pancakes

MicrostockGroup Sponsors


Author Topic: Banned by Shutterstock?  (Read 10197 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

« on: February 14, 2021, 09:14 »
+2
I've heard many contributors were banned by Shutterstock last year when they changed the royalty structure.  Why were they banned exactly?  Did they write bad things about Shutterstock on their forum?  Were there another reasons they were banned?  If you were banned, let me know what exactly happened.


« Reply #1 on: February 14, 2021, 10:28 »
+5
Be sure not use "please" in a message asking...
Who are you since you are a newcomer?

« Reply #2 on: February 14, 2021, 11:02 »
+3
Banned 🙋‍♂️. No reason given, violation of TOS but that can be anything. Cancel Culture at its best, they probably didnt like my public dissatisfaction and posts about their thievery so I got the boot 🥾 #shutterstockcontributor #shutterstockboycott #sstk #shutterstock #boycottshutterstock shutterstocknow

SpaceStockFootage

  • Space, Sci-Fi and Astronomy Related Stock Footage

« Reply #3 on: February 14, 2021, 11:15 »
+4
Banned 🙋‍♂️. No reason given, violation of TOS but that can be anything. Cancel Culture at its best, they probably didnt like my public dissatisfaction and posts about their thievery so I got the boot 🥾 #shutterstockcontributor #shutterstockboycott #sstk #shutterstock #boycottshutterstock shutterstocknow

If you were posting about 'their thievery' then that would be the reason. However much you or I disagree with the change to their royalty structure, they have every right to legally make such changes, and if you accuse them of being thieves then that would be defamation.

« Reply #4 on: February 14, 2021, 11:50 »
+4
I wasnt banned because I deleted all my images and closed my account.  ;D

But people who spoke out and tweeted about the thievery were banned. And some people changed their avatar to be something negative about SS (like calling them Shitterstock :-) ) and I think they were banned too.

« Reply #5 on: February 14, 2021, 12:03 »
+5
I also deleted all images and closed my account at shutterstock.

« Reply #6 on: February 14, 2021, 12:24 »
+4
I banned myself from their crappy forum  ;D

It's just the usual round up of people moaning about the royalty cuts and how they should delete their portfolios while adding more stuff and encouraging the bad behaviour then moaning about how their royalties are garbage.

« Reply #7 on: February 14, 2021, 12:27 »
+3
I've heard many contributors were banned by Shutterstock last year when they changed the royalty structure.  Why were they banned exactly?  Did they write bad things about Shutterstock on their forum?  Were there another reasons they were banned?  If you were banned, let me know what exactly happened.

Why do you care why they were banned? 

You've said plenty on the shittystock forum to get yourself a warning if the admins actually bothered monitoring the forum.

Shittersucks only wants useful idiots praising them to the heavens these days,.

Clair Voyant

« Reply #8 on: February 14, 2021, 12:39 »
+7
Banned by Shitterstock. Celebrate.

« Reply #9 on: February 14, 2021, 16:03 »
+2
I've heard many contributors were banned by Shutterstock last year when they changed the royalty structure.  Why were they banned exactly?  Did they write bad things about Shutterstock on their forum?  Were there another reasons they were banned?  If you were banned, let me know what exactly happened.

Who are many contributors that are banned from Shitterstock? Not the forum but contributor account closed. I heard we only gets 10c for downloads why would I care if they ban me from being used and under paid.

« Reply #10 on: February 14, 2021, 20:52 »
+1
Be sure not use "please" in a message asking...
Who are you since you are a newcomer?

I'm nobody from nowhere really.  Please ignore me.  I'm ignoring you from now on too.

« Reply #11 on: February 14, 2021, 20:54 »
0
Banned 🙋‍♂️. No reason given, violation of TOS but that can be anything. Cancel Culture at its best, they probably didnt like my public dissatisfaction and posts about their thievery so I got the boot 🥾 #shutterstockcontributor #shutterstockboycott #sstk #shutterstock #boycottshutterstock shutterstocknow

If you were posting about 'their thievery' then that would be the reason. However much you or I disagree with the change to their royalty structure, they have every right to legally make such changes, and if you accuse them of being thieves then that would be defamation.

Can I call them "bloodsucker"?

« Reply #12 on: February 14, 2021, 20:56 »
0
I've heard many contributors were banned by Shutterstock last year when they changed the royalty structure.  Why were they banned exactly?  Did they write bad things about Shutterstock on their forum?  Were there another reasons they were banned?  If you were banned, let me know what exactly happened.

Why do you care why they were banned? 

You've said plenty on the shittystock forum to get yourself a warning if the admins actually bothered monitoring the forum.

Shittersucks only wants useful idiots praising them to the heavens these days,.

Never got a warning.

« Reply #13 on: February 14, 2021, 20:59 »
0
I've heard many contributors were banned by Shutterstock last year when they changed the royalty structure.  Why were they banned exactly?  Did they write bad things about Shutterstock on their forum?  Were there another reasons they were banned?  If you were banned, let me know what exactly happened.

Who are many contributors that are banned from Shitterstock? Not the forum but contributor account closed. I heard we only gets 10c for downloads why would I care if they ban me from being used and under paid.

Yeah, but occasional $100-300 commission video sales are nice too. 

SpaceStockFootage

  • Space, Sci-Fi and Astronomy Related Stock Footage

« Reply #14 on: February 14, 2021, 22:57 »
+3
Banned 🙋‍♂️. No reason given, violation of TOS but that can be anything. Cancel Culture at its best, they probably didnt like my public dissatisfaction and posts about their thievery so I got the boot 🥾 #shutterstockcontributor #shutterstockboycott #sstk #shutterstock #boycottshutterstock shutterstocknow

If you were posting about 'their thievery' then that would be the reason. However much you or I disagree with the change to their royalty structure, they have every right to legally make such changes, and if you accuse them of being thieves then that would be defamation.

