Jump to content

Travers Lewis

  • Content Count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Posts posted by Travers Lewis

  1. Honest answer from someone who has only been doing it as a "hobby/side income" for just over a year. I'm negative £££ after cost of camera/travel cost/time is taken into consideration. I was going to buy the camera anyway, so in theory I could take that off but will leave it in. 

    The rate of pay per hour will obviously be better for those who have been doing it for years, as the work has already been done for a majority of the portfolio. I think most newcomers like me will be negative income for the first couple of years until it starts to become profitable.   

  2. 5 hours ago, Reimar said:

    I notice that the October thread is gone.  Looks like the December thread has also been removed.  Now, while I think that a thread on December performance is premature until the end of December, why would SS remove these threads?

    There was a post on the fb group about someone getting a warning and upload restrictions because of posting about earnings. Seems like SS is clamping down on the rules in time for the new year.

  3. So yesterday I asked DM to provide me with evidence that they purchased it from SS, either screenshot of download page or some sort of order number (with price and personal info blurred out if they wished).

    I checked the app a couple of times this morning, the second time I saw that the offending image had just been downloaded as a SOD.

    Literally around 10 minutes later this email from DM drops into my inbox.

    "As discussed previously, this is a dispute between you and a third party at this stage.

    We respectfully note that the image has been published and so is available on our pages, with Shutterstock credited as the source."

    Now I have no way of knowing who purchased this SOD but it does seem very convenient for them to cover themselves. Also in all of their correspondence they never said that they've purchased a licence from SS. 


  4. UPDATE:

    I've just received an email response from the Daily Mail.

    "Thank you for your email.

    It may help to know that we have an account with Rex Shutterstcok for images used.

    I'm afraid we are unable to comment on any arrangement you may have with them regarding payment - they are not a part of our publishing group.

    We respectfully suggest that you take up this issue directly with them, as you advise you are doing."

    Still nothing heard from Shutterstock yet.  @Kate Shutterstock Can you look into this please?

  5. 10 minutes ago, oleschwander said:

    It happens now and then (too often!) that images which haven’t been sold suddently pops up in a media. I think it’s like goods disappears from shoops without getting paid for - I think it’s called ‘shrinkage’. Do you have the image on other sites ..?

    Only on Alamy but not sold there. It's not on any of my social media either.

  6. Thanks. I have emailed the Daily Mail to get their response as it looks like the article originated from there. Now it's just a waiting game to see who responds first, SS or the Mail.

    11 hours ago, Elliott Cowand Jr said:

    Something else to watch for,  apparently buyers have the right to reuse your photo over and over without repurchase.

    I've found that too with an image I sold of a theatre, it keeps appearing on "The Stage" website multiple times, Ironically on stories about performance artists rights.   

  7. I didn't realise other sites were using it as well. Thanks for the info. I've been through my earnings summery on the website just now, month by month and that image definitely hasn't sold. I also have it on alamy as can be seen by the google reverse search but it hasn't sold there either. Plus its credited shutterstock on all of the sites, if it is indeed stolen, why would they credit who they stole it from?

    I have emailed infringementclaims@shutterstock.com with my findings and waiting for a reply.

  8. So I just decided to google my name to see if anything came up and came across one of my pictures on the Daily Mail website. The funny thing is I haven't sold that picture but they have credited myself and Shutterstock. Could this be one of SS's free images or has it indeed been stolen?






  9. 15 minutes ago, Doug Jensen said:

    I don't know about you, but my commission is 30% and my average royalty per download is $31. Not only will I continue to reap additional income from clips already in my portfolio, I have every intention of continuing to submit regularly.  If you are still at a 15% commission then obviously you have not done the necessary work that is needed to earn more. It is not hard to get over that 15% hurdle.

    I've only just got into uploading video for stock. I personally decided to join a site where there is no hurdles and hoops to jump through to get a fair commission. 

    Each to their own, you're happy here so stay, I'm not telling anyone to leave. You have a good port and know what your doing, but for someone just starting in video, that 15% is a hard pill to swallow.

  10. Be careful. I appear to have received some sort of IP ban for discussing my video sales from another agency. I can no longer log on to the forums from that device as it just comes up "account locked, try again in 14 minutes". I can log onto SS fine from that device, it's just the forums.

  11. 3 minutes ago, Tawrat Ferdousi Branding said:

    Oh great great. How many item do you have on your exclusive portfolio? did you got sale there? Yes, for still SS is doing it's job.

    Atm I have 44 videos with some waiting to be approved, 89 if all get through approval. I've had 2 sales there so far, the last one was for a broadcast licence so that bumped up the price a bit. 

  • Create New...