It is not a lower royalty. Getty only pays 20% for Rf, so Offset is already paying significantly more. And 40% was only for RM in your home territory wasn�t it -  rest of the world is lower??

Plus in a brand new and extremly small collection your chances to be seen and your files to be sold are excellent. Much better than drowning in a sea of millions...where wholly owned content and favoured contributors professionals come up first...

Also, if you want to compare royalties, you need to look at the same license. The RM market is "completly different" as our longtime swedish member keeps pointing out. And he has been doing it since 92! So he knows all about it

stocksy pays out 50%, plus 100% of extended licenses, plus shares profits with artists. So even at a lower price point to the customer the results for the artist are very good.

I wasn't comparing Stocksy to Getty RM I was comparing Offset to both of them.  Shutterstock has said that they want to take sales from Getty RM, that's why I'm comparing those two.   What SS said (it looks like that part is attributed to a SS spokesman) is that "Offset seeks to upend that entirely, as the first set of high-end images sold royalty-free, online, without an agent." talking about Getty RM.  They are offering what they say is more efficient revenue (lower costs for SS) and paying contributors less.

Quote from: Monty-m-gue on September 25, 2013, 17:22

I've never found a way into Getty but I've just been accepted at OFFSET. 30% of something is better to me than 40% held out of reach...

Well said, Lee!

You said you were asked to contribute though.

Are the images for Offset exclusive? I thought they don�t want exclusive files and many of the files on offset are also available elsewhere.

This would be a major advantage to the artist. They could still sell from other sites with similar price point, or their own site.

I think we'll need to hear a little more about that, I have a feeling Shutterstock wouldn't let you license the same images on Offset and Shutterstock.  Maybe something like it's nonexclusive but you can't undercut Offset.  Maybe Sandralise can get some information, but then again she couldn't tell us anything she finds out could she?

Sales are finished.

http://submit.shutterstock.com/forum/viewtopic.php?t=129466&highlight=offset

Quote

I hope it goes without saying that in the "big picture" (no pun intended) we're more committed to our "core" contributors than ever before and we're also focused on creating additional opportunities for you. For the time being, this new brand has a specific point-of-view and participation is by invite only. In the future, we expect that every contributor will have the opportunity to be considered for inclusion in the Offset collection as we continue to maintain the outstanding quality that we have in our core collection.

Sounds like you'll have to wait until they get a new logo.

No there's a script for chrome and firefox browsers. 

" You can also use the script by theasis to get a lot more functionality
http://www.istockphoto.com/forum_messages.php?threadid=352385 "

Front page is truly horrible, IMO.

I agree, that's the only reason I remembered the google nexus page.  It annoyed me so much I just left.

IF is the magic word here

Yep, maybe it's 'customized' for just the subscription users and single image buyers don't get this 'customized' feature.

I just saw 'team subscriptions' for the first time, have they been mentioned here before?  They cost a lot more than regular subscriptions but do you get the regular subscription royalty for them?
http://www.shutterstock.com/business-solutions.mhtml

.

Quote from: tickstock on September 24, 2013, 19:34

Quote from: gostwyck on September 24, 2013, 19:18

Quote from: stockastic on September 24, 2013, 17:33

This attempt to restrict what contributors can say about their personal earnings in public strike me as unclear, unjustified, unnecessary and unenforceable.   

Obviously this backed up by a thinly veiled threat to close the account of any "violator" who can be identified.

Seems like someone at SS just decided their image was a bit too friendly and easygoing, and it was time to start acting like a big company.

Sorry mate, and as much as I usually respect your opinions, I think in this case we're all reading way too much into this. SS just don't want detailed information about sales being leaked to the competition. And nor should we. The last thing we want is places like FT, for example, undercutting those SOD licenses that SS keeps coming up with.

This supposed 'restriction' is necessary to protect our incomes as well as SS's.

What information are they trying to keep secret?  They say that they pay 20-30% and give royalties up to $120, it's pretty easy to tell how much they charge since it's written in the royalty schedule.  They don't say how low the sales go though, is that the secret they're trying to keep?
And why specifically say you can't talk about your royalty rate when they say that it's between 20 and 30% right there on the website?  Something doesn't really add up.

Don't talk nonsense. SS are in a different league, compared to your bizarrely beloved Istock, when it comes to contributor respect and relations. As an Istock exclusive muppet, having had your TOS changed multiple times in their favour, you don't even know what that means.

What does that even mean?  If iStock does something you don't like then anything Shutterstock does is great?  I think this has nothing to do with keeping secrets from competitors since the important information is already public or kept secret from the contributors, what's left to tell?

Quote from: stockastic on September 24, 2013, 17:33

This attempt to restrict what contributors can say about their personal earnings in public strike me as unclear, unjustified, unnecessary and unenforceable.   

Obviously this backed up by a thinly veiled threat to close the account of any "violator" who can be identified.

Seems like someone at SS just decided their image was a bit too friendly and easygoing, and it was time to start acting like a big company.

Sorry mate, and as much as I usually respect your opinions, I think in this case we're all reading way too much into this. SS just don't want detailed information about sales being leaked to the competition. And nor should we. The last thing we want is places like FT, for example, undercutting those SOD licenses that SS keeps coming up with.

This supposed 'restriction' is necessary to protect our incomes as well as SS's.

What information are they trying to keep secret?  They say that they pay 20-30% and give royalties up to $120, it's pretty easy to tell how much they charge since it's written in the royalty schedule.  They don't say how low the sales go though, is that the secret they're trying to keep?
And why specifically say you can't talk about your royalty rate when they say that it's between 20 and 30% right there on the website?  Something doesn't really add up.
And the contributors don't even know what the licenses say, it doesn't do any good to know what Shutterstock is charging if you don't even know what they are selling.

.