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 - OM

Pages: 1 2 3 4 [5] 6 7 8 9 10 ... 33
101
SS took down many sites reported at this thread in June - July: https://forums.submit.shutterstock.com/topic/91181-stealing-ss-images-big-time
Maybe it would be a better place to report this one too at the same thread. I don't think they are reading this forum.

I don't think that they are reading this forum either, but the above thread on Shutterstock forum is old and long. They may not bother with it any more. Of course you can report it on that thread, and start a new thread, and email them... you don't have to limit reporting this stealing site in just one way! Many reports is better than one. HOWEVER it's probably not a good idea to put this in social media where people can find about this site.

I encourage everyone to go to this site and try one of your images. I inserted a SS link and the result was a flawless 1843X1229 photo without watermark, perfect to use in many projects and web. You don't need a larger image for web, blog or some small prints even. Imagine when knowledge of this site spreads online, (and it does on social share, on forums, etc).

It's safe to use this site, because no one will know anyway whether the end user has purchased a license or not.

This is our work at stake. I already emailed SS but that's not enough. Contributors, please report this site!

Indeed. Tried one of my images with NEW watermark....makes no difference...perfect watermark-free image. Not only that but the little SS red logo appears alongside that site in my history column!
I did have to turn off my AdBlock Plus before it would work and guess what popped up as ad on their site page.........Adobe Stock! It would almost be comical if it weren't so serious.
 

102
Shutterstock.com / Re: SSTK Q2 2017 poor results
« on: August 07, 2017, 11:47 »

Did he buy those or did he get those awarded? Not the same thing. He is paid $1 a year but has stock options and rewards for company performance.

Why does Warren Buffet keep running his company and investing? He's a billionaire? Just like the others on that list, they like what they do, it's not for more money, they have all that a small country could need to survive.

Being awarded stock options is not the same as being awarded stock.

The options allow you to buy shares at a predetermined price (which is usually well below the price on the open market).

You don't have to take up the options. But if you do, you have to spend money and so you buy the shares.

Sometimes people take up the options, buy the shares at a big discount, and then sell the shares for full price on the open market.

But the insider trades page on Nasdaq does not show that Mr Oringer has sold any shares yet.

You can also elect to cash out the options if they're in the money. Cash settlement (aka free money) instead of buying stock.

103
Shutterstock.com / Re: Are new images selling?
« on: August 01, 2017, 08:54 »
If something new sells, it sells for a couple of times and then usually disappears; never to sell again. That's not the reason I'm in microstock so I''ve stopped uploading as it seems pointless. I have sales of 2,000+ of a couple of images I uploaded in 2012 and around 30 images that sold 100+ all of which were uploaded years ago. I don't think I have anything uploaded in the past 2 years that managed above 25 sales so why bother.

Incentive to shoot is tied to outcome and with MS going into the toilet I'm really focusing elsewhere, video and POD.

Absolutely. I recently finished a well-paid 2-week commission but can't motivate myself to pick up the camera again for stock. Don't know which direction I'll go in future but there's certainly no incentive to upload to SS as things are going now. Probably let the ole port wither on the vine and try to find better opportunities somewhere else.

104
Shutterstock.com / Re: Are new images selling?
« on: August 01, 2017, 08:48 »
You know, it's funny but SS seems to be presenting a lot of 'Additional Resources' written by wannabe curators or film/video buffs. Many of those shots illustrating the article have that 'wow' factor (fabulous landscapes etc) but when I view the contributor's portfolio, the particular shot is nowhere to be found on the first 2 pages of popular which indicates to me that it may be a 'I wish I'd taken that' shot but it just doesn't put any money in the bank @38 cents for a sub.
I find Alamy's 'Additional Resources' much more helpful and relevant to the business of stock photography.

105
Shutterstock.com / Re: Are new images selling?
« on: August 01, 2017, 08:37 »
If something new sells, it sells for a couple of times and then usually disappears; never to sell again. That's not the reason I'm in microstock so I''ve stopped uploading as it seems pointless. I have sales of 2,000+ of a couple of images I uploaded in 2012 and around 30 images that sold 100+ all of which were uploaded years ago. I don't think I have anything uploaded in the past 2 years that managed above 25 sales so why bother.

