Elliott Cowand Jr

My most recent sales don't have it, but it is interesting to hear you are seeing the double watermark too.

On my Dashboard page, in the "Latest download " column. Clicking the thumbnail shows the double watermark for the two I copied. The other thumbnails appear normal.

Noticed that a couple of my recent sales have a double Shutterstock watermark on the thumbnails, is this a glitch or something else?

One sale today .44 cents.

One sale .44 cents.

This is how the future will be for all stock agencies. First, they lower contributor's payout percentage. In the furture - if you don't meet a certain threshold of sales they'll charge you to host those pictures glutting up their servers. Too much content that isn't selling cost them money to store.

Yes, I gave him three examples that would have had a more dramatic impact on his bottom line... He wasn't happy. Basically his arguement is this should also work because Obama got elected. We may have to walk away. Pointing out his shortcomings is starting to feel like throwing stones at a crippled dog.

I'm not a hater. Like Alexandre Rotenberg and Rudy Umans, I'm also just pointing out the shortcomings in your proposal. You could have saved a lot of time & discussion if you would have edited your original post to read: I want stock agencies to pay us more and I have absolutely no idea how to make them do it.

Ahh, too bad. That's a pity. Well, it's such a great idea.... In fact, I'm going to take it and expand it. Proposition: We the public are tired of paying to much for flights and demand airlines cut ticket prices by 50%. Proposition: Through a public awareness campaign we will force hospitals and drug companies to lower patient's expenses by 70%. Proposition: The dairy industry exploits our thirst and must give us free milk. I don't have a blueprint for everything yet, but because they are such noble and valuable goals, anyone who suggest they can't be done should "sta

Sounds great. I like the idea! You are on to something. (But artist are already aware they're being exploited. The general public aren't customers of stock agencies -so have no power to force them to change their business models.) Other than 'spreading awareness" what steps can we take that would force stock house to pay us more?

OK. You convinced me. I'm totally on board and behind you.... Now, what steps are you proposing we can take that will force Shutterstock to give us 50% royalties?

You are being very rude. You floated a proposition on a public forum to see if other contrtibutors think it is a good idea or not. Instead, you want to supress anyone who doesn't share your view. I'm not a troll and have said nothing to insult your character or intelligence. On a public chat group you have to accept not everybody is going to agree with you. I'm just trying to speak the truth.

I'm not a corporate stooge. I'd like to be paid more too. But your "movement" will never gain enough support to get Shutterstock's attention. Photo contributors are worldwide, and those in larger populations of the third world are willing to accept much less than you.

You're just dreaming. Shutterstock and other agencies pay so low and reject so much because they receive many more submissions than they need. It's the law of supply and demand. Buyers will always pick the best photo from hundreds, even thousands of similar content. The majority of photos that Shutterstock hosts make no money for them, but they still have the expense of housing on their servers.

Gerald Brannon, How about this? My image of a "covid vaccine syringe" was rejected for focus and noise/film grain. I made absolutely no re-edits but only flipped it from horizontal to vertical. Presto, accepted.