|
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 - zorba
51
« on: October 15, 2020, 17:11 »
Many years ago, I read a post in Shutterstock forum written by Yuri Arcurs:
forums.submit.shutterstock.com/topic/17059-1170-dls-in-one-day-woohoo/
It was a post in which he shared that he had reached 1000 sales a day in Shutterstock. Wow! It was incredibly motivating for me to know that there was someone out there capable of achieving such high numbers. I promised myself that one day I would reach that level as well. I reached that level many months ago, but I had not shared it with anyone. So today I share with you the sales of September 30th: My best day ever 😍. I hope it will be an inspiration for many, just as it was for me.
I am currently doing several interviews about my story, in different blogs. If you have a website or blog and are interested in interviewing me, it will be a pleasure. Contact me via Instagram:
@aaronamat
Aaron
krakenimages.com
Congratz!!!!!! :-D THIS is REALLY inspiring.
52
« on: September 24, 2020, 18:47 »
I want to offer a contrary point of view. Have been in the stock photo market for more than 10 years. I make more than $6500 a year but nowhere near 100,000.
But the real issue is what is your objective. If your objective is to make a living in stock photography, forget it....
...
...
10 km to my home I have friends making far more than a living, each, in microstock. Their month earnings have a flat growth rate, so they are a little worried. But they earn 8000+ eur MONTHLY. I can't even reach 300 eur with THREE agencies summed up, so I can't speak for myself as an example... but example is not always a best-practice: examples could be a case study about what not-to-do. For example I shoot lots (LOTS) of materials but I am sort of lazy in editing, keywording and uploading them. As a result I have something like 30000 (thirty thousand) in images and videos non-uploaded. Before starting to load my gun and aiming to my head I think I have to upload every single bit. And remember I continue producing stuff. Another thing you should keep in mind is that market has grown and "industrialized" ... so single photographers and video-makers that self-employed struggle to compete with sub-agencies. Group of people creating really high visually industry-standard images and footage. Really ready to be used in any kind of commercial, perfect, ready, as good as a non-stock product. These are TEAMS, agencies, structured groups: when they don't have big-paying clients they could afford to produce stock product. Or they can do the old way: produce stock material WHILE they produce the client one. and another one, crucial thing: lots of people make money and are VERY silent. They don't explain. They don't tell. They work and never say something to competitors or anyone else. We are here like beer-drinkers in a bar, moaning. Did you ever saw Bill Gates in a similar situation? :-D Jim Pickerell (the author of the linked article) comes , as he stands, from a different past: " In my best year as a photographer I earned about $175,000. But in the last decade, or more, the industry has been in serious decline. Last year I earned about $6,500 from my newsletter and $300 from my photo archive. 2020 will be much worse as most photographers who used to read the newsletter have given up on the business and moved on to other things. They no longer need the information. " - this is not a loser, but a successful man that sees the times changing. Even out of microstock agencies there are now intermediaries trying to grab the standard market of on-demand photography (the old times craftmen photographer! THE Photographer) ... Backbone - https://backbonephoto.co/ Meero - https://www.meero.com Shoootin - https://shoootin.com Snappr - https://www.snappr.com/ Splento - https://www.splento.com/ Lemonone - https://www.lemonone.com/ Boom.co , Wesual.co, Cliked.it ... they all are using these "centralized negotiation" method, making the good old times photographer a qualified farm worker. In some years I expect them to buy the gear, you enter, take the gear, go to shoot, go back to give the gear back to the agency, then return to your freezer. Or you can be the BEST ARTIST WITH UNIQUE SKILLS AND ... blah. you know.
53
« on: September 24, 2020, 18:28 »
As long as, continue the current trading system. I still think that the market will evolve towards associating collectives that erase the intermediary. I am convinced that there will be many groups that will coexist with AS in the short term future.
this is a dream of bliss What you can see in the reality is everything is being "commoditized" by someone else.
54
« on: September 24, 2020, 17:59 »
...
...
as due to your incentive the terms state that whatever I upload is on your site forever. There's no way I'm doing that if you haven't yet fully decided on royalty rates and subscription fees. I probably wouldn't do it even if you had.
...
...
I wish you well, but it's just not very appealing right now.
WHAT? FOREVER?
55
« on: September 24, 2020, 17:51 »
Received this email:
After 10 years of operation Stockfresh is closing its doors on October 17, 2020.
Why are we closing?
....
....
