|
MicrostockGroup Sponsors
This section allows you to view all posts made by this member. Note that you can only see posts made in areas you currently have access to.
Messages - gbalex
Pages: 1 ... 23 24 25 26 27 [28] 29 30 31 32 33 ... 64
676
« on: March 06, 2014, 09:20 »
It is only impossible if you think it is impossible. There was a time when no one thought unions were possible.
No, it's impossible.
How would you organize something like this? How would you communicate this plan to the majority of contributors, who don't read or post in forums?
It will not be difficult to get their attention now and we spread the news the same way Getty is doing it now. That by the way seems to be quite effective, then news is spreading like wildfire.
677
« on: March 06, 2014, 09:02 »
And if we stopped upload files to ALL agencies for a month? It would be a major announcement, what we can do together.
you know that is impossible right?
It is only impossible if you think it is impossible. There was a time when no one thought unions were possible. I would have no problem at all doing this for more than one month.
678
« on: March 06, 2014, 08:50 »
They're not offering full size, StockPhotosArt, only very low resolution versions.
Someone said Getty is promising to pay commission on advertising revenue. If so one can only wonder how they will track the millions of clicks that will be needed by each individual to get to a payout.
The same way they track clicks on banner adds. I think you missed the point StockPhotosArt was making.
679
« on: March 06, 2014, 02:55 »
Tomorrow should be interesting.
680
« on: March 05, 2014, 21:15 »
The blogger has the choice between grabbing a file from google, or a free creative commons license or installing a viewer. What do you think is faster to do? There are millions of free images available already that are legal to use. Even for commercial purposes.
You are talking about the huge volume of people going after freebies.
They usually dont spend money anyway. Getting people who love free to even just pay 1 cent for anything is incredibly difficult. Terrible conversion rate.
I dont see these people as my market.
The commercial users,even the small business need to pay. And Getty says themselves they dont believe it will change their core business.
For me this talk about "preventing copyright infringing" is the pitch line to get the artists to comply and help spread the viewer.
Then the real money will come for Getty when they make deals with the advertisers. But they have to build the platform first and need critical mass to make it interesting.
Building a platform can take a lot of time. Lets see if it works first.
But they might not even need it to really work if they are going after the money of investors. Then they just need a plausible looking story where the "real money" comes in a very distant future.
Whatever is their real motive, I think for me it will be better to keep special files elsewhere. But I have content for the viewer. Sure. No problem.
The sites do not have to do a thing there are app coders all over the net and they can make using the app as easy as clicking a button. This is not rocket science.
681
« on: March 05, 2014, 20:14 »
...But IMHO - SS, being the most technically advanced of these agencies, will come up with the slipperiest ways to monetize our images while making only token royalty payments.
I've been fussing about the lack of transparency in the SOD licenses since they started it - they will not tell us what the buyer is getting or paying for the amount we receive. It could be a great deal or a crappy one, but we have no way to judge. It is definitely a concern.
When Shutterstock first introduced extended licenses we received $20 of $40 and they have since decreased our share of totals even though the royalty is now $28. They clearly have an interest in increasing their share of the gross wherever possible
http://www.microstockgroup.com/shutterstock-com/shutterstock-pricing/msg47584/#msg47584
(I was jsnover in an earlier life here). A number of people have raised questions about the Facebook deal and whether there were fees paid to SS that contributors saw no part of.
The big difference thus far is that Getty has shafted its contributors over and over again whereas there's just a worry about Shutterstock doing the same if it gets big and powerful enough
If more submitters asked the questions you do and then held them to task for failing to compensate us fairly, we would not be in this predicament. We all need to be asking relevant questions regarding contributor revenue via WebDAM. http://techcrunch.com/2014/03/03/shutterstock-acquires-digital-asset-management-service-webdam/With this news it makes me leery about SS scheduled down time, lets hope we do not receive more bad news.
682
« on: March 05, 2014, 19:17 »
Not sure if what they say is the real reason or if they're just trying to cut off a the knees all the licenses sold via other agencies for blog and other editorial use.
And the lack of an opt out shows they know that the people who created the images won't be happy with this.
And if there are any fees paid, I'll bet it will be for use of their embed player meaning Getty gets all the money and photographers zip.
The are such slime.
Our best hope is that the embed player is a pain in the butt to use and people don't want to deal with it and keep licensing blog sizes from other agencies.
