MicrostockGroup Sponsors


Author Topic: single photo sell today US$6,352.80  (Read 20782 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

ikostudio

  • IKOstudio
« Reply #25 on: June 02, 2017, 11:38 »
0
Ho well!!! It happens to me to.   >:( A single with the value of $6,352.80...
I was rings crossed to be true but SS already send an email confirming the mistake. crap...  :(



« Reply #26 on: June 02, 2017, 11:42 »
0
on my stat I see 2017-06-01   6,469.59

anybody have the may total amont $ taked by shutterstock to payout ? Mine is not taked yet

« Reply #27 on: June 02, 2017, 13:03 »
+5
...anybody have the may total amont $ taked by shutterstock to payout ? Mine is not taked yet

Mine is not yet reset - either on the web site or the iPhone app. I don't know why this isn't automated (or perhaps it's supposed to be, but it's broken in some way). This should be a pretty simple month by month activity...

regarding your large sale, I understand your wish for the sale to be real, but I've never heard of anything of that order of magnitude for a SS royalty. The largest I've personally seen was just over $120. Given all the software glitches they've had of late, the odds are high that they've just effed up but don't realize it yet (or they realize it, but they don't yet know what the right amount is). They know they're not in any hurry as nothing can get paid out until July for a June 1st sale.

« Reply #28 on: June 02, 2017, 13:35 »
+1
...anybody have the may total amont $ taked by shutterstock to payout ? Mine is not taked yet

Mine is not yet reset - either on the web site or the iPhone app. I don't know why this isn't automated (or perhaps it's supposed to be, but it's broken in some way). This should be a pretty simple month by month activity...

regarding your large sale, I understand your wish for the sale to be real, but I've never heard of anything of that order of magnitude for a SS royalty. The largest I've personally seen was just over $120. Given all the software glitches they've had of late, the odds are high that they've just effed up but don't realize it yet (or they realize it, but they don't yet know what the right amount is). They know they're not in any hurry as nothing can get paid out until July for a June 1st sale.

That was my thought. Remember a while back when we all had that huge amount in our revenue bucket? They, of course corrected that.  My guess is it ends up being a decimal issue.  But if it is legit, I would as a contributor want to know more about this kinds of licenses.

jonbull

    This user is banned.
« Reply #29 on: June 02, 2017, 16:57 »
0
on my stat I see 2017-06-01   6,469.59

anybody have the may total amont $ taked by shutterstock to payout ? Mine is not taked yet

man i hope is true, but really, what kind of royalty can be paid 6300 dollar in rf world?
i mean...this sum is for worldwide exclusive super big commercial royalty often in RM agency. i hope is true , but in my opinion is more possible 63,20 dollar.

« Reply #30 on: June 02, 2017, 17:14 »
0
Show me the money/photo (Proof)

PaulieWalnuts

  • We Have Exciting News For You
« Reply #31 on: June 02, 2017, 22:54 »
+4
What's really funny is this used to be fairly normal up until about 15 years ago
Blame technology.
30 years ago if I wanted to print a colour photo in a supplement for the newspaper I edited, I had to send the transparency by ferry to a processor in Inverness and wait a week for the separation to come back. Fortunately we could just cut them into the page negative - but a few years earlier they had been relying on hot-metal, and the blocks after being made on the mainland had to be clamped into the chase frame.
Obviously, very little colour was used back then. Even making the negs for B&W printing took time.  So photos were only used for special occasions and very few will have been bought. Digital not only opened the door to masses of amateur photographers, it was also associated with the development of printing processes that could handle a lot of colour with separations being made automatically and inserted into Quark Xpress, then going directly to an offset plate.
So instead of a few people getting occasional high value sales we now have lots of people getting masses of low value sales. I can understand why the old-time photographers grieve for the loss of the old ways.
There are a bunch of reasons. Tech is one of them. Ironically micro is what gave me a foot in the door to licensing photos which then got me a foot in the door to the good ole boy macro business. Too bad I got in when the macro party was about over. It has opened the door to other things for me which I'm grateful for.

Navigating this business today is like taking a canoe that's on fire through whitewater rapids.

derek

    This user is banned.
« Reply #32 on: June 03, 2017, 00:52 »
0
Isaw it was a mistake now. Although a copyright sale can fetch BIG money buying the rights of a picture. Had one myself in April for $ 2030. Big sales do happen but nowadays they are few.

