As my sales are almost inexistant at Alamy I stopped to select "super" keywords (stars) and not doing any optional tagging - just uploading.
So far I cannot make any statement, I sold the pratically same number of "carefully" tagged (stars, description, category, country...) and just directly uploaded files with embedded keywords. But as I sold 10 (yes, ten!) any serious conclusion makes no sense.
Any ideas?

As many of us will disable portfolios on 1st of June what if we do it simultaneously? What could be impact on servers and customers experience?

We are all over the world, in different time zones but doing it in 3 steps is possible.
For example:
18:00 GMT for America (NYC 2pm, LA 11am)
04:00 GMT for Asia/Australia (2pm Sydney, 1pm Tokyo)
12:00 GMT for Europe/Africa (2pm Berlin/Paris, 3pm Moscow)

Every year istock reset downloads number on first of January.

On 31st of January I checked # downloads. Once the earnings for January were published I compared both. They don't match.
The number of downloads in "Profile / Downloads Year to Date" is 18% higher compared to data in "Performance / Downloads" and numbers in Exports from "Royalties" page.
So I calculate numbers of my downloads in Deepmeta. They are diffrent of both above, somewhere in the middle...
Is a part of my dowloads lost in Bermuda triangle?

After read  the � wackamoles � thread I realized how weak we are. Personally I think it is a huge issue, It can kill legitimate artists.
Shutterstock, probably others too, have contributors interest at the bottom of their to do list. Actually I don�t think �trying to help them�, signing NDA and discreetly working for free is a good idea. They try to push problems under the carpet and as long as intellectual propriety problem is not public they will not seriously act.
If it get public and shareholders and clients are informed it will be a serious motivation.
But how to do it? I don�t think a discussion on MSG is the solution.
If we, individually, contact people and groups concerned by digital business, copyrights, design, art etc.  the word could be spread. I am especially thinking about journalists specialized in digital, designers magazines. If important number of people point similar problem, with factual content, real experience and link it could work.

Some ideas to work on.
- Clients can purchase unsafe content. They are paying money without guaranty that the product is legitimate. If the content was stolen inside SS the contract protect them but what if not? The copyright holder can sue the final client, he doesn�t need to handle with SS as he hasn�t any relation with them.
- Today it is very easy to detect identical content. That means they can track potentially stolen work. Why not to do it?
- Lack of reactivity on DCMA. Apparently sometimes only files are taken down, not contributors accounts.
- At least a part of money which was not transferred to dishonest contributor (SS pays once a month) could be easily paid to original artist but they keep this �dirty� money.
- The way how they want to make it opaque, lack of transparency is not appreciated by potential investors.

Maybe we can share here contacts, web sites and others idea to touch an audience that could be interested?

I had few rejections at Fotolia. I have no problem with, they decide. But in my opinion giving for rejection an enigmatic "technical error" reason  is not productive.
The file is corrupted? Should I reupload?
Technical problem on their side?
Wrong metadata?

Is it so difficult to set an unambiguous check list in 2019 for Adobe?

November 2018 royalty numbers are there but I still cannot see downloads stats for this period. Last stats avialable are for october 2018.
Can you see yours?
Thanks.

Anybody noticed corrupted images at Getty's sites?

When I checked my portfolios a large number of photos is broken, especially at Thinkstock.
Thumbnails are pixelated, partially visible or invisible at all. Titles and keywords are not related, 'borrowed' from others images.
Both search page and individual image detail page are concerned.

How they can dare write something like this when they paying even less.
Shame on you iStock/Getty.
original communication quote:

"A Few Thoughts on the Launch of
Adobe Stock
                                                
      
Following the launch of Adobe Stock, we felt it was a good time to reach out and communicate to you our exclusive artists with some thoughts on what this means for Getty Images, iStock by Getty Images, and our valued relationship with you.

We start with the point that competition is not necessarily a bad thing.  Competition can drive us forward in better serving current and potential customers.  It can also help grow our customer base as new marketing builds awareness of the need for and availability of licensed content.  The negatives of competition come when you do not have a clearly differentiated product.

Thanks to your content and ongoing submissions, we enjoy and will continue to enjoy a clear point of differentiation superior content.  This is the very core of our customers needs.  Without great content, customers cannot produce great projects.  iStock by Getty Images is the only service in the value space that provides a meaningfully different and superior content offering.  Adobe Stock is the same content offered historically via Fotolia and many other providers.  Adding a statement that it is curated by Adobe, does not make it true.