I do agree that it's a problem when one user licenses an image and then their blog is picked up by others who also get the image with the story and it's never paid for on the additional uses. I don't think this embed player is the right solution though
Stronger words than slime come to mind Snip Getty Images will also look to draw additional revenues from its player through advertising. We reserve the right to monetise that footprint, Peters explains. YouTube implemented a very similar capability, which allows people to embed videos on a website, with the company generating revenue by serving advertising on that video. And while Getty Images has yet to determine how these ads will appear, Peters is confident that this capability will be introduced in the near future.
683
« on: March 05, 2014, 17:43 »
http://tickerreport.com/banking-finance/153900/shutterstock-coo-unloads-493800-in-stock-sstk/
The COO sold about 1.5% of his total shareholding and pocketed almost half a million in cash. Nice for him but hardly a sign of lack of confidence in the future. Or maybe he's only 98.5% confident.
It looks like they are auto trade sales @ 5,000 shares which are executed on roughly the same date once per month. To date they total $3,195,950.00
Chou James (Chief Technology Officer) cashed out on all his positions.
5,000 $98.7 $493,500 0 (Direct Ownership Share)
http://www.secform4.com/insider-trading/1549346.htm
Don't worry they'll assign themselves more bonuses and have more shares to sell.
No doubt
685
« on: March 05, 2014, 13:10 »
On SS I read you must use the file within 12 months. So this is probably a normal thing to do. I understood it was meant to block people from just hoarding files they will never use or dont have immediate projects for.
From the SS standard license:
"20. Stockpile or otherwise store downloaded Images that are not used within twelve (12) months of the date on which you first downloaded such Image. If you fail to use an Image within twelve (12) months from the date of your first download of that Image, you lose all rights to use that Image."
http://www.shutterstock.com/licensing.mhtml?hsb=1&type=standard
eta: Sean was faster...of course 
I'm pretty sure they used to have straightforward rule that you had to have an active subscription to be allowed to continue using the file - or was the DT? I'm too lazy to check - in any case, the 12 month rule is potentially even more restrictive.
As we know Shutterstock recently acquired a digital asset management company used by large enterprises. I wonder if Shutterstock will utilize this software to enforce it's 12 month terms of use clause? If not this acquisition will just add to and compound the problem and it will reduce the number of times an image will be downloaded by the same company. Right now many large corporations are using the subscription model in lieu of digital asset management software to give its marketing and sales teams access to images, video, illustrations. Therefore each time someone on a team uses an instance of an image, it is a paid download. Not so for images bought a single time and stored in WebDAM for very large teams to use at will, potentially at the price of one subscription download. The SS/WebDAM model will need to be based on something other than subscription if the images is stored in WebDam for multiple users. The good news is that they could potentially will be able to track how many times each image is used. http://techcrunch.com/2014/03/03/shutterstock-acquires-digital-asset-management-service-webdam/
686
« on: March 05, 2014, 10:35 »
While Shutterstock has done many things right there is no need to look at them thru rose colored glasses. Shutterstock has been able to gain market share, because they kept things simple, they undercut pricing long term and their largest competitor became greedy, arrogant, treated it's suppliers with contempt, lost focus, did not invest in its infrastructure, etc etc etc. Shutterstock's price undercutting to gain market share has been detrimental to the entire industry and should not be lauded. To start, I do not see IS taking a significant share of the sub market if they do not make major investments in their infrastructure. That said Shutterstock infrastructure also has problems that need to be addressed, the site is not as advanced as many here seem to believe. Stable functioning sites do not go down as often as SS does, ports, images and keywords do not go missing. Nor they do they leave themselves open to hacker attacks by using end of life open source software. If we look at shutterstock or any site with rose colored glasses and fail to take care of our own interest the owners will have no problem taking profit from our failure to protect our business assets and interests. For a reality check shutterstock has its own issues as detailed by people who work there. In my opinion, instead of offering glowing reviews we need to take all of the sites to task to make sure that our assets are taken care of. http://www.glassdoor.com/Reviews/Shutterstock-Reviews-E270840.htmSnip opacity, secrecy and arrogance Anonymous Employee (Former Employee) New York, NY I worked at Shutterstock full-time for more than a year Pros the industry they are working in is normally interesting. What they made of it, unfortunately, does not correspond to people expectations. Cons Very poor management- Culture of secrecy, opacity and total lack of