Jump to content

Recommended Posts

Posted (edited)
48 minutes ago, Chuck Nacke said:

As far as "Dumping sub-par content"  I agree. BUT your suggestion of the 12 months without a sale and delete is a REALLY BAD Idea.  I have many images (chromes)

that have sat for years, mostly in my basement, and now license almost every month.  Some of those images have also sat on Alamy for years without a license and then 

because of events have been licensed many times for good fees.   You also forget that Alamy is a library not a news photo agency, well it is trying but.....

When I began contributing to Alamy, it was as a vehicle to license images that I made during Magazine assignments or working with the real NEWS PHOTO AGENCIES 

around the world over the years.  There are many things about Alamy that I still like and value, but news image distribution is not one of them.

 

Chuck

 

Chuck -- "12 month no sale" idea was for micros, not Alamy.  Alamy as heavily editorial is different & think most people agreed on this?

 

Interesting thing in light of all these threats of boycott, disabling ports etc.   Despite everything --- SS library seems to rise. So people keep uploading as if nothing happened.  This is the bottomless pit that eventually caused 10 cents sales & is sadly felt across the industry.

Edited by Autumn Sky
  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 hours ago, BobD said:

I have suspended my images over there, once I receive this months payout I will cancel my account.

1 10c sale was enough.

I'll keep my account for couple of months, but I stopped uploading.  10 cents is simply too disrespectful.  Today I got 1 "sale" on Shutterstock, and 1 sale on Adobe.   Adobe sale netted me 30 times more than SS sale (32.4 times more to be precise). This is just not right.  We'll see what happens, but I am now more and more thinking they slashed it too much & it might backfire

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
11 hours ago, Steve F said:

What, quit Shutterstock?

Nope, I don’t do any other stock agencies. I’m doing just fine here.

  • Like 1
  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
4 hours ago, Autumn Sky said:

 

 

Interesting thing in light of all these threats of boycott, disabling ports etc.   Despite everything --- SS library seems to rise. So people keep uploading as if nothing happened.  This is the bottomless pit that eventually caused 10 cents sales & is sadly felt across the industry.

 

 

The decision to pay 10cents commission is a business decision to enrich Shutterstock shareholders. It has not been caused by changes in the supply of photos or the demand for photos. 

 

I agree that it is made possible because SS are able to take advantage of people's willingness to accept unfair, unsustainable business practices. But let's keep the responsibility where it belongs with the owners who are majority shareholders of SS. 

 

The end result will be bad for us at Alamy - more competition, less revenue to go around, but even so I would welcome anybody who gets out of Shutterstock and closes the door on them. This isn't an attack on micro stock in general. Adobe by contrast seems a much more legitimate company. 

Edited by geogphotos
  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I was doing OK over there, got a payout practically every month and was about to trip over the next commission rate which increased earning quite a bit, but I will not put up with what amounts to slave labour.

 

To be honest I think they wanted to cull a good deal of their unsustainable mountain of images, the last couple of months they have been rejecting images for the most ridiculous reasons. This way they cut down on images and make more money at the same time.

 

There are rumours on the forum that they have made sweetheart deals with their big factory suppliers that maintains the original commission for those favoured few but that only lasts until January when they will be reset to the lowest rate along with everyone else.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
6 hours ago, BobD said:

I was doing OK over there, got a payout practically every month and was about to trip over the next commission rate which increased earning quite a bit, but I will not put up with what amounts to slave labour.

 

To be honest I think they wanted to cull a good deal of their unsustainable mountain of images, the last couple of months they have been rejecting images for the most ridiculous reasons. This way they cut down on images and make more money at the same time.

 

There are rumours on the forum that they have made sweetheart deals with their big factory suppliers that maintains the original commission for those favoured few but that only lasts until January when they will be reset to the lowest rate along with everyone else.

 

It's actually too bad about SS. I like their user-friendly website, and they have their act together in a lot of other respects as well. If they had treated their contributors fairly from the beginning, they could have become a good stock agency. As it is, they are now sowing the seeds of their own demise IMO. It's an old story...

Edited by John Mitchell
  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

John, I've been around the stock photo business for almost fifty years (I made my first agency sale in 1971, while I was still in high school) and I have seen very many commission cuts. Not once has it ever hurt the agency that made the cuts. You may wish for their "demise," but this isn't a sign. 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
13 minutes ago, Brian Yarvin said:

John, I've been around the stock photo business for almost fifty years (I made my first agency sale in 1971, while I was still in high school) and I have seen very many commission cuts. Not once has it ever hurt the agency that made the cuts. You may wish for their "demise," but this isn't a sign. 

