Jump to content


  • Content Count

  • Joined

  • Last visited


About Former_Poster

  • Rank

Recent Profile Visitors

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

  1. OK so this is outright insulting now. 3 video sales so far this month. All $0.25 each. So videos now earn LESS than images.
  2. Just uploaded (or tried) a batch of videos from a trip. New location, new country, new subjects, all rejected for "similar". Their AI appears to have gone nuts.
  3. My guess, like so many others, his computer screen is way too bright so it looks fine to him. Not looking at histogram or calibrating the display is a common issue. Most modern screens are *way* too bright out of the box. Some of the snow/ice ones are on auto exposure, exposing for the bright sky, underexposing the foreground and no attempt is made in post to fix the issue at all. As a result, all those images are useless (and shouldnt have been accepted)
  4. That might be a new change, it used to be if you looked at the webpage source you actually saw the upload date embedded in the code. Maybe they've removed that fairly horrible bug now.
  5. $350 lower than June. 2nd worse month of the year (worst was January after the reset). 20% fewer downloads than average. Video dropped to an RPD of $8 (so 25% down on last month). Had several $0.25 video "sales" too. RPD per image identical to the cent where its been since April so its video that murdered the month.
  6. Used etc isn't AI. Thats just a simple database read (that doesnt work). The lack of transparency is a nightmare. Its rating images without them telling anyone how the rating works. This means nobody has a clue what they're looking for and can't adapt their work accordingly. They really do treat contributors as an inconvenience not an asset.
  7. I suspect SS have slightly decreased the threshold value the AI uses to decide what is a similar or not.
  8. Shutterstock have a big problem with this and seemingly they don't care. Footage is stolen, reuploaded but they don't care - a sale is a sale. Im firmly convinced they ARE aware of issues but wont act until they end up in court over it.
  9. Thats insane. There appears to be absolutely no content monitoring or quality assurance at Shutterstock. They don't care at all.
  10. Mine came from a contracts email @shutterstock.com and a separate one through docusign. Genuine enough - its the principle about strict NDAs with absolutely no detail as to what it could involve i find sinister. Normally with NDAs you at least get a subject outline before signing.
  11. Just had my first ever adjustment in 11 years on SS. Fortunately its only a $0.12 but still annoying they effectively gave my image for free to someone to do as they please.
  12. OK so for June RPD for images $0.79 (identical to May) RPD for video $11.67 (down from $12.54 in May) Total downloads up from May.
  13. Any of those downloads videos? It sometimes takes a few hours to promote you anyway.
  14. 75% forget it. This is microstock. You won't even get that on macrostock. I also feel you'd be insane to go exclusive with anyone as the terms and conditions can change with zero notice leaving you massively out of pocket (as Shutterstock have proven recently). If i was selling copyright for an image i'd want 10x what you suggested to even consider it. This is microstock, its a low commission, bulk market. And yes, you really do need to be on multiple platforms.
  15. It's called realism. Shutterstock doesn't really care about stolen images and portfolios -a sale is a sale. It won't start caring until its taken to court and loses. Most people doing the stealing are in countries that have little or no IP protection and are effectively impossible to prosecute in. That's why they do it. Morals and ethics have nothing to do with it - that's the reality of the situation. As for NDAs, we have no idea if someone DID break an agreement. Its not as if there aren't other ways for information to leak out. NDAs rarely work even in countries
  • Create New...