DPChallenge: A Digital Photography Contest You are not logged in. (log in or register) 
 

DPChallenge Forums >> Photography Discussion >> Shutterstock Policy: Alert
Pages:  
Showing posts 51 - 75 of 78, (reverse)
AuthorThread
 12/07/2004 11:25:23 PM · #51
Originally posted by shutterstock:
It should be known that the reason why iStockPhoto is starting exclusives is because we have come in as a large compeditor. Competition is good for you, and for our customers. By locking photogs into exclusive deals, they are ruining it for everybody. iStockPhoto is feeling the pressure here, and they decided to do this to start to pull photogs off my site. Maybe they even saw this small problem with the TOS - and decided to exploit it. Either way - I'm happy that I have invented a brand new model for subscription stock photography, fixed the TOS problem, and that lots of people are making more money on my site than any of the others. I'm also happy that other sites are feeling pressure - it means my model works.


Oh please. Your incredible, never-before-seen business model seems to have turned your competitors and the whole industry on their heads. Right.

Your model seems to be forgetting one thing: that your whole rip-off business depends on good will and cooperation of a lot of people, your contributing photographers. Acting as an asshole towards them surely doesn't seem to be a very wise business move.

I have never considered shutterstock or istock because i expected something like this to pop up sooner or later. You, fellas, seem to want to have your cake and eat it too. Don't work that way.
 12/07/2004 11:28:25 PM · #52
We pay out close to 50% of our profits to photographers.

Does Corbis/Getty do that?

iStock pays out 20%.

Where have you sold your images so far?

and, I really don't like cake.
Jon

Originally posted by yurasocolov:
Your model seems to be forgetting one thing: that your whole rip-off business depends on good will and cooperation of a lot of people, your contributing photographers. Acting as an asshole towards them surely doesn't seem to be a very wise business move.

I have never considered shutterstock or istock because i expected something like this to pop up sooner or later. You, fellas, seem to want to have your cake and eat it too. Don't work that way.


Message edited by author 2004-12-07 23:34:16.
 12/07/2004 11:35:47 PM · #53
Originally posted by shutterstock:
and, I really don't like cake.


LOL

Funnies!

But seriously - not any kind? Chocolate? Vanilla? Carrot?
12/07/2004 11:36:32 PM · #54
Well.. maybe Tiramisu.. But i think its the caffeine that i crave.
Jon

Originally posted by mavrik:
Originally posted by shutterstock:
and, I really don't like cake.


LOL

Funnies!

But seriously - not any kind? Chocolate? Vanilla? Carrot?
12/07/2004 11:38:23 PM · #55
Originally posted by shutterstock:
I'm happy that I have invented a brand new model for subscription stock photography

photos.com has been selling stock photography via the "subscription" model for quite some time...
 12/07/2004 11:39:23 PM · #56
Originally posted by EddyG:
Originally posted by shutterstock:
I'm happy that I have invented a brand new model for subscription stock photography

photos.com has been selling stock photography via the "subscription" model for quite some time...


It's the other side -- they don't PAY photographers to fuel a subscription model by the photo.

There doesn't exist another subscription site that then pays photogaphers by the download.

Jon

Message edited by author 2004-12-07 23:40:51.
 12/08/2004 12:26:03 AM · #57
Originally posted by shutterstock:
.... People like the ShutterStock model.


You may think that people like the model but in time you will find that people like to be treated fairly and honestly. And operating on a business plan that depends on witholding the earnings of your partners is not a fair and honest way of doing business. It is exploitation. You should change your model so that ALL money earned by photographers is paid out regularly, and pass your costs of doing business on the your customers.
 12/08/2004 12:31:47 AM · #58
Originally posted by coolhar:
You may think that people like the model but in time you will find that people like to be treated fairly and honestly. And operating on a business plan that depends on witholding the earnings of your partners is not a fair and honest way of doing business. It is exploitation. You should change your model so that ALL money earned by photographers is paid out regularly, and pass your costs of doing business on the your customers.


