Author Topic: Getty Images makes 35 million images free in fight against copyright infringemen (Read 230137 times)

shudderstok · « **Reply #675 on:** March 10, 2014, 01:27 »

bruce has never done anything to me, quit being so hyper defensive and motherly. and yes, my files were selling for $500 more often than not before microstock - truth be told though the average sale was most likely around $250 or so for an RF image.

i don't think my income decline is solely due to him, rather the model of selling photos for $1 being the new norm, but yes, he is the founder of cheap. it is also due to the new generation of photographer that never were in the traditional industry of selling photos for real money. at the time, i doubt your references would have even qualified to become stock shooters, as it was determined by having real skill, proven skill, and being able to do more than just pass a stupid multiple choice question with three photos. that said, all three have gone a long way and would most likely qualify now, but in the beginning nope. just look at some of their earlier work, that would have never passed the quality test. sorry.

i am not blaming anyone for loss of income as you assume. it is not any one person that has screwed this industry up, rather a perfect combination of elements, a perfect storm if you will.

i beg to differ that stocksy and brucey are setting an example. now if he had done this and not sold out to getty, then yes it would have been an amazing example. it's funny how IS was founded on paying people only 20% then selling out that ideal to make $50 million and have the gumption to say anything less than 50% is wrong and photographers are fools to accept anything less. not sure about you honey, but this is pure hypocrisy in my books.

sure i like the ideal of stocksy, but i am also aware i need to make a living doing this, and unless i am really into the bed & breakfast of selling photos i am going to stick to where i know i can and do make real money.

thus far i think this whole getty handout is bad news for the industry in general, at least from a contributors point of view, but whether i agree with this move or not, i don't think getty does anything unless there is a reason. hate to say it, but for a group of people who thrive on acquisitions i also think they do put effort into the "innovation" front as you call it.

never in my 25+ years of shooting stock have i ever seen such a race to the bottom, by all agencies. each and every one of them seems to be doing desperate acts to monetize the sale of our images, and frankly, i don't think there is one agency out there with any of our (contributor's) best interests at hand, and i don't trust any of these agencies either, and that includes getty images. but i am way too established with their format at this point in time to throw all that away and gamble on starting again with new agencies of any sort.

gbalex · « **Reply #676 on:** March 10, 2014, 01:28 »

Quote from: cobalt on March 08, 2014, 11:16

It takes more than a year to recover your income. I don´t understand why people always think there is a "magic button" to instantly move up into the best search positions on the other agencies. They would´t be earning what they do now if they came in new to istock/getty with their portfolios, even if everything was accepted and went live immediately.

Sean could be earning a lot more money now, if he had embraced Shutterstock. Yuri had 3000 - 4000 downloads a day. At around 70 cents to one dollar on average, you just need a fraction of that to pay your bills.

Instead Sean decided to join a total start up and otherwise focussed on ethical companies that were low earners. This year he is following a different approach.

Do you have any doubts, that he will be successful?? I don´t.

Robert Kneschke keeps posting his results, he is now at over 13 000 dollars of revenue a month as a single artist without employees and saw a YOY growth of 28% last year.

80% of his income is from Fotolia and Shutterstock, he hardly supplies the macros, because he makes easier money on the micros.
He stopped supplying istock in 2010.

Will I earn 13 000 dollars a month in one year, even if I had 12 000 files ready and sitting and uploaded them? No, because my files need to move up in the best match search positions. This takes time.

But if you work consistently and think about your content, I really don´t see a problem. I only have 600-700 files on average on the agencies because I took a whole year to understand the wider industry. And I have come to the conclusion I should have gone indie earlier.

There is absolutely no way I am going back, I love money.

And Getty is not even giving you any vision that there will be money in the future, all we keep reading is how it is all over, we have to accept that our work is worthless etc...

So why would my main focus be there?

I supply istock as a normal subs agency, like I supply Fotolia or Shutterstock. I might even see growth there when they add more subs customers.

But there is so much money out there, you just have to open your ideas and work smart.

The stock industry is a market with over 6 Billion dollars a year. Getty has a large piece with 870 million, but there is so much more.

But if you are looking for a perfect blueprint for someone to write it out for you so that you just follow in their footsteps without thinking for yourself...why would I do that? I share a lot, but not everything.

