Jump to content

Dan Campbell

Members
  • Content Count

    49
  • Joined

  • Last visited

About Dan Campbell

  • Rank
    Member

Recent Profile Visitors

The recent visitors block is disabled and is not being shown to other users.

  1. Initially I hoped to disable my port after my next payout (to be reactivated in the event that payments increase in the future), but now it seems I'll never reach the next payout due to a triple blow to revenue: 1) Sales dropped 50% or more due to Covid19 2) Payments decreased by almost 70% due to new royalty structure 3) Almost all of my uploads get rejected now due to noise, so I don't bother uploading. As a result, my content gets buried and sales decline Now I'm leaning towards just deleting the whole port and taking an early payout.
  2. Imagine how many thousands of ports still produce revenue for SS, and the dead contributors never collect the royalties.
  3. One month later: 326,835,078 So much for collective action... To be fair I'm just waiting for my next payout and then I'm done, at least until compensation increases
  4. I uploaded a batch early in June (before i knew about the 10c fiasco), and the whole thing got rejected for "grain". The grain was no worse than usual. After I learned that I would only be making 10c I didn't bother anymore. IMO it seems like they've tuned the AI to auto reject anything with slight grain. Of course you could try to reduce grain in post processing, or shrink the output, but the message is clear: SS doesn't want my photos anymore.
  5. I was referring to rejected uploads. My point is, this has happened before in the gig economy. Many people made a stink 5 years ago when Rev.com cut pay by almost 50%. Many of them were ostracised by coworkers who peddled a free-market mantra, ignorant of the concept of bargaining. Maybe 10% of the workforce quit. But they were quickly forgotten and replace by a never ending stream of workers from around the world, some from low-income countries who will accept anything. And again last year their pay got cut. Same pattern playing out on SS. I see many here would rather take 10 cents than nothing, not understanding that they'll be getting 5 cents in a few years.
  6. Perhaps you've heard Rev.com took a roughly 30% pay cut in November, after they took a 50% pay cut about 3-4 years ago. And yet there are more desperate people vying to do that gig than ever. Rev.com jobs don't even pay minimum wage half the time. So looking forward, I expect SS will be paying 5 cents in a few years, and then 2 cents by the end of the decade. As for the SS library shrinking, it seems that's what they wanted to happen. It's no coincidence that they've increased rejections this month. Personally, I think it's a dumb choice because even very crappy photos sometimes sell, and even one subscription sale is a huge markup for SS. But they've apparently decided they have plenty to work with and don't need anymore. -cynical voice of the powerless masses in 2020
  7. my 10 cents First photo looks in focus enough to me, although there is a problem with artifacts, probably from the compression process. What software are you using to export the JPG? However, it does seem the focus was on the ads in the foreground, and maybe the reviewers thought it should've been in the center (background). Of course, you can always shrink the output by 20-30% to make it appear more crisp. Finally, I suspect reviewers often reject things out of hand just because they don't like them. Perhaps morale is especially low after the recent 60% pay cut?
  8. Or... you could accept making nothing for a few months and maybe get 25 cents again, maybe even 30. I doubt the OP depends on that extra $25 per week. Long-term the commission is just gonna keep going down
  9. Actually, an image on SS is worth about $1. But you only get 10 cents.
  10. Amateur here with a tiny, mediocre port. From now on I plan to focus only on... Flickr. Originally came here thinking it would be nice to make a little money off my hobby. I learned a lot. Only made $60 in 3 years (I'd guess SS made $200-300 off that?). So it was a waste of time before, but now it's just an insult. Further contributions will only contribute to rising inequality. I plan to wait a month and see how it goes. (Perhaps sales will increase dramatically?) But without a change, SS is not worth bothering with anymore.
  11. Definitely. Yesterday I had an entire batch rejected for grain, which I found unusual. I didn't even know about the new payment structure until I came to the forum to complain. It seems they don't want my photos anymore, and would probably be just happy if I deleted my port.
  12. I think SS actually wants you to stop uploads. There's already been a huge increase in the library in the last 2 years. It's expensive to maintain all that storage space. I just uploaded a batch last night. Woke up today, all rejected because of 'grain'. I thought: That's strange. The grain isn't any worse than past photos I uploaded. So it seems they don't want my uploads anymore. As individual contributors we're powerless. The only way we can gain leverage is to organize and collectively disable or delete our portfolios.
  13. https://www.shutterstock.com/image-photo/stunning-waterfall-cascading-into-pool-lush-1711744612
  14. I didn't include it because it wasn't needed. This building is publicly owned, historic, practically abandoned. I'm thinking the AI did this to me because I initially tagged it with the word "theater".
×
×
  • Create New...