pancakes

MicrostockGroup Sponsors


Show Posts

This section allows you to view all posts made by this member. Note that you can only see posts made in areas you currently have access to.


Messages - H2O

Pages: 1 2 3 [4] 5 6 7 8 9 ... 11
76
I believe the EU is looking at what is termed 'Big Tech', at the moment, across the board with these companies the playing field is not level, from tax, contracts and competition, I would bet that the writing is on the wall and the Wild West is over.

Within the next five years a lot of these companies are going to have to abide by new laws, which will be fairer for the citizens and the workers.

Make no mistake the Microstock business will be part of this.

77
If you think a contract is outragous don't sign it. No one is compelled to sign up to an agency no agency requires you to submit a minimum number of pictures or direct you on what to produce and mostly they don't restrict your ability to sell elsewhere.

It's all very well saying this, in reality the Agencies are always changing the Contracts, so you start off with a reasonable contract and then over the years after you have put a great deal of time and effort into the portfolios they change the terms you originally signed up for.

This is not being compelled to sign, this is being forced to sign.

78
I hired Shutterstock and Adobe to sell my content and I give them a percentage of every sale. So they work for me.

I know you were joking but to reply for others who maybe think different:

agencies choose price
agencies choose commission
agencies choose discounts
agencies choose even free promotions
agencies choose partners (and their commission)
agencies choose content (rejecting or accepting)

we can only choose to be with them or not (as all others, Uber drivers, workers etc.)

all of this was "under the radar" and will not go for a long time, that's why agency opening their own studios to do their own content because they know it can't continue to go like. Or they will go full AI generated content. (EU directive will soon became law)

as I said, times are changing as we all can see, and I expect in some future there will be no more single image on internet without copyright name, as well as not knowing where your image is bought and in what contest used will be past.

will this all go for better or worst to us, I don't know.

I think you are absolutely right, America where most of the agencies are based are behind the curve on legislation; copyright and usage control are coming, this will be by mutually agreed contracts, some may laugh at this, in reality the UK Uber ruling was about 'artificial contracts'.

The ruling made it quite clear these are unenforceable.

The EU are already looking at this across loads of internet companies, when it comes down to exploitation, which again is basically what these contracts are, they will legislate to change this.

Shutterstocks business model has at the maximum ten years, maybe less, they may even end up being fined.

As for 'better or worst to us', it can only be better.


79

No comparison, and unfortunately no sign of legal relief from the outrageous contracts stock agencies use.

Thanks for all the replies I generally agree with all of them, in that I can't see Microstock agencies taking any notice, especially as most of them are based in America.

But I do think there is a pointer in this to how the market will play out in the future, the 'outrageous contracts' are really the crux of the matter for all Contributors, it was only a couple of years ago that Envato changed there Site so that you can set the price.

It would only take Adobe to make this move to flatten Shutterstock.

80
"Will this affect the Stock industry?"

No.

That's what Uber said.

Here is more of the ruling coving contracts which may also have implications:-

The supreme court said any attempt by organisations to draft artificial contracts intended to side-step basic protections were void and unenforceable.

Judges criticised the controversial contracts Uber asked their drivers to sign, saying they can be seen to have as their object precluding a driver from claiming rights conferred on workers by the applicable legislation.

81
Uber drivers are workers, UK supreme court rules

Will this affect the Stock industry?

Part of the ruling was drivers were considered to be employees because they didn't set the fairs.

This is exactly the same as in Microstock, except for a few I can think of, Pond 5, Envato and Creative Markets.

Maybe this ruling will have a impact on Shutterstock.

 

82
123RF / Re: Is this the oldest refund ever
« on: February 16, 2021, 15:19 »
It could also be a correction.

Thank you for that, but I am not sure that can be the case as it says:-
Remark
Subscription N/A -$0.324 -$0.00 -$0.324 Downloaded: 2017-09-18

I mean 2017 over 3 years ago.

83
Having read through the Shutterstock Forum that dreadful person Kate has responded as if everything is OK, ie OK to shaft the contributors.

If she had anything about her she would have left the company, no normal person would work for someone who is ripping people off.

Personally it is obvious that this is a war between Adobe and Shutterstock, my money is on Adobe.

84
123RF / Re: Is this the oldest refund ever
« on: February 16, 2021, 12:20 »
Maybe it was from same customer? Anyway, I checked, and I also gad 1 refund, not the same date though Downloaded: 2020-03-15

This could very well be a precursor to the site going into liquidation, if they are having to defraud contributors with these refunds from years ago.

85
123RF / Re: Is this the oldest refund ever
« on: February 16, 2021, 05:41 »
same to me, same date.

they are very close to be rejected for me as agency I submit my files.