I'm pretty sure all 5 RF's do what Shutterstock does and keeps the random $30 bucks here and there, no? If that's true - it's not likely to change soon.

Why would shutterstock change the model now? They have employees - they have overhead - they have expenses and costs - if we make the designers pay for ALL of that, we'll be Canstockphoto. Up til recently, they charged a LOT more than the others and they never have any DLs. Wait til they change to a shutterstock model - they will actually start to produce.

I think my $2.80 on Canstockphoto isn't too bad for hosting my pics, selling and advertising them, the time to review my uploads, and customer support. If I never make $100 there, they are welcome to my $3.00

M
 12/08/2004 12:52:28 AM · #59
Originally posted by mavrik:
If I never make $100 there, they are welcome to my $3.00


Maybe not quite so welcome to it when it gets to be $99.50? hehehehe


I just don't think it's right to be making your profits by keeping the photographer's earnings. The site owners have already made their share of profit off of each sale. Let the photog have his/her share. To me, it is almost like stealing money from the photographer.

I'll apologize in advance in case this offends anyone, but I just can't find it in myself to have any respect for that guy. He pays the photogs 20 cents an image and then won't even give that small amount over to them in an straightforward manner.
12/08/2004 12:53:36 AM · #60
When it gets to 99.50, I'll wait the day to get my .50 ;)

I understand both sides of this - business is tough. M
 12/08/2004 03:02:58 AM · #61
There are valid points here - when cheques are raised it really doesn't matter how little has been earned - and it is unfair not to settle up the balance on account closure.

However, if you agree to the terms then so be it, but applying pressure is no bad thing.

On the note of stock photos themselves, I really don't mind some images of mine languishing on someone else's hard disc sporadically making small amounts of money. The images I upload are shots which are not too precious to me anyway and tend to be everyday photos that suit a metaphoric theme. They're not poor shots but many would not make it onto my (or any other) wall or even printed out at all.

I don't treat it as a business - just as a supplement to a hobby. Shutterstock's terms are designed to increase traffic and quality, because the worse your image, the fewer downloads it will get.
 12/08/2004 08:26:42 AM · #62
I haven't read all the posts, but I understood that $100 was the minimum payout...no matter when I decided to leave.

I wouldn't expect them to do anything else...they'd constantly be sending out $2.30 cheques to people that got disillusioned in the first month because they weren't making enough for a new lens.

I'm glad they clarified the terms of service, but I thought it was fairly plain to begin with.

12/08/2004 09:26:35 AM · #63
Any reasonable person can understand the concept that sending out a lot of very small checks is not cost effective. But at what level does it become cost effective to send out a check? Me thinks it is considerably lower than $100, or $75 for that matter. And writing a check to clear a closed account, be it small or large, is a one time occurence. Keeping money owed on an account that the photog chooses to close is not a cost saving business practice as much as it is a way of taking money earned by someone else and pocketing it.
 12/08/2004 09:43:27 AM · #64
Originally posted by coolhar:
And writing a check to clear a closed account, be it small or large, is a one time occurence.

If I were a competitor, I (and my friends) would be signing up and then closing our accounts every couple of weeks.

You need a significantly high threshold to prevent cheating and manipulation of the system. Once that concept is accepted, it's just a question of deciding where that line is to be drawn ... $5, $20, $100 ... one would need access to a lot of financial info to know where a "reasonable" threshold lies. I believe we all accepted a $100 minimum, and needed to be prepared to take our chances on never getting a payout.

Given that, have you ever heard of another site changing their terms (like lowering the payout minimum[/u] in response to members? Personally, I think Jon is doing his best to address the confusion and accomodate our concerns, where other CEOs would tell you to shove it, if they bothered to respond at all.
 12/08/2004 10:01:10 AM · #65
Business isn't as simple as
"ShuttterStock made their money, therefore they should pay out every cent"

ShutterStock is based on a very complicated statistical model.. And the entire package adds up to us being able to pay out photographers.

Some photograhpers are making $30 per day - and they never sold a photo before in their life.

Part of the model is that we have to have a min. payout.

