pancakes

MicrostockGroup Sponsors


Author Topic: 30 Cent and lower SODs  (Read 12386 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

« Reply #50 on: November 06, 2015, 08:49 »
+7
For those of you who can't access the SS forums, here the first post of that thread by Vincent:


Hi everyone,
 
Our collaboration with Facebook continues to grow. As it grows, the SOD payout will vary, but should not fall below subscription rates - as promised in our original Facebook announcement.
 
We have identified a bug that resulted in some payouts that were below this minimum, and we are actively working to resolve this to ensure that you receive the accurate payout, both for future earnings and those you received earlier this week.
 
We will update you again once the fix is in place.
 
We apologize for the inconvenience, and thank you for your patience.

 


marthamarks

« Reply #51 on: November 06, 2015, 10:00 »
+1
For those of you who can't access the SS forums, here the first post of that thread by Vincent:


Hi everyone,
 
Our collaboration with Facebook continues to grow. As it grows, the SOD payout will vary, but should not fall below subscription rates - as promised in our original Facebook announcement.
 
We have identified a bug that resulted in some payouts that were below this minimum, and we are actively working to resolve this to ensure that you receive the accurate payout, both for future earnings and those you received earlier this week.
 
We will update you again once the fix is in place.
 
We apologize for the inconvenience, and thank you for your patience.


Thanks for providing that!

« Reply #52 on: November 06, 2015, 10:26 »
+1
i think the little ones are fbook. i don't mind so long as all you get on fbook is tiny in size.
i personally hate social media as they are meant to make tons of money from fools who put
their family album and dirty laundry on there page so that their friends and 10,000 other friends and pokers can see what they did last weekend getting smashed , doped, date-r*ped and thinking
it was fun.

the point is not just making free shows of their looseness which is far worse than the street ladies
of the night, because at least those ladies (and girlie-men) sell themselves and get paid for it.

the point here is that for microstock , the like button can be a misuse of the photos and vectors,etc
because it is repeated and seen by all their "friends" without having to pay for the usage.
which is the main motive of social media, get everything for free. .. never mind the
fbook small print agreement of how you give them the right to your photos,etc

correct me if i am worng about social media

« Reply #53 on: November 06, 2015, 10:50 »
+4
Yes, you are well off the mark with your views on social media. I rather doubt Facebook would have the market capitalisation it does based on your use case.

The use of Shutterstock images, so far as I can see, is more for business use: advertise an event, drive traffic to a website, promote a product where the number of viewers is considerably higher than kids posting their social life. Last time I looked (a while ago), it was also possible when selecting the Shutterstock image on Facebook to extract the underlying URL and get yourself a free medium-sized watermark-free image. Dont know if that bug has been fixed yet but it is more of a concern to me than the use of images to illustrate the Hieronymus Bosch-type world you imagine teenagers inhabit.

« Reply #54 on: November 06, 2015, 15:13 »
+4
That message just means they were testing lower royalties and it hit the live site by accident. my guess is we can expect lower royalties soon. 30 cents instead of 38 then. I mean, a bug, really.

« Reply #55 on: November 07, 2015, 01:37 »
0
I think that too. There is coming a battle between Adobe and SS. SS will beginning with the price race to the bottom. In longterm SS will loose the battle Adobe is to mighty.

Unfortunately in the mean time we will loose commisions in this battle.
« Last Edit: November 07, 2015, 01:43 by r2d2 »

« Reply #56 on: November 07, 2015, 01:38 »
0
Doublepost

Shelma1

« Reply #57 on: November 07, 2015, 06:36 »
+4
i think the little ones are fbook. i don't mind so long as all you get on fbook is tiny in size.
i personally hate social media as they are meant to make tons of money from fools who put
their family album and dirty laundry on there page so that their friends and 10,000 other friends and pokers can see what they did last weekend getting smashed , doped, date-r*ped and thinking
it was fun.

the point is not just making free shows of their looseness which is far worse than the street ladies
of the night, because at least those ladies (and girlie-men) sell themselves and get paid for it.

the point here is that for microstock , the like button can be a misuse of the photos and vectors,etc
because it is repeated and seen by all their "friends" without having to pay for the usage.
which is the main motive of social media, get everything for free. .. never mind the
fbook small print agreement of how you give them the right to your photos,etc

correct me if i am worng about social media

Wow! What a twisted interpretation of social media. You obviously have a problem with what you consider "loose" women..

The SS images are thumbnails used in ads. I doubt many people are sharing the ads unless it's an offer they think a friend might be interested in. Nobody cares about the images themselves.

