Jump to content

Recommended Posts

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
Link to post
Share on other sites
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
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.

 

 

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

Link to post
Share on other sites
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
Link to post
Share on other sites
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
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". 🤪

 

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.

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.

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... 🙁

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.   

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

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
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
  • Upvote 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
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
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
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
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
Link to post
Share on other sites
56 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

 

 

 

I'll probably chill for awhile. There's no rush with my tiny nest egg. As mentioned, I was mainly looking for a home for my video clips. The last video sale I made "over there" netted $18, but the next one could bring as little as $0.60 according to rumours. If so, it won't really be worth the effort...

  • Upvote 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, Autumn Sky said:

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?

 

 

More to the point do you and the other SS contributors posting  here live in poor countries? Do you do it because you are hungry?

 

And are those poor people in Asia and Africa submitting pictures of global travel and north American and European cities and people?

 

The argument is what I said was laughable. And the way people in rich countries use it to justify contributing to SS while at the same time agreeing  themselves that  in doing so it is helping to destroy the stock photography industry.

 

If these poor people in desperate need of a few cents are forced to contribute to SS to feed themselves why are you competing with them to take the food from their hungry bellies?  

 

As I said it is a laughable justification for what you and tens of thousands of others choose to do out of free will not poverty. 

Edited by geogphotos
  • Like 2
  • Upvote 1
  • Downvote 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
18 minutes ago, geogphotos said:

 

 

More to the point do you and the other SS contributors posting  here live in poor countries? Do you do it because you are hungry?

 

And are those poor people in Asia and Africa submitting pictures of global travel and north American and European cities and people?

 

The argument is what I said was laughable. And the way people in rich countries use it to justify contributing to SS while at the same time agreeing  themselves that  in doing so is helping to destroy the stock photography industry.

 

If these poor people in desperate need of a few cents are forced to contribute to SS to feed themselves why are you competing with them to take the food from their hungry bellies?  

 

As I said it is a laughable justification for what you and tens of thousands of others choose to do out of free will not poverty. 

Thank you for demonstrating high IQ level.  You only enjoy quarreling with people nothing else.   I have nothing more to say to you. Please do not bother commenting on my posts, I will not answer.    Kind regards

Edited by Autumn Sky
  • Like 1
  • Upvote 1
  • Downvote 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
5 minutes ago, Autumn Sky said:

Thank you for demonstrating high IQ level.  You only enjoy quarreling with people nothing else.   I have nothing more to say to you. Please do not bother commenting on my posts, I will not answer.    Kind regards

 

 

So much for discussion.....you did ask me to explain.

Edited by geogphotos
  • Like 1
  • Confused 1
  • Downvote 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

It may be that a few cents go further in poorer countries but as Olivier says if these contributors were so poor they would not have been able to afford the trappings needed to supply images in the first place. 

You would need a pretty large portfolio just to pay your monthly internet connection charge at 10c a sale.

 

4 hours ago, John Mitchell said:

 

I'll probably chill for awhile. There's no rush with my tiny nest egg. As mentioned, I was mainly looking for a home for my video clips. The last video sale I made "over there" netted $18, but the next one could bring as little as $0.60 according to rumours. If so, it won't really be worth the effort...

 

John my understanding is they will pay you out if you cancel your account but not if you just suspend it.

I really don't think they are that bad a company that they would try to hang on to your money.

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.