Honestly you should spend some time talking to a few contributors who moved up into the best search positions on shutterstock over the years, only to see those positions killed in a matter of a day to make room for new images from IS defectors and other new contributors. Ask those contributors how they feel about the huge drops in earnings of 30% to 75% they have seen since last March and ask them how those drops have affected their families.

Quote from: cobalt on March 05, 2014, 03:33

Snip

SS is a modern, technology focussed company that understands that both their customers as well as their suppliers are entrepreneurs. They see themselves as a service platform and put all their energy and considerable brain power of their staff to providing the best service in the industry.

Snip

SS has very smart leadership with now over 10 years of experience. And they have tons of money to spend on infrastructure and growth instead of billions in debt like Getty.

Please you have been with SS nano seconds. Take some time to look at the long term problems and to do a little sleuthing under Shutterstock's hood. Look at the bug forums, talk to contributors who have consistently have experienced missing images, keywords and ports over the last 7 years.

Shutterstock certainly does not spend tons of money on infrastructure or to kill bugs plaguing some but not all of its contributors. In fact they do not even update security patches to end of life server software.

Oct 30, 2010 502 proxy error Apache/1.3.41 Server at submit.shutterstock.com Port 80
http://submit.shutterstock.com/forum/abt93925.html

Quote: You are looking at the documentation for the 1.3 version of the Apache HTTP Server, which is no longer maintained, and has been declared "end of life". If you are in fact still using the 1.3 version, please consider upgrading. The current version of the server is 2.2.

Three years later the shutterstock site is still running on end of life "free" open source software that shutterstock could not even bother to update end of life server software with free security patches and enhanced server capabilities.

May 22, 2013 Still running on Apache 1.3.41 Released 2008-01-19
http://www.microstockgroup.com/shutterstock-com/shutterstock-down-again-!/

1.3.x reached end of life status in Feb of 2010, the latest version is 2.2 http://httpd.apache.org/docs/2.2/

shudderstok · « **Reply #677 on:** March 10, 2014, 01:33 »

Quote from: Karen on March 10, 2014, 01:14

If Getty build 3 tier content supply with:
Getty -the most expensive
Istock - middle priced
Thinkstock - cheap sub model

Why they are making Getty's most expensive content free
And don't include Istock and Thinkstock content in this deal?

Just a thought.
What do you think?

i think the whole industry is in shambles is what i think - from a contributor's perspective.

problem is, they have our images and do whatever . they want to do with them, and we don't really have another outlet to place our work in.

the industry has changed and fast. not sure i like the direction of all of this.

before microstock came along i don't ever recall any stock agency giving away "free" image of the week even.

shudderstok · « **Reply #678 on:** March 10, 2014, 01:36 »

"Instead Sean decided to join a total start up and otherwise focussed on ethical companies that were low earners. This year he is following a different approach."

i thought he was forced to join this start up, i don't recall any decision making in his process of joining. similarly he is now "experimenting" with SS, but i think that is simply sugar coated speak for forced to.

cobalt · « **Reply #679 on:** March 10, 2014, 01:44 »

@gbalex

I have no idea how the best match on SS works, but I would´t be surprised if contributors who come in with large portfolios and are uploading thousands of files in a few weeks will move up quickly in the search positions. But once they have uploaded their catalogue their ranking it will drop again, unless they really are a very high volume producer.

I only have 650 files on SS, I certainly don´t feel favoured. I still have many days with zero downloads and if I don´t upload for two weeks my downloads drop very strongly. It looks like their system, maybe more than other agencies, needs very consistent uploading. I also get a lot more rejections than on any other site I am contributing to. And many rejections I don´t understand, but I keep reading here this is normal.

You have been with them much longer than I have obviously, so I guess you would know more about them.

But all agencies that I am contributing too need very consistent uploads. On istock the people I know who are earning a lot of money are sometimes uploading over 200 files in one week.

Their success is even more astounding because new files hardly sell on istock, even for them. But apparently also the best match on istock is geared to favour the active producer.

With over 200 000 images a week, maybe this is a logical way to set up best match, I don´t know.

One thing is certain however: there will be many more exclusives leaving and bringing their portfolios to all the agencies. The msg report said this clearly. So everyone who is indie has to consider this, if they believe it will effect them.

As for Shutterstock families suffering from exclusives going indie - the exclusives would love to stay with istock. It is a great pity Gettyimages does´t want them and that the exclusive numbers are dropping.

