pancakes

MicrostockGroup Sponsors


Author Topic: NYT wants to know if workers are paid fairly  (Read 1548 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

« on: June 17, 2020, 19:10 »
+5
NYT (New York Times) wants to know if workers are paid fairly.  Might be a good chance to have NYT look at Shutterstock and what they just did.



https://www.nytimes.com/2020/06/17/opinion/are-you-paid-fairly-for-your-work.html?action=click&module=Opinion&pgtype=Homepage


« Reply #1 on: June 17, 2020, 19:14 »
+10
But we are not workers for Shutterstock, Inc. so this story just doesn't cover our situation

Shelma1

« Reply #2 on: June 17, 2020, 20:33 »
+14
NYT (New York Times) wants to know if workers are paid fairly.  Might be a good chance to have NYT look at Shutterstock and what they just did.



https://www.nytimes.com/2020/06/17/opinion/are-you-paid-fairly-for-your-work.html?action=click&module=Opinion&pgtype=Homepage

I filled out the form. I think it's important that people know that artists are still being ripped off by their representatives, as has been the case for a long time in all sorts of industries, most famously the music industry, but certainly in the visual arts as well. Though we might not be official employees of the company, the fact remains that Oringer became a billionaire by underpaying the artists his company represents, and Pavlovsky is cutting already measly royalty rates even further to get his multimillion dollar bonus.

« Reply #3 on: June 17, 2020, 20:36 »
+7
But we are not workers for Shutterstock, Inc. so this story just doesn't cover our situation

True, but the difference between worker and contributor is each day smaller and smaller, in few decades work as we know will change a lot...

In the other hand, it is a good chance to let NYT people know about this... maybe they put a mention about SS new rates in the article

Les

« Reply #4 on: June 17, 2020, 20:59 »
+4
But we are not workers for Shutterstock, Inc. so this story just doesn't cover our situation

True, but the difference between worker and contributor is each day smaller and smaller, in few decades work as we know will change a lot...

In the other hand, it is a good chance to let NYT people know about this... maybe they put a mention about SS new rates in the article

Correct. The differences between the conventional employment and contract work are blurring. More and more people will work without being employees, for example, freelance programmers and graphic designers, Uber and Lyft drivers, musicians, and all kinds of consultants. Stock agency contributors would fit the gig-economy employment classification.

« Reply #5 on: June 17, 2020, 21:31 »
+3
My state considers me a gig worker because I pay income tax, self employment tax and LLC tax... and because all my income is from 1099s.  However... artists and agencies is a very different system compared to drivers and Uber / Lyft.  I don't think any of us are paid fairly. 

« Reply #6 on: June 17, 2020, 22:50 »
+8
I filled out the form; it doesn't cost anything, not even 10 cents...
Maybe if enough of us do it we will raise some interest?

« Reply #7 on: June 18, 2020, 02:56 »
+3
I did it too

Noedelhap

  • www.colincramm.com

« Reply #8 on: June 18, 2020, 03:25 »
+1
How do you fill a form like this? We don't have a 'salary', we can only mention our ROI, or the number of images in our portfolio, the number of downloads and our revenue.

You're better off emailing them specifically about this, maybe they'll write a real article about the state of affairs in the microstock industry. Otherwise we'll just be an meaningless footnote at best, in an article talking about employees' wages.

« Reply #9 on: June 18, 2020, 05:29 »
+5
How do you fill a form like this? We don't have a 'salary', we can only mention our ROI, or the number of images in our portfolio, the number of downloads and our revenue.

You're better off emailing them specifically about this, maybe they'll write a real article about the state of affairs in the microstock industry. Otherwise we'll just be an meaningless footnote at best, in an article talking about employees' wages.

It doesn't matter at all, put your annual income or whatever you want!
You can even put the name of your dog and the email address of you ex mother in law
The important thing is to spread the message "Shutterstock fucks the contributors" to as many people as possible using all possible ways.
If it's no use at all, it's not a big deal, it doesn't take more than 3 minutes to answer the questions... Do you have 3 minutes at your disposal or are you so busy counting your Shutterstock earnings? :p
« Last Edit: June 18, 2020, 09:04 by Chichikov »

Shelma1

« Reply #10 on: June 18, 2020, 05:45 »
+3
How do you fill a form like this? We don't have a 'salary', we can only mention our ROI, or the number of images in our portfolio, the number of downloads and our revenue.

