Looks like a 'standard' license use to me. It doesn't matter how big the image is printed and credits are only normally given if the image is used within an editorial context. Welcome to the wonderful world of microstock.

I'm not tying "success" or "is working" to a mere dollar amount.  There's more than that.

Exactly. Having to move to a less developed country for example, just to be profitable, is not a 'good thing' as far as I'm concerned.

Sorry for the lateness...

I find the overall image very bright.  Someone said you want to backlight a bit to get some shadows, and they're right.  It also helps reveal textures.  These days, I prefer more realistic settings, and this looks like "I put a plate of food on a placemat to take a photo of it".  Along those lines, why is the fork there?  You've got just the head in there, it doesn't have a bit or anything on it.  I'd prefer it to the side in a setting, or across the plate, or anywhere more than "This is as much as I could get in the shot".

The fish looks nice and crispy, although the sides come across as underdone.  I assume those are sweet potato fries?  But the back right comes across more as peaches or something wet.

Just some things to thing about.

The fork should have some purpose such as leading the eye to the focal point of the subject __ as opposed to simply being distracting. The lemon is distracting too because it is too bright. You generally need to turn lemon slices over or sideways so that they don't catch too much light.

Who's going to buy the image? How many places sell breaded fish with yams and salsa? Far too niche to be commercially successful. Fish generally sells better when it is cut or broken open to show the fleshy flakes inside __ it looks more appetising that way too.

The image is slightly over-exposed for my eyes as well.

They seem to be able to justify spending money on everything but their contributors. We have not seen a raise in over 8 years. Yet Shutterstock, a global digital company that could locate its offices in a number affordable locations in the states; chooses to locate their employees and offices in midtown Manhattan.  One of the most expensive vanity locations in the world.

Manhattan and Brooklyn Highest Cost of Living Nationwide
http://tinyurl.com/9ractoa

Snip
Manhattan and Brooklyn are the most expensive places to live in the United States, according to research from the nonprofit Council for Community and Economic Research.

The organization uses pricing data from across the country for almost 60 different items, based in six areas�housing, utilities, grocery items, transportation, health care, and miscellaneous goods and services�to measure the cost of living.

MANHATTAN RENTAL MARKET REPORT
http://www.mns.com/manhattan_rental_market_report

Snip
To begin 2014, average rents across Manhattan increased 2.07% since the previous month, climbing to $3,833. Pricing for each Non-Doorman unit type across the borough increased since the previous month:

Studios (+1.69%), One-Bedrooms (+0.94%), Two- Bedrooms (+1.22%).

Fifth among world�s priciest office markets
http://tinyurl.com/lf5ek7a
Manhattan�s Madison and Fifth avenues, with rents averaging $127 per square foot, is the world�s sixth-priciest office market, up from eighth place last year.

�The [Madison and Fifth avenues] submarket is home to many of the city�s trophy assets, which command higher asking rents, and is a desired location for occupiers like hedge funds and private-equity firms willing to pay triple-digit rents,�

Paying the Rent: The World�s 12 Most Expensive Office Locations
http://tinyurl.com/l44hyve

If you knew anything at all about business, especially high-tech business, you would know that by far the most important consideration of a business when locating/relocating ... is the availability of staff with the necessary skills.

I have no doubt that SS could have cheaper rent in rural Kentucky or wherever but where are you going to get the staff from?

You want to try living or working in London nowadays. Truth is that big businesses want to be there and there is a virtuous circle of self-interest in the availability of creative talent, the employment opportunities and the universities that attract and produce the talent ... from all over the world.

Did you watch Evan Davis' documentary called "Mind the Gap: London vs the Rest" this week? I guess not from the froth you are spouting;

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/culture/tvandradio/tv-and-radio-reviews/10674308/Mind-the-Gap-London-vs-the-Rest-episode-one-BBC-Two-review.html

If Istock listed I don't think I'd be buying any

Buying them? I'd be shorting them with everything I could lay my hands on. They're a slow-motion car crash in action. Or maybe the price would quickly reflect that?

This part of the discussion wasn't about sales.  I do have an interest in what Shutterstock is paying so I think it's ok to comment on that, if it's ok with you of course.  I feel like I've said this before to you but I have many friends and family that do contribute to Shutterstock so I know a bit about what's happening with sales for at least 5 people.

