Author Topic: What if shutterstock pays you 1$ per image (Read 15744 times)

Artist · « **on:** April 03, 2012, 00:08 »

I guess you got my point... what if shutterstock gave you 1$ per image instead of 0.25, 0.33 and 0.38

Kngkyle · « **Reply #1 on:** April 03, 2012, 00:49 »

They probably wouldn't be in business much longer?

nicku · « **Reply #2 on:** April 03, 2012, 01:48 »

Quote from: Kngkyle on April 03, 2012, 00:49

They probably wouldn't be in business much longer?

+1

sharpshot · « **Reply #3 on:** April 03, 2012, 02:27 »

They could only do that successfully if they owned all the microstock sites. That might seem like a good idea for us but with no competition, they could set commissions much lower than they are now.

PinnacleAnimates · « **Reply #4 on:** April 03, 2012, 03:18 »

Quote from: sharpshot on April 03, 2012, 02:27

They could only do that successfully if they owned all the microstock sites. That might seem like a good idea for us but with no competition, they could set commissions much lower than they are now.

or if they offer exclusivity..... with all contributors migrating to there site and not uploading to any-other websites

sharpshot · « **Reply #5 on:** April 03, 2012, 03:30 »

Just checked my stats from yesterday and I made $0.96 per download without an EL. So they aren't far off 1$ per image some days.

lagereek · « **Reply #6 on:** April 03, 2012, 03:38 »

Yes, offering exclusivity, special deals and with a near perfect search, they would be an outright winner, nobody else would stand a chance. Not only woudl it attract the best oif the best, buyers would que up in droves.

One upon a time there was such an agency, sadly they ruined everything with worthless collections and a halfassed best match.

nicku · « **Reply #7 on:** April 03, 2012, 05:41 »

Quote from: Pinnacleanimates on April 03, 2012, 03:18

Quote from: sharpshot on April 03, 2012, 02:27
They could only do that successfully if they owned all the microstock sites. That might seem like a good idea for us but with no competition, they could set commissions much lower than they are now.
or if they offer exclusivity..... with all contributors migrating to there site and not uploading to any-other websites

looool SS exclusivity will kill a big number of stock agencies. in the present SS is earning 65% of all my microstock income. A possible SS exclusivity program will be very appealing.

wut · « **Reply #8 on:** April 03, 2012, 05:54 »

Quote from: nicku on April 03, 2012, 01:48

Quote from: Kngkyle on April 03, 2012, 00:49
They probably wouldn't be in business much longer?

+1

Sometimes it seems some of you worry more about the agencies and their earnings than yours $:-\$

rubyroo · « **Reply #9 on:** April 03, 2012, 05:56 »

That's because if they go out of business our earnings are kaput.

luissantos84 · « **Reply #10 on:** April 03, 2012, 07:58 »

sorry but this is just absurd, not only because that´s 2x more what they are paying off but also if you do some maths you will see they would be on the negative, they would be gone basically.. so honestly leave it that way

wut · « **Reply #11 on:** April 03, 2012, 10:03 »

Quote from: rubyroo on April 03, 2012, 05:56

That's because if they go out of business our earnings are kaput.

I think if the owners (I'm talking generally) would be a little less greedy that wouldn't be a problem. SS could easily up the prices a bit, after all they're market leaders, leading to increase of RPD. As someone said his RPD is almost a dollar anyway, mine was around 70c in March and is currently way over a dollar for instance (many ODs, EL today etc). So they would even have to lower the cut to a handful of contributors, not up it much for some and up it considerably for most, but as I said, with increased prices and royalties, it wouldn't be a problem. Not that I'm complaining, since I'm not greedy, I'm satisfied with the way things are

. I'm just saying if they made some changes and were able to let go a fraction of their profit, it wouldn't jeopardize their business at all.

Sean Locke Photography · « **Reply #12 on:** April 03, 2012, 10:14 »

What if you got a free unicorn for contributing as well?

Obviously they aren't going to pay that much without doubling their plan cost, which would likely lose half their buyers, so you might as well ask what if they paid $5 a dl.

luissantos84 · « **Reply #13 on:** April 03, 2012, 10:19 »

Quote from: sjlocke on April 03, 2012, 10:14

What if you got a free unicorn for contributing as well?