You're better off emailing them specifically about this, maybe they'll write a real article about the state of affairs in the microstock industry. Otherwise we'll just be an meaningless footnote at best, in an article talking about employees' wages.

Simple. I wrote in, not salary-royalties. I then explained that Shutterstock crowdsources its library from artists all over the world and keeps the lions share of the money from licensing. I think if they hear the same thing from a bunch of people all about one company theyre more likely to include it.

Noedelhap

  • www.colincramm.com

« Reply #11 on: June 18, 2020, 06:14 »
+3
How do you fill a form like this? We don't have a 'salary', we can only mention our ROI, or the number of images in our portfolio, the number of downloads and our revenue.

You're better off emailing them specifically about this, maybe they'll write a real article about the state of affairs in the microstock industry. Otherwise we'll just be an meaningless footnote at best, in an article talking about employees' wages.

It doesn't matter at all, put your annual income or whatever you want!
You can even put the name of your dog and the email address of you ex mother in law
The important thing is to spread the message "Shutterstock fucks the contributors" to as many people as possible using all possible ways.
If it's no use at all, it's not a big deal, it doesn't take more than 3 minutes to answer the questions... Do you have 3 minutes at your disposal or are you so busy counting your Shutterstock earnings? :p

Name of your dog, haha. Then they'll dismiss it as simple trolling spam, filter out all unrealistic submissions and we won't be taken seriously at all. Quick way to destroy our credibility. 
I'd suggest trying something more productive, like I said, emailing the NY Times with your personal story and telling them how Shutterstock made your life a living hell during corona pandemic. Then it might appeal to their emotions and they might see a story in it.

Edit: grammar
« Last Edit: June 18, 2020, 10:46 by Noedelhap »

Shelma1

« Reply #12 on: June 18, 2020, 06:24 »
+9
Lets not let this devolve into the usual rambling arguments. Hildegarde found a great way to get the message out. If youre interested in press coverage of your declining earnings, fill out the form at the Times. Well be hard to ignore if they hear from a lot of people complaining about the same company.

whtvr2

« Reply #13 on: June 18, 2020, 06:55 »
+5
This is for 2019 income and for workers in ths US. Future article aims to women and color people and decreased paying. Thus answers will be filtered out. Read the text above the questionarry before f*cking up a poll for people with actually low paying day jobs. Not passive, side or fictional earnings. Normal everyday jobs that pay peanuts.

Noedelhap

  • www.colincramm.com

« Reply #14 on: June 18, 2020, 10:51 »
+6
This is for 2019 income and for workers in ths US. Future article aims to women and color people and decreased paying. Thus answers will be filtered out. Read the text above the questionarry before f*cking up a poll for people with actually low paying day jobs. Not passive, side or fictional earnings. Normal everyday jobs that pay peanuts.

Exactly, not only would you submit irrelevant info to them, you're also hijacking the form for your own cause, while their article is addressing decreased pay for people of color. Besides, submitting our numbers gives the NY Times more work to filter them out (because they're simply considered irrelevant) and you're possible skewing the results of their research.

There are other ways of getting attention for our microstock problems, this is not one of them.

Shelma1

« Reply #15 on: June 18, 2020, 11:59 »
+3
This is for 2019 income and for workers in ths US. Future article aims to women and color people and decreased paying. Thus answers will be filtered out. Read the text above the questionarry before f*cking up a poll for people with actually low paying day jobs. Not passive, side or fictional earnings. Normal everyday jobs that pay peanuts.

Exactly, not only would you submit irrelevant info to them, you're also hijacking the form for your own cause, while their article is addressing decreased pay for people of color. Besides, submitting our numbers gives the NY Times more work to filter them out (because they're simply considered irrelevant) and you're possible skewing the results of their research.

There are other ways of getting attention for our microstock problems, this is not one of them.

What have you done to get the word out?

whtvr2

« Reply #16 on: June 18, 2020, 14:27 »
0
What have you done to get the word out?

