Quote from: tickstock on October 03, 2013, 00:27

Quote from: stockastic on October 02, 2013, 09:01

The real beauty of the subscription model - for the agency - is that it completely eliminates the concept of 'commission' or 'royalty,    becasuse there is never a point at which an actual 'sale' takes place.  The buyer pays a single upfront fee for services.  The agency allows the customer to 'use' images in various ways, and payment to the photographer/artist is basically an arbitrary amount.   Until now we've been in a sort of hybrid world where we received so-called royalty payments at the time an image was downloaded - but that royalty had no real percentage relationship to a buyer payment, it was just an amount set by the agency.  Now we're moving into the next phase where we, as contributors, don't even know when a customer actually acquires our image, or in what form, or in what number of copies, or with what licensing terms.

Bottom line - today's agency markets our work in any way it chooses, pays us whatever it decides to, and can change things at any time and in any way - including amending the TOS if necessary.    Our only recourse is to stop participating entirely.

I agree with everything you said except I think there are more options than just quitting.  Contributors could get together and make demands for real change.  It hasn't happened yet but I wouldn't be surprised to see something happen within the next year.  Things are changing quickly and we may be near a tipping point.

just dropped a tear man, that was be-au-ti-ful!

actually it reminds me of iStock, they are always looking after contributors and clearly following their advice and demands

There hasn't been a group effort to make things change yet. 

The real beauty of the subscription model - for the agency - is that it completely eliminates the concept of 'commission' or 'royalty,    becasuse there is never a point at which an actual 'sale' takes place.  The buyer pays a single upfront fee for services.  The agency allows the customer to 'use' images in various ways, and payment to the photographer/artist is basically an arbitrary amount.   Until now we've been in a sort of hybrid world where we received so-called royalty payments at the time an image was downloaded - but that royalty had no real percentage relationship to a buyer payment, it was just an amount set by the agency.  Now we're moving into the next phase where we, as contributors, don't even know when a customer actually acquires our image, or in what form, or in what number of copies, or with what licensing terms.

Bottom line - today's agency markets our work in any way it chooses, pays us whatever it decides to, and can change things at any time and in any way - including amending the TOS if necessary.    Our only recourse is to stop participating entirely.

I agree with everything you said except I think there are more options than just quitting.  Contributors could get together and make demands for real change.  It hasn't happened yet but I wouldn't be surprised to see something happen within the next year.  Things are changing quickly and we may be near a tipping point.

Scott,
Thanks for the answers, it's good of you to explain it a little more even though it still looks like it's a good deal for Shutterstock and buyers at the expense of contributors.   Good to hear that you do pay contributors for all free images.

If you compare a two user plan to two separate single accounts:
Shutterstock makes $399 compared to $398 (2x$199) so Shutterstock stays even in revenue collected
Shutterstock pays out a max of 35 subs per day compared to 50 or 30% less cost.
Buyers pay $399 as opposed to $398 but get 35 unique images compared to 25 (2x25 since both parties would need to license the images)
Contributors get paid for 35 images as opposed to 50 images or 30% less.

So buyers get more images, shutterstock pays out less, and contributors get paid less.

.

.

.

I pay attention to issues at iStock. too, this happens to be a Shutterstock thread though.  So you don't care if Shutterstock is giving away your images for free?  You don't mind that they are charging 2 or 3 times more and paying you the regular subscription royalty?  Do you really believe these questions shouldn't be answered or even asked?  You would rather not know what you are getting paid?  Fighting this hard to keep yourself ignorant is mind boggling to me.

Quote from: tickstock on October 01, 2013, 17:46

Thanks for the answer.  I would think if you are charging more for letting more people use the image (along with increased reproductions which used to get the contributor an EL) the contributor would be paid more as well.

About the free images you said it is your "general practice", does that mean there are cases when images are given away without compensation for contributors?

* *insult removed* __ as an Istock's exclusive you're not even a contributor to SS! Why should Scott spend his time answering your inane, nonsensical questions forever?

*insult removed*, you're as clever as 3rd grader aren't you.  Well I guess I'll tell you again why I'm asking questions:
1.  I have thousands of images disabled on Shutterstock.
2.  I have referred friends, family, and others to submit at Shutterstock and they don't pay too much attention to what's going on.
3.  I may contribute to Shutterstock again in the future.
4.  I think some people might be interested in knowing what they are getting paid, obviously you don't care but others might.

I don't know why I bother responding to you, you've shown over and over again that you are nothing but a pathetic, sad, loser.  Oh well if this is what makes you happy, carry on.

ETA: I can't believe you think it's nonsensical to ask what you are getting paid or question why Shutterstock has doubled prices and continued to pay you the same amount.

.

.

@tickstock i know the price is different, But in my area where I live no stores are selling 7100, This is why I used the 5100 for comparison.

What's your area?  I do all my camera shopping online, it's a lot cheaper than any of the stores around here and they have a much larger selection.

You should be comparing the 7D to the Nikon D7100 or maybe even the D600 both of those are much closer in price.

http://www.nasdaq.com/article/weekly-ceo-sells-highlight-shutterstock-inc-autodesk-inc-cm281052

Shutterstock Inc. ( SSTK ): CEO, 10% Owner Jonathan Oringer Sold 2,530,000 Shares

CEO, 10% Owner of Shutterstock Inc ( SSTK ) Jonathan Oringer sold 2,530,000 shares on 09/25/2013 at an average price of $57.3. Shutterstock Inc has a market cap of $2.53 billion; its shares were traded at around $72.87 with a P/E ratio of 44.05 and P/S ratio of 10.76.

Shutterstock Inc. reported their 2013 second quarter financial results. The Company announced net income of $6.9 million and revenues of $56.8 million.

CEO, 10% Owner Jonathan Oringer sold 2,530,000 shares of SSTK stock on 09/25/2013 at the average price of 57.3. President and COO Thilo Semmelbauer sold 15,000 shares of SSTK stock in July, August, and September.