Maybe this is a bit too alarmist?  http://www.zacks.com/stock/news/178678/is-the-adobe-stock-launch-bad-news-for-shutterstock

"Adobe�s CC users are some of the biggest users of stock images, videos and so forth, so Shutterstock is likely to lose this business entirely (unless maybe it competes very aggressively on price)."

I saw that and concluded that the writer didn't seem to know much about the business stock agencies were in. The general idea - a strong competitor with deep pockets going after Shutterstock's business caused a dip in SS's stock price - made sense, but that was about it.

Interesting that Getty wasn't mentioned at all as a competitor but Google Images was (is he trying to say that stealing is competition for those who license images for money?).

Also interesting was this quote - even though it's bollocks - the rates are not top of the market, just a bit better than before:

"Moreover, in order to encourage photographers and designers to contribute content to Adobe Stock, the company has assured that it will offer top-of-the-market rates, thus pulling in content providers."

Lots of assumptions that I would guess are way wide of the mark - in a way that makes Adobe's ability to convert SS's customers much harder.

1) The companies who like subscriptions are those with budget folks who want certainty. Even if you download 10 images most of the time, what about the few months when you want more? The subscription eliminates all the budget surprises and overhead of seeking extra funds for exceptions. Not to mention the business team subscriptions (I assume SS introduced those because of user requests). Central control over how many subs each team gets and how many seats you have a license for

2) The point everyone else has made is that other than Adobe's watermarked comps are larger, there's no real difference from anywhere else. Also, with SS's corporate deals, although they've refused to disclose license terms, they have said that one of the benefits clients get is unwatermarked comps while only paying for what they use in the final pieces.

3) Do some searches on Adobe and SS for a variety of terms (and get a bit specific so you're not looking at hundreds of thousands in both cases. Adobe just doesn't have the coverage SS does - and that's even for photos. No footage on Adobe for the time being. The minute you start buying multiple places, the complexity (budget and digital asset management) goes up again - the very thing companies want to avoid. As I understand it, Adobe's management of digital assets will only apply to things purchased from them, so they don't have a simple workflow any more if they have to buy things other places.

4) Integration with Adobe products of the choice and purchase of stock images is nothing like as big a win as it would have been once - managing the assets is hard and important, but the act of selecting and downloading  really isn't, especially if your DAM is WebDAM and you've organized around it already (and I don't know much about how widely used that product is; they say they're the leading DAM but that could mean 50 customers if that segment hasn't really taken off).

Alamy had a go at trying to manage this problem - multiple departments buying the same thing and tracking who had a license for which images - and I don't know how well they did, but they're not the leading agency (except perhaps for UK newspapers).

Given that users have apparently been managing to buy and download their stock images/illustrations/videos for over a decade without integration with Photoshop/Illustrator/InDesign, it's not at all clear to me that they'll just drop what they've been doing and run to a new provider because of a built in search and some asset management for some of their assets.

Just received e-mail this morning from 123rf saying that starting July 1 2015 they will withhold tax on US based downloads based on country of residence.

I just went to the site and found the tax center (I didn't click on the link in the e-mail just in case it was phishing) and submitted my online W9 (I'm a US resident) and it seemed to go as expected.

Just posting here so that if someone didn't (for whatever reason) get the e-mail they can log in over the next couple of weeks and take care of the paperwork

In the "For Contributors" section at the bottom of website pages there's a new Tax Center link

http://www.123rf.com/tax/index.php

...Demotix rejected my right to sell the images, but immediately distributed them through their syndicates all over the world, who obviously paid them.

That seems like fraudulent conversion to me.

Although you don't know that Demotix was paid by the end user, even if they made it available for free they have no legal right to do this (I take it you didn't give them this right as part of the artist agreement?). Assuming you didn't, it is certainly unethical and potentially both actionable and criminal.

Even if you don't expect to get paid, I'd strongly recommend writing something detailed to Claire Keeley, Corbis's VP & General Counsel

http://corporate.corbis.com/uk/about-us/leadership/

This exposes Corbis to lawsuits of all sorts (even if not from you) and I'd think she'd want to know about what Demotix is doing so she can put a stop to it.

That sounds like a complete mess.

I had never heard of Demotix, but I went to look at their site and noted at the bottom that they're owned by Corbis

http://www.demotix.com/blog/shout/1596138/demotix-acquired-by-corbis

Have you considered writing up something and complaining to Corbis? They may not sell much but they're not a fly-by-night outfit and probably would care about their reputation enough to make this right

The email from September said they hoped to be admitted to AIM by the end of 2014. Now they hope "...as early as August..." (2015 I assume)

Not clear what the delay is or why they think that now things will move forward when before they didn't. Wouldn't you have expected some sort of explanation of the delay?

I couldn't become an investor even if I wanted to (which I don't) because I'm outside the EU, but this feels more like PicturEngine (lots of promises but nothing much ever came of it)

If we get rid of it we will end up having to scroll through loads of '+1' posts.