Can I call them "bloodsucker"?

Probably. A reasonable person would generally assume that they don't actually suck your blood, so it's unlikely to qualify as defamation!

« Reply #15 on: February 15, 2021, 04:11 »
+4
I've heard many contributors were banned by Shutterstock last year when they changed the royalty structure.  Why were they banned exactly?  Did they write bad things about Shutterstock on their forum?  Were there another reasons they were banned?  If you were banned, let me know what exactly happened.

Who are many contributors that are banned from Shitterstock? Not the forum but contributor account closed. I heard we only gets 10c for downloads why would I care if they ban me from being used and under paid.

Yeah, but occasional $100-300 commission video sales are nice too.

Make up your mind then. One minute you are slating shitterstock on their forum and threatening to pull your portfolio next minute you are making statements like the one above.

Do you really think if you moan enough that ss will reinstate the old royalty program?

Uncle Pete

  • Great Place by a Great Lake - My Home Port
« Reply #16 on: February 15, 2021, 11:00 »
+3
I banned myself from their crappy forum  ;D

It's just the usual round up of people moaning about the royalty cuts and how they should delete their portfolios while adding more stuff and encouraging the bad behaviour then moaning about how their royalties are garbage.

I should be as smart as you. It's becoming even worse now as a couple of twits play off each other, sometimes replying to their own posts up to six times in a row. Just what you wrote, telling us why we should delete our portfolios, while they are adding new files daily.

A self appointed moderator who decides to bring back year old topics for the benefit of the forum. Same person that left in a snit and deleted all her messages, which deleted all the threads she started, in which case, someone accused SS of censoring the forums.  :o

I miss the people and the fun, interaction and conversation, which has been taken over by bitter anger and anguish over the commission cuts. When it's a year, I may just start saying "get over it, it's been a year now. This isn't news."  ;D

Of course if we all pulled our portfolios (like that was even close to really going to happen) then we'd show them. Does anyone honestly believe that any protest could get the whole world to delete their means of income, just to punish the agency for cutting commissions? Say how's that coalition doing, seems pretty silent lately?

If I thought for one second that the group could do anything to make a change and make things better for us artists and contributors, I'm be flying to join. As it is, this is the same as all the past protests and contributor actions. Nothing changes, artists have no power to make demands and force change. An unfortunate truth for the market and the business.

Hey, there's another "start your own agency and show them" "pay 50%" post for this month. When someone does, I'm all in. GL stock, set your own prices, pays 40%. How's that doing? Wake Up




Uncle Pete

  • Great Place by a Great Lake - My Home Port
« Reply #17 on: February 15, 2021, 11:02 »
+2
Banned by Shitterstock. Celebrate.

That too.  8)

I've heard many contributors were banned by Shutterstock last year when they changed the royalty structure.  Why were they banned exactly?  Did they write bad things about Shutterstock on their forum?  Were there another reasons they were banned?  If you were banned, let me know what exactly happened.

Why do you care why they were banned? 

You've said plenty on the shittystock forum to get yourself a warning if the admins actually bothered monitoring the forum.

Shittersucks only wants useful idiots praising them to the heavens these days,.

Never got a warning.

You aren't banned. Tell us about someone who was, without any warning and the claim that their contributor account was closed for what they posted on the forum. Pretty simple, just some facts would do?
« Last Edit: February 15, 2021, 11:05 by Uncle Pete »

Horizon

    This user is banned.
« Reply #18 on: February 15, 2021, 12:26 »
+1
Many years back there was a big argument between Scott and Rinder it all ended up with Scott leaving and got about 50 peple banned in the process of leaving! and I'm talking some very big names getting banned!  being banned from SS is nothing new!
« Last Edit: February 15, 2021, 12:48 by Horizon »

« Reply #19 on: February 15, 2021, 13:07 »
0
Many years back there was a big argument between Scott and Rinder it all ended up with Scott leaving and got about 50 peple banned in the process of leaving! and I'm talking some very big names getting banned!  being banned from SS is nothing new!

I remember talk about such an incident (though it wasn't many years ago, so maybe I am confusing it with a different incident?), but I thought the people were just banned from the forum, not  actually banned as Shutterstock contributor?

Horizon

    This user is banned.
« Reply #20 on: February 15, 2021, 15:57 »
0
Many years back there was a big argument between Scott and Rinder it all ended up with Scott leaving and got about 50 peple banned in the process of leaving! and I'm talking some very big names getting banned!  being banned from SS is nothing new!

I remember talk about such an incident (though it wasn't many years ago, so maybe I am confusing it with a different incident?), but I thought the people were just banned from the forum, not  actually banned as Shutterstock contributor?

Oh yes! thrown out as well and ports deleted!  was about 5 years back or something like that! if you critizise too much you get banned as a contributor. I was one of them!

Correction: banned from the forum but NOT as a contributor! however many was!
« Last Edit: February 16, 2021, 10:24 by Horizon »

Noedelhap

  • www.colincramm.com

« Reply #21 on: February 15, 2021, 17:37 »
+1
I was banned from their forums. No idea why, but I can't log in anymore. My contributor account is still active though.

« Reply #22 on: February 15, 2021, 21:34 »
0
I was banned from their forums. No idea why, but I can't log in anymore. My contributor account is still active though.

Weird.

