Jump to content

New earnings structure for Contributors


Recommended Posts

14 hours ago, RukiMedia said:

963326901_silsonra.JPG.8113981ca1ec427d6a9b47f41c4bf4d2.JPG

The same here. This is what they stole from us...

If you don't rely on shutterstock for your living (as unfortunately some do) and which would be impossible if you are in Austria based on your monthly income above, why don't you vote with your feet and walk away? There are other stock sites or you could create your own website to sell direct, which I know isn't simple but possible. I don't get why talented people feed the greed of those at the top here where you have a choice. I don't know your circumstances RukiMedia and this post is not intended as criticism of you, it's just a general observation of so many contributors sticking around here for no apparent good reason. I have had my final payout and I'm just waiting for everything to be closed down for me here. My images are now elsewhere and I guess more will follow when everyone drops to Level 1 at the start of next year. The only way that other stock agencies will be dissuaded to follow shutterstocks awful business practice is to leave them without anything to sell. Much noise in the middle of the year when the change was made but still the number of images here does nothing to stop other agencies following suit. The end of paid stock imagery may well be around the corner unfortunately.

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Replies 7.2k
  • 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

On 10/22/2020 at 11:29 PM, dummyphotographer said:

I already used to find difficulty reaching my Minimum payout which is 35$. Now, after the new structure it might take more than 6 month to reach the number!! 
Last month I got 33 downloads for $4.44 !!! 
This is really time wasting. 

it takes 360 images to reach minimun payout, Used to be 144 downloads for a payout so the level of frustration is very high, Im just waiting for my payout to close out.

Link to post
Share on other sites
55 minutes ago, Cappelletti_pictures said:

it takes 360 images to reach minimun payout, Used to be 144 downloads for a payout so the level of frustration is very high, Im just waiting for my payout to close out.

Assuming the worst, 350 downloads at .10 and the old top would have been 92 at the top .38 level, worst possible, all subs. But the answer is not the worst, but what's your average RPD now vs before. We're all different.

2019 RPD was .64 and in 2020 it was .56 (2018 .68 by the way)

So for me 62 DLs in the down market, time of pandemic vs 54 DLs before that. Those are real numbers. Not only that, I'm still set at $100 not $35. 🙂 I like the nice round number.

It's highly unlikely that anyone will ever have to wait for 350 downloads to get their $35, more like 60-70 for mine, and I'm no big earning pro.

What's your real RPD for your 816 photos? You have some nice model photos in there.

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
19 hours ago, RukiMedia said:

963326901_silsonra.JPG.8113981ca1ec427d6a9b47f41c4bf4d2.JPG

The same here. This is what they stole from us...

I see a certain contradiction there.You can't complain - from my personal point of view - that the royalties for the providers are much too low and at the same time you get a significant percentage of your revenue from the referral program.
I find that anachronistic.

At the same time - regardless of my statement above - I am surprised that your referral earnings have decreased as much as your earnings for image sales. Did they also reduce the referral fees? Or is it the case that you get less for referrals because the contributors get less as well?

Link to post
Share on other sites
8 hours ago, HodagMedia said:

Assuming the worst, 350 downloads at .10 and the old top would have been 92 at the top .38 level, worst possible, all subs. But the answer is not the worst, but what's your average RPD now vs before. We're all different.

2019 RPD was .64 and in 2020 it was .56 (2018 .68 by the way)

So for me 62 DLs in the down market, time of pandemic vs 54 DLs before that. Those are real numbers. Not only that, I'm still set at $100 not $35. 🙂 I like the nice round number.

It's highly unlikely that anyone will ever have to wait for 350 downloads to get their $35, more like 60-70 for mine, and I'm no big earning pro.

What's your real RPD for your 816 photos? You have some nice model photos in there.

 

Thanks! I wished those images sold haha!

I get like around twenty something downloads monthly, last year say a typical month like july I got 31 downloads totalling $12.64, this year I got 28 downloads in july totalling $6.01, so in a typical month thats half I'm getting. So well I know I'm not a hit here, my batting average is .21 cts compared to last year wich was around .41 cts.

I hope thats what you're referring to. 