Nobody cares if I dropped my camera, my backups fried and lost all data or if I lose a percentage of earnings.

I only can evaluate the situation, delete or keep SS port and move on.

And YES istock brand new port link is left intensionally visible in screenshot to honor all those two face assh*les that kept me all this time believeing that is was a sin to submit to Getty while they submitted and earned. Lesson learned. All those "deactivated" ports in SS mean nothing to me as long as they can be turned on in a snap of a finger.

With all respect to you Shelma,  Jo Ann and all other people here showing their names and ports.
« Last Edit: June 19, 2020, 12:14 by whtvr2 »


« Reply #17 on: June 18, 2020, 14:52 »
+3
NYT (New York Times) wants to know if workers are paid fairly.  Might be a good chance to have NYT look at Shutterstock and what they just did.



https://www.nytimes.com/2020/06/17/opinion/are-you-paid-fairly-for-your-work.html?action=click&module=Opinion&pgtype=Homepage

I filled out the form. I think it's important that people know that artists are still being ripped off by their representatives, as has been the case for a long time in all sorts of industries, most famously the music industry, but certainly in the visual arts as well. Though we might not be official employees of the company, the fact remains that Oringer became a billionaire by underpaying the artists his company represents, and Pavlovsky is cutting already measly royalty rates even further to get his multimillion dollar bonus.

I also filled out the form. Can't hurt.

« Reply #18 on: June 18, 2020, 15:49 »
0
Not in years since Alamy became Microstock, and never since day one of Microstock.

Noedelhap

  • www.colincramm.com

« Reply #19 on: June 18, 2020, 18:06 »
+3
This is for 2019 income and for workers in ths US. Future article aims to women and color people and decreased paying. Thus answers will be filtered out. Read the text above the questionarry before f*cking up a poll for people with actually low paying day jobs. Not passive, side or fictional earnings. Normal everyday jobs that pay peanuts.

Exactly, not only would you submit irrelevant info to them, you're also hijacking the form for your own cause, while their article is addressing decreased pay for people of color. Besides, submitting our numbers gives the NY Times more work to filter them out (because they're simply considered irrelevant) and you're possible skewing the results of their research.

There are other ways of getting attention for our microstock problems, this is not one of them.

What have you done to get the word out?

Completely irrelevant question to what I said, but I'll bite: I tweeted and retweeted a lot of #boycottShutterstock tweets and I personally informed my clients (who regularly shop at Shutterstock) of Shutterstock's royalty changes. Hopefully that'll change their minds.

Now instead of getting all annoyed and personal on me, why don't you explain (after carefully considering my arguments against it) why YOU still think submitting that form is a good idea?

Shelma1

« Reply #20 on: June 19, 2020, 05:55 »
+6
This is for 2019 income and for workers in ths US. Future article aims to women and color people and decreased paying. Thus answers will be filtered out. Read the text above the questionarry before f*cking up a poll for people with actually low paying day jobs. Not passive, side or fictional earnings. Normal everyday jobs that pay peanuts.

Exactly, not only would you submit irrelevant info to them, you're also hijacking the form for your own cause, while their article is addressing decreased pay for people of color. Besides, submitting our numbers gives the NY Times more work to filter them out (because they're simply considered irrelevant) and you're possible skewing the results of their research.

There are other ways of getting attention for our microstock problems, this is not one of them.

What have you done to get the word out?

Completely irrelevant question to what I said, but I'll bite: I tweeted and retweeted a lot of #boycottShutterstock tweets and I personally informed my clients (who regularly shop at Shutterstock) of Shutterstock's royalty changes. Hopefully that'll change their minds.

Now instead of getting all annoyed and personal on me, why don't you explain (after carefully considering my arguments against it) why YOU still think submitting that form is a good idea?

Because the article asks whether workers in America are paid fairly for their work, and Im a worker in America who is not being paid fairly for my illustration work by Shutterstock. Artists and photographers are workers just like everyone else. In fact, workers in the arts have been particularly hard-hit by the economic effects of Covid-19, because our work is considered non-essential and always has been. Our work is consistently undervalued and underpaid, and people and corporations who represent artists have consistently taken advantage of them.