106
Shutterstock.com / Re: HOW WAS JUNE?
« on: July 01, 2017, 05:23 »
Seriously poor. $$$ back to levels of 2013 when I had only been at SS 12 months and had 20% of the images I have now. Downloads 40% down on 2013 levels. Complete disaster averted by one medium large SOD mid-month.

107
Shutterstock.com / Re: Shutterstock + Flashstock
« on: June 29, 2017, 07:40 »
Clearly with a payment of $65 million for Flashstock, SS doesn't appear to apply the same criteria of valuation to the company as might be done in Shark Tank or Dragon's Den!

Let me see now....the site shows 24 examples of projects completed. From this site's members' information on payment, they hand over $50-$100 to the shooter. Lets just say that Flashstock has had 1,000X the completed commissions they are prepared to highlight on the 'cases' page (24,000).
At 24,000 jobs @$100 payment = $2.4 million payout (and I reckon these assumptions are wildly optimistic) they must be selling the commissioned photos for 10X what they pay for them to come anywhere close to that $65 million valuation (3 years @20 million profit/year).

Anyway, whatever.....yet another race to the bottom now in commissioned photography.

108
Noticed quite a lot of negatives about the CEO on 'glassdoor'.

109
General Stock Discussion / Re: How was your April?
« on: May 01, 2017, 15:39 »

The thing that worries me is that it is just a few somewhat random sales that account for making this a decent month. The total # of sales at sites like SS are down a lot.

Yep. That's the trouble with SS this last year. April marginally better than March but now the months of this year are around 25-50% down on previous years despite a portfolio increase of 50% in the last 2 years. Going to have to find a more remunerative reward for my genius!  ;D

110
General - Top Sites / Re: How is this possible ?
« on: April 17, 2017, 07:00 »
black is the new colorful

https://www.shutterstock.com/image-vector/colorful-abstract-background-572030401?src=03_bhvnrwEYlmQ9YihrgHg-1-14

haha

and then the similar images, all the same black gradient, unbelievable that this gets through without help on the inside, or it has to be a machine

which reviewer lets through a black image with the title colorful ?

Remarkable that all the similar images appear almost identical and from the same contributor. They only started serious uploading around the end of 2016 (image numbers from 52........ onward) and they already have 35K images in portfolio. As far as I can see, their technique is now find a 'celebration day' and add that to 100+ standard backgrounds that have different colours.

111
Shutterstock.com / Re: Someone reselling items
« on: April 13, 2017, 05:56 »
Judging by the video number, it was 'earning'/stealing for quite a few months before being taken down.

112
VAT in NL is simple. If you are required to charge VAT to a customer, you do that and complete the required VAT reporting every quarter or month. When you don't receive VAT payments from stock agencies because they're registered in USA or Canada etc, you can't report it because no VAT was involved in your payment. How the stock agencies work the VAT that they have to charge customers licensing images in the EU, I haven't a clue.....that's their problem.
Adobe appears to do all their 'transactions' in NL via Ireland. FT/Adobe payments come through Ireland as does my subscription to Photoshop CC. As I'm VAT registered here in NL, I don't have to pay VAT on my PS CC subscription after I've provided Adobe with my NL VAT registration number. (Falls under intra-community transactions, I believe).

113
Can't find number of followers ...  :-\
Believe that hasn't worked for a year or two

Dunno whether that worked or didn't work when last seen....now it's completely disappeared with the new layout. Sorry....found it. Go to 'Earnings' in the new dashboard and click on 'delayed earnings'. Hover mouse over earnings and you'll get current month earnings with dl's and followers. First I had zero followers, then it jumped to 6 and sometime last year it went to 7 where it remained since then.

114
I think the most recent thumb is blue bordered - the one with the location listed.


Correct.
I think that the idea of the new dashboard is to constantly remind us ungrateful peasants just how much we have earned in our lifetime with Shutterstock (hence the largest size font) and to distract us from the more recent earnings decline that many have complained about.  :-\

115
Shutterstock.com / Re: down the toilet
« on: February 01, 2017, 18:14 »
Seems to me that the real damage to sales is being done by the change in 'search'. When a potential buyer clicks on one of your images, they used to be offered similar images (based on keywords) from YOUR portfolio (same artist). Now the offering of alternatives is often not from your portfolio and is a pixel-based/color-pattern similarity search. If I were a buyer who had searched using keywords, I'd be seriously annoyed at SS offering these pixel-based alternatives because often they're totally irrelevant.