But again: what does this all have to do with Getty deciding to give out files for free? Including RM content? And will their decisions encourage more exclusives to leave? Or will it attract new people who want to work only with them?

gbalex · « **Reply #680 on:** March 10, 2014, 01:54 »

Quote from: cobalt on March 10, 2014, 00:50

If Bruce can start an agency that pays out 50% royalties and 100% of extended licenses and go from zero to the success and branding they have in one year - yes, for me that is innovative entrepreneurial work.

And it begs the question - all the smaller production houses with excellent content - what are they doing wrong?

This is where I completely agree with you, if Bruce can accomplish this in one years time, Shutterstock could certainly do the same. The fact is that they choose to pay their contributors 28% while keeping pricing stagnantly low to gain markets share.

I think the low ball pricing has contributed to Getty and Istocks recent moves and I think it has and will continue to hurt all of us.

cobalt · « **Reply #681 on:** March 10, 2014, 02:04 »

Well the equivalent to stocksy would be Offset, wouldn´t it? And Shutterstock is paying out 30% for non exclusive content. Isn´t that also revolutionary for a macro agency? I thought they all want exclusive content? I am not an expert in macro.

Offset has beautiful work and excellent prices up to 500 dollars. Simple pricing too.

But again, this probably belongs in a different thread.

stocked · « **Reply #682 on:** March 10, 2014, 02:26 »

Quote from: gbalex on March 10, 2014, 01:54

Quote from: cobalt on March 10, 2014, 00:50
If Bruce can start an agency that pays out 50% royalties and 100% of extended licenses and go from zero to the success and branding they have in one year - yes, for me that is innovative entrepreneurial work.

And it begs the question - all the smaller production houses with excellent content - what are they doing wrong?

This is where I completely agree with you, if Bruce can accomplish this in one years time, Shutterstock could certainly do the same. The fact is that they choose to pay their contributors 28% while keeping pricing stagnantly low to gain markets share.

I think the low ball pricing has contributed to Getty and Istocks recent moves and I think it has and will continue to hurt all of us.

You hit the nail!
And in his recent interview Jon Oringer confirmed that all use is commercial you can ask yourself why companies that make a lot of money with our work can only spend a few Dollars for it. The truth is they could easily spend a lot more but it's all sacrificed for the greed of market-share.
The link to the interview is here:
http://www.forbes.com/sites/stevenbertoni/2014/03/07/free-getty-images-no-threat-to-photo-market-says-shutterstock-ceo/

cobalt · « **Reply #683 on:** March 10, 2014, 02:31 »

Well the new free for all viewer will certainly stop the growth of Shutterstock and return all customers to Getty...

Because the low prices is all that makes Shutterstock successful...

Maybe I am beginning to see the logic in the boardroom that dreamed up this brilliant new move at Getty...how could I not see it before...

stocked · « **Reply #684 on:** March 10, 2014, 02:34 »

Quote from: cobalt on March 10, 2014, 02:31

Well the new free for all viewer will certainly stop the growth of Shuuerstock and return all customers to Getty... Because the low prices is all that makes Shutterstock successful...

Maybe I am beginning to see the logic in the boardroom that dreamed up this brilliant new move...

Again Jon Oringer confirmed that nearly all use is commercial see above! The myth that the extremely low prices at Microstock are necessary because of all this poor students, bloggers and churches that couldn't afford otherwise was always a lie and is now obvious.

cobalt · « **Reply #685 on:** March 10, 2014, 02:45 »

i don´t remember anyone ever claiming in micro stock that their prices were low to sponsor students?

Prices were low to take advantage of the internet and it´s wide distribution potential. Like the 99 cent apps in the app store for mobiles phones.

This is the reason I joined and uploaded. Plus all the fun.

If I want to give my files away for free I can do that anytime. But of course now Getty will be doing it for us all.

stocked · « **Reply #686 on:** March 10, 2014, 02:51 »

Quote from: cobalt on March 10, 2014, 02:45

i don´t remember anyone ever claiming in micro stock that their prices were low to sponsor students?

I do

shudderstok · « **Reply #687 on:** March 10, 2014, 02:55 »

Quote from: stocked on March 10, 2014, 02:34

Quote from: cobalt on March 10, 2014, 02:31
Well the new free for all viewer will certainly stop the growth of Shuuerstock and return all customers to Getty... Because the low prices is all that makes Shutterstock successful...

