so many comments from uneducation to criminality.
tzz.
i had a talk with one of the agencies resimstock.com works.
image source say that in my case i had use RM content and they have authorisation for
infringement against antipiracy use.
I offer them 5$ for settlement because on deposit photos i have see similar images to this price.
They rejected 
How can it be that i can get images at starting price from 5$ or in this case up to hundreds $ for single image?
Are these in gold or platinium? Did picasso shoot them? Thats a shame, really.
Quite frankly i think they have no chance to convince the court that images at this price tags can be sold, maybe with exception to amateur users with too much money. On this basis they have no chance in their demands 

If you've seen similar images on Depositphotos for $5, why don't you go and license those, and take down the one (s) you stole and used illegally??!

This pot-text guy just got another boatload of images approved from last night. I am speechless.

LOL!   In a strange way, maybe this guy is doing us a favour.  Anyone carrying the idea there is still any reason or logic to this game only need to look at this portfolio to see it is become pointless.

I am so disappointed.   I was expecting a completely different discussion about the withdrawal method.
 

Quote from: PixelBytes on September 02, 2015, 16:53

Quote from: Rose Tinted Glasses on September 01, 2015, 18:47

Quote from: PixelBytes on September 01, 2015, 14:09

So nice to read that Adobe us treating us as partners.  My feelings already been said better by others, but just want to say THANK YOU to Adobe for the good communication, and for taking the financial hit from the sale from THEIR END of the earnings which is much larger then ours, as a good agent should do.

 Unlike some sites which do sales and take from our 15-20% pittance to cover the cost of their marketing.

Partners??? You might want to revisit that thought. It's a nice gesture for sure, but you are not a partner nor are they treating anyone as such.

Nit picking.  So you think one word changes the point I was trying to make.  Looks like enough others understood what I mean.

I think nit picking would have been bringing to your attention your typo of "us" knowing full well you meant to say "is". It is also not about "one word" and the point you were trying to make, rather it is about a very clear sentence and the point you did make that states "so nice to read that Adobe is treating us as partners." (corrected for that typo). Not sure what you were trying to say, but being a fairly accurate language I would interpret what you said as you have read somewhere that Adobe is treating everyone as partners. That sentence is not even trying to say you read it, it is saying you read it.

Well, first, let me apologize for any grammar or typing errors.  I often use my phone or tablet to respond and make more typos then when using my computer keyboard. Reading this forum it is the rare person who never makes any typos or grammar mistakes. 

 Second, you specifically singled out the one word 'partners' when you said 'Partners?? You might want to revisit that thought. It's a nice gesture for sure, but you are not a partner nor are they treating anyone as such.'

I guess you thought I meant partners as in a joint legal entity.  I meant partners more like in the 1st and 7th definitions here:

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/partner

Basically trying to say they are treating us as tho we contributors are on the same team as Adobe and that they seem to understand they have a joint interest in sharing the fruits of our labours in a fair manner. 

If you disagree, fine with me.  I am allowed my opinion and looks like some others agree with me. 

Quote from: PixelBytes on September 01, 2015, 14:09

So nice to read that Adobe us treating us as partners.  My feelings already been said better by others, but just want to say THANK YOU to Adobe for the good communication, and for taking the financial hit from the sale from THEIR END of the earnings which is much larger then ours, as a good agent should do.

 Unlike some sites which do sales and take from our 15-20% pittance to cover the cost of their marketing.

Partners??? You might want to revisit that thought. It's a nice gesture for sure, but you are not a partner nor are they treating anyone as such.

Nit picking.  So you think one word changes the point I was trying to make.  Looks like enough others understood what I mean. 

I have not submitted there, but they were next site I was planning to submit to.   After reading the last pages of the Canva thread, I  am not to sure.  Lots of my images are isolated.  It would take about half hour to remove the white background well for each and make a png.  NO WAY I will waste this time to have images rejected or deleted later.

Maybe I will try submitting photos on location shoots.  Are lifestyle doing well?

If you don't want to license your work at SS, that's fine with me. Less competition. But for the rest of us, SS pays way more than any other microstock site. I earn more on SS than the average U.S. annual full time salary, drawing pictures in my dining room extremely part time...about 2 hours a day. I spend my summers lounging by the pool instead of sitting in rush hour traffic and being trapped in an office all day. It's very relaxing. But yeah, don't upload there. It svcks, totally.

LOL!  So true!  If you don't upload to SS, you should not even give it any consideration.  If you do upload there, you should stop immediately so I can get more sales. 