« Reply #23 on: February 16, 2021, 05:32 »
+1
I can still write on their forums but my contributor account was disabled when I reactivated my files for sale after the two week protest.

No reason was given, their small print apparently allows them to do this.

Uncle Pete

  • Great Place by a Great Lake - My Home Port
« Reply #24 on: February 16, 2021, 12:45 »
+1
Many years back there was a big argument between Scott and Rinder it all ended up with Scott leaving and got about 50 peple banned in the process of leaving! and I'm talking some very big names getting banned!  being banned from SS is nothing new!

50 people banned from the forum for an incident? That's amazing. Must have been some real blow up? Banned for what reason? Fifty People! Scott?

Horizon

    This user is banned.
« Reply #25 on: February 16, 2021, 14:18 »
0
Many years back there was a big argument between Scott and Rinder it all ended up with Scott leaving and got about 50 peple banned in the process of leaving! and I'm talking some very big names getting banned!  being banned from SS is nothing new!

50 people banned from the forum for an incident? That's amazing. Must have been some real blow up? Banned for what reason? Fifty People! Scott?

You were around then?? no? it started with a row between Laurin and Scott and tons of members took Laurins side, cut a long story short it all got totally out of hand with lots of swearing this and that. Scott got the boot I think but just before leaving he banned lots of people that was cheering on Laurin!...surprised you dont remember??

« Reply #26 on: February 16, 2021, 15:54 »
+1
Many years back there was a big argument between Scott and Rinder it all ended up with Scott leaving and got about 50 peple banned in the process of leaving! and I'm talking some very big names getting banned!  being banned from SS is nothing new!

50 people banned from the forum for an incident? That's amazing. Must have been some real blow up? Banned for what reason? Fifty People! Scott?

You were around then?? no? it started with a row between Laurin and Scott and tons of members took Laurins side, cut a long story short it all got totally out of hand with lots of swearing this and that. Scott got the boot I think but just before leaving he banned lots of people that was cheering on Laurin!...surprised you dont remember??

Scott was the Admin there, then it makes more understanding how 50 people got banned by mad managers.


« Reply #27 on: February 16, 2021, 16:13 »
+3
Many years back there was a big argument between Scott and Rinder it all ended up with Scott leaving and got about 50 peple banned in the process of leaving! and I'm talking some very big names getting banned!  being banned from SS is nothing new!

50 people banned from the forum for an incident? That's amazing. Must have been some real blow up? Banned for what reason? Fifty People! Scott?

You were around then?? no? it started with a row between Laurin and Scott and tons of members took Laurins side, cut a long story short it all got totally out of hand with lots of swearing this and that. Scott got the boot I think but just before leaving he banned lots of people that was cheering on Laurin!...surprised you dont remember??
I was around (from 2012) but I don't remember such a mass punishment ever. Sure not 5 years ago because at this time more people would like to see Laurin gone than cheering on his stay.

« Reply #28 on: February 16, 2021, 17:35 »
+1
I can still write on their forums but my contributor account was disabled when I reactivated my files for sale after the two week protest.

No reason was given, their small print apparently allows them to do this.

They brought in a new rule that if you deactivated your account you could not restore it for a month. Maybe, try again.

Horizon

    This user is banned.
« Reply #29 on: February 17, 2021, 03:13 »
0
Many years back there was a big argument between Scott and Rinder it all ended up with Scott leaving and got about 50 peple banned in the process of leaving! and I'm talking some very big names getting banned!  being banned from SS is nothing new!

50 people banned from the forum for an incident? That's amazing. Must have been some real blow up? Banned for what reason? Fifty People! Scott?

You were around then?? no? it started with a row between Laurin and Scott and tons of members took Laurins side, cut a long story short it all got totally out of hand with lots of swearing this and that. Scott got the boot I think but just before leaving he banned lots of people that was cheering on Laurin!...surprised you dont remember??
I was around (from 2012) but I don't remember such a mass punishment ever. Sure not 5 years ago because at this time more people would like to see Laurin gone than cheering on his stay.

As Diane said Scott was in the Admin and got the boot, it wasnt officially known but actually it was more the 50 as some sort of revenge thing!  many also had their ports removed!

Uncle Pete

  • Great Place by a Great Lake - My Home Port
« Reply #30 on: February 17, 2021, 13:42 »
+5
Many years back there was a big argument between Scott and Rinder it all ended up with Scott leaving and got about 50 peple banned in the process of leaving! and I'm talking some very big names getting banned!  being banned from SS is nothing new!

50 people banned from the forum for an incident? That's amazing. Must have been some real blow up? Banned for what reason? Fifty People! Scott?

You were around then?? no? it started with a row between Laurin and Scott and tons of members took Laurins side, cut a long story short it all got totally out of hand with lots of swearing this and that. Scott got the boot I think but just before leaving he banned lots of people that was cheering on Laurin!...surprised you dont remember??
I was around (from 2012) but I don't remember such a mass punishment ever. Sure not 5 years ago because at this time more people would like to see Laurin gone than cheering on his stay.

As Diane said Scott was in the Admin and got the boot, it wasnt officially known but actually it was more the 50 as some sort of revenge thing!  many also had their ports removed!

Well you know this is a Microstock discussion, so if I didn't see it, then it didn't happen?  ;)

Thanks for explaining, I might not have been active on the forum or wasn't paying attention or being a Senior I forgot. LOL Thank you for refreshing the time and circumstances.

No I don't remember Scott, or some uprising defending Rinder (that's odd in itself) or 50 people being banned. Sounds pretty much like this Scott (if it's true) had a personal melt down and before being let go, a little bit of narcissistic anger and a boatload of revenge. Or maybe it was his way of insuring he'd be let go, by scuttling the ship and jumping overboard. Whatever it all sounds rude and mean spirited. OK plain stupid and senseless covers it.