 

I get your point from a financial POV. However, I think that any agency that loses the trust and respect of its contributors is in for a very rough ride. Also, what they are doing is much more than a traditional commission cut. It's more like thievery when you consider that they already pay almost nothing. Whatever the case, it will be interesting to see how all this pans out.

 

I never said that I wish for their demise. As mentioned, I quite like their "physical" setup, even though I'm not a fan of the microstock business model.

Edited by John Mitchell

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 minutes ago, John Mitchell said:

 

However, I think that any agency that loses the trust and respect of its contributors is in for a very rough ride. Also, what they are doing is much more than a traditional commission cut. It's more like thievery when you consider that they already pay almost nothing. Whatever the case, it will be interesting to see how all this pans out.

 

John, iStock lost trust and respect of its contributors long time ago when they slashed to 15% and they are still doing very well, thank you very much.  So I don't think this will be problem for SS.  But I agree they cut it too much and at a bad time as well.

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
17 minutes ago, Autumn Sky said:

John, iStock lost trust and respect of its contributors long time ago when they slashed to 15% and they are still doing very well, thank you very much.  So I don't think this will be problem for SS.  But I agree they cut it too much and at a bad time as well.

 

 

 

does iStock release numbers on their own?  They are able to not have much overhead using Getty's infrastructure, plus they have kept long term exclusive contributor relatively happy something SS seems to have failed this week

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
On 03/06/2020 at 05:29, BobD said:

 

An interesting watch on the situation over there.

 

 

That was a good video – thanks for posting. I wish he'd explained, though, why he was doing microstock in the first place. It's great that he's urging everyone to pull out now, but if people hadn't submitted in the first place, prices wouldn't be as low as they are currently. Especially since he indicates he wasn't desperate for money. I don't know if maybe he explained in previous videos why he got into it, but I was left wondering why so many professional photographers had no qualms about contributing to the crystal-clear diminishment of their work and of their industry until this latest incident.

 

I know that intense unease over the lack of control over minimum pricing and licensing terms with Alamy has kept me from uploading here with abandon. As I've mentioned before, if I had some say in setting a minimum price I would be willing to accept for my work, I would feel a lot freer about contributing. The fear of seeing my work sell for pennies or a few dollars (although I've opted out of the distributor, novel, and personal use options to try to avoid that) holds me back. I have so many archival images I think would be unique, too, but I think my subconscious has been reigning me in and won't quite let me cross that upload threshold.

 

If we want a better environment for photographers, we might have to fight for it instead of just complaining about it. And that may mean sacrifice in the short term that pays off in the long term. Hold on to just about anything long enough and it becomes valuable (and market it appropriately, of course). But it has to start with the creator appreciating its value.

Edited by KHA

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
13 minutes ago, meanderingemu said:

 

does iStock release numbers on their own?  They are able to not have much overhead using Getty's infrastructure, plus they have kept long term exclusive contributor relatively happy something SS seems to have failed this week

I think they do.   Re IS exclusive contributors, that is interesting part.   Compensation is tiered and not that much  higher to really make sense staying exclusive.   I think maybe their exclusive contributors ports get ranked much higher in searches, who knows.

 

Interesting part is, if you sort of equate SS and IS as similar models,  IS will now be compensating twice more than SS, assuming same ports on both sides.  I'd not be too surprised if IS now drops from 15% to 10% or something like this

 

 

Edited by Autumn Sky
  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

58 minutes ago, Autumn Sky said:

John, iStock lost trust and respect of its contributors long time ago when they slashed to 15% and they are still doing very well, thank you very much.  So I don't think this will be problem for SS.  But I agree they cut it too much and at a bad time as well.

 

 

I'd call that a "clear cut" rather than a "commission cut". 🤪

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
12 hours ago, geogphotos said:

 

 

The decision to pay 10cents commission is a business decision to enrich Shutterstock shareholders. It has not been caused by changes in the supply of photos or the demand for photos. 

 

I agree that it is made possible because SS are able to take advantage of people's willingness to accept unfair, unsustainable business practices. But let's keep the responsibility where it belongs with the owners who are majority shareholders of SS. 

 

The end result will be bad for us at Alamy - more competition, less revenue to go around, but even so I would welcome anybody who gets out of Shutterstock and closes the door on them. This isn't an attack on micro stock in general. Adobe by contrast seems a much more legitimate company. 

 

George - I don't disagree with what you said. But my reasoning is going one level deeper.   SS, and stock agencies in general, are able to do such things because they know supply of content will still continue no matter what.   Just today someone on SS Forum (despite all the calls for boycott, etc) is inquiring about submitting over 1000 images of protests that are going on.   But if policies on which libraries are built on were "lean and mean" -- you'd have quality first and foremost, not quantity;   then supply chain would not be limitless no matter what, and you'd be able to charge (and compensate!)  much higher.

