Jump to content

Mark Godden

  • Content Count

  • Joined

  • Last visited


About Mark Godden

  • Rank
    Who still has a lot to learn (about everything).....
  • Birthday November 7

Contact Methods

  • Website URL

Profile Information

  • Gender
    Not Telling
  • Location
    : Aound the bend and way beyond belief.....
  • Interests
    Rocks, cameras and lenses

Recent Profile Visitors

6,207 profile views
  1. I also used to really enjoy being here and I learnt so much about stock photography from a few of the more experienced guys. I've not uploaded a single photo since the payment changes and for me it is simply not worth the effort now. I'm sad that it has turned out this way.
  2. Very bad news David. Sorry to hear it.
  3. I've not uploaded a single image since the changes and have no plans to either. 10c is nothing but an insult and provides absolutely zero motivation to do the work and endure the review process. I'm done here as far an new stuff is concerned.
  4. Wise words Wilm. SS have taken a huge gamble by literally biting the hand that feeds them and it is unlikely to end well.
  5. I feel very let down by Shutterstock. At one point in time, to be accepted as a contributor here was almost an honour and getting in was not easy with the old seven out of ten exam. This was the number-one stock agency - the one by which all others were judged and I guess that discerning clients knew that too. Acceptance standards have gradually been eroded, the exam was dumped and for a long while shutterstock's servers were being filled with lots of very low quality stuff (or, to be blunt - unadulterated crap) much of which is still clogging up the system. Shutterstock's business model
  6. Its just been a hobby for me which makes me a bit of pocket change so the adjustments do not seriously matter, I'll just focus upon a different agency going forward. I do however feel very, very sorry for those who are dependent upon an income from SS, for you folk this is a terrible change and you really do have my deepest condolences. To foist such changes upon you at virtually no notice when the World is suffering from a viral pandemic is nothing short of disgraceful. Genuinely terrible.
  7. In any normal grown-up business relationship there would be at least some pretence at consultation before such sweeping and potentially financially detrimental changes were introduced. it strongly looks to me like most contributors will be made worse off by the changes. I see absolutely no loyalty to long-term contributors either which is sad. The bottom line is that SS owns few assets and is completely dependent upon contributors for the product in which it trades but still pulls things like this. Shame on the company.
  8. It is nice to see such a positive outlook 🙂 Check out: http://www.alteredimagesbdc.org/walski The tweaking of images happens.
  9. Definitely. Follow the rules and the risk of any future issues are minimal. 🙂
  10. As I see it Debby, anyone submitting editorial images is automatically accepting those responsibilities. We are not supposed to materially alter editorial images, but detecting such changes if they have been skillfully done, I'd say is very difficult. There is no doubt that a proportion of images submitted and accepted as editorial have been changed (against the rules) and I'd suggest that if there were some future legal fall-out due to the use of such images to misrepresent a news story, the photographer might find him or herself in very hot water indeed.
  • Create New...