I remember Vincent who was decent and tried. He left on his own. He started in 2012. I'll guess that he replaced Scott?

Now back to NOW. Did anyone actually have their account closed as a contributor, in 2020, for what they posted on the forums? I know some people disabled and had lost images or couldn't enable them again. SS didn't initiate that. And who could ever know what software flaws could create a blocked account after it was disabled?

I've heard many contributors were banned by Shutterstock last year when they changed the royalty structure. 

I heard that no one was banned and the number was not "many" if any, possibly one and he disabled his own account. The rest of your leading questions are based on the false assumption that you invented.

Lets try again, @Blvdone, who was actually banned? Maybe then we could find out why, if they know? Should be easy if it was many people?

Or is the whole post just a troll?
« Last Edit: February 17, 2021, 17:36 by Uncle Pete »

duns123

« Reply #31 on: May 07, 2021, 04:46 »
0
Banned 🙋‍♂️. No reason given, violation of TOS but that can be anything. Cancel Culture at its best, they probably didnt like my public dissatisfaction and posts about their thievery so I got the boot 🥾 #shutterstockcontributor #shutterstockboycott #sstk #shutterstock #boycottshutterstock shutterstocknow

they have every right to legally make such changes,

I wouldn't be so sure about that and why stick up for such an unethical company? if it is legal it should say in the T&Cs that they have the right to cut pay rates but it doesn't. I don't why you say that they do have the legal right. If I'd known they'd pull a stunt like that, I wouldn't have joined SS 6 months earlier. There are even new contributors who left disgusted after they got their 1st lowest sub-rate DL sale. I was banned (forum only but don't care) because for 3 months straight all I got was the lowest sub rate for DLs and so I complained about it on the forum saying greedy called them names etc. but anyone would after the pitiful earnings I got. SS doesn't even allow people to say how much they earn on other sites which is definitely against freedom of speech. I'd understand if we were employees but we're not. If someone is trained like I was in the 80s (art/design and photography, companies should pay decent rates. But thanks to the rich tech geeks & their websites they (and the buyers) have reduced the value of design & photography and nothing was ever done to control them.

« Reply #32 on: May 07, 2021, 08:14 »
+2
Banned 🙋‍♂️. No reason given, violation of TOS but that can be anything. Cancel Culture at its best, they probably didnt like my public dissatisfaction and posts about their thievery so I got the boot 🥾 #shutterstockcontributor #shutterstockboycott #sstk #shutterstock #boycottshutterstock shutterstocknow

they have every right to legally make such changes,

I wouldn't be so sure about that and why stick up for such an unethical company? if it is legal it should say in the T&Cs that they have the right to cut pay rates but it doesn't. I don't why you say that they do have the legal right. If I'd known they'd pull a stunt like that, I wouldn't have joined SS 6 months earlier. There are even new contributors who left disgusted after they got their 1st lowest sub-rate DL sale. I was banned (forum only but don't care) because for 3 months straight all I got was the lowest sub rate for DLs and so I complained about it on the forum saying greedy called them names etc. but anyone would after the pitiful earnings I got. SS doesn't even allow people to say how much they earn on other sites which is definitely against freedom of speech. I'd understand if we were employees but we're not. If someone is trained like I was in the 80s (art/design and photography, companies should pay decent rates. But thanks to the rich tech geeks & their websites they (and the buyers) have reduced the value of design & photography and nothing was ever done to control them.

Ummm, the T&Cs absolutely say that SS can set and change royalties. How on Earth do you think that they shouldn't be?

You are NOT a Shutterstock employee. You are using their service to sell licenses to use your images. You are a customer (edit: you are basically a customer of their service). They pay you a royalty and as long as you are ok with that royalty you will continue to use their service (or not like some of us).
Get off your high horse, you aren't special. If you want to be a rich tech geek, start your own microstock company.
« Last Edit: May 07, 2021, 12:07 by Copidosoma »

« Reply #33 on: May 07, 2021, 09:12 »
+1
Banned 🙋‍♂️. No reason given, violation of TOS but that can be anything. Cancel Culture at its best, they probably didnt like my public dissatisfaction and posts about their thievery so I got the boot 🥾 #shutterstockcontributor #shutterstockboycott #sstk #shutterstock #boycottshutterstock shutterstocknow

they have every right to legally make such changes,

I wouldn't be so sure about that and why stick up for such an unethical company? if it is legal it should say in the T&Cs that they have the right to cut pay rates but it doesn't. I don't why you say that they do have the legal right. If I'd known they'd pull a stunt like that, I wouldn't have joined SS 6 months earlier. There are even new contributors who left disgusted after they got their 1st lowest sub-rate DL sale. I was banned (forum only but don't care) because for 3 months straight all I got was the lowest sub rate for DLs and so I complained about it on the forum saying greedy called them names etc. but anyone would after the pitiful earnings I got. SS doesn't even allow people to say how much they earn on other sites which is definitely against freedom of speech. I'd understand if we were employees but we're not. If someone is trained like I was in the 80s (art/design and photography, companies should pay decent rates. But thanks to the rich tech geeks & their websites they (and the buyers) have reduced the value of design & photography and nothing was ever done to control them.

Ummm, the T&Cs absolutely say that SS can set and change royalties. How on Earth do you think that they shouldn't be?

You are NOT a Shutterstock employee. You are using their service to sell licenses to use your images. You are a customer. They pay you a royalty and as long as you are ok with that royalty you will continue to use their service (or not like some of us).
Get off your high horse, you aren't special. If you want to be a rich tech geek, start your own microstock company.