Link to post
Share on other sites

The penny is beginning to drop for me. Stock photography is just a hobby for me and I enjoy doing it without claiming to be a great photographer by any means. The attached image has been downloaded from shutterstock a total of 80 times in the last few years. Total earnings $31.31. A similar image has earned $15. For me its a bit of fun but even I am beginning to get cheesed off at this pathetic payment scale. Am I going to stop uploading or delete this image? I honestly don't know.

Cathedral Small.jpg

Link to post
Share on other sites
54 minutes ago, Mick Harper said:

The penny is beginning to drop for me. Stock photography is just a hobby for me and I enjoy doing it without claiming to be a great photographer by any means. The attached image has been downloaded from shutterstock a total of 80 times in the last few years. Total earnings $31.31. A similar image has earned $15. For me its a bit of fun but even I am beginning to get cheesed off at this pathetic payment scale. Am I going to stop uploading or delete this image? I honestly don't know.

Cathedral Small.jpg

Nice image! I think it tells the story of SS new payments policy as of way to motivate the contributors and the future of the micro stock industry ;)

I also had difficulty to choose what action to take when faced with greedy and unilateral payments policy change by SS.  

I turned my small portfolio off for the most of the summer. In September I reactived it, but deleted permanently around 20% of the "best" content. After that I have immediately deleted any file that had been sold for 0.10c or 0.11c - bang, out, gone. Trust me, it feels good to delete a file right after it has been sold for ten cents. Without uploading new content I am on my way out, slowly but surely. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
14 hours ago, Cappelletti_pictures said:

Thanks! I wished those images sold haha!

I get like around twenty something downloads monthly, last year say a typical month like july I got 31 downloads totalling $12.64, this year I got 28 downloads in july totalling $6.01, so in a typical month thats half I'm getting. So well I know I'm not a hit here, my batting average is .21 cts compared to last year wich was around .41 cts.

I hope thats what you're referring to. 

Yes, we all have variables like that, not only how much but how many. Mostly I was just commenting on math theory that your worst case, would be 350 dime downloads. 😲 But reality is, we get something better than that. And at the same time, you are correct, we get less downloads now and less money for each.

I haven't really found many people who are saying, hey this new plan is great... I'm making more. From the limited available data, though, more people are making less. But I also need to adjust that, to be fair, because the image market is down for the entire world, because of the virus. I can't simply say, the new commission structure is the cause of everything bad and the downturn in earnings.

Also for myself, I have many less new images, because I couldn't get out and work this Summer, limited access. If new matters, then that's also going to hurt us. I sure hope that this doesn't stay in the downward trend for much longer.

Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, HodagMedia said:

Yes, we all have variables like that, not only how much but how many. Mostly I was just commenting on math theory that your worst case, would be 350 dime downloads. 😲 But reality is, we get something better than that. And at the same time, you are correct, we get less downloads now and less money for each.

I haven't really found many people who are saying, hey this new plan is great... I'm making more. From the limited available data, though, more people are making less. But I also need to adjust that, to be fair, because the image market is down for the entire world, because of the virus. I can't simply say, the new commission structure is the cause of everything bad and the downturn in earnings.

Also for myself, I have many less new images, because I couldn't get out and work this Summer, limited access. If new matters, then that's also going to hurt us. I sure hope that this doesn't stay in the downward trend for much longer.

Hi yeah true I wish I could get out and shoot like I used to... Anyways my math says that compared to last year my sales are pretty much the same, it varies a little but it shows that I have to sale twice as much to reach what I was making before the new structure. Curiously my sales at Adobe are getting better, slowly growing my port but before the pandemic I never sold a single photo at adobe and suddenly one day it just started happening, though the images that sell well here dont sell well or at all in adobe.

Link to post
Share on other sites

The new earning structure is a slap in the face of every artist on SS!

I wish I knew how to opt out of subscription sales since 0.10 does not cover the effort spent on a picture at all. Everything becomes more expensive (e.g. introduction of parking fees in cities in case you want to take a shot of a monument etc.), just services are not paid anymore.

@Kate Shutterstock: Can I tick a box in my profile to exclude subscription sales to avoid underselling of my works?

