Author Topic: S J Locke Uploading to Shutterstock (Read 49093 times)

luissantos84 · « **Reply #100 on:** January 22, 2014, 09:43 »

Quote from: stock-will-eat-itself on January 22, 2014, 09:39

Quote from: Ron on January 21, 2014, 17:45
Quote from: Sean Locke Photography on January 21, 2014, 17:35
Well, it took me 12 days, but I broke $100. Reminds me of iStock in 2005. Just Fyi...
Thats sick. Man. Took me 3 months. Shows that good stock still sells. You'll hit 33 cent within the next 4 weeks and then things accelerate.

You're right it is sick, SS dragging everyone back to 2005 iS income levels.
If they could bring it back to iS 2010 exclusive levels I'd be impressed but SS have f$%^&ed any chance of that ever happening again.

looking at 17$ this month I believe its the other way

ShadySue · « **Reply #101 on:** January 22, 2014, 09:49 »

Quote from: Jo Ann Snover on January 21, 2014, 17:56

But at iStock in 2005 there was no option for a single sale that would net you $114 in royalties (that's the largest single SOD sale I've had so far at SS). Just sayin'

Is that for 'sensitive' use?

cobalt · « **Reply #102 on:** January 22, 2014, 10:02 »

I´ve sold easter eggs and flip flops with that license. I don´t really know what it is, but I doubt it is a sensitive use clause.

ShadySue · « **Reply #103 on:** January 22, 2014, 10:07 »

Quote from: cobalt on January 22, 2014, 10:02

I´ve sold easter eggs and flip flops with that license. I don´t really know what it is, but I doubt it is a sensitive use clause.

OK, Thanks.
I thought I read here that any file used for 'sensitive purposes' had to be ~~released~~ allowed and sold as such, not just people pics (?)

Ron · « **Reply #104 on:** January 22, 2014, 10:19 »

It is sensitive use

ShadySue · « **Reply #105 on:** January 22, 2014, 10:35 »

Quote from: Ron on January 22, 2014, 10:19

It is sensitive use

Am I also correct in my memory that as a contributor, either all your pics are 'in' for sensitive use, or all are 'out', i.e. you can't protect your models but allow your flip-flops and easter eggs to be used sensitively?

Ron · « **Reply #106 on:** January 22, 2014, 10:38 »

Its also negotiated sales. Its not 100% sensitive use.

If you opt out for sensitive use you wont get SODs, if you opt in you do, but also the risk of sensitive use.

JPSDK · « **Reply #107 on:** January 22, 2014, 10:44 »

Quote from: Ron on January 22, 2014, 10:38

Its also negotiated sales. Its not 100% sensitive use.

If you opt out for sensitive use you wont get SODs, if you opt in you do, but also the risk of sensitive use.

It cant be, I once sold a picture of a golden retriver, and I cant imagine what sensitive usage that would be?

Jo Ann Snover · « **Reply #108 on:** January 22, 2014, 10:49 »

Quote from: ShadySue on January 22, 2014, 09:49

Quote from: Jo Ann Snover on January 21, 2014, 17:56
But at iStock in 2005 there was no option for a single sale that would net you $114 in royalties (that's the largest single SOD sale I've had so far at SS). Just sayin'

Is that for 'sensitive' use?

I don't think so given the subjects. Here's a sample - $72 house in snow, $102 lunch sack $111.47 christmas candles $90 front door $82.50 house after snow

ShadySue · « **Reply #109 on:** January 22, 2014, 10:53 »

I've had legal ELs on iStock on an open countryside and a closeup flower, so who knows what goes on.
The point is that as Ron says, you can't get these SODs if you don't opt all of your images for sensitive use. The could be difficult for someone with a back-catalogue of models who have signed a release with different terms.
I'm really curious about whey they don't allow opt-in/out on an image by image basis.

Ron · « **Reply #110 on:** January 22, 2014, 11:05 »

Ok, dont believe me, believe Scott Braut then.

Quote

scottbraut wrote:
Hi All,

When you receive a high royalty for a single image, it is because the image was sold under a license that offers the option for sensitive use. That does not mean that the use was a sensitive one. The majority of these images will not be used in a sensitive manner. However, such use is a possibility. Unlike some competitors, we give you the ability to opt-out.

High royalties are often the result of a prenegotiated agreement with volume buyers such as large advertising agencies. These volume buyers may require additional license or workflow features, such as the option for sensitive use, indemnification, multi-user accounts, prenegotiated pricing, and special billing and workflow features.

By opting-in to sensitive use, you get access to all sales made to these buyers. By opting out, your images aren't available to buyers who require the option of sensitive use.

Overall, these sales are a great opportunity to drive additional revenue to you and we're excited to make them available. Smiley

Best,

Scott
VP of Content
Shutterstock

luissantos84 · « **Reply #111 on:** January 22, 2014, 11:10 »

Quote from: JPSDK on January 22, 2014, 10:44

Quote from: Ron on January 22, 2014, 10:38
Its also negotiated sales. Its not 100% sensitive use.

If you opt out for sensitive use you wont get SODs, if you opt in you do, but also the risk of sensitive use.
It cant be, I once sold a picture of a golden retriver, and I cant imagine what sensitive usage that would be?

pretty much they can now chop him a leg and place him on a political/medical campaign, then you can't complain because you have opted in and receive the license royalties according

ShadySue · « **Reply #112 on:** January 22, 2014, 11:12 »

@Ron I believed you 100%. Seemed very odd then, and I still can't see any logic in 'all-in, all-out'.

