Seen so many of these threads, figured I may as well start one

Apparently some "good news" from Alamy everyone should be happy about! Commissions going from 50% to 40%! YAY!

Comment below.

I also got the notification, but I can't see anywhere the "good news" expression you quoted.

"We're making some changes


In February 2019 the Alamy contract will be changing to reflect a new commission structure. The commission contributors receive for direct sales will change from 50% to 40%.
This email is to give you advanced warning of this upcoming contract change. You will receive another email in January 2019 signalling the beginning of the standard 45 day notice period before the new contract comes into effect in February 2019.
Our CEO James West has explained the reasons behind the commission change in a video which you can view, and leave comments on below."

Quote from: Zero Talent on December 01, 2018, 08:33

Quote from: obj owl on December 01, 2018, 08:26

Quote from: Steveball on December 01, 2018, 04:26

SS within 5% of every month of the year in downloads and $ as usual (no cap!). AS continues the slow climb (the only positive), everywhere else practically dead.

or you could count yourself as one of the lucky ones, they gave you a safety net, no drop. It's all about your perspective.

"They gave you"!
So it's not the quality of his work, it's just luck and some external force favoring him.

Lol!

Breaking news conspirator: it's exactly the oposite!

They capped you or gave you a safety net is exactly the same thing, my point being for those who complain about the cap maybe denigrating the thing that stops the drop, just a matter of perspective.  I'm not a believer myself, just looking at it from the opposite direction.

Yeah, each one of us has an inescapable destiny, predefined by The Shutterstock God!
I get it! It's simple, really!

Maybe we should be looking at new content current sales, vs old content current sales.

We can do that, if we also consider the fact that even when the production level is kept constant, the new/old ratio is constantly decreasing. Under these assumptions, new will naturally sell less than old.

Quote from: increasingdifficulty on November 20, 2018, 13:13

Quote from: ShadySue on November 20, 2018, 12:59

Quote from: Zero Talent on November 20, 2018, 12:52

Quote from: ShadySue on November 20, 2018, 12:47

Quote from: jonbull on November 20, 2018, 12:28

the other who shoots only when going out to make dog pipi and complain   that he not earn nothing 

That person is still doiong better than the person who earns $2k but has expenses of $2001k, and tax to pay on the $2K.

That other person (not the pipi person) must not be very smart, since expenses can be deducted from taxes.

To some extent. It never seems to be as much as the actual expenses, though. Also, it varies from country to country what counts as legitimate expenses.

What would be an example of an illegitimate expense then? That is still an expense.

I can't say I know the tax laws in every country but I'm pretty sure that in most civilized countries, the tax in this case would be $0. 

I've often read of differences in what's allowable in the US vs the UK. I employ an accountant, and it never seems like all the expenses I send are taken off the tax in full, and I don't even count big trips when I'm shooting virtually non-stop other than sleeping and eating.

In any case, I bet the $2k earner is spending much more time preparing, shooting and in post, and time is money.

The only point I was making is that earnings don't tell the full story.

CAPEX (e.g. camera, lenses, computer etc) is amortized over 3 or 5 years. You can't expect to see all expenses deducted, in full, the next year.

Otherwise, I got your point, I'm just trying to make sure that statements made are as accurate as possible.

Quote from: jonbull on November 20, 2018, 12:28

the other who shoots only when going out to make dog pipi and complain   that he not earn nothing 

That person is still doiong better than the person who earns $2k but has expenses of $2001k, and tax to pay on the $2K.

That other person (not the pipi person) must not be very smart, since expenses can be deducted from taxes.

Quote from: Herg on November 15, 2018, 12:52

Quote from: YadaYadaYada on November 15, 2018, 12:08

Quote from: Herg on November 15, 2018, 11:02

Another predictably crap, capped, controlled  $0.72 day at SS

How much do you expect to make from snapshots of old junk, lemurs, walls, alleys, doors and going for a walk with a camera. You need to take pictures of subjects that buyers will buy. You take nice pictures, but they aren't something that will get many downloads. That's the cap

Do your subjects look anything like these best sellers? https://contributor.stock.adobe.com/en/insights/best/contributors

Here we go again. Because my images sold MUCH BETTER (around $200 a month of which was ok for the subject matter I took) than they do now. Granted I don�t shoot higly commercial stuff with models (not my thing as I find it more interesting to happen upon images by walking about) but You would be surprised what has actually sold for me. And my images are not limited to "old junk, lemurs, walls, alleys, doors" (which actually have sold well) There is a market for ANY photo taken well enough.

it's clear you are the guy who write also in the doom and gloom thread in ss....that one with a portfolio made of snapshots..who complain not to sell....really what you think you can sell with that portfolio in 2018? maybe 8 years ago or 6, but really what you expect nowadays?...it's  miracle if you earn 50 dollar with the stuff...maybe t's not you...ah it's bradbury or something similar....but if it's you please stop talking about ss and review honestly your stuff.

