I don't sell anything there, but they have all my images, excellent back up service that I can tap into from anywhere.

Hello community,

i didn't find a answer to my question so i started a topic.

Is it legal to buy a stockphoto, using this photo for a photoshop-composing and upload this version on a stockphotoagency?

The licence is a royalty free.

Greetings

Do you mean a composite like this http://www.thinkstockphotos.co.uk/image/stock-photo-mass-media-concept/622178182/popup?sq=urfinguss%20television/f=CPIHVX/s=DynamicRank

My original https://www.shutterstock.com/fr/image-illustration/crinkle-cut-psychedelic-pulse-digital-abstract-159184544

Quote from: salparadis on September 20, 2017, 16:46

I've just had discussion with a shop owner on Etsy and she claims that Getty agreed with the resale of modified files purchased with Extended Licence. If this is truth, then perhaps Getty is to blame in this case.

If you got a 'products for resale' EL, then indeed she is covered.
'Enhanced licences' on SS also allow for 'merchandise'.

but not the resale of digital files.

Anyone can make sense out of this?

The site is legal

Why shutterdowner is legal ? Because it uses Facebook Business Robot to pull images and use them in ads for Facebook ads we dont steal any pictures because its free in facebook and anyone can get the pictures for free and shutterdowner.com create his robot to making it easy for all without facebook account, We are not responsible for any use other than Facebook Ads For [More Information Link].

Sense no, they are using an illogical argument derived from the way Facebook sell their ads.  If you take out a Facebook ad you can use an image within that ad which comes from Shutterstock at no extra cost, it is in the price of the ad, this is where the tiny SODs come from.  Problem occurs in the way Facebook pushes this as a free stock image for your ad, but the wording is important, see https://www.facebook.com/business/a/carousel-stock-photo.  It is specific in saying "Free stock images for your carousel ads" or whatever type of add it is, not as they say " its free in facebook and anyone can get the pictures for free".  Yes Facebook would have you believe it's free, but only for use in their ads, effectively a single use licence not an RF licence.  By their own addmission shutterdowner are responsible for distributing stock images to non Facebook account holders who therefore cannot be using them in Facebook ads. 

What to do about it? Take it up with Facebook or stop supplying Shutterstock and let them know why.

i do appreciate all the comments on this post, i am not that kind of person who would willingly allow for a false hope or miscalculated judgments. what i am trying to say is that you people, for sure, love photography and maybe some started doing it as a hobby like me and then loved it and enjoyed doing it. also, from what i have read so far in the forum, the vast majority are doing microstock business as a side stream income. based on that, why not just enjoy it and be a bit more tolerant to whatever this strange market brings ?!

Tolerant to the point of self abuse at times, like when you spend weeks and months uploading hundreds of images and just when you get some traction and sales are increasing they delete the lot and tell you not quite what they are about anymore, Canva and Evanto. Like when 25% of your income comes from On Demand sales and the CEO proudly tells the speculators that he has changed pricing so now we only get a sub those sales, Shutterstock.  Read and understand the comments above for many more instances then read it again until it sinks in.
 
You may be one of those who is happy for someone to like your image enough to buy it at any price, you will not be disappointed.

They will have an Enterprise account so all sales will be reported as SODs, which could mean more than the price for an EL for various reasons or they could get a deal.  I have had a few 12 and 14 dollar SODs in recent months, which makes me suspect that the Enterprise Team are discounting ELs, we will never know for sure.

SS: the total number of images sold is great, the number of "on demands" zero. Many "single and others", but only in cents. Did they wipe out the "on demands"?

As Founder and CEO Jon Oringer said, "We continued to make solid operational progress in the second quarter. We've built better technology, reorganized our talent, improved pricing and packaging and have acquired or launched assets that we believe will define the future of this business.

If you take a look at the improved pricing and packaging you will find that Jon Oringer has shafted you good and proper.  In British pounds On Demand 5 images for �29, Subscription 10 images for �29, or On demand 25 images for �139, Subscription 350 for �119, which do you think the buyers are going to go for? 

Quote from: derek on July 10, 2017, 12:38

I know for a fact many buyers who goes to certain RF-agencies prepared to even pay a bit more money for a certain picky they are looking for.

I can even see a business opportunity for a smart aggregation company.

Some customers would definitely pay a finder's fee, to get to choose what they need, from a smaller, but well curated collection, instead of spending their valuable time digging those big piles of garbage and similars for hidden gems.

The Shutterstock Enterprise Team already search for their Enterprise clients when required, I guess when they can't find what they want on Premier Select, which you could say is a smaller curated collection.  Enterprise buyers are certainly willing to pay a premium, that's where the high priced SODs come from, but maybe they can negotiate a discount as well.

Same here, but I only have two active images so no problem for me. I do have lots of deactivated images not showing, just the first page.

That's a good point, but I'd like to think that any benefit from putting lower commission images at the top would be offset by the loss in customer satisfaction (and therefore possible sales) from being presented with images that don't fit the bill.

I mean, these higher commision images are higher commission because they sell better. There's probably a good reason for that, so a buyer presented with better selling images would probably be better than presenting them with a bunch of low selling items. Saving 5 to 10% on payouts isn't much good if sales are down 5 to 10%.

"returns an increase to Adobe" I think you may have missed that bit.

So my sales for April amount to $115.19

I get the email saying I'm being paid $230.38

And then a few hours later I get the new one saying it actually be $115.19. Seems like what everyone else is experiencing, no mystery there, not to worry.

However... my sales for May so far, are $11.70. I then head to the pub, get drunk, chill out, play pool etc etc... and I get back and my balance for May is $116.70.

I've never had such a big jump, or made $105 in a six hour period... so I'm wondering if this is related (it's kind of close to the $115.19 amount), whether I'm imagining it, or if it's some kind of error. Anyone else experience the same?! Thanks!

Edit: Ok, I managed to dig through the ultra-intuitive and amazingly straightforward sales pages and it looks like I sold one clip today for $105. Could be a figment of my imagination, but it's looking pretty real for now. Happy days!

Back to the pub then. 

These things are seldom launched as it is just another use of their API, Fotolia have been doing it for years, difference is that Amazon are making use of Shutterstock's Curated Collections.

Of course it was announced in Investor Relations, "it exposes our stunning photography and illustrations"  fuok the contributors
http://investor.shutterstock.com/phoenix.zhtml?c=251362&p=irol-newsArticle&ID=2252811

As it is a Enterprise venture it's likely to be a little SOD.