Hi Mat,

If I upload on Adobe, what will the extended license price be set on Fotolia? I always set the price to 100. How can I make sure it is still set for this price?

Thank you!

Quote from: Shelma1 on December 24, 2016, 11:12
He's angry because I wrote the petition, so he scoured my 10,800 images until he found a couple where I had "Santa" or "Christmas" twice in the description, like when the image features a Christmas tree and Christmas gifts.

If he keeps looking hard enough he'll find that many people have words repeated twice here or there, especially in editorial images. I probably also have some that mention New York twice in the title because of editorial rules. Most likely we all have a few in our ports.

Every post he's made here has been about spammers...my guess is his account was suspended for it.

He is just bitter because he got caught, but the rest of us thank you for writing the petition.

Quote from: angelawaye on December 19, 2016, 03:24
Have your ever looked at AliExpress? Don't get me started! They even took one of my photos that wasn't for sale on microstock and are selling it. I can't find a link to send a notice either.

It really sucks for sure ... I don't know if agencies allow for this kind of distribution or not.

Their policy: http://rule.alibaba.com/rule/detail/2049.htm

But good luck filing a complaint...it is in Chinese I think: https://legal.alibaba.com/index.htm?spm=a271m.8038972.0.0.zJTdEr

Quote from: Karimala on December 18, 2016, 16:20

Quote from: YadaYadaYada on December 16, 2016, 15:01

Quote from: Microstockphoto on December 15, 2016, 20:51
as far as i know meta data is stripped from the file when you buy it, i have bought images without any meta data whatsoever

As far as I've seen you are correct. The agencies all strip out our personal data, before they put it on their catalog. The file loses anything to connect to the artist. Just another way to make it easier for misuse and thiefs.

Alamy list me as Contributor

I actually spoke with a copyright attorney about the issue of agencies stripping metadata from our images, and all he could tell me was there haven't been any cases about it in US courts, so for the time being it's perfectly legal.

I don't know much about copyright law, but there may be precedent now in Germany: http://www.digitaltrends.com/photography/facebook-photo-metadata-lawsuit/

"A photographer has won a lawsuit filed against Facebook in Germany. The suit claimed that Facebook's practice of removing EXIF metadata from photos uploaded to the service violated German copyright law. Now, Facebook may be forced to stop the practice or risk paying a fine to photographers in Germany, according to a report in PetaPixel."

And later...

"Wiedulwilt said the case could have an effect on Facebook's policies even outside of Germany. "This is good for photographers since it makes it easier for them to pursue copyright infringement. And since it is technically unlikely that Facebook will create a technical solution only for Germany, this might have global consequences," he told PetaPixel."

And more information here: http://petapixel.com/2016/11/22/german-photographer-sued-facebook-removing-exif-data-won/

"The ruling also sets a precedent, and since Facebook is not the only service online that removes EXIF data on upload, we could hope that Germany will act as the first domino that finally eliminates the widespread practice of stripping out identifying information."

I'm going to see what the average sub royalty ends up being, but I have a feeling it will be too low for me...

Quote from: ShadySue on December 14, 2016, 00:09
POI: Licence is the noun, license is the verb. So 'licence information" is correct.

Sorry for being OT.
Back to the important issue of this thread. Hope the OP gets it resolved soon.

Not in the US. I did not know it was different in the UK though. Thank you for clarifying.

Also if you click on "licence information" on the bottom the page of the original site posted it takes you to a page labeled "license information." They misspelled it. There are multiple grammar mistakes. It is as though the sites were thrown together or possibly made by someone who did not speak English and didn't bother to have this checked. It only helps the poster. If the site wasn't checking their grammar, how likely were they to check who owns the copyright of the uploaded images?

It also says on their license information: "All of the resources are uploaded by users and public sources on the internet. Please check licence information on each resource you download."

License is misspelled. Very professional.

I hope it gets sorted out for you.

Edit: It looks like it is associated with this site (based on the website design and misspelling "licence information" on the bottom of the site: http://buysellgraphic.com/

On that site they are selling graphics. It looks like all you have to do to sell on that site is connect to Facebook...