I often disagreed with you, but here you have my vote, jonbull. Spot on!

Quote from: Zero Talent on November 11, 2018, 23:55

Quote from: farbled on November 11, 2018, 21:54

Why are you guys so upset that some contributors have different results than you do that makes them think there is something affecting their sales other than randomness?

Sheesh. Between the name calling and the other attacks all over the forums, small wonder discussions are generally limited to the usual suspects.

Because, I'm sure you know it, there are many other valid reasons for poor sales performance, instead of conspiracies.

Sheesh!

Who said anything about poor performance? I didn't. I am just tired of seeing something different than some of you and being labeled as either stupid or a liar. That's what is being inferred. But hey, I guess if it doesn't happen to you specifically, then it must not exist.

And I agree, argued to death, but I should point out that there are a lot of posters who bring it up in a lot of threads derisively. So again, why is this such a problem for some of you? The vehement overreaction but some is worrisome.

I don't think my reaction was vehement, let alone an overreaction, was it?

No, you didn't say anything about poor performance, indeed. I said it.

It goes like this:
1. capping conspiracy implies that your sales are not as good as you think you deserve them to be.
2. when your sales are not as good as you think they should, it means your actual performance failed to reach your goals and expectations.
3. when you fail to reach your goals, it means you didn't perform. Or in other words: your performance was poor.

There are certainly shades of gray and nuances, but I'm sure you understand what I mean.

The problem I have with conspiracists is the following: while many sound minded forum members offer perfectly logical explanations for a given situation, conspiracists and cap theorists choose to ignore them all, to continue to believe that some evil algorithm took away from them, what the rightfully deserve. As far as I know, fearful feelings and thoughts often related to persecution, threat, or conspiracy have a name, but I'm not a psychologist and I'll leave it at that.

Unfortunately, these conspiracies are flourishing these days, in many aspects of life, not just in microstock.

BTW, the same thing happens with ON1

But I only have their free Effects 10 and I can't complain about free stuff.

Here is the reply from DxO:

"We are aware of the font issue on 4K monitors, this was an issue that arose with the previous version of the Nik Collection. Our developers are aware that this is an important fix for our customers, and are working on the compatibility with 4K monitors. We do not know when this will be completed, but please know that this is an issue we are aware of".

Do you still don't believe in capping system? In reality, they just regulate which and how much of your files the buyers will see. #fact

"Capping" contributors' revenue and "regulating" what buyers see are two totally different concepts.

One is false the other one is true.

Waoh 0 sales so far on  a week day,
Did i miss something?

Yes, sales were normal today.

Quote from: Zero Talent on October 25, 2018, 10:58

There are many religious impositions, besides the veil or burka accepted as normal even in a free and laic society. Besides, many traditions and society norms originate from religious impositions.

Why would this piece of clothing be any different?

You don't get that I am against laws mandating burkas as much as I am against laws forbidding it!
France is no different than Saudi Arabia from this point of view. Both countries have oppressive laws forcing women to wear what the government considers OK.

This is my message for you: Let people wear what the want, let them be free to exercise their religion, tradition or fashion taste and stop imposing your beliefs on others.

I asked about babies because it was you who has extrapolated the notion of free will to minors. If you give me bad examples with minors, why stopping there and not extrapolating even further to babies? Get my point?

Simply because the burka is anti-human. It dehumanizes the women that use them since it makes them invisible as people. Plus, it denies their individuality by hiding their personal characteristics. They are no longer "Aliyha", "Amina" but just another female standing there.

It's simple to prove this by imagining if you could identify one woman wearing a burka that you've seen previously, after she changed to a different burka, side by side with others with similar stature and composition. I'm certain that you could not and that's because she has her individuality denied to everybody except the close family.

But the offense doesn't stop there. They wear those complete covers because the people who impose them consider women as a source of sin and temptation. So, to prevent them to "provoke" men they cover women.

Summing up, they consider men as animals incapable to control violent sexual impulses! So, we must be protected from the sight of women! ABSURD! Did you think men would get away?