Link to post
Share on other sites
20 hours ago, Cappelletti_pictures said:

Hi yeah true I wish I could get out and shoot like I used to... Anyways my math says that compared to last year my sales are pretty much the same, it varies a little but it shows that I have to sale twice as much to reach what I was making before the new structure. Curiously my sales at Adobe are getting better, slowly growing my port but before the pandemic I never sold a single photo at adobe and suddenly one day it just started happening, though the images that sell well here dont sell well or at all in adobe.

Actually (this is going to make some people unhappy and open me to attack, but it's just math) Before the change we were getting paid more than the buyer paid, with some subscription packs, most of the downloads for the 750 packs. Some instances we were getting 60-80% of what someone paid for the download. With the pricing for the large subscriptions on SS, they were losing money in order to pay our commissions.

I have to be honest, yes I like the money for myself, but if I was running a company, and had to answer to the owners/AKA shareholders, I'd hate to report how our income was down, because we were pay contributors more than we sold images for? I think someone else said this before, but I'm picking it up. This isn't a charity. 😃

Back to us, I'd have to check if my numbers of downloads are the same, but I can see without much effort, my income is lower on SS, and like you my sales and income on AS is actually going up slightly. Partly because of new vector illustrations I've been uploading, that SS doesn't accept. That's OK, because Adobe doesn't take my editorial news and SS does!

Every other agency, new or old, active or nothing new, dismal sales and lower earnings. This lower earnings trend isn't new. It's been going on for a number of years now. Just that the recent changes and drops make everything more noticeable.

 

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

Actually (this is going to make some people unhappy and open me to attack, but it's just math) Before the change we were getting paid more than the buyer paid, with some subscription packs, most of the downloads for the 750 packs. Some instances we were getting 60-80% of what someone paid for the download. With the pricing for the large subscriptions on SS, they were losing money in order to pay our commissions.

 

 

If what you say is true then it proves a point. Shutterstock is on a race to the bottom and taking it's contributors with them. Shutterstock subscription packages are priced too low. Simples...

Link to post
Share on other sites
Hace 15 horas, HodagMedia dijo:

En realidad (esto va a hacer que algunas personas se sientan infelices y me abrirán a los ataques, pero son solo matemáticas) Antes del cambio, nos pagaban más de lo que pagaba el comprador, con algunos paquetes de suscripción, la mayoría de las descargas de los 750 paquetes. En algunos casos, obtuvimos entre el 60 y el 80% de lo que alguien pagó por la descarga. Con el precio de las grandes suscripciones en SS, estaban perdiendo dinero para pagar nuestras comisiones.

Tengo que ser honesto, sí, me gusta el dinero para mí, pero si estuviera dirigiendo una empresa y tuviera que responder a los propietarios / también conocidos como accionistas, odiaría informar cómo bajaron nuestros ingresos, porque éramos contribuyentes de pago. más de lo que vendimos imágenes? Creo que alguien más dijo esto antes, pero lo estoy captando. Esto no es una caridad.😃

Volviendo a nosotros, deberíamos verificar si mi número de descargas es el mismo, pero puedo ver sin mucho esfuerzo, mis ingresos son más bajos en SS y, como tú, mis ventas e ingresos en AS están aumentando ligeramente. En parte debido a las nuevas ilustraciones vectoriales que he estado cargando, que SS no acepta. Eso está bien, porque Adobe no acepta mis noticias editoriales y SS sí.

Cualquier otra agencia, nueva o vieja, activa o nada nueva, ventas pésimas y menores ganancias. Esta tendencia de ingresos más bajos no es nueva. Ha estado sucediendo durante varios años. Solo que los cambios y caídas recientes hacen que todo sea más notorio.

 

¿ No lo entiendo paga poco y pierde dinero ?

¿ Mientras las acciones se disparan ?

Link to post
Share on other sites
On 10/28/2020 at 3:12 PM, Mick Harper said:

If what you say is true then it proves a point. Shutterstock is on a race to the bottom and taking it's contributors with them. Shutterstock subscription packages are priced too low. Simples...

That's one way of viewing it. Also because the competition has driven prices into the ground. The fact that other agencies are closing because of losses, or going bankrupt, is pretty telling. Lets say that many were paying us tiny amounts, 20% or less. And they can't make enough with that to stay in business? Some of these places that are shutting down and have, hardly make a difference, that's how small they are?

