Quote from: Uncle Pete on November 28, 2021, 01:33

Quote from: For Real on November 27, 2021, 21:34
... Do you think any favoritism as well? For some reason I just don't seem to fare well on SS. Maybe I am over thinking this matter 

I can't see any reason why they would, but that doesn't mean they don't. If I was selling a commodity like images, I'd want the buyers to have the best experience, see the most desirable, and buy from me, not force them to see lesser or forced images, that aren't as good? Potentially losing customers to a place with a better quality selection.

1. They want to keep the contributor from going Istock exclusive (these deals are made with large productions and they mean a lot to SS)
2. They want to motivate him (her) to produce even more (they are capable to produce more, these are factories that can just expand the business, if it is profitable).

Quote from: Uncle Pete on November 18, 2021, 17:21


Keyword help, what buyers are searching for, or how our images were found, would be over the top. Not an email saying, we need this, but a database saying, here's what actually is popular. Most of the what's popular are nothing but someone saying what they think is needed or predicting some trend. I'd like to see what is, not what might be. I don't think chasing the sales and history are the best ways to make decisions for new ideas and markets, but seeing overall sales, types, words, in general can be useful or at least give some advise on a possible creative direction?

That is not in their own interest. They just want you to produce what they are lacking in collection, not what will bring you sure sales. All "future trends" and "what buyers are looking for" emails from all the agencies are based on their selfish needs. I don't even read them anymore.

They should send yearly withholding amount and earnings stats for tax purposes to every photographer automatically an the end of the year. Now we have to send email with request and wait for ages for this paper because their tax department can't handle so many requests at the end of the year.

In the very near future stock agencies will accept crypto payments. After that they will send files to customers in form of a blockchain. It will come gradually. Shortsighted and uneducated photographers that don't see it coming will have to do nothing anyways, just to follow instructions about new upload process from agencies.  Agencies will be forced to do that.

Quote from: offisapup on November 22, 2021, 11:19

Quote from: Sean Locke Photography on November 21, 2021, 18:18
Nah.  There's no need for it.  No benefit.  Just an over complication.

That's what they said when "emails" started becoming a thing back when. Everything digital is going to be on some form of a block chain in a few years. It's inevitable, whether we like it or not. And like with any new technology, the people who benefit the most are early adopters.

That's right! I'm surprised than so many microstock photographers are so shortsighted. Having in mind they adopted to microstock so successfully back in the day. Guys, ask your kids for advices, it is time

Quote from: SpaceStockFootage on November 17, 2021, 10:28
Yeah, your essentially just selling an entry in the blockchain, that happens to come with a jpg. At best, you have a non-exclusive, non-commercial license for that jpg.

Exactly, that is just another way to sell and buy something, to pay for a purchase. Nothing else changes. Thinking that we will not need agencies anymore is ridiculous. They will adopt to new standards sooner or later. And it has nothing to do with photograph or any other form of digital product being art or not. You are the one who decides if there will be one ore million copies of the work you are selling.
Guys, take some time and study blockchains and NFT, it is the future. Agencies will do the work for you, setting up instructions ones the NFT and crypto purchases start being accepted, but you should know the basics. Photography is a digital product, so it will be affected by blockchain technology, that's for sure.

Things are getting worse every day and it is very hard for newcomers especially to make a living exclusively from microstock.  It was different years ago, most of us are struggling right now. me, personally, I saved a lot during these years and invested in stock market, so I hit FI (financial independence) just around when things turned ugly. I now have a comfort of getting along with much lower paychecks from microstock.

Quote from: thijsdegraaf on October 31, 2021, 09:25

My biggest fear is that whether the photos will indeed be given away for free in the long run or worse (such as forum, blogs, guestbook on my website, photo sites similar to Flickr) Shutterstock or Adobe will suddenly be completely discontinued. So that everything is gone. Although I think/hope it will take some time. 

I don't think it will happen because a stock photo is a product like any other product in any industry. There are costs, time and knowledge invested. There are hobbyists, but there contribution to overall market revenue is small.

Good point.