So, in summary, just to be clear;

a) You don't have any sales on SS yourself

b) You already know what exactly SS are paying because you are always quoting from their ToS

c) You already know "what's happening with sales for at least 5 people" from friends and family.

Pray tell what it is you hope to gain from your multiple posts about an agency that you don't contribute to?

Would you advise that my time would be best spent writing lots of posts on threads about all the agencies that I don't contribute to? It seems a curious strategy to me.

Quote from: luissantos84 on March 04, 2014, 02:00

Quote from: stockastic on March 03, 2014, 22:19

I'm thinking it's a plan to create some sort of cloud-based "image bank" that's an all-you-can eat buffet for big corporate customers.  They won't have to be bothered with irritating things like licensing individual images or managing subscriptions.

yeah its always for the worst things you can imagine, what a fertile imagination I must say!

I'm half trolling and half serious.  But really, what was the last time you heard something from an agency beginning with "today we are excited to announce" that turned out to mean more money - not less - for contributors, when their images are used?

on SS? The arrival of OOD's, then later SOD's and most recently the FB deal spring to mind. SOD's and OOD's make up about half my earnings on SS nowadays.

Quote from: jsfoto on March 04, 2014, 13:55

Watching pros at work is so exciting 

Ah yes. What was Yuri's favourite phrase again?

Got it ... "Professionals deal with professionals"

Maybe it should be "Internety monsters deal with internety monsters"

Quote from: Sean Locke Photography on March 04, 2014, 13:37

That would be an end run around paying contributors properly.

Isn't that what sub programs are?

No. In a conventional sub programme (such as SS or DT for example) the agency takes the risk that, if a subscriber were to download their full entitlement, then the agency would lose money. It would appear from the SS financial reports that the average subscriber only downloads about one third of their entitlement.

Wow ... I didn't expect to wake up to this news!

The way I interpret this latest move is that IS has essentially given up on their historical model. They have raised the white flag of surrender to SS. I've never understood how IS can have 'exclusive' images priced at 10x more (for a Medium file) than 'Main collection' amongst them. There's no difference in quality so where's the additional value to the buyer for that? It must be soooo irritating to customers on a budget. Hardly surprising that it's not working for them.

For independent contributors I don't think that this will make too much difference. Our income from IS has already been slashed by so much that there's little left to lose. I doubt that many existing SS sub customers will move to IS subs instead. Most likely TS customers will move to IS for their subs (and no doubt those customers will also be directly targeted by Getty/IS in their marketing). In that respect this is just moving the deckchairs around the sinking ship.

For exclusive contributors at IS this is probably the final nail in the coffin. It's difficult to see how incomes can be maintained with this sub model. As others have said, expect to see a rash of crowns being handed back over the summer.

Oh well ... another sh1tty day in paradise for us.

Sean is right

Of course Sean 'is right'. He's forgotten more about stock photography than you will ever learn. We don't need you to tell us when Sean 'is right'.

The search works if you ignore the drop-down suggestions and type the words fully. Not good though is it?

I still find it amazing that a medium file for an exclusive image costs more than 10x more than a non-exclusive image. I'm quite surprised that IS actually has any customers at all nowadays.

Quote from: Sean Locke Photography on February 24, 2014, 16:29

Why are they suddenly concerned about the impact of the clawback?  They never were before.  For instance, they took $150 from me in one blow back in 2012.  That, aside from all the refund payments that can jump into hundreds or thousands of dollars.

The only reason I can think of that they'd suddenly get misty-eyed about contributors is that they are vulnerable (in some way we don't know about) to charges that they're responsible for this eff-up. Offering something would then reduce the likelihood people might pursue this and significantly reduce the size of any "angry mob". They're trying to protect or immunize themselves, IMO.

And I agree that they should just forgive $50 of whatever's owed across the board rather than full boat for those over and freebie for those under $50 owed.

I suspect that the cost of administrating an extra 16,000 transactions would simply be too high and take too long. Mathematically the average should be about $25 (of those being overpaid between $1 - $50) so the 'write off' should be about $400K. That's probably about half of one day's sales for IS.