I have a concern with Shutterstock Select and it is a big one.  Right now they are saying GEAR UP.  Get a RED, and the other gear on the gear list to the tune of $300,000 or more.  Rent helicopters at $1000 per hour, plus the pilot (no drones please) and start submitting that quality of images into our regular collection and you MIGHT become the next photographer to get cherry picked to be in our Shutterstock Select collection.  THEN THEY WILL DO THE SAME THING TO THE SELECT VIDEOS THAT THEY DID WITH THE REST OF THE VIDEO AND START SELLING THE CLIPS FOR $1.50.  They did the same thing to us with video telling us all to gear up and start shooting video and make higher commissions on sales than with stills in a big huge webinar.  And they betrayed us. 

I believe what SS is up to with Select is an effort to con more of us into gearing up to produce that level of work on that level of gear which is all going into the cheap collection until you become a select contributor as a dishonest method to increase the overall quality of their video library without really paying us fairly once again.  That has been operating basis of Shutterstock all along... promise a big pie in the sky, and then take it away once you reach it. 

I would like nothing more than to be shooting on that level of gear, and that level of production, but micro stock isn't likely to provide the return on investment necessary to fund the cost of production.

My micro stock income is going down across the boards, all agencies, all months over the last few years despite creating more and better work over the same period of time.

The worst drop in income is at Shutterstock.  Between 2014 and 2015 my November earnings fell to half of what they were the previous year.  Between 2015 and 2016 earnings again fell to half their previous level.  Same between 2016 and 2017.  And once again in 2018 I'm looking at half the previous year's earnings for November.

The problem is Shutterstock is taking on close to 200,000 new images per day.  Most of it is crap, but the good images have no chance of being found in the garbage dump.  I've also noticed Shutterstock is working hard to place articles in the media about how you can become a millionaire selling stock.... probably in an effort to get new contributors to replace the ones that are figuring out it doesn't work.  This only makes the situation worse.

Quote from: pancaketom on January 08, 2018, 04:29
Would you be guaranteed sales or are you going up against a bunch of submitters and some might get a sale? It seems like you should just call Amex and charge 20% less than Getty and keep it all. (I'm sure Getty doesn't think that is a good idea though)

Custom Briefs are just another means of screwing photographers ROYALY.  Take some time to investigate what those companies would be paying photographers had they used an ad agency or commissioned the photographer directly.  It isn't hundreds of dollars for five images, it's MANY thousands of dollars for EACH image.  Also they have committed to you and signed a contract prior to the shoot so you don't have the risk of them saying "we decided to use the photos of someone else that shot this same assignment for us instead of yours."

Check out Blink Bid https://blinkbid.com and see what pros are charging for these kind of shoots. You will be shocked to see how much we can, and SHOULD, actually charge. 

Don't let Getty iStock destroy yet another segment of our industry.  Just say no to custom briefs.  It is a total waste of your time and effort and could cost you big in putting together the production values required for the shoots and then making nothing at all!

My Adobe sales have been going up, SS going down down down down.  Unfortunately Adobe hasn't completely made up for lost sales at SS, but I do want to see them take the lead.  Most of my sales at Adobe bring in 99 cents instead of the .38 at SS.  My video sales are never less than $28 at Adobe and I've seen much higher. 

I have spoken with people at Adobe and they are actually trying to bring the amount we earn back up to a viable range and they seem to have at least SOME understanding of what it takes to produce good images and the photo industry.  They should, they make software for photographers.   Shutterstock has had no clue since day one.  Everything SS implemented when they opened and since then has been extremely  destructive to the industry as a whole.

So I'm rooting for Adobe to take over the show and leave SS a distant memory.  Then perhaps we can start bringing the industry back to some semblance of what it was before IS (when Livingstone started it at the same time SS opened) and SS pulled the rug out from under it.

I do believe SS priced images at what the founder believed images were worth.  And if you look at Jon Oringer's portfolio https://www.shutterstock.com/g/shutterstock?search_source=base_gallery&language=en&page=1&sort=popular&measurement=px&safe=true  you will see what I'm talking about (brace yourself, it's gonna hurt to look at these photos!).  Of course buyers were thrilled to be getting photos for pennies instead of hundreds of dollars and some good photographers got rich in volume sales in the early days, but it wasn't sustainable.