Free clipart and backgrounds (lots of photos too): https://www.clipartsgram.com/
Tons of stock images on the site. If you click on an image they have links so you can embed it in your website or blog.

And they claim what they are doing is fine because: https://www.clipartsgram.com/page/dmca

Very deceiving on the front page and most any other page.

They have ads on the pages with the individual images where you can download them...they are using the images for commercial purposes. How is that legal?

Quote from: MatHayward on December 07, 2016, 16:59

Quote from: BD on December 06, 2016, 21:44

Quote from: MatHayward on December 02, 2016, 19:38

Quote from: Chicago on December 02, 2016, 18:43
I'm sorry if this has been asked, but i'm a relatively new contributor overall, and i'd like to start getting my photos and video on adobe/fotolia but it's just not clear where to start.  Do i register and upload with fotolia, and then my work will get posted to adobe, or do i just start off fresh with adobe and bypass fotolia, if that's even possible.
thanks for the help.   

Hi @Chicago,

We are no longer accepting contributor accounts at Fotolia. To get started visit contributor.stock.adobe.com

You will need an Adobe ID. If you don't already have one you can create one for free. The first time you sign into the portal you will be asked if you have an existing Fotolia account. Select no and you should be all set with the new account. All of your approved content will be put online at Adobe Stock and in a mirrored Fotolia portfolio.

All of your sales from both sites will be reported and paid through your contributor portal.

Kind regards,

Mat Hayward

Is the Adobe ID the same as the Fotolia member ID? I am already on Fotolia, but want to try submitting through Adobe Stock to see if I prefer it. Thank you.

No, you will need a separate Adobe ID. For many, this is the same ID used for their Creative Cloud memberships. That way you can upload your content through Lightroom or Bridge. 

-Mat

Oh, now I understand. Thank you!

Quote from: MatHayward on December 02, 2016, 19:38

Quote from: Chicago on December 02, 2016, 18:43
I'm sorry if this has been asked, but i'm a relatively new contributor overall, and i'd like to start getting my photos and video on adobe/fotolia but it's just not clear where to start.  Do i register and upload with fotolia, and then my work will get posted to adobe, or do i just start off fresh with adobe and bypass fotolia, if that's even possible.
thanks for the help.   

Hi @Chicago,

We are no longer accepting contributor accounts at Fotolia. To get started visit contributor.stock.adobe.com

You will need an Adobe ID. If you don't already have one you can create one for free. The first time you sign into the portal you will be asked if you have an existing Fotolia account. Select no and you should be all set with the new account. All of your approved content will be put online at Adobe Stock and in a mirrored Fotolia portfolio.

All of your sales from both sites will be reported and paid through your contributor portal.

Kind regards,

Mat Hayward

Is the Adobe ID the same as the Fotolia member ID? I am already on Fotolia, but want to try submitting through Adobe Stock to see if I prefer it. Thank you.

Quote from: Microstock Coalition on December 02, 2016, 19:18
Article about the petition and royalty cut on the Freelancer's Union Facebook page:

https://www.facebook.com/freelancersunion/

And on their blog:

https://blog.freelancersunion.org/2016/12/02/getty-images-istock-petition/

The more people who "like" or comment on the Freelancer's Union Facebook post, the more people Facebook will show the post to. It's free advertising to creative professionals who license images. Hint hint.

I "liked" the Facebook post.

Quote from: Shelma1 on November 24, 2016, 01:24

Quote from: BD on November 24, 2016, 01:18

Quote from: Shelma1 on November 24, 2016, 00:44

Quote from: Luka on November 23, 2016, 21:49
I just saw the email from them. Subscription licenses will have a minimum price per file will be 0.10c. Waww, a lot of money. I think the beggar how lives on the corner of my street feels better, now he knows I will not take his place. I will earn enough money with Istock, so I will not need to take his job 

So they raised it from 2¢ to 10¢? Am I understanding that correctly? If so, sorry....10¢ still doesn't cut it.

