Quote from: Irina Anosova on December 25, 2016, 03:05

Quote from: Mantis on December 24, 2016, 10:31

Just curious if anyone has been told their portfolio doesn't cut it at Envanto and had their accounts closed. I only make about $30 a month there and expect that email, but haven't received it yet. Just wondering if the culling has started yet.

Why should anybody worry about it? I missed some kind of early warning there?

I am not asking if anyone is worried. I am clearly asking if anyone has been booted yet. Envanto sent out an email telling everyone they turned off uploading and will be reviewing portfolios. Those ports that don't pass their "liking" will be terminated. That's why I'm asking......essentially have they started closing accounts yet.

Yes, I received the message tomorrow. I think I can use this to improve my quality level. Of course I can say I'm selling (now)elsewhere everything Photodune considered
Inappropriate content type, with Composition/Lighting problems, that doesn't fit their Authenticity and commercial viability, and groups of "Too many similar images". I sell each and every one of these files in SS, but of course not how much I like to.

So I'll use this failure to improve my quality.
Of course I'm tempted to say they suck, that their not-optoutable (  ) Essentials is a crap and so on. But... if I were selling lots (I were selling, but not lots) of pieces and earning lots of money ... I probably overlooked everything in Envato as like as I do in iStock and Shutterstock: they do something wrong? But I'm earning a lot? I don't mind.

Maybe I'll re-submit one day. They have an upload system that's really no-time-consuming for me ... so my balance work-earn was acceptable.

But my work wasn't for them: so ... I say KCUF off so far.
One day... I maybe change my mind. But NOT if they'll keep making impossible to opt-out to a non-author-driven price section like Essentials.

Quote from: Irina Anosova on February 07, 2017, 02:33

James, it is some really bad thing Envato just did to all those people who posted above. It's just something like a lazy and crazy African dictator does. Why search for a criminal in village? Let's burn down the whole village. It's too obvious those hardworking people really HAVE a lot of very good sellers on Photodune. In fact all of them could make up a nice new stock site selling like Stocksy or so. They spent a lot of their precious time to learn, shoot, process and upload their items and went through not the fastest upload process of Photodune. They sold photos for Envato salaries and their own bills. And they trusted you. Just believe me they won't come to your Envato forum to discuss their termination. You know it's quite strange for an artist to talk something like that: "I know you've just told me my work is crap but please let me stay!" Let other people there enjoy discussing new forum threads in Russian or Spanish or just brag about some new fancy icon.

First of all, thank you for the time and effort you and all authors take in creating and uploading items to PhotoDune. In speaking with photographers and knowing the limitations of our platform (including cumbersome uploading procedures), we felt it would be much easier and more successful for authors to resubmit a fresh portfolio based on our new guidelines than to ask them to go and clean out their existing individual photos manually. For portfolios that had a higher percentage of items that would need to be removed, this would be a particularly unrealistic request to make.  For example submitting 100 fresh photos is much easier and less time consuming than going through and deleting 900 out of 1000.

"Author Development Lead" - this was said below your name in the email. I assure you this is not a development. It's a scorched earth policy. What's the problem of making deletion of 0-views photos automatic? Let's say, 0-views photos would be deleted automatically in 6 months and 0-sales items with some views in 12 months. It's a task for advanced schoolboy programmer. The key point of many posts in this thread is that contributors are not going to resubmit later. This is not because they are offended (and you could be sure they are), this because they rationally don't want to waste their time once more.

Could you imagine the situation when some stock agency reaching their last year buyers and asking to pay some extra $$ for already downloaded items? Or make them to type in their blood type and dog's name while downloading every photo? No, it's too inconvenient for the buyers and they'd surely leave for some "easier" agency, right? Why are you so sure those contributors wouldn't do the same? You've invited programmers to your "development" meetings but you should have added some even inexperienced HR specialist as well.