Sorry for you it was a mistake!

« Reply #33 on: June 05, 2017, 10:37 »
+4
this was never going to be true. would mean they would have sold the image for $18k. never in a million deals will someone pay that for a non exclusive royalty free image at shutterstock.

« Reply #34 on: June 05, 2017, 18:39 »
0
did you forget the 1 million dolar potato? ;D

angelawaye

  • Eat, Sleep, Keyword. Repeat

« Reply #35 on: June 05, 2017, 20:10 »
+2
That was not a microstock deal though...

dpimborough

« Reply #36 on: June 06, 2017, 01:31 »
0
Show me the money/photo (Proof)

Why? The OP already said it was an error by SS


« Reply #37 on: June 06, 2017, 02:12 »
0
did you forget the 1 million dolar potato? ;D

was it sold on shutterstock?


« Reply #39 on: June 06, 2017, 09:40 »
0
on my stat I see 2017-06-01   6,469.59

anybody have the may total amont $ taked by shutterstock to payout ? Mine is not taked yet

Yes me. I have seen  15 thousands of dollars in my SS homepage two years ago, as monthly amount. They removed it in a couple of days and sent me an email of apologize. No payout, obviously. There was  discrepancy among this figure and the details of sold photos, therefore no heart attack.

« Reply #40 on: June 06, 2017, 18:59 »
0
on my stat I see 2017-06-01   6,469.59

anybody have the may total amont $ taked by shutterstock to payout ? Mine is not taked yet

Yes me. I have seen  15 thousands of dollars in my SS homepage two years ago, as monthly amount. They removed it in a couple of days and sent me an email of apologize. No payout, obviously. There was  discrepancy among this figure and the details of sold photos, therefore no heart attack.
LOL i can imagine you book tickets to hawaii at a luxury beach resort and then comes the * email. :o :o :o

« Reply #41 on: June 07, 2017, 06:04 »
+1
Extremely unprofessional, could sue them for mental pain.  :D


« Reply #42 on: June 07, 2017, 06:36 »
+3
Extremely unprofessional, could sue them for mental pain.  :D

There's an easier answer...stop dealing with unprofessional companies. We all do have a choice, you know.  :)

« Reply #43 on: June 07, 2017, 20:29 »
0
I sell it on first of this month and the cash still there :)

« Reply #44 on: June 08, 2017, 02:52 »
0
Could you share the photo with us?

« Reply #45 on: June 08, 2017, 04:02 »
0
Something is getting fishy.  So far the image in question has not been shown.  I have asked and so have others.  Do it really exist or is this a hoax?

« Reply #46 on: June 08, 2017, 04:11 »
+5
Something is getting fishy.  So far the image in question has not been shown.  I have asked and so have others.  Do it really exist or is this a hoax?
.If I had a $6,000 picture I would not be sharing it here ;-).

« Reply #47 on: June 08, 2017, 04:32 »
+3
And even if showed here, don't see the point, it's just something (if it was true) that someone really needed for something in that moment, could be the most random photo that will never sell again.

« Reply #48 on: June 08, 2017, 04:34 »
+1
And even if showed here, don't see the point, it's just something (if it was true) that someone really needed for something in that moment, could be the most random photo that will never sell again.
and of course we still wouldn't know for sure if it sold for that. To be honest I take any sales/earnings reports on here with a pinch of salt.

« Reply #49 on: June 08, 2017, 05:53 »
+2
here is the proof


 

Related Topics

  Subject / Started by Replies Last post
64 Replies
20624 Views
Last post November 08, 2008, 09:56
by null
2 Replies
2963 Views
Last post September 30, 2017, 02:06
by increasingdifficulty
16 Replies
6575 Views
Last post September 27, 2019, 06:57
by Lola Ginabrigeta
8 Replies
2433 Views
Last post January 20, 2022, 17:52
by Wilm
4 Replies
909 Views
Last post July 14, 2023, 07:14
by LouisPhotos

Sponsors

Mega Bundle of 5,900+ Professional Lightroom Presets

Microstock Poll Results

Sponsors