MicrostockGroup
Agency Based Discussion => Shutterstock.com => Topic started by: blvdone on March 02, 2021, 10:35
-
Just got a warning from Shutterstock. I was phasing out of the forum anyway after un-licensing my portfolios there recently. So, whatever. Good luck to all who are still with Shutterstock.
-
Just got a warning from Shutterstock. I was phasing out of the forum anyway after un-licensing my portfolios there recently. So, whatever. Good luck to all who are still with Shutterstock.
Of all the reasons you gave them, they chose the best one!
Obviously, some admins have a good sense of humor!
;D
-
Just got a warning from Shutterstock. I was phasing out of the forum anyway after un-licensing my portfolios there recently. So, whatever. Good luck to all who are still with Shutterstock.
Of all the reasons you gave them, they chose the best one!
Obviously, some admins have a good sense of humor!
;D
Jon is a fellow contributor. He should be angry about the changes Shutterstock made last year too!! lol
-
Bunch of snowflakes
-
Well done.
Jon Oringer is nothing more than low life scum as we say in the UK.
-
Well done.
Jon Oringer is nothing more than low life scum as we say in the UK.
FWIW, we say that same thing here in the US.
Other variants here: pond scum, scum sucker, etc.
English is a rich, beautiful language, ain't it? ;D
-
Just got a warning from Shutterstock. I was phasing out of the forum anyway after un-licensing my portfolios there recently. So, whatever. Good luck to all who are still with Shutterstock.
Soon you will be banned and your account closed noone will miss you.
-
Up here in Canada we call it a POS :)
-
From his port it seems like he stopped shooting stock a long time ago.
Maybe his work didn't suck in that era :D
https://www.shutterstock.com/g/shutterstock (https://www.shutterstock.com/g/shutterstock)
-
From his port it seems like he stopped shooting stock a long time ago.
Maybe his work didn't suck in that era :D
https://www.shutterstock.com/g/shutterstock (https://www.shutterstock.com/g/shutterstock)
Yeah, they're pretty old school. Check out the ID number! :)
https://www.shutterstock.com/image-photo/street-signs-20 (https://www.shutterstock.com/image-photo/street-signs-20)
-
Just got a warning from Shutterstock. I was phasing out of the forum anyway after un-licensing my portfolios there recently. So, whatever. Good luck to all who are still with Shutterstock.
Soon you will be banned and your account closed noone will miss you.
I'm all for good relationship between contributors and an agency. I just gave my honest opinion on his portfolio. I thought his photos sucked in terms of skill and artisticity despite them being from nearly 20 years ago. But that wasn't the main point of my post on Shutterstock. My point was that Jon probably wasn't those who pride in their creations in photos and videos. I thought he probably thinks we should be happy making some money on the side from photos that would've been collecting dust in our hard drives. If he was one of us creators who pride in our works, he wouldn't have done what he has done in the midst of pandemic to hurt us. That' was my point of the original post on Shutterstock. Although his photos lacked professional skill and artisticity, I can see that he gets why and what would sell in stock photos. That's why he has been a successful businessman growing his Shutterstock into multi billion dollar corporation. He has made all the right decisions for the company and for us for so many years, until last year imo. So, I'm not trying to trash him at all. I was trying to understand and find a clue of why Jon Oringer did what he did last year with Shutterstock to hurt us contributors. I just hope that he'll correct his mistakes he made last year and roll back changes Shutterstock made to pre-covid days when most of us were happy working with Shutterstock.
-
Up here in Canada we call it a POS :)
Yeah, we do that too.
Great language, this English! Thanks, Brits. :D :D :D
-
"I was trying to understand and find a clue of why Jon Oringer did what he did last year with Shutterstock to hurt us contributors". I think Billionaires tend to have a different make up to most of us which drives them to continue pile up money when a more rational person would say "OK thats enough now". Whether its good for society we have such people to create wealth is another debate.
-
I am sorry... but who is Jon Oringer?
I thought it was Devil character in the movie Devil's advocate... ;D
-
I just gave my honest opinion on his portfolio.
People need to stop justifiying being rude and insulting by saying "I just gave my opinion!!!".
There are a lot of forum rules on Shutterstock, one is "be polite" another "Provide honest, constructive feedback without being disrespectful or mean" How is saying someone's profile "sucks" constructive? Next rule says "Refrain from using the forum to call out other contributors’ work in a negative light", which is exactly what you did. Jon Oringer certainly did not come to the forum to ask for your opinion on his (test) portfolio. You made a thread specifically for calling out his work in a negative light. And then there is a rule saying "Refrain from making defamatory remarks about Shutterstock, our contributors, our customers, or our competitor", which you have broken in many of the 446564 threads you post daily.
I don't like Oringer any more than anyone else here does, but you broke several rules, you got a well deserved warning, stop whining.
-
I just gave my honest opinion on his portfolio.
People need to stop justifiying being rude and insulting by saying "I just gave my opinion!!!".
