Post by: Mrblues101 on June 14, 2020, 23:13
June 1 - 326.401.446 images, 1.146.506 new images per week
June 4 - 325.718.566 images, 1.157.726 new images per week
June 6 - 325.167.887 images, 1.123.492 new images per week
June 8 - 324.236.117 images, 1.062.475 new images per week
June 11- 324.111.510 images, 1.031.537 new images per week
June 15- 324.009.728 images, 993.927 new images per week
June 16- 321.860.122 images, 969.833 new images per week
June 17- 318.526.227 images, 920.525 new images per week
June 18- 318.961.660 images, 903.429 new images per week
June 23 - 320.955.776 images, 921.692 new images per week
June 26 - 321.204.674 images, 886.209 new images per week (updated)
Images amount is reducing, and i think quality too
If this tendency keeps on time, the SS will need to reverse its actions...
Post by: Les on June 15, 2020, 01:35
Post by: douglas on June 15, 2020, 01:49
I just want to share the record i am taking about images on SS database after june 1, i just copy and paste the text of SS bottom page:
June 15- 324.009.728 images, 993.927 new images per week
The effect is actually greater than this. That figure of 324,009,728 is what SS says is in the database in the line you mention but is always a little out of date. If you just search with blank search criteria it shows there are 322,772,035 images available i.e, more than 1.2M less than they claim.
Post by: Dog-maDe-sign on June 15, 2020, 02:45
Post by: blue on June 15, 2020, 05:05
https://www.google.com/search?q=sstk (https://www.google.com/search?q=sstk)
Post by: pics2 on June 15, 2020, 05:25
Post by: Les on June 15, 2020, 05:45
Post by: blue on June 15, 2020, 06:45
Stock market was down in general on Friday, it is not SS specific.The attached chart shows last month share price and if you take a closer look you'll see that it is going down since June 8th after it went up since June 2nd
Post by: markmagedotcom on June 15, 2020, 10:32
Stock market was down in general on Friday, it is not SS specific.
more generally, SSTK is nothing out of the ordinary compared to the overall stock market level.
The point is that it never made any visible advance b/c shareholder "enthusiasm" about that "brilliant move" of killing off quality suppliers though. (Just have a look at the YoY chart, looks pretty dull anyway :)
Another point, who in their right mind would buy a stock that has a P/E ratio of 75+ (i e you'd have to wait, trust them with your money and kind of sit in a boat with these morons for a flipping 75 years or more before even seeing your money back -- that's not a penny in profits up to that point, in 2095)...
Some investment.
Post by: pics2 on June 15, 2020, 10:46
Correct! I was only referring to daily change of -2.18% on June 12th.Stock market was down in general on Friday, it is not SS specific.The attached chart shows last month share price and if you take a closer look you'll see that it is going down since June 8th after it went up since June 2nd
Post by: pics2 on June 15, 2020, 10:47
No doubt about that. P/E should be bellow 15 to be attractive.Stock market was down in general on Friday, it is not SS specific.
more generally, SSTK is nothing out of the ordinary compared to the overall stock market level.
The point is that it never made any visible advance b/c shareholder "enthusiasm" about that "brilliant move" of killing off quality suppliers though. (Just have a look at the YoY chart, looks pretty dull anyway :)
Another point, who in their right mind would buy a stock that has a P/E ratio of 75+ (i e you'd have to wait in sit in a boat with these morons for a flipping 75 years or more before even seeing your money back -- that's not a penny in profits up to that point, in 2095)...
Some investment.
Post by: Justanotherphotographer on June 15, 2020, 10:49
So what is actually happening is they are taking money directly from artists into their own pockets by way of dividends.
It's a straight up cash grab from us to the people actually making the decisions to reduce our royalties.
In this case the shareholders aren't a third party.
Post by: pics2 on June 15, 2020, 10:53
I think we are loosing track of the fact that by far the majority of the stock is held by insiders.And many of them are family members. We are seeing few families getting rich practically doing nothing except sitting in their chairs and waiting for cash. I don't even want to think how far this has gone, it makes me sick.
So what is actually happening is they are taking money directly from artists into their own pockets by way of dividends.
It's a straight up cash grab from us to the people actually making the decisions to reduce our royalties.
Post by: gameover on June 15, 2020, 12:02
Post by: NeonRobot on June 15, 2020, 14:42
(https://vintage-nostalgia.com/divingSS.jpg)nice one!
Post by: cascoly on June 15, 2020, 17:08
whatever your view of the boycott, logic and statistics are still important:
....
Images amount is reducing, and i think quality too
If this tendency keeps on time, the SS will need to reverse its actions...
1. how do you know there's any change in quality
2. current decrease is 0.3% - hardly a tsunami
3. largest number of deletions/disabling will be over next few days - no reason to assume it will continue, and in fact will probably rise when the disablers become re-enablers
Post by: cascoly on June 15, 2020, 17:15
I just want to share the record i am taking about images on SS database after june 1, i just copy and paste the text of SS bottom page:
June 15- 324.009.728 images, 993.927 new images per week
The effect is actually greater than this. That figure of 324,009,728 is what SS says is in the database in the line you mention but is always a little out of date. If you just search with blank search criteria it shows there are 322,772,035 images available i.e, more than 1.2M less than they claim.
only if that overcount is a 1 time event -- probably should subtract from all other data, too
Post by: douglas on June 15, 2020, 17:56
I just want to share the record i am taking about images on SS database after june 1, i just copy and paste the text of SS bottom page:
June 15- 324.009.728 images, 993.927 new images per week
The effect is actually greater than this. That figure of 324,009,728 is what SS says is in the database in the line you mention but is always a little out of date. If you just search with blank search criteria it shows there are 322,772,035 images available i.e, more than 1.2M less than they claim.
only if that overcount is a 1 time event -- probably should subtract from all other data, too
You ask for evidence but don’t look for yourself: just go the Search page It’s not a one-off overcount, they only update that stats line roughly once every 24 hours. So at the moment it says there are 323,198,590 images in the collection but the search returns only 321,178,133. Similarly the “added weekly” was revised downwards in the last hour from 973,279 to 934,868 and is probably now already too high as the downward trend has been consistent since 1 June (when it was 1.16M).
I don’t know what constitutes ‘a tsunami’ in statistical terms but a 19.5% drop in weekly submissions should have the inhabitants of Shittystick island at least looking for a few sandbags.
Post by: Jo Ann Snover on June 15, 2020, 18:28
microstock graphic
Are you aware of the Shutterstock terms & conditions that all accounts agree to that say, in part
"You agree that you will not use Shutterstock's Trademarks in any manner that might tarnish, disparage, or reflect adversely on such Trademarks or Shutterstock."
https://www.shutterstock.com/terms (https://www.shutterstock.com/terms)
It's possible they won't bother to pursue a legal case, but if you weren't aware that you were probably violating the terms - and wanted to keep your account open for the future - it'd be good to think about the legal aspect of this
Post by: Jo Ann Snover on June 15, 2020, 18:30
#BoycottShutterstock
Post by: cascoly on June 15, 2020, 23:04
those who make the claim are responsible, not me - why should i do their work?I just want to share the record i am taking about images on SS database after june 1, i just copy and paste the text of SS bottom page:
June 15- 324.009.728 images, 993.927 new images per week
The effect is actually greater than this. That figure of 324,009,728 is what SS says is in the database in the line you mention but is always a little out of date. If you just search with blank search criteria it shows there are 322,772,035 images available i.e, more than 1.2M less than they claim.
only if that overcount is a 1 time event -- probably should subtract from all other data, too
You ask for evidence but don’t look for yourself: just go the Search page It’s not a one-off overcount, they only update that stats line roughly once every 24 hours. So at the moment it says there are 323,198,590 images in the collection but the search returns only 321,178,133. Similarly the “added weekly” was revised downwards in the last hour from 973,279 to 934,868 and is probably now already too high as the downward trend has been consistent since 1 June (when it was 1.16M).
I don’t know what constitutes ‘a tsunami’ in statistical terms but a 19.5% drop in weekly submissions should have the inhabitants of Shittystick island at least looking for a few sandbags.
what numbers are you using to show a 19% drop?
seems like you're you're cherry picking - using a difference in reports for 1 week, but not applying that in previous weeks
from numbers displayed above:
June 8 - 324.236.117 images, 1.062.475 new images per week
June 15- 324.009.728 images, 993.927 new images per week
so 1,062,475/993,927 = about a 7% decline in images submitted, < 0.1% in images online
Post by: Amanda_K on June 15, 2020, 23:45
Post by: r2d2 on June 16, 2020, 01:03
those who make the claim are responsible, not me - why should i do their work?I just want to share the record i am taking about images on SS database after june 1, i just copy and paste the text of SS bottom page:
June 15- 324.009.728 images, 993.927 new images per week
The effect is actually greater than this. That figure of 324,009,728 is what SS says is in the database in the line you mention but is always a little out of date. If you just search with blank search criteria it shows there are 322,772,035 images available i.e, more than 1.2M less than they claim.
only if that overcount is a 1 time event -- probably should subtract from all other data, too
You ask for evidence but don’t look for yourself: just go the Search page It’s not a one-off overcount, they only update that stats line roughly once every 24 hours. So at the moment it says there are 323,198,590 images in the collection but the search returns only 321,178,133. Similarly the “added weekly” was revised downwards in the last hour from 973,279 to 934,868 and is probably now already too high as the downward trend has been consistent since 1 June (when it was 1.16M).
