Not really. Individual buyers may shop around looking for the cheapest option, but most companies have subscriptions at certain sites and tend to stick with these long term.
Other aspects like customer service, payment options and supply also play a role in choosing a certain agency.

So even though some people may find your photos cheaper elsewhere, you won't notice it significantly.

Quote from: For Real on September 22, 2021, 08:51

the sad part is that we are severely censored on the forum. Say anything they don't like any your banished!

SS is a private company and they have the right to control what's being shouted in their home. I am sure that you too would not tolerate being insulted in your own home.

They invited us in and we helped build that house.

Quote from: SpaceStockFootage on September 12, 2021, 19:05

https://support.submit.shutterstock.com/s/article/Can-I-open-a-second-account

What I'm trying to ask is...
Do you think that if I mix content (adding photo and video to my illustration/vector portfolio) it may hurt my search rankings and sales?

Why do you think that?
I have vector, footage and illustrations combined and it never hurt my sales. I see no reason why it would.

And don't create a second account, not for your wife either. SS may shut it down and ban you even though it's your wife's account. It's much better to have one big portfolio anyway.

This is a tricky topic actually. As a person who both does photos for stock and has multiple tattoos myself, I tried to read up on the topic of coyright with tatoos a bit and that's basically how I understand it:

Let's take the example of the infinity sign. You find an image of an infinity sign online, you print it out, go to the tattoo artist, put the image on the desk and say "Tattoo this". In this case the tattoo artist does not have the copyright to the image, not even you have it, but actually the person who drew it and put it online. Though in this case it is questionable whether something like an infinity sign can even be copyrighted. Some agencies go against their own rules here, like Shutterstock. Their rules say:

"Prominent tattoos of unique designs are unacceptable for commercial use unless accompanied by a valid property release signed by the creator of the tattoo design."

An infinity sign is not an "unique design" and the photo should have been approved either way. But note how it says "property release signed by the creator of the tattoo desig". It does not say "signed by the tattoo artist".

So, example two: I have an old tattoo that I designed myself. Nothing fancy. It's a simple tribal moon. So basically I am the copyright owner of that design, not the tattoo artist.

Example three: You make an appointment with a tattoo artist, you explain to him what you want, for example a tattoo of a parrot surrounded by tropical flowers. The tattoo artist comes up with the image from scratch - it's his artwork, his design and he is the copyright owner of it.

And then there is also example four, which is the one I could not figure out yet: I have a tattoo of my dogs - However, the tattoo was based on photos I took, so based on my copyrighted work. I don't really know how it's in that case.  Am I the copyright owner of the design? Is the tattoo artist? It's neither 100% his work nor 100% mine, so I don't really know. I think in this case I would actually be as bold and sign a property release myself. Much easier than tracking down an artist for a signature who does not even live in the same country as I do. But I think strictly speaking we both would need to sign the property release.

It may be a tricky topic but you've explained it very well I think.
In the last example (4), I'd say the photographer is the real copyright owner because the tattoo design could be considered a derivative (because it's drawn from your photo). And you could consider portrait rights, which means the dog should be paid accordingly for having his likeness put on your body as a tattoo. I believe the standard royalty commission for that would be 1 bone per week.

I'm going to ignore the 20-posts-in-a-row-monologue-rant from last page.

But I will say this:
While in some cases, the whole identity politics thing is going too far, generally I can understand that they want to avoid titles that ASSUME things without being verifyable "A Hispanic walking on grass" may not be "correct" for two (valid) reasons:

- You don't know for sure if the person depicted is indeed Hispanic, or is of a mixed background. Maybe the person is part Hungarian for all we know. Misidentification can happen.
- You can't define or identify people solely based on their nationality, their gender or the way they look. Or maybe it's not even relevant to the picture.

That being said, having to jump through all kinds of hoops just to get a politically correct title like "A person identifying as a man who was born and lives in Spain walking on what is presumed to be a grassy field" goes too far. It makes life needlessly difficult.

Are you sure THIS option (see below) is unchecked in your account (go to Dashboard > tab Account > Preferences, scroll all the way down)

Optimized Marketplace Pricing
[  ] Yes! I would like for Pond5 to price my Content and modify my prices - up and/or down, to take advantage of trends in the marketplace to capture incremental revenue opportunities. Please see section 3 of the Contributor Agreement for additional details.

Only bad and greedy agencies punish contributors for not making a treshold revenue. Selling stuff is their responsibility, once our content is accepted it's out of our hands. They have the marketing power to sell those images, so if anything they should get a commission cut if they fail to sell our stuff.

I got two nice video sales, a couple of days back, one 4K for $50 and one HD for $25.
I thought to myself: finally some traction and video sales on DT, which is otherwise pretty dead for video.

But I thought it was weird that the same video would sell twice in a row. And what do you know, yesterday I received a refund email for the $25.
I thought: "maybe it was a duplicate download, at least the $50 sale still stands."

Until today. No refund email, but my balance is down $75 after all.

Apparently decent video sales on DT are a fata morgana.

It's the new trend on the market. All agencies will follow suit eventually. Until even video is unlimited downloads only across the board.

Quote from: Jo Ann Snover on June 16, 2021, 11:34

Gorodenkoff (~2,000)
https://stock.adobe.com/search/free?creator_id=200571845

Lightfield Studios (~6,900)
https://stock.adobe.com/search/free?creator_id=206713618

Pressmaster (~5,000)
https://stock.adobe.com/search/free?creator_id=280047

That is absolutely crazy.  It's amazing anyone else can still make money these days.  And imo, they're not too smart for giving that kind of content away.

That's why I'm very wary of this whole 'nominate your assets for an upfront royalty payment' thing. It's like a trap most people are wandering into blindly, lured in by instant gratification.

In the end, the only real winners are the agencies.
When the price war is over, there will be a handful of powerful agencies left. Only the strongest creatives and some hobbyists will still make some money, a few pennies per download. The once fertile lands of microstock will be a barren wasteland, devoid of any real money-making opportunities for the majority of us creatives.

"As per our May 3rd email we had reset some contributors' earnings because they have not uploaded files for many years.
We mistakenly reset the earnings of some video contributors who uploaded video files recently, however we restored that today so you should see the full balance in your account again.
Thanks!"

I don't see any banner or way to nominate files on my dashboard. Am I missing something? Can anyone screencap what it looks like?