Quote from: Astrantia on August 01, 2020, 10:23

Quote from: Snow on August 01, 2020, 09:43
This was the top performer for practically every non exclusive contributor out there no?

For me SS never was the top agency - Adobe always performed better for me.
The reason might be I´m quite new, started only two years ago so I never had a high lifetime tier on SS (was only tier 2).

So from my perspective it might have even been fair and good that others would loose their lifetime tiers since I didn´t benefit from those myself.
But what really pissed me off was introducing the 10 cent sub sales in june. That´s a no go.

Adobe was quite low for me during the last weeks but it now seems to start again.
But I´m quite afraid other agencies will follow SS with ricicolous cheap sub sales soon.

From Shutterstock's perspective it is "fair and good" too keep more money for themselves.

nevermind

Quote from: ravens on July 21, 2020, 10:45
OP, drop SS altogether. Don't compete against yourself.

I already asked on this thread but got no response. Is IS (non exclusive) better than SS for you? I can't compare them myself since I don't currently have an IS account. I have seen a lot of people complain about low comissions on IS but lately everyone seems to only have a problem with SS.

I left  IS a few years ago so I can't tell exactly but from what I've heard they aren't doing better than ss. So why stop uploading to ss and continue with IS? is your RPD there actually better?

Sorry, I can't recommend any other agency. I have portfolios on a few other sites because they brought decent earnings in the past but I wouldn't bother uploading now. Sales have dropped a lot and it's not worth the effort.

I got 8.40$ for an enhanced download a few days ago.

I just checked the enhanced packs and the cheapest option is 67.96 per image. Isn't my comission supposed to be calculated based on the price per image? I'm in level 5 and 8.40 is even less than 15%. Am I missing something?

Did anyone else get this amount for enhanced downloads?

I just uploaded my first video file to ss. It is a 3D animation that contains some sound effects and it got rejected for the following reason: "Audio: Clip contains unnecessary audio or audio that is potentially copyrighted." I don't know which of the two possible issues is the actual reason for rejection.

Do they reject every 3D animation that has audio or should I just try to prove that the audio file I used was created by me?

Quote from: PhotoBomb on November 22, 2017, 18:02
They removed the size restriction but the 'Download' part is the issue. The fact that one can download a copy in full res is not allowed (see below). Somebody grabbing a screen image is also not permitted but is stealing and a different issue..

Someone downloading it is clearly not allowed (but also impossible to stop). I was asking if the buyer is allowed to upload it at full size.

Quote from: Shelma1 on November 22, 2017, 17:56
There are no restrictions that I'm aware of. They can use your image on a billboard if they like. The blogger is not purposely giving your image away or reselling it. If someone steals it from the blog, that's what they're doing...stealing.

So it's allowed unless the title is "free high-res image"?
I can still see a problem here

Microstock agencies used to have a maximum resolution allowed for digital uses of standard license images (800px long edge or something like that). Is this restriction gone? I couldn't find it in shutterstock's license terms.

I just found one of my photos uploaded at full resolution on a blog. I couldn't find anything in the license terms except for this: "not for resale, download, distribution, or any commercial use of any kind". The owner of that blog is clearly breaking this rule by allowing anyone to download my photo.

Can anyone explain exactly what the restrictions for this type of use (photos displayed on a website, blog, etc.) are?

My problem seems to be older. I just checked some photos uploaded in August and it's the same. I'd like to be notified about keywords being removed from my photos so I could use the free space to enter new ones.

Also, limiting the ability to properly keyword our photos is the worst anti spam measure they could think of.

Quote from: Artist on October 17, 2016, 13:06

Quote from: spc on October 17, 2016, 12:59

Quote from: Artist on October 17, 2016, 12:49
what you entered and what was published?

I entered single and multiple word keywords and only the single word were published.

edit: it looks like multiple word keywords are split so I have some keywords that are not relevant now.

I still cannot get your point. Can you share any example?
Did you mean like this: texture background became texture, background,?

Exactly

Quote from: Artist on October 17, 2016, 12:49
what you entered and what was published?

I entered single and multiple word keywords and only the single word were published.

edit: it looks like multiple word keywords are split so I have some keywords that are not relevant now.

I usually add multiple word keywords and it seemed to work some time ago but now when I check my new photos they have less keywords than I entered when I submitted them and only the simple, one word keywords are there. I don't get any message when I click the submit button like the one with redundant keywords, they just don't appear after the images are accepted.
Does this happen to everyone?

Quote from: StefC on October 05, 2016, 10:33
I don't really remember. But even if they didn't sell many EL, they will begin now, if word spreads out that you can buy one for 1 dollar instead of 100. Selling out our hard work...

Is this information from their website? Because I couldn't find anything about extended licenses in their new plan.

I was wondering if i should let ss know about this instead of sending infringement notices to the website because once they're removed I don't really have anything to email ss about

I'm not sure if this is the website you're talking about but I made a quick search on gfxttra and found 12 of my photos along with others I remember seeing on ss in different free packs and they appear to have been posted by different users. The whole "stock images" section of this website seems really fishy. I advise everyone to look for their photos there.

I wonder if ss would do something about this if we send them emails about our photos being shared free there. Do you think it's worth trying?

We can only expect things to get worse if they'll have full control over a huge collection of images. I just removed mine. It was an easy decision because I only had a small portfolio there.

I just started creating vectors and I chose Inkscape because it is free. I got used to it and I would like to keep using it but I don't know what features I should avoid if I want to keep my image a vector and ready to be uploaded on microstock agencies.

I would mostly like to know if I can use linear gradient, and I would appreciate it if anyone could tell me which effects rasterize the image. Is there a list of those effects?