|
MicrostockGroup Sponsors
This section allows you to view all posts made by this member. Note that you can only see posts made in areas you currently have access to.
Messages - cathyslife
Pages: 1 ... 11 12 13 14 15 [16] 17 18 19 20 21 ... 294
376
« on: June 05, 2020, 18:35 »
I really don't understand this attitude.
I'm a fellow SS contributor who's also affected by this cut of royalty, but i still fail to see how SS is responsible for the current economic hardships of that alleged single mother or anyone else here. SS is a business not a charity. We are not employees, we are just contracted freelancers, and SS as an organization has zero responsibility towards us. They never made any promises and you are free to terminate your contract any time. The only reason you don't is because the rest of the agencies are just as crap or worse. A few agencies who are committed to fair trade, like pond5 or alamy, don't sell sh*, so it doesn't matter that they give you 40 to 60% of nothing. SS remained the only big one that actually sells and now it's gone too. I don't count istock/getty. The business landscape keeps shifting.
Let's face it: creating stock is a skill of very little added value, at least according to the market. No one cares how long it took you to learn photography and how much you spent on gear. Photography is extremely hard to sell even outside stock, otherwise we wouldn't bother selling for 20 cents a pop. As for me, i just stopped uploading and don't care any more.
It's not SS management's mistake that the single mother failed to obtain more marketable skills. We are all free to move on. Why would you rely on a single source of income, especially if it's known to be very unreliable?
I don't like to brush you off with a 'oh you must be Stan Pavlovsky' comment, because there is some truth to your comment. If you look at it completely objectively, I'd even say you're right.
But the problem isn't that we're wondering why Shutterstock does this to their contributors. We all know any agency or commercial company is only in it for the profit, not for charity or goodwill. However, that shouldn't hold us back from calling out hypocrisy, greed or lack of ethics in business, when CEO's/managers/board decide to grab a bigger piece of the pie and insult us by pretending it's a good thing. They may have zero responsibility to us, it doesn't excuse them from being completely careless a-holes.
We're also angry about the short 6-day notice, about the financial issues this may create for us and the kick in the teeth during an already tough time. Maybe we should've seen it coming, but the anger and backlash is justified.
As to not caring and just stopping uploading: some people don't have that luxury. Because of the corona pandemic, some people have been fired from their day job or lost freelance gigs.
Surely the financial situation of this single mother (or anyone) isn't Shutterstock's responsibility (besides, being a single mom doesn't make her situation more pitiful than some random photographer without kids), but it does illustrate capitalism at its worst.
We may not be able to stop this greed or change the world (or Shutterstock), but we can still let our voices be heard. We'll have to learn to live with this new reality, but I think speaking out loud is still better than staying silent.
I agree with everything you say. Playing the single mother cant feed her kid card for sympathy is a tad overboard. And yes, SS is capitalism and greed at its worst. TONS of people are having a hard time because of this. Some wont be able to pay their mortgage, or medical bills, or whatever. Its all a clusterf*ck.
377
« on: June 05, 2020, 18:30 »
I really don't understand this attitude.
I'm a fellow SS contributor who's also affected by this cut of royalty, but i still fail to see how SS is responsible for the current economic hardships of that alleged single mother or anyone else here. SS is a business not a charity. We are not employees, we are just contracted freelancers, and SS as an organization has zero responsibility towards us. They never made any promises and you are free to terminate your contract any time. The only reason you don't is because the rest of the agencies are just as crap or worse. A few agencies who are committed to fair trade, like pond5 or alamy, don't sell sh*, so it doesn't matter that they give you 40 to 60% of nothing. SS remained the only big one that actually sells and now it's gone too. I don't count istock/getty. The business landscape keeps shifting.
Let's face it: creating stock is a skill of very little added value, at least according to the market. No one cares how long it took you to learn photography and how much you spent on gear. Photography is extremely hard to sell even outside stock, otherwise we wouldn't bother selling for 20 cents a pop. As for me, i just stopped uploading and don't care any more.
It's not SS management's mistake that the single mother failed to obtain more marketable skills. We are all free to move on. Why would you rely on a single source of income, especially if it's known to be very unreliable?
I feel the same way, but know its going to be an unpopular opinion, judging by all the plusses and sympathy. That single mother had money to buy camera equipment and/or a good cellphone to take photos. She has a kid (or kids). While I certainly think this SS move is disgusting and I know lots of people are losing money (I have too), come on. We have all seen it coming for years! If a person was banking on microstock to feed their family, they must be living under a rock. For months, people should have been lining up plan Bs, Cs, or whatever. Its called personal responsibility, something it seems no one wants to take anymore. No, its not SSs fault a single mother cant feed her family. For gosh sakes, these companies have been greedy for years!
