Nothing effected on our portfolio... probably only local changes.

Most of the contributors here are photographers... in reality videos on SS take a lot of time before they start selling (in contrary to images where we had sales almost instantly after uploading them). In our case it is the same for few years now. What we uploaded last year, it barely gets any sales this year. It will probably sell much better next year. But there were some exceptions where some files sold after 3-6 months after uploading them.

And some smartasses here will say that our port is just too small to arguments our statistics. With over 12 thousands of video clips uploaded, we kinda see where things are going.

It is accepted by all agencies we tried.

My bad about the views, there are actually more views, but sales are rarer than in the past. In the past if there were some bumps of views, there was at least 1 sale. Now you can't even predict such sales.

We don't see any compensation on other stock agencies. At least it is not noticeable.

Here is a how to prepare metadata for SS using the one from Pond5.

Incomes might not come right away, it really depends on the variety of your clips and size of portfolio.

same here.... uploading to Shutterstock is a nightmare

Pond5 has removed the referral program without any notice or apology. We figured out by coincidence when writing them about some details for the referral program. And they still didn't respond to our question about the reason for shutting down the program.

We had some customers and some income also. If we promoted the referral program they should at least warn us about. But no, they didn't care if we would promote it for the next five years with no new customers.

So much about the attitude towards contributors. We are very disappointed.

123rf is a waste of time.... we only get buys and refunds. Nothing sells there. (we only sell videos)

Well, that's the tricky part...we went through our number of sales in past 4 years and comparing the size of portfolio, time of year (new year, summer slumps), a constant number of sales growth each year for specific months and constant growth of sales with each month. Comparing all with time of uploaded 100 images (tagged and uploaded in 1 batch), how much has the number of video sales lowered, what impact it had on whole income for that months. And even the fall of sales after deleting the files.
We don't believe that this drops of income happened just accidentally in this specific months and in months after deleting files, while it had very much constant growth before with same workflow and constant uploading of new stock video files.

If we could get such results in a graph, It would be awesome.

And yes, we believe in aliens.

Quote from: Video-StockOrg on October 01, 2017, 12:37

but the worst thing is, that after deleting the images, caps lowered even worse than before starting uploading images. The September is the first month after the deleting since we are seeing our video clips shine like they used to. It was a nightmare year.

So... sales went down when uploading images. And also when deleting images. You contradict yourself.

And then, in September, when EVERYBODY'S sales go up after the summer, that is of course because you deleted your images a few months earlier.

I am speechless. 

number of sales went up, bot income stayed on the same level. After deleting sales went down, but so did income.

Name of Site: VideoStock Footage

URL: http://video-stock.org

Owner: Blaz

We do a variety of stock footage themes. Also, we like to write. 

Sheesh. Calm down, people. This law was enacted because models are under pressure to make themselves alarmingly and unhealthily thin. There's no "demand" for that other than from male fashion designers who like their clothes to drape nicely over a pretty coat hanger so their pristine seams aren't muddled by a woman's natural curves.

They're just asking photographers not to make women appear so thin they'd basically be dead in reality.

Nobody's asking you not to retouch out wrinkles, bags, stray hairs or pimples.

If a "nanny state" saves young women's lives by forcing male designers not to starve them to death, then bring on the nannies.

Wouldn't this law do the opposite to what is meant to? Because if it won't be solved with photoshop, agencies will look only for bodies that suit their taste... with that forcing model to be dead in reality. Or staying without the job.

Maybe they'll go the Revostock path.... few months of no paydays then bam - no istock/getty either.