Quote from: philopenshaw on June 05, 2019, 15:53

Out of the agencies listed here alemy does have that tick box. You do see these cretited in media.quite often.

Alamy changed Live News recently and now they really only want people who are committing to seeking out and submitting sellable Live News on a very regular basis.
There is some thought that if you have Live News and submit it directly to their editors, your files may be looked on favourably, but I don't think that's been established.
You also have the option of submitting news as Reportage. The advantages are that reportage files go into general stock very quickly (immediately), and you get a much longer description field. The downside is that for ever afterwards there's a note on the file saying it might not be up to normal standards, even if it is; also Reportage files don't go into the Live News feed, or get pinged out to editors.

I'm not sure that Reportage is News. Not the way Alamy handles it. I've applied and they said, my content was news, not "reportage". But of course we speak different English across the pond? I could try to find the reply and information, it was last year. 

Alamy is the only one I know that has a track for news, but there are some other agencies that take Editorial news, if someone applies in advance, and has access to what they are looking for. The citizen journalist sites? But they scare me more than impress me.

Quote from: mindstorm on June 05, 2019, 13:33

Pretty much no, unless something new has been added in the last year.  I asked this same question a year ago and was told that news outlets rarely go to stock agencies for breaking news, and that stock agencies do nothing to court them.

Really??? Most media outlets go to stock agencies that cater to real verified photo journalists, not the type of photo journalists that have a flaky SS media pass... Just sayin.

SS media pass, tell me about those? Never heard of such a thing?

Quote from: SpaceStockFootage on June 03, 2019, 06:23

Quote from: pkphotos on June 03, 2019, 03:51

Exclusive program was a scam/red-herring to mask the 10% (20%) commission cut.

Well the major takeaway/headline of the exclusive program was (and is), 'go exclusive and we'll increase your cut to 60%, don't and we'll drop it to 40%'. I mean that was in the main announcement email, as clear as day, so if the intention was to mask what was really going on... then they failed on a momentously miserable scale. Not sure where the scam lies in that?

Not a scam, but it was disguised as being exciting and positive news for the good of the community. At the very least that's sneaky and misleading.

Yup, I'm always excited and positive when I get news from any microstock agency, OK not really.

I saw this as up front, that's my point. The good or bad is individual, as is the choice to play along or ignore the alternative. The 40% is a cut, no one is denying that.

God, give me grace to accept with serenity
the things that cannot be changed,
Courage to change the things
which should be changed,
and the Wisdom to distinguish
the one from the other.

Maybe by 2020 people will stop writing and whining about the P5 exclusive adjustments. I'm sure some new plan will come from somewhere else to find a way to stick it to us, much worse. At least with this, we have free will and choices?

I don't understand why you all look so preoccupied for a site selling almost nothing��

Watching to see when it finally folds for good?

Quote from: pkphotos on June 03, 2019, 03:51

Exclusive program was a scam/red-herring to mask the 10% (20%) commission cut.

Well the major takeaway/headline of the exclusive program was (and is), 'go exclusive and we'll increase your cut to 60%, don't and we'll drop it to 40%'. I mean that was in the main announcement email, as clear as day, so if the intention was to mask what was really going on... then they failed on a momentously miserable scale. Not sure where the scam lies in that?

Yes I'd agree that allowing anyone to be exclusive and not at the same time, while reducing the commission 10%, or raising it 10% at the same time, was hardly hiding what they are doing. There could be more but what I see is:

1) Getting Exclusive content that they can market to other outlets, as "only from Pond5"  which is to their advantage.

2) Giving us a small incentive, which is paid for by the cut from standard, and added to the exclusive, at no added cost.

Anyone who wants can have exclusive video or not and raise their prices to make up for the lost income on non-exclusive video.

Basic match: 50% of $100 = $50, 40% = $40 and 60% = $60 so the $10 they aren't paying for standard video, goes to the exclusive person, and no cost to Pond5. For those who like to look at the same numbers a different way, non-exclusive loses $10 and exclusive gains $10. Hey that's the same, oh yeah... only is you deal with dollars and not percentages.

10% less is 20% less commission, because $50 just became $40. I'll add that the raise is $10 more commission and an 8.3% gain, not 10%.

Doesn't matter, it's a personal choice, anyone can decide to be non-exclusive, partially exclusive or full exclusive, depending on how they personally feel about the value and marketing of their work. I'm a full exclusive and now I get 60% of nothing, instead of 40% of nothing.  But I did eliminate the uploading, the work and being paid 15% - 20% (or less) by others. Or $1.25

3) My accepted files are marketed to two additional agencies and maybe in the future more? I do nothing additional for this benefit.

If everyone understands up front, what the change is and how it works, it's not a scam, or underhanded.

Just a quick point on the, "If you actually have sales, you will have payment due in a short time.".