We also enjoy the full reach and assets of Getty Images.  Only Getty Images offers a comprehensive offering to service all customers, across all projects, in all geographies �€“ creative and editorial, new and archival, global and local, premium and value.  Only Getty Images has a 700-person dedicated sales force that are experts in content licensing.  Only Getty Images has 20 years of building strong customer relationships.

Moving beyond what we believe Adobe�€™s entry means to Getty Images and iStock by Getty Images, we wanted to share some thoughts on broader implications for photographers as a whole.

With the launch of Adobe Stock, it is clear that Adobe believes all imagery is worth a maximum of $10.  We simply do not agree with this view.  Commercial and photographic experience and investments in pre and post-production do matter to quality and are only commercially viable through higher price points and, ultimately, returns to the photographers.  This is a core reason why Getty Images contributors can sell across our offerings versus a one-size fits all, every image is a commodity approach.

The launch of Adobe Stock also under-scores Adobe'€™s true focus.  Adobe is under-pricing the work of photographers to increase the overall attractiveness of Creative Cloud.  In fact, Creative Cloud customers receive an additional 40 percent discount with this discount subsidized by photographers via lowered royalties.

We struggle to understand how Adobe Stock helps to sustainably support the creation of imagery and photographers, many of which are paying Creative Cloud customers.  Instead, in current form, we only see how Adobe Stock helps support Adobe�€™s broader software ambitions at the expense of the creation of imagery and photographers.

Getty Images remains focused on licensing content with an emphasis on superior material.  We will continue to price this superior content to an appropriate premium and provide a higher royalty.  We thank you for your contributions and loyalty.  We are more committed than ever to maintain your loyalty and will intensify our efforts to compete on the basis of quality and a comprehensive offering.  In the coming months, you will see marketing, site merchandising, partnerships and other improvements that only reinforce this strategy and our intensity.

Thank you for being our partners.

Brad and Team"

It is almost 7 years I am a part microstock world. In the beginning I was enthusiastic but with years it changed.
Today my relation with sites is closer to hate than love. The problem is that with time I forgot why I don't like agencies... Sometimes when I discuss with people and want to be very factual I lack of arguments.
For example I deleted my portfolio from Fotolia and I think it was related to the event when Bobby Deal was banned. What it was?
The only date I remember is September 2010 and iStock beginning of the end.
Is there any place where we can find this kind information? Different events related to sock agencies?
Thanks
BTW, In the title I put "negative" events as I don't think there were positives ones...

I am not 100% sure but I have impression that my balance diminished this night and the difference is equal to the recoupment amount (1/6).
Strange thing, someone at IS forum stared a new topic about the same issue but it has disappeared.
Am I crazy?

Stocksy is a newcomer but after almost half year probably most active contributors should have sales.
I like the idea of co-op and all artistic and human approach of this site. But what about a business side?
I'm seriously considering to invest my time and money to participate but is it worth? Do they have any chance to be successful?
Any thoughts after 5 months?

I read topics about impacts of deleting files and especially D-Day. Many good points for both, pro and cons. I understand perfectly people who hesitating.
I propose to create D-Days, on monthly or bi-monthly basis. For example every 13th of each month. Instead of deleting files we have decided to deactivate anyway (for different reasons like protest, quality, better performance on other site etc), we wait and delete them only on one day of the month.
I cannot see any cons. And advantages are there:
- it is not more individual but collective action.
- we can use 'D-Days' term for "our" communication
- sites should monitor different operation. Huge increase of deactivation will remain sites not to go too far
- good for my spiritual health
- costless
 We can start with Fotolia... Are you available on 28th?

I'm 100% for 2nd Feb idea. The problem is that the impact could be low. How many people, buyers are aware of what happens? Many stunning images will be removed from iStock but how to see what's gone? iStock has advantage because you can see what is exclusive there but no way to see what is missing. It is not completely true because DT and FT have few exclusive images but nothing serious.
My idea would be to create site/page where we could upload watermarked images with link to sites where to buy them (in my case SS). These images should be NOT available at IS/Getty and be rather unique. A kind of high quality library: "Vendetta images library - masterpieces not present at iStock".
The problem is that probably the majority of sites, like Flickr, forbids watermarked images and links...
Ideas?
BTW, my crown is gone. Viva liberta!