Another thing I've just noticed about the search is that in the past is that the keyword order changed as the image sold more frequently. Keywords appeared to be ordered on the basis of popularity as the image sold.....not any more. Keywords are now purely in alphabetical order as they appear under the image selected. Hardly surprising that sales of established portfolios have changed drastically (mostly for the worse according to contributors here).

You are correct. I've watched the keywords change on sold files and stay the same on unsold, from same upload. I watched the words go to alpha sort. I could guess that the search didn't change but the keywords did. And expect they will change again.

Currently upload order of keywords makes no difference on SS. Changing the order, doesn't matter. When they fix whatever broke, the sort will be back to agency priority and order.

Anybody who doubts this, go look at your keywords from the buyers site. Alpha sorted. Look at edit keywords on your file on SS, different order. Now look at the original file on your computer, not the same as the SS file that you can edit.

SS still arranges keywords on our pages, into a different order than upload, and buyers, different from submit our site.


Anyone else get this more then every before looking at SS site? "Secure Connection Failed"

You're right. Buyer's site in private browsing gives completely different (alpha sorted) order. In contributor mode it's alphabetical.

116
Shutterstock.com / Re: down the toilet
« on: January 31, 2017, 09:02 »
Seems to me that the real damage to sales is being done by the change in 'search'. When a potential buyer clicks on one of your images, they used to be offered similar images (based on keywords) from YOUR portfolio (same artist). Now the offering of alternatives is often not from your portfolio and is a pixel-based/color-pattern similarity search. If I were a buyer who had searched using keywords, I'd be seriously annoyed at SS offering these pixel-based alternatives because often they're totally irrelevant.

Another thing I've just noticed about the search is that in the past is that the keyword order changed as the image sold more frequently. Keywords appeared to be ordered on the basis of popularity as the image sold.....not any more. Keywords are now purely in alphabetical order as they appear under the image selected. Hardly surprising that sales of established portfolios have changed drastically (mostly for the worse according to contributors here).

117
Shutterstock.com / Re: down the toilet
« on: January 30, 2017, 04:05 »
Seems to me that the real damage to sales is being done by the change in 'search'. When a potential buyer clicks on one of your images, they used to be offered similar images (based on keywords) from YOUR portfolio (same artist). Now the offering of alternatives is often not from your portfolio and is a pixel-based/color-pattern similarity search. If I were a buyer who had searched using keywords, I'd be seriously annoyed at SS offering these pixel-based alternatives because often they're totally irrelevant.

118
Shutterstock.com / Re: December so far
« on: January 01, 2017, 05:52 »
Might be interesting to know!  This factory with a few photographers with over 100.000 files at Shutterstock. Spoke to one of them this morning. Yesterday they had 2 downloads and today at 12 noon still nothing. I cant even put in writing what they said about SS.

So people we are not alone far from it.

Makes me feel somewhat better with less than 700 files but I have never had 2 consecutive days of zero sales until now (30th and 31st Dec). Money OK for the month thanks to more than $100+ in SODs but down from Dec 2015 by 16% and downloads almost halved! Fails to inspire for 2017.

119
I noticed that Jon Orringer posted a FB message thanking SS contributors for their help in weeding out the title spammers.

120
I really want a explanation from the company why several month nothing happens and the contributors were ignored.
To be honest I rather think its a waste of your energy if they did give an explanation you may well not believe it.  I may be too fatalist but I think to survive in this environment its best to focus on what you can control.

I believe that to focus on things you can control is always a good action maxim, no matter what environment. (Under the premise you know what you can control and whether it is purposeful.)
And I assume that you wanted to tell me that you do not expect a statement and if only an unsatisfactory. My expectation is the same.

