I read the information Freepik provided about their new calculation (from the link above) and it seems pretty straightforward - the diagram makes it pretty clear:
https://support.freepik.com/servlet/rtaImage?eid=ka03V000000Y1uY&feoid=00N3V000001WcHX&refid=0EM3V000003DfDj

It seems that the big change is that before they took all subscriptions as one big pot and then divided up 50% of that. Now, each subscription is tallied individually so that you could be a big winner, as a contributor, if your images were downloaded by subscribers who didn't use many images that month. Likewise you could be a big loser if your downloads were from a subscriber who used a lot.

A hypothetical example (assuming I've understood this correctly).

There are two monthly subscription prices, one if you pay yearly and one if you go month-to-month. I've rounded these to make the math simpler and taken two extremes of download numbers to highlight how the system works (in other words this isn't likely to be exactly what you'd see.

Subscriber A pays $20 a month and makes 10 downloads that month

Subscriber B pays yearly, $12 a month, and makes 100 downloads that month

Downloads from A pay $1 each (50% of the subscription goes to contributors)

Downloads from B pay $0.06 each.

Freepik's share is the same in both old and new scenarios - 50% of $32 or $16

Under the old system, 110 downloads would pay contributors $0.145 each

Under the new system, if you had four downloads from subscriber A, you'd receive $4; but if they were from subscriber B it would be $0.24. From the old system you'd have received $0.58 for four downloads

Obviously you would likely have a mix of heavy and light users so it could come out about the same.

With all of these schemes to share a percentage of the revenue, the agency is sitting pretty no matter how many downloads subscribers make. It's the users who lose out if more files are downloaded unless there's a (reasonable) minimum royalty

How a royalty scheme prevents any type of fraud is a mystery to me. If there's fraud they should tackle that by stopping it, no?

Depending on your country's tax treaty, different media (photos, videos, music, other...) may be taxed at different rates, and CM may be applying the wrong rate for your type of content.
It's worth reading the tax treaty and eventually contacting them.

Just got It

Quote from: Souf10 on June 22, 2022, 05:12

Quote from: Justanotherphotographer on June 21, 2022, 08:45

Sorry I don't know on that one.

Thank you
please if you get paid from istock let me know

The money came in today.

The user wastes too much time in ordering the keywords according to their order of importance. Before any other new modification Adobe should focus on solving this problem.

Weird how everyone with anything positive to say about these POS sites follows up with a referral link.

EDIT: wasn't this you? https://www.microstockgroup.com/general-big-6/freepik-steals-designs/msg570385/#msg570385
"Someone stole my logo design and put it on Freepik
I sent an email to [email protected] and it's more than 20 days ago and I didn't get an answer ?? (every days I send an email)
this is the worst support service 🤢
be careful. "

Why would you trust a site like that with your work? Not even mentioning their long list of other sins.