Stockfresh
Best regards,
The Stockfresh Team
And another small agency bites the dust. It was one of my lowest earners, so it doesn't affect me. But they were a fair agency, and with the major agencies letting us down, there's now hardly a decent agency left.
fair, but not enough: if you fall in the "under-threshold" range of time until they close, they hold your money entirely. Maybe this is not a huge amount of money given it's under 50$, but that's not the point: they are holding money that they don't own at all. And this is NOT fair, even if we subscribed a contract. It's an unfair contract. I can accept this condition in standard dimes, but not in closing times: you have to properly pay off contributors and THEN you can close accounts and so on. This is absolutely an unfair, diffused, behaviour. And of course, you have to do a simple multiplication to understand how much this is unfair for us and convenient for them. Totally unfair. A little thing, of course. But not fair at all.
56
« on: June 29, 2020, 13:59 »
Tell us what you have in mind.
I have this in mind: https://www.shutterstock.com/g/pressmaster. When crap portfolio disappear, and a 0,001% of crappy images disappear, but great player stay... I don't know what we are talking about :-(
57
« on: June 28, 2020, 20:09 »
And we are having an effect. The collection has been growing for years. Now, even though people have been uploading (and there's a lot of repetitive stuff mixed in that just will never sell) the collection is still shrinking
#BoycottShutterstock
Yeah, what could they do with that few 321.204.674 images ... and people like pressmaster and the like completely ignoring the problem. And when they'll ask "oh sorry SS, I don't like that zero-january, can we make a private agreement? oh... yes? Well, thanks, have a nice day SS, see you" in 2 seconds.
58
« on: June 20, 2020, 15:27 »
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.
they could have used some illegal terms or practices starting from the "no-class action" in contracts. Is this legal? If it's not: let's start from this. And: YOU don't see, but I started saying: ask a lawyer, we are not legal experts. They have legal experts and they tried the "no-class action" way. We didn't challenge this. We don't know if we could challenge this. A lawyer should know this. No one seems to have contacted some legal expert and keeps saying "I" ... well, you. And what about an expert?
59
« on: June 20, 2020, 15:23 »
What would you sue them for?
if this would be possible, starting with the "no-class action" clause, because if you insert THIS, there is space exactly for this: there was no point in inserting some like this. They take very LITTLE responsibilities, but there are chances in discovering illegal activities (non reported sales?) that could have some impact ONLY if used with great power of numbers. Work with lawyers as a unique-mass could have some chances in creating a two-way contract, not "do what I say, accept or leave" as a basis. But of course there is no point in a "sue" action itself. It could be useful to see they're neither untouchable, nor in the ivory tower peak. Of course the third point should be most powerful: let the world know they treat us as little crap, not as partners, not as value-creators ... when they sell OUR content.
60
« on: June 18, 2020, 18:51 »
Hallo everybody. - Anyone contacted a lawyer? We are content-creators, don't pretend to be an expert in international trade, law, unions, contracts, rights.
- Some months ago, maybe 1 year, our contracts, as usual one-sidedly changed stating we agree (there is no change to not-agree: everything is take or leave) to NOT participate in class action and any kind of diverse litigation ... but are we sure enough this is fair, possible, legal and couldn't be challenged court as a first point to go on with a CLASS ACTION? We are LOTS, and we are acting as a lot of flies, not as united mass with a great power. Let's let them see our "POTENTIAL" and earn 40% from the scratch as a basis or let them give a taste of their own medicine and pay back in kind.
If we don't know if its legal and don't call a GREAT lawyer (money can buy it), we are only a naked-ass scimpanze shaking around against real warriors with bazookas. - Anyone in USA, talking plain current English, able to tell the whole story of the fall of microstock, content creation, gig economy (every kind of digital marketplace works like that, Microsoft Store, Apple Store, Google Play store) and the Shutterstock actual move, could contact NAOMI KLEIN to start an interesting ethic and moral move against people making great "fair" claims and making us struggle for cents? Of course there is someone upsetting if we call this slavery... but when you give me 0.10 cent and you earn 10$ you know that something is wrong with you. No one takes a someone forcefully making him or her work. They simply create a world in which they have the power to lower worker's earning in a way never permitted if it was a wage.
United we stand, divided we fall (cit). Remember: lawyers, force them to TALK, no automated responses. No "chances to earn". ALternatives have to be "free crap" or "good content at fair price". Everything found for free and good have to be erased from paid content as a kind of content: if we SPEND in creating, someone that gives for free have to be a fool to spend and giving away. Of course, they spend for DSLR for having fun. But there is a limit. There are action that could be taken to protect commerce, and digital assets. But they simply don't care because assets are OURS. So when they earn it's ok, if they don't they'll simply close with money earnt so far. LAWYERS, folks. Anyone called them? Anyone interested and seeing money with wich being paid as a lawyer in our interest?