Quote from: Herg on September 24, 2018, 13:45

Quote from: derek on September 24, 2018, 10:42

Quote from: Herg on September 24, 2018, 08:53
Terrible, abysmal etc etc etc. Ss is run by Muppets.

Better work harsmarter like the expert in the forums. Who is Barry btw ?

I dont know if true or not so dont quote me on it!  but I personally know somebody who worked there since the very start ( not now though) well something drastic must have happened because they have got rid of all people associated with oringer?? and replaced them with a cheap younger Admin team not even getting half the wages as the prior! hence no experience what so ever!...true or not?
This could explain a lot!  some years back Getty had Internal politics problems and for a couple of years nothing worked as it should everything went downhill. They finally got new staff admin etc and slowly things got back to normal, only seems the damage was done they lost some really famous photographers and buyers. I dont think many here remember that since it was around 2010.

Trouble is once this starts within a corp it might hold for a year or two but sooner or later the downhill starts it might not have an effect on sales in the beginning its enough with bad investments etc, etc!

Look at IStock some years back it was enough that loads of members complained giving a terrible picture in public forums and the word went around! and Istock nearly crashed!

And looking at the work, nothing special to brag about in my opinion.

This could explain some things, such as a review on Glassdoor I saw on what it was like to work in the corp offices.  It is common for a company that has gone public to have a power play brought on by the stockholders and push the management that built the company out to squeeze higher profits, usually to the demise of the company.  Ii was never thrilled with Shutterstock's business methods, but it has grown steadily worse since they went public and particularly in the last couple years. 

No!  There are ups and downs with some good days that seem encouraging, but overall my earnings each month are less that half of what they were for the same month in 2016... despite adding over 5000 good images to my portfolio during that time.  Overall my portfolio is earning less than it did in 2010 and is almost back to 2007 levels.

Every action I have seen on the part of Shutterstock only makes this problem worse.  Things such as cutting our extended license fees, cutting video rates to as low as $1.50, aggressively recruiting inexperienced photographers in volume (I just read another public relations article put out by SS on how you can become a millionaire shooting for them) and burying good professional work under crap.

They are also irritating buyers.  I saw a complaint forum that had hundreds of complaints against SS in how their accounts were being handled.  Working the their Empire State Building offices seems no picnic either.  On Glassdoor SS employees don't have very kind things to say.

SS seems to respond to every problem they have by doing more of what created them in the first place,

No!  Shutterstock has been falling for a long long time.  At first it was working harder just to not have a decline.  Then working even harder to have it not decline as fast.  I make less than half as much as I did 5 years ago but have a portfolio twice the size.

It's a losing game.

Quote from: Clair Voyant on August 31, 2018, 16:36
simply put, not it is not worth it. we should all collectively boycott this insult. honestly offering to pay for a video/photo by a major corporation tailor produced for $200-$400 per clip/image in perpetuity is and insult. i don't care how hungry one is or if they think this will help them, this will destroy the assignment industry and further put a downward pressure on the valuation of imagery. it's the microassignment of the traditional assignment industry. just sayin.

I can't agree with you more.  We all need to boycott these briefs.  It will destroy commercial assignment photography if we do it and that is the last area of our industry that is still profitable.

The Getty Custom content briefs are not only not worth it, they are doing serious damage to the industry as a whole.  Instead of a client selecting a photographer on the merits of his work, getting a quote, signing the contract and paying him thousands for the photos used instead of the chump change Getty will give you (and charge) they are through Getty getting dozens of photographers to shoot the brief at no cost to either them or Getty and then cherry pick the photos they want and pay pennies on the dollar for them.  Most likely you will get NOTHING for your work to shoot the brief and if you do get anything it won't be what it cost you to shoot it.  It also devalues what commercial advertising photographers make across the boards.

I can't recommend you read the book Advertising Photography: A Straightforward Guide to a Complex Industry by Bobbi Lane and Lou Lesko enough.  You get straightforward info on how the industry works at that level and what you should be charging!  It will SHOCK you if you have been thinking these briefs MIGHT possibly be worth shooting. (and NO I'm not getting paid by Lesko to promote the book, I just thought it was a very good read.)

There are a number of other good books on how professional commercial photography works and what we should be charging.  I suggest anyone shooting stock start reading up on it.  The micro stock industry has been doing everything in its power to destroy the industry as a whole and they constantly feed misleading information to newer photographers that don't know the ropes yet.  These Getty briefs are just one more way they are harming the entire industry.

Don't do them.

