Author Topic: Something stinks up in Canada and it smells of CanStockPhoto (Read 39582 times)

sipaphoto · « **Reply #25 on:** May 02, 2011, 23:23 »

Quote from: gwhitton on May 02, 2011, 20:45

The most you should ever lose in closing a Canstock account is the minimum payout...I take that back...you'll lose all the revenue you would have gained if you just left the images there and forgotten about them for a few years. Why anyone goes through the extra effort of removing their files (verifiable fraud and abuse by the agency aside) is beyond me. You are only hurting yourself.

I agree, but the photographer's rights are trumped time and time again in the legal system, and companies rarely pay for any of their fraudulent and abusive activities. I'd rather close my account and negate the whole issue altogether.

sipaphoto · « **Reply #26 on:** May 02, 2011, 23:30 »

Quote from: click_click on May 02, 2011, 21:25

One small question - forgive me if this has already been mentioned but I have a link in my account settings that says "Cancel Account".

That should have done it. $:-\$

As soon as you click that, a message comes up that tells you that YOU must delete all your photos before cancelling the account. No choices for "select all" for a faster process, no message telling you that you have the option to email staff to do it for you in mass, nothing. The message also tells you that by cancelling your account you forfeit your balance, whatever that balance may be.

sipaphoto · « **Reply #27 on:** May 02, 2011, 23:35 »

Quote from: pancaketom on May 02, 2011, 23:04

Most if not all sites have a minimum payout and if you cancel before you reach it you should expect to lose the money in your account. Seeing how low the minimum is is one of the details you have to read and decide on before you join and start submitting. Most people who are planning on leaving a site wait 'til they hit the minimum before leaving or keep a balance above the minimum for the last chunk of time so they can empty out their account as the last step.

I haven't tried to leave Canstock, so I can't say if the process is a pain or not, but if I had a heap of images I wanted removed I'd definitely be writing them with a request rather than doing it one at a time.

I am ready to jump all over a site when they lower commissions or otherwise screw the artists, but the minimum payout is something we all joined with full knowledge of (or should have if we read the fine print).

The problem with deleting photos is that you're directed to delete each photo yourself when you click Cancel Account. There's no indication about contacting staff or that any other option is available. Only people who chose to complain about the process would actually contact staff and be told about other options, but the vast majority of people will just go through the process as directed.

sipaphoto · « **Reply #28 on:** May 02, 2011, 23:39 »

Quote from: thomasw on May 02, 2011, 23:07

You did read the contributor agreement when you joined Canstock didn't you?

Let's just say that I don't believe for a second that you yourself read the Member Agreements of all the stock websites you have listed below every one of your messages, or that you remember what those agreements actually stated. I further challenge that the Member Agreements are intentionally written in paragraphs that only Attorneys understand, and the general person such as myself does not.

lagereek · « **Reply #29 on:** May 02, 2011, 23:47 »

They might be slow but heck! I rather have Duncan and his crew then others who rip you to bits.

cthoman · « **Reply #30 on:** May 02, 2011, 23:50 »

Quote from: sipaphoto on May 02, 2011, 22:47

Remember, this is only my "share"! The website already made it's share which I might add is a much larger portion of profit than what's given the photographer as his share.

CanStockPhoto is 50/50, so we get the same as they do from each sale. Obviously, you didn't get your share from your closed account sales, and I feel for you. But, I still think CanStockPhoto is a good company and not worth your ire. It's a tough world out there. I learn so much from each deal I've been cheated on over the years. I'd like to think that they've never happened, but each one makes me wiser.

sipaphoto · « **Reply #31 on:** May 03, 2011, 00:31 »

Quote from: cthoman on May 02, 2011, 23:50

Quote from: sipaphoto on May 02, 2011, 22:47
Remember, this is only my "share"! The website already made it's share which I might add is a much larger portion of profit than what's given the photographer as his share.

CanStockPhoto is 50/50, so we get the same as they do from each sale. Obviously, you didn't get your share from your closed account sales, and I feel for you. But, I still think CanStockPhoto is a good company and not worth your ire. It's a tough world out there. I learn so much from each deal I've been cheated on over the years. I'd like to think that they've never happened, but each one makes me wiser.

That sort of makes it even worse in my eyes, because it means that they're behaving like a business partner who decides to take off with your share of the business profits when you decide to go separate ways. There are laws protecting against that in business law, but there are no laws protecting photographers from these unfair business practices.

sipaphoto · « **Reply #32 on:** May 03, 2011, 00:33 »

Quote from: lagereek on May 02, 2011, 23:47

They might be slow but heck! I rather have Duncan and his crew then others who rip you to bits.

So what you're saying is that they may suck, but they're the lesser of two evils, so that makes them ok?

sipaphoto · « **Reply #33 on:** May 03, 2011, 00:39 »

It's come to my attention that a few people on here aren't contributing photographers, but rather microstock company employees defending their industry's business practices under the disguise of average contributors. I had no idea. I have to say that this shows a lack of integrity since it really isn't a fair debate when one side is loaded with infiltrators with a corporate agenda.

sharpshot · « **Reply #34 on:** May 03, 2011, 01:50 »

I think there's enough information available for people to make sure they have a portfolio that will make money with sites like CanStockPhoto before opening an account there. I didn't bother uploading my portfolio until I knew it would make some money. If people sign up and don't read the small print, then they can't get enough sales, I really don't have a lot of sympathy. CanStockPhoto holding on to the money doesn't make much difference to me, this is a business and that looks like a sensible business decision. I respect sites that payout below the minimum payout but I don't think they're obligated to do that.