James,

I appreciate you coming here and listening to us unworthy beings. Nevertheless, I cannot direct many kind words - and at this level neither any constructive criticism - towards Envato. In the past years I attempted countless times to be constructive without any result. Personally, I am not a Envato contributor any more.

Main point of critique in context:

Basically, you have been unable to inspect and edit our submissions properly and in accordance with YOUR needs and requirements and now you simply trash whole Portfolios, hours/month/years of work and uploading and make Contributors bleed for you own failure.

It was your decision what to accept and what not, not ours. It is your responsibility to maintain a library which attracts enough sales for you AND us, not ours. Basically, there is no rational explanation for this other than incompetence in editing a media library properly upon inspection or after acceptance or pure ignorance towards our work.

Main point towards Envato:

Your "Marketplace" definition is simply fake. You act on every level like a Agency or Store. It just brings trouble, forces people into weird and potentially illegal situation in their home countries, provokes tax audits etc. The same scheme visible here: disrespect towards those who feed you to make Envatos own life easier. This is the main reason why I never will submit anything to or buy anything from you.

You should question the companies attitude - or the attitude of those who are in charge. I know you make lots of money for many people, but beyond the simple fact that it would be legally impossible for me to submit to your "marketplace" I just can repeat what I said in other threads: my respect cannot be bought. Not everything has a price tag.

It sounds simple when you write down some numbers, but how are we supposed to know which 100 of the 1000 you like? 

The real question should be: How are they supposed to believe that we will trust them once again?

They are not Shutterstock, that can (within limits) abuse us since they have sales.

[�] It�s not about being �better� than another agency but about understanding our customers, how they make purchasing decisions and exposing them to the content that best meets their needs.

You still have customers?

First of all, thank you for the time and effort you and all authors take in creating and uploading items to PhotoDune. In speaking with photographers and knowing the limitations of our platform (including cumbersome uploading procedures), we felt it would be much easier and more successful for authors to resubmit a fresh portfolio based on our new guidelines than to ask them to go and clean out their existing individual photos manually. For portfolios that had a higher percentage of items that would need to be removed, this would be a particularly unrealistic request to make.  For example submitting 100 fresh photos is much easier and less time consuming than going through and deleting 900 out of 1000.

Actually a 90% cull of low selling material would be far better.  Customers would continue to find the product they are currently buying.  Contributors who invested considerable time would continue to receive most of their income and the end product would be attractive and concise.   

Maybe it's time for me to apply.  From the looks of things, I would be the only tog and will gobble up all the sales.

But then, there's those funny tax shenanigans...

I wish Shutterstock would do this kind of culling get rid of all the chit they took in recently 

Quote from: Sammy the Cat on February 08, 2017, 16:07

I wish Shutterstock would do this kind of culling get rid of all the chit they took in recently 

I agree to a point.  Culling is fine.  Being selective is fine.  Closing whole accounts is neither the most effective way to improve your collection, nor a way to retain good will among the contributor community.   

Something else these sites forget with scorched earth policies is that many of their contributors are also BUYERS, or know a lot of people who are.  I have never seen a site screw over contributors without losing lots of buyers in the bargain.

Thats because they forget some contributors are also buyers too

But there's no telling the corporate bean counters once they get the bit between their teeth

The odd thing is I make less than $10 a month on Photodune but they decided to keep mosty of my images where as contributors who obviously make far more money for them are being dumped.

Talk about stupid.

I'm out too.

Did you receive their last email "trending photoshop actions"?
I think they want to specialize their collection into unnatural pictures and computed "art".
Computer algorithms will produce, in a not so far future, all the images "so clean" and "new standards compatible", that the industry n(f)eeds.
Genetically Modified Images still need real ones, but one day, they will be self-produced, without the protesting humans, claiming their copyright and royalties.
Since I find this kind of images soulless, I don' want to go this way.

Those are actions that are sold on GraphicRiver... nothing to do with PhotoDune. And I'm sure I read that the new rules are no illustrations or CG, so if anything, they're moving further away from that kind of stuff... not closer to it.