There are a lot of forum rules on Shutterstock, one is "be polite" another "Provide honest, constructive feedback without being disrespectful or mean" How is saying someone's profile "sucks" constructive? Next rule says "Refrain from using the forum to call out other contributors’ work in a negative light", which is exactly what you did. Jon Oringer certainly did not come to the forum to ask for your opinion on his (test) portfolio. You made a thread specifically for calling out his work in a negative light. And then there is a rule saying "Refrain from making defamatory remarks about Shutterstock, our contributors, our customers, or our competitor", which you have broken in many of the 446564 threads you post daily.
I don't like Oringer any more than anyone else here does, but you broke several rules, you got a well deserved warning, stop whining.
Surprised he's not got a temporary ban or at least a warning for: "You should work on your photo skill rather than wasting your time posting craps you stupid redneck MFer".
Maybe he got a warning, you never know. Seems a bit of a step up from an 'opinion'.
-
I do agree in Polite and be constructive even if it is bad feedback. And you always can use humor to point that out.
This reminds me of how two state figures used it in my country while one defined the government's work to fight COVID.
"your work looks like the fine flower of the rubble" - which is also a title from a book.
-
I just gave my honest opinion on his portfolio.
People need to stop justifiying being rude and insulting by saying "I just gave my opinion!!!".
There are a lot of forum rules on Shutterstock, one is "be polite" another "Provide honest, constructive feedback without being disrespectful or mean" How is saying someone's profile "sucks" constructive? Next rule says "Refrain from using the forum to call out other contributors’ work in a negative light", which is exactly what you did. Jon Oringer certainly did not come to the forum to ask for your opinion on his (test) portfolio. You made a thread specifically for calling out his work in a negative light. And then there is a rule saying "Refrain from making defamatory remarks about Shutterstock, our contributors, our customers, or our competitor", which you have broken in many of the 446564 threads you post daily.
I don't like Oringer any more than anyone else here does, but you broke several rules, you got a well deserved warning, stop whining.
Surprised he's not got a temporary ban or at least a warning for: "You should work on your photo skill rather than wasting your time posting craps you stupid redneck MFer".
Maybe he got a warning, you never know. Seems a bit of a step up from an 'opinion'.
This Uncle Pete HodagMedia guy has been rude to me on Shutterstock forum and here. I'm not the one who attack somebody first. I'm only reacting to somebody being rude attacking me. That MFer only posts meaningless crap.
-
I just gave my honest opinion on his portfolio.
People need to stop justifiying being rude and insulting by saying "I just gave my opinion!!!".
There are a lot of forum rules on Shutterstock, one is "be polite" another "Provide honest, constructive feedback without being disrespectful or mean" How is saying someone's profile "sucks" constructive? Next rule says "Refrain from using the forum to call out other contributors’ work in a negative light", which is exactly what you did. Jon Oringer certainly did not come to the forum to ask for your opinion on his (test) portfolio. You made a thread specifically for calling out his work in a negative light. And then there is a rule saying "Refrain from making defamatory remarks about Shutterstock, our contributors, our customers, or our competitor", which you have broken in many of the 446564 threads you post daily.
I don't like Oringer any more than anyone else here does, but you broke several rules, you got a well deserved warning, stop whining.
I believe the forum is a place to whine and let them know how we feel. No need to play nice after they deliberately took our money to prop up their stock price and increase their stock option payout by millions of $$$. I would be nice if they were nice to us contributors. So, stop playing nice to the devils making our lives harder. They only exploit our weakness. They struck first. We strike back.
-
Just got a warning from Shutterstock. I was phasing out of the forum anyway after un-licensing my portfolios there recently. So, whatever. Good luck to all who are still with Shutterstock.
Whilst I understand your obvious anger (as most of us are also angry) with what shittysucks have done I think your constant posts on their forum will earn you a lifetime ban sooner or later, and also you stand a good chance of having your account closed too.
Shystersticks really don't like open criticism and get quite pissy with their detractors.
-
I'm feeling slighted. I said Jon wouldn't know good photography if it jumped up and bit him in the ass, and didn't get a warning. *pout*
-
I just gave my honest opinion on his portfolio.
People need to stop justifiying being rude and insulting by saying "I just gave my opinion!!!".
There are a lot of forum rules on Shutterstock, one is "be polite" another "Provide honest, constructive feedback without being disrespectful or mean" How is saying someone's profile "sucks" constructive? Next rule says "Refrain from using the forum to call out other contributors’ work in a negative light", which is exactly what you did. Jon Oringer certainly did not come to the forum to ask for your opinion on his (test) portfolio. You made a thread specifically for calling out his work in a negative light. And then there is a rule saying "Refrain from making defamatory remarks about Shutterstock, our contributors, our customers, or our competitor", which you have broken in many of the 446564 threads you post daily.
I don't like Oringer any more than anyone else here does, but you broke several rules, you got a well deserved warning, stop whining.
