I found one of mine there - they are showing the Shutterstock image ID on the detail page, so it's fairly clear where they got it from. I replied to your forum post (which SS has replied to) offering to file a DMCA notice (or anything else) if that will help. Based on the OP's experience, I'm assuming it won't...

Elena, I did work with Canva privately initially. I'm well aware that agencies don't like public discussion of problems.

One of the things that public discussion can help with is knowing if something is happening only to you or to lots of contributors or a group. Part of the way any organization manages things is to say "it's only you" and without some sort of forum to compare notes, there is no way to know if that's the case or not.

Lee claims that most Canva contributors don't want or need any additional guidelines about images they want and don't, or why they've been removing existing images the way they have - that it's just me.

It no longer matters to me one way or another, but I thought there were a couple of areas that merited public discussion.

One was the previous promise to explain the portfolio culls in a future newsletter. The other was that other contributors aren't interested in understanding rejection reasons or the culls.

I did editorialize about my perception of Lee's e-mail being rude - I think he could have told me "no newsletter" and "no explanations" without being so dismissive of me and my work. He was acting as a rep for Canva and I'm not sure that being rude to contributors is ever an appropriate way to deal with them.

I think you've answered your own question - export your images from Lightroom and you'll have no problems with SS.

I thought it was a bit odd that the last 6 or so of today's sales were all 404 error when I clicked on them in the sales list...then I checked my active portfolio.

They deleted another 70 files in the last day or two. It had been so long that the portfolio had been holding steady since the last massacre that I uploaded a file the other day - just one to see what would happen (it's still in review).

Once again, the files are ones that have been selling on Canva  (as well as on the other sites they're available). There were a whole bunch from Aruba; a halloween pumpkin outside on a dark night - I don't really have the stomach to look through it.

It's been a great sales month so far, but that obviously won't continue - I'm assuming the next casualty will be the Christmas images that have been selling a lot this month.

And they never provided that promised newsletter to contributors explaining their new criteria for desired files and acceptance policies.

Every time I get a little hopeful that Canva might turn into something good for contributors - I still think their idea is one of the few pieces of original thought we've seen in the market in a long time - they remind me that we are below the bottom of their list of priorities.

What a rude and careless way to treat contributors. At least explain what the f*ck is going on and what you want or don't. Is that really too much to ask? (I did write to support - it took me forever to find a link on their web site - asking for them to please explain what's going on and what their current criteria are).

Do you want to exit the stock business? If so, this might be a deal you'd consider as a way to dump your portfolio and make a little money.

If you plan to keep selling, then why would you let other people compete with you with your own images? That's what you'd be doing if you sold resale rights to your images to some agency.

I just looked after I read your post, and I can see it too. Very nice.

1. Stock photos need to be useful to the buyer, not just pretty, or a function of the creator's artistic vision.

You'll need excellent technical quality for most stock (some agencies taking mobile shots may be more forgiving). You need to be aware of legal issues - intellectual property rights (can't use logos, copyrighted written or visual works, model releases, property releases) - for stock. You need to be able to keyword well - if your images can't be found, they won't sell. Learn how to light an image - or manage natural light; what works for family vacation shots won't do for stock. Think about how someone could use an image - magazine, web site, advertising - not whether you like the scenery or the model is gorgeous.

2. Be prepared to work at this and learn - don't assume that because you know how to take a good photograph that you're all set. If you don't have a thick skin and tolerance for rejection, you'll get frustrated and give up pretty quickly.

Looking at how many differences there are for most of your images - not only color, but knee pads and color/shape of bags on the side of legs, etc. - I'd say you should be OK if you remove all logos, belt buckles, patches, etc.

The one that I think may be a problem is the first - the red flower/wedges/design on the chest looks very similar in layout. I'd change the color and alter the shapes a bit more.

Bear in mind I'm not a gamer, and possibly someone who is might see something else that screams STALKER to them

http://www.smartcompany.com.au/growth/48650-canva-raises-us15-million-melanie-perkins-reveals-the-next-product-and-what-s-important-in-growing-a-business.html

In the article it mentions free use of the service for non profits - I'm not aware of any discussion of free use of otherwise fee bearing images. Perhaps they just get to use the free images?

