Author Topic: Shutterfarm.com (Read 10819 times)

shutterfarm · « **on:** March 17, 2007, 21:04 »

Having successfully sold the largest Christian graphics site on the Net, we started this new site in the fall of 2006.

Please visit us at
newbielink:http://www.shutterfarm.com [nonactive]

We hope to distinguish ourselves in a few major ways.

1.) We want to give a larger % of the sale to the artists. The minimum payout is 50% with bonuses on top of that.
This is a lot higher than the 20% or so most of the major microstock sites pay out.

2.) We have allowed artist a great range of possible pricing for their images. So, if the artist wants to make $50 or more per image it is possible. Not like the most sites which have fixed pricing, and they tend to be rather low.

3.) We will accept all quality photos. Unlike other sites that usually don't accept new flowers, sunrise, etc. photos. Some even say the have the definitive collection. We believe that every quality image should be included no matter how large our database in certain categories becomes.

With only a bit of advertising we are already at about 250,000 at Alexa and climbing quickly.

We would love if some of you would check out our site and give us comments. If you became members and submitted some of your images to give us a try we would be even more delighted.

Feel free to email us at microstockgroup(at)shutterfarm.com

Thanks.

Kngkyle · « **Reply #1 on:** March 17, 2007, 21:09 »

Interesting concept. Will consider signing up once you advertise more and gain more of a customer base. Good luck.

sharpshot · « **Reply #2 on:** March 18, 2007, 08:57 »

The site looks OK but I don't see any advantages over a site like featurepics. They accept 99.9% of my photos and pay me 70%. They let me set a price for each photo.

I couldn't see prices on the photos and I couldn't see any extended liscence information.

Freezingpictures · « **Reply #3 on:** March 18, 2007, 09:12 »

It would also be interesting to see views and Downloads. Is the site owned by Christians?

One more suggestion:

When Fotolia started, they payed 20cents for each accepted image. And they did that for a month or two. That would be highly motivating for photographers to upload images.
And as we see now, Fotolia is one of the fastest growing sites and made it in the big 5 pretty fast..

a.k.a.-tom · « **Reply #4 on:** March 18, 2007, 10:58 »

I cruised the site.. and read thru the artist agreement. It is owned evidently as I gather from the terms, by M Koehler Enterprises (which evidently owns other christian sites). This site is in partnership with Crossdaily.com, a christian site. There are some interesting requirements in the Shutterfarm artist agreement. I was going to paste here a point that pertains to what you cannot upload, but..... I don't want to take up the space. It's there for anyone to read.
I didn't quite understand the pricing structure. On the few topics I searched (ones I use everywhere to gauge the quality/style/competition), quite a few came up with no images (however, 'nature' produced more flower shots than I've seen anywhere else). If you search thru the site you'll find links to the artist agreement on the bottom of some pages.

As for me, I'll be waiting awhile on this one. I learned my lesson the hard way when it comes to rushing out to be a charter member of a new micro site. I'm on too many sites now that promised the moon and have yet to deliver a dollar and won't be sending me any payout for years (maybe decades

) to come. I don't think I'm ready to add an 11th site.
But I wish you {shutterfarm} the best in your new venture.

-tom

Greg Boiarsky · « **Reply #5 on:** March 18, 2007, 23:25 »

I'm sorry, but I don't feel that I can contribute to a site with the following in its terms: [Images from this site cannot be used] "in a way that could give a bad name to either ShutterFarm or the person(s) depicted on the Image, including illustrating sensitive social subjects such as health issues, crime, sexual preferences, drug abuse or similar issues."

