Author Topic: Goodbye Shutterstock (Read 59726 times)

Dumc · « **Reply #150 on:** October 21, 2016, 07:52 »

That's weird, there's a lot of vectors in database, like a logo? Why would then someone create vector-logo if those are not allowed to be used as logo?

ShadySue · « **Reply #151 on:** October 21, 2016, 07:56 »

Not everyone reads the terms and conditions. Sellers as well as buyers.

It's obvious why you can't use an RF image as a logo - in theory you could find several companies, possibly even directly competing, with very similar logos.

Stickystock · « **Reply #152 on:** October 21, 2016, 09:00 »

Quote from: ShadySue on October 21, 2016, 07:36

Quote from: Stickystock on October 19, 2016, 03:45
If I would shoot an image of a hare I would want it to look as if I could trace it and make a good clip art image from it and even then it should be very recognizable as a hare so it would even look great as a logo. Position is everything so a small difference can make a huge impact. BUT again. I did not see the images yet so just a wild guess... i just don't believe in right time right place with stock. Good images sell. Thats it nothing else.
You wanting to shoot an image you could use as a logo is irrelevant, as stock agencies don't allow usage as logo.

As this thread is specifically re SS, this is from their Licence Agreement:
c. RESTRICTIONS ON USE OF VISUAL CONTENT
YOU MAY NOT:
...
vii Use any Visual Content (in whole or in part) as a trademark, service mark, logo, or other indication of origin, or as part thereof.
Maybe you knew that already, but your post might confuse newbies into thinking that they could use a micro image as a logo.

I think you missed the point of my explanation. It has nothing to do with logo's or trademarks or what the end user uses it for.

ShadySue · « **Reply #153 on:** October 21, 2016, 11:57 »

Quote from: Stickystock on October 21, 2016, 09:00

Quote from: ShadySue on October 21, 2016, 07:36
Quote from: Stickystock on October 19, 2016, 03:45
If I would shoot an image of a hare I would want it to look as if I could trace it and make a good clip art image from it and even then it should be very recognizable as a hare so it would even look great as a logo. Position is everything so a small difference can make a huge impact. BUT again. I did not see the images yet so just a wild guess... i just don't believe in right time right place with stock. Good images sell. Thats it nothing else.
You wanting to shoot an image you could use as a logo is irrelevant, as stock agencies don't allow usage as logo.

As this thread is specifically re SS, this is from their Licence Agreement:
c. RESTRICTIONS ON USE OF VISUAL CONTENT
YOU MAY NOT:
...
vii Use any Visual Content (in whole or in part) as a trademark, service mark, logo, or other indication of origin, or as part thereof.
Maybe you knew that already, but your post might confuse newbies into thinking that they could use a micro image as a logo.

I think you missed the point of my explanation. It has nothing to do with logo's or trademarks or what the end user uses it for.

Not at all.
I just wanted it to be clear that SS and (most/all?) other RF files can't be used for logos.

Ala01 · « **Reply #154 on:** October 23, 2016, 08:22 »

It is interesting topic. When You go to restaurant you want to choose from 20 dishes not from 250 dishes. Because you are hungry. But shutterstock is not restaurant. Probably "popular" section will always earn the Money. And random section, or new section will earn Money occassionaly.

bunhill · « **Reply #155 on:** October 23, 2016, 09:00 »

FWIW - using stock photos and vectors, I have found it difficult to find content I want to use at any of the sites.

So much poorly keyworded content is a big issue both with vectors and photos. And the fact that keywording has little way of addressing the style of an image. It gives a real advantage to sites with much less content such as Stocksy. And the free sites such as Unsplash. Even Stocksy is often poorly keyworded - ironically sometimes too few keywords / synonyms.

It's very difficult to find vectors at many of the sites now because of the proliferation of sets representing all of the same elements and therefore keywords. But no standard way of addressing the actual style of the image (eg the thickness of the lines, flatness, simplicity etc). I don't know how other people search but if I want a vector of a thing to use as an icon on a site then I am typically looking for just that thing, as a ready to use svg. And then, potentially, only a few other elements in the same style as ready to use svgs.

LouisPhotos · « **Reply #156 on:** December 02, 2016, 16:50 »

shaig i think you message is a spam

DallasP · « **Reply #157 on:** December 02, 2016, 17:14 »

Quote from: CatTheCat on October 09, 2016, 14:58

So I was working exclusively for the microstock industry. Shutterstock alone was sending me more then enough monthly to pay my bills. Now I see the earnings are like 30, 40 % down comparing to last year, and the new images I uploaded lately, they don't sell at all, and I mean 00000! and their quality is really good, similar or even better to older ones that already sold more than 2000 times.
So I had to get another occupation, I just leave the portfolio there and will see it go to insignificant earnings in record time. it is pointless now to upload there.