This is not necessarily the case. When a sale is reported, it's the time they notify Alamy of the use, Invoice Date. The actual cleared funds can take between 3-6 months after that point to show up. Some clients are quick and pay their bills within 30-60 days but others... well, I've had some that have taken best part of a year to come through. Again, not really a problem, just the way they work but people should be aware so they are not let down by their own expectations of how Alamy works.

For example, on the 5th of May I received cleared funds for sales that showed up in October 2018 and, I have quite a few sales that haven't cleared from January this year. Nothing from the end of march till today has cleared (34 sales). Everything happens very slowly at Alamy.

Yeah, you are right, sometimes it seems an eternity for some of their clients to pay. I think some are on a 90 day plan and some might be longer. I agree, it is a sticking point. When we make a sale, we expect to be paid, yet Alamy says, "well you need to wait for the client to pay". Which basically sucks. I wish they would demand payment when downloaded like Microstock.

Alamy is not microstock.  I've only had returns that were later, meaning same or next day, purchased at a different rate or license. I know others have had returns or cancellations and received nothing. I don't know how long those take. I mean if it's a couple days later, fine, someone changed their mind, if it's two months later, I'd be upset!

I shouldn't have said in a short time, because that's relative. Three months waiting for $100 to get paid, isn't terrible to me, because I get the money. Three months waiting for $2 makes us wonder, who bought that and why are they taking so long? Especially if that's all we need to make it to payout.

Personally, anything I make on stock is discretionary income. I don't depend on the sales and commissions, so I'm not as uptight about, pay me now and when will the commissions be coming. I understand where some people depend on this and it can cause stress. I'll add that Microstock or stock is so unpredictable and unreliable, I'd never count on anything happening the same in the future as it has in the past.

By the way, the original question was "Have sales plummeted?" and my answer is, yes. Now that the years have grown and I can see longer times, the sales (for me) are lower and therefore make me less, plus there are less sales. I don't know plummeted, but I'd say personally 25% of what they used to be, annually.

I still see that if I am patient, reported sales become paid sales and a payment will appear in my Paypal account.

When someone with enough money and power, files a lawsuit, that's a start. If some big law firm sees that they can make a bundle of money on a class action suit, they will jump on this and have 30,000 of us as clients. We won't get pennies but the precedent will stop the abuse and stop the protection of robbers and thieves, for profit.

Etsy makes me appreciate the approach that Shutterstock and Adobe Stock takes. They take down the images and ban entire accounts if more than a couple people file a DMCA request. Etsy is a clusterfuck. The US need to change the law on this Safe Harbor nonsense, because like you said. Etsy is not going to do anything because they like the dirty money.

Right, Etsy and anyone else who only takes down individual files for complaints is hiding behind the laws and making money from turning a blind eye on crooks.

I'd say write to your congressman or senator but we're too small and they only care about political issues that can get them votes. If we were green or some politically correct complaint, minority group, or ethnic group... then something would change fast. We are just individual self employed entrepreneurs, not of interest to getting power for them or re-elected.

Sales on Alamy for me are totally random - I can't use my sales to predict what might be wanted in future. It literally seems to be just what a buyer needs at the time, and old, unloved pics from ten years ago can suddenly sell.

I don't know why people expect Alamy to be like the other sites, they aren't. What makes Alamy good is what causes concern for others. Once someone reaches the $50 (which used to be what? $200?) They pay. This isn't a short term or constant situation. They aren't microstock.

I agree with you, random, unpredictable, but the agency is very up front about how they operate. I think artists have other expectations and imagine someplace that Alamy is not, because Alamy is nothing like any other. That's not good or bad, just different.

I am in similar situation. My "cleared balance" slighty below $50 and doesn't move from weeks despite of sales! The "forwarded brought balance" is over 50 but the payment is "not due" .
I asked to close my account which they promised to close in 45 days. I will update here if or not they pay me, but I would not be surprised if they keep the money. All these sale which are not recorded directly and opaque "cleared" system doesn't inspire any confidence.

Patience?  "doesn't move from weeks despite of sales" really, and you are standing at $48? Despite sales.  Not due means not $50. If you actually have sales, you will have payment due in a short time.

No sales this year, and I'd  like to close the account. Cleared balance is $48 and I'll be dead before it reaches $50.  If I close, will they pay me that balance?

Don't know, but if you wait for any sale and payment, they will? 

Common folks. Is everyone that desperate and needy that they sell images for 35� or less, while an agency that pays more, but sells on a sporadic basis, gets knocked for requiring $50 in sales total, before they pay out. Some people will wait months to collect from Canstock, paying small change, but when Alamy makes you wait for better sales, this becomes a time issue? Think about that. Think long term, which one pays more a year?

I don't like the paid and unpaid balance thing they have going, but when the payments clear I like Alamy just fine.