And now the new rates don't go into effect until December 23. More time to sign the (revised, if the 10¢ minimum is new) petition.

No, if I'm reading it correctly we would get 15% of 10¢. 10¢ is the minimum a customer can pay (price per file or ppf). 15% of .1 is .015. They are rounding up to 2¢. How generous...

Oh yeah. Lol. "price," not "royalty." Doh! So it's just pushed back a month.

No worries! They also made it overly complicated. At least they pushed it back a month.

Quote from: Shelma1 on November 24, 2016, 00:44

Quote from: Luka on November 23, 2016, 21:49
I just saw the email from them. Subscription licenses will have a minimum price per file will be 0.10c. Waww, a lot of money. I think the beggar how lives on the corner of my street feels better, now he knows I will not take his place. I will earn enough money with Istock, so I will not need to take his job 

So they raised it from 2¢ to 10¢? Am I understanding that correctly? If so, sorry....10¢ still doesn't cut it.

And now the new rates don't go into effect until December 23. More time to sign the (revised, if the 10¢ minimum is new) petition.

No, if I'm reading it correctly we would get 15% of 10¢. 10¢ is the minimum a customer can pay (price per file or ppf). 15% of .1 is .015. They are rounding up to 2¢. How generous...

Quote from: Shelma1 on November 23, 2016, 19:16
Surprised to see Oringer responding to ppl on Facebook. Don't know why "200" people (it's almost 1,300) signing a petition would slow them down, though.

Anyway, I believe they're really addressing the issue now.

Maybe responding to buyers who found it (look at the top comment on the petition) slowed them down. It seems the petition/people commenting on facebook made a difference in communication and perhaps speed for solving this problem. Maybe when they implement the "long-term plan" algorithm the petition should be deemed a "victory" on change.org?

Signed! And passed it along to family members who will be affected so they can sign.

I don't have anything in my portfolio or hard drive that would be helpful. Another idea if someone had the individual images would be a picture of a photographer working in a photography studio (or something that would show the money and time artists put into images) and then the "does not equal sign" (≠) and than a picture of 2 cents. (These pictures all merged together into one).

Quote from: Shelma1 on November 02, 2016, 23:37

Quote from: Teddy the Cat on November 02, 2016, 23:18
Just as long as they don't lock down on keyword and title editing like those dear people in iStock 

I wonder why everyone is "reaching out" these days instead of contacting, writing, calling, talking or just plain old speaking 

He mentioned locking down editing but he felt that would be punishing the good contributors, and they like giving us the ability to do that; it's something they feel is unique about SS. But one option might be doing that temporarily until the spam issue is solved. I said it was important to solicit feedback about something like that because a lot of people would be upset. Honestly, I think tweaking the algorithm is the way to go. Just don't let redundant keywords affect search results and you level the playing field instantly. Then there's no incentive to spam.

Thank you so much Shelma1 for putting this petition together. I also hope they tweak the algorithm rather than locking down editing (even temporarily). I would feel punished as he mentioned. Plus, I currently am going through all my old images and updating keywords and titles (from when I started and did not know as much as I do now). I would not be able to do that, and I've gotten sales on some of those images from the updated keywording I've done, with some of the keywords I've updated recording in the image gallery stats.

Again though, THANK YOU!!! 

Quote from: Shelma1 on November 01, 2016, 18:49

Quote from: Stern on November 01, 2016, 17:41
Hello everybody!

Stocker from Russia are very unhappy IStock policy.

Many agree to sign the petition. If you give a link to the public the text of the petition, that a lot of participants to sign.

However, many doubt the success of the struggle for their rights against a huge corporation.

Outputs are two: either sell it for 2 cents, or delete a portfolio and go to other sellers.

I and others have a call scheduled with the attorney who founded Freelancer's Union. The person I chatted with yesterday suggested a lot of good ideas that they've found to be effective in other fights. I'm also not sure Getty will implement any changes (though other large corporations have), but again, I think it's important to get the message out there.

