MicrostockGroup
Agency Based Discussion => Shutterstock.com => Topic started by: pictureman75 on July 30, 2020, 03:06
-
Today I had a sale for 2.96 although my pictures are permanently deactivated since 1.6. ... unbelievable!!!
-
sue them, violation of copyright
or check the t and c and find out if there is something about images that have already gone into a sales process before they were deactivated
-
Today I had a sale for 2.96 although my pictures are permanently deactivated since 1.6. ... unbelievable!!!
If a client used an image in a comp, yes, SS will sell them the high rez, even if you have deactivated. It’s in the contributor agreement.
-
They have a 90 day period in which they can do that. See section 4d of the terms of service
https://submit.shutterstock.com/legal/terms
-
I just got a single $23.75 Subscription download. My image sales have been turned off since July 1st.
I don't even know how a sub (not an EL) can be sold so that I get a $23.75 commission.
I don't know how I'll get that money out of my account unless I turn image sales back on.
What a gong show.
-
I just got a single $23.75 Subscription download. My image sales have been turned off since July 1st.
I don't even know how a sub (not an EL) can be sold so that I get a $23.75 commission.
I don't know how I'll get that money out of my account unless I turn image sales back on.
What a gong show.
Wow that would be another good tactic. They seem to pretty smart when it comes to this but fixing bugs, reviews or anything that would improve our experience it seems like they have to learn using a mouse first.
Thats why I think what we do with our new work is what matters the most. I feel we are kind of scrwd with our old work (because of your and others experience) and have to grab whats left but I hope I’m wrong!
I hope more will chime in and tell us their sales at AS (or others) have picked up after deactivating or removing their portfolio at SS.
But that doesn’t help your situation. You’ve set your limit to $35 right? I wouldn’t mind leaving 25 bucks on the table, its for a good cause ;) and if ever reaches 10 more dollars then you get your payout right?
I have left a lot more on the table by leaving agencies. I always told them they could keep the money they owed me, sometimes $50, probably more. And yes I also depend on this income!
Good luck Copidosoma!
-
Checked and none of my images have sold on SS since I deactivated over two months ago.
-
Checked and none of my images have sold on SS since I deactivated over two months ago.
Same here.
-
I got one sale a couple of weeks ago for 64 cents or something. I only checked because other people were reporting sales. Jeez, if they’re gonna keep licensing my stuff at least give me a couple of bucks!
-
And today I found out iStock never closed my account. Jo Ann Snover let me know one of my illustrations was in the NY Times a couple of weeks ago. I thought it must have been one of these random Shutterstock sales and was shocked to see Getty underneath it. My first thought was that someone must have stolen it and uploaded it to Getty, but I checked and it wasn’t there. So then I thought someone must have stolen it and uploaded it to iStock, and there it was, with my name under it. Back when the whole brouhaha happened with iStock I deleted thousands of my vectors, but it was too time consuming, so I emailed them twice and asked them to close my account. By then I had stopped using my old hotmail address so had no idea they were still sending me notifications there. I don’t even remember how to log in to the contributor site or what my login info was, or how to see sales....hasn’t that become more difficult somehow? I checked my bank account and saw they’d been sending small amounts all this time and I didn’t even realize it. I don’t even know who to email at this point to ask them to close it for the third time. Can someone tell me? I mean, it’s very cool that I’m in the Times, but what will I get? 0.000001 cents or something?
-
it’s very cool that I’m in the Times, but what will I get? 0.000001 cents or something?
Congratulations! At least you get good bragging rights for that. ;)
-
it’s very cool that I’m in the Times, but what will I get? 0.000001 cents or something?
Congratulations! At least you get good bragging rights for that. ;)
Yes, but bragging rights don’t pay the mortgage! All this time I was so happy I wasn’t getting these cr@ppy fraction-of-a-penny royalties. Are they still doing that thing where they let people embed your images for free? Is it possible I get nothing from the vaunted NY Times? Boy, is the joke on me.
-
it’s very cool that I’m in the Times, but what will I get? 0.000001 cents or something?
Congratulations! At least you get good bragging rights for that. ;)
Yes, but bragging rights don’t pay the mortgage! All this time I was so happy I wasn’t getting these cr@ppy fraction-of-a-penny royalties. Are they still doing that thing where they let people embed your images for free? Is it possible I get nothing from the vaunted NY Times? Boy, is the joke on me.
True. Sad.
-
it’s very cool that I’m in the Times, but what will I get? 0.000001 cents or something?
Congratulations! At least you get good bragging rights for that. ;)
Yes, but bragging rights don’t pay the mortgage! All this time I was so happy I wasn’t getting these cr@ppy fraction-of-a-penny royalties. Are they still doing that thing where they let people embed your images for free? Is it possible I get nothing from the vaunted NY Times? Boy, is the joke on me.
Embed is only for non-commercial users, so no, you won't get nothing from the NYT. If an image has been legally embedded, it can only be a very small size and is surrounded by a Getty frame, so obvious in use:
https://www.bjp-online.com/2014/03/10-facts-you-need-to-know-about-getty-images-embed-feature (https://www.bjp-online.com/2014/03/10-facts-you-need-to-know-about-getty-images-embed-feature)
(I haven't heard anything about it for years, so not surprised that's such old info)
The teensy fraction of an image sales are the pay-per-view scheme, which I don't fully understand, but a prime user is Pinterest.