Personally I have thought in the past that these 'refunds' are not refunds at all, but a way of taking revenue 'Fraud' from us the contributors.

If you have the same date, this can be no coincidence, and must be fraud.

If I don't get a satisfactory reply I will stop uploading to them.

86
123RF / Is this the oldest refund ever
« on: February 16, 2021, 04:16 »
I have a refund for 32 cents which is dated 2017-09-18.

Simply unbelievable.

I have written to them to ask for this to be reversed.

Who the heck ask for a refund of 32 cents from over THREE YEARS AGO?


87
Shutterstock.com / Re: SS sales January
« on: February 05, 2021, 11:29 »
The gravy-train is over and the ship is long gone!

The train crashed and the ship sank.   :)


All this is true, and it was Oringer and Pavlovsky who crashed the train and ran off with all the cash, shutterstock is like a the old Wild West.

It's a sick up.

88
Shutterstock.com / Re: SS sales January
« on: February 04, 2021, 09:04 »
The reality is ShutterStock is run as a facist organisation, it doesnt remotely come anywhere near capitalism.

Those who continue to upload are just being exploited by a bunch of Nazis.
Shutterstock is a  product of unfettered free market capitalism. It has nothing whatever to do with Fascism as far as I can see. To draw parallels with concentration camps is a bit ridiculous really.


I am drawing a parallel with how Jon Oringer and Stan Pavlovsky think, there thinking is straight out of the Facist playbook.
For example?




I am not saying that Oringer and Pavlovsky are doing this because they are Jewish, (who cares what they are) I am simply saying they are Fascist, sure they run Shutterstock like many large companies (who are also run by Fascists).

The whole fee structure is 'Work will set you Free', which is a Facist motto.
The fee structure is based on the capitalist system of supply and demand. Nothing to do with fascism. You don't work for Shutterstock and no one is forcing you to contribute. One of the primary definitions of Fascism is nationalism which they are the complete opposite of. They are simply exploitative bosses.


I don't believe the fee structure is supply and demand, it is based on those who control the fees ripping off the suppliers, by hiding behind a fee structure that they won't divulge.


The definition of Fascism is;- a form of far-right, authoritarian ultranationalism characterized by dictatorial power, forcible suppression of opposition and strong regimentation of society and of the economy.

This can be directly applied to Shutterstock as a business, the only trait that is missing is 'ultranationalism' otherwise all the characteristics are the same.

They are Business Fascists, it is a way of thinking. 


89
Shutterstock.com / Re: SS sales January
« on: February 04, 2021, 06:49 »
The reality is ShutterStock is run as a facist organisation, it doesnt remotely come anywhere near capitalism.

Those who continue to upload are just being exploited by a bunch of Nazis.
Shutterstock is a  product of unfettered free market capitalism. It has nothing whatever to do with Fascism as far as I can see. To draw parallels with concentration camps is a bit ridiculous really.


I am drawing a parallel with how Jon Oringer and Stan Pavlovsky think, there thinking is straight out of the Facist playbook.
For example?




I am not saying that Oringer and Pavlovsky are doing this because they are Jewish, (who cares what they are) I am simply saying they are Fascist, sure they run Shutterstock like many large companies (who are also run by Fascists).

The whole fee structure is 'Work will set you Free', which is a Facist motto.


90
123RF / Re: What is happening to 123rf site?
« on: February 03, 2021, 07:43 »
Sales are down dramatically on last year, some days no sales at all, which I have never had in over 10 years.

The site is going down, I expect them to go bust.

91
Shutterstock.com / Re: SS sales January
« on: February 03, 2021, 06:00 »
The reality is ShutterStock is run as a facist organisation, it doesnt remotely come anywhere near capitalism.

Those who continue to upload are just being exploited by a bunch of Nazis.
Shutterstock is a  product of unfettered free market capitalism. It has nothing whatever to do with Fascism as far as I can see. To draw parallels with concentration camps is a bit ridiculous really.


I am drawing a parallel with how Jon Oringer and Stan Pavlovsky think, there thinking is straight out of the Facist playbook.


92
Shutterstock.com / Re: SS sales January
« on: February 01, 2021, 17:20 »
The reality is ShutterStock is run as a facist organisation

If you're gonna cite the beast, at least call it by its correct name: SHITTERSTOCK

YOU ARE RIGHT, apologies for that.

The reason I wrote they are a bunch of Nazis, is over the concentration camps they had a sign saying;- Work will set you free.

93
Shutterstock.com / Re: SS sales January
« on: February 01, 2021, 17:05 »
The reality is ShutterStock is run as a facist organisation, it doesnt remotely come anywhere near capitalism.