Say that SS raises the prices, and the customers go somewhere else, then how did we win anything or earn from that? I still believe that any agency, should charge higher prices, and make sure they have better content, that's the way to get a customer to stay and buy. Not by the weakest marketing tool possible, "we sell for less".

Anyway, not arguing that prices aren't too low. I think charge more, give us more is a fine plan. What I'm looking at is, the real numbers. Any agency, can't stay in business, selling images, if they pay us more than they charge for them.

Look at the sub packs, list prices. We don't know if there are even better deals and lower prices for special clients. This is based on advertised prices.

ss-large-pack-subs.jpg

See just to the left of the 10¢ for level 1? .39, .33, .27, .22 and then SS is supposed to pay us 38¢ per download? Something had to change.

Here's another side of the argument and the pricing problem. When you go to the store for bottled water. There are all kinds of brands, they are all water. How different is water from water? 🤪 But the store brands are cheaper and sell in big cases and packs, yet there are fancy name brands that sell for double, and they make some sales. However the store brands and generic make the most sales. Microstock photos are like water, the way things are. Almost every image, can be found on any site. There's nothing to make someone say, "well I'll shop at SS because they have different photos that I need." (there should be)

Yes there are some agencies that are more critical and selective and some specialize, but bottom line, Microstock, is over produced and easily available, and unfortunately the artists killed themselves because they wanted that extra $10 every few months from some piddly little site. People who uploaded all their work, to everywhere, willing to take anything, instead of take a stand, did this to the market.

Now people say boycott Shutterstock because the market is so terrible that SS had to meet the competition? Why didn't people boycott the Crapstock sites to start with and not feed the parasites that took 85% of our earnings and did almost nothing to earn that. AT the same time SS does marketing, paid ads, search engine presence and that costs millions. I don't blame SS for wanting to stay in business.

Oh and there are those free sites, I won't bother comparing that. I also don't think that most of the people who take and use free, are paying customers anyway. I'll never buy a Ferrari, but I'll take a ride on a free shuttle bus? Free sites hurt us but not as much as some would think. Paying customers and people who care about legal ramifications, if an image is stolen or somehow not released properly, will never use a free site.

We can all hope that more of the little sites go away and then we'll have to hope that SS will give us back our commission rates, when things improve. Not that I actually think that's going to happen, but if a business is losing money and earnings are down, I'm positive no supplier or contract employee is going to get a raise.

There's a concept in sales, that applies. You can always give a discount, but you can't take one back. I don't see anything ever coming back to us, even if the stock business gets better. I've accepted the fact that, this is the way it is and I can accept that, or if I'm not happy, move on and find something else. I'm working on that something else already. Microstock is a boom that has peaked and the rapid growth and expansion, like some people allude to gold mining booms and rushes, now the photo and video market is contracting and shrinking. Supply is well over any demand.

Basic economics and marketing applies.

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
25 minutes ago, HodagMedia said:

That's one way of viewing it. Also because the competition has driven prices into the ground. The fact that other agencies are closing because of losses, or going bankrupt, is pretty telling. Lets say that many were paying us tiny amounts, 20% or less. And they can't make enough with that to stay in business? Some of these places that are shutting down and have, hardly make a difference, that's how small they are?

Say that SS raises the prices, and the customers go somewhere else, then how did we win anything or earn from that? I still believe that any agency, should charge higher prices, and make sure they have better content, that's the way to get a customer to stay and buy. Not by the weakest marketing tool possible, "we sell for less".

Anyway, not arguing that prices aren't too low. I think charge more, give us more is a fine plan. What I'm looking at is, the real numbers. Any agency, can't stay in business, selling images, if they pay us more than they charge for them.

Look at the sub packs, list prices. We don't know if there are even better deals and lower prices for special clients. This is based on advertised prices.

ss-large-pack-subs.jpg

See just to the left of the 10¢ for level 1? .39, .33, .27, .22 and then SS is supposed to pay us 38¢ per download? Something had to change.

