Author Topic: Large image previews on SS ? (Read 79262 times)

marthamarks · « **Reply #200 on:** October 29, 2015, 09:08 »

Here's that petition link again:

https://secure.avaaz.org/en/petition/Shutterstockcom_team_Infringes_copyrights_of_contributors_by_Shutterstock

475 signatures at present. Thanks, Laurin, for signing!

Jo Ann Snover · « **Reply #201 on:** October 29, 2015, 09:33 »

I signed this morning. I added this note (and used my full name):

"Theft of images is an old problem, but helping thieves with huge previews and a weak watermark is not in contributor interests. Shutterstock has been shown the problems and is consciously ignoring contributor interests while lamely claiming this will help our sales. Fix the watermark Shutterstock!"

They replied to my support ticket which gave them examples of how the V2 watermark failed with isolated on white images with a boilerplate blurb about how the new watermark provides better protection while serving the needs of customers. They clearly can't even be bothered to write a specific reply (in which case why did I have to wait? If it's just an automated spew of canned text it should be immediate!).

Tossers!

marthamarks · « **Reply #202 on:** October 29, 2015, 09:36 »

Quote from: Jo Ann Snover on October 29, 2015, 09:33

I signed this morning. I added this note (and used my full name):

"Theft of images is an old problem, but helping thieves with huge previews and a weak watermark is not in contributor interests. Shutterstock has been shown the problems and is consciously ignoring contributor interests while lamely claiming this will help our sales. Fix the watermark Shutterstock!"

They replied to my support ticket which gave them examples of how the V2 watermark failed with isolated on white images with a boilerplate blurb about how the new watermark provides better protection while serving the needs of customers. They clearly can't even be bothered to write a specific reply (in which case why did I have to wait? If it's just an automated spew of canned text it should be immediate!).

Tossers!

Thanks, Jo Ann, for doing that!

I would really hate to leave SS, but right now it's looking like I'll do that pretty soon.

Dodie · « **Reply #203 on:** October 29, 2015, 10:10 »

Quote from: marthamarks on October 29, 2015, 09:08

Here's that petition link again:

https://secure.avaaz.org/en/petition/Shutterstockcom_team_Infringes_copyrights_of_contributors_by_Shutterstock

475 signatures at present. Thanks, Laurin, for signing!

475 out of 60,000 contributors (wikipedia 2014), nice!

Fab · « **Reply #204 on:** October 29, 2015, 10:15 »

“This new watermark and larger image preview is designed to drive more download opportunities for your creative work while protecting it.”

1) if a customer needs/likes a pic, he will just buy it anyway without staring at the large preview

2) if a customer does not like a pic, he will take it anyway since it is for free now…:D

what a shame...

(petition signed)

Jo Ann Snover · « **Reply #205 on:** October 29, 2015, 10:18 »

Quote from: Dodie on October 29, 2015, 10:10

475 out of 60,000 contributors (wikipedia 2014), nice!

A huge portion of the 60K will be inactive or with fewer than 100 images. Don't be discouraged by the proportions seeming to be so small. There are probably more like 6K - 10K active contributors. The poll numbers are still small, I grant you, but not as bad as the overall contributor number makes it look

Dodie · « **Reply #206 on:** October 29, 2015, 10:35 »

Quote from: Jo Ann Snover on October 29, 2015, 10:18

Quote from: Dodie on October 29, 2015, 10:10

475 out of 60,000 contributors (wikipedia 2014), nice!

A huge portion of the 60K will be inactive or with fewer than 100 images. Don't be discouraged by the proportions seeming to be so small. There are probably more like 6K - 10K active contributors. The poll numbers are still small, I grant you, but not as bad as the overall contributor number makes it look

I'm just sad that we are not able to be more united in everyone's interest.

Gigì · « **Reply #207 on:** October 29, 2015, 10:56 »

Did you guys read the topic in SS forum???

They say the new watermark will be different from now because it's going to have a black footer instead of white ( mine are whit white footer) and they say it will take few days to change the watermark...