Maybe I am beginning to see the logic in the boardroom that dreamed up this brilliant new move...
Again Jon Oringer confirmed that nearly all use is commercial see above! The Myth the extremely low prices at Microstock are necessary because of all this poor students, bloggers and churches that couldn't afford otherwise was always a lie and is now obvious.

it's been excruciatingly obvious since it's inception, but for some reason the microstock crowd was so busy self applauding they somehow oversaw this. now you know what us 'dinosaur' 'trads' have been ranting and raving about

$75 for a web usage was normal pre Istock and at 40% to 50% royalty rates, and it all went up from there. then the "innovation team" came along and started selling for $1 at 20% royalty rates, but sold it as a community (same lie and now obvious).
Getty caught on pretty quick, and said, hey these contributors are idiots they have no clue about the industry, this is a complete gold mine, let's "acquire" them and tell them is "unsustainable".
to put this into perspective, the annual revenue in stock photography annually is estimated at 11 billion dollars per year, and SS only has 235 million dollars revenue last year. and here many of you thought they are a real player.

shudderstok · « **Reply #688 on:** March 10, 2014, 02:56 »

Quote from: cobalt on March 10, 2014, 02:45

i don´t remember anyone ever claiming in micro stock that their prices were low to sponsor students?

Prices were low to take advantage of the internet and it´s wide distribution potential. Like the 99 cent apps in the app store for mobiles phones.

This is the reason I joined and uploaded. Plus all the fun.

If I want to give my files away for free I can do that anytime. But of course now Getty will be doing it for us all.

i had no clue you were with getty as well

BaldricksTrousers · « **Reply #689 on:** March 10, 2014, 05:24 »

Quote from: shudderstok on March 10, 2014, 02:55

to put this into perspective, the annual revenue in stock photography annually is estimated at 11 billion dollars per year, and SS only has 235 million dollars revenue last year. and here many of you thought they are a real player.

Or maybe it is $2.9bn - http://bespokevideoproduction.wordpress.com/2013/02/13/global-stock-image-market-survey-2012-report/ - I suppose it depends where you go for your figures (and you haven't said where yours come from).

shudderstok · « **Reply #690 on:** March 10, 2014, 05:32 »

Quote from: BaldricksTrousers on March 10, 2014, 05:24

Quote from: shudderstok on March 10, 2014, 02:55
to put this into perspective, the annual revenue in stock photography annually is estimated at 11 billion dollars per year, and SS only has 235 million dollars revenue last year. and here many of you thought they are a real player.

Or maybe it is $2.9bn - http://bespokevideoproduction.wordpress.com/2013/02/13/global-stock-image-market-survey-2012-report/ - I suppose it depends where you go for your figures (and you haven't said where yours come from).

from the horses mouth so to speak

http://www.forbes.com/sites/stevenbertoni/2014/03/07/free-getty-images-no-threat-to-photo-market-says-shutterstock-ceo/

but i have also hear similar figures albeit those were hovering around 9 billion a few years ago.

either way man, it's definitely a lot of money.

BaldricksTrousers · « **Reply #691 on:** March 10, 2014, 05:56 »

Quote from: shudderstok on March 10, 2014, 05:32

Quote from: BaldricksTrousers on March 10, 2014, 05:24
Quote from: shudderstok on March 10, 2014, 02:55
to put this into perspective, the annual revenue in stock photography annually is estimated at 11 billion dollars per year, and SS only has 235 million dollars revenue last year. and here many of you thought they are a real player.

Or maybe it is $2.9bn - http://bespokevideoproduction.wordpress.com/2013/02/13/global-stock-image-market-survey-2012-report/ - I suppose it depends where you go for your figures (and you haven't said where yours come from).

from the horses mouth so to speak

http://www.forbes.com/sites/stevenbertoni/2014/03/07/free-getty-images-no-threat-to-photo-market-says-shutterstock-ceo/

but i have also hear similar figures albeit those were hovering around 9 billion a few years ago.

either way man, it's definitely a lot of money.

