So, pressmaster or Arcurs earnings per-year and mine, in January, are the same  . This is how SS will mistreat contributor big-players at the start of the year. Of course their license number will quickly increase� but not so fast except for a very well , and little, considered number of contributors. Not so relevant for SS.

Mistreating the vast majority of contributors is how SS takes advantage of us all: that�s why is a good idea to have trillions of facile images, not-so-crappy but not even very good. That�s not a problem: these image means good money for SS: and these images are a very very big number. They SELL EVERYTHING and it�s their win if they sell an image from a contributor with a low per-year number of sales. That�s great for them: we are a huge number. So from their point of view the sales-mumber is high anyway, and their percentage is higher anyway.

In January we all will earn less and SS will earn more. Then they will earn a little less from some great studios and keep on earning a lot from the masses� things will be normal in the end of the year� and then restart.

You are never finally rewarded with SS.

This is how to impoverish copyright at the very best level.
After all microstock is commoditization of intellectual property. We are simply saying �oh yeah, let F*** us HARDER!�.

Leaving in SS our portfolio if we are not earning in a satisfactory way, is rewarding for them anyway: this give the message that we don�t care if we are mistreated.

They don�t feel any after effects if we leave images in agencies that don�t pay us the right. More poor is the contributor, and more they f*** it!

Struggle in microstock has become harder than struggle in real life photography if you are a good photographer, but not excellent in general ADV, and Enterprise-like organized.

What is most infuriating is the intentionally skewed logic. Contributors invest upfront in their equipment, expertise and time to create, do all the titling and keywording and are even asked to promote. Stock companies then get their product for free, 99% of the work done, and all they have to do is sell, calculate payments and take care of their contributors with minimal respect.  As insultingly low as we were already getting paid, it was at least based on SOME kind of logical system that rewards loyalty and past performance. But now, Shutterstock is punishing/rewarding contributors based on THEIR own performance, not ours. Once we submit a file, it's in their court and it's on them to sell the product. If your files start dropping in sales because they are favoring Euro/Russian/Employee stock warehouses, bury your files in search results through incompetent tinkering, SS wins and you lose. If the company fails in their job and everyone's sales go down, every single contributor loses and SS still wins.

We are being rated/punished/rewarded based on Shutterstock's performance and handling of our files. We have zero control over this, and that's the crux of the BS here, IMO. The timing is particularly shameless and proves they are incapable of pulling their heads out of their own greedy orifices for even a second.

However, it's great to FINALLY see more contributors speak up about forming unions, coalitions, any form of activism or coming together to fight for our future. PLEASE continue that and do not be swayed by the same naysayers that immediately and repeatedly argue against it. Remember that most of them are either directly employed by a stock company or are in bed deep with one in some way or another, so their motivations are personal and not in the larger group of contributors best interest. Also, don't be surprised how many will stay complacent and just drop their trousers and smile while the companies take more and give less. Hell, look how many lemmings STILL contribute to and defend iStock. THAT is at least partly WHY SS believes they can (and likely will) get away with what they are doing.

I agree with your first paragraph but not your third paragraph. People here don't argue against a union because they're shills for SS it's just that most sensible people understand it's logistically impossible.

If you wanted to get a job in construction and the company is unionized they won't let you pick up a hammer unless you're a member of the union. That's what gives them power. But this is microstock and it's crowd sourced. The criteria for entry is access to a camera and an internet connection. That only leaves it open to hundreds of millions of people around the world. How do you hope to make joining a union mandatory? Mandatory membership is why it's called a "union". Without it you're an activist group and SS will ignore you. The people that come to this site regularly represent maybe 1-3% of all contributors.

Anyone who joins SS after June 1st will probably not be aware of the earnings structure before and will simply sign on.

Having said that, good luck. All everyone else can do is decide for themselves if they'll "drop their trousers". I'll bite the bullet and opt out of all sales at the end of the month. It's been a good ride.

Im in the UK and have had enough with what's going on in the real world with Covid19. I can not explain how angry this has made me.

Too angry and sad to say anymore..

Quote from: Daryl Ray on May 27, 2020, 07:29

What is most infuriating is the intentionally skewed logic. Contributors invest upfront in their equipment, expertise and time to create, do all the titling and keywording and are even asked to promote. Stock companies then get their product for free, 99% of the work done, and all they have to do is sell, calculate payments and take care of their contributors with minimal respect.  As insultingly low as we were already getting paid, it was at least based on SOME kind of logical system that rewards loyalty and past performance. But now, Shutterstock is punishing/rewarding contributors based on THEIR own performance, not ours. Once we submit a file, it's in their court and it's on them to sell the product. If your files start dropping in sales because they are favoring Euro/Russian/Employee stock warehouses, bury your files in search results through incompetent tinkering, SS wins and you lose. If the company fails in their job and everyone's sales go down, every single contributor loses and SS still wins.

We are being rated/punished/rewarded based on Shutterstock's performance and handling of our files. We have zero control over this, and that's the crux of the BS here, IMO. The timing is particularly shameless and proves they are incapable of pulling their heads out of their own greedy orifices for even a second.