I don’t know what constitutes ‘a tsunami’ in statistical terms but a 19.5% drop in weekly submissions should have the inhabitants of Shittystick island at least looking for a few sandbags.
what numbers are you using to show a 19% drop?
seems like you're you're cherry picking - using a difference in reports for 1 week, but not applying that in previous weeks
from numbers displayed above:
June 8 - 324.236.117 images, 1.062.475 new images per week
June 15- 324.009.728 images, 993.927 new images per week
so 1,062,475/993,927 = about a 7% decline in images submitted, < 0.1% in images online
Where do you have this numbers? Try this:
https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/u/0/d/1Sx80IDLCr0-1_ie1a17Rtm4m9fgUwglaxHdyNy2lDCc/htmlview#gid=0
Post by: gameover on June 16, 2020, 01:52
Thanks for the info, I decided to delete it. I don't think of keeping my account open, but I would avoid a legal dispute ...microstock graphic
Are you aware of the Shutterstock terms & conditions that all accounts agree to that say, in part
"You agree that you will not use Shutterstock's Trademarks in any manner that might tarnish, disparage, or reflect adversely on such Trademarks or Shutterstock."
https://www.shutterstock.com/terms (https://www.shutterstock.com/terms)
It's possible they won't bother to pursue a legal case, but if you weren't aware that you were probably violating the terms - and wanted to keep your account open for the future - it'd be good to think about the legal aspect of this
Post by: Snow on June 16, 2020, 03:21
Steve, I'm curious as to what your aim is here with the devil's advocate position. If not portfolio deactivation, what do you suggest is the most constructive course of action for artists who don't want to accept 10 cent commissions for their work? I'm not trying to be disrespectful, and I apologize if I've missed your answer to this as there has been so much to follow in recent days, I'm just honestly confused about your stance on this issue.
My guess is these people never stood up for anything in their life so it’s better for them to contradict our beliefs and actions. They are making up various excuses yet know good and well this change was not at all in their favor and they will lose money, If not now then next year. Even prostitutes would know better.
But I guess if we would all act the same the world would be pretty boring ;)
Post by: Shelma1 on June 16, 2020, 04:56
those who make the claim are responsible, not me - why should i do their work?I just want to share the record i am taking about images on SS database after june 1, i just copy and paste the text of SS bottom page:
June 15- 324.009.728 images, 993.927 new images per week
The effect is actually greater than this. That figure of 324,009,728 is what SS says is in the database in the line you mention but is always a little out of date. If you just search with blank search criteria it shows there are 322,772,035 images available i.e, more than 1.2M less than they claim.
only if that overcount is a 1 time event -- probably should subtract from all other data, too
You ask for evidence but don’t look for yourself: just go the Search page It’s not a one-off overcount, they only update that stats line roughly once every 24 hours. So at the moment it says there are 323,198,590 images in the collection but the search returns only 321,178,133. Similarly the “added weekly” was revised downwards in the last hour from 973,279 to 934,868 and is probably now already too high as the downward trend has been consistent since 1 June (when it was 1.16M).
I don’t know what constitutes ‘a tsunami’ in statistical terms but a 19.5% drop in weekly submissions should have the inhabitants of Shittystick island at least looking for a few sandbags.
what numbers are you using to show a 19% drop?
seems like you're you're cherry picking - using a difference in reports for 1 week, but not applying that in previous weeks
from numbers displayed above:
June 8 - 324.236.117 images, 1.062.475 new images per week
June 15- 324.009.728 images, 993.927 new images per week
so 1,062,475/993,927 = about a 7% decline in images submitted, < 0.1% in images online
Where do you have this numbers? Try this:
https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/u/0/d/1Sx80IDLCr0-1_ie1a17Rtm4m9fgUwglaxHdyNy2lDCc/htmlview#gid=0
According to this chart, the Shutterstock library has shrunk by 6.5 million assets since June 1. And since there have still been approximately 1 million uploads per week, that means at least 8.5 million assets have been removed.
Normally this would be a huge blow to an agency...heck, Freepik has fewer images than this, so their entire library would be gone.
But Shutterstock has been planning a move like this for years, limiting upload amounts and rejecting content from established contributors repeatedly while accepting huge portfolios of similars all in one day. This limits the impact a collective action can have because it limits the number of files each of us owns. How many of us got fed up with rejections or onerous vector uploading demands and falling income because of new algorithms?
It’s now clear to me that when we opted out of DPC Shutterstock bought boycottshutterstock.com and immediately set about doing whatever they could to limit damage contributors could inflict to their numbers. That’s why they were so obsessed with building a huge library without a care for quality.
I think back to the handful of people here who repeatedly rolled their eyes at complaints about rejections and told everyone to just do better work and wonder whether some of them are Shutterstock employees.
Post by: Les on June 16, 2020, 06:20
Post by: beketoff on June 16, 2020, 07:07
It’s now clear to me that when we opted out of DPC Shutterstock bought boycottshutterstock.com and immediately set about doing whatever they could to limit damage contributors could inflict to their numbers. That’s why they were so obsessed with building a huge library without a care for quality.
What's the story about this boycottshutterstock.com domain? It's funny that it redirects to the main Shutterstock homepage instead of showing some neutral placeholder not connected to SS itself.
Post by: Shelma1 on June 16, 2020, 07:10
It’s now clear to me that when we opted out of DPC Shutterstock bought boycottshutterstock.com and immediately set about doing whatever they could to limit damage contributors could inflict to their numbers. That’s why they were so obsessed with building a huge library without a care for quality.
What's the story about this boycottshutterstock.com domain? It's funny that it redirects to the main Shutterstock homepage instead of showing some neutral placeholder not connected to SS itself.
Yes...Shutterstock bought the domain and pointed it to the Shutterstock site so contributors couldn't buy it.
Post by: Pacesetter on June 16, 2020, 07:26
I wouldn't be so fixated on the total count of images. If anything, accepting large lots of inferior and similar images will be more detrimental to an agency.
Agree, the strength of the database is its quality and variety and there's no way a few big agencies can create that. Quality and variety is what Shutterstock is now losing.
Post by: Rage on June 16, 2020, 08:34
Examples for your enjoyment
https://www.techotn.com/shutterstock-price-india/amp/?__twitter_impression=true
(https://uploads.tapatalk-cdn.com/20200616/439a4c6b9682b2e1d69e8075b711e795.jpg)
Sent from my HD1901 using Tapatalk
Post by: Dumc on June 16, 2020, 08:55
Post by: Mantis on June 16, 2020, 09:09
Maybee some kind of counter-offensive by shutterstock-hired Indians, just like they hired them for image reviewing.
You know that wherever possible they will be doing some sort of brand damage countermeasures.
Post by: Mrblues101 on June 16, 2020, 09:55
Look this difference:
June 15- 324.009.728 images, 993.927 new images per week
June 16- 321.860.122 images, 969.833 new images per week
Post by: Snow on June 16, 2020, 10:53
Maybee some kind of counter-offensive by shutterstock-hired Indians, just like they hired them for image reviewing.
Yeah most likely!
I guess they have to start promoting their portfolio's before they run out of buyers ;)
Should our actions have no effect on SS it will certainly have an effect elsewhere with a lot better RPD!
I am still very disappointed in seeing those who I once admired, not only as stock contributors but also as artists not taking any action. They can afford it much more then many of us. Maybe they don't care and take the money for what it is. Still it's quite disrespectful against those who try fight for all contributors or even those who live from this income.
It is what it is right, take care peeps!
Post by: PhotoBomb on June 16, 2020, 11:18
Their reply to me:
"Wow I don't blame you, that's awful. I was not aware of that, I will definitely not be purchasing from them in the future. I will purchase the image through Adobe, thank you so much for your quick response!"
Post by: Dumc on June 16, 2020, 11:22
Post by: cascoly on June 16, 2020, 23:39
Steve, I'm curious as to what your aim is here with the devil's advocate position. If not portfolio deactivation, what do you suggest is the most constructive course of action for artists who don't want to accept 10 cent commissions for their work? I'm not trying to be disrespectful, and I apologize if I've missed your answer to this as there has been so much to follow in recent days, I'm just honestly confused about your stance on this issue.thanks for your response, certainly not disrespectful - while i deplore SS's moves, i just don't see a boycott as a useful response. that aside, i try mostly to respond to poor logic or statistics on any side -- too many claims here use faulty statistics or logic - maker your(their) arguments with valid facts & analysis to build a stronger case
Post by: Dumc on June 17, 2020, 01:15
Post by: everest on June 17, 2020, 01:20
Shutterstock is financially in a much better position than Getty but Mr Oringer sees that there is only stagnation or even decrease in the days ahead. He wants to get out of the business he created and cash in as much as possible for his over 40+% shares. His choice has been to put the strawman we all know in the cockpit and pull the strings without loosing face. He could ramp up prices and loose customers or cut commissions and loose contributors. He decided for the last for different reasons and he might be right in that choice in the short term to push the stock value up.
But even if most of the contributors stay I have my big doubt that the large producers will keep betting on Shutter. They will slowly or faster move to other options the same way most of the best contributors did when Getty pushed the screws. Remember that buyers follow content and that content is already shifting to other sites right now. This will only accelerate.
For this the boycott is very useful. People are aware of the situation, they calculate their costs in time and money to produce content. Many will stay and many won't. But what is sure is that most those producers leaving won't stop their activity and will regularly give fresh content to the other competing sites. It seems Adobe and P5 will benefit the most. One day those two might take the same approach that once Mr Getty and Mr Oringer companies did. When that day arrives contributors will have to take again their decisions.
thanks for your response, certainly not disrespectful - while i deplore SS's moves, i just don't see a boycott as a useful response. that aside, i try mostly to respond to poor logic or statistics on any side -- too many claims here use faulty statistics or logic - maker your(their) arguments with valid facts & analysis to build a stronger case
Post by: whtvr2 on June 17, 2020, 02:01
Quote
But even if most of the contributors stay I have my big doubt that the large producers will keep betting on Shutter.
We do not know what sells the most, what deals SS might got atm and where theya re heading. Plus thousands of editorial snap shooters can easily justify a 0.10 payment "per click" return. Especially if it is a smartphone click. This might be end up as a good thing pushing other agencies to reject more or adapting SS pricing and giving the benefit to contributors to apply to more niche agencies thus getting better before getting payed better. If some thousands of microstock parachuters remain in SS or others for pennies or quit because of pennies, that is good news.
Post by: gameover on June 17, 2020, 04:55
Better many piranhas than a shark?
Post by: cathyslife on June 17, 2020, 07:55
I just got an email from a designer who had used a watermarked image of mine in a mockup for a client and when they went to purchase it today it wasn't available. They wanted to know where they could get it. I explained the situation and they will be purchasing it from Adobe.
Their reply to me:
"Wow I don't blame you, that's awful. I was not aware of that, I will definitely not be purchasing from them in the future. I will purchase the image through Adobe, thank you so much for your quick response!"