Obviously they aren't going to pay that much without doubling their plan cost, which would likely lose half their buyers, so you might as well ask what if they paid $5 a dl.

exactly, this is like dreaming of winning the lottery

(most certainly will never happen or perhaps to the guy next door)

wut · « **Reply #14 on:** April 03, 2012, 10:29 »

Quote from: sjlocke on April 03, 2012, 10:14

What if you got a free unicorn for contributing as well?

Obviously they aren't going to pay that much without doubling their plan cost, which would likely lose half their buyers, so you might as well ask what if they paid $5 a dl.

It's obviously not going to happen. I just said it could and more importantly that they wouldn't go bust if they did it. And if we're looking at it realistically (upping the prices), they wouldn't have to double them, since most contributors earn over 60c/DL, so increasing the price by 50% would be enough. After all, IS has increased the prices by what in the last 6 years? Surely the credit prices went up by at least 50%, not to mention the number of credits needed to DL a file, especially a larger one. XL used to cost 4 or 5 cr back in 05 from what I've heard, now it costs 15+ cr, then there's + collections, A/V, leading up to a few hundred percent price rise in 6 years or so.

stockastic · « **Reply #15 on:** April 03, 2012, 11:28 »

Amazing how all you guys have come around to accepting 33 cents as reasonable. Is this "Stockholm Syndrome"? If I got a dollar per download I'd have a lot more interest in doing microstock, and they'd have a lot more of my output to sell.

wut · « **Reply #16 on:** April 03, 2012, 11:31 »

Quote from: stockastic on April 03, 2012, 11:28

Amazing how all you guys have come around to accepting 33 cents as reasonable. Is this "Stockholm Syndrome"? If I got a dollar per download I'd have a lot more interest in doing microstock, and they'd have a lot more of my output to sell.

Exactly! Very well put. That's what I'm trying to get through some of the thick skulls in this msg board. Capitalism has really brainwashed many ppl...

luissantos84 · « **Reply #17 on:** April 03, 2012, 11:32 »

Quote from: stockastic on April 03, 2012, 11:28

Amazing how all you guys have come around to accepting 33 cents as reasonable. Is this "Stockholm Syndrome"? If I got a dollar per download I'd have a lot more interest in doing microstock, and they'd have a lot more of my output to sell.

seriously I am lost here.. where do you get for a subcription plan over 1$? it have never happened and for sure never will or are you planning to do anything for REAL?

sharpshot · « **Reply #18 on:** April 03, 2012, 11:53 »

Often when sites raise prices, they combine it with a commission cut and my earnings go down. I hope SS stick with their current prices and commissions, I had a BME last month. Istock raised prices a lot and my earnings are nowhere near the levels they used to be.

I don't understand people that would prefer 100 sales at $1 to 300 at $0.38.

Tabimura · « **Reply #19 on:** April 03, 2012, 12:01 »

Last time I checked I was doing well over a dollar on SS. Some say it has to do with ODs and ELs.

rubyroo · « **Reply #20 on:** April 03, 2012, 12:18 »

Quote from: wut on April 03, 2012, 11:31

Quote from: stockastic on April 03, 2012, 11:28
Amazing how all you guys have come around to accepting 33 cents as reasonable. Is this "Stockholm Syndrome"? If I got a dollar per download I'd have a lot more interest in doing microstock, and they'd have a lot more of my output to sell.

Exactly! Very well put. That's what I'm trying to get through some of the thick skulls in this msg board. Capitalism has really brainwashed many ppl...

I really don't know what you two are talking about.

1) 33 cents isn't the lowest rate around for subs, so why are you picking on SS?
2) SS has a tiered system that allows you to climb to higher income bands.
3) As others have pointed out, the average on SS is much higher with ODs, SODs and ELs thrown in.
4) SS has to be competitive with the other agencies, and historically has given annual pay rises to contributors when possible.

I don't think referring to people as 'thick skulls' who are 'brainwashed' is very helpful. It's a free world where people can disagree on the basis of their own experience and perspective.

lisafx · « **Reply #21 on:** April 03, 2012, 12:23 »

Quote from: sjlocke on April 03, 2012, 10:14

What if you got a free unicorn for contributing as well?

cthoman · « **Reply #22 on:** April 03, 2012, 12:26 »

Quote from: sharpshot on April 03, 2012, 11:53

Often when sites raise prices, they combine it with a commission cut and my earnings go down. I hope SS stick with their current prices and commissions, I had a BME last month. Istock raised prices a lot and my earnings are nowhere near the levels they used to be.

