The web upload has not worked for me for months...It can take an hour and what shows up is 1 image.

However -- FTP does work. I use Filezilla and the images show up quickly to edit and submit.  Fingers crossed this joy won't end too soon!

Hi all,
When I look at my Dreamstime contributor information page, I see a list of "referred members"
on the right. Clicking at each of their names, I notice that each of them has 0 uploads. Next to each of their profile are images, which are not theirs, but other contributor images.

Under Referrral program there's this information:
"(X number of) users were referred by you.
 No photographers were referred by you.
 No buyers were referred by you. No payment plans were purchased. "

 I've earned 0.00 under the referral program...

So if they are not photographers or buyers, who are they? And where do the images next to their avatar refer to?

Sorry if this is asked before. Thanks in advance for any insight on this.

 2 emails and 7 files. Don't know  what to think of this??

Quote from: ravens on June 08, 2016, 15:15

Goober,  are you saying 'taking' because you are telling her it is okay to steal?  Or what do you mean?
Stealing is stealing.  It is not a matter of linguistics.

Though this is what is happening in the real world and this is why we earn less each day by day, month by month. There are websites that sell stolen images. Yes I have seen it too, small images are ok for blogs.

Istock should protect our images much better. It is really up to them. Thieves will steal if they have the opportunity anyway.

Where I'm from 'taking' can be used interchangeably with 'getting' or 'using' depending on the context. Maybe it's not the same worldwide.

OK, Thanks for the definition.
So if you go to a supermarket you can take some food or candy without paying for it if nobody sees it. Or better yet lift something more valuable if you don't get caught.

Stealing.

Goober,  are you saying 'taking' because you are telling her it is okay to steal?  Or what do you mean?
Stealing is stealing.  It is not a matter of linguistics.

Though this is what is happening in the real world and this is why we earn less each day by day, month by month. There are websites that sell stolen images. Yes I have seen it too, small images are ok for blogs.

Istock should protect our images much better. It is really up to them. Thieves will steal if they have the opportunity anyway.

Watermark on photos looks as it has for a long time now.
I think there was a discussion on watermarks on vectors over on their forum.

Saw the discussion. Sure, if the background is white, the image protection is about zero.

I'm confused. I noticed the watermark looks different on different browsers. On Firefox, it is extremely light. On Windows Edge, it looks as it used to.

It's a good start. Congratulations on the sales!
Very few buyers will look at your portfolio as a whole, so it is perfectly fine to have and to experiment with different subject matters. Just shoot and upload more, that is the fastest way to develop your own style and skills.

why didn't they announce this on their forum? i bet 99% of the contributors there don't have a clue about this. thei don't give a s*** on us.

i also like this from the communicate it says everything about their relation to us photographers
"Every change we make to our stock image services is customer centric "

Exactly! A lot of contributors don't have time for this crap. I just found out about this change today. Quite sickening.
Have you emailed DT directly and what has their response been?

Opting out is good, but better yet do not upload any new content until they reverse this. Plus send them an email telling what you have done and why.

Unfortunately the bottom line is that watermarks kill sales of art photos.   You can dispute this all you want, but the guy who FAA has the numbers and I believe him.   And big previews sell art.   The only thing you can do is forget about shooting things that people might want on a t-shirt.

The guy has numbers. I see.
You can dispute this all you want, but not protecting content is saying it is not worth protecting. Why pay for it when you can save it or take a screenshot for free and use it to make money free and easy. Wake up people.   

The "finer" art, the less image protection.  I always fail to understand what's the logic behind that.

I was going to install it, but Chrome said it wanted access to my most frequently visited web sites and to be able to read and change my data on all Shutterstock sites. Not sure if there's some marketing stuff they want from the list of most frequently visited sites, but I'm not sharing that with them.

I think the TOS says they can use our images for free for promotional purposes, and this is certainly about promotion of SS, so I don't see how one particular kind of promotion would be an exception to the general case.

Jo Ann, I installed the app just to test it and then removed it.
I am sure Shutterstock has an air tight TOS and would claim this is promotion, but this is an App. How and where would you draw the line?