This is almost funny.  Microstock agencies came in and literally pulled the rug out from under the entire stock photo industry and put many stock photo agencies that charged fair prices out of business by licensing photos for less than pennies on the dollar compared to the pricing structure at that time.  They are now finding both that they can't survive on the prices they themselves set and they are attempting to address this by cutting royalties...  and they are finding THEY DON'T LIKE IT MUCH WHEN SOMEONE DOES TO THEM ON A SMALL SCALE WHAT THEY DID TO THE INDUSTRY ON A GRAND SCALE.

It's poetic justice and it would be funny were it not for the fact that the real losers are the photographers who earn their livings making images that others depend on to market themselves.

Quote from: holgs on January 25, 2011, 03:56

Quote from: markstout on January 25, 2011, 01:58

Quote from: sjlocke on January 25, 2011, 01:42
Most of that is fairly sensible, although I thought this part was unintended humor:
'I would like to close this with a thank you to Yuri Arcurs.  I have long respected the quality of your work and your open door policy toward other photographers coupled with your willingness to share your success.'

What has eroded his earning power, but the competition trained by the 'open door policy' et al?  Maybe he's applauding it because it was part of the puzzle that led everyone to his perceived cliff of change...

No humor intended at all.  Perhaps I need to clarify some, but there are two points I made in addition to this: one is that there is plenty of work out there for all of us if we all learn to license our work for what it is worth and support business models that do the same and two, that I believe the reason so many have turned to microstock is that the door was closed to us in terms of information on professional licensing models, and to the agencies that would license our work.  The traditional stock agencies, and the established pros simply  turned a cold shoulder to those looking for how to break into the industry and the consequence was microstock, which has put many of the traditional stock houses out of business by throwing the door open wide and dropping prices to the sub-basement - and seriously harmed the income of a number of established photographers.

Hence, why I say I applaud Yuri's open door policy.  Had this been the case the chances are a business model would have evolved that opened the door to anyone with the actual talent and experience to produce the work needed with a licensing model that sustains the cost of production instead of one that simply erodes the foundation by giving away the farm.

Mark, the problem with your article is that you rely on an interview with one contributor and draw second hand inferences from it to make conclusions about an entire industry.

I think the central point of Yuri's article is that the non-iStock agencies have stuck to a model where big and successful contributors will inevitably face a decline in revenue, whereas the iStock model through increasing prices and offering different collections has actually had the opposite effect for many exclusives.  

Pickling out a few parts of the interview out of context and making conclusions the way you do may sound factual to the anti-microstock cheer-squad, but to anyone who actually knows a little bit more about the industry its obvious that you're really writing what you WANT to believe.

The possibility exists that I know the microstock industry, and the industry of photography as a whole considerably better than you presume here.  And perhaps I am drawing on a body of knowledge a bit broader than the one person I referenced.  You wouldn't know that.  You didn't bother to find out.  You just presumed. 

Quote from: sjlocke on January 25, 2011, 02:15
Well, there actually isn't enough work for everyone.  There are lots of people with talent, and now that the door is open, the supply is huge.  You can't say that if Getty just let everyone join we'd all be sellin 400 $300 licenses a day.

That's the point.  If you were selling $300 licenses, instead of a dollar, you wouldn't have to license 400 images a day to make it.  There is plenty of work for all of us if we learn to value our work... but no, the market does not have enough image demand to support a business model that allows the work to be had for a buck.

Quote from: sjlocke on January 25, 2011, 01:42
Most of that is fairly sensible, although I thought this part was unintended humor:
'I would like to close this with a thank you to Yuri Arcurs.  I have long respected the quality of your work and your open door policy toward other photographers coupled with your willingness to share your success.'

What has eroded his earning power, but the competition trained by the 'open door policy' et al?  Maybe he's applauding it because it was part of the puzzle that led everyone to his perceived cliff of change...

No humor intended at all.  Perhaps I need to clarify some, but there are two points I made in addition to this: one is that there is plenty of work out there for all of us if we all learn to license our work for what it is worth and support business models that do the same and two, that I believe the reason so many have turned to microstock is that the door was closed to us in terms of information on professional licensing models, and to the agencies that would license our work.  The traditional stock agencies, and the established pros simply  turned a cold shoulder to those looking for how to break into the industry and the consequence was microstock, which has put many of the traditional stock houses out of business by throwing the door open wide and dropping prices to the sub-basement - and seriously harmed the income of a number of established photographers.