It also says that the user base has doubled in four months (now 5 million users) and that there are 35K Canva for Work teams signed up.

TechCrunch also had an article

http://techcrunch.com/2015/10/06/design-platform-canva-scores-15-million-series-a-valued-at-165-million/

In a recent thread about SS's new low volume subscriptions I made mention of a request from a SS Contributor Success rep to verify the location of one of my images.

Another contributor mentioned that he'd just received four of those requests for images shot in the middle of nowhere.

Today I saw this blog post by Lee Torrens and wondered if these requests were part of trying to source images from a particular state for political candidates to use

http://www.microstockdiaries.com/shutterstock-to-save-politicians-from-themselves-with-gaffe-proof-collections.html

They are starting with two states, apparently: "...the new �Safe for IA and NH� collection hosts images shot by Iowa and New Hampshire-based photographers only". Strangely, they are concerned with where the photographers are based. I visit New Hampshire each summer (used to live there) and have quite a few New Hampshire images in my portfolio even though I don't live there now.

And the image they asked me about was in Washington state, where I currently live, so perhaps they're prepping things for other locations as well?

I can't find anything on the site or blog that links to this collection, but Google helped me out:

http://www.shutterstock.com/public_lightbox.mhtml?lightbox_id=38977292&code=14c7d1e8952ffadd126c844d1c9afec0&pl=Press15-pllb&cr=

http://talkingpointsmemo.com/livewire/shutterstock-new-hampshire-iowa-photos

http://www.politico.com/story/2015/10/stock-photo-service-shutterstock-campaign-images-gaffe-214475

I think they need to do a little more work on their curation, however, as the Nubble Light (in the collection) is in Maine, not New Hampshire.

http://www.shutterstock.com/pic-197676677/stock-photo-nubble-lighthouse-is-illuminated-as-the-sun-sets.html?src=lb-38977292

People who live in one state sometimes travel to another...

Edited to add that this picture, also in the IA/NH collection says it's in Colorado...

http://www.shutterstock.com/pic-10234423/stock-photo-mayflower-gulch-colorado.html?src=lb-38977292

This one is in Yellowstone

http://www.shutterstock.com/pic-19330396/stock-photo-bison-along-a-river-in-yellowstone.html?src=lb-38977292

This one is in Vermont

http://www.shutterstock.com/pic-319721138/stock-photo-the-picture-perfect-town-of-peacham-vermont-with-its-large-red-barn-and-white-new-england-church.html?src=lb-38977292

Colorado

http://www.shutterstock.com/pic-94211479/stock-photo-bear-lake-rocky-mountain-national-park-colorado.html?src=lb-38977292

http://www.shutterstock.com/pic-49799983/stock-photo-colorado-rockies-in-autumn.html?src=lb-38977292

Vermont again

http://www.shutterstock.com/pic-153675464/stock-photo-the-brand-new-taftsville-covered-bridge-in-quechee-vermont.html?src=lb-38977292

I got paid this afternoon

...But this also hurts iStock's bottom line.  Let's say there's a buyer who would buy 60 credits, enough for 20 Signature files (I'm exclusive, but I suspect the math works similarly for Essential files). They'd pay $520, and iStock would get (in my case) 70% of that, or $364. The equivalent monthly sub gives the buyer 25 Sig files, and they pay only $150. Even if iStock kept 100%, they'd still be making about 40% of what they would have made....

To me, this suggests that they are hemorrhaging buyers and these prices are an attempt to get the volume of sales back up. You only make more with the old pricing if you're actually selling any/many.

Using your example above, if there used to be 100 buyers of the  60 credit packs, netting iStock $36,400, but now there are only 20 buyers ($7,280), they may think that if they could get back the 100 buyers at $135 each (let's say they only keep 90%) - $13,500 - they're nearly doubling their take.

Sorry, but I'm not following.  What does "custom" mean?

The column in the royalty chart with that label:

http://submit.shutterstock.com/payouts

All the "Single & Other" downloads are paid at that rate, for example