January and February are my best months to date, so let's see what March brings. Could be a fluctuation.

I don't think the filter side bar is that bad, but the thumbnails are huge, so I can only see 3 rows. Awful design. Isn't there an option to decrease thumnail size and see more images on the page?

Why would anyone stay with that agency after two late payments? It's a major red flag and a dealbreaker.

Just like you wouldn't work anymore for a client for doesn't pay on time. It's common sense. If you stay with that agency, you accept their bad behaviour.

I was wondering, do they also include downscaled HD from original 4K clips? Or does it have to be uploaded as HD to be eligible?

That's downright unprofessional. Then again, I already considered Colourbox a cheap, horrible agency. I mean, look at their license terms. That's a red flag in and of itself.

"You have been SELECTED to participate"

Makes you feel all special and unique. I'm surprised they didn't use the word "hand-picked". If you're going to lull your contributors into a false sense of excitement, do it right!

I'm especially apalled at the lack of an opt-out. To me that screams 'we know nobody wants it, so we're force-feeding you'.

Hi all, I'm going nuts trying to find a vector eps size and settings that will be accepted by most main sites! (Shutterstock / iStock / Adobe / Dreamstime)
Keep getting "EPS file (XXMpx) less than XXMpx limit" or exceeded. or "ANY file resolution (XXMpx) exceeded XXMpx limit"

I have been enlarging, reducing page size, turning on and off options when saving eps...

Can't find something that works for all??? Is there a 'Goldilocks' solution for eps and jpeg??!!

Thanks, Barney

1200x1200 pt artboard, exported at 300 dpi results in a 5000x5000 pixels JPG image, or 25 MegaPixels. That should work for most sites.

Nice, but I would have chosen another kind of music for a video about Cadiz�

Same here, how about something more epic sounding? The shots look amazing, it deserves a better soundtrack.

My earnings have halved over recent months, it seems that all $3.50 sales have disappeared - since their deal with iStock/Getty started. Number of sales have remained fairly static, but value dropped

Which deal?

Well, at least they advertise their stuff. The slogan is kind of lame, I mean "meowstock"? Come on. But the animal photos are nice.

The photographer says:

�Walmart is selling my picture without my permission throughout all New Brunswick,� Stemm writes in the description.

Which is a blatant lie, by uploading his photo he gave Shutterstock his implicit permission to sell this photo under certain licensing terms, and Walmart owns a license to use it legally. The fact that he didn't read the terms & conditions is entirely his fault. He blames Shutterstock and Walmart for his own mistake. If this story isn't made up.

I don't see the problem of paying less than HD prices for a web resolution? As long as the price is in relation to its size? I never understood the 'all sizes one price' thing on other agencies.

And yet another one of the agencies going the corporate greed way.

As if taking 10% of our cut is going to propel them into tier 1, what a shameless cash grab.

Their way of thinking is: the 2010 cut worked so well after a few years, contributors noticed the difference 3 years later, maybe it works if we do that again.
"Sorry guys, we just feel this is another one of those 'phases', surely you don't mind a cut now things are going crappy already and wait another 3-5 years to see improvement? What was that? No? Too late, it's done. Merry Christmas!"