Here's another side of the argument and the pricing problem. When you go to the store for bottled water. There are all kinds of brands, they are all water. How different is water from water? 🤪 But the store brands are cheaper and sell in big cases and packs, yet there are fancy name brands that sell for double, and they make some sales. However the store brands and generic make the most sales. Microstock photos are like water, the way things are. Almost every image, can be found on any site. There's nothing to make someone say, "well I'll shop at SS because they have different photos that I need." (there should be)

Yes there are some agencies that are more critical and selective and some specialize, but bottom line, Microstock, is over produced and easily available, and unfortunately the artists killed themselves because they wanted that extra $10 every few months from some piddly little site. People who uploaded all their work, to everywhere, willing to take anything, instead of take a stand, did this to the market.

Now people say boycott Shutterstock because the market is so terrible that SS had to meet the competition? Why didn't people boycott the Crapstock sites to start with and not feed the parasites that took 85% of our earnings and did almost nothing to earn that. AT the same time SS does marketing, paid ads, search engine presence and that costs millions. I don't blame SS for wanting to stay in business.

Oh and there are those free sites, I won't bother comparing that. I also don't think that most of the people who take and use free, are paying customers anyway. I'll never buy a Ferrari, but I'll take a ride on a free shuttle bus? Free sites hurt us but not as much as some would think. Paying customers and people who care about legal ramifications, if an image is stolen or somehow not released properly, will never use a free site.

We can all hope that more of the little sites go away and then we'll have to hope that SS will give us back our commission rates, when things improve. Not that I actually think that's going to happen, but if a business is losing money and earnings are down, I'm positive no supplier or contract employee is going to get a raise.

There's a concept in sales, that applies. You can always give a discount, but you can't take one back. I don't see anything ever coming back to us, even if the stock business gets better. I've accepted the fact that, this is the way it is and I can accept that, or if I'm not happy, move on and find something else. I'm working on that something else already. Microstock is a boom that has peaked and the rapid growth and expansion, like some people allude to gold mining booms and rushes, now the photo and video market is contracting and shrinking. Supply is well over any demand.

Basic economics and marketing applies.

 

A clever, well formulated statement, HodagMedia!

But there is one point where I have to disagree. If the other sides - even the small ones you call Crapstock - had not existed, we would be talking about monopolism. And that would be the worst thing that could happen. An agency that could dictate all prices for contributors and customers. And all contributors would be in an irrevocable dependency. That would be a nightmare! And that's also the reason why I spread my images with many different agencies. And why I am convinced that this is right!

Link to post
Share on other sites
7 minutes ago, Wilm Ihlenfeld said:

A clever, well formulated statement, HodagMedia!

But there is one point where I have to disagree. If the other sides - even the small ones you call Crapstock - had not existed, we would be talking about monopolism. And that would be the worst thing that could happen. An agency that could dictate all prices for contributors and customers. And all contributors would be in an irrevocable dependency. That would be a nightmare! And that's also the reason why I spread my images with many different agencies. And why I am convinced that this is right!

That's possible as well, but if there's one agency making money, you can bet that someone somewhere will jump into the business and there we go around again. 😁 There's never going to be a monopoly in stock photos.

Picking good other agencies is selective, not some of the total junk places, which made us promises for years and have delivered nothing. Someone could take the top ten and be doing themselves a favor, instead of supplying http://crapstock.com that does nothing but undercut and sell trash for pennies. (that's a joke link)

Anyway, I don't disagree with you, in that being under the control of a monopoly or too small of a group, leaving us without our own choices, would be just as bad.

Oh I forgot to say thanks. I don't like the new plan, and I'm really not defending the change, it more like saying, Hello it's Thursday, I'm wet and it's raining.

I'm sure there are other views of the Microstock situation from other angles. I'm only trying to point out that SS was forced into this position, one way or another, whether by their own actions or outside forces.

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

Weird that I cannot access contributors site (submit.shutterstock) from my home connection anymore.. site starts loading and freezes.

I still had a few hundred photos to be deleted, fortunately just finished deleting all photos using an alternative connection. It takes some willpower to delete images :) swiping away the whole portfolio that took years to be built..