That's interesting. Only a couple of years ago I was arguing with an old-timer that microstock had helped the market to grow from the 2.2bn it was supposed to be at in 2002 and he insisted that data showed there had been no growth and microstock just devalued imagery and undermined the industry. Fourfold growth in just over a decade would seem to be a very healthy market indeed.
Anyway, that's completely off topic. Sorry.

shudderstok · « **Reply #692 on:** March 10, 2014, 06:08 »

Quote from: BaldricksTrousers on March 10, 2014, 05:56

Quote from: shudderstok on March 10, 2014, 05:32
Quote from: BaldricksTrousers on March 10, 2014, 05:24
Quote from: shudderstok on March 10, 2014, 02:55
to put this into perspective, the annual revenue in stock photography annually is estimated at 11 billion dollars per year, and SS only has 235 million dollars revenue last year. and here many of you thought they are a real player.

Or maybe it is $2.9bn - http://bespokevideoproduction.wordpress.com/2013/02/13/global-stock-image-market-survey-2012-report/ - I suppose it depends where you go for your figures (and you haven't said where yours come from).

from the horses mouth so to speak

http://www.forbes.com/sites/stevenbertoni/2014/03/07/free-getty-images-no-threat-to-photo-market-says-shutterstock-ceo/

but i have also hear similar figures albeit those were hovering around 9 billion a few years ago.

either way man, it's definitely a lot of money.

That's interesting. Only a couple of years ago I was arguing with an old-timer that microstock had helped the market to grow from the 2.2bn it was supposed to be at in 2002 and he insisted that data showed there had been no growth and microstock just devalued imagery and undermined the industry. Fourfold growth in just over a decade would seem to be a very healthy market indeed.
Anyway, that's completely off topic. Sorry.

not really, it is actually on topic. the problem here is that the "agencies" have us all by the nuts (sorry ladies) and are using our copyrighted work to fight for their own growth by reducing the value of our work and/or in the instance of GI giving the images away. my gut tells me this move was not motivated by the contributor's interests, and that said, i am sure there will be income to be maid along the way. i personally think the market will continue to grow, especially as the world becomes more connected to the internet etc. but what i am most certainly afraid of is the reckless abandon that any images is pretty much accepted these days creating a huge oversupply of images for sale. this however will not affect the bottom line of any agency cause they get a cut of every sale "they" make. all it does is dilute our sales, and will continue to do so. and frankly speaking the agencies - none of them - give one flying fck about us, we are beyond expendable at this point in the game. all the agencies could be paying us a lot more, but they don't, and they won't. just the way things turned out man.

Shelma1 · « **Reply #693 on:** March 10, 2014, 06:20 »

Quote from: Karen on March 10, 2014, 01:14

If Getty build 3 tier content supply with:
Getty -the most expensive
Istock - middle priced
Thinkstock - cheap sub model

Why they are making Getty's most expensive content free
And don't include Istock and Thinkstock content in this deal?

Just a thought.
What do you think?

It's easier for non-exclusives at iStock to jump ship, which would ruin everything because those "free" embeds would now be big holes in someone's blog.

Also, if they're using embedding to pinpoint unauthorized usage, they can send much larger demands for payment with Getty than with iStock.

cobalt · « **Reply #694 on:** March 10, 2014, 06:32 »

Quote from: shudderstok on March 10, 2014, 02:56

i had no clue you were with getty as well

I had a Getty House contract for four years, but gave it up last year after the Getty Google Deal. But my files from Westend61 will probably be affected, because Getty is one of their many partners, especially if it is true that all their partners will soon be included. If you are active on the getty forums, you can probably still see my old posts in various discussions.

So unfortunately I probably can´t avoid the freebies. And if they are really interested in data mining and ad revenue, I guess it is just a matter of time until they will roll it out for all of istock as well.

My biggest concern is the effect on the public perception. The music industry made a huge effort to teach people that creative content should be paid for and Apple really showed everyone that people are perfectly willing to pay for music and support artist if you give them a good store and make it easy to by.

Getty is going the opposite direction and says - well, you were stealing it all anyway - here take it for free.

Like others have said, bloggers and students are not criminal by nature. If you give them a good solution, they will pay.

And there already are agencies that offer files free to students and schools, like colorbox. But of course they don´t get many interesting files, because the artists put their content where they can pay their bills.

35 million of excellent Vetta content and other files for free is just a crazy number and will just reinforce the stereotype that photos have no value at all.