Three sales this year, commissions: $15, $4 and $120 someone who's hanging on IS, BS, CS, DT, 123 or DP tell me, how do their 2019 numbers per image sale compare? RPD, and how many sales, how long do those places take to make payout?

March 31st, 2019 260 million images available on Shutterstock.

I'll be back around May 15th... for another 10 million images. And just because I sometimes like being redundant for the obvious. As many people noticed Microstock had stopped the rapid growth of the previous years, roughly in 2012.

February 14, 2010 - Shutterstock reaches 10 million Photos (4 million 12 months)
June 19, 2012 - Shutterstock reaches 20 million stock Images (10 Million 28 months)

That's right, every month and a half, we are competing with 10 million new images, which back then took 2 1/4 years to add 10 million images.

Competition is what used to take five years to be uploaded, then 2 1/4 years, when Microstock was new and growing, is now uploaded every month and a half.

Every 90 days we get more new images as competition, than there were total on SS in 2012.

Well I was wrong, May 10th Shutterstock passed 270,000,000 images. 40 days for those who are counting, kind of like raining images, a flood of epic proportions, for 40 days and 40 nights?  When will the flood of competition slow down?

Next update? June 20th? Oh make it the 21st the longest day of the year.

It's been quiet past two months but Alamy can surprise with some huge prices...

On a serious note, I've recently had two suspicious "personal usage licenses" recently that would in no way be appropriate in someone's living room wall. They are investigating and seems to be a re-occurring issue. Anybody else had this issue?

It's not as worrying as the SS wackamoles but annoying that some buyers are gaming the system and purposely choosing the cheaper license to use commercially (in this case only $10). To be continued.

Personal Use?

Not taking things down unless you�re the copyright holder requesting it doesn�t make sense. I understand their concern about people making mistakes, but don�t they also have a responsibility to the customer? If I want to purchase a photo and there are two identical photos on two different accounts, which one am I supposed to buy?

I agree that the agencies should do more, and especially when they only remove one per claim when the whole collection is known to be fraudulent. Some day, the laws may get changed and then there will be real protection, instead of this waste of time. I got this from an attorney, and I asked because I didn't understand why only the owner could file a claim.

Under the DMCA, the takedown notice specifically states "...notification from a copyright owner or from a person authorized to act on behalf of the copyright owner..." so it's not possible to issue a valid takedown if you are not the copyright holder or their authorized agent.

Under the Copyright Act, to sue you must have standing. Standing has been highly litigated since under copyright law there may be multiple parties that have interest in a copyright. I'm not talking about multiple copyright holders, rather this has to do with rights-holders that have full rights for different types of rights. For example, someone may be the copyright holder but another party may be the sole rights-holder with regard to royalties. In that situation, there becomes a legal question as to who can sue. It's actually very complex and there are many law review articles written on legal standing in copyright infringement cases.

The places that do nothing, have an interest in selling stolen works, because they make money from the content. Conflict of interest?

I have been all over Etsy reporting my images being sold illegally and I have also contacted several other stock artists when I found their work for sale.

I know of one seller that has probably had 30-40 successful copyright reports in the past week and they're still active and selling stolen digital files daily.

Although Etsy is quick to remove the listing when reported, it appears they will not take any action against the seller.

It's often difficult to find the copyright holder because their Shutterstock profile name doesn't match any other name online. Something to consider when selling stock, you may want to make it easier for people to find you.

I hate to see this thread going quiet, when some sites are filled with stolen work.

The DMCA's principal innovation in the field of copyright is the exemption from direct and indirect liability of Internet service providers and other intermediaries.

This is why they drag their feet and don't do anything much about infringement. The websites are protected. Then they put the responsibility on us to find our own stolen work. I still don't understand, Only the owner can report a stolen image?

https://sarafhawkins.com/how-to-file-dmca-takedown/

"If you do not own the copyright or have a legal right to assert a claim of copyright infringement, you�re wasting your time."

1991 Honda Accord EX wagon, with a manual transmission. Only problem, they stopped making them in 1997 so I might have to get a Subaru Outback or Forester. At 300K at the station, because it's a station wagon? Selling it for parts to a guy who has two already. 0-60 9.6 seconds, four cylinder about 17 seconds for a standing 1/4 mile. It's much shifting and pushing the pedal to the floor. Not a sports car.

Fully paid for in about 2001, so along the same lines as others, 15 years of driving a paid for car, and loving it.



Unrealistic dream kind of car?

Supercharged LSA V8-Powered Manual transmission, CTS-V Wagon, 551 horsepower. Probably a little much for a grocery getter, but imagine merging onto the Interstate. Somewhere in the area of 0-60 in 3.7 seconds, 12.2 @ 120 mph (same as a Chevrolet Corvette)

Still it's a station wagon.  Gotta have a wagon.