Quote from: blvdone on March 02, 2021, 15:30

 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.

Quote from: 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.

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.

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.

Quote from: Zero Talent on March 03, 2021, 18:25

Quote from: blvdone on March 03, 2021, 17:29

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. 
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.

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.

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!

Quote from: 50% on May 07, 2021, 05:51

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.

*... 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!

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. 

It turns out that he started SS because he wanted to sell his own photos.

Really, how is that possible?

Quote from: duns123 on May 02, 2021, 09:16

Quote from: Zero Talent on March 03, 2021, 18:25

Quote from: blvdone on March 03, 2021, 17:29

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. 
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.

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.

Quote from: duns123 on July 01, 2021, 05:51

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.