Quote from: hatman12 on August 27, 2015, 01:17

Are non-exclusives seeing any solid growth in subs sales at istock?

Given that the growth was most likely to happen during the first 12 months since introduction last spring plus the enormous growth of the collection in the same period plus the summer break plus the small number of images I uploaded in the last year, I would say I am seeing what I was expecting to see: Subscriptions were growing constantly until about March/April, and are now somewhat flat with a small decline.

Currently my credit sales are at about 10% of the download volume, subscription and partner program about equally sharing the other 90% of downloads. Royalties are about one third coming through each of those three categories.

Yes, exactly right.  Subs grew for the first few months, as credit sales dropped.  Now credit sales keep dropping, but subs have been level, give or take a dozen or so $ for the whole of 2015.  Thinkstock sales are dropping a lot tho.

Nevermind.  Just got paid.

They said many months ago that the mixed up order of keywords in the new UI was simply a 'display issue' and that the 'correct' keyword order could be seen by switching to the old UI.  Unfortunately that was a long time ago and nothing appears to have been done to solve the problem.  One would have thought that if it was just a 'display issue' it would have been a relatively simple thing to resolve.

If the search actually changes to the 'new' keyword order, then that will probably be disastrous for sales as the order shown in the new UI appears to be nonsense.

If, as ShadySue implies, the similars thing is based on the new keyword order then that of course would explain why that function also seems unable to work properly.

Unfortunately all of this is 'par for the course' at istock.  Their technology people appear to be incapable of completing tasks without screwing lots of things up, which usually results in a negative impact on sales.

It really is quite extraordinary that they cannot implement a similars display.  Nearly all retail web sites do it in some form, yet here we are (again) with istock seemingly incapable of introducing a function that should be quite straightforward.  They just don't seem to be prepared to spend money on good technology people (or they are not allowed to because the money has to be given to the venture capitalists).

Edit:  well I think I need to stand corrected on this one.  I've just looked at my last five sales, and the keyword order shown on both old and new UIs is the same.  So it looks like that problem has been solved, at least for those few files.  If it's still screwed up for other files, perhaps it is something that will be gradually implemented.

Also, the similars links appear to be reasonable.  Not perfect, but not outrageously poor.  Some files have a 'same series' display, others don't.

How simple it would of been to just leave the similars links that many of us spent countless hours creating for them on the display page.

Well if people really wanted a long term view we'd all be selling only at pond5, stocksy and 500px. But then we all want present day cash flow as well. so in comes shutterstock and istock and we settle for a low % of the price just to see a paycheck every month.

Its a costing game, As long as we don't have a way to judge what the product costs (our images) we will be ok with selling it at any cost as long as it sells.

It's also a perceived value game. If a buyer sees an image with perfect lighting, properly organized and doctored food, shot with a full frame with a great lens and treats it in the same way as an image that i snapped in a restaurant before my meal then its impossible to get the buyer to pay more for the quality shot

Then there is supply and demand. We all crib about how the agencies now have the highest no of images and more images get added everyday. We've created a panic amongst us that the industry is going down and the only way to sell is "be less greedy and settle for lower commission". I've hardly ever seen a post that talks about how much image useage has increased. How now even if my blog needs an image I'll hit SS or iStock. Like small farmers we know almost nothing about what our final customer is doing

And then there's the finance bit, if a company is taking 70% of the price then they have that much more money to spend on marketing, promotions, meetings with buyers etc. So its hard for a new company to retain less money and be more competitive unless we all realize that if we get more money we also have to shoulder some of the marketing responsibility (stocksy did this well, with all the contributors-owners sharing it heavily on social media) maybe we all can do the same for 500px or Pond5 or Canva or Alamy

Hope someone reads this long post

I did and found it very insightful.  Not sure what the solution is, but you stated the problem well, including some aspects I never thought about.

That's very nice!  I haven't checked my sales there today, but it's nice to see a reward to contributors as part of their celebration.

Thank you Envato!

Quote from: ObviousTroll on August 18, 2015, 16:24

@etudiante_rapide is correct. We are looking at a "docudrama" for the sake of holding audience attention.

So we need a cast of actors to represent micro's biggest players. We also need to establish the story line.

I want Mark Wahlberg to play me.  Or Channing Tatum.

Justin Bieber could land his breakout role of playing Yuri Arcurs.

Maybe Peter Dinklage as Jonathan Klein.   He can do a real good version of a self important  pirck.