So sad...

Bye Felicia

akaWinning · « **Reply #158 on:** December 04, 2016, 23:04 »

Well being a public company definitely won't be in the best interests of contributors long term, but that being said, I applied with SS tonight and will be adding to the over supply of images. Figured I may as well get my share of the pie while it lasts.

BaldricksTrousers · « **Reply #159 on:** December 05, 2016, 03:18 »

Quote from: skyfish on October 18, 2016, 03:29

In reality SS restricts majority of contributors to some type of content and type of post processing. Something different will not go through. But i know that many of us don't want to be specialized and sit in a niche defined by ss reviewers.

That's a new claim, isn't it? I've not noticed that which might mean my content and processing is limited or it might mean that the claim isn't right.

It is possible that you might be good at certain subjects and processing techniques and less good at those you are not so familiar with. Getting rejections based on quality could then lead you to the mistaken conclusion that you've been allocated a niche and aren't allowed out of it, so instead of developing your skill at new techniques you submit what you think they will accept and reinforce your belief they won't accept anything else.

I just offer that as an idea.

BaldricksTrousers · « **Reply #160 on:** December 05, 2016, 03:28 »

Quote from: ShadySue on October 21, 2016, 07:56

It's obvious why you can't use an RF image as a logo - in theory you could find several companies, possibly even directly competing, with very similar logos.

What's more, they are likely to try to register the logo as a trademark, meaning nobody else can use it. Therefore, anybody who downloaded it earlier could find themselves facing legal action if they continue to use it so it would not be possible to continue selling licenses for it after the first download, just in case it became registered.

skyfish · « **Reply #161 on:** December 05, 2016, 03:44 »

Quote from: BaldricksTrousers on December 05, 2016, 03:18

Quote from: skyfish on October 18, 2016, 03:29
In reality SS restricts majority of contributors to some type of content and type of post processing. Something different will not go through. But i know that many of us don't want to be specialized and sit in a niche defined by ss reviewers.

That's a new claim, isn't it? I've not noticed that which might mean my content and processing is limited or it might mean that the claim isn't right.

It is possible that you might be good at certain subjects and processing techniques and less good at those you are not so familiar with. Getting rejections based on quality could then lead you to the mistaken conclusion that you've been allocated a niche and aren't allowed out of it, so instead of developing your skill at new techniques you submit what you think they will accept and reinforce your belief they won't accept anything else.

I just offer that as an idea.

I would not follow this advise. In my current situation i do different images and heritage pression from years with ss only has a negative effect. I do the opposite - less saturation, more freedom in subjects, layouts and processing etc. Work with clients become more interesting exactly when i decided to not spend my time for micros. I studied a lot of new things and i saw happy eyes of clients.
With ss i had several cases when restriction was obvious: several years they didn't accept any editorial from me, but i supplied to other places a lot. And suddenly after mentioning of this at ss forum, they started to accept editorials. Any "less nuclear" or "acid" colors were rejected as poor lightning(this started in 2012-2013). I was tired to do different post processing for the same images for different destinations and choosed my current environment. I am not often here now, just saw your citation by accident :-)

Justanotherphotographer · « **Reply #162 on:** December 05, 2016, 04:38 »

Quote from: Dumc on October 21, 2016, 07:52

That's weird, there's a lot of vectors in database, like a logo? Why would then someone create vector-logo if those are not allowed to be used as logo?

Here's what I wrote in another thread:
Don't forget that people need lots of "logos" that aren't actually logos.

If I shoot an ad or tv program with people walking down the street every shop sign is going to need a logo, but not an actual logo. Whenever there's a fake company in a TV series they need a stock logo to fill in where a real logo would be. I have seen my work pop up in just this sort of thing.

Just though of something else. My kids bought some clothes from the supermarket today again featuring logo-esque motifs. You see them all the time in kids clothing isles, fake sports teams, fake scout troops, fake fire departments, armies and whatever else you can think of. Once you get onto the toy isle toy cars have fake sanitation company logos on them, fake construction company logos, can't stop thinking of examples now!

ruigsantos · « **Reply #163 on:** December 05, 2016, 04:59 »

Quote from: JohnQ123 on October 17, 2016, 03:26

Please let me say something to you. Most of the people here doesn't have link to their portfolios, but judging from the ones I could see... your content is s**t.

Could you post a link to yours? I would love to learn from you on how to improve.

Artist · « **Reply #164 on:** December 05, 2016, 05:27 »

Quote from: Dumc on October 21, 2016, 07:52

That's weird, there's a lot of vectors in database, like a logo? Why would then someone create vector-logo if those are not allowed to be used as logo?

This is not weird.
You are correct that with your point that why would someone create vector logo when they are not allowed to use it. But actually they are.