Can I use this in a tweet? I don’t have to use your name.
Post by: candidcruiser on June 17, 2020, 08:09
I just got an email from a designer who had used a watermarked image of mine in a mockup for a client and when they went to purchase it today it wasn't available. They wanted to know where they could get it. I explained the situation and they will be purchasing it from Adobe.
Their reply to me:
"Wow I don't blame you, that's awful. I was not aware of that, I will definitely not be purchasing from them in the future. I will purchase the image through Adobe, thank you so much for your quick response!"
How did the person get your email address?
Post by: PhotoBomb on June 17, 2020, 08:17
I just got an email from a designer who had used a watermarked image of mine in a mockup for a client and when they went to purchase it today it wasn't available. They wanted to know where they could get it. I explained the situation and they will be purchasing it from Adobe.
Their reply to me:
"Wow I don't blame you, that's awful. I was not aware of that, I will definitely not be purchasing from them in the future. I will purchase the image through Adobe, thank you so much for your quick response!"
yes you can.
Can I use this in a tweet? I don’t have to use your name.
Post by: PhotoBomb on June 17, 2020, 08:22
I just got an email from a designer who had used a watermarked image of mine in a mockup for a client and when they went to purchase it today it wasn't available. They wanted to know where they could get it. I explained the situation and they will be purchasing it from Adobe.
Their reply to me:
"Wow I don't blame you, that's awful. I was not aware of that, I will definitely not be purchasing from them in the future. I will purchase the image through Adobe, thank you so much for your quick response!"
I use my real name on my SS portfolio and in the About Me page I have a link to the (free with your CC subscription) my Adobe Portfolio where I have my contact details.
How did the person get your email address?
Post by: Horizon on June 17, 2020, 12:18
Post by: cathyslife on June 17, 2020, 13:16
I just got an email from a designer who had used a watermarked image of mine in a mockup for a client and when they went to purchase it today it wasn't available. They wanted to know where they could get it. I explained the situation and they will be purchasing it from Adobe.
Their reply to me:
"Wow I don't blame you, that's awful. I was not aware of that, I will definitely not be purchasing from them in the future. I will purchase the image through Adobe, thank you so much for your quick response!"
yes you can.
Can I use this in a tweet? I don’t have to use your name.
Thanks! Too long to Tweet, but I posted it on the Coalition fb page.
Post by: PhotoBomb on June 17, 2020, 13:28
I just got an email from a designer who had used a watermarked image of mine in a mockup for a client and when they went to purchase it today it wasn't available. They wanted to know where they could get it. I explained the situation and they will be purchasing it from Adobe.
Their reply to me:
"Wow I don't blame you, that's awful. I was not aware of that, I will definitely not be purchasing from them in the future. I will purchase the image through Adobe, thank you so much for your quick response!"
yes you can.
Can I use this in a tweet? I don’t have to use your name.
Thanks! Too long to Tweet, but I posted it on the Coalition fb page.
Thanks - I had already done that - but a second post doesn't hurt. and Jo Ann tweeted it.
Post by: Mrblues101 on June 17, 2020, 14:05
June 16- 321.860.122 images, 969.833 new images per week
June 17- 318.526.227 images, 920.525 new images per week (updated)
Things are becaming harder and harder for SS
Post by: wordplanet on June 18, 2020, 00:38
Has anyone noticed A LOT of random people spamming the shutterstock hashtag on twitter posting their portfolio (most of the portfolios are empty) and many (very badly written) paid articles talking about how awesome SS is
Examples for your enjoyment
https://www.techotn.com/shutterstock-price-india/amp/?__twitter_impression=true (https://www.techotn.com/shutterstock-price-india/amp/?__twitter_impression=true)
(https://uploads.tapatalk-cdn.com/20200616/439a4c6b9682b2e1d69e8075b711e795.jpg)
Sent from my HD1901 using Tapatalk
LOL a monkey typing randomly, with spellcheck, could have written that. Thanks for the chuckle.
Post by: harshithdwivedi on June 18, 2020, 02:38
Has anyone noticed A LOT of random people spamming the shutterstock hashtag on twitter posting their portfolio (most of the portfolios are empty) and many (very badly written) paid articles talking about how awesome SS is
Examples for your enjoyment
https://www.techotn.com/shutterstock-price-india/amp/?__twitter_impression=true (https://www.techotn.com/shutterstock-price-india/amp/?__twitter_impression=true)
(https://uploads.tapatalk-cdn.com/20200616/439a4c6b9682b2e1d69e8075b711e795.jpg)
Sent from my HD1901 using Tapatalk
Anyone can tell that these are planned tweets lol.
Look at how each one of them uses the same tweet message while quoting the link.
Post by: Rage on June 18, 2020, 03:59
Sent from my HD1901 using Tapatalk
Post by: Mrblues101 on June 18, 2020, 20:37
June 18- 318.961.660 images, 903.429 new images per week (updated)
Sadly today whole amount of images on SS increase
Post by: marthamarks on June 18, 2020, 21:14
June 17- 318.526.227 images, 920.525 new images per week
June 18- 318.961.660 images, 903.429 new images per week (updated)
Sadly today whole amount of images on SS increase
Unfortunately, those numbers *will* go back up once more if people who have pulled their images for just one week turn them on and go back to uploading next week.
Post by: Horizon on June 19, 2020, 00:33
It really amazes me that a management can be such cretins in a business exclusivly depending on members uploading content.
Post by: Chichikov on June 19, 2020, 00:59
http://shuttercounter.ddns.net (http://shuttercounter.ddns.net)
How reliable is this graph?
I read on Shutterstock's forum someone who wrote that Shutterstock has started (re)approving images that would have been rejected before. Is this possible?
Post by: whtvr2 on June 19, 2020, 02:02
The curve turns up here…
[url]http://shuttercounter.ddns.net[/url] ([url]http://shuttercounter.ddns.net[/url])
How reliable is this graph?
I read on Shutterstock's forum someone who wrote that Shutterstock has started (re)approving images that would have been rejected before. Is this possible?
AMEN!!!
So for me and speaking only for myself approaches the time not to watch what others do or wait from me to do but to decide if i will keep SS port or terminate my contract and never look back.And frankly my dear Shutter and also my dear deactivators that will reenable ports with tears in eyes or "just feed low quality now on" i don't give a d*mn.
TREAT IT LIKE A JOB IF YOU DON'T WANNA BE TREATED LIKE A DOG.
Post by: Shelma1 on June 19, 2020, 07:50
The curve turns up here…
[url]http://shuttercounter.ddns.net[/url] ([url]http://shuttercounter.ddns.net[/url])
How reliable is this graph?
I read on Shutterstock's forum someone who wrote that Shutterstock has started (re)approving images that would have been rejected before. Is this possible?
Yes, I've heard that Shutterstock has approved previously rejected images. Also, they were sending emails asking people to re-enable their ports for a single sale, but the new tactic seems to be just going ahead and selling those images anyway under the theory that once an image was in a lightbox or comp it was open for licensing even though the port was disabled. So why ask permission? That just annoys buyers who might ask why so many images are suddenly missing.
Of course, we have no way of knowing what they're selling or not selling or what was or was not put into lightboxes or comps (under their free comp license, which we're not notified about that I know of).
And of course the library numbers will continue to bounce back because uploads have slowed but not stopped, and most people who were angry enough to disable their ports have already done so.
Post by: Mantis on June 19, 2020, 08:07
The curve turns up here…
[url]http://shuttercounter.ddns.net[/url] ([url]http://shuttercounter.ddns.net[/url])
How reliable is this graph?
I read on Shutterstock's forum someone who wrote that Shutterstock has started (re)approving images that would have been rejected before. Is this possible?
Yes, I've heard that Shutterstock has approved previously rejected images. Also, they were sending emails asking people to re-enable their ports for a single sale, but the new tactic seems to be just going ahead and selling those images anyway under the theory that once an image was in a lightbox or comp it was open for licensing even though the port was disabled. So why ask permission? That just annoys buyers who might ask why so many images are suddenly missing.
Of course, we have no way of knowing what they're selling or not selling or what was or was not put into lightboxes or comps (under their free comp license, which we're not notified about that I know of).
And of course the library numbers will continue to bounce back because uploads have slowed but not stopped, and most people who were angry enough to disable their ports have already done so.
Unfortunately, the only way to avoid this is to delete your port as opposed to disabling it. My port is disabled and I have accepted that the SS game for me is over. So I'll ride this out for a bit longer before I carve out the time to manually delete my work. For me personally, that's phase two.
Post by: blue on June 19, 2020, 08:45
Unfortunately, the only way to avoid this is to delete your port as opposed to disabling it. My port is disabled and I have accepted that the SS game for me is over. So I'll ride this out for a bit longer before I carve out the time to manually delete my work. For me personally, that's phase two.There is a very helpful script (ssremover) to remove files from SS in a batch. Explanations are here (nothing complicated) : https://www.microstockgroup.com/35653/35653/msg552685/#msg552685 (https://www.microstockgroup.com/35653/35653/msg552685/#msg552685)
Post by: Rage on June 19, 2020, 11:37
Would it be possible to make a script to automatically like all tweets with #BoycottShutterstock on twitter. If we all ran it daily we'd get some really good reach of the hashtagUnfortunately, the only way to avoid this is to delete your port as opposed to disabling it. My port is disabled and I have accepted that the SS game for me is over. So I'll ride this out for a bit longer before I carve out the time to manually delete my work. For me personally, that's phase two.There is a very helpful script (ssremover) to remove files from SS in a batch. Explanations are here (nothing complicated) : https://www.microstockgroup.com/35653/35653/msg552685/#msg552685 (https://www.microstockgroup.com/35653/35653/msg552685/#msg552685)
Sent from my HD1901 using Tapatalk
Post by: Mrblues101 on June 19, 2020, 14:11
Would it be possible to make a script to automatically like all tweets with #BoycottShutterstock on twitter. If we all ran it daily we'd get some really good reach of the hashtagUnfortunately, the only way to avoid this is to delete your port as opposed to disabling it. My port is disabled and I have accepted that the SS game for me is over. So I'll ride this out for a bit longer before I carve out the time to manually delete my work. For me personally, that's phase two.There is a very helpful script (ssremover) to remove files from SS in a batch. Explanations are here (nothing complicated) : https://www.microstockgroup.com/35653/35653/msg552685/#msg552685 (https://www.microstockgroup.com/35653/35653/msg552685/#msg552685)
Sent from my HD1901 using Tapatalk
Social networks works so hard to avoid it, you can create the script but twiter will so likely to delete or punish your account.