Hence, why I say I applaud Yuri's open door policy.  Had this been the case the chances are a business model would have evolved that opened the door to anyone with the actual talent and experience to produce the work needed with a licensing model that sustains the cost of production instead of one that simply erodes the foundation by giving away the farm.

Quote from: Jonathan Ross on August 01, 2009, 20:25
I will second that one Zeus,

RM is still very strong if you shoot the right content and are represented by the right agencies. It is bringing in my highest RPI by a mile. I have a friend in RM that had three different images sell for $15,000 this year so far, besides all his standard income from RM and that was just at Corbis.

Best,
Jonathan

thanks Jonathan.  I will look into it again.  I am licensing rights managed images directly but do not currently draw enough people to my site to make it pay well.  Maybe time to check Corbis and some of the others out again.

Quote from: cclapper on August 01, 2009, 16:21
I am a full time pro and I really agree with markstout in his first post. I have resolved the same problem by NOT shooting people and NOT going to locations. If I did, it would be for RM images. I only tinker with stuff in my studio and/or around the house, or submit "holiday snaps".

I also see Marks point, and somewhat agree. But I think the above is the perfect solution. If I'm gonna be spending hundreds of dollars for a shoot, it's not going to be submitted to Microstock. Only Sean Locke and others of his caliber can afford to do that.

Each person has to choose what his or her bottom line is. If the prices paid for contributors' photos goes lower, I will reach my bottom line and stop contributing. Fortunately, the commissions have been going up, even if only by pennies.

I came to that same conclusion once  However, landscapes are rejected as having too many on file, images without models do not sell well.  Rights managed photos do not move well now either due to the availability of microstock and that is why many pros are now submitting to microstock.   In the early stages when building a port, commissions do go up... However, once there are thousands of images in your port it can seem it is not going up enough to justify the work involved. 

Please understand, I am not trying to bash anyone or imply anyone should take down their images or anything along those lines.  All I have been wishing to do with this post is encourage the industry to look at some problems that need to be addressed and to encourage licensing fees that will better support the quality of work now being demanded.   Years back microstock was much easier, there were people with ports of every household object shot on a white background (like matchbooks, can openers, etc) and they were making a killing.  It has evolved.  The demands of image standards, models, styling, composition, theme, etc wanted to meet the standards has been raised considerably and that is why I posted the rejection.  I'm not upset an image got rejected.  It happens.  I'm illustrating how the demands on quality have been raised since the matchbook on a white background days... yet other than cost of living increases that I don't think actually keep up with how much the cost of living has gone up (yes I know we .are in a recession, but costs are still increasing) the fees charged for our images and paid to us are sitll back in the matchbook days.  It is my hope the industry will begin to examine the impact the pricing is having on the photographers who are contributing the work and the image industry as a whole.  Change comes slow, but I hope some will at least think about what I said.

That said, microstock can still be an invaluable training ground for photographers, though I suspect it is much harder for them to get accepted now than it once was.

I wish you the best luck and hope you do exceptionally well as a photographer.

Quote from: madelaide on July 31, 2009, 22:49

Quote from: graficallyminded on July 31, 2009, 22:17
It cracks me up, to read some of the responses to this thread.  You can't even post about a stupid rejection without getting it critiqued. This shot has good commercial value and nothing wrong with it.  It's an environmental lifestyle portrait.  Well done Mark, keep up the good work.

It is insane indeed.  As if there is an Attila the reviewer in each of them.

It appears one of them just might be a reviewer.  Today I received a written warning  for "having been submitted many times without correcting the issue" and threat of having my account deleted.  Yet it was the first time I submitted the image.  The problem was that I had forgotten to attach the model release.  I'm not so stupid as to repeatedly submit the same image where the subject IS the model and not attach the release.  Especially when I already have the release on file with the agency!

I have contacted the agency about the issue.  I will also contact them by phone on Monday.  Hopefully they will remedy the situation and not simply continue with, or allow the reviewer with ruffled feather to continue with, the same putative actions.  I'll post which course of action they decide on.

I've done it, not for six months, but I am a full time photographer and there have been months when the majority of the time was devoted to microstock due to other business falling off... the most I have been able to produce and upload is about 300 images per month and that was a KILLER!  Difficult to do, difficult to sustain and keep coming up with fresh ideas, and not really worth in terms of the return on the amount of work!