Actually, the ToS specifies that we are independent contractors:

18. Miscellaneous
The relationship of the parties is that of independent contractors. There is no relationship of partnership, joint venture, employment, franchise or agency created hereby between the parties.


And yes, when we all signed up and agreed to work with them, we also agreed that SS can change everything, including royalties. We obviously have the option to stop working with them, if the new terms are not fitting our standards:

f. Please note that Shutterstock reserves the right to modify these terms at any time in its sole discretion, it being understood that no changes shall apply to any pending arbitration proceeding commenced or legal claims asserted prior to such change. Shutterstock will notify you of any such change by an announcement on this page, your login page, and/or by other means to provide you the opportunity to review the modifications before they become effective. Modifications to these TOS will not apply retroactively. By continuing to make Content available through Shutterstock, you agree to be bound by all such changes. If you do not agree with any of the changes, please remove from Shutterstock, pursuant to the terms herein, all or that portion of your Content to which you do not wish the changes to apply

« Last Edit: May 07, 2021, 09:18 by Zero Talent »

« Reply #34 on: May 07, 2021, 12:06 »
0

.

SpaceStockFootage

  • Space, Sci-Fi and Astronomy Related Stock Footage

« Reply #35 on: May 09, 2021, 04:51 »
+3
Banned 🙋‍♂️. No reason given, violation of TOS but that can be anything. Cancel Culture at its best, they probably didnt like my public dissatisfaction and posts about their thievery so I got the boot 🥾 #shutterstockcontributor #shutterstockboycott #sstk #shutterstock #boycottshutterstock shutterstocknow

they have every right to legally make such changes,

I wouldn't be so sure about that and why stick up for such an unethical company? if it is legal it should say in the T&Cs that they have the right to cut pay rates but it doesn't. I don't why you say that they do have the legal right.

As explained by others, it does say it in the T&C's. Stating facts doesn't mean I'm sticking up for a company. I could have said "you're right, they're breaking the law and you should sue them" to make you happy... but that would be a lie, and potentially costly advice. 

duns123

« Reply #36 on: May 15, 2021, 15:21 »
+1
I was also banned from the forum with no warning and I rarely posted. Contributor account is still going though but will leave SS when I reach $35 threshold which is taking a lo-ng time due to the miserly lo-ow DL payments. Wish I could leave now but can't afford to forfeit my earnings with the time I've put in there.


« Reply #37 on: May 15, 2021, 18:08 »
0
the best thing is to not share your opinions,when its something negative towards the agency  at their forums anymore.they dont want you to criticize them for any of their actions.including the joke 10 cents sales
its their site.its  their business.ITS their rules.although i find it bit funny that there is a thread for other agencies to work with with the title new oportunites. i guess that didnt bother them, that people  talking about their competitors and the thread is still active
what really annoyes  me with ss is not so much the 10 cents ok its something serious.BUT the whole AI reviewing images
you getting tons of rejections cause of some stupid program and it drives many people away .
unfo i see this happening lately with adobe.the one rejection after the other and i have to wonder if they are also using an AI


« Reply #38 on: May 16, 2021, 06:18 »
0
I was also banned from the forum with no warning and I rarely posted. Contributor account is still going though but will leave SS when I reach $35 threshold which is taking a lo-ng time due to the miserly lo-ow DL payments. Wish I could leave now but can't afford to forfeit my earnings with the time I've put in there.

Somebody wrote here that we get our payment even if it is below the 35 $, if we close our account.
I also still do not really believe it and wanted to ask SS about that, but that day even the moderators links were not working - and of course there is no chance anymore to contact directly to SS support and get someone to answer from SS itself. So i am also curious, should I wait until I can get my payout or not? but it will for sure take much longer than for you, because when SS started the new payment, I deleted all better photos and only left the worst and some normal photos, which - why ever - until now get sales regulary.

« Reply #39 on: May 16, 2021, 07:27 »
0
Unless its changed recently then no, you dont get payment if you close an account under that number.

That said, its only <$35.  Its not important.

K2

« Reply #40 on: May 16, 2021, 21:35 »
+5
Getting banned by SS might not be such a bad thing. I haven't been banned personally, but just saying. Why be bothered with a company that doesn't give one iota of respect to contributors? I've deleted my SS account today after 9 years and will just go video exclusive to Pond5.

Uncle Pete

  • Great Place by a Great Lake - My Home Port
« Reply #41 on: May 17, 2021, 22:21 »
0
Getting banned by SS might not be such a bad thing. I haven't been banned personally, but just saying. Why be bothered with a company that doesn't give one iota of respect to contributors? I've deleted my SS account today after 9 years and will just go video exclusive to Pond5.

I haven't closed my account, or removed my "best" images, but you did hit the nail on that other part. Being banned from the forum isn't a blessing.  8) There's a difference as most of the people who have posted about being banned, are writing about the forum, not their sales accounts.

« Reply #42 on: May 18, 2021, 07:41 »
+3
I was banned for 6-months, and here I am 13 years later still banned.  Could care less. 

Uncle Pete

  • Great Place by a Great Lake - My Home Port
« Reply #43 on: May 18, 2021, 09:01 »
0
I was banned for 6-months, and here I am 13 years later still banned.  Could care less.

My compliments!  ;D You have resisted the urge to ask for reinstatement and also didn't just create a new forum account like some others who can't stay away.

I am self banned for a vacation.


As Diane said Scott was in the Admin and got the boot, it wasnt officially known but actually it was more the 50 as some sort of revenge thing!  many also had their ports removed!