This phrasing is ambiguous at best (how do you define "give a bad name"?). Also, the site specifically is rejecting controversial issues such as sexuality, which is the owners' prerogative, but I find this exclusion objectionable. Finally, the site will not accept Christian-themed images, but does not specify how those images will be defined other than to provide the following list (which includes themes common to Judaism and Islam, as well--Bibles and Biblical characters):

* Je sus
* Crosses
* Church Buildings
* Communion
* Bibles
* Biblical Characters
* Nativity
* Easter

I wish the owners well, but will stay with my current stable of sites.

rinderart · « **Reply #6 on:** May 06, 2007, 15:44 »

Quote from: a.k.a.-tom on March 18, 2007, 10:58

I cruised the site.. and read thru the artist agreement. It is owned evidently as I gather from the terms, by M Koehler Enterprises (which evidently owns other christian sites). This site is in partnership with Crossdaily.com, a christian site. There are some interesting requirements in the Shutterfarm artist agreement. I was going to paste here a point that pertains to what you cannot upload, but..... I don't want to take up the space. It's there for anyone to read.
I didn't quite understand the pricing structure. On the few topics I searched (ones I use everywhere to gauge the quality/style/competition), quite a few came up with no images (however, 'nature' produced more flower shots than I've seen anywhere else). If you search thru the site you'll find links to the artist agreement on the bottom of some pages.

As for me, I'll be waiting awhile on this one. I learned my lesson the hard way when it comes to rushing out to be a charter member of a new micro site. I'm on too many sites now that promised the moon and have yet to deliver a dollar and won't be sending me any payout for years (maybe decades ) to come. I don't think I'm ready to add an 11th site.
But I wish you {shutterfarm} the best in your new venture. -tom

Ditto.

leaf · « **Reply #7 on:** May 06, 2007, 15:50 »

i wouldn't be surprised if the reason they are rejecting religious images is because they just sold their first site which was based on religious images. They probably had something in the contract that they couldn't start a new site to compete with the one they just sold.

johngriffin · « **Reply #8 on:** August 17, 2007, 12:41 »

leaf that would make a lot of sense from a non compete point of view. good pick up

stokfoto · « **Reply #9 on:** August 17, 2007, 16:13 »

OK call me narrow minded but from now when I hear a new site launched my reaction will be 'oh no not again,another micro!'
OK microstock is a growing business but I think we have enough players already(in my opinion) and as a contributer I am not really interested in newcomers anymore. (sorry I don't mean to sound rude ,of course everyone is eligiblefor opening a new site but this sounds like too much to me.as they are all expecting same contributers to upload same files which are almost all around the web and same buyer to but them
I'd rather have a decent exclusivity program from each site.right now there isn't any that would attract me but for the time being I am happy with existing sites.

m@m · « **Reply #10 on:** June 27, 2008, 22:07 »

Hey guys, I was reading a thread about Shutterfarm.com, but I cant seem to find how to tab into it (I'm new to this site), but there were some photographers asking about experiences on Shutterfarm, well for several months now I was a contributor to the site, with 5 pages of accepted photos (until today) and let me tell you , if you want to waste your time uploading pictures, this is the site for you...the sales and views are close to non existing there, but the most alarming thing about the site (not counting a month for the inspectors to get to your pictures) is support and customer service if there are any, for a couple of month I have been emailing them with simple questions, well I'm still waiting for a reply from them...even today after I close my account I've been emailing them (since this morning) just to find out how long it would take them for all of my pictures to be taken out of their site, well not such luck, no reply, but my pictures are still showing there, which kind of concerns me, it seems that all they are interested on is for you to upload your images so that they can have the volume, once you do, you are on your own, the is no way of contacting them, no forum and for sure NO REPLY...This is a repeat of the same tread I just posted, sorry for the repetition

imageZebra · « **Reply #11 on:** June 28, 2008, 02:17 »

I would advice you to explain them that selling your images without your consent is against law.

Worked for me, images were deleted immediately.

m@m · « **Reply #12 on:** June 28, 2008, 09:52 »

Thanks for the advise ImageZebra, I checked this morning and my photos seems to have been taken out, but I'll keep my eyes open just in case I need to make this a legal matter.

Best regards