Quote from: SpaceStockFootage on July 13, 2018, 09:46
I don't want to tar all illustrator artists with the same brush, so sorry for including the 'good guys' in this generalisation, but from a lot of the illustrations I see... you'll probably get a bunch of contributors make some white, tubby, featureless character holding a sign, and then they'll just render out a version face on, and then one rotated 1 degree to the left, 2 degrees to the left... and before you know it, they've uploaded 360 illustrations from a mornings work. Criteria met!

I know what you mean, but these aren't done by "Illustrator artists". Those are rendered. I was talking about vector illustrations. But anyway: There are *some* 3D artists spamming as well as vector illustrators as well as photographers. Doesn't make a difference. They could have easily set different criteria (e.g. solely the annual earnings), if they're afraid of that.
Plus, if they accept such, this is ... I was just tempted to say "not our problem", but actually it *is*. One of the biggest issues I, personally, have with this industry.

Quote from: cthoman on July 12, 2018, 16:21
LOL. No love for the Illustrators.

Definitely what I think, too. Even though this is a "gift", I won't go through any hassle (e.g. waiting several weeks, making sure that my older versions of PS and LR will still keep working - and the whole "never change a running system" thing) as long as Illustrator isn't included. I do get along with my older versions of PS and LR. So, ... sorry Mat, IMHO Adobe should either do this right (and equally for everyone) or not at all. Thanks, anyways.

Super interesting read, mb! Thanks a lot!

Quote from: mb on May 31, 2017, 14:46
Keep an eye on that I am expecting that to be changed in next few months and I'm expecting that contributors which are not posting at all to go down even faster when that happened. My advice is: don't be lazy, keep uploading and keywording but don't publish them until new stuff will start to sell again.

Does that mean that the search algorithm actually "reacts" to *uploads* rather than images someone gets *approved*?
Say, if I'd upload and keyword them, but don't send them to the review team, they'd still positively influence the placement of my port/active images?
And wouldn't those images be already buried (due to their older image number and date they were uploaded) when I finally publish them later on?
Sorry, if those are noob questions to you - I'm not into those things at all. 

Quote from: Justanotherphotographer on February 04, 2017, 11:02
... and pretty much means I wont be checking that info anymore. I wonder if that's the idea?

I guess it is. That's probably also why they started hiding unsold images from the catalog manager.

"Smokescreen" hits the nail on its head - regarding their timing as well. I don't think it's a coincidence that the new pricing plans were announced (almost) at the same time.

Quote from: Minsc on November 24, 2016, 23:18

Quote from: PureArt on November 24, 2016, 22:44

Quote from: Minsc on November 24, 2016, 21:28
I understand their dilemma and why they hesitated.

What dilemma?

I know some people want to see the ban hammer get slammed down hard, but SS allowed this to happen. People take advantage of systems all the time and people took advantage of what SS gave them.

Allowing them to change the titles or get banned is a good alternative.

SS let this happen, but actually the spammers already had two warnings: First an email was sent out and the "Shutterstock's position on repeated words (...)" thread was published on the 7th of June (!) - plus an "update" on it. So, they actually *knew* this wasn't allowed. (And it's common sense somehow, anyway.) If I had to decide, ... well.

@panicAttack: I don't exactly know which ones were posted in here, but some of those which were mentioned on FB yesterday actually disappeared. (This one e.g.: https://www.shutterstock.com/pic-517018450/stock-vector-tree-tree-tree-tree-tree-tree-tree-tree-tree-tree-tree-tree-tree-tree-tree-tree-tree-tree-tree-tree-tree-tree-tree-tree-tree-tree-tree-tree-tree-tree-tree-tree-tree-tree-tree-tree-tree-tr.html?src=8iTfDcBidQCf9Jl-jY1UPg-1-0  Not only this particular image, but the entire port is gone - I checked that.) Yesterday was Thanksgiving in the US, though, I guess it'll yet take some time, as they started doing this manually. Wait and see.

They continue working on it - those 20 were just a first signal to everyone else spamming titles.
SS also asked us to get the message out (like "fix it in the next couple of days or get out") in different languages. So feel free to spread the word through social media in English and/or your native language.

Shutterstock just decided to eliminate title spamming! They have a list of the worst offenders, about 20 ports got already deleted and they're currently asking others to change their titles within the next week. If they don't, they'll be out.

Quote from: cathyslife on November 06, 2016, 21:32
Well, in an email SS said it wasnt acceptable, and we all know it is gaming the search engine...in other words cheating (or as some keep defending it, calling it "adapting"). People who cheat = no ethics. And if SS continues to do nothing about it after they said it wasnt acceptable, they are sanctioning cheaters = no ethics.

I guess it all depends on how your parents raised you as to whether you see it as adapting or cheating. 

+1

Ummm ... As I understood this, it was about showing how many people are actually concerned about the spamming issue and letting Jon Oringer *know* about the petition. Doesn't it speak for itself? I mean, couldn't it be a little counterproductive to get on the person's nerves we'd like to ask to do something in our favor by massively spamming his Twitter account?
I'm pretty sure he's aware of the petition now and honestly, if I were him, I'd rather get huffy than think about how to help us, if hundreds of people would @mention me and post this over and over again. Just saying.