Those who continue to upload are just being exploited by a bunch of Nazis.

94
General - Stock Video / Re: How bad is it for the rest of you?
« on: January 25, 2021, 12:34 »
As the year goes on we are going to see less downloads across the board, simply because the creative industries are using less, there is no demand for promotions and advertising.

Shutterstock have dug themselves a hole, dropping the commission rates to the contributors, this will over time finish them off.

Contributors have stopped recommending them, along with no fresh quality content, just means that the serious buyers will move.

It will take a couple of years, I expect to see them 5 or 6 down on the Middle Tier.


95
Stan Pavlovsky is a pysocpath.

That's it really, reading the letter there is no empathy, if you are creative then this is a key attribute.

96
Shutterstock.com / Re: SS levelling up
« on: January 17, 2021, 13:44 »
...anyhow when there is a contract between supplier and distributor that contract the contract is an Agency-contract and is exactly the same as if they was your Agent.

Sorry, but that's just not true. While there may be some similarities, these stock sites are not our agents... and while you can draw comparisons or make similarities or make assumptions about what BAPLA would or wouldn't view it as all you like... it says quite clearly in the legal agreement that they're not our agents.

It certainly does say it and it also says many other things, but just because it says it doesn't mean to say that the contract is written right, it also says:-  We are independent contractors - A contractor by definition, is someone asked to do something by someone else. You are contracted to undertake work, you cannot sign up to be 'contracted', as this implies, it simply doesn't make sense; SS don't specifically ask people to undertake work.

The reality is SS is run like the Mafia, I wonder if Trump has any shares in it.

97
Shutterstock.com / Re: SS levelling up
« on: January 17, 2021, 08:38 »
So you understand that they're not your agent, as stated in the Shutterstock legal terms, but you're also stating that they are in fact your agent? 25 years or not... it would appear you're slightly confused.


In a contract or not, it is implied that they are an Agent, plus their business model is that of an Agent.

'#18 The relationship of the parties is that of independent contractors' - A contractor by definition, is someone asked to do something by someone else. You are contracted to undertake work, you cannot sign up to be 'contracted', as this implies, it simply doesn't make sense; SS don't specifically ask people to undertake work.

This is a ambiguous part of their so called 'contract'. I guess it shows that those as SS are not so clever and basically all the artists who have signed up, are just that artists.

The reality is like so many business, the people at the top are crooks, this is really what it comes down to.



98
Shutterstock.com / Re: SS levelling up
« on: January 16, 2021, 16:50 »
They are in fact our appointed agent! they use our assets in order to make money!  when SS declares they have 200 million assets ( images), they don't really since these 200 million assets are our assets our pictures.
Had SS been an old style stock-agency our pics would have been in the form of trannies something you could physically touch and therefore a signed agency-contract and everything. Its not though its all digital and can be wiped out in seconds!..SS is playing on this one all the way and treat us like complete noobs!

Absolutely spot on comment.

99
Shutterstock.com / Re: SS levelling up
« on: January 16, 2021, 12:37 »
I realised a few years back, that as soon as they bought outside shareholders on board, the writing was on the wall

You realise a few years after they bought outside shareholders on board, that as soon as they bought outside shareholders on board, the writing was on the wall?

Told you so: "The writing is on the wall"

A bizarre and somewhat disturbing passage happens mid-way through the book of Daniel. During a party, thrown by the grandson of King Nebuchadnezzar, a large hand appears and inscribes four words on the wall.

These four words written on the wall declare the end of the Babylonian Empire and the oncoming invasion from the Medo-Persians that very night.


Another detail for those who want to start up with blaming the shareholders, the boards and the fact that SS is a corporation. Which means in all cases a business, designed to make money for owners and investors.

All states require that corporations form a board of directors elected by shareholders, hold at least one annual meeting, and maintain meeting minutes that document topics discussed and actions taken.

I'm not sure how public these minutes are? I don't care. But someone could do more than make claims, or vague generalized attacks, and go see what actually happens at these meetings. I've been on boards, they are terribly boring and mostly about legal matters, budgets, or business functions, I've never heard a word about how to screw employees. Just costs, rent, expenses, income and how the investments of the company and the future are progressing.



You make the mistake that this is a vague generalized attack, it isn't, it is specific to the Microstock business in that shareholders are a cancer that eat away at our business in the name of capitalism using shareholder dividends, taking away our cash created by our hard work over many years, if it was capitalism, it would be about creating money, innovation and moving forward, what SS have done is legalised theft.

You may never have heard a word about screwing employees . . . when you have been on boards, but somethings don't need to be said, you sound more like an accountant than a creative, did you ever discuss giving your employees pay rises?