This is so lovely. You are such big fanboy of Shitterstock! ;D
-
I just gave my honest opinion on his portfolio.
People need to stop justifiying being rude and insulting by saying "I just gave my opinion!!!".
There are a lot of forum rules on Shutterstock, one is "be polite" another "Provide honest, constructive feedback without being disrespectful or mean" How is saying someone's profile "sucks" constructive? Next rule says "Refrain from using the forum to call out other contributors’ work in a negative light", which is exactly what you did. Jon Oringer certainly did not come to the forum to ask for your opinion on his (test) portfolio. You made a thread specifically for calling out his work in a negative light. And then there is a rule saying "Refrain from making defamatory remarks about Shutterstock, our contributors, our customers, or our competitor", which you have broken in many of the 446564 threads you post daily.
I don't like Oringer any more than anyone else here does, but you broke several rules, you got a well deserved warning, stop whining.
This is so lovely. You are such big fanboy of Shitterstock! ;D
Sure... ::)
(I am woman, by the way...)
-
Try do the same with any other contributor.Let's see if you get another warning point.
-
Well they do Suck!
-
The amount of attacks I got from other contributors for posting it on Shutterstock was insane. Those people are turning other cheek to Shutterstock. Something I wouldn't do. After what Jon did to us last year reducing our pays instantly, honestly assessing his photos as "suck" was nothing. He's not an active contributor not dedicated to the art of creating stock photos/videos to pay some bills anymore. Do any of those people think he's crying because I called his photos "suck"? Come on man.
-
The amount of attacks I got from other contributors for posting it on Shutterstock was insane. Those people are turning other cheek to Shutterstock. Something I wouldn't do. After what Jon did to us last year reducing our pays instantly, honestly assessing his photos as "suck" was nothing. He's not an active contributor not dedicated to the art of creating stock photos/videos to pay some bills anym ore. Do any of those people think he's crying because I called his photos "suck"? Come on man.
You gave them so many other reasons to do it, but they chose the funniest: berating Oringer, the contributor! Lol!
I can definitely imagine some smiles in the admin community. :D
The joke is on you, I'm afraid. ;)
-
Personally I think it's their new CEO Stan P who's the big ass wipe in this company. I think he's shot SS in the foot with his new subscription business strategy. The place is a sheet hole now not just for contributors it seems, but customers too.
-
Personally I think it's their new CEO Stan P who's the big ass wipe in this company. I think he's shot SS in the foot with his new subscription business strategy. The place is a sheet hole now not just for contributors it seems, but customers too.
I agree, but Oringer made him the CEO, I think. So, it's both of them who decided to hurt us contributors in the midst of pandemic to instantly pump up their stock price.
-
Oringer's Twitter comments last June when the new paycut was announced was entirely supportive of the move. He said so multiple times. At one point he had a pretty good rant against the contributors complaining.
-
Oringer's Twitter comments last June when the new paycut was announced was entirely supportive of the move. He said so multiple times. At one point he had a pretty good rant against the contributors complaining.
Yup. He basically tweeted telling contributors to GTFO if you don't like Shutterstock's new move last tyear.
-
Yup, if you've been following J on twitter you will see that he's gradually become worse and worse with regards to the "little people" over the last couple of years.
P.S. His latest tweet? "1.6 million contributors from around the world - Shutterstock is the OG creator economy." he could just be trolling at this point!
-
As a side note, it may not be entirely his fault. One of the more robust findings in psychology is that when people get too much money they act more like what we would colloquially call f***ing a**holes. Here’s a couple of links but the phenomenon has been demonstrated in loads of studies in many different ways.
https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/abs/10.1177/0956797610387613 (https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/abs/10.1177/0956797610387613)
https://www.businessinsider.com/ted-talk-monopoly-makes-people-mean-2014-8?r=US&IR=T (https://www.businessinsider.com/ted-talk-monopoly-makes-people-mean-2014-8?r=US&IR=T)
-
As a side note, it may not be entirely his fault. One of the more robust findings in psychology is that when people get too much money they act more like what we would colloquially call f***ing a**holes. Here’s a couple of links but the phenomenon has been demonstrated in loads of studies in many different ways.
https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/abs/10.1177/0956797610387613 (https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/abs/10.1177/0956797610387613)
https://www.businessinsider.com/ted-talk-monopoly-makes-people-mean-2014-8?r=US&IR=T (https://www.businessinsider.com/ted-talk-monopoly-makes-people-mean-2014-8?r=US&IR=T)
He should just sell all his SSTK stocks and retire.
-
Hahaha! but you're right his port is terrible! how childish as if they haven't got better things to do. Shows you the present mentality of the place!
-
They called him our fellow "contributor". LOL!! ;D
-
Hahaha! but you're right his port is terrible!
Be a man, like blvdone, and say it on the SS forum! ;D
-
Hahaha! but you're right his port is terrible!
Be a man, like blvdone, and say it on the SS forum! ;D
;D ;D ;D yeah right!!
