Must have been painful to them having gotten all adverse comments removed from FB and other social media only to discover that they were hosting their own adverse comments site. 

There is something very amusing in that!

It seems that I can't reply to existing threads or start new ones on the forums at SS. Can't send private messages either. Hopefully, the ban is temporary. I didn't receive any notification about it or anything like that. No e-mail.

Ive hardly said anything negative on the forums. I did share my outrage of the new massive payment cut but so have most other contributors. And I expressed my thoughts about that ages ago - not recently. And some contributors have been a lot more vocal and aggressive about that topic than I have.

Oh well. I guess I'll just have to wait it out.

"Africa studio

Welcome to the world of modern commercial images and footages.

Bright, creative and trendy images and footages will help you visualize any subject and field of activity."

For such a big company earning so much money in the microstock industry, I'm surprised they couldn't afford to pay someone to do a grammar check on their text. 'Footage' is an uncountable noun by the way. What they wrote doesn't sound very professional.

Regardless, I was really hoping their split from SS would be permanent. Though that is clearly not the case.

They do not sell personal data of photographer and model(s). But a client can buy a MR copy with removed all sensitive data, check e,g, P5 client FAQ.

Ah yes I so I see:

"The provided release will have the full text of the agreement and signatures visible, but any identifying information about the models, artist, and witnesses will be obscured.

The fee to obtain a copy or a release is $50/$75 for each file. To request for a copy of a release, please contact us and provide us with the file IDs."

Very interesting.

This query relates to buyers who purchase a license to use model released stock images from a stock agency. Obviously, the buyer is informed by the agency that the photo or clip featuring a person has a valid model release form. Though does the buyer ever see the model release? Is the buyer given a copy of the release? Or is it a case that they have no access to the release and rely on the trust of the agency that there is a release that was provided by the photographer?

The reason why I'm curious is I am considering trying to sell some stock directly with no agency involved. And I may have some images featuring myself and possibly other people (who I would normally need model release forms for.) I would inform any interested buyers that I have releases for the models. Though is it likely that they would demand to see the releases or download them? And if they go ahead with that, I'm wondering if there would be any disadvantages like the risk of identity theft etc.

I was thinking of doing the same thing myself with youtube and state that the same footage could be purchased through P5, AS etc. Though recently, I had a change of plan. With stock agencies becoming more greedy in general, I thought I'd put my e-mail address in there instead and allow viewers to purchase directly from me, cutting out the middle man. As we've seen recently, SS have dropped a bombshell. And at the moment, P5 seems quite respectable but how long will they stay that way? Already, they've introduced things like credit packs, reducing contributor commissions from 50% to 40% (unless we go exclusive.) Who knows how far they'll go in the future. I think sooner or later, more stock photographers will be forced to sell direct.

Incidentally, a number of years ago, a local band contacted me after seeing some footage of mine on youtube. They wanted to use it for a music video clip for one of their songs and were willing to pay me for it. It didn't go ahead unfortunately as they spent all their money on recording an album. Ive also been contacted by the BBC and an American media company after they saw some other clips of mine on youtube. Though they wanted the footage for free so that was a 'no deal.'

It's like stealing candy from a baby.

I did it too, but I noticed Youtube is not the right place to promote my work. I got some views on the more popular subjects but I also received a lot of dislikes from people thinking 'royalty-free' means 'free' and claimed how I was misleading them because they had to pay to use my videos.

Sometimes you have to laugh at uneducated people.

Actual buyers won't shop around via Youtube anyway, so it was a lot of wasted time for me.

Another stock photographer I know uploaded some of her stock videos to youtube and included the names of the agencies where the individual clips could be found. Now it could be a coincidence but some of those same clips later sold.

This agency are just like vampires - s-u-c-k-i-n-g us dry.

Ive gone through their website but couldn't find any information about submitting videos or video technical requirements. I only found info on submitting stills. I wonder if they accept editorial videos (though I do plan on selling my editorial clips as exclusive on Pond 5.)

This is the beginning of the end.

Are you using spaces to separate words, If you take out the spaces you should be good to go. this is my title......CHDigitalMedia  no spaces

Yea I am using spaces. Though I admit it would look odd if I added 'Exclusive' on the end of my existing user name without a space in between. I also did a test where I typed in random letters with no spaces as my user name and it still got rejected it for special characters.

Edit: I just tried again with no space between my original user name and 'Exclusive' and it worked. Thanks!

Deleted