Purchasing your own product - or having a friend "purchase" your own product to test the integrity of the system is not artificially inflating downloads. It's a real download.

But regardless - it is rather interesting. Sounds like some companies are afraid they'd be found out for not crediting all sales.

Quote from: SuperPhoto on May 13, 2018, 08:10

Quote from: Pauws99 on May 13, 2018, 01:49

Don't buy your own stuff you could be booted for that.

Why would they boot you for that? Are some agencies afraid that you'd find out you weren't been credited? It makes no sense...

It's in their terms.
From SS
Shutterstock has the right to refuse to establish an account or to close any existing account, for fraud, intellectual property infringement, violation of a third party's rights including those of privacy or publicity, artificially inflating downloads,

While I am 'relatively' new to this video/photo game - a lot of people recommend submitting to the sites on the right, in the order listed. I haven't yet submitted to the top 3 (so I could be potentially missing out on a lot of sales at the moment) - but - those are the sites you could start with.

The time consuming aspect is titling, keywording, and editing your video clips.

Hmm 5d Mark IV - I "suppose" thats an "okay" camera

What kind of footage do you have?

Really depends on a lot of things.

a) It seems most sites now prefer as a minimum HD footage (1920x1080). So if it's not that, except in special circumstances (i.e., unique historical/archival footage), probably won't be accepted.
b) Raw is what most people seem to upload - although I've seen some remarkable footage that I know obviously has been edited. I'd say understand what people want. If they want raw, give them raw. But if you think they'd like properly color graded clips, etc, then give them that.

Thanks. I don't yet have a portfolio at shutterstuck or fotolia, so I don't know.

Pricing, I thought $150 for 4k and $75 for HD was okay, but not sure if I should make it lower. (I know some people use the defaults of $25 & $50, so am competing with that).

SEO - I 'think' it's okay, but really don't know. (Did the keywording, descriptive titles, etc).

My content is unique. Similars - there are a few 'themes' but no - most of the content is not similar. If I had to guess - if you called 'similar' say taking a picture of a subject from the front, then from the side - as being 'similar' - then maybe 10-20%.

I've just recently finished uploading my portfolio elsewhere (apparently 'low earner' sites, haven't yet done the top 3) - and 'recent' meaning the last 1-2 months - so - it really depends on the site. I have gotten "some" sales - but in terms of "profit" - "maybe" between $20-$50/site. (But I've been working on this solid for 6 months - the keywording/cropping/videoing/etc - so $20-$50 seems very very low).

Yeah... wow.

In some ways - I guess I can "see" how it might be beneficial... but... I guess this is why/where people are getting the $0.02 commissions, etc...

The reason the photos are of people staring... it because science *********IS******** about staring!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

And looking... And staring... And looking...

Or rather - that is the 'unique' aspect of lab work...

If you had a picture of a scientist surfing the internet playing a facebook game, it doesn't have the same effect. Or, if you had them chatting with friends at the water cooler, doesn't have the same effect...

Quote from: SuperPhoto on May 02, 2018, 20:22

Some people were wondering how this would work, this is how I see it, how about you?

Basically, with this system, assuming a 'better' case scenario, it looks like the founders will become very rich. You, as a photographer, if you get on the ground floor *and* it takes off, will make "some" money (probably better than you are right now) - but it really makes the founders rich.

So, just like any other business then?

Quote from: SuperPhoto on May 02, 2018, 20:22

thats about $1 billion/employee per year for basically doing nothing, especially because the system is 'distributed' (i.e., doesn't really cost them anything to maintain).

Wow, that's great!

If they do basically nothing, I have a few questions:

� Why are there now no less than three active threads discussing them here by us?

� Why doesn't each and every contributor here have their own successful site making a billion or so a year? Or even just 10 million?

Makes you think...

lol,

a) re: your first comment, not exactly. usually executives make a 'decent' amount ($200-$300k) but these is a huge difference.
b) well, yes, they do basically do nothing once the system is set up (not sure if you have any programming experience, but by design, this is relatively easy to set up, and maitenance is virtually nil, so yes - they would basically do nothing. if they were smart, which they probably would be - they would hire a customer support company to deal with any customer issues, etc). as for why the photograhpers aren't making that kind of moeny - probably precisely because of what you just said - they are photographers and not programmers. if a photographer decided to set up a blockchain site like this, I'm sure he or she could see similar results.

