|
MicrostockGroup Sponsors
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 - Shelma1
Pages: 1 2 3 4 [5] 6 7 8 9 10 ... 116
101
« on: July 01, 2020, 09:45 »
Read the terms and conditions. SS can license your work for 90 days after you've disabled it (what they consider "a reasonable period") to people who've downloaded your work under the free "comp" (comprehensive) license.
What I find appalling is that at first they were emailing people and asking their permission to re-enable their ports because a buyer requested an image, but now they're just selling the work without bothering to ask. Of course, because we accepted their one-sided terms they have that right, but along with Oringer's tweets to take your work and leave, it just goes to show their true feelings about all the hands that feed them.
102
« on: June 28, 2020, 16:54 »
I listed one thing but got no sales, and at the time it was easier to just sell on Shutterstock. However, theres a Facebook group dedicated to selling digital files on Etsy. https://www.facebook.com/groups/562343867519170/
103
« on: June 26, 2020, 14:10 »
I have no idea about the future earnings. I want to find out if there is anybody in this forum who is better off this month.
The difference of this month is, that the earnings per image vary from 10 cents and 20 Dollar, strange figures, 2.96, 0.80, 3.58, 4.63 and so on. Before I mainly had 0.38 and 2.85. This is a completely new development. If it is for the better in the future, I dont know.
Its simple. Figure out your previous RPD (average earnings per download). Then figure out your RPD for June. I find it hard to believe that you, who only pop here every so often to troll and put people down, suddenly have better earnings when the rest of us have the opposite. Illustrators led the way in disabling their Shutterstock portfolios, which shows the dissatisfaction with this money grab. Your anonymous, impossible to substantiate claim of higher earnings, even if somehow true, would be an anomaly and basically irrelevant.
104
« on: June 26, 2020, 07:25 »
I'm unemployed and deactivated my portfolio. It hurts, but it has to be done.
105
« on: June 26, 2020, 06:21 »
While I appreciate the idea, I see three immediate issues: 1. Too time-consuming for buyers. 2. Way too time-consuming for sellers...imagine having to check the website constantly to see requests, then having to gather appropriate images, then having to send them off, only time after time to have someone elses image chosen. 3. Attracting buyers. This is the main problem for any site and the reason so many fail. It costs a lot of money to compete with huge stock sites.
106
« on: June 26, 2020, 06:12 »
I am not judging anyone and I wish others weren't so fast to judge. The anger that is turning towards Shutterstock contributors instead of SS itself is sad to see. First everyone was attacking SS, now they are all attacking each other.
No one know their personal situation. For many people Stock is their main income and for many others it's a side income, that they depend on, because the main income doesn't earn enough to live from, which can happen faster than you think in Corona times.
Even if they earn patehtic amounts for single videos or images, they might still overall make enough money from SS that at the end of the month it might make a difference to their financial situation and without the money, even if it is much less than what they earned before, they might have problems paying their bills.
There are also many people who want to at least try out the new system and get a proper understanding of how much it will affect their earnings before making the decision to disable a port. It's hard to compare data of months or years with 3 weeks, so some people might want to give this a few months to get some proper numbers and that's well within their rights.
If you are fortunate enouh to have a job with a good stable income and don't need the money from SS - Good for you! Disbaling your port was most likely the right call. But not everyone is in such a fortunate situation. Especially during Crona, which sometimes makes me wonder whether SS picked this time on purpose, knowing that many people might depend more on the money than ever.
It was clear from the charts of dropping portfolio numbers that video contributors were not joining the boycott, because at first their income seemed unaffected. Now I guess Shutterstock has introduced new video pricing, and videographers have the opportunity to feel what everyone else is feeling. Perhaps now everyone will understand why we all need to stand together. Because you think youre the exception, but youre not. And when you decide to stay because youre doing OK, youre undermining all the sacrifices others are making not only on their own behalves but on your behalf as well.
108
« on: June 25, 2020, 18:09 »
I haven't seen any $.30 video downloads yet, but a ton of $1.00 earnings yesterday and today. The higher priced commissions were coming in pretty regularly up until a few days ago, and it's like they turned off that faucet and turned on the $1.00 and less faucet.
I had been reserving judgment on the 'new normal' at Shutterstock, thinking my video earnings might be holding up fine in the new scheme. I was trying to give them the benefit of the doubt. No longer. Unless things turn around, you can count me in the camp removing their SS ports. I know I'm one of their top earners -- they've called me multiple times in the past to bounce ideas around, and in doing so said they were contacting their top 100 or so contributors by revenue. I'm no Africastudio, but I think they'll take notice if I leave.
Really? Youre not making tons more money, as Jon Oringer tweeted...when was that...just yesterday? Sorry...it was three whole days ago. And I quote: You can focus on the first 100 downloads (ie: the 10 cents per dl) for the year - or you could do what a lot of successful contributors are doing - and making a lot more at the top levels then they ever have before.
109
« on: June 24, 2020, 13:24 »
New Africa has a port at other sites as well. Im guessing Shutterstock gave them permission to have more than one account. Not sure why theyd disable one and not the other.
110
« on: June 22, 2020, 10:27 »
111
« on: June 21, 2020, 14:03 »
Im pretty sure I figured out who reported the article to Facebook. We have an active Shutterstock contributor spying on Facebook and in here, which no doubt is why the bitly posts were also removed. I dont want to say who publicly because I dont want to accuse someone without being 100% sure.
This the troll who has over 25K snapshots in his port?
What a loser
I dont know who you mean, and I dont really want to say anything specific because its just a strong suspicion on my part. Im sure there are multiple people watching what we do.
