Author Topic: I hope SS compensated these photographers. (Read 5680 times)

Shelma1 · « **on:** January 14, 2017, 11:42 »

This was from a FB post by SS about their most viral photos. So these photos were shared like crazy on social media (I'm assuming with no compensation), and now there's a link to these large unwatermarked versions of the photos on the site for people to steal freely.

I understand they can use our images for marketing purposes, but I don't get why they would make large unwatermarked versions available. I hope these photographers were compensated somehow, or got an uptick in DLs, or something out of SS giving their images away.

https://www.shutterstock.com/blog/viral-photos-2016?utm_content=viralimages2016&utm_medium=social&utm_campaign=blog&utm_source=fbk

etudiante_rapide · « **Reply #1 on:** January 14, 2017, 14:27 »

it looks like any other blogger that would use our photos, so i would guess the blogger, the writer of those articles would have paid to dl our photos.
as for the size, it's not really that large.. 600 by 900. it's unlikely you can make too much of the image if you steal them.
no different from those magazines web sites that give you as large as 1900 by 1070 etc..
if i rely on photoshop to show me the print size, 600 by 900 or even 1900 by 1070 may not give you the quality of a good print.
according to my personal prefer though... which is why i figure the min req for ss is 4MP.

etudiante_rapide · « **Reply #2 on:** January 14, 2017, 14:28 »

furthermore, the quality on those blogs are not even that sterling.

Shelma1 · « **Reply #3 on:** January 14, 2017, 15:25 »

Quote from: etudiante_rapide on January 14, 2017, 14:27

it looks like any other blogger that would use our photos, so i would guess the blogger, the writer of those articles would have paid to dl our photos.

This is Shutterstock's blog. The writer is an SS employee, not an independent blogger. "Eleanor is a writer and editor for Shutterstock's content marketing team."

Those images are definitely large enough to use for online marketing, social media, blogging, etc.

Finfocus · « **Reply #4 on:** January 14, 2017, 19:59 »

Interesting case in fact.
What are the terms when uploading and dealing with SS? I don't use them so I don't know but I guess they do have the contributors sign and agree to such thing no? As long as it is watermarked?
Still I agree with you this is problematic.....

Jafo2016 · « **Reply #5 on:** January 15, 2017, 15:14 »

What an outrage, these people are featured artists getting thousands of views on their work and probably double or triple their normal sales. And the negative clan here wants to know about compensation. Short sighted is what I see. Or jealous?

Shelma1 · « **Reply #6 on:** January 15, 2017, 17:28 »

Actually, some of my work was featured in one of their FB posts, and all it resulted in was an avalanche of competing work from other artists, killing my sales in that niche. So.

(But at least they didn't link it to a large unwatermarked version that could be stolen.)

FlowerPower · « **Reply #7 on:** January 15, 2017, 21:44 »

Quote from: Shelma1 on January 15, 2017, 17:28

Actually, some of my work was featured in one of their FB posts, and all it resulted in was an avalanche of competing work from other artists, killing my sales in that niche. So.

(But at least they didn't link it to a large unwatermarked version that could be stolen.)

Must be terrible to be featured, have all that attention and sales, your name getting know, buyers watchiing you, only to be copied. Better that you should leave Shutter, be unknown and be safe. What do you want? If you get free promotion, you don't like it. If you aren't first page you don't like it. If you get copied because you are good, you don't like it. What do you like?

Nothing from what I have read here.

Shelma1 · « **Reply #8 on:** January 16, 2017, 04:52 »

Well, I don't like you, whoever you are.

FlowerPower · « **Reply #9 on:** January 17, 2017, 12:21 »

Quote from: Shelma1 on January 16, 2017, 04:52

Well, I don't like you, whoever you are.

I'd probably be more confused if you didn't feel that way.

I haven't stooped to personal attacks, just my opion from what I read. At least you were smart enough to leave IS while I'm still watching for a glimmer of hope? You can call me a fool for that decision!

Shelma1 · « **Reply #10 on:** January 17, 2017, 13:22 »

Quote from: FlowerPower on January 17, 2017, 12:21

Quote from: Shelma1 on January 16, 2017, 04:52
Well, I don't like you, whoever you are.

I'd probably be more confused if you didn't feel that way.

I haven't stooped to personal attacks, just my opion from what I read. At least you were smart enough to leave IS while I'm still watching for a glimmer of hope? You can call me a fool for that decision!

Your entire post was a personal attack. Lol.

FlowerPower · « **Reply #11 on:** January 20, 2017, 11:33 »

Quote from: Shelma1 on January 17, 2017, 13:22

Quote from: FlowerPower on January 17, 2017, 12:21
Quote from: Shelma1 on January 16, 2017, 04:52
Well, I don't like you, whoever you are.

I'd probably be more confused if you didn't feel that way.

I haven't stooped to personal attacks, just my opion from what I read. At least you were smart enough to leave IS while I'm still watching for a glimmer of hope? You can call me a fool for that decision!

Your entire post was a personal attack. Lol.

No that was an honest compliment about your wisdom in leaving IS for your own Christmas present. I should have.

MicrostockGroup Sponsors

Author Topic: I hope SS compensated these photographers. (Read 5680 times)

Shelma1

etudiante_rapide

etudiante_rapide

Shelma1

Finfocus

Jafo2016

Shelma1

FlowerPower

Shelma1

FlowerPower

Shelma1

FlowerPower

Related Topics

Sponsors

Microstock Poll Results

Sponsors