I don't understand people that would prefer 100 sales at $1 to 300 at $0.38.

I'd actually prefer 10 sales at $10, but I understand your point.

stockastic · « **Reply #23 on:** April 03, 2012, 12:57 »

It's about price erosion and the lost perception of 'value'. 100 sales at $1 are better than 300 sales at .33 because there's a more of a FUTURE at a price of $1.

Subscriptions are all smoke and mirrors anyway, there's no way to know what a buyer actually paid for an image because the cost is all in up-front fees - mediated by countless plans, promotions and packages. The payment to the photographer is just a token, a scrap of bread tossed out the back door. They're still plumbing the depths, cutting payments and trying to find the point at which images stop flooding in. That point, as many have guessed by now, is zero.

wut · « **Reply #24 on:** April 03, 2012, 13:03 »

Quote from: rubyroo on April 03, 2012, 12:18

Quote from: wut on April 03, 2012, 11:31
Quote from: stockastic on April 03, 2012, 11:28
Amazing how all you guys have come around to accepting 33 cents as reasonable. Is this "Stockholm Syndrome"? If I got a dollar per download I'd have a lot more interest in doing microstock, and they'd have a lot more of my output to sell.

Exactly! Very well put. That's what I'm trying to get through some of the thick skulls in this msg board. Capitalism has really brainwashed many ppl...

I really don't know what you two are talking about.

1) 33 cents isn't the lowest rate around for subs, so why are you picking on SS?
2) SS has a tiered system that allows you to climb to higher income bands.
3) As others have pointed out, the average on SS is much higher with ODs, SODs and ELs thrown in.
4) SS has to be competitive with the other agencies, and historically has given annual pay rises to contributors when possible.

I don't think referring to people as 'thick skulls' who are 'brainwashed' is very helpful. It's a free world where people can disagree on the basis of their own experience and perspective.

First, I'd like to ask you if you know what Stockholm syndrome is? If you do, than add some cynicism and sarcasm and I think you should get us. Not necessarily agree with us, but as you said, it's a free world

luissantos84 · « **Reply #25 on:** April 03, 2012, 13:04 »

Quote from: stockastic on April 03, 2012, 12:57

They're still plumbing the depths, cutting payments and trying to find the point at which images stop flooding in. That point, as many have guessed by now, is zero.

0 means exactly what? no more files approved?

Artist · « **Reply #26 on:** April 03, 2012, 13:07 »

It seems that discussion went long... I wished that they do it 1$ (its just a wish

)... but I knw that they are not going to do so

The only way I find is that they offer exclusivity to contributors... and then carry that system till maximum the contributors joins the exclusivity plan.
And now buyers will get new images only on there site. So now they can increase the price giving fair commission to everyone.

We all love shutterstock and I personally will join the exclusive program whenever they will offer it.

luissantos84 · « **Reply #27 on:** April 03, 2012, 13:10 »

the problem is that wishing doesn´t work out or put some $$ on our pockets

rubyroo · « **Reply #28 on:** April 03, 2012, 13:11 »

Quote from: wut on April 03, 2012, 13:03

First, I'd like to ask you if you know what Stockholm syndrome is? If you do, than add some cynicism and sarcasm and I think you should get us. Not necessarily agree with us, but as you said, it's a free world

Of course I know what Stockholm Syndrome is. If I didn't like the scenario I work in, I would opt out. They are not my 'captors', therefore Stockhom Syndrome doesn't apply.

I think what you're missing here is the context within which the agencies operate. i.e. the context of microstock, not the context of 'all photography'. Just microstock. Of course we'd all love more money, who wouldn't? The point is that they have to stay competitive with each other in order to survive, and we have to weigh that into our thinking also.

Artist · « **Reply #29 on:** April 03, 2012, 13:12 »

Quote from: luissantos84 on April 03, 2012, 13:10

the problem is that wishing doesn´t work out or put some $$ on our pockets

yep exactly

luissantos84 · « **Reply #30 on:** April 03, 2012, 13:13 »

Quote from: rubyroo on April 03, 2012, 13:11

Quote from: wut on April 03, 2012, 13:03
First, I'd like to ask you if you know what Stockholm syndrome is? If you do, than add some cynicism and sarcasm and I think you should get us. Not necessarily agree with us, but as you said, it's a free world

Of course I know what Stockholm Syndrome is. If I didn't like the scenario I work in, I would opt out. They are not my 'captors', therefore Stockhom Syndrome doesn't apply.