61
« on: June 18, 2020, 18:32 »
we are able to create content.
someone else is able to work in the interest of their customers: for example LAWYERS.
Why aren't we talking with a great and powerful Lawyer's Studio to work in our interest?
because we aren't unite.
My question would be about: is it LEGAL to put in a contract something "you can't put in place a CLASS ACTION" ? Maybe we could say "mh mh, oooook, but when a lawyer reads it, (s)he says : oh, but this isn't legal, in fact we COULD ... and SHOULD. This is my parcel: are we going on?
:-D
We aren't able to do this, because everyone thinks that this is "communism" or the like ... but we simply are accepting a one-way contract that has a very very very low level of minimums.
Anyone tried to contact a lawyer for class action try?
62
« on: June 11, 2020, 19:37 »
Someone noticed there is that new "crushpixel.com" but there are NO information about where arey they phisically based, where are hadquarters, WHO do they are, are they trustworthy? How can this be proven? Is this a cover for something?
They give interesting percentages to contributors but they don't tell who they are. Is there a big company or two guys and a garage server? Are they able to enforce a copyright lawsuit for international DCMA infringements or copyright infringements? Are they thieves of some other companies or good people, good administrators, great CEO and CTO with tons of people working since years?
Are they in China, India, Turkey, USA, Canada, Norway, South Africa, Australia? NO-INFO!
What laws are valid for them? Their information seem to be a unread copy of some other big site.
It's weird.
63
« on: June 08, 2020, 13:16 »
Fundamentally, Shutterstock owns nothing. They are just a marketplace that brings buyers and sellers together.
How long does it take for shareholders to realise that without any images or videos these fools have nothing to sell? I don't care how clever they think they are to cut the pie ever smaller for contributors, they have just destroyed one of the fundamentals to their business model.
Surely "investors" will notice that too? And the sh!t storms only getting started.
Until there won't be a 0-images and 0-videos there, these are only empty words. They have the power and organization. We ARE power only if we organize ourselves as a unique thing, speaking about rights, laws, contracts, and the need of a DIALOGUE that they always take away. We need a different platform kind to move to, a platform with a two-ways contract, not only one-way. Here is only the take-or-leave option. That kind of platform doesn't exist. And even if it would exist, are you seeing Arcurs, Pressmaster or the like LEAVE an income powerful source? AHAHAHHAHA , I don't think so. They are like Shutterstock, too rich to be interested in a moral and fair move. This wall-against-wall kind of fight needs a mass-move from one place to another... not a copy. Of course they'll always win if we give power to the fair market AND AT THE SAME TIME we give power to the UNFAIR market. Unfair market will always win in price.
64
« on: June 08, 2020, 12:03 »
65
« on: June 08, 2020, 12:02 »
66
« on: June 08, 2020, 12:02 »
67
« on: June 08, 2020, 12:01 »
68
« on: June 02, 2020, 16:49 »
Let me open a parenthesis here: while reading different forums I realized that a large part of the Shutterstock contributors are apparently not aware of the current situation. Either they didn't receive the email announcing the new earning structure, or they didn't read it...
It's still a pity 
We should find a way to inform as many people as possible; talk about it on our Facebook pages, on Twitter, Instagram, etc.
And ask our "friends" to spread the word.
The more noise we make, the better!
what about photography websites? and photography associations websites in your countries? Of course they're going to piss over our heads first: but their point in this could be the "WE TOLD YOU" satisfaction. No problem: this is A WAY to have this piece of news noticed in the world. It's a big mess, disrespectful, unrewarding, humiliating, mistreating to people who really gets the job done. Silence? Really? Here I found two: https://fstoppers.com/originals/what-wrong-shutterstock-489338https://petapixel.com/2020/05/27/shutterstock-unveiled-a-new-royalty-structure-and-photographers-are-furious/
69
« on: June 02, 2020, 13:10 »
I guess nobody cares, but here is one more that has deactivated sales. I never thought I would do this.
me too this is terrible
70
« on: May 27, 2020, 08:01 »
They don't care a sod if we little-earner disable something. There is nothing like a REAL and WORKING agency contributors-driven, with a fair payment system, a copyright watch over the internet and so on. This is an illusion, just because people all over the world are not able to organize as a powerful mass. We are too stupid and not resolute.
