every financial organization.. be it banks, credit union, etc.. and of course, paypal ...
will freeze your funds, if something is out of profile. it has nothing to do with you being a crook
or the organization trying to squeeze money from you.
why would they??? they live on your / our money and transaction.

when i was starting out in business, i had lots of banks doing the same thing to me,
or calling me if i suddenly try to charge a very large purchase, or suddenly came into a big contract and got a very large cheque to deposit.

it is to protect themselves??? yes! it is to protect me??? definitely too.
wouldn't you be thankful if the security agent stop the cashier to ask to speak you you first
before approving the account??? i was.

the only time i had a fraud committed on my account was when i was on vacation
and one of the stores went to use my credit card illegally. the next day, it was charged
in a very large sale in australia, and another sale in sweden.
obviously, the "nice people" in australia and sweden did not question the sales.
 
when you think over this, you need to remember, not every is out to get you;
not the bank, nor paypal...

all in all, the fraud transaction were overturned by my credit card company
and my credit history was not affected. my bank and the credit card both informed me
to double-check to make sure those transaction were cleared from my credit history.

just the crooks.

Some press coverage - seems to be viewed as a positive report. Price pressure produced a 10 cent drop in per download revenue. If Adobe's hurting them, it's not immediately obvious?
Messages of the "We're bigger than Adobe Stock" variety - some analysts had been describing the two libraries as essentially the same content while AdobeStock was cheaper. If you can say that yours is 50% larger or twice the size, perhaps that's seen as an effective way to deal with that investor worry?

in the redded line, there is another way to think about it...
ie. who is fooling whom... by cannibalizing their portfolio to adobe???

They seem to think size of collection is of itself good at some point they might wake up and wonder how much its costing them to maintain millions of pics that never sell and their customers may get fed up with wading through the trash.

in the redded line, there is also another way to think about it...
ie. how long can a new or old contributor be happy about 100% and no sales
if that is the only reason why one would submit photos or vectors to a site,
than there have a lot of other agencies to the right of this page to submit
since they too will get you zero downloads.

the last say still depends on the contributor. whether or not ss is letting in "garbage" by newbies
and "mass-rejecting" oldies. anyone would stop submitting their work if they keep getting 100% approval and see zero downloads. 

would you not???

I only read here and don't post because of the negativity and complaining of the 'oldtimers' as they call themselves and trying to discourage newbies. I used to be new here a few years ago (2012) and got some stupid reply's for simple questions or being positive. I now make about $6000+ per month and my 'earnings from new content for last 3 months' on SS is always on $300 to $400. I add a maximum of 50 images and vectors per month. Back when I posted here under another name most here told me it was to late. Some of them make less then I do now and still tell people it is to late. They know it best "since they have been there from the beginning."

Stay positive! I did and it works! I get big sales every month. They are not gone at all. I have about 6 to 10 every month going from $24 up to $120.

Nice to hear you had a big sale. More will come if you keep improving and get better. Good luck!

good point!...  i suppose it's normal (human nature) to judge the market from one's own situation.
like the real stock market, you get more whiners and cryers who lost their pants during the crash...
but those who survive are never the ones who come in to tell you how bad it is because they're out sailing.
microstock is not as good as when the oldtimers started, no doubt about that.
i came in like you say, at the end of the glory days.

but you are correct to say you can still make money in a sour grapes market because clients
still pay for photos. the thing is to remain objective and realise that nothing remains on top forever.
it's more like everything in business,... music, food, fashion,etc..

the one who moves ahead of the times and learn to change and adapt can still make money.
and then there are others who just like the energizer rabbit keep on ticking.. like eg. the great
lise gagnon and others who went past the millionth download.
you never see ms gagnon coming in here or any forum...
she's out sailing like the people who made money during the stock market crash...
or and no doubt busy making more photos to update and upgrade herself to stay up there above
the rest.

as i said, well done, it is nice to hear from a newbie to get the old f*rts thinking again .

I've seen it. They were reviewed while I was uploading them.
Anway, fast review has probably something to do with people avoidng to submit on weekend because of that reviwer that works only on saturdays and sundays and rejects everything.

yes, i find that true too on my side. i can upload till a certain time on friday and once that time reached, i don't even bother uploading till monday.

every once in a while, i test it and try going past that time, and sure enough 100% rejection.
and i wait till mid week to resubmit , and you guess it, 100% approval.

but sometimes, when there is a long holiday like christmas, easter, independence day,etc..
i find that the full time reviewers get their seniority to go on vacation ,
the renegade takes their place and that is when you find the return of 100% rejection.
but i come to anticipate those odds times by submitting a couple first to see...
this way i don't waste my energy to submit the whole batch to wean the b**tard's appetite.

what? where? dreamstime??? LMAO!!!
if there is one site i would go exclusive, it is the site that pays me every month for the past 5 years...

and that too, they are not interested in exclusiveness; at least that's what Oringer said.

but if they did, with added bonus of higher earning for exclusive. i would..
when shutterstock offers me. and only shutterstock.