-
it’s very cool that I’m in the Times, but what will I get? 0.000001 cents or something?
Congratulations! At least you get good bragging rights for that. ;)
Yes, but bragging rights don’t pay the mortgage! All this time I was so happy I wasn’t getting these cr@ppy fraction-of-a-penny royalties. Are they still doing that thing where they let people embed your images for free? Is it possible I get nothing from the vaunted NY Times? Boy, is the joke on me.
Embed is only for non-commercial users, so no, you won't get nothing from the NYT. If an image has been legally embedded, it can only be a very small size and is surrounded by a Getty frame, so obvious in use:
https://www.bjp-online.com/2014/03/10-facts-you-need-to-know-about-getty-images-embed-feature (https://www.bjp-online.com/2014/03/10-facts-you-need-to-know-about-getty-images-embed-feature)
(I haven't heard anything about it for years, so not surprised that's such old info)
The teensy fraction of an image sales are the pay-per-view scheme, which I don't fully understand, but a prime user is Pinterest.
I guess it's not embedded, because it just says "Getty" underneath and doesn't credit me at all. I really can't even be bothered figuring out how to log in and see sales there. I'm sure it will be negligible.
-
I just got a single $23.75 Subscription download. My image sales have been turned off since July 1st.
I don't even know how a sub (not an EL) can be sold so that I get a $23.75 commission.
I don't know how I'll get that money out of my account unless I turn image sales back on.
What a gong show.
That will be a SOD allocated to the wrong column by the Enterprise Team, they did it with one of mine once.
-
4 sales video 0.77$ each today. Deactivated May 30. Waiting to the 90 days to go so I can start piling crap on them if they keep selling any of my files after that.
-
Are people making these things up or is this really happening?
https://forums.submit.shutterstock.com/topic/100133-new-earnings-structure-for-contributors/?do=findComment&comment=1860251
People seem to ignore posts like this, until they get affected that is, then they'll tear the place down!
I honestly don't know what to think anymore. The posts I've read over the years on various forums make me wonder why anyone in their right mind would still submit to Microsotock or even stock altogether. Yet still here we are, hoping for the best, not to be included in these scams.
I think we're better off making cocaine for drug lords :o
-
I honestly don't know what to think anymore. The posts I've read over the years on various forums make me wonder why anyone in their right mind would still submit to Microsotock or even stock altogether. Yet still here we are, hoping for the best, not to be included in these scams.
More insane is, how many new people we see on the forums, asking about which agencies to join and how to make money.
Can't they read?
-
They move from a highly immoral action (enforce the new payment plan without prudent notice) to an illegal action (to sell content no longer authorized for sale by the author).
-
They move from a highly immoral action (enforce the new payment plan without prudent notice) to an illegal action (to sell content no longer authorized for sale by the author).
It’s not illegal. It’s in the contributor agreement that your stuff can be sold for 90 days after you deactivate or close your account. Clients use comp images or videos in projects. Then later they need to actually buy the high rez. SS sells it to them.
-
They move from a highly immoral action (enforce the new payment plan without prudent notice) to an illegal action (to sell content no longer authorized for sale by the author).
It’s not illegal. It’s in the contributor agreement that your stuff can be sold for 90 days after you deactivate or close your account. Clients use comp images or videos in projects. Then later they need to actually buy the high rez. SS sells it to them.
But does that agreement include turning your portfolio back on without your knowledge? This way those 90 days will never expire right?
This might have been a one off though, we'll see.
-
Yes, the 90 days will expire. If you turn your port off on Jan 1, they can sell images according to the agreement until April 1. Whether they legally honor that or not is a different conversation. As far as SS actually turning people’s port back on, I have read the posts regarding that claim and didn’t see where that was actually the case.
-
Someone has just claimed on the SS Contributor Experience forum that somewhere in the TOS, it states that SS can continue to sell content from disabled ports for as long as they like. That contradicts the 90 day rule. And it really sucks if that's the case.
-
This is what I just posted there, not sure if this is the one you are referring to:
"Do you guys not even read the TOS before you signed up? It is 100% clear what you have given them permission to do and for how long after you disable or close, that they can do it. That you'd rather complain than take 3 seconds to look it up baffles me. "
Yes, argumentative perhaps, but it does suprise me that people don't take a moment to see what the TOS says. It is abundently clear how many days they can sell disabled content. Section 5, subsection b. And they gave me a thumbs down for it too. :) awww...
-
This is what I just posted there, not sure if this is the one you are referring to:
"Do you guys not even read the TOS before you signed up? It is 100% clear what you have given them permission to do and for how long after you disable or close, that they can do it. That you'd rather complain than take 3 seconds to look it up baffles me. "
Yes, argumentative perhaps, but it does suprise me that people don't take a moment to see what the TOS says. It is abundently clear how many days they can sell disabled content. Section 5, subsection b. And they gave me a thumbs down for it too. :) awww...
Shitterthiefstock really suck! >:( >:( >:(
-
First the pump and now the big dump by Mr Oringer. Shutterstock will be sold soon based on this.
https://finance.yahoo.com/news/shutterstock-announces-proposed-public-offering-201900037.html