This was wrote on 26th October ... Let's wait and see what happen... meanwhile I have wrote to support ... Let's see

Dodie · « **Reply #208 on:** October 29, 2015, 11:03 »

Quote from: Gigì on October 29, 2015, 10:56

Did you guys read the topic in SS forum

They say the new watermark will be different from now because it's going to have a black footer instead of white ( mine are whit white footer) and they say it will take few days to change the watermark...

This was wrote on 26th October ... Let's wait and see what happen... meanwhile I have wrote to support ... Let's see

Yes we did, did you? Let's see what? They gave us three examples with the black footer in the very first post of that thread. Not much of a difference, still not visible on white background or texture.
Good morning sunshine!

Jo Ann Snover · « **Reply #209 on:** October 29, 2015, 11:07 »

Quote from: Gigì on October 29, 2015, 10:56

Did you guys read the topic in SS forum???

They say the new watermark will be different from now because it's going to have a black footer instead of white ( mine are whit white footer) and they say it will take few days to change the watermark...

This was wrote on 26th October ... Let's wait and see what happen... meanwhile I have wrote to support ... Let's see

A few pages back I posted two of the new (black footer) images as examples - one that is OK and one not. These are the ones I sent to SS support to show them what needed fixing - and to which I got a boilerplate reply this morning saying it was better protection for us as well as good previews for buyers

Here's one where it works well:

http://image.shutterstock.com/z/stock-photo-open-layout-kitchen-with-family-room-adjacent-back-in-use-following-an-extensive-remodel-331838918.jpg

And one where it doesn't:

http://image.shutterstock.com/z/stock-photo-antique-and-well-worn-gold-jewelry-cameo-amethyst-enamel-garnet-and-three-ring-lover-s-knot-331483934.jpg

Gigì · « **Reply #210 on:** October 29, 2015, 11:11 »

@Dodie ..... Don't talk to me like that ok? I am in Italy and it's possible that I read after you because of the time and things like this ... I saw the previews .... The aviation one looks ok to me... And the other one... Looks good but not perfect yet...
They say they need some time to make this change , so the only thing we can do know is actually .... Wait. That was posted three days ago..

@Jo Anne yes, I already saw you're post and looked at the pics...

Dodie · « **Reply #211 on:** October 29, 2015, 11:19 »

Quote from: Gigì on October 29, 2015, 11:11

@Dodie ..... Don't talk to me like that ok? I am in Italy and it's possible that I read after you because of the time and things like this ... I saw the previews .... The aviation one looks ok to me... And the other one... Looks good but not perfect yet...
They say they need some time to make this change , so the only thing we can do know is actually .... Wait. That was posted three days ago..

@Jo Anne yes, I already saw you're post and looked at the pics...

It's OK, sorry. This entire chaos began on the 21st morning (in Europe), more than a week now. How long do you think it would be polite to wait for this watermark?

Gigì · « **Reply #212 on:** October 29, 2015, 11:23 »

Look, I don't know! BUT... Since SS is always quite demanding with contributors , I guess they won't be so stupid to leave an ineffective watermark and let people take what they like like in a supermarket ...
For the moment I'm not going to upload anything ... I really want to understand what is the next move they will take

ravens · « **Reply #213 on:** October 29, 2015, 11:33 »

There really is not much difference between the old watermark and the new (black footer) watermark.
Both are too weak and you can save too large images on your computer. Both watermarks are easy to remove, if you ever need to, and if the background is light or textured it doesn't show.

Shutterstock has to fix this. What can wake them up is NO NEW UPLOADS coming in. Write them, contact the support. Write on the SS forum. Even if they send out robotic emails they will get a lot of mail and they'll see we are furious.

I too got a robot reply to recent email.
"This new watermark and larger image preview is designed to drive more download opportunities for your creative work ..."
Yep, that's what it does.

What other trade is expected to work for free??