So, pressmaster or Arcurs earnings per-year and mine, in January, are the same. This is how SS will mistreat contributor big-players at the start of the year. Of course their license number will quickly increase but not so fast except for a very well , and little, considered number of contributor. Not so relevant for SS.
Mistreating the vast majority of contributors is how SS takes advantage of us all: thats why is a good idea to have trillions of facile images, not-so-crappy but not even very good. Thats not a problem: these image means good money for SS: and these images are a very very big number. They SELL EVERYTHING and its their win if they sell an image from a contributor with a low per-year number of sales. Thats great: we are a huge number. So from their point of view the sales-mumber is high anyway, and their percentage is higher anyway.
In January we all will earn less and SS will earn more. Then they will earn a little less from some great studios and keep on earning a lot from the masses things will be normal in the end of the year and then restart. You are never finally rewarded with SS. This is how to impoverish copyright at the very best level.
After all microstock is commoditization of intellectual property. We are simply saying oh yeah, let F*** us HARDER!.
Leaving in SS our portfolio if we are not earning in a satisfactory way, is rewarding for them anyway: this give the message that we dont care if we are mistreated. They dont feel any after effects if we leave images in agencies that dont pay us the right. More poor is the contributor, and more they f*** it!
71
« on: May 27, 2020, 07:51 »
So, pressmaster or Arcurs earnings per-year and mine, in January, are the same  . This is how SS will mistreat contributor big-players at the start of the year. Of course their license number will quickly increase but not so fast except for a very well , and little, considered number of contributors. Not so relevant for SS. Mistreating the vast majority of contributors is how SS takes advantage of us all: thats why is a good idea to have trillions of facile images, not-so-crappy but not even very good. Thats not a problem: these image means good money for SS: and these images are a very very big number. They SELL EVERYTHING and its their win if they sell an image from a contributor with a low per-year number of sales. Thats great for them: we are a huge number. So from their point of view the sales-mumber is high anyway, and their percentage is higher anyway. In January we all will earn less and SS will earn more. Then they will earn a little less from some great studios and keep on earning a lot from the masses things will be normal in the end of the year and then restart. You are never finally rewarded with SS. This is how to impoverish copyright at the very best level. After all microstock is commoditization of intellectual property. We are simply saying oh yeah, let F*** us HARDER!. Leaving in SS our portfolio if we are not earning in a satisfactory way, is rewarding for them anyway: this give the message that we dont care if we are mistreated. They dont feel any after effects if we leave images in agencies that dont pay us the right. More poor is the contributor, and more they f*** it! Struggle in microstock has become harder than struggle in real life photography if you are a good photographer, but not excellent in general ADV, and Enterprise-like organized.
72
« on: April 16, 2020, 18:54 »
https://forums.submit.shutterstock.com/topic/99836-shutterstock-launches-a-new-footage-subscription-product/
no change will come sponteneusly from nothing if we don't take part in the action of changing , we will be simply part of the problem. Microstock is a commodity market. And it works exactly as every other commodity market. Sad but true. The difference here will be when we'll do some math and understand losses are greater than earnings. As simple as that. Because the work is not a farm assembly line and you all know it.
73
« on: April 01, 2020, 16:26 »
From their 728,897 images SS account:
"We are a stock image production studio based in Spain. We produce images every day of the year  "
oh! thanks!!! so no YA at all, if this is true.
74
« on: April 01, 2020, 15:45 »
krakenimages.com/ seems like a hypersimplified version of a sub-selection of something that smells like Yuri Arcurs peopleimages.com But I'm not a detective, so I'm not very skilled in digging into this kind of hidden information. Does anyone else know something about?I say this because there are some of the most emerging claims about him, like the transparent background PNG versions of people, and the "soul" of this marketing operation, that I saw through instagram and seems to be a selection of what he could consider "b-quality" to cash in on anyway.
75
« on: April 01, 2020, 15:35 »
seems right now the solution by some reviewers at shutterstock is to reject 100% of items. total laziness.
the reasons have no bearing on the video footage. its actually a complete waste of time right now to even bother submitting.
I'd recommend everyone else here for the time being don't submit to shutterstock, unless you want to re-do your work later.
yes please, stop submitting, and I also suggest to delete your portfolio! :-D I hate competition!
|
Sponsors
Microstock Poll Results
Sponsors
|
Show Posts
