Are these files directly uploaded to Getty?
Otherwise, if uploaded to iStock, could you tell me where you see the license details, please? Ithought iS sales were just 'RF', no more info given.

No, not directly to Getty, but to iStock using DeepMeta. That's also the tool I use to track my earnings. In the "Sales" tab, click on a sold item and additional information can be found on the right. The "Usage" field is mostly empty or labeled as basic, but sometimes additional information regarding licenses is given.

Very good month indeed. In fact, iStock/getty was my top earning agency in January 2022, which is a bit odd. Can't remember this ever happened to me. Partly because Shutterstock was really underperforming in January, but also because iStock/Getty really did well for me last month.

One thing I never can't get a hold of are the licenses.

Publishing: Print & Online. Hungary. Commercial - limited rights for RF Content;Editorial - website(s);Editorial - social media platforms;Editorial - Re-Display Rights: In-Context Promotional Use;Editorial - print publication(s) (cover use for RF/NSEA only);Editorial - mobile/tablet apps;Editorial - digital distribution platforms. Editorial rights granted for print and web publications. Print & Digital. Unlimited number of uses per download (In perpetuity). In perpetuity, within the context of the original use
-->> This one earned me a whopping 6 cents!

While this one...
Broadcasting & Video on Demand. World. Editorial - website(s);Editorial - social media platforms;Editorial - Re-Display Rights: In-Context Syndication;Editorial - Re-Display Rights: In-Context Promotional Use;Editorial - mobile/tablet apps;Editorial - Film/TV programs;Editorial - digital distribution platforms. Digital. One use per download. In perpetuity, within the context of the original use.
-->> brought in 9 bucks.

And this:
Creative Agency. World. Commercial - limited rights for RF Content. Unlimited. Digital. Unlimited number of uses per download (In perpetuity). In perpetuity, within the context of the original use.
-->> Earned me 16 cents.

First image was uploaded Editorial, the other two images as commercial. But what does it all mean and why is there such a huge difference in licensing fees for nearly unlimited use (first one only within one country but print included, the other two worldwide, one broadcasting the other one only digital - whatever that means. All within context of original use).

I would assume that the one with worldwide broadcasting and video on demand was bought to be used in film/docu while the other two probably found their way in supporting an article in a newspaper or (online) magazine/blog? But that's only an assumption, and if it's true, I still feel ripped off

Anyhow, again, good month at iStock. So grateful for that. They, together with Adobe Stock which also performed very well, saved my January which was a drama at all other agencies, Shutterstock included.

Quote from: Roscoe on February 07, 2022, 03:33

Quote from: UPLOAD-UPLOAD-UPLOAD on February 05, 2022, 18:46

Quote from: Jaggy on February 03, 2022, 09:23

I wonder how much attention customers really pay to it. Do they care? Maybe they know it's meaningless and are they more concerned with finding the right photo for their needs irrespective of how many times it has been used.

My own best seller sold around 140 times last year but is marked as 'never used'. Yet it continues to sell.

I agree with you. I chalk up the errors to Shutterstock sloth and incompetence. They don't care.
This seems to be a failed experiment SS does not want to immediately remove for fear of causing worse problems.
I don't see how this has any affect on my port. Highly rated images barely sell and low rated ones go like hot cakes.

Yeah. If I were a customer, and find some images that fit my needs, I would probably even go for the one that's "never been used", instead of using the one that everybody else does. I would want to have the content that I create to be unique, supported by rather unique images instead of blurting out generic and all over the place stuff. But that's maybe just me.

So I should be happy when SS says one of my best images has low sales and use? 

Personally I don't care either way. The ratings are wrong and irrelevant and I really don't care to spend time worrying at every little detail of how the agency sites are messed up. It's like the search to me. I can't change it, I shouldn't dwell on what happens.

What we need is likes and a popularity score for photos. I like likes... (just kidding)

You should be happy that your best image is probably ranking high for it's main keywords, and indeed, all the rest like popularity score is irrelevant. I really don't care either, just as I don't care about "befriended photographers scratching each other's back" likes on social media or photography platforms. Regarding popularity score I think it can work both ways: some customers probably want a popular image, others would want a rather unique one.

Just had a look on how the search options look like at Shutterstock. Besides "Most Popular" and "Fresh", they also have "Random" and "Most Relevant". I remember they removed "Most Relevant" in the past, and now it seems to be back. This gives customers some more options again, and might enable buried images to sell every once in a while again.

