Why anyone has their work at Yay is beyond me.

Maybe because you can opt out of that deal?

I don't EVER click links in any e-mail with any type of warning,...   

That is the most important advice.

Robert,
thanks for the detailed reply.
I agree that you have to stay competitive and that moves like introducing credits and subscriptions do make sense.

But with those programs you are selling at the same level as all other microstocks, so giving you "exclusive" images (meaning images that are not sold at microstock prices elsewhere - fully exclusive to you doesn't work because you don't have the sales volume) does not make sense.
At that point I would have expected you to move back to flat 50% for everyone. I do have files with other agencies that I don't sell at microstock prices, but you won't get them, because I can't opt out of the credit prices, thus making those files available at microstock prices. Doesn't work. If you want higher priced content you have to give the contributor full control of the pricing, meaning opt out from subs and credits and ability to move files into a higher price band.

Re commission percentages: Others (the big 4) can get away with lower percentages because they have the volume.

Also lowering your subscription pricing to below industry standards is not a motivating move.

So staying competitive with other agencies in terms of pricing offers I can agree with, but I don't see the reason to use others as role model for lowering your royalty percentages. Why don't you take competitors like GL, Zoonar, Pond5, Alamy, Yaymicro, Featurepics as role model there (all minimum 50%)? They are closer to you in terms of sales volume.

And yes, I have quoted your minimum commission for non-exclusive files which is 30%, it is true that that goes up to 40% for portfolios bigger than 10.000 files.

All that said, I will of course watch all changes you implement and see if there is a move in the right direction.

I have to revive this old thread.

Without any further explanation the disappeared images seem to be re-appearing.
My Veer Dashboard now shows 1125 accepted images, which is exactly the 1070 I originally had when starting this thread plus the 55 uploaded in between.

Whatever it was, never heard any reasonable explanation from Veer.

That can only be partly true.

When I asked them to delete my images from all their partners and API-Resellers, they were gone from Shotshop the same day...

I think the thing to be constructively asking for is a better system of reporting from now on. That makes much more sense than people venting. A constructive conversation is better than an angry stand off.

I would agree to that in general. Constructive conversation almost universally is the better choice.

It's just that for any major issues with Istock in the past (RCs, Google Deal,...) constructive conversation lead nowhere.
Constructive conversation only works if both parties are willing to engage in it.

I would bet they didn't consider that case (deleting files or closing accounts) when making that promise.

BTW, who are the owners of Shotshop.. I am just thinking.. some very bad scenery..

See here and here and here.

Privately owned company in Germany (it's a GmbH which is - AFAIK - simlar to a LLC).

Firstly I'm getting the paltry rate of a sub, secondly,  is this not a violation of the licensing agreement of turning around and re-selling an image without a proper EL that is needed for resale?

I think it's worse than that.
ELs allow "items for resale", i.e. your image printed on a t-shirt that is sold.
What they are effectively doing is sub-licensing. That is not at all allowed within any of the licences.

I told them as well that they should join the discussion here (and that they should publish all terms of their partner deals in detail on their website and provide an opt-in/opt-out option per deal).
Their response was "Thank you for all your suggestions, we will definitely take them into consideration." (plus the copy & paste response everyone else seems to have received).

I'm not holding my breath though.

Quote from: Ariene on February 16, 2014, 11:07

DP:
"Yes, you get $0,30 even though our API re-seller sells a file for � 24.90. Our API re-sellers have the right to set their own prices. If you want to opt out of all our partner programs, please confirm and your files will be sold only on depositphotos.com"

Me:
"Yes, absolutely OPT me OUT of any partner programs and re-sellers now."

DP:
"...It will take some time to remove your portfolio from API re-seller/partner sites".

I'm waiting only for the replay to my question - what is the "some time".

Why should I have worries? I think it's clear situation... If I find my images anywhere else, they immediately loose my 1k files (every day some sells) and that's it. They're to low earner for me to be sad after all. They'll loose much more than I do

That's the first bit of good news from this debacle.  I hope that is TRULY AN OPTION.

I wrote the exact same thing two days ago. I asked them to opt me out from all partners and all API-resellers, and the same day my files were gone from Shotshop.

Don't know why so many people still write that there is no opt out from the API, maybe you should just write to them and request to be opted out.

Don't get me wrong, I am not defending them and still think the whole deal stinks. But at least there seems to be a way to get the images removed from the reseller sites, that's what I think is most important in the short term.

I don't think so I asked to close my account and got the same mail! I'm not sure if they even read the specific questions.

Quote from: dirkr on February 14, 2014, 05:11

Quote from: Mantis on February 13, 2014, 19:53

According to a previous post Shotshop is a reseller and NOT a partner (whatever the fk that means).  So even if you opt out of PP, BFD. You will still get hosed unless you simply cut your losses and close your DP account.  At least that's how I read this.

That's how I read the previous posts as well.

But: I aked them specifically about this Shotshop deal and how I could opt out of that. And in their reply they stated:

"If for some reason, you would like to opt out of our partnership programs, just let us know and we will comply with your request. However, please keep in mind, in that case you will be excluded from all our partnership programs and your images will be sold solely on depositphotos.com"

So maybe they changed their mind about not being able to opt out from the re-seller API. At least the last sentence is clear, if they mean what they say.
I asked them to opt-out my portfolio and now am waiting for a response / their action.

Agree, it's a canned response and they probably did not read anything in detail. But their last sentence is pretty clear to me:

your images will be sold solely on depositphotos.com

That's what I wanted and what I asked for in my reply. And now let's see if that was a lie or if they do remove my images from their API.

If not, I'll leave. Doesn't hurt much.

Interestingly, if one looks at the DP Standard and Extended License Agreement:

http://depositphotos.com/license.html(link)

It is clearly noted that - The Standard License allows the use of the purchased File for the creation of different kinds of items (except Items for Resale or Items for Free Distribution, where the File plays a major role in the item and adds value to it) (sic).

Its also noted that items for Re-sale require an Extended license.  Isn't Shotshop re-selling?  So why is this treated as a Standard license for payment of (sub) royalties to contributors?

So now I'm really confused??  If Shotshop sales are a re-sale (as it clearly looks to be) then WHY aren't we paid Extended license commissions?  That would seem to be the correct and fair thing, isn't it. 

Or am I missing something here??!

Yes, you are missing something.

Even under the extended license the sub-licensing of the file is not allowed. The scenario that Shotshop "buys" the files (e.g. under a subscription plan) and then "sells" it again is not allowed with neither the standard nor the extended license.

Shotshop is licensing those files to their customers, that is not a re-sale.
The only way that this is not conflicting with the DP license terms is that the transaction is between Shotshop's customer and DP (and not between DP and Shotshop, because that would require Shotshop to sub-license the file).

And this is why I cannot understand how they legally can create a situation where we only get paid a subscription royalty (as Shotshop does not offer subscriptions, so the Shotshop customer can only have bought a single license).

I am now waiting if they comply with my request to remove my portfolio from all partner programs.