The only site that kept some of my money because I lost patience with them was albumo. That was my mistake and I'm not bitter about it.

fotografer · « **Reply #35 on:** May 03, 2011, 02:20 »

Quote from: sipaphoto on May 02, 2011, 23:19

Really? Because I was under the impression that it's not quantity but quality that matters. Boy was I misguided.

I agree that quality not quantity matter but if that was your case you would only have had to wait a week or two more at most to reach payout before closing.

Phil · « **Reply #36 on:** May 03, 2011, 03:12 »

I'm another who likes canstock (but not the $0.25), for me they are definitely worth the time to upload to, but I do think all sites should payout when you close the account but do any of them payout you if you are under their amount when you close?

Microbius · « **Reply #37 on:** May 03, 2011, 03:27 »

I'm not sure who you think are company employees here, but some of the people you have rudely lashed out at on this thread have been extremely successful stock photographers, and one even the owner of this forum.
Maybe you should be a bit better informed before you start mud slinging?

TheSmilingAssassin · « **Reply #38 on:** May 03, 2011, 04:11 »

Quote from: sipaphoto on May 02, 2011, 23:39

Quote from: thomasw on May 02, 2011, 23:07
You did read the contributor agreement when you joined Canstock didn't you?
Let's just say that I don't believe for a second that you yourself read the Member Agreements of all the stock websites you have listed below every one of your messages, or that you remember what those agreements actually stated. I further challenge that the Member Agreements are intentionally written in paragraphs that only Attorneys understand, and the general person such as myself does not.

I find it incredibly unbelievable and somewhat stupid that someone wouldn't read the terms before signing up. I've never signed up to a site before reading the terms... and not just skimming through them but carefully reading them. How can you make a decision about whether they're worth joining if you haven't read their terms? I read Alamy's terms a few days ago. I was excided about joining them and it wasn't until I read the fine print that I decided they were overrated on this thread because they sell RFs that are equivalent to Extended Licences on other micros for as low as ~$3.00.

Saying that no one reads the terms because their long is rubbish. In the time you took to read this thread and respond to the posts you did, you could have read the terms of an MS agent. Saying that their difficult to understand is also rubbish. They're fairly easy to comprehend and if you've read one, you'll find they all pretty much say the same thing, give or take a few clauses here and there.

The terms aside though, I agree with you about agents not paying you out when you leave is probably not ethical but they pretty much all do it and you should have known this before you signed up.

Castock is one of two of my best sellers and the site and staff are very easy to deal with. I've never had a problem with them... the uploading process is easy, reviews are super fast, payment is fast, customer service is excellent and sales are pretty good... they have been for me anyway.

My only small gripe, as someone else has mentioned above, are the odd $0.25 subs that we get but they're easy to live with when they're followed by a fotosearch $19.80 sale.

cthoman · « **Reply #39 on:** May 03, 2011, 09:15 »

Quote from: Microbius on May 03, 2011, 03:27

I'm not sure who you think are company employees here...

That's what I was wondering. Is it me?

Microbius · « **Reply #40 on:** May 03, 2011, 09:34 »

Looked to me like some of the comments were directed to Lisa and Leaf. Which implies that the OP has never read anything on this forum before and just came here to spew vitriol

stockastic · « **Reply #41 on:** May 03, 2011, 09:47 »

The OP felt like he got burned by CanStockPhoto and when people ridiculed him for not having read the fine print more carefully, that made him even angrier. Rudeness ensued.

My feeling is, forget the weasel words: pocketing a supplier's last commission check is pretty tacky. It's just one more example of the shabby things you can rationalize doing on the internet, where "contributors" are just email addresses and paypal accounts, and you never have to even talk to the person you're doing business with, let alone look him in the eye.

lisafx · « **Reply #42 on:** May 03, 2011, 10:11 »

Quote from: sipaphoto on May 02, 2011, 23:03

Exactly who signs your paycheck?

Huh? I'm self-employed. 100% of my income comes through royalties from sales of my images.

And if your implication is that I am somehow on the payroll of one of the micro sites - WRONG. Sorry to disappoint.

The OP seems to feel that anyone disagreeing with him/her is on Canstock's payroll. The other alternative - that they are overreacting and throwing a public tantrum isn't possible, so there must be some conspiracy at work...

gostwyck · « **Reply #43 on:** May 03, 2011, 10:45 »

Quote from: lisafx on May 03, 2011, 10:11

The OP seems to feel that anyone disagreeing with him/her is on Canstock's payroll. The other alternative - that they are overreacting and throwing a public tantrum isn't possible, so there must be some conspiracy at work...

True. The idiom "There's none so blind as those who will not see" seems to fit the OP perfectly.