Post by: MysteryShot on June 19, 2020, 14:17
Post by: CommuniCat on June 19, 2020, 14:28
It’s now clear to me that when we opted out of DPC Shutterstock bought boycottshutterstock.com and immediately set about doing whatever they could to limit damage contributors could inflict to their numbers. That’s why they were so obsessed with building a huge library without a care for quality.
What's the story about this boycottshutterstock.com domain? It's funny that it redirects to the main Shutterstock homepage instead of showing some neutral placeholder not connected to SS itself.
Yes...Shutterstock bought the domain and pointed it to the Shutterstock site so contributors couldn't buy it.
Good grief. I had no idea until reading this post that they did that. What kind of paranoid lunatic buys that domain thinking the world is out to get them?
Post by: Thomas from France on June 19, 2020, 14:28
Would it be possible to make a script to automatically like all tweets with #BoycottShutterstock on twitter. If we all ran it daily we'd get some really good reach of the hashtagUnfortunately, the only way to avoid this is to delete your port as opposed to disabling it. My port is disabled and I have accepted that the SS game for me is over. So I'll ride this out for a bit longer before I carve out the time to manually delete my work. For me personally, that's phase two.There is a very helpful script (ssremover) to remove files from SS in a batch. Explanations are here (nothing complicated) : https://www.microstockgroup.com/35653/35653/msg552685/#msg552685 (https://www.microstockgroup.com/35653/35653/msg552685/#msg552685)
Sent from my HD1901 using Tapatalk
Social networks works so hard to avoid it, you can create the script but twiter will so likely to delete or punish your account.
I use python language, it works well !
Post by: marthamarks on June 19, 2020, 14:51
What kind of paranoid lunatic buys that domain thinking the world is out to get them?
The kind of lunatics who fully intend to screw their contributors sometime in the next few years.
Post by: blue on June 19, 2020, 14:53
It’s now clear to me that when we opted out of DPC Shutterstock bought boycottshutterstock.com and immediately set about doing whatever they could to limit damage contributors could inflict to their numbers. That’s why they were so obsessed with building a huge library without a care for quality.
What's the story about this boycottshutterstock.com domain? It's funny that it redirects to the main Shutterstock homepage instead of showing some neutral placeholder not connected to SS itself.
Yes...Shutterstock bought the domain and pointed it to the Shutterstock site so contributors couldn't buy it.
Good grief. I had no idea until reading this post that they did that. What kind of paranoid lunatic buys that domain thinking the world is out to get them?
It is no paranoia but anticipation. It proves SS move was planned a long time ago
Post by: cascoly on June 19, 2020, 16:04
Quote
Would it be possible to make a script to automatically like all tweets with #BoycottShutterstock on twitter. If we all ran it daily we'd get some really good reach of the hashtag
google 'twitter bots free'
twitter's response to bots is variable but could get your account closed
Post by: Mrblues101 on June 19, 2020, 17:39
Would it be possible to make a script to automatically like all tweets with #BoycottShutterstock on twitter. If we all ran it daily we'd get some really good reach of the hashtagUnfortunately, the only way to avoid this is to delete your port as opposed to disabling it. My port is disabled and I have accepted that the SS game for me is over. So I'll ride this out for a bit longer before I carve out the time to manually delete my work. For me personally, that's phase two.There is a very helpful script (ssremover) to remove files from SS in a batch. Explanations are here (nothing complicated) : https://www.microstockgroup.com/35653/35653/msg552685/#msg552685 (https://www.microstockgroup.com/35653/35653/msg552685/#msg552685)
Sent from my HD1901 using Tapatalk
Social networks works so hard to avoid it, you can create the script but twiter will so likely to delete or punish your account.
I use python language, it works well !
For twiter bots?
Post by: Evaristo tenscadisto on June 19, 2020, 18:16
i am starting to get youtube video suggestion's to join in to SS from Morrocco
(https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=blDrfV-DQf0 (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=blDrfV-DQf0)). The Morrocco guy even have a site with his Positive SS review, in English (https://www.projectallo.com/shutterstock-review (https://www.projectallo.com/shutterstock-review)).
Could it be that this guys are being payed to reduce impact?
Post by: Guy72009 on June 19, 2020, 20:31
of your upload and if it been approve you can now add your keyword and
description ,i ask it because i wasted a lot of time add keywords and
description on footage the not approved for quality reason
Post by: Thomas from France on June 19, 2020, 23:19
Yes , with the twython module(there are other ones).Would it be possible to make a script to automatically like all tweets with #BoycottShutterstock on twitter. If we all ran it daily we'd get some really good reach of the hashtagUnfortunately, the only way to avoid this is to delete your port as opposed to disabling it. My port is disabled and I have accepted that the SS game for me is over. So I'll ride this out for a bit longer before I carve out the time to manually delete my work. For me personally, that's phase two.There is a very helpful script (ssremover) to remove files from SS in a batch. Explanations are here (nothing complicated) : https://www.microstockgroup.com/35653/35653/msg552685/#msg552685 (https://www.microstockgroup.com/35653/35653/msg552685/#msg552685)
Sent from my HD1901 using Tapatalk
Social networks works so hard to avoid it, you can create the script but twiter will so likely to delete or punish your account.
I use python language, it works well !
For twiter bots?
twitter provides an API.
I can give you the code if tou want
Post by: Rage on June 20, 2020, 00:03
Yes please, it could help spread the wordYes , with the twython module(there are other ones).Would it be possible to make a script to automatically like all tweets with #BoycottShutterstock on twitter. If we all ran it daily we'd get some really good reach of the hashtagUnfortunately, the only way to avoid this is to delete your port as opposed to disabling it. My port is disabled and I have accepted that the SS game for me is over. So I'll ride this out for a bit longer before I carve out the time to manually delete my work. For me personally, that's phase two.There is a very helpful script (ssremover) to remove files from SS in a batch. Explanations are here (nothing complicated) : https://www.microstockgroup.com/35653/35653/msg552685/#msg552685 (https://www.microstockgroup.com/35653/35653/msg552685/#msg552685)
Sent from my HD1901 using Tapatalk
Social networks works so hard to avoid it, you can create the script but twiter will so likely to delete or punish your account.
I use python language, it works well !
For twiter bots?
twitter provides an API.
I can give you the code if tou want
Sent from my HD1901 using Tapatalk
Post by: cathyslife on June 20, 2020, 20:52
What kind of paranoid lunatic buys that domain thinking the world is out to get them?
The kind of lunatics who fully intend to screw their contributors sometime in the next few years.
Yes, sure seems like they had it all planned out. >:(
Post by: Mrblues101 on June 23, 2020, 14:07
June 18- 318.961.660 images, 903.429 new images per week
June 23 - 320.955.776 images, 921.692 new images per week (updated)
I think things are just coming back to normal, people is just uploading again and accepting the 10 cents deal...
So sad...
Maybe the real desertion of people will be january 1 when people will just get an immovable 0.10 cents per sale and no 0.10-0.35-025-0.11-0.22 ... etc as they are reporting now...
Post by: cathyslife on June 23, 2020, 14:33
Update
June 18- 318.961.660 images, 903.429 new images per week
June 23 - 320.955.776 images, 921.692 new images per week (updated)
I think things are just coming back to normal, people is just uploading again and accepting the 10 cents deal...
So sad...
Maybe the real desertion of people will be january 1 when people will just get an immovable 0.10 cents per sale and no 0.10-0.35-025-0.11-0.22 ... etc as they are reporting now...
Or...the numbers are being manipulated. I don’t trust them, do you? There are shareholders to answer to, millionaires that need to feed their habits. They can’t afford to lose buyers.
Post by: Mrblues101 on June 23, 2020, 14:41
Update
June 18- 318.961.660 images, 903.429 new images per week
June 23 - 320.955.776 images, 921.692 new images per week (updated)
I think things are just coming back to normal, people is just uploading again and accepting the 10 cents deal...
So sad...
Maybe the real desertion of people will be january 1 when people will just get an immovable 0.10 cents per sale and no 0.10-0.35-025-0.11-0.22 ... etc as they are reporting now...
Or...the numbers are being manipulated. I don’t trust them, do you? There are shareholders to answer to, millionaires that need to feed their habits. They can’t afford to lose buyers.
Good point
And it is specially important for them now to show a growing in numbers to makes people believe that everyone is just uploading in the usual rate. So the "fake numbers theory" is possible and convenient for SS
Post by: Reckless on June 23, 2020, 15:18
Post by: cascoly on June 23, 2020, 17:58
Update
June 18- 318.961.660 images, 903.429 new images per week
June 23 - 320.955.776 images, 921.692 new images per week (updated)
I think things are just coming back to normal, people is just uploading again and accepting the 10 cents deal...
So sad...
Maybe the real desertion of people will be january 1 when people will just get an immovable 0.10 cents per sale and no 0.10-0.35-025-0.11-0.22 ... etc as they are reporting now...
Or...the numbers are being manipulated. I don’t trust them, do you? There are shareholders to answer to, millionaires that need to feed their habits. They can’t afford to lose buyers.
Good point
And it is specially important for them now to show a growing in numbers to makes people believe that everyone is just uploading in the usual rate. So the "fake numbers theory" is possible and convenient for SS
ROFLMAO! - just a short time ago people were using those same statistics to show the effect it was having on SS. now the numbers don't support that so the numbers must be cooked!!
Post by: noodle on June 23, 2020, 19:29
Update
June 18- 318.961.660 images, 903.429 new images per week
June 23 - 320.955.776 images, 921.692 new images per week (updated)
I think things are just coming back to normal, people is just uploading again and accepting the 10 cents deal...
So sad...