However, it's great to FINALLY see more contributors speak up about forming unions, coalitions, any form of activism or coming together to fight for our future. PLEASE continue that and do not be swayed by the same naysayers that immediately and repeatedly argue against it. Remember that most of them are either directly employed by a stock company or are in bed deep with one in some way or another, so their motivations are personal and not in the larger group of contributors best interest. Also, don't be surprised how many will stay complacent and just drop their trousers and smile while the companies take more and give less. Hell, look how many lemmings STILL contribute to and defend iStock. THAT is at least partly WHY SS believes they can (and likely will) get away with what they are doing.

I agree with your first paragraph but not your third paragraph. People here don't argue against a union because they're shills for SS it's just that most sensible people understand it's logistically impossible.

If you wanted to get a job in construction and the company is unionized they won't let you pick up a hammer unless you're a member of the union. That's what gives them power. But this is microstock and it's crowd sourced. The criteria for entry is access to a camera and an internet connection. That only leaves it open to hundreds of millions of people around the world. How do you hope to make joining a union mandatory? Mandatory membership is why it's called a "union". Without it you're an activist group and SS will ignore you. The people that come to this site regularly represent maybe 1-3% of all contributors.

Anyone who joins SS after June 1st will probably not be aware of the earnings structure before and will simply sign on.

Having said that, good luck. All everyone else can do is decide for themselves if they'll "drop their trousers". I'll bite the bullet and opt out of all sales at the end of the month. It's been a good ride.

As is always misunderstood by the naysayers, we don't need a "union" specifically, not in the way you mention. It doesn't need to be "mandatory". What we need is some type of coalition, (definition: "a group formed when two or more people, factions, states, political parties, militaries etc. agree to work together temporarily in a partnership to achieve a common goal. The word coalition connotes a coming together to achieve a goal.")

It just needs to be a group with enough content represented that the stock companies are forced to negotiate or risk a real palatable backlash. It should involve information campaigns, social media blitzes, etc. Most importantly, it should introduce consequences to greedy actions by the companies. Will it work? Who * knows. But the continued refusal to even entertain the concept didn't stop Shutterstock from screwing us, did it?

Quote from: memakephoto on May 27, 2020, 08:13

Quote from: Daryl Ray on May 27, 2020, 07:29

What is most infuriating is the intentionally skewed logic. Contributors invest upfront in their equipment, expertise and time to create, do all the titling and keywording and are even asked to promote. Stock companies then get their product for free, 99% of the work done, and all they have to do is sell, calculate payments and take care of their contributors with minimal respect.  As insultingly low as we were already getting paid, it was at least based on SOME kind of logical system that rewards loyalty and past performance. But now, Shutterstock is punishing/rewarding contributors based on THEIR own performance, not ours. Once we submit a file, it's in their court and it's on them to sell the product. If your files start dropping in sales because they are favoring Euro/Russian/Employee stock warehouses, bury your files in search results through incompetent tinkering, SS wins and you lose. If the company fails in their job and everyone's sales go down, every single contributor loses and SS still wins.

We are being rated/punished/rewarded based on Shutterstock's performance and handling of our files. We have zero control over this, and that's the crux of the BS here, IMO. The timing is particularly shameless and proves they are incapable of pulling their heads out of their own greedy orifices for even a second.

However, it's great to FINALLY see more contributors speak up about forming unions, coalitions, any form of activism or coming together to fight for our future. PLEASE continue that and do not be swayed by the same naysayers that immediately and repeatedly argue against it. Remember that most of them are either directly employed by a stock company or are in bed deep with one in some way or another, so their motivations are personal and not in the larger group of contributors best interest. Also, don't be surprised how many will stay complacent and just drop their trousers and smile while the companies take more and give less. Hell, look how many lemmings STILL contribute to and defend iStock. THAT is at least partly WHY SS believes they can (and likely will) get away with what they are doing.

I agree with your first paragraph but not your third paragraph. People here don't argue against a union because they're shills for SS it's just that most sensible people understand it's logistically impossible.

If you wanted to get a job in construction and the company is unionized they won't let you pick up a hammer unless you're a member of the union. That's what gives them power. But this is microstock and it's crowd sourced. The criteria for entry is access to a camera and an internet connection. That only leaves it open to hundreds of millions of people around the world. How do you hope to make joining a union mandatory? Mandatory membership is why it's called a "union". Without it you're an activist group and SS will ignore you. The people that come to this site regularly represent maybe 1-3% of all contributors.

Anyone who joins SS after June 1st will probably not be aware of the earnings structure before and will simply sign on.

Having said that, good luck. All everyone else can do is decide for themselves if they'll "drop their trousers". I'll bite the bullet and opt out of all sales at the end of the month. It's been a good ride.

As is always misunderstood by the naysayers, we don't need a "union" specifically, not in the way you mention. It doesn't need to be "mandatory". What we need is some type of coalition, (definition: "a group formed when two or more people, factions, states, political parties, militaries etc. agree to work together temporarily in a partnership to achieve a common goal. The word coalition connotes a coming together to achieve a goal.")