But, as you said, worrying too much about all of that is wasted energy.
I usually go for fire and forget tactics.

Every agency will pass on legal problems to the contributors.

Personally, I would never take the risk for the few dollars. When I see how many images are accepted for commercial use that should never have been accepted, I wonder a lot. Be it Apple, Harley Davidson, the Atomium in Brussels, the Sydney Opera, Gehry buildings or whatever.

Just FYI: the Atomium in Brussels should be suitable for Editorial content:
https://wiki.gettyimages.com/atomium/
The Belgian government lifted those restrictions some years ago if I'm not mistaken.

Still, interesting discussion, and sometimes also a bit puzzled about what is allowed and what not and what possible consequences could be.
 
I've sold airplane wingtips with brands as editorial content, but if I'm not mistaken, this is not really allowed too, as it was during a flight where I paid for the ticket, right?
I've sold images of a both commercially as editorially restricted landmark. I didn't realize at the time of uploading, and agencies accepted the images. I removed the images once I found out, but one sold for ~200$ with a print license on Alamy. It was years ago. It were detail shots of specific architecture specifications of the landmark, but still... the landmark was named in the description and I guess I should never have uploaded those images for sale as I didn't had press credentials. 
I've sold images of crowds during a rock festival, which I paid a ticket for. I kept description and keywords generic, without naming the festival, and avoided logo's or brand references of the festival in the frame, but a pixel peeper can probably trace back the location of the photo.

I see a lot of content like that. Images of museums, artwork, restricted landmarks and so forth. Maybe some of them have press credentials or releases, but hard to imagine that all of them have them. The content I uploaded accidentally went through on most agencies, and the only agency being very strict on that seems to be iStock/Getty. They are pretty much on par when it comes to rejecting content like that, or afterwards removing content that was accepted previously.

Never had issues with payments from Wirestock.
They have a friendly and responsive support staff, so I suggest you reach out to them to figure it out.

Where I do have some issues with is their ongoing clunkiness and buggy site. It ran pretty stable for a couple of months in 2021, but since a few weeks now the situation is unstable again. They claim they had issues with their Amazon hosting (which should be fixed), and now they are doing a major upgrade they say. For weeks. Fact is, they suffer from a lot of bugs, including upload issues, portfolio/in review count issues, delayed sales reporting, very long review times and recently also contributor complaints of unfair rejections/stricter quality control. It makes contributing to Wirestock pretty frustrating journey lately.

In all honesty: I don't fully trust them. Not because I think they are crooks, because as far as I know the are not! But they fail to communicate clearly about what's going on, what their plans are and keep their word regarding fixing issues (without creating others). It all feels like amateur bricolage from a bunch of sympathetic startup enthusiasts. If they can't keep the front-end of the site bug free, why would I trust the back-end dealing with sales reporting? I asked them the question directly, and never got a clear answer regarding that.

I don't want this to come across as harsh criticism, because it isn't meant that way. I do like their concept, I appreciate their support staff and their bottom-up dialogue with contributors and the additional opportunities they bring. But I remain cautious. They don't come across as a highly professional and well organized agency/distributor, and it feels like they or their investors could pull the plug at any time.

I don't go full in on Wirestock, and try to use them as wise as possible: earning aggregator for agencies and content which doesn't deserve much of my time. My better content still goes to my personal accounts, and Wirestock hasn't given me a reason yet to change that.

Yesterday I received my istock statement for December.

On istock, December 2021 was my best month since March 2017.
RPD was $1.33 which was exactly the same as Adobe.
For comparison: At shutterstock, the RPD in December was $0.66 - despite level 5.
For the first time, istock was in 2nd place for me after Adobe - well ahead of shutterstock.

Surprisingly good month on iStock indeed.
They were my best earning agency of the month, for the first time since I keep track of my earnings.

Late to the party here.

My highest commission this year on SS was 72$.
Two in the 50$ range, a few in the 30$ and some in the 20$ range.
I also had one customer buying 7 of my images for 3.74$ each. Does that count too?

The lower the commission, the more relatively frequent they occur.

These "surprise" sales are very nice to get, and I only get them on Shutterstock, (very "once a year or so" scarce on iStock, never on Adobe) but not gonna sugarcoat it either: they are merely window dressing and they don't fully compensate the 10c'ers. My RPD on Shutterstock is still lower than it is on Adobe.