Maybe the real desertion of people will be january 1 when people will just get an immovable 0.10 cents per sale and no 0.10-0.35-025-0.11-0.22 ... etc as they are reporting now...
Or...the numbers are being manipulated. I don’t trust them, do you? There are shareholders to answer to, millionaires that need to feed their habits. They can’t afford to lose buyers.
Good point
And it is specially important for them now to show a growing in numbers to makes people believe that everyone is just uploading in the usual rate. So the "fake numbers theory" is possible and convenient for SS
ROFLMAO! - just a short time ago people were using those same statistics to show the effect it was having on SS. now the numbers don't support that so the numbers must be cooked!!
Who knows and who gives a crap at this point
All I know is I’m not in reality a part of those numbers, real or cooked
I walk away with my self respect at this point regardless what others do
Post by: Jo Ann Snover on June 23, 2020, 23:08
Possibly as a result of Africa Studios removing their 1,162,088 photos.
Post by: Artist on June 23, 2020, 23:42
Photos took a hit today (you'll have to scroll the chart).
Possibly as a result of Africa Studios removing their 1,162,088 photos.
https://www.shutterstock.com/g/newafrica (https://www.shutterstock.com/g/newafrica)
Post by: pixsol on June 23, 2020, 23:46
Photos took a hit today (you'll have to scroll the chart).
Possibly as a result of Africa Studios removing their 1,162,088 photos.
Thanks. The scrolling of the chart did not work for me. I right-clicked on the chart and selected 'open in a new tab' to see the full chart which worked.
Post by: rene on June 24, 2020, 03:05
Probably, like Mr. Oringer said, they didin't work enough and were in Level 1.Photos took a hit today (you'll have to scroll the chart).
Possibly as a result of Africa Studios removing their 1,162,088 photos.
https://www.shutterstock.com/g/newafrica (https://www.shutterstock.com/g/newafrica)
Africa Studio portfolio
https://www.shutterstock.com/g/belchonock (https://www.shutterstock.com/g/belchonock)
Post by: theendup on June 24, 2020, 03:21
Post by: rene on June 24, 2020, 04:21
http://web.archive.org/web/20180815172927/http://www.microstock.club/indeximg.phtml (http://web.archive.org/web/20180815172927/http://www.microstock.club/indeximg.phtml)
Number 2 is Africa Studio, #1 Toluk with 1,5 million images.
Today Toluk has 3 images on Shutterstock...
https://www.shutterstock.com/g/toluk (https://www.shutterstock.com/g/toluk)
Another lazy contributor.
Post by: Mrblues101 on June 24, 2020, 09:49
Photos took a hit today (you'll have to scroll the chart).
Possibly as a result of Africa Studios removing their 1,162,088 photos.
https://www.shutterstock.com/g/newafrica (https://www.shutterstock.com/g/newafrica)
If "New Africa" a new profile??
Post by: Uncle Pete on June 25, 2020, 09:48
Photos took a hit today (you'll have to scroll the chart).
Possibly as a result of Africa Studios removing their 1,162,088 photos.
Nice work on the chart.
Post by: Uncle Pete on June 25, 2020, 10:00
Photos took a hit today (you'll have to scroll the chart).
Possibly as a result of Africa Studios removing their 1,162,088 photos.
https://www.shutterstock.com/g/newafrica (https://www.shutterstock.com/g/newafrica)
It's them. https://new-africa.com/en/about-us/ (https://new-africa.com/en/about-us/) 486,200 stock photos
I don't know why and I won't speculate at length. If I hover over the SS, BS or AS links on the NewAfrica website, it goes to NewAfrica on those three sites. Maybe a re-organization of some sort, house cleaning, who knows. Someone write and ask them. The old account names are still on other sites.
Post by: Mrblues101 on June 26, 2020, 18:34
June 23 - 320.955.776 images, 921.692 new images per week
June 26 - 321.204.674 images, 886.209 new images per week (updated)
Images on SS are growing but people is uploading less and less...
Post by: Chichikov on June 27, 2020, 09:02
Update:
June 23 - 320.955.776 images, 921.692 new images per week
June 26 - 321.204.674 images, 886.209 new images per week (updated)
Images on SS are growing but people is uploading less and less...
Yes, as you can (not) see here……
http://shuttercounter.ddns.net (http://shuttercounter.ddns.net)
Post by: WD3 Photography on June 27, 2020, 09:12
Post by: PZF on June 27, 2020, 11:53
Post by: MysteryShot on June 27, 2020, 14:51
Some people's boycotting of Shutterstock didn't last long! https://youtu.be/0hhStmty_18
...this is SS new workforce, 10c his country is real money
Post by: Mrblues101 on June 27, 2020, 15:15
Update:
June 23 - 320.955.776 images, 921.692 new images per week
June 26 - 321.204.674 images, 886.209 new images per week (updated)
Images on SS are growing but people is uploading less and less...
Yes, as you can (not) see here……
[url]http://shuttercounter.ddns.net[/url] ([url]http://shuttercounter.ddns.net[/url])
Im trying to keep track of the numbers that SS shows in the bottom of the page
Post by: Chichikov on June 28, 2020, 00:20
Post by: zorba on June 28, 2020, 20:09
And we are having an effect. The collection has been growing for years. Now, even though people have been uploading (and there's a lot of repetitive stuff mixed in that just will never sell) the collection is still shrinking
#BoycottShutterstock
Yeah, what could they do with that few 321.204.674 images ... and people like pressmaster and the like completely ignoring the problem. And when they'll ask "oh sorry SS, I don't like that zero-january, can we make a private agreement? oh... yes? Well, thanks, have a nice day SS, see you" in 2 seconds.
Post by: Mrblues101 on June 28, 2020, 22:32
Based in microeconomic principles: people will not upload any more content if they could made more money inversting them time in something else.
Probably for most of us this new payment rate means that... stop producing and doing something else or uploading to other agencies.
Post by: cobalt on June 29, 2020, 12:17
Microeconomics was the course that more change my mind. By studying it i discover a lot of amazing things an a new way to see the money, work and business.
Based in microeconomic principles: people will not upload any more content if they could made more money inversting them time in something else.
Probably for most of us this new payment rate means that... stop producing and doing something else or uploading to other agencies.
I think the system will simply rebalance itself.
Shutterstock has changed their business model, where only high volume uploaders with little cost in production can expect to make reasonable returns.
So I think there will be an explosion of editorial content, simple walk around snap shots etc...
Because the upload system is very easy, they have the lovely world map, it will be a great place for all the newbies starting out in stock, shooting with their mobile phone.
Those that invest in their production, with either money or time, will be forced to move to other agencies, maybe even back to macrostock.
Overall this does not have to be negative for us. It will take time to adjust, to upload more to other agencies, to differentiate more what kind of content we produce.
So I suppose Adobe, pond5, Alamy, Dreamstime will become agencies for good quality content.
SS will still have the content from the stock factories, butgood quality localized and niche content will be forced to go elsewhere.
Post by: Tenebroso on June 29, 2020, 13:14
Your posture is interesting, the phone is synonymous with a novice. In addition, the mobile is synonymous with profitability in the SS agency. A mutual benefit in a new business strategy that benefits the Agency and the Novice Collaborators.
Then, they are called professionals in this sector, in the intermediate section between Las Fabricas and El Movíl.
Interesting conclusions.
Post by: cascoly on June 29, 2020, 17:26
....
Probably for most of us this new payment rate means that... stop producing and doing something else or uploading to other agencies.
most already upl to multiple agencies
finding 'something else' is the problem - we'd already be doing it if we knew (i discovered collectible comics & maps many yrs ago for amazon & ebay - margins are great, but volume is low)
besides, most 'other' things would be too much like a job!
Post by: Roscoe on June 30, 2020, 04:38
So I suppose Adobe, pond5, Alamy, Dreamstime will become agencies for good quality content.
SS will still have the content from the stock factories, butgood quality localized and niche content will be forced to go elsewhere.
Well, I sure hope you are right, but I'm afraid people will continue uploading to SS, also their high quality content.
Keywording is done for other agencies anyhow, and ticking an additional checkbox in whatever uploading system they are using is dead easy.
In addition, aggregators like Wirestock make it even more easy to upload to different agencies, with contributors profiting from the higher earning tiers.
Sure, some people will stay away from SS because they don't agree with the earning- and commission structure, but the majority won't and just take the money.
I don't agree with DT and P5 becoming agencies with good content. They basically take everything, there's plenty of junk in their databases too.
Additionally, everybody dumping their catalogue on other platforms right now makes it even more difficult to sell something there, as there is an increase in content, but not an increase in buyers.
And the problem with localized and niche content is that ... well it doesn't sell that frequently.
Some assets may experience a short burst in sales due to an event, but most of it will never be looked at or only sell very occasionally.
SS will continue to grow and receive content. Maybe not as much as they used to have, but enough to cover the commercial relevant topics and satisfy their buyers.
As you said, it's a self regulating system, and as it looks right now, SS is not really suffering or on the verge of running dry due to the boycott from a minority of the contributors.
Post by: oooo on June 30, 2020, 14:19
and cover the costs
Post by: cathyslife on June 30, 2020, 14:46
Post by: Chichikov on July 01, 2020, 00:40
Let’s see what happens on Jan. 1.
We'll all be hungover...
Post by: beketoff on July 01, 2020, 15:28
(https://i.ibb.co/Stbb8QY/Annotation-2020-07-01-222425.png) (https://ibb.co/Stbb8QY)
I don't know if it's going to be a one-off effect due to a lot of people who boycotted SS in June and who, respectively, reported none to little sales, or whether it's a general trend that will continue further on, with AS soon overtaking SS as the Top 1 selling agency:
(https://i.ibb.co/mtycQv6/Annotation-2020-07-01-222425-2.png) (https://ibb.co/mtycQv6)
Post by: SpaceStockFootage on July 02, 2020, 02:02
Post by: mike935 on July 02, 2020, 05:07
Post by: PokemonMaster on July 02, 2020, 05:14
If it is true that there are more than a million contributors on Shutterstock, only a few thousand of them have disabled their portfolios,There are no millions of contributors on SS. There's less than a 100k of actively working portfolios. Others are abandoned, or never started. Active uploaders was counted in 2016 and it was only 30000. After that making a profit for newbies became harder, so I highly doubt they could double the number.