-
The amount of attacks I got from other contributors for posting it on Shutterstock was insane. Those people are turning other cheek to Shutterstock. Something I wouldn't do. After what Jon did to us last year reducing our pays instantly, honestly assessing his photos as "suck" was nothing. He's not an active contributor not dedicated to the art of creating stock photos/videos to pay some bills anymore. Do any of those people think he's crying because I called his photos "suck"? Come on man.
You're correct, his photos do suck. If you said that about another contributor such as me you'd never get a warning. SS have treated contributors really badly in the last year so the snowflakes who run it should take at least some flak especially the leaders /CEO, after all, they are paid more than enough and they should be answerable to not just shareholders but contributors as well. SS work for contributors NOT the other way round.
-
The number of attacks I got from other contributors for posting it on Shutterstock was insane. Those people are turning other cheek to Shutterstock. Something I wouldn't do. After what Jon did to us last year reducing our pays instantly, honestly assessing his photos as "suck" was nothing. He's not an active contributor not dedicated to the art of creating stock photos/videos to pay some bills anymore. Do any of those people think he's crying because I called his photos "suck"? Come on man.
The problem for contributors that agree with you are banned from the SS forum. I was banned from the forum over 6 months ago and was a new contributor then but knew it would take longer to reach the $35 payment before I could leave SS.
-
Personally, I think it's their new CEO Stan P who's the big ass wipe in this company. I think he's shot SS in the foot with his new subscription business strategy. The place is a sheet hole now not just for contributors it seems, but customers too.
Yes, The new CEO's the real culprit for the new regime at SS. J. O. had left by then although J.O. could veto any future changes at SS, he chose not to and instead insulted contributors by saying on Twitter last year 'If you don't like it, take your work and go. It's diabolical What's wrong with the guy?
-
As a side note, it may not be entirely his fault. One of the more robust findings in psychology is that when people get too much money they act more like what we would colloquially call f***ing a**holes. Here’s a couple of links but the phenomenon has been demonstrated in loads of studies in many different ways.
https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/abs/10.1177/0956797610387613 (https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/abs/10.1177/0956797610387613)
https://www.businessinsider.com/ted-talk-monopoly-makes-people-mean-2014-8?r=US&IR=T (https://www.businessinsider.com/ted-talk-monopoly-makes-people-mean-2014-8?r=US&IR=T)
These studies are calling us lower class now? what an insult from these so-called experts. but it seems to mean that these CEOs are basically emotionless cyborgs or robots, no wonder J Benzos' wife divorced him.
-
Hahaha! but you're right his port is terrible!
Be a man, like blvdone, and say it on the SS forum! ;D
he cant hes banned for life
-
Just been looking at the Forum on Shutterstock, it's full of, if's and maybe's, all trying to figure out why some have been paid a few cents for a On Demand images and the difference between subscription prices.
There is a lot of anger over there, with some of them sending emails to SS, getting rubbish replies, if they reply at all, etc. . .
Basically it just comes down to robbery by Jon Oringer and his side kick Stan Pavlovsky, this is what happens when you have a unregulated Capitalist market; down the ages most business owners have exploited there work force, first offering a decent remuneration and then as the years go on, once they have cornered the market, offering slave wages.
This is apart from the striking, unethical and immoral position that this puts Oringer in, a man of no conscience, which many business leaders and politicians seem to sympathies with.
To compete against the likes of China and other totalitarian regimes, Capitalism would be advised to move on from this model of business.
We basically need a new enlightenment.
-
Hahaha! but you're right his port is terrible!
Be a man, like blvdone, and say it on the SS forum! ;D
he cant hes banned for life
I forgot, he was banned for life on SS forums, long ago. And after that, Leaf banned him here... six (or more) of his accounts, "forever", years ago. We'll be saying farewell, until the next time we meet when Tyler notices. Until then I'm not saying anything.
-
Just been looking at the Forum on Shutterstock, it's full of, if's and maybe's, all trying to figure out why some have been paid a few cents for a On Demand images and the difference between subscription prices.
There is a lot of anger over there, with some of them sending emails to SS, getting rubbish replies, if they reply at all, etc. . .
Basically it just comes down to robbery by Jon Oringer and his side kick Stan Pavlovsky, this is what happens when you have a unregulated Capitalist market; down the ages most business owners have exploited there work force, first offering a decent remuneration and then as the years go on, once they have cornered the market, offering slave wages.
This is apart from the striking, unethical and immoral position that this puts Oringer in, a man of no conscience, which many business leaders and politicians seem to sympathies with.
To compete against the likes of China and other totalitarian regimes, Capitalism would be advised to move on from this model of business.
We basically need a new enlightenment.
You basically want a new entitlement.
-
We basically need a new enlightenment.
We do but… good luck with that in this sad, mean, depressing time we're living in.
-
I am sorry... but who is Jon Oringer?