Please sign the petition if you haven't already (I have signed) ... let's reach 500!!

ravens · « **Reply #214 on:** October 29, 2015, 11:35 »

Link to the petition again:

https://secure.avaaz.org/en/petition/Shutterstockcom_team_Infringes_copyrights_of_contributors_by_Shutterstock

Thank you for signing!

marthamarks · « **Reply #215 on:** October 29, 2015, 12:11 »

Quote from: ravens on October 29, 2015, 11:35

Link to the petition again:

https://secure.avaaz.org/en/petition/Shutterstockcom_team_Infringes_copyrights_of_contributors_by_Shutterstock

Thank you for signing!

I just checked the survey, which is now up to 482… including three more from the USA.

Thanks, Todd, Cheryl, and Susan, for signing on!

marthamarks · « **Reply #216 on:** October 29, 2015, 12:19 »

I've just been randomly checking my best sellers to see if any of them now show improved protection. Answer: NO.

This one, when clicked through to preview mode, shows virtually no WM whatsoever.

http://www.shutterstock.com/pic-218274493/z/stock-photo-ornate-box-turtle-crosses-a-gravel-road-at-quivira-national-wildlife-refuge-in-kansas.html?src=QxIjgs2m2cbHVmO7eDSTcQ-1-18

Aargh!!!

etudiante_rapide · « **Reply #217 on:** October 29, 2015, 13:25 »

Quote from: Dodie on October 29, 2015, 10:10

475 out of 60,000 contributors (wikipedia 2014), nice!

yes, and 9 pages on this forum. i can see where this is going to get ss management off their moforearends to acknowledge there is an issue to be implemented urgently.

consider there were a lot more pages re the other contributors relations matter on ss forum which were also ignored by management.

time to face up to the truth, ppl

ravens · « **Reply #218 on:** October 29, 2015, 13:46 »

Forgive me if I misunderstand what you're saying, but
this is not the time for negativity or sarcasm. They don't help.

They make money out of OUR work, they can't ignore us forever, if we stop uploading and will not upload until this problem is fixed.

We have to think long term and not just this day and week. Let's be consistent.

Quote from: etudiante_rapide on October 29, 2015, 13:25

Quote from: Dodie on October 29, 2015, 10:10

475 out of 60,000 contributors (wikipedia 2014), nice!

yes, and 9 pages on this forum. i can see where this is going to get ss management off their moforearends to acknowledge there is an issue to be implemented urgently.

consider there were a lot more pages re the other contributors relations matter on ss forum which were also ignored by management.

time to face up to the truth, ppl

cathyslife · « **Reply #219 on:** October 29, 2015, 14:30 »

Quote from: ravens on October 29, 2015, 13:46

Forgive me if I misunderstand what you're saying, but
this is not the time for negativity or sarcasm. They don't help.

They make money out of OUR work, they can't ignore us forever, if we stop uploading and will not upload until this problem is fixed.

We have to think long term and not just this day and week. Let's be consistent.

Are you all prepared to delete your images if they don't comply? It's easy to go sign a petition, but when it comes to doing what is REALLY necessary, most won't bother. "I can't afford to take my images down, I have a family to feed" or "well, they DID improve the watermark a little bit." It's not negativity or sarcasm, it's history and fact. Documented right here on this forum. Look how many people still upload to istock, after years of complaining!

And yes, they can ignore you forever. If they lose even 1,000 out of 10, 20 or 30 thousand contributors, do you think they care? Its a rhetorial question...the answer is no. And I would bet they don't even lose that many!

if we stop uploading
Another easy (yet temporary) solution. They don't care about that. how many images get uploaded every day?

I was on board with all of these demonstrations once upon a time. Nothing major ever changed (notice Shelma1 and marthamarks (my two archenemies, who just HAVE to dispute everything I say

), I said major. sure, contributors might have won some skirmishes, but the war goes on). They still make billions and we still make pennies.

But I admire all of your rebelliousness.

etudiante_rapide · « **Reply #220 on:** October 29, 2015, 14:48 »

Quote from: cathyslife on October 29, 2015, 14:30

Quote from: ravens on October 29, 2015, 13:46
Forgive me if I misunderstand what you're saying, but
this is not the time for negativity or sarcasm. They don't help.

