I'm bringing this up again, because I still don't understand what these custom commissions are based on, like, *at all*.

Here's what I see and my peers in our German forums report as well:

- There are several tiers of custom sales - certainly different products on the buyers' side - and all sales within the same group/product come in for the same amount. So, the commissions can't be based on whatever currency the respective buyer pays in, but on US prices in US dollars.

- Those commissions either decline or increase over long periods of time (weeks and even months) and they do so solely in one direction - there aren't any ups and downs - cent by cent and day by day.

First, I thought this was due to exchange rate differences between Euros and Dollars, but the difference is *way* to high for that. E.g. the group at the highest commission rate paid $1,46 in January, then started gradually declining to $1,00 in mid February and then to $0,96 right now. (Again: ALL in the same group did so.) The dollar to Euro exchange rate never differed by roughly one third. (Also, as Europeans we already have to take the exchange rate risk, because we get paid in US dollars now, we shouldn't have to take it *twice* after all, should we?)

If this relates to differences in the buyers' behavior instead (= using up more or less of their potential downloads), why does this happen that gradually and solely in one direction? Shouldn't there be any ups and downs over several weeks or even months in this case?
And, given this type of "fluctuation" is calculated over longer periods than, say, days or weeks, why would the amounts change cent by cent *each day* then?

If you even disregard this: How does such a split work at all? A buyer pays a certain amount of dollars for a certain pack of assets (resp. credits while the credits to be invested on a certain asset are fixed). They then use x of them and don't use y. From what I understand, from the amount for "unused" assets y nearly 100% go directly to Adobe - so far, so good for them. But what about the "rest" of actually downloaded assets? The total amount x stays the same. Our percentage stays the same, too. If each artist gets their part, because a buyer had actually licensed one of their assets, why would the commission change then, anyway?

Maybe it's just me not quite getting it (I'm admittedly not good at figures.), but perhaps you could shed some more light on this matter, @MatHayward ? It would be much appreciated for sure!

Quote from: Jo Ann Snover on August 24, 2023, 23:14
Anyone who has been submitting stock content for a while (since 2004 in my case) has had images rejected for one reason or another. Sometimes one forgets a logo.

Ages ago I uploaded an image including the Pike's Place neon lights not realizing it was protected; another time there was a city shot with a poster that contained someone else's photograph I hadn't cloned out. Those images were rejected, as they should have been, but no one blocked my account over it.

It's fine for Adobe Stock to fix a reviewing mistake by retroactively rejecting an image they accepted in error. I don't know why, especially with established contributors with a track record of solid content and rule following, that wasn't done in this case.

To add insult to injury, on top of blocking the contributor's account, they won't tell him which images are a problem, let him delete them or get access to his account for other purposes - such as to request a payout.

They could block uploads while they investigate; they could send the reviewers who made these mistakes for more training; they could temporarily limit the contributor's upload quota.

Adobe's quarterly earnings will be announced on Sept 24th and I'm assuming they've realized they need to clean this mess up. That's fine, but taking reviewer mistakes out solely on a contributor who uploaded content they shouldn't have seems deeply unfair.

If I were a judge and were to apportion the negligence, I'd say the incorrect content mess is 75% Adobe Stock's fault and 25% contributor's - unless a contributor has been warned a few times and persists in uploading forbidden content in which case take away their upload privileges (but leave the account open).

Yep, exactly.

Naming famous people or characters from pop culture in the title or keywords is just one thing, but in case it's about the image itself only, I'm really wondering how Adobe can even know whether or not the creator actually wrote a prompt referring to those people or characters. Maybe those have simply become THAT popular that the AI considers them the best choice possible for an entire topic? Who knows?

However, I think a long-time contributor who's been with the agency for several years (without causing any trouble at all!) should IMHO at least
- be told exactly what the decision was based on, so they're able to
- review their own images and solve the issues
Termination of their entire account doesn't seem fair to me given the circumstances and all uncertainties as far as AI is concerned - both legally and technically.
People rely on their income - making them literally bet what they might have done wrong really isn't appropriate to the matter, is it?