But: I really want a explanation from the company why several month nothing happens and the contributors were ignored.
For what its worth my explanation is contributors were ignored but once buyers started complaining, and possibly defecting to the likes of Adobe something had to be done........

I remember thinking as much a couple of weeks ago. Only when the buyers start voting with their feet will something be done. Looks like the buyers started shuffling out the door.

121
Shutterstock.com / Re: Shutterstock do nothing with spammers.
« on: October 16, 2016, 15:22 »
Shutterstock should send another email warning that those who don't amend their descriptions/keywords by a given date, will have their accounts suspended, and then actually follow it through.

Then it should lock the description field so that it can't be altered after upload.

This can't be a difficult fix, and yet the problem has persisted for months.

That is probably what SS will do, unfortunately. Thereby punishing the thousands of correct users of this facility (of which I too occasionally make use) because there's a few smarty-pants b*****s who abuse it. In the description field, it's sometimes difficult to avoid using a word more than once but restricting it to a maximum of two or three times should be sufficient.

122
In the good old days when you could see how many sales an image had on Fotolia, best sellers of the day often only had one or two sales in total (since approval). IMO completely fictitious or randomly generated file number.....sort of like the lottery.  ;D 

123
Shutterstock.com / Re: Shutterstock do nothing with spammers.
« on: October 16, 2016, 09:55 »
I thought this problem of spamming the description was confined mostly to vectors. However, I came across this photo of soup today in 'Best Match'. Only just approved judging by its number and already #1 in 'Best Match' already on page 1 (middle) of 'Most Popular'. Category 'soup' photo's has 290,000 shots.

http://image.shutterstock.com/display_pic_with_logo/706681/496729930/stock-photo-soup-in-clear-soup-mug-on-wooden-table-soup-soup-soup-soup-soup-soup-soup-soup-soup-soup-496729930.jpg

Description =soup in clear soup mug on wooden table [soup. soup. soup. soup. soup. soup. soup. soup. soup. soup. soup. soup. soup. soup. soup. soup. soup. soup. soup. soup. soup. soup. soup. soup. soup. soup]


124
Shutterstock.com / Re: Goodbye Shutterstock
« on: October 14, 2016, 06:08 »
Shutterstock has a problem with spammers, that's in the open, but I had no idea how big the problem was.

Check the "best match" result for "arrow icon": https://www.shutterstock.com/search?searchterm=arrow+icon&search_source=base_search_form&language=en&page=1&sort=relevance&image_type=all&safe=true

Check the metadata of all the results.

Nothing new sells because spammers make it impossible for your images to be seen. But they grow the library for shutterstock, and that's what's important for them. They can show that number to the shareholders. If you make more or less, they don't care. :)
I guess that blows the theory about needing super clever keywording strategies to get to the top. I'm surprised repeat keywords are allowed let alone seeming to add weight to the relevance

The keywords are all different (albeit very slightly) because the SS keyword filter automatically removes duplicates. Clearly, this is not the case for the description where 'arrow.' repeated 40 times is 'allowed'. And the description seems to have more weighting in the search algo than we have perhaps been led to believe.

125
Shutterstock.com / Re: Countdown to 100 Million on SS - is over
« on: September 12, 2016, 16:09 »
https://twitter.com/jonoringer/status/773921086237016065

Looks like Jon Oringer doesn't seem to think there is any problem over at the HQ

To busy buying guitars with the money he made off the chumps and chumpettes

someone sent me a msg opening my eyes. it said, so what is the crisis with J.O???
say 200 old contributors complain shortfall of 50% and more since the vanishing port issue.
but did you go see ss forum how many newbies are going wooo yay my first download.
if you lose 1000 dls and the other 199 lose 200,000 dls a month,
there are still 200,000 newbies getting 2 dls a week cheering for ss.

of course there is no crisis for big O !!!

...and even better for Big O, those 200,000 newbies may have to wait a year or so before they reach payout. Like having creditors' terms that give you a year to pay instead of 30 days!  ;)

Pages: 1 2 3 4 [5] 6 7 8 9 10 ... 33

Sponsors

Mega Bundle of 5,900+ Professional Lightroom Presets

Microstock Poll Results

Sponsors

3100 Posing Cards Bundle