Honestly, if we don't make noise about 2 cent royalties now I think we might all be kissing microstock goodbye, unless we live in countries with very low costs of living. This could be Getty's attempt to kill iStock, and maybe all microstock, if it becomes unsustainable for most of us. I'm sure there are a few people here who'd be happy with that, but I'd be sad. I'd have to work in advertising again.

Let us know how it goes and what we can do. Of course don't give away any information that helps Getty 

Quote from: BD on October 26, 2016, 07:42
I think the yearly subscription for 750 images would leave a non-exclusive around a few cents though. One year for $166.58 a month for 750 images.

Just wanted to make sure people were looking at the yearly subscriptions, not just the monthly. I think this is where the minimum of only a few cents is coming from.

Deleted. Misread something. I think the yearly subscription for 750 images would leave a non-exclusive around a few cents though. One year for $166.58 a month for 750 images.

I'm not on Facebook either, but I can write an email to them.

It looks like people are starting to do it on Bigstock now too. It makes Shutterstock and Bigstock look unprofessional compared to the other sites. Is it difficult to change how the search functions so that duplicate words do not have an effect on search placement?

Quote from: Shelma1 on October 05, 2016, 20:25
I fear the only solution is for SS to disallow editing after approval...which would be a shame, because I sometimes realize later that a different keyword or two can make a big difference in sales. The spammy images do tend to drop down in the search results, but it takes time. Meanwhile the buyers must be wondering what's so great about these images to make them that popular. And the better stuff hardly gets to see the light of day because of the flood of spam, which is very discouraging.

The other solution would be for them to change the code so that if there is more than one of the same word in the title or keywords it doesn't effect search placement. I don't know much about coding, but they have said repeatedly they are really good at it. If it doesn't affect search placement people will stop doing it. After doing this they could actually start removing ports or give warnings (some sort of action until the titles are fixed). I'm not a big fan of them following in IS shoes by being too picky about things because that has worked out poorly for their search, but I really think if they made examples of a few of the big offenders word would get around and it would strongly discourage/stop it. I don't like the idea of not being able to change keywords/titles for the same reason as you. I usually miss ones I later find are really important. I think changing how the search functions is the best option. In fact, they could change the search so that if there is more than one of the same word in the title the image is actually punished in the search (and let us know they are doing this). That would certainly put an end to it. Again, I don't know much about it so maybe it is just too difficult to change?

Edit: Or they could make it impossible for you to put in a keyword more than once in the title. They already do this for the keywords so it seems they should be able to do it for the titles. This would actually probably be the best solution.

Sorry for all the posts. I must have been hitting "reply" instead of "modify" when I added to what I had already posted.

Quote from: BD on October 04, 2016, 06:16

Quote from: BD on October 04, 2016, 06:05

Quote from: Lana on October 03, 2016, 13:39
Hi all,

I would like to know if anyone of you ever reported the ports with spammy titles and if so, has anything been done about it by SS? Does Shutterstock react to these reports?

One of my images used to be #1 under the keyword "Honduras" (don't laugh at me) for almost a year, a few other images of mine were in the first lines and sold a lot, then lately I noticed more and more illustrations coming to the top of the search with spam in the titles, like this portfolio, for instance: https://www.shutterstock.com/g/Aquir

I'm not looking who to blame for lower sales I'm just thinking whether it makes sense to report the spammers? And do you think they really make their way up the search because of the spammy titles?

Thanks

All you have to do is look at "best match" to see it helps the spammers. Check out "Halloween" and "Christmas." The best match looks different on SS vs other sites because of this (in a really bad way for Shutterstock). "Halloween" is the best example of this. I think SS will see more and more spammers messing with their search unless they do something (right now the spammers are being rewarded with good search placement). Some of the spammers have also started to put the spammy words below one or two normal sentences so if you are in the main search you won't see the spammy words (you have to actually click on the photo and go to that photo's page).

This means that 1/3 of the search is useless for you while the spammers guarantee they are at the top of that search. Of course this affects your sales (in a negative way) as well as theirs (in a positive way).

Edit: BTW the titles on IS are not searchable and do not affect search placement, but they are searchable and affect search placement on SS.