Quote from: Sean Locke Photography on July 24, 2020, 14:34
I'm magical.

Quote from: obj owl on June 07, 2020, 02:19
... it may restore my faith in humanity.

If this is even possible, it's worth each single day of my port being down. Humanity - and the entire world for that matter - is in a pretty sad state right now. But there's also progress being made on several fronts and that's quite something. So let's just try and fight for a better future! For everyone.

Quote from: obj owl on June 06, 2020, 21:53
Shutterstock have split the war on it's contributors into two battles. Now they take on the 1 2 3 and 4s and in January they take on the 5 and 6s.  Currently the 5 and 6 groups have not enough to gain and to much to lose by pulling their ports now.  By the time January comes they will hope that there not be enough impetus left from the battle with the 1 2 3 4 to assist the 5 and 6s.  Taking on the 5 and 6s will be tough, but that is where the big money is made, and they don't want 10s of thousands of 1 2 3 and 4s getting in their way.

I know a lot of people who're in the 5th level (including myself) and who already disabled their ports or are currently planning to. (Might even be easier for them than for somebody being rather new to the industry, as most of them already sell through other agencies as well.) Also, someone who's in level 6 for sure just announced he's going to disable all of his 400,000 images on Monday.

Roughly 1,920,000 images deleted or disabled by now. (Within the past couple of days. May be more than that; my port e.g. was already down before we started counting.) Plus, about 800.000 which - otherwise - would have been added.

922,200 less images than three days ago.

Quote from: Dumc on June 05, 2020, 04:40
How do you disable your photos? Can't find it.

Go to your account settings. At the bottom right there's a box reading "licensing options". Check "no" for photos and/or video and save.

Quote from: Mrblues101 on June 05, 2020, 02:49
The number of images in SS are actually shrinking

June 1 - 326.401.446
June 4 - 325.718.566

Contradictory, the number of "new images this week" increase:

June 1 - 1.146.506
June 4 - 1.157.726

Not necessarily "contradictory" - this just tells us that people delete/deactivate at a faster rate than others upload. I'm pretty sure a large percentage of contributors hasn't yet noticed what's happening. Some may re-activate their ports within the next couple of days in order to being able to evaluate stats based on their own portfolios, but I guess (hope) the *real* storm is yet to come.
I'll try and keep mine down as long as numbers are decreasing. (I'd actually like to have a look at my own stats, too, but on the other hand I'm almost sure I'm going to permanently delete my account, anyway.)

Quote from: rene on June 04, 2020, 21:43

Quote from: Chichikov on May 31, 2020, 06:42
Just a thought (question):
by deactivating the portfolio on June 1, isn't there a risk of not receiving the earnings for May that should be paid at least in June?
And if this is the case, isn't it better to wait until you have been paid before you deactivate your portfolio?
I don't really trust Shutterstock any more these days...

I deactivated my portfolios (images + videos) on 1st of June.
Got my paypal payment for may today.

Same here.

Quote from: Desintegrator on June 03, 2020, 01:07

Quote from: Anja_Kaiser on June 03, 2020, 01:05
Just a little remark - on the positive side, this time:
In our German speaking forums, someone's started jotting down the total amount of images available on Shutterstock at a given time. (You get the data in real time, if you use the search box without entering a keyword.)
Between yesterday in the morning (MET) and now (1:52 am) - so, a little more than 12 hours - almost 140,000 images have been deleted or disabled. Not (yet) enough to hurt them, but sure for a clear signal in their direction.

And you can add that on a normal day it should be rising by about 200.000. Let's say, by 100.000 in half a day.

I just thought the same and edited my post accordingly while you were writing. 

Just a little remark - on the positive side, this time:
In our German speaking forums, someone's started jotting down the total amount of images available on Shutterstock at a given time. (You get the data in real time, if you use the search box without entering a keyword.)
Between yesterday in the morning (MET) and now (1:52 am) - so, a little more than 12 hours - almost 140,000 images have been deleted or disabled. (Actually even more, given that there are still people who upload instead.) Not (yet) enough to hurt them, but sure for a clear signal in their direction.