 

This also brings me to second point -- "people's willingness to accept unfair, unsustainable business practices".   Yes, but why?  This is going perhaps into minefield, but Internet /  Digital age has opened up many things.  10 cents in undeveloped countries is same as 10 dollars in London.  So you can not blame someone living in poverty and being hungry trying to make ends meet.  I traveled a bit in poor countries and know what I am talking about here.

 

At the end all these discussions are academic... real question is what we can do, as photographers and Alamy contributors.  I am now entertaining your idea of "RM Alamy Only".   Perhaps image would sit 3-4 years or more without sale, but at least there wouldn't be that sense of disrespect I get now when I see good image, I took time to produce, getting compensated by a dime.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
18 hours ago, John Mitchell said:

 

Hope you don't mind my asking. Did they owe you any money? If so, have you asked for payment?

 

Just 5 bucks (plus 10 cents!).  I haven't done anything yet except set my images to not for sale.  Hope to get the 5 bucks before I close the account.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, MariaJ said:

 

Just 5 bucks (plus 10 cents!).  I haven't done anything yet except set my images to not for sale.  Hope to get the 5 bucks before I close the account.

 

Best of luck. I have about $28.50, not a great sum, but I fear that now so many people are suspending/closing their accounts, the agency might take the money and run. Losing such a small amount doesn't bother me. However, I don't want to make the fat cats any fatter. Consequently, I might hang in there until I reach the next payout. Could take a spell... 🙁

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 minutes ago, John Mitchell said:

 

Best of luck. I have about $28.50, not a great sum, but I fear that now so many people are suspending/closing their accounts, the agency might take the money and run. Losing such a small amount doesn't bother me. However, I don't want to make the fat cats any fatter. Consequently, I might hang in there until I reach the next payout. Could take a spell... 🙁

 

On their pages it says if you deactivate your account they will pay any outstanding earnings above $1.   

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, John Mitchell said:

 

Best of luck. I have about $28.50, not a great sum, but I fear that now so many people are suspending/closing their accounts, the agency might take the money and run. Losing such a small amount doesn't bother me. However, I don't want to make the fat cats any fatter. Consequently, I might hang in there until I reach the next payout. Could take a spell... 🙁

 

It depends.  Someone in their Forum just reported $65 (net) sale; this would be decent even for Alamy.  So it's all unknown at this stage.   But I guess for someone like you that reported $$$ Alamy sale few days ago,  messing around with dime downloads is really below paygrade.    I got 3 dimes and one 50 cent   there today  lol

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Autumn Sky said:

 

 

This also brings me to second point -- "people's willingness to accept unfair, unsustainable business practices".   Yes, but why?  This is going perhaps into minefield, but Internet /  Digital age has opened up many things.  10 cents in undeveloped countries is same as 10 dollars in London.  So you can not blame someone living in poverty and being hungry trying to make ends meet.  I traveled a bit in poor countries and know what I am talking about here.

 

 

 

 

This is a laughable argument. 

  • Downvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, geogphotos said:

 

 

This is a laughable argument. 

really? Do you care to explain why?  You think people that live in poor countries and have problems making ends meet should be laughed at?

  • Like 1
  • Confused 1
  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
2 hours ago, MariaJ said:

 

On their pages it says if you deactivate your account they will pay any outstanding earnings above $1.   

 

Thanks. You're correct about that. It also says that you have to contact them to request payment. However, I'm a bit distrustful given the current circumstances.

Edited by John Mitchell

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

John, just let it sit for awhile... doesn't cost anything. Nobody knows what is really going on with this.  There are even 'conspiracy' theories about SS being sold (like Fotolia / Adobe thing). Not that I think this is credible, but whole thing is just too hot right now. Let it cool off

 

 

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, Autumn Sky said:

John, just let it sit for awhile... doesn't cost anything. Nobody knows what is really going on with this.  There are even 'conspiracy' theories about SS being sold (like Fotolia / Adobe thing). Not that I think this is credible, but whole thing is just too hot right now. Let it cool off

 

 

 

Wouldn't it be absolutely hilarious if Shutterstock was going to be merged with Alamy? (Only a joke! Only a joke!! I have no information inside or otherwise!!!)

  • Like 1
  • Haha 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, Brian Yarvin said:

 

Wouldn't it be absolutely hilarious if Shutterstock was going to be merged with Alamy? (Only a joke! Only a joke!! I have no information inside or otherwise!!!)

o-o-o-o-o

You just made my evening! Thank you 😊

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You're welcome! I was planning on quarreling with Ian but posting a completely unsubstantiated rumor seemed like a better idea.

  • Haha 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.