I thought it was Devil character in the movie Devil's advocate... ;D
-
The amount of attacks I got from other contributors for posting it on Shutterstock was insane. Those people are turning other cheek to Shutterstock. Something I wouldn't do. After what Jon did to us last year reducing our pays instantly, honestly assessing his photos as "suck" was nothing. He's not an active contributor not dedicated to the art of creating stock photos/videos to pay some bills anym ore. Do any of those people think he's crying because I called his photos "suck"? Come on man.
You gave them so many other reasons to do it, but they chose the funniest: berating Oringer, the contributor! Lol!
I can definitely imagine some smiles in the admin community. :D
The joke is on you, I'm afraid. ;)
I agree with you. That J. Oringer used to be a nice guy when he was a forum admin. I think money changes many people for the worst. These big American corporations should be held to account by someone because the US federal government just lets 'em get away with stuff even when it's wrong. they're corrupt to the core. It would never be allowed in my country or the EU.
-
Yup, if you've been following J on twitter you will see that he's gradually become worse and worse with regards to the "little people" over the last couple of years.
P.S. His latest tweet? "1.6 million contributors from around the world - Shutterstock is the OG creator economy." he could just be trolling at this point!
Msg to J.O:
J Oringer if we contributors leave, try taking the photos yourself as well as we can but judging by your port. you can't. I'm sticking up for blvdone as it seems many of you have spoke against him just for stating an opinion
-
I just gave my honest opinion on his portfolio.
People need to stop justifiying being rude and insulting by saying "I just gave my opinion!!!".
There are a lot of forum rules on Shutterstock, one is "be polite" another "Provide honest, constructive feedback without being disrespectful or mean" How is saying someone's profile "sucks" constructive? Next rule says "Refrain from using the forum to call out other contributors’ work in a negative light", which is exactly what you did. Jon Oringer certainly did not come to the forum to ask for your opinion on his (test) portfolio. You made a thread specifically for calling out his work in a negative light. And then there is a rule saying "Refrain from making defamatory remarks about Shutterstock, our contributors, our customers, or our competitor", which you have broken in many of the 446564 threads you post daily.
I don't like Oringer any more than anyone else here does, but you broke several rules, you got a well deserved warning, stop whining.
Why are you such a stickler for the rules which are not clear-cut anyway? Rules are there to be challenged. I think he attacked J. O.s port because of the way he treated us SScontributors on Twitter so he honestly deserves it.
-
The amount of attacks I got from other contributors for posting it on Shutterstock was insane. Those people are turning other cheek to Shutterstock. Something I wouldn't do. After what Jon did to us last year reducing our pays instantly, honestly assessing his photos as "suck" was nothing. He's not an active contributor not dedicated to the art of creating stock photos/videos to pay some bills anym ore. Do any of those people think he's crying because I called his photos "suck"? Come on man.
You gave them so many other reasons to do it, but they chose the funniest: berating Oringer, the contributor! Lol!
I can definitely imagine some smiles in the admin community. :D
The joke is on you, I'm afraid. ;)
I agree with you. That J. Oringer used to be a nice guy when he was a forum admin. I think money changes many people for the worst. These big American corporations should be held to account by someone because the US federal government just lets 'em get away with stuff even when it's wrong. they're corrupt to the core. It would never be allowed in my country or the EU.
Like what?
-
Just got a warning from Shutterstock. I was phasing out of the forum anyway after un-licensing my portfolios there recently. So, whatever. Good luck to all who are still with Shutterstock.
Whilst I understand your obvious anger (as most of us are also angry) with what shittysucks have done I think your constant posts on their forum will earn you a lifetime ban sooner or later, and also you stand a good chance of having your account closed too.
Shystersticks really don't like open criticism and get quite pissy with their detractors.
Here here! well said.
I hate it when people just accept the unacceptable actions these large companies dish to their workers or contributors out these days. In my younger day, artists were rebellious and nearly all of them would have gone against the SS pay cut as well as their ridiculous rejections.
-
I just gave my honest opinion on his portfolio.
People need to stop justifiying being rude and insulting by saying "I just gave my opinion!!!".
There are a lot of forum rules on Shutterstock, one is "be polite" another "Provide honest, constructive feedback without being disrespectful or mean" How is saying someone's profile "sucks" constructive? Next rule says "Refrain from using the forum to call out other contributors’ work in a negative light", which is exactly what you did. Jon Oringer certainly did not come to the forum to ask for your opinion on his (test) portfolio. You made a thread specifically for calling out his work in a negative light. And then there is a rule saying "Refrain from making defamatory remarks about Shutterstock, our contributors, our customers, or our competitor", which you have broken in many of the 446564 threads you post daily.
I don't like Oringer any more than anyone else here does, but you broke several rules, you got a well deserved warning, stop whining.
Surprised he's not got a temporary ban or at least a warning for: "You should work on your photo skill rather than wasting your time posting craps you stupid redneck MFer".