JPSDK · « **Reply #113 on:** January 22, 2014, 11:19 »

Quote from: luissantos84 on January 22, 2014, 11:10

Quote from: JPSDK on January 22, 2014, 10:44
Quote from: Ron on January 22, 2014, 10:38
Its also negotiated sales. Its not 100% sensitive use.

If you opt out for sensitive use you wont get SODs, if you opt in you do, but also the risk of sensitive use.
It cant be, I once sold a picture of a golden retriver, and I cant imagine what sensitive usage that would be?

pretty much they can now chop him a leg and place him on a political/medical campaign, then you can't complain because you have opted in and receive the license royalties according

Thats ok, if the dog begins to complain, i remind him who pays the food, and that there are no problems with dogs, that cannot be solved for 25 cents.

Sean Locke Photography · « **Reply #114 on:** January 22, 2014, 12:35 »

Hey, if anyone wants slightly larger images on your home page world map, load up this script:
http://www.digitalplanetdesign.com/scripts/shutterstock_homePage.user.js

Ron · « **Reply #115 on:** January 22, 2014, 12:36 »

Quote from: Sean Locke Photography on January 22, 2014, 12:35

Hey, if anyone wants slightly larger images on your home page world map, load up this script:
http://www.digitalplanetdesign.com/shutterstock_homPage.user.js

lol just in and already starting the revolution on Shutterstock

Ron · « **Reply #116 on:** January 22, 2014, 12:37 »

I am getting an error, no file. Could be my bitdefender going off

Pixart · « **Reply #117 on:** January 22, 2014, 12:37 »

Already $100 Sean? You will be getting that first raise by next month this time! Whoohoo!

Sean Locke Photography · « **Reply #118 on:** January 22, 2014, 12:39 »

Quote from: Ron on January 22, 2014, 12:37

I am getting an error, no file. Could be my bitdefender going off

Try again, I had a typo in the post at first.

Ron · « **Reply #119 on:** January 22, 2014, 12:44 »

Quote from: Sean Locke Photography on January 22, 2014, 12:39

Quote from: Ron on January 22, 2014, 12:37
I am getting an error, no file. Could be my bitdefender going off

Try again, I had a typo in the post at first.

Its working, looks cool. Thanks. Just need to find a way to run it on Chrome.

Ron · « **Reply #120 on:** January 22, 2014, 12:48 »

I used tampermonkey and C/P the script, working on Chrome now. Cool

brm1949 · « **Reply #121 on:** January 22, 2014, 13:57 »

Thanks Sean, works fine on firefox.

loop · « **Reply #122 on:** January 22, 2014, 14:39 »

Quote from: Jo Ann Snover on January 21, 2014, 17:56

But at iStock in 2005 there was no option for a single sale that would net you $114 in royalties (that's the largest single SOD sale I've had so far at SS). Just sayin'

Wrong. I had an EL more or less at this time for more than that. Not automated, not a direct download option, but negotiated on the phone.

Jo Ann Snover · « **Reply #123 on:** January 22, 2014, 15:38 »

Quote from: loop on January 22, 2014, 14:39

Quote from: Jo Ann Snover on January 21, 2014, 17:56
But at iStock in 2005 there was no option for a single sale that would net you $114 in royalties (that's the largest single SOD sale I've had so far at SS). Just sayin'

Wrong. I had an EL more or less at this time for more than that. Not automated, not a direct download option, but negotiated on the phone.

There are always special people with special options

I'm a peasant and even at Shutterstock, even a peasant can earn royalties over $75 or over $100 multiple times and although very happy to see something substantial, not have it be a one-off or just for them.

I don't think lots of people, lots of the time were earning $100+ royalties at iStock in 2005.

But if it makes you feel I've more accurately represented what was going on in 2005 at istock, I'll rephrase:

But at iStock in 2005 most people weren't seeing sales that would net you $114 in royalties (that's the largest single SOD sale I've had so far at SS). Just sayin'

gostwyck · « **Reply #124 on:** January 22, 2014, 15:48 »

Quote from: Jo Ann Snover on January 22, 2014, 15:38

Quote from: loop on January 22, 2014, 14:39
Quote from: Jo Ann Snover on January 21, 2014, 17:56
But at iStock in 2005 there was no option for a single sale that would net you $114 in royalties (that's the largest single SOD sale I've had so far at SS). Just sayin'

Wrong. I had an EL more or less at this time for more than that. Not automated, not a direct download option, but negotiated on the phone.

There are always special people with special options

I'm a peasant and even at Shutterstock, even a peasant can earn royalties over $75 or over $100 multiple times and although very happy to see something substantial, not have it be a one-off or just for them.

I don't think lots of people, lots of the time were earning $100+ royalties at iStock in 2005.

But if it makes you feel I've more accurately represented what was going on in 2005 at istock, I'll rephrase:

But at iStock in 2005 most people weren't seeing sales that would net you $114 in royalties (that's the largest single SOD sale I've had so far at SS). Just sayin'

Exactly. I once had a 'special EL' at Istock which netted me $60 back in 2005/6 (it was before they automated the process). My highest SOD royalty at SS was $180 and I often get SOD's of $75 or higher multiple times per month.

MicrostockGroup Sponsors

Author Topic: S J Locke Uploading to Shutterstock (Read 49093 times)

luissantos84

ShadySue

cobalt

ShadySue

Ron

ShadySue

Ron

JPSDK

Jo Ann Snover

ShadySue

Ron

luissantos84

ShadySue

JPSDK

Sean Locke Photography

Ron

Ron

Pixart

Sean Locke Photography

Ron

Ron

brm1949

loop

Jo Ann Snover

gostwyck

Related Topics

Sponsors

Microstock Poll Results

Sponsors