I think what you're missing here is the context within which the agencies operate. i.e. the context of microstock, not the context of 'all photography'. Just microstock. Of course we'd all love more money, who wouldn't? The point is that they have to stay competitive with each other in order to survive, and we have to weigh that into our thinking also.

you only forgot the greed fact too

rubyroo · « **Reply #31 on:** April 03, 2012, 13:16 »

I didn't forget it. It's impossible for me to measure it, that's all

From what others have said here in the past, the SS profit margin has always sounded pretty tight.

WarrenPrice · « **Reply #32 on:** April 03, 2012, 13:20 »

YAWN. Are we there yet?

wut · « **Reply #33 on:** April 03, 2012, 13:39 »

Quote from: rubyroo on April 03, 2012, 13:11

Quote from: wut on April 03, 2012, 13:03
First, I'd like to ask you if you know what Stockholm syndrome is? If you do, than add some cynicism and sarcasm and I think you should get us. Not necessarily agree with us, but as you said, it's a free world

Of course I know what Stockholm Syndrome is. If I didn't like the scenario I work in, I would opt out. They are not my 'captors', therefore Stockhom Syndrome doesn't apply.

I think what you're missing here is the context within which the agencies operate. i.e. the context of microstock, not the context of 'all photography'. Just microstock. Of course we'd all love more money, who wouldn't? The point is that they have to stay competitive with each other in order to survive, and we have to weigh that into our thinking also.

Stockholm syndrome was meant as the agencies are being just as "nice" to us that we don't stop contributing (and most ppl are taking it the wrong way, especially if their earnings are good) and at the same time they're gladly taking advantage of the 99 vs 1 mentality (meaning ppl are taking it as a normal state that 99% of the ppl has 40% of the wealth - and if the only kept 40%, lol).

That being said, I know I'm like Don Quixote, I'll never get ppl (the ones I'm talking about all the time) to start to think with their own heads, outside the box in terms what they really deserve, not what they realistically deserve under the system we live in etc. And in fact it's more productive, at least in short term, to just worry about your little life.

Bottom line is SS is still the best agency around, bringing me the most money and I can't really complain, in fact, I'm not doing it. I was just explaining how it would be possible for RPD to be 1$. The point was that most ppl do a big favour to the agency with the way they think, they're making it really easy for them to give us less. Or in the best case scenario, to not get a raise.

RacePhoto · « **Reply #34 on:** April 03, 2012, 14:01 »

Quote from: sharpshot on April 03, 2012, 11:53

Often when sites raise prices, they combine it with a commission cut and my earnings go down. I hope SS stick with their current prices and commissions, I had a BME last month. Istock raised prices a lot and my earnings are nowhere near the levels they used to be.

I don't understand people that would prefer 100 sales at $1 to 300 at $0.38.

One sale for $300 ?

Quote from: sjlocke on April 03, 2012, 10:14

What if you got a free unicorn for contributing as well?

You mean they didn't send yours already? I have mine! You can come visit and ride it?

Also for the people who want to support the price cutting sites, selling all the same images, from pretty much all the same people, "me too, me too, I sell for less" you are competing with yourself and supporting the race to the bottom. Stop that and the successful sites would be able to compete and pay more to attract people. As it is now, the parasitic and sucker sites, just drain the contributors for money.

Re: What if shutterstock pays you 1$ per image

People would complain that it wasn't enough. End of what if. No one is ever happy.

SS has a nice plan and program, they encourage people to contribute and grow. Pay increases with success as a reward for work.

I'm trying to avoid mentioning other sites that rewards us with tweaking the search for who knows what and it changes roughly every week, or make sweeping changes in what's accepted for some unknown standards or reasons. But it's not for success and when they and other sites pull the rug out from under your feet, lower commissions and promised achievement levels, I find them contemptible and insulting. Those sites are unsustainable and I won't support them.

If SS offered me 2 cents more for going exclusive I'd drop the rest of the RF sites.