It just needs to be a group with enough content represented that the stock companies are forced to negotiate or risk a real palatable backlash. It should involve information campaigns, social media blitzes, etc. Most importantly, it should introduce consequences to greedy actions by the companies. Will it work? Who * knows. But the continued refusal to even entertain the concept didn't stop Shutterstock from screwing us, did it?

Agree with the urgent need of some type of association. I was thinking also about some kind of association label given to agencies and promoted in social media - like Fair Trade for microstock

Quote from: gnirtS on May 27, 2020, 06:44

Anyone considered seeing if Petapixel want to write something ? ( https://petapixel.com/contact/ )

They've had prior articles covering Shutterstock and others.

This would be a good idea. The more news the better

Sent from my HD1901 using Tapatalk

I just submitted.  Maybe if others did the same they might realise theres a potential story here to publish.

No sales at SS for 2 days now... maybe sales are "collected" and will be shown after 1st of June 

Just found petition this on another site:
-> https://www.change.org/p/shutterstock-object-to-the-decline-in-shutterstock-s-contributor-earnings

Well, I can't make any sense of this. Will everyone zero at the beginning of each year (start on 15% and have to rise up the ranks fresh)? that seems insane.

If not, why is my level on the email tied to my downloads so far since January, and not based on my total for last year, which would place me well into the next tier.

Haven't read the whole long thread yet, just time for a short informational answer in case others are asking the same?

All contributors reset to level 1 for both images and videos every year on January 1st.

Level 1, <= 100 = 15%

Level 2, 101 - 250 = 20%
 
Level 3, 251 - 500 = 25%
 
Level 4, 501 - 2,500 = 30%
 
Level 5, 2,501 - 25,000 = 35%
 
Level 6, > 25,000 = 40%

I'm trying to figure out what this applies to, subs don't seem to fit with percentages, OD, EL, S&O for sure do.

Now everyone can go back to association or union absurd arguments. How do you hold any power or control over the agency, you need negotiating power. If your product is a world commodity, you have no leverage. Yeah, start a petition, that's another waste of time. But if that makes you feel good. 

Flood social their social media with truth about their greed.

Negative rating on their app, and truth in comments.

Stop uploading on SS

1st June STRIKE!

https://twitter.com/joannsnover/status/1265443289441824768

https://twitter.com/joannsnover/status/1265662462122065922

Use the hashtags #Shutterstock and #boycottShutterstock in whatever you tweet. Do a search and you'll see others are tweeting about this. The more the merrier...

Quote from: panicAttack on May 27, 2020, 02:55

did anyone experience sale increase after yesterday announcement?

Nope. Nada. Zip. No SS sales yesterday.

Ironically it was a great (by current standards) day, including a $54 SOD royalty

Agencies have reversed many absurd announcements after protests by artists.

Just look at what was achieved with the protest against Hyperstock this year.

We also got rid of the dollar photo store by fotolia etc...

But it will mostly depend on how the income changes and we need at least all of June to see results.

But people will not upload blindly if the results are bad. Upload streams react quickly, it doesn�t have to be deactivations, people will just leave their ports as is and focus their attention elsewhere.

The market is self regulating, nobody uploads for the occasional 10 cent sale.

Petitions asking to revert the decision are useless. No customer sees those petitions, the demands are unrealistic (canceling this decision would cost SS millions) and even with a million signatures you have no leveraging power. It's only through port deletion that contributors can 'fight back'. Although someone more gullible or ignorant would instantly fill the empty spot you leave behind. SS don't care, neither do (most) customers.

It's a battle you can't win, except maybe preserve your dignity and sanity by leaving SS.

Good points. While I look at the discouraging new system, I'm also reminded that my earnings have already dropped over the past two years. This is just making everything worse.

I hope the new people stop uploading and new dreamy eyed contributors are so turned off that they stop joining. Then I'm also in favor of anyone who wants to protest and close their account, especially if you do anything that's similar to mine.  You have my full support and encouragement. Less competition can only help me. Thanks!

When I first joined I saw the Microstock likeness to a MLM and was told how wrong I was, as this isn't anything like that. Well, yes it is. Maybe not a structural pyramid, but basically, the people who make referrals, make money in the start. Then that becomes so difficult that just about everyone has already joined and quit. In the case of Microstock, the agencies saw the new contributors declining, and the quality wasn't there, so they ended the programs.

The people on top are pointed out as "you can do this too", and then the hucksters will write books, blogs, and teach classes on how to make money at Microstock. That's where the real money was. Just like the gold rush, the people who sold tools, whiskey and food, made the best money. Hardly a miner went away with any riches. Microstock is the same.

Every agency except SS has been consolidating and restructuring levels, then lowering commissions as well. They are the last. I will say that Adobe actually improved the structure when they adjusted things. But everyone else, cut our commissions, continues to cut, and found ways to make more for themselves and less for us. SS just got on the runaway train, no brakes, headed downhill into a sharp curve on the edge of the cliff, with the rest of them.

The race to the bottom just added another causality.