It's kind of disgusting that CafePress makes people earn their 10% royalty, as if that's some sort of gift.

How quickly these companies forget that without art/photography/design/illustration these products are just white t-shirts and blank canvases.

One thing I'll say I agree with 1000% from that FAA blog post is the bloat that companies like CafePress have. 775 employees? That's insane. No wonder they're hemorrhaging money and are looking to cut royalties.

It came up in this thread that Depositphotos has a "subscription" option for 5 images per month for $49.



This is a disturbing offering because it is comparable to products from other companies like Shutterstock's 5-image On-Demand pack for the same price but with a far lower royalty paid. Shutterstock pays out a percentage of the sale price received, while Depositphotos pays out a subscription royalty.

So each image in that 5-image "subscription" costs $9.80. Paying out a subscription royalty to the contributor ($0.30 up to $0.35), that works out to a 3.0-3.5% royalty paid. Whereas Shutterstock pays $1.88-$2.85 per image on a 5-image pack.

It looks like DP is trying to get away with paying out subscription royalties on small-quantity image packs by just calling them "subscriptions" instead.

Anyone know when this purchasing option became available? I hate to admit it but I have no idea how long this option has been there.

I'm suspending uploads to DP unless this is changed. Could be worth considering dropping them altogether between this and the other nonsense they've been up to lately (partner/API deals).

iStock is over-stepping on this one but not because of any legal issues with FIFA. Getty has some kind of deal with FIFA to be the "official" photo agency of the World Cup, so Getty has to make sure that nothing even remotely related to soccer in 2014 shows up on iStock and elsewhere in the Getty family.

Other companies, like Shutterstock, are a lot more allowing of World Cup related images.

I think people who are pinning their remaining hopes on SS will be disappointed...

I love Shutterstock as a company. I think they've done some amazing things, built a truly impressive business, and offer buyers an outstanding product. I've been an on-and-off subscriber at SS when I've had the workload to necessitate a subscription, and it is a really great deal. I can understand why so many people are regular customers and like what they receive.

As a contributor, though, Shutterstock's continued growth and success is a double-edged sword. Sure I do better with Shutterstock as the company does better. More customers means more people seeing my work, and hopefully more people buying it. But it also means that there is a lower best-case scenario for me long-term. Part of Shutterstock's growth has to include the existing market and buyers who currently work with other companies. They want to take customers away from their competitors, and rightly so. But Shutterstock isn't the best place for me to earn on a per-sale basis, so every time a buyer moves away from an agency that pays me more per sale and migrates their business over to Shutterstock, that means that my earnings potential shrinks.

Let's face it, Shutterstock isn't going to raise our pay any time soon, if ever. Even if they did, they can't match what we could potentially earn elsewhere. I get daily sales from places that pay me $8 or more per sale. I'll never see those kinds of sales on a daily basis at SS. The more people buy from places that pay better, the greater earnings potential I have and the increased likelihood that I might still be doing this in a few years. The more people move away from the agencies that pay better and migrate to Shutterstock, the more limited my earnings potential becomes.

It was the same with me! I opened Supply Agreement and the first sentence is: "We love your photos and we want to license them for you." ...

That, to me, reads like "You're in."

Unfortunate choice of wording if that is in fact not what it means.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/magazine-26465761

She's great. I really admire artists who can paint in unique styles like this. It's easy to think that some of these childrens' book illustrators do such simple work, it often looks almost effortless. But if you actually ever try to do something that looks so effortless, then you know what it really takes to paint like that.

I too tried to leave a comment but the site won't accept it.

There are other ways to reach out. Twitter, for example. @buystockphotos

Speaking of emails, I got this one today:

...And I figure if one actually does come along and IS the next big thing, I'll jump on after it proves itself. No need to be on the first train or be an early adopter if it's really stable and works. I'm tired of anticipation, hope and frustration...

I think there has to be a middle ground. There won't be a "next big thing" if no one is willing to take a chance on a startup. On the other hand, no one has the time to contribute to every wannabe-next-big-thing that comes around asking for images.

We need to be willing to take some chances. A site doesn't have to be 100% all there before we should be willing to support them. Everyone's comfort level with taking risks on startups will be different. But if we're not willing to take some chances, we'll never see that "next big thing" emerge.

Pretty glowing review of DPC from Amos Struck.

I get that Amos is in the business of working with both contributors and agencies and has to remain fairly neutral. But he could have at least mentioned the controversy and that this is a hot issue with contributors.

Can you sell any file types on the platform? Or is it limited to photo formats? I'm wondering about selling vector graphics.

Mine are in the toilet. I'm on pace for my worst month ever at GL.

Really bummed about this one. I wish they could turn it around somehow. Right now it seems like I'm a long way from where I was a year or two ago with them, it's hard to even think about where things should be by now at GL if the whole Google mess hadn't happened.