Beyond that, its not just about me. For me, this is usually a successful side gig, though right now it was income I was depending on, because my non-essential advertising work has dried up as people all over the industry are laid off due to the pandemic. However, for many people this work is their entire livelihood, and since Shutterstock is the market leader this has a very serious effect on their ability to pay their bills.

The gig economy and crowdsourcing have made it even easier for companies to take advantage of their workers. By classing the people who drive the cars or take the photos as non employees or independent contractors, they avoid paying the benefits required by law and get away with paying hourly wages that are lower than minimum wage without repercussions.

And though Im a relatively privileged person, I feel its right for me to fight for fair wages for everyone. If those of us who are privileged enough to consider illustration a lucrative hobby dont stand up, we leave it to the less privileged who really depend on this income to go it alone as we side with the corporation who takes advantage of them (and us) by continuing to work with them and make our hobby money.
« Last Edit: June 19, 2020, 06:00 by Shelma1 »

« Reply #21 on: June 19, 2020, 07:24 »
+3

The gig economy and crowdsourcing have made it even easier for companies to take advantage of their workers. By classing the people who drive the cars or take the photos as non employees or independent contractors, they avoid paying the benefits required by law and get away with paying hourly wages that are lower than minimum wage without repercussions.

Absolutely hits the nail on the head.

Its bad enough when exploitative corporations tell a marine biologist, a hotel manager and two engineers (and thats just my circle of friends) that they have no employment rights when driving vans a ridiculous, and probably unsafe, number of hours per day to earn a living in present times, but when others in the gig economy lie down and agree thats the way it should be, its probably time to despair.

Of course its right to fight. The arc of history may bend towards justice but only if it gets a damned good kicking as the struggles of the trade union movement demonstrate. For the hard fought rights gained over 200 years to be dismissed with oh, thats the way the gig economy works is, at best, short-sighted. If the push towards 'non-employment' continues there will be no employment rights for anyone other than those with the power to negotiate a golden parachute payment before starting work.

« Reply #22 on: June 19, 2020, 08:18 »
+1

The gig economy and crowdsourcing have made it even easier for companies to take advantage of their workers. By classing the people who drive the cars or take the photos as non employees or independent contractors, they avoid paying the benefits required by law and get away with paying hourly wages that are lower than minimum wage without repercussions.

Absolutely hits the nail on the head.

Its bad enough when exploitative corporations tell a marine biologist, a hotel manager and two engineers (and thats just my circle of friends) that they have no employment rights when driving vans a ridiculous, and probably unsafe, number of hours per day to earn a living in present times, but when others in the gig economy lie down and agree thats the way it should be, its probably time to despair.

Of course its right to fight. The arc of history may bend towards justice but only if it gets a damned good kicking as the struggles of the trade union movement demonstrate. For the hard fought rights gained over 200 years to be dismissed with oh, thats the way the gig economy works is, at best, short-sighted. If the push towards 'non-employment' continues there will be no employment rights for anyone other than those with the power to negotiate a golden parachute payment before starting work.



If someone manage to prove that in average its impossible for everyone to earn minimal wage with this there would be possibility of a case. Doesn't even matter that we are not officially employed but payed in royalties, cause the law goes both ways. The law says that employer cannot pay under minimal wage, but also workers CAN NOT offer their labor under certain price floor.

Someone could easily clam that he is forced to work under minimum wage because his competition is doing exactly that and he can not compete.



 

Related Topics

  Subject / Started by Replies Last post
52 Replies
12744 Views
Last post June 26, 2008, 17:26
by louoates
1 Replies
973 Views
Last post May 01, 2010, 17:15
by Dreamframer
Help Me Get Paid

Started by WarrenPrice iStockPhoto.com

4 Replies
2014 Views
Last post August 10, 2011, 17:51
by donding
57 Replies
10085 Views
Last post January 10, 2013, 03:33
by cascoly
137 Replies
14744 Views
Last post May 27, 2013, 21:48
by Leo Blanchette

Sponsors

Mega Bundle of 5,900+ Professional Lightroom Presets

Microstock Poll Results

Sponsors

3100 Posing Cards Bundle