« Reply #58 on: November 08, 2015, 00:14 »
+1
i think the little ones are fbook. i don't mind so long as all you get on fbook is tiny in size.
i personally hate social media as they are meant to make tons of money from fools who put
their family album and dirty laundry on there page so that their friends and 10,000 other friends and pokers can see what they did last weekend getting smashed , doped, date-r*ped and thinking
it was fun.

the point is not just making free shows of their looseness which is far worse than the street ladies
of the night, because at least those ladies (and girlie-men) sell themselves and get paid for it.

the point here is that for microstock , the like button can be a misuse of the photos and vectors,etc
because it is repeated and seen by all their "friends" without having to pay for the usage.
which is the main motive of social media, get everything for free. .. never mind the
fbook small print agreement of how you give them the right to your photos,etc

correct me if i am worng about social media

You're wrong. It might be stupid but doped and date-raped? You are over the limit in your self serving superior self.

Glad that SS answers to questions, unlike most others. Now they will fix the mistake.

ShadySue

  • There is a crack in everything
« Reply #59 on: November 08, 2015, 06:49 »
0
the point here is that for microstock , the like button can be a misuse of the photos and vectors,etc because it is repeated and seen by all their "friends" without having to pay for the usage.
Well, yes, that's indeed the point.
Not counting the direct licencing deal, if a company uses your picture on their site, blog or Fb page, and post 'share' icons, they are hoping their content will be freely spread all around the web.
AFAICS, most, maybe all, of the micros allow these share buttons.
IIRC, very few people complained about this at the outset. Difficult to put a lid on it now.
Part of the problem is the terminology. Just like "Royalty-free" seems to mean 'you don't pay any royalties, viz it's free to use', Share wouold seem to imply that the content is free for sharing.
I once had a pic licensed by a woman's magazine and it was on their website. I then found it on two home decor blogs, both acknowledging the copyright of the magazine, as the mag wrongly (as it was used editorially) hadn't credited me/iStock. Both bloggers declined to purchase the file from iS but each took the pic down instantly with an apology. However, both pointed out that the magazine site had 'share' (with the social media buttons) right next to the image, so they assumed that they were free to share the image on their blogs (having right-click/saved it) and the mag would be pleased as long as they were credited. To be fair, that's not an unreasonable interpretation of the invitation to share.
« Last Edit: November 08, 2015, 07:37 by ShadySue »

« Reply #60 on: November 10, 2015, 13:16 »
0
SS has acknowledged that the fix wasn't made last week and said on Monday that the fix would be deployed Monday or Tuesday which would correct all future SOD royalties from the Facebook deal to be a minimum of a sub royalty.

http://forums.submit.shutterstock.com/topic/87108-single-and-other-earnings-below-minimum/?p=1513515

Then they'll look at correcting the prior royalties. No ETA on that.

« Reply #61 on: November 13, 2015, 14:45 »
0
Well just had an 8c sod so theyve done nothing or theyre not honest
« Last Edit: November 13, 2015, 14:52 by Microstockphoto »

« Reply #62 on: November 13, 2015, 14:55 »
0
Yeah two .08 SOD sales for me today too. My earlier <sub ones were .30. Based on the images I'm guessing Facebook sales. I tried to get to the SS forum page but it never loaded for me.

dbvirago

« Reply #63 on: November 13, 2015, 14:56 »
+3
How about they are the .08 cents owed to you for the .30 SODs earlier in the month?

« Reply #64 on: November 13, 2015, 14:58 »
+2
How about they are the .08 cents owed to you for the .30 SODs earlier in the month?

Could be - they are the same images. 

if so, A for fixing it, F for communication

« Reply #65 on: November 13, 2015, 15:22 »
0
Aaah sorry then


 

Related Topics

  Subject / Started by Replies Last post
143 Replies
38398 Views
Last post August 29, 2011, 04:03
by sharpshot
3 Replies
2736 Views
Last post May 21, 2014, 14:11
by cathyslife
$4.06 SODs

Started by ultimagina Shutterstock.com

9 Replies
4768 Views
Last post November 01, 2014, 02:18
by photobee
17 Replies
5085 Views
Last post August 19, 2015, 06:38
by Cesar
9 Replies
1523 Views
Last post January 26, 2022, 13:59
by emjaysmith

Sponsors

Mega Bundle of 5,900+ Professional Lightroom Presets

Microstock Poll Results

Sponsors

3100 Posing Cards Bundle