This BS artist is banned here forever and has been banned from SS forums for life. Most others if memory serves, I'm not going to keep tabs on someone who has managed to be banned almost everywhere. But if the reason for a ban was based on facts and truth, that would be a good cause. The fact is, 50 people were not banned because of some forum dispute with one person and his followers. Which brings me around to SS forum and some others, where people make up insider information, adulterate the facts, and spread rumors or lies, which later get turned into "someone said..." factoids.

My point is, sometimes the forums were fun and entertaining and informative. SS forum has dropped into barely alive and limited to a very small group of contributors.  Most of the old time, forum regulars with insight and personality have left or been banned.

duns123

« Reply #44 on: July 01, 2021, 05:09 »
+1
Banned 🙋‍♂️. No reason given, violation of TOS but that can be anything. Cancel Culture at its best, they probably didnt like my public dissatisfaction and posts about their thievery so I got the boot 🥾 #shutterstockcontributor #shutterstockboycott #sstk #shutterstock #boycottshutterstock shutterstocknow

If you were posting about 'their thievery' then that would be the reason. However much you or I disagree with the change to their royalty structure, they have every right to legally make such changes, and if you accuse them of being thieves then that would be defamation.

Are you sure about that? As far as I'm concerned they've broken their T&S's as it does not say that they massively reduce payments anywhere. If I'd known 6 months earlier that they'd do that I wouldn't have joined SS. Do they have the right to reduce their pay rate yet keep contributors locked in their absurd new royalty system? They are a US company after all not a 3rd world despot regime  As far as I know, you can't cash out until you reach the $35 minimum payout. So if you want to be paid you have no choice but to keep working for the frankly insulting sub download prices. We also have to put up with shoddy CS and silence from moderators on the forum.

« Reply #45 on: July 01, 2021, 05:17 »
+1


 As far as I'm concerned they've broken their T&S's as it does not say that they massively reduce payments anywhere.

Their ToS say:
"Please note that Shutterstock reserves the right to modify these terms at any time in its sole discretion."

Do they have the right to reduce their pay rate yet keep contributors locked in their absurd new royalty system?

No and they aren't doing that. You are not "locked" in their new royality system. You are free to close your account if you do not agree with the new royality structure. No one is forcing you. And about needing to keep your account open till you reach minimum payout if the $35 are that important to you: It's written in the ToS that you will not get your money if you close your account before reaching minimum payout and you agreed to it by signing up.
« Last Edit: July 01, 2021, 05:22 by Firn »

duns123

« Reply #46 on: July 01, 2021, 05:17 »
0
I was banned from their forums but still have a contributor account but when I get to the minimum payment, I'll make sure I get paid then close my account. Only have a few hundred images on there anyway.


« Reply #47 on: July 01, 2021, 15:56 »
+1
and regarding the false claims that freedom of speech was violated:

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

agencies  make their rules (TOS) and artists can choose to accept them or not. nothing unlawful

duns123

« Reply #48 on: July 03, 2021, 15:03 »
0


 As far as I'm concerned they've broken their T&S's as it does not say that they massively reduce payments anywhere.

Their ToS say:
"Please note that Shutterstock reserves the right to modify these terms at any time in its sole discretion."

Do they have the right to reduce their pay rate yet keep contributors locked in their absurd new royalty system?

No and they aren't doing that. You are not "locked" in their new royality system. You are free to close your account if you do not agree with the new royality structure. No one is forcing you. And about needing to keep your account open till you reach minimum payout if the $35 are that important to you: It's written in the ToS that you will not get your money if you close your account before reaching minimum payout and you agreed to it by signing up.

I completely disagree I wouldn't have joined if I knew they'd pull a stunt like that.
I'm no lawyer but no way does it say in the T&S that they have the right to reduce payments and why stick up for them anyway? Why does anyone unless because they've earned loads from the SS grave train before, so don't care about us newer contributors enslaved to their crap unethical regime.

farbled

  • wirestock.io/?ref=terry.davis1
« Reply #49 on: July 03, 2021, 15:08 »
+4
I completely disagree I wouldn't have joined if I knew they'd pull a stunt like that.
I'm no lawyer but no way does it say in the T&S that they have the right to reduce payments and why stick up for them anyway? Why does anyone unless because they've earned loads from the SS grave train before, so don't care about us newer contributors enslaved to their crap unethical regime.

You said in one of your many threads you signed up 6 months ago. So you knew or didn't bother reading the TOS. That's on you. You signed up, you volunteered. And yes, if you did read the TOS you would see it says exactly that. They can change as needed.

No one like commission cuts. If you feel like a slave for what you volunteered for, thats also on you.

duns123

« Reply #50 on: July 03, 2021, 15:41 »
0
none

duns123

« Reply #51 on: July 03, 2021, 18:50 »
0
..
« Last Edit: July 03, 2021, 18:55 by duns123 »

duns123

« Reply #52 on: July 03, 2021, 18:54 »
0
Banned 🙋‍♂️. No reason given, violation of TOS but that can be anything. Cancel Culture at its best, they probably didnt like my public dissatisfaction and posts about their thievery so I got the boot 🥾 #shutterstockcontributor #shutterstockboycott #sstk #shutterstock #boycottshutterstock shutterstocknow

If you were posting about 'their thievery' then that would be the reason. However much you or I disagree with the change to their royalty structure, they have every right to legally make such changes, and if you accuse them of being thieves then that would be defamation.