Quote from: Jo Ann Snover on May 31, 2020, 16:51

Quote from: Anja_Kaiser on May 31, 2020, 05:03
...I might use Twitter in this particular case, though.

If you decide you'd rather not and would like me to tweet about it on your behalf, let me know. It's always best if it's the person themselves talking about their work, but if that image is disabled, that's "news" worth talking about (and I grabbed a watermarked JPEG in case) so I will as a back-up plan.

Done. But thanks, anyway, Jo Ann! (Just followed you on Twitter, too.)

And:

Quote from: Jo Ann Snover on May 30, 2020, 23:21

Quote from: Anja_Kaiser on May 30, 2020, 06:12

Quote from: Jo Ann Snover on May 27, 2020, 17:04
I will disable my portfolio June 1st. I haven't uploaded much lately for other reasons, but I won't upload anything to SS.

In addition to tweets about the change, I thought I'd also try highlighting images that would be #GoneJune1 as part of #boycottShutterstock. I haven't put links to Adobe Stock in tweets yet, but might mix tweets about #Shutterstock slashing royalties with "go here instead" messages.

https://twitter.com/joannsnover/status/1265672584315547649

I think the messaging should be simple - to try and get the general point across. Especially on twitter, you don't want lengthy explanations of the details.

https://twitter.com/joannsnover/status/1265693477007851521

Jo Ann, as far as I know, this vector set of mine: https://www.shutterstock.com/image-vector/vector-set-calligraphic-design-elements-page-65754793 still is Shutterstock's most often sold image *ever*. (32,956 downloads so far on a single file.) And I'm going to disable it (and several others) on the first of June. Feel free to use this any way you want - both info and image!

That's a pretty amazing total - congratulations!

If you're planning to talk about that on twitter, that's great. Do you not tweet? Out of curiosity, how do you know about it being their most sold image - I didn't know of a way to get stats like that.

By the way, the rest of your portfolio is lovely too

Thank you Jo Ann!
SS used to have a "100 top selling images" page until a couple of years ago and this set of mine was no.1 in there for several years, until they shut it down. (I still have some screenshots somewhere.) I've never heard of someone (or an image) having outpaced those numbers - I actually can't be absolutely sure, though. I simply think such wouldn't be do-able again today, no matter the quality or originality of an image. Also, I posted a thread on  Shutterstock's forums as soon as the file closed in on a total of $20,000. Alex (one of the forum's moderators whom I also met in person in NY back in the days) was around and commented, but didn't mention something to top that.
However: I'm not entirely sure - and if someone's image performed better than that: CONGRATS! - but I think there aren't too many close to or even better than that.
This isn't about bragging, anyway. Things were different at that time, I had a load of good luck and today I'm just someone with a tiny port who doesn't do micro anymore. I don't "count", either. Shutterstock won't even notice my portfolio fading away. I simply thought such might be worth mentioning in our interest.

I do have an account on Twitter, but that isn't quite "my" platform. Honestly, I don't like it for a reason (or two *g) - rather a visual person here. I'm on Insta and Pinterest - and Facebook ..., if I need to.
I might use Twitter in this particular case, though.

Quote from: Justanotherphotographer on May 30, 2020, 09:57

Quote from: Anja_Kaiser on May 30, 2020, 06:12

Quote from: Jo Ann Snover on May 27, 2020, 17:04
I will disable my portfolio June 1st. I haven't uploaded much lately for other reasons, but I won't upload anything to SS.

In addition to tweets about the change, I thought I'd also try highlighting images that would be #GoneJune1 as part of #boycottShutterstock. I haven't put links to Adobe Stock in tweets yet, but might mix tweets about #Shutterstock slashing royalties with "go here instead" messages.

https://twitter.com/joannsnover/status/1265672584315547649

I think the messaging should be simple - to try and get the general point across. Especially on twitter, you don't want lengthy explanations of the details.

https://twitter.com/joannsnover/status/1265693477007851521

Jo Ann, as far as I know, this vector set of mine: https://www.shutterstock.com/image-vector/vector-set-calligraphic-design-elements-page-65754793 still is Shutterstock's most often sold image *ever*. (32,956 downloads so far on a single file.) And I'm going to disable it (and several others) on the first of June. Feel free to use this any way you want - both info and image!