Maybe he got a warning, you never know. Seems a bit of a step up from an 'opinion'.
blvdone's photos are actually very good. much better than J. Os
-
blvdone's photos are actually very good. much better than J. Os
They are, but its not the point. Call O out for his business, for the way things are run, absolutely. Calling out his (relative) talents regarding photos he took 15 plus years ago is no different than telling your boss that you don't like his work methods by insulting his children. It's pure childishness in my opinion.
-
Yeah it would never be allowed in the EU... that's why we're all getting 80% royalties and a $5 minimum, right?
-
The amount of attacks I got from other contributors for posting it on Shutterstock was insane. Those people are turning other cheek to Shutterstock. Something I wouldn't do. After what Jon did to us last year reducing our pays instantly, honestly assessing his photos as "suck" was nothing. He's not an active contributor not dedicated to the art of creating stock photos/videos to pay some bills anym ore. Do any of those people think he's crying because I called his photos "suck"? Come on man.
You gave them so many other reasons to do it, but they chose the funniest: berating Oringer, the contributor! Lol!
I can definitely imagine some smiles in the admin community. :D
The joke is on you, I'm afraid. ;)
I agree with you. That J. Oringer used to be a nice guy when he was a forum admin. I think money changes many people for the worst. These big American corporations should be held to account by someone because the US federal government just lets 'em get away with stuff even when it's wrong. they're corrupt to the core. It would never be allowed in my country or the EU.
I'm not advocating for SS but this is not true. It's not solely an American corporations thing. Lots of European corporations are greedy and opportunistic. And who can blame them? They have power and bring in millions or billions of dollars. The bottom line is what counts, nothing else.
Even a contribution to charity (society or the environment) is done solely to enhance their public image (and make more profit), not because they're so pure and humanitarian. And as long as employees (or we contributors) facilitate Shutterstock's actions, they can do whatever they want. Goverments can't and won't do anything to stop them from making money, because it's a free market economy.
-
Not forgetting that most members of government are part of or have shares in the big corporations anyway.
-
I agree with you. That J. Oringer used to be a nice guy when he was a forum admin. I think money changes many people for the worst.
Pretty amazing to see how much this is true if you follow him on Twitter. The kind of stuff he "likes" and retweets is getting closer and closer to the stuff that Stan had to completely shut down his account and start from scratch over. Although the other half of his content is just desperately trying to push Florida as the new Silicon Valley (yeah right we get it, it's because it's the new tech center of the universe and not because of the tax breaks and getting to run over protestors there now ::)).
People see this stuff from the billionaire class and think you have to be the biggest most heartless a**hole in the world to make it. J was no where near this bad when his business was taking off and he really was truly being innovating and building it. There was plenty to go round for everyone. It’s now that he feels the need to hoard his huge pile of golds like a f**king dragon, avoiding taxation and screwing contributors, that he’s turned into an a**hole. One recent retweet “People who don’t like trickle down economics sure seem to like trickle down taxation”
Wouldn’t be so so galling if Shutterstock wasn’t trying to push the exact opposite image of the company.
-
in my country, we say "poltro(o)n" for that kind of people. we also say they need long shoelaces, so someone can pull them out from... wherever they fall into.
i'm not shure why they are angry with you, i remember even Mr.Oringer somewhere said his images most probably would not pass starting 10 test photos regarding standards at that time (which, in my understanding were raised).
so, in my understanding - he would not be angry at all - but, Kate is. it's strange for me.
:)
-
But they do suck! Actually they suck big time! A billionaire with a thin skin lol he could afford some courses but it's easier to deny the truth!
-
But they do suck! Actually they suck big time! A billionaire with a thin skin lol he could afford some courses but it's easier to deny the truth!
You think Jon Oringer actively searched the forum for things like that and got him banned? lol...
-
But they do suck! Actually they suck big time! A billionaire with a thin skin lol he could afford some courses but it's easier to deny the truth!
You think Jon Oringer actively searched the forum for things like that and got him banned? lol...
Don't be daft, of course he didn't search for it in the forums! Obviously it was seem by a moderator, who brought it to their manager, who thought to themselves... this needs to be brought to Jon's attention immediately. They probably called a board meeting or something.
-
But they do suck! Actually they suck big time! A billionaire with a thin skin lol he could afford some courses but it's easier to deny the truth!
You think Jon Oringer actively searched the forum for things like that and got him banned? lol...
Don't be daft, of course he didn't search for it in the forums! Obviously it was seem by a moderator, who brought it to their manager, who thought to themselves... this needs to be brought to Jon's attention immediately. They probably called a board meeting or something.
Lol, sure they did. A multimillion dollar company decided to bring some rant from a contributor to Jon's attention a year after rants were relevant. What world do you live in? I suspect some mod saw it or it got reported, and banned him. But hey, you want to feel its some grand issue, go right ahead.
-
*... I thought I'd made it so far fetched, that there would be no doubt in anybodies minds that I was being sarcastic. Obviously not!