378
« on: June 04, 2020, 06:49 »
Again, where is everyone getting this "special deal" stuff. If there is any it can only be for the top 1 or 2 people. I haven't ever heard about anyone having a special deal. Lots of people saying they must, but no one reporting about any such deals first hand.
Maybe because those that have deals arent allowed to talk about it? Would you, if you were getting .50 an image (made-up number) while just about everyone else got .10? I wouldnt. Most people at the top keep their mouths shut. This is a business like every other. Once you get to a place where you have leverage, you use it for bargaining. Wouldnt you?
379
« on: June 03, 2020, 10:40 »
As of this week for the first time in 15 years my Adobe account is the highest paying of all the sites this week for me. I am guessing that will be the trend from now on. I have not canceled my SS account but will stop uploading new images. At 10 cents a sell it just is not worth it to upload new images. I am at level 4 and I am now getting 10-14 cents an image. SS is truly dead....
But by not closing your account and leaving, you apparently ARE willing to accept .10 per image. Not uploading new images doesnt prevent you from getting .10 per image. After all, .10 is better than nothing, right?
380
« on: June 02, 2020, 11:21 »
0.10 here too.
Shitterstock.com
If you type Shitterstock.com in your browser it takes you directly to the Pavlovsky Agency. Domain registered in 2006
They must have changed it. I just typed it in, and it went to shutterstock.
The Pavlovsky Agency aka Shutterstock
Ah. You were making a joke. Funny that they registered it back in 2006. But then a lot of times, companies register a lot of iterations of their name, figuring in typos. This one was a self-fulfilling prophecy! 😀
381
« on: June 02, 2020, 10:38 »
0.10 here too.
Shitterstock.com
If you type Shitterstock.com in your browser it takes you directly to the Pavlovsky Agency. Domain registered in 2006
They must have changed it. I just typed it in, and it went to shutterstock.
382
« on: June 01, 2020, 19:01 »
Certainly, things look a little bit different if microstock is your only source of income and you don't live in a cheap country. It may be OK to sacrifice a few hundreds $, but 40% of the entire income on a few days notice?
Anyway, I stopped uploading to SS, prioritizing AS now, and ... trying to retire from microstock.
As if those who do microstock for a living didnt have enough warning over what, the last 5 years? Plan Bs should have been put in place years ago! And Shutterstock has been effed up for at least 2 or 3 years. Come on, man.
383
« on: June 01, 2020, 16:50 »
Nobody likes peanuts, and everybody wants to be an activist, but when it actually comes down to making a sacrifice, like deleting portfolios, they are out. They start finding ways to protest, but that wont actually hurt themselves. (just stop uploading, or delay uploading a month) There isnt one single person here, selling images and/or videos, that can afford to, or even WANTS to give up money. But thats what it takes. Taking a stand isnt for sissies. The big contributors have leverage and can make deals. Most of the rest of the contributors are just going to keep getting screwed.
384
« on: June 01, 2020, 12:38 »
Looks that way - they cant even get the robbing contributors bit correct. Everything is appearing as an SOD.
Greed and incompetence. That's a potent mix. If you aim to drive a business into the ground that is.
Thing is, THEY are laughing all the way to the bank. Its only being driven into the ground for contributors. The noobs who are ok with $.10 an image are all lined up, ready to go. Tens of thousands of them.
385
« on: May 31, 2020, 21:20 »
I fear that Shutterstock is ready and waiting for this, and that this planned group deactivation of content is expected and will actually end up being another win for their bottom line.
There have been some contributors reporting that "deleted" content in their Shutterstock portfolios, which they had removed/deactivated up to two months earlier, was still searchable (at least on Google), clickable, able to be added to a cart and presumably able to be purchased. With an officially deactivated portfolio, this appears to mean that Shutterstock would retain 100% of those sales, adding insult to injury. So, if this is accurate, what all this mass deactivation may potentially do is just boost their profits without any noticeable loss in content options to the customers, depending on how they search for it. Not exactly the goal we're looking for, I'm guessing.
In my personal experience, after deleting the last of my content from iStock in 2012, they were still selling that content four years later on partner platforms. When I discovered this, I had to put up a bit of a fight to get paid for the back sales that occurred in that time (which I was surprised they did pay) and to finally persuade them to take it all down, completely. Although I'm still not entirely sure they have, eight years later.