Post by: mike935 on July 02, 2020, 05:46
PokemonMaster, thank you for your answer.If it is true that there are more than a million contributors on Shutterstock, only a few thousand of them have disabled their portfolios,There are no millions of contributors on SS. There's less than a 100k of actively working portfolios. Others are abandoned, or never started. Active uploaders was counted in 2016 and it was only 30000. After that making a profit for newbies became harder, so I highly doubt they could double the number.
Post by: Chichikov on July 03, 2020, 00:12
(SSTK and Shutterstock portfolio size)
Post by: cascoly on July 03, 2020, 15:40
https://www.google.com/search?q=s%26p+500+chart (https://www.google.com/search?q=s%26p+500+chart)
Post by: Les on July 13, 2020, 13:24
The contributors need not worry whether it is 321 or 324 millions.
Out of that volume, 40% are similars, 20% are technically inferior images, and 25% are low-quality, low sale potential images.
Subtract these numbers and it leaves something like 100 million decent images.
Post by: csm on July 13, 2020, 13:48
It's not surprising that SS wants to show a record number of images to their shareholders. That's about the only metric they can show.
The contributors need not worry whether it is 321 or 324 millions.
Out of that volume, 40% are similars, 20% are technically inferior images, and 25% are low-quality, low sale potential images.
Subtract these numbers and it leaves something like 100 million decent images.
I reckon an agency could do well on just a few million images, if every one was the cream.
No other agency apart from Alamy shows how many images they have, and I do wonder who's benefit that is for.
Do we really want to know?
What difference does it make to us?
It just makes us appreciate how bloated agencies are with images that will never sell.
Post by: csm on July 13, 2020, 13:51
It's not surprising that SS wants to show a record number of images to their shareholders. That's about the only metric they can show.
The contributors need not worry whether it is 321 or 324 millions.
Out of that volume, 40% are similars, 20% are technically inferior images, and 25% are low-quality, low sale potential images.
Subtract these numbers and it leaves something like 100 million decent images.
I once heard that generally about 5% of an agencies portfolio sold well. That's not specificly Ss. Just an average.
Not sure if that still stands generally. But if it does, whats 5% of 320M? 16M
Post by: Les on July 13, 2020, 13:57
It's not surprising that SS wants to show a record number of images to their shareholders. That's about the only metric they can show.
The contributors need not worry whether it is 321 or 324 millions.
Out of that volume, 40% are similars, 20% are technically inferior images, and 25% are low-quality, low sale potential images.
Subtract these numbers and it leaves something like 100 million decent images.
I once heard that generally about 5% of an agencies portfolio sold well. That's not specificly Ss. Just an average.
Not sure if that still stands generally. But if it does, whats 5% of 320M? 16M
Very likely, half of those 16M images were removed or disabled last month. Or soon they will be.
Post by: Mimi the Cat on July 13, 2020, 14:02
If it is true that there are more than a million contributors on Shutterstock, only a few thousand of them have disabled their portfolios,There are no millions of contributors on SS. There's less than a 100k of actively working portfolios. Others are abandoned, or never started. Active uploaders was counted in 2016 and it was only 30000. After that making a profit for newbies became harder, so I highly doubt they could double the number.
And of those only around 17,000 had portfolios in excess of 1,000 images.
Post by: Les on July 14, 2020, 11:10
Working on anything exciting? We'd love to see your latest content! Upload your recent work so that our customers around the globe can see it — and you can start earning from it.
Post by: PokemonMaster on July 14, 2020, 13:58
I actually found the numbers. In the end of 2016 it was 14,000 with portfolios over 1000. In the end of 2018 it was 18,000. Easy to guess, now it's around 20,000. And we have a 11,000 votes under the petition on Change.org to revert the earnings system.If it is true that there are more than a million contributors on Shutterstock, only a few thousand of them have disabled their portfolios,There are no millions of contributors on SS. There's less than a 100k of actively working portfolios. Others are abandoned, or never started. Active uploaders was counted in 2016 and it was only 30000. After that making a profit for newbies became harder, so I highly doubt they could double the number.
And of those only around 17,000 had portfolios in excess of 1,000 images.
Post by: cascoly on July 14, 2020, 15:57
I actually found the numbers. In the end of 2016 it was 14,000 with portfolios over 1000. In the end of 2018 it was 18,000. Easy to guess, now it's around 20,000. And we have a 11,000 votes under the petition on Change.org to revert the earnings system.
but how many of those voters have > 1000 images? (begging the question of whether a yes vote is the same as a disabled port)
Post by: Mrblues101 on July 14, 2020, 16:13
Post by: Les on July 14, 2020, 19:48
Let's say you made a reasonably good image and hope to sell it 100 times over the life of the image. Very optimistically, you can assume an average price of 15c per download. Under these assumptions, you'll make in total measly $15 from that one image. Of course, there will be other images which will sell only once or never.
Post by: Horizon on July 15, 2020, 02:51
Even if they get over this which they will their name is tarnished forever and buyers will eventually react! in the creative circle a bad name is the very worst that can happen a service and sooner or later they will bite the dust.
Post by: cascoly on July 15, 2020, 03:31
From here on its all downhill and if one accepts this deal then next year you be working for 0.2c per sale and so on! they had it all in the palm of their hand and blew it sky high!
Even if they get over this which they will their name is tarnished forever and buyers will eventually react! in the creative circle a bad name is the very worst that can happen a service and sooner or later they will bite the dust.
wishful thinking -misquoting Keynes 'sooner or later we all bite the dust'
buyers don't care and probably don't even know - as 'everyone' keeps saying SS is making more $$
Post by: Les on July 15, 2020, 04:16
From here on its all downhill and if one accepts this deal then next year you be working for 0.2c per sale and so on! they had it all in the palm of their hand and blew it sky high!
Even if they get over this which they will their name is tarnished forever and buyers will eventually react! in the creative circle a bad name is the very worst that can happen a service and sooner or later they will bite the dust.
wishful thinking -misquoting Keynes 'sooner or later we all bite the dust'
buyers don't care and probably don't even know - as 'everyone' keeps saying SS is making more $$
Of course, SS is making more money - by stealing from you.
Post by: Rage on July 15, 2020, 06:04
The fun part is that they are also pissing off the buyers as a lot of sites show. So pissed employees, pissed buyers and now super pissed contriburors. It'll survive for a few years but this tree is rotting from within and will fallFrom here on its all downhill and if one accepts this deal then next year you be working for 0.2c per sale and so on! they had it all in the palm of their hand and blew it sky high!
Even if they get over this which they will their name is tarnished forever and buyers will eventually react! in the creative circle a bad name is the very worst that can happen a service and sooner or later they will bite the dust.
wishful thinking -misquoting Keynes 'sooner or later we all bite the dust'
buyers don't care and probably don't even know - as 'everyone' keeps saying SS is making more $$
Sent from my HD1901 using Tapatalk
Post by: cathyslife on July 15, 2020, 07:10
From here on its all downhill and if one accepts this deal then next year you be working for 0.2c per sale and so on! they had it all in the palm of their hand and blew it sky high!
Even if they get over this which they will their name is tarnished forever and buyers will eventually react! in the creative circle a bad name is the very worst that can happen a service and sooner or later they will bite the dust.
And on Jan. 1 there will be a whole new group of angry contributors, when they are reset to the lowest level and the 10 cent images start rolling in, basically cutting their earnings by half or so.
Post by: Jo Ann Snover on July 15, 2020, 16:47
https://twitter.com/joannsnover/status/1283517312130101248
https://twitter.com/joannsnover/status/1283475482617368576
Post by: Tenebroso on July 15, 2020, 17:02
Some pictures to illustrate where we are. Collection numbers bouncing back don't tell the story. Searches I tracked back when they started the new scheme have fewer results today than they did then, even though the overall numbers look about the same
https://twitter.com/joannsnover/status/1283517312130101248
https://twitter.com/joannsnover/status/1283475482617368576
Muchas gracias.
SS does not exist, thanks for reporting. Your fight is impressive, thanks. Your information is exquisite, always. however, SS does not exist. Translation, you're talking about a company that doesn't exist.
It must be treated as something from the past. For its end, not even with nostalgia. We all endured, because it was the one that sold the most. Whether or not SS sells is no longer relevant. Does not exist.
You have to talk about SS properly. SS does not exist.
Regards.
Post by: Tenebroso on July 15, 2020, 17:11
Post by: cascoly on July 15, 2020, 17:15
...
SS does not exist, thanks for reporting. ...
It must be treated as something from the past. For its end, not even with nostalgia. We all endured, because it was the one that sold the most. Whether or not SS sells is no longer relevant. Does not exist.
You have to talk about SS properly. SS does not exist.
sounds like trump - if we don't test, there's no covid19
saying it 3 times doesn't make it so
.... and their checks continue to clear
Post by: Tenebroso on July 15, 2020, 17:26
I ask the administrator of this forum to remove this company from the surveys.
I ask the administrator, in the SS Section, put, Shutterstock Section, DOES NOT EXIST AS AN AGENCY.
Radical Denialists, This Agency, HERE, in this forum, DOES NOT EXIST. Only memes and negative SS information are supported.
Exactly how they treat us.
Post by: Mantis on July 15, 2020, 18:41
I don't understand how anybody can still rationalize image and video uploading to SS.
Let's say you made a reasonably good image and hope to sell it 100 times over the life of the image. Very optimistically, you can assume an average price of 15c per download. Under these assumptions, you'll make in total measly $15 from that one image. Of course, there will be other images which will sell only once or never.
Hey Les,
Agree totally. The pure fact that SS has not lowered prices to customers but drastically cut our royalties makes it very clear that this is a massive, greedy money grab from our hard work. That fact alone is enough for me to delete my work there. I also closed my Bigstock account today. I just don't trust SS to not somehow use the images in there as a workaround to the same images deleted on SS. Scumbags.
Post by: Asthebelltolls on July 15, 2020, 19:14
Post by: Horizon on July 16, 2020, 01:12
From here on its all downhill and if one accepts this deal then next year you be working for 0.2c per sale and so on! they had it all in the palm of their hand and blew it sky high!