-
*... I thought I'd made it so far fetched, that there would be no doubt in anybodies minds that I was being sarcastic. Obviously not!
My apologies. Stressful day and I am the king of instant reactions :)
-
Jon Oregon is great guitar collector and entrepreneur. Shuterstock rocks!
And it's people like him driving the prices of vintage guitars way over their real value. Totally sucks. On the other hand, I sold my old Gibson (That I bought for $175) for $2,200 and used the money to buy a camera, so it doesn't stink too bad. ;)
Don't be daft, of course he didn't search for it in the forums! Obviously it was seem by a moderator, who brought it to their manager, who thought to themselves... this needs to be brought to Jon's attention immediately. They probably called a board meeting or something.
I think he's reading here right now, under an assumed name. Millionaires do that, because they don't have to work? ::)
I think some people need to think a little larger. Forum members complained and that sent messages to the moderators or higher up, and that's what happened. Don't blame Kate for company policy, she didn't make that. Jon probably never saw the post and doesn't care what some forum troll has to say about the quality of a joke portfolio.
Send me a million dollars and you can write bad things about me, all day long. ;D
-
It turns out that he started SS because he wanted to sell his own photos.
-
It turns out that he started SS because he wanted to sell his own photos.
Really, how is that possible?
-
It turns out that he started SS because he wanted to sell his own photos.
Yes, so? Why didn't you have that idea?
Or any idea, any invention, any innovation able to re-shape a whole industry and convince the world to pay you for it?
I'm sure you also wanted to sell your own photos, but somehow, something prevented you from having that idea!
What was it, I wonder? ;)
-
The amount of attacks I got from other contributors for posting it on Shutterstock was insane. Those people are turning other cheek to Shutterstock. Something I wouldn't do. After what Jon did to us last year reducing our pays instantly, honestly assessing his photos as "suck" was nothing. He's not an active contributor not dedicated to the art of creating stock photos/videos to pay some bills anym ore. Do any of those people think he's crying because I called his photos "suck"? Come on man.
You gave them so many other reasons to do it, but they chose the funniest: berating Oringer, the contributor! Lol!
I can definitely imagine some smiles in the admin community. :D
The joke is on you, I'm afraid. ;)
I agree with you. That J. Oringer used to be a nice guy when he was a forum admin. I think money changes many people for the worst. These big American corporations should be held to account by someone because the US federal government just lets 'em get away with stuff even when it's wrong. they're corrupt to the core. It would never be allowed in my country or the EU.
I'm not advocating for SS but this is not true. It's not solely an American corporations thing. Lots of European corporations are greedy and opportunistic. And who can blame them? They have power and bring in millions or billions of dollars. The bottom line is what counts, nothing else.
Even a contribution to charity (society or the environment) is done solely to enhance their public image (and make more profit), not because they're so pure and humanitarian. And as long as employees (or we contributors) facilitate Shutterstock's actions, they can do whatever they want. Goverments can't and won't do anything to stop them from making money, because it's a free market economy.
But why should SS make even more money while paying contributors peanuts? That is wrong in any so-called democracy. It doesn't happen in any other industry apart from maybe music where artists get paid 003c per stream or something like that. The UK GOV is hauling the leaders of streaming sites to parliament over that. But there's no hope for microstock as it's much less well known to the public.
-
It turns out that he started SS because he wanted to sell his own photos.
Yes, so? Why didn't you have that idea?
Or any idea, any invention, any innovation able to re-shape a whole industry and convince the world to pay you for it?
I'm sure you also wanted to sell your own photos, but somehow, something prevented you from having that idea!
What was it, I wonder? ;)
Good god I wrote that post ages ago. You totally miss understand my post I only said that's how he started which is true. How he expanded from there is anyone's guess.
-
It turns out that he started SS because he wanted to sell his own photos.
Why not? IStock started much the same way (except they were free initially if I remember correctly). Jon Oringer saw a market, created something from nothing and adapted, did the rise and took us all with him. It was not his first kick at the can. Then, like Bruce before him, he made his pile and left it to corporations to run. I don't get all this democracy stuff you are on about, its a business. If it isn't profitable, then don't do it. Easy. No one owes us anything. Not an agency, not each other. You're here voluntarily as are the rest of us.
Crying about something that happened a year or so ago makes no sense to me. The time to effect change was last year, and many of us tried very hard to do that. It didn't work, so on we go.
-
Just got a warning from Shutterstock. I was phasing out of the forum anyway after un-licensing my portfolios there recently. So, whatever. Good luck to all who are still with Shutterstock.
Whilst I understand your obvious anger (as most of us are also angry) with what shittysucks have done I think your constant posts on their forum will earn you a lifetime ban sooner or later, and also you stand a good chance of having your account closed too.
Shystersticks really don't like open criticism and get quite pissy with their detractors.
Well said. In England, the billionaire club owners tried to create their own super league for soccer (football) but would have competed with the established leagues and competitions the fans rebelled against it Even the prime minister said the gov would not allow it to happen. Guess what the rich owners backed down. Sadly microstock is much less well known to the public.
