Firn

While Shutterstock doesn't post upload dates, they give all images consecutive ID numbers, so you can look at the ID number of his oldest picture and then find one that starts with the same digits in your port. That will give you a rough idea about when the image was uploaded. I compared it to some photos in my port and the numbers starting with the same few digits were from March last year. The date could possibly also be February or April, but somewhere around that time.

This conversation is turning in circles in each of this threads about this. The information is only correct for images that are older than a year. For images that are newer, Shutterstock will always claim they were not used yet. I have images that were submitted last year with 100+ downloads that are "not used yet" according to Shutterstock. Images with much less downloads which I submitted in 2019 or 2018 however are often listed as 'often used'. Since the contributor from the One account phenomenon-thread is a fairly new user who only started submitting in March 2021, most of his image

Why are we even talking about this? Someone signed a NDA, why are people here encouraging or defending someone breaking a legal binding agreement? It's never right, no matter with what company, in what context. No wonder the internet is full of our stolen images, with what little morality and absolutely no regard for law some people have.Saying "the person who broke the NDA won't face consequences" and somehow justifying (?!) this behavior with the lack of consequences equals to "the person stealing image on the internet won't face consequences ". Because that's exactly why thiefs keep doi

If you sign the NDA - which you get to see before signing - you get told what the "new opportunity" is. You can then, after signing the NDA, agree to the new opportunity or not. At this point I am not even sure whether you are trolling? A NDA - Non Disclosure Agreement - is a legal document that, summed up very shortly, basically says "I agree to not talk about what I am being told after this". It's not telling you what it is that you will not be allowed to talk about, otherwise you would see it without having to agree to keeping silent about it first. So the thing you are not allowed

Yes, and do you see me bashing SS for their deal at the same time? Of course you get to read a NDA before signing it. If you are not happy to sign a NDA as a freelancer, then don't sign it. And no, why would everyone be of the hook? A NDA does not contain a clause saying "If someone else spilled the beans, you are no longer bound by this agreement".

And all it takes for Shutterstock is to file a lawsuit for breach of NDA, get the contributor's IP address on that other forum in that process and find out who he is to have him face consequences. I doubt that's what is going to happen as I don't think anyone from SS bothers to read other forums seeing as they don't even read their own. But people need to stop thinking the internet was an anonymous lawless place where a legal binding document you signed means nothing. It may appear like a lawless place to us small fish who for example don't have the means to hunt down someone who uses an i

What's up with the hypocrisy? Adobe offers a deal to give away images for free and devalue microstock images even further - I remember when they introduced the free gallery in the MG forum most people were bashing them for it, but now that they themselves are offered the deal, suddenly it's great? SS offers a deal for which you don't even know what the images will be used for, but wants the details to stay between the company and the contributor, and now everyone is praising one and bashing the other? 🤔

You can't unless you search for the particular mage in the top performers list.

Minimum payout is 35$. Shutterstock does not pay out sums lower than that.

No, why should it be? You are allowed to edit and manipulate your commercial photos the way you want. What matters to the customer is the result. If the customer wants a photo of a ripe apple, why should it matter to him how the photo looked originally, as long as the end result looks like what he wants? It's a different story with editorial photos of course, which must not be altered.

Yes, but they want you to PAY for it. You only get paid per views if you pay them a monthly fee. Also, they don't pay you 40 cents per view. They pay 0.40 cents. Quite a difference. It's 40cents for 100 views. Like all agencies they made the math so that it is working out in their favor and they make more money than they pay their contributors. Otherwise it would be a poor business model. I read through some reviews and they conform my suspicion. For example there is a review from a guy who says he pays 6 pound per month to ClickSnap and earned 48 cents. So he made a minus of 5.52 pounds

The video was reviewed by a different reviewer. It is not rare for one reviewer to reject a video or photo and another to approve it.

Not really. I had such images that sold once or twice, some even for higher sums, that I did not expect. But images that sell regularly for me were all images I planned and composed ahead or where I thought they had good sale potential the moment I took the photo.

And yet I dare to say that someone with several hundred or thousand sales each month might have a better idea of what customers want to buy than someone with 50 sales a month.

Did you send them a DMCA takedown notice? I've heard that works better than just sending mails with complaints as they are legally required to react to DMCA claims.