communication. Old Good Top down methodology. Request, emails, questions remain unanswered. Doubtful promotion system, where friends and acquaintances rise very quick while others struggle. H.R take employees for a commodity to be used and abused, and lied to. Advice to Senior Management Success when it's too quick leads can lead to complete arrogance. This is exactly what happened to the executives and founder of this company. Wake up and respect other people around including clients, users and employees.. No, I would not recommend this company to a friend I'm not optimistic about the outlook for this company Was this review helpful? Yes | No Add Employer Response Flag Review Snip Software engineer Intern Software Engineer (Former Employee) New York, NY I worked at Shutterstock as an intern for less than a year Pros Flat structure, good food, good people and very interesting. Cons Most of stuff is perl, old perl. Kind of hard to understand what is really going on. Snip A great place for developers! Project Manager (Current Employee) New York, NY I have been working at Shutterstock full-time for more than a year Pros Great work life balance Google-like perks Quick Project Delivery Challenging work Encouraged and driven to be faster, smarter, and better designed Great culture Cons Terrible management - Considers itself a technology shop and desires to foster innovation but this works only for developers. Other disciplines not well understood or managed or seen as bringing value. High turnover. Advice to Senior Management Learn how to manage in ways that motivate, not demotivate. Snip High turnover due to clique-y environment Designer (Former Employee) New York, NY I worked at Shutterstock full-time for more than a year Pros Good equipment Pizza fridays Smart co-workers (developers) Hackathon Rally (Agile) Manhattan location Cons Product management is done behind closed doors All top-down Some people don't make eye contact when they talk to you (ever) High turnover Crappy, corporate looking offices If you're not friends with certain managers forget ever going anywhere Some managers take credit for subordinates work No, I would not recommend this company to a friend I'm optimistic about the outlook for this company Manhattan location
687
« on: March 05, 2014, 10:07 »
iStock could make a subscription offering work and be successful with it. But they won't. They've already overcomplicated it to the point where it will likely fail.
What iStock seems to be unable to figure out is that Shutterstock keeps things simple, at least on the outside. Buying images is easy. Subscriptions are dirt simple. Pay the fee (a fee that really hasn't changed much in years) and you're on your way. Even on the contributor side, it's dirt simple. We get real-time stats, simple and easy to understand data, etc.
Shutterstock was often criticized for having too basic of a website. No zoom, not a particularly great design, too simple, bare, etc. But the genius of it was that it worked well at the basics. It was reliable, fast, easy to use, and although didn't have all of those "advanced" features iStock and others touted, it also didn't have to worry about those "features" getting in the way of doing what their core function was: getting people to quickly and easily buy images.
iStock doesn't have it in their DNA to do anything simple anymore. It's always complicated, and always buggy to start. So they stumble out of the gate with a mediocre offering and spend years struggling to make it better, rarely succeeding in that effort.
This subscription model will be no different, and it's doomed to fail right from the start.
Completely agree
688
« on: March 04, 2014, 12:01 »
Yes some of us are seeing sharp downturns and the sales patterns have become erratic with lots of bugs popping up.
689
« on: March 04, 2014, 10:37 »
It'll be a disaster for them, their site isn't geared up for subs at all. They've lost all useful data for the best match algorithm with their constant messing with the pricing structure.
My guess is eventually they'll have to shut the old iS and rebadge Thinkstock with an iStock logo.
I see their aging infrastructure and search as one of their biggest obstacles right now. I don't seem them investing the discrepancies in royalties to reverse that either. This will just be bad for contributors all around because it will further deteriorate the value of our assets.
690
« on: March 04, 2014, 00:49 »
Wow. I guess they did not understand that if they paid exclusives a decent amount artists would have come flocking to them and dropping everyone else. Instead they keep doing the opposite. They WERE in a position to do that a couple of years ago when they had a duopoly but no longer. One would also think they would at the very LEAST match the $.38 from SS.
I agree, I will wait to see what the new price point will be for the sub packages, but I am not at all surprised they are undercutting royalties. If Istock had not made so many mistakes shutterstock would not have gained so much traction using price undercutting to garner market share. With the market margins they gained in the last two years SS has put Istock in a most unfortunate position. I would be surprised if this does not drive pricing lower, Istock needs to gain back the market share they lost by sticking it to submitter/buyers. They forgot that many of us are also buyers and we will see if SS also forgets this fact.