The other sites might be frightened of losing an expensive legal battle with Google and finding they have sunk without trace in the search results.  I think governments should be dealing with Google.  Copyright laws are quite straightforward and should apply to everyone.  Other internet businesses that have allowed people to flaunt copyright laws have been dealt with by governments.  Taking on Google in the courts must be a daunting task because they have such deep pockets.  Getty might be thinking that Google will want to settle this quickly to avoid bad publicity.

very wise person !!!
it's like the undesirbles in the old colonial days taking on the rajas or colonials. or modern day
asians or africans or brazilian favelas vs mafia,etc..ietaking on the corrupted rich backed by the govt.
it takes a very big person or an idiot like those movie legendaries eg david,maid of orleans, robin hood,etc ie. you must be either very brave or very stupid... to challenge a giant.

good point. seems that ss is cornering the editorial market strategy long term.
i too hope that this would mean a return to see those missing $28-120 single dl earnings,
although for me, these large single earnings were all commercial.

but u r right, it should be ex lic . if not, i will be more careful with what i send them for editorial
in the future, and maybe start looking elsewhere. then again, who else pays more
for editorial than getty or ss these days???  more important, who gets dls for these
except for getty and ss.

no, definitely not.
it's not their std that is too relaxed;
it's their ability to get downloads.
as i said many times, dt pays me as much in a year, as i get in a week with ss.

relax??? not really... i think dt has gone comatose a long time ago.
perharps due to an unlicensed anesthetist

lol, when i read "en fuego"  , i was expecting to see fotolia to the right of this page in the 80s,
or at least close to that . but it is not even shaking the tree of istock,
or even alamy.

to me, that is not fuego...  not even smoke
come back and put this when it topples alamy first. .
as Bruce used to say, "you can't build a fire without a spark!"

Quote from: etudiante_rapide on April 13, 2016, 17:17

Quote from: fotografer on April 10, 2016, 02:15

If I hired a wedding photographer who then sold my photos on without my permission I would be extremely annoyed and never recommend him to anybody else.

i would not just be annoyed, i would get a class action suit and put them out of business.

Wow, are you serious?!  First, I clearly explained that a lot of my wedding photography gets used for editorial purposes, and my clients agree to that.  So, I'm not selling photos without a client's permission as they agree to that in the contract.  However, I reward my clients when I do get paid for uses (still editorial, never commercial) and they're super excited about it.  Guess what I'm saying is I'm really glad my clients support my photography and they're happy to have work from their wedding published!  It makes them look good and it justifies the expense they paid for the photography, also shows that others think their wedding (and my photography) was great.  Looks like there are some people who are not into that, they're more into suing legitimate businesses that do things legally, respectfully, and with integrity.  Or maybe you just didn't take the time to read anything before you responded?  Seriously though, before you're ready to jump on the sue train (and against other photographers no less) read a couple of lines, it will take you less than 10min.  Cheers!

my point isn't directed at you; at least not directly.
the point being, weddings are something personal, and the last thing i expect, or anyone hiring someone to shoot at their wedding is to expect you to not use it for other usage.
stock photographers do have wedding shots, but most of it i am sure are simulated.
lastly, you  assumptionly  are being paid , right??? for the wedding?
isn't that enough .. as opposed to opening let your clients images to be used
at the risk of abuse. 
i would never give any of my studio and wedding shots away for stock.
but then again, i separate myself between what i give to stock and what i get from local contracts.

my point lastly being, if you value your reputation as a local photographer,
i'd do the same thing... instead of opening your contract work to microstock or whatver.
you are shooting "work for hire" aren't you???
work for hire is being paid and where the person paying you owns the rights.

I doubt that 'Option 2' is a real option for SS and I'm dubious about whether SS is still regarded as 'middle market+' compared to FT/Adobe. SS has relaxed its standards to entry by contributors and is now adding around 800K images per week. Much of that new content, whilst sharp with correct white balance, is not HCV and will probably never sell. That huge volume buries the better producers' new work and makes a search for the good stuff a most frustrating experience for potential buyers, causing them to look elsewhere. This also frustrates the better contributors whose feeling is that it's pointless to create good new work because it's never seen, never sells and why should I keep adding to the collection. But this is all JMHO.

I wonder where most of the 28% of the higher-priced enterprise market share is coming from. Is that SS + Offset or is it mostly SS alone? In that marketplace they also have competition from Stocksy (with lower prices compared to Offset).

my second comment above already answers your first para.
the second para response, is that there are lots of higher priced image makers with ss
, not offset,  ... they are the one with the images getting daily downloads from day one.
they have the quality and can move the bar even higher
if ss took a stand to bring them back to submitting new works.

many have just stopped contributing since the marijuana flood and atilla scandal started
right after the company went public.
they all saw ss going the istock way with lobo and kelly reminiscent.

that is why ss is now in this position fearing adobe /fotolia
and also moving into the editorial market by conglomeration with editorial giants.

it is getty the target, and the market of stock prices, stock photos that is,
can afford an increase to be somewhere between micro and mid
to supply a new base of pricing...

something not as expensive as getty and mid or trad,
but something much higher than micro
to afford an increase in commission for contributors who will come back  with new supply
of the "middle market" in sstk.

iow, give back the confidence and trust to the ones who came in with 7/10
and are still producing the sales with their oldest images.

there is a third option which is use both points of the two option and
like all great innovators and investors, go on a limb think out of the box
where no one else dares to go...

- increase payout to contributors
- maintain that higher quality images which will warrant an increased payout and increase
cost to clients.

the days of cheap good are as solid as the dollar for all good business or fast food.
even they are moving away from the we are cheapest to we have the quality   no, not cheap but  affordable

the move in the opposite direction to dreamstime ,etc where we are giving away the goods free

in any thriving and longest lasting business, they never go the easy cop-out way to give away the goods for free, they always go where no one else dares to.
ask any old-timer classics store that is still being run by a family,
still having a business that their great grand-father started,
and they will tell you, selling it as the cheapest is the fastest way to bankruptcy
as you sell yourself and worst of all sell the producers to drive them away.

dare sstk do this??? surely, as soon as they fire the CEOs who gave them the idea
to be the next istock following istock way to doomsdom