Some people were wondering how this would work, this is how I see it, how about you?

Basically, with this system, assuming a 'better' case scenario, it looks like the founders will become very rich. You, as a photographer, if you get on the ground floor *and* it takes off, will make "some" money (probably better than you are right now) - but it really makes the founders rich.

a) 23% of the coins are reserved for the founders. At the current capitalization (20 cents), that would be about 6 million. However, they are hoping it takes off, like ETH/BTC, etc - so a coin would 'eventually' be worth $200-$300. (So that 6 million is now worth 6 billion. Split up amonst the team members (22), assuming everyone got an even cut (unlikely, but lets say it was that), thats about 270 million/investor.

b) Another 15% is taken for every transaction (buy/sell/buy/sell/buy/sell). If they got a 5% daily trading volume (seems reasonable looking at current crypto charts), that would be 6.75 million coins, and if it was $200 a coin, that would be $675 million/day, in pure "profit". (or 24 billion/year). Split amonst 22 employees/founders (again, assuming it was even), thats about $1 billion/employee per year for basically doing nothing, especially because the system is 'distributed' (i.e., doesn't really cost them anything to maintain).

c) You, as the photographer, might feel you "got" rich if you were on the ground floor (i.e., sold some cheap $0.20 images now, & kept the coins). Likely, you might say get 100-200 sales  (so 200 coins * $200 = $40,000). Maybe you get 2000 sales. Then that's $400k. You'd "feel" good thinking you were rich. (relatively speaking, for very little effort, $40k isn't bad. And $400k of course is a bit better. Definitely nothing like 1 billion, but you could buy a new car, whereas they could buy a city).

That's a "better" case scenario...

Thing is...

a) If it takes off, other people will copy them. It's not really that hard to make a bitcoin blockchain like they have. Granted - they'll have the first mover advantage - but... really depends if they rich critical mass or not. If they don't, it will be very easy for other people to undercut them at say at 10% cut, or 5% cut, etc, etc... (until eventually it gets to say 1%, or 0.01%, etc).
The founders will still make a healthy profit, but - the size of their profit will depend pretty much on how much of the market they were able to capture first. (Probably part of the reason they are doing the '500 "royalty free" image promo).

So very quickly that 15% "cut" won't be attractive anymore, because someone else is offering a "10%" cut, or "5%" cut, etc, etc.

b) There is NO privacy. Aside from the fact they are a relatively unknown company, demanding id verification/etc - and then 'tagging' each image you upload with your details (making it potentially ripe for identity theft, etc)... You'll have customers that become very wary very quickly if they really want "everyone" knowing what types of images/videos/etc they are purchasing... (i.e., lets say a married guy 'purchases' 2000 lingerie images of various women, then realizes his name/info & complete portfolio is available for the world to see). Would have some explaining to do to his wife...

c) The big guys WILL protect their turf VERY aggressively - especially if these guys start getting the "aggressive" growth they are going for. Shutterstock is already starting to that (granted, "late" to the game with the $1.50 "subscriptions" sales people are complaining about) - but - they are getting on it.

So what will happen?

The first people that upload, I do think will make (relatively speaking) significant sales in the first year (just be aware though you will have absolutely *no* privacy associated with your images (imagine your name and face is tagged with every single image you sent), nor will you have *any* privacy in terms of how much $ you are making. If you are fine/comfortable doing that, then go ahead).

I think if they have the right launch strategy - it will be "possible" that the coin within the next 2 years gets to about $10. Definitely not $200 or even $2000, but still enough to make the founders very rich. (So, not 270 million/founder, but 27 million within a year about $100 million/year for doing nothing. Still "not bad"). But as soon as it starts making some waves, you'll very quickly have copycats. (In fact - reading this thread - I don't believe they were the first one to have this idea - wasn't there someone else here that was talking about that?)

If you as a photographer actually start making a "significant" amount of money (for some people, even $200-$300 is "significant", so you haven't even reached $40k) - VERY very quickly "everyone" else will start flooding the system uploading content/etc, so its harder for you to make sales, etc.