Around a year back one of my client told about a scene which happened with shutterstock. The scene happened to be like this, the client wanted to use any design as a logo so he contacted the shutterstock team for the license clarification. In which the team replies that yes he can use it as a logo but in that case he need to do a buy-out purchase and the design will be removed from all the microstock channels and will sold to you with all the complete rights.
Now the price for that license was ranging from 5k-10k (I don't remember exactly) and a good percentage was to be given to the contributor.

max headroom · « **Reply #165 on:** December 05, 2016, 07:03 »

Quote from: Bauman on October 10, 2016, 05:07

Q1 + Q2 2015

Earnings: 198.000.000 $
Download: 69.300.000
Items (June 2015): 57.200.000

Q1 + Q2 2016

Earnings: 240.000.000 $ (+21%)
Download: 84.200.000 (+21%)
Items (June 2015): 92.000.000 (+61%)

- Shutterstock Earning increase 21% in a year,
- Almost all contributors complaining about earning decrease,
- Where do you think the "increased earnings" are?

sharpshot · « **Reply #166 on:** December 05, 2016, 07:12 »

Quote from: max headroom on December 05, 2016, 07:03

Quote from: Bauman on October 10, 2016, 05:07
Q1 + Q2 2015

Earnings: 198.000.000 $
Download: 69.300.000
Items (June 2015): 57.200.000

Q1 + Q2 2016

Earnings: 240.000.000 $ (+21%)
Download: 84.200.000 (+21%)
Items (June 2015): 92.000.000 (+61%)

- Shutterstock Earning increase 21% in a year,
- Almost all contributors complaining about earning decrease,
- Where do you think the "increased earnings" are?

That's an easy one. They have a lot more contributors. The pie gets bigger but most of us get a smaller slice. They can also raise prices and pay us the same or less.

akaWinning · « **Reply #167 on:** December 05, 2016, 18:47 »

Well that was quick... I submitted only 3 photos instead of 10 to SS since you only need one, and they approved all three, so I guess I will start uploading some more soon. My niece moved in with us for the next 5 years while she attends college and suggested that she'd like to do some stock modeling to make a little extra spending money so I am just trying to get enough income to be able to help her out......

gyllens · « **Reply #168 on:** December 06, 2016, 02:54 »

sharpshot! I am not so sure anymore most of the complainers seem to be very established contributors that like myself have been with them almost from the very start. Contributors with large portfolios of 10000 files and more.
An increase of members and files followed by a soft drop of earnings would make sense but most of these people are complaining about sudden 50% drops and complete stand-stills for hours and long cut off periods.
Many of these people are long time members they know the ropes from experience and can hardly be imagining this.

Myself well I am absolutely sure that somewhere along the line bot SS and Adobe are trying to sort of keep all happy and spreading it out a bit a sort of " fair" for all if you know what I mean and in doing that many members will be " robbed" of potential earnings.

Mght be wrong of course its all a guessing game but its all turning into a very unstable and unsecure agency.

Pauws99 · « **Reply #169 on:** December 06, 2016, 03:11 »

One persons "fair" is another's "robbed" I'm not sure either really mean much in this business. If a buyer is equally happy with a newer persons file then that's just business isn't it?

gyllens · « **Reply #170 on:** December 06, 2016, 03:51 »

Quote from: Pauws99 on December 06, 2016, 03:11

One persons "fair" is another's "robbed" I'm not sure either really mean much in this business. If a buyer is equally happy with a newer persons file then that's just business isn't it?

Monkey business! haha!

Stickystock · « **Reply #171 on:** December 06, 2016, 04:09 »

Quote from: gyllens on December 06, 2016, 02:54

sharpshot! I am not so sure anymore most of the complainers seem to be very established contributors that like myself have been with them almost from the very start. Contributors with large portfolios of 10000 files and more.
An increase of members and files followed by a soft drop of earnings would make sense but most of these people are complaining about sudden 50% drops and complete stand-stills for hours and long cut off periods.
Many of these people are long time members they know the ropes from experience and can hardly be imagining this.

Myself well I am absolutely sure that somewhere along the line bot SS and Adobe are trying to sort of keep all happy and spreading it out a bit a sort of " fair" for all if you know what I mean and in doing that many members will be " robbed" of potential earnings.

Mght be wrong of course its all a guessing game but its all turning into a very unstable and unsecure agency.

I did not believe this before. Just sudden drop in downloads over night. BUT... it happend to me now to. Only difference is that I understand that SS should mix things up now and then to give buyers a good experience en not show the same images over and over again. I'm also a buyer. No need for me to go complaining here and blame the industrie. Business is business. And yes. I depend on this income very much so it's not that I don't care. I need this income to pay my bills.