Quote from: dook1000 on October 27, 2021, 10:38
It looks like the reviewer is an uneducated person. It will be down soon, I guess.

I told you so. Quoting my own post, haha

It looks like the reviewer is an uneducated person. It will be down soon, I guess.

Quote from: angelacat on October 26, 2021, 20:32

Quote
I use the one from Shutterstock and had it accepted on all agencies.

Do you use the download version or the Docusign version please?

My template one is accepted by everyone except SS  who told me only docusign would do - it's a pain.

Thank you

I have generic model release (no agency logos on it) and  it is accepted on SS, too. It is basically Getty and Istock's model release, download it from there.

Quote from: cloudvisual on October 18, 2021, 11:53

Quote from: dook1000 on October 18, 2021, 11:41
I don't think they will steal your money, if that is your only concern. And no, I don't work for SS

Why wouldn't they keep my money if they think I broke the terms I agreed? Their thinking is that I used a photo I didn't take to earn money on their platform.

I don't think that can pass. Is all your earned amount from that picture in question? If not, they don't have any right to keep it. Besides, they haven't proved anything yet.

I don't think they will steal your money, if that is your only concern. And no, I don't work for SS

Quote from: SVH on October 04, 2021, 20:15
"It was probably sold for 200-350$."

Was he exclusive then and sold all the rights of the photo to the client? (if that's possible with SS anyway).

Otherwise, I can't imagine, on any subscription, the client would pay that amount. 75 USD is possible under extended license but then you as a contributor get a small portion of that. So that's why I asked

I never got more then about 12 USD with SS but then again I'm non-exclusive there and don't do RM's.

There are regular sales in range of 90-120$ for many contributors, without exclusivity. These are probably sold for few hundred $ to the client. I'm sorry you haven't had any of these yet, but you surely will, keep working!

Usually you offer free photos. The problem is that you will rarely get permission from big national companies like railroad or airport, since board of directors is involved. It is not just a simple permission signed by a lower tire manager. Better focus on smaller companies.

Quote from: SVH on October 04, 2021, 17:46
Did the client buy the photo for 75 USD or did you get a royalty of 75 USD? Just curious

It was probably sold for 200-350$.

Quote from: Justanotherphotographer on September 16, 2021, 08:35

Quote from: dook1000 on September 15, 2021, 18:02

Quote from: Justanotherphotographer on September 15, 2021, 10:04
Okay, looks like it isn't random, they will be applying a $3 fee to every payment from sites.

This changes it from a no brainer to a terrible deal for low cash outs. Anything less than a few hundred dollars and you could be paying more for Payoneer than you would be with paypal. I will still use Payoneer for SS or AS for example as it is still a much better deal for those. Definitely will not be using them for lower paying sites I cash out a t the $100 mark though.

I'm not charged any additional fee from Payoneer when receiving payments from Shutterstock. Where did you see this fee?

They sent me a message saying they are going to start charging it for one of the sites, then a couple of weeks later a series of messages which I think cover all of the remaining sites I have switched. They give a date a couple of months in the furture and say that it isn't retroactive. If you haven't got the message alert on your dashboard you shouldn't be charged (I assume). I will keep using them until that date then switch back to Paypal for smaller payments. At least they gave me plenty of warning!

Thank you for the info. I haven't received these emails yet. But only agencies that send payments without asking your permission (once a month) are SS and 123RF. All the other send it on your request. Assuming that SS is not the problematic one for small payouts, on123RF there is an option to set minimum payout to 500$. So 3$ would be 0.6%

Quote from: Justanotherphotographer on September 15, 2021, 10:04
Okay, looks like it isn't random, they will be applying a $3 fee to every payment from sites.

This changes it from a no brainer to a terrible deal for low cash outs. Anything less than a few hundred dollars and you could be paying more for Payoneer than you would be with paypal. I will still use Payoneer for SS or AS for example as it is still a much better deal for those. Definitely will not be using them for lower paying sites I cash out a t the $100 mark though.

I'm not charged any additional fee from Payoneer when receiving payments from Shutterstock. Where did you see this fee?

Good point!