And then I think there will be some news stories talking about people's privacy/etc being compromised, people will "sell off" their coin for fear of losing value. You'll also get market manipulation as some people discover how to manipulate the system to get rich (not much different from the stock market in the 1900's, except now this is all digital).

So... I think you'll see a spike at the launch, a spike probably 3-4 months after that, and then as other people catch on (competitors, agencies, etc) - it will very quickly die down, and maybe settle on $3-$4 a coin. So, if you want to "get rich" (i.e., "maybe" $20-$40k within a year), are comfortable with no privacy, then it would probably be a good idea to upload your portfolio now, and then maybe sell whatever coins you have within 6-7 months before the price drops (mind you - I think I read somewhere that they said they would not allow cash outs until that was implemented 'within a year'. So maybe wait 2-3 months after cashouts become a possibility).

I think for the founders, its a great model if they can sell it. It will make them rich for relatively little effort.

So we'll see.

mm, two things, without actually seeing the picture.

a) Maybe you really do have a good quality image, and the agency you submitted to rejected it. Don't take it personally, not everyone accepts everything. It doesn't necessary mean its a 'bad' image - just means they don't want it for their site.

b) if it is a large cityscape - I find focusing on a stronger lightsource tends to produce a better picture, because then the exposure/etc is set correctly for the surrounding elements. I'd also do a couple tests to see what produces the best results for you.

The issue I seem to have with them is now they seem to have "so many" people submitting stuff, that unless you've been with them for a while, they seem to do mass rejections of content (which is VERY time consuming to upload due to their interface).

You seem to be reading into this what you want.

I am not defending the actions. To be perfectly clear, it is wrong what they are doing. I am saying I think they've figured out how to circumvent getting into trouble for it.

Quote from: SuperPhoto on April 12, 2018, 10:40

For the actual inclusion of full (unwatermarked) images, thats a little murky because they have it like a "database" format for "search"... (i.e., google has been doing that for 20 years, and no one questions them. Just use google image search).

since they are actually linking to the *websites* that have those images on them, and not actually hosting the images, and assuming of course those websites/businesses have licensed the image (whether cc or actual licensed stock), I don't think there is really anything that could be done about that, because "technically" it's not really wrong (again, look @ google image search).

As for the cc attribution... that is different... simply because I don't know if the images they've included are actual cc (creative commons) images, or actual licenseable stock photography... if they are actually 'stock' images (and they are incorrectly identifying them as creative commons) - I don't know if anything can be done about that...

although I don't care for this type of site (because it seems to be circumventing the intent of stock sites for licensed photography) - since they are doing it in a search format (similar to google image search, so they are not actually the 'publisher' of content, rather just a 'forum'), not sure if anything can really be done about it...

Did you look at the site? They clearly say "you can click on your desired Business image and use the Business picture embed code to add to your blogs, forums, websites and other online media. The embed code contains all necessary CC attribution, that are mandatory to include" which is not true and there's no creative commons for a stolen image AND they are crediting the agency not the artist.

Google, nice straw man argument, attempt at diverting from the original question, does none of that. They run a search for people to find something on the web. There's no claim that anything is free to use. Would you make web searches illegal? But I'm nice I'll play along. Google "Note: Before reusing content, make sure that its license is legitimate and check the exact terms of reuse. For example, the license might require that you give credit to the image creator when you use the image. Google can't tell if the license label is legitimate, so we don't know if the content is lawfully licensed."

And search results?



IMAGES MAY BE SUBJECT TO COPYRIGHT

Say someone is looking for something you made or you as a photographer, where do you think they will look. Google. When someone is looking for a legitimate use and wants an advanced search, that works, and can search all agencies, where will they go? Google.

Now back to the point. Pinsdaddy and their foreign language version, are linking and promoting illegal use with an incorrect claim that your work is creative commons, and all someone needs to do is, copy and paste it came from "X" agency and it's legal. Plus no watermarks.

Let me see if I understand, you defend the illegal use and the crooks, while you attack a perfectly legal search? Did I get that right?

probably, but why don't you ask them?