As for your assertion that shareholders are to blame, I never said this, I said "I realised a few years back, that as soon as they bought outside shareholders on board, the writing was on the wall;

The problem you have is a rigid mindset in thinking that the microstock contributor is a employee, they are not, they are 'contributors' and the stock agencies are the agents selling our work.

It is exactly the same relationship as an actor has, they represent us and our creative work, I don't see Tom Cruise's Agent bringing in outside shareholders to take three quarters or more of his earnings.

SS is a business for it's contributors, not for any old bod who happens to come along after the business has been built and start to take money off the people who have helped build the business.

These underhand tactics by SS and other Microstock agencies give Capitalism a bad name.

Correct we are not employees. They aren't our agents either. Yes, I'd like to get paid a fair return for my work. Correct, I don't think a CEO is worth $4.7 million either. Unless they can make the company $20 million more under their leadership of course.

You'll have to read the board meeting minutes if you are going to say they have targeted us because of shareholder demands or officers designing changes to take away income from artists as individuals. I haven't so I make no claim except from past experience. You need to look for facts and come back with some proof or evidence to support your allegations, not just, generalized attacks.

I think all of us are ahead of the 4th quarter report that might show us how they are doing. I don't own SSTK and I don't have insider knowledge. I'm waiting to see what comes out.

If you were the company owner, how long would you keep paying people over 300% of what you earned on many large package downloads? Or on others, more than you make. What kind of business sense does it take to understand you can't operate at a loss, and make a profit?


In my opinion they are our Agents, just because you assert they arent doesnt make it so, where is your evidence to prove otherwise? a employee has, certain rights like overtime, holiday, sick pay etc. .

As for reading board minutes, this maybe because you are an accountant, creatives dont read minutes.

If I was a company owner I would never have go into the position of paying more than something costs, and I never did when I was running a business, if SS have been doing this then more fool them, but they still seem to have been making money overall, which of course is what it is about, maybe they consider these packages to be lose leaders.

If they are making a loss, then why bring in shareholders, this would only compound the loss?

Your reasoning doesnt make sense.




100
Shutterstock.com / Re: SS levelling up
« on: January 16, 2021, 10:34 »
I realised a few years back, that as soon as they bought outside shareholders on board, the writing was on the wall

You realise a few years after they bought outside shareholders on board, that as soon as they bought outside shareholders on board, the writing was on the wall?

Told you so: "The writing is on the wall"

A bizarre and somewhat disturbing passage happens mid-way through the book of Daniel. During a party, thrown by the grandson of King Nebuchadnezzar, a large hand appears and inscribes four words on the wall.

These four words written on the wall declare the end of the Babylonian Empire and the oncoming invasion from the Medo-Persians that very night.


Another detail for those who want to start up with blaming the shareholders, the boards and the fact that SS is a corporation. Which means in all cases a business, designed to make money for owners and investors.

All states require that corporations form a board of directors elected by shareholders, hold at least one annual meeting, and maintain meeting minutes that document topics discussed and actions taken.

I'm not sure how public these minutes are? I don't care. But someone could do more than make claims, or vague generalized attacks, and go see what actually happens at these meetings. I've been on boards, they are terribly boring and mostly about legal matters, budgets, or business functions, I've never heard a word about how to screw employees. Just costs, rent, expenses, income and how the investments of the company and the future are progressing.



You make the mistake that this is a vague generalized attack, it isn't, it is specific to the Microstock business in that shareholders are a cancer that eat away at our business in the name of capitalism using shareholder dividends, taking away our cash created by our hard work over many years, if it was capitalism, it would be about creating money, innovation and moving forward, what SS have done is legalised theft.

You may never have heard a word about screwing employees . . . when you have been on boards, but somethings don't need to be said, you sound more like an accountant than a creative, did you ever discuss giving your employees pay rises?

As for your assertion that shareholders are to blame, I never said this, I said "I realised a few years back, that as soon as they bought outside shareholders on board, the writing was on the wall;

The problem you have is a rigid mindset in thinking that the microstock contributor is a employee, they are not, they are 'contributors' and the stock agencies are the agents selling our work.

It is exactly the same relationship as an actor has, they represent us and our creative work, I don't see Tom Cruise's Agent bringing in outside shareholders to take three quarters or more of his earnings.

SS is a business for it's contributors, not for any old bod who happens to come along after the business has been built and start to take money off the people who have helped build the business.

These underhand tactics by SS and other Microstock agencies give Capitalism a bad name.


Pages: 1 2 3 [4] 5 6 7 8 9 ... 11

Sponsors

Mega Bundle of 5,900+ Professional Lightroom Presets

Microstock Poll Results

Sponsors