Duncan_CSP · « **Reply #44 on:** May 03, 2011, 11:12 »

I thought this thread would be a good one when I saw the title...

Leaf, Lisafx, and the others who posted here are all highly respected photographers and forum members, who offered their honest thoughts. Certainly none of them deserved being spoken down to, nor are they employees or affiliated with Can Stock Photo.

As I mentioned when you opened your first support ticket with us, we always regret hearing about any confusion or negative feelings. Although in this case the fact remains that our Membership Agreement governs how we operate and the rules that we follow, including regarding the closing of accounts. I would absolutely expect any photographer entering into an agreement with us would read the terms before accepting them, as it would be hard to comprehend blindly accepting a contract otherwise. Our agreement is as concise and easy to understand as possible, including:

Quote

"10. Cancellation of Service
Company reserves the right to restrict, suspend or cancel your Membership at any time for any reason without prior notice or liability. Company may change or discontinue all or any aspect of the Site at any time, including the availability of any feature, database, or Content, without prior notice or liability. Cancelled accounts forfeit the rights to any accumulated earnings, credits, or subscriptions. No refunds will be made."

It is true that to use the automated account closing tool, you must first remove your images. This is to prevent people from accidentally wiping their entire portfolio with the wrong click of a button. In cases where people have a large portfolio, they will usually open a support ticket and we remove everything for them.

Regarding why we require a minimum payment amount on account closure, there are several reasons, which others have hit on. In short, there are significant costs involved with submitting images (inspector fees, bandwidth, storage), in addition to regular variable costs (merchant fees), and payments costs (PayPal & administration fees). At the same time we do not require any lockin period for your content, and we provide some of the highest commissions in the industry. We can't do this while also providing $9 cashouts to every individual who may submit hundreds of images, only to decide a few weeks later that stock photography is not for them (example). We certainly do not make a profit on such closures - it is still a financial net loss. This is why many agencies have a minimum lockin period - which again, we don't.

I sincerely regret hearing anytime someone has hard feelings towards us, as we work very hard to be as honest and fair as possible. We pride ourselves in operating differently than others in our industry, and am glad to see many here recognize and appreciate this effort. Unfortunately despite our best efforts, we can't always make everyone happy, as seems to be the case.

Regards,

Duncan

sipaphoto · « **Reply #45 on:** May 03, 2011, 13:39 »

Quote: I agree that quality not quantity matter but if that was your case you would only have had to wait a week or two more at most to reach payout before closing. End quote...

That's a complete assumption. The website doesn't have enough clientele, as evidenced by their own visitor logs, and thus doesn't produce enough sales for their contributors. Look it up yourself..

sipaphoto · « **Reply #46 on:** May 03, 2011, 13:47 »

Quote from: Phil on May 03, 2011, 03:12

I'm another who likes canstock (but not the $0.25), for me they are definitely worth the time to upload to, but I do think all sites should payout when you close the account but do any of them payout you if you are under their amount when you close?

Some do and some don't. In other words, some do the right thing and some decide to stiff photographers of their shared earnings.

sipaphoto · « **Reply #47 on:** May 03, 2011, 13:50 »

Quote from: Microbius on May 03, 2011, 03:27

I'm not sure who you think are company employees here, but some of the people you have rudely lashed out at on this thread have been extremely successful stock photographers, and one even the owner of this forum.
Maybe you should be a bit better informed before you start mud slinging?

In my experience, those who defend themselves the hardest turn out to be guilty themselves... I didn't make an accusation against any specific person here, so maybe it's you who should get better informed.

fotografer · « **Reply #48 on:** May 03, 2011, 13:53 »

deleted, he's not worth the effort

Microbius · « **Reply #49 on:** May 03, 2011, 13:55 »

Quote from: sipaphoto on May 02, 2011, 22:47

Quote from: leaf on May 02, 2011, 13:29
I hate to be the wet towel, but...

Yes, every site I know of requires you to have a minimum amount of $$ before you can cash out. If you close your account before you cash out, they keep the difference. In a way this is fair as they also spent a lot of money reviewing a photographers photos getting them online. Canstock also has reasonable enough sales that waiting for a payout shouldn't take too long with 400+ photos.

I also think it is fair that a site doesn't advertise how to delete your portfolio 'en mass'. If someone wants to remove their port. I don't think it too surprising that they would contact support on how to do it easily.

Well, you can be a wet towel all you want.. but you're still wrong in supporting these sites. However, I rather suspect that you have a good reason for supporting them, as in probably working for one.

MicrostockGroup Sponsors

Author Topic: Something stinks up in Canada and it smells of CanStockPhoto (Read 39582 times)

sipaphoto

sipaphoto

sipaphoto

sipaphoto

lagereek

cthoman

sipaphoto

sipaphoto

sipaphoto

sharpshot

fotografer

Phil

Microbius

TheSmilingAssassin

cthoman

Microbius

stockastic

lisafx

gostwyck

Duncan_CSP

sipaphoto

sipaphoto

sipaphoto

fotografer

Microbius

Related Topics

Sponsors

Microstock Poll Results

Sponsors