(I don't need the Unicorn I have had many cats, they are far more mysterious and impossible to comprehend)

rubyroo · « **Reply #35 on:** April 03, 2012, 14:03 »

I have to go, but I think Luis should have the final word:

Quote from: luissantos84 on April 03, 2012, 13:10

the problem is that wishing doesn´t work out or put some $$ on our pockets

luissantos84 · « **Reply #36 on:** April 03, 2012, 14:10 »

just spent a few minutes doing the contributor royalties % at SS (% between () from the lowest to the highest canister)

Subscription
a) 263$ for 750 downloads - 0.35$ each (71.4%, 94.2%, 102.8%, 108.5%)
b) 708$ for 2250 downloads - 0.314$ each (79.6%, 105%, 114.6%, 121%)
c) 1367$ for 4500 downloads - 0.303$ each (82.5%, 108.9%, 118.8%, 125.4%)
d) 2584$ for 9000 downloads - 0.287$ each (87.1%, 114.9%, 125.4%, 132.4%)

On Demand
- All sizes
a) 51$ for 5 downloads - 10.2$ each (18.4%, 24.3%, 26.4%, 27.9%)
b) 235$ for 25 downloads - 9.4$ each (20%, 26.3%, 28.7%, 30.3%)
- S and M sizes
a) 51$ for 12 downloads - 4.25$ each (18.9%, 25.1%, 27.5%, 29.1%)
b) 235$ for 60 downloads - 3.92$ each (20.6%, 27.3%, 29.8%, 31.6%)

EL
a) 201$ for 2 downloads - 100.5$ each (27.8%)
b) 455$ for 5 downloads - 91$ each (30.7%)
c) 1722$ for 25 downloads - 69$ each (40.5%)

P.S: a few minutes after posting this at SS forum it got removed

cascoly · « **Reply #37 on:** April 03, 2012, 17:30 »

Quote from: stockastic on April 03, 2012, 12:57

It's about price erosion and the lost perception of 'value'. 100 sales at $1 are better than 300 sales at .33 because there's a more of a FUTURE at a price of $1.

Subscriptions are all smoke and mirrors anyway, there's no way to know what a buyer actually paid for an image because the cost is all in up-front fees - mediated by countless plans, promotions and packages. The payment to the photographer is just a token, a scrap of bread tossed out the back door. They're still plumbing the depths, cutting payments and trying to find the point at which images stop flooding in. That point, as many have guessed by now, is zero.

my guess is that those who buy &use subscriptions do not usually search for specific images , but rather look at the newer images and build their own private stash of images they think will one day be useful for some project. if subscription prices were raised by 3x, they'd likely adopt a different method; it's unlikely they'd continue to purchase the same number of images. the question is qhehter the decrease in volume would be made up for by the increase in price. if my first guess is true, then the answer would be no. for me, march was my BME at SS but it was unusual in that subscriptions masde only 50% of my income - usuaslly subs account for 60-70%

stockastic · « **Reply #38 on:** April 03, 2012, 19:43 »

Quote from: cascoly on April 03, 2012, 17:30

my guess is that those who buy &use subscriptions do not usually search for specific images , but rather look at the newer images and build their own private stash of images they think will one day be useful for some project.

Yes, I understand that to some extent subscriptions might get people to buy more images than they otherwise would; but subscriptions (a misnomer, really it's just a quantity discount) also let the agency break down the 'commission' model. The payment to the photographer no longer has any direct relationship to a sale price. Subscription prices - to the buyer - can be raised without any obligation to increase payments to photographers.

I make far more at SS than at any other microstock. That doesn't mean I think the prices are fair or that this market makes sense. We've travelled a long way, in that race to the bottom.

helix7 · « **Reply #39 on:** April 03, 2012, 21:49 »

Quote from: stockastic on April 03, 2012, 11:28

Amazing how all you guys have come around to accepting 33 cents as reasonable. Is this "Stockholm Syndrome"? If I got a dollar per download I'd have a lot more interest in doing microstock, and they'd have a lot more of my output to sell.

I find it amazing that people find 33 cents unreasonable at SS, when it's been that way forever and in fact used to be much worse.

I'm even more amazed by the "iStockholm Syndrome" that many folks seem to have been afflicted by around here. The common symptom of the disorder is the irrational notion that as long as you're getting good money on each sale, you're doing well, even if you only get a few sales per day.

cthoman · « **Reply #40 on:** April 04, 2012, 00:02 »

Quote from: helix7 on April 03, 2012, 21:49

I find it amazing that people find 33 cents unreasonable at SS, when it's been that way forever and in fact used to be much worse.