Before 21st of November I had 200-250 downloads on weekdays. But then suddenly I don't get over 155 on weekdays. I have 1600 files. So I have a drop of +100 downloads a day. Weird thing is that I still manage to get $100+ days on SS but I think that is just luck until now. New files start selling like they used to so I need about 200 new files to catch up again. So yes... it's true. A drop over night. Another contributor here I talk to in private has the same experience. He has less files than me and even more downloads and also dropped 100+ since 21st. But like me it motivated him to make more images and just deal with it. And hopefully sales will clime back up again even without new files.

gyllens · « **Reply #172 on:** December 06, 2016, 04:29 »

Quote from: Stickystock on December 06, 2016, 04:09

Quote from: gyllens on December 06, 2016, 02:54
sharpshot! I am not so sure anymore most of the complainers seem to be very established contributors that like myself have been with them almost from the very start. Contributors with large portfolios of 10000 files and more.
An increase of members and files followed by a soft drop of earnings would make sense but most of these people are complaining about sudden 50% drops and complete stand-stills for hours and long cut off periods.
Many of these people are long time members they know the ropes from experience and can hardly be imagining this.

Myself well I am absolutely sure that somewhere along the line bot SS and Adobe are trying to sort of keep all happy and spreading it out a bit a sort of " fair" for all if you know what I mean and in doing that many members will be " robbed" of potential earnings.

Mght be wrong of course its all a guessing game but its all turning into a very unstable and unsecure agency.

I did not believe this before. Just sudden drop in downloads over night. BUT... it happend to me now to. Only difference is that I understand that SS should mix things up now and then to give buyers a good experience en not show the same images over and over again. I'm also a buyer. No need for me to go complaining here and blame the industrie. Business is business. And yes. I depend on this income very much so it's not that I don't care. I need this income to pay my bills.

Before 21st of November I had 200-250 downloads on weekdays. But then suddenly I don't get over 155 on weekdays. I have 1600 files. So I have a drop of +100 downloads a day. Weird thing is that I still manage to get $100+ days on SS but I think that is just luck until now. New files start selling like they used to so I need about 200 new files to catch up again. So yes... it's true. A drop over night. Another contributor here I talk to in private has the same experience. He has less files than me and even more downloads and also dropped 100+ since 21st. But like me it motivated him to make more images and just deal with it. And hopefully sales will clime back up again even without new files.

Indeed! I used to have around 500-700 dls per day ELs single-sales almost every day! could easily survive on my SS income and I live in an expensive country. Its still a good earner but my God! its dropped badly.

BaldricksTrousers · « **Reply #173 on:** December 06, 2016, 04:38 »

Quote from: Artist on December 05, 2016, 05:27

the team replies that yes he can use it as a logo but in that case he need to do a buy-out purchase and the design will be removed from all the microstock channels and will sold to you with all the complete rights.
Now the price for that license was ranging from 5k-10k (I don't remember exactly) and a good percentage was to be given to the contributor.

That won't work unless the design has never, ever been sold elsewhere. You can't negate the right other people who have bought the image have to continue using it forever in accordance with the terms of their license. That might very well lead to a direct conflict between the new "owner' of the image, who wants it exclusively, and others who own the right to use it regardless. Definitely not worth 5-10k to have such limited ownership and to buy a potential problem.

Artist · « **Reply #174 on:** December 06, 2016, 05:45 »

Quote from: BaldricksTrousers on December 06, 2016, 04:38

Quote from: Artist on December 05, 2016, 05:27

the team replies that yes he can use it as a logo but in that case he need to do a buy-out purchase and the design will be removed from all the microstock channels and will sold to you with all the complete rights.
Now the price for that license was ranging from 5k-10k (I don't remember exactly) and a good percentage was to be given to the contributor.

That won't work unless the design has never, ever been sold elsewhere. You can't negate the right other people who have bought the image have to continue using it forever in accordance with the terms of their license. That might very well lead to a direct conflict between the new "owner' of the image, who wants it exclusively, and others who own the right to use it regardless. Definitely not worth 5-10k to have such limited ownership and to buy a potential problem.

Yes, this was the first question which came to my mind, but the client said its true (who knows)
One cannot simply use it as a trademark, but remember there was a istock-twitter deal for new twitter logo which was purchased at a penny cost.

MicrostockGroup Sponsors

Author Topic: Goodbye Shutterstock (Read 59726 times)

Dumc

ShadySue

Stickystock

ShadySue

Ala01

bunhill

LouisPhotos

DallasP

akaWinning

BaldricksTrousers

BaldricksTrousers

skyfish

Justanotherphotographer

ruigsantos

Artist

max headroom

sharpshot

akaWinning

gyllens

Pauws99

gyllens

Stickystock

gyllens

BaldricksTrousers

Artist

Related Topics

Sponsors

Microstock Poll Results

Sponsors