Not sure if you were around these forums when Getty pushed a lot of their content onto Istock a few years ago but many of the images were laughable. I think it was called the agency collection, but not sure.

The toilet door with the flash-burn in the center was my favorite

Because it costs them more money to chase up and they aren't losing enough from these gigs.

They don't care about the artists, just about Getty's bottom line

I got payment from Veer 2 days ago, but with PayPal charges ... I believe last time (a couple months ago) was without charges. I sent them ticket.

I had charges too. In corresponding with customer support about this they sent me a screen shot of the payment from their end - it was funded via a credit card and they didn't pay the charges. I suggest you insist they fix this (mine had multiple errors so it is fixed differently from everyone else's situation). We have never paid a fee to receive money from them in the past.

I have just made a same move, dropped iStock exclusivity, actually I would like to close my account there completely, but I don't know where to join, as I am in bit different situation, at the moment I'm able to take only black and white images and I know this is not successful in regular microstock sites, what I should do or where to join?

Here is my port: kalevitamm.com

I wonder if Stocksy or Offset might be options for you? I agree with you that it might be a hard sell with the regular micros. Alamy possibly?

After reading this thread I took my last 20 rejections, downsized them to 6MP, and had 14 accepted. That settles it for me.

I understand the Realpolitik of that, but it's just stupid. I really hate having to accept stupid...

I put my name in the author field, my site's URL in the Copyright Info URL, the status is Copyrighted and � 2014 Jo Ann Snover in the copyright notice field.

Some sites strip all of that out (and for various reasons it has been explained that this isn't a violation under DMCA but it still seems wrong to me) but none have rejected files with that in it.

I haven't looked at Pinterest recently, but when I did basically if an image was there you could use the image legally as long as you kept the link back to pinterest - so essentially once it is on pinterest it is free for use and essentially owned by them. Any legal problems are shunted back to whoever posted it on pinterest. ...

We'll see how this goes, but I found an unwatermarked image of mine on Pinterest. I've submitted a DMCA takedown notice as I think this is an unlicensed use.

They've said it's "Courtesy of Shutterstock/Jo Ann Snover" and "Found on familyvacationcritic.com" (it's slide 8 of 12; can't get a direct link)

I'm sure the family vacation critic site licensed it correctly, but pinning the image itself has to be an unauthorized use. They could find the image at DT and pin it from there (but it'd be watermarked).

Has anyone had any success reporting stuff like this to Shutterstock as well - might they kick up a stink with Pinterest? If it comes down, the immediate problem is solved, but it'd be nice if the agencies would be more active in pursuing the lax policies at sites like this...

...I'm sure there will be a lot of interest in LR Mobile although I'm not planning to use it myself.

I'm not sure what possible scenario would have me using Lightroom mobile. I've come to a love-hate relationship with Lightroom over time - everything ends up in Photoshop or Photomatix and Photoshop but I'm doing more work up front in LR than before and I never use ACR in Photoshop any more. It can do lots of great things with RAW files, but I can't see there's a mass market for that whatever device you put it on, and I don't think LR's interface is even close to intuitive enough to be mass market either.

This topic has come up in the past and I strongly recommend against downsizing and encouraging others to downsize.   

Scott,

Leaving aside the folks who don't want to license a 21+MP for subscriptions, what about the issues of Shutterstock upsizing images that contributors have downsized to get around the frequent (and IMO often completely bogus) rejections for "focus not where we want it"?

I believe the customer would be best served with the image at its original size, not an upsized downsize - it just can't be getting better with the additional manipulation.

I just returned from Turks & Caicos where I was chuffed to see two of my images from a prior visit as big "wraps" in the airport - and I know they weren't licensed from Shutterstock because you rejected them for being out of focus. They aren't out of focus. I have a long list of in focus images, some of which as I mentioned in an earlier post were in flames at iStock when I was an exclusive, that were rejected by Shutterstock. CNN found another one of your rejects just fine too.

I'd happily give you more 21MP images, but your review process gets in the way. For some I might take the time to downsize to get around the bogus rejection, but mostly I just don't bother.

IMO what you need is some sort of formal appeals process, possibly limited to a certain number a month, or to contributors with a certain number of sales to prevent the process from being overwhelmed by things that really are junk. That sort of process would help you calibrate reviewers and improve the quality of reviews. In the long run that will benefit Shutterstock as much as it will contributors.

Just for completeness, I tested a purchase from my own site with a medium size image and the clipping path was included. The image processing was done by Image Magick, not GD, so that may be why this works now but didn't then.

Did anyone ever prove or disapprove the theory that a clipping path was only viable if the largest/native size was purchased?  Supposedly the image processor that creates the smaller sizes "damages the clipping path". 

This theory came up again recently on Symbio, but I never saw the outcome.

I don't remember whatever conversation it is you're referring to, but I did download a test purchase from my own site in a medium size (i.e. not the largest) and, using ImageMagick as the image processor both paths in the file were preserved correctly

And your assumption that SS sells images to make money is wrong. They sell subscriptions and other packages - Hoping & Knowing you won't use the entire allotment - that's how they make money. Actually every time someone downloads an image they lose money actually make less money.

Last month only 36% of my earnings were from 25 a day subs - which is where SS makes more the less the buyer downloads.

64% of my earnings came from the types of sales where both SS and I make more the more the buyer downloads.

What you said was true way back when, but much less now (and the trend I see is that the non-subs stuff is growing over time)