691
« on: March 03, 2014, 21:05 »
This is one of the scariest announcements I can ever remember reading. And that includes the Google deal. As much as I dislike the whole IS environment I dislike the subscription model even more. Istock has just become DP with better content. Why would anyone contribute to IS when they can make more at SS?
The only thing keeping SS somewhat in check was IS. Very soon SS will be 70,80,90% of peoples earnings? This could be a very, very big problem for anyone who would like to make anything at all off of their images.
A SS monopoly would be a very scary thing and if people aren't particularly careful about what they choose to do in the next 24 months we could be in for a massive problem.
This is exactly why I have been concerned with comments coming from key shutterstock policy makers. They have publicly stated that they have plans to continue to keep prices artificially low to gain market share. They have no regard for the assets they devalue or the artist who produce and depend on those assets for a living. My best images no longer go to Shutterstock and when possible I buy from other agencies Snip And your next question comes from the line of Brian Fitzgerald with Jefferies. Please proceed. Brian Fitzgerald - Jefferies When you guys think of the rev share agreements with contributors, there are competitors out there that have more generous revenue shares.Can you -- would that tend to impact or take share from you guys over the course of time or can you talk about how that dynamic is panning out? And then, it seems like guys have been driving down pricing among your major competitors. They're now trying to price match.Have you seen any real impact from that thus far? Thanks. http://seekingalpha.com/article/2037843-shutterstocks-ceo-discusses-q4-2013-results-earnings-call-transcript?part=singleSnip Duck Swartz Talking about your present strategy longer term?Timothy E. Bixby - CFOWe think we can raise the prices over the long term but were primary in the growth mode right now and we would like to continue to cover as much of the world as possible and take as much as growth in the business that we can before we play with the pricing level. We havent raised prices in many years and then been a great strategy so far to grow.Snip Jonathan Oringer - Founder, CEO & Chairman of the Board It still multiples. So it's order of magnitude whether it's if you look at us compared to other stock marketplaces like an iStock or others, it's two or three or four times more expensive to not use Shutterstock. If you look at the higher end sort of more traditional marketed might be 6 or 8 or 10 times more expensive.http://seekingalpha.com/article/1841072-shutterstocks-management-presents-at-the-goldman-sachs-us-emerging-smid-cap-growth-conference-transcript?page=2&p=qanda&l=last
692
« on: March 03, 2014, 11:47 »
Internal Server Error The server encountered an internal error or misconfiguration and was unable to complete your request. Please contact the server administrator, [email protected] and inform them of the time the error occurred, and anything you might have done that may have caused the error. More information about this error may be available in the server error log.
693
« on: March 02, 2014, 22:31 »
It looks very much like the setup at stock.xchng (http://www.sxc.hu/)
I did some searches , including one for San Antonio and I think this shows their problem clearly:
http://www.freestock.com/search/free-san-antonio-stock-photos.html
Not one of the free images is actually of San Antonio (I assume because there aren't any). They're not even very good pictures of the Golden Gate bridge  Mine are there, but they're sponsored and go straight to Shutterstock.
I agree the free images do not meet the quality of sites like http://all-free-download.com which shutterstock also sponsors. "Not the image you are looking for? Try a search on shutterstock" You just wonder how many of these sites they are using and who provides the technology behind them, not to mention the free images?
694
« on: March 02, 2014, 18:35 »
I ran into the free image site http://www.freestock.com/recently and found out by doing a who is search that the site owner is Shutterstock. Snip Registrant Name: Domain Administrator Registrant Organization: Shutterstock, Inc. Registrant Street: Empire State Building, 350 Fifth Aven http://www.networksolutions.com/whois/results.jsp?domain=freestock.comIt also looks like Shutterstock's Lead Software Engineer/Technical Manager developed freestock.com Snip At Shutterstock, the world's largest micro-stock photography website, I am currently engaged in designing, building and deploying cutting edge websites using open source technologies such as Perl, MySQL and Apache. Accomplishments to date include: - Development of Freestock.com ( http://freestock.com), a freely downloadable stock footage web site based on the Shutterstock library.http://www.linkedin.com/in/jnapiorkowskiDoes anyone know where they get the images that are provided for free download at http://www.freestock.com/
695
« on: February 28, 2014, 13:02 »
This is like an episode of the Twilight Zone: iStock is working and Shutterstock is down... Scary!