I understand that the effect on SS and the agencies offering cheap files will be lower, because when you have the chance to pay 33 cents for a file in XXXL without adding an advertising channel, and you are anyway running a professional business, you will probably stick with SS or other micros. But the expensive content, the 500 dollar files, they will of course be the ones that people will embed. Getty knows that, so they made their exclusive content available first. It will give them the widest exposure in links.

But how will the artist benefit or how will it influence your production for the High end?

And why do it all without offering the people producing the expensive content an opt out? Roll it out in stages, prove you can deliver the money?

ARTPUPPY · « **Reply #695 on:** March 10, 2014, 06:35 »

Quote from: Karen on March 10, 2014, 01:14

If Getty build 3 tier content supply with:
Getty -the most expensive
Istock - middle priced
Thinkstock - cheap sub model

Why they are making Getty's most expensive content free
And don't include Istock and Thinkstock content in this deal?

Just a thought.
What do you think?

Vetta illustrations are already being included with the program. In the Atlantic article on this, http://www.theatlantic.com/technology/archive/2014/03/why-getty-going-free-is-such-a-big-deal-explained-in-getty-images/284264/ a Vetta illustration from an istock artist is included. I am sure this will be expanding when Getty needs another "PR boost" and when they can confirm they can use the work of istock contributors without an "opt-in" contract. "So we can call it promotional use right?" via Hollywood accounting.

Shelma1 · « **Reply #696 on:** March 10, 2014, 06:43 »

Just a thought...Getty offers embedding and gives bloggers "sticker shock" when they see how much images cost, sends out a few demands for payment to scare people, then a few weeks later announces the new subs model at iStock, which will probably be priced lower than the competition since they're paying us lower royalties.

Conspiracy theory, yes, but it's an awfully odd coincidence they're offering subs a few weeks after embedding. One-two punch at the competition as well.

Ron · « **Reply #697 on:** March 10, 2014, 07:11 »

Getty is gambling, and have put up a wager, consisting of property they dont own. This has the potential to go horribly wrong, I am not just sure yet for which party.

ShadySue · « **Reply #698 on:** March 10, 2014, 08:02 »

Quote from: Shelma1 on March 10, 2014, 06:20

Quote from: Karen on March 10, 2014, 01:14
If Getty build 3 tier content supply with:
Getty -the most expensive
Istock - middle priced
Thinkstock - cheap sub model

Why they are making Getty's most expensive content free
And don't include Istock and Thinkstock content in this deal?

Just a thought.
What do you think?

It's easier for non-exclusives at iStock to jump ship, which would ruin everything because those "free" embeds would now be big holes in someone's blog.

Also, if they're using embedding to pinpoint unauthorized usage, they can send much larger demands for payment with Getty than with iStock.

OTOH, entrapment doesn't go down well with courts here.

Also, if trying to get new buyers (and I don't think this is what this move is all about; it's to get money in other ways), it's ill-conceived.
Thieves will always steal.
But low-budget or no-budget image users won't become buyers with this. I know the prices are slightly different in different collections, but my smallest size in E+ is £15, and in Vetta is £25. Clearly, no matter how well-meaning, no no-budget or low-budget customer is going to be attracted by that. (There is really nowhere for them to buy, as subs aren't available to them either.)

OTOH, in a thread opened in Discussion but moved to where it can't be readily seen, I read, "A couple of months back I received a $0.05 payment for a G.I video sale. I contacted customer support - 3 weeks later they got back to me saying the $0.05 payment was correct but they could not disclose any more details because of confidentiality agreements."
Makes my 91c for a photo seem bounteous.

cobalt · « **Reply #699 on:** March 10, 2014, 08:43 »

Ah yes, the thread where people complained that their HD video files are getting downloads for 3 - 5 dollars over on getty, with one guy reporting 7 out 9 last month, has been moved.

That is a lot less for videos than on istock and just a fraction of what you get on SS or Pond5.

MicrostockGroup Sponsors

Author Topic: Getty Images makes 35 million images free in fight against copyright infringemen (Read 230137 times)

shudderstok

gbalex

shudderstok

shudderstok

cobalt

gbalex

cobalt

stocked

cobalt

stocked

cobalt

stocked

shudderstok

shudderstok

BaldricksTrousers

shudderstok

BaldricksTrousers

shudderstok

Shelma1

cobalt

ARTPUPPY

Shelma1

Ron

ShadySue

cobalt

Related Topics

Sponsors

Microstock Poll Results

Sponsors