Jon

Message edited by author 2004-12-08 10:10:49.
 12/08/2004 10:33:58 AM · #66
Hey Jon,
I'm wondering how many paying customers shutterstock has currently, and what the growth rate in paying customers is like. Are you seeing 1-5 new customers per day? or a higher number? Also, if a buyer decides he want's a photo on shutterstock, is the buyer provided an alternative to the membership fee? Can the potential buyer purchase images on an individual basis?
 12/08/2004 07:31:06 PM · #67
Originally posted by thatcloudthere:
I haven't read all the posts, but I understood that $100 was the minimum payout...no matter when I decided to leave.

I wouldn't expect them to do anything else...they'd constantly be sending out $2.30 cheques to people that got disillusioned in the first month because they weren't making enough for a new lens.

I'm glad they clarified the terms of service, but I thought it was fairly plain to begin with.


In the same way, as a non-American, it wouldn't pay me to receive a smaller cheque. My bank takes so much commission on a foreign cheque, it's quite ridiculous.
 12/09/2004 08:10:48 AM · #68
I'm having a different, albeit minor, problem with Shutterstock. After only one upload, I have changed my mind and decided not to be a Shutterstock contributor. After 3 or 4 email requests over several days to disable my photo and cancel my account, STILL no action! Not a reply other than the auto-responder return email... nothing! I just checked, and the account is still active. Jim, you had to resort to posting here (and elsewhere) to get your problem resolved. Finally after days of being ignored, I'm taking the same course. SHUTTERSTOCK where are you???
 12/09/2004 09:04:32 AM · #69
I'm having a different, albeit minor, problem with Shutterstock. After only one upload, I have changed my mind and decided not to be a Shutterstock contributor. After 3 or 4 email requests over several days to disable my photo and cancel my account, STILL no action! Not a reply other than the auto-responder return email... nothing! I just checked, and the account is still active. Jim, you had to resort to posting here (and elsewhere) to get your problem resolved. Finally after days of being ignored, I'm taking the same course. SHUTTERSTOCK where are you???

Why don`t you just delete the photo?
 12/09/2004 09:19:15 AM · #70
I can see all emails coming in - and yours didn't.

Maybe just tell me your username here and ill get rid of your account.

And you can delete the photo yourself.

Jon

Originally posted by nova:
I'm having a different, albeit minor, problem with Shutterstock. After only one upload, I have changed my mind and decided not to be a Shutterstock contributor. After 3 or 4 email requests over several days to disable my photo and cancel my account, STILL no action! Not a reply other than the auto-responder return email... nothing! I just checked, and the account is still active. Jim, you had to resort to posting here (and elsewhere) to get your problem resolved. Finally after days of being ignored, I'm taking the same course. SHUTTERSTOCK where are you???
12/09/2004 10:00:37 AM · #71
What about paying out via paypal? It's fast and easy and free assuming you do not have a premier business account which would then deduct 3%.
 12/09/2004 10:50:19 AM · #72
Thanks, Jon, for taking care of that for me (via Private Message). Yeah, that's the reason I decided not to be a contributor for the time being... there seems to be a bug somewhere between my attempts to upload and your server. In the meantime, thanks for the prompt action, and best of luck in your endeavor. Sincerely, Ray
 12/30/2004 09:36:57 AM · #73
In about a month I have made 60 cents. Maybe I just have to take better photographs, or learn more about stock photos.

Travis
 12/30/2004 09:42:52 AM · #74
I've made $10.00 this month on just a few pics. Link us to your gallery.

Message edited by author 2004-12-30 10:37:45.
 12/30/2004 09:46:07 AM · #75
I am up to 11.00!
Pages:  
Current Server Time: 07/19/2025 03:11:52 PM

Please log in or register to post to the forums.


Home - Challenges - Community - League - Photos - Cameras - Lenses - Learn - Help - Terms of Use - Privacy - Top ^
DPChallenge, and website content and design, Copyright © 2001-2025 Challenging Technologies, LLC.
All digital photo copyrights belong to the photographers and may not be used without permission.
Current Server Time: 07/19/2025 03:11:52 PM EDT.