They make money out of OUR work, they can't ignore us forever, if we stop uploading and will not upload until this problem is fixed.

We have to think long term and not just this day and week. Let's be consistent.

Are you all prepared to delete your images if they don't comply? It's easy to go sign a petition, but when it comes to doing what is REALLY necessary, most won't bother. "I can't afford to take my images down, I have a family to feed" or "well, they DID improve the watermark a little bit." It's not negativity or sarcasm, it's history and fact. Documented right here on this forum. Look how many people still upload to istock, after years of complaining!

And yes, they can ignore you forever. If they lose even 1,000 out of 10, 20 or 30 thousand contributors, do you think they care? Its a rhetorial question...the answer is no. And I would bet they don't even lose that many!

if we stop uploading
Another easy (yet temporary) solution. They don't care about that. how many images get uploaded every day?

I was on board with all of these demonstrations once upon a time. Nothing major ever changed (notice Shelma1 and marthamarks (my two archenemies, who just HAVE to dispute everything I say ), I said major. sure, contributors might have won some skirmishes, but the war goes on). They still make billions and we still make pennies.

But I admire all of your rebelliousness.

i am in line with cathyslife on this. it is not negativity or sacarcsm but reality check.
in latin lucha sounds like loser, winner in english sounds like whiner, ...
which is all much like what we reach after pages in ss forum and here with no response from ss
mgmt.
it is like a dinosaur refusing to change instead waiting until the boat sinks before realising everyone will perish.

the old bear knows when to quit while the silly bear think a gun pointed in its way is a stick with food on it. we all went that way about optimism here 10 years ago, and nothing 's changed except
new issues of whogivesashitwhatuthink popping out each time.

but this is a forum, and free speech is ok .

DavidZydd · « **Reply #221 on:** October 29, 2015, 15:51 »

I've noticed this large preview a few days ago...
I usually make my vector images very fast, so it's not a huge problem for me if somebody downloads a few of them without paying. But I know, there are many of contributors who put large amount of time into their works.
(The images I've put the most work into are never purchased...)

Am I right, that now previews are not as large as a few days ago?

YadaYadaYada · « **Reply #222 on:** October 29, 2015, 16:27 »

Quote from: DavidZydd on October 29, 2015, 15:51

I've noticed this large preview a few days ago...
I usually make my vector images very fast, so it's not a huge problem for me if somebody downloads a few of them without paying. But I know, there are many of contributors who put large amount of time into their works.
(The images I've put the most work into are never purchased...)

Am I right, that now previews are not as large as a few days ago?

Don't know about size, but I see a lattice, criss-crossing the photos, many watermarks on the crossings, writing on the lines. The color of the bottom doesn't make any difference.

Microstockphoto · « **Reply #223 on:** October 29, 2015, 16:46 »

The new watermark is just as useless http://www.shutterstock.com/pic-286685414/stock-vector-chicago-skyline-big-city-architecture-engraving-vector-illustration-hand-drawn.html

Jo Ann Snover · « **Reply #224 on:** October 29, 2015, 16:48 »

Quote from: Microstockphoto on October 29, 2015, 16:46

The new watermark is just as useless http://www.shutterstock.com/pic-286685414/stock-vector-chicago-skyline-big-city-architecture-engraving-vector-illustration-hand-drawn.html

That's not the new one. New ones have a black bar at the bottom

MicrostockGroup Sponsors

Author Topic: Large image previews on SS ? (Read 79262 times)

marthamarks

Jo Ann Snover

marthamarks

Dodie

Fab

Jo Ann Snover

Dodie

Gigì

Dodie

Jo Ann Snover

Gigì

Dodie

Gigì

ravens

ravens

marthamarks

marthamarks

etudiante_rapide

ravens

cathyslife

etudiante_rapide

DavidZydd

YadaYadaYada

Microstockphoto

Jo Ann Snover

Related Topics

Sponsors

Microstock Poll Results

Sponsors