pancakes

MicrostockGroup Sponsors


Author Topic: passport  (Read 4675 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

« on: July 08, 2009, 19:55 »
0
hi guys, just opened an account with shutterstock,
they are asking me for my passport, is that ok ? They rejected my driver license and just wanna be sure it's ok scanning my passport, cause I'm not sure legally it's ok.


« Reply #1 on: July 08, 2009, 20:25 »
0
I'm not in SS, but to the other sites that requested a copy of my passport, I sent a photo of it, not very high quality and with a text diagonally over it saying that this was for site A use only.  In my case, the page with the photo and name does not show the passport number, yet all sites accepted it.

« Reply #2 on: July 08, 2009, 21:31 »
0
I'm not in SS

You have money to burn.  ;) - For many (and me), it's the site that gives the most income.

« Reply #3 on: July 08, 2009, 23:11 »
0
I rather admire her.  She does not accept subscriptions as the wave of the future, instead she noticed long ago that the prices were too low for her standard of work.

More of us should reject subscription sites.  I've stopped subs on 2 sites, and pulled my port from others.  Sure, I don't make as much money, but i also don't get that sour feeling in the pit of my stomach when I see a large vector file sell for a quarter.

« Reply #4 on: July 09, 2009, 16:17 »
0
There is nothing to admire, I only think we have and are providing cheap assets to those who can pay more.  A subscriber get 10 images when he needs only one.  Instead of paying US$10 for the photo that best suits his needs, he pays maybe US$2.50 for those ten.  Instead of one photographer receiving a decent royalty, 10 photographers celebrate their 25c.  Not to mention the buyers who resell CDs with the cheap images they got.

Yes, I know subscribers don't always download all their quota, but it is clear they get image way too cheap.

Who are the subscribers?  Big corporations like J.P.Morgan and AOL have already purchased my images as subs at FT.  They are certainly happy that we give images so cheap for them.  I don't burn money, I just don't want to feed their greed.


« Reply #5 on: July 20, 2009, 11:35 »
0
There is nothing to admire, I only think we have and are providing cheap assets to those who can pay more.  A subscriber get 10 images when he needs only one.  Instead of paying US$10 for the photo that best suits his needs, he pays maybe US$2.50 for those ten.  Instead of one photographer receiving a decent royalty, 10 photographers celebrate their 25c.  Not to mention the buyers who resell CDs with the cheap images they got.

Yes, I know subscribers don't always download all their quota, but it is clear they get image way too cheap.

Who are the subscribers?  Big corporations like J.P.Morgan and AOL have already purchased my images as subs at FT.  They are certainly happy that we give images so cheap for them.  I don't burn money, I just don't want to feed their greed.



Actually I've actually met quite a few designers who use SS and have found that it tends to be smaller publishing companies who don't have the resources that some of the bigger companies have.

While I respect the stand against subs, the fact is that most of the sites now have them - and for a serious contributor, you probably earn more on SS for them over time than some of the other sites - especially once you get to the top tier with .38c downloads. Looking at the total income - for many SS is still #1. I keep waiting for other sites to catch up or exceed the sales there - and occasionally IS does it for a week or so... but in the 3.5 years I've been submitting, SS is most consistently #1. As an added bonus, the extended license sales seem to be becoming more consistent as well.

« Reply #6 on: July 20, 2009, 11:47 »
0
Madelaide, I understand your stand, but it might be time for you to rethink SS if you still support FT, StockXpert and DT.  SS now offers PPD and have a very healthy EL sales.  I went through my 09 earnings at SS and the ratio is climbing.  The lowest % of non sub sales that I've had this year was in June and it was 17% of that month's earnings.  This month with PPDs and EL's I am up to 55% of my earnings coming from non-sub.  At FT for example, my subs earnings are climbing to around 30% of overall earnings, and individual downloads are certainly up to 50% or more subs for me.

« Reply #7 on: July 20, 2009, 13:11 »
0
...Instead of paying US$10 for the photo that best suits his needs, he pays maybe US$2.50 for those ten.  Instead of one photographer receiving a decent royalty, 10 photographers celebrate their 25c.  Not to mention the buyers who resell CDs with the cheap images they got.
For that $10, I would only get $2 commission with istock, 10 downloads with SS gives me $3.80.  People resell istock photos illegally as well, a thief isn't concerned about how much the images cost when they use a stolen credit card.

« Reply #8 on: July 20, 2009, 16:25 »
0
Again, it's not about how much I get, but how cheap images are sold for.  I prefer to lose that money.

I don't upload to FT anymore.  I have opted out in StockXpert.  I am not uloading anything at the moment, but if subs prevail at DT like lately, I'll stop uploading there too.

Buyers buy subs because sites offer it to them.  IS is still strong without subs (not subs as most sites have).


 

Related Topics

  Subject / Started by Replies Last post
1 Replies
3408 Views
Last post August 25, 2009, 02:43
by Adeptris
10 Replies
14633 Views
Last post May 30, 2010, 15:11
by rcaucino
0 Replies
3389 Views
Last post January 11, 2011, 07:04
by leaf
26 Replies
10564 Views
Last post January 01, 2013, 04:13
by Jeffrey
3 Replies
3875 Views
Last post April 21, 2017, 14:23
by stockload

Sponsors

Mega Bundle of 5,900+ Professional Lightroom Presets

Microstock Poll Results

Sponsors