112
« on: June 21, 2020, 11:55 »
I posted it on Facebook using https://bitly.com (link shortener)
You have no preview of the article, but the link is accepted and clickable.
https://bit.ly/2zQPPKf
I tried using bitly, and as long as I simply posted the link it was fine. But wholl read an article if just a bitly link appears? So I commented that Facebook was censoring the article...and suddenly Im unable to post it. I repeatedly get a message that something went wrong. Were working to fix it as fast as we can. This is some bullshite.
Did you click on this link?
https://bit.ly/2zQPPKf
What happens?
Then you can put the title you want in your facebook post.
I see. You have a bitly link to the article about the Facebook ban of the original article, and were trying to post links to the original article that was banned. Two different things.
113
« on: June 21, 2020, 09:40 »
Im pretty sure I figured out who reported the article to Facebook. We have an active Shutterstock contributor spying on Facebook and in here, which no doubt is why the bitly posts were also removed. I dont want to say who publicly because I dont want to accuse someone without being 100% sure.
114
« on: June 21, 2020, 05:18 »
I posted it on Facebook using https://bitly.com (link shortener)
You have no preview of the article, but the link is accepted and clickable.
https://bit.ly/2zQPPKf
I tried using bitly, and as long as I simply posted the link it was fine. But wholl read an article if just a bitly link appears? So I commented that Facebook was censoring the article...and suddenly Im unable to post it. I repeatedly get a message that something went wrong. Were working to fix it as fast as we can. This is some bullshite.
115
« on: June 20, 2020, 13:45 »
With all the fake stuff on FB and manipulation of the American voting system by bad actors, they choose a little article from a small publication about people protesting a pay cut to block? I just find that chilling.
116
« on: June 20, 2020, 12:17 »
Scary.
117
« on: June 20, 2020, 08:58 »
Shutterstock allows large enterprises to place unwatermarked images in comps, aka comprehensives, aka mockups, for presentation purposes. Once the work is approved, the buyer pays to license the image for use.
118
« on: June 20, 2020, 08:10 »
It's possible they licensed your image, which would give them the right to use it, I guess, though why they'd want to use an image no longer on their site is beyond me.
119
« on: June 20, 2020, 08:08 »
120
« on: June 19, 2020, 10:35 »
We could be talking of damages if there was a relation of subordination between SS and a contributor. But SS, as all the MS agencies, is only a service provider, of which we are not even clients (as contributors). They wright the rules and we accept them or not.
The only power we have is the power to choose the service provider which corresponds to our expectations, individually or collectively like the Stock Coalition is trying to do.
Are you an attorney in the U.S.? Is anyone here? I'd be curious to hear from an attorney. Otherwise we're all just speculating.
121
« on: June 19, 2020, 09:22 »
To sue you would have to show damages. SS gave you fair warning they were dropping payment to you the seller . Yes they drooped payment to almost zero. No one forced you to stay and get almost no money. I see no damages. I do see a company that is bad...but no damages.
No damages? I'm unsure about the outcome of or basis for a class action, but damages are the easiest thing to show...your income decreased with the new royalty scheme, and if you didn't like it your only choice was to leave and make no money, which damaged your income even further.
I think you are confusing ethics and law. You should read again the contract you signed : its is take it or leave it, unfortunately.
That doesnt mean there arent damages. Having brought a wrongful death claim, sadly, I had to justify why someones death caused me damage, even though they werent financial, because the courts place monetary value on things like human life, enjoyment of property, emotional distress, etc. In this case actual monetary damage to income would be much easier to prove.
122
« on: June 19, 2020, 09:19 »
To sue you would have to show damages. SS gave you fair warning they were dropping payment to you the seller . Yes they drooped payment to almost zero. No one forced you to stay and get almost no money. I see no damages. I do see a company that is bad...but no damages.
No damages? I'm unsure about the outcome of or basis for a class action, but damages are the easiest thing to show...your income decreased with the new royalty scheme, and if you didn't like it your only choice was to leave and make no money, which damaged your income even further.
How do you document decreased income with the new royalty scheme when many of us disabled our portfolios?
Theres an entire thread here with people reporting decreased earnings.
123
« on: June 19, 2020, 08:20 »
To sue you would have to show damages. SS gave you fair warning they were dropping payment to you the seller . Yes they drooped payment to almost zero. No one forced you to stay and get almost no money. I see no damages. I do see a company that is bad...but no damages.
No damages? I'm unsure about the outcome of or basis for a class action, but damages are the easiest thing to show...your income decreased with the new royalty scheme, and if you didn't like it your only choice was to leave and make no money, which damaged your income even further.
124
« on: June 19, 2020, 07:50 »
The curve turns up here
http://shuttercounter.ddns.net
How reliable is this graph?
I read on Shutterstock's forum someone who wrote that Shutterstock has started (re)approving images that would have been rejected before. Is this possible?
Yes, I've heard that Shutterstock has approved previously rejected images. Also, they were sending emails asking people to re-enable their ports for a single sale, but the new tactic seems to be just going ahead and selling those images anyway under the theory that once an image was in a lightbox or comp it was open for licensing even though the port was disabled. So why ask permission? That just annoys buyers who might ask why so many images are suddenly missing. Of course, we have no way of knowing what they're selling or not selling or what was or was not put into lightboxes or comps (under their free comp license, which we're not notified about that I know of). And of course the library numbers will continue to bounce back because uploads have slowed but not stopped, and most people who were angry enough to disable their ports have already done so.
125
« on: June 19, 2020, 07:40 »
Shenanigans.
Pages: 1 2 3 4 [5] 6 7 8 9 10 ... 116
|
Sponsors
Microstock Poll Results
Sponsors
|
Show Posts