Can I call them "bloodsucker"?
or leeches

duns123

« Reply #53 on: July 03, 2021, 19:05 »
+1
the best thing is to not share your opinions,when its something negative towards the agency  at their forums anymore.they dont want you to criticize them for any of their actions.including the joke 10 cents sales
its their site.its  their business.ITS their rules.although i find it bit funny that there is a thread for other agencies to work with with the title new oportunites. i guess that didnt bother them, that people  talking about their competitors and the thread is still active
what really annoyes  me with ss is not so much the 10 cents ok its something serious.BUT the whole AI reviewing images
you getting tons of rejections cause of some stupid program and it drives many people away .
unfo i see this happening lately with adobe.the one rejection after the other and i have to wonder if they are also using an AI
Yes, I had a beef about adobe when they rejected all my lot of photos for tech reasons when it should have been for I. Property. I wanna leave there as well because I don't photograph people and ther's not many things you can shoot without the I.P. violations.

SpaceStockFootage

  • Space, Sci-Fi and Astronomy Related Stock Footage

« Reply #54 on: July 04, 2021, 14:29 »
+5
Telling you facts isn't sticking up for Shutterstock... it's just the opposite of making things up that aren't true.

ShadySue

  • There is a crack in everything
« Reply #55 on: July 04, 2021, 14:44 »
+1
Yes, I had a beef about adobe when they rejected all my lot of photos for tech reasons when it should have been for I. Property. I wanna leave there as well because I don't photograph people and ther's not many things you can shoot without the I.P. violations.
IP is agency/distributor-independent.
If some agencies don't inspect/check for IP issues (e.g. Alamy), or are very lax on IP compliance (e.g. SS), that puts you at more risk.
You'll find in every contract that you are liable for IP issues, whether or not they inspect.
Caveat vendor.

« Reply #56 on: July 04, 2021, 15:54 »
+1

Yes, I had a beef about adobe when they rejected all my lot of photos ... I wanna leave there as well because I don't photograph people and ther's not many things you can shoot without the I.P. violations.

you've got it backwards - Adobe passes on most images with people (aka editorial)


« Reply #57 on: July 08, 2021, 00:25 »
+2
Sounds like these creative people should wear this as a badge of courage and nothing else.
I am so glad I never put any of MY CREATIONS with this mob.
They need to remember that without us they are NOTHING.

« Reply #58 on: July 12, 2021, 06:12 »
0
Sounds like these creative people should wear this as a badge of courage and nothing else.
I am so glad I never put any of MY CREATIONS with this mob.
They need to remember that without us they are NOTHING.

262 million in gross profit for 2020 makes them much more then nothing. They don't care about your badge of courage and don't need you.

Uncle Pete

  • Great Place by a Great Lake - My Home Port
« Reply #59 on: July 12, 2021, 08:37 »
0

Yes, I had a beef about adobe when they rejected all my lot of photos ... I wanna leave there as well because I don't photograph people and ther's not many things you can shoot without the I.P. violations.

you've got it backwards - Adobe passes on most images with people (aka editorial)

I never tried that. So all I do with people images, assuming they aren't a single, subject, kind of thing, but lets say image that has incidental people, is mark it editorial and it will pass on Adobe?

I think over the past couple years, we have all observed and recognized that SS has absurd rejections, random rejections, rejections for obviously wrong reasons, and nearly all of these are beyond explaining, because there's no reasonable answer for anyone who asks WHY?  ;)

I was banned from their forums but still have a contributor account but when I get to the minimum payment, I'll make sure I get paid then close my account. Only have a few hundred images on there anyway.


Payout is $35? How hard can that be? Oh I suppose, 350 dime downloads, that could take some time?  ;D

If I'd known 6 months earlier that they'd do that I wouldn't have joined SS.

I can agree with you, hindsight is wonderful, and usually mostly accurate. But as far as I can see, into the past and if I had known, every Microstock agency has pulled the same kind of stunts. So maybe people should have skipped the whole idea of business and profits, from the start?  :(

When you joined iStock did you expect to be getting fractional cents payment like connect price per image of  $0.00380 which I got many in May. Great pay, only 263 downloads and I get a penny.

Did you expect to get 20 cents for a small 1 credit download from DT and have to earn $100 before they would pay anyone anything?

Or someplace like DP that pays 28c for a download, and got caught buying our images for a sub and then reselling them on another site they own, for a much higher price?

SpaceStockFootage

  • Space, Sci-Fi and Astronomy Related Stock Footage

« Reply #60 on: July 12, 2021, 08:43 »
0
Sounds like these creative people should wear this as a badge of courage and nothing else.
I am so glad I never put any of MY CREATIONS with this mob.
They need to remember that without us they are NOTHING.

262 million in gross profit for 2020 makes them much more then nothing. They don't care about your badge of courage and don't need you.

While I agree with your sentiment, you may have missed his point slightly. I mean, all of that 262m was made licensing content that belongs to....?

Uncle Pete

  • Great Place by a Great Lake - My Home Port
« Reply #61 on: July 12, 2021, 09:16 »
0
Sounds like these creative people should wear this as a badge of courage and nothing else.
I am so glad I never put any of MY CREATIONS with this mob.
They need to remember that without us they are NOTHING.

262 million in gross profit for 2020 makes them much more then nothing. They don't care about your badge of courage and don't need you.

While I agree with your sentiment, you may have missed his point slightly. I mean, all of that 262m was made licensing content that belongs to....?

Let me see if I understand. If they made the $262 Million on content that isn't ours. They don't need us? And if they did make it on content from photographers and artists... they do need us, but the people who don't upload, or closed their accounts, don't really matter either way? LOL

I'm to the point of having given up on trying to fight the agencies. I did for years, I dropped and stopped. I closed accounts. I joined in the protests. I lobbied on forums about how we should not support the bottom feeder, price cutting, unethical agencies. Seems like trying to stop a runaway train, going downhill, for an inevitable "train wreck" by standing in front of it? If I comment that agency X is unethical and stealing from us, and has a shady history, I get criticized and told "that's one of my best". What's the use?