It is scary that this happens at Shutterstock on a regular basis. Along with any number of other serious contributor bugs; such as missing ports, missing images, missing keywords, etc.
?? You have much different experiences at Shutterstock than most.
Maybe most do not experience it, but this thread alone has 135 pages. This bug alone has been ongoing since at least 2011. Just because it is not happening to you, does not mean others are not experiencing it. http://submit.shutterstock.com/forum/viewtopic.php?t=114196Thanks all for the -, a great response for those of us who's incomes have been impacted by long term problems that SS refuses to address.
696
« on: February 28, 2014, 12:00 »
This is like an episode of the Twilight Zone: iStock is working and Shutterstock is down... Scary!
It is scary that this happens at Shutterstock on a regular basis. Along with any number of other serious contributor bugs; such as missing ports, missing images, missing keywords, etc.
698
« on: February 26, 2014, 11:33 »
I always thought they couldn't fix all the bugs they are aware of because the computer code was fiendishly complicated, but if the GM can be aware of the Valentine's picture issue and can't be bothered to pick up a phone and tell someone to drop an Easter picture and text into that slot, then maybe the problem is ineffectual leadership and a command structure that is so rigid and moribund that it is incapable of even deciding to wipe its own bottom when the need arises.
As we know Istock dropped the ball, the site needed to be revamped long ago. The code is outdated and was never meant to scale to the size it is today. Other sites are having the same issue. Including SS. If you don't invest in the underlying technology, bugs crop up that can not be resolved. They might be able to patched some short term, but not resolved. Hence the long missing image and keyword thread at SS that never ends in the Bug Forum. SnipQ: Someone said if Bruce was controlling iStock now, iStock surely will be different from what it is today. Do you agree? Can I have your comments on todays iStockPhoto? B: If I were controlling iStockphoto, I would be investing in a long term strategy, not managing the budget by the quarter. I would firstly work on the underlying technology as it's old and outdated. It was never designed to be as big as it has become. The "best match" needs a lot of work, or could be removed entirely. The most important thing I would be doing is giving a larger share of the royalties to photographers. They should be fairly paid. http://www.tukusheying.com/info/es_t_20130506102659.html
699
« on: February 22, 2014, 12:39 »
I like to look at business objectively. But carry on with the put downs.
if SS is in deep trouble I wonder where all the other agencies are, I don't mind hearing about the facts regarding Net Income, this and that, in the end are you working with an agency with this kind of success year after year? do you think that 20$ from iStock so far this month are enough to pay my electricity bill?
Did I ever say SS is in deep trouble? It is clear they are not. As business people it is the contributors who are in deep trouble. As you know shutterstock unabashedly continues to drive the value of our assets down and they have admitted publicly that they plan to do so long term as a business strategy to gain market share.
As business people we should be asking the same questions firms like Jefferies are asking and we should not be supporting business's who employ strategies who hurt us in the long term or none of us will be able to pay our power bills.
The good news is that as buyers/contributors "if" we support stock sites who pay contributors larger revenue shares we will have a better chance of remaining profitable long term.
More good news is that other stock businesses can now easily see that they will be profitable and have room to pay contributors more while also increasing marketing spend; if they do not follow shutterstocks lead by spending x million going public, spending 10 million plus securing vanity office locations, etc., etc. etc. It is all there in black and white for competitors to read.
It is also time that we support business that support us and we could start by sending our best images to other firms.
Snip
And your next question comes from the line of Brian Fitzgerald with Jefferies. Please proceed.
Brian Fitzgerald - Jefferies
When you guys think of the rev share agreements with contributors, there are competitors out there that have more generous revenue shares.
Can you -- would that tend to impact or take share from you guys over the course of time or can you talk about how that dynamic is panning out?
And then, it seems like guys have been driving down pricing among your major competitors. They're now trying to price match.
Have you seen any real impact from that thus far? Thanks.
http://seekingalpha.com/article/2037843-shutterstocks-ceo-discusses-q4-2013-results-earnings-call-transcript?part=single
Snip
Duck Swartz
Talking about your present strategy longer term?
Timothy E. Bixby - CFO
We think we can raise the prices over the long term but were primary in the growth mode right now and we would like to continue to cover as much of the world as possible and take as much as growth in the business that we can before we play with the pricing level. We havent raised prices in many years and then been a great strategy so far to grow.