Even if they get over this which they will their name is tarnished forever and buyers will eventually react! in the creative circle a bad name is the very worst that can happen a service and sooner or later they will bite the dust.
wishful thinking -misquoting Keynes 'sooner or later we all bite the dust'
buyers don't care and probably don't even know - as 'everyone' keeps saying SS is making more $$
Of course! there is nobody here living in some fools paradise about our little action is going to topple SS they will still thrive and sell their guts out! who cares really. Remember Istock many years back?
Anyway you want to back a company like this and upload? you want them to get more money down their pockets and throw you the beans? fine! but I don't! my grass is greener elsewhere and a heck of a lot more healthy! :)
Post by: Firn on July 16, 2020, 02:04
This week the weekly amount of images uploaded have a dramatic reduction from almost 900k to 578,128That's sadly because they had a bug where new approved images would not show up starting Saturday or even Friday and the problem was fixed yesterday, on Tuesday, so new images were added to the database for 4-5 days, even though new images were submitted. So obviously not having new images in the database for more than half a week is having an impact on the number. It's not because of less images having been submitted.
Post by: Rage on July 16, 2020, 03:10
Some pictures to illustrate where we are. Collection numbers bouncing back don't tell the story. Searches I tracked back when they started the new scheme have fewer results today than they did then, even though the overall numbers look about the sameThe new images that are getting uploaded are not just bad images but they are horribly keyworded and described. Hence the issues with search. My guess, Its just plain pathetic garbage to act as filler to fool the public investors while the shares are offloaded.
https://twitter.com/joannsnover/status/1283517312130101248
https://twitter.com/joannsnover/status/1283475482617368576
The extra commission shows as an earning spike, portfolios swell, profits go up, sell and run
Sent from my HD1901 using Tapatalk
Post by: csm on July 16, 2020, 03:25
And at a quick glance, what do I see, a woman feeding goats, an empty mug, some ducks, a broken flower pot, an electric meter, 60 odd images of abstract water colours, go karting, a snail, some hay bales, I could go on. No offence to any of those people who took those images, but they are snaps, and it is an insult to artists who work hard to produce the best work they can, only for it to sit beside work like I've seen.
These aren`t going to bring in the clients.
I haven't been paying attention to Fresh Content for a while, I'm sure the quality has dropped looking at these. Put these images on the front page please, seems to me what they want and what they are getting are two different things.
Please keep sending them in!
And with numbers going up as they are, really how is your image of a hay bale going to be seen and realistically sold?
Post by: csm on July 16, 2020, 03:57
Looking at these images and then look at lifeatshutterstock on Instagram.
I`d like to see the staff spend more time editing than posh lunches.
If they cannot see the folly in their current business model...
Post by: Tenebroso on July 16, 2020, 10:51
conclusion, it does not matter the quality of the great professional phenomena of photography that comment in this forum on Art, and images with the highest image technology, it does not matter exactly the number of handsome and smiling models per image.
While passing the quality control, I see more merit in passing the image of a hay bales made by a mobile phone, which is necessary for when a customer needs a hay bales (alpaca), than investing in equipment, models, and knowledge of whites, thirds, depth and color to be buried by other professionals or not, buried by those that SS decides should be in Relevant.
I do not think that quality is something objective in Art, less in the Microstock business, where there are clients who are looking for "A bee wing on a watermelon on a lonely green table in the Sahara desert". To that client, finding their image has nothing to do with an overexposed image.
I don't think there is a valid microstock quality range for 0.10.
None of the best images in history is characterized by its quality.
100-year-old photographers would never imagine the quality of cell phones.
The best photographers do not hesitate to recognize the advantages of a mobile.
There are things that can be done with a mobile phone that cannot be done with a camera.
Your quality, with all due respect, does not give me more value than a hay bale.
SS's excessive professionalism is what makes SS not exist. I pass olimpicamente of all that that boasts of what it does not have.
SS quality is low, who says so? You? Who are you?
What if newbies, mobiles, factories in Russia, low-income countries.
I think SS is dead, and some professional is crying too much.
Post by: Tenebroso on July 16, 2020, 11:07
In addition, he is indicating with his attitude that he has already shared a lot of benefit with professional photographers for a long time.
SS is indicated with his attitude that he doesn't need you anymore. You must assume it.
Post by: Mrblues101 on July 16, 2020, 20:34
This week the weekly amount of images uploaded have a dramatic reduction from almost 900k to 578,128That's sadly because they had a bug where new approved images would not show up starting Saturday or even Friday and the problem was fixed yesterday, on Tuesday, so new images were added to the database for 4-5 days, even though new images were submitted. So obviously not having new images in the database for more than half a week is having an impact on the number. It's not because of less images having been submitted.
I see now :(
Post by: Horizon on July 18, 2020, 00:32
According to the Adobe study, which put a link in this forum, customers acquire their products, generally, in the first third of the search for Recommendations. Therefore, the SS client acquires, in terms of probability, on the first third of the Relevant pages.
conclusion, it does not matter the quality of the great professional phenomena of photography that comment in this forum on Art, and images with the highest image technology, it does not matter exactly the number of handsome and smiling models per image.
While passing the quality control, I see more merit in passing the image of a hay bales made by a mobile phone, which is necessary for when a customer needs a hay bales (alpaca), than investing in equipment, models, and knowledge of whites, thirds, depth and color to be buried by other professionals or not, buried by those that SS decides should be in Relevant.
I do not think that quality is something objective in Art, less in the Microstock business, where there are clients who are looking for "A bee wing on a watermelon on a lonely green table in the Sahara desert". To that client, finding their image has nothing to do with an overexposed image.
I don't think there is a valid microstock quality range for 0.10.
None of the best images in history is characterized by its quality.
100-year-old photographers would never imagine the quality of cell phones.
The best photographers do not hesitate to recognize the advantages of a mobile.
There are things that can be done with a mobile phone that cannot be done with a camera.
Your quality, with all due respect, does not give me more value than a hay bale.
SS's excessive professionalism is what makes SS not exist. I pass olimpicamente of all that that boasts of what it does not have.
SS quality is low, who says so? You? Who are you?
What if newbies, mobiles, factories in Russia, low-income countries.
I think SS is dead, and some professional is crying too much.
I don't really know what you are trying to say?? SS have not got any excessive professionalism if thats what youre saying? they have full-time photographers working with them and of course anybody doing photography as a full-time living is classified as a Pro!
The camera is just a tool and extention of youre eye thats all and irrespective of mobile or dslr or whatever.
Having said that yes of course there is a vast difference in quality between a cellphone image and a HD6 with a Phaseone-back, right?
Anyway most of the professional photographers that I personally know at SS have already left including myself. We even started to leave before all this royalty troubles! well over a year back they started to skew the algorithm towards certain countries and members and ever since then it wasn't worth the troubles anymore!
Post by: Tenebroso on July 18, 2020, 00:50
Post by: Mimi the Cat on July 18, 2020, 03:39
https://twitter.com/stockphotofan1
Post by: cascoly on July 18, 2020, 13:34
...
Anyway most of the professional photographers that I personally know at SS have already left including myself. We even started to leave before all this royalty troubles! well over a year back they started to skew the algorithm towards certain countries and members and ever since then it wasn't worth the troubles anymore!
anecdotal
how many of the top 10,000 photographers on SS do you know??
Post by: ShadySue on July 18, 2020, 18:20
On a slightly hilarious note I see stockphotofan1 is still banging the drum for his paymasters ;DInteresting: never having heard of that account before, I find myself 'banned' from it.
https://twitter.com/stockphotofan1
Must be a 'source close to Jon Oringer'!!!
Post by: Rage on July 19, 2020, 00:38
On a slightly hilarious note I see stockphotofan1 is still banging the drum for his paymasters ;DLonely guy
https://twitter.com/stockphotofan1
. Apparently he's blocked a lot of people so that he/she/it can reply to their tweets without response. Talk about one sided conversationHe has no followers, no likes and just seems to have taken upon himself to answer in shutterstock's place. Since they anyhow don't want to do it themselves
Seems like one more way SS botched their people handling and PR.
Or maybe its Stan/Jon's frustration account Post by: Shelma1 on July 19, 2020, 04:16
Post by: cathyslife on July 19, 2020, 06:49
Post by: YadaYadaYada on July 19, 2020, 11:07
I, too, am banned and I have never had any interaction with him at all. I wonder if it’s a Jon Oringer incognito account?
Incognito secret accounts, black opps. As seen on TV https://youtu.be/sRWtFVFSx5I
I’m also banned, I guess because I pointed out that he gets barely any sales. Easy enough to see his Twitter account, though, where he spends a lot of time retweeting Jo Ann, so I thank him for that, though he only has 14 followers so he’s not helping us spread the message all that much. I feel sorry for the guy.
Very sorry.
On a slightly hilarious note I see stockphotofan1 is still banging the drum for his paymasters ;DLonely guy
https://twitter.com/stockphotofan1
He has no followers, no likes and just seems to have taken upon himself to answer in shutterstock's place. Since they anyhow don't want to do it themselves
Seems like one more way SS botched their people handling and PR.
Somebody who watches for your reactions, a big troll. SS wouldn't waste the time.
Post by: Mantis on July 19, 2020, 13:57
I’m also banned, I guess because I pointed out that he gets barely any sales. Easy enough to see his Twitter account, though, where he spends a lot of time retweeting Jo Ann, so I thank him for that, though he only has 14 followers so he’s not helping us spread the message all that much. I feel sorry for the guy.
I've been banned for 12 years.
Post by: cathyslife on July 19, 2020, 14:10
I, too, am banned and I have never had any interaction with him at all. I wonder if it’s a Jon Oringer incognito account?
Incognito secret accounts, black opps. As seen on TV https://youtu.be/sRWtFVFSx5II’m also banned, I guess because I pointed out that he gets barely any sales. Easy enough to see his Twitter account, though, where he spends a lot of time retweeting Jo Ann, so I thank him for that, though he only has 14 followers so he’s not helping us spread the message all that much. I feel sorry for the guy.