Quote from: Zeus on August 01, 2009, 02:31

Quote from: gostwyck on August 01, 2009, 00:39

How much did that shoot on the mountain cost you in time/money and how much should they be sold for?

The two -- time taken and money spent -- have never had much to do with how much a stock image was worth or how much someone was willing to pay for it. The Microsoft splash screen of field and sky was worth $125,000 for the one sale. How long did the photographer spend on it and how much was the expense? Probably not too much on either. 

Thank you.  Much of the value of an image has to do with its use.  That pricing model, rights managed, has been under assault for some time now with the move from rights managed to royalty free.  I believe it is to the detriment of the clients as well.  Microstock images are frequently misused, and the loving couple at the beach can as easily be used to market condoms or a medication for STDs ... and imagine how the owner of the beach resort who used it to market his resort feels when flipping through a magazine and sees the SAME image used to sell STD drugs?  Or to see the same image used to promote a competing resort?  When downloads in the thousands are required to profit on a microstock image, the probability of it is great.  I am a bit surprised more image buyers are not staying with Rights Managed models so they can "know where there image has been."  After all the images they use to market themselves are the image by which their customers will percieve them... as well as any other associations with that same image.

Quote from: gostwyck on August 01, 2009, 01:15

Quote from: markstout on August 01, 2009, 00:45
You might find this article enlightening.  You seem to be lacking information on what photography is worth to those using the images.  You will also find other good articles on this site regarding how to determine things such as calculating your cost of doing business....  
http://editorialphoto.com/resources/value_of_photography.asp

You can choose to raise your standards of what you are worth, or try to pull everyone else down with you.  It is up to you.  Not a game I will play and I do speak out against injustice.  

Oh for f**cks sake. Stop side-stepping the issue __ that link is about editorial images, nothing at all to do with general stock.

I'll ask again. What did that shoot cost you and how much should you be paid for them?

(And being as you seem to like shouting to make your point) HOW MUCH DO YOU THINK YOUR IMAGES ARE WORTH?

Why don't you just answer the question honestly if you want to 'speak out against injustice'. What a pathetic cliche. I love the smell of burning martyr in the morning.

EITHER PUT UP OR SHUT UP.

I see you attacking a valid point, but I don't see you saying you are personally making enough.  Do you?   How much are you making on microstock?  Is it enough to cover your cost of doing business?   Enough to pay your models?  Or do you just figure models should work free?  Enough to cover the cost of necessary equipment repairs, upgrades, props?   Or do you work a day job to fund it.  Do you even know your cost of doing business? 

Why the hostility?  Why the attack.  I think the earlier poster that she thinks some of the commenters work for microstock agencies must be correct.  I can see not other reason why you would insist photographers should work for peanuts.  Which of the agencies do you work for?

My point is simple.  Microstock needs to pay more.  The images are being used to market the products and services of others, without which they would have no profits.  Why should they profit at the expense of the photographers who are producing the images they depend on?

Why is it so important to you to hold down the earning power of photographers?

Quote from: gostwyck on August 01, 2009, 00:39

Quote from: markstout on August 01, 2009, 00:33
THEY STILL AREN'T SELLING FOR WHAT THEY ARE WORTH!  THAT IS THE POINT.  Again, I'm sorry you consider the worth of your work and yourself worth so little.  I honestly cannot understand why you would defend your right to get screwed.  Can you??

What are your images worth Mark?

How much did that shoot on the mountain cost you in time/money and how much should they be sold for?

You might find this article enlightening.  You seem to be lacking information on what photography is worth to those using the images.  You will also find other good articles on this site regarding how to determine things such as calculating your cost of doing business.... 
http://editorialphoto.com/resources/value_of_photography.asp

You can choose to raise your standards of what you are worth, or try to pull everyone else down with you.  It is up to you.  Not a game I will play and I do speak out against injustice. 

Quote from: PixelBytes on August 01, 2009, 00:37
I am surprised to see so much controversy in this thread!  To me it is fairly obvious that is a good stock photo.  Nothing at all in its "aesthetic quality" that would justify a rejection, IMO.   Assuming it is as focused and noise free as stated, I can't imagine a legitimate reason to reject it.

Sometimes reviewers just screw up.  We've all had it happen to us and it isn't the end of the world.  Just another little aggravating part of the micro business.

Glad to see you decided to resubmit Mark.  I am certain it will be accepted and go on to be a decent seller for you.  

