I fully agree. I doubt their partners are pleased to lose content. Customers will lightbox files for future projects and then suddenly they can�t find them anymore. Especially an agency that offers files at a much higher price point, if I was the customer, I wouldn�t be happy.

All that I want is an opt out. Right now my files are still on ibudgetphotos, at least those I didn�t deactivate. I hope they will offer us general opt out button and not rely on a system where we always have to write to them.

I also would�t be surprised if many people keep their files opted in,even if they have the possibility to opt out.

But at least everyone then has a choice and deposit can point to their opt out button in the future if people complain.

I think everyone who is serious about stock,is certainly following the threads here. If you see it as a business,you stay informed.

set it to English

For me the majority of sales are normal subscriptions, so if these are indeed partner plan sales, i don�t have that many.

Impressive numbers!

And run their business smoothly without all the drama, have staff that feel comfortable on the internet and like to meet artists in person. Support msg and answer questions here.

While istock can�t even update their seasonal images on the front page in time...

Processing files for upload...

My mac tells me this file comes from an unlicensed developer and won�t open it

Did he close his account completly? Or just deactivate the file?

For comparison: on istock you can also just deactivate the file. You cannot delete it as long as you have an account.

The whole concept that they think it is acceptable to sell our files for subs and allow the reseller to sell our files for credits at whatever price they want to set is just crazy.

If it was a real API connection, where we get a credit sale and royalty if the end customer pays buys a sub license we get a sub license, it would be different. Again I am surprised the other agencies who sell via normal API deals are allowing this.

Depositphotos might have 20 million files and will still receive a lot of content every week, but the artists who supply the interesting and unusual content will have to make their decisions. Because these sub licensing deals are so lucrative for the agencies that do them, it will mean our returns will be greatly diminished. Why should the other agencies pay for our content, if they can get it all much,much cheaper from deposit?

It is a legal trick - sell the content to a reseller cheaply - cut out the artist afterwards from all follow up royalties.

If they remove my content from their resellers we will see how much deposit itself really knows how to sell. If I then find my files again at resellers, inspite of having in writing that I have been opted out,  I will remove everything.


I have considered to deactivate completely, but I do have content that is suitable for all price levels. It is up to the agency to decide what kind of content they want.

The sooner they give us an opt out button, like Dreamstime and others have it, the better. It would send the message that they listen, even if they don�t post here.

I can�t find my files Robert. i tried numbers and direct search, they don�t show up. But the ones that are still active are still available at ibudgetphoto.com

However the files that are deactivated are gone immediately.

I haven�t received a reply to my email yet, I might have sent it to the wrong department or they might just be overwhelmed.

This is certainly quite a dramatic disaster. I am still sad, they made a good impression on me before...but I really had no idea what was going on. I thought they really wanted to become a major player and move up in the industry. Having well keyworded content alone would have set them apart from the normal micros.

Your instinct was correct, unfortunately.

On Robert�s Blog someone is reporting that shotshop is calling the artists who wrote to to them and complained. Apparently they say that until 2 days ago it was not possible to filter out the artist who were also uploading to shotshop directly, but now this was possible. They also didn�t like being blamed in any way and put all blame on the artist for supplying an agency like deposit in the first place.

They will not reply to anyone in writing, I guess they must be aware they have a liability problem.

ibudgetphotos.com belong to indiapictures. They advertise that they pay out 50% to contributors.

http://www.indiapicture.in/photographers/index.php

How many more agencies are there out there that advertise themselves as artist friendly, but then pay out less than 1% through special "deals"?

My files are still on there, I think should write to deposit to have them removed.I can�t find my files anymore on shotshop.

I read the agreement. I thought that a partner sale meant I would get 44% of whatever deposit got for a credit sale and I would get a subs royalty if the END customer bought a subs license through the partner.

I never in my wildest dream imagined, they would sell my file for a subs royalty and allow their partners to sublicense my files with 6000% profit.

I also really don't see how you can read that out of the text presented. It takes some very brave legal and english �berthinking to even consider that they are saying we can sell it for a subs even if our partner sells it for 30 dollars.

Their license agreement doesn't allow sublicensing anyway, so how could I have known?

I thought deposit was serious about becoming a major player. They have a very good interface for uploading files and managing content. And of course the VIP keywording service made my life very easy, but i also thought this would help keep their library well keyworded so that it is easier to translate into many languages. A real advantage over many other agencies who can suffer from bad results through poor keywording.

They also sold my files more and more.

But of course now I have to assume the growth came from selling our work for pennies to resellers who were happy to avoid paying regular royalties to their own artists.

I am suprised the other agencies are accepting this as well. How can they compete with deposit if they pay out a normal royalty to their contributors and don't do these deals?

Shotshop and deposit are acting like they own the content completly, like we gifted it all to them.

I am lucky I never took the 50 dollar bait, where they pay you for uploading as long as the files remain with deposit for a year. So I can deactivate at will.

I haven't yet written to them to be opted out, they should have the brains to do that themselves after reading this thread. If they give us an unmistakable no nonsense opt out, or better "I will ONLY sell my files via the website depositphotos.com button", I might reactivate what I removed and watch what happens.

On the other hand, the biggest problem is trust. This is such a sneaky and low handed way of dealing with their business partners, it leaves me worried what kind of stupid nonsense will come next.

Whoever makes the business decisions simply isn't thinking longterm. They just need one really expensive court case to go belly up and this reseller scam just might be it.

For those who can read German, this is the current discussion on another forum that involves regular contributors to shotshop. Apparently they had files rejected "as not suitable" for shotshop only to discover they were accepted via deposit. Of course their regular uploads to shotshop would net them 35-75% royalty, for a file via deposit only 30 cents.

the question now is - in how many cases have files been intentionally declined because they could get them for a subs sale from deposit?

So not only will the artist get a negligible subs sale for a a full credit sale, they also have an increased risk of having files rejected in favour of having their files brought in via deposit.

So you really should only send content to deposit, that you are not planning to submit directly to a site that also accepts files from dp.

http://stockfotografie-forum.de/discussion/813/shotshop-loescht-bilder/p2

[quote author=MarcvsTvllivs link=topic=21952.msg365311#msg365311 date=1392309127

That is indeed complete nonsense. Someone "subscribing" photos does not receive a license for resale. I am done with Depositstock.
[/quote]

Precisely. A subscription download does not allow the resale of the file. That is what special extended licenses are for.