Snip
Jonathan Oringer - Founder, CEO & Chairman of the Board
It still multiples. So it's order of magnitude whether it's if you look at us compared to other stock marketplaces like an iStock or others, it's two or three or four times more expensive to not use Shutterstock. If you look at the higher end sort of more traditional marketed might be 6 or 8 or 10 times more expensive.
http://seekingalpha.com/article/1841072-shutterstocks-management-presents-at-the-goldman-sachs-us-emerging-smid-cap-growth-conference-transcript?page=2&p=qanda&l=last
sorry to rain on your parade, but publicly traded companies never pay their suppliers more. there energy is spent on paying their shareholders more and bonuses to the CEO's for being able to cut costs in order to make the company more profitable, and that never has any regards towards the suppliers profit. just sayin. SS does not care about you. maybe you have your stock confused. there is stock as in 'contributor' and there is stock as in 'shareholder' and one will certainly make more money ++ can you guess which stock holder that would be?
Where did you get the idea that I thought a publicly traded company would pay their suppliers more? My point was it is not a wise long term business strategy; to support a publicly traded company who has stated publicly that they have deliberately devalued "our assets" by holding prices down long term to gain market share while publicly stating that they plan on doing so long term to gain greater market share. I did suggest that we support, contribute and buy images from different stock photography sites who do not employ business strategy's that are as detrimental to contributors long tern.
700
« on: February 22, 2014, 11:49 »
I like to look at business objectively. But carry on with the put downs.
if SS is in deep trouble I wonder where all the other agencies are, I don't mind hearing about the facts regarding Net Income, this and that, in the end are you working with an agency with this kind of success year after year? do you think that 20$ from iStock so far this month are enough to pay my electricity bill?
Did I ever say SS is in deep trouble? It is clear they are not. As business people it is the contributors who are in deep trouble. As you know shutterstock unabashedly continues to drive the value of our assets down and they have admitted publicly that they plan to do so long term as a business strategy to gain market share. As business people we should be asking the same questions firms like Jefferies are asking and we should not be supporting business's who employ strategies who hurt us in the long term or none of us will be able to pay our power bills. The good news is that as buyers/contributors "if" we support stock sites who pay contributors larger revenue shares we will have a better chance of remaining profitable long term. More good news is that other stock businesses can now easily see that they will be profitable and have room to pay contributors more while also increasing marketing spend; if they do not follow shutterstocks lead by spending x million going public, spending 10 million plus securing vanity office locations, etc., etc. etc. It is all there in black and white for competitors to read. It is also time that we support business that support us and we could start by sending our best images to other firms. SnipAnd your next question comes from the line of Brian Fitzgerald with Jefferies. Please proceed. Brian Fitzgerald - Jefferies When you guys think of the rev share agreements with contributors, there are competitors out there that have more generous revenue shares. Can you -- would that tend to impact or take share from you guys over the course of time or can you talk about how that dynamic is panning out?And then, it seems like guys have been driving down pricing among your major competitors. They're now trying to price match.Have you seen any real impact from that thus far? Thanks. http://seekingalpha.com/article/2037843-shutterstocks-ceo-discusses-q4-2013-results-earnings-call-transcript?part=singleSnip Duck Swartz Talking about your present strategy longer term? Timothy E. Bixby - CFO We think we can raise the prices over the long term but were primary in the growth mode right now and we would like to continue to cover as much of the world as possible and take as much as growth in the business that we can before we play with the pricing level. We havent raised prices in many years and then been a great strategy so far to grow.Snip Jonathan Oringer - Founder, CEO & Chairman of the Board It still multiples. So it's order of magnitude whether it's if you look at us compared to other stock marketplaces like an iStock or others, it's two or three or four times more expensive to not use Shutterstock. If you look at the higher end sort of more traditional marketed might be 6 or 8 or 10 times more expensive.http://seekingalpha.com/article/1841072-shutterstocks-management-presents-at-the-goldman-sachs-us-emerging-smid-cap-growth-conference-transcript?page=2&p=qanda&l=last
Pages: 1 ... 23 24 25 26 27 [28] 29 30 31 32 33 ... 64
|
Sponsors
Microstock Poll Results
Sponsors
|
Show Posts
