Jump to content

New earnings structure for Contributors


Recommended Posts

  • Replies 7.3k
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Posts

In an email that is going out today, we are announcing that we will be updating the earnings structure that determines how much you get paid when customers license your work. We are making this adjust

This is just a joke. 10 years with SS and now I'll be getting 20% commission on my footage clips??? No lifetime sales tier, just what you sold last year/this year.... To get to the curr

This space will be updated to address frequently asked questions.  My email shows different counts for videos than are shown above. Which is correct? Apologies. The email to video contributo

Posted Images

5 hours ago, GregDPhotos said:

I'm not sure what to say... Based on publicly available information, there are only 9 unique royalty amounts for subs at 30% (.1, .12, .14, .17, .49, .59, .75, .87, 1.47) and 3 for ODs (2.75, 2.94, 4.35). I don't see where the OD payments came from - the lowest payout you get should be $2.75! Help, @Kate Shutterstock ?

Of course, video payouts are totally different...

The conclusion that all SS contributors should be drawing now is: SHUTTERSTOCK smells putrid.

The listed pricing in the official SS website is one, what SS pay the contributors (meaning creators, artists, workers) is a very different matter. SS dictate levels, percentages and dates (starting on January 1 of each year) that contributors are obliged to follow but, every day SS pay whatever they want without any criteria and scrutiny. 

@Kate Shutterstock Please come clean. Show us a precise and concise table of SS official pricing and official pay outs to contributors, with all levels and percentages stated. Otherwise, 20+ different pays for subs look bad and smell a rat.

Link to post
Share on other sites
17 minutes ago, AKaiser said:

They just banned @Wilm Ihlenfeld from posting to the forums for "hijacking other peoples' threads to share his negative views about Shutterstock".
This is plainly ridiculous. 
I don't know *any* person in this world being more factual and objective than Wilm. 
Censorship at its best.
*yikes*
 

This is unbelievable. Wilm always stays professionalwith no bad language. He provided precise example with documentation. Also, Wil was asking questions about the new price model, that the info Shutterstock provided, and what is aid out can not be matched. Now it loos like Shutterstock may do fraud and they don't want somebody who is asking the right questions!  

Shutterstock. Please explain!

Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, AKaiser said:

They just banned @Wilm Ihlenfeld from posting to the forums for "hijacking other peoples' threads to share his negative views about Shutterstock".
This is ... just ridiculous. 
I don't know *any* person in this world being more factual and objective than Wilm. 
Censorship at its best.
*yikes*
 

Perhaps we should all say our farewells, in case we aren't given the opportunity later.

Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, AKaiser said:

They just banned @Wilm Ihlenfeld from posting to the forums for "hijacking other peoples' threads to share his negative views about Shutterstock".
This is ... just ridiculous. 
I don't know *any* person in this world being more factual and objective than Wilm. 
Censorship at its best.
*yikes*
 

Hi Anja, it's sad and pathetic. Tell Wilhelm to create a new account and not be silenced here. Sincerely.

Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, AKaiser said:

They just banned @Wilm Ihlenfeld from posting to the forums for "hijacking other peoples' threads to share his negative views about Shutterstock".
This is ... just ridiculous. 
I don't know *any* person in this world being more factual and objective than Wilm. 
Censorship at its best.
*yikes*
 

How is it possible!! It is getting sadder.
This means that you can express your anger on the forum, but you cannot explain clearly where the problems lie with Shutterstock.
They still don't explain anything themselves.

Apparently they keep an eye on the forum anyway.

@Kate Shutterstock  can you or the other admins change this? Oherwise the admins lose their last bit of respect (which used to be).

Hope to see you again on the forum @Wilm Ihlenfeld.
   

Link to post
Share on other sites
6 hours ago, AKaiser said:

They just banned @Wilm Ihlenfeld from posting to the forums for "hijacking other peoples' threads to share his negative views about Shutterstock".
This is ... just ridiculous. 
I don't know *any* person in this world being more factual and objective than Wilm. 
Censorship at its best.
*yikes*
 

Before someone comes up with some other explanation, I think I can clarify what could happen but before I do that I must say that I have the highest respect for Wilhelm and appreciate (almost) all his opinions and contribution to the forum, as well as his work.

Here it goes: I was answering to a newbie's request for help with a rejection. My answer was clear, at the topic but Geogif had to downvote it, just as he downvoted Milleflore Images before, for the pure pleasure of contradicting.

I don't care about the downvote but I took the time to provide explanations and links for the OP who now didn't know what to think about the contradicting opinions.

The problem was that Geogif's comment was tied to Wilm's comment, so both comments were removed and apparently Wilm banned which is regrettable.

In case this was the reason of Wilm being banned, I am sorry for that but he has to thank to his friend.

I think it is time to put an end to bullying people for no good reason.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Actually, I have been here now for 10 years…and weeks ago I wouldn’t have thought about the alterations which have taken place within a few days only.

I have always been a loyal partner and until now I have carried everything together with you, however, now the time has come to leave for good.

First of all, I am no longer prepared to put my stuff at your disposal for just a few cents…to delete my complete account still feels a bit tough to me as I have spent 10 years of my life here.

If nothing will change here in regard to the structure I will certainly take this step, too…

There has been a time for me before Shutterstock and there will also be a time after Shutterstock.

Life is a constant change and sometimes we are deeply dissappointed by a partnership in our lives; sometimes we can foresee it.

However, being dissappointed by someone we have not thought of is much more painful.

Within the last years I have seen a few agency where I uploaded things come and go… and you can still find me working for some other agencies!

But with which kind of self-confidence everything has been completely turned upside-down within one day has astonished me and is still very amazing to me.

To make such a financial cut for people who carry your website and give you the opportunity to just exist within times of the most biggest global crisis of the New Age makes me speechless.

Because, you just provide the platform…you do not produce anything on your own…and people will leave, you will painfully miss…you have affronted.

You should value people…this I do not see here anymore.

However, I will not be in the position to change anything, it is your way… not mine!

Cancel just the selling my illustrations...the animations are still online (first).

I am not the victim, however, people who still possess a clear mind..

All the best,
Frank

out_now.jpg

Link to post
Share on other sites
On 6/22/2020 at 9:48 AM, whitejellybeans said:

II am a contributor and a buyer. Our business signed up for the monthly plan over eight months ago as we were setting up a couple of websites. Most months go by now where we are lucky to purchase one or two images a month but are still paying $49 per month for the subscription as it was an annual commitment. The months that our business does not purchase any images means that SS does not need to pay any of their contributors a cent. 
I suspect that the overheads for storing images are huge, but I would have thought good business sense would be to offload images that have not sold for say three years or so and allow contributors to resubmit. It is appalling what SS has done to their contributors who are the backbone of their company. It is also a lazy business to take the easiest option out by cutting the bonus to their contributors rather than looking at other ways to cut a profit. 
For our business, once the subscription runs out, our company will never buy images off Shutterstock again. As a contributor, my portfolio is small and was just a side income.  I am in the process of deleting all my decent images and leaving all my crapy ones on SS that I submitted when I first started out. 

This is even better. Liked what you mentioned in the last line about leaving crappy images out there...

Link to post
Share on other sites
On 6/26/2020 at 12:00 PM, Andreas Prott said:

Well video contribs got screwed twice. First they introduced a new cheap sub plan for videos then they changed the payout from 30% to "from 15%".


Wow that's surreal.. a $66 USD video file and the creator of it gets $0.34. That's really just a token crumb tossed out to pretend like it's not free. I'm wondering why that's even legal under international law. 

Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

×
×
  • Create New...