Signed and shared through FB.

And here: http://submit.shutterstock.com/forum/viewtopic.php?t=138253 (illustrators' forum)
They ARE aware. Definitely. 

Agreed, Mike.
I already reached out to him (because I noticed his portfolio on the DPC site) a couple of days ago and he told me he was abroad and not yet informed at all. Haven't heard back from him afterwards, but that was why I said he probably needed a little more time.
I'll try to discuss this matter again, although I'll most likely not be able to publicly share.

Quote from: Anyka on May 07, 2014, 14:45
I cannot afford loosing my FT income either, but I did opt out of DPC.  Not because I am against Fotolia (Fotolia is my 2nd earner, so how could I be against them?), but because I believe that if a LARGE group of contributors opt out, Fotolia will listen to us.

Same here! I'm not trying to defend their decision (as far as they've already made up their mind), I just don't like this to become too personal/a witch hunt. (Esp. as such comments have already been posted at the FT forums as well.) All I wanted to say is that we don't have enough information about what happens behind the scenes in order to judge.

Quote from: outdoorfreak on May 07, 2014, 11:49
In german FT-forum there are some big players which normally are active there (e.g. complaining about decreasing RPD, etc.) and since the activity against DPC here, they are quiet!!! As I read in a former post I suppose too, that FT has contacted them and they have special deals with them ... it's really a shame!!!

I guess I know whom you're talking about. Give them some more time to consider. Those high volume players also have a load of expenses and therefor probably can't even afford to lose their FT income in the nearer future. I don't even think it's about "special deals", but maybe just a little more information than the rest of us would get. Anyways, we shouldn't judge anyone for their business moves - there are a lot more arguments for people running a large business than the the facts, opinions and predictions posted in here. (Although I personally wished they would pull their contents as well, of course.)
edit: I'll try to reach out to them.

Quote from: lisafx on May 06, 2014, 20:23
And Third, I am struggling to understand why .37 per download for an emerald on DPC is so much worse than .28 per download for every single non-exclusive on Istock subs and PP.  Not to mention most of my credit sales on FT are small and yield the same price as a sub.

It isn't about the prizing for a sub dl, but the fact that this isn't a real subscription model, but doesn't differenciate between both at all. They're clearly targeting the on demand-buyers at SS and iS and *those* are the dls we're going to lose in a long run. (Plus, all credit sales on FT, of course.)
I'm not with iS anymore because of the first wave back in 2010 and deleted my last few illustrations because of the Google deal, but if FT now tries to get their hands on my income from SS and the smaller agencies, I'm *definitely* not willing to support them.

BTW: People at the German-speaking forums are pretty outspoken about the whole issue and nobody has been banned or booted out so far.

Opted out on day one and deleted a couple of illustrations in order to support the initiative.

I just got one of those, too. 0,17 credits, because I'm emerald. This has definitely *nothing* to do with American witholding taxes - I submitted the legal form years ago and never had anything deducted til now.

Quote from: lisafx on September 08, 2010, 22:52

Quote from: grp_photo on September 08, 2010, 22:40
they don't care it's a senseless action, also I find it strange that new members popping in just to announce that they have removed their portfolio from iStock  

They are new members here, but they may have been at IS for a long time.  

This board has always had more independents than IS exclusives active because we need to keep abreast of developments across the whole industry, whereas they may have felt they only needed to follow Istock.  Now they are joining here to find out what their other options are.  Nothing wrong with that.  It's a smart move.

The people we should worry about are the defeatists who are always complaining that there's nothing we can do about anything and we should all just bend over and touch our toes.    

Yep, iStock was my first agency years ago. I've never been a "big fish" over there, therefor most people may not know my (former) portfolio, but many illustrators over at Shutterstock do, since I'm pretty active in their (illustrators') forum. I'm just new to this board, because I was using different sources of information til now, but felt like joining this particular discussion.

Done. I've removed my entire port. And I feel much better now.

Quote from: macrosaur on September 08, 2010, 19:54
BLA BLA BLA BLA ....

nobody of you will leave iStock.
you invested too much time and resource on it and now you're "locked in".

i predicted all this a long time ago, and i'm sure the entry-level royalties
will be lowered again in the future ... 10% ?  5% ? why not ! there's a fool
born every minute isnt it ?

p.s.
if you sell a fine-art photo in an art gallery you never get less than 50% of the sale,
and these guys spend real money in order to make an exibition, calling people by phone,
sending printed invitations ... getty instead doesn't move a finger, it's all computer automated
and the product is a digital download and pretends a whopping 85% !

you better flip burgers at McDonalds than getting 15% of YOUR work.

I will. You all have my word.

As a (non exclusive) contributor I've already stopped uploading months ago, because I was simply  tired of constantly taking slaps in my face (And I'm *not* talking about rejections only.), as a buyer I've already moved on to other places as well.
Still, I've tried hard not to take things personally, since this is business, but NOW I DO. I definitely won't take this slap, I've had enough. It's not about the money I'm going to lose, but their attitude. If these changes will take effect, I'll definitely pull my port.
I've already been invited to join Stockfresh some time ago and just decided to massively support them both by uploading everything I have and bringing in as many contributors and clients as I can find. I don't care, whether they're "ready" - they're fair and that counts.