Might leave shutterstock account active as an experimental place for mobile-only photos, or photos with low value and/or taking very little time to be edited.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Если такие условия не отменят, то я перестану продавать что-либо на Shutterstock. Теперь есть более интересные и прибыльные стоки, где покупать и продавать лучше. Зачем нам тогда Shetterstock, который нас обманул? Скорее всего, этот сайт сам себя погубил. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
On 10/29/2020 at 9:46 PM, HodagMedia said:

That's one way of viewing it. Also because the competition has driven prices into the ground. The fact that other agencies are closing because of losses, or going bankrupt, is pretty telling. Lets say that many were paying us tiny amounts, 20% or less. And they can't make enough with that to stay in business? Some of these places that are shutting down and have, hardly make a difference, that's how small they are?

Say that SS raises the prices, and the customers go somewhere else, then how did we win anything or earn from that? I still believe that any agency, should charge higher prices, and make sure they have better content, that's the way to get a customer to stay and buy. Not by the weakest marketing tool possible, "we sell for less".

Anyway, not arguing that prices aren't too low. I think charge more, give us more is a fine plan. What I'm looking at is, the real numbers. Any agency, can't stay in business, selling images, if they pay us more than they charge for them.

Look at the sub packs, list prices. We don't know if there are even better deals and lower prices for special clients. This is based on advertised prices.

ss-large-pack-subs.jpg

See just to the left of the 10¢ for level 1? .39, .33, .27, .22 and then SS is supposed to pay us 38¢ per download? Something had to change.

Here's another side of the argument and the pricing problem. When you go to the store for bottled water. There are all kinds of brands, they are all water. How different is water from water? 🤪 But the store brands are cheaper and sell in big cases and packs, yet there are fancy name brands that sell for double, and they make some sales. However the store brands and generic make the most sales. Microstock photos are like water, the way things are. Almost every image, can be found on any site. There's nothing to make someone say, "well I'll shop at SS because they have different photos that I need." (there should be)

Yes there are some agencies that are more critical and selective and some specialize, but bottom line, Microstock, is over produced and easily available, and unfortunately the artists killed themselves because they wanted that extra $10 every few months from some piddly little site. People who uploaded all their work, to everywhere, willing to take anything, instead of take a stand, did this to the market.

Now people say boycott Shutterstock because the market is so terrible that SS had to meet the competition? Why didn't people boycott the Crapstock sites to start with and not feed the parasites that took 85% of our earnings and did almost nothing to earn that. AT the same time SS does marketing, paid ads, search engine presence and that costs millions. I don't blame SS for wanting to stay in business.

Oh and there are those free sites, I won't bother comparing that. I also don't think that most of the people who take and use free, are paying customers anyway. I'll never buy a Ferrari, but I'll take a ride on a free shuttle bus? Free sites hurt us but not as much as some would think. Paying customers and people who care about legal ramifications, if an image is stolen or somehow not released properly, will never use a free site.

We can all hope that more of the little sites go away and then we'll have to hope that SS will give us back our commission rates, when things improve. Not that I actually think that's going to happen, but if a business is losing money and earnings are down, I'm positive no supplier or contract employee is going to get a raise.

There's a concept in sales, that applies. You can always give a discount, but you can't take one back. I don't see anything ever coming back to us, even if the stock business gets better. I've accepted the fact that, this is the way it is and I can accept that, or if I'm not happy, move on and find something else. I'm working on that something else already. Microstock is a boom that has peaked and the rapid growth and expansion, like some people allude to gold mining booms and rushes, now the photo and video market is contracting and shrinking. Supply is well over any demand.

Basic economics and marketing applies.

 

You have some valid points there, However Shutterstock did not have to show that amount of disrespect to its contributors as it did. Just to name a few:

- Announcing the change in royalties so quickly (a handful of days before implementation, come on guys)

- Not replying to valid points raised in this thread 

- Not rewarding loyalty by keeping levels earnt 

Also they showed themselves to be more greedy than necessary by keeping all income from unused parts of any download plan without even bothering to own up to that. 

Yes, it’s a hard time for everyone, but some other agencies have not had to take this route so let’s go reward them with our new content. No need to invest more time in uploading to Shutterstock if that’s how much they care about the ones who create the content they need to survive.

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

I closed down my account here at SS several weeks ago. As a comparison, one of my editorial images that used to be here at SS, sold this morning on Dreamstime for $49. My commission is $12.25 for the single image. It probably would have been 10 cents here at SS.

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...