Very sorry.On a slightly hilarious note I see stockphotofan1 is still banging the drum for his paymasters ;DLonely guy
https://twitter.com/stockphotofan1
He has no followers, no likes and just seems to have taken upon himself to answer in shutterstock's place. Since they anyhow don't want to do it themselves
Seems like one more way SS botched their people handling and PR.
Somebody who watches for your reactions, a big troll. SS wouldn't waste the time.
Speaking of trolls.
Post by: tpack on July 20, 2020, 22:35
On a slightly hilarious note I see stockphotofan1 is still banging the drum for his paymasters ;D
https://twitter.com/stockphotofan1
I never even knew about this guy, followed the link to Twitter out of curiosity only to find out he/she had blocked me ::)
Post by: ShadySue on July 21, 2020, 13:12
Post by: DianeLambert on July 21, 2020, 16:05
I, too, am banned and I have never had any interaction with him at all. I wonder if it’s a Jon Oringer incognito account?
Incognito secret accounts, black opps. As seen on TV https://youtu.be/sRWtFVFSx5II’m also banned, I guess because I pointed out that he gets barely any sales. Easy enough to see his Twitter account, though, where he spends a lot of time retweeting Jo Ann, so I thank him for that, though he only has 14 followers so he’s not helping us spread the message all that much. I feel sorry for the guy.
Very sorry.On a slightly hilarious note I see stockphotofan1 is still banging the drum for his paymasters ;DLonely guy
https://twitter.com/stockphotofan1
He has no followers, no likes and just seems to have taken upon himself to answer in shutterstock's place. Since they anyhow don't want to do it themselves
Seems like one more way SS botched their people handling and PR.
Somebody who watches for your reactions, a big troll. SS wouldn't waste the time.
Speaking of trolls.
Concentrate, pay attention, focus.
Post by: cathyslife on July 21, 2020, 17:17
Post by: cathyslife on July 21, 2020, 17:21
And even Trump hasn't blocked me and I've been pretty harsh on him.
Yes, same here! 😂
Post by: cathyslife on July 21, 2020, 17:24
Post by: Les on July 21, 2020, 17:46
I’ve seen a couple more tweets the last couple of days of SS buyers not being able to buy an image they need, and SS contacting the contributor to re-upload it/turn it on. Yes! It’s working! 👍How much would SS pay for re-uploaded images?
Post by: cathyslife on July 21, 2020, 19:08
I’ve seen a couple more tweets the last couple of days of SS buyers not being able to buy an image they need, and SS contacting the contributor to re-upload it/turn it on. Yes! It’s working! 👍How much would SS pay for re-uploaded images?
Ten cents, I’m sure! One person sent a message back to SS support, with a link to the other sites he offers it on. 😂 If the buyers would have contacted him directly, he of course would have sold it to them.
Post by: Horizon on July 22, 2020, 08:18
...
Anyway most of the professional photographers that I personally know at SS have already left including myself. We even started to leave before all this royalty troubles! well over a year back they started to skew the algorithm towards certain countries and members and ever since then it wasn't worth the troubles anymore!
anecdotal
how many of the top 10,000 photographers on SS do you know??
;D ;D ;D ::) everyone of them and all 200000 are top photographers!
Post by: OM on July 22, 2020, 19:22
Post by: cathyslife on July 22, 2020, 19:29
Is it just me or has the SS forum disabled 'quotes'?
I don’t think so. I just quoted you. But I work on an ipad and this forum software isn’t very ipad friendly.
Post by: Les on July 22, 2020, 19:50
I’ve seen a couple more tweets the last couple of days of SS buyers not being able to buy an image they need, and SS contacting the contributor to re-upload it/turn it on. Yes! It’s working! 👍How much would SS pay for re-uploaded images?
Ten cents, I’m sure! One person sent a message back to SS support, with a link to the other sites he offers it on. 😂 If the buyers would have contacted him directly, he of course would have sold it to them.
Actually, that happens sometimes. One photographer from my local camera club was contacted by a TV production company who wanted to use his image in ten episodes of their series. He negotiated a royalty of $250 per episode which amounted to $2500 for the whole deal. If he had submitted that image to SS, they could have bought the image with an unlimited unrestricted royalty and he would get 10 cents. Or maybe an EL.
I think the days when the sales volume is more important than a properly managed image with specific royalty rights are over. Better to sell a good image for a decent price once a year than getting 100 downloads at 10cents.
Post by: OM on July 23, 2020, 01:48
Is it just me or has the SS forum disabled 'quotes'?
I don’t think so. I just quoted you. But I work on an ipad and this forum software isn’t very ipad friendly.
I don't mean the SS forum on MSG but the SS forum on Shutterstock. No new posts since Tuesday either.
Post by: cathyslife on July 23, 2020, 06:36
.Is it just me or has the SS forum disabled 'quotes'?
I don’t think so. I just quoted you. But I work on an ipad and this forum software isn’t very ipad friendly.
I don't mean the SS forum on MSG but the SS forum on Shutterstock. No new posts since Tuesday either.
OK got it. I saw another thread, too, where it might be possible they disabled the SS forum altogether. Sorry I misunderstood
Post by: beketoff on August 07, 2020, 14:10
(https://i.ibb.co/3pRP6ny/Annotation-2020-08-07-210608.png) (https://ibb.co/3pRP6ny) (https://i.ibb.co/3CM2BT2/Annotation-2020-08-07-210608.png) (https://ibb.co/3CM2BT2)
Post by: Cobra on August 07, 2020, 15:06
ScanStockPhoto
YayImages
Crestock
Stockfresh
GLStock
DrawShop
Cutcaster
Post by: Les on August 07, 2020, 16:48
When these companies are our top tier we know the game is over for good... :-X
ScanStockPhoto
YayImages
Crestock
Stockfresh
GLStock
DrawShop
Cutcaster
Sad, but true.
Post by: Rage on August 08, 2020, 01:07
Post by: rinderart on August 09, 2020, 15:28
When these companies are our top tier we know the game is over for good... :-X
ScanStockPhoto
YayImages
Crestock
Stockfresh
GLStock
DrawShop
Cutcaster
Sad, but true.
Very True
Post by: Noedelhap on August 09, 2020, 16:22
When these companies are our top tier we know the game is over for good... :-X
ScanStockPhoto
YayImages
Crestock
Stockfresh
GLStock
DrawShop
Cutcaster
Some of these have closed already but okay.
Post by: Uncle Pete on August 10, 2020, 10:25
When these companies are our top tier we know the game is over for good... :-X
ScanStockPhoto
YayImages
Crestock
Stockfresh
GLStock
DrawShop
Cutcaster
Some of these have closed already but okay.
Which of them are still open. ;) Maybe that was sarcasm at play.
Oh wait, Yay and Crestock both have 0.1 ratings
Post by: GrayMouse on August 19, 2020, 08:28
Nowadays is much more images rejected because the subject is "too similar". So instead of let's say 10 images are approved 5-7. This means less new images is added. SS made this kind of 'impact'. Their review rules has impact for less uploads, people started focusing on Adobe, DT and others.
Less images added weekly/monthly doesn't mean SS will be "fair, kind and loving" to contributors.
Each coin has two sides: The second one is lots of contributors are happier now. More of you will leave and delete own portfolio, more space will get the majority staying there. Do you think that Sean, Lisa, Monkey Business, will go against Shutterstock and leave the income behind?
Post by: Mantis on August 19, 2020, 09:49
What impact? To get better treatment?
Nowadays is much more images rejected because the subject is "too similar". So instead of let's say 10 images are approved 5-7. This means less new images is added. SS made this kind of 'impact'. Their review rules has impact for less uploads, people started focusing on Adobe, DT and others.
Less images added weekly/monthly doesn't mean SS will be "fair, kind and loving" to contributors.
Each coin has two sides: The second one is lots of contributors are happier now. More of you will leave and delete own portfolio, more space will get the majority staying there. Do you think that Sean, Lisa, Monkey Business, will go against Shutterstock and leave the income behind?
I cannot speak for them, but I did get a PM from another big player saying they are NOT deleting their port.
Post by: Les on August 22, 2020, 22:51
Post by: Firn on August 23, 2020, 00:32
It seems that one impact from reduced uploading is that SS got slacker in policing stolen images and now they leave entire portfolios of image thieves online. That's one way to inflate the total image counts.Unfortunately that's not new. From what I have been reading in the Shutterstock forum, at least for the past 2 years, that has alwas been their normal approach with stolen images. A contributor is found to have stolen imags in his port? Delete the stolen image but "believe" that the rest of the images must certainly be his own and leave the port online. Of course Shutterstock knows very well how unlikely the chance is and that they should terminate the whole account for breach of their policy, but they don't care, simply because they make money from stolen images just as well, and probably more from them than from other photos, as people usually steal good photos instead of crappy ones.
Post by: cathyslife on August 23, 2020, 07:51
Post by: Clair Voyant on August 23, 2020, 08:30
Do you think that Sean, Lisa, Monkey Business, will go against Shutterstock and leave the income behind?
If they feel 0.10c is an income that needs to be retained let it be. We pulled out 100%. It simply is not worth our time to dick around for 0.10c per download. I can honestly make more money picking up empty beer cans from the beach and sending to recycle center, and I don't even do that for the very same reason.
Post by: ADH on August 23, 2020, 08:55
Post by: Les on August 23, 2020, 20:22
If they terminated all of those huge accounts with stolen images, they really wouldn’t have much good, sellable images left. Yes, it’s been going on for years. People here have been reporting it to them that long. They don’t care. Just another reason not to do business with them. But people still do.
Some portfolios with good original images have been pulled out by now, and if those images were also in the stolen portfolios, obviously it is in SS interest to keep them there. What a shame!
Post by: m on August 24, 2020, 08:09
Would you ever be able to trust Shutterstock again?
Never do business with a Robber Baron. (unscrupulous methods to get rich)
Post by: alexandersr on August 24, 2020, 08:53
Let's say they reverse their policy.There is also one that says, "never take a pirate's word." And those of Shitterstock are pirates and very thieves, without scruples.
Would you ever be able to trust Shutterstock again?
Never do business with a Robber Baron. (unscrupulous methods to get rich)