-
It turns out that he started SS because he wanted to sell his own photos.
Yes, so? Why didn't you have that idea?
Or any idea, any invention, any innovation able to re-shape a whole industry and convince the world to pay you for it?
I'm sure you also wanted to sell your own photos, but somehow, something prevented you from having that idea!
What was it, I wonder? ;)
Because I have zero talent in science & tech I'm a luddite Lol.
-
But why should SS make even more money while paying contributors peanuts? That is wrong in any so-called democracy. It doesn't happen in any other industry apart from maybe music where artists get paid 003c per stream or something like that. ...
nonsense - it's a basic tenet of laissez-faire capitalism encouraging miserable wages & dangerous working conditions. compared to real problems the whingeing here is laughable
-
But why should SS make even more money while paying contributors peanuts? That is wrong in any so-called democracy. It doesn't happen in any other industry apart from maybe music where artists get paid 003c per stream or something like that. ...
nonsense - it's a basic tenet of laissez-faire capitalism encouraging miserable wages & dangerous working conditions. compared to real problems the whingeing here is laughable
Oh we are using some big words, aren't we? Your statement doesn't even make sense.
-
What happened to make you like this? Pushing all these old useless threads over and over. I'm starting to think he personally hurt you somehow... This is beyond mere "the agency is screwing me" stuff.
Anyway, you've effectively shut down discussions, so well done.
-
It turns out that he started SS because he wanted to sell his own photos.
Yes, so? Why didn't you have that idea?
Or any idea, any invention, any innovation able to re-shape a whole industry and convince the world to pay you for it?
I'm sure you also wanted to sell your own photos, but somehow, something prevented you from having that idea!
What was it, I wonder? ;)
Good god I wrote that post ages ago. You totally miss understand my post I only said that's how he started which is true. How he expanded from there is anyone's guess.
July 1st, 2021 is "ages ago", indeed! ;D
Sadly, you are not just a luddite, but a nostalgic marxist, too 😖
-
It turns out that he started SS because he wanted to sell his own photos.
Yes, so? Why didn't you have that idea?
Or any idea, any invention, any innovation able to re-shape a whole industry and convince the world to pay you for it?
I'm sure you also wanted to sell your own photos, but somehow, something prevented you from having that idea!
What was it, I wonder? ;)
Good god I wrote that post ages ago. You totally miss understand my post I only said that's how he started which is true. How he expanded from there is anyone's guess.
July 1st, 2021 is "ages ago", indeed! ;D
Sadly, you are not just a luddite, but a nostalgic marxist, too 😖
I miss read the post date.
Yes, thousands of ppl. in the 3rd world working for a pittance for SS I bet. I haven't mentioned politics on this forum at all so what you say is crap.
if your mate shutterview had actually said who he was (ie 10 yrs in microstock) instead of telling me to 'f off all the time, he'd still be on the forum as I've found out how to read other peoples posts. But don't waste your time replying to my posts because your attacking opinions don't matter to me. Why do you do it anyway? I've not spammed your posts so I'm blocking you.
-
..
Yes, thousands of ppl. in the 3rd world working for a pittance for SS I bet. ...
There are more things in heaven and Earth, Dunstan, / Than are dreamt of in your obsession with SS
i was referring to among other cases to sweatshops to which major high end brands (US & EU) outsource their textiles, or agbusiness exploiting producers of cacao, coffee & sugar. etc
I haven't mentioned politics on this forum at all so what you say is crap.
non-sequitor alert
-
But why should SS make even more money while paying contributors peanuts?
Because people upload and take the pittance that is paid. If people didn't upload and refused to accept the low pay, the agencies would have to raise our pay, to have materials to sell. Unfortunately for all the philosophy and politics, if artists from around the world, are willing to make videos for 25c and upload images or illustrations for 10c payback... the problem is not stockholders or capitalism or business practices or Jon or the agencies.
Contributors are willing victims, who upload to the agencies of their own free will, and then complain afterwards that we are underpaid?
To paraphrase, because I don't have the exact quote: "If you don't like it, leave." Jon Oringer
Microstock is a commodity, not art or valuable creative work in most cases. A commodity's price is determined primarily by the forces of supply and demand. That's why agencies can and do pay us peanuts.
(was that a helpful answer for you?)
-
I'm blocking you.
Awe you've gone and hurt his feelings. Why do people write "I've blocked you". Should we care and be notified? Is that some kind of personal reprimand from the top? My view is, just do it, don't threaten. :)
ps for the SS haters, who forget the history or the facts. Getty, who owns iStock, pays us a flat rate of 15% for photos, no levels, no hope of more, and the minimum is 2 cents. Why aren't people shouting about that, every day? I guess it's just too easy to pile on SS and Jon and keep beating on that, them with the encouragement of the angry mob.
(https://i.postimg.cc/6p2Q04d2/microstock-which-one-web-500.jpg)