*snork*  at the bottom of their page:  All rights reserved.

I thought I should add this.

I started to make the previous post using the word "fake", but corrected it to "forgery", which is the correct term.

It occurred to me that some submitters might have made the error of thinking that fudging on documentation was no big deal.  A model release gets rejected because the dates don't all match, and it's tempting to just paste in a new date.  After all, it was supposed to be that way. That is actually forgery.  It's a forgery that probably will never be challenged and examined, but it is.

Making up a model release for some street person you are sure won't ever see their picture in use, so you can sell the picture, is a felony.

Committing a felony just to get a couple more images into your portfolio is not a practical decision.

Just so you know, when I was remarking about how simple the act is, I wasn't condoning it.  Just pointing out that thieves probably also commit forgery with the same smugness. 

I'm not falling for it.  I know you're wearing your asbestos underwear, so I refuse to breathe flames at you.

In case it doesn't show, I'm feeling cranky this morning.

They probably just need to renew their certificate.  That happens a lot.  Usually, though, IT picks up on it quickly and fixes it.

I have complained to Alamy about this before, and they say they're being "transparent".

I suppose they are more honest than some sites, in that they let us know how much they are charging customers, but it's confusing.

Thinking about it, any legit stock site has a goal of keeping people from being sued by photographers for using stolen images.  They are where to go for legally cleared photos.

Here he is.

https://forums.submit.shutterstock.com/topic/92172-without-editorial-using/

No... The sloppy web design doesn't inspire confidence.  You might entice buyers, but not experienced contributors.

I have a personal prejudice against web pages that move around while I'm trying to look at them.  Keep it simple, so you can keep the code tight.  The submitters' side should be designed to look good and work well on a desktop computer, no matter how you plan to market the other side.

If your platform isn't solid, too many things could go wrong.  You don't want to frustrate your contributors, or confuse your buyers.

The "business" part of owning a microstock site is complicated, and you'll need a very good bookkeeper.

Maybe start out with just a site for yourself and a couple of friends.  Or just a specific topic.  Keep it small until you get the hang of it.  Don't issue a general solicitation for contributors until you know you have the whole process smooth. 

As well as being prepared for not much happening, think about what you will do if a lot starts happening. Will you be able to expand rapidly, without glitches?  Will your data storage costs rise faster than your income?

There's a lot to think about.

You asked about this on the Shutterstock forum, and were told not do to it.  You did anyway.

Even if you think a stock site is being stupid about something, it DOES NOT WORK to try to make them change their mind by doing stuff you know they don't approve of.  You won't change their mind, you can't force them do to something just because you want it.

Any site, not just Shutterstock.

Seriously, using anything from wikimedia commons is just asking to get booted. 

For anyone else who wants to know how, since Shutterstock support probably won't tell you, here's how to disable your images altogether.

From your dashboard, go to the drop down under your name in the upper right corner of the page, and select "account settings"

On the right side, about half way down on that page, will be buttons to opt out of selling extended license, etc.

Opt out of image sales.  Save settings. (big red button, bottom left)  You're done.

This doesn't delete your images, so you can opt back in, if Shutterstock gets their s*** together.

Dammit, Shutterstock.  I've been with you for over a decade.

Today, I disabled all my images. (we'll see if they actually vanish like they're supposed to, or I have to be more aggressive)

There's a lot of abuse I'll put up with as a stock contributor, but don't devalue my work by giving it away.

I was actually making money from, them, too.