Maybe someone with better legalese translation abilities than myself can decipher Shutterstock's terms & conditions and determine if this retaining and selling of deactivated or deleted content is in any way a violation of their own contract or if something about that practice violates any laws. Something real that the dirtbags at Shutterstock can be called out on, with actual legal repercussions.
This had me worried, because I deleted my images a couple of months ago. A google search does indeed still bring up one of my best sellers, and I can follow it to SS, but when you get to the page where you might buy it, you cant, and it says the image is no longer available. I will continue to do test searches. I deleted my images when they did nothing about the hole in their API that was allowing people to download high rez images.
386
« on: May 31, 2020, 09:29 »
Good point brought up in another thread...if you disable on June 1, do you think SS will send you Mays payment by the 15th? Ethically they should. But Doesnt sound like they are playing fairly.
387
« on: May 31, 2020, 09:25 »
Anyone knows if I still get my payout for May if I disable my images? (I reached the payout limit). I really depend on this, but also I can not stand aside and do nothing.
I appreciate if anyone knows the answer and sorry if it was already posted, I might have missed some comments (there are so many).
PS: I am pissed af
Ethically, you should. But doesnt sound like they are playing fairly. If I were you, Id wait until I got my money.
388
« on: May 31, 2020, 09:23 »
snip
Do they really expect people just to say "10 cents? cool. Thanks!" and accept it?
Many will.
389
« on: May 30, 2020, 09:29 »
I am so glad I bailed out last year.
Me, too.
390
« on: May 30, 2020, 09:27 »
Are we the center of the world? not by a mile!
Are we the center of Microstock? you bet we are!
SS can take a hit? good for them!
Can those high earners take a hit because you seem to forget on Jan 1st each year it's a reset for everyone, back to square one, well according to SS anyway because I know deals are being made between contributors and agencies, hell I even made one myself way back when I was still with a certain agency.
Stop acting like Cattle!
Except those high earners arent in the same class as the rest of the herd. They have leverage, and their earnings wont get reset because yes, they will make special deals. Shutterstock is culling the herd.
391
« on: May 28, 2020, 17:42 »
Just be careful about disabling your images and videos I did that three days ago
and as a test tried to re-enable my portfolio yesterday and today and I'm just getting
"You have changed your settings too many times today. Please try again later"
Seems like once you disable they aren't letting you back in
Yes, thats new, because I closed my account a couple of months ago, but before I did, I disabled images 2 or 3 times in the month prior and never got a warning. I wouldnt be surprised if they get rid of that feature altogether.
393
« on: May 27, 2020, 12:48 »
Im in the UK and have had enough with what's going on in the real world with Covid19. I can not explain how angry this has made me.
Too angry and sad to say anymore..
I am with you 100%. Enough is enough.
394
« on: May 26, 2020, 17:07 »
395
« on: May 26, 2020, 17:06 »
396
« on: May 26, 2020, 17:03 »
397
« on: May 26, 2020, 16:56 »
"Our new compensation model is designed to reward content creators for producing quality work that is fresh, relevant and in demand by our customers. By resetting the royalty levels each year, we aim to provide an avenue for contributors to be fairly rewarded for content that is performing well at the current time."
I read that three times, and I still dont get how this FUBAR (for those non-USAers...effed up beyond all recognition ... a military term) provides an avenue to be fairly rewarded. They are hosing people big time!
398
« on: May 26, 2020, 13:54 »
I got the email, but Im not even a contributor anymore. Good thing, because they took me from .38 per DL back down to starting level. I would have quit anyway.
399
« on: May 26, 2020, 08:05 »
Does Kelly Cline and Lisa Gagne still shoot for istock? I was always envious of Kellys food shots.
I'm not sure Kelly does: there's nothing about it on her Twitter profile, and googling shows me pretty old results, nothing recent.b She is still photographing food though.
IIRC, her husband is a chef, they made/make a great team.
400
« on: May 25, 2020, 19:53 »
I can easily shot 15 images a day. At 60 bucks per shot that would be 900 per day....Not a bay day rate...Sign me up...
That isn't the deal though, is it. They want to pick only the ones they want.
Can't compare apples & oranges.
I think the same. I just went back and read. Nowhere does it say if you submit say 100, they are going to buy 100. 100 images at $60 each is worth considering, if you get a guarantee. 2 images at $60 each might not be worth it. Maybe yes, maybe no.
Pages: 1 ... 11 12 13 14 15 [16] 17 18 19 20 21 ... 294
|
Sponsors
Microstock Poll Results
Sponsors
|
Show Posts