Quote from: ShadySue on December 26, 2021, 15:59

Wouldn't we need to know what proportion of actual buyers search via Google (or Bing or ...)?

I understood that few sales are made via the search engines.
Most people who know paying for stock will probably look through a lot of agencies then make a choice or a couple of choices based on whether they seem likely to meet most of their needs, especially if they're likely to buy a subscription or package.

BTW, I noticed a surprisingly big difference in the results of a google search for 'stock video horse' and 'stock footage horse', so again we'd need to know which term is more likely to be searched on by genuine buyers.

That would be a nice stat to have, I suspect its more than we think, professional long time buyers know who the main sites are, Pond5, Shutterstock, Adobe but others might very well at least start off with a Google search and click on stuff from there plus Google gives you a nice wide area view of what's out there, it's like looking at a paper map vs the small GPS screen.

YouTube is indexed by Google and I've seen some stuff come up that way as well when searching for stock.  Maybe it's time to promote our content on platforms that get easily indexed by Google.

The only way I see buyers using Google to look for images is by using Google Search Operators as an alternative for the agency's own search engine/ranking algorithm.
For instance: "site: shutterstock.com sunset flower"

I don't think many potential buyers just type in keywords for the content they want, and then buy that image/illustration/video from any random agency that ends up on top of the search results. Most agencies make it quite difficult (or completely impossible) to just buy one image without any further hassle regarding subscription or credit packs. I can be wrong, but if this would be a burning need for buyers, it would pop up in the analytics of the agencies shopping baskets (content in basket without conversion rate) and they would adjust by making it way easier to just buy one single image.

Now I know there's a lot of complaining and negative reviews on sites like Trustpilot too, specifically for this topic. Buyers just wanted to buy one image, went on carelessly and ended up with an expensive subscription package which seems hard to cancel. Agencies couldn't care less apparently, so I don't think they put much effort in this part of the "market". They have a very strong focus selling subscriptions or credit packs, so I guess that's where the money is for them. Not in selling single images (or other content).

As far as selling your content on platforms that end up high in the Google search results: that would probably be a self hosted site. And I think it only makes sense if you have a clearly designated niche, so you can strongly optimize your SEO for that niche, and outcompete agencies or other platforms who have to broaden their SEO strategy. Wouldn't work for me, as my port tends to be all over the place.

Looks like a 3 year old got hold of a camera and pressed the shutter button multiple times.

https://www.shutterstock.com/g/CharoensilpPhotoData?sort=popular&page=10

Everything I pretend to know about photography turns out to be a lie.

Yes, Exiting Times are also already announced to me figuratively. I am looking forward to it so much...

I like it being able again to rise up in a level.
Because now I was a stuck in a current level.

I have a few friends who take great photos while traveling and I keep asking them what are they doing with photos? Obviously they post photos on social media, have some prints for personal use, but almost all photos just stored on hard drives.

Well, that was me a few years back, except for the great photo's :-) And I still am, except for social media. 
The difference is that my prints now look way better than they did a few years back, and I made money on the side too.

Quote from: thijsdegraaf on November 30, 2021, 14:01

Quote from: pic_pom on November 30, 2021, 09:50

I have been uploading to SS for 5+ years and build a portfolio of 4k+ pictures, but lately it is almost impossible to get new content approved as it is declined for the weirdest reasons, mainly focus or noise, lens dirt, posterization etc.
obviously total nonsense as I know how to edit photos and have pro gear

what is wrong with them? are they viewing the photos in 400% resolution and think they are out of focus?
do they have space problems and dont want new pics anymore?

my acceptance ratio is from 100% to 20% now and I am feeling a little desperate.....

Welcome. I don't know if you were on the defunct Shutterstock forum, but there were quite a few threads on the subject.
With me they are often right about lens dirt. Usually almost invisible. If I remove it, it will be approved.
Also on this forum there is a not so old topic: https://www.microstockgroup.com/shutterstock-com/focus-pocus!/

Could you guide me on how you finally identified all this almost invisible lens/sensor dust? Helpful to improve quality

This is how I do it: take an image of a clean plain white paper (fill your frame). Select spot removal in Lightroom and drag the visual spots slider to the max.
When editing an image with possible dust spots, I identify them by dragging the dehaze slider to the max. Spots in for instance skies will become visible, so you can remove them with the spot removal tool.

Not sure these both options are the ideal ones, but that's how I do it, and it seems to work. 

I had the issue too. Downloaded DeepMeta from their site and installed it again -> problem fixed.