Jump to content


  • Content Count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

About PlopandShoot

  • Rank

Contact Methods

  • Website URL

Profile Information

  • Location
    :skip the Jan reset, try wirestock.io/?ref=terry.davis1

Recent Profile Visitors

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

  1. You know, in your case it might be worthwhile to delete here and sign up with Wirestock. It looks like you don't have a huge portfolio, and they look after placement on the major agencies for you. They also are at Shutterstock's highest tier already. Its not for everyone and there are pros and cons to it, but it is an easy way to let someone else do the work for the residual earnings if you are no longer shooting for micro (which is what I've done). Earnings are combined from all agencies so you don't need to wait forever for some of the slow/low earners. Its wirestock.io, or of course I or an
  2. um, this you? To use your own argument, you didn't leave. You're just taking a little time out in hopes that he changes.
  3. Maybe start a new thread on multiple forums to let us know all about it? Not sure everyone will see it otherwise...
  4. One thing people can do is instead of (or in addition to) sending the DMCA to Shutterstock, you can send it to the ISP instead. While the result is the same, might be a bit faster since it becomes an issue for someone other than just Shutterstock.
  5. I mentioned over on MSG that the future advances that I see could be along the lines of Stocksy. A co-op where 6 or more complimentary niche shooters can build a smaller, boutique agency or collection. I think niche is what will be successful going forward. The biggest drawback to such a huge collection here (IMHO) is the curation and inability of finding that perfect image. Creating a shared site is fairly easy, its the marketing that would be the challenge, as always. But for niches, it could be very doable.
  6. Thanks Alex, good response and yes, many images have shelf lives that make them obsolete or, in some cases very rare if those places have changed. For me, my niche stuff (minerals) is pretty timeless and the only issue is quality as tech advances. I agree with you about the state of the industry. However for me, I see it being one of oversaturation and an inflated sense of worth for a lot of the photo assets out there. Just because its for sale doesn't make it valuable in my opinion. The people who will survive and thrive in micro are the same ones that are still going strong in tr
  7. You still don't get it, I am not defending them per se, I am trying to find ways to work within an industry that isn't going to change simply because I complain about it. And as stated, a photo with no sales (and in my case is 15 years old) didn't have much value to begin with. Didn't you once say something about shelf-life of a stock image being very short? If it wasn't you then I apologize. So, what then is your answer to the free sites beyond complaining about them? Deriding "Mickey mouse exposure" is a rich statement coming from you Alex, and beneath you.
  8. No, not an average, and results vary as they always do. At the end of the day my point stands, if someone is trying to convince me that giving away a non-seller for free is so much worse than pursuing a 2 cent sale, well, not much left to argue about. With unlimited supply, scarcity and quality of work, along with ease of discovery, is what will get the sales. Freebie offerings do not have all of those at any one time, in my opinion.
  9. One last point I will make. I have been working in micro since 2005, as a contributor, reviewer, buyer, and blogger. I am an okay (stock) photographer. I know my way around this industry fairly well. As far as micro goes, my success is due to volume and consistency rather than wild talent like some of the people here and I can honestly say, I do not feel threatened by the freebie sites in the least when it comes to actual product. There are many better photographers, better ideas and themes, but in the main, they are one-offs instead of bodies of work that a buyer can visit and revisit to find
  10. Well as I said, we disagree. And before I get completely tarred and feathered, let me tell you that I agree with some of the points made, but yelling into the wind about it accomplishes nothing. So.. My argument is that if they are here to stay, should we not find ways to make them work for us? Most of the agencies have partnerships with the freebie sites, and offer free photos as well. I do believe that regardless of personal opinion, they are here to stay (in fact, they were here first before micro sites, istock is an example of a freebie site that later monetized, Flickr comes to mind
  11. Further, if you swap out "free" with "micro" this is almost word for word the same argument the trads made when istock jumped into the photo market and started MS down this long road.
  12. I certainly did. I felt that the free platforms are not going away, and it would be irresponsible of me not to find out as much as I could about them. Besides which, putting up old photos that have never sold damaged me in no way at all. In the broader sense, I see little difference in a freebie or a 1cent sale from istock. Both have their place, and if there is an indirect benefit to me (and there is/was) then I don't see the issue. If you are suggesting the SS lowered commissions because of free sites, I will respectfully disagree.
  13. I find that being treated in this way by SS really curtailed my interest in creating new works for this industry. I do not rely on the income, and in fact saw a huge decrease after the cuts so it made sense for me to toss in the towel, since doing the same amount of work for a lower return made less sense (or cents lol) to me. Plus the fact that there was no reason for the cuts beyond simple greed by the agency. Not even lip-service about belt tightening or anything, even John O said if people don't like it, they should leave. That is why I took down my photos. But admittedly, I have a habit o
  • Create New...