In recent years my focus has been video and shutterstock was on the list of sites I submitted to, until they paid several of my friends to remove their ports from shutterstock and I found them later on BS.

What??!!!  They paid people to remove video from SS and only have it on BigStock?  That's a terrible move on your friends parts.  They must have been paid very well to throw their own content away like this.  Could you explain more?

Although your complaints are mostly about SS I am no fan boy of any agency, and I find things like this good information, along with stuff that Jon or others tell their Board and shareholders.  I don't keep on top of such info, so if you do and want to post it, I will read that with interest.

Attacking somebody for posting true things about an agency is a good way to drive them off, and then we have one less useful POV.  If you know someone has a particular bias -and a lot on this forum do - you can read their posts with a pinch of salt.  Or use the ignore button if your delicate eyes cannot behold a negative comment. 

I also read Cobatls posts with interest because she has a lot of experience and insights.  There is no need to choose.  Except for obvious trolls, everyone brings useful POV to t he forum.

Quote from: Monty-m-gue on June 27, 2015, 10:09

Those FB SOD's seem to have vanished just as quickly as they arrived :-(

It never happened.

Mine are still there.  Just haven't been any more since Friday.  Did anyone seriously think that was gonna last forever?  Pretty sure they were catching up on a reporting backlog.

I ended with 3528 sods

For the day?!!!  If so you kicked my a_s_s!  Thats more than my total DLs for the month on SS and I thought I was doing pretty good.

Congrats mate!

Here is Getty's take on Adobe Stock.
 
Following the launch of Adobe Stock, we felt it was a good time to reach out and communicate to you � our exclusive artists � with some thoughts on what this means for Getty Images, iStock by Getty Images, and our valued relationship with you.

We start with the point that competition is not necessarily a bad thing.  Competition can drive us forward in better serving current and potential customers.  It can also help grow our customer base as new marketing builds awareness of the need for and availability of licensed content.  The negatives of competition come when you do not have a clearly differentiated product.

Thanks to your content and ongoing submissions, we enjoy and will continue to enjoy a clear point of differentiation � superior content.  This is the very core of our customers� needs.  Without great content, customers cannot produce great projects.  iStock by Getty Images is the only service in the value space that provides a meaningfully different and superior content offering.  Adobe Stock is the same content offered historically via Fotolia and many other providers.  Adding a statement that it is curated by Adobe, does not make it true.

We also enjoy the full reach and assets of Getty Images.  Only Getty Images offers a comprehensive offering to service all customers, across all projects, in all geographies � creative and editorial, new and archival, global and local, premium and value.  Only Getty Images has a 700-person dedicated sales force that are experts in content licensing.  Only Getty Images has 20 years of building strong customer relationships.

Moving beyond what we believe Adobe�s entry means to Getty Images and iStock by Getty Images, we wanted to share some thoughts on broader implications for photographers as a whole.

With the launch of Adobe Stock, it is clear that Adobe believes all imagery is worth a maximum of $10.  We simply do not agree with this view.  Commercial and photographic experience and investments in pre and post-production do matter to quality and are only commercially viable through higher price points and, ultimately, returns to the photographers.  This is a core reason why Getty Images contributors can sell across our offerings versus a one-size fits all, every image is a commodity approach.

The launch of Adobe Stock also under-scores Adobe�s true focus.  Adobe is under-pricing the work of photographers to increase the overall attractiveness of Creative Cloud.  In fact, Creative Cloud customers receive an additional 40 percent discount with this discount subsidized by photographers via lowered royalties.

We struggle to understand how Adobe Stock helps to sustainably support the creation of imagery and photographers, many of which are paying Creative Cloud customers.  Instead, in current form, we only see how Adobe Stock helps support Adobe�s broader software ambitions at the expense of the creation of imagery and photographers.

Getty Images remains focused on licensing content with an emphasis on superior material.  We will continue to price this superior content to an appropriate premium and provide a higher royalty.  We thank you for your contributions and loyalty.  We are more committed than ever to maintain your loyalty and will intensify our efforts to compete on the basis of quality and a comprehensive offering.  In the coming months, you will see marketing, site merchandising, partnerships and other improvements that only reinforce this strategy and our intensity.

Thank you for being our partners.

Here's a thought...maybe Getty could scrap its disastrous RC moneygrab and go back to paying their 'valuable' exclusives according to the cannister levels they earned.  Talk is cheap and Gettys talk is cheaper than most.

How can we do any of that on a buyer's website which we obviously have no access to?

Exactly!  We can't.   +1 Sue.

Hard to believe any content producers would argue this is okay.  Antitrust laws exist for the exact reason of preventing such abuses by monopolies.   Hope Google gets spanked in this lawsuit.

@PixelBytes I'm sorry I didn't answer this before. There are no changes to the currency and payment policy.

Not the answer I was hoping for, but thank you for answering anyhow.

 +1

My photos are on P5 thru Pixmac.  They sell about even with other low tier photo sites.  I still upload via pixmac cuz the process is super easy there.  I don't know anything about setting my own prices, so I guess they are at default.  I been getting around one payout per month on a bit over 5k images, so to me its worth it.

@PixelBytes Actually you are implicitly suggesting to pay less the euro-contributors for their sales made in US, in US$.
Anyway it is hard to imagine that The "Bank of Fotolia" will give away 7.9% or so coming from their artificial exchange rate (see above) even if it is fair for us.
Otherwise, I also praise their recent move and the improved communication coming from Mat.

Sent from my SM-N910T using Tapatalk

Well, still no answer on my question from Mat. 

I don't think it is a give away to pay the rightful percentage the contributor earns.  Maybe FT didn't mind shafting contributors, but I thought that is not what Adobe is about.  This is an area that still needs correcting. 

Here are the questions I believe were unanswered. Let me know if I missed anything and as always feel free to email me directly if you would like: [email protected]

SNIP

Thank you for your questions, keep them coming if you have more!

-Mat Hayward

Mat, maybe I missed it but I didn't see an answer to my question about when or if FT/AS will correct the disparity between sellers who are paid in euros and ones paid in dollars.   This is unjustified.   

Quote from: Pixart on June 23, 2015, 00:29

I can remember the day Serban had enough and said he would never come participate here again.  Can't remember why exactly, but that he was attacked and I was a little disgusted with our behaviour.

That's very unprofessional, and if their job includes posting on forums and socials they better learn how to deal with their own user base or find another career.

I had to listen to the most ridicolous BS and trash and even a few insults when i was working in retail, face to face, i've never lost my frame and neither my colleagues or we would have been fired on the spot ...

I don't know why for so many it's so hard to deal with people online and with their complaints, i guess some of them are just plain jerks and they're even more jerks in real life ?

Serban was not simply the agency rep.  He owns Dreamstime.  It was not his job to come here and answer questions.  He did it as a courtesy, and it was appreciated by many but just not the loudest ones.  When you own your own company you don't have to make contributor relations your job.  You can hire it out or leave it altogether.  I don't see that it is unprofessional for a CEO to decide they don't want to put themself out there to be attacked.

https://www.yahoo.com/tech/how-taylor-swift-convinced-apple-to-pay-122081998994.html

@Mat:  what will be done about the disparity between those getting paid in � and the ones paid in $?  For those outside of EU this was always extremely unfair and should be changed so everyone gets their fair royalty % of the price and currency the customer paid in.