The most shocking consequence of this way of thinking is when a woman of those cultures is raped by a man (or a whole battalion), she's the one considered guilty. After all, they are the ones who provoked and men are incapable of control. And as it's frequent in the news they may even be sentenced to the death penalty because they had sex outside marriage!!!

I call that a giant BS!!!

I understand your point about freedom. Believe me I understand. But freedom isn't an absolute value.

If freedom was an absolute value what would stop religions that advocate human sacrifice, cannibalism or sex with children to be practiced in any western world?

Am I right to think that you would not accept those practices in your country, am I right? So where do we draw the line? From what point do we consider something unacceptable? Do we stop at human sacrifice, or is treating women as things also unacceptable to us, despite being part of a culture or religion?

We draw the line somewhere where people are allowed to wear what they want, be it a burka, or a hoody with dark sunglasses, like many do even in your country, hiding their faces in public
I understand where you are coming from, but you also should understand that extrapolating your perception of that culture and reading it based on your own traditions, fighting against it like you do, is in fact very much against freedom and free will.
Not all women wearing burkas are oppressed, as you assume, putting a whole culture in a tiny box with a bad label on it.

Quote from: Zero Talent on October 25, 2018, 07:22

Quote from: MicroVet on October 25, 2018, 04:30

Quote from: wordplanet on October 24, 2018, 18:42

"Me too."
Maybe we need a women's only section of this forum. Guys seriously this is insulting to all of us.

I shiver every time I read a comment like this. Step by step women get closer to using Burkhas, and worse of all, willingly.

Nothing wrong with that. Women and men should be able to wear whatever they like, as long as it is willingly.

For your information, the veil and the burkas originate from the assyrian culture. Back then, a thousand of years BC (maybe more), the veil was worn willingly by "respectful" women.

Only, slaves and prostitutes were forbiden by law to use it.

Yeah... That's called Stockholm syndrome based on culture and education.

If you educate a person believing in the most f*cked up things and make him/her believe that by doing them they're making not only the right thing but even making them better than others, they'll do it "willingly".

Ancient Egyptians married fathers and daughters and performed all type of f*cked up genetic inbreeding. I'm pretty sure that everybody would answer they were doing it willingly, especially when not doing it would turn them into pariahs.

Even children that are groomed by their parents say they performed sex with they by their own will.

I've got a community in my country that perform child marriages against all laws. They'll tell you they do it willingly. Girls from that ethnic group abandon school at 10 or 11 years old because that's what traditions orders and they "want" to be like their mothers and take care of the house.

Immigrants coming  from Africa mutilate the genitals of their daughters, and I bet most if not all of those girls are anxiously waiting for the day their parents perform that abomination on them, because that will make them right, better, become women, etc.

So, don't pull that argument on me.

Forums just for women, just like buses, trains, gyms, etc, are a setback to the western society. The moment women start to isolate themselves I guarantee you their future generations will regret bitterly because then some men will have an excuse to start excluding them, like they did in the past.

The most stupid thing is that women fought and died for over a century to be in the public life. And now many start to claim the right to be excluded from it! Mind boggling!

May I remind you that we are talking about an innocent piece of clothing.
I am also talking about free will and you give me examples of mutilation and child abuse, having nothing to do with it. Do you actually think that the concept of free will can be extrapolated to babies, when you give such examples?

Anyway, how arrogant is to think that you, or lawmakers who think like you, know better what is good and what is bad for some individuals or group of people exercising their free will in choosing their cloths.

France with those anti-burka laws is more backwards than Assyrians three thousands years ago, when only 2 categories of women were denied to right to wear that piece of clothing. Now France is taking this right away from all women.

How arrogant can one be to claim that one's free will originates from a Stockholm syndrome?
There are many restrictions in our "modern" society, taken for granted after systematic brainwashing aiming to convince people to accept them "for their own protection".
So you might be subject of many Stockholm syndromes yourself, when you side with such oppressive lawmakers, who made you believe that oppressive laws are good for you. Have ever thought about it?

I told you the origins of the veil and burka. In many places, like Eastern Europe, this tradition evolved into the scarf. Even today, in some of these places, women consider impolite to show their hair in public and wear the scarf, all the time. Are all these women also affected by the Stockholm syndrome?
Far from that, I would say. It is a tradition and you must respect that. Nobody is forcing them to do it, not their husbands and not any law. It is their choice, their free will. The same thing is valid for many middle eastern women who chose to wear the veil, because it is their tradition and they like it.

How hard is to understand that?