The primary value of the Heart icon/up arrow/Agree is keeping threads easier to digest. Huge quotes of a prior post with +1 added at the end happened a lot prior to the heart button and threads became unreadable after a few pages of that.

I don't like a lot of what Facebook has done with their interface but the like feature with the ability to see who liked a post is helpful. I'm assuming that's not possible with the current forum software.

I think the Disagree function causes more problems than the value it adds. The cumulative scoring also means that you can theoretically end up with posts that generated a ton of polarized likes/dislikes with just a +1 or a -1 when many people felt strongly for or against a point of view.

I'd vote for ditching the negative vote and keeping the positive one (and I thought the heart or up arrow were fine and less visually distracting than a word).

So I have only a small portion of my portfolio on Canva - and what I uploaded last Friday never turned up, so the number when I use this URL

https://www.canva.com/portfolio

Hasn't changed for a few weeks (it's 457). That includes the pending cutout items (from way back when, before I realized I shouldn't upload any JPEGs that were isolated) as well as some rejected files.

Up until late last week my portfolio for sale was 411, seen using this link (you'd put in your contributor name)

https://www.canva.com/joannsnover

It went to 410 over the weekend sometime and 408 sometime this week.

The 457 didn't change, which means, I think, that some of the items in that list have gone from Approved to Rejected. I think you'd have to scroll through the pages to see - assuming you could remember what was approved or not.

I'm going to hold off on more uploads until (a) my MIA files from last week show up and (b)  they finish culling portfolios. Why give them more of what they don't want? Whatever that is.

They also edit titles and descriptions sometimes - some very odd changes made in a batch from a few weeks back. I left the file alone, but the change was really strange. This file was re-titled "Small home with the lights on"

https://www.canva.com/media/MABOQa7pQI4

That's not the title I gave it or would give it...

Edited June 10th to add that my 30 files showed up and are now In Review. So portfolio count is 487. My approved files count is now down to 407 - one more previously approved one has been removed.

The bits and pieces approach suggests that the review isn't by portfolio, although Ron said a week or two ago that his "whole portfolio" had been removed.

If possible, and someone from Canva is still monitoring MSG, can you tell contributors when you've completed the cull of previously approved images?

The key difference is that everything in Canva is done via any browser and doesn't require much expertise to get a decent finished product

In Design has bucketloads of features but Adobe's light years away from actually being apps in a browser (no downloads required)

I think the frothy nonsense over the citizen journalism companies will waste lots of investor money, but Canva has a shot at being something new and different (and successful)

Hehe, true. And no CM buyer would pay 1300 for it either. 

Perhaps they'd take the flower pack - 30 photos for $2,800?

https://creativemarket.com/Stocksy/280407-Stocksy-Floral-Pack

So from the press release that Sean dug up - which has more buzzwords per square inch than should be legal - is the following gem:

"Today's announcement brings together all forms of user generated content (photography, videography, live video streaming and copyrighting), ..."

Copyrighting is a form of content? I might be persuaded that "citizen generated content" was a step up from user generated content as a term companies use when they mean "the great unwashed" but are trying to avoid saying it, but it's just more euphemisms. If anyone can submit stuff to them, then that's the business model - why go to such great lengths to point out the background of the people submitting?

Then there is "...to approach Newzulu's existing news agency partners and clients, on a revenue share basis..." which I take to mean that whatever the buyer pays gets split three ways - the two companies sharing revenue and whatever's left for the contributor who actually made the image or video.

This wouldn't be the first time that two companies who are struggling partner up to see if something magical will happen together that didn't happen separately.

And this attempt to try a post as if from an interested contributor that's written in the same marketing doublespeak as the press release is a very bad idea. Trust lost is hard to win back.

Modified to add some links to stories about this company.

http://www.fool.com.au/2015/04/27/is-newzulu-ltd-a-next-gen-disruptor/

PieNetworks acquired NewZulu last August and changed its name to NewZulu

http://www.pienetworks.com/

Then NewZulu made an acquisition "...to help it crack the US" - has anyone heard of Filemobile?

http://www.businessinsider.com.au/australian-startup-newzulu-just-paid-5-million-for-content-marketer-filemobile-to-help-it-crack-the-us-2015-2

http://www.startupdaily.net/2015/02/australian-startup-newzulu-closes-11-5-million-funding-round/

They seem to be acquiring a ton of domain names (search NewZulu and you'll see them) including BoomZulu

http://www.boomzulu.com/

What I haven't seen to date (but will now look out for) is any media outlet actually using any of these images or videos...has anyone seen an uses?

This sounds a lot like all the Silicon Valley startups - piles of breathless prose and investors pumping in money by the bucketload but no real clear traction as a business.

One last edit: A profile of the guy running this company

http://www.businessinsider.com.au/alex-hartman-from-teen-entrepreneur-to-head-of-a-global-media-company-2014-10