Now that SS finally joined the race to the bottom, after most others led the way for years. Some many times, with multiple changes. But SS is the evil agency of doom and the Devils tool itself? The rest get a free pass for screwing with us for more years and in the past.

I shouldn't care how much Shutterstock makes or what percentage of the profits (or expense actually) we are. I'm not a stock holder. It's really none of my concern. But how much they pay US, like you or me kind of US, is important. I just looked and their profit is up but sales growth is down. Robbing to poor to pay the wealthy isn't as lucrative as it might have been.



I'll say on the surface, they cut our commissions, cut prices and sales revenue has only gone up 2.48%? If profits don't keep growing, that $100 stock, will dip back down to a $35 stock. I still believe the growth and profits were created on the backs of the workers, the artists, the contributors.

But I also believe that whether I upload to them or close my account, is like throwing a pebble into the ocean.



I'm done trying to fight this futile battle with the agencies. Some people do well and do great work, and do make a profit. For more of us, the returns do not justify the expense of equipment, time and effort, to produce the products.

I've had images deactivated, the rules changed, commissions cut and pay tables twisted. Then when we think something is in the future, they re-organize and eliminate levels as we knew them. When that's done, commissions are restructured or relabeled. Down in value of course.

Show me where the "without us, they are nothing" comes into the means to control and change our own destiny?

shutterview

« Reply #62 on: July 13, 2021, 04:28 »
+2
Unfortunately, their numbers look great on paper for investors. Revenue is only going up, ROIC and ROE also. It is obvious to me, being SS contributor and veteran investor that they are only working to please investors, making their numbers look good, which means that contributors are scrud. Sadly, now I understand why investors are happy with large percent of insiders stake in company, because they will do anything for stock price to go up. Conclusion - if you are investor look for large number of insiders investment, if you are any kind of employee, look for the opposite.
« Last Edit: July 13, 2021, 04:35 by shutterview »

Uncle Pete

  • Great Place by a Great Lake - My Home Port
« Reply #63 on: July 13, 2021, 10:41 »
0
Conclusion - if you are investor look for large number of insiders investment, if you are any kind of employee, look for the opposite.

Good conclusion, aside from the detail that we are private contractors not employees. But From the investor side, you make a good point. Time to make an observation, agencies, none of them, care about us contributors, and if anyone ever thinks they do, you have been fooled.

Agencies only care about making money, for themselves and for their investors. None of the agencies are charities or social elevating platforms for the artists benefit. They are in business to make money for the agency.

« Reply #64 on: July 18, 2021, 16:04 »
0

...
I shouldn't care how much Shutterstock makes or what percentage of the profits (or expense actually) we are. I'm not a stock holder. It's really none of my concern. But how much they pay US, like you or me kind of US, is important. I just looked and their profit is up but sales growth is down. Robbing to poor to pay the wealthy isn't as lucrative as it might have been.


...

it's hard to maintain a 10+% sales increase in a maturing market, but the important stat is profit which is static (57-60%) based on these figures (and that assumes other costs have remained steady)

Uncle Pete

  • Great Place by a Great Lake - My Home Port
« Reply #65 on: July 24, 2021, 09:28 »
0

...
I shouldn't care how much Shutterstock makes or what percentage of the profits (or expense actually) we are. I'm not a stock holder. It's really none of my concern. But how much they pay US, like you or me kind of US, is important. I just looked and their profit is up but sales growth is down. Robbing to poor to pay the wealthy isn't as lucrative as it might have been.


...

it's hard to maintain a 10+% sales increase in a maturing market, but the important stat is profit which is static (57-60%) based on these figures (and that assumes other costs have remained steady)

They cut commissions, which means they cut the costs, which have been reduced.  ;)

And yes the market was wild, a gold rush ten years ago. Now it has matured and all of the agencies are adjusting our portion, rank, levels, benefits and anything they can, downward. There have been other plans but we're seeing revenue sharing is the latest trend. Something where we don't see how much or the percentages and just a slice of the pie, at the end of the month.

Not a surprise that Getty started this with their subscriptions, while other versions have been developed. No surprise that agencies cut and cut, dropped benefits and programs, and SS was the last. But they earned the right to be most hated, for sticking up longest, while the others, just slide along, finding new "Exciting News" for ways to screw us.

While it's not scientific, I think the poll on the right, does show trends and has for years. What does it take? 50 votes to make the list. Who's on top?  ;) How many show now? And for 37 votes at 2.4 earnings people still stick with DP? Bigstock is a 0.6! Canva seems to do pretty well.

Yes my favorite two are SS and AS. I'm doing this for the money. 100% a photo mercenary sell out for pocket change. Why else would anyone be working Microstock? My logical conclusion, personally is, work the sites that pay me the most.


 

Related Topics

  Subject / Started by Replies Last post
13 Replies
8907 Views
Last post February 07, 2007, 14:12
by hymowitzer
0 Replies
2864 Views
Last post May 25, 2008, 12:20
by leaf
30 Replies
10728 Views
Last post August 03, 2012, 13:14
by EmberMike
6 Replies
2780 Views
Last post March 07, 2013, 20:18
by elvinstar
22 Replies
4066 Views
Last post October 02, 2020, 16:24
by duns123

Sponsors

Mega Bundle of 5,900+ Professional Lightroom Presets

Microstock Poll Results

Sponsors

3100 Posing Cards Bundle