I think this could get lost because of a typo making it all look like a quote and hiding Anja_Kaiser's response.

Just wanted to highlight it and say thanks to one of microstock's all time best selling artists!

Thanks for the heads-up! Just edited the original one.

Quote from: Jo Ann Snover on May 27, 2020, 17:04
I will disable my portfolio June 1st. I haven't uploaded much lately for other reasons, but I won't upload anything to SS.

In addition to tweets about the change, I thought I'd also try highlighting images that would be #GoneJune1 as part of #boycottShutterstock. I haven't put links to Adobe Stock in tweets yet, but might mix tweets about #Shutterstock slashing royalties with "go here instead" messages.

https://twitter.com/joannsnover/status/1265672584315547649

I think the messaging should be simple - to try and get the general point across. Especially on twitter, you don't want lengthy explanations of the details.

https://twitter.com/joannsnover/status/1265693477007851521

Jo Ann, as far as I know, this vector set of mine: https://www.shutterstock.com/image-vector/vector-set-calligraphic-design-elements-page-65754793 still is Shutterstock's most often sold image *ever*. (32,956 downloads so far on a single file.) And I'm going to disable it (and several others) on the first of June. Feel free to use this any way you want - both info and image!

I'm unable to search art.com for my own images, because they closed their service to outside of the US (I'm in Europe.), but a fellow colleague of ours just found out that they actually license our imagery to Walmart. In other words: Walmart provides the entire US with crappy posters and the copyright holders don't even know whether or not they get compensated at all. What a nice move from Shutterstock ...

Quote from: Jo Ann Snover on February 19, 2019, 16:05

Quote from: Zero Talent on February 18, 2019, 17:31
...I can also confirm that the percentage I was left with is only 12.5% (for each sale in the bunch, exactly the same 12.5%)

Assuming the amount originally credited to me was the buyer's cost, I have two different percentages and neither of them are round numbers. One is close to 12.5 percent (12.5018603958922%) - a $67.19 "royalty" that was fixed to $8.40

The other one was originally credited as $2.64 but "fixed" to a 38 cent subscription royalty. That was 14.3939393939394%

I thought that the 38 cent subscription royalty was a floor when a highly discounted package for a large buyer would have resulted in a small royalty at the 33% rate. I'd prefer 87.12 cents/credits, which is 33% of what the buyer paid.

I will note that both the above percentages are worse than the industry "leading" 15% iStock pays.

I appreciate that neither SS nor AS wants to disclose the details of the terms offered to their large corporate customers, but if we're not getting 33% on all sales through AS, with a 38 cent floor on subscriptions if the royalty would otherwise fall below that, then those details need to be spelled out for us.

It's not right that contributors don't know and can't find out what the royalty structure is when deciding whether or not to supply images to an agency.

Jo Ann, I think those 12,5% still apply in your case as they round up on whole cents. 12,5% of 67,19 make 8,398. And 12,5% of 2,64 would have been 0,33, so less than the minimum granted at your rank, that's why it's 0,38 now. Fact, though, is that we actually don't know whether or not the higher amounts shown in the overview are the buyers' cost. AS might as well have made a mistake while correcting mistakenly accounted amounts, *before* the deductions were made (by changing the information within the details, but not within the overview). On the other hand, in my case this would mean that the respective buyer originally was charged about 345,- (if those 115,- were 33% of what he was charged) instead of 43,-. I guess it would take me far less than a week to notice, if I were charged more than 300,- too much for a single image license.

Quote from: cathyslife on February 19, 2019, 01:12

Quote from: Microstockphoto on February 18, 2019, 22:01
love it how matt jumps on every thread with positive news, but when the crap hits the fan the replies become far and between., the 12.5% is worrying though, wonder how they are going to spin that.

Read post #52. I don't think Mat works in the accounting dept., either. Since he is a photographer himself, I am sure when he knows something, he will share it here. Don't shoot the messenger. Complain to Adobe support.

