledge that  such promotions may affect the amount of Revenue you receive for specific Content.

As I've stated, I won't be joining unless they amend that to identify specific limits for these promotions. As written, it seems to me it is wide open for potential abuse.

Zach, I just read the licence terms, but it seems you dont accept editorial content? Is that correct?

Forgot to mention: On the same page I linked to above, they mention that if you don't include a release with a submission that they believe should have one, they will either reject it or accept it as editorial. So I believe they do accept some editorial content.

I am interested. In addition to the above, what kind of content are you looking for. I have everyday run of the mill stuff and animations.  Are you looking for 5-30 second clips? Also, at $49 you'd be cutting SS by almost twice.  Are you concerned that this will start a price war? I mean, look art Bigstock. They are giving away videos.

One more thing.  There are a couple of new players here: Dissolve, Motion Elements, and Revostock.  I am on all three, none really generate any income for me, although I only have 450 video clips.  What is your USP? I have to look at this from the lens of Pond5 who does generate income. $49 is a fair price and comparable to what I price my clips at, but I need more sales because micro stock photos is killing me. 

I suspect there is a fee (no I haven't checked out the site, Im leaving to work).  Can you elaborate? How can you possible give contributors 100% if there is not a membership fee? And if there is a membership fee you need to build that into your calculator.

A lot of your questions are answered on their webpage, when you do get a chance to look at it:
https://contribute.videoblocks.com/faq/content-submission-requirements

Apparently there is a membership fee that people are already paying (I think; that isn't quite clear to me). But as I wrote above, that does mean that the agency in this case has no incentive to sell our clips at the quoted prices, and could (in theory) promote them heavily and often. I'm not at all saying they'd do that, just that the CLA allows it.

Revostock may be new to you, but they were one of the first sites to sell stock videos on the web, starting in 2006.

In case anyone missed the thread, this makes for some interesting reading:
http://www.microstockgroup.com/videoblocks/videoblocks-footage-marketplace-keep-100-of-what-you-earn

I can say I am happy to be exclusive at this point.

Don't be too happy. I don't know if it will ever get to that point, but in theory if their collection gets big enough, they could begin to take away from your sales on iStock.

Every time I post on this subject, I have to end with my utter astonishment that there are contributors who (apparently) are willing to support this with their clips. Normally if someone wants to make a deal with the Devil, that's there own business. But in this case, it has ramifications that could easily affect all of us. 

Quote from: KB on February 07, 2015, 11:21

But the biggest help would be to find other subjects, because even with added movement, in my opinion, you won't be getting many sales from now on with most of the subjects in your port.

I have always been led to believe with stock footage that any camera movement was to be avoided. I think a lot of my footage to be fair has content that is quite niche. Most contributors are from the US and couldn't get access to some of the subjects I have covered.

You are absolutely right; stock footage that is supposed to be locked down should definitely not have any camera movement at all. That is why I said I was surprised to see a few locked down clips in your portfolio that were obviously handheld (i.e., there is visible camera movement). Clearly SS thinks that small amount of movement is acceptable. But when I wrote about "added movement", I was talking about panning, tracking, etc, which are obviously fine (desirable) for stock.

And definitely you do have clips in your port that are not generic or common, and those stand a much better chance of being found and sold (assuming there is a demand for the subject). You should certainly concentrate on those, and stay away from the generic shots that everyone else can (and does) shoot.

I'm not one of those videographers who are footage pros like jjneff, but I have been submitting footage since mid-2009. This is the kind of portfolio that would have done very well back then, but (with apologies in advance to cobalt, who seems to feel differently) competition these days is fierce in these areas of simple shots of relatively common locations and items.

I'm actually quite surprised that some of these were accepted on SS, as they used to be extremely strict when it came to camera movement -- locked down, or smooth only. Obvious handheld shots were strictly forbidden (in the past I've had some panning shots done on a tripod that were rejected for not being smooth enough). Perhaps they've eased up some. I agree with the advice to add some (smooth) movement. Get a good panning head (a good one), or any of a number of other pieces of equipment that can add movement to a shot.

But the biggest help would be to find other subjects, because even with added movement, in my opinion, you won't be getting many sales from now on with most of the subjects in your port.