I'm not resubmitting it.  The others have accepted it and it is being downloaed several times per day on each.  The point I decided to needed to be made here is the double standard being made by microstock which I thought this image would illustrate well.  The quality standards being demanded are professional, the pay per download isn't really even something that could be considered good for a hobbiest.  This is not good for anyone.

Quote from: gostwyck on August 01, 2009, 00:21

Quote from: markstout on August 01, 2009, 00:14
All I am trying to do here is get a few people to open their eyes.  How many of you honestly believe your work is only worth a quarter or so?  How many of you think those downloading your work for peanut SHELLS are then willing to turn around and price their work the same?  

OPEN YOUR EYES FOLKS.  DO YOU REALLY THINK YOU ARE WORTH THAT LITTLE?   This post isn't about how great my image is.  Not at all.  It is to illustrate the point that for sums of money that do not really justify a hobbiest spending the time to keyword the photos, microstock is demanding professional quality.  This is having a dampening effect on the entire industry, it needs to be addressed.

I'm going to have to let you in on a little secret Mark .... sometimes microstock images actually sell more than once and the average commission is actually many times higher than you are suggesting.

It is about time that you opened your eyes to reality rather than trying to overstate your case with misleading figures.

I know that.  THEY STILL AREN'T SELLING FOR WHAT THEY ARE WORTH!  THAT IS THE POINT.  Again, I'm sorry you consider the worth of your work and yourself worth so little.  I honestly cannot understand why you would defend your right to get screwed.  Can you??

Quote from: HughStoneIan on July 31, 2009, 23:58

Quote from: stockastic on July 31, 2009, 23:29

Bottom line: microstock contributors have all the clout of undocumented migrant farm workers.

I don't think micro shooters have even that much clout.  Where I live many undocumented farm workers are able to buy new pickup trucks regularly.  Try walking into your local government welfare office and say you're a starving microstock shooter and see how many benefits that gets you!

Best thread in a while around here!!  Thanks for starting it, MarkStout!

THANK YOU.  All I am trying to do here is get a few people to open their eyes.  How many of you honestly believe your work is only worth a quarter or so?  How many of you think those downloading your work for peanut SHELLS are then willing to turn around and price their work the same?  

OPEN YOUR EYES FOLKS.  DO YOU REALLY THINK YOU ARE WORTH THAT LITTLE?   This post isn't about how great my image is.  Not at all.  It is to illustrate the point that for sums of money that do not really justify a hobbiest spending the time to keyword the photos, microstock is demanding professional quality.  This is having a dampening effect on the entire industry, it needs to be addressed.

As a note, microstocks pricing seems to be hurting it as well.  I noted a while back that one of the agencies raised its fees and at the same time CUT the percentage paid to the photographers.  This is something they would not have to do if they were charging fair fees to begin with.

Quote from: sjlocke on July 31, 2009, 22:48

Quote from: markstout on July 31, 2009, 22:28

Quote from: gostwyck on July 31, 2009, 22:22

Quote from: markstout on July 31, 2009, 21:55
I do know some guys are making extremely good money at microstock...

Well ... look and learn from them and you'll be making good money too. Simples.

See my earlier post, these guys are finding it less than a picnic now too... $40,000 to produce 2000 new images in three months and have NO INCREASE in sales is not exactly the right direction!

Just because Yuri spent $40,000 on his work doesn't mean A. it's a smart move, or B. you should either.

You're right - it's a perfectly good shot of a guy on a rock.  But that's all it is.  I'm not seeing any concept, like hope, or exploration, or freedom there. 

And if said agency has 2000 other shots of guys on rocks, they may be a bit tired of just seeing guys on rocks.  They may be trying to push the collection a bit.  The fact that you get $.17 or $1 from a licensing doesn't affect the direction they want to take the collection.  Or it could just be a persnickity reviewer.

You can take the opinion or not - I don't care.

I see you think .17 cents for your work is fair.  I hope one day you learn what you are worth.

Quote from: Freedom on July 31, 2009, 22:39
Sometimes I wonder if these people are actually hired guns of the agencies.

Quote from: markstout on July 31, 2009, 22:24

I hope this post will cause ... less of the weird, weird posts where people defend their right to get screwed that I see so often on the microstock forums!

Lol!  I know... but it occurred to me when writing a post to my own blog on another subject what this is.  It's just human nature. Some people work to get ahead and help others do the same. Some like to get ahead at the expense of others. Others have given up and seek to pull others down to their level.