Delivering the "corporate" answer's simply his job. Not his fault for sure, but this doesn't help clarify things, either.

Quote from: Zero Talent on February 18, 2019, 16:06
Where do you see these adjustments?
In my case, I can still see those high sales (over $300, over $130, etc), both on AS and FT sites....

Go to "credits" on Fotolia, then search for the respective sale. The image ID left besides the high/original amount is click-able and gets you to the sale's details. There you should see what's left.

Quote from: Uncle Pete on February 15, 2019, 23:05

Quote from: fotorob on February 15, 2019, 13:19
Some people report that they got reply from Adobe Stock support who says the problem was active during February 6th-13th.

This means it was running eight days without anybody noticing?

True we probably got full credit instead of the percentage.

Doesn't seem to be that simple. In my case it was about one single sale only and I remembered the strange amount, therefore it was easy to find it again. It was labeled as a vector sub (not an extended) for 115,24. If I go to "show details" by clicking the file ID (within the sales overview on FT), those read "earned credits: 14,4" and they deducted exactly the difference of 100,84. This isn't the percentage of 33% we should get for a negotiated deal/license, though, but equals 12,5% instead.

Quote from: cthoman on October 22, 2018, 03:47

Quote from: Jo Ann Snover on October 22, 2018, 02:14

Quote from: Shelma1 on October 22, 2018, 01:47

I find it amazing that even after you've been approved and have been given questions to answer you still don't know how much you'll be paid. How is that even legal?

I think because there are virtually no laws in the US that regulate the Gig economy and all the corporate participants are fighting tooth and nail to avoid having to deal with anything that brings in rules that govern employer/employee relationships or permits class action lawsuits.

If you have a contract and don't get paid you can sue the person who didn't pay you. If the amount of money is small, unless you can get class action status, it isn't worth the costs of a lawsuit. Uber drivers have been struggling with this. When the FTC took Uber on, there was some (small) positive result

Perhaps SS is working on AI that will generate endless portfolios of pot photos and abstract vector backgrounds and then it won't need contributor support at all...

I do wonder about the evolution of crowd sourcing, micro jobs or whatever all this is. It's a wild west right now that not many in the government are really talking about or probably don't even understand. It will be interesting to see when the first real story hits that changes that and how far they go down the rabbit hole.

Wisely put. Not many in *any* government - worldwide -, unfortunately.

Quote from: Dumc on July 14, 2018, 05:54
If you upload photos, and then for whatever reason delete them before they are reviewed, they're still calculated into acceptance ratio even they were never reviewed.

One more thing I'll never understand, either.

Quote from: MatHayward on July 13, 2018, 18:33

Quote from: Anja_Kaiser on July 13, 2018, 15:17

Quote from: SpaceStockFootage on July 13, 2018, 09:46
I don't want to tar all illustrator artists with the same brush, so sorry for including the 'good guys' in this generalisation, but from a lot of the illustrations I see... you'll probably get a bunch of contributors make some white, tubby, featureless character holding a sign, and then they'll just render out a version face on, and then one rotated 1 degree to the left, 2 degrees to the left... and before you know it, they've uploaded 360 illustrations from a mornings work. Criteria met!

I know what you mean, but these aren't done by "Illustrator artists". Those are rendered. I was talking about vector illustrations. But anyway: There are *some* 3D artists spamming as well as vector illustrators as well as photographers. Doesn't make a difference. They could have easily set different criteria (e.g. solely the annual earnings), if they're afraid of that.
Plus, if they accept such, this is ... I was just tempted to say "not our problem", but actually it *is*. One of the biggest issues I, personally, have with this industry.

This is the reason there is a 50% approval ratio requirement in place to qualify. In my opinion this is a reasonable ratio  that should be met by most contributors. The exception would be image spammers with the intent to game the system.

-Mat

... and that's absolutely fine with me, Mat. (I'm at 90% or such, anyway.) But then I understand even less why Adobe doesn't "reward" us illustrators in an equal way. I actually *do* some image editing (both in PS and LR) as I'm a graphic designer, but I spend a lot more time working in Illustrator. So, there isn't too much of a benefit for me, although I easily qualify. :/