I'm even more amazed by the "iStockholm Syndrome" that many folks seem to have been afflicted by around here. The common symptom of the disorder is the irrational notion that as long as you're getting good money on each sale, you're doing well, even if you only get a few sales per day.

A few sales a day can add up pretty quick depending on what you are getting paid.

CardensDesign · « **Reply #41 on:** April 04, 2012, 21:04 »

I would gladly take $1 per download. I had 6 ELs in March (never had more than two in a month before), and still only got about $0.72 per download.

djpadavona · « **Reply #42 on:** April 06, 2012, 07:48 »

Quote from: lisafx on April 03, 2012, 12:23

Quote from: sjlocke on April 03, 2012, 10:14
What if you got a free unicorn for contributing as well?

I already have one of those.

helix7 · « **Reply #43 on:** April 06, 2012, 08:14 »

Quote from: cthoman on April 04, 2012, 00:02

A few sales a day can add up pretty quick depending on what you are getting paid.

It would take an unrealistic amount of good-RPD sales to make up for the volume that most people see at places like SS. istock offers a good RPD, especially if you're exclusive. But even then, the price of the images would have to be so high to match the high-volume agencies that no one would buy there at all anymore. Same with GL and all of the other agencies with good RPD. And I'll always participate in those agencies, hoping that volume picks up someday.

But realistically, that's unlikely to happen to the point where I make most of my living getting good money for each sale. This is a volume business, driven mostly by SS, it has been since I started in 2007 and I think it will remain so for the foreseeable future, I think.

I've said it before in this forum, I think RPD is a sucker's statistic in microstock. I know that sounds harsh, but I think its true. RPD can make a crappy agency look like a good one. It's how any of these small agencies survive. They have to pay well, it's all they have going for them. But the sales volume just isn't there.

It's how istock survives as well. Look at any discussion about why people stay exclusive and inevitably you'll see lots of comments about how they make great money on each sale. And it's true. RPD at istock is great. The volume doesn't exist, though, and I don't care if they're paying me $10 per sale, it doesn't matter. They don't have enough site activity to make up for the huge volume of sales at SS. None of the high-RPD agencies do.

High RPD is great in theory. But it doesn't pay the bills. High volume does, regardless of RPD.

cthoman · « **Reply #44 on:** April 06, 2012, 10:01 »

Quote from: helix7 on April 06, 2012, 08:14

It would take an unrealistic amount of good-RPD sales to make up for the volume that most people see at places like SS. istock offers a good RPD, especially if you're exclusive. But even then, the price of the images would have to be so high to match the high-volume agencies that no one would buy there at all anymore. Same with GL and all of the other agencies with good RPD. And I'll always participate in those agencies, hoping that volume picks up someday.

But realistically, that's unlikely to happen to the point where I make most of my living getting good money for each sale. This is a volume business, driven mostly by SS, it has been since I started in 2007 and I think it will remain so for the foreseeable future, I think.

I've said it before in this forum, I think RPD is a sucker's statistic in microstock. I know that sounds harsh, but I think its true. RPD can make a crappy agency look like a good one. It's how any of these small agencies survive. They have to pay well, it's all they have going for them. But the sales volume just isn't there.

It's how istock survives as well. Look at any discussion about why people stay exclusive and inevitably you'll see lots of comments about how they make great money on each sale. And it's true. RPD at istock is great. The volume doesn't exist, though, and I don't care if they're paying me $10 per sale, it doesn't matter. They don't have enough site activity to make up for the huge volume of sales at SS. None of the high-RPD agencies do.

High RPD is great in theory. But it doesn't pay the bills. High volume does, regardless of RPD.

SS got passed by Clipartof last month for me, so I don't think it's unrealistic at all. My own site regularly places in my top 4 too. It's just a shame that there aren't more good selling/fair paying agencies. The options are pretty limited for most contributors.

MicrostockGroup Sponsors

Author Topic: What if shutterstock pays you 1$ per image (Read 15744 times)

lagereek

wut

rubyroo

wut

wut

wut

rubyroo

lisafx

wut

rubyroo

rubyroo

WarrenPrice

wut

RacePhoto

rubyroo

helix7

helix7

Related Topics

Sponsors

Microstock Poll Results

Sponsors